Utah Transportation Commission
February 17, 2006
Salt Lake City, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at the UDOT Rampton Complex, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, was called to order at 9:05a.m. by Chairman Glen E. Brown. He welcomed those attending.

Approval of Minutes

Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2006, Commission meeting held in Salt Lake City. Commissioner Lewis seconded the motion. Commissioner Wilson said that in the discretionary funding request discussion regarding rural Utah, Linda Hull said she was going to get with the region directors and get some input from them about rural projects. The minutes didn’t reflect that and he would like that noted. The minutes were approved.

Public Comments

There were no public comments at this time.

FHWA Overview

Butch Waidelich, Division Administrator from FHWA, gave a presentation of the Federal Highway Administration – who they are and what they do. The powerpoint presentation included background information, FHWA’s organization, the purpose/charge of FHWA, and FHWA’s role in UDOT’s transportation program.

Utah County Needed Transportation Projects

Darrell Cook from the Mountainlands Association of Governments, distributed and reviewed three handouts that focused on Utah County needed transportation projects. He said the EIS process identifies 2011 as the target range for starting the reconstruction. However, multiple lane facilities need to be in place prior to the groundbreaking of the reconstruction. He referred to the list of selected transportation projects from phase one of the transportation plan on the back of one of the maps and noted that some of the projects listed as funded projects are defined as funded or capable of being funded within the existing process and system. Those listed as unfunded projects constitute those that have more of a funding gap. Mr. Cook pointed out that all six projects on the list would need to go through the environmental process, engineering, design, right of way acquisition, and construction. In order to get those projects done by 2011, they’ve got to get the environmental work started now. Later in the meeting there will be discussion about cooperative efforts between the Department and the MPO’s in requesting congressional appropriations. They are making every effort possible to get congressional and state legislative support for additional funding, so UDOT and the Commission can be in a position to help address these issues.

Chairman Brown expressed his concerns about the earmarking process. Mayor Jerry Washburn of Orem concurred with what Mr. Cook presented, and thinks the projects are appropriate. Utah County Commissioner Larry Ellertson also concurred with Mr. Cook’s presentation. There was additional discussion about the earmarking process.

Chairman Brown said he would like to adjust the agenda and move item 10 up, as an extension of this discussion.

Discreationary Funding Request - Project List

Linda Hull, Legislative and Government Affairs Director, said her intent today is to have the Commission endorse the project list that will be submitted to the Congressional delegation for discretionary funding. She first reviewed the list of projects that were earmarked in the last appropriations bill. She then reviewed the FY 2007 Appropriations list and said the 2007 list came from a meeting with the region directors and representatives from the four MPO’s. This year they want to limit the preliminary engineering monies to about a quarter of the total request, and then focus the rest into actual construction of projects. In the meeting, they agreed with the list of what they thought were the most important projects. In regards to representation for rural projects in the state, they worked with Ralph Okerlund, chairman of the Joint Highway Committee. He took it to the non-urban subcommittee, and they endorsed two projects for the Commission to consider. Those projects were US-40 passing lanes and/or US-191 passing lanes. The Commission can decide to pick one or the other for the list, or put both projects on the list. Commissioner Wilson mentioned he was in the meeting when that selection was made, and he’d like to see both projects on the list.

Commissioner Millington moved that the Commission approve recommendation of the discretionary funds request list for the Congressional delegation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and unanimously approved.

Planning and Programming

2006-2010 STIP Amendment #5
I-215; 1300 East to 5300 South – Move from CD to FY 06

Max Ditlevsen, Program Finance Director, explained that both this and the next item are in the Salt Lake urbanized area, and were considered at WFRC’s TransCom meeting on February 9th. Their Council meets next week, so the Commission’s motion, if they so choose, would be to approve them conditional upon favorable action in the WFRC Council meeting as TIP modifications. Mr. Ditlevsen said there are drainage problems on I-215 between 1300 East and 5300 South, and $350,000 of Safety Any Area funds, including match, can be applied to this project. Also, this project is currently in the CD portion of the STIP and needs to be moved to FY 06.

Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the request as explained, subject to WFRC’s approval. Commissioner Wells seconded it and the motion was approved.

Region Two Funding Adjustments

Mr. Ditlevsen said there are two projects in Region Two that need funding adjustments. One is on 3500 South, the other is on SR-111, or 8400 West. Most of the increase will be funded with Minimum Guarantee money. A small amount of safety funds will also be involved. Both projects are in the STIP as 2007 projects, but besides approving the funding increase, they are requesting that the projects be moved to 2006 because they are ready to go out to bid.

Commissioner Wells moved to approve the request as explained,subject to WFRC’s approval. It was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved.

Aeronautics – FY 06 CIP Amendment #1

Kirk Nielsen from Aeronautics said the State of Utah is a recipient of additional discretionary funding, which will be going into their FY 06 program. Discretionary funds have been hard to come by lately, especially for the general aviation airports. Projects reviewed by Mr. Nielsen included those at the Brigham City, Duchesne, Escalante, Green River, Logan, and Ogden airports.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the addition of $2,240,000 in FAA funds towards the FY 06 program, and the allocation of $71,345 of uncommitted state funds towards those projects. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilson and approved.

Administrative Rules

Partnering with Local Governments

Ahmad Jaber, Program Development Director, gave an overview of the partnering rule and then referred to the rule in the Commission’s binders, page 4, line 79, which addresses the concern regarding the mandatory 50% that was discussed last month. It was proposed that the word ‘shall’ be replaced with the word ‘may.’ Also, the term economic development on line 83 is defined as ‘a forecast of the economic benefit that a proposed transportation project will cause. It may include employment growth, employment retention, retail sales, tourism growth, freight movements, tax base increase, and traveler or user cost savings in relation to construction costs.’ Mr. Jaber said this definition is similar to the definition in SB 25, which will be discussed later.

Chairman Brown asked for discussion on the shall/may proposal. Commissioner Bodily suggested that if the word is changed from ‘shall’ to ‘may,’ it would read better if it were to say ‘the county or municipality may be required to provide a local match, as determined by the Commission.’ However, he doesn’t have a problem leaving it as ‘shall.’ Commissioner Lewis said he thinks they should leave it as ‘shall.’ The purpose of the bill is to enable entities to move a project forward, and they need to have a reason for that. Commissioner Millington agreed that they ought to leave it as ‘shall’ because the word ‘may’ would add pressure to the Commission to always get that as close to zero as possible. Commissioner Wells said she would like to see the change made to ‘may.’ The Commission is going to have to look at these on a case by case basis, regardless, and sticking to a hard and fast figure is a concern.

Commissioner Warnick said he would have no problem leaving it as ‘shall’ if they took out ‘at least 50%.’ Commissioner Wilson noted that in the last meeting, there was talk about getting developers involved in paying some of the costs. If the local governments can work with those developers, then he thinks they can come up with the 50% match. Chairman Brown agreed with taking out the 50%, but leaving ‘shall’ in. Taking the word ‘shall’ out negates the spirit or the intent of the rule.

Commissioner Bodily made a motion to amend line 81 of the rule to say ‘…the county or municipality shall provide a local match as determined by the Transportation Commission.’ Commissioner Warnick seconded it.

Commissioner Millington spoke against the motion because if a floor for the local match isn’t set, the local entities will spend their time trying to figure out how to game the Commission rather than how to actually have a positive impact on the economic development of their community. Commissioner Warnick disagreed. He said it’s the Commission’s responsibility to make sure they come up with a match. Commissioner Wilson wondered if, with this current motion, the Commission would have to come back and create criteria to establish what participation will actually be required. Commissioner Wells remarked that in reality, the Commission would look at their budget, see where the funds are, and then tell the locals what they can and can’t do. They’re going to be pretty specific. Commissioner Bodily feels this is a good compromise. Commissioner Lewis said he’s still in favor of leaving it as is with the word ‘shall.’ Commissioner Wilson wondered about compromising with 25%.

Chairman Brown asked about the process, depending on the decisions made today. Carlos Braceras, Deputy Director, noted that if a change were made today, the rule would go back through the rulemaking process. If the rule is approved as it was when it went through the rulemaking process and none of the proposed changes are accepted, then it’s done, and it’s left in it’s original language.

Chairman Brown called for a vote on the motion. The motion failed with aye votes from Commissioner Bodily, Commissioner Wells, and Commissioner Warnick, and no votes from Commissioner Wilson, Commissioner Lewis, Commissioner Millington, and Chairman Brown.

Commissioner Wilson made a motion that on lines 81 and 82, leave the word shall in, and change the percent from 50% to 25%. The motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Millington asked about the definition of economic development, and if the proposed definition would get deleted if they take no further action. Chairman Brown said that is correct.

Commissioner Wells made a motion to leave the proposed definition of economic development in the rule. It was seconded by Commissioner Warnick.

Commissioner Millington said the wording of the definition troubles him. He doesn’t think economic development is a forecast of economic benefit, he thinks economic development is a result of economic activity. So, he would like to see the word ‘cause’ be changed to ‘support.’ They are not the economic driver behind economic development, but a transportation project will support it.

Commissioner Millington made a motion to amend Commissioner Wells’ motion and change the wording on lines 83 and 84 to say ‘Economic development is defined as a forecast of the economic benefit that a proposed transportation project will support.’ The motion was seconded by Commissioner Warnick.

Commissioner Warnick continued to discuss the definition and wondered about removing the first sentence of the definition. He suggested that it say ‘Economic development may include such things as….’

Commissioner Millington withdrew his motion. Commissioner Warnick withdrew his second.

It was noted that Commissioner Wells’ motion was still on the table. Chairman Brown ruled that there is no motion, and that he would accept a new motion.

Commissioner Warnick made a motion that on lines 83 and 84, the wording be changed to ‘Economic development may include such things as….’ Commissioner Millington seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.

Commissioner Bodily moved to delete line 88 of the rule. It was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved.

Commissioner Millington noted that on lines 90 and 91, it talks about a new interchange or ramp being undertaken to relieve traffic congestion or safety. He thinks it should say that they’re relieving traffic congestion or improving safety.

Commissioner Millington moved to insert ‘to improve’ before the word safety on line 91. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Warnick and approved.

Commissioner Millington moved to direct the Department to take this rule out for public comment. Commissioner Lewis seconded it, and the motion passed with one dissenting vote by Commissioner Wells.

Prioritization of New Transportation Capacity Projects

Mr. Jaber said that the Commission would need to change the definition of economic development in this rule so as to match the definition in the previous rule.

Commissioner Wells made a motion that on line 4, they make the same change that was made in the other rule on the definition for economic development. Commissioner Warnick seconded it and the motion was approved.

Commissioner Warnick moved that this rule move forward in the rulemaking process and out for public comments. It was seconded by Commissioner Millington and passed, with one dissenting vote by Commissioner Wells.

Draft Rule for Tollways

Mr. Jaber referred to tab 7 and said this is a Department rule, and is just for the Commission’s information and review. It came from SB 25, and gives the Department authority to establish and operate tollways. In reviewing the rule, Mr. Jaber covered the purpose, the establishment of a HOT lane, and use of toll revenue – enforcement. He noted that the Commission would consider approval of the Department’s recommendation of toll or HOT lanes in a public meeting process. The Commission would also set the toll rate. And, if that’s the direction they end up going, the Commission would then need to create an Administrative Rule for setting the toll rate.

Chairman Brown excused himself from the meeting and turned the chair over to Commissioner Bodily.

Accomplishments/Conditions and Needs Reports

Asset Management

Kim Schvaneveldt from Program Development, gave a powerpoint presentation that focused on following the ‘Good Roads Cost Less’ strategy, bridge system condition, pavement system condition, needs from asset analysis, STIP funding recommendations for bridge and pavement, and long range preservation plan and harmonization.

Policy on Project Cost Controls

Jim McMinimee, Project Development Director, distributed a handout and discussed a new policy that is an update to other policies the Department has. He said he is seeking approval of the policy titled Project and Program Cost Controls. The policy for control of projects has been in place since 1967, which is the last time it was updated. The impetus for wanting to change the policy now is to update the definition of Commission Approved Amount, as there is a lot of confusion between the construction amount and the definition of CAA.

Mr. McMinimee explained the three components they are suggesting be changed. The first component is the ability of the Department to administratively add monies to projects, changing the dollar amount from $250,000 to $500,000, or 25% of the CAA. The second component deals with change orders. Currently, if change orders exceed $100,000, then the Department has to come back to the Commission for approval to go beyond that limit. The new policy would allow the freedom to grant change orders, as long as they were under the CAA. The third component has to do with the engineer’s estimate. Currently, if bids exceed the engineer’s estimate by more than 10%, then they need to come back to the Commission for approval to award the bid. The new policy asks for that authority to go to the Executive Director.

Commissioner Warnick said he is struggling with the $500,000 limit. He’d rather see it at $300,000 or something like that. The $500,000 is too much. Commissioner Wells asked about the timing of projects and what it does versus having the Commission look at things. Mr. Braceras said there are cases in construction where timing is important. Commissioner Wilson said he is comfortable with the policy. Commissioner Warnick asked about getting a report on overages. Mr. McMinimee said action number 17 says they will provide the Utah Transportation Commission with reports on project and program budget, scope and schedule status. The Commission currently gets a copy of the report that goes out monthly. Mr. Ditlevsen added that next month, he would be presenting to the Commission, a TIP/STIP modification process that they’ve been developing with the MPO’s that they all agree to. And in conjunction with that, they could also show the type of adjustments that have been made, the type of reporting, etc.

Commissioner Wilson moved that the Commission approve the Project and Progam Cost Control policy, UDOT 08-4, as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved with one dissenting vote by Commissioner Warnick.

Legislative Overview

Linda Hull discussed a few of the bills that are being tracked for outcome by the Department during the current legislative session. Bills covered included HB 112, HB 267, HB 293, HB 369, and SB 80.

Mountain View Corridor Update

Carlos Braceras discussed SB 80, the Public Private Partnership (PPP) legislation that will allow the Department and the Commission to enter into contract with a private concessionaire to finance, design, build, and operate a toll facility. There are several ways a project could be tolled, and there are several means of delivering that project, such as doing it as a division within the DOT, creating a toll division to operate the toll facility, creating a local tollway authority that would administer and operate the tollway, or entering into an agreement with a private concessionaire to develop it as a PPP. Mr. Braceras clarified that the legislation is not about tolling, but it’s about the PPP. He also talked about the concerns that have been raised by local governments about the tolling of the Mountain View Corridor. The Department needs to work with the locals to help them understand what funding is available for transportation and how many needs are out there. It’s also not appropriate to rush into a recommendation on the tolling of the corridor; that’s why they are going to carry a tax road and a toll road as alternatives in the draft environmental impact statement. There are no free roads – they’re either toll roads or tax roads. A public hearing will be held on the draft EIS in about January 2007, and based on the input received, the Department will be able to make an appropriate recommendation to the Transportation Commission.

Commissioner Wells said the Commission would need to consider tolling other facilities if they’re going to toll the Mountain View Corridor. Mr. Braceras said it’s a question of where to start and how to look at it. He doesn’t believe they’ll be successful if all they are doing is thinking that the Mountain View Corridor will be the only facility that will be tolled. The Department is working very diligently to be able to provide a recommendation to the Commission on HOT lanes on I-15, and feels very strongly that it’s an appropriate first step. Commissioner Bodily agreed that they ought to be looking at other facilities to toll as well, to at least assure the public that they are fair and balanced on this.

Informational Items

Commission Committee Reports

Commissioner Lewis reported on the Enhancement Committee’s activities; Commissioner Wilson gave a report on the Joint Highway Committee; Commissioner Bodily talked about the Rest Area Committee/Task Force; Commissioner Wells reported on JPAC and TransCom; and Commissioner Millington discussed the Air Travel Commission.

Request for Use of Corridor Preservation Funds

Butch Johnson – Mountain View Corridor

Lyle McMillan, Director of Right of Way, discussed the Butch Johnson property. He came before the Commission a few months ago and funding was approved in the amount of $3 million. The property owner disputed the amount, so they agreed to get their own appraisals, which came in within $50,000 of each other. However, the appraisals were 50% higher than the original amount approved a few months ago, so an additional $1.5 million is needed. Currently, the Corridor Preservation Fund balance is about $5.3 million, of which $5 million is obligated, leaving only $367,000 available.

Mr. McMillan asked the Commission to approve allowing the Department to make an offer to the property owner and then cash flowing the $1.5 million with the $250,000 received each month from rental car sales tax revenues. Or, if funding is obtained from the Legislature this session, that money can be used. Otherwise, the property owner can develop the property or sell it to somebody else. Commissioner Warnick stated that the Advisory Council felt like they needed to proceed with this acquisition and leave the details to the Department on how to do it. Mr. McMillan said this property and the next one he will be talking about are their highest priorities in terms of meeting their goal of preserving bare ground and preventing imminent development, which would in turn become prohibitively costly.

Commissioner Wells made a motion to approve the Butch Johnson property request, and to tie the financing needed to the available funding in order to purchase the property. It was seconded by Commissioner Millington and approved.

Lee Brown – Mountain View Corridor

Mr. McMillan discussed the Lee Brown property in Saratoga Springs. It’s an eight-acre piece of bare ground with a residence on it. The owner has agreed to sell the property for $1,250,000. As with the previous discussion, the Department will need to work on the details of cash flow with this one as well. The Advisory Council has recommended moving forward with this request.

Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the Lee Brown acquisition. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Millington and approved.

Informational Items

Next Transportation Commission Meetings

The next regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission is scheduled for Friday, March 10, 2006, in Kanab, Utah. The following dates and locations have been scheduled:

• April 21, 2006 – SLC
  
• May 19, 2006 – Bountiful
  
• June 16, 2006 – SLC
  
• July 14, 2006 – Logan

The meeting adjourned at 12:56 p.m.

The following Commissioners, staff members and others were in attendance:

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
Stephen M. Bodily, Vice-Chairman
Jan C. Wells, Commissioner
Bevan K. Wilson, Commissioner
Ken Warnick, Commissioner
Jerry B. Lewis, Commissioner
J. Kent Millington, Commissioner
LeAnn G. Abegglen, Commission Secretary
John R. Njord, Executive Director
Carlos M. Braceras, Deputy Director
Jim McMinimee, Project Development Director
Tracy Conti, Engineer for Operations
Ahmad Jaber, Program Development Director
Max Ditlevsen, Program Finance Director
Linda Hull, Director of Legislative and Government Affairs
Lyle McMillan, Director of Right of Way
Tom Hudachko, Director of Public Affairs
Kim Schvaneveldt, Program Development
Glen Ames, Program Development
Gary Kuhl, Program Development
John Quick, Program Development
Bret Anderson, Program Development
Pat Morley, Director of Aeronautics
Kirk Nielsen, Aeronautics
Randy Park, Region Two Director
Jason Davis, Region Two Deputy Director
Teri Newell, Region Two
Dave Nazare, Region Three Director
Butch Waidelich, FHWA Division Administrator
Wes Bolinger, FHWA
Darrell Cook, MAG
Dan Nelson, MAG
Doug Hattery, WFRC
Mayor Jerry Washburn, Orem
Larry Ellertson, Utah County Commission
Carmen Larrea, URS
Lisa Tuck, HDR
Dave Kilmurray, HDR
Nancy Workman