Utah Transportation Commission
Special Meeting on the East Millcreek Sound Walls
December 8, 1999
Salt Lake City

Call to Order and Welcome
The special meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at the UDOT Region Two - Hurley Conference Room, 2010 South 2760 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, was called to order by Vice-Chairman James G. Larkin. He welcomed those attending and introduced the Commission members. He excused Commissioner Wilson, and said Chairman Brown would be arriving shortly.

Commissioner Wells thanked everyone for coming and recognized Senator Karen Hale and Representative LaMont Tyler in the audience. She said she has learned a lot the past few months and realizes there is not a resolution to the situation that will make everyone happy. Commissioner Wells gave an overview of the process from when it started to where it is now. She said the first meeting on these particular noise walls was held in December of 1992, and the discussion focused on the pros and cons of putting up sound walls in this area. In 1994, there was an appropriation made by the Legislature to help fund a variety of sound walls. At that time, several legislators came to the Commission and talked about setting priorities and having different kinds of criteria met to use the funds set aside for sound walls. In May of 1996, the Commission had a petition from Pamela Clark opposing the sound walls along Wasatch Boulevard. At that same meeting, the Mt. Olympus Community Council had a representative who said a survey of residents showed 90% support for the walls. Three neighborhood meetings were held in April, May, and June of 1997, and results were favorable in each of those meetings. A door to door poll was taken in the far, north end of the area, and it was determined that the walls were not desired.

In September of 1997, petitions were presented to the Commission with 43 signatures favoring the sound walls, and the decision was made at that time to build the walls. Sound walls were erected south of 3846 South in 1997. Those walls are not being considered at this time because they there have been no reports of problems with those walls. A discussion was then held with Senator Buhler in June of 1998, regarding getting the rest of the sound walls put in. There was also a public information meeting held at East Millcreek Library to finalize the plans for the walls in the current survey areas, and construction began early in 1999. In March of 1999, the Commission was approached by a resident named Mario Westphal who brought up some concerns and issues regarding the north walls. Because of the issues he raised, the Commission met later that month with Senator Hale and Representative Tyler, who sponsored a meeting at Eastwood Elementary. There was a large attendance at that meeting, and a majority of those residents seemed to oppose the walls. The Commission heard from more residents in the April 1999, Commission meeting, where there was much discussion and public comment given. A decision was made to consider results of sound studies that were to be done in July, and the results of those sound studies were discussed at the August 1999, Commission meeting, and more public comment was given. The Commission decided to rewrite the noise abatement policy, and work started on that in August 1999. The Commission also decided to do more comprehensive surveying of the residents in the area, and residents were asked to volunteer to serve on a citizen committee to help formulate the surveys. The new noise abatement policy was passed in September of 1999, and a consultant was selected to do the market research for the Commission.

Io Data Corp. was selected to do the surveys, and citizens were selected to participate on the committees to formulate the surveys. They tried to get an equal number of persons who were for and against the sound walls, and there were Community Council member representatives and Commissioners involved. The surveys were administered and mailed out by Io Data in November 1999, and the results of the survey were made public on the Internet on December 6, 1999. Commissioner Wells turned the time over to Tim Hawker for his report on the survey results.

Report on Sound Wall Survey Results by IO Data Corp.
Tim Hawker, president of Io Data Corporation, presented the results of the surveys. A slide presentation was used as part of his presentation. He said they have tried to be as impartial and non-biased as possible, recognizing there are very divergent views on this issue. Io Data was retained by the Commission to develop two surveys regarding the neighborhood’s perceptions of the noise barriers located between the east side of I-215 and the west side of Wasatch boulevard. The area was split into a north survey area and a south survey area, with the north area boundaries being between Gateway Road and 3020 South, and the south area boundaries being between 3300 South and Millcreek Canyon Road. During this process, information was received from various groups, including UDOT and the Grandeur Peak Neighborhood Association. Because the terms impacted and affected have been defined a couple of different ways, they chose to use their own definition, which is strictly based upon the map shown in the report.

Mr. Hawker said there were two meetings held to address the issues that people supportive of the walls and those not in favor of the walls had, and so all of that information could be pooled into a survey document. That process actually developed two documents. The first document was an issue summary which explained the purpose of the survey, defined the noise barriers, and provided a brief history of the walls. It also defined exactly what was in the survey. The second document was the survey itself, which included a demographic section, a noise related section, appearance and view and other quality of life issues, and recommendations of what should happen to the noise walls. Mr. Hawker said both the north and the south area surveys were virtually identical, with three notable exceptions — the definition of the wall, a question relating to snow and ice in the quality of life section, and wildlife considerations. The latter two exceptions were included in the south area survey. The surveys were sent out within a week of October 25, 1999. In the north area, 110 residences were sent a survey, and 93 of those surveys were returned. In the south area, 97 residents were sent a survey, and 65 of those were returned.

Mr. Hawker then reviewed the results of the returned surveys in detail, giving percentages from each of the questions asked, which were contained in the survey report that was available. They were broken down into responses from impacted and affected residents, and those for and against the walls in each of those categories. For the north area, in the section that dealt with removing the barriers, 54% of all respondents recommended the barriers be removed. An additional 4% proposed that at least a portion of the walls be removed. Within the impacted and affected areas, 45% of impacted respondents proposed the walls be retained, and 45% of affected respondents proposed the walls be removed. But, only 26% of the overall respondents proposed that the noise walls be retained. The impacted residents were evenly split, but a significant number of affected residents proposed the walls be removed. For the south area, Mr. Hawker reviewed the same information. In terms of recommendations, 56% of the overall respondents recommended the noise barriers be removed, with 2% proposing at least a portion of the walls be removed. There were 69% of the impacted residents who recommended the walls be removed, versus 47% of the affected respondents who would like them removed. Overall, 28% stated they would like the walls retained, which splits out to 23% of impacted respondents stating the walls should be retained, versus 32% of affected respondents.

Public Comments by Residents in the Survey Area
Commissioner Wells said the Commission will open the meeting up to those people who participated in the survey and who wish to comment on the survey. She said she will read the names of the people who signed up on the index cards and who live in the survey areas, first. Any remaining time will be opened to anyone living outside of the survey area. There will be a time limit of three minutes for each person.

Jon Paulding, who lives at 3044 Cascade Way in the north area, said he lives in an area defined under frontage or impacted area, adjacent to Wasatch Boulevard. To him, this survey validates UDOT’s policy about decibel levels, and who should be surveyed regarding the use of sound walls. As was mentioned, two times the number of responses came from those in the affected area, and he would wager that those people were not included in the original questions because they were not deemed to be impacted, according to the 65 decibel sound level measured. Sound walls are for people who are impacted by noise. The survey results validate that people who live with high levels of noise every day are the people that should be originally surveyed about the petition for the sound wall. And, in his opinion, the people who are defined as affected by the noise or by the sound walls in this survey, do not live with the noise level on a day to day basis in their yards and through their windows. The people who are benefitting from the sound walls are who the sound walls are for. If the precedent is set to remove sound walls based on affected people’s opinions, then that opens the door to the whole policy that UDOT has set.

LeeAnn Paulding, who lives on Cascade Way in the north area, said she lives in both the impacted and frontage area. She’s grateful for the breakdown of the statistics into impacted, frontage, and affected. She noted that when looking at the overall statistics, they can be pretty tricky, and can be read in any way. One of the important questions for her was the quality of life. She referred to the results on the quality of life questions from the affected group, the sleeping conditions, widows open in the summer, conversations with neighbors, etc. The highest percentages were under no impact. They are not impacted by the noise. For her, the noise has decreased. She said the survey was really about perception. It wasn’t a vote. It has already been scientifically proven that the sound has decreased, as was said in the introduction of the survey. She hopes the Commission doesn’t set a precedent by removing the north sound walls because of political pressures from those not impacted by the freeway noise.

Flora Nielsen, 3202 South Yosemite Drive in the north area, said she was one of the committee members that helped formulate the survey. She was surprised that the two members on the committee who were against the wall lived on Teton, which is out of the affected area and wasn’t even eligible to fill out a survey. She couldn’t understand why two people couldn’t be found who were against the walls and living within the affected or impacted area. She also said the Community Council person was biased against the wall and informed everyone that the whole Community Council felt that way. Ms. Nielsen stated that the survey showed 46% of the respondents wanting the noise barrier removed, saying the barriers were ineffective as their number one reason they wanted them removed. However, those who are impacted feel they have had a great deal of noise abatement — from 78 decibels in 1997 to 61 decibels during peak traffic times now. There is obviously more truck traffic on I-215, but hopefully that traffic will return to I-15 when it is completed. The walls were very expensive to put up, and it would be very expensive to take them down. Now that the walls have done what they were expected to do in noise reduction and giving an improved quality of life to those affected the most, something should be done to nicely landscape the walls, and let everyone get back to normal living.

Keith Wallentine said he lives in the affected area. He was also on the committee that helped set up the survey. He asked everyone to keep in mind that they all live in the area, and they all like the area. He said they moved out there because it was reasonably quiet and they liked the view. The view and the noise level, as shown in the survey, has not changed all that much for some of the people, but has increased for just about everyone in the affected area.

Phyllis Player said she lives in the impacted area on the corner of Palisade and Wasatch Boulevard. They appreciate the wall, as it has improved their quality of life. And as far as the view is concerned, it’s great. They can still see the Oquirrh’s, the lake, and a beautiful sunset. The only thing it has done away with is the noise of the trucks and cars. Again, they appreciate the walls.

Pamela Clark, who lives at 3491 South 3570 East in the south section, said she was on the committee doing the survey. She said there were several houses in the south section that were included in the impacted area that don’t even have decibel metered ratings of 65 or higher. The houses on the south side that face the freeway do not want the walls. That’s 12 of 14 homes. Those who want the walls are the houses on the north that have the walls in their backyards. She suggested building a back fence at taxpayers expense for those who want the wall. She thinks the Commission would have a hard time justifying keeping the walls up based on the results of the survey.

Michael Braun said he apparently lives in the affected area. He asked for clarification in regards to being impacted, and if that meant being 1000 feet from the road or having 65 decibels. Commissioner Wells responded that the policy now states that impacted is 65 decibels. It could be much further than 1000 feet or much less. Mr. Braun commented that in the survey, the science really isn’t there because there is no identification of noise levels or distance. There isn’t any resolution with this survey. In his mind, and for the majority of impacted and affected residents, the resolution is that the sound wall should have been put on the east side of the road.

Jim Siirola said he lives in the south area and is an affected resident. He asked Io Data what they had predicted the results of the survey to be. Mr. Hawker replied that he had no forewarning whatsoever how the results would come out. Mr. Siirola stated that it seems that Io Data should have expected that people far enough away were going to say there was no impact, and the people real close had been impacted. Then they could have looked for those areas where the expectations weren’t fulfilled, and found out exactly what was going on that needed to be explained. Mr. Siirola said he’d be interested in finding out why people very opposed to the wall are thinking that it doesn’t do any good, or why people miles away are thinking that it will do some good.

Bill Swan, who lives at 3021 Sequoia, said they are beating a dead horse. According to the survey, 54% of the respondents in the north, and 56% of the respondents in the south believe the walls should be removed. Last time he checked, they lived in a democracy. He said he does sympathize with the people that are close to the boulevard, and if something is done other than to remove the walls, he thinks the walls should be moved to the east side of Wasatch.

Dick Arner distributed a handout to the Commissioners. He said he lives at 3227 South Crestwood Drive and has become an advocate for the people that live on the frontage road. The frontage road has 38 people, of which 12 want the walls and 26 want them down. He said it seems that most of the people that are opposed to the walls are outside the 1000 ft boundary. The survey says that in the north and south areas, only 27% want to retain the walls, meaning they don’t work for 70 plus percent. Mr. Arner referred to the charts he distributed and said he believes that UDOT’s constraints against including the four homes on Wasatch Boulevard between Warr and Gateway was an error, since the furthest is only 210 feet from the end of the north wall, whereas in the south, three homes in Mill Hollow were included as impacted. There is a difference between 290 and 470 feet from the end of the south wall, and fair is fair. The Warr Road homes are at the end of a wall that has increased noise and caused great distress to the residents, even though there is no wall directly west of them. Their proximity is much closer than the residents given impacted status. Mr. Arner asked that the noise panels be relocated to the east.

Ken Gleason, 3419 Eastwood Drive, said he’s not an impacted or affected resident, but he is a resident of the community. He has noticed that the noise has increased and the view has decreased. He thinks there should be a compromise. The ones that want the walls to stay, put them in their back yards. And those who want the walls down, take them down.

Greg Coon said he’s from the north area. He handed out a summary analysis, as well as a different introduction to the survey that he had written that is as equally biased in opposition to the walls. He said the introduction to the survey is deliberately biased. One of the biases in the introduction says the noise has been reduced. Mr. Coon said that is not true. The noise on 3020 South is now over 65 decibels. Another bias is that the neighbor’s previous support for the project will bias the results. Also, there is a bias from elected officials and their previous support, which will create a bias in the respondents. Mr. Coon then discussed the disqualified statements from the survey results. He said he has a Ph.D. in consumer research and public policy analysis, and this study and the introduction are embarrassing. Mr. Hawker responded to the comments made about the disqualified responses.

Tim Thompson, who lives at 3081 Teton Drive, said he’s 1000 feet away from the sound wall, and was on the committee to help form the survey. He said he’s concerned about the ambiguity of the terms impacted and affected. He recalls that in the last meeting, the Commission was going to shy away from using those terms, but yet they showed up in a big way on the survey results. As a representative of the people on Teton Drive, they have noticed an increase in noise, and feel that if the survey was given to the entire neighborhood, the percentage of people noticing an increase in noise would definitely be higher.

Deb Callister of 3061 South Plateau Drive in the north area, said she’s defined as being outside of the affected area and did not have an opportunity to complete a survey. However, she feels she has been affected by the building of the walls. She feels badly about the process that has occurred and the way it has divided their neighborhood. She appreciates the survey work that has been done to bring a greater understanding of the complexity of these issues. She said she hopes everyone has learned greatly from this process, and that there be consideration of using a neutral party or professional facilitation in the future, if another sound wall is built in a community at the base of a mountain.

Carol Morgan said she doesn’t live in the area, but wanted to read part of a letter the Community Council sent to UDOT. “Residents of our community who have not been privileged to be surveyed are nevertheless affected by these sound walls and have a right to weigh in on them, even if their opinions are given less weight than those of their neighbors who live in the immediate vicinity of these structures. All of the residents of the Mt. Olympus community must travel on Wasatch Boulevard to reach their homes. Each of us will have to contend with the increased icing on Wasatch Boulevard created by the shade these walls cast when the sun is low in the winter months. The impact of these walls upon us is more than visual. Many of us perceive differences in the sound levels at our residences due to these walls, and we have legitimate concerns about our safety in relation to them. While some may take issue with these perceptions or discount the weight placed upon them, it is a mistake to exclude the larger community from having any voice on this issue.” Ms. Morgan stated that when Ms. Nielsen said the Community Council was against the wall, it’s not because they are against people having walls where they are helpful, but a majority of the people are against the wall. Putting the walls on the east side of the road would have been a good option.

Maureen Davies said she lives too far up the hill to have been able to participate in the survey. Some people don’t think her noise is that bad. She said she moved to her home because it was in a quiet neighborhood. She pointed out some of the statistics in the survey and said her quality of life has decreased significantly. She asked how many residents have to experience a decrease in their quality of life before UDOT fixes the problem for those impacted residents?

Jeff Creveling said he lives south of the criteria area, so he doesn’t qualify for impacted or affected. He said he was not involved in any kind of public forum like this when the sound walls went up south of these areas, but would have been there and been just as vocal as these people are tonight. He said his real concern here is the design of the walls, which is really based on one criteria only, and that is the decibel level. He believes that decibel levels are not the only criteria for construction of a sound wall. It’s a visual wall as well. He also believes there is a solution that would allow the walls to remain in place, and that is to replace the panels with a vision panel. But that was previously deemed to be too costly. He said he estimated the cost of replacing the current panels from concrete to plexiglass, and came up with a reasonable cost.

Craig Romney said he lives outside of the survey area at 3356 Monte Verde Drive, and probably lives within the criteria of 65 decibels. The sound from Wasatch Boulevard and I-215 comes directly up to his house. Also, the walls are very ugly, and have both a visual and psychological impact. He said if the survey is statistically valid and scientifically done, and the majority of people, 69% or 2/3, want the walls to be removed, then they should be removed.

Commissioner Wells turned the time back to Chairman Brown for the remainder of the agenda.

Commission Discussion and Decision on How To Proceed
Chairman Brown asked Director Warne to give the Commission a Department perspective and recommendation. Director Warne said there has probably been no other subject that has had as extensive coverage in Commission meetings over the course of the years as sound walls. In fact, these particular sound walls have had more coverage than I-15 in the last three years. The Commission has been through a very extensive process, and there is no question the community has been through an extensive process of their own. Sound walls go back a number of years, and has involved many citizens and elected officials who have spoken.

Director Warne noted that the survey indicates that 69% of the people in the south area knew there was a process going on. Some chose to participate in that process and some did not. A small number in the north area, about 1/3, knew there was a process going on, and some chose to participate and some did not. At Commission meetings held over the course of several years when sound walls were a topic of discussion, the vast majority of people who came to those Commission meetings were in favor of the walls. In the September 1997, meeting, when the Commission took final action to build these walls, there were quite a number of people attending that wanted the walls. The Commission felt they were responding to the majority of the people who lived in the area. Director Warne stated that in a previous meeting, he said that as Director of the Department of Transportation, he was not going to consider cost in his decision or recommendation to the Commission. He felt like there was a public policy issue that needed to be engaged, and to consider the cost would perhaps cause him to recommend something that wasn’t sound, long term public policy. So, in analyzing the results, etc., he tried to remain objective as it relates to public policy. As far as the process goes, the new process and policy the Commission adopted is superior to the one used for these walls. However, there was a public process that was followed that gave the Commission an opportunity to do their due diligence as a Commission. Director Warne said when the Department first engaged the survey, he expected to see results of 95% of the people wanting the walls down. But the survey shows there is a simple majority that would like the walls down, and a smaller number who would like to retain them. There is no clear cut answer here. This would be an easy meeting if there were 95% of the people wanting the walls down, or 95% wanting them retained.

Director Warne said there are 26 miles of sound walls out there. The public policy issue before the Commission is, if they have gone through a public process, done their due diligence, and arrived at a decision, will the Commission be willing, at some future date, to reverse that decision and essentially undo what has been done. If the Commission is willing to do that, then the Commission is putting themselves in a position where virtually every foot of those 26 miles of sound walls are subject to recall by new residents, old residents, or people who felt they weren’t heard the first time or chose not to be heard initially. Director Warne said he believes, from a public policy standpoint, that the proper recommendation to the Commission would be that the walls remain in both locations. If there are some things that need to be done with landscaping, the Department would be happy to go back and look at some of the things that have been suggested.

Chairman Brown asked each Commissioner to respond. Commissioner Eastman said he’s had an opinion about sound walls all along, which he has expressed in the past. He was looking to this survey to see a real telling argument to remove the walls, 90/10 kind of numbers. That didn’t happen. He’s always given greater credence to the impacted people over the affected people because to remove the walls from certain people’s homes who are devastated by the noise is a bit different than removing the walls so the quality of life for people who are affected is a little bit better. There’s a difference between devastation and a little bit better, and he’s concerned about that. His opinion is, based on everything that has been done and been heard, the injury or impact to the affected area residences does not outweigh the injury or impact to those who are directly impacted. So, his vote would be to retain the walls. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other possibilities to mitigate the problems for the walls as they remain. But, as a public policy issue, to start pulling projects apart that were approved years ago is a bad idea.

Commissioner Bodily said he was a member of the state Legislature for a number of years, and part of that time he was chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Committee. At one particular meeting, they allowed for public input on the sound wall subject, and that was the most volatile group he had ever dealt with in a committee meeting. They were very difficult to control and maintain. There was a group that wanted noise walls on I-215 and they wanted them now. There was not funding available at the time, so what grew out of that was seed money to go into noise wall retrofit as money became available. He said the Commission and the Department doesn’t go out looking for this kind of thing to get involved in. The sound walls are costly to put up, and could be a lot more costly to take them down. Commissioner Bodily said he’s not convinced by the evidence he’s seen at this point, that the Commission was wrong in what they did at the time, with the information they had, and under the pressure that was being applied. He’s not ready to turn back the clock and take the walls out yet.

Commissioner Clyde said he finds himself in the middle of two bad decisions. When the issue first arose and people came before the Commission, they requested noise walls. He doesn’t like noise walls. However, the reason the people were there was because there was noise. He doesn’t like noise either. There were elected officials who came before the Commission strongly requesting that the noise walls be built. The decision was made to build them on what the Commission thought was the best information at the time. Commissioner Clyde said he still doesn’t like noise walls, doesn’t like the design, and hasn’t seen anything that is superior to what has been built. The two bad decisions are whether to leave the noise walls up knowing there are some who don’t want the noise walls, or to take them down knowing there are some who don’t want them taken down. There is no clear, right decision on this issue. He has found it interesting tonight that those who have spoken in favor of taking the noise walls down have generally tried to discredit the survey that was conducted. Commissioner Clyde mentioned a noise wall situation in Spanish Fork where a public hearing was held, and only one person attended the hearing. He said he finds himself constantly in the midst of decisions that are difficult, and he finds himself with one today.

Commissioner Larkin commented that he’s been here as long or longer than anyone, and has probably heard more about noise walls than most. He supposes nothing they do as a Transportation Commission makes everyone happy. No matter what is done, some person or people are inconvenienced or damaged. Unfortunately, that’s the nature of what they do, and they can’t change that. Commissioner Larkin said he thinks the Commission made a valid decision when they voted to put the sound walls up. They may have damaged some people, he’s not saying they did or didn’t. But, that’s the nature of the business. They’ll continue to make the best decisions possible, and hope they don’t damage too many people.

Commissioner Wells spoke. She said for a first really hot Commission issue, this has been far and away more than she bargained for. She has learned a lot through this process. She doesn’t believe there is a way to solve this issue, where everyone will feel good about the way this affects their homes, and she is sorry about that. In her short time on the Commission, she feels they have really made some improvements in the process. It’s not perfect, but hopefully they’ll be able to do better in the future. Also, when she first came into this, she heard some people say there was a conspiracy. There is not conspiracy. There are just nice, normal people who are trying to do their jobs. When looking over the survey results, Commissioner Wells said she felt the most positive suggestion they received is that landscaping would be desirable. She thinks there should be some consideration given to investing money and effort towards some good landscaping if the walls stay. Commissioner Wells pointed out there was different criteria when these walls were put up than there is now. All that was needed was a simple majority, or 51% of the people that lived within 1000 feet, that had to say they wanted the noise walls. When that number was met, the Commission moved forward. And, with the numbers they’ve seen, there isn’t that much of a change from a simple majority.

Chairman Brown thanked Commissioner Wells and those who have spent a lot of time on this issue. He understands that there are those who can take issue with the information that has been brought forward, but the Commission has made an honest effort to try and do something. In regards to the area of impacted and affected, Chairman Brown said he agreed with Commissioner Eastman’s comments. He also said he’s been around long enough to know that regardless o f what decision is made tonight, this is probably not over with. He said he has thought about this very deeply and hard for several days, and he is concerned that if the walls are taken down now, that is a final thing. They won’t be put back up. If there are solutions out there, the walls should stay while looking for alternative solutions. And, with the impact of the freeway reconstruction, and with the mode of redirected traffic, it would be irresponsible to tear the walls down right now. This is not the appropriate time to make that decision. There are factors that need to be considered before something with the finality of removal takes place. Chairman Brown said everyone has heard all of the remarks and can sense what is going to happen. The Commission is not insensitive to the problems this creates. He hopes they can find better solutions, better ways of resolving this. The Commission is trying to do their job and do it responsibly.

The meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m.

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

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
James G. Larkin, Vice-Chairman
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Dan R. Eastman, Commissioner
Stephen M. Bodily, Commissioner
Jan C. Wells, Commissioner
LeAnn G. Abegglen, Commission Secretary
Thomas R. Warne, Executive Director
Clinton D Topham, Deputy Director
L. Robert Fox, Director of Communications
Randall K. Lamoreaux, Project Development Director
Jim McMinimee, Region Two Director
Tracy Conti, Region Two Deputy Director
David Alvarez, Region Two
Robb Edgar, Region Two
Michael Romero, Region Two
Dave Eixenberg, Region Two
Clare Wardle, Project Development
Andrea Packer, Community Relations
Michael G. Ritchie, Division Administrator, FHWA
Chuck Chappell, FHWA
Senator Karen Hale, Utah State Senate #7
Representative A. LaMont Tyler, Utah House of Representatives Dist. 36
Carol Morgan, Mt. Olympus Community Council
Rulon Burningham, Mt. Olympus Community Council
Keith Wallentine
LeeAnn Paulding
Jon Paulding
Flora Nielsen
Phyllis Player
Jeri Horman
Karyl Walton
Kent Walton
Gerald Horman
Pamela Clark
Greg Coon
Jeff Creveling
Helen Guseman
Bill Beecham
Don Call
Jim Rose
Eric Gutierrez
Tim Thompson
Michael Braun
Craig Romney
Deb Callister
Edith Syphers
John Syphers
Dorothy Pearce
Bob Pearce
Jerry Albertsen
Marilee Albertsen
Robert Wiggins
Klaus Rathke
Mr. and Mrs. J.M. Siirola
Martha Redeker
Michael McDonough
Renon Warner
Bill Swan
Frank Lengyel
Maureen Davies
Ed Keane
Joan Lengyel
Michele Clark
Dick Arner
Ken Gleason