Utah Transportation Commission
December 4, 1992
Salt Lake City, Utah

Commission Chairman Samuel J. Taylor called the regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission to order at 9:05 a.m.

Approval of Minutes
Don Steinke of FHWA requested that a clarification be made on the November 20, 1992 minutes. On page 26, final paragraph, South Dakota should be changed to North Dakota.

Commissioner Wayne Winters made a motion to approve the minutes of the Commission Meetings held November 6, 1992 in Ogden, and November 20, 1992 in Salt Lake City, with the correction indicated by Mr. Steinke. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it passed unanimously.

Service Awards
Briten Terry of District 2 was presented to the Commission by John Leonard for his 25 Year Service Award. Mr. Leonard commented it is a privilege and very important to be able to recognize the employees for their accomplishments.

Briten started his career with UDOT in 1956 as a part-time employee, working as a chief of party in Cedar City. He worked on the first I-15 section from Ventura to Anderson Junction.

In 1960 Briten was hired full time by the Department. He transferred to Roadway Design as a designer and worked his way through the ranks to become a squad leader in 1961. His squad was responsible for the plans for I-15 from 5900 South to Lehi, including the interchange with I-215. They also designed the sections of I-15 from St. George to the Arizona state line, from Cedar City to Parowan and Brigham City to Perry.

Eventually, Briten became the supervisor of three design squads. Those squads were responsible for the alignment and plans for I-80 from the mouth of Parleys Canyon to Lambs Canyon and from Kimballs Junction to Silver Creek Junction. They also designed I-80 from Coalville to Echo Junction and Castle Rock to Emory. Originally, I-80 in Parleys Canyon was planned to be only a four-lane highway, with two lanes east and westbound. Briten successfully convinced the Federal Highway Administration to accept his proposal to modify the design to place three lanes at the mouth of the canyon up to Kimballs Junction. He realized at that time the impact the truck traffic would have on the speeds and the capacity of the freeway and he used the volumes of trucks on the highway as justification for the design change.

In 1970 Briten left the state to work for the Operating Engineer's Union. He worked again as a chief of party on various roads, railroad structures and industrial complexes.

In 1977, he went back to government work, but he was working for Salt Lake County as a highway designer. There he was responsible for the route analysis of 20th East from Little Cottonwood Road to the prison interchange.

In 1982, Briten returned to UDOT. He started in a design squad in District 2, and transferred into the Traffic Engineering section in 1984. He was responsible for the design of an HES project on 3500 South in West Valley City consisting of an upgrade of six intersections.

Mr. Leonard said in 1989 he had the privilege of being appointed District 2 Traffic Engineer and began working with Briten. During this time Briten almost single-handedly produced the sign project on I-15 from 600 North to Parrish Lane. This consisted of a major reconstruction of all signing in the area. This construction project was completed this summer and was very impressive. He is currently working on a similar project on I-80 from Saltair to Parleys Canyon in the Salt Lake Valley.

I think Briten is a very good employee. We have worked very well together and he has done some tremendous work for the Department. I am very pleased to present him to the Commission for his 25 Year Award.

Commissioner Winters jokingly commented to Briten that he wondered who was responsible for those three lanes up Parleys Canyon. He remembered when the whole canyon had to be closed and traffic was rerouted to Emigration Canyon. It caused a terrible uproar, especially to people who liked to ski. But it worked out great. He congratulated Briten and presented him with a pin. He expressed the Commission's appreciation and thanked him for all the work he has accomplished for the Department.

Lorin R. Hawkins was introduced to the Commission for his 35 Year Service Award by Duane Christensen, District 2 Construction Engineer.

Lorin started with the Department in December of 1957, which was about the same time the interstate program began. He began work with one of the engineers on the freeways in the Davis County area. He started on a survey crew as an axman, or brushman, and worked his way through the ranks to almost all the positions on the survey crew. He was transferred to another crew who was doing much of the work on the interstate in the Salt Lake Valley. Lorin later worked as an inspector, so he has had experience in both surveying and inspection.

Because of the amount of utility work involved in our construction, District 2 has a Utility Section rather than having all the project engineers individually dealing with the utilities. Lorin was asked to come in and help there in the early '80s, and has worked as the utility and railroad inspector since that time. Bob Charlesworth is his current supervisor and he told Mr. Christensen that Lorin is very aggressive in his duties. He covers all the projects in the district and keeps track of the utility work so we can audit their billings for accuracy. He is very thorough and determined and does an excellent job.

Mr. Christensen said he was looking through Lorin's file this past week and he found a comment from Lorin on one of his old employee evaluation forms which said, "My goal is to complete a project so that when it is finished the engineer and all concerned are happy and will say a job well done." That reflects Lorin's attitude. Mr. Christensen congratulated Lorin and presented him to the Commission.

Commissioner Winters stated that 35 years is a long career and he presented Lorin with a pin. He expressed the Commission's appreciation for all that Lorin does for the Department.

Commissioner Winters said he remembered when they had all the fills piled up out on the big interchange on I-80 and also down on I-215 during construction he was afraid when we put everything together we'd have something that wouldn't fit, but they do. It looks nice. Chairman Taylor commented that observing the work on the I-80 project where the fill material was being obtained from Antelope Island, was an amazing project to watch. It was exciting to watch the progress. Commissioner Winters agreed it was an amazing accumulation of materials. It was a great credit to all who worked on it.

Commissioner Winters noted that Verl K. Ahlstrom, who was to receive his 25 Year Service Award, and Ron Smith and Martin Cutler, who were to receive their Retirement Awards, were not in attendance.

Transportation Improvement Program, MAG Element and CMPO Element
Commissioner Ted Lewis said he had been asked to make sure we are technically correct on an item. Apparently, when the Commission passed four resolutions on our TIP on November 20th, that included a resolution for a MAG Element and one for a Cache MPO Element, neither of which plan is actually here yet. Those resolutions cannot be dated prior to actual receipt of the TIPs. So, it becomes necessary that the Commission amend their previous action to make those resolutions effective upon receipt of the actual plans. The Commissioner made a motion to that effect. Commissioner Larkin seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that:

The resolutions for the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (MAG Element) and (CMPO Element) will be resubmitted for Commission approval upon actual receipt of those TIPs, so the effective date is correct.

FHWA Design Award for Trappers Loop
Mr. Don Steinke explained the biennial Federal Highway Administration Design Awards Program is an "Excellence in Highway Design" program. Through this, FHWA strongly advocates excellence in planning, design and development of safe, functional and environmentally sensitive highways. This competition occurs every two years and it recognizes those highway projects that embody the commitment to excellence.

He quoted Federal Highway Administrator Thomas Larson, "The 'Excellence in Highway Design' awards are a biennial opportunity for the highway community to showcase not just the unusually outstanding projects, but the creativity, innovation, and initiative of the dedicated people who made the projects possible. Each nominated project reflects a special partnership of the public and private sectors to meet transportation needs in a framework of environmental sensitivity, safety consciousness, and aesthetic appeal."

For the 1992 program, there were over 200 entries for 11 categories. From these 11 categories there were 32 awards that were given. Utah was also successful two years ago with their Hogan Pass project in this program, so you can see Utah compares very favorably across the nation in their design of highway projects.

Mr. Steinke said on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration it gives him great pleasure to present the award to the Utah Department of Transportation. He thanked the Transportation Commission, Executive Director Gene Findlay, Assistant Director Howard Richardson, and the many women and men who made the Trappers Loop project possible. He read the inscription from the beautiful large plaque, "This is presented to the Utah Department of Transportation, Trappers Loop, Huntsville, Utah. After a landslide closed the Ogden County road, isolating many valley residents, Trappers Loop, SR-167, was realigned and rebuilt to connect Mountain Green and Huntsville. The alignment was carefully chosen to avoid geological problems, areas of peat, springs, and slides. The road blends beautifully with the surrounding scenery, and with an abundance of native topsoil, the natural vegetation was quickly reestablished."

Mr. Steinke said in the Category of Rural Highway, this is an Award of Merit in the Federal Highway Administration 1992 Biennial Awards Program for Design. He presented the award to Commission Chairman Taylor. The Chairman said it was his pleasure to accept the award on behalf of the Department. The design on any project is critical, and the planning on this project was a 30-year effort. We heard about Trappers Loop for years and years before we finally got to it. It is a project we are very proud of, and we appreciate this award.

Commissioner Larkin asked who took the picture of Trappers Loop which was on the award and was told it was the Department photographer Gerald Peterson. The Commissioner suggested that we try to get some recognition for this award through the Ogden Standard Examiner. Kim Morris explained a news release had already been sent out on this award following the AASHTO Conference, where the awards were announced. He said he would check with Don Baker at the Standard Examiner and if they hadn't run a story on it he would do another release. Director Findlay suggested the story should go the Deseret News and Tribune also, and Kim informed him they had also received a copy of the release which had been sent out statewide.

Dyke LeFevre pointed out the Trappers Loop project was designed by a consultant, Centennial Engineering. He wondered if it wouldn't be appropriate to give a small plaque to them also.

Financial Statements - October 1992
Max Ditlevsen said he would be commenting on the financial statements dated October 31, 1992. Beginning with Free Revenues, we have adjusted our budgeted figures downward by $2 million from what was previously listed. Looking at the track on our receipts so far and reevaluating our estimates, we felt it was necessary to make that adjustment. This is more realistic. Last year we were at about $215 million.

Regarding particular elements of the Free Revenues, on Motor Fuels Tax we are showing favorable growth of 3.5 percent over last year at this time. Special Fuels Tax is up 1.4 percent over last year, but it is not at the level which was anticipated in growth. The Tax Commission was expecting something near 4 percent. The amount shown this month does reflect the IFTA quarterly receipts which were recorded in October, so the concerns we've expressed and discussed previously are still in existence. Max said he has not spoken with Van Sutherland on whether or not a formal request has gone to the Tax Commission to review that further, but will do so.

Regarding the $113,000 unfavorable difference under Safety Inspection Fees, approximately $100,000 was miscoded and will be adjusted in future periods, so that will not be out of line once that adjustment is made. In Total Free Revenues we are about 2.5 percent above last year at this time.

Under Other Revenues, Federal Reimbursement shows almost $39 million received to date. Based on our expenditures, we would anticipate almost $41.5 million. As mentioned in our last financial report, our Accrued Unbilled amount has grown by at least that difference--it's actually a bit more than that--so once those revenues are received we would be at a level that we would expect for reimbursement percentages.

Max highlighted some of the information given in the notes under Expenditures. In Support Services, Administration, the $530,000 shown as unexpended is primarily because we have a lag time in billings we receive from DFCM on the maintenance and operation of this UDOT building, and there is also an insurance payment which we had programmed to be paid by this time and it has not yet fallen due. In Data Processing, primarily those are either vacancies or capital outlay deferments that have been made, but the plans are already in place and orders being placed on equipment. By fiscal year end those monies will be fully expended.

In Engineering Services, the Safety Program, these are just timing differences from when we thought the School Zone Safety Program payments would be made. In Planning and Programming, these are our Pass-Thru funds to the MPOs.

In Maintenance Management, Max made a clarification to the note which compares this year with last year, which is inappropriate. Last year we were making payments on Orange Book Contracts, contractual maintenance projects, out of this line item, and that is no longer the case; those now occur in the Construction line item. To make a comparison between the two years in inappropriate for that reason. We still are behind the projected, but at this point that is not considered a problem; we know we will fully expend those funds.

As mentioned during the last financial report, regarding the mix we show on the Construction line item between Federal Construction-New, State Construction-New, and Rehabilitation/Preservation, we are still learning and trying to get a better feel on exactly what would be classified as new construction or rehab. That entire line item will be managed based on our available Fund Balance and the Federal program. As time goes on we will have a better fix on individual programs there than we do now. We do provide a supplemental schedule which shows the break out detail between Federal and State within those various programs.

Under Fund Balance, comparing the almost $17 million of Unreserved Fund Balance to the State Construction obligations of $15.3 million, it is an indication that we need to continue to get our State projects designed and on their way. If our Accrued Unbilled were reduced, that would increase the amount of Unreserved Fund Balance. If we bring down Accrued Unbilled, the almost $17 million would be even higher, so there are funds available to forward State projects.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to accept the financial statements as presented. Commissioner Weston seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that:

The financial statements for the period ended October 31, 1992, and included as part of these minutes, be approved.

Right-of-Way Settlements Over $25,000
Dean Holbrook noted there were two settlements for Commission consideration. The first one is the Williams' property on the West Valley Highway. It is a total acquisition of a residence in the amount of $81,000.

The second settlement involves Paul Marinoni's employee relocation. We purchased his home in price in the amount of $84,000. These are both our approved appraisals, and we recommend Commission approval.

Chairman Taylor asked where Mr. Marinoni was moving and was informed he was moving to District 6 in Orem. The Chairman commented that District 6 is getting a good man.

Commissioner Larkin made a motion to approve the two right-of-way settlements. The motion was seconded by Commissioners Winters and Lewis and it passed unanimously that:

The option be approved to purchase Parcel 80:T, Project NM-1005(4), West Valley Highway, 7800 South to 9000 South, located at 8769 South 3645 West, West Jordan, from owners Mark B. & Suzie K. Williams in the amount of $81,000, and

The option be approved to purchase Parcel ER-29, Employee Relocation, located at 750 North 200 East, Price, from owners Paul L. & Anne Marie Marinoni in the amount of $84,000.

Chairman Taylor called a short break.

Planning and Programming - Increase in Funding
I-80, Salt Lake and Summit Counties, Slide Repair
Clint Topham explained that District 2 has submitted a project to repair a slide on I-80 in Salt Lake and Summit Counties. The cost to advertise the project is $254,000 more than programmed. Staff has reviewed the project and the cost increase and recommends the Commission increase the Interstate Maintenance Funds to do this work.

Chairman Taylor questioned if the slide repair work is all on the other side of Parleys Summit. Tom Smith from District 2 said it involves three areas: One is just over the summit, one is in the canyon between the summit and Wanship and the third one is near Echo Reservoir. Chairman Taylor asked if the work is done. Tom replied the work has been started, but there is much more slide than we had before. Commissioner Winters explained there is one fairly large slide just down from the residential area on the east side of Parleys Summit. There was some discussion on the type of material being used to stabilize the slides.

Commissioner Winters made a motion to approve the increase in funding. Commissioner Lewis seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that:

Funding be increased on Project IM-0080-3(117)135, Salt Lake and Summit Counties, Slide Repair, in Interstate Maintenance Funds in the amount of $254,000, added to the $650,000 already programmed for a total project cost of $904,000.

Disposal of Lady Bird Park Rest Area in Logan
Assistant Director Howard Richardson said a public meeting had been held in Logan concerning the Lady Bird Park Rest Area, but he was unable to attend and he hadn't heard the results of that meeting yet. He explained a request had come from Logan City and from the University Foundation to District 1, copies of which are in the agenda packets. We have been discussing for several weeks what we should do with that resource we have in Logan. Howard commented that Commissioner Weston was the only one present who had been able to attend that meeting and he could possibly update the rest of the Commission and staff.

Commissioner Weston replied he would be happy to do so. The Mayor of Logan called the public meeting and asked what could be done with Lady Bird Park, because they want out of it from a maintenance standpoint. The restrooms there have been a collection place for an undesirable group of people, it is located on the edge of the city and they have had to have police officers there constantly. The Commissioner said we haven't been able to find a copy of the contract yet. I'm sure we have one, but we need to find it to see exactly what the responsibility of Logan City is in maintaining that Park.

It is not the type of facility--and I believe I made that clear in the public meeting which was held--that UDOT wants to maintain as an official rest area. It does not have the size, capacity nor the type of ingress and egress that is necessary for that type of facility. It has been dropped from our Rest Area Study Plan entirely.

Commissioner Weston explained that Lynn Zollinger in District 1 thought he had cut a deal where the University could receive the property from UDOT as a gift, then bond for enough money to build a facility so the Forest Service District Ranger could have a home base office there. They, in turn, agreed to maintain the restroom facility. Essentially, if we would give them the land they would build a small facility for the Forest Services offices, which they have to move from another campus facility, and in conjunction with it would maintain the restrooms and the dump station for the RVs, and Logan City would maintain the park area.

This seemed like a good solution to the whole project, except people came out of the woodwork and said they didn't want the University spending money on buildings for the Forest Service, or even supplying money for them. Besides that, they didn't want to have the Forest Service in that location because it would take away the view area.

Commissioner Weston said that puts the Department between a rock and hard place. He thinks the best solution would be the one proposed by the Department, but the citizens are not at all happy with that. He said they asked the Forest Service to come back with a detailed drawing of what they could construct there that may be acceptable to the citizens, as far as aesthetics on the brow of that hill that could possibly have a lookout on the lower level to look over the valley to preserve the lookout. Chairman Taylor asked if that is where the tour buses stop and Commissioner Weston affirmed it was.

Commissioner Weston said the Forest Service is going to come back on December 15th and have a public meeting of their own, and explain to the citizens what they'd like to build there. He also explained that, in the meantime, the University has approached him and said they didn't want to get in a hot spot and they are thinking about withdrawing their support. We will just have to wait until the 15th to see what happens.

Commissioner Lewis asked about Commissioner Weston's comment regarding the contract under which Logan City maintained the park area. Is staff trying to locate a copy of that contract somewhere in the Department files? Commissioner Weston affirmed that was correct; either here at headquarters or in District 1. We are trying to find the old contract that tied Logan City with the responsibility of maintaining the park after it was built. It was constructed with Lady Bird Funds during the Johnson Administration. We really haven't spent any money up there, and probably would never have spent any money in that location without that type of funding. Commissioner Lewis said he would very much like to see what the contract says at the next Commission Meeting. That may have some bearing on how we ultimately decide to act on this issue.

Chairman Taylor commented there would be no action taken today and we will wait to see what happens after the Forest Service holds the public meeting.

UTA Request
Commissioner Winters commented that no one was here from UTA, and not having received any information as to what their request is going be, we will wait to hear from them.

Commissioner Lewis asked if there is any indication how soon UTA plans to submit some sort of written proposal as to what their request will be. Commissioner Winters responded when he talked to Bill Oswald, counsel for UTA, that they wanted to have it at today's meeting, but they had promised to have the information in the Commissions's hands before Commission Meeting. Nothing has come through the Commission Secretary. Commissioner Lewis said they may be planning for next Commission Meeting then.

Olympus Hills -Noise Abatement
Commissioner Weston referred to a handout detailing expected noise reduction and costs associated with a noise wall construction, concrete surface grinding and a bituminous overlay. He said if the indicated figures are correct on the dBA reduction, and reading the notes where a research study shows that a five dBA reduction may actually only amount to a two dBA reduction, it brings back into focus the question of how much good are we really doing putting the noise walls up at that tremendous cost. Should we revisit that type of study before we spend major monies there? How successful are noise walls? Are we really doing the job, or are we just kidding ourselves?

Dyke LeFevre replied that noise walls constructed in the right location, when they're not on a hillside, do give about a ten plus dBA reduction in noise. But in this case, there are rows of houses on a hillside, each row is successively higher than the next row, so the noise wall is just going to affect the first row of houses. Around Deer Creek Drive, noise walls will have a very minor affect there. The noise walls are going to have to be located down on Wasatch Boulevard, will have to be 16 feet high and will only affect the first row of houses with only about a five decibel reduction from what it is now. Commissioner Weston asked what it is now. Dyke and Commissioner Winters replied it is about 78 dBA now.

Dyke continued that there is another location, Sunset Drive, which is further north than Deer Creek Drive, and they are not on the hillside so noise walls there can give them a ten or greater decibel reduction.

Commissioner Weston commented that we would be spending that kind of money to get only a three decibel reduction from 78, is that correct? Dyke responded that we did a literature search and they came back with information saying that if we put a bituminous overlay we could possibly get a ten decibel reduction, which is reasonable. But our staff did some testing and they are finding that we may only get a three decibel reduction with an asphalt overlay versus concrete. That is very nominal and we generally don't put noise walls up if we don't get greater than three decibels; that is a minimum. We actually go for five decibels as a minimum, and we only count the houses that we see at a three decibel reduction as benefit. Commissioner Weston commented that is less than a ten percent reduction in noise.

Director Findlay asked Dyke where we have done our testing? Dyke responded we have been testing on I-15 between 4500 and 3300 South, up on I-215 around 45th South, and on 39th South where we have a new plant mix seal coat.

Kim Morris asked if the dBA scale was linear? Dyke replied it was not, it is logrhythmic.

Commissioner Weston asked Dyke to explain it to him; explain how the noise reduction is perceived. Dyke replied that two decibels can barely be heard. Sheldon McConkie commented that a person would normally have to hear between a five and seven decibel difference to notice it.

Director Findlay commented that Dyke was giving information now that is a little different than what was given to him when he went to the Governor regarding this. Dyke affirmed that was correct. We gave you what the Australian study showed. But our people went out the day before Thanksgiving at midnight, so we would get a limited number of cars so we could tell, and they said they couldn't come up with the kind of reduction that the Australian study showed.

Commissioner Weston restated that we should take a long, hard look at spending that kind of money for something that is not going to do any more good than that.

Commissioner Winters asked Dyke if we have done an actual study where we've documented the improvement with the noise walls we have already put in. Have we done enough that we really can say we get a specific reduction? Dyke replied that he has been informed that we do get a reduction of that magnitude where we have constructed the noise walls in the reasonable areas. Commissioner Winters asked how much of a study has been done to determine that? Is there really some hard data? Dyke answered he didn't know what staff has documented, but that is what they have told him. He said he could probably get that information together and bring it to the Commission. Commissioner Winters said that would be interesting for the Commission to see before we go any further on noise walls.

Dyke said we are finding literature which shows something that seems reasonable, but our results aren't. We ought to look at doing some additional research. Commissioner Winters stated that the geography we have here is probably entirely different from that on which the Australian studies were done. When we put the depressed highway in on I-215, no one ever dreamed we would have a noise problem, but we found out that probably gave us our noise problem. We are in an entirely different environment than some of the others who have done studies, and I think we ought to do our own study. Dyke said that is what he would like to propose we do, actually develop some of these and see what we are getting before we proceed much more.

Commissioner Weston asked if we have people capable of doing a study that is reliable and will be accepted scientifically? Dyke replied that we do have that capability, but we would probably go to a research program on it and actually set it up so we get data that is worthwhile and comparable. Commissioner Weston asked if there are people in the university staffs that have more capability than we do in this area? Dyke said he didn't know. Commissioner Weston said we should look at that. Howard Richardson commented that there would be university staff somewhere, but he didn't know if they would be reasonably accessible. He said Jim Shrouds, the Branch Chief for Noise and Air Quality, FHWA in Washington, could tell us whether there was.

Director Findlay asked if we tested the difference in the noise levels on I-215 at the two locations where the citizens are complaining there is a significant difference, where there is the asphalt at about 4500 South versus the concrete south of there? Dyke replied we actually tested near Olympus Hills where we have the grooved concrete, then we tested on I-15 where we had the rotomilled section, then we tested on 39th South where we had a new plant mix seal. Director Findlay asked if it was on 39th South around Olympus Cove, and Dyke replied he didn't know where on 39th. Director Findlay said he would like to talk to our people who did the testing. I would like to understand why they selected the areas they did and what they are trying to prove. Dyke explained they selected the areas, like where we did Syncrete on I-15, because it was the longest area that has been ground, and other sites tested give you the same grooving like anywhere you would groove. They tried to find a place where we had a fairly new plant mix seal. We only did the tests with one car. If we are really going to get some valuable information we need to do it with more than one car and with different tire treads so we get an overall review of it. Director Findlay said we ought to be up there testing during the times about which the people are complaining, when we've got a lot of traffic, not at midnight.

The Director said, for example, just recently we answered a letter about the traffic study we did to determine whether or not the traffic signal was warranted. We go out on one day and do the testing. I don't know who determines that time, but to me that type of sample is not scientific. It is not valid and I think we end up with egg on our face any time someone challenges us on those types of studies.

Dyke stated we realize our study here is not valid because of the limited factor. But you can't go up there and test when all the traffic is there either, because that puts all kinds of variables in that you can't measure. You need to do it almost individually so you can get the total range of improvement. Director Findlay says he can't understand why we couldn't measure under the regular traffic conditions right where they're saying it is so much more quiet where we have the asphalt, then measure where they say it is noisier. Why wouldn't that measurement be acceptable? Dyke said one thing we are finding about the whine you get where we have the grooved pavement, when you measure that the loudness doesn't come through. The whine, I guess, is annoying and you notice it, but it is not loud. It is not any louder than in other places. Commissioner Weston commented it is a different type of disturbance. Commissioner Winters questioned that aren't we interested in total noise that comes from a particular section of highway? Dyke said if you are going to compare sections you have to have the same kind of traffic.

Commissioner Winters said he wonders if we have really done enough study in those areas where we have already put noise walls up to see if the walls themselves have benefitted the people who are behind them. What kind of decibel reduction have we obtained? Dyke replied we have done before noise tests and he knows we have done some after. I will try to get that data for you. Commissioner Winters said that is something we definitely need to know before we put any more money into noise walls. If we are not getting a decent reduction, we are wasting a lot of money and we are giving people a false sense that they can be helped?

Commissioner Larkin asked if we have ever had anyone come back and complain that noise walls didn't do what they thought they would do? Dyke answered that we've had a couple of letters saying they feel there is more reflective noise when the noise walls are up than what they had before. Gene Sturzenegger said he gets a letter about every two months from Mrs. George in the I-215 area who wants us to take the walls out. Commissioner Winters asked what her specific complaint is; does she not like the view, or what? Gene replied that is part of it, but she also thinks that it hasn't really changed the noise or made it that much quieter, and in some cases she says she is actually getting more noise. Commissioner Winters commented that if you live in an area where there is loud noise, and then someone puts up a wall and you think you are going to get some improvement, and if you can't detect it, if it's only two or three decibels, you would be a little upset. Now you've not only got the noise, but you've got an ugly wall in front of you, so you have two problems.

Dyke said that John Neil reported that where they tested they are getting what they predicted the noise reduction would be. Commissioner Winters asked how this is perceived by the receptors ears, the residents? Whether you get the decibel reduction or not, how do the people who live there perceive it? Do they perceive there is a change? John Neil answered that he interviewed some of the residents along Hollow Dale Drive after we put up the 2,200-feet-long by 14-feet-high wall from 1300 East to about 1800 East on the south side of I-215. That is the area where Mrs. Paul George is located. In the George case, they didn't want the wall to begin with; they were biased from the beginning. They and one other neighbor are the only ones who are saying that the situation is worse now that the wall is in. There is a real reason for that. There is an illusion. I try to tell that to the groups before they even get a wall that the affect of the noise wall is going to create an illusion and make it appear more noisy than what it was before. The reason is because the wall does a very good job of cutting out high frequency tire noise and low down noise of the cars, but doesn't do a thing for the trucks. Therefore, the difference between the truck noise and the car noise is more apparent, and the brain interprets this to mean it is louder. But in our actual measurements--including the case of Paul George where we have been on his property and measured--the noise actually is less and the noise walls are doing what we predicted they would do.

Commissioner Winters stated we don't want to put noise walls in the 39th South area then, because the trucks are what they are complaining about. If we are going to make the noise worse by putting a wall up, maybe we should not put a wall there. Dyke commented that we actually get the reduction, but it is just the difference between the two noises. Commissioner Winters said the important thing is the one who receives the noise, what he perceives it to be. Commissioner Lewis commented that perception is more important than fact almost. Commissioner Weston stated he would hate to spend money on something and tell people they are getting something, but they're going to have the illusion that they are not. John Neil stated that for that much money there is real justification for not doing anything, even though they are complaining a lot in that area. Chairman Taylor said he thinks we have done a good job.

Commissioner Winters asked John Neil about that same area where we put the high walls on the south side. Apparently the people who live on the north side had something to do with what kind of wall goes in because there are several different kinds, and they are not as high as on the south side. Has that given them any improvement? Mr. Neil replied he has not heard any complaints from the people on the north side. Commissioner Winters said the walls on the north side are probably only half as high as the ones on the south side. Mr. Neil said the ones on the north side are ten feet, and the ones across the road on the south side are 14 feet high. On the south side there are second story homes. Most of the ones on the north side along Greenfield Avenue from 1300 East easterly are typically one and one-half levels--split level or single level--dwellings. Commissioner Winters commented that those lower walls are probably more acceptable as far as aesthetics; they are nice looking walls. Howard Richardson commented that some people value the walls for the privacy they afford. Commissioner Larkin commented there is a cheaper way to get privacy than by using noise walls. Commissioner Winters commented the 14-foot walls are pretty ominous looking from the roadside; I can't imagine what they'd look like if my house or backyard were facing one of those. John Neil said that is essentially why Paul George was against the walls; it is so high it obliterates his view. It has nothing to do with noise, but psychologically it translates and noise becomes the scapegoat.

Commissioner Weston mentioned a noise wall that went up in his area. They told a homeowner there they were going to put a big noise wall up and he asked if they couldn't just plant some nice trees there instead, and he was told that the trees wouldn't stop the noise but the noise wall would. The person said he would rather have trees than a noise wall and they said they couldn't do that. Mr. Neil asked who told the person that, because we are doing exactly that, planting trees, for Brookstone Condominiums. Commissioner Weston said he would introduce John to the person and he could talk to him. John asked if that was in Wellsville and the Commissioner affirmed that was correct.

Commissioner Weston said it is a many faceted problem, and he hopes when we spend that much money we are getting a worthwhile benefit.

Funding for West Valley Highway and SR-193
Clint Topham said he received a call yesterday from Dennis Yoggerst from the Governor's Budget Office. He told Clint the Department had made a request for some $6 million of General Funds to complete the West Valley Highway to 90th South in next year's budget. He told Clint the Governor was not going to put that in his budget, but they were probably going to support a bonding bill again this year, and they probably would support bonding for transportation at about the level of $10 million. They want to know what would be on our list of projects if that were the case. Clint said he told Mr. Yoggerst he would discuss it with the Commission this morning. I told him my first guess would be that you would probably use the first $6 million of the $10 million from bonding to complete the West Valley Highway to 90th South, which would leave approximately $4 million for other uses.

Clint said the Programming staff has reviewed the TIP and the progress of the projects. There are three projects I would like to bring to your attention, beyond the West Valley Highway, which you may consider. The first one is the west half of SR-193. We went over that when we were in Ogden a couple of weeks ago. The east half of that road, from the south gate of Hill Field to the east, was constructed up to where we are going to do the interchange, but the west half was not done. We put that on the program a few months ago and told District 1 to move it forward as rapidly as possible because of our cash balance in State Construction. We told them if it were made ready to go, and if the cash balance was still positive then we could fund it. They feel that project will be ready to advertise in May, and could take advantage of these bonding monies in July.

Another project that may be able to be ready, but we haven't been able to contact the District and Region yet to find out for sure where it stands, is the Delta Airport Connection road. That project has been on and off the program from time to time.

The Forest Street Interchange was also mentioned. We have been in contact with the District and they've told us that will not be ready to advertise by July. So that would not be one we could put the money on immediately. There is also a problem with Forest Street in that the legislators up there will tell you that they bonded for that once already and they don't want to see that on another bonding bill. I personally think it would not be wise for us to put that on again.

In discussing this with my staff, we feel the west half of SR-193 would be the project we could say we've moved forward on the program, is much needed in the area, and from a programming standpoint would be our first choice.

Chairman Taylor asked why Forest Street is not going to be ready? Clint replied he didn't think the environmental impact statement was finished. Commissioner Weston said it is done. Clint asked if it is completely done and signed. Commissioner Weston replied he didn't know if it was signed, but he has read it. Clint said, as he remembered the schedule, we told them it would be a year to do the environmental document, and a year in design after that. So, that would be pushing it ahead of schedule to get it done.

Clint said, according to Dale Peterson--and this is hearsay information--Senator Holmgren is still very concerned about what we are doing there as far as design, and he has asked the District to go back and do some value engineering on the size of our design. Dale said if we carry through and do what the Senator has asked us to, there is no way we'll have it designed in the amount of time required. Howard Richardson asked if the upshot of that is that the value engineering would show that it would increase the cost? Clint said the Senator wants it to decrease the cost. Director Findlay said the Senator wants it to show that the current design there of two lanes only is all you need. Clint affirmed the Senator doesn't want us to do any work on the bridge. He wants us to build the interchange ramps and leave the existing bridge. Commissioner Weston said that is what the Senator wanted right off the bat; that was his suggestion from the beginning but Federal Highways said we couldn't do it without that. Clint replied that we were the ones who said that. He explained the Catch 22 we are in. In order to show enough justification for the interchange, Morton Thiokol had to produce enough traffic to warrant a wider viaduct than the one that is there now. So you either have to say we are going to have that much traffic and widen the bridge, or else say we are not going to have that much traffic, then that doesn't warrant the interchange.

Chairman Taylor said he can understand the frustration of the general public, and that would include legislators. Commissioner Winters said what you have to do is have Thiokol come in with less traffic, if you are going to try to reduce the size. You have already justified it on the basis of their traffic. If you are going to try to justify it for two lanes, then they have to come in with an adjusted traffic count.

Chairman Taylor said he thinks we should spend it all down at Hurricane; that is where we are going to need it.

Commissioner Winters asked Don Steinke if there is any way that we could get approval for, what I will call, a sub-standard intersection, because that is really what Senator Holmgren is asking for, a sub-standard intersection? Mr. Steinke replied that he is not familiar with that intersection, but hasn't the scope of that interchange already been decided? Commissioner Winters affirmed that it has, but the Senator is asking that we go back and redo it, so what we would be requesting is a sub-standard intersection. Commissioner Weston interjected the design hasn't been done yet.

Howard Richardson said there are two things to keep in mind: The traffic volumes will drive the number of lanes, or width of the road. But no matter how many lanes you have, you are going to have, geometrically, an obsolete structure. The vertical alignment is sub-standard. Commissioner Weston commented that the trucks get off before they go over the bridge. Howard said that is true when they're going one way, but when they're coming back and are going south, they have to cross it.

Dyke said in order to leave the present bridge intact you have to bring the ramps out much further so they can develop the turn lanes, and you get into the race track and into more wetlands.

Commissioner Weston said there is one easy solution to it. We can just go back and start over; build them another road in there and forget the interchange. Commissioner Winters commented that we tried to build a two-lane bridge at Layton once, and ended up about mid-way through the project taking it out and putting in a four-lane. Chairman Taylor agreed and said we did it at Syracuse and 106th South also.

Mr. Steinke stated he would be very reluctant to approve a sub-standard design on an interchange.

Commissioner Weston asked if there isn't some merit in going back to Senator Holmgren and Box Elder County and suggesting that we build a nice, wide road into Morton's plant from the existing interchange, that would help their commercial area and not go through wetlands as much. Isn't there still some benefit in doing that? Chairman Taylor expressed the opinion that Senator Holmgren's answer will be no. Commissioner Weston said maybe if the Senator finds out it is not going to be built for a while he might say yes.

Clint asked if the Commission would like to give staff direction on what to tell the Mr. Yoggerst, or should we just do it on our own? Chairman Taylor indicated staff should handle it.

Director Findlay asked Clint about the proposal to give us $10 million from the bonding bill. They are proposing to pay for the bond out of General Funds, not out of Transportation Funds, is that correct? Clint affirmed that was correct.

Max Ditlevsen said an additional question was asked on how much it would actually cost to go from 90th to 104th South on the West Valley Highway in grading and drainage. I think they wanted some specific numbers. Director Findlay said he thought it was around $6 million; Dyke said around $7 million. Clint asked Max if that request had come to him and Max replied that it had, just yesterday afternoon.

Quality Improvement Program - Consultant Contract
Director Findlay said we have been working to get the Quality Improvement Program going within the Department. We now have gotten to the point where it is beyond our capabilities and we are going to have to contract for that. Neal Christensen has prepared a Request for Proposal for consultant services contract. We want to run that by you.

Neal Christensen passed out some information on the RFP. He said it has been about a year now that the Department has been evaluating the needs and benefits associated with implementing a Quality Improvement Program. In the early spring of this year there was an employee survey conducted, an assessment. That assessment focused on trying to identify how employees felt about work and management environments in the Department and whether they thought there were issues that needed to be resolved. They did identify a number of issues which could be addressed and resolved which we think would significantly improve our productivity and performance as a Department. The consultants that conducted that assessment for us--we had it done outside so it was a completely objective effort--recommended that before we thought about moving into a more customer-oriented improvement program which focuses on the needs of our customers, we ought to try to take care of some of these internal issues which would then facilitate the transition to the more customer-oriented environment. We endorsed that approach and went to the employees through a series of meetings to ask them how they felt about supporting some form of quality improvement internally. The employees endoresed that improvement approach.

Since that time we have had an interim group of 32 employees meeting together, studying how they would like to recommend to the Department that we organize an internal improvement program and begin to focus on those kinds of issues as employees, mangers and supervisors. The group has finished their work and they will present the recommendations to executive management on about the 15th of this month.

This Request for Proposals for outside services is to accomplish the things that are shown on the handout:

1. To help us design and prepare a training program that would give the Department the ability to orient its managers, supervisors and staff on quality improvement. It would help us to train trainers, team leaders, and team members so that we can all learn how to operate better in that kind of environment.

2. To conduct training sessions for an Improvement Council made up of employees, executive management staff and district/division directors to help them understand that kind of environment and be prepared to operate in it.

3. To train and prepare selected employees to be trainers and facilitators.

4. Generally advise us on how we ought to structure staff and put together this kind of program internally.

Neal said he would like to emphasize we are not talking about changing the management system in the Department at this point. What we are talking about is an effort of managers, supervisors and employees working together to focus on internal issues identified by employees, and hopefully trying to correct those and improve the relationships, the trust, the communications within the Department. But at the same time, further study and evaluate transitioning to a more customer-oriented system in the future.

Funding is available in the Administrative Services budget now to support this kind of contract. Director Findlay asked about how much it would cost. Neal replied that we don't know exactly what it will cost, but we have approximately $100,000 we can use on the contract in this fiscal year.

Commissioner Weston asked Neal how far down through management would the program go; clear down to the shed foremen? Neal replied that eventually it would go all the way through management and among all of our employees; eventually all the way to our lower levels of employees and supervisors. Neal explained the thing we don't have internally is the training programs and the people who are trained in instructing in this kind of environment. What we are talking about here is building that capability in the Department. The idea is not to bring in consultants and then have them stay. The objective is to bring them in, help us build the programs, train our people, then they leave and we conduct the continuing program internally.

Neal stressed he has been extremely impressed with the attitudes and work of the employees. They have struggled together and they have worked hard together. I see an enthusiasm building among them for the opportunity to build this kind of structured relationship with management and supervisors focusing on issues. I am excited about their attitudes and how they seem to be working together.

Clint commented that Commissioner Lewis had just asked him about the funding for this program. I told him I couldn't remember the amount of money, but I thought we had identified this as savings in other areas in the Department, so it can be handled internally in our budget. Neal affirmed that was true. Within that line item there were some funds that came to us to support our premium for liability insurance. Our insurance premium did not come in so high, so we have those funds within that line item that we could move to this education and training. Commissioner Lewis asked how much money we are talking about. Neal replied we haven't received any responses, but we have set aside $100,000 for it. We don't know that it will be that high, but that is the amount of money we have set aside.

Don Steinke asked Neal if he sees any role with the Federal Highway Administration in terms of their interaction with UDOT under this program. Neal replied that he thinks so. He said he feels very strongly about the fact that we are not talking about a management system change yet. I really recommend that as we proceed with this effort, we ask the advice of consultants, we further study the issue of transitioning to a total quality management environment, and if we are going to transition I would see a heavy involvement relationship with FHWA.

Mr. Steinke said one of the reasons he asks is that right now in the Federal Highway Region 8, they have a task group internally themselves addressing what they call a Quality Stewardship Plan. Even though we have a stewardship agreement based upon the features of the ISTEA, this task group is looking at design, construction, materials and maintenance. After the first of the year we will be approaching UDOT to develop this Quality Stewardship Plan in those areas. Your program is permeating the whole Department, I understand, but if there is some contact point with FHWA I would like to be part of that if it is acceptable.

Neal replied that initially this effort will focus on the internal issues we need to get out of the way in order to proceed. But as we train people to work together to focus on issues and needs, it would be very natural for them to leave worrying about communication, trusts and salaries and other kinds of things and begin to focus on process issues. If we train people to operate in that environment it will be a very natural transition for them and it should fit hand-in-glove with the sort of thing FHWA are talking about.

Chairman Taylor thanked Neal for the information.

Interim Policy on Overtime
Director Findlay commented that the Overtime Policy was not ready in time to be an official item on the agenda, but he passed out a copy of it and updated the Commission.

There has been a lot of time spent on this policy. Basically the state law changed, effective July 1, 1992. Since then if there is a holiday of if an employees takes annual leave or sick leave, and they are called out to work, but they don't actually work any more than 40 hours (because of the holiday, sick leave or annual leave), they don't get paid overtime on those days. It has caused a great deal of consternation and anger, absolute anger, among our Maintenance employees. They have said if they get called out on Christmas Day, but later on in the week if they get sent home they don't get paid overtime for the Christmas Day. They have been very upset about it.

We have worked through the Governor's Office and with the Department of Human Resource Management. What we have here is basically a policy that will allow us to pay them overtime for those holidays worked, on an interim basis, until the Legislature is able to review the law and determine whether or not they are going to change it. That is what this policy basically does. I just wanted you to be aware of that. We have spent a lot of time trying to resolve this. You may have already received complaints from the Maintenance workers. The Commissioners responded that they had received some complaints, and Commissioner Weston commented he had even received complaints from citizens.

Director Findlay said we think we've got a good solution, but it is an interim one. It will be in effect until the Legislature adjourns. Hopefully the Legislature will deal with the issue and change it. If they don't it will be a very big problem. Our intention is to brief it to the Maintenance Supervisors at our Maintenance Meeting in Richfield next Thursday, December 10th. We really ought to have it approved by the Commission.

Chairman Taylor directed that it be put on the agenda for the next Commission Meeting.

Next Commission Meeting
The next Commission Meeting will be held on Friday, December 18th in Salt Lake City. There will be no Scheduling Meeting held on Thursday prior to Commission Meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

The following Commission and staff were present:

Samuel J. Taylor, Chairman
Wayne S. Winters, Vice-Chairman
Todd G. Weston, Commissioner
James G. Larkin, Commissioner
Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary
Eugene H. Findlay, Executive Director
Howard H. Richardson, Assistant Director
Kathy Davis, Administrative Assistant
Clinton D. Topham, Director of Planning
Dyke M. LeFevre, Engineer for Preconstruction
Dean Holbrook, Chief, Right of Way Division
Sheldon W. McConkie, Engineer for Operations
Neal H. Christensen, Director, Admin. Services
Glenn B. Goodrich, Administrator, Ports of Entry
Kim N. Morris, Director, Community Relations
Max J. Ditlevsen, Comptroller
Stephen C. Reitz, Internal Auditor
John Neil, Location & Environment
Gene Sturzenegger, District 2 Director
Tom Smith, District 2 Preconstruction Engineer
Duane Christensen, District 2 Construction Engineer
John Leonard, District 2 Traffic Engineer
Robert Charlesworth, District 2
Lorin R. Hawkins, District 2
Briten Terry, District 2
Don Steinke, Division Administrator, FHWA
Darrin Grenfell, FHWA
Jim Greener, Utah Railroad Association