Utah Transportation Commission
July 17, 1992
Salt Lake City, Utah

Chairman Samuel J. Taylor called the regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission to order at 9:10 a.m. He noted four Commissioners were in attendance, and recognized Director of Transportation Eugene H. Findlay, and Don Steinke, Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration.

Approval of Minutes
Vice-Chairman Wayne Winters moved that the Commission Meeting Minutes of June 19, 1992 be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it carried unanimously.

Chairman Taylor noted he was going to alter the method of Commission operation for this meeting to go strictly by Robert's Rules of Order, which they don't always do. Under the formal Robert's Rules the Chairman only votes in case of a tie, Since there are only four Commissioners that means we can't have a tie. If only two Commissioners vote in favor of something, with the Commission Chairman not voting, that means the motion fails.

Service Awards
Assistant Director Howard H. Richardson was present to receive a service award for 35 years. Director Findlay said Howard began his career with UDOT in 1957. There are many people, including his wife Drue, who are pretty sure he hasn't left the office since. During that time he's been a construction engineer, surveyor, field engineer, design engineer, district preconstruction engineer, district engineer, department operations engineer, district director in Districts 3 and 1, and is now the Assistant Director of the Department and Chief State Highway Engineer. Director Findlay noted it's pretty clear that Howard just can't hold a job.

The Director humorously commented that Howard is known as the Department elf, but instead of green pointy shoes he just wears gaudy orange shirts every now and then. He appears out of nowhere, asks a question, then vanishes only to reappear to ask someone else the same question.

Besides being quick on his feet, Howard's wit is quick as well. Most of his comments are under his breath, that's why he sits at the end of the table opposite the Commission. Don Coleman of the Attorney General's office advised him that with some of his cracks it would be best if he was as far away from the Commissioners as possible.

Howard has two true loves at the Department: his telephone and paper. The Director said he looked in Howard's office the other day and counted 20 different stacks of paper, which is almost one for every hour of the day he spends at the office. His passion for the telephone is legendary. In his 35 years with the Department he's probably worn out more telephones than anybody. Other than telephones, though, Howard takes very good care of the Department's property. He did note, though, that Howard's car is the only one in the Motor Pool fleet that automatically veers toward any Maintenance Station in any part of the state.

Another one of Howard's passions is meetings. If he's on the phone he's probably arranging for a meeting. If he's not on the phone you can bet he's in a meeting.

Director Findlay said it is clear that Howard's blood runs orange. He is one of a kind at UDOT. He loves the Department, and the Department loves him. In his 35 years with the DOT, Howard is one of those individuals who has truly made a difference.

Chairman Taylor invited Howard's wife, Drue, to be with Howard to receive his service award, because he didn't think Howard was going to wear the necklace. He presented the necklace to Mr. and Mrs. Richardson and thanked Howard for all the wonderful years he has served the Department, and added he was glad it was a service award and not a retirement award.

Lloyd Lister, of District 2, was presented to the Commission by Letty Nott. Lloyd started working with UDOT in District 2 on July 1, 1962 as a heavy equipment operator. He transferred into District 2 Accounting in September 1966. In the following years Lloyd has become their most valuable accountant, in charge of their inventory. Letty said they could not survive the year end closing without Lloyd.

During his 30 years with UDOT, Lloyd has trained half a dozen District Directors. There is a saying about Lloyd, "Lloyd Lister is a District 2 blister, but like old blisters he will get better. " Everyone at the District really likes Lloyd because of his easygoing style and the fact he looks for only the good in people. Lloyd also keeps in contact with many retired employees of UDOT. Letty thanked Lloyd, on behalf of UDOT, for his 30 years of service, dedication and loyalty.

Vice-Chairman Wayne Winters expressed the Commission's appreciation for Lloyd's work. He presented him a pin for 30 years of service and congratulated him.

Paul Jewett from Standards & Review was presented to the Commission by Heber Vlam. Paul came to work in the summer of 1967 as a draftsman in Roadway Design. From 1969 to 1971 he worked-as a transportation technician in the Right-of-Way Division. in 1979 he was promoted to plans and contracts aide in the Review Section. In 1984 he was promoted to plans and contracts specialist.

Currently Paul has two responsibilities in the Standards & Review Division. As Support Services Coordinator he is responsible for purchasing, accounting and budgeting responsibilities. As Plans and Contracts Coordinator he administers the preparation and distribution of plans and specifications for review meetings and
for advertising. He also administers the preparation of bid abstracts so jobs can be awarded in a timely manner. His responsibilities require much skill and accuracy while working against tight, fixed schedules. It is a very difficult job. Any errors on Paul's part could result in delays advertising projects, increased costs, and possible contract claims. He is a tireless worker and very dedicated. He supervises a staff of four and Heber said he is very proud to be associated with him.

Vice-Chairman Winters said it was a pleasure to present Paul a belt buckle for 25 years of service. He expressed the Commission's appreciation for doing his job so well; it makes the Department able to function for the good of the entire State.

Jerry Sedlacek, of District 2 Preconstruction, was present to receive his 25-year service award. Tom Smith, District 2 Assistant Director, introduced Jerry to the Commission. Jerry started with UDOT on September 11, 1967. He has worked his entire career, other than a few short stints in Construction, in District 2 Preconstruction as a designer.

Jerry has worked hard to improve himself through schooling and training. In 1968 he started the HET Training*and completed it in 1973. He has passed the NICET test and has moved through the system. Jerry has been one of the first to become involved with the CADD System, and he does an excellent job. He has been involved with the design of many large projects with UDOT on 1-80, 1-15, 1-215 and other local roads. He is currently deeply involved with the design on 90th South from the Jordan River to Redwood Road.

Jerry enjoys the outdoors. He likes to hunt, fish, camp, play golf and enjoys archery. He is also a worldwide traveler. Over the years he's been to Canada, Mexico, England, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, France and Hawaii. A couple of weeks ago he and his wife won a trip and they plan to go to Europe. Jerry and his wife, Judy, have a son and two daughters, and three grandchildren of which he is very proud.

Vice-Chairman Winters said it has to be a good feeling to have worked on the number of projects that were mentioned, especially I215. He said he remembered when some of us thought we'd never live long enough to see it built, but we have. He said it's to Jerry's credit, and many others who work with him, that those projects have gotten out, and we now have a facility that is serving the public well. He presented a belt buckle to Jerry and thanked him for his service.

Burton Kunkel, a Construction Technician from District 1, was introduced to the Commission by Project Engineer Rod Terry for his 25-year service award. Mr. Terry commented that people like Burt have some of the most difficult jobs in the Department. All the work in Right-of-Way and Preconstruction is difficult, but Burt takes the end result of their work and deals with the contractors, who may or may not be savvy. He explains what is on the plans and specifications so the contractor can do the work, and do it right. Burt is an excellent example of what an inspector ought to be and has the qualities we want to see in all our inspectors. He is a little bit on the gruff and tough side, but extremely fair with contractors. He lets them know right away what the rules are. That way we get projects built that last.

Mr. Terry said Burt is one of the people everyone wants to have work with them on their project. He said they are very pleased to have Burt on their crew. He has an excellent safety record and always reminds other crew members about safety. Burt has wonderful values that carry over into his work and his home life. He is a real f amily man, he loves animals, and is an outdoorsman. He also has ties to agriculture in Utah which helps on jobs dealing with right-of-way acquisitions from people who didn't want to give up a piece of farmland. He has an ability to see things from their perspective which helps ease the situation.

Commissioner Todd Weston commented that, like Mr. Terry said, it is easy for Right-of -Way to write up the paperwork, but when you go take the property away from people, that is another story altogether, and he appreciated Burt's abilities. He presented him with a pin and expressed the Commission's appreciation for his 25 years of work, and also commented he hopes Burt stays on at District 1 for a while longer, because there's a chance we may get a road built from Box Elder County into Cache Valley.

Retirement Awards
Mark Musuris was introduced to the Commission by Clint Topham. Mark started with the Department 28 years ago, in 1964, on a survey crew as an instrument man working on 1-15 between downtown Salt Lake City and 5300 South. He was then assigned to the project on 1-80 between Grantsville and Burmester, after which he was promoted to project engineer and moved to the Uintah Basin, where he worked for two years.

In 1970 Mark returned to Salt Lake to work in Traffic & Safety under Alex Mansour. In 1972, he moved to the State Office Building where he began his work in design as a squad leader. During that time his squad designed the 1-70, Emery to Castle Rock project. In 1978 he became Chief Review Engineer for the Department. In 1979 he was promoted to the position of Plans and Estimates Engineer. Two years later, Mark became Engineer for Locations and Environmental Studies. He worked on the Draf t EIS for the West Valley Highway to 90th South, and also the archaeological excavation of the Fremont Indian ruins on 1-70 in Clear Creek Canyon. In September of 1984 he was named head of Traf f ic and Safety.

He moved into Transportation Planning after that, and chaired the Steering Committee that developed the Rest Area Study which was adopted by the Commission and is now being implemented. He also worked to restore the public meetings which the Commission holds in communities around the state.

Clint said he appreciated Mark's time and efforts in the Department and was grudgingly presenting him to the Commission for his retirement.

Chairman Taylor said it was grudgingly on his part as well, but anyone who spends as many years as Mark did in Traf f ic and Safety deserves to retire a little bit early. He said he appreciated the tip Mark gave him that it's always good to carry a 100 watt light bulb around in your traveling case because they never have a large enough bulb in your hotel room, and Mark also taught him that you have to learn to take a joke. Chairman Taylor presented Mark with his retirement pin for 28 years of service and wished him and his wife, Mary, a wonderful retirement and thanked him for all his years of good service.

Mark said it seemed like only yesterday when he started with the Department. He has had the opportunity to work in various offices and in different locations, and it was very exciting, challenging, and rewarding to have met so many nice people. He said it was difficult to make the decision to retire and leave behind all those acquaintances. He expressed his thanks to the Commission, and the wonderful employees of the Department who have made it so enjoyable for him.

Melbourne Wright was presented to the Commission by Dean Holbrook for his retirement after 28 years of service. He said Mel is going to leave a real void in the Right-of-Way Section. Mel started with the Highway Department in 1961 as the storekeeper chief. In 1966 he moved to the State Auditor's office in accounting, then he left the State for a year or so. He came back to UDOT into the Right-of-Way Section and served in accounting capacities. But, for most of his career in Right-of-Way he has been their abstracter, which is one of those jobs which quietly goes on behind the scenes. It involves going into County records to research titles to make certain we are getting clear title to all the properties we purchase. It is an integral and important part of the State's Right-of-Way operation. Mr. Holbrook said Mel has a better record than any title company in the State. He has been excellent in the research he has done and the title clearances he has given the DOT.

In 1973 Mel was chosen as the "Outstanding Employee" in the State Office Building. His love of the work and the people around him has been exemplified in his involvement with the United Way. He has headed that for Right-of-Way for many years and has done an excellent job.

Mr. Holbrook noted, however, that change is hard f or Mel. When electric typewriters came on the scene, he just wasn't going to convert. He retired from Right-of-Way still using his old manual typewriter, and as a parting gesture they made arrangements to give it to him.

Mel loves the outdoors. He has worked in Scouting and has been very active in his church. He is a family man who loves to get together with them. He always has a smile and a cheery word to say. Mr. Holbrook said he certainly is deserving of his retirement now, and wished him well.

Commissioner Winters joked that as generous as the Department was with the typewriter, it's too bad Mel didn't convert to computers a couple of months ago. He told Mel it was a real pleasure to present his retirement pin to him, and expressed the Commission's appreciation for all the work he and others do behind the scenes, that is so important to the Department.

Mel Wright said that in his career with the Department he has met many wonderful people. He said he has always tried to look for the positive in everyone. He is deeply grateful for the love and friendship he has been able to cultivate for everyone. Referring to 1973 when he won the "Outstanding Employee" award, Mel noted that was the year Chairman Sam Taylor was named as a member of the Transportation Commission, and commented the Commission and Executive staff of the Department over the past 19 have been wonderful men who have worked hard for UDOT. Mel said he was glad he had the privilege of working for the Department under the leadership of men of respectability and high morals.

Snow Removal in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons
Chairman Taylor recognized the Mayor of Alta, William Levitt, who had requested to talk about snow removal in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons.

Mayor Bill Levitt said he had an unusual reason to be at the meeting, and that was to say thanks, which we probably don't hear too often. He also mentioned that Chick Morton, President of Alta Lift Company, and Dick Bass, head of Snowbird, regretted they couldn't be there, but joined the Mayor in expressing their appreciation for the job that's been done by the Commission and Department staff. He, Mr. Bass and Mr. Morton have all had extensive experience in the Canyon--he has been there for 38 years-and they have all seen an incredible amount of change, all for the better.

He said in Little Cottonwood Canyon they have a very unique organization, called the Little Cottonwood Road Committee, which involves the private and public sectors working together. They have the Alta Lift Company and the businesses in Alta, the Snowbird Lift Company and the Snowbird businesses working together with the Town of Alta, Salt Lake County, and the Forest Service, under the leadership of the Utah Department of Transportation. All these people work together, doing a job cooperatively, efficiently and cost-effectively. He said it's important to take note of that fact because that cooperation has literally saved lives. When you think of the tens of thousands of people who travel that Canyon, one of the most hazardous roads in the state, it's an obvious reason why they want to say thanks.

Mayor Levitt introduced the following men to the Commission: Onno Wieringa, General Manager of the Alta Lift Company; Kent Hoopingarnar, President of Snowbird Corporation; John Loomis, Mountain Manager for Snowbird who will present a short slide show; and John Guldner, Administrative Assistant for the Town of Alta.

Mr. Kent Hoopingarnar said they were there to give everyone an idea of just exactly what the Department of Transportation does for them in Little Cottonwood Canyon. He said he has been involved in the Canyon since 1963, and all of them in their group have had the opportunity to see the evolution of what it takes to keep that road open.

Mr. Hoopingarnar said the Department of Transportation inherited the avalanche forecasting from the Forest Service in 1984. Everyone was worried about the liability, what was going to happen, and how they could do a better job. Briefly, avalanche forecasting involves collecting and documenting data on wind, temperature and the amount of snowfall and coming up with a daily plan to keep the highway open. He said they normally average over 500 inches of snowfall a year in the Canyon, although in the last six years they haven't. So, forecasting avalanche activity on the highway, and plowing and maintaining that highway, doing all this with an average rate of snowfall of 500 inches a year on a Class A avalanche area--meaning it experiences probably more avalanches than any stretch of highway in the United States--is an incredible job.

He projected some slides which showed Little Cottonwood Canyon from Alta, some avalanche areas, and results of avalanche damage. To emphasize the scope of the responsibility, he pointed out there are 47 major slide paths in Little Cottonwood Canyon and 23 minor slide paths. A number of methods of control are used, such as artillery and helicopter bombing. Needless to say, with all of the forecasting there is a tremendous consequence of being wrong.

He said public safety is their first concern in the Canyon. People from all over the world come to visit the Canyon, but fifty percent of the people in the Canyon are Utah residents. One of the larger impacts resulting from a mistake with the forecasting and snow removal, is the economic impact. They figure any forecasting mistakes which keep cars out of the canyon costs approximately $100 a car. If 500 cars, which is not unusual, don't make it up the canyon, that is $50,000 that doesn't make it into the parking lots to buy the hamburgers and ski lift tickets. There is a tremendous economic impact if forecasting and snow removal is not done on a timely basis. Mr. Hoopingarnar said between sales, property and room tax, Snowbird paid $4 million in taxes last year. Approximately the same amount came out of Alta. That does not ref lect the amount of money in tax from the people that stay in Salt Lake, it is just directly out of the Canyon.

Mr. Hoopingarnar stressed their dependency on the Department of Transportation during the winter months when they do the major portion of their business. He said whatever we do reflects economically on them. They deeply appreciate everything we do and hope we will continue to have the same cooperative relationship. He pointed out, though, that Snowbird and Alta are no longer just ski areas, but now have conventions and groups 12 months a year, with May and October being some of their heaviest months. So, access up and down the Canyon is a year-round project.

Mr. Onno Wieringa said they want to point out the uniqueness that Station 233 has in our organization. In 1985 UDOT took over the forecasting program from the Forest Service, which he feels was the oldest, least- state-of-the-art program in the country. He said we've brought it up to a very good state-of-the-art program. Bill Hale and his crew have done a wonderful job. He said he feels not everyone understands the unique situation of that Maintenance Station and the specialized personnel they have to train in the Canyon to carry on the forecasting and necessary control work. It is a 24-hour-a-day operation in the winter.

Mr. Wieringa stressed they were there to thank the Department for what they've done, but also to make sure we recognize that Station 233 doesn't fit into the mold of other stations. He felt the job Bill Hale and his crew have in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons was specialized and couldn't be handled by merely transferring somebody else in from another station. It requires knowledge about avalanches, forecasting, control work, the ammunition program and everything that goes along with it. He said he hopes we retain some flexibility for Station 233.

Chairman Taylor commented that in the early 180s when Jack Bonnet was still at Snowbird and served on the Environmental Council, he said the Forest Service had all kinds of avalanche experts and highly trained, college-educated people, but when you really wanted to know something about the potential for avalanches in Little Cottonwood Canyon you talked to Bill Hale. Many people don't realize the Canyons are not the only responsibility Bill's crew has. That station also handles highways in the Valley, including portions of Van Winkle and Foothill Boulevard clear up to the University of Utah campus, as well as the problems in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon.

Chairman Taylor said he appreciated their comments. He said a couple of years ago, when Bill lost about 80 or 90 years of experience in the Department's early retirement program, he was given replacements who had no experience whatever in snow removal. Bill had them running snowplows up and down the canyon in the middle of summer. When people asked what the snowplows were doing, Bill replied a little bit of diesel fuel is a pretty cheap way to train someone for what they were going to be facing in a couple of months. He said we owe Bill a debt of gratitude; we love him and appreciate him, and are going to rue the day he retires.

Financial Statements - May
Max Ditlevsen presented the May Financial Statement to the Commission. He gave them some comparative figures from a year ago so they could see the change.

In Motor Fuels Tax a year ago we were at $120.4 million compared to $125 million this year. In Special Fuels Tax we were at $34.9 million last year, which included the one-time acceleration of a collection on those taxes they have discussed for a number of months. If that is taken out we are still behind last year's level. Driver License Fees last year were at $6.1 million compared to $7.3, and in Vehicle Control Fees we were slightly over $1 million, compared to $2.5 million. The last two fees mentioned, as indicated in the Financial Statement notes, have had fee increases to produce the increased revenue this year.

Total Free Revenues a year ago were $190.7 million, compared to $196.5 million through 11 months this year. He said their information as of the end of this year, which they just got this week, shows our total Free Revenues just over $214 million, compared to what we budgeted at $209 million. We did better overall than we had anticipated.

Federal Reimbursement last year was $73.3 million, compared to $94.1. That is a reflection of the contracts that have been awarded and the level of work that has gone on in this current fiscal year. Regarding Sale of Fixed Assets, that reflects the number of auctions we've had on our heavy equipment.

Under Expenditures, our position has not changed from the last two months as we've talked about these things. Our year-end picture with just one more payroll to post, shows that all our programs, or at least the major line items, should come within budget. On those programs on page 2 which show deficits or unfavorable indications, we have Federal revenue adjustments which will cover those expenditure levels, so they are not a concern and we will come within budget for the year.

Max commented on the Fund Balance, which has been the subject of several deliberations with the Commission. He mentioned that Clint Topham. has been involved, discussing the State Construction Program and the direction we are taking to spend down those funds and award those contracts. He said the Fund Balance will be something we will concentrate on over time in the future.

Vice-Chairman Winters moved the Commission accept the report. Commissioner Larkin seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that:

Financial Statements for the period ended May 31, 1992, and included as part of these minutes, be approved as presented.

Right-of-Way Settlements Over $25,000
Dean Holbrook said there are five right-of-way settlements today. The first one is the total acquisition of the Pappas residential property. It is located at the SR-89 and SR-193 Interchange at Hill Field in the amount of $94,000. The second one is also a residential total acquisition on the same project for $95,000.

The third one is on the Nibley to Logan project. It is a home we now have to purchase due to the design criteria we had to make in front of this home. We came with a much higher fill than was originally programmed. It came very close to the home, making access practically impossible without a lot of rehabilitation. We agreed to just purchase the property. It is a total acquisition comprised of 2.371 acres of land, plus the home, for a total of $89,700.

Commissioner Weston asked if the home was movable. Mr. Holbrook responded it would be movable, but they think we can rehabilitate the access and resell it. He said we will lose some money, but they feel it will be the most economical way to handle it. He said they still have to look at it closely, but feel it is a viable possibility.

The fourth one is on the West Valley Highway. It is for vacant land at the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. It is 7.85 acres of land at $8,750 per acre. It is a little lower in per acre value than some of the property we have been purchasing there, but it does have a lot of problems with it which has resulted in a lower value. The property owner wanted a drainage pipe put in and we agreed we would put that in f or him as part of the construction, but it will be at their cost, and that's why the' $700 deduction is made in the overall settlement, with a net of $71,177.

The last settlement is the culmination of one that goes back to 1989. At that time the property owner did not want to get into the court posture, so we agreed to a Legal Right of Entry on that property. We paid him at that time what was our approved appraisal of $445,000. They placed the money in escrow, hoping that after the interchange was completed they could work out a trade of properties. After all appraisals were made for court purposes, our appraisal was $485,000. They did not feel that was enough at the time. But, now they have agreed to settle on $485,000 which is a net additional payment to them of $40,000.

Mr. Holbrook said we are now negotiating for the sale of our surplus tract for $2.6 million. A California party wants an option for that amount and others have also expressed interest. Commissioner Weston said not to put a very long option on it. it is very valuable property there. Are we planning to break it up? Mr. Holbrook responded that we are looking at the option of breaking it into smaller parcels. He said $1.7 to $1.8 million was the best offer we had received, but we would be tied up for a very long time with no real initial investment, so they felt it was not in our best interest.

Commissioner Weston requested that Right-of-Way take a good, strong look at it.

Commissioner Larkin moved the Commission approve the purchase of the right-of-way settlements as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weston and carried unanimously that:

The option be approved to purchase Parcel 14:A and 14:ST on Project No. F-030(9) SR-89 and SR-193 Interchange, located at 2885 North, Highway 89, Layton, from owners Kotcho P. Pappas and Margareta K. Pappas in the amount of $94,000, and

The option be approved to purchase Parcel 46:A and 46:ST on Project No. F-030(9) SR-89 and SR-193 Interchange, located at 7974 South 2625 East, South Weber, from owners Larry G. and Stacie Patterson in the amount of $95,000, and

The option be approved to purchase Parcel 14:ST on Project No. RS-0540(l) Nibley to Logan, located at 4030 South Main Street, Nibley, from owner James Lynn Spindler in the amount of $89,700, and

The option be approved to purchase Parcel 3:A, S, E, 2E on Project No. NM-1005(4) West Valley Highway, 5400 South to 7800 South, located at 5890 South 3700 West, from owner Central Utah Water Conservancy District in the amount of $71,177, and

The option be approved to purchase parcel I:I:A on Project No. IR-15-1(39)7 East St. George Interchange, from owner Boyd J. Brown in the amount of $485,000, of which $445,000 was previously paid under a Legal Right of Entry, leaving a net payment of $40,000.

Book Cliffs/Seep Ridge Road, Redesignation of US-191
Mayor RoJean Addley of Duchesne addressed the Commission and stated she had been unaware the Commission had considered changing the designation of US-191 from Indian Canyon to the Seep Ridge Road if that road is ever built. She said she wanted to express her concern for Duchesne City and Duchesne County if that does happen. She pointed out she was not protesting the Seep Ridge Road, but that road will take quite a bit of traffic from the Indian Canyon Road. They receive a lot of traffic and much economic benefit from that road and are very concerned that the Commission would consider changing that designation from Indian Canyon to the Seep Ridge Road. Indian Canyon is a designated Scenic Byway. If the Commission does consider changing the designation they would like to know so they could have some input.

Chairman Taylor responded to the Mayor with some background information on the issue, and said he is not defending either position. When San Juan County Commissioner Calvin Black was the driving force behind getting US-191 designated from Mexico to Canada, one of the greatest difficulties he had with the AASHTO Numbering Committee was the very large dogleg in US-191 by using the Indian Canyon segment. Because of its grade, it was almost too extreme for a Primary highway anyway.

The Chairman said a number of years ago we did a highway classification study. We employed the consulting firm of Wilber Smith to do a survey of our highway needs to determine which roads should be State roads, which should be county, which should be local, and which roads should be added to the system to clear up deficiencies in our statewide highway infrastructure. One of their principal recommendations was that the dogleg in US-191 be straightened out by the construction of a road over the Book Cliffs between Grand County and Uintah County. He said he was surprised when they independently came up with that recommendation.

Chairman Taylor said when Grand County and Uintah County did come before the Commission to seek their approval to pave the road if the counties brought it up to grade with their own funding, the Commission did make that change in designation as part of that motion. He told the Mayor she must u nderstand that Grand and Uintah Counties have a lot of years ahead of them, not only in completing their environmental studies and getting them approved, which is going to be a considerable feat, but in funding their portion of that road which could run $40 million to $50 million. He said our estimates of paving it are right now standing at $40 million. There is no way we could fund that even over a period of two or three years; it would take longer than that. He stressed there would be no change in highway designation until that road is completely paved and open to general traffic.

Mayor Addley said she understands that and realizes it is going to take some time. However, she said they would like to be on record, and she would like the Commission to know they were not aware that it had ever been considered to change the designation. They are concerned because it is a good economic benefit to Duchesne County and they would certainly hate to see that changed. She reiterated they want to go on record to let the Commission know of their concerns for that. If the redesignation issue comes around they want to be made aware of it.

Planning and Programming - Increase in Funding
US-40, Silver Creek Jct. to Park City Jct.
South Kanosh, 1-15 to Kanosh Town
1-70, North Cisco to Westwater
Aneth to Ismay, Phase II
Clint Topham said there are four projects before the Commission today, two of which are State projects, two are local government projects, and all of them Federal-aid projects.

Concerning US-40 from 1-80 to Park City Jct., Mr. Topham commented that project has been redesigned about three different times. It was almost ready to advertise last fall, but when it did not go it was reworked and some major changes were made in design this summer. That project is ready to be advertised in one week, on the 25th of July. The final engineer's estimate is about $2.9 million higher than what has been approved by the Commission to date. In order for it to be advertised they need Commission approval to increase the funding.

The second project is a local government project, South Kanosh to the Interchange at Kanosh Town. When they got into the final design they found some vertical and horizontal curves which did not meet AASHTO standards and they needed to be flattened. That increased the cost of the project by $387,000. He indicated this has been before the Joint Highway Committee. It was developed under the old Federal-aid Secondary Program. At that time this county had enough of the Federal-aid Secondary credits to handle this cost increase. When the new Highway Bill came out that made it so it's under a different funding program but everyone felt like they had developed the project in good faith under that old system and that this cost increase should be improved.

The 1-70 projects is being advertised under advance construction. The cost estimate on it is a half million dollars over what has been approved by the Commission.

The fourth one is a local government project by San Juan County on Aneth to Ismay. This project is in cooperation with another one being done at the same time by the Indian Tribe down there through Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funds. This has also been to the Joint Highway Committee and they have given their stamp of approval to increase the project cost on it by $382,000 of STP funds.

Vice-Chairman Winters moved to approve the cost increases on the projects as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously that:

Funding be increased on Project STP-0040(15)0 US-40, Silver Creek Jct. to Park City Jct. , in the amount of $2,936,195 in Federal-aid funds, added to the $11 million already approved for a total cost of $13,936,195, and

Funding be increased on Project STP-L035(l) South Kanosh, 1-15 Interchange to Kanosh Town, in the amount of $387,114 in Federal-aid funds, added to the $952,693 already approved for a total cost of $1,339,807, and

Funding be increased on Project IM-70-4(36)212 1-70, North Cisco to Westwater, in the amount of $503,404 in Federal-aid funds, added to the $6,700,000 already approved for a total cost of $7,203,404, and

Funding be increased on Project STP-Lll6(1)2 Aneth to Ismay, Phase II, in the amount of $382,919 in Federal-aid funds, added to the $1,720,000 already approved for a total cost of $2,102,919.

Planning and Programming
Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Program, FTA 16(b)(2)
Clint Topham presented the Federal Transit Administration
16(b)(2), Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Program for the year to the Commission. He indicated there are about $314,000 worth of Federal funds in that program this year and pointed out the list of projects they are recommending.

Clint said a committee made up of the elderly and handicapped community from throughout the State recommends the priorities. They had about twice as many applications this year as normal, but they have a rating system they go through and the projects presented are their highest priorities.

Commissioner Weston moved for approval of the Program. Commissioner Larkin seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that:

Approval be granted for the FTA 16(b)(2), Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Program for Fiscal Year 1992 in the amount of $313,731 in Federal-aid funds.

Policy for Commission Action
No. 11-123, Overhead School Flashers
Dave Miles indicated this is a proposed policy and explained that flashers, in this case, means flashing lights. He pointed out he also distributed a standard drawing which indicates how the lights would be installed.

Mr. Miles told the Commission that over the last several years there has been a growing demand on multi-lane roads to use some overhead flashing lights for school zones where we've reduced the speed limit. The problem is that large vehicles frequently block the view of the ground-mounted signs on the right side of the road. A number of local government agencies have started installing these flashers, and in the last year or so we have a lot of pressure to use them on some of our facilities.

The Policy would allow the flashing lights if three things happen: 1) If it's a multi-lane road, 2) If it is a designated school route according to the new Rules and Regulations on School Crossings, and 3) If the point system on the second page of this Policy is satisfied. This would be a fairly easy criteria to meet. It would require three points on any combination listed of the posted speed limit and the number of approach lanes.

Mr. Miles said the Traffic Engineering Panel has reviewed the Policy and they recommend it to the Commission. The cost of the flashers would vary depending on the type of installation, but it's estimated they would range between $5,000 and $10,000. The Policy requires the local government to participate in half the cost per pair.

Commissioner Weston asked what the average cost is of the ground-mounted installations we now use. Mr. Miles informed him they cost about $2,000. Commissioner Weston then referred to the local entity and inquired if we specify who picks up that other cost. Is it a combination of school, or city, or what?

Howard Richardson responded and referred to paragraph 4(e) on the first page of the Policy, which states, 11 . . . The balance of funding will come from local agencies, school districts, or private sources." Sheldon McConkie clarified it can be any of those that want to get together on it.

Commissioner Weston commented that if the locals can't get together, that means it just doesn't happen, is that right?

Clint asked for clarification on the number of lanes and asked if we are talking about two lanes in each direction, and Dave Miles affirmed that was correct.

Sheldon McConkie stated there were two other points of which the Commission should be aware. The last sentence in paragraph 4 (e) states, ". . The Department will not contribute to the cost of an overhead school flasher for new schools." If a new school is built and imposes on an existing system we are not assuming responsibility.

Commissioner Winters said that puts us in a position where we should notify school districts. If they are building a school where something of this sort would be required, they are going to have to include it in their building plans and, therefore, they should contact someone from the Department to make a determination as to whether that should be included in their contract.

Mr. McConkie concurred that if action is taken on this Policy, notice should be sent out, and, of course, the same thing applies for the overhead crossings.

Mr. McConkie continued that the second thing he wanted to point out is under "Criteria" on page 2 where it states, overhead school flashers shall not be installed at signalized intersections." It overloads the intersection too much.

Commissioner Winters asked if the Policy would allow a school zone sign to be on a signalized intersection, or are there sufficient other signs so that isn't necessary.

Dave Miles responded that the Rules and Regulations we passed would normally cover that. The signing could be there, but ground mounted on the right side of the road. We would not put a school sign on the signal mast arm.

Director Findlay asked if we have to take this Policy to Administrative Rulemaking.

Sheldon McConkie said he presumes we would. He said we haven't had official determination on that, but it does affect the public, so he assumes we would.

Director Findlay asked for clarification of the first sentence of the Policy where it states, "This policy has been prepared by the Traffic Engineering Panel and has been approved by the Executive Director of the Department.,, Shouldn't " Executive Director of the Department" be changed to "Transportation Commission?"

Commissioner Winters moved the Policy be approved subject to that change and to Administrative Rulemaking Requirements. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

Policy No. 07-123, Overhead School Flashers, be adopted as presented, but subject to changing "Director of the Department" to "Transportation Commission" in the first sentence, and subject to Administrative Rulemaking requirements.

Resolution
SP-0209(3)8, Widening and Im-provements to 9000 South from State Street to 700 East, Salt Lake County
Dyke LeFevre informed the Commission that at the public hearing for this particular project the preferred alternative was moving the alignment to the north and moving the houses on the north. That was pretty well approved, but one suggestion came out in the public hearing that, since we were moving all the houses it would leave quite a space on the north side. Why not move the road over more to provide a buffer on the south side of the road? That was incorporated into the resolution, so that both sides of the road will have a buffer between the residences and the traffic that will allow room for some sidewalks and landscaping.

Commissioner Weston asked how many homes they were talking about. Mr. LeFevre responded that 32 homes and two businesses were being affected.

Howard Richardson added that there would be some transitions at each end, because at the terminal ends we would be blocked in and would have to match the existing road.

Dyke said if you look through the proposal it shows the transitions on each end; providing turning lanes and everything we need at the intersections to make them function properly.

Commissioner Winters asked if it would straighten 300 East a little bit over what it is now, rather than an offset intersection.

Tom Smith said Sandy City has also committed to providing the extra property in the buffer zone and they will maintain it.

Commissioner Winters stated he conducted the hearing on this project. He said the resolution is consistent with what Was discussed, plus the modifications that Dyke had explained. He moved the resolution be approved as presented. Commissioner Weston seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that the following resolution be adopted:

R E S 0 L U T 1 0 N
Proposed Widening and Improvements to 9000 South Street
from state Street to 700 East Street
in Sandy City, Salt Lake County, Utah
Project No. SP-0209(3)8
(Formerly NF-66(5)

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a combined public hearing was held at the Jordan High School on January 21, 1992 to discuss the location and design features of the proposed project which includes the acquisition of additional right-of-way involving up to 32 homes and two businesses for a total right-ofway width of 106 feet to ultimately provide for six through lanes without shoulders (the road would initially be striped for four lanes with shoulders until traffic demands increase), a center left-turn lane and curb, gutter and sidewalk on each side, and

WHEREAS, location, design, environmental aspects of the project and the State's Relocation Assistance Program were discussed at the hearing, and

WHEREAS, as a result of the public hearing, the preferred alternative presented at the hearing, identified as the North Alternative, and described in the environmental documentation has been modified to shift the alignment an additional 20 feet northward to create a buffer zone for the homes on the south side of the road, and this modified North Alternative described and attached hereto has been presented to and been recommended by Sandy City, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing and the social, economic, environmental and other effects of the proposed route;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation Commission concurs and adopts the location and design features of the proposed project as modified as a result of the public input obtained at the public hearing.

Dated on this 17th day of July, 1992.

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/Samuel J. Taylor, Chairman
/s/Wayne S. Winters, vice-Chairman
/s/Todd G. Weston, Commissioner
/s/James G. Larkin, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Resolution
SR-0040( )159, Replacement of Green River Bridge at Jensen in
Uintah County

Dyke LeFevre said this resolution is in conformance with the hearing that was held. There were no changes recommended from the hearing. They had very good consensus of the proposal.

The new bridge will be built south of the existing bridge as closely as possible to it. While the new bridge is being constructed the present bridge will carry the traffic, so there will be very little traffic interference during construction. There are some adjustment to the alignment. On the east side as it climbs up to a higher elevation there are some changes to improve that alignment. On the west side the alignment changes to meet the new bridge.

Dyke referred to the letter attached to the resolution, which mentions some monuments that would be moved and redirected to some other areas as part of the contract.

Chairman Taylor asked if it is still planned to rehabilitate old Highway 40 until they abandon the east side dugway during construction, and use that as a detour. Dyke affirmed that was correct. The Chairman said that looked like a good idea and would simplify construction in that canyon.

Commissioner Larkin moved that the resolution be approved as presented. Commissioner Weston seconded the motion and it carried unanimously that the following resolution be adopted:

R E S 0 L U T 1 0 N
Proposed Replacement of the Green River Bridge at Jensen
in Uintah County, Utah
Project No. SP-0040( )159
[Formerly F-BRF-015(8)]

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a combined public hearing was held in the Uintah County Courthouse on April 30, 1992 to discuss the location and design features and the environmental effects of the proposed replacement of the existing bridge on US Highway 40 crossing the Green River and the realignment and reconstruction of approximately 1-1/2 miles of US Highway 40 to accommodate the new structure, and

WHEREAS, location, design and environmental aspects of the project and the alternatives considered were discussed at the hearing, and

WHEREAS, those attending the hearing were generally aware-of the necessity for and in favor of the project, but expressed concerns regarding two historical monuments and the Vernal Welcome Center, which are addressed in the attached memo from District Six, and

WHEREAS, as a result of the public hearing, there have been no changes, other than those noted in the attached memo, to the proposed alternative, which involves building the new bridge south of and as close as feasible to the existing bridge, thus eliminating the need for a detour or temporary bridge during construction, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing and the social, economic, environmental and other effects of the proposed route;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation commission concurs and adopts the location and design features of the proposed project as modified as a result of the public hearing.

Dated on this 17th day of July, 1992.

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/Samuel J. Taylor, Chairman
/s/Wayne S. Winters, Vice-Chairman
/s/Todd G. Weston, Commissioner
/s/James G. Larkin, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Resolution
1-15-6 (1) 275, Relinquishment of State Road Project in American Fork
Clint Topham, said the Department has received a request to transfer about 1,000 feet of road in American Fork City to that city. It was built as part of the freeway construction down there many years ago. He explained this is really an official paper transaction, because the road has been serving as a city street all along. This is merely to validate what has actually happened there.

Commissioner Winters asked what piece of road it is, and Clint responded he was not exactly sure.

Alan Mecham from District 6 said he thinks it is where Main Street connects into 1-15 on the northwest quadrant. It is a piece of road that is actually a local road, but it's still under our jurisdiction. We weren't aware of that until someone came in to the District to ask for a permit to do something on that road and we told them they could do whatever the city would allow them to do. They informed us it was still a State road. We checked on 'it, and they were correct.

Commissioner Winters said he can't picture where it might be and asked Alan to check on the exact location and let him know.

Commissioner Weston asked if American Fork City is aware of it and Clint Topham affirmed they were and they were agreeable to it.

Clint stated they usually have a map and the city's letter accepting it. That's not in the agenda packets, but it is part of the resolution. He said if the Commission preferred, they would bring it back to them another time.

Commissioner Winters moved for approval of the resolution. Commissioner Larkin seconded the motion and it carried unanimously that the following resolution be adopted:

R E S 0 L U T 1 0 N
Relinquishment of State Constructed Service Road
Project No. 1-15-6(1)275
Parcel No. 234, 234B, and 234D
American Fork

WHEREAS, Sections 27-12-97, and 27-12-102 of the Utah Code 1991 provide for the disposal of unused rights-of-way, also abandonment of easement or vacation of highway, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Department of Transportation having procured parcels of land through Warranty Deeds and Condemnation Proceedings which includes Parcels 234, 234B and 234D, Project Number 1-156(1)275, and

WHEREAS, roadway residing within stated parcels no longer serves the purpose to which it was constructed, and

WHEREAS, the officials of American Fork City have requested the Utah Department of Transportation relinquish the stated parcels to their jurisdiction, and

WHEREAS, the District 6 Director recommends the Utah Department of Transportation relinquish stated parcels to the officials of American Fork City, and

WHEREAS, the appropriate staff of the Transportation Planning Division have reviewed all appropriate documents related to procurement and relinquishment of stated parcels, and concur with stated relinquishments.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:

1. A service road constructed as part of Project No. 1-15-6(1)275 traversing northwesterly through parcels numbered 234, 234B, and 234D a distance of 1.18+ miles be relinquished to the jurisdiction of American Fork City.

2. This roadway will be Functionally Classified Local Road.

3. This resolution will be actuated upon approval of the Transportation Commission.

4. The accompanying memorandum, final order of condemnation, warranty deeds and map be made part of this resolution.

Dated on this 17th day of July, 1992.

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/Samuel J. Taylor, Chairman
/s/Wayne S. Winters, Vice-Chairman
/s/Todd G. Weston, Commissioner
/s/James G. Larkin, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Resolution
Outdoor Advertisment on Scenic Byways
Chairman Taylor said the resolution on Outdoor Advertising on Scenic Byways is going to be deferred. As a result of discussions yesterday about the Scenic Byway System, the staff has worked up a substitute resolution which answers many of the negative comments he had about the resolution. He said Dyke LeFevre informed him they will need a little bit of time to determine whether the newest resolution, which had just been prepared that day, is legal. The Chairman asked that action be deferred until the August 7th meeting.

Resolution
Use of Single Tires on "Permitted Vehicles" and Oversize Permits for Combinations of Vehicles Exceeding 92 Feet in Length
Chairman Taylor indicated that the resolution on the muchdiscussed issue of single tires on permitted vehicles will also be deferred. He said he and the other Commissioners had received four or five different resolutions on this particular issue. They've received a lot of correspondence, heard many comments from the Commission Meeting a month ago, and a lot more comments when they went down and actually toured a number of the coal haul roads in Carbon and Emery Counties.

He explained that yesterday morning the Motor Vehicle Advisory Committee had met and they made a number of revisions to the last resolution. There is some question as to whether or not those changes can be acted on at this time without checking as -to legality. He commented he knows there are many people at the meeting who have been waiting to hear the issue decided. He knows there are some who feel the Commission could pass a resolution and amend it later. It is his personal feeling they shouldn't take action on a resolution until they are satisfied with it. He asked that this item be deferred for a period of thirty days to give the staff and the Motor Vehicle Advisory Committee ample time to research the latest revisions, and any further revisions they might make, as to legality.

Commissioner Weston stated he would like to give anyone at the meeting who is involved with the issue an opportunity to make a statement. He concurred with the Chairman that they not act on it at the present time, but if anyone wanted to make a statement that would help the Commission in their preparation, please do so.

Chairman Taylor recognized James Jensen who represents Savage Industries, and Dave Free, Chairman of the Motor Vehicle Advisory Committee and said it would be good to hear from both of them.

Mr. James T. Jensen, said they appeared at the Motor Vehicle Advisory Committee Meeting yesterday. He said the Commission needs to know they have had meetings with UDOT staff, trying to see if there is a way this matter can be resolved that, hopefully, would be a win/win situation for everyone. That would be ideal. He wants them to know that at Savage they support that approach and that attitude.

With respect to the resolution to extend the length of the equipment, he said he thinks it would be helpful for the Commission to know that it does not help the coal industry and does not help trucks, particularly Savage's, and some of the other trucks that run, because they are already maxed out at 129,000 pounds. So, simply extending from 92 feet to 96 feet does not gain anything. They have suggested that the weight cap be increased from 129,000 pounds to 132,000 pounds for an 11-axle unit, and there be a corresponding increase for axle units less than that.

The reason and the thinking for that is, to add the additional tires and to extend the tongue length would add approximately 1,500 pounds to their tridem unit. That is 1,500 pounds of dead weight. If they could go to 3,000 pounds of total increase that would give them 1,500 pounds additional surplus carrying capacity and that is incentive enough for them to immediately spend the money and convert their f leet just as soon as they can buy the tires and wheels and do the extensions, and convert their fleet away from the narrow single tire. The payback on that takes quite some time. He noted they have indicated to the Commission, and believes substantiated it to UDOT staff, their cost of conversion would be approximately $660,000.

He said it really would be a win/win situation if they can raise that cap, because for the tridem. unit at 132,000 pounds of weight the maximum tire weight per inch of width would be 335 pounds. He said they would really be lightening up the tire loading if they can get to the 132,000. He said their real preference would be to try to preserve their tridem unit as it exists. Of course, the reason for that is there's not expenditure of money. They just keep on conducting business as usual. But, they are very cognizant of the desire and perhaps the need to make this type of conversion. If they can get to 132,000 pounds they are very supportive.

Mr. Jensen said, looking at the Federal bridge formula, it appears that the 96-foot unit could actually go to 137,000 pounds if you can meet the inner bridge, and so 132,000 is still considerably below what the Federal formula would allow. He said they need 132,000 pounds and they need the 96 feet, not for the total length on the Federal bridge, but they fight an inner bridge problem. So that would work for them.

Howard Richardson asked them what would be a reasonable conversion time? Mr. Jensen responded if it goes to 132,000 pounds the incentive is there for them, because they get another 1,500 pounds. They would convert just as fast as they buy the tires and wheels and tongues. He said he frankly thinks we would probably see them convert their entire fleet within the year, because the incentive is there.

Mr. Dave Free said he would like to say a few words, but first recognized Mr. Kevin Birrell from Coastal. Mr. Free said the statement has been made that the coal industry hasn't been involved in this. He thinks Kevin has been very much involved and would like him to speak first.

Mr. Kevin Birrell said they would like to point out that currently they are using a bunch of the 10-axle units, and they also hire Savage who uses 11-axle units. The 10-axle units will benefit by stretching them out to 96 feet. He said he doesn't think that was made clear. However, there is no benef it to be gained on the inner bridge formula by raising or doing anything with the cap. If the cap is raised, he said we need to take a look at what will benefit all of the truckers involved across the industry. What they are asking is that the Commission try to make all of the truckers whole with respect to the increase in dead weight.

Mr. Dave Free commented on the Motor Carrier Advisory Committee Meeting yesterday, and said the Commission had the revised resolution in their agenda packets that the Committee unanimously approved. He said they recognize it doesn't make everybody happy, but the resolution is one that there was full concurrence with the industry, with the Department people, and so forth. Recognizing what the Commission has already stated in this morning's meeting, Mr. Free would still be willing to urge them-to pass that resolution.

He said the Motor Vehicle Advisory Committee yesterday did agree to look at these other suggestions that have come up. However, there is not unanimity on those at this time. There has been a lot of time and effort put in by a lot of people--people in the Department, their Committee, and the Utah Motor Transport Association--in bringing this to a compromise position. Everyone is in agreement on the resolution that is before the Commission today. He pointed out there were some corrections made to the resolution yesterday at their Committee meeting.

Mr. Free explained there were two of their Committee members who were unable to be at the meeting the day bef ore. Thayne Robson was in Park City giving a talk, and Wes McKnight was up in the High Uintas. He said he did have an opportunity to talk with Thayne and FAX him a copy of the resolution. Thayne called him back and advised him that he, too, supported it 100 percent. Mr. McKnight had done the same prior to his leaving. So, it was a unanimous, full Committee that voted.

He said he appreciates the Commission's understanding and help in working with them. If there is anything their Committee can do to further help, let them know.

Chairman Taylor said he expressed yesterday to Glenn Goodrich, and asked him to pass along to Dave Free and the Committee members, the appreciation of the Commission for all the volunteer time they put in on the Commission's behalf.

Commissioner Winters asked Mr. Free if he would tell him the changes that were made to the resolution in their meeting yesterday. Mr. Free responded that item number 2 reads, "Vehicle combinations between 92 and 96 feet in length will be limited to a tractor/truck and two trailers.,, The original one said ". . . a tractor and two trailers." That was amended to show the "truck/ tractor." On the first page, the fourth "Whereas" was changed. The original one read, "Whereas there is significant evidence showing that the use of single tires on heavy vehicles results in substantial distress to highway pavements in the form of increased fatigue and rutting," the word "narrow" was added so it reads, ".
. narrow tires on heavy vehicles . . . 11 on item number 15, in the original one the words in the parentheses read '(more than 141, wide)." The revised one reads "(14" or greater in width)." Basically the wide base tire is considered 14 inches or greater, so that was changed.

Commissioner Weston referred to item 2, where they talked about including a truck with a tractor; is that slash between tractor/truck clear enough to everybody that they understand what we are talking about? He asked Mr. Free if he felt like it was clear.

Mr. Free explained what it meant. Commissioner Weston said he understands it; he just wants to make certain everybody in the industry does.

Glenn Goodrich commented that we could say tractor "or" trailer. The Attorney General didn't seem to have any problem with the slash.

Commissioner Winters suggested they simply insert the word "or" instead of the slash. Commissioner Weston said he thinks that would make it more clear. Mr. Goodrich and Mr. Free both agreed that was a good point for clarification.

Federal Lands Program Update
Clint Topham, referred to a few months ago when they had their meeting with the Forest Service and Federal Lands people, they brought to the Commission a glowing report of the Federal Lands Program and the fact that there were increased funds in that program, and Utah was one of the states designated to receive preferential treatment.

Clint explained they have found out that under the new law, any money we receive as a grant under the Federal Lands P rogram, like the $4 million we received this year for the Wolf Creek Pass project, is deducted the next year from the hold harmless part of our STP funds. He said we get just exactly nothing for the effort we make in applying for and receiving Federal Lands Funds. As a result of that, they have withdrawn their applications for two Federal Lands grants for next year. He said, however, they felt the project on Wolf Creek Pass was far enough along in its design and nearly ready to be advertised, so they would let that one go.

Clint reported he has already received what they propose to apportion to us for next year, and we have already seen a reduction. Of the $17 million in that hold harmless category that came into the STP funds, $4 million has been taken out and it will be reduced to $13 million next year. It might be reduced even further because they have changed the formula on the Bridge Replacement Program to where Utah will receive more money in the Bridge Replacement Fund. But, whatever we get increased in the Bridge Replacement Fund will also come out of the hold harmless amount.

Chairman Taylor asked how many phases we had set up for Wolf Creek. Clint responded it depends on whether we get those grants or not. He said it is about a $12 million to $13 million project. With the $4 million we have this year, plus the Forest Highway Funds that we have built up, we would be able to do about half of it. If we have to use just the Forest Highway Funds, which are about $2 million a year, you can see it's going to take another three years to complete it rather than just one more year.

Vice-Chairman Winters asked if the Forest Highway Funds also comes out of our apportionment and Clint told him they did not. Forest Highway Funds are separate. He then clarified they are part of our apportionment, but it's the Federal Lands part that was a grant. Forest Highway Funds are given to us by formula and that is about $2 million a year.

Howard Richardson commented that was about one-third of the total amount that we would ordinarily expect to get, anticipating Public Lands money, so that means it would take about three times as long to complete a project.

Chairman Taylor said that is the only way we can do the project, by using the Forest Highway money.

Clint said he has drafted a letter for Director Findlay's signature, or for the Commission's signature if they would like, to our congressional delegation pointing this out to them. We feel this was an error in the legislation and that we should work on getting it amended in the Legislature.

Chairman Taylor asked him to make it for both of their signatures.

Commissioner Weston asked if the Forest Service is aware of it. Clint responded that they hadn't been, but they are now. They were made aware of it at the WASHTO Convention. Commissioner Weston said they should also be writing some letters. Clint suggested that our Direct Federal people in Denver would be more concerned than the Forest Service people are.

Commissioner Weston said it essentially stops the project if we don't get the other moneys, so they should be just as interested as we are, if they are interested in Forest highways.

Revised User Manual, Utah Regulations for Lecral and Permitted Vehicles

Glenn Goodrich said that approximately one year ago the Federal Highway Administration requested we revise the User Manual and include all changes that have taken place since the last revision; changes that have taken place by way of resolution, Code changes, statute, or adoption of Federal Notices.

He said Kirk Waldron with the task force did this rather extensive revision. It was distributed two months ago for survey by the Commission and staff and they are ready now to publish it, effective September 1, and would like the Commission's approval'to do so.

Glenn said the changes are to bring all changes under one cover. There is no substantive change in law, therefore, it does not require Rulemaking.

Vice-Chairman Winters made a motion to approve the revised User Manual. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

The Revised User Manual, Utah Regulations for Legal and Permitted Vehicles be approved as submitted.

Spanish Fork Inclusion in Provo Urban Area

Clint Topham referred to a previous Commission Meeting when Small Urban and Urbanized Area funds were discussed. He said they talked about whether Spanish Fork should be included in the Provo area or with the other Small Urban Areas. He said they have received a letter from Spanish Fork requesting that they be included in the Provo/Orem Urbanized Area.

Clint said as they read the minutes of the Commission Meeting, the Commission didn't object to them going either way. But, he said they wanted to bring it to the Commission's attention to make sure there was no problem including them in the Provo/Orem Urbanized Area for their funding.

Commissioner Winters moved that approval be given for the inclusion of Spanish Fork in the Provo Urban area. Commissioner Weston seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that:

Approval be granted to include Spanish Fork in the Provo/Orem Urbanized Area for funding.

Next Commission Meeting
Chairman Taylor said the next Commission Meeting will be on Friday, August 7th in Salt Lake. He said he would like the Commission, Director Findlay, Assistant Director Richardson and Planning and Programming staff to be available at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 6th for a special meeting with the Utah Transit Authority.

The following Commission Meeting will be on Friday, August 21st in Salt Lake. A Scheduling Meeting will be held the afternoon before, on Thursday, August 20th at 3:00 p.m.

Clint Topham reminded the Commission that there will be a programming meeting in Park City on July 30th and 31st.

The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Following is a list of Commission and Staff members who were present:

Samuel J. Taylor, Chairman
Wayne S. Winters, Vice-Chairman
Todd G. Weston, Commissioner
James G. Larkin, 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
George Thompson, Policy & Systems Planning
Mark Musuris, Policy & Systems Planning
John Quick, Policy & Systems Planning
Dyke M. LeFevre, Engineer for Preconstruction
Dean Holbrook, Chief, Right-of-Way Division
Mel Wright, Right-of-Way
Sheldon W. McConkie, Engineer for operations
Glenn B. Goodrich, Administrator, Ports of Entry
Kirk Waldron, Director, Ports of Entry
Kevin Beckstrom, Community Relations
Max J. Ditlevsen, Comptroller
Stephen C. Reitz, Internal Auditor
Les Jester, Engineer for Maintenance
Dave Miles, Engineer for Traffic & Safety
Fred Lewis, Traffic & Safety
Gene Sturzenegger, District 2 Director
Tom Smith, District 2 Asst. Director
Letty Nott, District 2
Jerry Sedlacek, District 2
Alan W. Mecham, Acting District 6 Director
Heber Vlam, Standards & Review
Paul Jewett, Standards & Review
Rodney Terry, District 1
Burton Kunkel, District 1
Don Steinke, Division Administrator, FHWA
Dave Free, Motor Carrier Advisory Committee
Reed Reeve, Utah Motor Transport Association
Jim Greener, Utah Railroad Association