Utah Transportation Commission
November 16, 2004
Salt Lake City, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at the UDOT Rampton Complex – Large Conference Room, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, was called to order at 9:08 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He introduced the Commission and welcomed those attending.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Wells moved to approve the minutes of the October 22, 2004, Commission meeting held in Moab, Utah. Commissioner Lewis seconded the motion and the minutes were approved.

Public Comments
There were not public comments at this time.

Wolf Creek Pass Discussion
Tracy Conti, Region Three Director, reminded the Commission that at the May meeting, someone had asked about the possibilities of keeping Wolf Creek Pass open year round. Traditionally, the pass is closed around the first of December and opened mid May, but the Commission directed the region to look at the costs associated with keeping the pass open, and any benefits that might be seen. Currently, the Tabiona Station is budgeted $20,000 to push snow until December 1st and reopen it in the spring, when a blower is brought in to blow the snow. Because of an abnormally wet October, they have already spent about $22,000 this year. Mr. Conti said that in order to keep Wolf Creek Pass open, the start up costs would be $850,000, which includes purchasing new equipment. The annual costs are calculated at $250,000. User costs were calculated using 254 cars per day. Because the pass isn’t kept open in the winter, it was difficult to get a good traffic count. They used a Tuesday in June to get that number, and the user costs to the residents came to about $185,000. That was using the normal $13.00 per hour of people’s time. All of this data was presented in October at a Tabiona City Council meeting, which was very well attended. A lot of the residents would like to see the pass open year round; the recreationalists would prefer to see it closed, as has been done in the past. The commitment made by the Region at that meeting was to try and keep the pass open as long as possible to benefit the residents, instead of closing it on December 1st regardless of whether there was snow or not. The recreationalists would prefer to see it closed on November 15th because part of their grooming operation crosses the road. As for the spring commitment, the region would get the snow blower up there as soon as they know more snow won't be coming. Mr. Conti said that in looking strictly at cost benefit, the annual cost to keep Wolf Creek Pass open is $150,000 more than the benefit. He then explained the study results in more detail. Commissioner Warnick asked where the additional money would come from to keep the pass open. Director Njord said that the Legislature establishes how much of the Department’s resources are spent in maintenance, so they would have to add a ‘building block’ to that and request that additional resources be put towards maintenance for this purpose.

Doug Page, president of the Utah Snowmobile Association, distributed some maps and indicated that the dark blue highlighted lines represent the groomed snowmobile trails for winter use, and the area in orange is the road in question. He then read a letter emphasizing their perspective from a winter users group. They feel that keeping Highway 35 plowed and drivable during the winter months is a detriment to winter recreation. There are 33,000 registered snowmobiles in the state, and there are over 1,000 snowmobilers on any given Saturday in the Mirror Lake/Wolf Creek area. Cross-country skiers and others use this area as well. It’s the second busiest complex in the state, second only to Monte Cristo. It is not uncommon to have the Nobletts parking lot full and vehicles lined up along the road, up to a quarter mile away. If Highway 35 were to be kept open, the Nobletts trailhead would be abandoned, making it an expensive venture. It would contribute to crowding at other complexes, creating safety concerns at those other trailheads, and it would also require additional trailheads, either along the Wolf Creek road or elsewhere. There are five complexes in this general area that are groomed on a daily basis by two grooming machines. Plowing Highway 35 would create problems for both the Strawberry and Mirror Lake groomers, leaving the area unusable to snowmobiling. Continuing to plow until December 1st removes the early base of snow that allows the grooming operations to begin.

Mr. Page stated that there are many parties that are stakeholders in this proposal, but many of them have not been contacted for input, comments, or given the courtesy of being made aware of this public meeting. They would like to request that a meeting with stakeholders be held in Kamas prior to any decision being made, and to further discuss the full implications of this proposal. The letter Mr. Page read also listed statistics of the impact snowmobiling has on the state and in the Wolf Creek area. The letter concluded saying that while a few argue safety concerns and access to the Wasatch Front from the Hanna side of the mountain, those individuals live and speculate property values of the own free will and risk. And asking the rest of the general public to give up its ability to recreate in the winter is unacceptable. The potential economic loss far outweighs the benefits. Mr. Page also gave the Commission a petition with about 1,500 signatures to keep the road closed.

Curt Sweeten, Summit County Search and Rescue, also gave the Commission a petition with signatures that was presented to their group in their October meeting, and it includes the Summit County Sheriff’s signature. They are concerned about the plowing of Wolf Creek, and are against it because they use the Nobletts trailhead at least four or five times a year to assist Wasatch County on searches, etc. If they lose that trailhead, they will have nowhere to stage a command center, and there’s no parking anywhere along that highway.

Renee Park, a resident of Hanna, said when she first moved to Hanna, she thought they would stay one year then move back to Salt Lake. That was 37 years and 10 children ago. Now they are going to stay and retire. She said she was reading one of the pictures on the wall about the mission of UDOT and preserving the quality of life and economic vitality of the community. She believes that is part of what they’re looking at here. She sees everyone being called to work together and to make this part of the state more accessible while preserving and protecting the natural beauty that is there. They are not in conflict with the recreationalists; the residents want the same thing the snowmobilers want, and that is accessibility. Ms. Park said she feels that the campground at the top of the mountain is a huge area that could be patrolled and cleaned so parking can take place. Snowmobiles could then go where they like to go, and the residents could still pass by on the road. Highway 35 is a safe road to travel, and is very passable. One comment she heard was from a gentleman who traveled the highway last week and counted 61 vehicles in the 45 minutes they were on the road between Hanna and Woodland. The road is being used a lot right now, and would be used more if it were kept open. Not only is there a savings in mileage, but there is a cost savings as well. And people could get to a hospital quicker and safer. Ms. Park said she had some signed petitions, but they have curiously come up missing. She also has about 25 letters from people expressing their feelings on what keeping the road open would mean to them.

Dan Canfield from Salt Lake City said that he has been recreating in the Wolf Creek area since he was a kid. He questioned the 254 car count and thinks it would be closer to 223. Also, truckers will use whichever route is the easiest and quickest, and that’s going to be this route instead of Highway 40, if it’s plowed and kept open. There are safety issues he feels haven’t been looked at enough, and he doesn’t think the huge costs involved warrant the relatively small benefits they would get from it.

Barb Christiansen from Hanna said she doesn’t think they’re here today to say the road will be kept open this winter, but she does think they’re looking more to the future. And to say that they will not keep this well built road open because of some snowmobile use doesn’t necessarily make sense for the economic future of the state. She’s all for snowmobilers and their experience, but she’s not sure why keeping the road open wouldn’t be advantageous to the recreationalists as well because there is lots of potential for parking and staging areas. She thinks it would open access to more trails and areas for snowmobilers. State highways should be kept open and used for the purpose they were built, which is for vehicular traffic. Ms. Christiansen mentioned that she was recently at a meeting about the building of a hospital in Summit County on Highway 40 and Highway 32, as it comes out of Kamas. It’s a 137 acre site and will be a full service hospital. The projected completion time is the end of 2006 or early 2007. She expects that their community will supply a great number of employees for that hospital. This will also be their closest hospital, so there might be lifesaving factors involved when talking about keeping the road open.

Bill Farley from Provo said he is a year round recreationalist. He addressed Ms. Christiansen’s comments about the parking lots on top saying that the Forest Service has a lynx habitat study there, and they won’t allow any type of development in that area. And, because of the huge amounts of snowfall the area gets, the road is not going to be kept open. It’s dangerous, and right now, the snow is higher than the guardrails. There’s not enough room to push that snow off the road. And, trucks will use that very steep hill, making it very dangerous.

Steve Smith, representing the Snowmobile Alliance of Western States, said he was asked to come today to oppose the year round plowing of Wolf Creek Pass. Many of the reasons have already been spoken about today, but one reason it’s not a good idea is because it won't work for snowmobilers. Utah is known for its interconnectiveness of its trails, and this would create separate systems. Parks and Recreation has spent a lot of money developing and promoting those trails. People from all over come to enjoy the trail system Utah has created. He also questions the ability of UDOT to keep the pass open because of the incredible amount of snow that falls in the area. He doesn’t know of any other area that gets as much snow, except for maybe Monte Cristo or the Mirror Lake areas. It’s going to create a safety hazard if trucks and travelers are allowed to use the road. This is not an economic viability issue, it’s a convenience issue. There’s also the cost of wear and tear of year round use, and liability issues. The cost to tax payers far exceeds the benefits from keeping it open.

Chairman Brown said it is clear they are not going to make a decision today one way or the other. Besides, there is no money to keep it open anyway. When this road was finally paved, they knew this request would become a reality. There is credibility in both arguments, from his perspective. But the reality is that with the elevation it’s at, they wouldn’t be able to keep Wolf Creek open every day anyway, even if they said they would keep it open. But, could they keep it open on a reasonable basis? He’s sure that could be done most of the time. He understands the arguments of the snowmobilers, except he doesn’t buy the argument that all the economics would be lost because it was opened. There may be some negative impact, but not 22% of snowmobiling revenue. He also doesn’t think the trail system would be destroyed either. He crosses a lot of roads on his snowmobile. It may not be ideal, but it wouldn’t destroy the trail system. People in Woodruff could argue to open the road over Monte Cristo. If they have to go to Ogden, it’s far quicker to go over Monte Cristo than to have to go through Evanston. Those types of arguments happen all over the state. But there gets to be an economic point where they can’t do everything everywhere.

Commissioner Bodily concurred with the comments from Chairman Brown. He made reference to the comment that a state highway is supposed to be open. He pointed out that they are not all open, as there are a number of highways that are open seasonally. They’ve gone through the process with other highways where they were improved and opened year round. Huntington Canyon is one example. He’s guessing there was a much greater cost benefit for opening that highway that there would be for this one. However, that doesn’t mean this is a dead issue, just because they don’t act on it now. Funding is the biggest issue. The dialogue has to be kept open so this can be addressed in the future.

Director Njord reiterated that the Legislature would have to set aside resources from the Department’s construction program, reducing the amount of money spent on construction projects around the state. It would be dedicated towards the purpose of the capitalization of equipment, additional employees, and the ongoing costs of plowing the road. Chairman Brown said one thing he would like to see happen out of this meeting today is for the snowmobilers to have consideration for those who live in the Tabiona valley and not have a definite calendar date to close the road, especially when there is no snow. If it snows on October 15th and it shuts the road down, so be it. But if it doesn’t snow until January 1st, so be it. Carlos Braceras, Deputy Director, said it’s important to remember that the paving of this road was not a Commission decision; that decision was made by the Forest Service out of Denver. Mr. Conti said that the region’s commitment in the city council meeting was to not close the road on a certain date. That would be determined by the weather. Mr. Page commented that they are not necessarily opposed to the plowing of this road, but they are not willing to give up any parking or groomed trails. And the issues that keep the plowing from happening right now is the funding, the environmental impact statement needed, and the endangered species that is in the area.

Planning and Programming
2005-2009 STIP Amendment #1
Call for Additional Projects
Max Ditlevsen, Program Financing Director, said this is primarily information being brought to the Commission. There is one item they will ask the Commission to consider taking action on today, and that is Item 4B, the STP Non Urban program. Starting with the information under tab 4A, it includes information discussed at last month’s meeting in Moab about the Call for Additional Projects. The 2005-2009 STIP is under programmed, and there are a number of reasons for that. It’s primarily driven because of the Department’s conservative approach, and not knowing for sure what federal money they would get. He believes the level of Obligation Authority will bring on an additional $48.5 million for projects in the categories listed on the fact sheet.

Chairman Brown said that with the Task Force this summer, in regards to the procedure and process, there have been a number of questions come up. One of the concerns he believes the legislators have is that they somehow think the Commission is missing what the priorities in the state are, that they don’t target the right ones. He’s told them that the reality is, at times, the Department might get enough money to do a certain project, but not near enough money to do a project they think may have a higher priority. He wondered if the Commission could just hold onto the money and not spend it until enough was accumulated to do a larger project? There seems to be frustration amongst the legislators that the Commission continues to chip away at smaller projects, simply because the little bit of money received fits a smaller project, therefore, never getting to bigger projects. Mr. Ditlevsen said he thinks they have some latitude if there were a project to save up for or bring other resources to. They could hold it and combine it with the next year’s money, but he doesn’t think they’d want to be doing that over three or four years. Commissioner Wells agreed with Chairman Brown and said they’re looking at colored money, and some of the things the legislators want to do are so capacity driven that they don’t fit into these categories. The Commission is caught because the legislators see them spending money on things that have to be done in certain categories. Chairman Brown said the Commission is being watched closer now than they ever have been before, and any decisions being made are going to be scrutinized very carefully. Additional discussion focused on deferring of the Obligation Authority monies.

Mr. Ditlevsen referred to the list of projects and said that there is a description of each project and what it is they are trying to accomplish. The regions have provided their priority projects, but the challenge is going to be prioritizing them across the state and, for example, weighing a region four project against a region one project, and knowing what the data is that they have to bring to the table in order to do that. That’s what they are going to try to bring to the Commission in December, related to these projects. In December, they will be asking the Commission to approve sending the selected projects out for public comment, with action for approval in January.

STP Non-Urban Program
Mr. Ditlevsen said Item 4B is a request related to the STP-Non Urban Program. The Joint Highway Committee (JHC) administers three categories of federal aid funds: Bridge Off-System, STP-Small Urban, and STP-Non Urban. Because of the need to obligate and use this money effectively, a decision was made to allocate $3.5 million of whatever the Department got in the STP-Non Urban category to the JHC. There was a provision made that the Department could reconsider that allocation, once there was a demonstration of demand and need, as well as the ability to effectively use these funds through the JHC process. In a letter to the Commission, signed by Clyde Naylor, the JHC is asking the Department to consider one time funding to advance three projects: South Moore Cutoff (Phase 2), Gusher to LaPoint Highway, and Old Highway 91, Mona to the Juab Co. line (Phase 2). These projects are in CD, and this would advance projects that have already been identified in the program. Mr. Ditlevsen reviewed the schedule of how that could be accomplished. He then referred to a number of projects listed in 2007, with the phase of work being preliminary engineering. This suggests that the design is moving ahead and construction money will be needed when they are done. The action for the Commission today would be to approve that the full apportionment of STP-Non Urban funds, beginning in FY 2006, be reinstated to the JHC for their administration.

Clyde Naylor, County Co-Chair of the JHC, distributed some handouts explaining where the Non Urban Committee is at this point. He said they are in a position where they are finding a lot of additional projects beyond what they used to find in this committee, and they are all good, legitimate projects. The first three pages of the handout is the program that was approved in the April JHC meeting – projects that have become part of the STIP proposal. The next three pages is a list of the requests, by county. There are 22 of 29 counties that have submitted requests in this particular sequence of the program. The three projects being talked about specifically today are starred. The final two pages is the program they are developing to prioritize projects for the future so they can have the 22 counties compete against each other for the one that really ought to move forward out of the Long Range Program and receive funding. This is not finalized; it’s in draft form. They are looking at engineering considerations being 50% of the prioritization, financial considerations being 30% of the prioritization, and other considerations being 20%. Mr. Naylor proposed that each of the projects now on the STIP be evaluated to see if any of them needed to be changed in the way of priorities. That will get them to the point where they will be able to sort out priorities statewide and end up spending the funds where they are most justified. Chairman Brown noted that the Commission has gotten a lot of pressure to do something similar to this. Discussion ensued regarding the process Mr. Naylor described.

Commissioner Lewis mentioned that the Notom Road Bridge in Wayne County was recently washed out and wondered if it fit into this program anywhere. Brett Hadley from Program Development responded that it is in Bridge Replacement program, and if there was a desire to move forward with the three projects being proposed, the Commission may want to include the Notom Road Bridge. Commissioner Lewis said he would like to get the project moving and finished before the next school year starts. Mr. Ditlevsen said they were going to put all these projects in one amendment, but they could be sent out for a 14-day public comment period, since there aren’t any air quality issues. They then could be amended earlier than the January meeting. Commissioner Wilson said he sees an urgency to put them on as fast of track as they can. Emery County has advanced their funds to do the design engineering and right of way clearance for the South Moore cutoff. And some rural areas are strapped for contractors to build smaller jobs, and if projects are not bid in a certain window of time, a lot of times the bids aren’t favorable.

Chairman Brown asked if there was any flexibility in spending this money. Brian Bremner, representing Garfield County and the JHC, explained that it has to be used in a non-urban area, and in an area with a population of less than 5,000. Chairman Brown wondered if everyone was satisfied that in these non-urban areas that meet this criteria, that these were the most important, most critical projects. Commissioner Wilson stated that these three projects were discussed by the JHC recently and there was a unanimous motion by the JHC to support them and the funding amounts attached to them by the JHC. Chairman Brown asked if the money could be spent on the interstate, say in Juab County, for example. If the money doesn’t have to go onto a secondary road, could they say there is some need on the interstate in a non-urban area that is more important than the secondary road? Director Njord said it could happen as long as it was in an area where the population is less than 5,000.

Chairman Brown asked about the three specific projects, starting with the South Moore project. Commissioner Wilson said it is a heavily used road, and is used as a service road for fire protection, ambulance service, police service, etc., for I-70. It’s been the number one project in the county for several years. Commissioner Warnick asked if it was more important than SR-10? Commissioner Wilson said it’s an important project based on current needs and the funding source being used, and because County officials prioritized the project as their top priority. Chairman Brown noted that Commissioner Warnick asked a legitimate question. There are continual requests and comments made about the fact that more work still needs to be done on SR-10. There might be questions by some about spending $2 million on the South Moore project when it might have been better spent on SR-10. He said the Commission is not offended by this recommendation, but they are trying to look at it from a different perspective.

Commissioner Wells commented that in looking at the system as a whole, they start with the big highways, and yes, they can spend money on those. But there are more pots of money that can be spent on the big roads. But, for the roads the cities and counties have charge for, the pots are fewer. With the Juab County project, the county has had to work their way down to whatever pot of money they could find, which is the JHC, so their opportunities are limited. The Commission looks big and globally, and tries to take advantage of the best pots of money available that could be used on the big things that have to be done. But the smaller things have to be used for specific areas, projects the Commission doesn’t have the focus to take care of, that are delegated to these other entities to use. That’s part of the big system that makes it all work. Otherwise, what good does it do to have a state transportation system if you don’t have a road to get from one small town to another? That’s what is missing when the Legislature looks at the big picture. They want capacity – the big stuff. But the Commission has to also consider the little stuff.

Chairman Brown asked about the Gusher to LaPoint Highway in Uintah County. Mr. Bremner said as far as the county is concerned, it is their top local government priority. The county is planning to match the $2 million with $1 million of their own money to make this project happen. The discussion then turned to the Old Highway 91; Mona to the Juab County line. Mr. Naylor explained that this highway is deteriorated, and because of the growth in Juab and Utah Counties, it is becoming a secondary road to the freeway. It gets a lot of truck and bus traffic, and is not serving the functions it needs to serve very well. Commissioner Clyde said he doesn’t put this on a very high level of priority, and thinks that the heavy truck traffic is causing the deterioration. It would be an adequate road if it weren’t for the heavy truck traffic, which is putting the pressure on to rebuild the road for their purposes. The road was built to national highway standards when it was transferred to the county, but it has gone down hill since. There was additional discussion regarding this project.

Chairman Brown said there are definitely different dynamics on this project than the other two. Mr. Bremner mentioned that he believes that over the next ten years, there will be some explosive growth in this area, which won’t be seen in the other two project areas. One of his concerns is that instead of doing this in a phased approach, he’d rather come up with one solution that solves the whole problem for the long term. Chairman Brown said he doesn’t think all of these projects ought to be dealt with the same way. He doesn’t have a problem moving ahead with the other two projects, but he wants to make sure they’re headed in the right direction on this one. Mr. Ditlevsen reviewed the actions needed today. One is an action concurring or disagreeing with the full amount of money going to the Joint Highway Committee, starting in 2006, for their consideration for programming recommendations. The second action would be to consider sending these specific projects out to public comment between now and the December meeting, instead of waiting until December.

Commissioner Wilson moved to approve the full allocation of $6.7 million to the Non-Urban program, beginning in 2006. Commissioner Lewis seconded the motion.

Commissioner Warnick wanted to make sure that the motion meant the JHC would program the full amount of funds, rather than the Commission having a portion of it. And that the JHC understands they have to program for all highways in those non-urban areas, not just local roads, be it the interstate, state roads, or whatever. That’s part of their charge. Director Njord explained that about 15 years ago, the Department felt that $3.5 million was an appropriate amount of money for non-urban local roads. However, the demand for those resources has grown every year to the point where the JHC could certainly use all of those resources and more. Mr. Bremner added that because things have changed, their ability to allocate more funds and their needs have increased. They can now put that $6.7 million to good use, whereas they really couldn’t do that before. Mr. Naylor pointed out that 15 years ago, they had maybe six counties vying for these funds. Now they have 22 counties. Chairman Brown said he would like to have the motion amended, with a sunset provision added. He doesn’t want it to be so locked it concrete that it couldn’t be revisited in the future. He would like to put a five-year time frame on it.

Commissioner Wilson amended his motion to include that at the end of five years, the Commission review and assess the progress of the funds with the JHC. Commissioner Lewis accepted the amended motion as part of his second. The motion was unanimously approved.

Commissioner Wilson moved to approve the request of the Joint Highway Committee for the South Moore Cutoff and the Gusher to LaPoint projects, allowing them to go out for the 14 day public comment period and coming back in December as a STIP amendment, and to table the third project, Old Highway 91; Mona to the Juab County line for further review by the Commission. Also, to include the Notom Road Bridge project with the other two projects in the 14 day public comment period and STIP amendment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved.

Mr. Bremner recommended that the JHC sit down with UDOT to try and identify how to solve the problem with the Old Highway 91 project over the long term, to find out how much it will cost, and how to pay for it. Mr. Naylor suggested having the review finished by the April meeting of the JHC so they can review it in that meeting and then bring back a recommendation.

Commissioner Wilson moved that for the Old Highway 91; Mona to the Juab County line project requested by the JHC, that UDOT, the Joint Highway Non-Urban Committee, and the local government meet to review the need, the assessment, and feasibility of the project. And that the JHC come back to the Commission with their recommendations following the April JHC meeting. Commissioner Warnick seconded the motion and it was approved.

Scenic Byway Projects
Bret Anderson from Program Development said these next four items require no action and are information items only. Action will be taken in the December meeting. Item 4C is the Scenic Byway projects, which are the projects requested by the USDOT for inclusion in the STIP. The allocations are received on an annual basis. These are additional projects from the ones that were approved a couple of months ago.

Federal Public Lands Highways
Mr. Anderson said this is a list of the Federal Public Lands Highways projects. There is an application process, and Wayne Jager from Program Development applies for these funds. These projects compete with projects nationwide, and Utah received money for three projects.

2004 Projects Not Advertised/Other
Mr. Anderson said these are projects that were in the 2004 STIP that did not get obligated; they encountered some challenges and now need to be moved into the 2005 STIP. The exception is the Logan Dugway project near Logan Canyon, which will be moved from CD into a funded year, per the request of the former Region One director. Most of these are enhancement projects that didn’t get finished in 04. In order to receive and be eligible for those federal funds, they need to be in a current program.

Recreational Trails Program – FY 2005
Mr. Anderson said this is the Rec Trails program, whose projects are selected and submitted trough Utah State Parks and Recreation. These are their 05 projects, which came in after the STIP went out for public comment and sent to FHWA for final approval. They are working on getting their timing in sync with UDOT’s STIP process. Again, in order to receive the federal funds, the projects have to be part of the STIP.

Chairman Brown called for a short break.

Bicycle Rules and Regulations
Ahmad Jaber, Program Development Director, said most of this presentation comes from the Utah Code. Bicycle means a devise propelled by h uman power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, except scooters and similar devices. A person operating a bicycle has all the rights and duties applicable to the operator of any vehicle. Bicycles are allowed on any highway, the same as a motorized vehicle (unless restricted). Bicyclists must obey traffic signals, stop and yield signs, and all other official traffic control devices. Bicyclists must ride in the same direction as traffic. And, they must ride as far to the right as practicable unless passing another bicycle or vehicle, preparing to make a left turn, or unsafe conditions exist. Bicyclists may ride two abreast, but only if not impeding traffic. Bicycles must have a white headlight, red taillight or reflector, and side reflectors, and bicyclists must yield to pedestrians.

Mr. Jaber said that UDOT has created a Utah Bicycle Commuter Guide, which was released in September 2004. Copies of the guide were distributed to the Commission. UDOT uses the guide to encourage commuting by bicycle, and it is available on UDOT’s website. It also provides a summary of the Utah codes applicable to bicyclists. Also on the website is a map that identifies shoulder width on state highways, a map that shows restricted locations, and a traffic volumes map. Mr. Jaber reviewed bicycle safety items – items not in the state code, but that are common sense items – and roadway courtesies that motorists can follow. He also said that UDOT, in cooperation with the Department of Health and the Highway Safety Office, recently partnered in applying for and receiving a $50,000 grant through the NHTSA to develop a ‘Share the Road’ campaign. The purpose is to educate and raise awareness of bicyclists and motorists rights, rules and responsibilities.

Corridor Preservation Fund Request
Lyle McMillan, Director of Right of Way, said he is following up on a request that was made at last month’s meeting regarding a request for approval to establish a small fund to be able to do appraisals in advance, so they could have a more definite monetary value for properties brought to the Commission. The Advisory Council also felt it would be helpful in terms of reducing the cycle time between the application request and the Department’s ability to make offers on a piece of property. It would also allow them to get an accurate understanding of how much money is needed up front, rather than asking for incremental funds and delaying the process. However, there were some concerns last month about whether that request was legal or not. Mr. McMillan said he talked to Jim Beadles, UDOT’s in house counsel from the AG’s office, and the statute, 72-2-177, says “The Commission shall authorize the expenditure of fund monies to allow the Department to acquire real property or any interests in real property for state, county, and municipal transportation corridors subject to: monies available in the fund; rules made under Subsection (7); and Subsection (9).” So, it’s pretty wide open. The legal authority exists, if it’s something the Commission feels would be helpful. Mr. McMillan said they are asking for an authorization of $30,000 be available to do appraisals as necessary. They will also account for that money each time there is an application.

Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the $30,000 request to start an appraisal fund. Commissioner Wells seconded it, and the motion was approved.

There was additional discussion regarding the Corridor Preservation Fund. Chairman Brown said he thinks the Legislature feels the Commission isn’t as aggressive as they ought to be. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough money to do what needs to be done. However, he doesn’t remember ever reaching a point where something had to be delayed because there wasn’t enough money. Mr. McMillan said that has happened several times. In fact, there are several large pieces of ground they can’t afford because there’s not enough money in the fund. There’s one property in West Valley where they are trying to do a number of things to prevent it from further increasing in value, such as working with the city on zoning issues, etc. The cost is anywhere from $7 million to $16 million, and that’s just one location. The current fund balance is at about $3 million, and they’ve never had more than $10 million at a time since the original bond. They’ve only been able to deal with mostly small to medium sized pieces of property. There are two potential bills before the Legislature. One is Senator Stephensen’s bill that would fund the Transportation Corridor Preservation Revolving Loan Fund. The other bill is by Senator Killpack, and it would fund corridor preservation on behalf of local counties and municipalities through the creation of a motor vehicle registration fee. It wouldn’t be revolving; it would be a grant. They are trying to work with the legislators to get something that will work for all parties and that will be easy to administer in finished form. Additional discussion occurred regarding the two preservation bills.

UDOT Performance Measures
Director Njord distributed two documents to the Commission and said the Department has focused their efforts into four strategic objectives. The first document is UDOT’s Final Four Strategic Directives, the other one is the Measurement of UDOT’s Final Four. There are many measures within the Department of Transportation that are much more comprehensive than this, but they basically all roll up into these. Mr. Njord said, in the interest of time, he would take more time to explain these measures at another time.

Proposed Legislation
Chairman Brown explained that the Transportation Task Force Co-Chairs gave him a copy of this legislation about 24 hours before they wanted an official response from the Commission. He told them he needed some time because it wasn’t appropriate for him to represent the Commission without having had an opportunity to discuss it with the full Commission. Unfortunately, they had to report to the full Interim Transportation Committee, so they didn’t have time to wait. The Task Force approved the legislation then presented it to the Interim Commission by way of a report. Chairman Brown said that at some point, they expect him to represent the Commission and respond to how they view this legislation.

Mr. Braceras said the first bill is the Transportation Amendments and Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Task Force. He believes there are several goals the Legislature is trying to accomplish with this bill. One is to strengthen the connection between land use decisions made by local governments and the impact on transportation. They want to expand the definition of public facilities so impact fees can be used for state highways. Right now, they are not eligible for that. They are also proposing to expand the written notice requirements of a local political subdivision’s intent to prepare a capital facilities plan to include notice to UDOT. That would allow the Department, if they so choose, to provide information to that decision making body to take into account transportation impact. There is also the ability to create a tollway restricted account, allowing the Department and the Commission to designate new roadways or additional lanes as toll lanes or hot lanes. They are not allowed to toll an existing facility. This bill also requires the executive director of UDOT to develop strategic initiatives for the Department and report them to the Commission.

Mr. Braceras continued and said the bill requires the Commission, in consultation with the Department, to develop a written project selection process, and to hold public hearings on that selection process. The intent of the sponsor of this bill is that normal Commission meetings constitute fulfillment of the public hearing portion of this legislation. The bill also requires the Commission to develop rules on the prioritization process, and to submit the rules to the Legislature prior to adopting them. Mr. Braceras referred to page 24 of the bill and noted that it says the selection process is going to be used in determining priorities and funding levels of projects that are new capacity projects, and that the Commission will use the weighted criteria system, adopted in the written prioritization process. It’s a criteria driven selection process that would apply to new capacity projects. The Task Force recognizes that the Commission has not had the funds available to prioritize capacity projects, and from their perspective, this portion of the bill enhances that process. On page 25, it says that if the Commission prioritizes a project over another project with a higher rank under the weighted criteria system, the Commission shall hold a public hearing and accept public comment on the merits of prioritizing the project above higher ranked projects. And, the executive director or his designee shall report annually to the Governor and a committee designated by the Legislative Management Committee, on the results of the selection process.

Mr. Braceras stated that another big portion of this bill is that essentially, all roads on the state system would be transferred to local jurisdictions, except for the National Highway System, which is basically the US routes and the interstate. UDOT currently has about 6,000 miles of roadway in the state system, and this bill would take that down to 2,000 miles. There will be a task force designated during next year’s interim period to review the roads that would finally end up in the local’s control. Commissioner Wells noted that the League of Cities and Towns was not happy with this bill, especially with the no funding caveat. Director Njord said he thinks this whole jurisdictional transfer thing has been driven by what the Legislature perceives as some pretty significant problems with growth and SR-73 in particular. Mr. Braceras added that it’s being driven 100% by the idea that if locals are making decisions that impact the state highway system, and UDOT has no way to respond, then make sure the locals have to consider solving the transportation problems their land use decision has created.

Mr. Braceras moved on to the Transportation Investment Act and said this bill creates the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) of 2005, and it’s pretty inclusive. It pays for the cost of maintenance, construction, reconstruction or renovation of state and federal highways, and directs a portion of certain increases in vehicle fees and sales and use taxes to the fund. There are several things happening in this bill. One is that once the Centennial Fund is paid off, the monies would then be redirected to the TIF to be programmed by the Commission. The intent is not for the Legislature to select projects, but that the Commission would designate where the additional revenues go. The various fee increases would collectively raise, over a ten-year period, approximately $240 million. On top of that money, the proposal is to redirect funds currently in the general fund, or monies that come in above the existing needs within the general fund, to the TIF. The first year, $90 million would go into the TIF, and in subsequent years it would grow to $180 million. By 2015, this is expected to raise about $2.4 billion.

The last bill is Senator Killpack’s bill. Mr. Braceras said it allows a county legislative body to impose up to a $20 local option transportation corridor preservation fee on motor vehicle registrations and renewals of registration. The money generated within each county would be available to that county only. Decision would then have to be made as to which properties should be purchased with the grant money. Details are still being worked out of how this would work with the Commission, and if they would still come through the Commission, for consistency. So, there are still a lot of details to be addressed on this. The bill has generally been well received by the legislators who have heard the bill.

Chairman Brown asked the Commission to take these bills home and mark them up. In the December meeting, they need to be able to come to an agreement as a Commission on issues that they either support or object to. He doesn’t think they should weigh in on the funding, as that’s the Legislature’s job. Commissioner Clyde remarked that his concern is with getting out too much in front of the jurisdictional transfer bill. They should wait and see what the funding scenario will be. But he accepts the fact that some changes need to be made, especially with the jurisdiction. Chairman Brown said that in regards to the selection criteria process, the Legislators that have been so adamant about it have reviewed what Ohio has in place. He wondered if the Commission was interested in having a presentation on what Ohio’s process really is. The Commission thought that would be a good idea. Chairman Brown repeated the fact that the Legislature is giving the Commission a chance to respond to some of the concerns, direction and changes they want to make. The Commission needs to carefully think through it and be positive and proactive in making recommendations they think will improve the way they do business. He also noted that the Governor will be a key player in this too, and nothing will get very far without him in the process. Commissioner Wells said the really big issue with the new Governor is going to be his stand on economic development, as he’s very pro economic development.

Transportation Commission Meetings
The next regular Transportation Commission meeting will be held on Friday, December 10, 2004, at the UDOT Rampton Complex in Salt Lake City. The following meeting dates and locations have also been scheduled:

• January 21, 2005 – Salt Lake City

The meeting adjourned at 1:02 p.m.

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

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
Stephen M. Bodily, Vice-Chairman
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Jan C. Wells, Commissioner
Bevan K. Wilson, Commissioner
Ken Warnick, Commissioner
Jerry B. Lewis, Commissioner
LeAnn G. Abegglen, Commission Secretary
John Njord, Executive Director
Carlos M. Braceras, Deputy Director
David K. Miles, Engineer for Operations
Jim McMinimee, Project Development Director
Ahmad Jaber, Program Development Director
Max J. Ditlevsen, Program Financing Director
Bret Hadley, Program Development
Bret Anderson, Program Development
Tom Hudachko, Director of Public Affairs
Todd Richins, Region Two
Tyler Page, Region Two
Tracy Conti, Region Three Director
Paul Baum, Region Three
Earvan Rhoades, Region Three
Darrell Cook, MAG
Chuck Chappell, WFRC
Clyde Naylor, Joint Highway Committee
Brian Bremner, Garfield County/Joint Highway Committee
John Knudsen, State Parks
Fred Hayes, State Parks
Carmen Larrea, URS Corporation
Woody Woodruff, Carter & Burgess
Troy Ostler, Civco Engineering/Uintah County
Doug Page, Utah Snowmobile Association
Richie Jorgensen, Utah Snowmobile Association
Ken Rossum, Utah Snowmobile Association
Andy Hopkins, Utah Snowmobile Association
Bill Farley, Utah Snowmobile Association
Jared Williams, Utah Snowmobile Association
Curt Sweeten, Summit County Sherriff Search & Rescue
David Huntsman, Timp Ridge Runners
Monty Breitenbuecher, Rocky Mountain Sledders
Steven B. Smith, Snowmobile Alliance of Western States
Steve Paskins, Hanna
Renee Park, Hanna
Barb Christiansen, Duchesne County
Polly Hart, Cyclist
Nichole Warburton, Salt Lake Tribune
Dan Canfield