Utah Transportation Commission
February 18, 2005
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. Commissioner Clyde was excused from the meeting.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the minutes of the January 21, 2005, Commission meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah. Commissioner Bodily seconded the motion and the minutes were approved.

Public Comments
There were no public comments at this time.

SB 11 – Proposed Administrative Rule
Commissioner Bodily said this process has been going on for a number of months, and several meetings have been held to develop some guidelines for this Administrative Rule. The Commission has a copy of the latest draft, which should reflect some of the suggestions that were made by the Joint Highway Committee (JHC) and MPO representatives. Max Ditlevsen, Program Finance Director, said the intent for the discussion in this and next month’s meeting in St. George is to give opportunity for the public and public officials to comment on this rule. This is really the first public exposure of this draft document, and they are gauging what type of comments might be received.

Commissioner Wells referred to Lines 65 and 66, which talks about whether a proposed improvement was subject to a local planning initiative. She asked if they were talking about having a transportation master plan in place. Mr. Ditlevsen said the discussion was of a number of things that could be looked at, but that could be a question. He doesn’t think it’s absolute that it has to be in place, but it would help with the assessment of a particular project though. It’s more or less an additional check to make sure everyone is in agreement with the proposed improvement to the system, and there aren’t any outstanding questions on the project being considered. Chairman Brown commented that the rule says it’s guidelines for partnering with local governments. He assumes this is not totally independent of the selection process that has been discussed before. Isn’t this one piece of that process? His concern is that they don’t confuse the local governments, the cities and the counties, by running this up the flagpole ahead of the other. They ought to be linked together so there isn’t confusion out there. They’ve got to be careful how they go forward with it. Commissioner Bodily remarked that it is a coincidence that they are dealing with both of those issues at the same time. They do have to mesh, and one can’t stand completely separate from the other.

Commissioner Wilson referred to Lines 7 and 8 and said he has questions about where it says, “If a county or municipality wishes to participate in a State highway improvement program, it shall notify the Department and the Transportation Commission, in writing, at the earliest available opportunity and provide the information listed in Paragraphs (a) through (e).” For example, say there is a special project with economic purposes – a new interchange, etc. – and a city or county wants to participate. According to this rule, they notify UDOT and the Commission. But there’s nothing, until you get way into the process, that says the city, the county, or whomever, gets notified. He would like some clarification about up front notification to all the people who have been involved in the ongoing process of the project selection. Commissioner Bodily responded that there’s not any one point where they all have to sit down together. He assumes that if a project were being contemplated, the city or the county would be communicating with the MPO if it were in an urban area, or with the JHC in other areas. They wouldn’t be just coming out of the blue and proposing a project and not be having some kind of discussion with these other entities, because a project has to come through some governmental entity. They’re not going to deal with a company directly, but with a local city or county. Commissioner Wilson asked if UDOT doesn’t have an obligation, once a request is received to participate, to report that request back to the MPO, just to make sure everyone is on the same page? Commissioner Bodily said he’s not sure that it’s spelled out specifically, but thinks it’s implied that communication would take place. Chairman Brown asked about projects that are not within the jurisdiction of an MPO. Commissioner Bodily said for those areas outside of an MPO, the logical process would be to talk to the counties, the city councils and mayors, etc., and coordinate with them. Then they would make their proposal to the Commission and the Department. Commissioner Warnick suggested that a phrase, such as ‘other affected parties,’ could be added to allow them that opportunity and to make sure they coordinate. Mr. Ditlevsen said those details can be worked out procedurally, they don’t have to be part of the rule. His understanding is that the rule just sets it out in general. Commissioner Warnick said they might want to reword Lines 40 and 41 to say who’s doing what – maybe, ‘upon receiving a partnering proposal, UDOT staff will inform the Transportation Commission at their next meeting or a forthcoming meeting.’ That could be spelled out a little clearer.

Commissioner Bodily asked what would happen with a partnership that was approved for a project and there were cost overruns or court challenges that came up. Executive Director Njord said the Department has the ability to enter into cooperative agreements with local governments that would spell out all of those details, and the Department is very familiar with that process. Commissioner Bodily said this all boils down to what it says towards the end of the document – the Commission makes the final decision as to whether or not they partner with these other entities. It’s not always a clear cut decision. Just like putting a project on the STIP, sometimes the Commission weighs things and tries to come up with the best solution, and this will be the same way. There will be those who will be happy with the decisions made, and others who won’t. Director Njord reiterated what Chairman Brown said about this not being confusing to the public. That’s a very important point. He’d kind of would like to boxcar these things together and talk about the prioritization process, with this being an element of that prioritization process. Commissioner Lewis commented that the selection process on the STIP will be the same. This is sort of a benefit for those who have an urgent need and could come in with additional funds. This is not a requirement for the STIP, but a condition that could happen. He just wants to make sure they don’t say this is part of what they have to do before putting anything on the STIP, because that’s not what they are saying.

Mayor Dennis Nordfelt of West Valley City said he is the newly elected chair of the Wasatch Front Regional Council. SB 11 is really difficult for them to accept on a local level, because it’s one of those things where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It’s really not a level playing field. But, having said that, the Commission and the Department have done a good job on the Administrative Rules, and this is a good way of implementing the requirements that are set up. Chuck Chappell, Executive Director of the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), said they also have an issue about equalization across the urban region, as well as the whole state. He doesn’t feel there’s a level playing field either. He doesn’t think the programs are in place to give each local community or county the source of funds that would be used in this program. Chairman Brown noted that they are looking for a tool for some of the economic development opportunities that come along from time to time. It’s the feeling of the Commission, the Department, and Legislators that those who are going to gain economically from a project, need to come to the table, more in the line of private resources. Director Njord said he thought that was what the Legislature had in mind when they passed this bill.

Project Selection Process Discussion
Ahmad Jaber, Program Development Director, said that meetings have been held with WFRC, MAG, and DMPO staff members, and a meeting is scheduled with CMPO staff members early next month. Good input has been received as a result of those meetings. The project selection process is a decision support system to help select new mobility projects. The intent is to keep the process simple with four objectives: transportation efficiency, safety, economic development, and non-UDOT participation. The first factor under transportation efficiency is average daily traffic (ADT), where more consideration will be given for higher traffic. And, separate ADT scores will be given as well, one for the overall ADT, the other for truck ADT. One of the challenges includes a new corridor that doesn’t have any traffic, so there needs to be some kind of an adjustment there. The volume to capacity ratio (V/C) factor will use the percent of the capacity of the highway, and the capacity will be based on Utah experience. The level of service is a possible option. Under the functional classification of highway factor, more consideration will be given for higher class roads. For example, the Interstate should have a higher score than Redwood Road. The fourth factor is new roads or passing lanes on roads connecting communities. Points for these projects are to be determined so they can compete. Again, new facilities have no ADT or V/C ratio. Also, providing the ability to pass on major two lane roads will provide greater mobility not reflected in a V/C ratio. Under the safety objective, a safety index has been developed, incorporating crash rate and severity factors.

Mr. Jaber said for economic development, there is no ‘magic formula’ yet, but they are looking for help from the outside, and have hired a consultant to help. With the non-UDOT participation objective, the questions are, how do they include outside financial participation and how does it fit into the scoring process? They will definitely need the Commission’s input on that later. Commissioner Lewis mentioned that his first impression was that it wasn’t good to include it because, as was mentioned previously, perhaps those that didn’t have would never have. It suggests that money is needed to score decently to have a project in there. It ought to be a separate issue and not included in the scoring process for a project. However, it could be used as a tiebreaker.

Mr. Jaber distributed a handout showing Ohio’s model, titled 2004 TRAC Draft Traffic Scores, and explained how Ohio came up with their information. A second handout was distributed titled 2004 TRAC Draft Scores; Mr. Jaber noted that it included the same list of projects, but showed project costs and how much was being requested for a project. It also showed the traffic scores from the first handout, as well as an economic score. Mr. Jaber said the final handout is a summary of what the Department is proposing to do. The list includes projects along the Wasatch Front, from phase one of the long-range plan, that are in Regions One, Two and Three, to see how they fit into the process. However, those projects have not been fully analyzed yet. Commissioner Wells commented about some information she read in a recent AASHTO Journal, which talked about the Government Accountability Office survey that was done. It said, “Public and political support of transportation projects is a deciding factor in project selection, most often sited by state Departments of Transportation responding to their survey.” She said in lieu of what they are talking about, sometimes reality needs to be stated as well. Mr. Jaber said the elements or factors that are currently in place are the mobility factors (the ADT, road class, and the V/C) and the safety index. Future elements include economic development, factors for new roads and connectors, and the participation factor.

Planning and Programming

Approval of STIP Amendment #2A; WFRC Portion of STIP Amendment #2

Mr. Ditlevsen said this is a subsection of Amendment #2 from last month, and is the portion that relates to the urbanized area that the WFRC is responsible for. The Commission couldn’t act on it last month, but could approve it this month, contingent upon adoption by WFRC. The projects have been out for public comment, and the Department is comfortable that a review has been made through TransCom and WFRC, with a favorable recommendation that would come in their February 24 meeting. The action needed today is for approval, subject to WFRC’s action of amending it into their TIP.

Commissioner Wells made a motion to approve STIP Amendment #2A, subject to the action by WFRC to amend their TIP. Commissioner Warnick seconded it and the motion was approved.

Approval of STIP Amendment #3; STP Non-Urban Fund - Old Highway 91, Juab County

Mr. Ditlevsen said the Commission took action at the last meeting for this project to go out for public comment, and no comments were received. He reminded the Commission that this project went through additional review, discussion, and analysis, and it is before the Commission today to be amended into the 2005 STIP as Amendment #3.

Commissioner Wilson moved that the Commission approve Amendment #3, and add it to the STIP as outlined. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved.

Lehi 1200 East; Additional Funds Approved by MAG

Mr. Ditlevsen said this is an administrative amendment that MAG has taken on the Lehi 1200 East project. MAG has taken action in their meeting, and this is to bring this into the STIP as an adjustment, concurring with their action.

Commissioner Lewis moved for approval of the administrative funding adjustment to the STIP. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved.

Region 4 Bridge Projects; Funding Adjustments

Mr. Ditlevsen said they received a request from Region Four related to increases on two bridges. For the structure east of Gunnison, they are asking for an additional $200,000, and for the Beaver River bridge, they are asking for an additional $400,000. That totals $600,000, which will be covered by a reduction in the funding needed for the Allens Wash structure. Chairman Brown asked why the $600,000 was being taken away from that structure. Mr. Ditlevsen explained that it was originally funded as a replacement, but has now been changed to a scour project. It’s a scope change in terms of how the money was used. Jim McMinimee, Project Development Director, further explained that in the original development of the project, they thought there was a worse problem than there was. However, they felt that instead of having to replace the whole bridge, they could address the problem by just repairing the bridge in place. As for the Gunnison structure, some environmental concerns were missed in the concept development, and there should have been some environmental money in there to deal with those things. Additional discussion focused on the bridge projects.

Mr. Ditlevsen remarked that as they work with the regions in their current workshops, some of the questions that should be asked is, are there any issues with currently funded projects, are there any under funded situations, and are there changes in scope that need to be addressed? In the April workshop, there will be adjustments to 2006 and 2007, in order to take care of those issues on an annual basis, and not at the last minute.

Commissioner Wilson moved to approve the bridge funding adjustments as discussed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved.

Chairman Brown called for a short break.

Request for use of Corridor Preservation Funds

David Helm - Mountain View Corridor

Lyle McMillan, Director of Right of Way, said the Corridor Preservation Advisory Committee met last Monday to discuss several applications. Of those applications, they felt two were ready for consideration by the Commission. The first one is the David Helm property in the Mountain View corridor, and it is five acres of property in a triangular shape. Mr. Helm attempted to get a building permit from his local municipality; the zoning authority identified it as being in the Mountain View corridor and referred him to UDOT. It’s bare ground and almost all of it is in the corridor. The estimated cost is $150,000, which will be confirmed by an appraisal. The Advisory Council recommends approval of this request. This is in the second phase of the long range plan, 10 to 12 years out. Commissioner Wells noted that this property is in the far corner of the valley where the corridor only has one alternative because it’s constrained by the geography there.

Commissioner Warnick made a motion to approve the Helm acquisition. It was seconded by Commissioner Wells and approved.

Jerald DeGraw - Mountain View Corridor

Mr. McMillan said the DeGraw property is also within the Mountain View corridor in phase one of the long range plan. It’s on 7200 West, one of two alternatives being considered. Mr. DeGraw requested that UDOT look at his property and see how it relates to the corridor. UDOT determined that the property will not be impacted by the corridor, and has provided Mr. DeGraw with a copy of the map. Mr. DeGraw is satisfied that he isn’t impacted, and the Advisory Committee recommends that the Commission deny the application for purchase.

Commissioner Bodily moved that the DeGraw request be denied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved.

Advanced Traffic Warning System
Robert Hull, Engineer for Traffic and Safety, said he was asked to provide some information on the Advanced Traffic Warning System that UDOT has. The purpose of the system is to assist drivers at intersections by providing additional information and minimizing the impact of the dilemma zone. The dilemma zone is an area upstream of a signal where the driver must decide to either brake or continue through an intersection when they see a yellow light. Problems occur when a driver can’t decide what they’re going to do. What typically happens on higher speed facilities is that at 200 feet, 10% of people will stop, but 90% will go through an intersection. At 400 feet, 50% of people will stop, and 50% will proceed. At 600 feet, 90% of people will stop, but 10% will go through. UDOT is trying to minimize or eliminate those dilemma zones by reviewing the yellow time and adjusting it based on speed. With higher speeds, they program longer yellow times; typically, the maximum is six seconds. Anything longer than that, people start ignoring it and it’s not effective. With lower speed roads, the yellow time is three to four seconds.

Mr. Hull said another level of mitigation is to install dilemma zone detectors, which are detectors in the pavement 350 to 500 feet upstream from a signal. The detector talks to the controller in the signal and extends the green time, when vehicles are in this zone, by one or two seconds. The last level of mitigation is installing advance warning signs, which actually gives drivers notice of the end of green time. The sign activates six seconds ahead of when the yellow light will occur. Mr. Hull explained the operations of the advance warning signs in detail. He also discussed studies that were being done by the U of U and BYU. He mentioned that there are ten advance warning signals installed statewide, which are located in Regions One, Two and Four.

Chairman Brown brought up concerns regarding US-89 and the recent truck accident there. He asked if any official requests have been made for UDOT to respond to make the intersection safer. Mr. Hull replied that nothing has formally been received yet, but they know what will be asked and have already started the process. Director Njord added that the Department and Commission recognized years ago that the US-89 corridor, with its increasing traffic, needed to have its safety and mobility addressed. That’s why the Department entered into the Environmental Impact Study back then and has since been addressing the corridor intersection by intersection, and 200 North in Kaysville is really the next project that needs to take place for a grade separated interchange.

Legislative Update
Linda Hull, Director of Legislative and Government Affairs, highlighted a few of the bills that the Department has been tracking that has an impact to UDOT one way or another. She noted that the first handout lists the bills being tracked, and the second handout lists the bills that have already passed, including the appropriations bill. Specific bills discussed included HB 18, the Transportation Investment Act; HB 65, the Driver License and Commercial Driver License Amendment; HB 109, the Information Technology Governance Amendments; SB 25, Transportation Amendments and Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Task Force; SB 60, Local Land Use Development and Management Amendments; and SB 66, Procurement Code Bidding and Contractual Amendments. Ms. Hull also mentioned a couple of other possible bills that were being discussed by various legislators.

Underpass on US-89 at Logan Summit
Chairman Brown said he wanted to add an item for discussion to the agenda. He mentioned an issue with a project that is currently under contract on US-89 at the summit in Logan Canyon. He wanted the Commission to get an understanding of the request and what might be possible at this point in time. Cory Pope, Region One Director, said that several letters have been written to Director Njord and others, from Rich County, Cache County, and the Bear River AOG, and the request is for UDOT to include an underpass in the Logan Summit to Garden City project on US-89. The underpass would be for recreational use, as there’s getting to be quite a bit of snowmobile use there in the wintertime. Although there haven’t been any accidents to date, there have been a lot of close calls. The crossing that exists to connect the two trails on either side of the road is at a location where the sight distance is pretty limited. Unfortunately, UDOT was approached in November, after the project had been awarded. The budget for the project did not include anything of this nature. After some investigation, the Department has determined that the proposal could be technically feasible. It is also inside of the limits of the environmental document, which is a big hurdle. The confining piece is the funding. Preliminary estimates suggest the project would cost around $400,000. And that’s without the initiation of a contractor, and is a fairly pricy addition to the current project. Additional discussion ensued regarding details of the project and it’s location.

Chairman Brown said he had a brief conversation with a Rich County commissioner, who indicated that the county would be willing to contribute money to the project. He also wondered if the Forest Service and Parks and Recreation would contribute anything, a shared kind of funding mechanism. Mr. Pope said when they visited with the Forest Service back in November, they did kind of leave it in their hands, saying technically they thought the project could be done, but the Forest Service would have to come to the table with some funding. That conversation didn’t include the counties at that point. A response is being prepared for Director Njord’s signature, with the intent to ask for local funding. Director Njord commented that this is probably not the only place where someone would like UDOT to build an underpass or overpass like this. What’s driving this is the fact that there is a contractor on site. However, there might be some things that will change, such as the geometry, where the sight distance will better, making it more safe to cross. It’s possible that some warning signals could be put up as well. He doesn’t want to rush to a conclusion that might be the wrong conclusion. He wants to make sure this is the right way to spend the Department’s money and in the right place. It could also be considered as a transportation enhancement project. If someone else wants to finance this underpass, then it makes all the sense in the world.

Accomplishments/Conditions and Needs Report
Asset Management Program (Bridges and Pavement)
Kim Schvaneveldt from Program Development said for their Asset Management presentation today, they have combined three presentations into one and will be talking about Goal #1, Taking Care of What We Have, in the bridge and pavement areas. Lloyd Neeley will review the “good roads cost less” strategy, upon which everything is based, what the system condition is, and how they’re doing. Mr. Schvaneveldt said he will discuss the pavement portion, and Todd Jensen will cover the bridge portion.

Lloyd Neeley from Program Development said he really wants to emphasize that the same principle of the good roads cost less philosophy applies to both roads and bridges. It’s a comprehensive strategy, and the major elements are major rehabilitation, reconstruction, minor rehabilitation, proactive maintenance, and preventive maintenance. In order to preserve the network of a healthy infrastructure, there are different things that drive what they do. Some of that has to do with the infrastructure elements themselves and overall pavement health, and some of it has to do with the needs and issues outside of that, such as capacity and safety needs. Design life strategies have been developed for five pavement families, and one example is the high volume asphalt pavements. Typically, after a new pavement at year zero, there would be a surface seal eight years after the original construction. At the fifteenth year, there would be a structural overlay and surface seal, eight years after that another surface seal, and at year thirty, another structural overlay and surface seal. That would hopefully extend the actual service life of a pavement beyond the design life of a pavement, which for structural purposes is generally twenty years for an asphalt pavement. That’s where the good roads cost less strategy comes into play. Typical costs for a lane mile of pavement, over thirty years, is about $900,000. If treatments are neglected and a pavement is allowed to reach a point where the condition is unacceptable and a major rehabilitation or reconstruction has to be done, then it costs about $1.5 million per mile. Benefits of smooth roads to motorists are savings in fuel cost to consumers, conservation of a nonrenewable natural resource, less air pollution, less vehicle damage, and less pavement damage.

Todd Jensen, Structures Engineer, said not only do good roads cost less, but good bridges cost less too. He will be talking about the health of the bridge system. How do they categorize bridges? To do that, they fall back on the National Bridge Inspection System. A sufficiency rating for a structure that is between 80 and 100 is considered good. A fair bridge has a sufficiency rating between 50 and 80, and a poor bridge has a rating between 0 and 50. Federal funding for bridge replacement follows those same guidelines. In the 50 to 80 category, a bridge is eligible for rehabilitation funds; in the category of 50 or below, a bridge is eligible for replacement. From 1994 to 2004, the number of good bridges increased. UDOT’s target values are for 65% of bridges to be in the good category, 25% in the fair category, and no more than 10% in the poor category. UDOT is doing fairly well with that, and there are three things that are contributing to this trend. First, when I-15 was reconstructed around the year 2000, 120 bridges were taken out of service; many of them were in the poor or fair category. They were replaced with 144 new good bridges, which brought the score up in the good area. Second, funds were secured for the bridge preservation program in that same time period. It has allowed them to spend money on preservation and keep good bridges good, rather than let them slip. The third contribution is that Project Development is working closely with the regions and getting a good prioritization of the bridges that are in poor condition and getting them onto the STIP for replacement. The state has approximately 1800 on-system bridges, and nearly ½ of those were constructed during the 1960’s and 1970’s. On average, a bridge will need major rehabilitation or replacement after about 45-50 years if no preservation is done. Bridges built in the 1960’s are approaching that 45-year life. One interesting thing to note is that many of those bridges in that category are on the interstate system, and not only are there condition issues, but there are capacity issues as well. The question is whether rehabilitation money should be spent on those bridges, or should they wait until there’s money available for a capacity project? It requires careful planning by looking at corridors and prioritizing which ones are done.

Mr. Schvaneveldt said his discussion would closely parallel what was just heard about the bridge program. For the performance measures on pavements, and looking at pavements in fair or better condition on the interstate, they want 90% of them in fair or better condition. They want 70% of the arterials in fair or better condition, and 50% of the collectors in fair or better condition. In general, pavements need major rehabilitation after 15-20 years, and pavements with major treatments done in the 1980’s will need work soon. The trend of pavements that need major work is similar to that of the bridges. For asset analysis, the system they are using is called dTIMS CT, which uses the lifecycle cost strategy. It goes through a lot of calculations and tries just about every combination there is to come up with the results needed. However, before moving on, there needs to be some funding assumptions made. In this system, all dollars are present value dollars, and all dollars are project dollars, as opposed to individual component dollars. The dollars also assume preservation (Goal 1) only, meaning replacing existing facilities “in-kind” only, and no capacity improvements in the needs analysis. As a result of some analysis, which they’ve come at from different angles, they’ve come close to the same numbers each time and find that they need $34 million for bridges, which includes orange book treatments. Similarly, for pavements, they need $180 million, and that includes orange, blue and purple book treatments. Mr. Schvaneveldt explained in detail the funding scenario they are looking at. He said they really have been spending that kind of money, but it just hasn’t been presented in this form before. The Commission has been very good to support their requests and it’s paying off. And yes, they do need to find $180 million, but it doesn’t matter how it comes. To reiterate, the funding recommendation for bridges is $34, with $12 million going to orange book projects, and $22 million going to blue book projects. The funding recommendation for pavements is $180 million, with $41.4 million going to orange book projects, $50.3 million going to purple book projects, and $88.3 million going to blue book projects.

Informational Items

State Infrastructure Bank

Mr. Ditlevsen said that there has been some interest in what a loan from the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) might do for particular projects in the state, and even though this program has been authorized, they have not developed a project loan agreement or policy and procedures. He distributed a handout and said it’s an outline of what could be included in a loan agreement. The thoughts on the handout were taken from best practices in other states, and they will continue to develop language that could bring them to an actual loan agreement. Then, at some point in the future, they will bring back a document. He asked the Commission to look at the handout and relay any concerns they might have if they did a loan in a SIB environment, and what they would like to see in an agreement. Chairman Brown asked if it would be on the agenda in the future for further discussion. Mr. Ditlevsen said it would. Carlos Braceras, Deputy Director, said that they have not heard formally from St. George City regarding the Ledges development. He suggested that as part of the tour in St. George in March, they go look at this area. The Commission may hear from the city or the developer about this particular project in the March Commission meeting.

Commission Committee Reports

Commissioner Wilson reported on the groundbreaking ceremony that was held in Monument Valley. Commissioner Lewis noted that the Enhancement Committee has met; their final meeting will be on March 3 to finalize the applications. They have narrowed them down to 35 from 72.

Next Commission Meetings

The next Transportation Commission Meeting will be held on Friday, March 11, 2005, in St. George, Utah. The following dates and locations have also been scheduled:

• April 22, 2005 - Salt Lake City
  
• May 20, 2005 - Location TBA
  
• June 17, 2005 - Location TBA

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

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
Stephen M. Bodily, Vice-Chairman
Jan C. Wells, Commissioner
Bevan K. Wilson, Commissioner
Ken Warnick, Commissioner
Jerry B. Lewis, Commissioner
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
Kim Schvaneveldt, Program Development
Bret Anderson, Program Development
Linda Hull, Director of Legislative and Government Affairs
Tom Hudachko, Director of Public Affairs
Lyle McMillan, Director of Right of Way
Richard Clarke, Maintenance
Lloyd Neeley, Maintenance
Robert Hull, Traffic and Safety
Todd Jensen, Structures
Dave Eixenberger, Structures
Gary Kuhl, Program Development
Frank Long, FHWA
Joe Brown, GOPB
Darrell Cook, MAG
Chuck Chappell, WFRC
Doug Hattery, WFRC