Utah Transportation Commission
September 23, 2005
Tooele, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held in the Tooele City Council Chambers, 90 North Main, Tooele, Utah, was called to order at 9:03 a.m. by Chairman Glen E. Brown. He introduced the Commission and welcomed those attending. Commissioner Millington was excused from the meeting.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the minutes of the August 19, 2005, regular Commission meeting held in Cedar City, Utah. Commissioner Bodily seconded the motion and the minutes were approved.

Local Area Presentation by Region Two
Randy Park, Region Two Director, gave the local area presentation that focused on recently completed, current and future projects in Tooele County.

Public Comments
Dave Davis, a property owner in Erda addressed the Commission about the swamp land that was left on his property and asked who was responsible for the actions of the directors of UDOT. He has already spent tens of thousands of dollars defending himself, correcting UDOT’s mistakes. Can anybody at UDOT solve this problem? Director Njord said he understands that there have been some negotiations between Mr. Davis and the Department, trying to resolve the issues. There is also legal action in process requiring that they go through court. Director Njord also said the actions of the Department are his responsibility. He told Mr. Davis that his door is always open, and he would welcome the opportunity of a conversation at his leisure. Mr. Davis said he would appreciate a meeting with Director Njord to possibly work this problem out. He also noted that UDOT is the one bringing out the legal actions. He has yet to file anything in court against UDOT.

Steve Pruden, Tooele City Councilmember thanked UDOT for their new highway. As as result of the highway expansion, they’ve already had quite a few companies express interest in coming to Tooele to provide jobs for the citizens. Mr. Pruden mentioned the Central Valley highway and said he hopes it could be on the radar for the future. They are concerned about the impact Mr. Miller’s racetrack will have on traffic, and they also want to keep trucks off of Tooele’s Main Street.

Representative Rhonda Menlove expressed her appreciation for the expanded roadway into Tooele. She’s continually amazed at the growth in Tooele, and the completion of the road will be a great benefit. She also expressed her support for an additional freeway exit in the Grantsville area for the Deseret Complex.

Senator Darin Peterson thanked Director Njord and others for the work they did on the Legacy Project. It was masterfully done. He said Tooele is an interesting county, in that they are faced with things that not too many counties are faced with. With military installations and waste facilities, exit routes are needed to get people in and out of the community in a timely manner. They need to seriously start thinking about a mid-valley highway for access in and out of the area.

STIP Financial Overview
Max Ditlevsen, Program Finance Director, distributed a handout titled “Safetea-Lu – Highway Project Earmarks,” and said he would talk about the STIP financial overview and what they are seeing from the reauthorization bill. He noted that there are 30 earmarked projects totaling $263.35 million. They are starting to track those monies – where they came from, what earmarks they were, what kind of match requirements are associated with them, and the type of allocation to be received. Most of the money will come in 20% per year over five years, and there are rules about how the money can be obligated. Some is project specific, some can be looked at in aggregate when projects are ready to move forward. Mr. Ditlevsen noted that the $263 million represents about 18% of UDOT’s program through 2009.

Mr. Ditlevsen referred to the second handout he said was a historical look at the TEA-21 program from 1998 through 2003. He pointed out that there is approximately $180 million more in earmarks in the new bill than in the previous bill. He expressed concern about the local government earmarked projects, and the need to coordinate with those local governments to get the money working effectively and sooner. There is still $82 million of unobligated funds from TEA-21, but those funds don’t lapse. Carlos Braceras, Deputy Director, noted that the Department will be setting up meetings with those local governments, likely in October, to identify the challenges they may face with the projects, and to see what can be done to make them successful. And, each Commissioner will be informed as to when those meetings are scheduled in their area. Additional discussion focused on the obligation authority money.

Planning and Programming
Update of Local Government’s Funds Exchange Initiative
Chairman Brown asked that this item be moved up on the agenda. Mr. Ditlevsen reported on the efforts made to respond to the Joint Highway Committee’s Non-Urban Subcommittee’s request for an opportunity to have a pilot program for exchanging of local federal funds for state dollars. He said the Department believes there is some mutual benefit. On the local side of the issue, with state funds they can proceed with projects under procedures that are less stringent than found with regulations through the FHWA, particularly for the smaller projects. For UDOT, there could be less project management responsibilities associated with those projects on the exchange. However, it all comes down to how much money is available to do this and how far it can be extended. Therefore, that’s why this is a pilot program. This discussion is just for the Commission’s information today. They’ll come back next month to ask for formal action.

Mr. Ditlevsen then reviewed the list of program administration elements, which were included in the Commission’s binders. He said there are still some procedural issues to be worked out if there’s favorable consideration of this. He also talked about the survey they did of other states and said there are a few who are actively exchanging dollars, but it’s all over the board.

Mountain View Corridor Update
Teri Newell from Region Two gave the Commission an update on the Mountain View Corridor. Her presentation covered roadway alternatives, the level of support from the public, cities and legislators, a preliminary impacts analysis, preliminary cost estimates, an EIS tolling analysis, electronic toll collection, a tolling financial analysis, and the project’s timeline. She noted that they would be back in November to address other issues, such as impacts to each alternative. Mayor Dennis Nordfelt from West Valley City commented that this is an exciting project for the west side of Salt Lake County. Although there is not unanimity among elected officials in the impacted cities on the preferred alternative, there is unanimity that one of the alternatives needs to happen. They need the infrastructure to accommodate the traffic, and would like this to move forward as quickly as possible.

Planning and Programming
Aeronautics Capital Improvement Program (FY 06 CIP)
Pat Morley, Director of Aeronautics, said this was brought to the Commission last month for information, and there are no changes from last month. He noted that in the CIP for FY 06, there were 25 airports that received federal funding and 14 airports that received state funding for projects. In FY 07, 26 projects received federal dollars, and 12 airports received state dollars.

Commissioner Warnick made a motion to approve the FY 06 and FY 07 CIP projects. It was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved.

Request for WFRC TIP Amendment – Bangerter Highway Noise Wall Project
Mr. Ditlevsen said this noise wall project on Bangerter Highway needs to be considered in the WFRC TIP; it will then come back to the Commission for inclusion in the STIP. The cost is $1.5 million and would be part of the FY 05 one-time state funds. Mr. Park explained that Bangerter Highway, from 10000 South to I-15 in the south, was striped as a two lane facility, but built to accommodate the same configuration as the rest of the highway. As the south end of the valley has grown, they feel it is time to move ahead and restripe that section of Bangerter Highway to three lanes. When increasing capacity, the environmental process requires UDOT to construct noise walls for the areas that have constructed development, as well as platted development. It’s a fairly minor amount at this point at $1.5 million. Traffic will only get worse over time. Chairman Brown wanted to make sure the rules and processes are followed with the local governments involved, as they relate to noise walls. Mr. Park said he would make sure that happens, if it hasn’t already. All the places polled want the noise walls.

Commissioner Bodily moved that the Commission recommend that this project be added to the WFRC TIP. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved.

Department Strategic Goals and Measures
Mr. Braceras handed out a booklet and gave a presentation on the Department’s Strategic Goals and Measures. He said it’s the same presentation that was given to the Interim Committee on Wednesday. Previously, they were presenting information from 1990 through 2000, but they have now brought that information up to date with data received through 2004 and 2005. Utah is the fifth fastest growing state in the country, and over the last 14 years, Utah has experienced a 42% increase in population growth, while the VMT has increased by more than 68%. Unfortunately, new highway capacity has only grown by 4%. By 2010, the VMT will have increased by 99%, and the capacity by 5%. The solution the Department has been working on is the four strategic goals: Take Care of What We Have, Make the System Work Better, Improve Safety, and Increase Capacity. Mr. Braceras then reviewed the performance measures associated with achieving each of those goals.

Chairman Brown asked how the Department reaches their goals if the Commission has control of the money that drives the results. They’re as much the Commission’s goals because they dictate, in some way, whether those goals are met or not. He suggested that maybe they ought to redefine whose goals they are. Mr. Braceras acknowledged that the Department would not be able to achieve any of their goals without the Commission’s assistance in providing the funding for the projects that help meet those goals. And, they would be willing to include the Commission in the title, if that’s their pleasure.

Commission Administrative Rules
SB 25
Ahmad Jaber, Project Development Director, said today’s discussion on SB 25 is for information only. He mentioned that at Wednesday’s Transportation Interim meeting, several members of the committee had to leave early and UDOT wasn’t able to finish their presentation, so they were asked to return next month to continue the presentation. Mr. Jaber said that during the presentation, Lincoln Shurtz of the Utah League of Cities and Towns had some questions. His first question, in reference to line 94, was, ‘What is an economic development purpose?’ His second question was, ‘What if the primary purpose for a new interchange is traffic management, but allows for economic development opportunity – do we still have to participate?’ Mr. Jaber said those are issues they’ve grappled with, and believes that was one of the reasons for the recommendation from the Commission meeting in Randolph – to make the economic impact part of the second phase of the selection process.

Commissioner Warnick said maybe they could eliminate the first question by changing it to economic impact, with the definition on line 10. The 11400 South interchange is an example that has multiple purposes – safety, congestion, etc. And there will certainly be some new activity, possibly new business. Mr. Braceras commented that at Interim he said if an interchange was identified for a traffic need, it would have been part of the long range plan and have factors other than economic development. But if an interchange was proposed that wasn’t on the statewide plan, it would probably more closely fit economic development. The interchanges on SR-18 in St. George were mentioned as an example.

Chairman Brown referred to lines 56 through 67 and said this goes back to the discussion on the strategic directives of the Department. It’s a little confusing how it all interplays. He thinks it ought to say that as the Department recommends funding to the Commission, they will try to meet the strategic goals, or something like that. Director Njord said they would try to distill into words the process they currently use and anticipate using in the future. The difficulty is when it’s put into words, it’s subject to interpretation. Chairman Brown said the recommendation process ought to be introduced into the rule. Otherwise, it implies that the Department has absolute control over those objectives. Mr. Braceras said they could add a sentence indicating the intent and the relationship to reflect exactly what it is the Commission does.

SB 11
Mr. Jaber said there are some ties between SB 11 and SB 25, in that the economic development purpose which is written in the administrative rule for SB 25, is also written in the administrative rule for SB 11. They need to make sure they are compatible. SB 11 requires the Commission, in consultation with representatives of local governments, to make a rule adopting guidelines for partnering. That process started in April of 2004, and local governments were surveyed. The working group reviewed the survey results, developed guidelines for the process, and consulted with the JHC, WFRC, and MAG. The rule was drafted in February of this year, and was made available for comments in several Commission meetings. Mr. Jaber said he believes the requirements of SB 11 have been met and they can now proceed with sending this to Administrative Rules.

Mr. Jaber discussed line 33 of the rule, which says, ‘The Transportation Commission may not consider local matching dollars…unless the state provides an equal opportunity to raise local matching dollars for state highway improvements within each county, as directed by SB 25, 2005 General Session. Commissioner Warnick thought they could add an example, such as property tax, which could be used by all counties. Sales tax couldn’t be used because it’s not available to all counties. Chairman Brown said he read this over several times and would like to have the word law or statute added after the word state so it reads ‘…unless the state statute provides an equal opportunity…’ It defines more clearly how it’s controlled. It’s the statute that drives this.

Commissioner Bodily made a motion that line 34 read ‘…unless the state statute provides an equal opportunity…’ Commissioner Lewis seconded it and the motion was approved.

Commissioner Warnick asked if there were problems with lines 80, 81 and 82 and the 50% match, based on the discussion of the previous rule. It ought to be consistent with SB 25. Or, maybe they don’t want to put a percent up there. Should it be left up to the Commission? Commissioner Bodily commented that the financial contribution should somehow be related to the percent of impact of economic development. If economic development is driving it to 85%, then maybe that ought to be the contribution. The interchanges on SR-18 in St. George were discussed again. Mr. Braceras said that the difference with those interchanges was that they were not on the STIP. What they’re talking about here is advancing projects on the STIP. The Commission was concerned about projects leap frogging and taking resources away from projects already on the STIP, so projects not on the STIP would be handled separately.

Commissioner Warnick moved that the rule associated with SB 11 be put into the formal rulemaking process. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved.

Review of Administrative Rules
Motor Carriers
Rick Clasby, Director of Motor Carriers distributed two handouts. He said one is for R-912-2, which he failed to include with the information in the Commission’s binders. The other handout is a summary of each of the rules that will be reviewed today. Until about a year ago, the Department operated under the premise that they had authority to create permit conditions, and as a result, created a document known as the Utah Regulations for Permitted Vehicles, which served as the regulatory document for oversize and overweight loads. They learned that the process would be better served, especially considering due process and public hearings, if they took some of those permit conditions and turned them into administrative rules.

Mr. Clasby reviewed the following rules with the Commission: R-912-2, Mobile and Manufactured Homes; R-912-9, Pilot/Escort Requirements and Certification Program; R-912-10, Requirements for Pilot/Escort Qualified Training and Certification Program; R-912-11, Overweight and/or Oversize Permitted Vehicle Restrictions on Certain Highways throughout the State of Utah; and R-912-14, Changes to Utah’s Oversize/Overweight permit Program – Semitrailers Exceeding 48 Feet in Length.

Right of Way
Jim McMinimee, Project Development Director, noted that as part of a regular review on some of their rules, they discovered a ‘hole’ in one of their rules. They’d like to amend the rule that standardizes the process and make it easier for the regions and others to understand what information they need to present in regards to access permits on a state road.

Informational Items
Committee Reports/Assignments
Commissioner Warnick gave a brief report on the Ropeway Committee.

Next Commission Meetings
The next regular Transportation Commission meeting has been scheduled for October 21, 2005, in Blanding Utah. The following dates and locations have also been scheduled:

• November 10, 2005 – Provo (date change)
  
• December 9, 2005 – Salt Lake City

The meeting adjourned at 12:08 p.m.

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 R. Njord, Executive Director
Carlos M. Braceras, Deputy Director
David K. Miles, Operations Engineer
Jim McMinimee, Project Development Director
Ahmad Jaber, Program Development Director
Max Ditlevsen, Program Finance Director
Pat Morley, Director of Aeronautics
Bret Anderson, Program Development
Brent Wilhite, Community Relations
Jim Holfeltz, Internal Auditor
Rick Clasby, Director of Motor Carriers
Shirleen Hancock, Motor Carriers
Randy Park, Region Two Director
Dave Nazare, Region Two Deputy Director
Teri Newell, Region Two
Robert Miles, Region Two
Frank Long, FHWA
Senator Darin Peterson, Utah State Senate
Representative Ronda Menlove, Utah House of Representatives
Jim Lawrence, Tooele County
Steve Pruden, Tooele City Council
Cary Campbell, Tooele City
Mayor Dennis Nordfelt, West Valley City/WFRC
Doug Hattery, WFRC
Wayne Bennion, WFRC
Darrell Cook, MAG
Geoff Parkins, HDR Engineering
Rachel McQuillen, URS
Aubry Bennion, URS
Dave Davis, Erda
David Davis, Erda
Russ Winters