Utah Transportation Commission
January 18, 2002
Salt Lake City, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at the UDOT Rampton Complex, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, was called to order at 9:04 p.m. by Commission Vice-Chairman James G. Larkin. He welcomed those in attendance and introduced the Commission members, and UDOT staff members. Commission Chairman Glen Brown was excused from the meeting.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2001, Commission meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved.

Pulbic Comments
Robert Portlock said he resides in West Valley City and is representing 11 property owners, including himself. He is asking that the Department of Transportation construct a sound wall on the east side of 5600 West, which their backyards face. Eight of the property owners have resided there for more than 14 years. The homes were built more than 25 years ago. Mr. Portlock noted that when he moved into his home, there were no homes to the south or east, no Hunter High School, no shopping centers or other commercial establishments, etc., and 5600 West was a two lane road with a traffic count he estimates at less than two thousand cars per day. After Hunter High School was built, UDOT widened 5600 West to four lanes from 4100 South to 4500 South. As the area became more populated, the traffic count increased. Now, 5600 West has four lanes all the way to 2100 South. Additional traffic lights have been installed and truck traffic has increased. Mr. Portlock said he estimates that the traffic count now exceeds 10,000 to 12,000 cars per day. With this increased traffic, homeowners cannot enjoy the privacy of their backyards because of the noise level, so they would like the Commission to approve the construction of a sound wall. They have attempted to follow the steps necessary to achieve their goal by contacting and working the West Valley City and UDOT, but they have not received approval. Mr. Portlock distributed a booklet he prepared to each Commissioner and said he hopes they will study it and return a favorable decision. Vice-Chairman Larkin told Mr. Portlock they will certainly look at what they have been given. They can’t take an action today, but will respond in some fashion.

Legacy Highway
Byron Parker explained that up to August of last year, UDOT restricted construction activities on Legacy to certain limits. But after August, full construction was started, and during the time from August to November 16, 40% of the alignment of Legacy Highway was cleared and/or filled. A temporary injunction to stop all construction work was given on November 16. They are in the process of answering the legal questions on the injunction with the Circuit Court in Denver. Once all the responses are done, the attorneys will argue in front of the panel of judges on March 20. It then becomes a guessing game as to when the judges will make a ruling. Mr. Parker said that under the contract options, they had two options. They either suspend work or terminate the project completely. Terminating the project completely wasn’t an option because they feel like they’ve received approval from FHWA and the Corp of Engineers, and the EPA didn’t veto it. They also won the case in the District Court in Salt Lake, and have a good environmental document and an excellent mitigation package. Termination means the project would have to be rebid and re-advertised.

Mr. Parker stated that while they are in the suspension status of the project, they are paying standby for the contractor because they want to maintain their expertise. If they let everybody go, it would be tough to bring them back. Design work is still being done, as is purchasing of right of way. Before the judge gave the temporary injunction, an estimate was put together of the cost per day for suspension to file with the court, and the estimate came to $92,500. The billing for the first month of suspension, which was for 19 days during December, came to $104,380 per day. There are no guarantees that’s what it’s going to be every month because they are still in the process of negotiating reduction in force for the contractor. Equipment is an issue because it’s either leased, leased to buy, or owned outright.

Mr. Parker said they are looking for other ways to reduce suspension costs. There is a Shepard Lane project that was supposed to start in FY 2005, but by changing the funding period and starting this project now, they can save about $1 million if they allocate the resources from FAK onto the Shepard Lane project while waiting for the decision from the Circuit Court in Denver. It will also help traffic and ease motorist’s concerns in that area. The original completion date for Legacy was fall of 2004, but with the delays, completion will probably be in 2005 sometime. Estimated cost for Shepard Lane is $40 million. Add into that right of way, overhead and contingencies, and the cost rises to $50 million. Commissioner Wells asked about juggling resources to find the $40 million for this project and moving it ahead in the program. Chuck Larsen, Comptroller, said he’s been working with the Governor’s office. By delaying the Legacy project, they have upwards to $40 million savings in the cash flow and they can turn that savings into the Shepard Lane project. Commissioner Clyde expressed his concerns regarding such a large change order. He said the contracting community is also very concerned about the concept of negotiating such large change orders without a bid. However, there is also another dilemma in that if they don’t do this change order, there will be $8 million in delays which will be burned away, and it will come out of the state construction fund for future construction. Commissioner Clyde said in light of where things are, he thinks this is a good idea.

Commissioner Wells asked if Farmington City has been contacted about this. Mr. Parker said Farmington City originally wanted Shepard Lane to be the last project completed on US-89, but now it is their top priority. Director Njord said the new mayor is on the same page as the old mayor as well. Commissioner Warnick asked about the Legislature and what role they need to play in this whole process. Director Njord said they have contacted many legislators over the last couple of weeks that are affected in this area, and described what they want to accomplish. They’ve received overwhelming support from everyone they’ve spoken with. He has also spoken with the highway contracting element of the Associated General Contractors and surprisingly received a warm reception from them as well. They understand that money spent on the delay is money that just evaporates. Commissioner Clyde responded that he appreciates the Director’s comments, but they can’t let this become a general policy. There was additional discussion regarding tying the Shepard Lane and Legacy projects together and possible timing conflicts.

Commissioner Wells commented that when the first injunction came and work was being done on the north end, they were able to keep going even during the injunction. Is that work finished? Is there any way to go back and do some of that while they’re waiting? Mr. Parker replied that they entered into a joint stipulation, which allowed them to only do certain work. That work was associated with Farmington’s master plan, which included Burke Lane and work on the I-15/US-89 interchange. UDOT agreed not to do any other work except what was in the agreement, up to August 1. Full construction was then started on August 1. The plaintiffs had an opportunity to ask for a stay on July 15, but they didn’t receive it until November 16. They asked for a stay in the lower court in September but were denied. They then went to the Circuit Court in Denver. Mr. Braceras added that there was only one injunction, which is the one they are currently under right now. The agreement with the plaintiffs was signed in April to do work in the Burke Lane area. That work has not yet been completed, but the stay encompassed it, and UDOT’s interpretation is that it overrode that agreement. Director Njord said they intend to work with the contractor to issue the change order and put them to work as soon as possible on the Shepard Lane project. It is estimated it will take through February to get things turned over onto a new project. Work will then begin in earnest in March.

Planning and Programming
2002 - 2006 STIP Amendment #3
Bret Anderson, Program Development, said this amendment is to add the Medical Center light rail extension design and construction project, from the point the University light rail line ends at right now all the way to the Medical Center. WFRC has submitted this request and has had an opportunity to put it out for public comment, which ended in December. They adopted this resolution at their Council meeting in December, and are following the process to forward this on to UDOT to include in the 2002 STIP. Commission action is needed today so work can begin on the project. Commissioner Clyde asked why the Commission has to approve this. Mr. Anderson said it’s a transit funding issue, and any 5309 funds added into the program have to have Commission action and MPO action in order to receive federal funding.

Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the STIP amendment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved.

Resolution
12300/12600 South, Bangerter Highway to 700 East, Environmental Assessment
Angelo Papastamos, Region Two project manager, said they are seeking support today on the preferred alternative for 12300 South. Last month, they received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from FHWA on the preferred alternative. Mr. Papastamos then discussed details of the preferred alternative, which is covered in the Commissioner’s packets. There was also discussion regarding accommodation of the Union Pacific railroad tracks. Commissioner Warnick asked about the total dollar amount for the project. Mr. Papastamos said the total, from 700 East to Bangerter Highway, is $91.2 million. They are planning to do the project in phases. Their plan is to start with the railroad grade separation project next year. They are starting to buy right of way now, and are working a little bit on design as well. They’ll follow that up with the Redwood Road phase, which is from the Jordan River to Redwood Road, in 2003-2004. The third phase would be the I-15 interchange replacement, and the final phase would be Redwood Road to Bangerter Highway. The entire project will be finished at the end of 2006.

Commissioner Wells made a motion to adopt the resolution for the 12300/12600 South project, Bangerter Highway to 700 East. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved.

Resolution
Addition of 11400 South, from State Street to Redwood Road, to the State System
John Quick said the issue before the Commission today is a proposal to add 11400 South, from Redwood Road to State Street, onto the state highway system at the request of the cities who have jurisdiction of that section of road. A portion of the road does not exist from Redwood Road to 1300 West, but South Jordan has reserved some of the right of way in that area. Mr. Quick turned the time over to Rick Horst, city manager of South Jordan.

Mr. Horst said the 11400 South interchange will include construction from State Street to the South Jordan gateway. The Environmental Assessment (EA) has been completed all the way to Redwood Road, and a 106 foot corridor has been preserved from 1300 West to approximately Redwood Road. There is an existing intersection at Bangerter Highway, and traffic flows all the way to Redwood Road. There is a gap in between there, so construction of the 11400 South interchange will help tie the two corridors together. South Jordan is willing to continue maintenance of the road until such time as new construction is completed and other agreements yet to be worked out are made. Commissioner Clyde expressed his concerns about taking something that doesn’t exist onto the state highway system. It simply means that UDOT is going to be expected to finance it. There’s enormous economic value in opening up property to new development. How are they going to help leverage the tremendous cost of right of way acquisition when this does in fact get constructed? Mr. Horst stated that the bulk of the right of way is already in place, and there will be no growth because of the river bottom. The right of way was preserved because of the prudence of their former mayor and council, and it belongs to South Jordan. There’s about ½ acre with one little house, and a portion east of the river that has not been preserved. It is not developed; however, there are development projects pending in which the developers will give South Jordan the right of way. The only reason they are pending is because they want to nail down the alignment.

Commissioner Clyde asked about a timetable for this. Mr. Braceras said there is presently no funding identified for this corridor, outside of the present project UDOT has on I-15 for the interchange. Mr. Horst said their intent is to get on the scope and prepare for the future. Vice Chairman Larkin assumed that once the Commission passes this resolution, the state will take the corridor onto the system now. Director Njord said there’s a philosophical discussion they need to have about that. Once the road is constructed, it may function like a state road. UDOT has taken on a lot of roads in this part of the valley recently, but they’ve yet to give a road that has been identified as a local government type road, back to the local government who should really maintain, own and operate them. When UDOT takes on new roads, they get no additional funding to maintain them, so it’s of concern to UDOT to continue to take on roads without the ability to maintain them. That’s what would be done in this situation. The cooperative agreement that has been prepared that South Jordan, Sandy and Draper would have to enter into with UDOT, would stipulate that this road would continue to be a local government road until such time as it is constructed. Maintenance would be the responsibility of the local governments. Mr. Horst said they’ve agreed to that. They are also doing the same thing with 10600 and 10400 South. Vice Chairman Larkin asked if the resolution the Commission signs agrees to take this road onto the state system after it’s been constructed. Director Njord replied that he’s not sure the Commission has to take action today. The Commission could choose to wait until the agreements with the local municipalities are completed, as this has come up very quickly and is really a result of the upcoming legislative session. There is some urgency in deciding which direction the Commission would like to go to in the future.

Dix McMullen stated that they are concerned about the action the Legislature is going to take on the state road bill, which will come up before the Commission meets again. One of the reasons they wanted to move this forward and get it adopted is because it does affect long range planning throughout the Wasatch front. Mr. McMullen said the WFRC TransCom Committee he had been serving on, identified this road as part of the future planning for the 1/4 of a 1/4 cent sales tax that needs to be spent in Salt Lake County. It may be out two or three years, but this corridor needs to be part of the state system. They are trying to help identify funding for it, so now is the time to put it on the system. They’ve made a big effort in preserving the corridor and in working with WFRC and TransCom. He would really appreciate if the Commission would make a motion to accept it onto the state system, pending the agreements of the cities. Commissioner Clyde said he is concerned that the resolution is still a little incomplete. He would like to delay this until some of the issues are resolved, and to make sure UDOT is not moving ahead impetuously.

Commissioner Clyde moved to table this issue until other information is presented. The motion died due to a lack of a second.

Linda Hull explained that there is a bit of a problem with the timing of this issue. A lot of conditions have been put into the resolution, but the cities haven’t had time to review those conditions to make sure they are comfortable with the way that it’s been written. At the same time, the city is seeking assurance that the Commission will be taking some kind of action in the future. Max Ditlevsen, Program Development, said it’s the process that’s in question, and he wondered about a precedence being set. Commissioner Warnick said he’s still a little confused with the funding and timing of this. He wondered what is going to happen in the next two months that might cause problems in funding this down the road. Is this an attempt being made by the cities to get the Legislature to designate the 1/4 of 1/4 cent tax for this project? Commissioner Wells said they want it on the list of projects the Legislature will know that the 1/4 of a 1/4 tax will go to. Commissioner Warnick said in order to get this project on that list, it has to be on the state system then.

Commissioner Wells made a motion to sign the resolution, and to have the cooperative agreement signed by the three cities before the resolution takes effect. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Warnick and passed, with one dissenting vote by Commissioner Clyde.

2002 Legislative Session
Linda Hull said the key issue for the Legislature this year is the budget, and it will be the key issue for the Department as well. The FY 02 supplemental bill was just finished, and the Department made adjustments to it’s budget in that bill. Now the FY 03 budget is being considered. UDOT will be sponsoring just three bills this year in the Legislature, as agencies were asked to limit the number of bills they were sponsoring because of the abbreviated legislative session. The most important of those bills has to do with mitigation in condemnation cases. Representative Greg Curtis is carrying that bill for the Department. It came up for committee consideration yesterday, but didn’t go quite as well as hoped. The state is able to mitigate damages, and the Department can take action to try to reduce the damages, but the problem is with the way the code is written now. It’s not clear that a judge can consider the mitigation UDOT has done in the final award of damages. An attorney was able to argue that it was the date the summons was served that the damages had to be paid, and there couldn’t be any consideration of any mitigation done after that. In this particular case, the judge did reverse the ruling and said it should be actual damages that are considered, not the dates served. So, this type of legislation would benefit UDOT and any city, county, or government entity that does condemnation.

Another bill UDOT is sponsoring has to do with outdoor advertising. This is one of the rare occasions when the Department of Transportation agrees with the outdoor industry on a particular issue. It’s actually a mistake in the code that has the effect of clustering all of the billboards around the interchange. Billboards can’t be a certain number of feet away from the interchange, so billboards end up clustering around the interchange. That restriction needs to be removed. Senator Waddoups is carrying that bill, and it sailed through interim committee. The last bill is just a correction that needs to be made in the code. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in the code references the 1988 MUTCD. Instead of referencing the actual year the MUTCD is adopted nationally, it’ll say the most current MUTCD.

Ms. Hull said bills the Department is tracking include three highway designation bills, a possible bill on the rulemaking process that may bring the Legislature into approval of rules that are adopted by the agency, and a bill on overweight vehicles. Also, Rep. Daniels has a motor fuel bill again this year that opens the transportation fund revenues for other transportation uses, and there’s a bill to move the Space Port Advisory Board to the responsibility of the Department of Economic Development, instead of UDOT. Senator Spencer is going to introduce a bill allowing the state to file suit if the state is wrongfully enjoined in a law suit. This comes out of the Legacy Parkway. And finally, the Department is waiting to see if the Legislature is going to pursue some kind of economic stimulus bill.

Commissioner Wells asked about the $32 million savings that was returned from the I-15 reconstruction project. Director Njord said it goes back into the fund. It’s the same agreement the Department has with the Legislature on the CHEF when there are any underruns on projects. The money goes back into the centennial program for the benefit of the rest of the projects. Commissioner Wells asked if the money would be fought over regarding which project it goes on. Director Njord said he anticipates going to the Legislature, as they have done every year, and describing where the Department is currently on projects.

Commissioner Wilson asked Ms. Hull to come back in March and give the Commission a report on the results of the Legislative session.

Informational Items
Update on Utah County SIP
Carlos Braceras said there was a conformity lapse in Utah County in December of 2000. They were working toward an interim Statewide Implementation Plan (SIP), but in early December, the EPA made the decision that they needed to be working toward a new SIP for Utah County. A lot of the work that had been done is still valid and will be used for the new SIP. There has been quite a partnership with FHWA, MAG, DEQ, and EPA, and it’s been quite a process. If all goes according to schedule, DEQ should be going in front of the Air Board the week of February 11th. At that point, the board approves the SIP, it goes out for public comment, then the EPA has a review period after that. So, they should be close to having conformity in June or July, and the Commission will be able to approve capacity projects in Utah County. Hopefully that will be part of the STIP cycle that will be starting at the workshop in April. Additional discussion ensued regarding PM 2.5 levels and standards that have been set. There was also discussion about what’s being done in Cache Valley.

Next Transportation Commission Meetings
The next regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission was scheduled for Friday, March 15, 2002, in St. George, Utah. The following dates and locations were also scheduled:

• April 26, 2002 - Salt Lake City
  
• May 17, 2002 - Springville

The meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m.

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

James G. Larkin, Vice-Chairman
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Steven M. Bodily, Commissioner
Jan C. Wells, Commissioner
Bevan K. Wilson, Commissioner
Ken Warnick, Commissioner
LeAnn G. Abegglen, Commission Secretary
John R. Njord, Executive Director
Carlos M. Braceras, Deputy Director
Max J. Ditlevsen, Program Development Director
Linda Toy Hull, Director of Legislative and Government Affairs
Charles F. Larsen, Comptroller
Amanda Covington, Community Relations Director
John Quick, Program Development
Bret Anderson, Program Development
Elden Bingham, Program Development
Peter Tang, Environmental Studies
Cory Pope, Region Two Deputy Director
Angelo Papastamos, Region Two
Byron Parker, Legacy Parkway Director
Todd Jensen, Legacy Parkway
David C. Gibbs, Division Administrator, FHWA
Harlan Miller, FHWA
Darrell Cook, Mountainlands AOG
Dan Nelson, Mountainlands AOG
Cheryl Heying, Division of Air Quality
Mayor Kent Money, South Jordan City
Rick Horst, South Jordan City
Greg Davis, URS Corp.
Matt S., Sear Brown
Lani Tribbett, Sear Brown
Jim Horrocks, Horrocks Engineers
Kim Clark, H.W. Lochner
LaNae Quast, HDR
Clint Topham, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Leah Culler, Deseret News
Robert Portlock
Matthew Hess