Utah Transportation Commission
March 16, 2000
St. George, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held in the St. George City Council Chambers, 175 East 200 North, St. George, Utah, was called to order at 9:08 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He introduced the Commission members attending and welcomed those in attendance. Commissioner Clyde was excused from the meeting.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Eastman moved to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2000, Commission Meeting held in Salt Lake City. It was seconded by Commissioner Wilson and approved unanimously.

UDOT Local Area Presentation
Chairman Brown turned the time over to Commissioner Larkin for the local area presentation and public comments portion of the agenda. Commissioner Larkin had the local officials attending introduce themselves. He then turned the time over to Dale Peterson for the local area presentation.

Mr. Peterson briefly reviewed the set up of Region Four, the districts, and the project managers. He then had Robert Dowell and Tom Christensen, both project managers, give an overview of the projects they are each responsible for, including current projects, projects planned for 2001 and 2002, and projects in the concept development stage. Scott Munson, Cedar City District Director, also reviewed some of the projects in his area of responsibility.

Public Comments
Carol Sullivan, Kanab City Council, said they feel they have a hazardous situation on US-89-A, which is the road that goes to Fredonia. They would like to know how to change the speed limit from 45 MPH to 35 MPH to make that a safer stretch of road. They would also like to know if UDOT has anything to do with road calming on city streets. There is a specific area they would like to keep traffic slowed down to make it safer also. Dale Peterson asked Ms. Sullivan to contact his district traffic engineers and have them see if a change in the speed limit is warranted. Also, there is information available about traffic calming, which they will forward on to Kanab City.

Steve Platt, Iron County Engineer, said he is attending on behalf of Commissioner Dennis Stowell who was unable to attend. He mentioned there was discussion at the meeting held in Kanab regarding the Lund Highway, which used to be a paved road but has become gravel again because of the lack of use. Located in Beaver and Iron Counties is the Circle Four pig farm, and it takes a lot of workers to raise those pigs. Those workers are using the Thermal Road in Beaver County. Mr. Platt said they would like to make a connection from the Iron County side using the old Lund Highway. He then referred to his handout, explained the color coding, and discussed what they would like to see happen. Mr. Platt distributed another handout and discussed West Cedar City belt route. He said they have recently selected a consultant to do the environmental assessment. They have set aside approximately $500,000 for that and also to purchase right of way. He wants the Commission to be aware of this item, as they will be back again to ask for design and construction dollars.

Gary Esplin, St. George city manager, welcomed the Commission to St. George. They appreciate the projects and support of the Department they’ve received. They especially appreciate the efforts of Commissioner Larkin. Mr. Esplin said they would like to mention a few projects that are important to St. George. One is at the Bloomington interchange, where there is some major development happening. The city has just approved a Super Walmart that will go in at that interchange. There will also be a new high school and middle school opening. There will be a significant amount of pressure on this interchange, and the city would like to request a cooperative agreement with the state to resolve the problems there. They are proposing a joint development agreement with the state, the developer, and other users of the interchange to jointly fund the improvements at that location. Mr. Esplin said his understanding is that the preferred alternative is two roundabouts on both sides of the freeway. They would like the state to consider putting monies into that project and putting it on the STIP so this problem can be solved before it becomes critical. Mr. Esplin turned the time over to Larry Bullock, public works director for St. George.

Mr. Bullock said they are no longer a half a dozen sleepy little towns in Southern Utah, particularly from a transportation standpoint. One community can’t do anything without affecting others. In 1997, they created the Dixie Regional Transportation Committee as a precursor to becoming an MPO. Through the cooperation of UDOT, they will be retaining a full time planner to be housed in the Five County office, and they are well on their way to having a metropolitan planning organization. One thing that has already emerged is the concept known as the Dixie beltway, a 50-mile beltway that would encompass the entire region and connect all the cities between the Hurricane and LaVerkin area and Ivans. The southern corridor is just one link, which will go all the way from SR-9 to I-15 and the Atkinville Interchange, which is also the area of the proposed replacement airport. The northern beltway section will impact what will be done on the MP 10 and MP 13 interchanges. Mr. Bullock explained some of the complications they are encountering with the northern beltway. He also passed out a leaflet and explained the problems they are facing with the airport, which is too small to accommodate the larger aircraft that’s beginning to come into St. George. He also discussed the problems they are having at the preferred site.

Mayor Terrill Clove of Washington City expressed his concerns about Telegraph Road and the issue of funding. He said there was $223,000 on the STIP, which was left over from phase one, but understands that money is not there anymore. He also asked if or when the $858,000 for Telegraph Road will be available. Linda Hull responded that Telegraph Road was on the STIP at one time, but when the STIP became restrained, Telegraph Road and other projects dropped off. She’s not sure where it is on the priority list with the Region, but when they bring the draft STIP to the Commission in April, and she will make sure they look at Telegraph Road and make recommendations to the STIP. Mayor Clove emphasized Telegraph is a nightmare and in terrible shape. With the developments at Coral Canyon, and with Walmart and Home Depot going in, this will be a horrible situation if they can’t get the road finished over the hill.

Commissioner Larkin made two presentations to Jim McConnell, a project manager in the Cedar City district, both of which had to do with the I-15, Cottonwood Creek to Anderson Junction resurfacing project that was completed this year. The contractor was Cox Rocks Products. The first plaque presented was from the Associated General Contractors of America for the highway project of the year - 1999, in the $5 to 10 million category. The second plaque was the National Asphalt Pavement Association’s quality and construction award. Commissioner Larkin congratulated Mr. McConnell on a great job done. Mr. McConnell said this was a real team effort, and recognized Zane Yeardley and Linda Stewart, a couple of members of his team that were attending.

Resolution
SR-224 in Park City
Jim McMinimee, Region Two Director, said he is here today to ask the Commission to adopt a resolution that transfers jurisdiction and authorizes UDOT to execute a road transfer agreement that is attached to the resolution. This has been a difficult assignment and he has developed a great appreciation for the factors in this transfer. Mr. McMinimee said there are three specific principles he’d like to focus on to help with the decision being made today. The first principle is that the portion of SR-224 proposed to be transferred does not meet the current criteria for being a state road. Although there are beginning to be more year round residents up there, basically the road serves as a dead end access to recreational property. The second principle is that the issues of property access and emergency access are primarily local issues. Those issues are entirely within the jurisdiction and the intent of both Wasatch County and Park City to solve. He believes, through this process, they have the intent to solve those issues. The third principle is that financially, this jurisdictional transfer makes sense from a business perspective. As far as cost benefits in present value, the Department will relieve themselves of $2.3 million of future maintenance problems. In the agreement, it will cost the Department $900,000 in today’s dollars, so it has a positive cash value right now.

Mr. McMinimee said half of the agreement concerns the property owners in Brighton Estates. At the last meeting, he was asked by the Commission to meet with those property owners and have their issues be part of the equation or discussed. He believes the agreement addresses those concerns somewhat. Park City and UDOT have met several times to develop the attached agreement which is part of the resolution. Park City and UDOT have also met with the Brighton Estate representatives. The Park City Council passed a resolution authorizing Park City to enter into the agreement that is in front of the Commission. Mr. McMinimee reviewed the agreement and said UDOT will provide a grant of $410,000 to Park City to offset the additional maintenance costs associated with the jurisdictional transfer. Park City would use most of the money to complete their roundabout and transit center project. UDOT will remain responsible for the maintenance, repair, and rebuilding of the retaining walls on the east and west side of the transferred road. The city is worried that those walls may require more maintenance than they are capable of performing. Mr. McMinimee said inspections have been done on the walls, and it is believed that they have about a 15-year life. The present value of replacing those walls in 15 years is about $500,000 in today’s dollars. Another part of the agreement includes two signalized intersections that are in this transfer. UDOT will inspect and repair the signals before the transfer, and will then be responsible for the maintenance of those signals. There are also some preventative maintenance projects and striping planned for this summer, which will also be completed prior to the transfer. The final thing in the agreement is that UDOT will provide the city with a surplus ten-wheel truck that has an approximate value of $20,000. Mr. McMinimee said the Commission has many choices in regards to this item, but he doesn’t feel they will get any better deal than they have right now. He asked the Commission to approve this resolution.

Commissioner Wells asked about UDOT keeping the retaining wall. Mr. McMinimee said under the terms of the agreement, UDOT would be responsible for maintaining and repairing the wall. However, if Park City allows certain things to compromise the engineering integrity of the wall, then the wall becomes their responsibility. Mr. McMinimee said one thing he forgot to mention is that there are some administrative rules UDOT has that would require the Department to provide year round snow removal when there are enough residents living year round at Brighton Estates. The dollar figures mentioned earlier do not include what would be an increased maintenance cost to plow the road from near Deer Valley to the summit. He as received a petition and 14 affidavits that supposedly say there are currently 14 year-round residents. There needs to be further investigation into that, but if that number holds up, they would be eligible for year round snow removal.

Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone attending from Park City. Paul Lammers said he works for the Park City building department and was sent by the City Manager with a message saying the city council is open to discussion on a variety of issues about property access and emergency access. However, he was not authorized to come and debate those issues today, or to increase in any way the scope of the agreement the city council approved at their last meeting. He’s here to hopefully help communications.

Paul Peters distributed a fax from Wasatch County and said if Park City could shut the road off for summer access they would do it. They just want to control the road now and discuss it later. Wasatch County is not comfortable with that. Mr. Peters turned the time over Gaylord Gardner, president of the homeowners association. Mr. Gardner said their subdivision has approximately 400 lots, with 50 or 60 cabins currently built. He referred to the letter he handed out to the Commission which states a lot of their concerns. He disputed a couple of things Mr. McMinimee talked about, such as SR-224 no longer meeting the criteria for being a state highway, and that of economics. He also talked about Park City, United Park City Mines Corp., and the Deer Valley Ski Area entering a cooperative developing agreement, which has been negotiated, executed and recorded with the Summit County Recorder. By means of this development agreement, Park City has said the road clearing ends at the property line, and adjacent property owners may not use that road in the winter time, denying access to the residents of the Brighton Estates area over clear roads, which they feel, under the administrative cost, they have a right to under state ownership of the road. The residents of Brighton Estates are concerned about the intent of Park City. Mr. Gardner said the present agreement to transfer the road is inadequate because it does not take into account the need to provide transportation across county lines. It also does not take into account the intent of Park City, as demonstrated in their development agreement, to restrict that access. They would like the Commission to postpone their decision until something can be negotiated between Park City and their development team to allow full time winter access to Brighton Estates. They would also like to see further provisions requiring Park City to maintain a certain level of access, as well as a reference to the distribution of B & C Road Funds.

Mr. Peters said in clarifying the intent of the petition Mr. McMinimee discussed, the intent was not to place the burden of plowing the road on the state. One of the issues has been whether or not Park City was going to be able to deny the ability of the homeowners to plow their own roads at their own expense. If the transfer is going to go through, they would like to negotiate some recognition of everybody’s rights and put Park City on notice that they may be accepting this obligation. The issue of emergency access still has to be resolved. Mr. Peters also discussed the part of the agreement pertaining to indemnification from the state to Park City for any lawsuits, actions or penalties arising out of or in connection with this agreement. He doesn’t think it’s appropriate that the state should have to indemnify Park City. This may be an unintended liability the state may be assuming. Lastly, Mr. Peters pointed out the fax from Wasatch County and their request that this matter be postponed. He suggested a joint hearing be held between Park City and Wasatch County, perhaps with members of this Commission.

Director Warne recommended the Commission approve this transfer. Mr. McMinimee has done due diligence in meeting with all parties and trying to negotiate something that is agreeable and acceptable, and that is within the balance the Department is able to operate in. This is a complicated policy issue. Most of what’s been heard today are really local government issues. The Department and the Commission do not provide emergency services. Those services are provided through tax dollars collected by local jurisdictions. Director Warne cautioned the Commission not to get caught up in those kinds of details, and not to allow this agency to be put into the position of negotiating between two local jurisdictions concerning their responsibility to provide services, etc. for their citizens. Wasatch County has an obligation to take care of the citizens that live in their county. Park City also has a responsibility to take care of citizens who use products and services that are consumed from their community. What is being considered here is a matter of a transfer of a state route. Director Warne noted that SR-224 doesn’t actually access Brighton Estates. It’s a county road that goes in there, not SR-224. So when applying the administrative rule, there is some question as to whether the ten family threshold even applies to this discussion. This is a good agreement, and it’s probably not going to get much better than this.

Chairman Brown said his intent is to implement a transfer, but he wants to clean up the agreement a lot more than this. There are things he wants to delete, and there are too many things conditioned in it. And in response to the letter from Wasatch County, where have they been? This issue has been in the public for quite some time. Chairman Brown stated that one of his concerns is the issue of the retaining wall. He believes it’s bad public policy for the state to retain that responsibility, and it sets a bad precedence for future negotiations. It opens up the Department for potential controversy or conflict between the city and the state if this is not transferred clean. Yes, there are some risks with the wall, but there are also risks with a lot of other components of the road. The wall has to be part of the transfer. He can’t support the state retaining the liability of the wall. Chairman Brown then asked about the source of the $410,000 that will be granted to Park City in exchange for this transfer. Linda Hull said she foresees using a combination of RABA funds and the Region’s contingency funds, but she’s not quite sure what the amounts will be from each one yet.

Chairman Brown said his other concern has to do with timing and trying to solve all of the issues that have been raised, such as property rights and emergency access, etc., before the exchange is made. As Director Warne alluded to, that’s not the Department’s jurisdiction. However, he is sympathetic to the argument that those citizens shouldn’t lose anything in this transfer. as far as their existing rights are concerned. This transfer should reflect that whatever rights the citizens currently have with the state, transfer with the road to Park City. But how they settle that issue is between them and Park City. The state is not taking anything away from them as citizens in this transfer.

Commissioner Bodily commented that in the best interest of the Department, he’d certainly like to see this transfer go ahead. However, there have been some points brought out in this discussion that complicates the issue. He sees this particular negotiation as having a lot of baggage with it. And as the Chairman has pointed out, he also sees problems in the future if they go ahead with this agreement in its current form. He’d like to see the retaining wall issue resolved as well. If there’s something that needs to be done right now with the wall so that it will hold up for a number of years, then do it now. But once the trade is made, the Department ought to be able to walk away from it and not have to come back and squabble over something that might happen if Park City wants to widen the road, or allow development that would jeopardize the retaining wall. Also, the agreement needs to make sure the property owners involved haven’t lost any of their rights in this transfer. Commissioner Bodily said can’t see that this is to the point where he could approve it yet. Chairman Brown asked if Park City could be given some additional money to correct the deficiencies of the retaining wall. Mr. McMinimee said he could see that as a solution, which could alleviate some of the concerns with the wall.

Commissioner Larkin remarked that if it takes money to get rid of the wall now rather than in the future, it would be to the Department’s advantage to solve it and not have all of these contingencies. Commissioner Eastman said he agreed with what’s been said, especially the issue of paying some additional money up front to alleviate some of that responsibility. He’s also uncomfortable about the prospect that once this road is transferred, Park City arbitrarily closes the access leaving the people at Brighton Estates stranded. Chairman Brown said it is the Commission’s position to continue to pursue this, with the intent of making the transfer. However, the issue of the wall needs to be cleared up, in that the state not retain the liability of the wall when the transfer is made. Also, in regards to what the citizens currently have in the way of rights, as a result of this being a state-designated highway, that they don’t lose any of those rights in the transfer. The issue of what is needed in the way of services will be an issue between Brighton Estates, Wasatch County, and Park City. Mr. Lammers commented that he was asked to communicate one message to the Commission. The city has advertised for bid the construction of the roundabout on SR-224, and they are hoping to begin construction about the middle of April. That’s where Park City is with not having disruption of this construction schedule if possible. Chairman Brown said that statement should expedite the conclusion of this issue soon.

Resolutions
30th/31st Street in Ogden
Dyke LeFevre said ten years ago he brought the city and the county together to come up with one priority in all of Weber County to present to the Commission for funding. The 30th/31st Street in Ogden was the number one priority. And for the last six years they have been working on the environmental document to determine what project they could develop that would meet transportation needs, but also have the least impact to the citizens in that area. Mr. LeFevre turned the time over to Steve Neibergall, the project manager, to further discuss the project.

Mr. Neibergall displayed some aerial photo maps and said they went through the public input process and came up with 24 variations. The one that is being proposed in the environmental document is very similar to what exists out there now. The proposed alternative would maintain SR-79 heading east as a one way street as far as Washington Boulevard. Then it would jog up to 30th Street and become a two-way street all the way to Harrison. Heading west, it would be a two-way street to Washington, then become a one way street to approximately Reeves Avenue. There will be a new road placed west of Wall Avenue. Mr. LeFevre added that 30th Street from Washington Boulevard to Harrison is currently a two-lane highway. They will change it to a three-lane highway with one lane in each direction and a turning lane. The biggest change on the project is the present alignment of 31st Street as a one way street to I-15. The geometrics of the roadway will allow it to function much better than it has been. Improvements on Wall Avenue include increasing the number of turn lanes. There will be double left turns at both 30th and 31st Street. That’s one of the biggest bottlenecks right now on Wall Avenue.

Mr. LeFevre mentioned that there are two minority churches along the project. One is the Finley Temple on 30th Street. Because 30th Street will become a one way street, their parking will have to be relocated to either the east or west side. That impact will be mitigated to some extent. The other church is the Emmanuel Church, which is on Wall Avenue on a corner, and they are currently very close to the roadway. They presently have about 20 feet between the curb and the church, but it will go down to about 11 feet when the construction is finished. Mr. LeFevre said they are evaluating what they can to for them. The Department could provide money to put new doors and windows in the church to make it more soundproof, or there’s the possibility of doing a taking that may allow them to do a reconstruct. The problem is that the building is very old and the value is not great, which may not provide them the means to build a new church. Discussion ensued about what some of the possible solutions may be. Mr. LeFevre also discussed their concerns regarding access to the Flour Mill for semi-trucks. Ogden City was going to close off Stevens Avenue, however, UDOT has negotiated with the city that street will be reinstated.

Commissioner Eastman made a motion to accept the resolution as presented, and to move this project forward. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and the motion passed unanimously.

Planning and Programming
900 South Structure in Salt Lake City
Randy Lamoreaux distributed some handouts and said this is a request to fund the bridge project on the 900 South I-15 on and off ramp. The first page of the handout lists some key points about the project, the second page shows a view of the proposed project, which was constructed in the early 1960's. The condition of this facility is similar to that of I-15, prior to its reconstruction. One of the reasons this was not done as part of the I-15 project was because of several unresolved issues between Salt Lake City and UDOT as to how this particular facility would terminate on the city street, and a decision was not going to be made in time to produce an environmental document allowing I-15 to proceed. With that in mind, this project was set aside. At the time, some assumptions were made that the facility would probably last for several years since it would be shut down with no traffic on it. But the acceleration of the deterioration on the project has increased beyond what they anticipated, and they have to do something right now in order to have the facility ready to open with I-15 in 2001.

Mr. Lamoreaux said they believe there will be a project in the future with Salt Lake City and UDOT which will change the touchdown of this particular facility, most likely at 400 West. The Department has worked on a solution to this problem that will give the facility life sufficiently long enough to allow a resolution of all the issues of the relocation. Today they are proposing an interim project that will give this facility and additional 10 to 15 years of life. They will replace four structurally deficient bridge decks and repair one bridge deck, close failed bridge deck joints, clean and repaint the structural steel, repair bridge substructure concrete, rotomill and repave asphalt on the entire facility, replace the wood post and metal guardrail with a single slope concrete barrier, and replace one overhead sign. The request is for the Commission to authorize this project at a cost of $4,650,000. Mr. Lamoreaux discussed other treatments looked at, which were minimal treatments that would last five years or less. Chairman Brown asked about the funding and where it was coming from. Linda Hull said she is sure there will be some RABA funds available. However, she needs to take a look at that source and see how much will be available. The project could also be subsidized with Region 2's contingency funds.

Commissioner Wilson moved to approve the request of $4.65 million for the 900 South project as explained. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved unanimously.

I-84 & SR-89 Interchange (Cornia Drive)
Linda Toy Hull said no action is required from the Commission today, as this is just an advisory item. She explained that the I-84/SR-89 Interchange project at Cornia Drive has been approved in a previous STIP, and was designed as a full project. The Department didn’t know whether they would get federal discretionary funds to do the entire project or just part of the project, so when it was put on the STIP, the entire project was included in case enough funds were received. The project has been out for public review and been approved by FHWA, so as far as procedural and legal requirements are concerned, the entire project has been approved.

Ms. Hull noted the Department received $6 million in discretionary funds in FY 99 for the Cornia Drive project. Another $2 million in discretionary funds was received for FY 00. At last month’s Commission meeting, Clint Topham talked about minimum guarantee funds, which the state had a balance of those funds. The Legislature chose to take $11 million of those minimum guarantee funds and put them on the I-84/SR-89 Interchange. The Commission also directed the Department to take $3 million of the savings from the Cherry Hill project, which were centennial funds, and move them over to the I-84/SR-89 Interchange project. That additional $14 million brought the grand total to $22 million for an entire reconstruct project.

Director Warne added that the Department has worked on this for a long time and finally found a solution. This has the support of the local communities, and now the project will be advertised and built. Davis County Commissioner Dannie McConkie commented that they have been successful in getting their colleagues in Washington, D.C. to put this project at the top of the list to get UDOT discretionary money to help in assisting with this project. Chairman Brown asked Commissioner McConkie if he was committed to replacing some of the funds the Department has put into the project, if the discretionary funds are received. Commissioner McConkie said that is their intent. Chairman Brown stated that it would then be the Transportation Commission’s decision at that point to take an action as to where to reprogram the replaced funds from the Cornia Drive project.

Wendover Ports of Entry Project
Linda Hull explained that there is currently $200,000 programmed in the STIP in FY 2000 for the Wendover Port of Entry. The scope of that project was to do some equipment upgrades on the weigh in motion, the automatic vehicle identification, and also do some facility upgrades. They wanted to upgrade the eastbound I-80 facility and add a facility on the westbound side. However, upon further evaluation, a decision was made to use technology to the greatest degree possible, and they will continue to do the westbound side remotely instead of building a new facility. Therefore the project becomes a technology upgrade on the weigh in motion, with the rest of the project being capital improvements to be paid by DFCM for remodeling of the current building. With that, Ports of Entry is proposing taking the savings from the portion that DFCM will pay, and doing some improvements at the St. George and Perry POE’s. These two POE’s are not currently in the STIP, which is why the Commission needs to take an action today. So, with the $200,000 that is currently programmed, it will allow equipment upgrades to be done at three POE’s, rather than just one. Director Warne gave an explanation of what weigh in motion is.

Commissioner Bodily moved for approval. Commissioner Eastman seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Aeronautics
Cal Black Memorial Airport
Salt Lake International Airport (5 projects)
Canyonlands Field Airport
Bob Barrett said there is a total of seven projects to present today. Five of them are at Salt Lake International. The first project is at Cal Black Memorial Airport and is a connector taxiway construction project. Because there are no state matching funds, the entire local match would be borne by the applicant. Funding amounts would be $124,580 from the federal government and $12,420 from San Juan County, for a total of $137,000 for this project.

With the Salt Lake International package of five projects, there is no state match requested, and there never has been in the past. These projects will be completed entirely with primary entitlement funds and with funds that are revenues of the Salt Lake International Airport. The first project is for safety area drainage improvements on runway 16. The federal funding amount is $2 million, with the applicant paying $206,774 fo r the local match, totaling $2,206,774. The second project on the Salt Lake International list is to upgrade the elevated runway guard lights, which is phase two of the project. The federal amount is $2 million, with the local match of $206,774 by the applicant. The next project is an extension of taxiway P. The federal cost is $1.5 million, with the applicant paying the entire local match of $155,081, for a total of $1,655,081. Next is a drainage project on the west apron. It’s another $1.5 million federal project with $155,081 paid by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports as the applicant. The final Salt Lake International project is phase one of the paving for the west apron, after the drainage problems are fixed. This is a fairly large project. The total, coming out of the primary entitlement of the airport federal funding, is $9 million, the local match is $930,486, for a total of $9,930,486.

Mr. Barrett said the last project to present is at Canyonlands Field Airport. He explained that the power supply from Grand County to the airport has traditionally been very dirty, not really clean power. Last October, there was a surge that overloaded the surge protectors, which ultimately started a fire and did significant damage to the VOR system. They have attempted to repair the damage but it was determined to be non repairable. It was insured by through the state Risk Management Department, and they have deposited $130,000 in funds to the airport construction budget program for the Division of Aeronautics. Grand County has made a request to replace the VOR with that $130,000. This action would require an exception to the policy adopted last June because this is new equipment replacing old equipment. Mr. Barrett asked the Commission to make an exception on this particular project. Chairman Brown requested two different motions be made.

Commissioner Larkin moved to authorize the replacement of the VOR, with an exception of the policy, for the Grand County Airport. It was seconded by Commissioner Eastman and approved.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the other projects as presented, and with the appropriate funding mechanisms. It was seconded by Commissioner Eastman and approved.

Aeronautics
Discussion Items

Bob Barrett said there are three discussion items on the agenda. He first gave the Commission an update on the FAA reauthorization bill saying the conference committee has reached a negotiated settlement and recommended a bill that went through both the House and Senate as of yesterday. They are expecting President Clinton to sign it as early as Friday. Mr. Barrett gave a quick summary of some of the changes in the bill, which will particularly affect the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The AIP would be authorized for $2.475 billion for FY 2000, but the appropriation amount would be somewhat less at $1.85 billion. The program is also authorized at $3.2 billion in 2001, $3.3 billion in 2002, and $3.4 billion in 2003. There’s also a change to the passenger facility charge in which the new bill permits primary airports to increase their passenger facility charge from $3.00 to $4.50. However, there are a number of strings attached to it. There’s a formula change in the AIP program that will kick in if the AIP is appropriated above $3.2 billion. There’s an increase in cargo entitlements from 2.5% to 3% of the entire AIP appropriation, which will primarily affect Salt Lake International. The amount of money going into the state apportionment increases from 18.5% to 20%. The state block grant program was increased from nine to ten states, effective 2001, and Utah is at least a contender for that position.

Mr. Barrett continued with a summary of aviation bills from the 2000 Utah Legislative session. He said there were two bills that would have affected airport funding. One was SB 112, which would have been a realignment of the allocation of the aviation fuel tax revenues. The bill did not get out of committee and did not pass. The other bill, SB 150, was originally written with a $2 million general fund appropriation that would have gone into the restricted fund and been available for use on airport construction and maintenance. That bill passed both houses, but in the last couple of days was reduced to $200,000. Last year, a similar bill provided general fund monies in the amount of $500,000, so this year was really a decrease of $300,000 from last year. Mr. Barrett said with the appropriation for FY 2001, they will have their standard $900,000 appropriation that they’ve been living with the last several years. But, due to a clerical error, the aviation fuel tax increases that went into effect last year were not appropriated, so those funds will now be appropriated in the amount of $800,000. The total from the aeronautics restricted fund for the coming year is $3.3 million. Added to the $200,000 from the general fund, it brings the total to $3.5 million. However, the requirement is about $4.5 million per year on maintenance alone. And because they are still short, Mr. Barrett said they will make a recommendation sometime before June that the Commission not change the policy regarding the twenty airports put on the no fund list for the time being, and not change the policy regarding the participation of the state in the local match. He would also like to consider being able to spend state funds on planning projects at the airports not on the twenty-airport list. There are a number of planned projects that are essential. There are some airports that are not in the national plan, and they would like to have a master plan for those airports so they can be eligible for federal funding.

Approval for Use of Corridor Presevation Funds - US-89
John Njord said there are two parcels along the US-89 corridor that have requests made for acquisition under hardship circumstances. The first property is owned by the Hart family management trust. They have attempted to sell this parcel of ground but have been unable to so. When the US-89 project is built, one of the frontage roads will go right through this parcel. The second parcel is across the street and to the east of the first parcel, and is also in the way of the proposed frontage road that will be adjacent to US-89. Parcels around Mrs. Bjeld’s home have been purchased under hardship circumstances, and she has requested that her home be purchased also. Her husband has relocated to Texas and she’d like to settle this issue with her home.

Commissioner Eastman moved to approve the acquisitions of these properties. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilson and approved.

MPO Planning Funds
Linda Hull stated this item was brought up to the Commission last fall, and the Commission directed the subcommittee to examine the issue and come back with a recommendation of a possible formula for distribution of the MPO planning funds. Under the current formula used, a $50,000 base was used for planning funds going to the MPO’s. The Cache County MPO was concerned they wouldn’t receive enough funding for a small MPO to operate, so the subcommittee met and determined that a small MPO should receive at least enough funding to be able to hire a planner with some experience. That meant they would need to receive at least $100,000 to do the basic operations a small MPO needs to do. The subcommittee ran several different funding formulas and came up with formulas that were each favored by a different MPO. There was also some discussion on what level of participation would be appropriate from UDOT. Ms. Hull said the subcommittee is close, but is not ready to make a recommendation yet. They would like a little more time to play with the formula, talk with the MPO’s, and see if they can’t come up with one formula that would be agreeable to everyone. They hope to have a recommendation at the next Commission meeting.

Budget/Legislative Update
Max Ditlevsen distributed some handouts and said he’d like to go over some highlights. He said the first page is just an allocation of the various appropriations bills and other bills that had fiscal impact to the Department. For SB 1, there is one adjustment that needs to be made. In the left-hand margin next to item 266, Centennial Highway Program, write in $18,000,032. That is the amount of registration fees that are directly appropriated to the Centennial Highway Program, which will change the totals throughout the spreadsheet by that amount. Mr. Ditlevsen apologized for the oversight. The first page shows the distribution of transportation funds, federal funds, general funds, dedicated credits, restricted funds, and other funds. He then reviewed HB 3, the Centennial Highway Program; SB 150, Aeronautics; and SB 273, Construction Management. The grand total of the Transportation fund is almost $389 million. The actual revenue projection from the legislative fiscal analysts office was $381.9 million. So, $7 million of unexpended project funds were brought forward from this current year. Mr. Ditlevsen said at the workshop in April they will be talking from a base of $381.9 million and revising it slightly downward. The second page of the handout is a visual look at the distribution of the funds. He proceeded to discuss the percentages of where the funds come from, and the percentages of where they are distributed. The third page is an overview of what the Department asked for in FY 2001 budget increases. Column A is the amount asked for, column B is the number of full time employees asked for. They asked for 24 and were appropriated 18.

Mr. Ditlevsen said the final page is still in draft form. In 2001, there are $134 million of general funds, which would be lines 3 and 4 added together. Lines 10 through 13 would tie back to the amount of transportation funds that go into the Centennial program. That adds up to more than $60 million. Lines 14 and 15 is the $18 million of registration fees that was overlooked in the previous page. Line 24 in FY 98 and 99 totals $908 million, which is how much the Department has bonded for today. The amounts in 2002 and beyond are obviously assumptions, not commitments. They are put in there to show there needs to be that amount of money to make this balance in some way, either through increasing fuel tax revenue or through bonding. The challenge the Legislature faces next year is looking at a shortfall of at least $234 million to meet the project schedule they have now adopted. On line 31, new federal funds, it’s important to note the total for the 11 year plan is shown at $450 million. This distribution spikes in years 99, 00 and 01, primarily because of the discretionary funds the Department has received and has devoted to I-15 and other Centennial projects. On line 36, the right-hand column total is $396,812, which is the net increase of all the actions that were taken through the Legislature in terms of the Centennial projects. That does not include the four projects now scheduled beyond 2007, which is another $2 billion. In regards to line 40, if there was bonding as is shown on line 27, at the end of the 2007 fiscal year, there would be a little more than $700 million of outstanding bonds still in place. Mr. Ditlevsen noted that it balances and gets them through the projects, but it does not pay off the bonds. There was additional discussion regarding information contained in the handouts. Chairman Brown had the Commission take note of and review at their convenience, the information in the binders containing a summary of bills that had transportation implications.

Informational Items
Next Transportation Commission Meetings
The next regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission will be held on April 20, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. at the Rampton Complex in the Large Conference Room on the main floor. The following dates and locations were also scheduled:

• May 25, 2000 - Uintah Basin (exact location TBD)
  
• June 23, 2000 - Tremonton

The meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.

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

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
James G. Larkin, Vice-Chairman
Dan R. Eastman, Commissioner
Stephen M. Bodily, Commissioner
Jan C. Wells, Commissioner
Bevan K. Wilson, Commissioner
LeAnn G. Abegglen, Commission Secretary
Thomas R. Warne, Executive Director
John R. Njord, Deputy Director
Robert Fox, Director of Communications
Randall K. Lamoreaux, Project Development Director
David K. Miles, Engineer for Operations
Linda Toy Hull, Program Development Director
Max J. Ditlevsen, Comptroller
Robert P. Barrett, Director of Aeronautics
Dyke M. LeFevre, Region One Director
Jim McMinimee, Region Two Director
Dale Peterson, Region Four Director
Scott Munson, Cedar City District Engineer
Steve Neibergall, Region One Project Manager
Clark Mackay, Region Four Preconstruction Engineer
Robert Dowell, Region Four Project Manager
Tom Christensen, Region Four Project Manager
Zane Yeardley, Cedar City District
Linda Stewart, Cedar City District
Nathan Merrill, Cedar City District
Jim McConnell, Cedar City District
Melvin Lloyd, Cedar City District
Chuck Chappell, FHWA
Lorin V. Jones, Utah State Senate
Steve Platt, Iron County Engineer
Jim Eardley, Washington County Commission
Mayor H.C. Deutschlander, Town of Brian Head
Douglas Bruneau, Brian Head Town Council
Mayor Vern Grimshaw, Enoch City
Norman Grimshaw, Enoch City Council
Treva Barnson, Kanab City Council
Carol Sullivan, Kanab City Council
Paul Lammers, Park City Municipal Corp.
Suzanne Allen, St. George City Council
Gary Esplin, St. George City Manager
Dave Demas, St. George City Engineer
Larry Bullock, St. George Public Works Director
Jack Jeppson, St. George City Building Inspector
Mayor Terrill Clove, Washington City
Ralph McClure, Washington City Manager
Michael Shaw, Washington City Public Works Spvr.
Dan McConkie, Wasatch Front Regional Council
Will Jefferies, Wasatch Front Regional Council
J.R. Chamberlain, MK Centennial
Bret Reynolds, MK Centennial
John Thomas, Sear Brown
Bret Cummock, Sear Brown
Grant Schultz, Sear Brown
Todd Bingham, ACPA
Jeff Morley, Leucadia
Gene Sturzenegger, Winding River
Gaylord Gardner, Brighton Estates
Kent Sovereen, Brighton Estates
Wayne and Carolynn Gibson, Weber County
Calvin and Mona Lowe, Toquerville
Ferrol L. Jones, Veyo City
L. Snow, Atty