Utah Transportation Commission Meeting
February 11, 1999
Salt Lake City, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, was called to order at 9:08 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He welcomed those attending. Commissioner Griffith was excused from the meeting.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Eastman moved to approve the minutes of the January 14, 1999, Commission Meeting held in Ogden, Utah. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Public Comments
Shawn Heaton of Bonneville Asphalt and Repair spoke. He said their specialty is crack sealing on roads and in parking lots, etc., and told Dan Julio he was going to come to the Commission to present some of their ideas. He’s been involved in crack sealing since 1985. The state used to release quite a few crack seal contracts out to the private sector, but those contracts that have been released to the private sector have been decreasing to virtually nil. With the remaining work, the prices of crack sealing have gone down and been left to the same number of crack sealers in Utah to compete for whatever is left to do. Mr. Heaton said his proposal is to see UDOT release more of those contracts back out to the private sector. He feels they can do a better quality job, more cost effective, and faster. He’d like to see a comparison with new numbers, but doesn’t know who to contact to find out the cost per ton of crack sealing to be able to compare it to the private sector.

Chairman Brown said he assumes this is an internal policy decision that’s made as to when to go to a private contractor to crack seal, versus the department. Mr. Topham said the department does part of the maintenance and preservation work in-house, and part of it is done under contract. There are several different items, crack sealing being one and chip sealing another. Actually, the amount or percent that is contracted has either stayed the same or gone up over the years rather than gone down. But that doesn’t address specifically crack sealing. The maintenance engineers in each of the regions would do an analysis and decide whether or not to do the crack sealings or the chip sealing in house, or take them out by bid. A certain amount will be done by bid, but maybe not the crack sealing. Mr. Heaton said he hasn’t seen a crack sealing go out to the private sector for quite some time. Mr. Topham said that he will have the maintenance people in the department look at that and see whether or not a change should be made. There is a maintenance engineer in each of the regions. In Region Two it is Stan Burns, in Region One it is John Gunderson. Kleston Laws, who is here today, could discuss a few things after the meeting as how he does it in his Price District. Mr. Topham said he would be happy to provide the names and numbers of those to contact. In the last couple of years, the department has had to cut back on preservation because of the lack of state funds. The orange book contracts, which category these fall into, are on hold right now because of a shortfall in the revenues.

Mr. Topham said the department keeps very meticulous records of what’s been talked about, and about how much it costs per ton for UDOT to do it compared to how much per ton it costs to send it out for contract. It’s done based on the best price. Commissioner Clyde asked for a follow up on this in the next meeting. Commissioner Eastman said that some time needs to be spent on this issue.

James Menlove spoke and introduced his son Darren Menlove. He distributed a handout to the Commission and said they own the VIP Mobile Home Park and Campground on North Temple and are concerned about the light rail going down the middle of the road. Their main concern is that originally, they were promised that people would be able to cross the light rail tracks anywhere they wanted, except where there was a station, so there wasn’t a lot of protest for the light rail. Since then, they were first told that there would only be designated traffic signals for people to turn. Now they are saying no entrance for their 1650 feet of space for the campground. Mr. Menlove said this will basically put them out of business. Mr. Menlove referred to the back page of the handout and the map shows their business location. He said they are asking UDOT to make it a requirement of the UTA to take the responsibility of costs of the businesses they interrupt by doing this because this would necessitate them turning their operations and facing it to the west. It shouldn’t be their cost or the department’s cost, but a requirement of UTA to make businesses whole that they’re disrupting by putting in light rail.

Chairman Brown asked Mr. Menlove if he had appealed to the UTA board on this matter. Mr. Menlove said he hasn’t been there yet. Director Warne commented that this is a concern not just on North Temple but on 400 South, and even as 400 South turns into 500 South. The department has written a letter to the UTA and SLC suggesting that UDOT would consider allowing them to have a permit, but that certain conditions would be met, one of those being an interlocal agreement. One of the other conditions stipulated is that SLC and UTA would work with the businesses. The department saw this happening up and down the corridor, and the full responsibility and any costs associated with impacting business etc. would be bourne by UTA. Where the department would come in is when UTA has finished working out their plans with the businesses and all the accesses. UDOT has final approval on that. If a driveway was added or deleted, UDOT would have the ability to go back and double check and make sure it didn’t impede the department’s operations on this road. Director Warne told Mr. Menlove that it’s good he came here this morning so everyone is aware of the issue, but he also needs to visit with the UTA and SLC. Ultimately, the department will be involved on the back end of this as they try to work out the particular circumstances.

Mr. Topham said Mr. Menlove has met with Dave Miles and Richard Manser. Mr. Manser has been assigned to work full time with the UTA on coordinating any problems with them possibly allowing the east/west line on North Temple and 400 South. Unfortunately, there were some communications early on that probably weren’t proper. The UTA had indicated, as Mr. Menlove stated, that there would be access across the rail at any place. The design that was brought back had a curb along the light rail so turns weren’t allowed. UTA promised that there would be traffic signals in certain locations, but they are not authorized to do that. Mr. Miles has reported that he thinks there are some solutions that can be reached that are reasonable. Director Warne said that the department anticipated that virtually every business would have some unique issue, and that's why the department felt it was the responsibility of the UTA to address it. But sometimes there are solutions that don't fit how UDOT is operating the road. That's why the department reserves the final right to look at all of the solutions.

Four Corners Visitors Center
Rick Bailey, San Juan County Administrator, introduced those attending for this particular issue, then turned the time over to Rep. Keele Johnson. Rep. Johnson said he chairs the Economic Development Appropriations Committee in the legislature. Under that committee is the Utah Travel Council, which keeps an eye on the welcome centers and what’s happening with the travel industry in the state. The Travel Council and UDOT have a pretty close relationship. One of their concerns is the quality of Utah’s welcome centers, the number of welcome centers, and the improvements that could be made. Rep. Johnson said there are two places that have great potential they are currently working on with other states. One is at the Four Corners monument, and the other is at Monument Valley. The Four Corners monument has a large number of tourists that stop there and the Navajo people have established businesses there. The four surrounding states have gotten together and said this needs to be improved to make it a more pleasing experience for the tourists.

Rep. Johnson said that they are working with Arizona on Monument Valley. He’s concerned that Utah seems to be lagging behind on these issues. The other states have really stepped up and been quite active. The visitors center in Monument Valley will be right on the state line, and on the Utah side. It has tremendous potential. Mr. Johnson briefly spoke about the situation at the Monument Valley “dirt strip,” and said that the Navajo’s want to be in charge of putting an airport in there. In regards to the funding, Rep. Johnson said they are looking for about $400,000 from Utah for the center in Monument Valley as a match with Arizona, and about $400,000 at Four Corners to match with Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona.

Mr. Bailey followed up on some of the issues Rep. Johnson spoke about. In regards to funding, he said that for the visitors center at Monument Valley, they are looking at a contribution from the Arizona DOT of $2.3 million, $300,000 from the Navajo Nation, $50,000 from the county, and $50,000 from the State Travel Council. The total project cost is about $3.5 million. Mr. Bailey also discussed a bill that Senator Orrin Hatch introduced in the U.S. Senate, S. 24, and said the bill asked for $2 million in federal funds. He also pointed out that the continued maintenance and operations of the facilities would be done by the Navajo Nation recreation department, so there will be no ongoing costs to the State of Utah, the State of Arizona, or the county. It’s a win-win situation.

Cleal Bradford, Four Corners Heritage Council, spoke. He displayed a map and talked about economic benefits and employment. The two projects would be very beneficial to the employment situation of the Navajo Nation. Mr. Bradford also discussed tourism in the two areas, and Senator Hatch’s legislation. He said that similar presentations will be given in Colorado and New Mexico. Arizona is already on the table, and he hopes that Utah will come on the table with their $400,000.

Chairman Brown asked if either of the projects were part of the STIP. Clint Topham responded that the welcome center at Monument Valley was on the STIP in CD, but not in a specific year. There is $1.1 million of National Highway System Funds for that. It’s plausible that they could work together with the project at Monument Valley with what’s on the STIP, but there may be a problem with the funding year that would have to be worked out. Mr. Topham suggested that Kleston Laws or Dale Peterson work with the locals and see about coming forward with a recommendation of how this might be addressed. The project at Four Corners is a little more tricky because there isn’t anything on the program and there isn’t a state road very near by, so he’s not sure how to approach that one.

Dean Reeder of the Utah Travel Council said in doing business with the Western States Tours and Policy Council, they were successful not only getting Congress to reauthorize the enhancements, but they were able to get liberalization on the kinds of things enhancement money can be used for. Monument Valley is most eligible for enhancements rather than regular highway administration funds for two reasons. One is that federal money can match federal money in the new program, where that wasn’t possible in the old program. Secondly, a task force was put together and subsequently recommended that no more welcome centers be built until they figure out how to take care of the ones they already had. They worked out a great partnership and a way to maintain the existing welcome centers. Mr. Reeder said from what they learned, the federal highway monies were very restrictive in the kind of commercial activities that could happen at a welcome center that was built with those funds. That’s why he prefers enhancement monies. This would not be just a visitor’s center, but a campus complex that would combine the vendor’s village of commercial activities together with visitor information.

Commissioner Larkin said he thinks one of the problems is that two issues are being dealt with, and it’s hard to keep them separate. Deal with one first, then deal with the other one. He’d first like to deal with Monument Valley. It’s been outlined how the Commission can deal with the issue. Commissioner Larkin suggested that for the Four Corners situation, San Juan County be the applicant for the enhancement funds, submit it to UDOT and let the department take a look at it. There was additional discussion about the Monument Valley airport, the enhancement funds, and Senator Hatch’s bill. Director Warne said that Commissioner Larkin is right about dividing the issues and first figuring out the funding at Monument Valley, then dealing with the enhancement process on the Four Corners project.

FY 2000 Olympic Regional Mobility Funding Request
Bob Parry said that this process of putting together the 2000 request for funds is just the regional mobility part of it. The transportation needs for the roads that will feed the venues is being put together, as are UTA’s transit needs. He said this particular portion created in section 12-23-G of TEA-21, allowed Congress to appropriate funds to local needs to keep the mobility functioning during the Olympic games. This is not specifically for Salt Lake City, but to anyone who will ever host the Olympics. In 1999, the department requested funds to be put into this section, and the local delegation received $20 million. But, in balancing the budget and the money that could be appropriated, the money was withdrawn so there was no funding in 1999 for that category. The department is hoping to get money put into that category for this year, although they don’t know what amount to ask for. A letter was submitted to all the mayors, city councils, and counties asking for suggestions. The lists have come back and they include transit projects, which need to be subtracted out. The total came out to a little more than $206 million. The requirements were that projects had to be Olympic related, it had to be on the TIP or the STIP or be able to be put on the TIP or STIP and be used during FY 2000, and the projects had to be completed by late 2001. Some projects will have to be eliminated. Mr. Parry said he just wanted to bring this to the Commission’s attention that hopefully they will be able to get some money.

Director Warne said they won’t take the time to go through the lists, but said they are in the process of putting together the appropriations request to go to Congress. Some of the projects on the lists are a long stretch in terms of an Olympic connection. The department is determined that their name won’t go on a request to Washington with anything on it that is at all questionable in terms of a connection. This item is just information today for the Commission. The department will probably request about $50 million for FY 2000, then it would be up to the Commission to then take the money and divide it. Director Warne said that at that point, the Commission could do a couple of things. One would be to actually put funds on specific projects or the other thing would be to divide the funds between the regional councils and let them fight amongst themselves for whatever they get. Further discussion focused on the funding amount and the projects.

9400 South and 2000 East Park and Ride Lot - Draft Agreement
Clint Topham said that two different park and ride lots have been built near the canyons in the past in which UDOT has participated financially. This is a request for the department to participate again with matching some federal funds. The ski resorts would pay 50% of the match, and UTA and UDOT would each pay 25% of the match. This is just an informational item for the Commission, and no official action is needed. This would be money that has already been set aside to match federal funds, and is a project that is already on the STIP. The department just wanted to acknowledge that 25% of the match would be coming from UDOT.

Proposed Property Acquisition for US-89 Expansion Project
Brent DeYoung, via the video-conferencing unit in Region One, said they have a property acquisition for a Wanda Snarr. She is a widow whose daughter has been taking care of her for the past year or so. Mrs. Snarr’s husband has passed away, and the daughter has been forced to relocate to Southern Utah. They would like to have their mother relocate with them, and have requested that UDOT purchase the property. Mr. DeYoung said that there is also a piece of unused/vacant property next to the home that they would like to have purchased as well. He said both of these properties are slated for use in the expansion of Highway 89, and it would be a good idea to purchase the properties now.

Clint Topham stated that this is the second or third time the department has come back to the Commission after saying they weren’t going to recommend any more acquisitions until after the legislative session. Representative Dillree had a bill that dealt with the fund, but decided to hold it and do an interim study of the issue regarding how to keep this fund vital and viable. Mr. Topham said the department can’t see how they can turn down these widows. This is a hardship that needs to be addressed and the recommendation is that the Commission approve the acquisition. Discussion ensued on the condition of the house and the two properties.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the acquisition of both parcels of the Snarr property. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Chairman Brown called a short break.

Planning and Programming
Aeronautical Projects
Bob Barrett gave an update of the status of the Federal AIP Program. He said the program was authorized only for the first half of the year. So far, the House’s transportation bill has approved an additional appropriation for the second half of the year, but in the Senate, the bill has not even been in committee yet and March 31 is the deadline. The reason they only went with a half a year at the beginning is because there was a significant argument over landing slots at Washington National Airport. So the resolution of that issue became the condition for approving the full year program, therefore, basically holding the AIP hostage by Congress. Once the Senate Committee recommends approval, assuming they do, the bill will go to the full house and the full senate, then to conference committee for resolution of the differences. It has to be signed by the end of March or else there will be no federal money for the second half of the year. If that happens, the second half of the CIP will have to slip into the next year.

Mr. Barrett continued and said the projects he is presenting today are all maintenance projects for crack seals with a seal coat later in the year. Right now, because of the question about the federal program and how much matching money is needed to keep in reserve, Mr. Barrett said he is recommending approval of the crack seal portions only at this point. If the second half gets approved, then they’ll see where they stand on the matching funds and how much money is left to do the seal coats, then come back with a separate request for those.

The first project Mr. Barrett presented was for the Carbon County Airport in Price. Their request for the total cost of the project was $98,316 for a crack seal on runways 18/36 and 14/32 on the aircraft apron and taxiways; a seal coat on runway 18/36, the parking apron, and both taxiways; and then repainting of those surfaces. State funds of $68,821, which is 70% of the total project cost, were asked for, but the recommendation is for approval of $21,000 of state funds for the crack seal only. Mr. Barrett said he anticipates coming back for the second project, once the federal funding issues are resolved, and ask for the remainder of the funds for the seal coat. There was additional discussion about crack sealing.

The second project is for Provo City, and the request is for $106,271, with state funds of $74,390, which is a 70% match they are offering to pay. Again, Mr. Barrett said they are asking for $35,000 approval at this point for the crack seal only.

The third project is for the Junction City Airport for a seal coat. A crack seal is not necessary. They won’t do the work until summer, but a commitment has been made to them to go ahead and submit this as a seal coat without a crack seal beforehand. The total cost of the project is $19,588, with state funds in the amount of $15,670. Mr. Barrett recommended approval.

The next project is for the city of Monticello. It’s for a crack seal and seal coat of runway 16/34, and a crack seal and seal coat on the taxiway and apron. The needs here are probably the most extreme of any of the airports in the state. The total cost of the project is estimated at $43,591, with $34,872 coming from the State. Approval was recommended by Mr. Barrett.

The Cedar City Airport request is for a crack seal and seal coat, with the estimated total cost of the project being $50,000. State funds of $40,000 have been requested, making it an 80/20 percent split. Again, Mr. Barrett recommended approval.

The final project is for the Wayne Wonderland Airport in Wayne County at Loa. This is for a crack seal. They’ve separated the two projects and are asking for a total cost of $20,000 for the crack seal, with $16,000 coming from state funds.

Commissioner Clyde moved approval of the six projects presented. Commissioner Larkin seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Arches National Park Entrance
Kleston Laws, Price District Director, said they have had continuing talks with Arches National Park about moving the entrance into the park, as it comes off of a really bad curve. Arches now has $40,000 to put into the design of the facility, and they want UDOT to do it. Region Four wants to do it as well. Arches is looking at redoing the visitors center as well as the entrance, so they are looking at a really ambitious program. Mr. Laws said Region Four is soliciting the right to enter into agreement with Arches to design the new park entrance and turn lanes on Highway 191.

Clint Topham said that this isn’t officially on the STIP, but the Region has been told to continue to negotiation. The Park Service has now come up with the $40,000, and the department said they would apply for public lands highway funds as a funding source to do it. The Park Service is also going to try for those funds. In amending the STIP, the PE needs to go on this fiscal year, 1999, with construction in FY 2000. They will then try for the funds in that year. Mr. Topham said that $40,000 will be put in FY 99 with the funding source as the National Park Service. The $2.3 million for FY 2000 will be shown as public lands highway discretionary. If the funds aren’t received, then the department won’t go ahead with the project. If the funds are received, then the project will already be on the STIP and can move forward.

Commissioner Larkin moved to amend the STIP and place this project on the STIP with funding as requested, and to also allow Region Four to proceed with the design, using the timetable shown in the letter from Dale Peterson. It was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved unanimously.

Charles Hall Ferry Construction
Kleston Laws explained that the federal government puts out a certain amount of money each year for ferries, and the department applied for some of that money this year. He said the federal government will contribute $2.4 million, and with the match UDOT would have to come up with $600,000. Mr. Laws said that Region Four Director Dale Peterson met with representatives of the Park Service, the Travel Council, and other groups which expressed interest in having an additional ferry. Currently, there is one ferryboat that crosses Lake Powell that is subsidized. It covers 3.7 miles and takes about a half hour to load and another half hour to cross. If a person misses the ferry, then they have to wait two hours for the next ferry or drive the longer distance around. The advantages of a second ferryboat include a shorter waiting period, which would greatly improve the service. Also, when the ferry is taken out of service, which is done yearly to meet Coast Guard regulations, etc., there would be a ferry available that would still continue service. Mr. Laws mentioned that part of the service provided by the ferry is to transport students from one side of the lake to the other for school. A problem arises when the ferry is taken out of service. However, ARAMARK has provided a houseboat to transport the students during that time. A second ferry would take care of that.

Clint Topham reminded the Commission that a couple of months ago, when the Olympic related projects were brought forward, this was part of the discretionary funds designated as part of the Olympics package. The department asked for the Commission’s approval of all of those projects, but Commissioner Clyde questioned whether or not another ferry boat should be provided. Mr. Topham stated that Mr. Peterson asked at that time that he be able to do some work with the local entities and bring back a recommendation. Previously, the John Atlantic Ferry had lost money every year, but this last year the ferry made money for the first time in its history. Mr. Peterson has indicated that the local agencies down there are willing to participate more and come to an agreement to where it won’t cost the department any more money than it has cost in the past. Chairman Brown asked if the Commission had the ability to spend the funds somewhere else if they didn’t concur with this recommendation. Mr. Topham replied no, either spend it or lose it. There was additional discussion on the operations of the two ferries.

Commissioner Clyde moved to amend the STIP, and add the Charles Hall Ferry to the STIP. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved unanimously.

STIP Amendments
Linda Hull said the department is trying to adjust the STIP to accommodate the decrease in tax revenues, and are looking at the different types of projects, what categories they qualify for in federal funds, and what kind of balance will be carried in those categories. They’re looking at how to prioritize all those projects, but nothing has been resolved yet. However, there are two projects that are ready to go forward and need changes immediately. There was brief discussion regarding the funding shortage.

Ms. Hull said that the first amendment is for two structures that are currently in the STIP. One is Kanab Creek, which is in FY 2000 with $1 million. The other structure is the San Pitch River, which is in P & E with $2 million. The problem is that Kanab Creek is very much under funded at $1 million. It will take at least $2.5 million to do the entire project. The San Pitch is over funded and could be done with a box replacement for $1 million. The San Pitch is above ground, exposed to the elements, and is eroding faster than the Kanab Creek structure. Region Four is anxious to switch the two projects around, so the proposal is to move the San Pitch structure up to FY 2000 for $1 million, and move Kanab Creek back to CD for $2.5 million. Ms. Toy explained that because the Kanab Creek project would be pushed back to CD, it’s not in a funding year, so they would have a little bit of play in regards to the extra $500,000.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the changes in the STIP, moving one bridge back and one bridge forward at the amount of funding that has been discussed. Commissioner Lewis seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.

Ms. Hull said the second amendment is for the University Avenue project in Provo. It’s a very high priority for Provo City and Utah County. The department is currently trying to work on moving the project up. In trying to bring funding forward so that the project could be done before the Olympics, one of the things that was done was the Commission approved putting $9 million in high priority money on the University Avenue project. Another way funds were moved up was with another project in Utah County, the parkway in Orem. That project had $10 million for the current year, and $14.5 million in 2001. There is a possibility that a pedestrian overpass may be built for that project, in which they wouldn’t need the whole $14.5 million. They would only need $6 million for a pedestrian overpass. That would free up $8.5 million in 2001. Ms. Hull said that money could be moved up to the University Avenue project, just moving the funding year forward. By moving some funds around and looking at the amount that has always been there, University Avenue had $16.5 million in 2002. Adding the funds all together, it became a $32 million project.

Ms. Hull said that Region Three felt that dividing the project in two would increase traffic management costs significantly and they would rather just wait and do the whole project later. So, they looked at finding a way to bring funding forward to do the whole project at one time. Provo Canyon is funded partially with federal funds and partially with centennial funds. There are federal funds and national highway funds in 2001 for $15 million, and there is another $15 million in federal funds in 2002. The centennial money doesn’t come on line until 2006. Region Three’s proposal is to take the $15 million in national highway funds in 2001 and move that up to University Avenue, and take the money that’s for University Avenue in 2004 and move it to Provo Canyon. That would give the department a fully funded University Avenue project, and the Region could go ahead and bid the project a year from now. Commissioner Clyde mentioned that this project will include the reconstruction of I-15, north to the Center Street interchange, just to the off ramps. It doesn’t include anything on the interchange itself. Discussion continued on Provo Canyon.

Commissioner Clyde readdressed the Center Street issue. He said that it’s going to be very expensive when the department has to address it. But, Provo City has to come up with some solutions on their Center Street before UDOT even considers it. Commissioner Clyde said he’d like to know what the city is going to do to make it function. They ought to be put on notice because this is a very serious problem. Commissioner Eastman suggested writing a letter to the city. Commissioner Clyde then expressed his support for the proposal being made to move the money.

Commissioner Clyde moved to amend the STIP as explained by Ms. Hull, to accomplish the South University Avenue interchange and extension of the reconstruction on I-15 to the limits that were described, conditional on the fact that it doesn’t jeopardize the cash flow or centennial program that has been presented to the legislature. It was seconded by Commissioner Eastman and approved unanimously.

Consideration of Taking Certain Roads in Tooele County onto the State System
Director Warne said everyone is familiar with the situation with the Goshutes and their proposal to store nuclear waste, and where the governor stands on this issue. The governor is very concerned and says this is not a local issue but an issue that has statewide significance and statewide public safety considerations. He even mentioned the issue in his State of the State Address. Director Warne said originally, the Goshutes were going to bring the nuclear waste in on the road that the Commission took over last year. Now, they have figured out a way to bring it in by rail. The proposal in front of the Commission today would essentially prevent that.

Clint Topham explained that during the summer, discussions continued on how to help the govern or’s office keep the waste from getting out to the reservation. It was suggested that there are several BLM and county roads that might come into play. Now, the companies that are responsible for the waste have made an application with the BLM to construct a rail line into the reservation. There is a provision in the state law that says no one can construct a rail line across any road without the permission of the Department of Transportation. Originally, the decision was made not to recommend taking these roads on the system as state highways, but the Attorney General’s office pointed out that with those being county roads, or other’s owning those roads, they could be abandoned altogether. Then, the department would no longer have control over whether a rail line went across the road or not. With that, the department decided to craft something that would keep those roads from being abandoned and still, at the same time, keep the roads in about the same condition, keep the money flowing, and keep everything equal if possible.

Mr. Topham said that a bill has been drafted in the Senate which designated statewide public safety interest highways, and describes the two state highways shown on the map, saying the department has jurisdiction and control over the highways and must approve any railroad crossings. It also says that Tooele County would maintain the portion of the roads that were theirs before the highway came, and would still receive funding for those roads. And, they could not abandon the road nor change the classification of the road without the permission of the department. Mr. Topham said he met with people in Tooele County. They are not happy that the governor has interfered in what they feel are their affairs out on the roads, but given the fact that this is likely to happen they accept the fact that this would be the least disturbing to them. In recommending the resolution, in several places, the authority to do this is dependent on the passage of the bill. Mr. Topham said this is consistent with the bill and thinks that the bill will go forward. If it doesn’t, the Commission has the authority to take these roads onto the system, but the legislature has to confirm it. He recommended that the Commission take this action to designate these highways as statewide public safety interest highways, which would preclude the county from abandoning or improving the classification of the roads.

Chairman Brown commented that procedurally, he’s troubled that the Commission would take an action before the bill passes. He questioned the authority of the Commission until the bill actually gives the authority. If the Commission had the authority to do it, within the current statute, then the legislation wouldn’t be needed. The action the Commission is being asked to take is not consistent with the current state law. Director Warne disagreed. Mr. Topham said the Commission could call the road anything they wanted, but they probably don’t have the authority to say that the county would still maintain the roads and receive funds. Director Warne said the most important thing the Commission can do today is to take jurisdiction of the roads which prevent another action on the part of the county. Chairman Brown said he would rather split the action then. Mr. Topham said that one of the reasons things were done this way is because there is another bill in the legislature that is a result of the interim study on highway jurisdiction. What it does is takes the criteria for designating a state highway that’s already been adopted as a rule and puts it into law. Discussion followed regarding the two bills.

Director Warne wondered about having the Commission take action just on the jurisdictional issue today. Mr. Topham said it would probably be all right to just take the roads, then let the legislature deal with the other part. Chairman Brown felt that would be a more correct process. Mr. Topham suggested taking out paragraphs three, four and five from the resolution. Again, the discussion focused on the two bills. Commissioner Lewis expressed his concern for the hauling of materials through the district he represents. There is a terrific impact everywhere else, and there’s an appropriate price to pay to protect a lot of people from being exposed to nuclear waste being transported through all of our major populated areas. Commissioner Bodily said he’s still not convinced that the feds can’t force this one way or the other, in spite of the efforts made to stop it.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the resolution, adopting paragraphs one and two and deleting paragraphs three, four and five. It was seconded by Commissioner Eastman seconded it and it passed unanimously.

Legislative Discussion
There was a brief discussion of legislative issues. Concerns were raised regarding the legislature and the centennial highway fund, and the fact that the list that was outlined about two years ago has now become etched in granite. There was also discussion about improving ongoing communication with legislators when changes are made to the program, and the expectations involved. The longitudinal access issue was also brought up and discussed.

Winter Sports Park Access Road
Andrew Gemperline stated that with the last presentation on the Winter Sports Park, there were some details that were of interest to the Commission that he wanted to clarify so that any questions the Commission might have could be answered. Mr. Gemperline reminded the Commission of the location of the Winter Sports Park access road, and said that a two-lane road would not handle all the vehicles expected, as well as the 30,000 to 40,000 spectators expected. So, this road will be transferred into pedestrian access as well as vehicle access. In order to do that, and there will be a lot of busses coming to this location, they intend to incorporate a bus turnaround in the lower area on an eight-acre strip along the side of the roadway. It will not be a paved turnaround, and will only be temporary to serve the Olympics. It’s on a property owner’s ground. A majority of the busses will turn around there and the spectators will walk up to the Winter Sports Park. There will be busses for media, which will go up one side of the road, turn around, then come back down. There will be some temporary pavement at that location for the busses to turn around.

Mr. Gemperline said the three things they are trying to accomplish are the bus turnaround and unloading area, the terminus of the Sports Park, and the actual bus turnaround on the bottom side of the Sports Park facility. The rest of the discussion focused on the access from SR 224 and the maintenance shed, the original terminus that was discussed at last month’s meeting, and roundabouts.

Informational Items
Next Transportation Commission Meetings
The next Transportation Commission meeting will be held on Friday, March 12, 1999 in Salt Lake City. The following date and location was also scheduled:

• April 28, 1999 - Salt Lake City

The meeting adjourned at 12:46 p.m.

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

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
James G. Larkin, Vice-Chairman
Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Dan R. Eastman, Commissioner
Stephen M. Bodily, Commissioner
LeAnn Abegglen, Commission Secretary
Thomas R. Warne, Executive Director
Clinton D Topham, Deputy Director
Linda Toy Hull, Program Development Director
John Quick, Engineer for Planning
Dave Miles, Engineer for Operations
Max J. Ditlevsen, Comptroller
Robert P. Barrett, Director for Aeronautics
Jim McMinimee Region Two Director
Kleston Laws, Price District Engineer
Michael G. Ritchie, Division Administrator, FHWA
Bob Parry, Program Development
Richard Manser, Program Development
John Njord, Program Development
Randy Hunter, Risk Management
Andrea Packer, Community Relations
Andrew Gemperline, Region Two
Mike Miles, Region Four
Representative Keele Johnson, Utah House of Representatives
Representative Bryan Holladay, Utah House of Representatives
Joe Brown, GOPB
Dean Reeder, Utah Travel Council
Rick Bailey, San Juan County Administrator
Cleal Bradford, Four Corners Heritage
Perry Mathews UDIA
Larry Rodgers, UNTF Blanding
Wilson Martin, Division of State History
Kathleen McMullen, MAG
Darrell Cook, MAG
Susan Hardy, MAG
Doug Hattery, WFRC
Barry Banks, WFRC
Ken Warnick, Ogden/Weber Chamber of Commerce
K.N. Gunalan, PB
Kevin Farley, Sear Brown Group
Jeffrey Harris, UTA
Shaun Heaton, Bonneville Asphalt and Repair
Kim Brooksby, Bonneville Asphalt and Repair
James Menlove, SLC
Darren Menlove, SLC
Via Video-Conferencing Unit in Region One:
Dyke LeFevre, Region One Director
Brent DeYoung, Region One