Utah Transportation Commission
November 20, 1998
Hurricane, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held in the Hurricane City Council Chambers, 147 North 870 West, Hurricane, Utah, was called to order at 9:08 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He introduced the Commission and welcomed those in attendance. Commissioners Lewis, Eastman and Griffith were excused from the meeting.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Bodily moved to approve the minutes of the October 22, 1998 Commission meeting held in Salt Lake City. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Local Area Presentation
Ken Adair gave an overview of projects in the area that were ready to advertise. He also talked about other projects, including the North Cedar interchange, the Hurricane bridge, and the study on the southern corridor, as well as projects on the STIP in CD, and local government projects. Chairman Brown stated that in regards to the North Cedar Interchange, the Commission needs to be properly apprized of the issue, and those parties who have an interest in this issue need to be notified of when it will come before the Commission so they can have an opportunity to address the Commission. Scott Munson then reported on the pavement preservation program, the projects on line to be done with orange book money. Projects included resurfacing on SR 212; Washington Main Street; an overlay on SR 14 up Cedar Canyon; and resurfacing from Rockville to Zion Park. Mr. Munson said that last project will probably be delayed until the Zions Park shuttle system is installed.

Public Comments
Tom Shakespeare, Kodachrome State Park, spoke about the Kodachrome Road situation. He said it's been a long process getting that road brought up to standard. It's a nine mile road and has three different agencies trying to take care of it. Mr. Shakespeare claimed that it was agreed by the Commission back in the early 80's that if the road was brought up to grade, UDOT would take it over. Therefore, his request today is for UDOT to take over the road for maintenance. This request is supported by Kane County, Garfield County and Cannonville. Clint Topham asked if there is any documentation about agreements that were made. Mr. Shakespeare responded that in reading through past Commission minutes there is a lot of mention of the Kodachrome Road; but at the meeting he attended, the minutes weren't taken the way he remembers. He remembers hearing Sam Taylor and the other Commissioners agree that they would accept the road if it was brought up to standard. At the time, nothing had been done on the road. Mr. Shakespeare said they were able to get some finding from the legislature, and the interior roads of the park were done. Garfield County then did their section, leaving Kane County's portion undone and nothing happening. Funds were finally obtained by Representative Tom Hatch, and Kane County's portion was completed last fall.

Mr. Topham noted that the legislature decided they needed to address state park access roads, and $.5 million was put into those roads. They also looked at the issue of whether the roads ought to be state highways or county highways. It was decided that the roads could be either. The issue wasn't who owned the road as much as it was the funding for the road. So, with the legislature putting some funding forward, the funds could be eligible for either the state or a county to use. Mr. Topham noted that the Commission does have the authority between sessions of the legislature to accept highways onto the state system or to delete them from the system. The department has a procedure for that, which starts with Dale Peterson and John Quick. They will make recommendations to the Commission based on the functional classification of the highway, etc. Commissioner Brown asked if the fact that this access road to the park goes through two counties compounds the problem leaving it local jurisdiction. Mr. Topham responded that every road that touched two counties or two cities doesn't have to be a state highway. It is a factor, but not THE factor.

County Commissioner Maloy Dodds from Garfield County said that they don't have a problem owning the road. The problem is that Kane County has very little interest in this road and most of their population is in the south end of the county. He said it would be best to get the road all in the same jurisdiction, whether the state takes it over or whether some kind of memorandum of understanding with Kane County and the state can be worked out. Then there would only be one entity to deal with rather than three. Commissioner Larkin asked Mr. Peterson and Mr. Quick to work with Mr. Shakespeare and come up with some kind of resolution to the situation.

County Commissioner Gayle Aldred from Washington County commented about the improvements made at Winchester Hills and wondered if there were any plans for something similar at Diamond Valley. He also asked about what was going to be done on St. George Boulevard. Ken Adair responded that they were going to do some spot improvements on a couple of intersections, but with the condition of the road and the drainage problem, they decided to look at doing a project on the whole boulevard. The full scoping on the road hasn’t been done yet.

Mayor Clove from Enterprise spoke. He also commented on doing something with Diamond Valley on SR 18. It's an area where traffic consistently backs up, and there is no passing lane along there.

County Commissioner Dodds addressed the Commission again. He voiced his concerns about the signing on the Burr Trail. He said highway 12 is a scenic byway and signing is pretty restrictive, which is fine, but they need some way to mark the Burr Trail a little better. They have some constituents there with businesses that need advertising. Commissioner Larkin asked Mr. Peterson to comment. Mr. Peterson said with that being in the Richfield District, Commissioner Dodds should talk to Ross Christensen.

Bernie Harris, Rockville Town Council, talked about a bridge in Rockville that is on the list for replacement. He said they are on the list for funding in 2001 for a new bridge, which is fine. The down side is a community of 200 people has a hard time coming up with the match to that money. Also, the bridge gets a yearly inventory by UDOT of things that need to be done, one of which is painting. Mr. Harris said the costs on that are quite exorbitant because the bridge is over the Virgin River and it has to be addressed environmentally. There is also some deterioration on the south end of the bridge. He wondered if the Transportation Board allowed some of the ISTEA money for repair and maintenance of older structures rather than a total replacement for $1 million. Mr. Topham answered that for bridge replacement funds on local bridges and for federal aid funds on local roads, the Transportation Commission has delegated much of that authority to the Joint Highway Committee (JHC). Rick Johnston from Salt Lake City said he thought the Joint Highway Committee decided the only thing eligible for bridge replacement funds is actual replacement of bridges, although it was brought up that maybe the JHC should start making rehab eligible for replacement. So, the Committee decided to have cities and counties who have bridges in the 50 to 70 sufficiency rating come up with a list of potential rehab projects.

Mr. Harris asked if that is something they need to address if they have a bridge that falls in that category. They need to know because the community, as a whole, wants the bridge to stay because it has been denoted as an historical bridge. The figure they have is close to $250,000 to bring the bridge into compliance, and as a small community with no commercial tax base, they'd have a hard time coming up with those kinds of funds. He also said the state is telling them they have to do this or else close the bridge. Mr. Topham clarified that the department does inspect every bridge that is over 20 feet long on a two year cycle. But, the information that is sent is only information and suggestions. There is no requirement to do anything, one way or the other, with the bridges. The department only advises if a bridge should be closed. They don’t have the responsibility or authority to close the bridge.

Councilman Neal Curtis from Enoch addressed the Commission next. He said his comments are in regards to the North Cedar City Interchange. The problem isn't so much of where it's going to be as much as the urgency of having something happen. Something was going to happen about eight years ago, but it’s still at the same place. The population in Enoch, as well as North Cedar City, has doubled and in another five years will double again based on the growth that is happening in that area. The intersection is a death trap and is going to take some lives if something doesn't start happening soon. It's one of the worst areas in the state. Commissioner Larkin reiterated what was said earlier about the interchange. The issue will come back to the Commission, probably in January, for a decision about where and how that interchange will be located and configured. It's most likely 2 ½ years away from completion. Commissioner Clyde asked Mr. Curtis where they think the interchange ought to go. Mr. Curtis said they'd like to see it come out a little further north. As far as safety is concerned and the ability to get on and off, the proposals to the north are much more feasible, more cost affective, and would definitely serve their area much better than where it is now. They are to the point where something needs to get done soon.

Mayor Lee Chamberlain from Glendale spoke about their problem with a waterline that goes under the highway, and said they have an engineer they want to have work with the department on replacement on those waterlines. He said the waterlines may not end up going under the highway, but currently they do. So, they need help relative to that and also with replacing the waterline. They have an existing waterline of four inches, which is not adequate for their needs. They want to go to an eight inch line, and know they would have to pay some differences. Clark Mackay said the issue of whether the waterline should remain in its current location or be relocated has really not been addressed yet. Mayor Chamberlain stated he is asking to work with the department, not independent of the department. Commissioner Larkin suggested that they have their engineers work closely with the Region Four. Mr. Peterson said that Danny Washburn is the project manager for that project. Ken Adair mentioned that any time there are utilities in UDOT's right of way, UDOT will pay for the relocation of those utilities, and normally the upgrades and other costs are picked up by the community.

Than Neagley from Toquerville asked in regards to the construction beginning from Anderson Junction through Leeds, if there were any plans to make the southbound onramp to I-15 a little less dangerous. It's OK going north, but going south the ramp is very short. He wondered if the ramp could be lengthened just a slight amount. Even another 50 yards would surely improve the safety in that area. It really is hazardous. Mr. Mackay said there are a lot of things they wanted to do in that area but didn't have the funds. However, he would talk to the engineer about it.

Commissioner Larkin announced he would like to do one more thing before turning the time back over to Chairman Brown. He said the department has a plaque to present to Washington County Commissioner Jerry Lewis, who unfortunately isn't here today. Commissioner Larkin said he'd still like to present the plaque today and then present it again on Monday at the Washington County Commission meeting. The plaque is a certificate of recognition for Commissioner Jerry B. Lewis, for outstanding accomplishment on the Joint Highway Committee as a member from 1977 to 1998, and as chairman from 1987 to 1998. The JHC distributes the funds among the communities in the counties and the cities in the State of Utah. Mr. Lewis has also been a County Commissioner for 22 years. He's done a wonderful job for Washington County and for the State of Utah. He's leaving office at the end of the year which will be a great loss for not only the county, but for the entire state. The Commission commends Mr. Lewis for his efforts. Commissioner Larkin turned the time back over to Chairman Brown for the rest of the meeting.

Chairman Brown called a short break.

Garfield County Request to Trade Federal Funds for State Funds
Linda Toy explained that a year or so ago, several local communities had approached UDOT and the Joint Highway Committee about the possibility of exchanging some federal funds for state funds on local government projects. She said this is innovative financing that other states have used successfully, and they wanted to try it here in Utah. Federal projects cost more than state construction projects in part because of Davis-Bacon wages, environmental clearance, and documents that have to go through the federal government. Additional delays on federal projects can drive up the cost of a project. UDOT knows how to handle those kinds of issues and are well equipped to handle federal requirements. Local communities, on the other hand, have a much more difficult time doing that. So, the department wanted to explore the possibility of exchanging their federal funds for state funds on some projects.

Ms. Toy mentioned that a subcommittee within the Joint Highway Committee has explored the possibility if something like that could be done. There were three people from UDOT on that subcommittee, and the subcommittee found that it is possible to exchange the funds. They recommended that the funds not be exchanged on a dollar for dollar basis because local communities would be able to save money by using state funds, and there needs to be some kind of incentive on both sides. There was an agreement within the subcommittee that funds would be exchanged at about a 75% rate, off of the Wasatch Front, primarily because the costs on federal projects outside the Wasatch area is a little higher. It was recommended that communities identify a pilot project that could be tried with this process. Garfield County approached UDOT with a project. That project is John's Valley Road, which is coming into the third funded year of the STIP in FY 2001. The project was originally going to be funded at about $650,000, and was a federal aid project. The department went back into the program and looked at some possible projects in 2001 and identified a project from Region Three. The US-89 project that goes through Moark Junction to Mapleton City limits is just a pavement rehabilitation, and the department felt the funds could be exchanged without any undue burdens on that project.

Ms. Toy said the department is recommending the exchange of funds between the John's Valley Road project and US-89, of which $500,000 in state funds would be taken off US-89 and moved to John's Valley Road, and the $650,000 that is programmed for John's Valley Road would be moved over to US-89. The department also recommends putting together an interlocal agreement laying out all of the discussions with Garfield County. If the project runs over, the department would not pick up the cost overrun. If the project runs under, any additional funds would come back to the state. At the end of the process, the department will see if this really does provide a benefit to the state and the local community, then come back to the Commission with a report.

Director Warne commented that what's held the department back on this in the past is the dollar for dollar exchange. But, what they have found is what the dollar value is in state funds in an equivalent federal value. This is somewhat of a landmark project where this has been negotiated, and is a pattern that could be used on future projects, as communities come in to meet with the department. The discussion that followed focused on funding and risks, and also on the “25% discount.”

Director Warne stated that there are no manuals or instructions on this. The department has done their best to negotiate something here, and will have to wait to see if it really works or not. Will the county make money? Maybe they will, but there’s no risk to the department in terms of one project. If it works, then there will be others who come in, but the department will want to make sure that the agreements are made wisely in the future. Mr. Topham said that if the Commission passes this, the department intends to sign an interlocal agreement, and if there are stipulations that the Commission thinks ought to be in there, the department will make sure they are included.

Commissioner Larkin moved to authorize the transfer of funds for this pilot project for Garfield County. Also, that staff report back with the results of this project. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Hardship Acquisitions on US-89
Clint Topham said that there are three properties that the department is requesting the Commission approve. There is approximately $6.5 million left in the account. In regards to the Beesley property, there has been a death and there is some urgency to move ahead with that property. With the Casey property, there are some health issues to deal with. With the third property, there are four building lots, and the urgency here is that if these particular properties are purchased, Layton City said they would construct a frontage road that would lead to a signal. So, not only is there protective buying there, but the department gets to close a couple of accesses with the frontage road, which would be important and a great savings for when the US-89 project is done. Each of the properties are approximately $200,000, with the total being $675,000. The department recommends that the Commission program the funds to do the buying. There was further discussion regarding the frontage road, property appraisal, and surplus property.

Commissioner Bodily moved to authorize the department to move ahead with the purchases discussed. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Enhancement Projects Request
John Quick stated that he has three projects requesting changes that are beyond what he feels can be authorized from a staff level. The first project is the Salt Lake City - Jordan River Trail project, from 1300 South to 2100 South. This was a project that was approved in 1995, so it was one of the first two years of projects. The total project amount was $476,000. Mr. Quick explained that the first two years of projects were eligible for a 50% increase or up to $100,000 based on some considerations that were adopted after the program got started. There are some special circumstances involving this project, and there haven’t been any requests for increases to date. The project was completed from 1300 South to 1700 South, but problems were encountered with the railroad crossing between 1700 South and 2100 South. There had originally been an understanding with the railroad that a crossing of the tracks could be made. After the railroads merged, the at grade crossing wasn’t going to be allowed. Mr. Quick said there have been some considerable discussion since that time, and there is an agreement now to provide some safety features and an at grade crossing. The project costs have increased since that time, so the request is for an increase of $175,000. Rick Johnston of Salt Lake City provided some additional background on the project. There was discussion about the railroad problems, and the cost increase.

Mr. Quick said that in checking on the balance of the money that is available in the enhancement funds, this would be ISTEA money, or “old money.” There is currently a balance of about $700,000 available for these kinds of issues. That money has come from either projects that have been canceled or projects that have come in under budget. The bottom line is that there is money available in the fund. Mr. Quick also clarified that the federal funding portion of the project is $140,000. The other $35,000 would be city/local match.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the increase of $140,000 for the Jordan River Trail, 1300 South to 2100 South. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved unanimously.

Mr. Quick said the next request is by Park City involving the Olympic Parkway project. The Olympic Parkway project is a comprehensive plan along the entry highway into Park City on SR 224. One of the original enhancement projects was one of these projects, referred to as Phase One. That project has been completed. Phase Two was also approved as an enhancement project. The project went through environmental clearance and preliminary design, with the anticipation that the design/build concept could be used. Initially that concept was not approved by FHWA for the project. Park City had invested so much time and effort at that point they chose to complete Phase Two with their own money, and are completing that project now. Park City claims to have spent over $500,000 of their own money on Phase Two, and is requesting that the department move some of the money to Phase Three. Phase Three picks up the trail from the McPolin farm. The request is for $234,000 of federal funds. The total project cost is $292,150. Phase Two was a $370,000 project, but Park City is asking to transfer less money.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the request as discussed. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved unanimously.

Mr. Quick said the third project is the Leeds CCC Camp located adjacent to I-15 in Leeds. The amount of money originally requested on the project was $60,500. As one of the first two years projects, it was allowed an increase of up to 50%. The increase was requested in 1997 and was approved. The current approved amount of money on that project is $90,750. The project is ready to advertise, assuming the money is available. The estimate now is $120,000, so an increase of $30,000 is needed to complete the project. Mr. Quick explained that originally, this was a project headed up by a citizens group. They were sort of uninformed about the costs of construction and things involved. They under estimated how much the construction would be and over estimated how much work they could get done on a volunteer basis. And, they originally had proposed that the property owners would deed it over to the city or the citizens group. That’s not the case now. The property owners are now seeking compensation. That and inflation has caused the project costs to increase dramatically. Ken Adair commented that the property ended up costing $36,000. Also, in writing up the agreements, the cost of construction was never added in. They had put money in for design, for the property, and for construction management, but there was no money for the actual construction of the project itself. The town was told they were $30,000 short, and like most small towns, that’s more than their whole budget. There’s no way they could handle that type of funding.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the increased funding for the Leeds CCC Camp project. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved unanimously.

Planning and Programming
Aeronautical Project
Milford City Airport
Bob Barrett said that originally they had just two projects on the agenda, but two more project came in late. He distributed a handout on the additional projects. Prior to his presentation of the aeronautical projects, Mr. Barrett gave a brief update on the Airport Improvement Program funding situation as was approved by Congress.

The first project Mr. Barrett presented was for the Milford City Airport. He said it’s an apron expansion and reconstruction, and an airport layout plan update. The total amount of the project is $368,375. The federal portion of that will be $335,000, and the applicant and the state will each pay $16,688. This is a much needed project. The apron is in very bad shape.

Commissioner Bodily moved approval. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved unanimously.

Mr. Barrett said the second project is for Roosevelt City Airport and is for an airport layout plan. This airport has not had a full layout plan in the past, it has only had a summary plan, so this is the first full plan for them. This is a joint federal project as well. The total amount of the project is $50,100, with $45,561 coming from the federal government and $2,270 from both the applicant and the state. There was discussion on the closure of some airports around the state.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the request. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved unanimously.

Mr. Barrett said the next project is at Spanish Fork. He referred to the handout and the revised cost figures. He said when this was submitted, two items were slipped in that were not on the original request and were not put into the capital improvement program. The FAA identified these as needed, but the department has taken exception to that, recognizing what they were trying to do. Mr. Barrett explained that the one end of the runway is too close to the freeway and the clearance planes in the runway safety area are not being met. To properly fix the situation the threshold of the runway will need to be moved some 300 feet and shorten the landing area by 10 feet. Mr. Barrett said there are two ways to do this. The FAA has recommended doing what’s called a threshold replacement, meaning none of the area behind the line could be used, and to prevent it from being used they would take out the existing taxiway that goes to the end of the runway and replace it with a new taxiway. Mr. Barrett said the right way to fix the situation is to use what’s called a displaced threshold. That allows for part of the runway to be used for takeoffs, but not for landings. The runway is marked and the pilots recognize the difference. Trying to prevail on the FAA to solve the problem that way will save several thousand dollars in not having to tear out and build a new taxiway. Therefore, the numbers on the handout to the right are what’s being asked for approval. The federal contribution to the project will be $350,000, with $17,435 each from the state and the sponsor, for a total of $384,869.

Commissioner Clyde moved approval. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved unanimously.

The final project Mr. Barrett presented was at the Logan-Cache County Airport. This project is exactly as programmed in the Capital Improvement Program. It’s for an apron expansion. The Logan airport is growing rapidly in the amount of traffic and they have six corporate jet aircraft based in Logan. This apron expansion is necessary to handle the increased amount of traffic and the increased number of based aircraft. The total cost will be $692,764, of which $630,000 is the federal contribution and $31,282 each from the state and local sponsor.

Commissioner Bodily moved approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved unanimously.

Mr. Barrett finished his presentation by giving a detailed update on the Airport Funding Task Force, and Senate Bill 197 from last year’s session of the Legislature which approved the Task Force’s investigation and study of all aspects of airport funding in the state. There was also discussion regarding the closure of the Tremonton Airport.

Planning and Programming
2000 East Project Increase
Linda Toy gave a brief explanation on the STIP. She said that the TEA-21 authorization was delayed, pushing back the schedule significantly. MAG approved their TIP some time ago and WFRC just approved their TIP last month. So, the STIP is finally ready for approval, albeit a couple of months late. Ms. Toy pointed out that the STIP is balanced and the TIP’s from MAG and WFRC have been incorporated. She also shared information concerning pedestrian overpasses.

Ms. Toy said in regards to 2000 East, WFRC took action to increase costs on that project in their TIP. There were increased traffic control and construction engineering costs, and Sandy City appealed to WFRC to increase both costs. The council approved a partial increase and it was included in their TIP. So, the Commission needs to amend the STIP to reflect the change they’ve already made in their TIP. A motion is needed to approve those increased costs.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve and concur with the Wasatch Front Regional Council on this change, and to direct the department staff to prepare a letter with the appropriate communications regarding the amendment to the STIP on the 2000 East project. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Bear Lake Rest Area
Linda Toy said that from the previous STIP, the Bear Lake rest area has been postponed from FY99 to FY00, which was one of the requests from the Forest Service. She said there has been a dispute between the Forest Service and the Army Corps of Engineers on the development of the water needed for the rest area. Originally the Forest Service had developed a spring, but the Corps of Engineers said no, they had the right over spring development and had not approved it. So, the Forest Service had to go back in and dig a well. Ms. Toy said they are not ready to proceed for FY99 and requested the project be pushed back to 2000. Supposedly this is an issue that’s bigger than the project.

Commissioner Bodily commented that as far as he knows, the spring is being used in the Forest Service campground at Sunrise Camp near the summit in Rich County. The proposal is to pipe some of the water down to the rest area, but the Corps has interjected themselves into the discussion and says it’s their water and it can’t be piped in. Chairman Brown asked what if the Commission decides not to delay it? Ms. Toy responded that the project probably wouldn’t get done in the year it’s programmed. She’s not sure what it would do to the funding for the Forest Service. Commissioner Bodily said there would be a facility but no water. Chairman Brown said maybe that’s the kind of pressure they both need. What is gained by delaying the project? He said the Commission ought to stay the course and not delay the project, and have it be build the year it’s programmed for. Austin Baysinger pointed out that Region One would move another project forward to keep even in the amount that would be obligated that year. They would move the I-15 Lagoon to Layton project forward. Chairman Brown repeated that he thinks the switch shouldn’t be made and that the agencies should resolve the problem. Ms. Toy said that since the switch has been made in the draft STIP, an action is needed to switch the projects back to their original years.

Commissioner Bodily moved to return the projects discussed to their original status, and reinstate the Bear River rest area as a project on the 1999 STIP. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Funding of High Priority Projects
Linda Toy said not included in the draft STIP in it’s correct form right now are the high priority funds. It was congress’s intent that those funds would be divided among 14 projects, and they would get incremental increases of a small percentage each year. But even if that was the intent, congress didn’t actually write the legislation that way. So FHWA has interpreted it to say that the department can treat those as programmed projects and all of the funds that are authorized in each year could be taken and pinpointed onto projects that are ready to go, and put all of the funds onto those projects. Ms. Toy said the department is in the process of determining how to split those funds among the 14 authorized projects. A handout was distributed to the Commis sion at this point.

Ms. Toy informed the Commission that of the 14 projects that are authorized, seven of those are already identified as centennial highway projects. The obligation being received each year is a little under 90%, so the full amount that has been authorized for all of the highway programs is not being received. The $18.8 million identified that is available for FY99 is based on 90% of what is actually authorized for that year. In WFRC’s TIP, they included funding for the 10000 South underpass. And the thought is that the intent would be for Sandy City to use those funds to repay UDOT for the costs of building the underpass on 10000 South, instead of the 7200 South widening project, which is currently on the TIP for FY99. Those two projects have been identified as WFRC’s two high priorities in the Wasatch Front area. Moving on, Ms. Toy said that Murray City is ready to begin work on the environmental work and preliminary engineering for Murray Main Street. They estimate the amount they could obligate by the end of FY99 is $278,000. The other project included is $1.5 million on 5600 West, which is currently programmed in the STIP. There is $4 million in FY00. Ms. Toy noted that they are working to get with the local community to try and combine this. Approximately $1.5 million would be needed for a signal project and to begin work in FY99 rather than waiting for the project funding to come on in FY00. The only other outstanding project is University Avenue. As much as $9 million could be put on that project for FY99, but there’s still some discussion as to whether or not those funds could actually be obligated those years or if it would be wise to move it out for that year. It wouldn’t create a complete project. That is something that would have to be discussed further.

Ms. Toy said that for the 10000 South and 7200 South projects that were included in the WFRC TIP, the Commission can amend the STIP to reflect the changes and recommendations that have been discussed. The other projects will be brought to the Commission in December as an official amendment, once some of the issues associated with the other projects have been ironed out. Chairman Brown asked if 10000 South was ever part of the I-15 reconstruction. Director Warne replied that Sandy City wanted a bridge on 10000 South, but it was not part of the original project. It was included as an option on the I-15 contract with Wasatch Constructors. At the request of Sandy City, the department exercised the option and signed an agreement with them to repay the $5 million, the cost of the facility. By making this $4 million payment, they still have about $1 million to pay back in a future year. It’s their intent to take care of that obligation to the state with this particular payment.

In referring to the handout, Ms. Toy said that in regards to the shaded projects, those are ones that are within the WFRC, and the intent was that any of the high priority projects that were already identified as a centennial project, the funds would be counted towards the $450 million federal contribution. Director Warne explained the one exception where the cities disagreed. He said they believe this is additional money they secured through congress and should be added to the allocation for the Centennial Fund. The department says that it’s part of the $450 million that goes to the Centennial Fund to pay back that particular structure. There was additional discussion on this issue.

Ms. Toy clarified that the amounts of funds received in obligation for this year was in no way affected by whether or not there were high priority projects. The amount of obligation received would have been the same if there were no high priority projects or if there were 50. It’s exactly the same amount.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve 10000 South for $4,059,000 and 7200 South for $1,206,000 in the proper jurisdictions, with the intent that the $4,059,000 represent a partial repayment by Sandy City on the $5 million option that was exercised on the I-15 reconstruction project for the 10000 South underpass. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved unanimously.

Programming of Federal Discretionary Funds
Linda Toy gave another handout to the Commission and said the department received about $90 million in federal discretionary funds. There was $15 million that was received for Snow Basin, but that’s not money that comes to UDOT. It goes to the Forest Service. So, that funding was not included on the handout. Only funds that came to UDOT were included. For the Soldier Hollow Access Road, $6 million was received in public lands discretionary funds. The project includes US-40 widening, Tate Lane, and US-189 to access the cross country skiing in Wasatch County. Chairman Brown questioned the US-40 widening and asked about the action needed today. Ms. Toy said approval is needed to put this on the STIP to go ahead with the discretionary funds. Director Warne reiterated that the point is to get it on the STIP and put the money in the category where it belongs. In regards to final definition of widening vs. overpasses, etc., there needs to be another meeting in Wasatch County. Austin Baysinger said that it will just show Soldier Hollow Access. Chairman Brown said he was ok if it’s no more defined than that. Director Warne said that the department was going to have to come back to the Commission anyway because $6 million isn’t even enough for the widening.

Ms. Toy continued and said the other funds received comes from IM discretionary in the amount of $4 million for SR 248. There was $6 million already programmed for that in the current STIP in FY00. There were discussions about diverting those funds, but they will be left for now. The funds don’t come on until FY00 and it will need further discussion between the Commission, UDOT, and the Olympic Committee. So, right now, there is the $4 million of public lands discretionary funds that will go to SR 248. There was additional discussion and references to the handout for clarification.

Mr. Topham said that the request today is for the Commission to program the $89.99 million into the categories that have been discussed. They will not be specific projects in some cases. Then, the department will come back to the next meeting and discuss how to transfer some of the funds in order to accomplish the Winter Sports Park, and the I-84/US-89 interchange, etc. All of these funds are designated out of the funding that Secretary Slater has at his discretion. Mr. Topham said that more details will be given at the next meeting, and pointed out that some of the projects have run out of preliminary engineering funding and they need to have the funding in those categories to be able to continue on with the projects. This is this year’s money and it needs to be obligated by the end of the year. It’s critical to continue work on the projects.

Commissioner Larkin moved for approval of the $89.99 million in the appropriate categories, with the project specifics brought back at a later date. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Approval of the FY99 STIP
Linda Toy said she needed a motion to approve the STIP.

Commissioner Bodily moved to approve the 1999 STIP as amended. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Informational Items
Next Transportation Commission Meetings
The next Utah Transportation Commission meeting will be held on Friday, December 11, 1998 in Salt Lake City. The following date and location has been scheduled:

• January 14, 1999 - Weber County

The meeting adjourned at 12:32 p.m.

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

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
James G. Larkin, Vice-Chairman
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Stephen M. Bodily, Commissioner
LeAnn G. Abegglen, Commission Secretary
Thomas R. Warne, Executive Director
Clinton D Topham, Deputy Director
Linda Toy, Program Development Director
John Quick, Program Development
Austin Baysinger, Program Development
Max Ditlevsen, Comptroller
Bob Barrett, Aeronautics
Andrea Packer, Community Relations
Dale Peterson, Region Four Director
Ken Adair, Region Four
Clark Mackay, Region Four
Scott Munson, Cedar City District Director
Mel Lloyd, Cedar City District
Mike Ritchie, Division Administrator, FHWA
Maloy Dodds, Garfield County Commission
Gayle M. Aldred, Washington County Commission
Neal Curtis, Enoch City Council
David Millet, Enoch City Council
Mayor Doug Clove, City of Enterprise
Mayor Lee Chamberlain, Glendale Town
Mayor Doug Garner, Hurricane City
Mac J. Hall, Hurricane City
Mack Sanders, Hurricane City
Doug Gubler, LaVerkin City
Daren Cottom, LaVerkin City Council
Mayor David Hatfield, Town of Rockville
Bernie Harris, Rockville Town Council
Terry Watson, Toquerville Town Council
Lynn Olds, Toquerville Town
Than Naegle, Toquerville Town
Max Turner, Washington City Council
Allan Barker, Washington City
Rick Johnston, Salt Lake City
Kenneth Knudson, North Field Properties, L.C.
Tom Shakespeare, Utah Parks and Recreation