Utah Transportation Commission
October 14, 1999
Provo, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held in the Provo City Council Chambers, 351 West Center, Provo, Utah, was called to order at 9:11 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He welcomed those in attendance and introduced the Commission members. Commissioner Clyde was excused from the meeting.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the minutes of the September 16, 1999, Commission Meeting held in Garden City, Utah. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved unanimously.

Local Area Presentation
Alan Mecham, Region Three director, introduced his staff attending. He turned the time over to Dan Nelson, a project manager, for the local area presentation. Mr. Nelson said they have put together a list of state projects significant to Utah County, including Local Government projects. Those projects are divided among the four project managers, and are color coded in the handout. Mr. Nelson then reviewed his projects, which included the South University Avenue (Novell) Interchange; SR-75/I-15 Interchange; I-15 to Moark Interchange; Billies Mountain; passing lanes in Spanish Fork Canyon; and four projects in Provo Canyon. The two Local Government projects he is working on are Orem Center Street widen and reconstruct from I-15 to the east city limits; and reconstruction of Spanish Fork North Main Street.

Phil Huff, project manager, next reviewed his projects. They included the Pleasant Grove Interchange; 12th South (University Parkway) Interchange; SR-114 - Geneva Road; 500 West in Provo; and several signals around the valley. Local Government projects mentioned were 4800 West, Cedar Hills Drive to SR-74; 1200 East in Lehi from SR-73 to SR-92; and 820 North 1375 West to Geneva Road.

Greg Searle, project manager, discussed the projects he’s responsible for, which are various signals around the valley; Payson to Spanish Fork (US-189); and American Fork Creek box culvert replacement. Local Government projects mentioned were Woodland Hills Drive; several signal locations in Provo City and a roundabout being constructed; Canyon Road in Springville; CC Trail -Rock Canyon to Carterville Road, and Carterville Road to Utah Lake; a Provo River Parkway Bike/Pedestrian Path; and a project on 300 South from 300 East to 800 East in Payson.

Lori Dabling, project manager, said her state project is Moark Junction to North Mapleton city limits. Her local government projects are good projects, and include the Provo River Bridge project being sponsored by Orem City; 3700 North, US-189 to the Provo River; a park and ride at 500 East in American Fork; and the Spanish Fork River Bridge at Powerhouse Road, replacing a narrow bridge.

Public Comments
Frank Staheli, Santaquin City Council, said he had a few questions. He said they have proposed two or three potential areas for traffic lights on their Main Street, and wanted to know the status of the study, and when they can expect the results. If the results are positive, what can they tell their citizens when the project might be completed? Alan Mecham responded that they received the letter from Santaquin City, and typically it takes a few weeks to get a study done. He’s not sure if the study is complete or not, but assumes it should be. If one of the areas meets a signal warrant, then it would take about nine to ten months to get the signal in. Mr. Staheli said it helps to know some kind of a time table. He then continued with his second concern. He stated there are some development projects on the table in Santaquin that would increase the size of the population about 200-300 percent. In looking to the future, and in regards to the overpass about two miles north of the North Santaquin interchange, what kind of requirements are there, as far as population or traffic density, before an overpass can be converted into an interchange? And, with the increased truck traffic through the middle of town, what is the state’s perspective on the possibility of alleviating some of the congestion caused by the trucks and future growth, as Santaquin expands residentially and commercially?

Clint Topham replied that the State and the Federal Government both have criteria as far as the overpass is concerned. He suggested talking to Linda Hull and her people in Planning to get more information on the process. The first thing that has to be done is a study on access to the interstate, looking at the other interchanges in the area, growth of the area, and determining whether or not those interchanges will handle the projected growth for 20 years. However, the biggest thing that determines the building of another interchange is not the counting of the people, but the counting of the dollars. Mr. Staheli again mentioned the heavy truck traffic that travels through town and wondered about the possibility of improving a road so the bulk of the large trucks won’t have to travel right through the middle of Santaquin. Mr. Topham said the answer is about the same. Work with Ms. Hull and her people in Planning.

Mr. Staheli said his final concern has to do with extending the curb and gutter from 4th East to just west of town. What is the state’s intent as far as improving that curb and cutter? Mr. Mecham responded that on the west end of town, their intention would be to curb and gutter the road along with the project to build a new maintenance shed there. On the other end of town, there was the potential for matching some city funds to correct an access problem. There is also a road configuration problem Santaquin City is taking care of due to an unsafe situation. Mr. Mecham said they are amenable to looking at a curb and gutter project with the participation of the city, but would like to wait until the city has the road realigned though.

Niles Jensen, mayor of Woodland Hills, said as was mentioned previously, Woodland Hills Drive will be reconstructed from SR-198 to the Woodland Hills boundaries. Gaining access to SR-198 off of Woodland Hills Drive is a real problem during rush hour because there is so much traffic on the highway. Adding to their traffic problems are the hundreds of trucks that drive onto SR-198. Mayor Jensen said he wrote to Alan Mecham requesting a stoplight, and Mr. Mecham indicated they would do a survey after Woodland Hills Drive was reconstructed. But the Mayor said it seems that the survey ought to be done before the reconstruction because if the signal is justified, it could be installed while the intersection is under construction rather than tearing it back up after the project is finished. Mayor Jensen said the other item he would like to bring up is the possibility of getting some indication on I-15 of which exit to get off for Woodland Hills and Elk Ridge.

Alan Mecham responded and said they will certainly take a look at the intersection mentioned. The mayor is right. If the road is reconstructed, then some conduits, etc. ought to at least be put in underneath the roadway so they wouldn’t have to go back in and tear the road up. Mr. Mecham suggested that the mayor work with himself and the project managers to make sure it happens. As far as the signing on I-15, there is a limit as to how many destination signs can be put on the interstate. Unfortunately, all the town in the area can’t be listed. They have tried to put some signs on the non-interstate system to direct people. Mr. Mecham said they will continue to look at the issue, but again, they do have limitations.

Gordon Taylor, mayor of Payson spoke. He said their Main Street is very narrow, and it is the main corridor coming off the freeway. They have requested traffic studies, and desperately need three traffic signals. They need to move the traffic off of Main Street before it gets to the center of town by moving it to either 6th North or 4th North. They also need a signal on 3rd South, but are particularly anxious to have a traffic signal on 4th North. Traffic could then move up to 6th East and to a signal on 6th East where the hill crests. Mayor Taylor wondered what the status was on at least one of these traffic signals. Alan Mecham stated that they are studying 4th North, 6th East and 3rd South. He believes they have received the warrant studies back for 4th North and 3rd South, and neither one was warranted. They have not received any information back on 6th East. The situation is frustrating to Region Three too because without the signals, traffic won’t go to those other places, and without the traffic, the signals can’t be warranted. It’s a catch 22 and they’re not sure how to approach it.

Director Warne explained that the whole process of warranting signals is a national process which has been developed over many years. He told Mr. Mecham if people can’t get out and turn left, then there are provisions in the warranting process to accommodate that, and maybe that’s the direction to look at in terms of signal warrants. Also, Dave Miles, who is the Operations Engineer, and a group within his organization, are heavily involved in this and are the experts on it. Director Warne asked Mr. Miles to look at it from a systemic standpoint and see if there is some angle being missed.

Reid Wayman, Saratoga Springs City Council, said since they incorporated three years ago, their population has increased 500 percent, and they project the population to double in the next year. One of the projects he is particularly interested in is the Pleasant Grove off ramp, which will service the east and west corridor, but hopefully will follow along either 7th South in Lehi, or somewhere along the north shore of Utah Lake. Ultimately he visualizes that east/west corridor tying in with Eagle Mountain, who has about 6000 homes planned in one of their developments. It would take them to I-15 without having to go through Lehi. Lehi has a number of problems and even with the two lights they have installed, it’s almost impossible to turn onto their Main Street from a side street. There is a good north/south corridor in Highway 68, but there is a problem on the junction of Highways 68 and 73. The city is currently installing a waterline along Highway 68 that will provide water for an excess of 20,000 people. And looking a long time down the road at the growth and development in their community, they are making infrastructure improvements to accommodate that. Commercial development has already started at the junction, and there will be access problems. It’s time to look at getting a signal light at that corner simply because of the traffic there now, and also the commercial development that will be taking place.

Chairman Brown asked Mr. Wayman, as part of their planning and improvement process, at what point do they not approve anything until some of these transportation issues have been addressed, or do they merely allow the growth and congestion to continue? Mr. Wayman said they started out less that two years ago without a dime in their pockets, but they are addressing those issues right now, and are looking in advance at what they need to do in order to provide those corridors. Rod Bateman, mayor of Eagle Mountain, commented and said he agrees with the concerns that Mr. Wayman has brought up. As each of these communities are being developed they are setting aside right of way for roads. In fact, they are requiring developers to put in four lane roads, so they will have a four-lane road to the boundary of their community. Saratoga Springs is making similar provisions, and Lehi is making provisions along 700 South for a wider road. The concern is that these cities will not necessarily all be contiguous, and there will need to be extensions of those roads between the communities, which obviously they don’t have the capability to do. Mayor Bateman also talked about the shifting of the state designation off of SR-73 to the new highway. Director Warne commented that UDOT has a certain amount of money that is given to them by the Legislature. It’s a large amount, but certainly not sufficient for all the needs around the state. And, all that money is absolutely committed right now. There is no money in the system for a new east/west corridor, and absent some infusion of money, which is controlled by the Legislature, the kinds of things being talked about today are not possible. Director Warne suggested that the cities talk to their Legislators. Mayor Bateman said they are making an effort. Several mayors in the county have gotten together and met with Governor Leavitt and Legislators, and discussed some of these concerns with them. He just wants to make UDOT and the Commission understand and be aware of what is going on in the northwest part of the county.

Frank Mills from Pleasant Grove City spoke. He appreciates the efforts in their behalf from Region Three and UDOT. The item he would like to bring up today has to do with the interstate between 5th East in American Fork and 16th North in Orem. There are two overpasses that are not adequate for high loads and some bigger loads to go through, so these loads are being routed through Pleasant Grove and onto 7th South, one of their local streets. The loads are also becoming more frequent. Over the last five years, Pleasant Grove has spent a considerable amount of money trying to upgrade 7th South with overlays, widening, etc. But, with these heavy and high loads, they are having a real problem with the road continually breaking up. They have been trying to use local funds to keep up, but they’re at a point now where they can’t do it. The road can handle the regular, local traffic, but isn’t able to handle some of these other loads. Mr. Mills said they don’t want to get to the point where they have to put a limitation on weight, height, or width, because there’s no other way for these big loads to go. They are just hoping there could be some type of additional funding, through maintenance or whatever, that could be funneled to Region Three in their behalf to do something with that particular stretch of road.

Chairman Brown said he assumes the overweight/overwidth loads are permitted by the state initially. Maybe the Department ought to look at tightening that up a little. Director Warne replied that some loads are divisible, and the Department forces the loads to be divided where possible. However, there are some very large components that are built for manufacturing costs, etc., that are a single component. What can be done is to have the Department and Rick Clasby go back and look at what is being done, and see if the Department is running these loads over the street and ruining it. Mr. Topham stated that one thing that can’t be done is to give the city money for the road. State money can’t be spent on non-state routes. Mr. Mecham noted that anything that is routed off of I-15 and onto 7th South would be restricted by height only. If it got that far on I-15 it’s not a width issue. If it was a width issue, it would be routed down SR-68.

Planning and Programming
WFRC TIP Approval
Linda Toy Hull said they don’t have a TIP to amend. There still hasn’t been a resolution to the 12300 South issue. Clint Topham reminded the Commission that from the discussion at the last Commission meeting, it was decided there needed to be a meeting with Riverton City officials, WFRC, and some Transportation Commission members. In that meeting, the group came up with the possibility of making a split in the high priority funds and giving Riverton a portion of the funds for their share of the road, then replacing those funds in the Department’s budget for 12300 South, with funds from the 2000 East project, which will probably never be built. However, the Department didn’t feel they could do that without getting Legislative approval, so Davis County Commissioner Dannie McConkie was going to set up a meeting with Legislative leadership and UDOT representatives. A meeting had been scheduled for Monday, but for some reason it was canceled.

Will Jeffries from WFRC commented that the Regional Council did approve the TIP, and the 12300 South project is listed. The federal funds available were split between Riverton City for the portion of the project between Redwood Road and Bangerter Highway, and the state portion of the project between Redwood Road and the Jordan River. The question came up as to how the state portion of the project could be made whole after removing $3.6 million. Mr. Jeffries said he and Commissioner McConkie met with President Beattie and Speaker Stephens on separate occasions, and some questions they raised included what the effects were on the State program, and if it required more money. They were told that it didn’t require more money, but it did reduce the size of the CHEF program by $3.6 million if a portion of the money was shifted out of the CHEF onto the city project. Mr. Jeffries said that both President Beattie and Speaker Stephens said they would have no problem making the shift. However, the TIP does not show the shift of money out of the CHEF and into the state portion of the project. They also don’t have anything in writing from the Speaker or the President.

Chairman Brown stated that the Commission should hold up action on this until this is formalized with either something in writing or a direct communication with Legislative approval. Also, both Appropriations Chairmen from the House and the Senate need to be contacted regarding this issue. Director Warne agreed and said the Department received very pointed direction from the full Management Committee, and it would be risky to proceed without going to them. It does sound like it’s coming to a resolution though.

Programming FY 2000 State Funds
Linda Toy Hull distributed a handout to the Commission and said in FY 98 and FY 99, the Department had a decrease in the gas tax revenues that were lower than projected, impacting the program. At the April workshop, for FY 2000 they worked off a much lower projected revenue estimate of $345 million, which was based on revenue from previous years. However, the revenue has been tracked, and the Comptroller at UDOT estimates the Department will have an additional $20 million in state construction funds for projects throughout the state. Ms. Hull noted that the Commission has tried to focus as much funds as possible on the preservation program and to also put additional federal funds into that program to keep the orange book projects at a semi-acceptable level. The Regions’ contingency funds were completely zeroed out, and the amount of funds going to all the other types of programs were reduced. There were also a number of projects that were originally funded with state construction funds, but were impacted because of the reduction. Of nine projects that were programmed, one was funded and the rest were pushed back to 2001, with the exception of a project on SR-6, and that project was partially funded with federal funds and partially funded with state funds. That project was also reduced by $6 million, from a $15 million project to a $9 million project.

Now that there is an additional $20 million that can be programmed, Ms. Hull said they have come up with some recommendations. For Moark Junction, they are restoring $6 million back to that project because of intent language in the appropriations bill. For the SR-40 slide repair, they were short $350,000 to do that repair, so they want to make that whole in order to complete the project. Region Two took the most significant hit by far on some projects that were pushed back, so they wanted to restore a number of those projects. Also, at the April workshop, the Commission said if revenue came in higher, it was their intent to have the funds go primarily to pavement and preservation, but wanted to reserve the right to be able to give the Regions some continency funds, since they haven’t had any for a couple of years. The recommendation is that $1 million be set aside for each of the Regions for their contingency funds. The rest of what is left would go for pavement and bridge preservation.

Chairman Brown asked if there were any other projects on SR-6 that the $6 million could be spent on. Alan Mecham commented that he would vote strongly in favor of keeping the $6 million on the Moark Junction project, but believes they could certainly discuss the scope of the project and how the money is spent. Clint Topham said he was at the Executive Appropriations meeting when this was discussed and the intent language Ms. Hull referred to went in. When it was brought up that the Moark Junction project was one of the projects which would likely be delayed, several Legislators were really concerned and wanted this to be the first project funded with state funds if there were any. So, that $6 million should be restored. However, if there are discussions to move it to a different project at a different time, that would be fine. Director Warne suggested doing as Mr. Topham said and fulfilling the intent of the language, but also with the proviso that those Legislators be contacted to make sure that is how they still feel. Merrell Jolley noted that this current project is faced with a conformity deadline, so if the scope of the project is going to be modified back to what it was originally, they would have to move quickly in order to meet conformity deadlines. There was additional discussion on the Moark Junction project. Chairman Brown stated the Commission will look to the Region to initiate a meeting or discussion with the Legislators regarding the funding of the $6 million. Commissioner Wilson said he would appreciate being part of the discussions as to where the funds might go.

Commissioner Wilson moved to approve the distribution of the additional funds identified for FY 2000, being state source of funds. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wells and approved unanimously.

Ms. Hull said she also needed a motion to approve the list of projects.

Commissioner Bodily moved to approve the list as presented. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved unanimously.

Highway Bill
Linda Toy Hull said this item is in regards to the Appropriations bill that Congress recently passed. There were a number of earmarks in that bill for the State of Utah, and the STIP needs to be amended to include those items. The first group is Transit projects, such as a bus loan project, intermodal facilities, purchasing new busses, etc. The second group is Federal Lands projects, which includes Soldier Hollow and SR-248. The third group is Statewide projects, including ITS Development, I-15 structures research, the Utah - Colorado Isolated Empire Rail Connector study, the Bear River migratory bird refuge access road, and Olympics transportation management planning. Ms. Hull said she needs a motion from the Commission to amend the list into the STIP so the projects can proceed.

Commissioner Wells moved to approve the request as presented. It was seconded by Commissioner Eastman and approved unanimously.

Aeronautics
- Salt Lake International Airport
- St. George Airport
Phil Ashbaker said he is representing Bob Barrett who couldn’t attend. The Salt Lake International Airport item is for information only since the Commission approved the entire project back in June. The FAA found $825,000 at the end of the fiscal year and granted discretionary funds to Salt Lake City, so that money has come in a little early and the project will be started. This is just an update on the source of funds, and the fact that it came in early.

Mr. Ashbaker said the next project is a significant project and concerns the replacement of the VOR navigational aid owned by the state in St. George. The existing system is old, very difficult to maintain, and very unreliable. And, parts for repair of that system are almost impossible to obtain. It’s a significant impact on the St. George airport and to Skywest Airlines operation in and out of the airport. There are many times, especially in the winter season, that it is instrument conditions in St. George, and after a lot of discussion, replacement of the VOR system was recommended. The total cost is $127,300, with a request of $100,000 of state contribution. They want to begin installation during the month of November if this is approved.

Commissioner Larkin discussed the procedural actions needed. He said there was a motion made at some point that all state funds were to be spent for maintenance. This item would require an exception to policy on an emergency basis to expend this amount of money on something other than a maintenance project. With the number of operational days versus non-operational days, the costs of this in maintenance will probably be recouped in two to three years. Additional discussion focused on Skywest Airlines and their participation and involvement in this.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the expenditure of $100,000 of maintenance funds on an emergency basis for the VOR in St. George, under the suspension of the rules, and that St. George City match anything above $100,000, and be responsible for anything more than $127,300. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Eastman and approved unanimously.

Echo Canyon Slide
Jim McMinimee, Region Two Director, said he hoped to be able to give the Commission some firm numbers on their slide repair in Echo Canyon, but the project team hasn’t gotten to the point of being comfortable with making a recommendation yet of what they are going to do there. The slide closed the eastbound lanes of I-80. Currently there is two way traffic on the westbound lanes which will likely continue through the winter. They have been evaluating two or three options. All of those options have one thing in common, and that is to relocate the eastbound lanes further north, which requires relocating the westbound lanes further north also. To move the interstate around the slope where the slide is will cost about $2.2 million. The debate right now is whether or not they need to do something to stabilize the slide. That could cost anywhere from $4.1 to 8.5 million. As part of the remediation project ongoing right now, they will be installing some drainage into the slide that has come down. If that seems to work, that will greatly simplify their decision and they’ll just leave it alone and relocate the interstate from there. Mr. McMinimee said they are making sure the crossovers and the signing are as safe as possible for the winter, and will do everything possible to make sure it’s easily maintained and safe for the traveling public. There was also some discussion regarding the Echo Port of Entry, its status, and the funding situation.

Proposed Property Acquisitions
Clint Topham said this is another in a series of requests that have been received. This is not a hardship case, but it does fit into the category of being a vacant piece of property, which the Commission has indicated they would like to purchase. The property will cost approximately $50,000. Mr. Topham recommended buying the property before a home is built on it.

Commissioner Eastman moved to approve the purchase of the property. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved.

Legacy Parkway
Carlos Braceras reminded the Commission that in April 1998, they adopted by resolution what is referred to as the total north corridor solution. Also by resolution, the Commission agreed that the preferred alternative would be reconstructing I-15 North from 600 North in Salt Lake City to 200 North in Kaysville, expanding the freeway from a six-lane facility to a ten-lane facility. And, the Legacy Parkway was selected as one of the components to meet the total traffic transportation demand in the north corridor. As part of that resolution the Commission adopted the locally preferred alternative. There were some challenges with that alternative in regards to wetland impact. Mr. Braceras said in the spring of this year it became obvious they were not going to be able to obtain a wetlands or 404 permit for the locally preferred alternative, so the communities and their Legislative representatives began to work toward an alignment alternative they felt could be permitted by the Corps of Engineers and would also address the needs of the communities. That is where the D alternative came from.

Mr. Braceras said the D alternative really is not a new alternative, but is made up of a combination of the locally preferred alternative and the A alternative. About 60% of it is made up of the locally preferred alternative, with the remainder being from the A alternative. Mr. Braceras referred to some charts that were displayed and pointed out the locations on detailed maps. He said some of the reasons for the alignment changes included wetland conflicts in the Woods Cross/Bountiful area and in Centerville. And, with fewer wetland impacts, there will be less mitigation required. Previously, mitigation was up to 1600 acres, but will now be down to less than 1200 acres for the new nature preserve, which will be very beneficial for the community. This new alternative has 118 acres of wetland impacts versus 148 acres for the locally preferred alternative. There will be 14 business and three residential relocations as part of this project. Mr. Braceras said they are trying to achieve a balance between impacts to the natural ecosystem and the impacts to the community. He then distributed a letter from Mayor Hirschi of Centerville and read the first few paragraphs to help the Commission understand Centerville’s position in all this. Mr. Braceras said that out of the nine items mentioned, they feel they can work with Centerville City on seven of them. Two items are really outside the scope of the project, one would need a Commission action, and one is a signal warrant. Centerville represents this as a compromise. The Department is looking to provide the public with a balanced transportation need, and the Legacy Parkway is a proponent of that system. There are no other routes in Davis County other than I-15 right now, and the commuters are really feeling the heat. The communities realize they need to have the Legacy Parkway, and they all support the need for this facility.

Mr. Braceras said the draft resolution that was handed out would allow the Department to identify this alignment as the preferred alternative in the final environmental impact statement. The administrative final environmental impact statement is expected to be available for the review of FHWA and the Corps of Engineers by January 3 or 5, 2000. They will have one month to review it, there will be another month for required corrections, then the final environmental impact statement will be available for total review in March of 2000, with a record of decision in June of 2000. If given the go ahead today, they will propose starting design/build activities to get this project moving forward, with dirt turned in early 2001. Chairman Brown asked if not taking an action until the next meeting would do any damage to the process. The Commission obviously has a very important responsibility here, and to act on it today is pretty quick. Mr. Braceras said it would set them back at least a month. Chairman Brown said he is pretty aggravated that they haven’t had this information before today. If it’s so critical to be done today, why wasn’t the Commission given more information on this and brief as to the need for the time frame to be met.

Director Warne said they are sensitive to the Commission and their role in this process. Most of the process that has occurred here has been the work of a couple of representatives in the Legislature who worked with the local communities. The Department served as a resource. The reports in the newspaper were generated by others talking to the media, not the Department. In fact, some of the reports were perhaps premature before final agreements were reached that this was an appropriate alignment. Director Warne noted that one reason this is before the Commission toda y is because the next meeting is in Kanab, and it would be inappropriate to have a decision like this made in Kanab. He also apologized to the Commission if the Department misstepped in terms of keeping them informed. Chairman Brown said he would have liked to have had a chance to think about this. It’s the Commission’s responsibility to take a little bit of time once in a while to evaluate something when making very important decisions. He also hasn’t had a chance to really read through the letter from Mayor Hirschi. Commissioner Bodily said he’s inclined to concur with Chairman Brown.

Mark Heileson, representing the Sierra Club, related a recent experience he had in Idaho with his father and the urban sprawl they noticed was taking place there. That is why he, the Sierra Club, and others are against the 120-mile Legacy Highway. It would be facilitating that same type of sprawl growth. It’s like telling developers to get as much land as they can because the road is coming. They are not fighting this alignment because it goes through duck lands. The wetlands are very important to them, but they are fighting the sprawl. There are better options. Other cities are investing more in having a transit system spread with development. Mr. Heileson said, in hearing about the towns west of Utah Lake and their need for more arterials, more roads, they really shouldn’t be sprawling out there. The open space, farmlands, and wildlife habitats should be protected. He’s glad to be part of an organization that fights to protect open space, and this is a community and family way of life issue. Please do not build this Legacy Highway. Yes, there is a transportation problem in Davis County, but there are other options, such as commuter rail, extended light rail, increased busses, etc. They are going to fight hard to stop this 120-mile project from even starting.

Commissioner Wilson said he’s new to the Commission and is not too familiar with the route of the Legacy Highway. He wondered about the possibility of him being able to take a drive by view of the proposed route to get a little more acquainted with it. Even in rural Utah they have a lot of questions. Commissioner Larkin said he also feels that as he read the newspaper of these developments, he felt like he should have been included at some place along the way and been given a little insight from some of the UDOT people.

Commissioner Eastman said obviously the Commission is ticked off. He also said he’s been contacted from time to time on a general basis as a Commissioner living in Davis County. However, he hasn’t received any information on this lately. This is an issue that is important to the Commission. Director Warne said obviously he’s mistakenly thought they had communicated satisfactorily with the Commission on this matter. They’ve been talking about it for three years. He suggested that the Commission commit to an afternoon to go through the whole corridor, then sit down and review all of the information. Again, from a public policy standpoint, it would be a mistake to take this vote in Kanab, so there would need to be a special meeting held on the Wasatch Front in the next couple of weeks to take the vote.

Commissioner Eastman said he understands the urgency and has kept himself abreast of this issue to a certain extent. He thinks this is the alignment, and it’s probably as close as they’ve come so far to something that could actually be permitted. But the Commission has just felt a little bit out of the loop. In his opinion, they ought to proceed on this, and if timing is an issue, then move forward. There’s no question this parkway is needed. Commissioner Bodily said he thinks it would be helpful to the Department to have the Commission fully on board, and if it takes a couple of weeks and another meeting, that’s fine with him. He’s willing to spend some time out of the ground looking at it, and holding a special meeting. Director Warne said he thinks it would be an important message to the communities because the communities truly believe they have given the utmost to this. Centerville, as evidenced in the letter, is not completely happy, but they see the bigger picture and they’re willing to go along. To Centerville’s credit, they’re the one probably sacrificing the most in making this road happen. It would be a disservice to them and other communities to view the Commission’s inaction today as some kind of a lack of endorsement of the Legacy Highway. The message should be that the Commission would like more information to totally comfortable with the details of alignment D, but by no means is a reflection that the Commission is backing away from the Legacy Parkway.

Commissioner Larkin said he doesn’t feel he needs any more information. He would have liked to have had more information, but he’s not sure he’s lacking anything to make a decision. Nor would a day on-sight change anything. If any of the Commissioners really wanted more information, they could have called and asked for it. Personally, there’s enough information here to make a decision. Commissioner Eastman agreed with Commissioner Larkin. He said he would like to see this thing move forward. However, the Commission has made their point, and everyone knows how they feel. Commissioner Wilson said he doesn’t want to hold up progress, but feels like he would still like more information since he’s new to the Commission, including taking a tour of the project sometime in the future.

Commissioner Eastman made a motion that the Commission adopt alignment D as presented today. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed with one dissenting vote by Chairman Brown. Commissioner Wells did not vote.

Informational Items
Next Commission Meetings
Chairman Brown made note of the change of date for the November meeting. The next regular Transportation Commission meeting is scheduled for Friday, November 5, 1999, in Kanab, Utah. The following date and location have also been scheduled:

• December 9, 1999 - Salt Lake City

The meeting adjourned at 12:43 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
Clinton D Topham, Deputy Director
L. Robert Fox, Communications Director
David K. Miles, Engineer for Operations
Linda Toy Hull, Program Development Director
Max J. Ditlevsen, Comptroller
Austin Baysinger, Program Development
Dan Kuhn, Program Development
Andrea Packer, Community Relations
Phil Ashbaker, Aeronautics
Jim McMinimee, Region Two Director
Alan W. Mecham, Region Three Director
Merrell Jolley, Region Three
Dan Nelson, Region Three
Phil Huff, Region Three
Greg Searle, Region Three
Lori Dabling, Region Three
Byron Parker, Legacy Highway Project Director
Carlos Braceras, Legacy Highway
Todd Jensen, Legacy Highway
Michael G. Ritchie, FHWA
Chuck Chappell, FHWA
Joseph Brown, GOPB
Ben Christensen, Legislative Research
C. Russell Fotheringhm, State of Utah Economic Development
John L. Valentine, Utah State Senate
Margaret Dayton, Utah House of Representatives
Marlon O. Snow, Utah House of Representatives
Clyde Naylor, Utah County
Pete Cannon, Cedar Hills Town Council
Mayor Rob Bateman, Eagle Mountain
Scott Bird, Mapleton City
Keith Morby, Mapleton City
Mayor Gordon Taylor, Payson
Frank Mills, Pleasant Grove City
John Ayer, Pleasant Grove
Nick Jones, Provo City Corp.
Adriana O., Provo City
Mark Palesh, Riverton City
Frank Staheli, Santaquin City Council
LaDue Scovill, Santaquin
Reid L. Wayman, Saratoga Springs Town Council
Mayor Nile Jensen, Woodland Hills
Kathleen McMullen, MAG
Chad Worthen, MAG
Darrell Cook, MAG
Will Jeffries, WFRC
Cindy Burton, New Utah - Am. Fork/Pleasant Grove
Mark Heileson
Kenneth Knudson
Rick Lindsay, KSL Radio
Josephine Zimmerman, Daily Herald