Utah Transportation Commission Meeting
Salt Lake City, Utah
February 10, 1995

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at 4501 South 2700 West in Salt Lake City, was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He welcomed all those in attendance, and recognized Don Steinke from the Federal Highway Administration, and Senator Mike Dmitrich from Price.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the minutes of the Transportation Commission Meeting held January 13, 1995 in Salt Lake City, it was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously.

SR-6, Spanish Fork to Helper and Helper Interchange
Senator Mike Dmitrich addressed the Commission to stress the importance of two issues:

1. SR-6 from Spanish Fork to Helper and widening it to four lanes, and
   
2. an interchange at the Helper Intersection with SR-6.

Concerning SR-6 from Spanish Fork to Helper, Senator Dmitrich emphasized the safety factors and noted that it seems there is a very serious accident on that road every week. He said he understands UDOT's budget constraints, but he asked the Commission to keep the project to widen the road as high a priority as possible when the funds are available.

Concerning the Helper intersection, Senator Dmitrich complimented the Price District for the work they have done there and felt they've done about all that can be done to alleviate the very serious problem at the intersection without spending a great deal of money. The accident rate is down; there are still a few accidents, but they are not fatals now.

The Senator knows Helper City wants UDOT to construct an overhead sign with flashing lights as an advance warning of the intersection. If funds are available he would like to see that done to see if it will help the situation.

He noted there is a group in the Helper community who will not give up and who continue to pressure him and State Representative Tom Matthews about the issue. He was told by the Helper group that constructing an interchange at their intersection was not on any UDOT project list. He said if that is correct, he would urge that improvement of the Helper intersection be included in the design of the four-lane highway from Spanish Fork to Helper, and that the interchange be advanced as a priority item, and that the Commission give that project every consideration possible. That intersection is a particular problem because Helper's population is mainly senior-type residents and retirees.

Chairman Brown asked staff to comment on the status of the Helper Interchange project. Ken Adair replied it is in the long range priority, and it is in the Region 4 request this year that the project come onto the STIP; that is for the Helper Interchange (overpass) only, not the entire SR-6 improvements from Spanish Fork to Helper.

There was some discussion of a project at the Helper intersection, and that it would be possible to do the overpass work as a stand-alone project, but it would require additional right-of-way and would cause traffic interference. Ken Adair thought it was the recommendation of Horrocks, who did the Feasibility Study on SR-6 from Spanish Fork to Helper, that stand-alone projects be done, and they identified the Helper Interchange and the section from I-15 to Moark Junction as the two top priorities.

Senator Dmitrich stressed that they would like the Helper interchange recognized as part of any future planning. He expressed appreciation to the Commission and to Director Zwick for the work which the Department has accomplished throughout his district.

Commissioner Clyde indicated the Helper Interchange project is listed on our unfunded needs list.

Community Impact Board - Mineral Lease Funds
Chairman Brown said he would like to address the issue of mineral lease funds with Senator Dmitrich while he was present. He indicated he had recently attended a public hearing in Huntington where there was discussion about increased coal haul and improving alignments on some roads.

He explained he sits on the Community Impact Board and is concerned that the CIB doesn't really address some of our real energy-related activities with that money. Some of that money should be flowing to UDOT in order to solve the State component of energy impact on State highways. We have asked legally whether or not some of that money can be utilized by UDOT and have been told the State can be an applicant for that impact money just like the local jurisdictions.

He knows Carbon County is planning to do some widening and realignment on highways coming from the mines, but once the haul trucks hit the State road the problem is still there and there is still impact. That puts a great deal of pressure on UDOT to try to solve the State's part of those energy-related impacts with our limited funds. He feels when those kinds of activities happen, then the resources ought to flow to the jurisdictions which have the responsibility to solve the problems; that is what Congress intended, but UDOT is getting left out of the loop.

He hates to see the impact money being spent for other things when he knows there is a real need, and a true energy-related activity to improve highways with those funds.

He stressed that he needs some help from the legislators to push that issue in the Impact Board relationship to help deliver some of that money to where the real problem is.

Senator Dmitrich said they should consider allocating a certain percentage of that mineral lease money to state roads in impacted areas. He said if we could come up with some idea he would be glad to help with that because he totally agrees.

He continued that their area is developing a new coal mine, and are in a fast-track process of getting it permitted and will be in production in 1998 in Castle Gate. It will be a five-million ton-per-year coal mine, which will add more money to the CIB and more problems to the highway. He agreed the situation should be looked at and he would be very willing to do so.

Planning and Programming
Structure Repairs on I-70 and SR-19
A request for $125,000 for repairs to approach slabs on three separate structures was presented to the Commission. The structures are F-451 eastbound and westbound on I-70 at MP 159.05; F-418 on SR-19 at MP 3.71; and F-417 on SR-19 at MP 3.93.

Abby Fallahi of Structures explained that the approach slabs have pulled away from the abutment, in some cases over two inches, which lessens the bearing area of the slabs on the abutment. It is a serious problem and needs to be rectified as soon as possible. There was considerable discussion about the method of repair and the design of the structures. Abby noted these structures are of an old design which we no longer use. The repairs will extend the life of the approach slabs and structures, and staff will monitor the repairs in the future.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the funding as requested, it was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously that:

• Approval of $125,000 for a State Construction project for repair of approach slabs on structure F-451 on I-70 at MP 159.05, structure F-418 on SR-19 at MP 3.71, and structure F-417 on SR-19 at MP 3.93.

Planning and Programming - Increase in Funding
SR-18, 2 Miles North of Snow Canyon Road to Veyo
Ken Adair presented a request for an increase of $745,000 of State Funds for a project on SR-18 from two miles north of Snow Canyon to Veyo, a distance of eight miles.

He explained the original concept for the project was just for some shoulder widening and an overlay. The local government expressed concern about population growth from Dammeron Valley, Diamond Valley and Veyo and the increased truck hauls coming from those areas, so they requested that the project include left turn lanes at Dammeron Valley and Diamond Valley, plus a truck lane coming out of Veyo. Our staff determined the requests were warranted so those items were added to the project. There was also concern with some steep vertical curves which limited sight distance, so improvement of those areas was also added to the project. The changes caused an increase in excavation, granular borrow, and pavement which resulted in the cost increase.

Ken noted the engineer's estimate which was sent in with the design study report on the project in August included this $745,000 increase. However, for some reason that information did not get to Bob Hulick, so the increased project cost was not included in the STIP when it was approved by the Commission in December 1994. Dave Miles explained the reason it didn't was because the STIP was actually prepared in June and the Commission was to act on it the first part of September, however it wasn't presented to them until December. It should have been possible to get those changed costs in the STIP, but Mr. Hulick doesn't get the design study reports, so he didn't have the new figures.

Ken commented that now, with the new Preconstruction Program Management System (PPMS), as the projects are designed the costs are included, and Mr. Hulick will have the ability to access that information from his computer and will be aware of all the cost increases as they come along.

There was continued discussion about the project and whether approval of this increase could possibly impact or risk delay to other projects.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the additional funding as requested, it was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved unanimously that:

• Approval of $745,000 of State Funds on Project SP-0018(22)13, SR-18, from two miles north of Snow Canyon Road to Veyo, added to the $3,300,000 already approved, for a total project cost of $4,045,000.

Planning and Programming - Increase in Funding
Ashley Creek Bridge Replacement, Vernal
Dan Julio presented a request to the Commission for an increase of $295,000 of Bridge Replacement Funds for the Ashley Creek Bridge at 1100 North and 500 East in Vernal, a local government project.

He explained the project was programmed approximately two years ago using an estimate for a 30-foot bridge, which is about the size of the bridge which washed out. As the design proceeded it became apparent, because of FEMA and freeboard requirements, that the bridge would need to be 100 feet long, which accounts for most of the increase in cost.

Commissioner Weston asked Dan how we stand with our Bridge Replacement Funds. He replied that local governments presently receive 35% of the Bridge Replacement Funds, or about $3.3 million a year, and we are in good shape with the local government share and should have an excess this year of about $1 million. Kim Schvaneveldt said the State share of those funds is generally spent each year. Abby Fallahi added that according to Bob Hulick we are overprogrammed on State projects for Bridge Replacement Funds.

Commissioner Clyde expressed great concern about the request for a 137% increase in cost, and felt there has to be a way to get a better initial cost estimate on these projects.

Dan provided some history on this bridge. It washed out at least seven years ago and a low water crossing, or a pipe culvert, has been in place in the interim. When there is high water it runs over the road and the road must be closed, however, that culvert washed out again two years ago. A structure needs to be in place on this road because of use by emergency vehicles, school buses, etc.

Dan said when there is an increase like this it may be partially his fault. He explained there is enough money in the bridge replacement program to proceed with the projects as they come in. Rather than requiring a concept report and putting the projects in concept development in the STIP for a year, he has been putting them straight into the three-year construction program, thus avoiding delaying the projects.

He continued that when they do that they use our Structures Division's estimate on how much it will cost to replace the existing bridge; on this particular project that bridge was 30 feet. In many cases, after studies are done and it is determined what the freeboard must be, that defines the length the structure must be. That is what happened in this case; they estimated a 30 foot structure, but by the time they got through with the hydraulics investigation they were faced with a 103-foot structure. The original estimate was for a 30-foot structure and that was programmed two years ago, but last month the design study report was approved and it showed a 103-foot structure was required.

Commission Clyde restated that he is very concerned about the process, and Commissioner Lewis agreed. Dan restated he has been trying to get the projects on the STIP as soon as possible and under construction. With these local government projects if they do a concept report the project is put on the STIP in Concept Development and the local government has to pay for the entire concept development and in many cases they don't have those kinds of funds. In fact, to get it programmed in the first place they have had to go to the Community Impact Board to get their matching share. He said essentially we are skipping the concept report, and as soon as it is in the STIP, we go to a scoping meeting and proceed from there with the design.

There was a lengthy discussion about the project and the design standards we are required to meet when federal funds are used. Staff indicated State projects must be analyzed for scour for 500 year floods and designed for 100-year floods, and local government projects must be designed for 50-year floods. We also have a requirement for a two-foot freeboard.

Commissioner Lewis referred to the process and asked if we are bypassing that concept study because local governments have a hard time funding it in some circumstances. Dan Julio affirmed that was correct. He explained that we wait until after we have programmed the project, then we essentially have a combined concept and scoping meeting. We still fill out the same documents, but it is after it is programmed instead of before, and that is where we run into problems with the estimates. An estimate is made based on replacing the existing bridge, but by the time it is designed it can be a much longer structure, as in this case.

Commissioner Lewis said if we continue that practice we will continue to have this kind of problem on an ongoing basis. He is uncomfortable with the local governments having to squeeze harder and harder to find the money to fund the concept study, but he is also uncomfortable with this process and the unrealistic estimates. He thinks staff should see if there is a better way to deal with these projects and get a better cost estimate the first time to at least minimize the increases in funding which the Commission has to approve.

Chairman Brown asked what happens with the project if they don't approve the additional funding request, or if we stay with a design for a 30-foot bridge. Kim Schvaneveldt replied if we don't meet the required design standards we won't get the federal funding. Don Steinke agreed FHWA would probably not fund the project if the normal parameters and thresholds of the design process were not adhered to.

Commissioner Larkin commented that a bridge to meet the necessary requirements is going to cost a certain amount. The problem seems to be our process in making the initial estimate for programming.

Dan Julio said what we are doing with the process is essentially a trade off--we are trading the accuracy of the initial estimate for speeding up the process and getting the bridge constructed.

Clint Topham pointed out the project never was actually designed for a 30-foot bridge; there was a cost estimate done based on a 30-foot bridge, which was the length of the original bridge. If the Commission chose not to fund this 100-foot bridge and thought it should be designed on a 50-year standard rather than a 100-year standard then they could go back and see what the savings would be on the 50-year standard and whether it would be acceptable for federal funds under the 50-year standard. The explanation from the consulting engineers, FOVA, Inc., indicated this bridge was designed to 100-year standard because the site lies in a designated FEMA floodplain.

Commissioner Clyde moved to table the issue until next Commission Meeting to determine if there are alternatives to the 100-year design, and to obtain more information on the project. It was also suggested the consulting engineers be present to answer questions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weston and it carried with affirmative votes from Commissioners Brown and Larkin. Commissioner Lewis voted no.

Commissioner Lewis commented he is less concerned about this particular bridge project than he is about the process. He feels it is appropriate to reconsider or reexamine procedures to see if they can be improved. He feels this procedure can be improved and suggested that staff consider what changes can be made to enhance the process.

Commissioner Clyde agreed, but said we should constantly be looking at all our processes. The Commission has indicated to staff the concerns they have, particularly about cost estimates on projects and how to get a better handle on them.

Dan said the problem, as he sees it, is that we are trying to satisfy our customers, which is the Joint Highway Committee and the local governments. It is sensible to look at the process to see if we can make it better. However, the Joint Highway Committee does approve a priority list on the projects.

Clint said the prioritization of these bridges and the additional funding request has been taken before the Joint Highway Committee. We have given them that responsibility to screen the projects before they come to the Commission, so this project has had the scrutiny of that group. The JHC only meets twice a year, so any projects that need particular attention between those times they leave to the discretion of Mr. Julio to deal with and to inform the JHC of what changes may be made. He also indicated we have tighter controls in our own 08-1, or internal, projects than we do for the local governments.

Mr. Julio restated that he feels the local governments have different needs than we do, and in this case we have sacrificed accuracy for time.

Planning and Programming - Airport Improvement Projects
Phil Ashbaker reported on 12 aeronautical projects for the Commission's consideration.

The first project is at the Provo Municipal Airport. It is a continuation of the runway extension and the problems associated with extending the runway into the State Park and the wetlands, etc. It concerns mitigating and settling the Utah Lake State Park corrections and changes because of the runway extension; Phase II of a gas line relocation; and airport diking/pump station relocation. The project is $1,649,440, of which $74,720 would be State funds.

The second project is at the Richfield Municipal Airport for drainage improvements, and security lighting on the apron. Phil pointed out the original cost for the project was $58,125, but the FAA is only going to grant $30,000 of FAA funds, so they will see how much of the work they can do with the $30,000 grant plus the state and local match of $1,495 each. If it turns out that it's not a practical project for that cost, it will die until there can be more money. Phil felt they would most likely end up doing the drainage, and the security lighting would probably wait.

The third project is at the St. George Municipal Airport and involves a multitude of work items using entitlement money from emplanements. The runway lights and primary taxiway lighting system will be replaced. They have had significant problems trying to maintain their lighting system since having a lightning strike. The system will be completely replaced on the runway and the east side parallel taxiway. A new electrical vault and generator building have been built, and on this project they will be relocating all the electrical controls for the runway and taxiway lighting to the new vault.

The project also includes installation of new taxiway lighting on the west side taxiway where they have been using reflectors until now; security lights will be installed for the security area apron and new tiedown apron which has been built south of the terminal building; construction of more taxilanes on the west side to some new hangar construction; installation of a pedestrian security gate on the northwest side; and installation of a fire protection line. The total cost is $1,053,000, of which $47,701 is State funds.

The fourth project is also at the St. George Municipal Airport for a Site Selection Study for a new airport location. The present airport has expanded as far as it possibly can, and the projections of demand in the St. George area indicate a new airport will be required within the next ten years or so. There are very limited areas in which an airport can be located; the most probable location for this airport is the old CAA site to the east of St. George. With the growth and expansion taking place in St. George it is imperative that a determination for location of a future airport be made now to protect that land. Total project cost is $87,970, of which $3,985 is State funds.

The fifth project is at the Wendover Airport for the purchase of an airport sweeper and a fire truck. With the regularly scheduled commercial service into that airport it requires equipment to take care of the area.

The sixth project is at the Canyonlands Field Airport north of Moab in Grand County. The Master Plan calls for a runway extension of 600 feet to the west. When that happens it will require the relocation of a power line located to the west of the runway which will break the safety plain, so that line will have to be buried. This project is to relocate that power line and put it underground; acquire land for the runway extension, object-free zones, and runway safety areas; and project coordination for surveys and engineering. The total cost is $1,324,500, of which $60,000 is State funds.

Phil indicated the remaining six projects have no State funds involved and are all under the control of Salt Lake International Airport. Project seven is at Salt Lake Airport II to expand their parking apron, for a total cost of $1,113,000.

The eighth project is at the Tooele Valley Airport. They are relocating the taxiway and extending it full parallel, and this project is to install a new taxiway lighting system for a total cost of $258,216.

Projects nine through twelve are at the Salt Lake International Airport and utilize emplanement money. He also noted that in actuality much of this work will be lumped together when a construction project is put together.

Project nine is for a cargo apron bypass, which is actually a taxiway to bypass the existing cargo apron for the new runway. The total project cost is $397,013.

The tenth project, at the Salt Lake International Airport, is for a cargo area deicing on the apron. It is like a drive-through deicing area for the planes, where all the fluids can be controlled and collected. It has a total project cost of $1,878,744.

The eleventh project is at the Salt Lake International Airport for a deicing area north of Concourses B, C, & D. This is also a large drive-through deicing area for a total cost of $7,359,156.

The final project, also at the Salt Lake International Airport, is for some apron repair in the terminal area for a total project cost of $278,250.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the twelve airport projects as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it passed unanimously that:

• Approval of Provo Municipal Airport project for mitigation of runway extension at Utah Lake State Park; gas line relocation, Phase II; and Airport diking/pump station relocation, for a total project cost of $1,649,440 - Federal $1,500,000, State and Local $74,720 each.
  
• Approval of Richfield Municipal Airport project for drainage improvements and apron security lighting, for a total project cost of $32,990 - Federal $30,000, State and Local $1,495 each.
  
• Approval of St. George Municipal Airport project for replacement of the runway and east side primary taxiway lighting system; relocation of electrical vault lighting equipment; installation of west side taxiway lighting system; installation of security lights for terminal area and tiedown apron; construction of west taxilanes, Phase 2; installation of pedestrian security gate; and installation of a fire protection line.
  
• Approval of St. George Municipal Airport project for Preliminary Site Selection Study for New Airport, for a total project cost of $87,970 - Federal $80,000, State and Local $3,985 each.
  
• Approval of Wendover Airport project for purchase of airport sweeper and an Index "B" ARFF Fire Truck, for a total project cost of $466,510 - Federal $424,244, State and Local $21,133 each.
  
• Approval of Moab Canyonlands Field Airport project for powerline relocation, land acquisition, and project coordination for surveys and engineering, for a total project cost of $1,324,500 - Federal $1,204,500, State and Local $60,000 each.
  
• Approval of Salt Lake Airport II project for apron expansion, for a total project cost of $1,113,000 - Federal $1,008,711, and Local $104,289.
  
• Approval of Tooele Valley Airport project for taxiway lighting system, for a total project cost of $258,216 - Federal $234,021, and Local $24,195.
  
• Approval of Salt Lake International Airport project for construction of a cargo apron bypass taxiway, for a total project cost of $597,013 - Federal $541,072, and Local $55,941.
  
• Approval of Salt Lake International Airport project for a cargo area deicing on the apron, for a total project cost of $1,878,744 - Federal $1,702,705, and Local $176,039.
  
• Approval of Salt Lake International Airport project for a deicing area north of Concourses B, C, & D, for a total project cost of $7,359,156 - Federal $6,669,603, and Local $689,553.
  
• Approval of Salt Lake International Airport project for apron repair in the terminal area, for a total project cost of $278,250 - Federal $252,177, and Local $26,073.

Chairman Brown called a short break.

Enhancements Projects - Enhancements Advisory Committee
Dave Miles distributed information to the Commission concerning the process for enhancements projects for their review and consideration.

The first item is the proposed changes to pages 8 and 9 of the Guidelines for Making Application for Transportation Enhancement Projects. Slashed-through words are proposed to be deleted, and text in shaded areas is proposed new wording or additions. The guidelines list specific dates or increments of time when individual tasks are scheduled or are to be completed. It also specifically states that the sponsors must expedite their projects to be completed within 18 months from the date of project approval by the Commission, and if not the project can be deemed withdrawn so the funds can be allocated to another project.

The second item distributed was a schedule of the upcoming meetings of the Enhancements Advisory Committee to screen the applications, as well as a draft summary list of the 1995 enhancements applications. Dave noted Commissioner Larkin serves as a member of the Enhancements Advisory Committee and would be attending those meetings, but he also extended an invitation to the other Commissioners to attend if they desired.

Dave referred to a Commission action at the January 13 Commission Meeting that letters were to be sent to sponsors of projects indicating an April 1 cutoff date for the sponsors to notify us that they are, in fact, proceeding with their projects and would have them ready for advertisement this fiscal year (by September 30). Dave reported that John Quick has sent those letters and we are now waiting for a reply from all the sponsors. He also indicated that if we have a need for additional
projects so we don't lapse any funds staff is also looking at the applications we have to determine which ones could be accelerated.

There was discussion about the guidelines and whether the proposed changes addressed all the Commission's concerns. The Commission also asked Commissioner Larkin to take a very hard look at the applications when they are being screened to make certain there is an indication that right-of-way will not be a problem; that can cause a very big delay on the projects or prohibit it from being completed, and we don't want to tie up funds with those kinds of projects. There should also be evidence of public support.

Chairman Brown indicated that our input to Congress for the next federal legislation will be that they eliminate the Enhancements program entirely. He feels we cannot afford these kinds of programs when there are so many other pressing needs for our transportation dollars. Commissioner Lewis said when we consider the urgency of the other transportation needs, to be required to fund these Enhancements projects is troublesome. Don Steinke agreed.

Clint commented they heard comments about that when he and Director Zwick were in Washington, D. C. and they don't know of any state which likes the Enhancements program. As far as reauthorization of the Highway Act, AASHTO has began a process and each state has designated a committee member--Dave Miles has been designated from Utah--to attend those meetings and provide input from our department. Dave has the assignment to not only look at Enhancements, but also all the management systems as well as the mandates under ISTEA so we can have a position on all of those.

U. S. Department of Transportation Restructuring Proposal
Don Steinke made a presentation on the proposed restructuring of the USDOT. There are close to a dozen administrations in the current DOT structure. The new DOT is proposed to have three administrations reporting to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Transportation: Aviation Administration; Intermodal Transportation Administration (ITA), under which the Federal Highway Administration will fall; and the United States Coast Guard. Two organizations will be transferred out of DOT: The Air Traffic Control functions currently performed by the FAA will be corporatized, and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation will be an independent organization which will also be corporatized.

Mr. Steinke indicated this action was being taken to streamline, or downsize, the DOT, but the field structure will be maintained and will still be the heart of the DOT and FHWA. It will assume an added level of importance in the new organization to service the customers and partners. Between now and March 1 there will be additional details added to the restructuring as far as staffing levels, etc. Director Zwick commented that UDOT supports the field structure and would strongly encourage that it remain intact.

Mr. Steinke indicated the current US DOT staff level is 104,000, and the new scenario proposes 54,000. That 50,000 employee reduction is greatly skewed by the fact that 40,000 of that difference are air traffic controllers, leaving an actual cut of 10,000 employees.

He indicated that funding programs to the individual states may also change. They are looking at three programs. One is a Unified Grant Program which basically takes all our funding categories and combines them into a grant for the states, with probably some stipulation to the MPOs. The theory is that the states will basically receive a check and it will be up to the states' planning processes and priorities to identify where the money is spent.

The State Infrastructure Banks would be where some money goes into a state bank for seed money to try to get private match for projects. It will be a special category for private participation into the whole transpo rtation program.

The Federal Discretionary Fund would basically be for those projects where locals cannot get enough money to fund a special project--a bit like Demonstration money.

Mr. Steinke pointed out this proposal has to go before Congress yet for discussion.

Director Zwick indicated that Utah is very fortunate having the level of people we are able to work with in FHWA, with Mr. Steinke and his staff in the Utah office, and with Mr. Vince Schimmoller in the Denver Regional Office; the Commission added their agreement.

Columbia Elementary School/Jordan School District - Noise Wall Request
The Commission discussed a copy of a February 8, 1995 letter they received which was addressed to Gene Sturzenegger from Mr. Robert D. Day of the Jordan School District concerning the Columbia Elementary School's request for a noise wall along their playground. [This issue had been addressed by the Commission at Commission Meetings on September 30, 1994 and November 4, 1994.]

Commissioner Lewis indicated that staff should look into Mr. Day's comments in the letter to determine if what he is alleging is actually correct, that the $27,430 paid to previous property owners Rink/Langmade was cost to cure for only 400 feet, and did not include the other 400-foot section of property which was to be sold to Jordan School District. Commissioner Lewis said he takes exception to the tone of the letter which indicates UDOT has somehow implicated ourselves as willing to buy the noise wall because the Commission listened to them and talked to them. The cost to cure was for a noise wall if it became required by the city.

Director Zwick noted that Representative Mont Evans and a contingent, including Mr. Day from Jordan School District and Joyce Broschinski from the citizens group, went to our Transportation Appropriations Committee requesting that Transportation Funds be earmarked for this particular noise wall at Columbia Elementary School, with no action being taken there.

He continued that if their allegations prove correct that the 400-foot section of property they purchased from Rink/Langmade was never included in the cost to cure fencing payment, then under the normal criteria of noise walls they can make application for that 400-foot section. Regarding the safety issue they have raised, that playground area is well beyond the clear zone and is believed to be well protected from the highway. It is not an issue of safety, but there is a misconception that a noise wall is also a safety barrier.

There was also some discussion about legislative bills concerning noise walls in this legislative session. Commissioner Lewis wanted staff to be sure to respond to Mr. Day's letter.

Upcoming Commission Meetings
After some discussion the previously set schedule for upcoming Commission Meetings was altered to be held as follows:

• March 17, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in St. George
  
• April 20-21, 1995 in Ogden. This Commission Meeting is scheduled in conjunction with the Programming Workshop which will be held all day on April 20, and until noon on April 21, followed by the regular Commission Meeting which will begin at 1:00 p.m.
  
• May 12, 1995 in Salt Lake City was tentatively set.
  
• May 18-19, 1995, Five State Commission Meeting at Angel Fire, New Mexico.

The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

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

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
Todd G. Weston, Vice Chairman
James G. Larkin, Commissioner
Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary
W. Craig Zwick, Executive Director
Clint Topham, Deputy Director
David K. Miles, Program Development Engineer
Kim Schvaneveldt, Project Development Engineer
Sheldon W. McConkie, Operations Engineer
Kent Hansen, Director, Community Relations
Phillip N. Ashbaker, Director of Aeronautics
Stephen C. Reitz, Internal Auditor
Dan Julio, Local Government Projects Engineer
Abby Fallahi, Structures
Ken Adair, Region 4 Preconstruction Engineer
Donald P. Steinke, Division Administrator, FHWA
Mike Dmitrich, Utah State Senate
Will Jefferies, Wasatch Front Regional Council