Utah Transportation Commission Meeting
Salt Lake City, Utah
August 17, 1995

The special meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission was called to address only two agenda items: US-189 in Provo Canyon, Upper Falls to Wildwood, and the 1996 STIP. The meeting was held at 4501 South 2700 West in Salt Lake City and was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown.

Planning and Programming - Increase in Funding
US-189 Provo Canyon, Upper Falls to Wildwood

A request for an increase of $6.7 million on the Provo Canyon, Upper Falls to Wildwood project, added to the $37.1 million already approved, was presented to the Commission.

Director Tom Warne said this Provo Canyon project, from Upper Falls to Wildwood, is another in a continuing series of projects to improve the corridor on US-189 basically from the mouth of Provo Canyon to Heber. It is an incredibly sensitive area from an environmental standpoint, there are numerous safety issues which need to be addressed, and represents probably one of the most complex transportation challenges the state faces when combining all those issues.

There has been a huge investment in resources and a huge commitment on the part of the department to get us to this point. The project design is basically complete, with only final touches needed on the plans. The department anticipates obligating the FY-95 funds for this project at the end of September, although the project would probably not be advertised until after the first of October, based on some of the other work the department is putting out.

This will be a significant decision by the Commission because it relates not only to this project but to future projects in the canyon. Also, taken in the context of statewide transportation needs, the direction we take on this particular project is pretty significant as it relates to the Governor's upcoming Summit Conference.

Alan Mecham presented a history of the Provo Canyon projects as well as distributing a packet of information and a series of maps on the Upper Falls to Wildwood segment and the Wildwood to Deer Creek State Park segment. He also that noted Randy Park was the consultant manager on the Upper Falls to Wildwood project for a significant amountof time, but has since taken a position in Region Two.

Alan personally began working on Provo Canyon in 1979. At that time we were operating under an old environmental impact statement which was done by UDOT. Basically that EIS laid out a two-lane facility through Provo Canyon with passing lanes where feasible (L. A. Young Sons contract). We operated under that EIS and actually constructed a portion of 800 North in Orem and a short distance up the canyon. That section included passing lanes, so it essentially made it a four-lane highway divided by a paint line.

In 1986 we went to contract on the next section of the canyon, from Murdock to Upper Falls, operating under the same scenario. That contract was awarded to W. W. Clyde. Shortly after they mobilized, a lawsuit was brought forth challenging our EIS, and our design and alignment in Provo Canyon. That lawsuit was upheld, but we were allowed to proceed with five items in the project which basically was relocation of utilities and some structures which would need to be done regardless of the alignment. W. W. Clyde completed those items under the contract at a cost of approximately $11 million.

During that same time UDOT contracted with a consulting firm from Washington to do a supplemental environmental impact statement. That SEIS was completed in late 1989.

During the time the EIS was being reviewed we had contracted with DeLeuw Cather out of Denver to design the next portion of Provo Canyon, which was basically the Murdock to Upper Falls section again, understanding the Department had already designed it under the old EIS, but now we were contracting with the consultant to design it under the SEIS. The construction contract was awarded to Gilbert Western and that section is now complete at a cost of approximately $30 million.

Design on this Upper Falls to Wildwood section, referred to as "The Narrows" section of the canyon, began in October, 1990 by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Under the old EIS the concept was to just have two lanes of traffic remain through this section because of the narrowness and the problems involved with widening it. That received much opposition from people who opposed not only that concept, but the concept of having a two-lane highway with passing lanes where they were feasible. The department has found that passing lanes, or a three-lane typical section, is a dangerous situation. In order to avoid that, and to avoid just having a four-lane road divided by a paint line, we actually went back to the original contract at the mouth of the canyon and narrowed the shoulders a little bit to provide room for a median in the center. That median was also recommended in the SEIS and has been carried on up the canyon.

Following the award to PBQ and D to design the section, five alternatives were considered and there was presentation made to the staff and Commission, and it was agreed to select as our preferred alternative a tunnel and bridge concept with an estimated cost of $34 million. There were tunnels in the down-canyon lane and a structure over the river near Wildwood in the up-canyon direction. That was presented at a public hearing in January, 1993.

We received many negative comments regarding the structure over the river, the impact to the riparian areas along the river, and to the river itself. There was significant controversy from the people at Sundance and Wildwood, the Corps of Engineers and fly fishermen. Basically everyone who had been involved with us on the Provo Canyon Advisory Committee opposed this concept.

We met again and decided if we were going to hold public hearings then we ought to be sensitive to the comments we receive, so we decided to change our concept even though we knew it was going to be expensive because the design was basically into the final stages at that time.

We backed up and decided to look at a three tunnel alignment, that is adding a tunnel in the up-canyon direction and eliminating the structure over the river. That concept was presented in a public hearing in April, 1993 and was favorably received. At that time we were informed that alternative could be built for approximately the same cost as the bridge option, $34 million.

In December, 1993 the design had proceeded and the estimate for the three tunnel design had increased to about $40 million. When questioning the designers about that significant increase from what we had been told only months earlier when we selected that alternative we found that much of the additional cost was because the alignment itself had been shifted twenty feet further away from the Provo River. That did lessen the impact to the river, but it significantly increased the height of the rock cuts and the length of the tunnels and, therefore, the cost of the project.

The consultant was sent back to see what they could do to reduce the cost. and several nice, but unnecessary, features in the tunnels were eliminated at that time. However, the cost could not be reduced down to a figure anywhere near the $30 million we were trying to achieve.

On February 11, 1994 alternatives were again presented to the Commission and staff was instructed to go back and move the alignment back closer to the river (Exhibit 1 in packet), minimize the rock cuts and the amount of excavation to reduce the cost. Following that, at the Commission Meeting in Loa on July 1, 1994, five options (shown on Exhibit 2) were presented. Alternative No. 1 was selected which had three tunnels, one in the up-canyon direction and two in the down-canyon direction, and the alignment was shifted adjacent to the Provo River. The cost estimate was $30,840,000.

We directed the consultant to proceed with the design on that. We Value Engineered the project because of the cost, and that lead us to eliminating one of the down-canyon tunnels, referred to at that time as the Narrows Tunnel. There was very little competent rock there, and when they got into final design the tunnel kept shrinking in length and both ends of it were actually false tunnels which would be built then buried. So we were essentially building an expensive tunnel just to eliminate a very short distance of rock cut. Value Engineering said we would be much better off to eliminate that tunnel, make the cut, and remove the material.

A design public hearing on this concept was held in Heber City on November 15, 1994, and again in Orem on November 16. Public comments were very much in favor, almost all positive. The only significant negative comment about our design was the fact that we were disposing of excess material in a trailer park area in the canyon which the department had purchased earlier. Many people felt we were destroying a valuable area of the canyon and also it would be unsightly to have all that material piled there.

At this time Centennial Engineering was doing the design on the section from Wildwood to Deer Creek State Park. In their preliminary design they changed the concept on that section, resulting in the need for a great deal of extra material in changing the alignment and in buttressing the front side of the Deer Creek Dam. The suggestion was made that, instead of wasting the tunnel excavation material on the Upper Falls to Wildwood project by depositing it in the trailer park area. we ought to haul it up the canyon and dispose of it in front of the dam where the fill would be needed.

That concept not only allows us to have future use of the trailer park, but it also reduces the cost on the next project. What we needed to do, however, was have some way of getting all that material up the canyon without hauling it on the existing narrow two-lane highway with all the traffic on it. Staff came back with a proposal to construct a haul road from the tunnel area basically up to Deer Creek Dam. That concept was presented to the Commission on January 13, 1995 and approved. At that time the estimated cost was $3.1 million to construct the haul road. Since then we have done some things which have increased that construction cost a bit and the right-of-way costs have increased.

Basically, Exhibit 3 in the handout is Region Three's attempt to bring cost estimates in line with the different scenarios proposed as we have gone through this long, drawn out, extensive process. It lists the different scenarios and the estimated preliminary engineering figure, the right-of-way and construction engineering figure, and the construction cost.

Alan explained that when the presentations were made it was understood by many people that the preliminary engineering costs were included in the estimates being presented presented, but it was understood by other people that the PE costs would be over and above the estimates which were being presented, and that was the actual case; the PE costs were not included in the cost estimates being presented.

The estimates which were presented at the various hearings and Commission Meetings should have been increased by the PE amount, and that brings us to where we are today. The current cost estimate for the Upper Falls to Wildwood section is $43.8 million and includes the $3.1 million for construction of the haul road, includes the completion of the recreation path from Bridal Veil Falls to Vivian Park, and includes all the PE which has been spent on the project. It does not include costs for right-of-way for the haul road alignment from Wildwood to Deer Creek Dam; that right-of-way cost was appropriately charged to that next project section.

Commissioner Brown concluded that the $7.1 million PE cost represents the many number of times we have redesigned this project in responding to the public hearing comments and environmental concerns, and is actually money already spent, and Clint affirmed that was correct. It also includes costs for the environmental impact studies which have been done to date and the several designs which have been done.

Commissioner Larkin asked if the haul road alignment is basically the ultimate alignment for the highway on the next phase. Alan responded it is; the haul road involves a great deal of roadway excavation which would have to be done on the next phase anyway. We are not actually increasing the cost of the Upper Falls to Wildwood project, we are just doing work on this project which would have to be done on the next project anyway. The fill will be placed in its final location initially and will not have to be moved again.

Director Warne explained a another handout which details the estimated cost to complete the highway improvements to Heber City. The estimated cost of the Upper Falls to Wildwood project is $43.8 million, and the future projects of Wildwood to Deer Creek State Park is $67 million, and from Deer Creek State Park to Heber City is $36 million.

Director Warne continued that at the August 11 Commission Meeting the issue of obligation authority had been discussed, and this particular project is funded with NHS money. When staff went back to look at our program for FY-95 to see what impact it would have if this money was not obligated to the Provo Canyon project in this fiscal year they determined that with a pretty significant effort on the department's part we could probably still obligate the money to other projects. However, from a commitment standpoint staff feels we have made the commitment to obligate it on this project and that is the recommendation of the department to the Commission.

There have been a number of concerns raised environmentally. One of the issues is hazardous materials in the canyon. We would need to continue to look at that. When tunnels are built it does open an avenue for us to do some things with restricting the transport of hazardous materials in the canyon which would further enhance the safety issues, environmental issues, and our concern of what would happen if a load of hazardous material ever got into the Provo River. We would have to work through FHWA with any kind of restriction we may impose in that regard. Restrictions in tunnels is pretty readily considered across the country.

There was additional discussion about restricting traffic in tunnel facilities. Director Warne said his experience has been that restrictions are generally related to placarded loads. Restricting at this point is not part of the project concept; it is just an issue that is on the table.

Director Warne concluded that It is the recommendation of staff that the Commission obligate the additional $6.7 million for this project. It is unfortunate that the STIP as printed did not include that amount, due to the fact that there was some question between Region Three and headquarters on how the design monies were accounted for in the total project cost, nevertheless, $43.8 million represents the cost of this project, and $37.1 million is currently approved.

Staff's recommendation is based on the fact that we feel we have done a significant and thorough job in examining the environmental issues presented in the canyon and, while perhaps we have not satisfied every environmental concern that may exist, we feel we have complied with, and gone beyond, what we have been required to do on the environmental portion of this. In addition, we feel it is very important to complete this project from the perspective that it takes us past SR-92 and the Wildwood intersection. Access to Sundance and Timpanogos Lodge and the areas on SR-92 is important and the improvements this project will provide at that intersection are significant to the overall safety and operation of transportation in the canyon.

He noted the Commission needs to be aware that this project does provide for construction of a haul road into the next section, so a decision to build this project does take us into a commitment to move forward into the next project.

The was continued discussion about the project and construction of the haul road. Commissioner Clyde commented that due to the contracting process and the lawsuit and being responsive to comments and environmental concerns, many more millions of dollars have been spent on projects in the canyon. It is significant that this project gives us a way to remove excess material from the lower project, which would have been stockpiled in the River Bend Trailer Park, to the upper project where it will be needed. That trailer park is one possible area to maintain the attributes of the canyon. If we put a big stockpile it will destroy that. That is why the department seriously considered moving this ahead where it could be utilized at some future point in construction.

As a Commissioner, this Provo Canyon project lies within the area he represents, and he feels it is very important that we reach the SR-92 intersection to alleviate some of the very severe problems we have had in this narrow part of the canyon.

Commissioner Lewis expressed concern about the costs of the projects, and he noted that at least a partial commitment is being made to proceed with the next project by building the haul road. He wanted the department's best estimate on when they would be recommending we move ahead with that next phase. If it is ten years, he thinks inflation will increase the extimated $67 million cost for that section by a fairly large number. All of those factors play into the decision for him on approving the increase for this Upper Falls to Wildwood project.

Clint said because of the size of the Wildwood to Deer Creek State Park project dollar-wise, it would be broken down into two or three separate construction contracts. Randy Park said it was never intended to do that project as one $67 million project, but instead do it in several phases of $10 million to $15 million a year spread over five years, but there could be different construction scenarios.

Commissioner Lewis said he is concerned that the great cost of these projects may inhibit completion of this entire roadway, and he is also concerned with raising the public's expectation that we will continue construction in the canyon sooner rather than later; they will question how long UDOT is going to keep working in the canyon until we finally get around to finishing it. The expectation of the public is, in fact, one of the things they take into account as Commissioners.

Commissioner Clyde said he is enough of a realist to understand that public demand, regardless of opposition, is going to want to continue to improve that road at some point. We don't need to make that kind of commitment now, other than the fact that, concerning the haul road, we are trying to do things to utilize materials to the advantage, rather the disadvantage, for the preservation of Provo Canyon. That is the reason he feels we have to go ahead. We could have hauled the material up the highway in legal trucks but there would have been wasted dollars; dollars not recovered. So the department came up with this proposal as an option to not wasting the material. He thinks it is important that we move the material out of the narrow part of the canyon and this is the most economically feasible way to go with what we're dealing with today.

It was noted the environmental impact statement takes in the area all the way to Heber. We have done a re-evaluation up to Deer Creek Dam, and we are required to do a re-evaluation of every project all the way to Heber because of the age of the EIS. It is 22 miles from the mouth of the canyon to Heber, and we have done about one-third of that distance. It was noted this project was Upper Falls to Wildwood has the highest per-mile cost along the route; it will not be as costly per mile once we get past this narrow, environmentally sensitive part of the canyon.

Commissioner Weston said he was happy to hear Director Warne say that we could use funding on other projects if this project was not approved in order to expend our obligation authority; it does not force a decision based on not being able to obligate our funds.

Commissioner Larkin said it is difficult to see what the future holds but he didn't think they would ever stop improvements on the road until it is complete, however many years it might take, because ultimately the public will demand it.

There was continued discussion about the amount of money spent on PE for this project, which is about double the amount normally spent on projects, and that was attributed to the number of times the project was redesigned. Commission Brown said we can logically say then, that anyone who criticizes us for not having done our homework doesn't understand how far we have actually gone to satisfy everyone's concerns and how much we have spent to satisfy and resolve all the issues. If someone wants to question why these projects go up in cost, it is often driven by some of the pressures which come at us to alleviate some of the concerns of the public.

Commissioner Brown also discussed the median area on the completed portion of the highway. He expressed dissatisfaction with the unkempt appearance of the existing median and suggested it would not be so unsightly if it was paved and had concrete barrier. Clint explained it was an issue of the EIS which stipulates concrete barrier cannot be used. Concrete barrier would certainly be the best solution for us; it would be the least expensive, it would help our drainage in the median, and it would be the safest by far, but we are restricted by the EIS from using it. However, in an effort to improve the median we will eliminate the "rope" barrier which has been in place and will pave the median area and install guardrail instead.

Commissioner Lewis said one of the key factors for him in making a decision is the safety factor in this narrow part of the canyon and he requested data relating to safety issues from Upper Falls to Wildwood. It is apparent that past SR-92 the road really opens up. Alan Mecham responded that a traffic accident summary in five to ten mile increments going up the canyon was included in the handout material, and for comparison they included the traffic accident summary which was included in the SEIS basically up to 1987. Deciphering the information indicates that the two highest accident areas on the route are located within this project section; the Deer Creek Dam area is another high accident location.

Chairman Brown invited comments from the audience. Mr. Jeff Appel said he was at the meeting as a citizen but he is one of the people who drafted the letter from Collard, Appel & Warlaumont, L.C., representing the Provo River Coalition, and included in the agenda packets River Coalition.

Mr. Appel said his group are really trying to make this project better. It is true that UDOT has made great strides in avoiding some of the environmental impacts by some of the design changes they have made in the highway. The people he is involved with really do appreciate that. There may be some opportunities to continue that.

What he is speaking primarily about today and what their letter deals with are some changes in circumstances that perhaps need to be reevaluated. At this point they are very sensitive to the same issues the Commission has expressed concern about, and that is financial. This is looking like a financial boondoggle for the next couple of decades.

The changed circumstances he can see since UDOT accomplished the SEIS in 1989 have to do with the ISTEA air quality aspects. Improving this road is probably creating some additional traffic that will move down to Utah County, and the impacts of that should be studied; that is a non-attainment area. He doesn't know if that has been done, but in the course of reviewing the NEPA plan he hasn't seen that it has been done. That is important and is a requirement under law.

The second piece of legislation he thinks impacts this--and he is not sure the Commission has had the benefit of a review of it--is the Central Utah Project Completion Act. What that does is enhance the commitment of the Provo River as a water supply for the Wasatch Front. It has been that way for a long time, since the Provo River Water Users Association put Deer Creek Dam in, and it has been used by Provo since people first put their stakes down and claimed the land. That is a very important resource and he is glad to hear people discussing hazardous materials. No matter what you do with this road you need to keep the hazardous materials out of that canyon.

This canyon is being asked to do many things for many people, and one of them is transportation. Certainly a road is needed that deals with the safety problems. But with the other tensions created by these uses it shouldn't be any bigger than it absolutely has to, and there may be some countervailing safety concerns in connection with this particular water supply. A great deal has already been said about the recreation and environmental aspects, so he said he wouldn't go into that, but someone needs to look at what the CUP Completion Act requires of this canyon. It is legislation which has commenced since the 1989 SEIS and he thinks UDOT has an obligation to do that.

The other things which have changed in the area is growth. The Heber Valley has changed and certainly Utah County is in the grips of a ferocious change as far as growth. What does that mean and how does that growth fit into that particular equation, and what are the needs.

Another issues to them is the nature of this commitment for the future. He was pleased to hear the Commissioners discuss this issue. Their group has thought perhaps a three lane road would work at some points, depending on what the needs are. If you take some of the trucks off, for instance hazardous material or other trucks, maybe that changes the need equation for this process; maybe it changes the necessity. If you go to a three lane it appears to them that that transition ought to start now. If UDOT is going to stop just beyond Wildwood, and they agree the surface needs to go to Wildwood, UDOT ought to start to transition now rather than abruptly stopping the four lane and perhaps getting to a three lane because there isn't enough money to do it.

He was happy to see the chart which depicted the estimated costs to complete the road to Heber. There is one conspicuously missing portion which he doesn't think anyone has looked at. This project has been designed over time from the mouth of Provo Canyon up to Heber. He thinks it should be considered from I-15 to Heber and probably, with the changes that have been made to US-40 from I-80, the scope of this road in 1995 should be looked at from I-80 to I-15.

What expenses will be required to deal with the impacts of Utah County and Orem on 800 North and University Avenue? He thinks they will be fairly expensive, and he feels it is related to this Provo Canyon project. The traffic does not just stop at the mouth of the canyon; it has to go somewhere. What is the impact going to be on 800 North. The same is true in Heber Valley. No matter what the Commission does and no matter how big the road is, you must understand the impacts on Heber Valley and Utah County by the I-80 to I-15 shortcut which is being created.

He asked what this road is really intended to serve; what is the canyon intended to serve? Maybe we need to recalibrate the expectations because of the other tensions he already mentioned on this particular resource. What they are really asking is that in 1995 we balance these other competing uses with the transportation needs that are self evident.

A final point as he looks at the funding, are we receiving the value for the cost. He is aware of some, not all, projects around the state which these funds can be applied to instead of Provo Canyon, and before the Commission makes this decision we need to know that we are getting the bang for the buck that is necessary. He is not certain that all the impacts and costs have been arrayed and completely understood with respect to this project, and the 800 North, University Avenue is one part.

Concerning the haul road, practically speaking it makes a lot of sense, but as an attorney who has some specialty in NEPA, he wonders if NEPA has been done for this haul road. He heard that it has been; if it has, it is not in the documents he has reviewed. This does look like a commitment to the next phase of the project. That is one thing which worries him. Once the Commission has made that particular commitment, from the public relations standpoint or the environmental standpoint, it is going to be very hard to unravel that. This decision the Commission must make to spend $43 million--if it stays at that level now--may turn into many more millions to get to the next phase because this part of the project goes over and tries to avoid a slide area. He hopes it has been done correctly. Their group lauds the fact the alignment is away from the river; that is what they've tried to do all the way through the canyon. He thanked the Commission for listening to his comments and concerns.

Randy Park responded to some of Mr. Appel's concerns. The environmental work for the haul road has been completed and signed off, and at this point we have full approval. What reevaluation does is it looks at new or changed impacts. We looked at all those and addressed them and the FHWA and the Department of Interior has signed off, so everything there should be complete.

The three lane highway issue was brought up at the very beginning of starting the Wildwood to Deer Creek State Park project, possibly by Mr. Appel himself. What we did at that point was hire a consultant so we could get an independent study. That study showed that using projections of a fairly conservative level of growth in Wasatch, Uintah, Summit and Utah counties show that we would not have an adequate level of service in a twenty year projection using a three lane facility. We would gain an adequate level of service in the direction we have two lanes, but we would not meet an adequate level in the direction of one lane. That study is complete and is in Centennial Engineers' office if anyone would like to view it.

Commissioner Clyde also responded to some of the issues Mr. Appel raised. Concerning the non-attainment area in Utah County, a vehicle traveling from Wyoming and heading south of Provo has two choices, it can either use I-80 in Parleys Canyon or it can use US-40 and then US-189 down Provo Canyon. In either case that vehicle will end up traveling through Utah County. Any truck which goes either way interfaces with the Lindon corridor and the South University Avenue corridor. The non-attainment issue is a moot point unless we can find some way on either route to get the traffic around those two corridors. No matter which way they go they eventually hit South University Avenue. If they come down 800 North by choice then they interface with the Lindon Corridor as well as the South University Avenue corridor. People coming from Duchesne down US-40 will naturally go down Provo Canyon because of distance.

He told Mr. Appel these are issues we wanted to have brought to light at our public hearings, but apparently for some reason they were not brought to light until this point. It is troubling to him that the department goes to the effort of making available a comment period and evaluation time and discussion time for all the issues involved, then we find that these things crop of after most of the people have made their comments and a decision has been made. It doesn't give the department and Commission a very good way to analyze the position of those who are commenting either favorably or negatively about the things we propose to do. He is not one who likes surprises, but it comes as a surprise when we hold public hearings and ask for comment and ask for contributions on these levels and then we don't get them until some later time after a decision has been made and much effort and funding ha s been expended.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the increased funding of $6.7 million as requested, making a total project cost of $43.8 million. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin.

Commissioner Lewis said he has some real concerns about the statewide needs we have and how much funding is committed to this project. He has some real ambivalence because he recognizes a genuine need but he feels it is too expensive because we commit not just today, but a great deal of additional funds. After a great deal of agonizing and driving up and down the canyon and thinking about it, he feels he will vote no.

Chairman Brown called for a vote on the motion. It passed with a majority vote of four, and Commission Lewis voting nay:

• Approval of $6.7 million increase in NH funds on Project *NH-0189(3)12, US-189 Provo Canyon, Upper Falls to Wildwood, added to the $37.1 million previously approved, for a total project cost of $43.8 million.

Chairman Brown called a short break.

1996 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

Director Warne explained the draft STIP and proposed adjustments, and the rationale for those adjustments, was being presented to the Commission. He noted the draft STIP had been published for public comment and we have received some response, and the Commission will be out receiving more public comment on it in upcoming meetings.

The Director noted he and Clint had established 14 attributes they believe the STIP needs to have, and it drives us to go through the STIP and look at every project and do several things:

1. Make sure the date is realistic, that we can really complete the project when we say we will.

2. Make sure the project value in the STIP is correct. We have projects in each of the regions that have changed in value, possibly right-of-way costs have gone up, or something else has affected the cost. He has told the Region Directors this is their opportunity to come forward and get the correct estimated cost on each of their projects in the STIP.

The regions have been working with Dave Miles and Bob Hulick and others trying to determine how we adjust the program to meet the attributes and essentially balance the books.

What was given to the Commission at the previous Commission Meeting was a first cut at that process. Bob Hulick and Dave explained why some projects moved and some didn't. There are a host of reasons and all that is based on best judgment and considering much input.

Staff wanted the Commission's reactions and feelings about the attributes and the list of projects. If there are projects the Commission feels are a higher priority staff needs to know that because ultimately what they want to present to the Commission is a STIP that reflects priorities which the Commission is comfortable with and can approve. This is a necessary part of stepping up to the realities of what the STIP needs to really be.

Chairman Brown expressed the feelings of the Commission. They realize that in developing a program as a Commissioner they don't have the basis of information which the department has; they respect and understand that. The Commission programs based on the best information they have from the department and where they see the needs and the priorities. Any changes to the STIP come to the Commission by way of recommendation. That is what staff is presenting to the Commission today is their recommendation and they are going to also provide rationale for making the changes which have been made.

One frank concern of the Commission is that they need a good understanding of any changes so they are confident the department doesn't choose ways of moving projects or manipulating the STIP, and the Commission has no way of controlling it. If there are people in the department who don't agree with the Commission's decision, they may be able to manipulate the STIP by the way they direct the work to proceed; that can really affect the STIP beyond the Commission's control. The Commission wants a clear understanding of the rationale behind the changes. The Commission's responsibility is the programming of projects and they want to be assured the program they approve is what is carried forward.

Commissioner Lewis added that the Commissioners must answer to legislators over and over again, on a one-to-one basis sometimes, and they must be able to respond about specific projects and why changes were made. The Commission must be informed.

Director Warne said the Commission must have some confidence in the good faith of the staff that they are being conscientious and their intentions are to deliver on the list as the Commission approves it.

Commissioner Lewis applauded the 14 attribute approach. The idea of a balanced STIP will certainly result in more realistic expectations and results.

Bob Hulick spent extensive time going through each of the projects on the STIP with the Commission and the Region Directors discussing the changes which had been made, and additional cost changes were noted on various projects. After a lengthy work session it was determined a good deal of additional work and discussion with the regions would be required to complete revisions to the STIP before it would be ready for adoption by the Commission.

Jane Garvey and Vince Schimmoller Meetings
Director Warne noted that Jane F. Garvey, Deputy Administrator of FHWA in Washington, D. C. will be visiting UDOT on Wednesday, August 23. In the morning we will provide a tour of the Wasatch Front, to include the Olympic venues. She will join staff later for a meeting to discuss innovative financing as it relates to what we are doing in Utah and also what is happening nationally. He invited the Commission to meet Ms. Garvey and attend that meeting and working luncheon. Following the meeting she will meet with Governor Leavitt, then Mayor Corradini, and finally with members of the Olympic Committee.

Vince Schimmoller, FHWA Region Eight Administrator from Denver also plans to be in Utah to informally tour the Provo Canyon project on Tuesday, August 22. The Commission was also invited to join Mr. Schimmoller and Region Three staff on that tour.

Next Commission Meetings
The upcoming Commission Meetings were set for September 8 at 9:00 a.m. at the Springville City Hall, with an Update Meeting set for 3:00 p.m. in Salt Lake City the day before.

The October meeting was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. in Logan, to be held in conjunction with the dedication of the US-89/91 project in Wellsville Canyon.

Region Four Tour
A tour through Region Four was set for Monday through Wednesday, September 11-13, and will include viewing several project areas as well as meeting with various local officials, as well as National Park Services personnel concerning the John Atlantic Burr ferry on Lake Powell. A draft itinerary was distributed.

The meeting adjourned at 1:25 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
Thomas R. Warne, Executive Director
Clinton D. Topham, Deputy Director
David K. Miles, Program Development Engineer
Bob Hulick, Programming Engineer
Gordon Maestas, Program Development Officer
Kim Schvaneveldt, Project Development Engineer
P. K. Mohanty, Preconstruction Engineer
Sheldon W. McConkie, Operations Engineer
Kent Hansen, Director, Community Relations
Randy Lamoreaux, Administrative Services
Dyke M. LeFevre Region One Director
Jim McMinimee, Region Two Director
Byron Parker, Region Two Preconstruction Engineer
Carlos Braceras, Region Two Roadway Design Engineer
Randy Park, Region Two Resident Engineer
Alan W. Mecham, Region Three Director
Dale Peterson, Region Four Director
Roy O. Nelson, FHWA District Engineer
Jeffrey Appel, Provo River Coalition
Bret Fuelmer, Provo River Coalition