Utah Transportation Commission
November 4, 1994
Farmington, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held in the Davis County Courthouse at 28 East State Street in Farmington, was called to order by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown at 9:00 a.m. He welcomed all those in attendance, and expressed appreciation for the hospitality of the Davis County Commission for hosting a breakfast. He introduced Commission members and UDOT staff, and noted that Commission Vice Chairman Todd G. Weston was not in attendance because of recent heart surgery.

Chairman Brown explained the Transportation Commission feels it's their responsibility and does their best to visit different parts of the state to receive local input and to see first-hand the transportation needs and problems.

Commissioner Todd G. Weston
Chairman Brown explained that Commission Vice Chairman Todd G. Weston, who represents northern Utah on the Commission, was not in attendance because of recent heart surgery, but he was recovering. Director Zwick commented on behalf of the staff that they wished him a speedy recovery. Representative Marda Dillree also expressed concern and asked that their good wishes be relayed to Commissioner Weston.

Deferral of Resolution on US-89 through Logan Canyon
Chairman Brown explained that a resolution dealing with the Record of Decision on the preferred alternative on US-89 through Logan Canyon had been removed from the Commission Meeting agenda because of Commissioner Weston's recent illness and his inability to attend the meeting. Because of his involvement with the project over the years it was felt it should be deferred to the next Commission Meeting. He noted UDOT staff made efforts to contact all those interested in the project so they would not unnecessarily attend the Commission Meeting, and he apologized to anyone who may not have received that information.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the minutes of the Transportation Commission Meeting held in Salt Lake City on September 30, 1994. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it passed unanimously.

Davis County Strategic Highway Plan
Representative Marda Dillree thanked the Transportation Commission for meeting in their area. She said she chaired and was representing the Council of Governments Task Force on Transportation, which had been meeting the last nine months to formulate a Davis County Transportation Strategic Plan. Every single community in Davis County has been represented on the Task Force, with participation and involvement from legislators, the Davis County Commission and staff, Utah Department of Transportation, Utah Transit Authority, Wasatch Front Regional Council, and Salt Lake City representatives, as well as attendance of congressional legislative staff people who can carry their message to the federal level.

Representative Dillree said only a draft copy of the Strategic Plan was currently available, but a final copy of the Plan would be provided to the Transportation Commission at a future date.

Representative Dillree indicated because Davis County was represented by two UDOT regions they may have to have both Region 1 and 2 meet occasionally together with them to help them present their issues with one voice. That is one of their recommendations.

The top three priorities of their Strategic Plan were outlined by Representative Dillree. They feel very strongly that Davis County, for a variety of reasons, has not been able to meet their transportation needs. They have identified three priorities:

1. I-15 to the Farmington/US-89 junction. Basically, the corridor from 2600 South in Bountiful through Farmington has not had an environmental impact study done. It is not earmarked for funding at this time and they see it as a critical need.

2. US-89. Because of safety factors and issues.

3. West Davis Highway (limited access expressway).

They strongly support and believe they have to address and look at some alternative transportation needs in Davis County, not only I-15 and US-89, but a West Davis Highway as an alternate route in the future. They realize their priorities would be some of the biggest dollar projects on UDOT's list, other than the I-15 General Development Plan through the Salt Lake Valley, and they also realize there are other projects and problems throughout the state.

Representative Dillree said they wanted to present justification why they believe Davis County needs to be put on a fast-track in looking at and addressing their transportation needs, and a packet of information was given to the Commission [it did not include the draft Strategic Plan]. One graph portrayed the summary of revenue versus expenditures by county. Over a seven-year period Davis County generated the third highest revenue in the state but had the lowest ratio of expenditures.

Another graph indicated the total expenditures by the Department of Transportation in each county. They are not receiving what they feel they need; they want to generate a bigger "piece of the pie" so they can move their priorities ahead.

Mr. Stuart Adams, Layton City Councilman, presented information on the growth problem they are experiencing in Davis County. One graph showed a 23-year history of the growth rate of the Salt Lake, Davis and Weber Counties: From 1970 to 1993 Weber County grew almost 20%, Salt Lake County grew almost 50%, and Davis County grew over 100%. They don't feel that means their problems are more acute, but it means their problems are increasing more rapidly than anywhere else along the Wasatch Front. They are the third largest county in the state. Another graph depicted actual population in the three counties: Salt Lake County has a population of 758,000; Davis County has 206,000; and Weber County has 166,000; Davis and Weber Counties combined equal about half of Salt Lake County.

Mr. Adams compared geographic size of the counties: Salt Lake County has 290,000 acres; Davis County has 107,000 acres; Weber County has 345,000 acres; Davis and Weber Counties combined have 452,000 acres. Typically, when land is used up the population finds it difficult to grow. In the future, at the rapid rate of growth in Davis County, the population graph could eventually reverse as northern Utah continues to grow, and as the available land mass is used up in both Davis and Salt Lake Counties. They see that as a critical issue in the future.

Another graph indicated traffic growth rate versus population growth. Even though there has been a great deal of growth in the north and south ends of Davis County, there still is an extensive amount of pressure being put on the freeway right in the middle of the county from the north. They see that as a continual growth that will not stop in the future.

Another graph indicated the basic employment growth among the three counties. Davis County has the largest employer in the state, and one of the largest distribution centers in the state. Davis County's employment rate has been growing at over 4%. The challenge comes simply in trying to get people to work in Davis County.

Mr. Adams indicated a map and stated there are a limited number of avenues from Davis County into Salt Lake County. Travel between Davis County and Salt Lake on any route other than I-15 is very limited and difficult. At 5th South in Bountiful there is an opportunity to move down to Redwood Road, on the east side they have SR-106 which turns into Orchard Drive and goes to Main Street in Salt Lake City, and US-89 goes back to I-15. Davis County residents need more and better routes.

He noted that Salt Lake City is the hub for the Wasatch Front and all of Utah because the airport exists there, the Delta Center, the Salt Palace, and much of the cultural events exist there. The need is not only acute because of the fact there is a narrow mass of ground which exists between Salt Lake and Davis Counties, but because that narrow neck of ground exists five miles from Salt Lake.

Representative Dillree pointed out that in the event of any natural disaster that would affect that particular narrow area where I-15, Beck Street and I-215 meet, such as an earthquake, it would really cut off all of northern Utah.

She also said there is a very critical problem in Centerville with flooding. That problem has been addressed over a number of years, but occasionally I-15 has actually been closed down around the Centerville area because of flooding.

Representative Dillree presented recommendations and specific funding requests for the three priority projects they have identified. They realize it may take some time for the Department to implement them, but they are hoping for the Commission's support and the support of the Legislature as well as the citizens of Davis County and the state of Utah to fund the needed priorities.

I-15 from 2600 South to Farmington is presently on the unfunded list. An environmental impact study has not been done on that corridor. They would like this project to be put on the five-year plan and put on a fast track. They believe with supplemental funding for an environmental impact study to be initiated with one-time funding in this legislative session it will put them in a position that in 1997 they can start putting approximately $40 million a year over the next five to six years into projects on that eight miles up to Farmington; $1 million in the upcoming legislative session for the EIS, and $30 million to $50 million a year over the next five or six years.

Concerning the US-89 needs, the EIS will be completed in the spring of 1995. They are hoping, and it has been indicated by UDOT that the Department will be prepared to start on a project. They very strongly encourage UDOT to set a minimum amount which will be expended over the next ten years on US-89. They believe whether it comes from Federal Demonstration Funds or State coffers, a commitment needs to be made to move ahead and put a minimum of $10 million to $20 million a year towards US-89.

Regarding the West Davis Highway or limited access transportation corridor, they realize the vision they have is one which some have said is impossible; they do not believe that and will do everything in their power to move that process along. Representative Dillree referred to a memorandum from the Wasatch Front Regional Council which indicates Davis County has a preliminary alignment which was identified in 1991. WFRC is willing at this point to go to every community along that corridor and receive input and feedback from them on the present alignment, to adjust and make modifications, and to come back to the Davis County Transportation Task Force and to UDOT with a final alignment.

Representative Dillree continued that they have also not closed the door to looking at using that corridor as a transportation corridor for mass transit, for addressing railroad issues. They have been encouraged that Salt Lake City has been exploring with the railroad system on how they can best handle both Salt Lake and Davis Counties' needs; they are very open to that. In the event that Salt Lake City is ready to move forward on some initiatives they are exploring, their Task Force would very strongly support a feasibility study of a transportation corridor. They are supporting funding for that. It is estimated anywhere from $100,000 to $500,000 would be required for a feasibility study of the West Davis corridor.

They want to explore options of securing the right-of-way for that corridor. They will do everything they can on a county basis to look at ways to preserve the corridor. They may also approach the legislature and ask for ways to establish some kind of fund which can generate revenue that will be there in emergency situations to make sure there is not encroachment along that corridor so it is protected for the future. They are even exploring the possibility of increasing a special option tax by a small amount, possibly 1/4 of 1%, on a county level so they could generate their own funds which could be specifically used for that type of need.

They are not just looking for UDOT to solve their problems; they are willing to assist UDOT in getting the necessary funding through the legislative process to help address all the transportation needs in Davis County and throughout the state.

She summarized they are asking for a commitment of approximately $50 million a year to go into Davis County over the next ten to 25 years. Ten years will solve the I-15 and US-89 problems, but if they continue to carry forward West Davis can also be done.

Representative Dillree said they hope they brought the Commission a greater understanding of what they see as some of their problems in Davis County. They are committed to doing everything they can to help solve those problems, but hope the Commission can make a commitment to Davis County that they will take into consideration their recommendations, and that they will be supportive of them.

Chairman Brown asked if anyone else from the Task Force wanted to add anything and no one responded.

Commissioner Larkin commended Representative Dillree and the others involved for their work. He said the material and facts they presented was informative and the work is certainly needed. He didn't have any idea how the projects could be funded, but added that when someone starts to talk about problems then others start to try to do something to solve them. He encouraged Davis County to please protect the rights-of-way for the West Davis Highway; if they can zone around it, even if they can't buy the property, at least they can prevent some commercial development from being right in the middle of the highway. It is terribly expensive to have to buy out developments for a highway. He applauded their efforts and certainly sees the need for their strategic plan. Hopefully it can be accommodated some way.

Chairman Brown stated the Commission would try their best to coordinate with the legislative contingency from Davis County on this issue as the Commission and Department appears before the legislative committees to bring the state's needs forward; this will certainly be a part of the emphasis. Director Zwick also commended Representative Dillree and Stuart Adams and the others who have been active in this process.

Director Zwick referred to Davis County's Strategic Plan and said with regard to their first priority on I-15 he didn't see any reference to the idea that there would be innovative funding, i.e. toll roads or other forms of usage-type payment either in the creation or the maintenance of the system. A second question was relative to transit needs. With regard to the local option sales tax idea, has funding of a transit system been a consideration, as well as the highway improvement, and what is the sentiment with regard to that cultural change of multi-modal transit into Salt Lake City and the central business district?

Representative Dillree responded that they have discussed those issues. As far as I-15 assuming some kind of toll or charging for the expansion of I-15, they have not looked at that as an option. That is not saying they are excluding it, but it is a low priority for how to fund it. They would hope that I-15 in Davis County would be an extension of I-15 as it's being treated through Salt Lake. However, they would be willing to explore that option for West Davis; but from the studies the legislature has, which UDOT and others who have done research for UDOT have indicated, there is not a real sentiment at this time for toll roads.

She said they are very open to looking at and addressing mass transit. She indicated their community is probably, in some ways, more receptive and cohesive in that regard than maybe Salt Lake has been. As she and other legislators did surveys about highway needs they identified possible solutions, and one of them concerned a tax increase for gas, another was asking about mass transit. People are very supportive of looking in that direction. She said Davis County wants to be good neighbors to Salt Lake City, and in fact Deputy Mayor Brian Hatch has met with them. They want to work closely with Salt Lake and look at alternatives of how to get into the city without impacting negatively. She thinks a West Davis Highway to connect to I-215, which doesn't bring everyone right into the heart of Salt Lake City through that very narrow corridor, would be an alternative.

She said they will explore those options. They want to address mass transit. Unfortunately, Davis County wasn't even on the burner with UTA, but they are hoping to be. They will work very closely, and that is why they are encouraging the feasibility study. If Salt Lake City is prepared to move ahead on that this year, they will be supportive of that issue in looking at alternative transportation needs in Davis County.

Commissioner Clyde pointed out that the question of toll roads comes up quite often, but there has to be an alternate route before a toll road can be constructed, and there are no alternate routes at this point.

Director Zwick recognized Representative Blake Chard who was in attendance and noted that he has been an active player as he sits on our Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. Representative Dillree commented that Senator David Steel and Representative Don Bush also play leadership roles in the Transportation committees and both of them were in attendance, as well as other legislators, mayors and officials.

Public Comments
Chairman Brown invited comments from anyone who wished to address the Commission on transportation issues.

Sidewalks along SR-106 in Centerville and Farmington
Intersection I-15/Parrish Lane in Centerville
Mr. Fred Campbell, City Engineer for Centerville City, said he was representing Mayor Todd and David Hales, Centerville City Administrator, who were unable to attend. He said his comments would also address some things relating to Farmington City.

The sidewalk safety issue was brought to the forefront when the school district decided to change some of the busing boundaries in the Reading Elementary area in north Centerville and south Farmington. That created a rather serious problem where the school children had to walk along SR-106 to get to the elementary school and there are no sidewalks nor curb and gutter along sections of the highway. He said they are working with the PTA and Representative Karen Smith who resides in Centerville. They are in the process of submitting for Sidewalk Safety funds for next year and hope that might be a solution in this area. They appreciate that program and have used it in Centerville several times. They are also going to apply, along with some other communities, for ISTEA Enhancements funds, and maybe that will help with the problem.

They are awaiting some response to an October 6, 1994 letter to Commissioner Lewis from Centerville City on this issue. They hope there is some plan or some solution.

He continued that they have already started some studies in Centerville--cost estimates, preliminary planning--for a real tough project along an area of SR-106 where the road drops off rather suddenly in people's front yards. Getting sidewalks and curb and gutter in there is a major challenge which involves remodeling people's front yards, their driveways clear down to their houses, and constructing retaining walls six to eight feet tall.

The second issue he wanted to address is very critical to Centerville. They are engaged in a sixty acre commercial development at the interchange of I-15 and Parrish Lane which they believe is going to come on-line next year. It is going to generate major traffic. This is a rural interchange designed in the '60s and addressed traffic at that time, but as Centerville City has grown and developed, that interchange has become is a major problem.

He stated they appreciate very much working with Region 2 Director Gene Sturzenegger and his staff. The Region has addressed this problem and has worked closely with Centerville City and they believe they are making progress. Right now Centerville is concerned about what is going to happen if the development doesn't go through; they may need a contingency plan. They believe there is a 90% chance this development will happen next year and they are going to have the developer address the traffic issues, working with UDOT. The developer will be responsible, with RDA money and their own money, to solve some of the problems on Parrish Lane.

The biggest problem at that location is that the frontage road is constructed too close to I-15 and there are left hand turning movements there which are very dangerous. A median needs to be constructed there regardless of whether the commercial development goes through or not. Mr. Campbell expressed appreciation for the Commission's visit to Davis County, and said Centerville has been very aggressive in trying to solve their own problems and not dump them on someone else.

Commissioner Clyde commented that commercial developers are coming forth at the Draper Crossroads with money to help defray the costs of improving the interface with, and access to I-15. He suggested that was a good alternate way to finance these kinds of improvements and solve some transportation problems. The developers at any interchange stand to profit handsomely and they need to look at the investment in getting to the freeway. Developers of subdivisions have a large stake in that they eventually furnish the students who walk to the elementary schools, so they need to address access to those schools. He suggested cities keep this in mind when they deal with developers; planning and zoning commissions can make this a point when developments go in for schools as well as commercial developments.

Gene Sturzenegger added that Region 2 has held Centerville City up as the example for their efforts in working on this particular interchange. Centerville's effort was shown to Draper City for their crossroads development, and that has been a great help in working toward solving the problems there. Mayor Todd from Centerville and her staff have been very supportive in working with UDOT and requiring things of the developer which will be beneficial not only to the development, but also to the users of that facility. He applauded Centerville for their efforts and persistence in working to make this happen.

He added that Region 2 is willing to put a raised median at that interchange at any time without the development being done if the city will support it. The left turns at that location could be eliminated and it would create much greater safety for the users, although it will put some of the users of some of the businesses out of direction with just a right-turn-in and right-turn-out. He said the Region is willing to do that with the support of the city. Mr. Campbell said they may have to come back to that if the commercial development does not proceed.

Mr. Campbell said the major solution at this interchange would be to move the frontage road to Market Place Drive, which would move the intersection over where it can be signalized. Centerville owns property to the north and, through their RDA money, could rebuild the whole frontage road there. They are asking for State participation, especially at the on and off ramps. Centerville will get the developer to do as much as possible, but the City, RDA and the state will all be participants.

Gene Sturzenegger added that a signal is actually warranted at the frontage road but the Region has chosen not to install that because of the other traffic issues which are there, and it would actually create a greater problem than is currently there. He said we have been able to take the warrant for that traffic signal and move it to the other location and would be in a position to have a signal there at the time the frontage road is relocated.

Chairman Brown thanked all those who commented and made presentations to the Commission and complimented their efforts; they did an excellent job.

Noise Walls on Bangerter Highway at Columbia Elementary School
Chairman Brown explained the issue of noise walls on the Bangerter Highway at Columbia Elementary School was an item which had received considerable discussion at the Commission Meeting on September 30. Action was deferred to give the Commission and staff time to do some research and obtain facts on the matter.

Ms. Joyce Broschinsky, chairperson of the Columbia Elementary School Community Group, reviewed that they were requesting that a sound wall be constructed along a piece of new property which was purchased by the Jordan School District to replace property UDOT purchased property from the Columbia Elementary School for the Bangerter Highway. Their concerns are safety issues for their children as well as the noise. She introduced the contingency with her, including Terry Klenk, principal from Columbia Elementary; Kristie Mikstas, Colleen Quintana, and Suzanne Stoer, members of the community group; Bob Day, Administrator of Auxiliary Services of Jordan School District; and Kreig Kelly, Staff Assistant to Area Superintendent of Jordan School District.

Chairman Brown indicated both sides of the issue needed to be heard, but he asked staff to present the history and information they obtained in reviewing the land transactions. He didn't feel there was anyone on the Commission who didn't fully support the need for the walls; they were just trying to sort out whose responsibility it is.

Ms. Broschinsky stated they feel the school district has expended quite a bit of money to replace the playground compared to what UDOT paid for the playground they took.

Gene Sturzenegger said the area being discussed is the Bangerter Highway at about 7800 South. All through the Bangerter Highway construction process the Department has had the obligation to look at noise and the impacts of noise on adjacent uses. UDOT purchased three acres of property for the Bangerter Highway from Columbia School, and four acres of property immediately south of the school from a developer. Included in the payment to that developer was an amount for him to install a noise wall on the property, because the noise wall was required by West Jordan City in the development of a subdivision. The school subsequently also purchased 3.4 acres of property from that developer; land which was part of that planned subdivision.

Clint Topham explained further that had there been an established subdivision south of the school UDOT would have built a noise wall. However, there was no subdivision there and we offered the property owners, Robert H. Langmade and Richard Rink, what we felt was fair market value for their land. They told us they could accept the value of the land, but as soon they developed the subdivision they would also have to install a noise wall, as required by West Jordan City, so we had to also pay them for the cost of a noise wall. We paid that property owner the fair market value for the land, plus $27,430 to install a noise wall along the entire length of their property which abutted the Bangerter Highway, which was approximately 800 feet.

Subsequent to that settlement, those property owners sold a piece of that property to the school, which had about a 450 foot frontage along the Bangerter Highway, but kept the money which UDOT paid them for the noise wall. They did not build the noise wall along the section they sold to the school, however, they did construct the noise wall along their remaining piece when they developed the subdivision.

The recommendation of UDOT staff to the Commission is that UDOT has already paid for the noise wall to be constructed along that entire section, and the department should not pay for the wall twice.

If the school district has an issue with the former property owner, in that he was paid for the noise wall, they need to approach him. Clint said the department has the documents we signed with that property owner indicating his agreement to build the noise wall and we would be willing to furnish copies of those documents and support the school district in that.

Mr. Bob Day, representing Jordan School District, said he was not sure they could add much to the history of the circumstances. He indicated they had not heard before that the former property owner had received payment to construct a noise wall. His initial reaction to that information is that the land owner did construct a sound wall along the portion of property immediately to the south of the portion the school district purchased. He assumed that was the same landowner and the $27,000 took care of that noise wall. However, to construct noise wall along the 450-foot section of new property the school purchased (the new playground area) is estimated to cost approximately $40,000. Mr. Day continued that according to information that was passed along to him, the school district assumed the state would be constructing the sound wall, then they found out it was only to be constructed along their original property, and not along the newly-purchased property to the south.

Mr. Day indicated that UDOT purchased three acres of property from Columbia Elementary for $58,030. The school district then purchased 3.4 acres of property to the south for $61,473 to replace the playground which UDOT took, but they have had to expend an additional $120,000. Part of that additional $120,000 included approximately $30,000 for road improvement costs along their property in the subdivision area, $65,000 for landscaping and sprinkling system, $10,000 for a play pit and playground equipment, $9,000 for fencing the new property, and $7,000 for new ADA access. That was one of the reasons they felt UDOT should have the obligation for the noise wall.

Mr. Day responded to questions which had been raised at the September 30 Commission Meeting about the size of their school properties, and whether they had a school board policy pertaining to noise walls. He said their elementary school sites are typically a net average of 10 acres; the Columbia Elementary School site prior to the property taking by UDOT was at 10.9 acres, and with the purchase of the new property to the south it is currently at 11.5 acres. They do not have a written policy with regard to sound wall, but they do have an unwritten policy which requires a six-foot chain link fence around all their school areas.

Commissioner Clyde said according to the records the Commission has been given UDOT paid Jordan School District $58,030 for three acres of property. Were any damages included in that payment, or any fees to relocate any of the facilities for the playground; were these things discussed in the negotiations? Mr. Day replied he was not on board when that transaction took place, but he had reviewed the sales agreement, and according to the way the agreement was set up $52,704 was paid for land costs, plus $5,126 for what was called "improvements," and $200 for an easement, for a total of $58,030. Commissioner Clyde said his concern is if there is a feeling that Jordan School District was mislead in some way, or the need misrepresented, or was there any coercion used to get Jordan School District to accept that amount when, according to Jordan School District records, they spent another $120,000 for the relocation.

Clint explained the $27,000 paid to the former property owners was to construct noise wall along the entire length of his property. He subsequently sold a portion of that property to the school district and didn't construct noise wall along that section, although he did construct it along the remaining section to the south when he developed the subdivision. The fact that he didn't construct it along the property he sold to the school UDOT staff feels is an issue between the school and the former property owner.

Commissioner Lewis asked Clint, since we are on the agreement with that former property owner, is there anything the department can do legal ly to lean on him to do his part. Clint replied the department would be happy to do whatever we can to help, although he didn't know what we could do in a legal position. Commissioner Lewis felt that was something we should look at.

A member of the Columbia Elementary community group asked if UDOT was saying that since they paid the land developer to put up a sound wall that basically absolves UDOT of any responsibility for a sound wall along there. She continued that if UDOT felt they already had their financial obligation taken care of with the developer why did they install a chain link fence along this portion of the school property? Clint Topham replied we were dealing with two different entities. It was specified in the contract with the school that, ". . . UDOT will replace the chain link fence as part of the construction project." With the other property owner we stipulated we would place a six-foot chain link fence because he did not know when he was going to develop the subdivision. He asked that we pay him for noise wall and when he developed the subdivision he would construct the noise wall, but until that time he wanted UDOT to install a chain link fence.

Commissioner Larkin asked Bob Fox if the school was satisfied with the arrangements at the time of the sale of their property to UDOT. Bob replied that he understands from records the Right of Way office has that we increased the price per acre we paid to the school because they knew at that time they were anticipating purchasing property from these other property owners. They wanted to be paid the same amount that the other property owner would require from them to purchase the other property. Instead of paying $13,000 an acre for the school property, which was the appraisal amount, we paid them $18,000 an acre to accommodate their needs.

Commissioner Larkin also asked what improvements were on the property which UDOT purchased from the school. Mr. Day replied it was a playground which included some playground equipment. Bob Fox added there were a number of improvements which included a sprinkling system, baseball back fences, curbing, etc. All those things were appraised and $5,126 was paid to the school for "improvements." We also stated in the contract that, ". . . Jordan School District has salvage rights to the baseball back stops or other items affected by the taking." We accommodated them by paying for the items as well as letting them salvage/take the items.

Commissioner Larkin said he was not sure we could come to a resolution at this time. Both sides understand a little better now, and maybe there are still some things left we don't understand.

Mr. Day said in his mind, and he believes he speaks for the community, he is still having some trouble understanding the $27,430 paid to the developer for the noise wall and the relationship between property owners and the land they bought from that developer. He thinks they need to explore that.

Commissioner Clyde read from the contract with Mr. Langmade and Mr. Rink that, ". . . It is understood by the parties hereto that part of the total settlement includes $27,430 being the cost to cure. Grantor agrees to install a wall on its property, required by West Jordan City and/or the Federal Housing Administration in the development of a subdivision on the subject property. The wall will need to be coordinated with UDOT's highway construction as to not cause any delay or unnecessary costs to UDOT." When our staff looked at this they thought they had made all the arrangements. We had paid the property owner the money to construct the noise wall. Apparently that was not extended to the school district when they purchased the property from the developer.

Ms. Broschinsky questioned the amount of $27,430 which was paid to the developer to construct the noise wall along the entire length of his original property, when they've been told it will cost approximately $40,000 to construct the wall just along the 450-foot section the school district purchased from that developer. There is a real discrepancy in those amounts. Commissioner Clyde said the estimate was agreed on by individuals at what it was costing when the agreement was worked out.

Clint explained we negotiated with the developer a cost to cure. The developer accepted the price of $27,430 as what he thought was just compensation; in other words that developer thought he could build the required noise wall along the entire length of his property for that amount. Clint supposed one of the reasons the developer felt he could do it for that cost was because some of the cities' requirements do not require noise walls as high as UDOT. He probably planned to build a cinder block noise wall shorter than what UDOT would build with cast-in-place concrete. Ms. Broschinsky pointed out that what the developer did put in, though, is the same height as the UDOT noise walls. Gene Sturzenegger responded that what that developer did was purchase from UDOT's contractor some panels which did not meet our specifications; that's why his wall looks like UDOT's.

Commissioner Larkin said there are still some unanswered questions. At the previous Commission Meeting they had some rough maps, and maybe if the Commission is going to continue to be involved in the issue they need to take a closer look, and also give the school district a chance to look at the agreement between UDOT and the developers. [Note: A copy of the agreement was given to Mr. Day.] He continued that the Commission and staff feel we have already paid for the wall. Mr. Day asked if the Commission would consider that they've paid for only a portion of the wall and Commissioner Larkin responded we feel we've paid for the entire wall because this agreement was with the property owner that had all the property when the agreement was made.

Commissioner Larkin said we will try to help by going back to that property owner, but the school district needs to do so also and ask that developer why he didn't honor the agreement he made with the state, or mention the noise wall issue to them when they purchased the property from them. Mr. Day said they are willing to start that process.

Commissioner Lewis added that part of the problem the Commission and Department has is that the legislature and the public demands we be accountable for the funds we spend. If we don't pursue getting the noise wall from the party who we have already paid once, it puts us in a tough spot. He stressed we don't want the school district to be in a tough spot without a noise wall and we will do what we can to lean on the developer, but we can't just pay for something twice because someone didn't honor an agreement.

Ms. Broschinsky asked if they go to the developer and he has used that $27,000 to pay for his portion of the sound wall along the property he has developed, and he is not going to help the school district, what will UDOT's position be? Commissioner Larkin said we would have to go through that process first before they would be able to consider anything else. He restated that the Commission and staff feels we have already paid for all of that noise wall, not just the piece the developer built. Why he didn't build it all, or why he didn't say something to the school district only he can answer.

Mr. Kelley asked if the school district had a commendment from the Commission to follow up with the developer to see why he didn't honor his agreement with the state. Commissioner Larkin said he felt it was the school district's responsibility to pursue that because they purchased the property from the developer, but he committed UDOT to do whatever we can from our side to help.

Commissioner Lewis suggested the school district coordinate with Bob Fox of UDOT's Right of Way office because they have the contracts on these matters. Mr. Fox assured the school district he will be happy to open up any of the files and provide any information they require. He said they would also check with the Attorney General's Office as to what UDOT may be able to do legally. We want to be as cooperative as possible.

Commissioner Clyde thanked Mr. Day for attending the meeting and spending the time with the Commission to try to work out this problem and come to a resolution.

Commissioner Clyde asked Mr. Day when a school district considers school sites if they considered any of the planning for the transportation system. He suggested that should be a consideration when they locate schools so money isn't funnelled into expensive noise walls instead of the actual teaching facilities.

No Commission action taken; School District advised to seek recourse from the previous property owner/developer, and UDOT staff directed to provide information from UDOT files to assist and support the School District.

Chairman Brown had to leave the meeting and turned the chair over to Commissioner Larkin who called short break.

Resolution
SR-209 (9400 South), 1300 East to 2300 East, Salt Lake County
Kim Schvaneveldt indicated there were eight resolutions on projects for the Commission's consideration.

The first resolution involves highway improvements on SR-209, which is 9400 South, from 1300 East to 2300 East in Salt Lake County. As a result of the hearing there were no significant changes made to the project. Commissioner Lewis asked if there were any significant negative comments about any aspect of the project.

Mr. Blaise Chanson, from BIO/West who was hired to handle the environmental document, said there were about 65 people who attended the hearing; 31 people responded verbally on the official transcript, 29 of which expressed concern on noise. Mr. Chanson said they have addressed the noise issue and where feasible noise walls will be constructed; they have identified two locations where noise walls appear feasible. A third location, where the residents currently sit in a depressed area on the north side of 9400 South, has a conglomeration of different types of fences and structures which don't really provide protection from noise or from traffic which could veer off the road and come through the fences. Vance Hanson, UDOT project design engineer, is looking with Structures at the possibility of putting up a retaining wall there as a barrier for safety, and it would also provide a noise barrier. He noted that in many cases along this project there is not an opportunity to provide a noise wall because of the many driveway accesses coming onto 9400 South and the necessity to maintain line of sight.

Commissioner Clyde asked if this project will change the use of the highway at all. Mr. Chanson replied this is a principal arterial where we try to manage access wherever possible. In an urban situation like this, with the many driveways fronting onto 9400 South, there is limited opportunity to do that. On this project, however, there is an opportunity to cul-de-sac a local road, Tortellini Drive, which is approximately 200 feet south of 2000 East, and they are coordinating with Sandy City for an additional cul-de-sac on Peruvian Drive. They have also been able to install a signal at 1700 East; these changes all help with access management.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the resolution as presented, it was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and the motion carried with an affirmative vote from Commissioner Larkin that:

R E S O L U T I O N
Highway Improvements to SR-209 (9400 South)
1300 East to 2300 East, Salt Lake County
Project No. NH-0209(6)11

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a public hearing was held at Willow Canyon Elementary School by the Utah Department of Transportation on October 13, 1994 to discuss the location and design features and environmental effects of the proposed highway improvements along 9400 South from 1300 East to 2300 East in Sandy City, Salt Lake County, and

WHEREAS, the location, design and environmental aspects of the project were discussed at the public hearing, and

WHEREAS, there have been no significant changes in the project concept as a result of the public hearing, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing, the social, economic, environmental and other effects of the proposed improvements;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation Commission concurs and supports the location and design features of the proposed project as presented in the environmental document and at the public hearing, and in the attachment to this resolution.

DATED on this 4th day of November, 1994

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/ James G. Larkin, Commissioner
/s/ Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
/s/ Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Resolution
SR-172 (5600 West), 3500 South to 4100 South, and 4100 South/5600 West Intersection
Kim Schvaneveldt explained the next resolution involved four-lane widening on 5600 West from 3500 South to 4100 South, and improvements to the 4100 South/5600 West intersection. There were no significant changes on the project as a result of the hearing.

The Commission asked if there were any strong objections or opinions on the project at the public hearing. Gene Sturzenegger indicated he attended a portion of the meeting and the main comments he heard encouraged moving ahead with the project. Mr. Russ Willardson from West Valley City said he was at the hearing, and the major concerns expressed by those attending were all relating to the expressway, the larger project on which the EIS is underway right now; there were really no concerns at all expressed about this particular section.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the resolution, it was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and it carried with an affirmative vote by Commissioner Larkin that:

R E S O L U T I O N
5600 West 4-Lane Widening, 3500 South to 4100 South,
and 4100 South/5600 West Intersection Improvements
in West Valley City, Salt Lake County
Project No. DPU-0051 (001)

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a public hearing was held at Hunter High School in West Valley City by the Utah Department of Transportation on October 12, 1994 to discuss the location and design features and the environmental effects of the proposed highway improvements on 5600 West between 3500 South and 4100 South in West Valley City, Salt Lake County, and

WHEREAS, the location, design and environmental aspects of the project were discussed at the public hearing, and

WHEREAS, there are existing capacity and safety problems on this section of 5600 West that the project would resolve, and

WHEREAS, there have been no significant changes in the project concept as a result of the public hearing, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing and the social, economic, environmental and other effects of the proposed route, and

WHEREAS, West Valley City's elected and appointed officials strongly support the project, and

WHEREAS, the project has been included in the 1994-1998 Transportation Improvement Program;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation Commission concurs and supports the location and design features of the proposed project as presented in the environmental document and at the public hearing, and in the attachment to this resolution.

DATED on this 4th day of November, 1994

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/ James G. Larkin, Commissioner
/s/ Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
/s/ Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Resolution
SR-68 (Redwood Road), 6600 South to South of 10400 South
The third resolution concerned highway improvements along SR-68, Redwood Road, from approximately 6600 South to south of 10400 South. Kim stated there were no significant changes in the project as a result of the hearing.

Mr. Vance Hansen, project design engineer, said there were many comments at the meeting, and some concerns were expressed by the businesses as well as West Jordan and South Jordan Cities about the right-of-way width. As it stands now, there will be a 106-foot right-of-way width through the length of the project, except at the intersections it widens out to 132 feet on Redwood Road, but on the side streets remains at 106 feet. That width on Redwood will accommodate two left turn lanes, a right turn lane, as well as three through lanes.

Commissioner Lewis asked if there was much comment about the congestion which will result from putting new storm drains the entire length of the project. Vance replied most of the people at the hearing were local residents and were mostly concerned with how the project would be handled. Concrete pavement is planned for the project and the construction process is going to cause significant interference and disruption. Vance said a significant traffic control plan will be incorporated in the project to try to mitigate the impacts.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to approve the resolution, it was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and passed with an affirmative vote from Commissioner Larkin that:

R E S O L U T I O N
Highway Improvements Along SR-68 (Redwood Road)
From Approximately 6600 South to south of 10400 South
in South Jordan City and West Jordan City, Salt Lake County
Project SP-0068(4)48

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a public hearing was held at West Jordan City Hall by the Utah Department of Transportation on October 12, 1994 to discuss the location and design features and the environmental effects of the proposed highway improvements along Redwood Road from approximately 6600 South to south of 10400 South in South Jordan City and West Jordan City, Salt Lake County, and

WHEREAS, the location, design and environmental aspects of the project were discussed at the public hearing, and

WHEREAS, there have been no significant changes in the project concept as a result of the public hearing, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing and the social, economic, environmental and other effects of the proposed route, and

WHEREAS, the cities of West Jordan and South Jordan have subsequently made their recommendations for approval;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation Commission concurs and supports the location and design features of the proposed project as presented in the environmental document and at the public hearing, and in the attachment to this resolution.

DATED on this 4th day of November, 1994

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/ James G. Larkin, Commissioner
/s/ Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
/s/ Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Resolution
4100 South, 5600 West to 4000 West
Kim Schvaneveldt reported the fourth resolution concerned a project to widen 4100 South from 5600 West to 4000 West in Salt Lake County. Mr. Russ Brown, representing the consulting engineers for West Valley City responded that the public hearing was very well attended with about 250 people, and the bulk of them were concerned about what was specifically going to happen to their own property. The issue of noise walls was raised, and in one area where an existing subdivision's back yards abut the right-of-way Mr. Brown thinks noise wall is justified and would be installed. There were numerous questions about noise walls where there are driveways, but noise walls are not feasible in those cases. Commissioner Lewis asked how much the noise wall would add to the cost of the project and was told $9,000 per lot, and there are eight lots.

Commissioner Clyde referred to comments from the transcript and the negative view and concern of some residents that we are doing things to encourage more traffic. He stressed we are not trying to create problems for these people, we're trying to solve problems. Mr. Brown explained that basically this project is just an extension of one that West Valley City has been working on for a number of years to widen and put in curb and gutter the entire length of 4100 South out to 5600 West; no traffic lanes are being added. This is a major corridor which exists and we're trying to accommodate the traffic and there's not much else which can be done but put in curb and gutter and improve the paving.

Commissioner Clyde move to approve the resolution, it was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and carried with an affirmative vote from Commissioner Larkin that:

R E S O L U T I O N
4100 South Widening from 5600 West to 4000 West
Project No. STP-2172(1)4

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a public hearing was held by the Utah Department of Transportation on September 9, 1994 in West Valley City to discuss the location and design features and environmental effects of the widening of 4100
South Street from 5600 West to 4000 West in West Valley City, and

WHEREAS, the location and design aspects of the project were discussed at the hearing, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing, the social, economic, environmental and other effects of the proposed improvements, and

WHEREAS, West Valley City has reviewed the proposed project, testimony given at the hearing and made their recommendation for approval;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation Commission concurs and supports the location and design features of the proposed project as presented in the environmental study and
presented at the public hearing and described in the attachments to this resolution.

DATED on this 4th day of November, 1994.

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/ James G. Larkin, Commissioner
/s/ Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
/s/ Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Resolution
7200 South, State Street to 700 East, Salt Lake County
Kim said the fifth resolution involved roadway widening along 7200 South from State Street to 700 East. There were no significant changes to the project as a result of the public hearing. Mr. Blaise Chanson from BIO/West, the environmental consultants on the project, said they participated in the public hearing. There were about 34 participants at the meeting, and there were 16 public comments, most of which dealt with property values, loss of property, how would the widening of the road affect their driveway access, would they be able to back out onto the street, would they lose parking in their driveway, etc. There was one concern on fugitive dust, and four or five concerns on noise and changes in quality of life. There is no opportunity for noise walls on this project because of line of sight. Right-of-way acquisition, of course, will be compensated under the federal guidelines.

Commissioner Lewis said we are not adding to existing problems, but are tying to improve an existing corridor to make things run more smoothly. If we didn't do anything the residents would still have the same problems of backing out into a busy street. Mr. Chanson agreed; this section of 7200 South has only two travel lanes and is located between two other sections of 7200 South which has four travel lanes, so it creates a bottleneck. There are no sidewalks on the south side, and inconsistent sidewalks on the north. This project will provide curb, gutter, consistent sidewalks, and will enclose a currently-open irrigation ditch; it's a beneficial project.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the resolution, it was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it carried with a unanimous vote from Commissioner Larkin that:

R E S O L U T I O N
7200 South Street Roadway Widening Project
State Street to 700 East, Salt Lake County
Project No. STP-L-528(1)0

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a public hearing was held by the Utah Department of Transportation on October 13, 1994 to discuss the location and design features and environmental effects of the widening and reconstruction of 7200 South Street from State Street to 700 East Street in Salt Lake County, and

WHEREAS, the location and design aspects of the project were discussed at the hearing, and

WHEREAS, there have been no significant changes in the project concept as a result of the public hearing, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing, the social, economic, environmental and other effects of the proposed improvements, and

WHEREAS, Salt Lake County has subsequently made their recommendation for approval;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation Commission concurs and supports the location and design features of the proposed project as presented in the environmental study and
presented at the public hearing and described in the attachments to this resolution.

DATED on this 4th day of November, 1994

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/ James G. Larkin, Commissioner
/s/ Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
/s/ Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Resolution
Coleman Street Reconstruction, 900 South to SR-112, Tooele City
Kim Schvaneveldt stated the sixth resolution involved reconstruction of Coleman Street in Tooele from 900 South to SR-112. Mr. Russ Brown explained this project is basically the rehabilitation of an existing street about 7,000 feet long. At the public hearing there was a huge and their main concern was that Tooele City was going to convert this road into a truck route. He noted Tooele City has in planning a truck route which bypasses this road further to the west through their industrial park which will be coming on line in about a year. In the meantime, to satisfy the concerns, Tooele City has posted that Coleman Street against through-trucks.

Mr. Brown continued there was also serious concern expressed about impact to five or six homes if the right-of-way width on a two-block section of the project, from Vine Street to SR-112, was widened from the existing 49-1/2-feet to 56 feet. The City Council met with the mayor and city engineer and concluded a solution to that is to continue the 56-foot right-of-way out to SR-112, but to eliminate the five-foot plant strip between the curb and the sidewalk along this section, and a six-foot sidewalk, instead of a four-foot sidewalk, will be constructed next to the curb. Commissioner Lewis commented that it seemed the consultant and the City went to a lot of effort to satisfy the residents' concerns.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the resolution, it was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and passed unanimously that:

R E S O L U T I O N
Coleman Street Reconstruction, 900 South to State Route 112
Project No. STP-2676(1)0

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a public hearing was held by the Utah Department of Transportation on September 29, 1994 in Tooele City to discuss the location and design features and environmental effects of the reconstruction of Coleman Street from 900 South to State Route 112 in Tooele City, and

WHEREAS, the location and design aspects of the project were discussed at the hearing, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing, the social, economic, environmental and other effects of the proposed improvements, and

WHEREAS, Tooele City has subsequently made their recommendation for approval;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation Commission concurs and supports the location and design features of the proposed project as presented in the environmental study and presented at the public hearing and described in the attachments to this resolution.

DATED on this 4th day of November, 1994

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/ James G. Larkin, Commissioner
/s/ Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
/s/ Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Resolution
900/1100 East, American Fork Training School Road, US-89 in American Fork to SR-74 in Alpine
Kim Schvaneveldt said the seventh resolution was for a project involving improvements to 900 East/1100 East, the American Fork Training School Road, from US-89 in American Fork City to State Route 74 in Alpine. This project also had no significant changes as a result of the hearing process.

Mr. Russ Brown explained this Utah County project is rather long and construction will be done in phases. It is basically a safety project which involves some bridge widening, some shoulder widening within existing right-of-way, and construction of left turn pockets at major intersections. There is one short section at 700 North in American Fork where, to eliminate two 90 degree turns and a steep grade, the highway will be realigned to a long sweeping curve. Five houses will be impacted at the area where the existing 11 percent grade will be flattened. Mr. Brown said they have looked at many alternatives to mitigate the impact. They have met with the home owners, the County Commission, and with American Fork and have arrived at an acceptable solution which minimizes the problem with the property owners; although they are not exactly happy, they have accepted that to flatten the grade and make a safer road it is impossible not to impact their houses slightly.

Commissioner Clyde was at the public hearing and agreed those home owners were not particularly happy with the impact, but they didn't seem to be interested in relocation; they were interested in what could be done to make it look better in front of their homes.

Commissioner Clyde pointed out this route gives him some concern because Alpine School District has a new high school planned just north of the State School on the west side of 900 East. Again, this brings to the Department's attention what is going to happen when a new high school is being located on this one route with no other access. It will bring a great deal of traffic into the area and they will want us to resolve their issues. He said he talked to one of the school board members who basically indicated that is not their problem; they have the property and they are going to build the school. Mr. Brown agreed and said this is going to be a drive-in high school; there will be very few students who live within walking distance, so most will drive or be bussed to school.

Commissioner Clyde made a motion to approve the resolution, it was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and passed unanimously that:

R E S O L U T I O N
Improvement of 900/1100 East, American Fork Training School Road
from US-89 in American Fork City to Highway 74 in Alpine, Utah County
Project No. STP-2906(1)1

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a combined open forum public hearing was held at the American Fork Senior Citizens Center on Thursday, October 6, 1994, by the Utah Department of Transportation to discuss the location, design features, and the environmental effects of improvement of 900/1100 East, American Fork Training School Road, from US-89 in American Fork City to HWY 74 in Alpine, Utah County. This includes reconstructing portions and widening 5-1/2 miles of roadway and shoulders, 1/2 mile of which is new construction, and

WHEREAS, location, design, and environmental aspects of the project were discussed at the hearing, and

WHEREAS, there have been no significant changes in the project concept as a result of the public hearing, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing and the social, economic, environmental, and other effects of the proposed improvement, and

WHEREAS, the Utah County Commission has subsequently made their recommendation for ap proval;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation Commission concurs and supports the location and design features of the proposed project as presented at the public hearing and contained in the Environmental Study as described in the attachment to this resolution.

Dated on this 4th day of November, 1994.

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/ James G. Larkin, Commissioner
/s/ Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
/s/ Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Resolution
LaVerkin Creek Bridge Replacement and Approaches, Washington County
Kim schvaneveldt reported the final resolution was for the LaVerkin Creek bridge replacement in Washington County. There were no significant changes made in the project as a result of the public hearing.

Commissioner Larkin indicated he attended the public hearing and there were no negative comments, although there was a written comment from a property owner concerned about how this project would affect their property. Ken Adair said he was working on that issue and has met with that property owner. In the initial meeting with her we indicated we may have to take a little bit of her property and she said if we did she wanted the State to buy her house because of lack of frontage. Ken said we went back and redesigned a little bit to eliminate the need for any taking of her property and sent her a copy of the change. As of this time they have not heard back from her if that was satisfactory, and he has not been able to reach her by telephone.

Ken noted in the public hearing everyone was very supportive of replacing the bridge; it is on a major traffic route for people coming into Zion Park. The bridge itself is only 24 feet wide with no sidewalks. The grade of the road at the bridge crossing will be raised about six feet, and the new bridge will be 40-feet wide with a sidewalk on one side. There was additional discussion about the project. Sheldon McConkie indicated there was a canal diversion near this bridge, and asked if it would be impacted by this project, and Mr. Adair indicated it would not.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the resolution, it was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and passed unanimously that:

R E S O L U T I O N
LaVerkin Creek Bridge Replacement and Approaches
In LaVerkin, Washington County
Project No. STP-BRF-0017(21)1

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a combined open forum public hearing was held at the Hurricane High School in Hurricane City on Tuesday, September 20, 1994, by the Utah Department of Transportation to discuss the location, design features, and the environmental effects of the bridge replacement and approaches. The proposed improvements will require the acquisition of about 5 acres of property. No relocations are needed, and

WHEREAS, location, design, and environmental aspects of the project were discussed at the open forum-type public hearing, and

WHEREAS, there have been no significant changes in the project concept as a result of the public hearing, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing and the social, economic, environmental, and other effects of the proposed project;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation Commission concurs with the design concept and supports the location, design features, and right of way purchases, as presented in the environmental document and the public hearing.

Dated on the 4th day of November, 1994.

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/ James G. Larkin, Commissioner
/s/ Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
/s/ Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Planning and Programming
Funding Recommendations from Joint Highway Committee
Clint Topham explained the ten funding recommendations from the Joint Highway Committee was an item deferred from the Commission Meeting of September 30. A presentation was made to the Commission at that meeting by Rick Johnson and a copy of the recommendations of a Subcommittee of the Joint Highway Committee was given to each of the Commissioners. The Commission took that information under advisement at that time and deferred action to this meeting. Clint noted those recommendations have subsequently been to the Joint Highway Committee and received their endorsement.

There was considerable discussion about the recommendations. Commissioner Larkin said he had a concern about transfer of jurisdiction on some of the highways. He knows the Joint Highway Committee says they will accept that, but when it comes right down to actually transferring, are we ever really going to be able to get it done. Even though all the cities are represented on the JHC, if a particular city doesn't want a road what happens? Clint replied that the recommendation was that we put together a group of individuals from the three different agencies that would give some compensation to those particular roads to bring them up to a certain standard. He believes the recommendation of the Subcommittee is that those transfers should take place, and that would have to be done by the Commission and ratified by the legislature. Commissioner Larkin asked if the Commission would have to do that in order to make this thing fly, whether everyone agreed or not. Clint thought if the Commission accepted these recommendations, but never forced the issue on the jurisdiction the other agencies wouldn't complain very much. Commissioner Larkin agreed, but wondered if we could force the issue when it comes time. Clint said the Commission could as far as they are concerned, but whether the legislature would ratify it is a question. Clint continued that some members of the subcommittee envision that if this were ever implemented that it may all be able to be done in the same piece of legislation.

Commissioner Larkin said he feels the Wilbur Smith study is a valid study and what the Revenue Sharing Subcommittee has presented to the Commission is valid.

Clint said another issue which was raised at the last Commission Meeting was what if we don't get the amount of money we've asked for, would the Commission still support changing the split in funds. That must be considered. Commissioner Larkin felt there was no way the Commission could accept these recommendations if the funding level wasn't met; that has to be part of it.

Commissioner Clyde said he has been in some legislative meetings lately and he senses some strong reservations on the part of many legislators. He senses there is a feeling if this is passed the Department of Transportation is going to lose ground; there is a real struggle coming up now because of a recurring source of funding.

Commissioner Clyde said in his opinion it is putting more emphasis into segmentation of the state highway system by putting emphasis on local projects; local projects are needed but the Commission has to look at the standpoint of the state highway system. Another concern of his is that the Transportation Department is losing some of the control necessary to maintain the integrity of the state highway system.

Commissioner Lewis asked what the ramifications would be of not approving the recommendations. Clint replied that the Joint Highway Committee envisions the League of Cities and Towns, the Association of Counties, the Department of Transportation, and the Transportation Commission would all be in one accord in recommending it as a package; that is why they brought it to the Transportation Commission. By not adopting it we would be saying that we couldn't support it totally.

Commissioner Lewis asked what the timetable was for the Association of Counties and the League of Cities and Towns to adopt this as an official position. Clint replied the Association of Counties has their meeting next week in St. George; he didn't know the schedule of the League of Cities and Towns. The Transportation Committee of the League met two weeks ago and discussions took place on this issue, and he thought they adopted it but wasn't certain. He noted that was just their Transportation Committee and not the full League.

Director Zwick commented that in the spirit of the proactive partnership effort we have made, and in light of the sentiment in the last session of the legislature concerning these same issues, he recommended all ten points in the comprehensive review. We've had thorough, intensive representation, including Transportation Commission Chairman Brown, bringing these recommendations forward. Director Zwick felt, even though the Governor commented that Wilbur Smith died years ago, and that the 70/30 split notion needs further review, that this partnering effort should continue and that a good faith effort on behalf of the Commission would be adopting these ten recommendations in their entirety.

Commissioner Larkin indicated the Commission has always, from the very inception of the study, supported it and been willing to go ahead with it, but we've not had great response from the counties and cities. Now we seem to have that and he would hate for the Commission to back up now. Clint said the cities and counties would say the same thing; they would like to move ahead.

Mr. Cid Smith, Davis County Public Works and Chairman of the OATS Committee and a member of the SLATS Committee as well as Davis County's Task Force, said there is a real sentiment that there is a need for local funding. There is also a sentiment that there would be some major benefits for some of the local entities to take over some of the roads as identified in the Wilbur Smith Report provided the funding goes with them. That would need a fair amount of study to determine which roads and make sure a good plan is identified. He felt the Committee approach identified in the recommendations was an excellent strategy to that. Mr. Smith felt in Davis County the jurisdiction change could happen, but the key is the funding that goes with it. The proposal last legislature fell short because in the long run the locals would have been taking money away from UDOT. These ten recommendations provide a fair and equitable balance with funding for both local and state.

Dan Julio said Mr. Smith's comments were well taken. These recommendations are really a good faith effort in partnering, and he understands the JHC is totally in favor of it and would like to see it pursued, mainly because it gives them more and gives the state more and it is a win/win situation for everyone.

George Thompson stated the Committee worked very hard. He agrees with all the recommendations but feels we do need some limit in the amount of money we are going to be receiving as far as the 70/30 split; the break point is about $110 million and he feels that needs to be in the recommendation if the Commission approves it.

Representative Marda Dillree said she was not a member of the Task Force but she has been attending their meetings, and she felt the message needs to be that there is a united front committed to going after new ongoing funding for transportation. We want the whole $150 million of new funding and are going to work very hard to get it.

Commissioner Larkin said without the whole $150 million in new money, all the talking Davis County did earlier in the meeting about their transportation needs would be for naught because there would be no money to go for projects like theirs with only the $110 million. Director Zwick noted the $110 million is outlined in the document as part of the background under the eighth recommendation.

Clint responded that a great deal of time was spent in 1985 and 1986 discussing that same issue. We know the highway needs in the state are higher than what is portrayed even by the $150 million. However, we also know that whenever we've taken too big a package before the legislators and to the people of the state that it ends with no action at all. Is the $150 million a number that is pure, justifiable; is it the right amount? He can't say that it will cover all of our needs, and the document states that there are more needs than what that amount represents, but it is an amount that was agreed upon by the members of the Joint Highway Revenue Sharing Subcommittee which they thought was do-able. It will help the needs of the local governments and it will provide the money over twenty years to build the projects we have identified on our unfunded capacity list. That is not a panacea for everything, and we will certainly have transportation challenges in the future, but it is something everyone feels that can possibly be do-able.

Commissioner Clyde said one of his concerns is how are we going to maintain the integrity of the statewide transportation system. Development occurs and all of a sudden roads that were designed to take one level of traffic is forced to handle a higher level of traffic, and it becomes inadequate. He feels there are no safeguards in these recommendations for maintaining the integrity of the state highway system.

Commissioner Larkin said the same thing exists right now, whether the Commission adopts the recommendations or not. Commissioner Clyde said except that we give more responsibility and more money to do these things locally. Commissioner Larkin agreed but said the highways that are added to or deleted from the state highway system are recommended by this study. He wasn't sure that anything in the future would change much from the way we do things right now. Commissioner Clyde said he was not sure we could ever come up with a document that would address that.

Director Zwick felt Commissioner Clyde raised a very valid concern; maybe this needs a friendly amendment that would make reference to a uniform standard. Maybe that standard is what UDOT currently holds in our review process. Commissioner Clyde said maybe that is something that needs to take place when we get beyond these recommendations.

Clint said recommendation No. 1 says we accept the Wilbur Smith report to be a valid study. That study looked at the functional classification of all the highways in the state and based the jurisdiction of the highways on those studies, and it addressed the integrated system Commissioner Clyde is talking about. It said the arterial highways, those highways which serve county seats, population areas of over 1,000 in the rural area, population areas of over 5,000 in the urban area, and all of those things for the statewide commerce should be state highways; all other highways should be local highways, and it addressed standards on each of those roads. There was a big controversy about standards; should all rural roads in the state be paved, should all the urban roads in the state have curb, gutter and sidewalk, etc. Once again, was the standard that was accepted by Wilbur Smith the right one? It was the one that was agreed upon by the League of Cities and Towns, the Association of Counties and the Utah Department of Transportation. All those things were contained in the Wilbur Smith study and that is what these recommendations say, that all those nuances in that study are correct. On top of that, the recommendations say they would like to see it implemented in this particular way.

Commissioner Clyde said the group involved in the Joint Highway Committee and ourselves must be sure that this implementation takes place and that pieces are not dropped out that are going to challenge our state highway system.

Commissioner Larkin affirmed Clint's comments that all of that was addressed in the study, and he certainly knows that this commits us to bring up to standard those roads we give back to the cities and counties. Clint commented that the original study just said that the transfers should take place, and continued that a group should get together and work that out. These recommendations reinforce that and also calls for some money to be set aside to address those specific things. It doesn't call for them to be brought to a fancy standard, but compared to their own roads they would be serviceable.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion that the Transportation Commission go on record as adopting and favoring the recommendations of the Joint Highway Revenue Sharing Subcommittee, but that our approval is for the whole package only, and we reserve our right to remove our approval if it should turn out in the legislature or elsewhere that it becomes anything less than what has been reviewed. Our approval is only for the complete package. Commissioner Clyde commented that he was concerned that was putting up a red flag that we want the right to withdraw.

Commissioner Lewis modified his motion to adopt the recommendations of the Joint Highway Revenue Sharing Subcommittee in their entirety as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and it carried with an affirmative vote by Commissioner Larkin that:

Commission adopted the Joint Highway Revenue Sharing Subcommittee's Recommendations on Highway Funding, Jurisdiction of Roads, Funding Formulas, and Implementation of the Wilbur Smith Report, dated September 23, 1994.

Planning and Programming - Increase in Funding
Right Hand Canyon over Coal Creek Bridge Replacement
An increase of $118,700 in Bridge Replacement funding was requested for the Coal Creek bridge replacement. Dan Julio explained the Coal Creek Bridge project, located in Iron County about five miles east of Cedar City and just off of SR-14, was a local government project. The bridge replacement was originally programmed in 1989 and the estimate received from the city was $148,000 in federal funds. We increased that a couple of years later to $187,000 to include construction engineering. There has been inflation since that time, but the main cause of the increase was that the original bridge was 27 feet in span and was built on a road that took off from SR-14 at a 45 degree angle. This new bridge must meet the 25-year flood plan, and will incorporate a 90 degree intersection with SR-14 which will necessitate a 70-foot span which is much longer than originally planned. The increase appears to be reasonable considering the circumstances. The Joint Highway Committee has given Dan their authority to recommend in their behalf on projects like this. He said in some cases where increases are too large he will take it back to them, but given the facts in this case he recommended it for approval.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the increase as requested, it was seconded by Commission Lewis and passed unanimously that:

Increase of $118,700 in Bridge Replacement Funds approved for Project BRO-LC21(2), Right Hand Canyon over Coal Creek Bridge Replacement, in Iron County.

Planning and Programming - Airport Improvement Projects
Oljato Regional Airport
Phil Ashbaker explained the aeronautical project comes to the Commission from the Navajo Nation in Window Rock, Arizona for a site selection study and master plan for a new airport development in the Oljato/Monument Valley area in southern Utah. There is no airport which conveniently serves that high tourist area. The small airstrip at Monument Valley is a 2,000 foot, mostly dirt, dead end strip, with one way in and one way out, and is utilized by utility-type planes, however, there is a scenic airline out of Las Vegas that brings in a twin engine plane with passengers.

Phil said he, Monte Yeager from UDOT Planning, and Barbara Johnson of the FAA Office in Denver, went to Window Rock and met with officials of the Navajo Nation Department of Transportation to discuss this plan. It was agreed it would go on the capital improvement program for Fiscal Year 1995 to study the development of an airport of the caliber of the Cal Black Airport in the Lake Powell area. It was noted the old Oljato Strip totally failed and has been shut down for several years. The closest airport to this area is at Kayenta, Arizona, which is about an hour's drive on the highway. The project is supported by the Navajo Nation, and has been reviewed by the Aeronautical Committee and is recommended for approval.

There was additional discussion about the project. They will be looking at sites all around the area, but it appears a probable location is approximately two to three miles northwest of the Monument Valley High School.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve project, it was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and passed unanimously that:

The Oljato Regional Airport Site Selection and Master Plan studies for the Navajo Nation approved, for a total project cost of $76,974 - Federal $70,000, State and local $3,487 each.

SR-9 Limited Access Designation
Commissioner Larkin explained that at the last Commission Meeting the Commission had asked him and Region 4 staff to meet with officials from Hurricane City to discuss limited access designation on SR-9 from Flora-Tec Road into Hurricane. He said they did subsequently meet with the Mayor, a member of the Hurricane City Council and staff, and Ken Adair has had further conversation with them.

Ken Adair said the meeting with Hurricane City was on October 13. UDOT staff looked at their Master Plan which indicates a street system that intersects SR-9 approximately every half-mile. There were a couple of intersections on the Master Plan which we asked them to eliminate because of safety reasons. They went back to their planning people with that request and they agreed to eliminate them.

Ken said in that meeting UDOT recommended, regarding the upcoming project, that rather than go back in our design and delay the project one to two years, that we build the project as we have it designed now with the few existing accesses. Any future development would go through Hurricane City's Zoning and Planning Offices to restrict accesses to those developments to already established intersections. UDOT would also assure, through our permit process, that development planning would take place.

Ken summarized that it is staff's recommendation that a limited access designation not be placed on SR-9 because of the delays and problems it would create for the upcoming project, and instead control access through the Planning and Zoning of Hurricane City, and through UDOT's permits process. It was felt with the layout of the land, access is somewhat restricted in some areas and we would be able to control this very well with cooperation. He noted that Hurricane City reprimanded UDOT a bit, saying they have been trying to do that, but our permits people have been issuing permits for some of these accesses. Ken said they have gone back to Dana Meier and the Cedar City District staff and explained we would not be permitting any more accesses on this highway. Ken felt between the cooperation of Hurricane City and UDOT we can control the accesses.

Clint asked if we should have a written agreement with the city pertaining to this issue. Commissioner Larkin said they had asked the City to give us a letter of agreement, and he read a letter written to Ken Adair from Mac J. Hall, Hurricane City Building Official. Commissioner Larkin also noted a follow-up letter should come with an official signature from the Mayor and City Council.

"The Hurricane City Planning Commission and City Council have both met and considered the proposal to amend the City's Master Road Plan.

"The plan will control access points on SR-9 from I-15 to the area east of the Hurricane Industrial Park. Hurricane City is agreeable to make this provision that will limit access to existing right-of-ways and those proposed on the Master Plan with the three discussed in the meeting being eliminated.

"The minutes of both meetings reflect the agreement of the City to cooperate with UDOT to get this project completed."

Commissioner Larkin said he didn't think the City had held an open public meeting that would allow them to take official action on this issue, but they assured us they would. If Clint felt we needed a written agreement Commissioner Larkin felt sure they would do so.

Clint said one of the things which brought this about was a major discussion with a developer further down the road and asked Sheldon McConkie to address that. Sheldon said in our correspondence with that developer we had initially asked to have some sort of agreement with respect to a master plan with both Hurricane and Washington Cities, so with the same kind of agreement with the developer we can control the access. Sheldon said in his opinion this is the best we can do unless we want to go through possibly a two-year delay on the project and added expense. He feels an agreement would be a good idea; it may keep it fresher in everyone's mind that we are committed. Both sides have to be proactive.

Director Zwick said both cities, Hurricane and Washington, were very agreeable. Commissioner Larkin said his concern is that if we don't proceed with our project now, and we wait two years to try to get limited access on this highway, we may not have any funds to do the project.

Commissioner Larkin said it would be his preference to proceed with the project as designed, with an agreement with Hurricane City to control access. Washington City doesn't enter into this particular project, but Commissioner Larkin felt we could get an agreement from Washington City along the project which was just completed if we just asked them. Staff agreed it would be timely to do that. Commissioner Larkin indicated he and Region 4 staff could go back to both cities and indicate we have what is needed for the section for the current project, but we would like a similar agreement concerning the other sections of SR-9 which have already been constructed; Hurricane City is agreeing to control access all the way from I-15, but we should meet with Washington City to get the same agreement.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion that no action be taken to place a limited access designation on SR-9, however, that we request written agreements from Hurricane City and Washington City to control accesses on SR-9 from I-15 to Hurricane. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and it passed unanimously that:

No further action taken to pursue a limited access designation on SR-9; however, staff directed to request written agreements from Hurricane City and Washington City to control access on SR-9 from I-15 to Industrial Park Road in Hurricane through City Master Plans, city planning and zoning, and UDOT permits.

Amendment of 1994 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) - Addition of Enhancements Projects
John Quick explained that staff had anticipated that Enhancements projects approved earlier this year would be part of the STIP that would be in force in October. However, since staff has deferred presenting a 1995 STIP to the Commission for approval, those Enhancements projects are not included in the current 1994 STIP, so funds cannot be spent on them and they could be delayed. It is important that we get started with the design and review on these projects so we can get the Enhancements funds spent before they lapse.

Staff requested to add all the Enhancements projects as an amendment to the 1994 STIP, with the exception of those projects in the urbanized areas because the MPOs must first amend their TIPs to include those projects. The Enhancements projects in the urbanized areas will have to wait until December or January and they will be included in the 1995 STIP when it is presented to the Commission for adoption.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to approve the addition of the Enhancements projects in rural areas to the 1994 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); those Enhancements projects in Metropolitan Planning Organizations will not be added to the 1994 STIP, but will instead be included in the 1995 STIP when it is presented for adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and it passed unanimously that:

Amendment of 1994 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) approved by addition of rural area Enhancements projects; further, those Enhancements projects which must go through a Metropolitan Planning Organization will not be added to the 1994 STIP, but will be included in the 1995 STIP when it is presented to the Commission for adoption.

John Quick pointed out that this issue was brought up by Ogden City concerning their landscaping project at the I-15/21st and 31st Street corridors. Since that project is not included in the WFRC TIP they cannot proceed. WFRC is expected to approve their new TIP on December 8, which will include Ogden's project, and staff can then add it to the upcoming 1995 STIP. There was additional discussion about the upcoming 1995 STIP and the MPO elements.

Next Commission Meeting
The next Commission Meeting was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 16, 1994 in Salt Lake City to accommodate work on the STIP and inclusion of MPO TIPs.

FHWA Comments
Don Steinke commented that he had listened to the discussion of all the transportation needs and the amount of funding needed, and he didn't know where all the funds would be obtained. He applauded the ideas he had heard discussed about local initiatives for raising funds; it will really take local ideas to help supplement the meager federal dollars that come our way. They appreciate innovative approaches to raising funds. Commissioner Larkin agreed we cannot just wait for the federal government to fund the projects.

Region 1 Projects
It was noted Dyke LeFevre had distributed a list of construction and maintenance projects in the Region 1 area.

Appreciation to Davis County
The Commission expressed appreciation to Davis County, Farmington City, and Representative Dillree, who was very instrumental in putting together this very informative Commission Meeting. They appreciated the hospitality of Davis County and there had been frank discussions about important issues.

The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

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

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
James G. Larkin, Commissioner
Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary
W. Craig Zwick, Executive Director
Clinton D. Topham, Deputy Director
David K. Miles, Program Development Engineer
George Thompson, Engineer for Programming
Dan Julio, Local Government Projects Engineer
Kim Schvaneveldt, Project Development Engineer
L. Robert Fox, Chief, Right of Way Division
Sheldon W. McConkie, Operations Engineer
Kent Hansen, Director, Community Relations
Phillip N. Ashbaker, Director of Aeronautics
Dyke M. LeFevre Region 1 Director
Stanley Nelson, Region 1 Construction Engineer
Gene Sturzenegger, Region 2 Director
Vance Hanson, Region 2, Project Design Engineer
Dale Peterson, Region 4 Director
Kenneth Adair, Region 4 Preconstruction Engineer
Donald P. Steinke, Division Administrator, FHWA
Denis Yoggerst, Governor's Office of Planning & Budget
Wilbur Jefferies, Wasatch Front Regional Council
Doug Hattery, Wasatch Front Regional Council
Beth V. Maughan, Senator Robert Bennett's Office
Norma Holmgren, Senator Orrin Hatch's Office
David H. Steele, Utah State Senate/Davis County
Marda Dillree, Utah House of Representatives
Karen Smith, Utah House of Representatives
Blake D. Chard, Utah House of Representatives
Don E. Bush, Utah House of Representatives
Nora B. Stephens, Utah House of Representatives
Carol R. Page, Davis County
Cid Smith, Davis County Public Works
Kenneth R. Brown, Rich County Commission
Barry Burton, Davis County Community Development
Randy Randall, Centerville City
Fred Campbell, Centerville City
Neldon E. Hamblin, Mayor of Clearfield City
A. DeMar Mitchell, Mayor of Clinton City
Mel Wood, Clinton City
John W. Thacker, Kaysville City Manager
R. E. Stephens, Kaysville City
Ethel H. Adams, Layton City Council
Stuart Adams, Layton City Council
B rian Hatch, Salt Lake City
Farrell D. Poll, South Weber City Council
Robert L. Flinders, South Weber
Russ Willardson, West Valley City
Scott Hendrick, RB&G Engineering, Inc.
Russell O'Brian, RB&G Engineering, Inc.
Marv Cook, RB&G Engineering, Inc.
Blaise Chanson, BIO/West
Bob Day, Jordan School District
Kreig Kelley, Jordan School District
Jerry Klenk, Principal, Columbia Elementary School
Joyce Broschinsky, Columbia Elementary School
Kristie Mikstas, Columbia Elementary School
Colleen Quintana, Columbia Elementary School
Suzanne Stoer, Columbia Elementary School