Utah Transportation Commission Meeting
St. George, Utah
March 21, 1996

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission Meeting, held at Washington County Administration Building, 197 East Tabernacle, St. George, was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He introduced the Commissioners and UDOT executive staff, and noted Commissioner Ted D. Lewis was not in attendance. He welcomed all those present and recognized legislators and local officials.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Weston moved to approve the minutes of the March 1, 1996 Commission Meeting held in Salt Lake City, it was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously.

25-Year AASHTO Award
Director Warne presented a 25-Year Award from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to Region Four Director Dale E. Peterson. This recognition is given to those who have given long service to the AASHTO organization and have served for 25 years in a position of senior management or leadership role within UDOT.

Region Four Construction/Maintenance Presentation
Chairman Brown turned the Chair to Commissioner Larkin who asked the Region Four staff and Cedar City District staff to present information on construction and maintenance activities in the area.

Region Four Director Dale Peterson commented that Washington and Iron Counties are experiencing very rapid growth, and the population increases cause greater transportation needs. Jim McConnell, Resident Engineer assigned to the Cedar City District, detailed construction projects completed this fiscal year or which are currently underway in the Washington and Iron County areas, including information on cost, contractor and expected completion dates. There was some discussion about the handling of the endangered desert tortoise on the recently completed Snow Canyon to Veyo project on SR-18.

Ken Adair, Region Four Preconstruction Engineer, reviewed projects listed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Fiscal Years 1996 through 1998. He also noted that responsibility for local government projects had recently been transferred from headquarters in SLC to the regions and he detailed those projects.

Dana Meier, Cedar City District Engineer, detailed Maintenance projects which will be done in the District this summer, including chip seal and rejuvenation projects done by UDOT crews, and the contractual maintenance projects. He expressed appreciation to the Transportation Commission for their commitment to the highway preservation program.

Public Comments
Commissioner Larkin again acknowledged the legislators and local officials present and invited them to comment on issues of concern.

Growth and Traffic Problems in Washington County
Improved East-West Access in St. George
Southern Utah Corridor Route
Representative John W. Hickman said he and Commissioner Larkin had had a number of conversations concerning the transportation problems in Washington County, primarily as a result of growth. They have very limited east-west access in St. George and he felt the upcoming projects which had been detailed by UDOT would not do much to solve that problem; he urged the Commission to take a hard look at that. He noted St. George City has been very active dealing with transportation, but many of their arteries are State roads so they are very limited with what they can do locally.

Washington County Commissioner Gayle M. Aldred agreed with Representative Hickman’s comments. They can build local city and county roads, but they need cooperation from UDOT to get more arteries and outlets for their cities.

Washington County Commissioner Jerry B. Lewis also commented on the growth in their area and the problems with access and distribution of traffic. He detailed their growth since 1980, and said SR-9 from St. George to Washington and Hurricane has had about a 44% increase in traffic since 1990. The local governments have tried to do their part in solving the transportation problems. St. George, Washington City and Santa Clara currently have, or will have, master plans for their transportation systems and are working to tie all the cities together. He hopes UDOT can be effective in helping do some of the artery routes.

He also discussed the need for a belt route to loop around the cities. That need evolved into the organization of the Southern Utah Corridor Committee which has been studying that belt route for a couple of years. He described the Southern Utah Corridor route which would come off SR-59 near Hildale and run along the southern part of Washington County to tie back in near the St. George Port of Entry, and in the future it would extend around St. George to Santa Clara and Ivins. It would be a great service to the county to have that route to access Hurricane and other cities.

Metropolitan Planning Organization for St. George Area
Commissioner Larkin commented that when the population of an area reaches 50,000, which will pertain to the St. George area by the next census, it triggers mandatory establishment of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which becomes responsible for local transportation planning in order to receive federal funding. He explained the struggles and difficulties which can be associated with that and noted that the master planning already done by the communities will be of great help.

Appreciation to Richfield District
Mayor Allen Adams of Kanab stated UDOT’s Richfield District has the greatest crew of people who are always helpful and cooperative to work with and that goes a long way toward solving problems.

Improved East-West Transportation in Washington County
Southern Utah Corridor (Belt Loop)
Mayor Rick Hafen of Santa Clara expressed appreciation for the work done on the extension of Sunset Boulevard into Santa Clara. He reiterated earlier comments that they need more funding and more facilities to accommodate east-west transportation within Washington County. He pointed out when an accident happens on I-15 in the Narrows just over the Arizona border which completely closes the interstate the only detour available is Old US-91 through Santa Clara and Ivins and connecting back to I-15 at Littlefield, Arizona. That road is only two lanes and is grossly in need of maintenance. They need the Southern Utah Corridor to loop around St. George and connect into Old US-91 somewhere west of Santa Clara and Ivins.

He also commented on land exchanges taking place and contemplated between BLM and State Lands in the area south of Santa Clara and west of St. George. As development occurs in that area they must have some alternate corridors to get traffic to the freeway. He urged the Commission to consider the options available and make it a high priority to help solve some of their transportation problems. Commissioner Larkin responded that UDOT will try to keep the highway over Utah Hill in as good a condition as possible; the needs are recognized and we will try to help.

Grade Separated Railroad Crossing On Milford Main Street
Truck Bypass Route for Milford
Mark D. Dotson, Milford City Councilmember, expressed gratitude for UDOT’s help in the past, but they currently have a very serious problem with the three sets of railroad tracks on Milford Main Street, which is a State road. Train traffic blocks several streets in town almost hourly and it is causing serious safety concerns for emergency vehicles and serious delays for employees and residents who must make trips into and out of town. He requested that UDOT give consideration to constructing a grade separated railroad crossing as soon as possible. The City would also fully support truck routes bypassing the town. With the Circle Four hog operation taking place in Milford, as well as several mining projects it is becoming a quagmire. He noted they have been unsuccessful in trying to enforce legal action on the railroad.

There was some discussion about the issue. Commission Larkin commented there wasn’t much which could be done immediately about a railroad overpass, but he asked Dana Meier to do what he could to help the situation; this is an issue that will require planning for future funding. Mr. Meier commented staff had prepared some story board presentations on some of the needs in the District, and this area was included; that information would be shown to the Commission during the project tour scheduled for Friday.

Traffic Signal Projects in St. George and Washington City
Enhancement Project on St. George Boulevard

Mr. Aron Baker, St. George City Traffic Engineering Department, expressed concern about the traffic signals which have been warranted on Bluff Street for two years. They have been grouped in a project with signals in other parts of the state and they are concerned it is going to take another six months before they go to bid. They also have some other signals on SR-9, Sunset Boulevard, that have been warranted and he is concerned that it will take another two years before they go out to bid. He said they try to meet the traffic needs of the city and it is increasingly difficult to sidestep the major routes by using 100 South and other streets. St. George Boulevard, Bluff Street, and Sunset Boulevard cannot be ignored any longer and they need UDOT to address those concerns.

He also commented they have a good working relationship with the Cedar City District and appreciate very much their help and active participation in St. George’s traffic studies and concerns.

Commissioner Larkin said he knows St. George is concerned about the signals on Bluff Street. He commended the City for the work they have done, particularly on 100 South, and also on 700 South, where they have installed a number of signals to develop an alternate east-west route and in anticipation of the Bluff Street signals; it has made a significant improvement. Sheldon McConkie responded on the status of the signals. He spoke with Mayor McArthur about ten days earlier and informed him that UDOT is scheduled to advertise the three signals on Bluff Street in April. The signals will not be completed before school begins, but UDOT is trying to time the contracts so installation will be completed before the end of the year. It was noted the project will also include a signal on 300 West and State Street in Hurricane, Center Street and 300 West in Cedar City, and a few other signals in Price and Moab.

There was some discussion about the lack of competition in bidding signal projects and how costly it would be to bid just a single signal, which is why several signals are grouped under one contract. Mr. David Demas, St. George City Engineer, said they also have a warranted signal on Sunset Boulevard and West Ridge Drive. He suggested UDOT give some thought to making a Change Order on the project being bid next month to include the Sunset Boulevard signal if design can be completed on it in time.

He also noted that St. George City, in conjunction with the Cedar City District, had just submitted an Enhancement project for St. George Boulevard. It is a pedestrian enhancement project but will do much to help increase the capacity along that route when some of the handicap ramps and radius are improved. They hoped they would get support for the project.

Ken Adair added that Washington City had requested a signal study for Telegraph Road where SR-212 ends in Washington. Mack Christensen from UDOT has done the study and there is a meeting planned with Joe Reaveley to see if they can get some funding to do some needed road work at that location and include that with the signal in a project.

Transportation Corridor Preservation Legislation
John Quick explained one of the major roadblocks in preparing a cost-effective highway construction program is the problem with purchasing right-of-way in a timely manner before development occurs so it is a reasonable cost. House Bill 53, drafted and presented by Representative Marda Dillree, establishes a Transportation Corridor Preservation Revolving Fund within the Transportation Fund which addresses that issue and will go a long way toward solving the problem.

He explained the legislation in more detail; the Fund utilizes monies appropriated by the Legislature, contributions, interest earned, etc. The Transportation Commission administers the Fund and will be responsible for prioritizing fund monies and making Administrative Rules which establish procedures for applying for the funds, awarding the funds, and repayment. This act is to take place effective July 1, 1996.

Initially $5 million was proposed for the fund, but it ended up being $500,000 one time money for FY-97. Beginning FY-98 the continuing $500,000 funding will come from a portion of the 1/16% sales tax. (Senate Bill 49). It was noted Representative Dillree was going to try to get the amount in the fund increased during the next Legislative session. Clint’s understanding was that from that 1/16% sales tax, $500,000 each year would go to the Corridor Preservation Revolving Fund, and $500,000 per year would go to the Park Access Roads bill. That total $1 million would come off the top of the sales tax, and the remainder would go to local governments through the B & C funds, so it will all pass through UDOT.

There was continued discussion about the fund and receiving input from local governments. Staff will draft the Administrative Rule and bring it to the Commission for approval and action before submittal to the Division of Administrative Rules. Subsequently, staff would bring requests and recommendations to the Commission for expenditure of the funds. Commissioner Weston cautioned that when establishing the proposed rule we must be careful with “option to buy,” and we should consider some way to benefit or award points to communities or areas who have made efforts on their own to preserve corridors by zoning, etc., and to those who are willing to donate or match. The demand for this money will far outweigh available funds.

Chairman Brown asked Will Jefferies how this particular process would interact with the MPOs. Mr. Jefferies said Representative Dillree worked with UDOT and WFRC staff in getting the wording for the bill and he thinks it was her intent that anyone who wanted to advance projects would have the ability to apply for funding for the project; the application would be to the Commission through the Department of Transportation. He said WFRC feels comfortable with that.

The Chairman asked FHWA’s perspective; if it’s a federal participation project will FHWA base their participation on what we actually paid, or the current value of the parcel when the project happens. Mike Ritchie said the way they have done business historically is that they work on a basis of the current market value either buying or selling property. In the area of corridor preservation they are obviously encouraging the states, cities and counties to preserve that property so they in fact do not raise the cost. UDOT would have a value to the property in which FHWA has agreed to participate. Clint said the philosophy behind this is to save money by purchasing the property up front, so UDOT would expect the payback at the time of construction to be the amount we advanced, not the current value.

There was continued discussion about the bill and representative Dillree’s intentions that options other than actual purchase would be considered, such as purchase of development rights in order to make the funding go further; purchase would be the last resort.

I-15 South University Interchange, Provo
Director Warne explained a potential offer has come to the Department of Transportation to essentially advance the funding necessary to build the I-15 South University Interchange in Provo (Novell Interchange). He explained the history behind this interchange and that over the course of several years Provo City has secured some $9 million in Demonstration Funds to effect construction of the interchange. The actual reconstruction, if it were to be done correctly, is in excess of $40 million, however, there is an interim improvement which can be effected for $14 million to $15 million.

The project has been held up because there wasn’t funding available to make up the difference between the Demonstration Funds and the project cost. In meetings with Provo and Novell we have suggested if the others were willing to advance that difference--loan the funding, or in some way contribute to the financing of the project--UDOT would entertain that. That has now occurred; Novell has written a letter to UDOT offering to advance $5.8 million in order to make up the shortfall and put the project under construction. Staff has met with them and at this point it would be up to us to establish the conditions under which repayment would be made. Staff was seeking direction from the Commission for future conversations with Novell so they can come up with some kind of agreement to bring back to the Commission for approval.

There was a lengthy discussion about the issue, about where this project fits in the overall long range plan of the department, the merits of this project compared with other projects coming onto the STIP, the effect on our balanced STIP, the effect of committing funding from future STIP years and encumbering future indebtedness, when Novell would expect repayment to begin and if they expect interest on their investment, and what precedent would be established by negotiation of this particular agreement.

Director Warne said the Novell interchange and the widening of I-15 is in our long range plan. These were some of the candidate projects we used last fall during the Governor’s Growth Summit and tie into the $2.6 billion. The project is there, it is just a matter of when we will be able to build out of the Centennial Highway Endowment Fund; staff’s best guess would be probably in four or five years. A valid point brought up by Provo at one of the meetings is if the cost of construction continues to rise on an annual basis, having the interchange constructed today represents probably a lower cost improvement than five years from now as cost of construction escalates, so there is some value derived to the Department of Transportation and to the state by having the interchange constructed sooner than later. He also noted that currently traffic does back up onto the interstate in the morning as people try to access South University; that does create a problem which would be an argument to correct.

He thought Novell would be agreeable to a more drawn out repayment period, beginning possibly in our sixth year so we don’t disrupt our current STIP. Also Provo City mentioned in a meeting that if there was an interest payment to be made to Novell they would be willing to be a participant in reimbursing Novell in that regard.

Commissioner Weston felt other players besides Novell and Provo City should be involved in this project. He knows much property has been purchased there that is going to be served by the interchange, and obviously there is going to be a big shopping mall constructed in that area which will benefit from this project. We need to look at the whole picture and see who we are really servicing; are we helping everyone that’s there and are they helping us.

Commissioner Clyde agreed. They talk about relieving the traffic load on South University Avenue, but they are going to build the largest mall in the state right across the street from Novell. That land is now being cleared and the trailer court is being vacated. There is going to be great economic value obtained by the people who are going to locate there. What is our responsibility to furnish that for them. We must figure a way to come up with solutions to this kind of expenditure. This must all be put together in a uniform policy which addresses this kind of situation statewide. We can defer payment for a number of years, but they probably want interest on the money for that period of time and it makes him very reluctant to encumber our STIP program with that kind of commitment.

There was continued discussion about who is going to use the road and who would benefit from this project. Commissioner Clyde said the East Bay Association, which includes many more property owners than Novell, would benefit; other major businesses mentioned were Nu Skin, Nature Retailer and Anderson Lumber. UDOT brought up this issue at one of the meetings and Provo’s response was that they were already tapped out with other projects and the widening of 900 South, and even though there looked to be substantial businesses in there Provo didn’t believe they could pull them together to be participants.

Chairman Brown asked about previous commitments made to Novell and are we now obligated to meet some prior commitments. Clint said he attended a meeting with Governor Bangerter, former Provo Mayor Joe Jenkins, and former UDOT Director Gene Findlay. The proposition put before Governor Bangerter in that meeting was if Provo City were able to get enough Demonstration Funds to do the interchange, would the Department of Transportation do the widening of I-15 between the south interchange and the center interchange where it is only four lanes. It was said then that UDOT thought the Commission would program the funds to do that widening; the commitment was not to the interchange but to the widening between the two interchanges if Provo could do the interchange. Director Warne said that commitment was substantially less than what is being spoken of today and he doesn’t think the Department is bound by that.

Commissioner Larkin said he appreciates them wanting to move this ahead and being willing to front the money, but there ought to be some contribution in addition to that, whether it be the interest forgiven, or Provo is willing to step up and take care of some of that, or $1 million we don’t have to repay, etc.

Chairman Brown asked if anyone on the Commission felt we should not continue negotiation on the possibility of doing this project; there were no negative responses. He concluded that Director Warne has a sense of the issues of concern to the Commission and he asked the Director to continue negotiations and keep the Commission informed as we bring this to some kind of maturity.

Clint summarized the major issues he heard raised were that the Commission does not feel completely comfortable with payment of interest, that there should possibly be some contribution from others, other than Novell, also consider whether approving this would be moving this project ahead of other projects of equal or greater need

Hurricane Bypass Agreement
Ken Adair reviewed that at the February 16, 1996 Commission Meeting Hurricane City requested that UDOT participate in the development of a city bypass road which could serve as a detour route during our reconstruction of SR-9, and that the savings we realize on traffic control on our project could be put toward the cost of the bypass road. At that time the Commission agreed that if Hurricane could complete the bypass road in a timely manner that we were willing to delay advertising our SR-9 project until fall and would put $250,000--our estimated savings on traffic control--into the bypass project.

Mr. Adair said on February 22, he, Dana Meier and Commissioner Larkin met with Hurricane City on the status of their bypass project and Hurricane assured us that with the money UDOT was contributing they felt they could get the project completed by this fall. However, they brought up the fact that their bypass was designed to only handle light vehicles, not heavy truck traffic, and they wanted UDOT to use some other alternative for the trucks.

One alternative was to take the trucks up I-15 to Anderson Jct., across SR-17 to LaVerkin, then back on SR-9 into Hurricane; that would add approximately 10.5 miles to the trip. Commissioner Larkin commented that we have a bridge posted at 34,000 pounds which they would have to cross to get back to SR-59, so he didn’t think that was a viable option. Mr. Adair agreed that was an issue of concern to the truckers. Another alternative was that we divert car traffic to the bypass road but take the trucks through our project. That alternative was of no benefit to UDOT because it would negate the savings on traffic control which was what we were committing to the bypass construction.

Commissioner Larkin asked staff to determine how much it would cost to increase the thickness of the asphalt on the bypass road to handle the trucks. Mr. Adair had UDOT Materials staff consider a pavement design for a one year usage as a detour and their design added one inch of bituminous material to the original design to handle the large trucks, for an additional $250,000. Mr. Adair distributed a copy of a letter he sent to Commissioner Larkin on March 20 detailing that information.

Knowing the delays and traffic problems we’ve experienced on prior projects on SR-9, the bypass road would be very beneficial for UDOT to use as a detour. If Hurricane City can assure us that they can meet the fall time frame for completion of the bypass and not delay our project, Mr Adair said Region Four recommends that the additional $250,000 be approved, which would be a total contribution of $500,000 from UDOT.

Commissioner Larkin read a letter he received from Brent Gardner of Alpha Engineering dated March 21 concerning the bypass project. The letter indicated a Special Improvement District has been advertised for the bypass project with a final hearing on April 18. Commissioner Larkin noted he has in his possession the assessments on that SID by name and property. The letter continued that the Washington County Water Conservancy District is constructing a pipeline in the same area, and the bypass road can be constructed as soon as possible and has an anticipated construction time of 100 days, so UDOT’s SR-9 project could begin in September. However, he anticipates the additional pavement thickness on the bypass road to accommodate the heavy truck traffic will result in an increase of $700,000. There was continued discussion about the pavement design but Mr. Gardner was not available to comment. Commissioner Larkin determined that issue would have to be resolved between the Region and Mr. Gardner before we proceed.

There was continued discussion about the project, the possible benefits of bidding the project in the fall and the whether the contractor should work round-the-clock. Director Warne commented that if UDOT commits additional funding to the bypass project, funding which cannot be realized from our SR-9 project, then that additional funding will have to come from some other project in the Region since there is no additional money available in the STIP. Clint noted that Region Four has a contingency fund and maybe it can be the direction of the Commission that as long as the Region is working within the amounts of their contingency fund they can continue to negotiate with Hurricane City.

Director Warne asked Mayor VanWagoner if we had his and the local citizens’ commitment that we can totally close SR-9 through our construction project for three hours at a time. Without that commitment from the community then this issue is really of no benefit to UDOT. The Mayor replied they have had one public meeting on that issue and he believes it is the sentiment of most of the people that they would be much more agreeable to the closure than having traffic handled as on prior projects. Director Warne stressed that once that closure is made a condition of the contract it would be very costly if we had to change that condition as a result of citizen rebellion. Mayor Van Wagoner committed to the three-hour closures as a condition of the contract, and while the road is closed all traffic will be routed to the bypass road.

It was determined that Ken Adair and Mr. Gardner should review the costs of the bypass road and resolve that issue, that Mayor VanWagoner stay involved, and that the matter be brought back to the next Commission Meeting. There was discussion about deferring a decision and its effect on the time table for the bypass road, concerns that there could be some hangups on whether or not an EIS has to be done and whether UDOT funding will trigger that. It was noted Hurricane City was going to handle the EIS issue and Mayor VanWagoner thought Brent Gardner had already resolved that.

Chairman Brown called a short break.

Planning and Programming - Airport Improvement Projects
Aeronautics Director Robert Barrett presented four aeronautical projects for Commission consideration. The first project for improvements at the Brigham City airport included runway safety area grading, construction of new aircraft turn around on Runway 16, construction and placement of new asphalt pavement around existing T-Hangar area, and airport layout update for a total cost of $329,888.

Commissioner Larkin made a motion to approve the Brigham City Airport project for a total project cost of $328,888 - Federal share $300,000, State and Local share $14,944 each. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and it passed unanimously.

The second project was for the Green River Airport. He explained at the October 13, 1995 Commission Meeting the Commission approved $678,000 for a project at Green River to overlay and widen Runway 13/31 to 75 feet, overlay the original taxiway and apron, install Runway Identification Lights on both ends of Runway 13/31, and acquire two acres for Runway 31 protection zone. At the bid opening on February 9, 1996 the low bid was considerably higher than the approved amount. Green River went back to the FAA and requested an increase on the federal grant, which the FAA has approved. The total project cost increased from $678,000 to $802,728, the federal share increased from $616,573 to $730,000, and the state and local share increased from $30,713 to $36,364 each.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the increased cost on the Green River Airport project as presented, for a total project cost of $802,728 - Federal $730,000, State and Local share $36,364 each; it was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously.

The third project is from the Wasatch Front Regional Council for the planning grant for the current year for the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Airports System Plan for a total of $118,786. This is an ongoing five year plan which covers all the system planning for all airports in the Wasatch Front area. Will Jefferies noted that about 40% of this grant will be for planning for the 2002 Winter Olympics. The FAA is increasing the grant this year and probably again next year to look at helicopter facilities around the airports, transfer facilities, how to house aircraft, etc.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the Wasatch Front Regional Council project for Salt Lake City Metropolitan Airports System Plan for FY-1996-97, for a total cost of $118,786 - Federal share $108,024, State and Local share $5,381 each. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and it passed unanimously.

The final project is a UDOT request, and counterpart to WFRC’s request, for FY-1996-97 Utah continuous Airport System Plan, which incorporates all other airports in the state outside the WFRC area, for a total cost of $97,534.

Commissioner Clyde moved for approval of the UDOT project for Utah Continuous Airport System Plan for FY-1996-97, for a total project cost of $97,534 - Federal share $88,697 and State share $8,837. Commissioner Weston seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

STIP Modifications
- I-15, 9000 South East Side Frontage Road Connection
- I-15, 600 North Interchange
- Bangerter Highway, I-15 to Redwood Road and I-15 Interchange, R/W Acquisition
Chairman Brown stated staff had indicated the three items, listed as Items 7B(1), 7B(2) and 7B(3) on the agenda should be deleted.

Planni ng and Programming
- I-215 Structures Repair (8 Structures)
Dave Miles explained repair and rehabilitation is required on the eastbound and westbound structures at the following four locations on the southwest quadrant of I-215: Over the Jordan River, over 1400 West and the North Jordan Canal, over Redwood Road, and over 5400 South. The expansion joints have failed. In some cases the joint material has had to be removed because of safety concerns and the concrete around the joints is now breaking off.

This project was in last year’s STIP for pavement and structure rehabilitation (Project No. IM-215-0( )10), but it was one of those deferred in order to balance the STIP. There are things we can do to extend the life of the pavement to get us beyond the I-15 reconstruction period, but these 20-year-old structures must be repaired before that time because we are going to be depending on I-215 to carry a major portion of the traffic which will be diverted from I-15.

Staff recommended that this structure repair project be added to the STIP for Fiscal Year 1997 for $1.2 million, but would probably go Advance Construction (AC) as soon as the plans are ready. In the STIP we are slightly over programmed for 1996, but we have about $2 million leeway in our ‘97 federal funding. Staff hopes to have the plans ready by about August this year.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve advancing a project in the STIP from Concept Development to the FY-1997 program as requested; the total project cost of $1.2 million in Interstate Maintenance funds programmed to rehabilitate eight structures on the southwest quadrant of I-215, and that the project proceed with Advance Construction if circumstances permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weston and passed unanimously.

Planning and Programming
- California Avenue Structure over Jordan River, Salt Lake City
Dave Miles explained this project was also in the STIP a year ago but was deferred to balance the STIP. However, the most recent bridge inspection resulted in a Sufficiency Rating of 35.7 for this structure which qualifies it for bridge replacement funds.

This is a Joint Highway Committee project and Salt Lake City has requested through Dan Julio that we proceed with it. There is a balance in the bridge replacement off system funding which would permit this project to advance.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the request for $800,000 in BROS funding for Project No. BRO-2290(1)6, California Avenue Structure over Jordan River in Salt Lake City, and that it be advanced in the STIP from Concept Development to a funding year. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and it passed unanimously.

Planning and Programming
- I-15, I-215 to 2600 South, Woods Cross
Clint Topham explained the scope of this project is to add auxiliary lanes on I-15 between the I-215 structure in North Salt Lake and the 2600 South structure in Woods Cross, and also includes widening four major structures (northbound and southbound structures at two locations) along that stretch.

He explained the reason for the cost increase is because two of the bridges are on a very large skew angle across the highway and require different, more costly design parameters, and also not considered in the original cost estimate was that those structures are a lower height than standard so the cross roads in North Salt Lake must be lowered substantially which will necessitate retaining walls and increased cost. Region Two couldn’t recommend another project(s) that could be deferred to make up the necessary funding increase, so they were told to look at their contingency fund, but they have spent most of that already on the 90th South project. They did point out there was money saved on a couple of I-80 projects in FY-95, but that savings was already figured in the new fiscal year and has already been programmed

Chairman Brown stressed the Commission wants to be kept informed when we have these kinds of savings on projects and when they are reallocating that funding and the amount.

Clint continued that the Region was asked to review the project to see if they could cut costs anywhere, and they modified the design on the skewed structures to cut approximately $3 million, but the matter of the cross streets under I-15 still caused that project to overrun by $2.8 million. This project has had much public input on whether it’s going to be done or not, and it is very high on the department’s priority list because when we do the future additional widening to I-15 on the project which runs from 500 North in SLC to Kaysville, these four structures will already have been widened.

Two options could be considered to keep the project within the $17.7 million currently programmed. As traffic control is currently planned, we will keep three lanes open in both directions while under construction. If we cut the traffic to two lanes in each direction we could save the $2.8 million, however, Clint pointed out the reasons he felt that would not be acceptable. The second option would be to eliminate rehabilitating one of the four structures. The northbound structure over Center Street just north of I-215 is already wide enough to contain the three lanes of traffic and the auxiliary lane, but it does need to be rehabilitated and will need to be done when we do the future widening project.

The only other option available would be to program an additional $2.8 million funding. Staff says it appears our forecasts for our FY-97 State Construction Program will have between $2 million and $3 million worth of growth. That money was identified in the Growth Summit as funding we should use in the Centennial Highway Endowment Fund on I-15, so we could program that FY-97 money to be used on this project and allow the project to be advertised at the increased cost of $20.5 million. It was staff’s recommendation that the Commission approve this third option, to program the additional $2.8 million from the FY-97 State Construction Funds.

There was discussion about the three-lane/two-lane traffic control issue and the fact that it had been represented by UDOT in public hearings that we would not restrict this to less than three lanes in each direction, and to do so would violate what we had told the public. Deleting the rehabilitation of the one bridge from the project was also discussed. The biggest reason to retain this bridge in the project is that while we are under construction on this project and have the traffic impeded we should do this structure now and not in the future when the rest of I-15 is under construction, also since I-215 will be the alternate route for much of the I-15 traffic during the reconstruction from Midvale to 500 North in SLC, it will be good to have this structure just north on the I-15/I-215 Interchange done.

Chairman Brown asked staff if they were satisfied that there wouldn’t be a more compelling use for this funding in the future. Commissioner Weston said it was his feeling that the traffic problems on this section of I-15 is every bit as serious as in Salt Lake County, so he favored it being done now rather than later and disrupting traffic twice.

Commissioner Weston moved to approve an increase of $2,839,313 from FY-97 State construction Funds on Project No.*INH-15-7(193)316, I-15, from I-215 to 2600 South in Woods Cross, added to the previously approved amount of $17.7 million, for a total project cost of $20,539,313; it was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously.

Noise Wall Projects (1996 Legislation)
Dave Miles explained in the ‘96 Legislative session there were a number of noise wall bills sponsored, and three of those bills passed. He also referred to a handout, UDOT Retrofit Noise Abatement List, which was the list given to legislators at that time.

• SB-2, sponsored by Senator Wilford R. Black, established criteria under which noise walls could be constructed adjacent to state highways and also assigned authority to UDOT to develop Administrative Rules governing how that noise wall program would be administered;
  
  
• SB-52, sponsored by Senator Lane Beattie, created a Noise Wall Abatement Program in the General Fund, to be managed by UDOT, which established a mechanism the Legislature can address each year for funding traffic noise abatement;
  
  
• HB-13, sponsored by Representative Orville D. Carnahan, appropriated $500,000 from the General Fund for the Traffic Noise Abatement Fund.

Besides the $500,000 from the General Fund, in the Appropriations Bills there was intent language stipulating $2.5 million from the Transportation Fund should go toward noise abatement, making a total of $3 million set aside for noise walls in FY-97, however, there are 19 locations on the Noise Abatement Retrofit List for a total of $8.5 million. Staff feels there is some urgency to determine which projects will be funded so we can begin design and get them ready to advertise, hopefully, by fall.

Dave explained there is some concern about this particular retrofit list; the Commission needs to be aware the list is controversial. A rating is determined for each location using a formula, and that rating determines the priority of the project. The two main categories which go into the rating are the decibel level, which is determined by testing at the site, plus a longevity factor for how long the location has been on the list. The Policy and Procedure we are currently following adds two points for every year a project has been on the list . The problem is that when we first introduced this concept about two years ago we indicated the longevity factor began after receiving an official request for a project from a local government which has an established noise policy itself, however, before that time we hadn’t required the request be submitted by the local governments and we think some of these projects have been on that list four or five years.

There was discussion about the priorities of the different projects, and which ones were of particular interest to the legislators who sponsored the bills which passed, and what their expectations were of which projects would be funded. Clint said staff would normally present the list of projects to the Commission based on technical merit, but the Commission may want to take other things into consideration. Chairman Brown felt we owed it to the legislators involved to discuss this issue with them personally before the programming is determined. Clint said he, Dave Miles and Kim Schvaneveldt had discussed it over the phone with Representative Carnahan who assumed that if $3 million were programmed his three projects would be taken care of; however, as listed by technical merit his are Nos. 6, 12, and 17 on the list. It was determined either staff or Commission should communicate again with Representative Carnahan, and also with Senator Buhler, Senator Mayne and Senator Beattie prior to bringing the issue back to next Commission Meeting for action.

Director Warne pointed out that the $2.5 million in Transportation Fund monies has to come out of our STIP, so some highway projects already listed in our FY-97 STIP will have to be sacrificed in order to do these noise wall projects. At the April meeting staff will propose to the Commission which projects to delay in order to accommodate the noise wall projects. Chairman Brown questioned if we couldn’t use the CHEF monies and Dave Miles pointed out that the legislation stipulates Transportation Fund monies.

Chairman Brown said this is a sensitive issue and we must do our best to handle it as wisely as possible, trying to be fair and manage our system at the same time. Commissioner Larkin asked if there are other noise wall projects not on this list. Dave Miles replied these are the only projects which have currently been studied which qualify, but there will probably ultimately be a list containing many more projects.

There was discussion about noise walls in general, the many different kinds, the different architectural treatments, and continuing to look for cost effective methods of noise abatement. The exposed aggregate walls which we use are the least expensive of any in the U. S.

Mayor Max Hogan of West Jordan commented that transportation funding is the ultimate frustration of local governments; there are so many requirements and demands that it’s ultimately got to go back to the Legislature and their failure to address the required funding. He stressed it really is the responsibility of the Commission and UDOT to point out to the Legislature that we simply do not have adequate funding to meet our transportation requirements; we’ve got to get additional revenue.

Legislative Review and Budget Summary
Max Ditlevsen discussed the information included in the agenda packets on actions of the ‘96 Legislature and the effect to our Department and budget. Referring to earlier discussions concerning the Transportation Corridor Preservation Revolving Fund, the Noise Wall Program, and the Centennial Highway Endowment Fund, each one of those funds presents something new to the Comptroller to track money, account for, and report on to the Commission and other bodies, so it does complicate things for the Comptroller.

He discussed UDOT’s 1997 budget appropriation and explained the adjustments or differences from the base appropriation. Transfers out of the Transportation Fund to other agencies was also discussed, as well as Legislative intent language included in the appropriations bills.

Six State Transportation Commission Meeting
There was discussion of participation in this year’s Six State Transportation Commission Meeting being held in Flagstaff, Arizona on May 16-17, 1996. It was determined none of the Commission members would attend this year, and Director Warne indicated he would contact Arizona and let them know.

Joint Highway Committee Meeting and UDOT Project Tour
It was noted the Commission would be meeting with the Joint Highway Committee at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, March 22, followed by a project tour of UDOT staff and the Commission in the St. George/Hurricane area.

Next Commission Meeting and Programming Workshop
The next Commission Meeting was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 24, 1996 in Salt Lake City. The Programming Workshop was set to immediately follow Commission Meeting on the afternoon of Wednesday, April 24, and all day on Thursday, April 25.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

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

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
Todd G. Weston, Vice Chairman
James G. Larkin, Commissioner
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary
Thomas R. Warne, Executive Director
Clinton D. Topham, Deputy Director
John Quick, Engineer for Planning
Dan Julio, Engineer for Programming
Kim Schvaneveldt, Project Development Engineer
Sheldon W. McConkie, Engineer for Operations
Kent Hansen, Director of Community Relations
Robert P. Barrett, Director of Aeronautics
Max J. Ditlevsen, Comptroller
Dale E. Peterson, Region Four Director
Ken Adair, Region Four Preconstruction Engineer
Jim McConnell, Region Four Resident Engineer at Cedar City District
Dana Meier, Cedar City District Engineer
Scott Munson, Maintenance Engineer, Cedar City District
Michael G. Ritchie, Utah Division Administrator, FHWA
Wilbur Jefferies, Wasatch Front Regional Council
John W. Hickman, Utah House of Representatives (Dist 75)
Jeannine Holt for U. S. Senator Orrin J. Hatch
Gayle M. Aldred, Chairman, Washington County Commission
Jerry B. Lewis, Washington County Commission/Joint Highway Committee
Art Andersen, Alton Town
Mac J. Hall, Cemetery Superintendent, Hurricane City
Gene VanWagoner, Mayor of Hurricane
V. Allen Adams, Mayor of Kanab
Evan Henderson, Kanab
Mark D. Dotson, Milford City Councilmember
Cathy Dotson, Milford
David Demas, St. George City Engineer
Aron Baker, St. George
Rick Hafen, Mayor of Santa Clara
Britt Kendall, Washington City Councilmember
Max Hogan, Mayor of West Jordan
Jerry Amundsen, Alpha Engineering
Bruce Cunningham, PBS&J Engineering, St. George