TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

Thursday, January 29, 1998

Holiday Inn - Victoria
2705 E. Houston Highway
Victoria, Texas 77901

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

DAVID LANEY, Chairman

ROBERT L. NICHOLS

 

STAFF:

Robert Cuellar, Interim Executive Director

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Good morning. The January 29, 1998 meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is called to order. The public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was filed with the Secretary of State's office at 1:50 p.m. on January 21, 1998.

That being said, we are very pleased to be here in Victoria. It is in some ways a big chore for us to pick up and move our meetings from Austin to another part of the state but the more important part is it is terrific for the Commission and our staffs, district and Austin staffs to have the opportunity to see basically various parts of the state and it keeps us in touch with needs that we otherwise I am confident would lose touch with. So it is a pleasure to be here. In all parts of the state I don't think we have run into more -- to warmer or more genuine hospitality than we have seen here in Victoria.

We do hold our meetings outside Austin two or three times a year precisely for the benefit of trying to understand and stay in touch with the needs of the various communities we serve. And it is interesting to be here in Victoria because anybody taking a look at a map sees Victoria basically triangulated between Corpus Christi, San Antonio. Houston and from our standpoint particularly from a regional transportation standpoint this part of the state is enormously important to us, to you we know but to the rest of the state, not simply Victoria in and of itself but the entire region of the state.

So from a transportation need standpoint, from an economic development standpoint it is very appropriate that we are here. And, again, delighted to be here.

As an aside, Commissioner Anne Wynne you notice is not with us today. She asked that we convey her regrets for not being here. As most of you know, particularly those of you who know Anne she is expecting her third child in just a few weeks and as much as Robert Nichols wanted her to fly on his new plane she declined (laughter) and she blamed her doctor on that. I'm sure everybody understands that.

Last night Commissioner Nichols and our Department personnel from Austin had dinner in our Yoakum District. And this gave Commissioner Nichols and our staff the ability to visit with those members of our Department who are on the front lines in the Yoakum District in this area of the state and who day in and day out, good weather or bad and needless to say to a great extent putting themselves in danger on our roads do such an outstanding job for all of you and all of the communities in this area of the state we are terribly gratified to have employees of the quality of those represented in the Yoakum District. And I want to express on behalf of the Commission my great appreciation to the Yoakum District employees for the tremendous job they do.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I also want to express my sincere regrets for being unable to join the gathering last night. I do, however, have reason not to have been there last night and it was because my boss, the Governor, was having a gathering in Dallas and I needed to be there but he specifically asked that I convey his regards and his appreciation for the support that he finds in this area of the State to all of you in Victoria and its environs.

This morning we attended a breakfast hosted by Victoria County and the Greater Victoria Area Chamber of Commerce and I specifically want to thank Judge Helen Walker for her hospitality. It was a well-attended and a great way to start what I hope turns out to be a very productive meeting today.

We had the opportunity to visit with a number of state officials and a number of county and municipal officials and we are just delighted to have that kind of reception. It is again another earmark of the warm hospitality we see in this part of the state.

Before we start with our meeting agenda I would like to recognize Commissioner Nichols for any comments that he would like to make and then I would like to make a few comments before we move into the business of the meeting. Commissioner Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I would like to remark on some of the comments that Chairman Laney made about how great I do think it is to have the Commission meetings out in the field. To be down here it is a wonderful opportunity for us to meet more people and get more familiar with the projects.

I did have a chance when I was here last August to meet a number of people and some of your elected officials and I have been here really three times since August and I will be back in about two weeks in the area. So I thank you for your hospitality. And that's about all I have.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I'm going to ask Commissioner Nichols to say a few more words in a minute to elaborate on something he has been very, very heavily involved in. But I want to spend a minute just before we get started to give you an idea of at least an underlying theme of what you will hear today. And sometimes it will be a little more pronounced, sometimes it will be a little more subtle. But as most of you know underlying virtually everything we do day in and day out is the issue of constrained funding. It has always been an issue in transportation and it always will be an issue in transportation.

To give you a sense of the magnitude of what we are talking about and we are talking about enormous sums of money, we did an inventory of transportation needs in the State of Texas about a year ago, completed it about a year ago. And to our dismay although not to our surprise, we saw the funding level requirements on an annual basis to be somewhere in the range of

$11 billion. That's annually.

We are able to cover about a third of that every year. To give you an idea last year we let contracts slightly in excess of $2 billion. It sounds like a lot but relative to the current need and the growing need and I should say that the need is growing much faster than our ability to meet it so that 33 or so percent of our ability to cover it is shrinking relative to the need. Not surprising since we are now the second most populous state in the country and we are growing faster than any state in the country and that growth projectory is likely to continue for most of the rest of the next decade. So we are losing ground and our funding levels are essentially flat.

So when this area of the state or any other part of the state comes before the Commission and says, "We need a project and our project is very important to this community" for whatever reason, whether it's hurricane evacuation, whether it's safety, whether it's economic development, your projects are enormously developed -- important to you just as those in El Paso County are important to El Paso and so forth and so on. But we try our best to stretch those dollars and to make them fit the needs of the state in the most productive way possible and the most effective way possible.

Ultimately our goal is not and will never be to reach that $11 billion figure. It is fantasy. And yet we don't think it is too far out of reach to aim for about half of what the level of need is. 50 percent taking our 33 percent to 50 percent. It's an emerging goal, it is not a formally stated goal by the Commission or the Department yet but taking the

33 percent to 50 percent would mean an additional $1-1/2 billion a year or so. Again, it sounds like an enormous amount. And we took some very significant strides during the last legislative session in that direction led in large part by your Senator, Senator Ken Armbrister and also on the Sunset Commission overseeing the development of the future of TxDOT was your representative Judy Hawley.

They I think in their wisdom and in their foresight gave us the ability to move into toll road development, a capability that we have never had before. They also authorized a new operation or operating function called state infrastructure banks. So all of a sudden we had tools that we've never had before in the funding arena. That gives us some added capacity, significant new flexibility. How much in the way of measurable dollars it injects into the system we don't know and won't know probably for years to come but it is a big step forward. Ultimately we are headed one way or the other toward the T word, taxes. But that is the last item that we ever want to raise if there is any way to avoid it.

As a first step and more important than anything we can do in this state for transportation is looking to Washington, D.C. in connection with reauthorization of the federal surface transportation legislation. That activity ended late last fall with two bills on the table, a House bill and a Senate bill. Two versions of a reauthorization of ISTEA.

The House bill would in its current form would have changed formulas and basically added to our budget an additional $400 million a year. The Senate bill would have added roughly and these are best case guesses, there are several stages you have to go through in Washington before you ever get money, the authorization from the statute says one thing and then you have got a budget process and then you have got an appropriations process. So this is the best case. But the Senate bill would have added $350 million best case a year without being turbo charged by something I would like you to hear from Commissioner Nichols about.

But we are heading back into the ring of Washington, D.C. and fighting for state transportation dollars beginning probably this month or early next and hopefully will come out of the ring no less bruised than we have been in the past by states who in effect receive some of our dollars. We need some of those back and I think we are making tremendous progress but to the extent you can take the initiative, contact your Senators and your U.S. Representatives and tell them how important ISTEA is for this state and that we need no less than 95 cents for every federal fuel tax dollar we send to Washington. Then we will be in better shape than we are right now and your support is critical for that. It certainly relieves the pressure on Austin from a tax standpoint and moves us significantly in the direction that we ultimately need to go just to keep up with the growth of this state.

But I alluded to the Senate bill adding potentially in the best case scenario $350 million. That is without something called the Byrd-Gramm Amendment. I think many of you if not most of you have heard about the Phil Gramm -- it really should be called the Byrd-Gramm-Nichols amendment (laughter) but we will get to that in a second. But in any case that takes the Senate bill to a different level of funding almost doubling the amount of funding that would come through the Senate bill to Texas. It is very important and it takes additional -- it is not a normal bill in the Senate because it is a budget point, it requires more votes, I think 60, rather than just a majority.

But the Commissioner to your left, to my right here has been working as hard as anybody has ever worked to try to raise the consciousness of the importance of that bill around the state along with Senator Gramm. He has been traveling the state and trying to raise the flag and signal the importance of this effort throughout the state. And I've got to say my hat is off to him and my compliments to him because if we are successful it will be in large part due to the efforts of Commissioner Nichols I believe. But I would like for you to elaborate a little if you will on the Byrd-Gramm Amendment.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. Before I talk a little bit about the Byrd-Gramm Amendment I'll mention a little additional on the needs category that Chairman Laney was referring to.

When most people come to the Commission and go or to the District and talk about projects they almost always are talking about the expanded roads or widening of roads, overpasses, bridges, new bridges, additional lanes and so on and no one ever comes and talks about maintenance. It seems to be a dull, drab part of the conversation. But the truth of the matter is that the maintenance portion of our business is extremely important and people seem to forget that roads and bridges don't last forever. The typical life expectancy on a roadway is about thirty years, maybe forty depending on the location in the state. And we have 77,000 miles of roadway. The newest part of the roadway system, the interstate system was built in the '50s and primarily the '60s and early '70s and even the newest portion is reaching the end of its life cycle. But some of the older portions of the state highway system, the farm to market system are fifty, sixty years old and we are currently spending almost half of our entire budget trying to patch, maintain and get by and our system is deteriorating in a serious fashion.

So we have got to -- even if we don't receive additional funding we have got to spend more money working on that portion of the system even if it reduces additional new projects. We currently have about 11,000 miles of roadway in Texas that are in need of major repair and we have nearly 10,000 bridges in the stated that are either structurally or functionally deficient today.

The Byrd-Gramm Amendment is a bipartisan, this is a Democrat and Republican amendment in the Senate led by Senator Byrd, senior Democrat from West Virginia and Senator Gramm. And essentially what it does is that in 1993 the federal government imposed a 4.3 cent additional federal tax on gasoline at the pump and that money traditionally had always gone to transportation but on this particular time in 1993 those funds went into the general fund, they are used for deficit reduction or various other spending programs and the amendment requires the federal government to have that money spent on transportation, primarily roadways and other means of transportation and go straight back to the states.

Currently we are only receiving about 77 cents -- Texans are for every dollar that we send up there and this would help close the gap. The dollar gap is $1.9 billion over a five-year period. Extremely significant. And they have fifty sponsors in the Senate now and they do not allow a Republican or a Democrat to sign up unless it would match. So every time a sponsor comes on it is one from each party. And I would encourage y'all to support this, make a greater awareness of it. If you have any opportunity to mention this to any of your state U.S. -- Texas delegation of the U.S. Congress certainly let them know your feelings on the matter and it's extremely important to the State of Texas.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Thank you, Robert. Well, with that long prologue let's get started. And we appreciate your patience on such an important topic to us. First of all, let me call on Mayor Gary Middleton, the mayor of the City of Victoria who will be our first speaker. Mayor, delighted to be here.

MAYOR GARY MIDDLETON: Thank you. It is certainly a great opportunity for Victoria to host the Commission's meeting in this the first meeting of the year 1998 and it is my pleasure to welcome you to town and this meeting culminates the -- a week that was declared by our City Council last week as Texas Department of Transportation Week here in Victoria. And I have a copy of the proclamation for y'all just for the record.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MAYOR GARY MIDDLETON: And we certainly are very appreciative and enjoy being able to host the meeting here in Victoria, the crossroads of South Texas and we want to welcome not only the Commissioners, the Chairman, Commissioner Nichols who we have seen several times in the last month or so and Commissioner Cuellar but all of the other people in the audience who will come before the Commission today and who are here to support the transportation issues that we know you face. And so I won't take any further time but thank you for coming to Victoria and you are welcome to come back any time you want. Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Robert, it sounds like they are tired of seeing you down here. (Laughter)

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Next let me recognize the members of our State Legislature from this area and first let me call on one of the great friends of the Department of Transportation, Senator Ken Armbrister.

SENATOR KEN ARMBRISTER: Thank you, Chairman Laney and Commissioner Nichols and of course a friend to everybody in Texas, Bob Cuellar, who has done a great job not only in his career but as a more than adequate fill-in while the Department is without currently an executive director even though we have another former executive -- I can't ever remember if they are called executive directors or director engineers -- Arnold Oliver is with us who lead the Department for a number of years and it is always a pleasure to have all of the staff that you brought.

I think the pecking order -- and for the record I'm Ken Armbrister, Senator of the 18th Senatorial District. I think the pecking order here is that I'm to speak in generalities of terms and all of my colleagues from the House will speak in specifics about projects.

I tell people all the time the issues of transportation are for 140 days the Department and interested parties comes to the legislative process and pleads and begs and sells their souls for all of the money that you spoke of that they can get and then for the next eighteen months of the biennium we come back to you and plead and beg and sell our souls trying to get you to spend it in our area (laughter)

and we are absolutely no different, I think, from your characterization of the criticalness of the funding needs for our transportation system.

So far our comments have centered upon of course highways but as you know better than any of us, the role of the Transportation Department now includes not only our most important intracoastal waterway but also small and general aviation as well that we have placed into your oversight. And all of these areas are exactly as you characterize, they are at a critical standpoint in Texas today from what we are dealing with. I'm also pleased to see so many of our people that are really in my estimation do the most important job as our local elected officials that are here today.

I'm often reminded I got a call a couple of years ago from a fellow up in Elgin and he was going on and on and on about the chuckhole in his street out in front his house and I finally asked him, "Well, do you live on a state highway? Is it a farm to market road?" "No. No. I'm talking about the street in front of my house." And I finally asked him. "Well, you are talking about a city street?" And he said, "Well, absolutely. What do you think I have been talking to you for?" And I said, "Well, have you called the mayor yet?" And he said, "Well, no. I didn't want to go over your head." (Laughter)

You know, as Governor Bullock always says when we get to feeling real strong about ourselves in the state legislature, you know, and you realize you go to a Chamber banquet and they say, "Oh, no. We have got to introduce that guy again." So it kind of brings you back down to the real work in our political arena as it occurs on that local level and they have got some distinct needs that we have only been able to assist with, maybe in a planning, not in the dollars sometimes it needs but coordinated effort.

We do have quite a few needs of course in this area. As I have mentioned as this particular part of the state particularly District 13 has grown not only with our highways and our bridges as was mentioned but general aviation, small aviation as well as our intracoastal problems that we have seen and what they can mean to the state's economic structure if all of these are not taken care of as we go along.

I'm here and you will hear a lot about the I-69 and the proposal of expansion of 59. I guess I'm in the true political mode because in the Senate District I have the I-35 corridor project, I have got I-10 as well and of course the I-69 proposals that we are working with all of those groups on and I know the Department has been very active not only in Austin but in Washington in trying to secure all that we can.

It just is graduated as you move forward from the little analogy I gave earlier about pleading and begging for money to be spent at certain places. It is a balancing act and a lot of people don't appreciate the jobs that the Commission has in trying to balance all of the transportation needs in the state from the dollars. But I think you were exactly right in characterizing the criticalness of where we are in funding.

And like you said, the issue in the last session as I mentioned earlier in the breakfast it was not a brainstorm or brain child of mine or any person in the legislature it came from in-house where it should have been because we put that task on you. We are not going to give you all of the money that you asked for so come up with better ways. And luckily our colleagues saw fit to take your ideas and put those into play and I think they will mean a great deal in our future as far as the infrastructure bank proposal, the bonding -- the new bonding proposal as well as the toll roads.

On the way over I heard of the 130 project proposal that you will be hearing about pretty soon from a private vendor and then donating back to the state. So there's a lot of different innovative ways that we are having to do to bring about transportation in this area.

I can speak specifically and I know because of the priorities involved on 59 specifically. Obviously is the money going to be there to do the whole project in a lifetime -- our lifetime foreseeable future? Who knows. But what we would ask specifically is if nothing else -- I think Judy will talk more about this later -- is if we can't get anything else we at least ought to look at as far as we can go, at least Highway 35 or Highway 37 at the very minimum of expansion of 59. Yes, we would love to see it all the way to Laredo. But we are realistic about both short-term and immediate long-term funding requirements as the rest of the state -- we have got people here from all around the state. Our community may be interested to know we have got some metroplex folks that are with us here today and so it is really a statewide meeting.

I appreciate as I said at the breakfast and to the folks that are here that weren't at the breakfast this is the first time that I know in the history of the state that the Transportation Department has taken this on the road to the citizenry of the state and I personally appreciate that. I think that is a very not only worthwhile but a visionary provision that your Commission has initiated and looking forward to having you here and hosting you in our region. And, again, we want all of the money spent here. (Laughter) Thank you, David.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN LANEY: We also have present with us here this morning several members from the House of Representatives and I would like to call on them at this time. I understand the first of the team is Representative Steve Holzheauser.

REPRESENTATIVE STEVE HOLZHEAUSER: Thank you. I also want to extend my welcome for y'all coming to Victoria. I said this morning at breakfast that we get a lot of requests from a lot of people and some have to do with transportation and some have to do with other issues but it is gratifying to know that state government is becoming more user friendly. And I don't say that lightly because there are -- there is a lot of frustration not only in Texas but nationally that government is not responding to the people that end up funding it and that's our taxpayers and the people that use our fuel but to see you coming to communities like Victoria and other communities all across the state I believe drives home to the electorate that there are real issues here, that there are funding situations that are reaching the critical mass standpoint and I want to thank the two of you Commissioners for coming here and also the Acting Director for taking time to visit with our people.

I'm going to take a little bit of time to visit about what roads mean to people who use them on a daily basis. We are blessed with two commodities in this area that we have in somewhat of abundance and one of them is agriculture but the other one is hydrocarbons. You have heard a lot of talk about how much more prosperity the state could experience if we had value added to our agricultural commodities if we would take our cotton and turn it into fabric and into clothes, if we take our corn products and our other grain products and turn them into some type of food stock that we can then use.

But I would like to tell you that we are doing that here in this area every day to benefit not only the community of Victoria and surrounding counties but the state as a whole. We have an extremely active petrochemical industry in this area. And as Senator Armbrister mentioned the intracoastal waterway, a division that those that have come before us have had with the Victoria Barge Canal bring a tremendous amount of natural gas and natural gas products from South Texas and from offshore into these plants and the plants then take those products and turn them into jobs and a lot of jobs.

There was an article in the paper here recently that the annual payroll from just the immediate hydrochemical industry is approaching

$300 million. That means people going to and from work. The roads that lead from here to Port Lavaca and the roads then going on down to the Green Lake area and towards Seadrift in the mornings are extremely congested. And I can tell you that yesterday morning about sunrise or a little before I was on one of those roads.

Every morning we wake up and look in the paper to see if there's going to be another head-on collision on Highway 87 between Victoria and Port Lavaca because of thousands of people that daily travel that road going to and from their jobs.

So the blessing that we have in this area of having the ability to take the natural resources that we have in such abundance and turn them into usable products not only here and in the State of Texas but actually internationally also provide the congestion that we face on a daily basis. So the Victoria area and I've also had over the years the opportunity to represent counties of Calhoun and Refugio and Jackson in addition to currently DeWitt and Lavaca and Goliad are very dependent upon the transportation.

And I think somewhat selfishly as was mentioned earlier all politics is local. The transportation politics is extremely interesting to the local community for their livelihood but also for their safety. And hopefully what we will do after receiving the message that you have brought to us today is rally around the Commission for the purposes of making sure that you not only have the information that you need to make wise decisions on where you are going to spend a finite amount of money but you also know that the community itself will now have the tools that they need to be able to advocate on behalf of the decision that you make.

The interstates are important and I think you are going to hear a lot about I-69 and what it means to the communities along its route. I guess I wanted to bring to you the local perspective of on a daily basis who the people are that get up every morning or sleep all day and work all night that produce the products and the commodities that then find their way onto the roads that make those interstates important whether those products are moving into Mexico as an export or whether products are brought out of Mexico into Texas to be used in this manufacturing process.

And we all know that 80 percent of the manufacturing in this state is on the Texas Gulf Coast. We also know that the area of the Gulf Coast up from here is very crowded and that the air quality concerns that we have as citizens of this state mean that more and more of those manufacturing facilities are going to be moving south which means that more and more people are going to be using the roads getting to and from work and for moving the commodities that have to be moved up and down those roads.

So as we all in our separate parts of the state try to convince you that our project is the most important project that you will have the opportunity to oversee I wanted to bring a little bit of a personal perspective as to why we think that this part of the state in particular needs the attention of the Commission as far as deciding the project expansion that we think not only is extremely important for safety because as you well know and I know you have the staff that has briefed you on this, we do have some highways here that literally every day can mean the difference between whether or not a mother or a father or a husband or a wife makes it home to their family that evening.

And I think that's an extremely important part of what you do and that's deciding how to make Texas a safer place for all of us and provide the adequate transportation that we need. And, again, thank you very much for coming. After eleven years in the Legislature and having dealt with people in positions of authority and power to the extent that you have it is most gratifying to me and I know to all of us that you would take time from a very busy schedule and from important lives of your own to come and listen to what we have to say and to show the public in general that you are truly concerned about how their tax dollars are spent in making sure that we receive the most from your decisions.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Thank you, Steve.

(Applause)

MR. LANEY: I understand that Representative Tom Uher won't be here today but we would like to hear next from Representative Gene Seaman.

REPRESENTATIVE GENE SEAMAN: I thought you were going to ask for Judy next because she is seated next and a lot smarter and prettier. Commissioners, thank you as everyone has said for coming to our community and it's great to have your road show so you reach out to the people. Thank you very much. And for all that you do in trying to make these tough decisions with such few dollars. I also want to comment on Billy Parks from the Corpus Christi District and Mike Behrens from Yoakum. I have never met two finer assertive aggressive gentlemen in doing their jobs and their employees. So you really have a great team of people here on the coast. I represent Corpus and Port Lavaca and Calhoun County and Jackson County so I have got this whole coastal area.

In another area thanking you I understand the contract was let for 616 and that was another one of our killer highways here, two-lane and a lot of deaths. Just as Steve mentioned 87 the same there and that's a problem that you took care of or are in the process of taking care of and I thank you for that.

I want to respond to you in your question about or the comments about funding. I want to tell you publicly I'm very committed to funding of transportation and that that also includes the water and other infrastructure needs of this state. I'm on a select committee for welfare reform and every time I see our welfare problems I realize that as you said, Commissioner Nichols, about the growth is going to double in size that if we don't have the water and the highways, the roads, the infrastructure to meet those population needs so that we can build our industry I see the direct correlation between welfare reform and creating jobs and that means infrastructure. So I'm totally committed to whatever funding increases we can accomplish for you, for all of our people.

One of the needs I want to stress and you will hear about it later I think from one of our people is the Lavaca Bay Causeway built in '61 and ravaged by hurricane and the nature of process ever since and every time I go through there I pray a little bit because I'm not sure it is going to stand up but it is part of that 10,000 bridges you talked about. So the needs are enormous. I want to mention that.

I think lastly in this concept of I-69

and ISTEA I have talked to Senator Gramm and I

intend to get my 2 cents worth there. I-69 is vital

to south Texas as Steve again said. As it gets more and more crowded up there it's going to push the commerce down this way to Port Lavaca, to Corpus Christi, even to Brownsville. And the NAFTA and

the trade and I-69 all of that ties in so dynamically with the future of Texas and all of the problems

that we have in the welfare reform area or creating good jobs, good paying jobs for people. So that's

all part of the complex.

And I appreciate everything you are doing and I want to be a player and help you in every way I can to meet your needs in the financial and or the contacts and the ISTEA, Commissioner Nichols, et cetera. Thank you for being here.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Thank you. When you speak to Senator Gramm it's no longer good enough to get your 2 cents worth you have got to get your 4.3 cents worth.

(Laughter) And don't worry, we are going to Representative Hawley in good time. So don't worry about it. Representative Robby Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBBY COOK: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And once again I want to echo some of my colleagues before me and Senator Armbrister. It is great to have you out here in the Yoakum District and out to the field so to speak. I think it is extremely important to get out of the city every once in awhile and enjoy some of the good life out in the country. But it is good to have you out here and to listen to the views that we hear on a daily basis and concerns from our constituents.

I also want to echo your saying to us, Mr. Laney, about the employees in this district and in this area. With the financial restraints that they have and the constraints in their resources I think that they do a great job. They do a great job in planning, they do a great job in decision work. Our office has a very good rapport with them and a response with the resources they have to work with they do an excellent job.

Mike Behrens as soon as I pick up the phone to call him every once in a while to call him the few times I do -- the nice thing about it is it is one of the agencies where my office has some of the fewest complaints. So we certainly know that they are doing the best possible job that they can.

I want to reiterate something that Mr. Nichols said. It certainly is good to hear you mention the maintenance portion. This area and I'm involved in agriculture, I make my living in agriculture. Agriculture and small business in this area is extremely important. It is extremely important not only to this area but also the State of Texas. And Steve mentioned value added processing and efforts by all of us in state government to increase the value added processing in the State of Texas and certainly as an economic development tool. But so many times we are starting to see, yes, the highway projects are important, the state highways and the roads and bridges and the maintenance of our farm to market roads. And that's why they are called farm to market roads. For years and years and years it has been extremely important for farmers and ranchers, people involved in aquaculture and the small businesses that support those industries to get their products to the market.

That in itself is one of the most important aspects of economic development. Any time you listen to the economic development experts talk about is sustaining the businesses you already have. It is good to look at new businesses and generate new economies but also try to sustain and help the current businesses that we have. And agriculture and small businesses in our area goes way back for many, many years.

So, Commissioner Nichols, I agree with your sentiments. It's glad to hear you put your priorities or one of your priorities as maintenance on our rural road so to speak. I'm also committed to transportation. This is -- this is my first term in the House of Representatives. My district includes Wharton, Colorado, Fayette and Bastrop Counties. I thank God for Highway 71. It only takes me two hours to get to Austin.

But transportation is extremely important for the State of Texas. I look forward to working with you gentlemen in the near future to represent my area, my district and echo as Steve said the importance along the Gulf Coast. I stretch all the way from Travis County almost all the way to the Gulf Coast Wharton County. So I look forward to working with you. And once again, I thank you for taking the time to be out here, getting out among the people so to speak. And anything that my office can do to help you in your job and to help us Legislators to give you the tools that you need to pass on to the district engineers that they can do their job I'm certainly willing to work with you. Thank you very much. (Applause)

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Thank you, Representative Cook. I'm going to depart for a moment from the state representatives but be back shortly to that issue. But I want to recognize for a second Mr. Zac Lentz who I understand is not here today. If you are there, out there somewhere let me know. But I understand that you are not -- that he is not here today because he is ill. But I did want to spend a minute recognizing him. He's the co-chair of the Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee and a long-time supporter of transportation in the Victoria area.

I also need to add that one of the reasons we are spending a moment recognizing him is that he won the Department's Road Hand Award back in 1975. So he's been at it with great substance and impact for a long period of time. I'm sorry he's not here but I did want to recognize him.

At this time I would like to call to Representative Seaman's great relief on Representative Judy Hawley who has long been a good friend and supporter of our Department in lots of ways. And a very strong advocate for transportation generally and in this part of the state. She's also not at all reluctant to pick up the phone and let us know where the needs are and how important they are down here. She is a great advocate. She will introduce the

U.S. 59 corridor presentation. Representative Hawley?

REPRESENTATIVE JUDY HAWLEY: Thank you very much. And thank you to all of my colleagues who are here in support of this project in this region of the state. We appreciate you and a special thanks to all of you people in the community, county, municipal officials, elected officials, volunteers, just people who care about transportation. A special thank you to you for being here today. Let's give them a big round of applause.

(Applause)

I'm going to go ahead and launch the Jump Start 59 here in just a minute. But I want to take my little legislative two seconds first. And what I would like to say to you is I can remember the first time I went on one of these dog and pony shows up to Austin. You know, we were going to carry forth some great idea and we are all begging for the very limited funds and y'all have been there and we have been there. The process has changed tremendously in the time that I have been in the Legislature and I'm not necessarily an old hand. But it has changed so much for the better. It is not -- we come to you and beg for funds and a whole lot of us and a whole lot of why I'm so involved in the way I'm doing things now is because of the inspiration not only of the Commission but of TxDOT in general. And what you have done is you have changed this from we come to you for money and then you come to us for money. It's not that kind of a deal anymore. It is a partnership. Your being here right now reiterates that 100 percent. You come in with information. These are the needs, this is what we have to do, this is where we have to get funding, this is what you can do to help us get that funding. It is not us and you, it's all of us together.

The legislation we passed had several transportation items and the legislation we passed last time is reflective of that whole new mode of doing business. Government isn't you and us, government is all of us working together collectively. This is a second time I have done one of those little unified projects and the first time I thought "It doesn't have a prayer of working. We can't get five judges, five different communities, fifteen towns all to agree on anything." But you know what? It really was through your leadership that I saw that. If you give good people good information, let them sit down and make educated decisions people put aside their parochial interests, their parochial needs and they look for what's best for the community. They go beyond their own area, they look regionally, they look statewide. And that's what you have encouraged us all to do and that's what this group of people responded to so willingly, so beautifully and so efficaciously in this case as well. And I'm delighted to bring to you the fruits of their labor because I think you are going to be very impressed with what this group of people have come up with as far as recommendations for 59.

So with that thank you for being here and now we are ready for our dog and pony show. Great. (Laughter) And, Anne, you are looking great today. (Laughter) Thank you for being here and thank you again for your fill-in. You have been fabulous. Very, very responsive. Special thank you to Mike Behrens and Billy Parks. We couldn't do it without them and their staff. They have been just absolutely fabulous.

Well, we have got a corridor for you. We have got trucks, cars, school buses. We have got trade, we have got increasing traffic volume. We have got a bunch of hazardous intersections, we have got some railroad crossings, we have got prisons, colleges, tourists and a plethora of conditions to warrant expanding as you identified an aging deteriorating, strategically located two-lane highway into a four-lane divided corridor.

A lot of talk going on about I-69 where it is going to be, what it's going to be. One of the things this group of people decided was I-69 will be where it is going to be, we still need a four-lane divided corridor from Victoria to Laredo. Instead of just waiting for that to happen let's take the initiative, put together what we can locally with you, be resourceful and let's look at that.

Whatever I-69 is, it needs a compatible network, a supplemental network of reliable highways to infrastructure with to link Mexico to intra and to interstate destinations. These state, county and municipal elected officials representing two senatorial districts, I think this is where it really -- really conveys how well your message has gotten out because you are seeing a real unity of purpose here with two senatorial districts, four legislative districts, seven counties, five major cities and a number of small towns. They have joined together with their elected officials, their community leaders, their chamber representatives, their professional and business volunteers and they are coming to you with the united request for a high priority corridor status for U.S. Highway 59.

The delegation's theme which we came

about collectively in our meeting in August was "Jump Start 59." Don't wait for I-69, don't wait for any of this let's just "Jump Start 59." Our goal was to upgrade every segment of 59 from Victoria to Laredo, we would like bids to be let for the Victoria to Goliad segment as soon as possible and we would like right-of-way purchases and environmental studies to be authorized which means we have to get to priority two for the other segments of this particular highway.

We truly are looking at a connect-the-dot scenario and we want to do whatever we can to work with you to implement that. The essence of our presentation is a consensus position which was developed by a number of the people in this room which we call ourselves the U.S. Regional Task Force. We met in August in Beeville.

After assessing the unique aspects of each one of the segments and you can see from the map there or the map there or the map which is in your packets in front of you that they are literally connections between the major cities along U.S. 59.

We looked at all the data provided by TxDOT, by local and community leaders, they listened, they made presentations, everybody had the same information then they met in their own county delegations and came up with a prioritizing of if we have limited dollars of which we are aware where do we want to start first? Where is the most important segment? How shall we go about developing and implementing the expansion of this vital trade corridor? And the result of what their work and their efforts and their intellect is on a chart which you have and I will give you another copy in case you can't find them so you can see where their consensus was. They prioritized and agreed that there was a very definite order that this expansion should take place and they, as I said before, they put aside parochial interests, they put aside community interests and they looked for the benefits for the region as a whole. And you have in front of you their summary of a united position for the most expeditious funding and expansion of this corridor.

We have a video which we have prepared and two of our judges are going to give you a little bit of a narration as we show you that. It gives you a little bit more of a visual picture of some of the areas and some of the needs of this specific corridor. The chart I will go over with you at the end but it shows you that each county's delegation and this is the chart that Helen just handed you shows you that each county's delegation rank ordered where they thought we ought to start putting together our funds and our efforts as we came to you trying to get this project on the road. Jump Start 59. So I would like to introduce to you now Helen Walker and Jim Huff. These are county judges from Victoria County and from Live Oak County. You have a video over here and they are going to narrate this and kind of guide you through this. This is about twelve minutes. And after that our county judges each want to introduce their delegations and give you just a little 30 second summary of about how important this particular project is for their county. So with that I'm to going to turn this over to Judge Walker and Judge Huff. Thank you.

(Applause)

JUDGE HELEN WALKER: Thank you, Representative Hawley. Thank you, Chairman Laney and Commissioner Nichols and Mr. Cuellar, for being with us today.

U.S. 59 between Victoria and Laredo is a rapidly developing trade route. It is identified by Congress as a high priority corridor for international commerce under NAFTA. Corridor 20 which included the Victoria to Laredo connection was studied. The study is now complete. It analyzed transportation needs from the Mexico border to Canada through the United States. The study showed that upgrading U.S. 59 corridor between Victoria and Laredo was both viable and feasible.

U.S. 59 connects the largest inland port of entry at Laredo with the port of Houston. It also connects Laredo to the port of Corpus Christi via

U.S. 59 and State Highway 44. Traffic along this route is increasing, especially truck traffic.

On August 20, 1997 more than sixty-five elected city, county officials, Chamber of Commerce and economic development officials and community representatives from seven counties along with representatives from the Texas Department of Transportation met in Beeville. Their purpose, to reach consensus on how best to develop the 59 corridor to meet commercial, economic and safety needs.

The group strongly believes that we need to begin now to Jump Start U.S. 59. Although we hope that additional federal funds will be coming to Texas for high priority corridors we know that project development takes many years. We want to begin now so that when the funding comes we will be ready. We also want to make sure that we protect the corridor for the needed transportation improvements. The corridor is already on the national highway system and the Texas trunk system.

The U.S. 59 corridor task force reached regional consensus. We want to put our initial emphasis on upgrading U.S. 59 to a four-lane divided highway. We recognize that relief routes are important but as a group we want to put our initial re-emphasis on the actual route, connecting the dot so to speak. We want to preserve the corridor for transportation by beginning the needed right-of-way acquisition and utility adjustments as soon as the actual route is established.

The task force prioritized development of this corridor from an existing two-lane roadway to a four-lane divided highway. The chart shows the consensus reached by the group for the development of the corridor and those are the priorities that Judy talked about.

Now for a closer look at the corridor. The first priority reached by consensus for the development of the corridor from Victoria to Laredo is Segment A which runs between Victoria and Goliad and is 23 miles long. The task force is requesting construction funding for this segment to jump start development of this important corridor. For planning purposes the segment is divided into two stages. Environmental studies are finished and right-of-way acquisition is nearly complete for the first stage which extends from southeast of U.S. 77 to near the Goliad-Victoria County line.

On the Victoria end it adjoins an existing four-lane roadway. We understand that construction plans for this stage are nearly complete. Some preliminary studies have begun on the second stage from the Victoria County line to Goliad. With funding we could move out and be ready to build this section to complete the improvements to Segment A. This segment has the largest truck volume along the corridor as well as rapidly increasing truck traffic. Safety concerns arise as a result of a speed differential between passenger vehicles and large trucks.

The second priority -- we can look at that one for a minute -- the second priority for the development of the corridor is Segment B which runs between Goliad and Beeville and is 27 miles long. Some of this segment is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way which is already owned by the state. This roadway typically has two lanes with shoulders, turn lanes are not provided and there are several narrow bridges along this segment. These factors combined with rolling terrain and curves contribute to a higher than normal accident rate.

One accident near Berclair involved a school bus. Several accidents involved large trucks and have resulted in multiple fatalities. Traveling this segment one notices that is at least five or six of every ten vehicles is a truck. This can only be expected to increase with the emphasis on NAFTA commerce. Judge Huff.

JUDGE JIM HUFF: Thank you, Judge Walker. The

fourth priority for the development of the corridor is Segment C which runs between Beeville and George West. This segment is 20 miles long. Near Beeville truck traffic is diverted to a farm to market road. This truck route is near schools and as you can see not wide enough or equipped with shoulders.

Between Beeville and George West the rolling terrain incurred provides potential hazards as truck traffic increases. A section of U.S. 281 between Alice and George West offers a comparison. It too is hilly and has curves. This section of U.S. 281 was recently improved to a four-lane divided highway. We can only estimate how many lives have been saved by this widened divided roadway. The same condition that existed before 281 was widened exists along the entire corridor.

Beeville is growing. It is the home of a maximum security state prison and Chase Field Beeville has been converted to two detention centers and a prison boot camp. Many students from George West and Three Rivers travel along 59 to attend Beeville College. The 59 transportation link is vital to this growing community. The connections to Interstate 37 east of George West and to U.S. 281 at George West are both well-known to the trucking industry. We are observing more and more traffic using the 281-59-37 connection. Of these three major routes only 59 is a two-lane roadway.

The at-grade railroad crossing on the 59 bypass just east of the intersection with 281 causes concern. There is potential for accidents and major delays as both rail and truck traffic increases.

George West is the hub for traffic coming from the valley via 281 and traffic coming from Laredo via 59. Live Oak County is the location of a federal prison, Choke Canyon Reservoir, Diamond Shamrock Refining, Mission Petroleum and these all contribute to the number of trucks that use this roadway.

The fifth priority for the development of the corridor is Segment D which runs between George West and Freer and is 43 miles long. This is rolling terrain and sight distance is extremely poor. It is both a school bus and mail route. Along approximately one-third of the segment there are no shoulders. This means that there's no place to pull over.

The intersection with FM 624 is a concern. 624 is a major east-west artery through this area and is heavily used by the trucking industry. Sight distance at this important intersection is severely restricted.

Most of the vehicles using this segment are 18-wheelers. Latest information shows that about 40 percent of all the traffic is trucks. If you make this drive you will notice that eight or nine of every ten vehicles passed is a truck. Oil, gas and uranium exploration, ranching and commerce between Laredo and points north contribute to this high truck volume.

The third priority for the development of the corridor is Segment E which runs between Freer and Laredo. Representatives at Webb and Duval Counties that met with U.S. 59 task force did not rate the priority of other segments of the route. They did rate Segment E with relief routes at Laredo and Freer as their highest priority.

Segment E is 52 miles long. This segment links the inland port entry at Laredo with the port of Houston as well as the port of Corpus Christi via

U.S. 59 and State Highway 44. Laredo serves as the gateway to the United States and Canada for NAFTA generated commerce. 25 percent of U.S. imports from Mexico are manufactured in Monterrey and approximately 50 percent of the land based trade between the United States and Mexico travels through Monterrey. Segment E directly connects the U.S. 59 corridor to the highway system in Mexico and thus Monterrey.

Segment E has rolling terrain. The two-lane roadway carries heavy truck volumes. These can be expected to increase as improvements are made to this route and as international commerce increases. When traffic accidents occur along this segment they are usually very serious.

U.S. 59 corridor task force has worked together to reach consensus on developing priorities for this important corridor. Seven counties worked as a unit in making these recommendations. We know that development of projects takes a long time.

The Corridor 20 Study shows that improvement to this connection between Victoria and Laredo is both viable and feasible. It is possible that federal funds will come to Texas to aid in development of high priority corridors. We want to be ready to move out on projected developments. We want to plan for these improvements and protect the corridor for transportation needs.

U.S. 59 task force proposes to Jump Start 59 by requesting that the Commission provide funding for Segment A from Victoria to Goliad and upgrade the status of remaining segments as soon as the actual route location is established. Thank you.

(Applause)

REPRESENTATIVE JUDY HAWLEY: At this point I would like to recognize each of the county judges so that they may make their comments. Judge Jimmy Martinez from Bee County.

JUDGE JIMMY MARTINEZ: Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for coming to our region. I would like to start off by introducing and recognizing the delegation from Bee County. County Commissioner Toribio Ortiz from Precinct 3, County Commissioner and Mrs. Curtis Roberts from Precinct 4, Ford Patton, our City Manager, Chip Latcham, with the local Beeville paper, Bob Miller with the Chamber of Commerce, Gary Jones banker and also with the Chamber of Commerce, Cori Longoria Henicke with the local staff newspaper and others. And I would like to ask you all to stand up, please. Please stand. There's some behind me. I'm sorry I did not introduce them also. That's County Commissioner Susan Stasny from back there, Laura Fischer and Lou Adele May. Thank you all for coming.

I would like to start off this morning by asking y'all to visualize Beeville, Bee County, Texas as the hub of this project. Visualize that for a moment, please. Beeville connects with 181 a two-lane, soon to be a four-lane, connects with 59 a two-lane soon to be a four-lane, it connects with I-37, it connects with 281, close to 77 -- my apologies, it does not connect with 77 but it is close to Beeville -- it is within 25 minutes from Beeville. We are also within an hour of I-35. And our role with I-35 would only be to provide relief for that interstate. As we all know it is the mother of all interstates in the State of Texas.

(Laughter)

My concern here today would be to have a safe and efficient flow of traffic as we connect the entire valley to the rest of this state. I'm going to ask you again to please visualize Beeville as a hub as already mentioned on the film. The leadership along the route have been meeting in Beeville recognizing it as a hub and we will continue to do that.

I ask, again, that you visualize Beeville as the hub of the entire region (laughter) and ask that you help us make our dream come true and help us Jump Start 59. Thank you so much for your time so much for your time.

(Applause)

REPRESENTATIVE HAWLEY: And now from Duval County Judge Edmundo Garcia.

JUDGE EDMUNDO GARCIA: Chairman Laney, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Cuellar, thank you for giving us the time to be here. At this time I would like to introduce a member of the Commissioners Court of Duval County representing the Freer areas and rural areas of Freer, Commissioner Gilberto Uribe is with us today. Mr. Uribe was recognized and we thought it was very good also at Commissioners Court at Monday night at the Chamber of Commerce in Freer as the man of the year, citizen of the year of Freer, Texas. So he's doing a good job. (Applause)

We are not the hub I guess of anything in Duval County (laughter) but we sure are a good county anyway. We are here in support of the 59 corridor, the expansion of the divided four-lane highway, the 59 highway.

Specifically I'm here to ask for the relief route in Freer. With the increase in the international commerce of the trucks coming through Freer going to Corpus, going to Corpus and Houston it is very important for the Freer area to have this relief route and we have had meetings and the people have -- the majority of the people have a consensus that we do need this relief route. We hope that you can see fit for the need to find the money to have this relief route in the Freer area. And the film -- I was looking at the film that Judge Huff alluded to Highway 281 going from George West to Alice and to the valley and I drove that many, many times when it was a two-lane highway. And believe me, especially at night it was a very, very stressful drive. When it went into a divided four-lane highway it is just a pleasure to drive that road and I visualize Highway 59 being the same way being that peaceful comfortable route. Thank you very much for your time and have a good day, gentlemen.

(Applause)

REPRESENTATIVE HAWLEY: And now from Goliad County we have Judge Steve Paulsgrove.

JUDGE STEVEN PAULSGROVE: Mr. Chairman, I too want to join in welcoming the Commission here today. It is indeed an honor to have the opportunity to appear before you and share ideas at the local level.

I want to thank my fellow county officials and city officials and all other residents from Goliad that might be here today in support of this project. If you will please stand. I thank you very much.

I would be remiss if I first did not thank the Commission for your funding of your ISTEA project, the hike and bike trail that's connecting the city

of Goliad with our historical sites, the state park

and Presidio la Bahia as well as your funding of the project to replace the San Antonio River bridge

over Highway 183. I thank you for both of those projects.

In Goliad County we are a somewhat smaller rural but very historical county directly adjoining to the west our larger neighbor Victoria. We are growing every day. And as more and more people have chosen to live outside of the metropolitan area of Victoria in our more rural and calm setting. And because of this fact a very great number of our residents travel to and from Victoria every day for employment and the necessities of life not the least of is medical services.

Two-and-a-half years ago in a rather emotional decision but based on sound economics we were forced to close the Goliad County Hospital. In its place we now have a highly trained EMS Service that we are very proud of but their success is totally dependent on having a highway to and from Goliad to Victoria that they can travel and quickly and safely get their patients to the emergency medical facilities here in Victoria. Currently they are having to travel on a two-lane highway that is very rolling terrain, very curvy and dodging trucks all the way. So for us it is a matter of life and death.

We join with the other counties. We would like to take advantage of the economic benefits and development that's occurring in our area and market the historical sites of Goliad County. But first and foremost we need a four-lane highway to protect our citizens and we ask that you consider that in making your decisions. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE HAWLEY: Hidalgo County judge, Judge Jim Huff.

JUDGE JIM HUFF: Thank you, Representative Hawley. Gentlemen, again, we appreciate the opportunity to be here with you this morning. I think we all have problems that are particular to our different counties but they are all the same. If we look at increasing traffic which we need, we need to upgrade 59. If we look at our emergency services that depend on 59, I know in Live Oak County to serve especially the south and west portion of the county 59 again the importance is definitely there when you look at those issues. NAFTA again ties back to the port at Laredo and 59 is a major route.

We appreciate the opportunity to be here today and we know that you feel that this is a very, very important topic. I want to commend Representative Hawley. I think jump start is exactly what this group wishes you to recognize and help us do. From Live Oak County I would like to recognize our county attorney Mr. Rob Schneider. And we had some other people that had some commitments but I think there may be some outside or somebody in here that I haven't recognized from Live Oak County.

Live Oak County has supported this project, gentlemen, and whatever we need to do to help you make it work please let us know. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE HAWLEY: Again, our hostess Victoria County Judge Helen Walker.

JUDGE WALKER: Gentlemen, again thank you for being here. Thank you for listening to us. I'm not going to talk anymore about the merits of the project. I'm going to say that Victoria County and the entire region has a history if you will look back through the Commission to help the Commission at times with extra funding from local funds, with working with you to try to obtain additional federal funds and we will continue -- we pledge to continue to do that.

I would like to recognize from Victoria first the Commissioners Court. I think all four members are here. If you all will stand. These are the guys that make it possible for me to run around to those places as Mr. Nichols alluded to. I did serve in a statewide position this past year. So if my commissioners will stand, please. Okay. Stay standing. If, please, all of the members and management of the City of Victoria and the members of the City Council please if you will stand. These are the people that we work with day-to-day who we appreciate totally. And then all of the rest of Victoria delegation. Everybody from Victoria will you please stand up so we can see who all you are. And thank you all for being here. And before I sit down I want to introduce one more person that hasn't been introduced, one of the great district engineers from the past, Mr. Carl Ramert. Thank you for being here. And thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE HAWLEY: Thank you, Judge Walker. And finally from Webb County Judge Mercurio Martinez, Jr.

JUDGE MERCURIO MARTINEZ: Thank you very much, Representative Hawley. Chairman Laney, Commissioners Nichols and Cuellar. Before I do that I would like to recognize my own county commissioner, Commissioner Jorge de la Garza representing the County of Webb. Representative Henry Cuellar was scheduled to be here. He was supposed fly in but I understand fog was a problem and because of that he was not able to be

here.

Judge Jimmy Martinez asked you to visualize. I would like to also ask you to visualize five lanes of 18-wheelers bumper to bumper. That is the total number of 18-wheelers that use Highway 59, the proposed Interstate 69 from the border in Mexico, Laredo all the way up to the border in Canada.

That is a volume of 18-wheelers that use I-69 and that's why it is extremely important that we actually address this one major issue. It is incredible this volume continues to increase. It is expected to actually double by the year 2020 as I'm sure you know that, Chairman Laney. So that is why we need to address that and the sooner that we can the better it is. And that's the one area that I just want to emphasize.

And before I actually leave this podium I think there -- I know that there was a great number of individuals involved in this particular meeting but there are two great and lovely ladies that have actually have taken the bull by the horn on this one study in this one area and that is our county judge from Victoria County, Judge Helen Walker and our State Representative Judy Hawley. Let's give them a hand.

(Applause)

REPRESENTATIVE HAWLEY: Thank you very much to all of the delegations who are here today. In summary, thank you, thank you for being here. Thank you for your attentive and thoughtful consideration. I think you got the gist of what we are talking about. (Laughter) The consensus that they had come up with collectively is the first phase they would like to fund is Segment A, and the second area for implementation would be Segment B and then the third would be Segment E which would be the Laredo to Freer and then the fourth would be the Beeville to George West and then the fifth would be George West to Freer.

Special emphasis on these two areas on relief routes but as far as the connect-the-dot this is the way that they decided it was best, most efficacious and for both safety and trade needs to implement the development of this particular highway.

So I hope this is beneficial to you. That was our goal to give you as much collective information as we could gather to assist you in your decisionmaking as you go around helping to allocate our very, very limited resources. We appreciate you being here. Please give us all the help you can in jump starting 59. Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Thank you, Representative Hawley and Judge Walker. My compliments on the presentation. And like I said at the outset, it is a whole lot easier to say no or to postpone or defer any kind of action or movement on a particular project when you don't have your act together as effectively as you all do. So you make it difficult (laughter) and I guess that's what you are supposed to do, you do a doggone good job of it.

My compliments on all of the effort that has gone into this and particularly on the one piece that is probably the most difficult. I know it is trying for you all to try to decide how to prioritize segments within a lengthy piece of highway like that. And there are lots of people that feel like theirs ought to be first. So for having gone through that process and having come out with a prioritization and recommended it to the Commission my hats off to you. That is a difficult process and a heck of a result. So we appreciate it very much. It helps move us forward a lot more quickly on this thing.

As most of you know we don't make decisions from the dais in one of these meetings but you have given us a lot to gnaw on and a lot to focus on as we look for the best opportunities to most effectively allocate state dollars, your dollars, in connection with transportation projects throughout the state and there is an enormous amount of commending this project and I think you have got our attention in a way you never had it before. With that I would like to see if Commissioner Nichols has anything he would like to add.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. I also would like to commend you. One of the things that we see in some cases in areas of the state where communities feel like they are competing with other communities and they end up with kind of a tug of war none of which is beneficial to the state as a whole and from where we sit we have got to look at the things that are best overall.

And any time that you can have a regional approach and work in a very cooperative spirit like that it not only helps the project but I think it helps the entire state and it's very good and the -- I also want to mention that there is several different types of funding categories which anybody who's read the -- I know Judy has -- there's about thirty-three funding categories. And there -- one of these categories that was mentioned earlier is this happens to be on the trunk system and there is a meeting on February 12 to study just one small portion which could be a major portion in the formula not to select individual projects but to look at the concept of modifying the formula currently since in that category there's not been enough money to actually build a corridor anywhere, the formula typically it's segments. And segments around the state compete for volume and other types of cost effectiveness and conceptually the Department is considering the concept of looking at corridors in that formula and I think it would be very good that way we could line up the dots as y'all put it and it would be a consideration that once a corridor is identified using the possibility of multiple year funding year after year hammering that corridor and it might be a meeting that some of you elected officials either state, county or city if you want to make comments in those regards I'm sure the district engineer has the information or Sally or any of us or Bob Cuellar or anybody can get that information to you.

But it's not to pick particular projects but to look at those formulas but it feeds on exactly the types of things y'all are talking about the corridor concept. So with that in mind I want to compliment you on the presentation.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: In the two-and-a-half years or three years whatever it is that I have been on the Commission there have been only a couple of areas in the state that we have seen the consensus of more than one or two counties. And for y'all to have pulled together seven counties and gone through this process of prioritizing is very impressive. And I think although this doesn't serve you any great -- in fact, it may be a disservice to you because you all provide a model for much of the rest of the state if they would ever begin to do the process as effectively as you all have then you would have more competition for stuff like this (laughter) so you want to keep it a secret.

(Laughter)

CHAIRMAN LANEY: But again, it is a terrific job and I know it has been an enormous effort and an enormous amount of time for many people who have jobs and livelihoods other than transportation projects. So thank you very much. I appreciate it. Terrific presentation. We will be back to you.

We will now have a report from our Yoakum District and I would like to call on our district engineer who we understand is much older today than he was yesterday (laughter) to present this report. Mike Behrens. Mike?

Oh, excuse me, Mike. If I can interrupt

for a second. We have received -- pardon the interruption -- a message for a Melissa Larson. And the call note is up here if you would like to come pick it up from Mr. Cuellar. From your office apparently.

REPRESENTATIVE HAWLEY: May they be excused if they are not --

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Absolutely. If anyone needs to pick up and move on feel free to do so.

MIKE BEHRENS: Chairman Laney and Commissioner Nichols and Mr. Cuellar, it is a pleasure to give you a report from the Yoakum District. As you can see we are in the coastal bend of Texas with our eleven counties. As was mentioned earlier by some of our elected officials we have petrochemicals, we have oil and gas, we have gravel deposits in the district and of course we have the agricultural, the ranching and the farming.

Some of our major highways of course we have Interstate 10 that traverses between Houston and San Antonio, U.S. 290, State Highway 71, major routes between Houston and Austin. We have State Highway 36 in Austin County, a highway that we are going to have to be looking at to address to give those folks some additional capacity and some relief routes in those areas. We have U.S. 77, U.S. 183, U.S. 87, of course U.S. 59 and also State Highway 35. Some of those we will be talking about in a little bit.

For instance, State 35 which goes from the Bay City area toward Angleton we have completed two projects from Bay City to Van Vleck under a demonstration project program. We have two remaining projects from Van Vleck to the Houston District line that we will be starting hopefully next year and that will complete a four-lane divided facility in that area.

Coming over here to the Victoria area we spoke about and Representative Holzheauser spoke about U.S. 87 and we also have a demonstration project that goes from Cuero to Port Lavaca. We will be letting a project next week between Nursery and Thomaston which will be the first leg of that project.

Next year we will be letting the first leg from Victoria down toward Port Lavaca. This project totals about $51 million and, like I said, it is a demonstration project. A much-needed project.

Under the hurricane evacuation route funding and that program north of Victoria on U.S. 77 we are going to have a project that over a period of about five or six years will get us that 19.6 miles and spend that $29 million to provide a hurricane evacuation route north of Victoria.

Right now Victoria on our north loop we have these two projects currently under construction. They hopefully sometime as we get into the summer of '99 we will be hopefully closer to completion. The much needed project will give us another river crossing here in the Victoria area. At the current time we just have one river crossing to get across.

And when we look at 463 back in the

late '60s traffic projections were made for 1990 and as you can see they are around the 3,000 that's the numbers in blue. Our actual traffic count in 1990 on the segment from 87 over here to 59 that are open was 8,000 and then you see about 5,000. And then of course above that in the green you see we have actually in our last count that we have taken in '96 about 11,000 throughout that route.

We also just found out that the projections for the year 2005 for this stretch is going to be about 25,000 cars per day. And of course as this project that we are working on right now gets finished we are going to see more traffic coming over this direction where a lot of the business activity is in Victoria.

Again, when we look at 463 we currently -- of course we have a funded project between 77 and 87 to build some frontage roads. That's the only one that we have funded. This is going to be a critical need when we get about 25,000 cars a day we are going to need an interchange at 77, an interchange at 87 and of course the four lanes connecting those two. That's about an $18 million price tag on that project.

Then we are going to be looking to put four lanes over to 59 and then of course eventually put four lanes side by side on what we are building right now and that's about another $28 million price tag. This section of 59 here at the bottom is a two-lane section. We do have that project funded and we will be developing that shortly. But eventually we are going to need four-lane divided around Victoria and have appropriate grade separations at the major intersections.

We talk about railroad crossings and I'm going to back up to that previous slide and show you that we have a proposed underpass we are looking at right there in that green area. The railroad comes into Victoria paralleling U.S. 87 and then it goes out 87 and goes out 185 and then goes out 59 to a coal plant. Everything goes across that crossing on Navarro Street.

If you picked up The Victoria Advocate this morning you will read that that crossing was blocked yesterday for about 45 minutes, an ambulance couldn't get across that crossing to get to the hospital. All of the hospitals are on the other side, on this side of Victoria. So when a train comes through it's a major blockage. Right now with Union Pacific and things going with their merger happened the past years there's a lot of trains that come through Victoria and there's probably going to be a lot more. So this is going to be a major thing we are going to look at. We are working and partnering with the City of Victoria where hopefully we can put something toward that project and make that become a reality.

This train crossing down below Victoria about 14 miles is a little community of Bloomington but along this route State Highway 185 goes to the petrochemical plants and a lot of times there's a string of cars that are backed up for a long time because there's a switching yard just to -- behind or to the left of that engine and they are constantly going back and forth all day across that crossing and it can cause some major bottlenecks there.

So we recently had a strong request to look at this crossing and see if we can kind of eliminate that. It will probably take the relief route around Bloomington to get to a place where we can build it and get out of this built-up area.

This is a hurdle. Just as the previous delegation is talking we have a set of plans ready, we have about five parcels of right-of-way left to buy, some utility adjustments. We think these will clear by this fall and this would be the first hurdle we could jump that we could get some funding for this 6.4 miles at $11 million. But we are just about ready to go.

Here again we have a grade separation. I took Commissioner Nichols through that last night and it is narrow, it doesn't have a good vertical clearance, it causes problems when a truck gets hung up in there if there's some accidents. And we would like to -- this is a similar one we used to have in Yoakum but fortunately in Yoakum we have one now that we are finishing up on and we have been able to get adequate clearances and of course the one back in Cuero we would like to have an overpass.

It is difficult though for us to rank in the programming for grade separations at railroad crossings. In the twenty-seven years I have been working we have funded two in the Yoakum District and now we are talking about possibly a Cuero, here in Victoria, down in Bloomington and I hope it doesn't take another twenty-seven years to get three more.

We also have narrow bridges. As Commissioner Nichols alluded to earlier we have about 400 in our district that still do not meet the standards that we would like them to meet. We have the farm roads and the state highways and we constantly are trying to rehabilitate by contract with our own state forces with -- I think in the last three years just with our own state forces we have done about 40 miles of reconstruction in the farm to market roads and state highways. So there is that need out there.

Roads without shoulders. You heard that from the previous delegation and even on U.S. 59 toward Laredo we have about 200 miles of U.S. and state highways remaining in our district that do not have shoulders. Research has shown us that you can eliminate the runoff, the road accidents and some of the head-on collisions by as much as 25 to 40 percent if you have shoulders on the roadway. And another benefit of this is if we have a shoulder on a roadway when we can beef it up to that outside wheel pad you can decrease the deflections by 40 percent and keep us from going out there and doing what we refer to as quarter point work. In other words, where we have that dropoff and creating the trough out there. So that's another benefit of shoulders.

Representative Seaman spoke of our Lavaca Bay Causeway. It is a 2 mile causeway down in Port Lavaca -- between Port Lavaca and Point Comfort. We have had some footings which are cast on top of pilings driven into the Bay that have deteriorated and several bents. We have fixed thirteen bents so far since about 1984. We have crackings in tie beams, we have crackings in tongs. There's 194 bents in this causeway. We have, for instance, we have done some massive things where we have encapsulated some of those old footings and those columns. And you can imagine doing 100 or so of those things out there.

That's why we think it may be appropriate to look and to see if we can acquire that $70 million to build us a new causeway down there to eliminate just doing it piecemeal at a time and possibly spend a lot more than that.

I have to show you our swing bridge locations. There's three swing bridge locations in the state. There's one in the Houston District and we have two in our District, in Matagorda and Sargent. This is a bridge and just fixing to begin to open you have an apron that lift up and then it swings out of the way. It is basically a floating barge and then of course it's all the way open and then the barges pass through on the intracoastal canal.

We do have a consultant retained to look at this Matagorda location to see if we can put a bridge in to eliminate this facility. And both of these facilities they cost us about $700,000.00 a year because they are manned 7 days a week, 24 hours a day and then of course with the mechanical aspects of it there is some high maintenance on these facilities. So those are looking --

I might add that in the Houston District down in Shreveport they are going to put a bridge structure over your coastal area. I think y'all have maybe approved that previously or talked to the administration.

When we talk about corridors and things like that around the state there's many of them just like there's many wild flowers and there are all important, they are important for the people that pass through the state, our visitors and the commerce and the trade.

But we also, we have a few little projects out there. A few by themselves that are important like Steve Holzheauser said to the local folks. And I would like to say that those projects are important to us because our families use them, our neighbors use them and our friends use them and hopefully we continue -- can continue to address those projects.

And I thank you very much for your attention.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Thank you, Mike. You and your staff in the Yoakum District make the boys in TxDOT very proud. You know if there's a way we can get the funding or stretch the funding or maneuver the funding to take care of your projects we will do it. These are deserving projects and it's always disturbing to see those roads with no shoulders or hear of the railroad crossing that divides the city in half or stops an ambulance from getting to a hospital or to see a grade separation as narrow and as low as the two you showed.

We want to do more and I think we are going to be able to if we stay the course in terms of working with Washington. I think we will be able to do more and I sure hope we will. We won't be able to get to all of those flowers (laughter) but the few flowers that you point out and we prioritize them, the most important ones I think one way or the other we are going to figure out how to get there.

I would like to thank all of you for taking the time to come here and appreciate all of the comments and the presentations. There are a lot more important needs in this area than we have time to go through in detail and there are a lot more projects than we will ever have money to fund. But, again, I think we will find that we can do more than anybody suspects with the kind of capabilities we have in TxDOT.

Let's now proceed with our regular meeting. And the first item is the approval -- on our agenda the first item is the approval of the minutes of Commission meetings of December 15, December 18 and December 30, 1997. Any comments or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept them as written.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: There's a motion. I second the motion. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, Item 2 on the

agenda is Promulgation of Rules and Regulations.

First on the items would be Item 2 a. proposed rules that Interim Executive Director for Transportation Planning and Development -- Interim Deputy Executive Director for Transportation and Planning Development

Mr. Al Luedecke will be talking about Chapter 9 - Contract Management.

MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you. The minute order you have before you proposes amendments to Sections 9.30 through 9.33, Section 9.37 through 9.39 and Section 9.41 through 9.43 pertaining to contracting for professional services for architects, engineers and surveyors. Senate Bill 626 of the 75th Legislature amended Government Code Chapter 2254 Subchapter A, the Professional Services Procurement Act by adding surveyors to the two-step contracting process. These proposed amendments add surveyors to our process in accordance with the legislation. It also clarifies professional experience gained in any state can be used in order to become pre-certified. It also removes some of the procedures not currently used as part of the newly implemented pre-certification process.

The amendments also update the advertising process, require advertising projects on the Internet and in newspapers in the district where the project is located and removes the requirement to advertise projects in the Texas Register. These proposed rules have been developed with industry coordination and they will be published in the Texas Register and an open comment period will be provided. All comments will be addressed and final rules could be brought to you possibly in April or May. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Thanks, Al. Any comments or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. I actually have quite a few on this. First of all, I understand this is a proposed rules as going out as opposed to the final adoption and that the primary thing here is to add surveyors which is really legislatively required.

Let me say this entire area of privatizing in the engineering and surveying and things of that nature I think has been a good tool for the Department because it certainly lends a lot of additional hands to a large task. Us being new in it I'm hoping that we will have as time evolves an opportunity to refine it more and more. I have concerns in this whole area with regards to the privatization without competition.

Our rules specifically in a different area of the Legislature prohibit us from getting competitive pricing and I think competitive pricing is probably one of the greatest things in the free market system that helps drive efficiencies for processing. And with that in mind I certainly want us to work toward opportunities whenever possible with the consulting engineering association and the surveyors to work in that direction.

Specifically, on Page 2 of 60, Line 17 to 19 there's a section that says, "Provider services to achieve a balance between the use of Department employees and the use of private contractors provided the costs are equivalent." This section was -- or this was in the existing rules and the new legislative rules that passed they removed that but they did not prohibit as I understand it according to our legal people us from having this in there. And my inclination is for the staff to consider leaving that in there as opposed to removing it as it goes to the public hearing process.

The second has to do with the elimination of dropping these rules out to the public in the Texas Register. I hope that we get some positive feedback into eliminating that. Historically we have always done that so it has been at one consistent place people knew they could look. This proposes to drop that and as I understand it the rules do include other more efficient ways to communicate and I hope that that works but I have a concern about it just from a consistency standpoint.

On Page 8 of 60, Line 17 through 20. One

portion of our rules say that state funded architectural contracts are based on a percentage

of construction costs as provided in the general appropriation act. We are adding a section that

says "Federally funded contracts are not based on a position of percentage of construction cost." And I

don't really quite understand the difference. I

don't know if there's a federal mandate that requires that.

MR. LUEDECKE: That is the requirement that -- the federal requirement is that it cannot be a fixed fee.

MR. NICHOLS: Do they have a basis for that that we might consider looking at?

MR. LUEDECKE: We can certainly look into it. Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. CUELLAR: I believe pretty much is the general direction on the federal guidance is that when you are getting professional services there should not be a strict guidance that a certain percentage of the construction cost should be the professional service cost. And I believe what we are getting at with these rules are is there is state guidance that says on state contracts it must be a certain percentage on architectural work. It must be.

So I think the way it is worded now it makes it clear that, yes, we will follow the state guidance on state contracts but all other instances it is up for negotiation based on qualifications and it will not be addressed as a percentage of the construction cost.

MR. NICHOLS: On Page -- okay, on Page 16 of 60, Lines 9 through 13 that's the addition of Section D. I have read this several times and I've actually quizzed some people on it. I was a little confused. This is a section we were adding when we get into multiple contracts. It says "The number of contract -- if the number of contracts is greater than the number of prime providers that fall within a certain qualification range then the prime provider will be selected on a random basis for excess contracts none of which will receive any more than one or the other." And that is a simple in effect lottery on who gets a contract trying to make sure everybody gets one as opposed to trying to actually select the best person for the job and has nothing to do with cost whatsoever regardless of what the cost are and also it really doesn't separate the large contracts from the small contracts.

You can very well have one contract for $10,000.00 and a second contract for $5 million and those are still just one unit and they are equally spread out. So I would think there should be some consideration in looking at the total dollar signs if we are trying to spread the business out over as many contractors as possible to take a look at the physical or dollar size of those contracts to see if there might be an equitable way to get parity. If I was -- anyway.

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioner Nichols, if I could on that point. We definitely will have to work on the wording for that because if it gives the inference that everybody gets put into a hopper that certainly, we did not write that very well. This section is to address what we refer to as evergreen contracts. That's where you do have indeed a district has a multitude of similar type projects. So if a district wishes to over a year say they know they are going to have several miles of farm to market road they need to rehabilitate all similar type descriptions, similar type work volume and so they want to at one time say, "I can't tell you exactly right now consulting community how many consultants I need or on what projects but I would like to advertise all of them at one time." We can have what's referred to here as these multiple advertisements. We do prohibit them, we check it. We will not allow a major interchange say a $20 million project to be described in there at the same time that we are letting out some smaller $2 million type projects. So if that's not clear in here we definitely have to get it written out that we are not having that kind of a mixed description of different projects.

But it is trying to get to evergreen-type situations to speed up the process. The cost is in both instances as you pointed out, is not addressed in the consultant in this selection process. It is a two-step process that professional service is required by -- this is qualifications-based, then you get into negotiating the price and we will need to point that out clearer in here also that if we cannot negotiate a reasonable cost that does not mean that we are going to have to still put under contract the consultant that was sought as best qualified. We will take your comments and your direction, we will do a better job of describing what's in this before they come back to the Commission.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks. On Page 17 of 60 --

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Robert, if I can interrupt just and ask Mr. Cuellar a little bit more about that. If you have a long segment of farm to market for instance divided into multiple projects for rehab or whatever what is the theory -- let me just ask it this way. If it is advertising multiple projects and ultimately awarded to rather than five different bidders, one or two different bidders to receive multiple projects on that segment isn't there at least some likelihood, and I ask the question without knowing the answer, that a particular contractor who will mobilize and work on two or three or four or more segments with that kind of volume of activity on a particular corridor bid lower than multiple contractors divided where they only get one piece of the project?

MR. CUELLAR: That is correct. If it were a one continuous segment of roadway that can be for this consulting engineering services it could be divided into different pieces and the district engineer felt that all of those pieces were pretty much going to be let to construction at one time. I believe that he or she would indeed do all of the design work at one time because there is an efficiency there as you mentioned. Where these evergreen multiple contracts tend to come into play more are when you have as we referred to as you act on them sometimes refer to as bank balance type projects where the district engineer may not know exactly what projects he's going to be doing an all system bridges or on rehabilitation-type projects they tend to be lower dollar type projects they just know that you are going to in August give them a certain amount of money, you are going to tell them "Go forward and make sure you get the right number of projects done." It leaves the district engineer in a position to where once you give them the dollar amount they will have consultants lined up and they can tell the consultants "I'm about to tell you in a few months what projects I want you to work on." But, yes, I think any time the district engineer can do the design work in one large increment that they will indeed design the entire project at that one time.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Or is that only because and I will leave it with you all, that they want this requirement of random allocation of excess contracts and no prime provider receiving more than one contract? Let's make sure we don't limit ourselves in a way that adds costs.

MR. CUELLAR: Yes, sir. The randomness part is indeed because as the law states we are required to select the most qualified consultant help. In order for us to indicate that all of these are the most qualified consultant we wound up in a situation where we say if they go across a certain criteria line they are all equally suited to do the work for us.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Which means we could select one if we wanted to.

MR. CUELLAR: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: On one of the points, Chairman, you were commenting on the possibility if you had multiples going to multiples versus one bidding on a group the word bids is something I kind of keyed in on that unlike most things that we privatize and go out with such as construction contracts and maintenance contracts and things of that nature we are specifically prohibited from bidding out these. So none of these are bid out, they are negotiated.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: And I would like to see the Department work toward in conjunction working with the two professional engineering societies to try to come up with a system even in a two-tier process to work toward some way where we can get more competitive pricing because obviously some groups are a little hungrier than others and some have a tendency to run a little more efficiency -- efficient than others, some get overloaded and that affects the value of a particular job or one particular firm. And it is our obligation as a state agency to try to always get the best price for the state.

The last piece which is just really more of a question on Page 17, Line 3, the addition of registered landscape architects. I know we were adding surveyors but the latest legislation as I understood it did not add landscape architects. I know the original one added architects. I'm not really sure if architects meant building architects or landscape architects. My comment there is unless landscape architects are specifically required I would suggest that we not have them. And I guess my final comment on this --

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Let me stop you there. Are they specifically required?

MR. LUEDECKE: They are under the same board and they are considered a professional -- there is a registered landscape architect and it wasn't the original legislation that came through. These aren't being added at this point these are put in here for clarification of what's already existing. Where they appear in here where we are talking about the list of things that apply we have added the landscape architects in as clarity.

MR. NICHOLS: And really all I'm saying is if we are specifically required to add landscape architects, fine. If we are not I think put on what is necessary.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: What I hear you saying, Al, is that they are already on.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: This is just -- do they know they are already subject to this?

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: They have operated that way?

MR. LUEDECKE: We in the past have not let that many landscape jobs because until recently never got into it. But they are in that same control group.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: But when we have it has been on this biggest one.

MR. NICHOLS: Really kind of the last thing I have on this and then I will make a motion I guess.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Okay.

MR. NICHOLS: Is to -- this whole area of our business is growing. It has gone from 10 or 20 million in a year ten years ago or so to a couple hundred million in this biennium and I know that previously in the '80s we had an outside accounting firm I think it was Peat, Marwick & Mitchell, I'm not positive, came and did a study to compare the cost effectiveness for the Department of inside engineering versus privatizing that sector and outside costs and that causes significance of the volume and the recent increase in volume. I would like to see us have them update that study and I would also like to make sure that both engineering societies have an opportunity to participate on comments and reviews and assumptions as Peat, Marwick & Mitchell or whatever that firm was that made that study so they can review it and make sure that fundamentally they are doing it correctly.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I think we may already be heading down that road. Cassie, we have an RFP in the works in that regard, don't we? With effective project costing?

MS. REED: Mr. Chairman, we have a request for proposal being drafted to look at activity-based costing for all of our operations including the design function to see if our costing in terms of our internal cost is as detailed and accurate as it can be in terms of comparing it to the private sector. That's in the draft stages now. All of the -- right now there are eight state agencies under a separate pilot program and we are drafting a request for proposal for us to look at our own shops now. TxDOT.

MR. NICHOLS: This is for all the categories?

MRS. REED: Well, it is for all but we are going to have emphasis in terms of the design category. So that request for proposal is being worked on by staff right now. I hope to get it around mid February and certainly share it with the Commissioners and we will proceed from there.

MR. NICHOLS: When you get to that point I would certainly like to look at it.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Please identify yourself for the record.

MRS. REED: Cassie Carlson Reed, Deputy Executive Director, Administrative Services TxDOT.

MR. NICHOLS: With that I move that it be accepted.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Do you want any changes made in the proposed --

MR. NICHOLS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Okay. The changes you mentioned. Okay. With respect to registered landscaped architects it sounds to me like they ought to stay in but if they have been in historically and this is just an articulation of fact.

MR. NICHOLS: If it is a fact then it is what is required then that's certainly fine with me. That was really more of a question on that.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Go ahead and make your motion.

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept these rules for publishing for public hearings with the noted exceptions.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: With the exceptions that you have made.

MR. CUELLAR: With the primary exception that I recall being that on Page 2 of 60 we would like to keep the essence of that phrase in there that acknowledgment that there be a cost equivalency.

MR. NICHOLS: Yeah. That removed it. I would like to see them remain as they existed.

MR. CUELLAR: That's what I understood you saying.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: And what about on Page 16 of 60?

MR. NICHOLS: 8 of 60 the Internet. 16 of 60 I would like to see y'all take a shot at rewording that. I think it definitely needs some clarification there.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I think that's it.

MR. NICHOLS: And that's it.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I second the motion. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye. Thanks.

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, the next agenda item under proposed rule making is on Chapter 17 - Vehicle Titles and Registration. Assistant Executive Director for Motor Services, Jim Bisson will present those items, three minute orders for your consideration.

JIM BISSON: The first minute order proposes the adoption of amendments to Section 17.21 and 17.23. 17.21 adds the definition of border commercial zone. And basically what it has done is expanded what has been traditionally known as the paired-cities understanding, that geographic area to comply with border commercial zones as defined in the federal law which is contiguous to the border of Mexico.

17.23 is amended to provide that Mexican trucks that operate in the border commercial zones are exempt from Texas registration if it is registered in Mexico and is engaged solely in cross border cargo transport and remains in Texas for not more than 24 or 48 hours depending on the circumstances.

Those -- really, there's not much change from what we have known in the past. Those vehicles still have to comply with the financial responsibility, safety and weight requirements. I do recommend adoption of the proposed minute order.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Have you included Jacksonville, Texas in this cross -- (laughter)

JIM BISSON: No, sir. It doesn't quite qualify.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I move.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: And I second. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

JIM BISSON: The second minute order has to do with disabled person license plates and identification placards. The proposed -- the minute order proposes adoption of the amendments to Section 24 concerning disabled person license plates and placards in response to House Bills 580 and 685 that passed during the last legislative session.

Specifically, the rules require that more than one set of disabled person license plates be issued to a vehicle owned or operated by a disabled person if the vehicle is specifically equipped to be operated by a person who has lost the use of one or both legs.

Additionally, it amends the expiration period from five to four years. The rules require placards to add a hologram, the applicant's driver's license or personal identification number and allows a military person to use an out of state driver's license.

The rules also tighten up the acceptable evidence of disability and procedures for obtaining the disabled person placards and plates. And, finally, the rules clarify that a disabled person is not exempt from payment of parking fees if the vehicle is parked within a municipal airport. All of these changes are in compliance with the two bills that I alluded to earlier and I do recommend adoption of this minute order also.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I move we adopt.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I second. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

JIM BISSON: The next minute order has to do with exempt vehicles and alias vehicle registration. The minute order proposes amendments to Section 17.15 concerning exempted alias vehicle registration specifically in response to Senate Bill 557 which passed during the last session of the legislature.

Specifically the rules require an agency to have their name painted on the side of the vehicle. Such agency name may be within an emblem provided the emblem is 100 square inches and is easily seen from the distance of 100 feet -- 100 feet. And then the exemption generally applies to vehicles dedicated to the exemption program requirement by its deputies and generally applies to vehicles of dedicated law enforcement activities and requires a copy of the ordinance from the governing body that says those vehicles are safe.

Again, in compliance with Senate Bill 557 recommend adoption of this minute order item.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I second it. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, next on the agenda is Item 2 a.(3) which deals with Chapter 18 of Motor Carriers Act again presented by Mr. Bisson.

JIM BISSON: This minute order proposes changes to Chapter 18 concerning motor carrier registration and vehicle storage facilities and to comply with House Bills 1025 and 2202 and Senate Bill 370 all which passed during the last session of the Legislature. Specifically Section 18.2 amends the definition of tow truck to clarify that tow trucks include only those commercial operations that may compete with traditional wrecker operations and lift vehicles which are not considered to be tow trucks.

Section 18.82 provides the definition of person and empowerment and deletes the term preservation.

Section 18.84 clarifies notification procedures for vehicle storage facility, license renewal and provides standards for license approval.

Section 18.93 relates to authorized charges that a vehicle storage facility may charge. Section 18.95 -- or correction, 18.94 provides sanctions. These are legislative sanctions. And then Section 18.96 provides procedures for disposal of the motor vehicles that are not claimed by the registered owner or lienholder from the vehicle storage facility after it has been towed to the vehicle storage facility.

I recommend adoption of this proposed minute order also.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions. I so move.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I second it. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

MR. CUELLAR: Continue with the agenda, Item 2 b. presents final adoption proposals and the next -- first on the items would be Chapter 18 issues dealing with motor carriers and various components dealing with general provisions, registration, inspections, consumer protection and enforcement. That will be presented by Mr. Jim Bisson.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Jim, before you start.

JIM BISSON: Yes.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Let me point out that you are so far batting 1,000. (Laughter).

JIM BISSON: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Are you sure you want to step up to the plate on this one?

JIM BISSON: I think I do now. I believe all the people who had requested to testify have since decided not to testify. I will take a shot. (Laughter).

This minute order proposes final adoption of the amendments to Chapter 8, Subchapters A, B, C, E and F concerning household goods motor carriers and to implement related legislative changes as directed in Senate Bill 370 and 1486 and House Bill 1418 all three which passed during the last session of the legislature.

In its August '97 meeting the Commission adopted the proposed rules on an emergency basis effective September 1, 1997. The Commission extended the emergency rules in its December '97 meeting and the emergency rules will expire 17th of February this year.

The rules were proposed and adopted by the Commission in its September 7 -- September '97 meeting, the amendments were published in the October 17, 1997 issue of the Texas Register. A public hearing was held on February 12. Six written and eleven verbal comments received -- were received by the Department as a result of the filing of these rules.

As a result of the comments Section 18.2 was revised so that the definition of a household goods carrier bears the federal definition. Section 18.3, Sub F was revised to clarify that Type B household goods carriers must pay the $100.00 application fee.

Section 18.13(f)(3) was revised to provide for additional forms of proof of financial responsibility, Section 18.16(e)(5) was revised to clarify TxDOT's intentions regarding qualified beneficiaries, it's more specific as who the beneficiaries are.

Section 18.16(e)(5)(ii) was revised to incorporate time limitations which are currently in another section of the rules relative to the claims that are filed and the suits may take place.

Section 18.54(c)(2)(S) was revised to require conspicuous notice of the Type B household goods carriers limitations of liability for the loss or damage. And finally Section 18.61(a) was revised to require Type B household goods carriers to file their first operating report May 15, 1999 and then every subsequent year on the 15th of May.

And I know the Commission has had several letters regarding the concerns that the Type B carrier has relative to these rules. There were several Type B carriers here earlier. I think they still have some problems with the rules and I don't want to speak for them but I believe they are willing to let the Household Goods Advisory Committee do its duty after these rules are adopted. And I do recommend adoption of the minute order.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Let me quiz you on that one for a second. Is your assumption that they are willing to run with these rules in their current form and assume that the committee will reshape them in a way that's more minimal to both the A's and B's side of this equation or is their position more comfortably that they don't go forward with these rules and we turn to the committee and say "Give us guidance."?

JIM BISSON: I believe they are comfortable with the Commission adopting these rules as they exist today and let the committee do its work. A member of the Household Goods Advisory Committee was here. His is a Type B carrier and I believe that at this point as opposed to not having any rules that I think the concern was did the Commission hear what they said in their letters and does the Household Goods Committee have clout? And I assured them that the letters were reviewed and that I believe the Commission -- the committee will have clout with the Commission in terms of making recommendations that will in fact bring the parties closer together into more consensus. And I don't believe really they are that far apart even now.

MR. NICHOLS: I know that once rules are in place it is so much more difficult to come back and change a rule. Although it happens on a routine basis it is more difficult to come back and make changes and it is so much more important to have the rules to consider all of the factors the first time around. And the legislation specifically set up the advisory board and they were assigned the task to suggest ways to help streamline this and stuff. As of this point they have not come to a conclusion and made a suggestion or recommendation to that point.

As I understood from talking to some of our legal people yesterday we have until -- using our due process until April 17. As long as we adopt these rules before April 17 we do not have to go back and restart the process. And that would allow if we

move -- defer this until our March meeting that would give that advisory committee roughly 60 days to come to some type of conclusion. Now I know some of these things take months and months and months to do but these are all business people and business people can get their heads together very quickly when they are on a serious subject when it affects their business. And they do have a meeting in a couple of weeks?

JIM BISSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And I would feel -- I did receive a series of letters from elected officials and business people who were quite concerned about our adopting these rules without hearing from that committee. And we had a conversation about this yesterday and I understood, you know, your feelings on it. But I personally would like to see us -- I don't think it will make that much difference to go for 30 days or six weeks or 60 days without rules because we never even had these rules until September.

So I would propose that we defer this until the March meeting and instruct our staff to really encourage that advisory committee to come to some type of consensus on recommendations. And it may be exactly this but I would certainly hate for us to adopt these without hearing from them.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Are we square with our legal folks on the April 17 date? Why don't you step forward and identify yourself.

JENNIFER SOLDANO: As far as the proposed

rules --

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Why don't you step over there and identify yourself first.

JENNIFER SOLDANO: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Jennifer Soldano with the Office of General Counsel. The problem being is that the legislation went into effect in September and the legislation asked that we provide rules and so if we go for two months without rules there's a problem with complying with the legislation. We can come back and amend it later. And I understand the problem with our time crunch of getting the outlook of the committee.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I thought when I met with Bob Jackson yesterday they I thought looked it up and said that we had until I think January '99 or something like that in which to adopt these rules.

JIM BISSON: The rules, Commissioners, we -- those are rules based on changes that the Household Goods Committee report would recommend and that Household Goods Committee report is due not later than July '98 then the Department has until not later than January '99 to implement rules regarding the input of the Household Goods Committee.

JENNIFER SOLDANO: To help explain it, the way the legislation seemed written was they wanted us to adopt rules and then the Household Goods Committee's charter was to look at those rules and make changes and make recommendations. But until we have rules the Household Goods Committee really doesn't have something to look at.

JIM BISSON: The Household Goods Committee has really got the charge to look at the rules and see how they can streamline the rules and the processes and then there's a second charge to take a -- to do a study of the feasibility regarding the problem of insurance and then there's some parameters relative to how far they can take that feasibility study in terms of liability of the carrier.

MR. NICHOLS: To say they don't have any rules to study to consider streamlining they can certainly look at the same thing I'm looking at. I'm looking at a set of rules we are proposing to adopt. That committee can look at exactly the same thing. They have been out to public notice. So they certainly have a set of proposed rules that they can study and make recommendations of.

JIM BISSON: I still believe, Commissioner, that the committee is even with guidance from the Commission to speed this process up we only have about six months before their report is due and given the diversity of the mixture of the group I think it's going to -- even if they meet once a month I believe it will take several months to get to a consensus and then bring recommendations to the Commission.

MR. NICHOLS: Those letters I received from some of those businesses seem to be fearing that a lot of them was going to be put out of business and there was this great fear in the industry. I don't know if it is real or if they just are trying to influence me. But I certainly don't think it hurts for us to delay action until our March meeting and get word to these people if it's that serious then y'all need to meet weekly, daily or whatever and get this resolved. And if the members of that committee are not committed enough to that to do that maybe they shouldn't be on that advisory committee because there's probably people in the industry that would be interested to serve in that committee.

JIM BISSON: I believe we have a committed advisory committee and I also know that they are all over the state and they have their own businesses to run. Some of them are the Type B household goods movers. They also are in a non-paid status.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Is there anyone in the audience who represents the Type B constituents that will admit to it? (Laughter) We do need to hear from them.

JENNIFER SOLDANO: I think they are out in the front.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I say that facetiously. If there is anyone who can speak to it.

JIM BISSON: We can check and see if there's somebody outside still.

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, I'm going to suggest unless I hear someone really unusual and different, that we defer this until the March meeting and send notice to these people to --

JIM BISSON: I would like to make one other comment, Commissioner, that the emergency rules expire February 17. There are no rules at that time.

MR. NICHOLS: I understand that.

JIM BISSON: The consumer is not protected and the Type B carrier is not regulated.

MR. NICHOLS: We never even had these rules until September.

JENNIFER SOLDANO: Right. And the way the legislation is worded, the legislation says that the consumer protection will apply to the Type B carriers effective September 1. September 1 is when we put the emergency rules into effect. So at that time we implemented the legislation and the only way to implement this type of legislation is for there to be rules. And when these emergency rules expire in February then there is no consumer protection for customers of Type B carriers. And the legislation said as of September 1 there must be consumer protection for Type B -- for customers of Type B.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: If they expire in February and we proceed to accelerate the process as quickly as we can to go through the ruling and process again what kind of gap are we talking about on a best case -- shortest basis?

JIM BISSON: Six weeks.

JENNIFER SOLDANO: Well, if we fill the proposed, come back in March, that month without rules without the consumer protection.

JIM BISSON: Chairman, I don't think the Household Goods Committee will be able to give you a reasonable report by the March 15 meeting. I think the subject is fairly complex and I think it's going to take more than a couple of weeks to do that even if they -- if they could meet every day then I think,

yes, you could easily get to it. But we are asking

a group of industries not just Type B carriers but

Type A carriers, consumer representatives and they represent -- they don't represent Type B or Type A carriers the public part of that, they represent other company -- they work for other companies. There's nobody independent that can just spend all their time focused on this particular task.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Independent of hearing any recommendation from that committee by our March Commission meeting we can still take action I think. As I hear it from you, Commissioner Nichols, you would rather defer this?

MR. NICHOLS: I would rather defer it.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Well, even if I were for it and I'm not sure that I am, a quick vote won't get us anywhere so why don't we defer this and take no action today.

MR. CUELLAR: Next on the addenda is Item 2 b(2) which deals with Chapter 25 Traffic Operations. It will be presented by the Assistant Executive Director for Field Operations, Mr. Bob Templeton.

BOB TEMPLETON: Good morning, Commissioners. In this section I have three minute orders on Chapter 25 traffic operation to bring to you. The first of those is parenthesis (2) a., it's is the final adoption of a new Section 25.12 concerning procedures for establishing speed zones.

State law requires most speed limits whether it is set by the Commission or county, tollways while you are in a municipality to be determined from the results of an engineering and traffic investigation. The Commission and a municipality when setting a speed limit on state highway system are required to use the Department's procedures for establishing speed zones when conducting an investigation.

In response to an increase in statewide traffic fatalities that occurred in 1996 the Department held 26 speed limit town meetings between April and August of 1997. The purpose of these meetings was to gather public input concerning speed limits on state highway system and on specific speed related problem areas.

Based on those comments and the need to implement the legislation described below it is necessary to incorporate greater flexibility for setting speed limits on public roads where conditions may warrant a lower speed than the maximum allowable under state law.

Transportation Code Section 545.3535 is added by Senate Bill 370 by the 75th Legislature authorizes the County Commissioners Court to request that the Commission to determine to declare a reasonable and safe prima facia speed limit that is lower than the speed limit established by the Transportation Code on any part of a farm to market road or ranch to market road in that county that has a pavement width of 20 feet or less and in these cases the Commission is not required to conduct an engineering and traffic investigation to declare these lower speed limits.

Instead, sound and generally accepted traffic and engineering practices are required to be used. Commissioners are also required to establish rules by minute order 107300 dated October 30, 1997. Proposed amendments were published in a November 14, 1997 issue of the Texas Register and no comments were received. This section is necessary to provide the additional flexibility in establishing speed zones and it is recommended that this minute order be approved.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: These are welcome changes I think.

MR. NICHOLS: I move we adopt.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: And I second. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

BOB TEMPLETON: Next is (2)b involves restricting or concerning municipal restrictions of classes of vehicles to certain lanes on state highways. This minute order adopts new Section 25.601 through 25.603 concerning the authority of the municipality to restrict through traffic by class of vehicles to two designated lanes on highways in the municipality. The new section prescribes procedures and responsibilities that a municipality must comply with in proposing lane restrictions and the Department's responsibility in evaluating and approving the proposal.

Senate Bill 773 passed by the 75th Legislature allows communities to restrict by class of vehicle use of controlled access highways on a state highway system. The highway must have a minimum of three travel lanes excluding access and frontage or frontage roads in each direction of traffic and a municipality may restrict classes of vehicles to two lanes of such highways.

The executive director of the Department or his or her designee may approve the municipality's lane restriction. The Senate bill requires the Department prior to approving the lane restrictions perform a traffic study, evaluate the effect of the proposed restriction and to ensure a systems aproach to preclude the designation of inconsistent lane restrictions among adjacent municipalities.

The Department is also responsible for the cost of erecting and maintaining traffic control devices necessary for the implementation and enforcement of such restriction. Senate Bill 773 finally authorized the Department to suspend or rescind the approval of such lane restrictions based on certain criteria such as changes in pavement or traffic conditions.

These rules were published in Texas Register on authority of minute order 107302 which was approved October 30, 1997. No comments were received and it is recommended to you that this minute order be approved.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Bobbie, do you have any early sense of a level of demand for this kind of --

BOB TEMPLETON: I will be surprised if there's much incidence.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I second. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

JIM BISSON: Paragraph c. is the final adoption of new Section 25.700 to 25.708 concerning the major agricultural interest sign program. This minute order adopts these new sections and it concerns the development of major agricultural interest sign program. This new section describes the procedures and policies of that program. This is a product of Senate Bill 370 also passed by the 75th Legislature which requires the Commission to implement the major agricultural interest sign program by entering into one or more contracts replacement of signs on rural highways to alert the public to the presence of an eligible agricultural entity such as a farm, winery, ranch, nursery or greenhouse. The requesting agricultural interest will pay all of the cost associated with the erection and maintenance of the signs and the Department will receive a small percentage of revenue from that program, 5 percent, to cover the Department's administrative costs. This also requires the Commission to adopt rules.

We published the proposed rules by the authority of minute order 107303 dated October 30 that were duly published in the Texas Register. A public hearing was held on December 2. No comments were received and it is recommended that this minute order be approved.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: May I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I second it. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

MR. CUELLAR: Next is agenda Item 2 b. (3). Chapter 28 - oversize and overweight vehicles and loads. Mr. Jim Bisson.

JIM BISSON: I'm batting 800 at this point I think. I think I will get close to 900 on this one (laughter). This minute order proposes final adoption of new Subchapter G concerning port authority permits. The Commission by minute order 10304 previously proposed these rules in its October '97 meeting. The rules were published in the November 21, 1997 issue of the Texas Register. The public hearing was conducted in Brownsville on December 11, 1997. Fifty-seven verbal written comments were received. As a result of the comments the following revisions have been made.

Section 28.90 was revised to allow for visible cargo to be permitted. Section 28.91 was revised to not require the permits issued by the port be electronically transmitted to TxDOT but to require that the permits be carried in the permitted vehicle and let the port provide a telephone number for verification of the permit by law enforcement or TxDOT personnel.

Also, 28.91 was revised to require TxDOT to provide a 30 day notice of noncompliance prior to revoking the authority to issue the permits.

Section 28.952 was revised to not require the Port of Brownsville to install scales but requires a permit issued by the port. The vehicle must be weighed on scales capable of determining gross weights and individual axle loads and that such scales must be certified by the Texas Department of Agriculture and must be accepted by the United Mexican States. I recommend adoption of the rule.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Are we comfortable with the weighing of these vehicles on the Mexican side?

JIM BISSON: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Any comments? I have a couple comments. I'm in favor of this but just for the record I want to say that I know on our last hearing on this we had port authorities and we talked about knowing the fact that they are going to accept the maintenance cost or rehabilitation cost advantaged to that particular roadway and no one really knows what that cost is going to be because we would not have a continuous overweight traffic on the road system before.

So I want to make sure we are on the record that whatever those costs are when they have a $500,000.00 bond posted if it damages a bridge or overpass or something like that it can get into the cost of several million dollars. They acknowledged that at the last meeting. I want to reemphasize that.

And I also think it would probably be a good idea if we had not already done it to take a very good inventory of that road system so that we have an accurate record of the condition of that roadway and of those bridges for the entire length of that route when we start which may include extra checking or inspecting and possibly even video recording and --

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioner, we have indeed been working with the District, the District Engineer Amadeo Saenz has set up a more intensive monitoring to figure out what the damage is going to be. He's also looked through his records to see what is our traditional maintenance expense.

We would not want to pass on the maintenance expense except for the differentials since we are ready go out there and do some --

JIM BISSON: I visited with the district engineer before we came here and they have a draft contract and he and the clerk will sit down tomorrow and will review. Amadeo does believe the maintenance per year is going to be about $500,000.00 which is about twice what it is today. He is putting in or at least asking to put in weigh-in motion systems not just in a lane but across the entire load bed so that he can track all of the traffic that's there and the weights.

Amadeo did advise me that the port although they can legally issue these permits up to 125,000 pounds is attempting very hard to determine what the Mexican law requires and they have indicated to Amadeo and they did indicate in public testimony that they will not issue permits greater than the Mexican law which we believe is less than 125,000 pounds. So that does work in our favor.

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, I move that we accept this.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Second. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

MR. CUELLAR: Agenda Item (2)b(4) Chapter 29 Maintenance Rules. Mr. Bob Templeton will be presenting those.

BOB TEMPLETON: Commissioners, in this minute order we are dealing with the final adoption of the repeal of Section 29.3 concerning the distribution of roadway materials to counties and simultaneous adoption of a new Section 29.3 concerning local government assistance.

The Transportation Code 201.706 requires the Department to assist counties with materials to repair and maintain county roads. This section also requires the Department to develop rules and procedures to implement this section and to provide for the distribution of that assistance.

These procedures give preference to counties with an above average number of overweight trucks receiving weight tolerance permits as determined by the previous year's permit totals.

Rider 43 to the Department's appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 require the Department to assist counties and cities with the maintenance of city streets and county roads by providing engineering and maintenance expertise on the roadway maintenance and providing available surplus materials to local government when those materials are available.

The Commission by a minute order 17305 adopted proposed rules to repeal and compose a new section and those rules were published in the Texas Register, a public hearing was held on December 5, 1997. We received no oral comments but we did receive one written comment, two comments in fact from Senator Steve Ogden who has an affinity for this measure.

He had concern that the rules did not assure that we would spend the minimum of $6 million a year, $12 million in the biennium and so the rules have been clarified that even if the surplus materials are not available we will offer that much assistance to the cities and counties.

And he was also concerned that the rules could be clarified to indicate that the cities could participate, cooperate with the state in its requisitions and take advantage of the state's economy of scale in its purchases and piggyback on those orders.

Research on that feature discovered that the General Services Commission already has provisions for doing that and it was agreed that in their newsletter they would make that more fully known. So the rules were not changed to address that point. So with the one modification from the written comment the rules are as they were proposed and we are recommending that you adopt these at this time.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: The same. You caught me off guard.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

MR. CUELLAR: That concludes Agenda Item 2. Agenda Item 3 a. with programs. Mr. Al Luedecke will present with the subject of a Williamson County project.

AL LUEDECKE: This particular minute order tenders a proposal for the City of Round Rock for the construction of several turnaround structures on Interstate 35 at FM 1325 and at Hester's Crossing.

The city has agreed to provide preliminary engineering, right-of-way documents, all required right-of-way and utility adjustments for the Hester's Crossing structure and also to provide 50 percent of the cost of construction which is estimated to be $2.75 million.

Williamson County by a previous minute order will be responsible for providing any necessary right-of-way or utility adjustments for the FM 1325 structures. The Department for its part will provide all environmental documentation and let the project and provide 50 percent of the construction costs. The staff recommends your approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Great. I second. You know what project this is?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: We have got a motion and a second. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye. Thank you.

MR. CUELLAR: The next agenda Item 4. It will be presented by Bob Templeton.

BOB TEMPLETON: Behind three and one we have the highway maintenance contracts that were let on January 6 and 7 at an estimated cost of $300,000.00 or more. There were five such projects and we received an average of 4.6 bids per project. The total of these two -- of these five low bids is $2.284 million and that's approximately $334,000.00 under the total engineer's estimates for these projects for 12.76 percent. All of these projects enjoyed a number of competitive bids and I would recommend that all of these be moved to contracts.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Do I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I move.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I second. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

BOB TEMPLETON: Behind Tab 2 we have the building construction contracts let on January 8. There were three of such projects. We received an average of three bids for each the projects. The total estimated cost of the low bids was $4,006,850.00 and that's approximately $677,000.00 over the estimates or 20 percent.

All of these projects are competitively bid and we would like to recommend award of those. I would offer some explanation on the Galveston County project the first one on Page 1 behind this tab. This is for the modifications of a propulsion control system on one of the vessels in our ferry system, the Gibb Gilchrist.

We estimated that at $208,000.00. The low bid came in at $232 or plus 11 percent and we only received one bid. We really have little experience. We do not do this work frequently and it's difficult for us to benchmark what these costs are and also there's not an abundant number of people that do this kind of work. So even though we have only one bid and it's 11 percent over it is a valid bid and I would recommend that we move all of these building projects to contract.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: What are we doing to the propulsion system?

BOB TEMPLETON: It was giving some steering problems. Before we had an accident with it it was decided that we should fix it.

MR. NICHOLS: I move we should accept these.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I second. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

BOB TEMPLETON: Behind Tab 3 of the construction projects let on January 6 and 7 there were 75 of these projects and we received an average of 4.29 bids per project. The total estimated cost for these 75 projects was $130.7 million. Low bids came in at $128.16 million. That's an underrun of a little over $2-1/2 million or 1.94 percent.

There are four of those projects that we are recommending rejection on. The first of those is on Page 1. It is the Brown County project. We had two bids on this project. They are 34.8 percent over on the low bid. We feel like the bid prices are just plainly too high and there is a lack of competition. Only the low bidder is a landscape firm. The other is a small road builder in that area.

The District wants to reject this bid and re-advertise and re-let this and give them time to contact some other landscape architects and see if they can't talk them into coming to Brown County and bidding on this project.

The next project to be rejected -- recommend for rejection is on Page 9. It is the Kleberg County project. It is the second item on that page. This bid is materially unbalanced. The quantities on the project are in error. We have about only 27 percent of the actual quantity at work for some re-trail and the low bidder bid that item at $225.00 a foot, the second bidder bid it at $113.00. When we make the correction for the quantities the low bidder's price will actually put him at a greater cost than the second bidder and that's the condition that causes us to classify that as materially unbalanced. For that reason that project is recommended to be rejected. Because it is a Department's error in the quantities we are recommending that the low bidder be allowed to re-bid that project. Where it is strictly his maneuver then he would not be allowed to do that.

The third project to recommend rejection on is the last project on Page 13. This is a widened bridge at Village Creek. This project was funded by a private developer. The project overran the bids by 50.74 percent, $106,000.00 and the developer reported that he did not wish to make that kind of investment. He is going to ask the District to cancel the project and return his escrow money at this point in time. So he does not want to fund that project. It was all at his expense.

The last project to recommend rejection is at the bottom of Page 14 in Washington County. There were five bids on this project and the low bid is

80.69 percent over the estimate. This is replacing or constructing a median crossover with left turn lanes. And the low production job, the project was estimated at a little less than $24,000.00, the bidder's bid -- the low bid is almost $43,000.00 and the reason was it is a low production project. There is a minimum amount of lime on this project and as a result it's going to pay a premium price for that. There's a considerable amount of dead time on the job waiting for the lime stabilization to cure and the district thinks they can do better than this and they wish to reject these bids and re-let that project.

With the exception of those four bids we recommend all of the others be awarded. I have explanation for the others and have some particulars on overruns if you would like explanation on those. In the interest of time I will not go through them independent but if you have one in particular I hopefully can explain.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: One question on one of them, Bobbie. Not that I'm concerned about the dollar amount but the percentage overrun seems high. It's the one on Page 10. Top of Page 10 in Odessa.

BOB TEMPLETON: Yes. Martin County. The enhancement project. This is an enhancement project. It is the renovation of an old Catholic Church convent in Stanton. The job was let originally in August of 1997 and the bid at that time came in at $242,000.00. It was rejected and has been re-let and the low bid has come in right at $150,000.00. About $90,000.00 less.

And the architect and the sponsor on this project now believe that that's as good as they are going to do and they are willing to take on the initiative of finding the funding and making up that difference.

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept with the noted rejections.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: And allowing the low bidder on the one project to re-bid.

BOB TEMPLETON: That would be appreciated.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I second. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

MR. CUELLAR: Next on the agenda is Item 5 routine minute orders. These are items that staff would recommend be all considered at one time because they are of a -- probably of a uniform nature. I would ask when we get to Item 5 b., Nos. 4 and 5 when we talk about issues of mineral rights and consideration of transfer conveyance of those, those two items

Nos. 4 and 5 in Fort Bend County staff would like to get some additional information on that gathered before we take those into consideration. So we will be presenting other than those starting with 5 a. speed zones in various counties establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on the various sections of highways in the state that are listed.

Item 5 b., right-of-way disposition, purchase and lease. In Caldwell County on State Highway 80 authorize the removal of a tract of right-of-way from the state highway system.

Item 5 b.(2), in Callahan County on FM 18 in the City of Clyde authorize the removal of a tract of right of way from the state highway system.

Item (3) in Collin County on State Highway 78 authorize removal of a tract of right of way from the state highway system.

Moving down to Item (6) in Henderson County on Farm to Market Road 753 authorize a removal of a tract of right of way from the state highway system.

Item (7) Johnson County U.S. 67 in the City of Cleburne. Authorization to accept bid and sell a surplus maintenance site.

Item (8) Shelby County on FM 699. Authorize removal of a tract of right of way from the state highway system.

Item (9) Smith County. Interstate Highway 20 authorize the exchange of a surplus drainage easement for fee title right of way.

Item 5 c. on the interstate highway system. In Freestone County authorization for the construction of six overpasses, underpasses or at-grade crossings to be 100 percent funded by Texas Utilities.

In Item 5 d. Eminent Domain in various counties. Request for Eminent Domain proceedings on non-controlled and controlled access highways as are attached to the agenda. These items have all been reviewed by staff and we would recommend with the two items that I mentioned being excluded that they would be considered for passing of these minute orders.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I second. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye.

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, that concludes the agenda items the staff is prepared to present to you. We are not aware of any executive session items to bring to you.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Okay. There being no executive session items what we ordinarily do at this point is move into an open comment period for those wishing to speak to -- before the Commission.

We have one person signed up to speak in the open comment period. And I may mispronounce the name so pardon me on that account. Rocky Parfait representing the Victoria Transportation Advocacy consortium.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think he left.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Okay. So if he is not here then we will move on. He is here. Too late. (Laughter)

ROCKY PARFAIT. You guys really zoomed through the rest of that stuff.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: We did. We have been waiting for you for thirty minutes.

(Laughter)

ROCKY PARFAIT: Well, hopefully it will be a joyous occasion.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: I'm just kidding.

ROCKY PARFAIT: My name is Rocky Parfait and I'm the chairman of a group here in Victoria that I formed dealing with public transaction. Specifically with a transit system.

Now I did want to place an item, well, not place an item but to talk about a subject that really had nothing to do with roads so I wanted to keep that towards the end of your discussions with what was before you today.

But my concern is, is Victoria is in a very unique circumstance in that we are over 50,000 which makes us urban. All of the other cities that are surrounding us here perhaps as far as the metroplexes surrounding us are not in that position because they get rural monies for transit systems as a result of that.

Now whenever we were in the process of spending 70,000 federal dollars for a transit study here in Victoria everything seemed to be going almost in a fast track method or process. But whenever the rubber really hit the road towards listening to the recommendations from the consulting firm what apparently no one knew except for the Texas Department of Transportation was that there were some interpretation of changes that occurred and as a result of those interpretation of changes that we were not made aware of one of the options that the consulting firm offered the city at that particular time had become obsolete because of those changes.

Now I have sought, talked to anybody that I could, wrote letters to anybody as high up as Ms. Byman who was at that time the director for public transportation. And whenever I requested this information and talked to her about federal information she sent me more manuals than I could read in a weekend.

Fortunately that particular weekend, however, it was raining so it give me something to do. With that in mind whenever I learned a lot of information with what she had presented to me at that time it sent me into the direction of asking the state information. Well, because the Legislature -- because the administrative staff of different agencies get plagued with request of information from people like myself they said, "Well, now we are going to start charging for the information."

So the very specific information that we needed here at the local level became cost prohibitive because of the amount of money that would cost to obtain this information now but at the same time there was a -- in the letter that Ms. Byman sent me it said that they were apparently going to send me some type of an estimate of how much we needed to get together to get this for research and copy cost and things of that nature which was fine, we were prepared to make whatever payment was necessary to obtain this what I viewed was public information.

I'm still waiting for information but of course she has since resigned. And so as a result we are in the process here in Victoria of trying to implement a public transportation system but there's information that we need such as what does a transportation district call for, might there be in an urban area taxation authority by that transportation district.

I question in actuality and I don't know exactly how it really gets separated, maybe it is just at the federal level, but whenever a city who is caught up into the urban question trying to obtain funds and then there are interpretational changes either by the Commission or perhaps within the administration of the Texas Department of Transportation itself. Somehow that, you know, they had to have known that and they did know that we were in the middle of a process that was going to get us something here in Victoria and then all of a sudden whenever City Council made their decision off of their options that they selected -- there were three options that were provided to them by the consulting firm and the very one that the city went with essentially became obsolete because of this interpretational change and then all of a sudden the state looks ugly because it's the state that's kicking it out instead of the City Council.

I'm not trying to place blame I'm just saying that somehow there was a communication breakdown in to either the consulting firm or to the city or perhaps internally within TxDOT. So whenever those things happen, whenever you look at your geographical maps and you look at Victoria, so many rural dollars that we spend so much money on with these folks coming into the city for -- into Victoria or in urban cities whenever they want to come here they don't want to necessarily just go there for medical purposes, they might want to even want to shop around in our city at the same time.

So whether it's Victoria or any other city across the state whenever they are in the process of trying to get something accomplished, not just for their city but regionally and that's just going to complement so many of the other dollars spent on rural systems because now whenever they want to come to say Victoria they can't necessarily go somewhere else and they're stuck somewhere sometimes for hours whenever there's other things that they could be getting accomplished.

So in terms of stretching dollars one of the things that causes systems to break down at the City Council levels or perhaps the county government's levels is this that breakdown of getting information whenever interpretational changes occur.

So I don't know really how to address that or ask you to address that so I'm just going to refer that to you and seek ways to make certain that when particularly whenever someone is in place today or at that particular time in trying to implement a system or renovate their system to make the -- you know, to stretch the dollars to make something sensible out of a community, you know.

In 1950 Victoria, Texas had a population of 14,000 people. So in forty years our population just in this city alone has grown 400 percent. So whenever that happens the transportation needs increases tremendously as a result of that.

And I don't have to preach to the choir over how much revenue for transportation and for other services for our city whenever they are trying to provide something not just for themselves but for the region as well.

So I just ask that as changes occur interpretationally that that information get put out as quick as possible in a way whenever a city or county government is in the very process to make certain that if there's, you know, $70,000.00 is peanuts in comparison to the budgets that you look at but whenever you talk about trying to implement a system for an area it's everything.

And so I would just ask that somehow you address that at some future meeting so that we can make sure that whenever somebody is trying to do something for their communities or for their region that it is done in an appropriate manner. Right now we are stuck on high center with trying to come up with an interpretation of ourselves over things that we can't seem to get a definition from TxDOT. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Parfait. I appreciate it very much. Any other comments or business? Do you have anything that you want to say? I want to say as we close the meeting one more time how much we appreciate the reception and the warmth and the generous hospitality of those who have helped us put this on in Victoria. It is a delight to be here. And we appreciate very much all of the effort and looking forward to see those from Victoria and the environs in Austin a little bit more regularly.

If there's no more further business before the Commission I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN LANEY: Aye. The meeting is adjourned.

(Meeting adjourns at 12:03 p.m.)

C E R T I F I C A T E
MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Victoria, Texas
DATE: Thursday, January 29, 1998

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a true, accurate and complete transcript reported by me. Dated this 5th day of February, 1998.

___________________________________

KIRSTEN W. EPPINGER
Certified Shorthand Reporter in
and for the State of Texas.