TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

Thursday, February 26, 1998 9:00 a.m.

Dewitt Greer Building
125 East 11th, Street, Commission Room
Austin, Texas 78701

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

DAVID M. LANEY, Chairman
ROBERT L. NICHOLS

 STAFF:

Charles "Wes" Heald, Executive Director
Robert Cuellar, Acting Executive Director
Russell Harding, Director, Staff Services

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. LANEY: Good morning. I'd like to call the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order, and I want to welcome all of you to this February 26 meeting of the Commission.

Let me first mention to all those standing -- if you would like, there is seating in the meeting room behind this room. Feel free to stay and stand if you want, but if you'd like to sit, there should be additional seating back there.

It is a pleasure to have all of you here today -- I think.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: It truly is a pleasure to have this kind of interest in transportation projects.

Let me note for the record that public notice of this meeting, containing all items of the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 2:40 p.m. on February 18, 1998.

We have a very full agenda this morning, with four delegation presentations, in addition to the full volume of regular business on the agenda, and we'll be hearing from quite a number of people, so we need to move fairly quickly into our activities this morning and keep pace as we move through the activities.

So for those of you who are speaking or making presentations, I will remind you on the front end, I hope, of the time constraints that I'd like to have you hold your presentations to, and if you drag a little, bear with me as I prod.

The first thing I want to do this morning, though, is to introduce -- and it is with great pleasure that I do so -- our new executive director of the Texas Department of Transportation as of March 1, Mr. Wes Heald, whose selection was actually made at a special Commission meeting held on January 29.

As most of you know, following the resignation of Mr. Bill Burnett last September, we -- all of the members of the Commission undertook a very extensive process for finding a new director for the Department. This included an extensive advertising exercise that was nationwide and the utilization of an independent consulting firm to perform all sorts of activities, including initial screenings and reviews of the applicants and so forth. We then narrowed the field of candidates to six, and all of these candidates, I should add, are -- were and remain very, very impressive candidates.

But after conducting extensive interviews -- in some cases two and three times -- we arrived at a unanimous decision and chose Wes Heald -- currently, but not for long, our Fort Worth district engineer -- to be the next executive director of the Department, commencing on March 1, 1998.

I have mentioned to Wes on a number of occasions that there is less and less time for him to change his mind.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Mr. Heald has acquired extensive transportation and management experience at numerous levels during his 37 years with the Texas Department of Transportation. And as I stated in announcing his appointment, he has, in our judgment, the unique skills and talents to lead this agency into the 21st century and to keep Texas as one of the world's transportation leaders. It is a real pleasure for all of us to introduce Wes Heald this morning.

At this point, Wes, I would like, if you would like to, to give you the opportunity to say a few words.

MR. HEALD: Well, I have to tell you that I've been with this Department 37 years, and I don't know why but for some reason I'm nervous as heck right now.

(Laughter.)

MR. HEALD: This is a great honor for me, but I want you to know that I feel a tremendous sense of responsibility to the citizens of Texas to provide them with the transportation system that supports the quality of life that they deserve and expect. I have had some success in the Brownwood District and some success in the Fort Worth District, but I know it's going to be tough to try to satisfy the needs on a statewide basis.

I do look forward to working with the Texas Transportation Commission in shaping a vision for TxDOT and for transportation in Texas as we move into the 21st century. And I don't imagine it's any surprise to anybody that our greatest challenge is funding -- funding the state's transportation needs. Most of you know we've got enough money to pay for about a third of those needs, and we'll be looking at different financial approaches, such as toll roads, private-public partnerships, and the new State Infrastructure Bank Loan Program.

In addition, we have an aging system of highways that are in constant need of repair and maintenance, and we're faced with tremendous growth in urban areas that bring about traffic congestion. Because of the leadership and vision of past TxDOT leaders, we are a Department of Transportation, a complete Department of Transportation, representing more than just highways. We will continue to assist general aviation airports, promote public transit services, and support intermodal transfer centers for both freight and passenger service.

And I am truly grateful to the Commission for giving me the opportunity to serve the whole state of Texas as your executive director. And I think I'm supposed to remove myself now somewhere to meet with the news media, so I'll join you later. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Wes.

(Applause.)

MR. LANEY: Wes, just as a reminder, until March 1, you're still taking orders from Bob Cuellar.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Commissioner Wynne is unable to join us today because, aside from Mr. Heald's elevation to his new position, the best news we've had during the last month is that Commissioner Wynne has had a new baby, a baby girl, Lila, and she is at home, I'm sure, enjoying Lila more than she would enjoy this meeting. So we wish them the very best and look forward to seeing them next month.

As far as I know, Commissioner Nichols has not had a new baby, and so I'm glad you could be here. But would you like to add anything, any comments?

MR. NICHOLS: No. I just know we've got a busy agenda, so I'll just pass on and say -- echo your comments with regard to Wes Heald, and also I know we're going to do some things special to show our appreciation of Bob Cuellar, but certainly want to make everyone aware of the appreciation we have for the work that you've had carrying us through this interim period.

MR. CUELLAR: Thank you, Commissioner.

MR. LANEY: Bob has done a terrific job. We'll have our chance to praise you at a later meeting.

We've been tempted on a number of occasions simply not to appoint anybody, just to keep Bob in his interim position for the rest of his life.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Let us now proceed with the delegation presentations, and I'll ask the delegations, as I alluded to earlier, please to adhere to your 20-minute time limitation. Those are the ordinary procedures. If there is a little bit of slippage, we don't come down too hard on you, but if there is a little more than a little bit -- and we make those decisions on how much that is -- we're really tough.

AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION STUDY

(Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, Mayor Kirk Watson, Gary Valdez, Senator Steve Ogden, Jeff Barton)

MR. LANEY: The first delegation this morning is the Austin Transportation Study to discuss a number of projects of interest in Austin and surrounding areas, and I will call on one of our regular visitors and one of the great supporters of transportation in Texas, and certainly in this area of the state, Senator Gonzalo Barrientos to speak.

Senator Barrientos, glad to have you back.

SENATOR BARRIENTOS: May it please the Commission. Thank you, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols for the hearing of our delegation. This is a collaborative effort of the Austin Transportation Study, the Capital Area Citizens for Mobility, and the City of Georgetown.

I would like to welcome our new director, Wes Heald, to Austin. We look forward to working with him.

We are here to request funding for three projects which the Austin Transportation Study ranked as its highest priorities. These are State Highway 71 and US 290, locally better known as the Ben White Expressway.

This is a freeway that has been built from the center out in both the east and west directions. We are asking you to fund the next section in both directions. To the east, we would like the main lanes and frontage roads built from I-35 to Burleson Road; to the west, we are asking that the frontage roads from Williamson Creek to FM 1826 be constructed. The third project is to complete the main lanes of US 183 from Hunters Chase Drive to the north of RM 620 in Williamson County. That will complete the northwest portion of the project.

The ATS, at its last meeting, voted unanimously to commit $4 million of our expected STP 4(C) funds to this project from our fiscal 2002 allocation. This is over half of the allocation we receive annually. These projects were strongly endorsed by the voters of Austin, Travis County, and Williamson County in bond elections.

While we present them in the order in which they were ranked by the members of our policy advisory committee, they are all ranked very closely.

I would like to introduce the elected officials who are here to show the regional support we have for these important highway projects, if they will stand. We have Mayor Leo Wood from Georgetown; we have our former congressman, the Honorable J.J. Jake Pickle; we have Representative Sherri Greenberg; we have Representative Mike Krusee; we have Commissioner Travis County Karen Sonleitner; we have Commissioner Williamson County Greg Boatright; Commissioner Hays County Jeff Barton; of course our Mayor Kirk Watson, who will speak in a moment; Mayor Culpepper from Round Rock; Mayor Dorothy Duckett, Cedar Park; Council Member George Denny, Cedar Park; Council Member Janet Bartles, Cedar Park; Council Member Dennis Klein [phonetic], Cedar Park; Mayor Haywood Ware, Pflugerville; Council Member Larry Barnett, City of Leander.

And if I've missed anyone else, elected officials, please forgive me, but you may also stand. They're here to support us.

Senator Ogden will be presented in just a moment to speak.

Of course, our delegation also includes members of our business community which understands the regional economic significance of these highway projects because our region has become a major factor in our state's economic upturn. I would like all of those who are here to support these projects to stand at this time, please. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols, I would be remiss if I stated that there were not some elements of controversy over aspects of at least two of these projects. This is, after all, Austin.

(Laughter.)

SENATOR BARRIENTOS: At the western end of US 290, SH 71, environmental issues are requiring TxDOT to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but the people of Oak Hill -- who had a separate identity long before Austin annexed them years ago -- and most particularly, the businesses which have been disrupted by right of way acquisition, need at least the frontage roads in order to be able to rebuild. I also know there is some controversy between local governments and residents over the route selection for SH 130.

I want you to know that I have spoken with Senator Wentworth of San Antonio and Senator Armbrister of Victoria. Both of them have a committee meeting in El Paso or they would otherwise be here speaking on behalf of our delegation. They have asked met to let you know that we recognize this is a tough decision that is yours to make. We know the factors you will weigh and that your decision has to make sense from a financial and environmental standpoint and from a local, and more importantly, state and national and international mobility perspective. The four of us want you to know we will stand with you in support when that choice is made.

Senator Ogden, who represents the other district affected by SH 130 is here in person, and in a moment will speak.

Let me close by saying we sincerely appreciate the funding that you have previously approved for the US 290 and 183 projects. Sections open to traffic have improved mobility significantly, but we need to complete our basic freeway system of US 290 and US 183, and these projects do that. Finally, we appreciate your recent decision to create a special office at the state level to work on SH 130. That was made after we voted to make SH 130 a top priority, so you already have partially answered our delegation request.

Again, our thanks, and let me introduce now our Austin mayor, Honorable Kirk Watson.

MAYOR WATSON: Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols, thank you very much for allowing us to visit with you today to speak about these very important matters.

I want to talk for just a few moments about population growth and the need in this area. With regard to our population growth, we are expecting a doubling of the population living here by the year 2020 to 1.6 million people. We grew by 200,000 in just the last seven years. By 2020 the San Antonio-Austin nine-county area will have a population equal to the Dallas-Fort Worth area in 1990, and that's demonstrated by the population figures that we've shown on the graph.

In addition, we have a new airport that is opening in Central Texas this next year in May. That's just 15 months from now. This airport will be the gateway to the capital of Texas, and it's already operational with regard to freight and we're already experiencing knowledge of the increased use and what we anticipate will be a great use.

SH 71 East is essential for access to that airport and the associated development that it will bring. The unanimously adopted ATS Transportation Plan contains a balance of transportation modes: it includes an ambitious 52-mile fixed guideway transit system and high occupancy vehicle lanes on US 183, Loop 1, and IH-35. Bikeways and sidewalks are also part of the planned transportation system. The ATS plan, I'm proud to say, is a package of mobility options.

So we're not asking you to solve all of our congestion problems, but we are in the midst of a growing transportation crisis with great anticipated growth. With the doubling of the population and only a 33 percent increase in roadway lane miles planned, completion of our basic freeway system is vital. It is vital if improved transit is to be implemented and we need your help with these basic highway improvements.

All of the Austin City Council members on ATS, including myself, were part of the ATS's unanimous decision to bring $4 million to the Commission because we need these very important improvements to our basic freeway system.

Thank you very much for the decisions that you'll make and thank you for giving us this time here today.

SENATOR BARRIENTOS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, to give you a picture of these improvements in the area it would impact, we'd like to show you a brief video.

(The video was shown.)

MR. VALDEZ: Good morning, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols. I am Gary Valdez, the 1998 chair of the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce. It has been our pleasure to work with all the other segments of our community to bring you this presentation about our most critical needs.

The Austin region's economy is strong and getting stronger. The Greater Austin Chamber commissioned a report that was released last month entitled, "Next Century Economy, Sustaining the Austin Region's Economic Advantage in the 21st Century." The report describes how our five-county region has emerged as one of the country's leading technology centers.

As you can see by the variety of participating groups and individuals in this presentation, we recognize the regionalization of not only our economy but of issues such as transportation infrastructure.

Our next century economy report states as a strategy that we need to strengthen transportation planning to help achieve sustainable advantage economy. To complement this recommendation, the Greater Austin Chamber's number one strategic initiative for 1998 is to promote integrated timely transportation projects.

We strongly endorse the projects presented to you today. We have actively participated in the process with the Austin Transportation Study and agree with the importance of these projects. SH 71 East is a critical link due to the opening of our Austin Bergstrom International Airport in 1999 to passenger service. The airport is a regional airport serving many surrounding businesses and political jurisdictions.

The continued growth in business and residential development in southwest Travis County and northern Hays County has put increased traffic volumes on SH 71 West and US 290 West. The completion of this project will expedite traffic flow in our east-west directions.

We appreciate the Commission's decision to create the Texas Turnpike Authority and designating staff for the SH 130 project. We also appreciate the Commission's funding for frontage roads for US 183 last year, and we are requesting that the main lanes be funded this year to complete the project and ensure adequate mobility for the northern area of the region. Daily traffic volumes in this segment already have reached 72,000 as of 1996 figures.

Thank you for your time and serious consideration of these priority projects for the Austin region, and most of all, thank you for the time that you spend as our commissioners serving the citizens of Texas. Thank you.

SENATOR BARRIENTOS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, my colleague from the great area that represents Texas A&M is here with us today, Senator Ogden, to say some words.

SENATOR OGDEN: Thank you, Senator Barrientos.

I want to just comment briefly on the historic significance of that video that the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce produced: They got Congressman Pickle and Senator Gramm to speak from the same script.

(Laughter.)

SENATOR OGDEN: I think that's great. I also wanted to share with the Commissioners briefly the latest in senatorial fashions. This is a senator's cowboy hat which is an OSHA-approved hard hat, so if you would like one of those, I'll get you one.

(Laughter.)

SENATOR OGDEN: I want to make two quick points on behalf of State Highway 130 which the proposed portion in Williamson County is in my district. To me, State Highway 130 represents economic bypass surgery. Interstate 35 is a critical economic artery in Texas. It's getting clogged up, and if we don't hurry up and do the bypass surgery, I think commerce is going to have a heart attack in Central Texas. That's the way I see it.

Now, from the commissioners' viewpoint, as Senator Barrientos alluded to, there is going to be inevitably some controversy about a project that's this big and this complex. And what I want the Commission to do is what I've told my constituents what I want our government to do, and that is: carefully evaluate the facts, listen to all the arguments pro and con, and then make the decision.

Call it a ball; call it a strike. Make the call, and let's move forward. It's critically important to the future of our state. Thank you.

MR. BARTON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner. We appreciate the work you do and we appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is Jeff Barton. I'm vice chair of the Austin Transportation Study policy advisory committee, and I'm also a county commissioner in Hays County.

Now, none of these projects that are here before you today are in Hays County. Indeed, only a small part of our county is in the Austin Transportation Study area. Even so, I'm here as a representative of the county to report that our commissioners' court has unanimously approved a resolution endorsing these projects as the top priorities for our region.

This in itself should be evidence that we have a new day in the Austin area. We come before you as a unified region, working in concert to solve transportation problems that go beyond individual jurisdictional boundaries.

We bring with us $4 million to the Commission, over half of our yearly STP 4(C) allocation of federal dollars. We realize that funding is short at TxDOT, as it is all over. We're bringing the money we can, and furthermore, the citizens of Travis and Williamson Counties and the citizens of Austin have voted to approve bonds for right of way for all of these projects. Again, our top priorities are State Highway 71 East and West, SH 130 and US 183 North.

The funding that you've approved in the past has helped greatly to improve mobility in our region, but we need basic improvements to the fundamental parts of our highway system. The Austin area, as you've heard, is an important part of the regional economy and an important part of the emerging technological resources of Texas. We're asking you to help us move not only Austin but all of Central Texas forward into the future. Thank you very much.

SENATOR BARRIENTOS: Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, that concludes our presentation. I think we have one second left. We would be very happy to answer any questions that you might have; otherwise, God speed in the good work that you do for Texas.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Senator. I'm impressed with your timing. I do have a couple of questions, and I think Commissioner Nichols might as well.

Do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

MR. NICHOLS: I have a couple of comments in a minute.

MR. LANEY: Appreciate the presentation -- it was timed well and to the point.

One question, independent of 130 -- and I don't know who the right person to answer this question is. And if you don't have an answer, I guess my only suggestion to you is communicate with our staff to the extent you can give us any guidance as to prioritization among the three projects, from either a funding or a sequencing of funding standpoint.

You have roughly $90 million of projects when you talk about 71 East and West and main lanes on 183 North. This is independent of any other toll development activity that might be going on in any of these vicinities.

And please don't read me as saying there will be sequencing and there will be prioritization. That is not the case. I know the need. I know the level of need, and to the extent we have funding capabilities that can meet your needs, we'd love to be able to address them. But if we fall short, the question is in what sequence of priority should we address these projects.

SENATOR BARRIENTOS: Mr. Chairman, let me introduce Michael Aulick, who is our director of the ATS. I forget the sequence from memory, but I'm sure he hasn't.

MR. AULICK: I'm Michael Aulick of the MPO and bringer of the money. The ATS --

MR. LANEY: You're invited to come back over and over and over again.

(Laughter.)

MR. AULICK: I'll wear my Vanna White costume next time.

The ATS board voted unanimously in November that the first priority is State Highway 71 East and West -- that is our first priority; the second priority is State Highway 130; and the third priority is US 183. And I think this is the first time ATS has brought money to the Commission ,and we obviously want it to go as far as possible in funding these projects, you know, based on that priority. And we'd like to work with the Commission as to the best place to apply that $4 million to fund these projects, based on the priority I just mentioned.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mike.

MR. NICHOLS: Really I had just a couple of comments. First of all, I wanted to thank you for the presentation. It was an excellent presentation; you've obviously worked hard to build a strong consensus.

A couple of comments: As we get into the route selection on like the 130, I think every one of you addressed the comment that it will be controversial, but once the selection is made, you will stand behind us. But as the Department works toward establishing these various routes, we try very hard to work with the communities, address environmental needs, and things of that nature.

Just last week I read a thick set of reports and news clippings of various controversies over any route that we seem to choose. There seems to be some large flare-ups.

And we, as a government agency in trying to work with the local communities -- some are incorporated, some are not -- we break our neck to try to be cooperative with the communities and their concerns. But no one can work with a community better than the locals can themselves. So I would encourage you to try to, as you see these things come up, to work with your own people and try to come to a good resolve and don't leave the entire burden up to us. But I appreciate your comments on that.

The second thing has to do with funding. We all know that we're stretched and we're trying to put money all over the state, first to protect the infrastructure and safety and congestion, things of that nature. This portion of 130 -- the estimate is roughly $650 million. That's a very large amount of money.

And when we look at our budget, our budget continues each session to be stripped and pulled, some money each session going into other agencies. And I think each time it may not seem like so much of a hit, but if you go back over the past, I think, six sessions, the past 12 years, the cumulative effect of the amount that has been pulled out of our budget -- which is the construction part -- that's the new stuff -- is about $3.2 billion has been removed from TxDOT's construction funds to other agencies of the state. This is our gas tax money, our license plate money and things like that. And the significance is the $650 million figure for 130 could have been paid for five times -- five times in the past 12 years from what has been stripped out of our budget.

I think that's very significant and I encourage everyone to be thinking as we're looking for ways to finance things to think in terms of that, hopefully, when we get into the next session.

Other than that, I appreciate the comments everyone had.

SENATOR BARRIENTOS: Commissioner, I guarantee you that I am going to be there on the Finance Committee once more next year, and we're going to see about turning the tide to help TxDOT.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Senator. We want to visit with you about that between now and January.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: There are others who have signed up to speak on this issue, I believe I have, and those -- for anyone who would like to speak and have not completed a card like this, please do so out in front and they'll move forward to us so we can call your name. And I may mispronounce names, but Mr. Mike Solis.

MR. SOLIS: Thank you, Chairman Laney and Commissioner Nichols. My name is Mike Solis and I live in the Rolling Ridge Subdivision which happens to be in the City of Round Rock, and what I wanted to talk about is the SH 130 issue. I guess I am one of those flare-ups, in a sense, of controversy.

What my purpose here is is to try to explain some of the issues that we have with the route selection in segment A for SH 130. I do believe that we do have somewhat of a consensus as to the route that will, in effect, affect the City of Round Rock. Round Rock is the last piece, I think, in trying to decide which way SH 130 goes in segment A.

We in the Rolling Ridge Subdivision have considered the different route selections that were available to us, given to us by TxDOT. There were six routes: W-1 through W-6.

Unfortunately, TxDOT presented only four of those options to the City of Round Rock, and in doing so, eliminated two of them, W-5 and W-6. W-5 and W-6 go along County Road 685, very few subdivisions and things that we're going to bring up to the City of Round Rock as to why we feel that those two selections should still be available to us.

One of the reasons that we feel that route W-5 or W-6 is still a viable option is because of the cost of W-5; it is $10 million cheaper than the technically preferred route of W-2. We're also considering the environmental aspect of it. W-2 has been rated by the Austin Transportation Study as being a medium environmentally-sensitive area; County Road 685 is a low environmental-sensitive area.

Forgive me, I'm kind of rambling a bit here; I'm not used to speaking in front of these important people.

Anyway, my purpose here is to try to gain a consensus, and we're going to present our petition to the City of Round Rock to go with the option of W-5 or W-6, even though TxDOT had not presented it to them as such. We feel that overall, with the City of Pflugerville and the City of Georgetown involved, everybody else, we feel that those are still viable options.

And considering the environmental impact and the possibility of hazardous materials going down W-2 which would affect many neighborhoods, as compared to W-5 or -6, we feel that W-5 or -6 -- or County Road 685 -- would be the best choice. And we hope that you would consider that and look at that issue with TxDOT and see that possibly it be looked at as an alternative again, W-5 and W-6.

Thank you for your time; I appreciate it.

MR. LANEY: Appreciate your comments.

Mr. Rodney Howard.

MR. HOWARD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols. Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to come and address you today.

Mr. Heald, congratulations on your new position. I'd like to just comment. I do appreciate your first line of your opening statement which was you were concerned about the quality of life, of people impacted by projects within our state. We obviously have this concern.

I won't repeat Mike's comments, but I am the president of the neighborhood association. I am, in essence, here representing three different neighborhoods and potentially a thousand different homeowners. I'd also like to acknowledge that Mr. Culpepper, our mayor, has remained in the audience to hear the comments. I did notice that primarily the remainder of the delegation did choose to depart, though.

I think this is part of our issue which is we would most dearly like to address these at a local level, but we don't really feel that we're receiving the level of sincere attention that is required of such a project that is of such importance and of such magnitude. We're not against the roadway project. We feel that it is a necessity for our continued economic growth.

We, unfortunately, are simply homeowners. We're not Michael Dells, and we're just having a little difficulty in having our opinions articulated well and received in what we feel is an appropriate manner by the bodies that need to make the decisions that will obviously affect us for a great deal of time.

And basically with that, we'll obviously meet with Mr. Culpepper tonight at our city council meeting and share with him our concerns. And we would hope that those would be adequately relayed through the channels so that you can also hear from us just exactly what it is our concerns are. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Howard.

Mr. Roger Baker. And as you approach, Mr. Baker, let me just respond, if I can, to Mr. Howard's comments to some extent. In defense of those who got up to leave -- generally speaking, most of the elected officials have meetings that they are either missing by being here or have to attend and have to leave to get back to their offices, so we expect that as the pattern.

And let me also assure you, having visited with a number of elected officials, local and statewide, that the issues that are raised by neighborhood associations, like that represented by Mr. Howard, are, in fact, very carefully listened to and very effectively passed on to us at TxDOT.

So let's be a little bit, I think, more considerate of the fact these folks work pretty doggone hard at paying attention to what you have to say. And we, I hope, work just as hard at paying attention to what they have to say.

So excuse the digression. Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: Let me begin by passing out to the Commission two documents: one is an article called "The End of Cheap Oil" which predicts that the price of oil will go up greatly within the next decade; the other is a letter from the chair of the conservation committee of the Austin Sierra Club opposing these roadway projects.

My comments are these. I'm an Austin Texas transportation reform activist, and I spend a lot of time studying transportation problems in Texas, and I'm not a politician -- meaning that I can say unpopular things and recommend unpopular changes in policy. I've been around here before and realize that this is a meeting where folks typically come from all over the state of Texas to compete in pleading for money to solve genuinely critical problems. Meanwhile, the money to solve those problems is running far short of current needs.

At your January meeting, Chairman Laney noted that needs are now running about $11 billion a year, whereas only about $2 billion worth of contracts are being let. This is less than 20 cents on the dollar at meeting current need. At the same time, road and bridge maintenance requirements are growing so rapidly that they now take up about half your budget. This situation alone is a time bomb.

But there is a second distinctly different kind of crisis that will probably become just as serious in the not too distant future. The current March issue of Scientific American has an article by a leading petroleum economist named C.J. Campbell and an associate, who spell out why there's likely to be a large and permanent jump in petroleum prices within a decade. This is likely to profoundly affect the economics of transportation around the world, but especially in a highway-oriented state like Texas.

For this reason, toll roads are probably not prudent investments because they assume that energy will stay cheap, either if underwritten by the New York bond houses or using the Texas Infrastructure Bank which you would control. Thus, the outlook is that you will soon probably face two different kinds of crises related to road costs and energy costs simultaneously.

Admittedly, I'm not in your shoes facing the political pressures to build enough roads to keep the Texas legislature and road contractors happy. Few, if any, bureaucracies are willing to get out in front of the situation and make deep-seated changes in policy until serious problems give them no choice.

Nevertheless, my advice to you is to put a halt on new road construction, like all these big new projects in the Austin area being advocated here today. These projects are meant to handle predicted future traffic demand, but experience elsewhere shows that they will actually generate new traffic demand.

Instead, I would fundamentally change policy to concentrate on two things: the first is to fully fund existing infrastructure maintenance; the second one is to get the state law changed so you can put money into more cost-effective alternatives like new railroad capacity to handle future cross-country freight and passenger traffic.

If you keep trying to keep up with roadway demand -- which is the natural thing to do, then you're only going to make the current situation worse. The internationally-respected Economist magazine said much the same thing in a lead story a month or so ago.

If I were to put the current situation in personal terms, I would describe the situation this way: it seems to me like the case of a family who is considering borrowing money to finance an even bigger new car to handle an anticipated bigger family at the same time that the old family car is in urgent need of maintenance -- and all this based on the hope that the family breadwinner isn't about to lose his job as threatened.

In conclusion, you have a situation which really amounts to a sort of addiction generated by decades of making the easy traditional choices, that business as usual got you into this predicament, so I suggest you make basic changes before the situation gets much worse. Thank you for allowing me this time, and I wish both you and the Austin delegation the luck and courage that you'll need to change directions. And I have some copies of these comments. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Carol Fox.

MS. FOX: Good morning, gentlemen, Commissioners.

I come before you today. My name is Carol Fox. My family has been landowners in Central Texas for about 100 years. Perhaps it's presumptuous on my part to address this meeting in the face of all the elected officials, the esteemed ladies and gentlemen who presumably represent me and all my neighbors.

I've been impressed by the slick video presentation, and I'm simply a citizen with deep rural roots. However, I found the drama of that video rather ironic: the earth, wind, sky and water -- how much of that is going to be left? We're projecting this enormous population growth. If we go to more highways, more sprawling subdivisions, what's going to happen to our land, not to mention our air and our water?

It reminds me of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The analogy of SH 130 -- and I should stop now and say I'm speaking specifically about SH 130 -- that is my concern. The analogy of the bypass surgery is only too apt. Arteries will simply clog up again. You only buy yourself a little time, and then the situation is worse and the patient generally dies.

I think, when we're talking about transportation needs -- mobility -- that we are getting the cart before the horse. I notice that all our politicians spoke of multi-approaches, including light rail, better inner-city transportation. Those are the things we need to look at first.

I think that it is a question of old thinking and taking a myopic view. If you've noticed, a lot of the people moving here are moving from California, and they're moving from California because it's become uninhabitable. And we're looking at the Los Angelesization of our own Central Texas.

Yesterday I was in a meeting of the Sustainable Community, an organizing meeting. In a way, I think that all of us need to join hands for a larger vision of what we want. That's what the Sustainable Community is trying to do, and I think that certainly our highways and our transportation are an integral part of the vision that we want to have for our future -- what do we want Central Texas to look like? I want to preserve rural land that we have. I want us to have vibrant cities, small cities connected by light rail to Austin which has its own inner-city transportation, and we can move people from their jobs to their homes and preserve their family lives. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Ms. Fox. Appreciate it.

Cathy Coneway.

MS. CONEWAY: Good morning, Commissioners.

I represent the Oak Hill Business and Professional Association, and would just very much like to encourage you to approve the Highway 290/71 project. We have at this point got a lot of traffic coming into that Oak Hill area that is going to be stopped at the William Cannon intersection.

And I fear and have feared for a long time -- and have had several conversations with Mike Aulick as well as several other of our representatives -- that if that project is not completed, we're going to have a lot of people dying in that area as that traffic gets heavier and heavier. It has gotten so congested there that you can't get through there easily in peak areas; during the eight o'clock or the five o'clock hour, it can easily take you an hour to get through that whole area.

So I think you understand the need for transportation and the problems that are faced there. I hope that all of you will consider the real pressure put on you here and the lives that are at stake by not completing some of these projects. And I would just encourage you to do that. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Ms. Coneway.

Tish Williams.

MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. I have come to realize recently what a wonderful roadway system Texas has, and it was not until I went to Arkansas several years ago that I saw that a major road from Little Rock had deep pock marks and it was like driving on a country road. So I really want to acknowledge how pleasurable it has been to drive on these roads.

SH 130 looks like it will be a road like these, and these are great roads for the 20th century. But we are now going into the 21st century, and we are having a great population growth along a corridor and we're having urban sprawl. So the solutions for the 20th century, to me, are no longer viable for the 21st century.

What we would be looking at, if I were to have the optimal movement in cities and the whole urban area, would be to have high speed railways coming through the Dallas-Austin-San Antonio vector, and having also rail used to put these huge truck cartons on flatbeds, moving these cartons, taking them off our road -- the trucks in contention with cars which is a very suicidal situation. As we have greater and greater truck heights and widths, we're going to be having a really dangerous situation, particularly since the speeds have been increased in our inner city.

So I would say that high speed rail to take passengers, rail to take the cartons on the trucks, having an arterial situation where trucks come in and take from this heavy artery of railways; that, to me, would be a 21st century solution and not more roads. Because anyone who has dealt with roads understands that when you build roads, you do not take traffic off of another road. What you do is you create a gridlock.

And anyone who has lived in California -- that has been cited many times -- understands that what you have is you have an entire gridlock. This is not a solution to create another 20th century road.

Something I would also like to say is that SH 130 has not been cut from development; on the contrary, development will be part of this. This, again, will bring in more people, clogging your east Austin roads and eventually IH-35 -- which would have had a minimal relief anyway -- 7 to 8 percent is what I have heard -- would be back up to full capacity within a few years. So to talk about SH 130 as a solution to IH-35, is to me -- it is not, to me personally, true.

Something I would like to say is that land, the East Austin land, is a great treasure. I lived in Govalle for five years when I was growing up, and it was farmlands. And I have always known that area as black farmland, a part of the Blackland Prairie. The west part of Austin has been known as the more scrub area, but rich farmlands, longtime farm communities would be effaced by this. This is a deep loss to a city. Here we have a treasure brought right up to Austin. Whether you have trees with oxygen, plants and animals, this is something that we should not, should not lose.

Something I would like to say is as an inner-city inhabitant and as a taxpayer, I see SH 130 as a very bad buy. You will have gridlock in your streets and highways, increased smog, inner-city de-vitalization as you spread out into the countryside, and urban sprawl. The whole thing has a very terrible feel to me.

I would like to say that SH 130 is, to me, not a solution for what you all have said is a problem. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

Craig Smith.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Chairman Laney and Commissioner Nichols, and Director Heald.

I'm Craig Smith and I'm the vice president of the Save Barton Creek Association which, since 1979, has been dedicated to protecting Barton Creek and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer. I was also, in 1996 and 1997, a member of the Austin Transportation Study US 290 West Expansion Task Force, and my comments will be limited to the US 290 West expansion segment.

I'm not here to oppose the ATS plan with respect to US 290 West, but rather to promote the recommendations of the 290 Expansion Task Force, both with regard to the highway design and to water quality protection in that segment. I'm sure I'm not the first to point out to you that the Barton Springs section of the Edwards Aquifer is the most vulnerable in Texas to non-point source pollution, and that highways and highway construction are a threat to the aquifer. The construction of this segment is also a challenge to the Oak Hill community.

The US 290 Task Force, under the leadership of co-chairs State Representative Sherri Greenberg and Valerie Bristol, produced consensus recommendations that would reduce the impact of the highway on the aquifer and on the Oak Hill community, while at the same time reducing the cost of the segment over the original plan proposed by TxDOT.

I want to first recommend the process employed by the task force and adopted by ATS to resolve the issues surrounding this contentious segment. The process of assembling stakeholders representing the different points of view to explore all of the available solutions and try to work out differences before a project is started is something that TxDOT and other state agencies should follow.

I commend the co-chairs for their work in coming up with a set of consensus recommendations that are supported by business people, environmentalists and neighborhood activists alike.

The task force recommendations are with respect to the highway design, and there was a separate technical committee composed of technical experts that made recommendations with respect to water quality protection. And I have copies of both sets of those recommendations for you which I'll hand out at the end of my remarks. I won't go into those designs in detail now, but basically they would reduce the impact on the aquifer and reduce the impact on the Oak Hill community.

However, while I urge the Commission to adopt the task force recommendations, as the Transportation Study has already done, I would note that TxDOT's performance of an already existing court approved agreement for protection of the aquifer does not make me confident of that. In the section of the US 290 expansion already under construction -- namely the construction of the flyovers on US 290 and MoPac Expressway -- TxDOT is trying to avoid complying with a consent decree entered in 1990 in a suit filed by the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District.

I understand that discussions are still underway with the TxDOT staff with regard to compliance on these points of the agreement: the requirement of a federal environmental impact statement for the interchange and other new segments of US 290 over the aquifer, implementation of structural water quality controls for the flyovers, and construction of hazardous materials traps outside of the main flow channels to protect against catastrophic spills that would endanger the aquifer.

I want to bring these issues to your attention, especially in connection with TxDOT's consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to the impact of this segment on the Barton Springs salamander. And I would suggest that complying with the consent decree and with the task force recommendations would facilitate your discussions with the Fish and Wildlife Service and remove hurdles to the construction of this entire segment. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Smith. You're entitled to your opinions, but let me just state for the record that from TxDOT's standpoint, we're not trying to avoid compliance with the consent decree. Thank you.

Shawn Copeland.

MR. COPELAND: My name is Shawn Copeland; I live in East Round Rock. I'd like to thank the Commission for giving me the opportunity to speak today, and I'd like to state for the record that I am in favor of the construction of Texas 130.

My concern with the existing plan and the thrust of the video that was shown today is that there is a disconnect between the planning of Texas 130 and the reality of the city in which it's being placed. Texas 130 is significantly more important with the introduction of NAFTA and the increased truck traffic since 1994. However, right of way planning for 130 was conducted and some of it was purchased much earlier than that, considerably prior to the introduction of the NAFTA agreement.

The concept of Texas 130 as an intermodal highway is critical to the economic success of this region. One of the earlier comments that Austin was a city with its arteries clogged in need of a bypass is very correct. However, any doctor who performs a bypass will always recommend a change of diet. In Austin, we're choked by truck traffic. It's critically important that Texas 130 be intermodal and be capable of carrying freight on rail.

My impression from my discussions with the consultants who have prepared the technically preferred alternative is that the major freight carriers, rail carriers in the southern and southwest U.S. have said that the TPA selection -- the technically preferred alternative -- is not suitable to them as a rail right of way because of the number of turns in the road. The number of turns in the road also increases the cost.

So I'd like to suggest to the Commission that a critical question to ask, as Texas 130 is considered, is whether we are approving a technically intermodal road that will never actually be utilized and therefore waste dollars, or whether it is possible to ask, given that NAFTA has occurred since right of way purchases were made, maybe there is a straighter and cheaper road that is available that will allow us to take advantage of the benefits of rail and that will allow us to take advantage of the lessening of cost building a straighter highway.

Straighter highways are also safer. You can always notice how on the way down I-35 people brake for turns and end up with a backlog when there really is no reason for backed up traffic.

Other than that, I think that the only important thing to consider, when you're asking questions about 130, is also the requests that have been made by the local politicians. Mayor Culpepper in Round Rock has indicated that the right of way that was purchased for 130 -- which is currently sitting on the technically preferred alternative route which was purchased prior to NAFTA -- is one of six possible routes that we've been presented with in Round Rock, all of which he finds unacceptable and he has asked for further work.

I think that's very important. You had asked for those of us in the communities to talk with your local representation, which we have. And those people have made public statements requesting further work to be done. I think that his concern about the Round Rock area, as well as the possible non-use of this right of way for freight rail which is critical to relieve the truck traffic -- 200 trucks a day just at an intersection in Round Rock for Dell -- is something that has to be considered as Texas 130, which is a desperately needed arterial, is constructed. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Copeland.

Unless anyone else expects to speak, that's the end of our list.

Mr. Nichols, any further comments?

MR. NICHOLS: No comments. Thanks.

MR. LANEY: I appreciate very much the comments. We are going through the process now of listening as carefully and closely to the variety of perspectives we get on all of these projects; that process will continue. And there are a number of issues that have surfaced in the last month or so, couple of months, that are new to us. And yet let me emphasize the fact that from the standpoint of TxDOT the concept of State Highway 130 is, in our judgment, of great statewide significance, not simply local significance.

There are a number of characterizations of this project that are, in the usual course of any advocacy of position one way or the other, a little overly simplistic in terms of a project as complex and that has as many characteristics in terms of its function from a transportation standpoint as this one does in concept and will in reality.

But we've got a lot of distance to cover, and I would encourage anyone with positions or opinions to make yourself heard; this is the time. Ultimately, we are faced with a decision that will turn on the feasibility of this project. And we are, generally speaking, not of a mind to make accommodations or adjustments or recalibrations that ultimately inch-by-inch remove a project like this from its feasibility.

But we will look carefully and we have worked with communities now on this project, I think, for over a decade. And I think everyone reads our creation of the Special Project Office correctly as an interest in concentrating resources of this agency as much as we can to move this project as quickly as we can because of its importance to the state.

So again, appreciate very much the interest. I assume that it will continue to rise as we move closer and closer to decisions with respect to the project, but appreciate the input.

Before we close on this particular thing, I just wanted to make sure that Senator Barrientos didn't have anything to add. Okay. Appreciate you coming.

There will be a number of folks moving out as we move into our next topic, the second delegation. Please feel free to do so, but do so fairly quietly and quickly. We're not going to take a break. We'll move now into the second delegation.

CITY OF VERNON/WILBARGER COUNTY

(Judge Gary Streit, Bob Henry, Herschal Crow, Jim Boynton for Rep. Charles Finnell, David Braddock)

MR. LANEY: Our second delegation this morning is from the City of Vernon in Wilbarger County. They are here to discuss the expansion of US 283 to a four-lane divided highway. I will now call on Wilbarger County Judge Gary Streit, who I had the opportunity to meet this morning, and delighted to have you here. Judge Streit, you might wait a minute or two and let people get seated. Okay, Judge Streit.

JUDGE STREIT: Good morning. I'm Wilbarger County Judge Gary Streit, and I want to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present this request this morning that addresses safety, environmental issues, and economic growth for rural Texas. This request has widespread support as evidenced by the letters in the packet that each of you have been provided. Our desire at the completion of this presentation is for you to favorably consider this corridor in the future highway development plans of Texas.

Our delegation this morning consists of: Oklahoma State Representatives David Braddock and Randy Butler; Herschal Crow, chairman of the Oklahoma Transportation Commission; Mitch Surrett [phonetic], also with the Oklahoma Transportation Commission; members of the Altus, Oklahoma, Chamber of Commerce; members of the Vernon Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee; as well as individuals from TxDOT district in Wichita Falls.

Mr. Bob Henry, president of the Bank of Vernon, will present our program with the reasons that this corridor is a vital link in the Texas transportation system.

MR. HENRY: Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, Director Heald, thank you. My task here today is to explain to you what we are seeking. Our delegation petition is set forth for you in a book that we have presented to you. We also have some slides that we would call your attention to. We are asking that the Oklahoma delegation be here with us at this time to help explain our project.

The representatives from Wilbarger County are asking for an upgrade and for an expansion of US 283 -- and incidentally, through Vernon and south of Vernon it is also 183 of which we've already heard quite a bit about this morning -- to a four-lane highway to coincide with the improvements being made in Oklahoma from Elk City, Oklahoma to the Red River.

We have no known environmental impact problems in our area of the state. The highways that are involved are US 283/183. We are also speaking to, in addition to the delegation petition, and wishing to support the Wichita Falls proposal that was made last year. Our project makes sense in conjunction with their project.

The Wilbarger County Vernon community was contacted in 1995 by the State of Oklahoma regarding their plan to upgrade US 283/Oklahoma 6 from Elk City on I-40 to Altus, Oklahoma and on to the Red River. At that time, the Vernon Chamber of Commerce formed a transportation committee, in which I had the good fortune to be asked to participate and make this presentation. As the study continued, it became evident that if the north central part of Texas was to grow and prosper, it was necessary that this road be improved.

We've heard today a very major concern about the concept of triple convergence. We are using that argument today in the converse. And that is that if corridors are moved over, our area of the state is pushing more traffic into the corridors of the East Texas area. We feel that the map, as depicted here, shows that Wilbarger County and Wichita Falls, and Abilene which is to the south, and Elk City to the north, shows that this would be a natural corridor and would actually divide the state in quadrants that would be a natural delineation. This, in turn, would alleviate some of the congestion that I think you're experiencing in both the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin areas.

Mr. Heald, we from Vernon know that you're from Brownwood. Our Coach Leo Britton and your coach compete very much. We always had a lot of trouble getting from Vernon to Brownwood to compete with you.

(Laughter.)

MR. HENRY: I'm going to go through these slides very fast. This is north of Altus, Oklahoma. They've already started construction on their road north. This will be a four-lane facility. This is approaching Altus again, continuing down the path. This is as we enter into Altus, showing the facility. To the left here is a Wal-Mart Super Center. It has a similar feel to the traffic, the 183 coming into Austin years ago.

This is approaching Altus downtown. This is on the south edge. This is as it intersects with State Highway 5, nine miles south of Altus. This is the Red River Bridge, crossing the Red River, entering into Texas, the Texas welcome sign.

The purpose of this is immediately into Texas this shows the right of way which is a 100-foot right of way. Also, I want to call attention to you the narrow nature of the road, also the condition of the shoulder on this road.

As we approach on in to Vernon, the terrain is similar. Immediately in the front here is that the road curves, enters into the basin of the Pease River, and then curves again to approach the bridge. The bridge is structurally sound. The bridge is very narrow and creates a lot of congestion problems, as you can see here. By the way, this generation of equipment is two sizes smaller than the present generation, that is, the highly technical generation. Any further improvements, equipment will not be able to cross this bridge.

This is looking without -- this is another bridge immediately to the south of that bridge. Immediately in front of us is a railroad track, the Burlington Northern Railroad which handles 16 unit coal trains a day. This coal train now is allowed to come through this area at 60 miles an hour. You can see the potential. The truck on the right is a jet fuel truck that hauls jet fuel from Abilene to Altus Air Force Base. This is looking back to the location where the rail crossing is.

Texas did a study and determined that it's not possible to put an overpass on this, because of the necessity to get down in time for the overpass that is on Highway 287. The curvature is not possible to go over and then down to get underneath this overpass which is the 287 road from Dallas to basically Denver, Colorado. Most of you who are not from our area know Vernon on your way to skiing.

It is also not possible to go under that railroad because the Pease River is right at hand, and that causes a high water table and we would have to have pumps running at all times. This has been concluded by your own department.

Continuing the path of this route, this is downtown Vernon. It just so happens that there was some maintenance being done. I wanted to show you that your people are on the job, and we're very appreciative of it. Continuing south through Vernon, this is on the south edge of Vernon and it becomes a very narrow roadway. We, of course, put the tractor in there to emphasize the exact opposite of what you're experiencing with the previous delegation. We continue to have a wide roadway. We continue to have a very soft shoulder.

This is nine miles south; this is about 15 miles south. This is improvement that is being made to the road and has been in the process the last few months. We're adding about a 2-1/2 foot addition. Before this was added, it was almost suicidal to travel down this road and meet a cattle truck that was over the center line about a foot-and-a-half or two feet.

This is the intersection where our project that we're submitting to you coincides and hooks up with the project that the Wichita Falls delegation is proposing which is the completion of US 277 which will go to Munday. From Munday, Texas to Abilene is already a four-lane road. From Abilene to San Angelo already has four-lane access between it. And we're suggesting that eventually from San Angelo on south to Del Rio would be a natural completion of this corridor.

We feel that this completion of the 277 project from Wichita Falls to Munday and our upgrade from 277 to the Altus highway and on to Elk City -- and I understand that the Oklahoma delegation wishes to continue this on into Kansas.

If you would, turn to Tab B. Our purpose is: to interconnect the National Highway System I-40 to I-20; create a four-lane corridor from Elk City to Abilene, Texas; to relieve traffic congestion on the I-35 corridor; reduce mobile source emissions for cities not in attainment of the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1991 along the I-35 corridor; to eliminate delays caused by rail traffic on US 283; to establish infrastructure and future growth for the cities of Vernon, Seymour, Altus, Oklahoma; to improve transportation systems for goods due to lack of north-south rail service -- the Santa Fe Railroad abandoned their line which essentially follows this route; to improve the route for jet fuel delivery from Altus to Abilene; to improve the industrial transportation for north Texas.

We've had a pretty good success of attracting industry in Texas into Vernon in the last few months. Wright Brand Foods is a locally-owned company; Mayhard [phonetic] Egg Farms is moving from Prosper, Texas, because, I think, the Dallas North Tollroad is aimed right at them. Mr. Mayhard said, I'm having to leave Dallas because of a road. I can't get to where I'm moving -- and he needs a road.

Our largest employer is Vernon State Hospital, 1,100 employees; Vernon Victory Field. We have a national forensic conference in Vernon every year that is attended by people from all over the United States. We are also asking to bypass a narrow outdated bridge and to alleviate a potentially hazardous situation as it relates to our railroad crossing, to straighten narrow and dangerous curves that were established years ago south of Lake Kemp as it enters into the Wichita River basin and follows the contour as it was established then, and to improve the north-south access for commerce and tourism in north central Texas and southern Oklahoma.

Vernon is probably the largest city of a segment of the state that has been seeing a decline. Sixteen counties -- I think we're 12,000 people. We're the largest city. If you will continue into Tab D, we have statistics. We do recognize that numbers count will not allow us to achieve this road, but I think the same factors that were being used to argue against building new corridors will establish that if you'll build us a road, it will be used. In the past, you were taking your life in your hands if you used this road, so the numbers are not going to be there because of the danger. The widening of the road will enhance and help that.

We noticed as we came to Austin that the roads significantly improved as we got closer to Austin, and we came on the 183/283. My grandfather moved to Oklahoma at the turn of the century, and he was convinced to go there because they said that they would be closer to the state capital.

I would like to point out -- and it's just an interesting coincidence -- the November 28 article. There's a Garland man that as he was traveling back to Dallas, he hit the soft shoulder, flipped, overturned, went into the Pease River, and that picture is in your Tab D. There's a very graphic picture of a truck, hit the soft shoulder, overturned. I don't know if you see all the meat parts that are scattered across the road. It also depicts, I think, that same location where I have in the slide.

On January 28, barely three weeks later, another soft shoulder, a rollover. And on February 2 another picture where a car hit the shoulder and ran into another car and had a head-on collision. And then on February 12, barely two weeks later, another one with a two-vehicle collision just immediately south at Vernon. At the very least, I think that if we could upgrade the facility on an interim basis to a better two-lane highway than we have presently, especially as it would interconnect with the Highway 277 --

To finish, in conclusion, I would like to call your attention to Tab F. We have letters of support from: Chairman Crow, who is going to speak after I; Mr. A.B. Horton, who is a co-owner of the Wagner Ranch, and we've been talking about right of way. Mr. Horton points out that 20 miles of this road are running across his property, and he's in support of it. I think that's rather significant.

We have West Texas Utilities. We have a $500 million coal-fired generating plant just outside of Vernon that is being serviced by this coal train that comes in, and the representatives from Abilene say it sure is hard to get from Vernon, Texas to Abilene because of the roads.

We have two letters for support: RODIA which is formerly Road Plot [phonetic] which was formerly Celanese. They have a significant chemical factory and plant in our community. They have a need for this improved project. Three banks -- any time you have the three banks in Vernon supporting something, it means that it has good support. They even allowed me to come down here and speak to you.

(Laughter.)

MR. HENRY: The superintendent of the state hospital has a very convincing letter. Dan Wright with Wright Brand Foods -- they employ 600 people, process 5 percent of the pork in the United States. The Texas Youth Commission which was recently located there is asking for this project. Mayhard Egg Farms, 3-1/2 million eggs a day potential. Crown Quality Feed, Pride Refining, Vernon Independent School District, Judge Streit, the Baylor County judge, the resolution of the NorTex Regional Planning Commission, resolution of the Business Development Corporation, Vernon Industrial Foundation, the Greater Chamber of Commerce, resolution from the county commissioners, resolution from the City of Vernon.

And then we have Altus Chamber of Commerce, the three banks -- and likewise, they're just as competitive as our three are. OK Manufacturing, Republic Gypsum. And by the way, our area of the state is where the majority of the wallboard is manufactured, and we have significant truck traffic coming in, especially on 287, and likewise across this 183 corridor.

Bar-S Foods which is located in Altus; Precision Motor, Wilmus [phonetic]; Red River Federal Credit Union; Johnny Roberts. We have a letter of support from our representatives.

I feel like the necessity for me mentioning the support to you here is because of the distance that it is from Vernon. We could have had a greater percentage in this meeting room from our community showing our support than probably Austin had here today, if that's any indication of our community and the support behind it.

I would like to presently introduce now the chairman of the Oklahoma Transportation Commission for him to make some remarks in addition to mine.

MR. CROW: Thank you, Bob.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols, thank you very much for suffering the presence of an Oklahoman here on your agenda this morning.

MR. LANEY: It's okay but your time is up.

(Laughter.)

MR. CROW: I hope the chairman's wit didn't count against my time.

Mr. Mitch Surrett, who is a special assistant to our secretary, has given documents to you today which provide some information, which may or may not be of interest to you, that concerns some of the construction which is currently in progress in the state of Oklahoma. I think we also included in that a letter from Governor Frank Keating, who endorses the concept of what we are here about today.

Let me also say, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way, Mr. Chairman, that after hearing all the great Americans endorse the 130 as I waited for my turn, I feel like perhaps I should begin my remarks by saying I too endorse 130. I don't want in any way to get crossways with Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchison, at least.

(Laughter.)

MR. CROW: It is my honor to appear before your Commission as chairman of the Oklahoma Transportation Commission for the purpose of assisting Vernon and the north Texas area in their request for upgrading of US 283 between Red River and US 277.

The State of Oklahoma has committed itself to a $1 billion capital improvement program in the next five years, and another $700 million in toll road construction. All of this is in addition to our regular $500 million construction and maintenance program. Now, these may seem like rather small potatoes to a place like Texas, but $500 million is still a lot of money in the state of Oklahoma.

A part of the program which I have just alluded to is a $120 million upgrading of Oklahoma State Highway 6 between Elk City and Altus, Oklahoma, and Red River. We agree with the Vernon leaders that an upgrade which connects the aforementioned facility with US 277 -- whose upgrade we support -- will serve Oklahoma and Texas well. Billions of dollars in agricultural products and oil and other forms of commercial products are annually transported between Oklahoma and southern and central Texas every day.

We call I-40 "America's Main Street". The improvements I have mentioned would extend "Main Street" into central and south Texas to serve as an important outlet for products from the area with destinations to the north.

I'm sure that you agree with me that an important bottleneck to the information age is a lack of transportation infrastructure. Your commission has done wonders in the last 20 years, and I want to depart from my printed script to say that as a person from southern Oklahoma, I'm most familiar with Texas and its highway system. You and your predecessors in TxDOT have done a really great job. I have a son that lives in Houston. I'm in awe of what you do. I think that you have an awesome responsibility, and we salute you for what you do in that responsibility.

Your commission has done wonders. The massive improvements in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and here in Austin, as well as dozens of other important Texas cities have served to help Texas retain the business image that it wants and it deserves. This request will help serve a rural area of north Texas and give it a vital connection with an important part of Texas and the world.

Mr. Chairman, I could have just stood up and said, I second the nomination of Mr. Henry, because I think he said all the things I believe. I would want to pointedly direct your attention to the area immediately north of Vernon.

You have a pretty good facility from Red River to Vernon, but respectfully, the Pease River crossing will make it an important impediment to the kind of traffic that we're hoping to work with. So I think that the right angle that goes down into the Pease River and the narrowness of those bridges are something that really needs to be looked at. I think there's other ways your planners will be able to determine other ways to handle this.

It's my pleasure to be with you. Thank you very much, and we invite you to Oklahoma. Thank you.

MR. HENRY: Representative Finnell was supposed to be here today, and he has had quadruple bypass surgery. And I think he passed his comments along to Mr. Cuellar, I believe.

MR. CUELLAR: Yes, he has.

MR. LANEY: He did indeed. I think Bob has it.

MR. CUELLAR: Representative Finnell did indicate that he wished he could be here; he, unfortunately, is not able to be here. He very much appreciated the delegation from Oklahoma making the extreme effort to be here, particularly since their legislative session is ongoing right now and the amount of time they had to take away from their other duties to come down here and visit with us. He did ask for the representative's aide to be here and offer some additional comments, if that would be all right with your delegation.

MR. LANEY: And Mr. Jim Boynton, welcome. Glad to have you. Please pass on our best wishes to Representative Finnell.

MR. BOYNTON: I will be glad to do that. I know you know the representative and you know how frustrated he is today that he is not able to be here, but his doctor has put his foot down and said he is going to keep his feet up and not on the floor moving around.

He wanted me to come today and reiterate his unswerving and unamended support for this project. In three areas it makes a lot of sense to our part of the state. Safety, which I think you've seen from the newspaper articles and from some of the video slides, is a problem above average in a rural area already, and this is before the upgrading of the feeder route coming in from Oklahoma which is going to just exacerbate that problem.

The second is in the movement of commerce in the area. You've seen some of the major facilities we have and some that are moving into the area, and unlike Austin where you heard about we're really wanting light rail, we've lost over the last few years two train routes through the area. And so trucking has taken up the slack of that putting more and more pressure on the highway system.

And finally, very quickly, the I-35 corridor -- which being from Sherman, I travel back and forth from Austin to there -- this proposal would help bring traffic away from the I-35 corridor and move it further to the west in Texas. And I think if you look at what Oklahoma is doing and what we're proposing going down south to I-20, this would make a good corridor from I-40 in Oklahoma to I-20 in Texas and help move a lot of the traffic away from further east.

You've been introduced to the two representatives in passing from Oklahoma who have come down here. It is my honor now to introduce personally David Braddock -- who is from Altus, Oklahoma -- who would like to make a few comments to the Commission.

MR. BRADDOCK: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols, Director, on behalf of Representative Butler and the other members of the Oklahoma legislative delegation in western Oklahoma, thank you for letting me say a couple of words, and I'll be very brief.

We're here to show the State of Oklahoma's sincere commitment to a corridor tying western Oklahoma and northern Texas. While a few times a year, Oklahoma and Texas line up on opposite sides of the field or opposite sides of the court, northern Texas and western Oklahoma have been tied together economically for a long time, and we are in the same economic game. This corridor will further strengthen those ties.

Western Oklahoma is excited about our new four-lane road from Altus to Oklahoma City connecting up with I-40. Discussions have already started on extending that on up to Woodward -- that's in northern Oklahoma -- and also discussions about hooking up with I-70 in Kansas.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols, we thank you for your consideration of the City of Vernon's proposal to upgrade 283 and 183 and create a new north-south corridor. Thank you very much for your time.

MR. HENRY: I believe that concludes our presentation. I would like to make a comparison. Over 100 years ago, the Chisholm Trail ran through Fort Worth, basically along the I-35 corridor. When it got so crowded, they had to move it over, and they moved it over on the route that we're proposing will be this corridor which is the western trail of the Chisholm Trail. So this is not without precedent, what we're asking for today.

MR. LANEY: How much did it cost them to move the trail over there?

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Mr. Henry, first of all, my compliments on the presentation. It was very helpful in understanding this. And I have to say that it is a real honor to have the representatives of Oklahoma, particularly Mr. Crow. We very much appreciate your making the effort to be here. And Mr. Henry, as you know, and as Mr. Crow knows now, I think it is a true personal pleasure to have you here and appreciate your effort coming down here.

This kind of project, even though not formally part of our trunk system, as I understand it, is a concept that parallels our trunk system concept to a great extent and that Commissioner Nichols has been very, very heavily involved in in the last several months. And it is a troublesome issue to see the kinds of shoulders and hear the pattern of accidents and the frequency that those shoulders seem to at least have some correlation with -- if not an actual direct relationship in terms of causation.

But it is interesting. It is an expensive project, considering the volume of traffic. Countervailing considerations of safety and regional transportation issues, tying us much more effectively with the interstates in the Oklahoma area and our own interstates, are very important issues, but you have our attention.

Mr. Nichols, would you like to say anything?

MR. NICHOLS: I'd just kind of echo some of the things the Chairman said. I appreciate your coming up from Vernon. I realize how you are volunteers from your community with the intent of helping build your community economically -- that's very important for all of us. And I appreciate your taking the time to come here and organize this. It is very helpful to us to better understand the opportunities by the way you presented.

And also, to thank Oklahoma for being here -- and I know we have a lot of projects all along our borders that we should be working much closer with. It's very encouraging to me, and I look forward to working with you on some other things in the future. Thank you for coming down.

MR. LANEY: And we plan on taking Oklahoma up on its invitation to appear in Oklahoma. We've got a lot going on between the two states, and just last night Mr. Nichols and I had the opportunity to visit briefly about some needs that we may need to visit with Oklahoma about. So appreciate it very much.

We will take about a five-minute break to allow people from this last delegation to move on out, if they'd like to, and the next delegation to move on in.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

STATE HIGHWAY 24 ASSOCIATION

(Danny Duncan, Senator David Cain, Dr. Keith McFarland)

MR. LANEY: Let's reconvene the meeting. The third delegation we have this morning is State Highway 24 Association from Hunt and Delta Counties to discuss the expansion of State Highway 24 to four lanes. I'll call on Mr. Danny Duncan, the president of the State Highway 24 Association, who is leading this delegation.

And, Mr. Duncan, before you begin, let me just mention for those of you in the audience, following this presentation, we have a fourth delegation and then we will move into items 7 and 8 on our agenda, after which we will have an executive session; so we expect to be moving into executive session about noon and likely reconvening around one o'clock, just for those of you who are in the audience who might be planning the rest of your morning and early afternoon.

Excuse me, Mr. Duncan. It's all yours. Welcome.

MR. DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, Mr. Director. My name is Danny Duncan from Commerce, Texas, representing the Highway 24 Association. We are an association of commissioners courts, chambers of commerce, and interested citizens from Lamar, Delta, and Hunt Counties, Texas, working jointly to complete Highway 24 as a four-lane trunk route connecting the Midwest of the United States to Northeast Texas and points south.

With your permission, I would like to introduce a few of our supporters up and down the corridor who have traveled a long distance. Would our association please rise? Thank you.

First, we would like to thank the Commissioners, TxDOT, and their staff for the work already completed. Since 1986, with your support, the corridor has been completed south from Commerce to Interstate 30. This provides easy access to Commerce and Texas A&M University at Commerce. Approximately one-third of the traffic traveling east on I-30 exits at Highway 24.

Completing this corridor would connect the Gulf Coast of Texas to the Midwest of the United States with a four-lane route. Completing this corridor would be the cheapest way to provide an alternate NAFTA route and alleviate traffic on I-35 North and congestion that occurs in Dallas. This, we think, would be the cheapest alternate NAFTA route. Completing this corridor would alleviate our appearance every two years before you.

(Laughter.)

MR. DUNCAN: Local folks have come into my office asking about this project over the last ten years. Some tell me they cannot sell their home, their land, or their business. After asking why, they have stated that it is hard to put a value on something that may or may not disappear in the next decade. To paraphrase, in a book that was written by Skip Steely: Men have grown old waiting on the completion of Highway 24.

These slides that are coming up very briefly will show where the corridor is, the three counties that Highway 24 goes through: Hunt, Lamar, and Delta. These are the cities that are along or adjacent to Highway 24, beginning with Paris to the north, Cooper, Commerce, and Greenville. Again, these are the counties served by 24 and adjacent to 24 in Northeast Texas.

We would like to thank the Commission again for the work that has been completed. This is a bridge at Campbell. Many accidents occurred on it, some fatalities. This was completed just recently at a $4.7 million cost; it was a major obstacle in getting us to the interstate. This is looking north from the interstate; looking back to the interstate, the work has been completed; you can see to the far left there, that will eventually go over the interstate.

Looking back to the interstate, a bridge that needs to be replaced. This is a bridge that was recently replaced, looking back to the south over the railroad trestle. Again, another shot of the recently completed bridge; another shot of the bridge. This is some of the shots of what you have done for us, and we think that this is one of the prettiest drives in East Texas.

This is looking back. This is some of the older sections of the highway completed, looking back towards Commerce and Texas A&M University. Texas A&M University is the second largest employer, and Highway 24 is a main artery to our plant. We have a $93 million fiscal plant, 154-acre main campus, and a big farm system. Many campus attractions go on year round: campus tours, athletic events, et cetera.

East Texas counties served by Highway 24, and Texas A&M University-Commerce, and Paris Junior College primary services regions. Dr. McFarland will touch on this, but we have cooperative programs between Paris Junior College, being the nursing program. Students are on actually three campuses: Paris, Commerce, and Greenville.

Our enrollment and projections for the future at Texas A&M-Commerce: 7,457 in '96; 7,760 in '97; and in the year 2000, with the A&M name, and we think that that will go far beyond 9,000 is our hope.

Just to the east of Commerce on 24, you can see 24 goes right along to the northwest, right in that sector right there. This is a reservoir that was just completed and impounded in 1992, Cooper Lake. The west end, if you can see right there, is one of four points that we access Cooper Lake. It's 19,000 acres; it's virtually an undiscovered jewel in our quadrant of the state, and we have more timber back up in there and is one of three accesses to the lake, and it is the most used access at this time. The visitors to Cooper Lake last year in 1997 was 358,000. The Corps projects by the year 2000 it will have over a million visitors to the reservoir.

The next slides are going to show what we wish for; these are our wishes and this is some of the highway that is out there presently. There's an intersection just northwest of Commerce where two four-lanes converge down to one two-lane. This is 24 coming into 224, and these are some of the slides of this intersection and the truck traffic that we have there. This shows from the top of the train trestle looking back north. The Commerce Industrial Association owns land just over the north; we would be willing to donate that for right-of-way purposes.

This is looking at the intersection coming from the west; from the west again; and this is looking back toward the north. Another shot of the intersection; this is looking back toward the west. This is right north of Commerce looking toward a bridge that needs to be replaced, and also another intersection; and this is the intersection. Highway 24 goes on to Delta County and Cooper, Paris; this is looking back to the west. I think this truck made a U-turn right there.

This is A-D-T in the area right here, and actually A should be a little bit further down toward Commerce, but we think that these numbers are going to be greatly -- these are real numbers but we think by the year 2017, these are going to be greatly enhanced.

Basically, Commissioners, our requests are very simple. We want to complete and approve the environmental study as soon as possible -- we think that has been done; hold our last public hearing -- we've had two; we would like to begin the right-of-way purchase in 1998; and begin construction of the entire corridor from Hunt County to Delta to Lamar County ASAP.

With your permission, I would like to introduce State Senator David Cain.

SENATOR CAIN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols, Acting Director Cuellar, and Director Designate -- congratulations again -- Mr. Heald, and my good friend Russell Harding.

I won't take but just a second to talk to you about the importance, in my mind, of Highway 24 and that the entire project be done and completed in one letting, if at all possible. And obviously, I'm speaking on request number 4 which was outlined to you in a very excellent presentation by my friend Mr. Duncan.

As you can tell, there are three counties working very hard together to make this finally a reality. The Highway 24 Association supports the completion of the eighth and final section of Highway 24 from Commerce to SH 9 south of Paris in one letting. This is particularly meaningful because it's the last section needed before making this road, State Highway 24, a major four-lane highway from IH-30 up to Paris.

Currently, the remaining 22 miles -- and that's all that's left of two-lane road that comprises the last section of this highway -- is subdivided and it's set to be completed in three sections rather than one, as we're requesting here. Only the five-mile section is a Priority 2, while the remaining two are part of the long-range plan.

I believe that this project, in its remaining entirety, merits the consideration of this Commission and of its staff, and we're very hopeful that you will consider -- especially along the lines of the trunk system that we're looking at and single corridors, important corridors -- that this be moved up into that fashion, and that's what we would request here today.

It has strong support, and unlike some other things we've seen this morning, no known opposition is here today, nor do we encounter any within the county that I represent which is Hunt County, and the other two counties which are our good neighbors to the north and to the east.

Additionally, if you would grant me just one item to talk about that is not part of the Highway 24, I want to personally thank you for your wisdom and your consideration in providing critically needed funds to the State Rural Transportation Program. It's my understanding that this will be discussed later on today, and I think you're showing a great deal of foresight in addressing that very critical need -- which is a critical need in this region that we're talking about as well, and in the counties that I represent.

I'd further say one thing back on 24. The portion of the project that is in the plan that will be done fairly quickly is the portion that's in my district, but I think it hopefully would be significant to you that I'm here for the whole project to be done in one letting, if possible, because I think it warrants that kind of consideration.

Thank you very much for allowing me to be here with you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Senator Cain.

MR. DUNCAN: Dr. Keith McFarland, president of Texas A&M University.

DR. McFARLAND: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, committee. On behalf of the 7,500 students at Texas A&M University Commerce and the more than 1,000 faculty members it employs at the institution, I would like to say how very important we feel that the completion of this Highway 24 project is. We think that corridor is very important to our institution. We have several thousand students that regularly commute to our institution. In addition to that, every day on campus we have many individuals come for continuing education. Those individuals start coming in the morning and they're there until late in the evening, returning home. Highway 24 is the major entrance from the north and from the south.

In addition to that, we have many cultural outreach programs that bring people to our campus in the evening. There's not a night goes by in our town that you can't find a concert, a play, a lecture, or a major cultural event, and people travel that highway, many of them with family members, many schoolchildren's buses come to our campus bringing those individuals; so for their safety, we're very concerned, but this is also cultural outreach as well as economic development.

So we certainly support the Highway 24 corridor and hope that you will give it a high priority. Thank you.

MR. DUNCAN: Thank you, Dr. McFarland.

Again, our requests are: to complete and approve the environmental study; hold the last public hearing; begin the right-of-way purchase; and hopefully begin the construction. Thank you for your time.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

MR. DUNCAN: That concludes our presentation.

MR. LANEY: We have one speaker signed up to speak on this. Charlotte Dyess, representing Representative Pete Patterson.

MS. DYESS: My name is Charlotte Dyess; I represent Pete Patterson. I'm just going to read a letter from Pete.

"Dear Commissioners. My schedule prevents me from appearing with the Highway 24 Association delegation before you today. Please accept this letter as my support for completion of the four-lane divided Highway 24 system through Delta and Hunt Counties. Finishing this project is important to facilitate travel in East Texas. We appreciate the past support the Commission has given and ask your favorable consideration of our request. Sincerely, Pete Patterson."

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Ms. Dyess.

I think that concludes this delegation's presentation. I want to say, first of all, thank you for the effort, and we know how much effort it takes to put a presentation like this together and then to travel here from Commerce. It's a long haul, just like it was for those from Vernon.

And I've got to say I've been on the road on a number of occasions in this last couple of years, particularly the little segment between I-30 and Texas A&M -- which used to be East Texas State -- and it is one of the prettiest drives I've ever been on. It is just lovely, and it is a great road -- as far as it goes.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: And I understand what you're talking about on the north end and moving north from Commerce. We appreciate the presentation, and as you know, we don't make decisions at these meetings on these kinds of issues, but I think we will look at this very carefully and see if we can move some of these things up in the overall planning process.

Mr. Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: Well, I just also wanted to thank you for coming up. It is very helpful to us to become aware and listen to the support and become more educated on these. I think we've been very supportive of trying to complete corridors like this that are partially four-lane and partially two-lane. Trucks and travel are not going to choose routes that have bottlenecks, and I think you've made a very good case and appreciate you coming here.

MR. LANEY: Thank you very much.

We will move on to the fourth delegation without a break, so if those of you in connection with the Highway 24 delegation can move on out as quickly and as quietly as you can.

POLK COUNTY - CITY OF LIVINGSTON

(Rep. Allen Hightower, Judge John Thompson, Murphy George)

MR. LANEY: The fourth delegation today is Polk County and the City of Livingston in East Texas. They are here to discuss the US 59 bypass in Livingston, and I would like to recognize Representative Allen Hightower to lead off this delegation. And it is great to have you back, Representative Hightower.

MR. HIGHTOWER: Thank you, Chairman Laney, members of the Commission. We appreciate the opportunity to come before you today, and as Chairman Laney says, I'm what's left of 16 years in the House of Representatives in the name of Allen Hightower.

Polk County happens to be the geographical center of the House District I represent that has Walker, San Jacinto, Polk, and Tyler Counties, normally considered deep East Texas. And there are a number of constituencies that have strong ties with Polk County that will be here today, either to testify or in support of what we would like to discuss with the Commission. Obviously, to us it's a matter of great importance, and we hope that you will find our proposal acceptable.

What we want to propose to you is a cost-sharing arrangement for construction of frontage roads along US Highway 59 in Livingston, Texas, which is the county seat of Polk County. The presentation that follows is almost identical to the version that we sent to Mr. Cuellar's office a couple of weeks ago. We have made a little bit of a modification that one of the other people here will address after I get through.

At this point, if you would allow, I'd like to introduce the groups that are represented today. Along with me, from the House of Representatives is Representative McReynolds, who is from St. Augustine County, but also has Angelina, Trinity, Houston -- may have another one, but that's pretty close. From Polk County, the county judge, John Thompson is here. From the City of Livingston the mayor, Ben Ogletree; Sam Gordon, the city manager; Marilyn Sutton, the city secretary.

Representing the Livingston Independent School District, we have Henry Ager, who is the chairman of the school board at Livingston Independent School District, a 4-A school -- which, thank goodness, by the way, is still in the basketball playoffs. And we also have Janet Morris, who is the superintendent of the Livingston Independent School District.

And from Memorial Health Care Systems of East Texas, Mr. Murphy George, who is a past board chairman and board member; Gary L. Whatley, the president and CEO; Jon Lamkin, the vice president of planning and development; George Watts, president of Piney Woods Medical Development Corp.; and Jay Dickson, administrator of the Memorial Livingston Hospital.

That will about wind up what I'm doing here except to say that, for me, I have a great deal of interest, not only as a state legislator, in what takes place here, I happen to be one of the 62 that graduated from Livingston High School in 1964, but there's been a great change in significant areas in transportation needs and population in that county.

But at this time let me pass the baton on to the county judge from Polk County, John Thompson. Obviously, I would be glad to answer any questions the Commission would have and would wait until it's over. Thank you.

JUDGE THOMPSON: Thank you, Representative Hightower.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols. I'd like to take just a few minutes to go through our proposed project, and we have a slide presentation. I'll try to describe the need a little bit to you and also offer a scenario we think that will help us accomplish a goal which is important to all of us.

Along this highway section, the bypass of 59 around Livingston, we have a number of major developments that are coming into being in the very near future, some $42 million worth of commerce. We have a new junior high school that will start in April of this year, being completed in the year 2000; a new hospital to start also in April to be completed in 2000; major expansion to our parks system, and that should be started and completed in this fiscal year.

Along with these will be a major increase in traffic flow along both sides of this particular section of the bypass, and we are here today to propose a cost-sharing arrangement with the Texas Department of Transportation to accomplish this.

One of the things that impacts us in our area most, from the U.S. Census Bureau, we have some figures that we'd like to show you. Polk County in 1990 was about 30,000 people. In the year 2000 we should be approximately 50,000, which is a 67 percent growth over that 10-year period. Statistics show that in the year 2030 that Polk County should be in the vicinity of 150,000 people. This really offers some unique challenges to all of us at every level of government, and one reason we are receiving quite a bit of media attention, in that we are one of the fastest growing areas in the state.

To orient you a little bit to the area we're talking about, this slide was obviously not prepared by TxDOT because north is to your left instead of to the top of the screen. Marketing managers sometimes -- never mind.

(Laughter.)

JUDGE THOMPSON: But the area we're talking about is shaded between the bypass between the intersection of 190 and Business 59, and you can see on the left side the school district site, immediately adjacent is the hospital site, and some short distance down the freeway is the Pettigo Park. On the other side we also have some senior care facilities which are being built.

The south half of the bypass presently has frontage roads and were initially planned for both ends of the bypass. A little bit closer view of the development sites, if we'll start at the bypass in the northern part, you will see the 50-acre site for the junior high school. It's immediately joined on the south by a 41-acre site for the new hospital campus, and then the road has been truncated somewhat to move the Pettigo Park up into the slide which it presently cannot be seen. But trust me, it's right down to your -- we're zooming out to where you can see it, and it's a 224-acre park site.

If you will note the overpass, and I'll talk a little more about that as we move through the program.

The next slide, the volumetric information we're going to present to you today was prepared for us by Parsons Transportation, I believe the same organization that works for TxDOT. The yellow graph shows the peak-hour traffic volume without the developments and the red graph shows the peak-hour traffic volume with the developments. You'll notice that's about a 30 percent increase.

This 30 percent increase does not take into consideration the population increase that we're seeing in our area; it does not take in the adjoining counties and cities; it does not take into consideration the international flavor, if you will, of Highway 59 and the immense amount of traffic that it already carries; nor does it take into consideration the types of drivers that we're going to be talking about.

And when we speak of the types of drivers, on the next slide, the traffic mix is most important in the safety factor. We are dealing, I guess, with what I would consider to be nonstandard traffic: with the hospital we have the emergency vehicles, elderly drivers, families with serious situations, patients in and out, not to mention 200 employees and doctors. With the schools -- I think we probably all with children have experienced having to either pick up or drop off a child at school -- we're going to have 1,400 students, 100 employees, buses, carpools, teenage drivers, all of the associated problems that a school -- or challenges, I might would say, with a school.

And Pettigo Park presently only handles about 124 cars a day, but with their expansion, that should rise on their special events days to 1,500 a day. And if we think back a moment to the overpass, in the southbound lane, we'll have traffic at 65-plus miles an hour trying to mix with this very unusual traffic mix, and it offers a great challenge without the frontage roads.

One thing that's very important to us in East Texas, we have been economically depressed for many years, but we are fortunate that when these new projects come on line, it will be a great economic surge to us, and we're extremely happy and pleased that they are, but I'd like to briefly outline them.

Our new health care subdivision 41-acre site is a $25.3 million project. It offers the hospital, professional office buildings, and other supportive health facilities, and 200 new jobs.

The new junior high is a $16 million project, with the common buildings associated with a school and sporting events and other major things, with 1,400 students and 105 employees.

Pettigo Park is about a million-dollar project and will expand their array of events to the Trade Days, which is a special event program and creates a tremendous amount of traffic plus an economic benefit.

Having said all of this, we think the frontage roads are necessary for several reasons. One is to promote the continued economic development and job creation in our county.

Second and also very, very important would be to achieve a safe traffic flow. I think one of the overwhelming statistics in this is that of all the non-interstate highway systems in this nation, US 59 has the highest percentage of truck traffic at 25 percent. You can see why, without frontage roads, we are very concerned about mixing this type traffic, high-speed traffic, with the types of drivers we'll have with the new developments. And last, to maintain the traffic throughout one of Texas' main transportation corridors between Canada and Mexico through the United States with the international flavor.

Now, we have a combined effort not only with our county and others, but this is a regional effort and for that reason, because it's so important to us, Polk County, the school district, Memorial Health Systems, the City of Livingston, and our local TxDOT district have come up with $1.1 million, a little over one-third of the estimated $3.2 million that it will require to complete this project. And we hope that this will allow TxDOT to move forward to help us accomplish something that is most definitely in all of our best interest.

In closing, because of the completion dates which we have shown you earlier in the presentation, those being in the year 2000, we would like to ask for your consideration of the following items. One is that you approve funding from the fiscal year 1998 budget for frontage road construction on both sides of Highway 59 Bypass, north from the intersection of Highway 190 to Business 59; and secondly, that you authorize project design to begin in the spring of 1998 and notice to proceed with construction on bid opening.

Again, we thank you for the opportunity to be here and walk through this program with you. I would like to hand off the program at this time to Murphy George, who is one of our regional partners in this effort, and we'll be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

MR. GEORGE: Thank you, Judge.

And let me thank you for your attention and consideration and just a few closing remarks. We've tried to illustrate that this project is integral to the future success of this community because of economic development reasons, safety issues, and the future growth of traffic along this corridor, as well as the safety of people who travel through Polk County each day.

The fact that these constituencies have stepped forward with a substantial up-front cash outlay should demonstrate the urgency and dire need for this frontage road project to go forward. We hope you will approve our proposal based on the merits of our need for frontage roads and the constituencies' willingness to pay for 34 percent of the cost.

At this point we invite your questions and comments, and please feel free to address anyone in the group. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you. The numbers we have differ from the numbers you just presented, if I'm not mistaken, and the fact that you're willing to put up about a third or a little more than a third of the project gets our attention, needless to say. We don't see that very often, so this must be a very meaningful and important project from the standpoint of the community.

Let me digress for just a second and just allude to the fact that I believe, if I'm not mistaken, Representative Hightower, you have decided not to run again.

MR. HIGHTOWER: Yes, sir, that's correct. It's probably in the best interest of the people of this state.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: And it is just for that very reason -- not that it's for the best interest of the people of the state, but for the reason of that levity and that self-deprecating humor, we will miss you and your support that we have seen, and I am truly sorry that I haven't had the opportunity to work longer with you than I have. We will certainly miss your support and your involvement and your input and your insights.

MR. HIGHTOWER: Well, thank you so very much.

MR. LANEY: You have done a phenomenal job for the state and for your community, and I hope they recognize that.

MR. HIGHTOWER: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

MR. LANEY: We appreciate you being here, and hope we see you a few more times, either during the stint of your term and maybe even occasionally afterwards.

MR. HIGHTOWER: Well, I hope so too. It's kind of one of those things that once it -- you can't totally not care anymore when you put 16 years of your life into what you consider in the best interest not only of your district but of all the people in this state. It's not something that you can leave behind you very easily.

But I think that it's in the best interest of my constituents that someone with a little more energy that has not broken off near as many arrows -- let me explain it to you this way, and I won't ramble; you folks have a full agenda today.

I'm asked from time to time, you know, How can you be in a chairman's position, a position like that, and leave at that point in your career. It's not the arrows that I take and none of the arrows ever kill me, although I got hit with a lot of them and I broke them all off, but that the salient weight of the arrowheads alone over a period of 16 years will finally drag you down. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Well, it will be hard to find anybody with your energy level and the value of your input. We're glad to have you here.

Back to this project, I'll leave it at my first statement: I think your willingness to step up to the table the way you're proposing to at least has my attention, and I expect will have our attention as we move forward in this process.

Mr. Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: I have a couple of questions. You commented $3.2 million for construction; in my book I'm showing 2.8.

MR. CUELLAR: You're correct, Commissioner. That is what the estimate was that we had coming in here, so we'll have to get together with the delegation and make sure we have the most current ones.

MR. NICHOLS: We assume the 1.1 stays, even though the cost of the construction goes down. Is this for frontage roads on the north and south side?

JUDGE THOMPSON: No, sir. They're on both sides, the east and west side, actually, if you turn the slide up correctly. The south half of the bypass does presently have frontage roads.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. That's what I thought.

JUDGE THOMPSON: They were both designed originally, but only the south half was built.

MR. NICHOLS: So it's the north side only we're talking about, the west side.

JUDGE THOMPSON: Two frontage roads; one on each side of the north half of the bypass.

MR. NICHOLS: Oh, it is both sides; we are talking about both sides.

JUDGE THOMPSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Most of these projects you've got coming up, the school and the park and all these things like that, appear to all be on one side.

JUDGE THOMPSON: Yes, sir. But there is future development on the other side, and there not being a crossover --

MR. NICHOLS: I understand. It looks like with the starting dates of these projects, it's eminently important that at least that one side get done quick.

JUDGE THOMPSON: Well, I think if you had to prioritize them, yes, sir, what would be the west side would be the highest priority.

MR. NICHOLS: I know you're talking about needing both, but it looks like the length of time sometimes our projects take, for the construction dates you have in mind for these projects, it looks quite eminent to me, at least on one side.

JUDGE THOMPSON: I think probably one of the engineers with our local district could probably answer the reason for needing both better than I, but -- yes, sir, but most of the developments to come on line, or the large developments, are on the west side.

MR. NICHOLS: I live north of you and I drive this route quite often, and I remember driving the old route and I remember the new route, and I've stopped at the mall and things like this, so I'm quite familiar with the area.

That answered all my questions. I commend you on your work on economic development in Livingston; you have done a great job.

JUDGE THOMPSON: Thank you, sir.

MR. LANEY: Unfortunately, because Commissioner Nichols is also from deep East Texas, he has a conflict of interest and he can't vote on this project.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: But he's in favor of it otherwise.

Thank you very much for the presentation, appreciate the effort, and we will go ahead and move on at this point and be back in touch with you. Thank you.

P R O C E E D I N G S (Resumed)

MR. LANEY: That concludes the delegation portion of the meeting; we will now proceed with our regular business meeting and move into those two items that I referred to.

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, Agenda Item 7 deals with the State Infrastructure Bank. Agenda Items a. and b. will be presented by Frank Smith, director of the Budget and Finance Division. Agenda Item a. will be the consideration of additional drawdown of federal money for deposit into the State Infrastructure Bank

MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. I bring two minute orders to you today for your consideration.

The first minute order is for a drawdown of $6,360,000 of federal funds to be deposited into the State Infrastructure Bank. This is a drawdown from the original $12 million that was given to the Department from the U.S. DOT for our participation in the SIB Program. Matching that with our 20 percent state funds of $1,590,000 will bring this drawdown to a total of $7,950,000 to be deposited into the SIB.

I might mention that the federal funds, drawing this down, this amount of money, the total $12 million can only be used for SIB projects. And we recommend your approval.

MR. LANEY: Comments?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. SMITH: The second minute order is requesting permission for us to proceed with contract negotiations with Motley County for an all-system bridge SIB loan in the amount of $33,300. This is a bridge that is very much needed in their area; it is to be rebuilt; it burned last year. All of the parties within TxDOT who have looked at the application concur that this is a good project for us to go forward with. And we are asking at this time to sit down with Motley County and negotiate the terms.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have no questions. The comment I have is obviously this is a good project to work forward on, I'll move that we allow you to negotiate further -- which is what the motion is: accept this minute order. But I'd also like to make the comment that I think this whole SIB process is something that we're going to be evolving in, and this is a cumbersome, two-step process on a loan application like that, and I would like to see us try to schedule a staff briefing that we might have input from staff and ideas and some brainstorming sessions of a way to streamline -- possibly modify these rules to help streamline some of these smaller applications.

MR. SMITH: Great. We appreciate those comments; we concur 100 percent, and we'll work toward setting up that date.

MR. LANEY: I second what Robert has to say. I would add a little bit more -- and this is just for thought, it's not a directive, and it may take a totally different direction than this -- but on loans of this size and maybe up to 100,000, maybe up to two or two fifty, whatever the number is -- I'll let you all decide -- I would like almost within the SIB construct to create a separate -- from an accounting standpoint, for accounting purposes only, not from a legal standpoint -- a separate revolving fund with a fixed amount available, say, $5 million, for loans of this size that come and go and come and go on a much more expedited basis than you're having to come before the Commission on these kinds of things, if it's doable.

MR. SMITH: Very good. We think those would be excellent improvements.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: That was.

MR. LANEY: And a second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Frank.

MR. SMITH: Thank you very much.

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, Agenda Item 8 will be presented by Mr. Tom Griebel. First, Agenda Item 8.a. deals with Public Transportation; Agenda Item 8.a.(1) will be the partial certification of intercity bus needs.

MR. GRIEBEL: The next two agenda items pertain to, as Mr. Cuellar indicated, the rural public transportation system, Program 5311. It was the agenda items that Senator Cain had referred to in his Highway 24 remarks.

Item 8.a.(1) pertains specifically to intercity bus funding. Federal regulations require that 15 percent of the Section 5311 Program be used for intercity bus projects, unless it is determined and certified by the governor that the state intercity bus needs are being adequately met. If it is found that the intercity bus needs are being met, the 15 percent set-aside may be used for other rural public transportation purposes.

In making a certification, the relative needs of the intercity bus industry and the rural public transportation provider must be considered. Governor Bush has delegated certification authority to the Texas Transportation Commission.

And recently it was discovered that the Department's Section 5311 program is over-obligated by $1 million, approximately. To correct the over-obligation without adversely affecting the public transportation providers, many of which are already experiencing funding shortfalls, additional funding is necessary. The most readily available source of funding is from the intercity bus set-aside. Transferring funds and distributing them to rural transit providers will also aid us in an effort to close out past federal programs.

In accordance with the federal program regulation, the Department has conducted an assessment of the relative needs of the Texas intercity bus industry and the public transportation providers. On February 17 of 1998, after consulting with the intercity bus industry representatives, TxDOT has conducted a public hearing to obtain comments on the proposed transfer of approximately $988,000 from unobligated intercity bus set-aside funds to the Section 5311 rural public transportation program to address the over-programming situation.

No objections to the proposed actions were expressed. The intercity bus industry has expressed no opposition to the transfer. Staff recommends approval of the minute order certifying, on behalf of the government, that the intercity bus transportation needs in Texas are adequately being met, to the extent that $987,895 should be transferred from the intercity bus set-aside to other rural public transportation programs.

Currently, we have $3.4 million under contract with the intercity bus providers; we're in the process of going out with a call for an additional $1.8 million that should go out in the Register in about a month. If there are any other questions.

MR. NICHOLS: No additional comments came in this morning from that hearing?

MR. GRIEBEL: We had a subsequent letter from the hearing, but in our reading of the letter, it dealt more with the future call than with the actual transfer of the intercity bus.

MR. NICHOLS: So we did get one in.

MR. GRIEBEL: We got one comment from a provider in Abilene, an intercity van operator, and he was more interested in how he could get access to funds to retrofit his vans for the elderly and disabled -- to retrofit them for wheelchair lifts. No other comments than that.

MR. NICHOLS: I've had all my questions answered earlier.

MR. LANEY: Could I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. GRIEBEL: The next agenda item, this is Agenda Item 8.a.(2), Section 5311 funding. On July 31, 1997, the Commission passed minute order 107222, thereby distributing approximately $5.9 million in federal rural transportation funds to the rural transportation providers. The allocation to each operator -- which was determined based on formulas established in the Texas Register -- was miscalculated. The minute order presented today, Item 8.a.(2) cancels minute order 10722 and redistributes funding in accordance with the correct formula.

The state rural public transportation funding is also distributed -- that was the federal earlier -- the state rural public transportation funding is also distributed by formula, with the state formula being driven by federal formula allocations. Due to the mechanics of the state formula which is established by law, 32 of the 41 rural transit systems will receive less state formula funding for fiscal year '98-'99 -- which is currently what we're in -- than they received in the previous biennium, even though the legislature increased the overall program by 14 percent.

And in November of 1997, you passed rules that modified the federal formula rules to allow us to do additional types of projects besides expansion and new starts.

To stabilize funding and ensure that all systems receive a minimal increase, this minute order also authorizes the allocation of federal strategic priority funding and state commission selected funding up to the level shown in Exhibit A of this minute order. Strategic priority and Commission-selected projects are non-formula discretionary funds that may be used to fund rural transit programs selected by the Commission.

And lastly, the minute order also authorizes allocation of intercity bus set-aside for what you authorized the transfer in the previous minute order. And we recommend approval of this minute order, and I will be happy to answer any questions. I realize this is complex.

To summarize, we're canceling a minute order; we're re-issuing funds based on the over-program we did on intercity; we're suggesting that you stabilize the funding based on the previous biennium; and we're also suggesting that you give a 5 percent increase to the rural transit systems that did not receive an increase in the last legislative session because of the formulas that are locked in statute. And I apologize for the complexity of this thing.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Tom.

We have one speaker signed up to speak on this particular issue: Mr. Michael Plaster with the Texas Transit Association. Welcome, Mr. Plaster.

MR. PLASTER: Thank you. I am Mike Plaster, executive director of the Texas Transit Association.

Staff has presented both the facts and the concerns of the industry very accurately. To have a 14 percent increase in state appropriations for the rural systems, the 41 rural systems in the state, and then to see 32 of them actually dropped because of statutory formula was rather dramatic for us.

Just to let you know, we are working with staff, as we speak, over the last several months and continuing probably through just before the next session to correct that statutory formula so that there are no more losses just due to the vagaries of the formula.

We believe that the systems should basically rise and fall pretty close to being the same, given discretion by the Commission on their discretionary projects. And given the level of funding that we have to struggle for every biennium, we think we need to have some kind of a minimum fallback that will allow us to move forward and not have such incidents like we had today or recently hit us.

And I want to say, too, that we appreciate, since the inception of Mr. Laney as chairman, the opportunity to work with TxDOT in a much more close and accessible way. We look forward to working with Commissioner Nichols and the new Director Heald in the same way. It's nice to be more than just a glitch on a radar scope.

We believe public transportation is going to be one way to handle a lot of our highway problems as far as congestion and those kinds of issues, and just to reiterate, the roadways and highways are important to transit, because I would say 98 percent of all ridership in the state is on the roadways. So we appreciate your efforts in that area as well, and we want to work with you.

As far as the rules go, just to say this: the rulemaking, we certainly do agree with as well, especially as they undergird the change that we're looking at right here in the way of the formula and the allocation of those funds.

If there are any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Plaster.

Robert, do you have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions. I so move.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion and I second the motion.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, if you like, we can continue with the rest of Agenda Item 8 and finish that topic out, and Agenda Item 8.b. deals with Aviation, again to be presented by Mr. Tom Griebel, the assistant director for Multimodal Transportation.

MR. GRIEBEL: Item 8.b.(1) authorizes the financial assistance for airport improvement projects at 18 locations across the state. Thirteen of these projects are for terminal building construction with the State providing 50 percent of the total cost, not to exceed $200,000, and the local entities are responsible for the remainder, either $200,000 or 50 percent or more.

Two of the projects are planning studies; two are engineering and design services. The State, between the state and federal funds, will provide 90 percent of the funding for these projects and the locals are responsible for the 10 percent.

The other award in here authorizes funding for a cost overrun at a reliever project that was transferred from the Federal Aviation Administration to TxDOT when the law changed last December and assigned reliever airports to TxDOT as the block grants state.

Previously, under the authority that you granted us, we had an overrun based on right-of-way acquisition that we were not aware of at the time the commitment was made up in Arlington, and Dave Fulton, the director of the Aviation Division, authorized a $462,000 increase. And now subsequent to that -- and we put the project out for bid, a parallel taxiway -- we've had an excess cost overrun of $352,722, and that's what we're asking you to authorize an overrun in excess of the 25 percent that we've already authorized.

The total project for Arlington would be $2,662,722, and staff recommends approval of this minute order. I'll be glad to answer any questions. We did hold a public hearing and there were no comments on the minute order.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Just a comment. Most of it's real clear to me; I got most of my questions answered yesterday. On this portion on the overrun, I would suggest that when these backgrounds come around, that the overrun reflect the entire overrun and not just the excess over 25 percent.

MR. GRIEBEL: I totally agree with you, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: It wasn't until I dug into it that the overrun was actually 45 percent, but I've since found out it really wasn't all overrun. Part of it was the fact, as I understand, that we took over the reliever airport after this project was already in transition.

MR. GRIEBEL: It was already underway, correct, and there was a commitment -- the number that you passed previously was the 90 percent funding -- the federal only, it didn't include the 10 percent local, it didn't include the commitment for the right-of-way that we were to reimburse the City of Arlington for. So there were at least three events that caused this to exceed by 45 percent.

MR. NICHOLS: So this wasn't really all us. This was the project. I think it was important to put that on the record.

MR. GRIEBEL: Right.

MR. NICHOLS: Other than that, I had no problem. I move to accept the minute order.

MR. LANEY: I thought the overrun was the product of them having to extend the runway long enough so you could land your plane there.

MR. NICHOLS: To what?

MR. LANEY: So you could land your plane there.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: I second the motion.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Agenda Item 8.c. dealing with the consideration of participation in the Deep South Rail Corridor Study will also be presented by Mr. Griebel.

MR. GRIEBEL: Mr. Cuellar, if you could back up one, I think we missed one. It's a new program -- I apologize for that. It's 8.b.(2).

MR. CUELLAR: My apologies, Mr. Griebel.

MR. GRIEBEL: Aviation Innovative Finance. This is a new program for TxDOT. The United States Congress established a pilot innovative finance program for aviation to be administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. The intent of the program is to foster new creative ways to improve airports by increasing the amount of funding available to aviation improvements.

TxDOT submitted to the FAA a proposal for project participation and we were ultimately selected -- which we're real pleased with -- to participate. At the time that they did the program, there wasn't any money that we were aware of attached to it, but we always aggressively try to anticipate that there may be some money. The Department will receive a grant of $1,023,924 to carry out the program.

Our focus on the proposal is funding projects that would have significant impact -- and this is the innovative part -- significant impact on safety, security, and all-weather capabilities at airports, and those are projects that we don't normally fund at TxDOT.

And also under the proposal there is in the federal law that the FAA grants have to pay 90 percent of the program. We propose that we leverage more local funds -- that's a 75-25, which they accepted, which would help us realize additional funding at the local level.

Also a part of the innovation is the statewide Department-administered program rather than directly from FAA, where we could realize some economy scales, particularly when we buy navigation aid systems and weather stations for these airports.

The minute order authorizes financial assistance under the Innovative Finance Demonstration Program for 32 airport improvement projects. The projects range in scale from safety fencing to visual aids to automatic weather observation systems, for a total cost of $1.625 million; and of this, approximately 400,000 would be paid for by state funds, the 75 percent.

We held a public hearing in January and there were no comments received, and staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: The only comment I had is I think this is great. My compliments to the Aviation Department for getting the extra money into the State of Texas for this, and I so move that we accept this.

MR. LANEY: I second both your comments and the motion.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. GRIEBEL: And the final minute order is 8.c.(1) that I'm going to present today, the Deep South Rail Study. The minute order authorizes the Department to participate in the Deep South Rail Corridor feasibility study. As currently envisioned, the Deep South Rail Corridor will serve the metropolitan areas of the Gulf Coast and provide a passenger rail link between Atmore, Alabama -- which is the extent of the rail line in Alabama -- through Mobile, Biloxi, New Orleans, Lake Charles, Louisiana, and then if Texas does participate, Houston would become the western anchor of this route.

And as a participant, Texas would be expected to provide $27,102 and the North Central Texas Council of Government's staff has indicated that they are interested in providing half of the support. And that's the condition of the minute order, that HTAC would provide half the support. They have a briefing tomorrow before their council, and then in their subsequent meeting, if they're successful, they'll pass the minute order or their authorization to participate in half the funding of this feasibility study.

Staff recommends approval of the minute order.

MR. LANEY: Is this a study for freight?

MR. GRIEBEL: No. It's for passenger rail. Their ultimate goal is to try and get it to Jacksonville, Florida, but Florida has yet to indicate a willingness to participate; so they had to stop the study at this time at Atmore, Alabama.

MR. LANEY: Well, I compliment you for this being the least expensive project that I've seen since I landed in this chair.

(Laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept it.

MR. LANEY: I second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. GRIEBEL: Normally, we don't take these feasibility studies to the Commission unless they're outside the realm of what we traditionally do in the Department, but thank you.

MR. CUELLAR: That completes Agenda Items 7 and 8, which you had asked staff to bring forward out of order. We would be glad to continue with the items, or if we wish to go into executive session at this time.

MR. LANEY: No. I think we'll go ahead and go on into executive session. Let's recess until one o'clock.

(Whereupon, the meeting was recessed at 12:00 noon, to reconvene following the Executive Session.)

MR. LANEY: The meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is reconvened. The Commission has concluded its executive session with no action being taken on any matter.

Bob, if we could pick up with the minutes and move forward.

MR. CUELLAR: Yes, sir.

Commissioners, Agenda Item 2 is approval of the minutes of the January 29, 1998, regular meeting and the special meeting that is in your briefing material.

MR. LANEY: Any comments?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Next on the agenda is item number 3, Awards/Recognitions/Resolutions. Ms. Doris Howdeshell, director of Travel Information, will present Agenda Item 3.a.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Good afternoon.

TxDOT won first place in the Federal Highway Administration "Keep America Beautiful" award program. The award honors TxDOT's educational programs and public partnerships that are aimed at finding effective solutions to solid waste problems. Among the projects and programs highlighted in this year's nomination were our recycling and recycled products program; vegetation management; recycled materials in road construction; Environmental Affairs' Giving Nature a Hand educational kit; Adopt a Highway; Don't Mess with Texas; and our partnership with Keep Texas Beautiful.

The award was presented in Washington, D.C., on December 6. Subsequently, Mr. Cuellar has received a letter from Ed Wueste, the administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, and if I may, I'd like to read his comments.

"I was delighted to learn that the Texas Department of Transportation was recently named the recipient of this year's first place FHWA KAB annual award for the state highway or transportation agency showing the most progress in the prevention and reduction of litter. It is extremely gratifying to see the Department receive this recognition which, in our opinion, is acknowledgment of your leadership in the program activity. We appreciate your accomplishments and extend our congratulations from both the field and our Washington office. Hats off to TxDOT."

And with that --

MR. LANEY: Picture?

(Pictures were taken.)

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, Agenda Item 3.b. will be presented by Mr. Al Luedecke, the interim executive director of Planning and Development. It will be in Dallas County, the consideration of a resolution regarding the development of State Highway 161 as a toll facility.

MR. LUEDECKE: Good afternoon. The North Texas Tollway Authority has expressed interest in developing State Highway 161 from Interstate 635 south to Belt Line Road as a toll road.

In accordance with the Transportation Code, Section 366.035, before a free section of the state highway system can be transferred to a regional tollway authority, a public hearing must be held regarding the proposed transfer. The public hearing for this roadway is tentatively scheduled for March 30.

The resolution before you states that once the Commission is satisfied that the requirements of that section have been met, the Commission will consider transferring this section of State Highway 161 to the NTTA, as well as providing some funding for the interchange at 635 and State Highway 161. If you concur, a copy of this resolution will be forwarded to the NTTA as quickly as possible.

MR. LANEY: Al, as I understand it, this 161 segment is really an extension of 190, already a toll road.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir. It meets with it at 635.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions. I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Agenda Item 4. Promulgation of Rules and Regulations. Agenda Item Number 4.a.(a), Chapter 3, Public Information.

MS. REED: Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, this proposed minute order is a result of Senate Bill 1069 enacted by the 75th Legislature. It will add amendments to our Chapter 3 Public Information concerning how to request information involving motor vehicle records, as well as prescribing methods for the Department on how to release certain permitted uses for motor vehicle records. It is consistent with the Federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act as well as the recent state legislation that went into effect.

We request your approval for it to be posted as proposed adoption, and would be happy to answer any questions on the forms or the process.

MR. NICHOLS: I have no questions. I move that we do this.

MR. LANEY: Second the motion.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: The next item will be Chapter 9, Contract Management, also to be delivered by Ms. Reed.

MS. REED: Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, this proposed minute order would add a new Section 9.3 concerning protest of Department purchases under the State Purchasing and General Services Act. Senate Bill 1752 of the last session enacted required all state agencies to adopt administrative rules that would be consistent with the General Services Commission rules in terms of responding to protest to purchases made as well as appeals based on determination of those protests.

This process is exactly like the General Services Commission's process which many years ago I was familiar with; it mirrors it exactly.

I'd be happy to entertain any questions you may have on these proposed rules.

MR. LANEY: No questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions. I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Next on the agenda will be a presentation by Mr. Jerry Dike, the director of Vehicle Titles and Registration Division. He will cover Chapter 17, Vehicle Titles and Registration.

MR. DIKE: Thank you. Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, it's my pleasure to introduce proposed amendments to Rule 17.21 and 17.28. This implements 12 different statutes that were passed in the last legislative session, as well as Senate Bill 370, a portion of it, and it introduces 14 new license plates. Those are four examples that we're passing around of the 14 new plates.

House Bill 107 is the Read to Succeed plate; House Bill 344, Classic Motorcycle, County Judge, Exhibition, and Former Military vehicle plates; House Bill 1790, personalized dealer plates; and so on. There are eight other statutes on these new license plates. And also Senate Bill 1630 introduced new definitions and technical corrections for some of our registration rules. And House Bill 2733 and House Bill 3063 are implemented that have golf cart legislation.

We have scheduled a public hearing on March 24, and we do anticipate public comments, both verbal and written, and I would recommend adoption of these proposed rules. Any questions?

MR. LANEY: One question. The prices on these things are different.

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir. The statute is set for each one. For example, the Keep Texas Beautiful, that's a $50 plate; the Read to Succeed is a $30; the Gold Star Mother plate is for mothers of people who were killed in the armed forces, and that's a $10 plate.

MR. NICHOLS: How much are the golf cart plates?

MR. DIKE: Golf carts are $10 for identification purposes, yes, sir, and to recoup our costs.

MR. LANEY: Does $10 recoup our costs, just out of curiosity.

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir, for the golf carts.

MR. LANEY: So where does the excess over 10 on the Keep Texas Beautiful go?

MR. DIKE: It goes to the Keep Texas Beautiful fund, and that's pretty much the way it is with all the special plate; the Department gets to keep either $5 to $10 and then the other goes to the constituency group or organization or fund designated by the statute.

MR. LANEY: What is the Read to Succeed organization?

MR. DIKE: The one that is sponsored by the governor and Representative Giddings' office.

MR. LANEY: There is an organization, though?

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir, elementary education administered by the State Department of Education.

MR. LANEY: These are great. What does the golf cart one look like?

MR. DIKE: It's a large 6-by-12-inch plate that just says "Golf Cart" on it; very simple, no special design.

MR. LANEY: No golf ball or anything?

MR. DIKE: No, sir, no golf ball; minimal cost.

MR. NICHOLS: I have a couple of questions, really more on comment. Under the fiscal notes, when I first read this, with the dollars and the expenses, it appeared to me that we were making money on this.

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: But as we further investigated, the estimate I got was a negative $350,000.

MR. DIKE: That's roughly correct.

MR. NICHOLS: To our department. So how many street lights is that, three street lights, stop lights or something? So that is: A) an example of a negative drain from our legislature out of our department that could have gone into safety, and I cannot believe that we would go and pass rules and laws that apply to 22 golf carts in that one particular county golf course.

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: So we went through all that legislation with the golf cart thing for 22 golf carts.

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: But other than that, we're required by law to do it, so I'll move that we accept it.

MR. LANEY: So now you're in favor of it. I second the motion.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Mr. Gary Bernethy, the director of the Right of Way Division, will present the next agenda item which within Chapter 21 will address the control of signs along rural roads.

MR. BERNETHY: Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols. The minute order I bring to you today authorizes the amendment to various sections of Chapter 21 which deals with the control of signs along rural roads. These amendments are the results of changes brought about by the passage of Senate Bill 370 in the 75th Legislature. The Department has requested a public hearing be held and it is scheduled for March 24, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. We will incorporate any comments or written response received when we present this to the Commission for final approval.

Staff recommends approval of the minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: I had some comments of concern, and then I'll go ahead and make a motion or whatever. But in my questions I had two or three areas that were marked, but one in particular was some of the new changes are when you drop the sign down to 50 square feet and under -- that could be 5 by 10 -- there is absolutely no limit. So I mean, I could take any rural farm road or any other roads out in those rural areas and I could just literally pepper for miles every ten feet. And I asked that question and the answer was, under these rules, we could do that.

MR. BERNETHY: Yes, sir. And the reasoning, the item that precedes that, item number 9, under the existing rules it had allowed for 32-square-foot directional signs and it had no spacing requirement, and we have had no proliferation of those signs in the past.

MR. NICHOLS: I just had a concern there. Other than that --

MR. LANEY: I thought there was language in here we were seeing that gave us a little flexibility and discretion as to whether it blocked visibility or something like that.

MR. BERNETHY: These signs will be off of the right-of-way, so that it should have no effect on visibility. And these just cover the rural roads in the state, not the primary interstate highways.

MR. LANEY: Do we have the ability to put something in there with respect to spacing?

MR. BERNETHY: Yes, sir, we certainly do.

MR. NICHOLS: We could do that, but we just choose not to because it hasn't been a problem. If it becomes a problem and somebody does that and we change the rule, are those signs then grandfathered?

MR. BERNETHY: Those probably would be grandfathered.

MR. NICHOLS: So once we hit that problem, we can't fix the problem; all we could do is prevent from expanding.

MR. BERNETHY: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: I would suggest, at least as a comment preliminary to the public hearing -- this is my public hearing comment, if you would -- to think about something that gives us the discretion to enter the fray if in fact there is too concentrated a dose of these signs and impose some sort of spacing. I don't know how to do it, but just so we avoid the problem that Mr. Nichols referred to.

MR. BERNETHY: We can certainly do that.

MR. LANEY: Can we have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. CUELLAR: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Agenda Item 4.b. deals with a proposed final adoption of rules. The first under that area will be Mr. Bob Templeton, the assistant executive director for field operations, will be discussing Chapter 25, Specific Information Logo Sign Program.

MR. TEMPLETON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols. This minute order provides for the adoption of amendments to Section Chapter 25.401, 25.407 and 25.409 concerning the Specific Information Logo Sign Program.

Legislation was passed in the last session empowering the Commission to delegate to the executive director responsibility for granting variances for signs under this program. By the legislative session, we'd had a few requests for mall signs to deviate from the million square feet under the roof, and the legislature, in their wisdom, instead of adjusting that limit, gave the Department -- the executive director after authorized by the Commission -- the responsibility for granting those variances when they were warranted, and these rules essentially do that.

We had a hearing on November 14, 1997, and we received some comments. Two sets of those comments were for expanding the variances to the Specific Logo Sign Program, the Gas/Food/Lodging Logo Program, and to the Agricultural Interest Sign Program. And our response to those comments were that we would consider those at a later time when we could develop a criteria that would be sound for allowing those variances, but until we developed that, we didn't want to go forward.

The other was from the City of Waller wanting, under the Specific Logo Sign Program, to expand the kind of information that was on those. The legislation does not allow that and they were so advised.

So these rules are proposed for final adoption, and we would recommend that we do so.

I need to acquaint you with one correction that has been made in the originals. In the attachments to this particular section, it's all labeled presently Exhibit B, but there are clearly two sections. The first 15 pages should have been marked Exhibit A, and then pages 1 through 8 which follow that would be Exhibit B. Those were not noted in your book, but they have been fixed on the original.

With that bit of explanation, we would recommend final adoption of these proposed rules.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Next, Mr. Robert Wilson, the director of the Design Division, will address Chapter 27, the section dealing with regional tollway authorities.

MR. WILSON: Good afternoon. Senate Bill 370 enacted by the 75th Legislature authorized the creation of regional tollway authorities under certain conditions and with your approval. It also required the adoption of rules by March 1, 1998. I am presenting to you today a minute order proposing the rules for your final adoption.

The proposed rules were presented to you at your November meeting and you authorized us to publish those in the Texas Register. They were published on December 5, and a comment period was allowed. No comments were received. There were some minor clarifications in the wording due to internal comments within TxDOT; other than that, there were no changes, and staff recommends your approval of the minute order.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions. I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Let me ask you, Robert, before you leave. This thing was clearly statutorily pegged at a million five or more in terms of population, gives them the authority to sort of initiate their own under certain circumstances. That was intended to pick up Dallas County. Can you sort of project -- not now, but sometime project for us, over the next few years, where Bexar County is headed, or Travis County is headed, from a population standpoint? We may need to raise the ceiling a little bit on that.

MR. WILSON: Bexar and Travis? We'll look into those.

MR. LANEY: Thanks.

MR. CUELLAR: Next, Mr. Tom Griebel will present Chapter 31 dealing with Public Transportation.

MR. GRIEBEL: Item 4.b.(3)a. The minute order provides for the final adoption of Chapter 31 of 43 of the Texas Administrative Code which governs the Public Transportation Program. The amendments implement House Bill 3443 and client transportation coordination provisions of our Sunset Legislation Senate Bill 370 that were enacted last session.

At the August 1, 1997, Public Transportation Advisory Committee meeting, they waived the review of the proposed rules, and then subsequent to your November action where we proposed them, they were posted in the public register for comment and we received no comments on the rules. And we recommend approval.

MR. NICHOLS: Move it.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Just one note, Tom, before you leave. It's a concern -- but obviously not enough to get in the way of our support of this thing -- that I have with respect to the provisions that monies will be distributed in a ratio of the amount received by that particular entity during the preceding fiscal biennium, less any amount returned by that entity at the end of the first year.

I know we're in a situation right now where these folks are strapped for funds and they're all used in a very effective way. I'm concerned a little about the incentive that creates to spend the money even if there's not a need so they don't have to return it and have it count against the next biennium's allocation.

Not a big deal, just a note. You might want to make a mental note of it.

MR. GRIEBEL: This is an agreement that we reached with the small urban providers in the past, so they would have got credit in the next year for what we allocated to them rather than what they spent. So they felt like it was more equitable that we would only redistribute it based on what they spent the previous biennium. But we'll track towards the end of the biennium if we're seeing any patterns where they're spending money, so they don't have to turn any in. We'll do that, sir.

MR. LANEY: Or to create a pattern, if you're going to base your percentage over the following biennium or this one, the incentive is to spend every conceivable dollar I can put my hands on, that kind of thing.

MR. GRIEBEL: Well, some of it is they've got to put some match-up to it, they've got to buy vehicles, and once they do that, in a lot of these urban systems, they have to make commitments by the cities to put local money in to operate the system.

MR. LANEY: There's a governing --

MR. GRIEBEL: There's some governing a little bit on this in the urban systems that may be different than some of the other areas.

MR. LANEY: Great. Thanks.

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, that completes Agenda Item 4. Agenda Item 5, Transportation Planning. Agenda Item 5.a. will be presented by Al Luedecke, Dallas County Loop 12 project.

MR. LUEDECKE: The minute order before you authorizes construction funding for the replacement of the Loop 12 Trinity River bridge relief number one bridges. The replacement of the Loop 12 Trinity River bridges and the Trinity River relief 2 bridges are currently authorized for construction funding. This minute order will allow the bridges at the Loop 12 and Trinity River to be replaced in one construction contract. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Mr. Luedecke will also present Agenda Item 6.a. and 6.b. under Programs.

MR. LUEDECKE: On December 18, the Commission conducted a public hearing to receive comments regarding the Department's project selection process. Nine people made oral presentations and nine written comments were received, two of which supplemented previously presented oral comments. Staff reviewed these comments and prepared responses, both of which are shown in Exhibit A of the minute order.

As was stated in the Department's public hearing, a Department task force recommended modifications to the project selection process for category 3(b) national highway system trunk system. The staff is still analyzing these proposed modifications, and we request that approval of the category 3(b) trunk system project selection process be deferred at this time. Staff determined, however, that the present project selection process for the remaining categories is consistent with Agency goals to manage and develop and preserve the State's transportation system.

The minute order before you formally closes the public hearing process and authorizes the executive director to utilize the project selection process shown in Exhibit B, except for the category 3(b) trunk system, for the development of the 1999 Uniform Transportation Plan. Approval of this minute order is requested.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll make a motion with a comment in it, I guess, and that is my motion is to accept the minute order, but in the minute order it does refer to the possible change consideration of the trunk system. That's in the minute order, but it refers to Exhibit B, and Exhibit B in that category refers to the trunk system being accepted under the old cost-effectiveness index criteria.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir. The closing comments of the presentation identified the fact that we were looking at changing the project selection process.

MR. NICHOLS: I understand. That was just a notation that it's this way here and that way there.

MR. LUEDECKE: I understand.

MR. NICHOLS: But anyway, that's a motion to accept that.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LUEDECKE: Item 6.b. state and federal allocation programs. The minute order before you authorizes the program amounts for the various bank balance allocation programs listed in the exhibits to the minute order. The exhibits also list the program amount and criteria for projects selection and the responsible divisions for those categories. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: So moved. Can I have a second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, you have previously taken action on Items 7 and 8. Agenda Item Number 9, Contracts, Mr. Bob Templeton will present 9.a.(1), (2) and (3) dealing with maintenance, building, and highway construction.

MR. TEMPLETON: Commissioners, behind Tab (1) we have the maintenance projects that were let on February 3 and 4 that had an estimated cost of $300,000 or more. There were 13 projects; we have an average of 3.69 bids per project. The total of these low bids was approximately $5.3 million and that's about 171 million [sic] under the estimated cost for all of these 13 projects; that's about a 3.11 percent underrun.

All of these projects are recommended for award. I would like to call your attention to the Harris County project, on page 2, which has one bid and it's 19.51 percent over the estimate.

The district advised that over the past few years, they've only had two bidders who would compete for this cleaning and sweeping highway kind of work, and recently one of those has gone out of business, and that leaves only this firm to compete for this kind of work in the district. Also, they advised that their estimates did not take into account the increased wage rates and other inflation factors, and so they believe this bid is awardable. And the staff would recommend that we move all of these bids on to contract.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. TEMPLETON: Behind Tab (2) we have the building construction contract let on February 5. There was only one contract; it received three bids. The estimated cost was $120,000; the low bid is $97,000, or $22,400 under that, a 19 percent underrun. It's recommended that this bid be awarded to contract.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded with a comment that I don't think Bryan needs air conditioning.

(Laughter.)

MR. TEMPLETON: As you wish.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: This is one of Cassie's building program things.

MS. REED (from audience): But I probably agree with you on that.

MR. TEMPLETON: If it would have some effect on athletics, we could find a lot of support for that.

(Laughter.)

MR. TEMPLETON: Behind Tab (3) are the highway construction contracts let on February 3 and 4. There were 94 projects; we have an average of 4.34 bids per project. The total of these 94 projects was approximately $124.2 million and that was $6.6 million under the total estimate, or 4.83 percent underrun.

On page 2, we have some projects that I wish to discuss with you. The first will be recommended for rejection; it's Brazoria County at the top of the page. We have only two bids and the low bid is 43.76 percent over the estimate, and the bids are just clearly too high. The district wants to combine this work with some other work and relet it with the expectation that they can not only get more bids but they can get better prices. So we recommend that that project be rejected.

The second project on that page is the Cameron County, the next to the last on that page. It has two bids and it's 54.37 percent over the estimate and it's listed in your book for award, but I think we need to consider rejecting that project because there is one contractor who has protested that he did not have an opportunity to bid for this work because he contacted one of our offices twice, another of our offices once, and his own plans-copying company advised him that this project was not on the February letting, and so he was unable to bid that project and has protested.

This project was originally scheduled for February; in November it was discovered that the environmental clearance was hung up and so it was decided to move it to March. In December, the environmental clearance came loose and they recommended moving it back to February. And in all of that confusion, we just had too many sources of information that put out the wrong information on the street.

Now, on the other side of the coin, this is a highly desired intersection work in the City of Brownsville, and they are very much interested in this. This project was perhaps not estimated correctly, there is a lot of sawcut work in order to match the grades that are existing there with the new work. The contractor says he suspects there is concrete rubble under the roadway because there was an old building demolished in this area years gone by, and he indicated that he has to work under traffic congestion while he does this work, and in his mind, the cost of this work is justified.

But in my own opinion, because of the fact that the Department did not put out clear information on this, our letting process and its integrity would be best served if we relet this project and reject the bids.

Other projects I would like to call to your attention is on the same page 2, the Brazoria County page, the second one listed there. We have five bids, 29.95 percent over the estimate; we simply underestimated the cost of this work. The bidders number 2, 3, and 4 were all about $495,000, which was about $130,000 more than this one, so I believe we have a good bid.

On page 4, the Dallas County project at the top of the page, we had only two bids -- I beg your pardon -- there are four bids; we have 22.9 percent over the estimate. The second bidder is only $1,700 more than the low bidder, so we believe we have a good bid here.

The contractor on this work said he feared there were some lighting foundations he was going to have to remove in his preparation of right-of-way work, and those are quite difficult. There is high traffic volume that he has to contend with and the work itself is fairly difficult in this traffic area -- it's a ramp extension. And it's a calendar-day job and he's concerned about overrunning that particular time.

On page 5, the Denton County project, second listed there. This project was let something over a year ago, and we had the same bidder bid the work successfully at that particular time. His bid was $74,700; we've come back this time and it's $86,592. It's a small job; there is only 30 work days on the project.

This project has some colored textured concrete that the city wanted on this project and they're funding that 100 percent, and about half of this overrun on this project, about half of the $24,000 overrun, is 100 percent funded by the city. So we're still recommending that one for award.

The DeWitt County project right below that has nine bidders, 24.84 percent over the estimate, and it's clear to me that we simply underestimated that project. This is for raising some underpass spans on Front and South Street. It has a lot of interest and I believe the bidders are competitive; the second bidder is only $1,600 away from the low bidder.

On page 7, the Houston County project at the bottom of the page, we have five bids; the low bidder is 25 percent over the estimate. Again, a small project, small quantities, low production, and we simply underestimated the cost on that one.

And the final one to bring to your attention is on page 15. We have four bids on the Dallas County project, the second item on that page. Low bid was 56.5 percent over the estimate, and of all these four bids, there's only $37,000 between the first bidder and the last bidder. This is for replacing a three-span bridge and a box culvert.

They're like two different projects; they're eight miles apart. The three-span bridge was built in 1919. It was build 18 feet wide, it was designed for 20 tons, 40,000 pounds. It was widened in 1938 to 26 feet. The design was not upgraded, it's still only loaded for 40,000 pounds. That does not meet our current HS 20 loading, and we have some interest in getting this project going.

With four bids we believe we have competitive bids on here, there is no way to design this work to make it more attractive or less expensive, and so we're recommending that that one be awarded.

So with the exception of the two projects that I called to your attention at first, the Brazoria County project and the Cameron County project, we'd recommend that all of these move to contract.

MR. LANEY: Bobbie, you recommend that we reject the one in Brownsville?

MR. TEMPLETON: I have a strong interest in protecting the integrity of our letting process. If the Department is at fault and keeps somebody from bidding, I believe we owe the process and the contractors the opportunity to bid on the work, and so I do recommend that we reject it and go forward. We'll catch a little criticism, probably, because the city is so desirous of that project and have offered to pay their share of the overrun. There's two funding pieces in this: one of these is a straight 80-20 state and federal, and the other piece is 80-20 federal and city. And on the city's portion, they're willing to pay their fair share of whatever that overrun is, but I don't know what that amount is today, how many dollars we're talking about.

MR. LANEY: How was it that the other bidders who did bid in a timely fashion had the right information? It was clearly available to even the bidder who missed the opportunity to bid. Right?

MR. TEMPLETON: I don't have a clear answer for that. Obviously, they looked at the official advertisements in the newspapers or they paid attention to our notice to contractors, and somehow this firm missed it.

MR. LANEY: The ads went out. Right?

MR. TEMPLETON: Yes.

MR. LANEY: They went out in a timely fashion.

MR. TEMPLETON: They went out. The difficulty was oral contact with the Department asking about when this project is on, and our people looking at some abbreviated information -- I guess is the way to phrase that -- and not seeing it on the February letting, trusted that information and advised on three different occasions it's not on the February letting. The last time he contacted the Department, they said, Yes, it's been let; the Commission will consider that on the 26th of February. And then that's when he wrote us the letter.

MR. LANEY: Primary source for reliance for any contractor is published notice. Right?

MR. TEMPLETON: Our notice to contractors -- yes, sir, most of those rely on that.

MR. LANEY: Not oral contact with the Department.

MR. TEMPLETON: That is correct.

MR. LANEY: I'm sympathetic with your wanting to protect the integrity of the process. I think that's laudable and I agree with you on it, although I'm more inclined to move forward on this project. But I will defer to you, Mr. Nichols.

(Laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: If the contractor had not contacted us over and over and over and gotten the consistent story and he had all the documentation -- he had made an outstanding effort to try to bid on this job and basically was misled. And the bids are coming in at 50 percent over what they should be. So I was kind of going with Bobbie.

MR. TEMPLETON: The district has been contacted and they know that this one is on the fence. And even though they know they're going to catch some grief from the city, they understand.

MR. NICHOLS: If he had just made one token call and gotten an erroneous thing, I wouldn't have been near as sympathetic. But he had documentation that he had contacted us over and over and over, plus it came in about 50 percent over.

MR. LANEY: I don't have any problem. I think we should have our contractors rely on what we publish rather than what we say. On the other hand, this is a sympathetic situation and there is an overage and it's an integrity of the system situation, so let's reject those. Do you want to make a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I move that rejection.

MR. LANEY: Those other two rejections and that one, or was it only two?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes.

MR. TEMPLETON: It was Brazoria County and Cameron County that I recommended rejection.

MR. LANEY: Those two rejections. We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. TEMPLETON: For your information, I have contacted the division that had the difficulty and recommended that they get one master information source and in the future rely on that for what is or is not on the monthly letting.

MR. NICHOLS: Isn't this on the Internet now?

MR. TEMPLETON: Yes, sir, we do have notice on the Internet.

MR. NICHOLS: So if he had looked at the Internet, he would have seen the correct information?

MR. TEMPLETON: Yes, sir. There are several ifs that if he had done, he would have been okay. But he relied on the Department's information, and unfortunately, we weren't accurate.

MR. LANEY: Well, we seem to be penalizing people who did it right for the actions of somebody who did it wrong. But if we're partially responsible, let's back out and do it again.

MR. CUELLAR: Mr. Russell Harding, director of Staff Services, will present Agenda Item Number 10, Contested Cases.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols. Item 10 involves actions taken by the Department in its regulatory and enforcement capacities. 10.a. on the agenda is a minute order to affirm the Department's cancellation of an outdoor advertising sign permit held by Tri-State Outdoor Media Group, Inc., for the reason that the permit holder had improperly replaced an outdoor advertising sign that had been damaged and removed which is in violation of Department rules governing outdoor advertising.

As you know from previous cases, under the Texas Litter Abatement Act, which was enacted by the legislature to comply with the Federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965, the Department has responsibility for outdoor advertising along the interstate and primary highway systems.

In this case, the permitee contested cancellation of the permit and requested an administrative hearing which was held before an administrative law judge with the State Office of Administrative Hearings. The judge, after hearing the evidence, issued a proposal for decision finding the Department's action was justified and recommended the cancellation of the permit be upheld. The staff is recommending the Commission's approval of this minute order and the issuance of an order adopting the ALJ's findings and conclusions and affirming the cancellation of this sign permit.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Are we going to take these individually?

MR. HARDING: I was planning to, if that's okay.

MR. NICHOLS: I move that we accept the cancellation.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HARDING: Item 10.b. is a minute order providing for the issuance by the Commission of a final order revoking the salvage vehicle dealer's license of Mr. Danny Rodriguez, who operated a salvage vehicle business in San Angelo. The Department's Vehicle Title and Registration Division gave notice to Mr. Rodriguez that his salvage vehicle dealer's license was suspended under the applicable statute, because he had been convicted of a felony and less than three years had elapsed since the termination of parole, mandatory supervision or probation.

Mr. Rodriguez submitted a request for an administrative hearing but failed to appear at the hearing. The administrative law judge then issued a proposal for a decision and what amounts to a default judgment finding that the Department’s action is justified.

And the staff is recommending the Commission's approval of this minute order and the issuance of an order adopting the administrative law judge's finding and conclusions, except for conclusion number 6, and substituting instead the conclusion that under the statute the license must be revoked where facts, such as exist in this case, are established. And the order -- we ask you to adopt the further order that the salvage vehicle dealer's license held by Danny Rodriguez be revoked.

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept the minute order to revoke.

MR. LANEY: Danny's license? I second it.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HARDING: Item 10.c. is a minute order in another salvage vehicle license case providing for the issuance of a final order denying the issuance of a salvage vehicle dealer's license to Armundo Rodriguez, d/b/a M-Auto in Crystal City, Texas.

The reasons for denial of the license are the same as in the previous case. The applicant had been convicted of a felony and three years had not elapsed since termination of the sentence, parole, mandatory supervision or probation, which is a statutory requirement.

The applicant requested a hearing and did appear at the hearing to contest the denial of the license. The administrative law judge issued a proposal for decision finding that the grounds alleged for denying the license were established and concluding that the Department's action was proper. The staff recommends the commission's approval of this minute order and the issuance of an order adopting the administrative law judge's findings and conclusions and ordering that the application of Armundo Rodriguez, d/b/a M-Auto for a salvage vehicle dealer's license be denied.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HARDING: Item 10.d. is being deferred, Mr. Chairman, until the March meeting.

Item 10.e. is a the final minute order in this section. It deals with the Department's cancellation of an outdoor advertising sign permit held by Gulf Advertising, Inc. And the finding of the administrative law judge in this case was that the evidence did not support the Department's position, and his recommendation was that the cancellation of the permit be reversed.

The notice of cancellation was based on our position that the sign appeared to have been effectively removed and appeared to have been damaged in excess of 50 percent of its replacement cost, which is a basis under the law and our rules for cancellation of the permit.

However, the administrative law judge said the evidence did not support these allegations and the cancellation should be reversed. The Department is not contesting these findings, and the staff recommends the Commission's approval of this minute order and the issuance of an order adopting these findings and conclusions and reversing the cancellation of this sign permit held by Gulf Advertising.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, Item Number 11 presents Routine Minute Orders. Staff would request that action be taken on all these minute orders at one time. Obviously, if there are questions or concerns, we can pull those out for separate action.

Agenda Item 11.a., Speed Zones. Would establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state.

Item 11.b. Load Restrictions. Requests revisions of load restrictions on various roads and bridges on the state highway system.

Item 11.c. Requests you extend Farm to Market Road 3083 from Interstate Highway 45 to State Highway 105 in Montgomery County.

Item 11.d. Right of Way Disposition, Purchase and Lease. Sub-item (1), in Fort Bend County on US 59 would authorize the sale of access rights to the abutting landowner.

Sub-item (2), in Fort Bend County on US 59 would authorize the conveyance of the mineral estate to the board of regents at the University of Houston System.

Sub-Item (3), in Fort Bend County, State Highway 6 at US 90A would authorize the waiver of mineral rights on a tract of surplus land.

Continuing with the routine minute orders, sub-item (4), Harris County on US 290 at Huffmeister would authorize the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner.

Sub-item 5, in Travis County, on Ranch to Market Road 1431, designation of a portion of a tract of land as uneconomic remainder.

Agenda Item 11.e. Traffic Control, in Chambers County would authorize the establishment of temporary traffic control.

Item 11.f, Approval of Donation to the Department would give authorization to approve and accept donation from the Austin Convention and Visitors Bureau for the Travel Counselors Conference.

Agenda Item 11.g, Eminent Domain Proceedings request for eminent domain proceedings on non-controlled and controlled access roadways as are attached to the agenda for the Commission meeting.

All those items are presented for your consideration at this time. We'd be glad to answer any questions and would, at this time, ask for your approval on Routine Minute Orders at one time.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have a couple. On the Travis County acquisition on uneconomic remainder, I realize that the appraisal with the damages and the appraisal for the entire amount are almost equal. Certainly it makes sense on our part to buy the remaining half. I'm kind of assuming that this person is not going to be inclined to accept the appraised value and is probably going to want significantly more. But we have to pass a minute order to allow us to go make that offer, and if the appraisal is not accepted, we come back?

MR. CUELLAR: This is indeed the first time that the Commission has had a chance to use the new legislation that has been given to us as far as being able to buy uneconomic remainders. The information we have from the property owner is that he would rather dispose of the entire piece of property. He has one little parcel left that's not necessary for the roadway that he would just as soon get rid of rather than to have maintain it, mow it, whatever he has to do with it.

In our estimation, as you have pointed out, the appraised value for all the parcel of property, as opposed to the piece that we only specifically need for the roadway, is essentially the same. We believe that that shows good faith that he's willing to take some kind of a reasonable offer for the property. We will not know until we go into the official negotiations for the sale.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm assuming that he's going to go for the appraisal, not an additional 25 percent.

MR. CUELLAR: That would be my assumption also, Commissioner.

MR. NICHOLS: Number two would be on Item Number 11.d.(4) Right of Way Disposition. On the piece of land, the 3.4 acres, we are retaining all the rights to every bit of the mineral stake which includes surface rights.

MR. CUELLAR: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Not surface rights to explore -- I mean, it includes that, too, but it also includes like lignite coal, iron ore, things like that, which allows someone at a later date to come in and bulldoze down whatever is there to get to the surface to do strip mining or whatever. And any time you flag the surface rights, people are prohibited really from constructing buildings and things like that on it.

And I brought this up Monday and I've been talking about it ever since. And these people obviously are buying this land to build something on it for the amount of money they're paying. In the minute order preceding that, we're going back on a piece of land we've already traded, and we're doing a special waiver of surface mineral rights because they obviously couldn't use it until we do this.

I was going to suggest that we go ahead and do a waiver of the surface mineral rights with this to prevent the repeat actions that I'm seeing.

MR. LANEY: That makes sense. Can we just amend this to go forward on that basis?

MR. CUELLAR: We would be glad to take back to the property owner your proposal that we would wish to negotiate not to hold the mineral rights but to ask them if they wish to --

MR. LANEY: Surface mineral rights.

MR. NICHOLS: No. All I would say is the State would retain all rights to all oil, gas, things of that nature, with the exception of the surface mineral rights. In other words, we would keep all value of mineral rights with the exception of the surface mineral rights. It's very common in some transfers.

MR. CUELLAR: Certainly. Under the Commission's direction, we certainly will do that. I will point out, as I think has been mentioned before, when staff developed these mineral rights issues, we were responding to the direction they were given by what was passed in this last legislative session in the Appropriations Bill that does direct the Department to hold on to all mineral rights unless it becomes an issue.

MR. NICHOLS: Impractical. Yes, the word was unless it becomes impractical. And on the preceding piece of land, it obviously isn't practical for this person to use it.

MR. CUELLAR: On the preceding piece of land, correct, the property owner told us it was impractical. But in this case, the property owner has not told us yet. And I understand what you're telling us to do is to approach the property owner, point out what looks like an obvious issue to all of us that this is going to be developed for some commercial property.

MR. HARDING: He's saying just to do the waiver.

MR. NICHOLS: My suggestion is to make this modification on this minute order right now, that we do this with the exception of the surface mineral rights.

MR. LANEY: Just to avoid a two-step process.

MR. NICHOLS: Right.

MR. CUELLAR: We will accept that direction.

MR. LANEY: Subject to input from Bob on that.

MR. NICHOLS: Make sure it's legal.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Chairman, rather than doing an exception, would it not be the same that we're doing in the previous one -- just a waiver of the development rights, subject to general counsel's advice.

MR. NICHOLS: That's almost identical to what we're doing in the preceding minute order, just to cut this from having to do it over and over. I've been hoping to get that modified all week, so I'm just going to try to do it here. So I move that we do that with that exception.

MR. LANEY: Subject to Bob's input.

MR. NICHOLS: Correct.

MR. LANEY: I second the motion on all of these issues you just walked us through.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. CUELLAR: Commissioners, that concludes all the items that the staff has to bring to your attention at this meeting.

MR. LANEY: If there's no further business before the Commission, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: The meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 2:11 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Commissioner Meeting

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: February 26, 1998

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 154, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum before the Texas Department of Transportation.

 03/03/98

(Transcriber) (Date)

On the Record Reporting, Inc.

3307 Northland, Suite 315

Austin, Texas 78731