TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

Monday, March 30, 1998

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

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

DAVID M. LANEY, Chairman
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
ANNE S. WYNNE

 STAFF:

Charles W. Heald, Executive Director
Russell Harding, Director, Staff Services

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. LANEY: Good morning, and welcome. Glad to have you here this morning. I would like to call the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order, and I want to welcome all of you to this March 30, 1998, meeting of the Commission. It's a pleasure to have such a well-mannered audience; usually it isn't this way.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Let me note for the record that public notice of the meeting, containing all items of the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 2:30 p.m. on March 20, 1998.

A couple of announcements. First of all, to the extent any of you would like seating and you don't have it, there is additional seating in the back. Also, I've been told to raise for the attention of the DFW delegation that, assuming that you're finished by -- it's before your presentation, at 9:15 there will be a photograph made of the delegation on the front steps of the building. It's an easy way for us to get rid of you. So at 9:15, everybody from DFW needs to leave, and we'll let you know when you can come back.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: We have a very full agenda today with three extensive delegation presentations, in addition to the public hearing and in addition to our regular business agenda. We've got quite a few people to hear from on some very important subjects, and we need to get started so we're going to move fairly quickly.

First, however, I want to welcome Wes Heald, our new Executive Director, as he joins us up here on the dais for his first meeting as the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Transportation. It's an easy start, because there are so many friendly faces in the audience for Wes. It won't be so easy, Wes; it's downhill from here.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Commissioner Wynne, I believe, will be with us, but she is going to be a few minutes late.

Some good news emerging on the Washington front, most of you are all aware of. It looks like the House bill, at least as emerged from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, raised our base dollar amount on returns to dollars sent to Washington, from about 82 to 83 cents in their first version, to slightly in excess of 85 -- between 85 and 86 cents, which moves it much -- and that's before any special allocations coming our direction through special funds or set-asides for corridor -- which in our state usually means 69 or 35 or 27 or 10 -- special corridors, NAFTA corridors, trade corridors, and any special funds for border infrastructure, both of which are very high on the minds, I can assure you, of not only our delegation, but most members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the House.

So we're seeing something emerge that looks like it may result within the next few months of something in the nature of an additional -- and it's plus or minus tens of millions, but not by much -- 700 million-plus a year in addition for Texas transportation over the next six years, if we're lucky.

Now, the danger is complacency. We don't have very much representation on our conference committee as it goes between the House and the Senate. That will begin in earnest within the next couple of weeks, I believe. So to the extent any of you are so inclined, please encourage congressional representatives from your areas, please, to stand their ground and to hold whatever ground we have for Texas. This is very, very important.

Even if we achieve what we're most optimistic about achieving in Washington, we are still considerably short of the target that the Commission has begun to focus on, and that is about 50 percent of our need. With 50 percent of our target, this covers less than half of that 50 percent, but still it's an enormous step forward.

And nothing but compliments for the delegation, who has been supportive of Texas transportation interests for the last several months, starting and almost ending with the efforts of Senator Gramm and, to your left here, we call him Senator Nichols, who traveled the state with Senator Gramm and really initiated the move that we're seeing take shape in the House right now with respect to the Byrd-Gramm Amendment and considerably more dollars than were initially headed our way.

With that, let me take a minute and see if Commissioner Nichols would like to add anything before we get going.

MR. NICHOLS: I have nothing to add in that front. I just would make the comment that I realize most of you are volunteers from your community, who are here to present the problems relating to transportation, and we very much appreciate you volunteering your time. I know it's helpful to your community and it's helpful to us to have a better understanding of the needs, and I just want to thank you for that.

That's the only comment I have.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Robert.

The first item on our agenda this morning is the public hearing on the proposed removal of a portion of State Highway 161 right of way from Interstate Highway 635 to Belt Line Road in Dallas County, and the transfer of that section to the North Texas Tollway Authority for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a turnpike project to be known as the Western Extension of the President George Bush Turnpike, State Highway 190.

This hearing is being held pursuant to Section 356.035 of the Transportation Code, and the Department's rules found in 43 Texas Administrative Code 27.43.

I'll now call on Mr. Robert Wilson, Director of the Design Division, to present this proposal.

MR. WILSON: Good morning, Commissioners. I am Robert Wilson, Director of the Design Division.

At your February 26 Commission meeting, you passed a resolution recognizing a request made by the Dallas County, the City of Irving, and the North Texas Tollway Authority to consider the transfer of a segment of State Highway 161, from Interstate Highway 635 to Belt Line Road, to the North Texas Tollway Authority to be completed as a toll road.

There's a display map over here, and on that display map the state currently owns right of way in this segment, and there are existing frontage roads shown on the display map in blue.

The request to be considered today is to transfer this area to the North Texas Tollway Authority to construct the main lanes to be maintained and operated as a toll road. These facilities are depicted on the map in red. This would connect onto a section of toll road facility at IH-635 presently known as State Highway 190, or President George Bush Turnpike, and that is currently being developed by the North Texas Tollway Authority. This proposal would end at Belt Line Road where there are current main lanes existing as a freeway that goes on down to Airport Freeway. Therefore, this section would complete a gap in the main lane system of roadways, and this is the proposal I'm laying out to you for public comment today.

MR. LANEY: Do you have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have no questions.

MR. LANEY: We have a number of people signed up to speak on this issue. First of all, let me note that representatives of the North Texas Tollway Authority Board are here, although a number of them will not be speaking, and I'm not quite sure who will and who will not. Judge Ron Harris is here -- I don't think he's going to be speaking -- Donna Parker, Dave Blair, and Don Dillard, all of whom, I believe, except for Judge Harris -- well, not all of them -- were on the Turnpike Authority before it was converted to the North Texas Turnpike Authority.

Speaking this morning, we've got four people signed up to speak, three in favor of and one against this particular transfer. The first speaker is Judge Lee Jackson from Dallas County.

JUDGE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I'm appearing this morning on behalf not just of Dallas County, but also the board of the North Texas Tollway Authority.

This is a project that has been studied for a long time in our region. Most of the work, as you know, was done by the staff of your Texas Department of Transportation. It's been refined, negotiated, and discussed for many years with the City of Irving, with Dallas County, with all the local transportation entities. We were pleased to assume responsibility at the North Texas Tollway for developing this project, and we expect that if it moves forward, it will be the first for which we, as a new agency, are building and opening a new tollway segment. This is a new segment, but it's also part of what clearly is going to be a significant continuous outer loop connecting with the George Bush Turnpike within the next five years, and it's going to be a major part of the highest growth corridors in our regional economy.

So the North Texas Tollway Authority is fully in support of this proposed project. We're prepared to do everything within our financial ability to make the financing for this project feasible, and we think that it will fulfill a critical role for continuing to help the economic growth of northwest Dallas County, Collin County, the DFW Airport economic growth region, and our entire metropolitan area.

And we ask for your support to make this conversion, to recognize this conversion, so that it can move forward in a timely way. That's what the local governments and those in the area want to see happen, rather than continue to wait on full funding through the gasoline tax. So we appreciate your support and hope you can recognize this transfer of primary funding responsibility.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Judge Jackson. Appreciate it.

Mayor Morris Parrish from the City of Irving.

MAYOR PARRISH: Thank you, Mr. Laney and members of the Commission. We would ask that you support this endeavor. As you know, eventually 161 will go down to I-20, which will be a major artery all the way from Grand Prairie to Richardson-Plano-Garland area, tying together through the DFW corridor. And this is a major economic generator for the entire Metroplex area. So we would certainly ask that you support this endeavor.

The City of Irving has invested about $55 million in the roadway and other parts of this road right of way, so we are committed and we hope that you will be too. Thank you so much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mayor Parrish.

James McCarley.

MR. McCARLEY: (From audience.) No testimony.

MR. LANEY: Any questions of any of these?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MR. LANEY: Oscar "Erik" Slotboom, who is a motorist.

MR. SLOTBOOM: Good morning. Yes, I support the completion of 161 as quickly as possible. However, I would like to speak in opposition to the transfer to the North Texas Tollway Authority. The reason is practical and simple. This is a relatively short segment of highway, and I don't think Dallas motorists should be forced to the inconvenience and cost of paying a toll for a very short segment of highway such as this.

TxDOT has already invested a lot of money to construct this freeway segment south of Belt Line Road and also a lot of money for the utilities and drainage on the existing proposed tollway segment. The cost of completing it as a freeway is probably only $15 million.

And finally, I would also expect the predominant transportation pattern on this segment of highway to be between 183 and 635. All these motorists would be forced to deal with the inconvenience of paying tolls.

So as you mentioned earlier, there is a possibility of significantly more funding coming this way. I would urge you to at least wait and assess the funding situation before making this a tollway. If things turn out as they appear to, there will be funding available to construct this as a freeway, and then the northern extension north of 635 would be an excellent candidate as a tollway. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Slotboom.

In case my remarks were misunderstood, let me just make it clear that even if we get the funding from Washington that we're hoping to get, it is less than one-half of our targeted needs, and our targeted needs are less than one-half of our inventoried needs. So we're talking about a quarter of our coverage, if we're lucky enough to reach the targets that seem to be emerging out of Washington. So nowhere close to the ability to scatter cash around the state and see a bunch of roads built.

Any comments or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: None.

MR. LANEY: That concludes the public hearing on this matter. Formal action by the Commission will be taken at a later date; we won't take action on this item this morning.

We'll now proceed with the delegation presentations, and I'll ask the delegations to adhere, as best as they can, to the 20-minute limitation on their presentations. That is in keeping with the Commission's procedures with respect to all delegations.

(Whereupon, the public hearing was concluded.)

BEXAR COUNTY - CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

(Mayor Howard Peak, Nelson Wolff, Mike Novak, Bexar County Commissioner, Rep. John Shields, Rep. Bill Siebert)

MR. LANEY: The first delegation this morning is from the City of San Antonio to discuss the project for the expansion of Interstate Highway 410 and to present a progress report on Kelly Air Force Base improvements.

I'd like to call on San Antonio Mayor Howard Peak to lead off this presentation. Mayor Peak, welcome.

MAYOR PEAK: Good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'm here today representing the San Antonio Transportation Alliance and the 1.3 million residents of our metropolitan area.

Before we begin this presentation, I'd like all of the members of the San Antonio delegation who are with us today to please stand and be recognized.

MR. LANEY: Mayor, you're not supposed to bring that many people.

(Laughter.)

MAYOR PEAK: Let me begin by saying that as a united community, it is our pleasure to be back before the Commission.

San Antonio has indeed been blessed with an efficient and accessible transportation system. Over the years, the direct support and commitment of the Texas Transportation Commission has provided us with many of the resources we have so urgently needed, and we value your partnership and assistance in making our community a better place to live, work, and play.

As you know, San Antonio has an impressive track record of initiating public-private partnerships to help fund and expedite the construction of projects through local participation. Our community has a long history of working with our elected officials, TxDOT's San Antonio district, the metropolitan planning organization, city and county departments, private industry, and the tax-paying public in prioritizing community infrastructure needs and finding new sources of project funding.

John Kelly, our San Antonio District engineer has been a proactive partner in developing a safe and efficient transportation system. We appreciate his leadership and willingness to work with the community and look forward to his continued assistance.

Over the last 30 years, there has been tremendous growth and development in San Antonio, specifically on Loop 410 perimeter between IH-10 and US 281. The University of Texas at San Antonio, the USAA corporate headquarters, the University of Texas Health Science Center, many large retail malls, commercial executive centers, the Fiesta Texas entertainment theme park, and the recent expansion of the San Antonio International Airport are but a few examples of the development that has spurred further industrial, commercial, and residential expansion in the northern portion of San Antonio.

During the '80s and '90s, the majority of Bexar County's population and housing growth occurred in northern Bexar County. We must improve the existing infrastructure in these areas to help relieve the increased traffic pressures resulting from this growth and development.

During previous presentations, we asked your support in expediting the construction of Loop 410 interchanges at IH-10 and US 281, portions of IH-35 north of San Antonio, and certain segments of Loop 410 on the northern side of the city. Last October we requested programming authority to begin preliminary engineering of road projects needed for the development of Kelly Air Force Base into a world-class intermodal distribution and logistics center.

Today we would like to restate the critical importance of funding two segments of Loop 410 between Nacogdoches and Blanco Roads, as well as updating you on several recent developments at Kelly Air Force Base which prove we must enhance Kelly access as swiftly as possible.

Mr. Nelson Wolff, a former mayor and council member of one of the fastest growing parts of San Antonio, and the chairman of the board of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, and no stranger to local regional transportation issues, is here this morning to describe our Loop 410 request in further detail.

MR. WOLFF: Thank you, Mayor Peak. And let me say, first of all, thank you very, very much for the tremendous support you've given us through the history. I can remember Commissioner Wynne's help on the Mission Trail Parkway, which was an innovative program for San Antonio and one that's moving along very well.

As the mayor stated, northern San Antonio continues to experience explosive growth and development. As a result, corresponding traffic congestion and accident rates have jeopardized public safety, degraded air quality, and restricted mobility in and around our two key intersections on IH-410 Inner Loop of San Antonio.

To better demonstrate this problem, we'd like to show you a small portion of a video produced for our Loop 410 public hearing presentation.

(Whereupon, the video was shown.)

MR. WOLFF: In recent presentations before the Commission, we stressed the need to improve the Loop 410/US 281 and IH-10/Loop 410 interchanges to alleviate our growing congestion problems in northern San Antonio. These projects remain the highest priority for our community. The process of identifying funding for the multiple phases of these interchange projects is continuing with the assistance of TxDOT's Transportation Planning and Programming Division. Several phases of these interchanges are funded in the 1998 Unified Transportation Program as Priority 1 projects, and the remaining phases are included in UTP as Priority 2 and targeted for funding in the out years. We appreciate your cooperation and partnership in advancing these two critical projects.

Now, with the expansion of both interchanges underway, we must secure funding to improve the remaining segments of northern Loop 410. The section of Loop 410 between Blanco and Nacogdoches Roads carries the highest traffic volumes in the San Antonio metropolitan area and is characterized by serious congestion and delays. This section of Loop 410 represents the primary east-west link between San Antonio's two major radial corridors, US 281 and IH-10, and delivers traffic to several major destination points, including residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, corporate office buildings, North Star and Central Park Malls, the San Antonio International Airport, and surrounding airport hotels.

Average daily volumes for this section of Loop 410 had reached 199,000 vehicles in 1995, and as you saw in the video, these volumes will increase to 284,200 vehicles by the year 2015. These exploding traffic volumes are creating accident rates that have already reached an alarming level. According to data received from TxDOT's traffic operations support staff in Austin, the 1994 accident rate for this section of IH-410 was

4-1/2 times greater than the 1994 statewide accident rate for urban interstate.

Apart from the hazards to public safety, congestion along Loop 410 continues to threaten our community's air quality. As you may know, San Antonio is one of three near non-attainment cities in Texas, and the largest city in the United States that has retained its attainment status. Our community is working hard to reduce ozone levels, but unless immediate steps are taken to alleviate San Antonio's congestion problems, we will lose our attainment status and our community will be subject to a battery of onerous federal air quality restrictions affecting both transportation funding and economic development.

After nearly two decades of extensive public involvement and comprehensive studies on a way to alleviate congestion problems along Loop 410 North, the schematic depicting the expansions of Loop 410 North to ten lanes at grade was approved by the Federal Highway Administration in 1992. A subsequent major investment study completed in March 1996 confirmed these original recommendations.

An environmental assessment addressing social, economic, and environmental considerations has been prepared for IH-410 between Culebra and IH-45, and a public hearing was held December 3, 1997. This document is expected to receive final endorsement from the FHWA as a finding of no significant impact this spring.

Today we are specifically requesting Commission strategic priority funding for the year 2002 to expedite the construction of two projects on IH-410. These projects are from Blanco Road to McCullough Avenue at a cost of $32 million, and from McCullough Avenue to Nacogdoches Road, also at a cost of $32 million.

And now I'd like to introduce Bexar County Commissioner and Chairman of the San Antonio-Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization, Mike Novak. Commissioner Novak will update you on recent exciting developments at Kelly Air Force Base and provide our closing remarks. Commissioner.

MR. NOVAK: Thank you, Nelson.

Good morning. First of all, I would like to thank you for your quick response during our last visit, which allowed us to move ahead with some of the most important Kelly mobility study transportation improvements. These projects are critical to the overall redevelopment of Kelly Air Force Base.

As you can see on the next slide, we have already incorporated a number of these projects into our MPO's long range metropolitan transportation plan and TxDOT's 1999 Unified Transportation Program. Six transportation projects were of particular concern to us, and we are pleased to know that four of the six projects have been classified as long-range projects in Category 3A, while the remaining two projects will be placed into Priority 2 of Category 3E in the 1999 UTP.

We are also planning to fund 36th Street, south of US 90, in our fiscal year 2002 Transportation Improvement Program using $3.5 million of our own 4(c) Metro Mobility funds.

Since our visit last October, we have welcomed several new commercial tenants to Kelly that embody the redevelopment vision and further substantiate our need for transportation improvements. This is very, very significant, folks; I think you know what we've been through with Kelly down there.

And last November, Ryder Integrated Logistics signed a lease with the Greater Kelly Development Corporation for a 13,000-square-foot warehouse to be used as a model transfer point under the North American Transportation Automation Prototype -- and I'll refer to this as NATAP. And NATAP entails sealing merchandise in a truck and attaching a small electronic transponder log to its side. When the truck reaches the border, inspectors electronically scan the log without having to stop the truck for a physical inspection. This process cuts cross-border waiting time by many hours and has proven to be a very popular concept.

Ryder recently asked the Greater Kelly Development Corporation for more warehouse space, since they are experiencing a rapidly growing list of clients who want to be a part of this NATAP pilot project.

Also, in November, Vice President Al Gore visited San Antonio and offered our Greater Kelly Development Corporation a HUD Section 108 loan to assist in redeveloping Kelly. This $22 million loan is designated for improvements necessary to attract tenants. The Greater Kelly Development Corporation and the City of San Antonio are still working out an agreement of collaterals to support that loan.

However, in order to secure the working agreement, the Greater Kelly Development Corporation needed to prove that they would be able to produce a tenant that can contribute to the loan. Last month, that tenant showed up when the Boeing Company announced that they intend to establish an aerospace support center at Kelly. A 20-year lease has been developed and Boeing has stated that they plan on hiring 850 workers within 18 months. Their commitment to move to San Antonio makes the HUD loan a reality.

As Mayor Peak explained during our last visit, the closure of Kelly Air Force Base presented San Antonio a serious challenge with a potential loss of 19,000 jobs, but it also presented a golden opportunity to create a world-class multimodal distribution and logistics center, and I think it's clear that we're well on our way to that goal.

In closing, I would like to restate our primary reason for visiting you this morning, and that's funding for Loop 410. Now that the interchanges at IH-10 and US 281 are being expanded, we need to expand the segments in between to maintain a free-flowing facility. You've seen the traffic volumes and heard about safety and environmental concerns, and we ask you this morning to please consider providing additional strategic priority funding of $32 million for Loop 410 for Nacogdoches Road to McCullough Avenue, and an additional $32 million for Loop 410 from McCullough Avenue to Blanco Road.

In our past visits, we have brought each of you a memento of this presentation. I see some smiles out here, so I can already tell you recall these mementos. You recall one year we had our kinked hose, and another year we had a spider web theme -- that was in 1995 and 1996. This year we are visiting you in March, which is the windy month, as you all know, and normally a wonderful time for flying kites. And as you can see on the final slide, that San Antonio's kite is stuck in a tree, just like our cars are going to be stuck in traffic if we don't get the funding to finish the expansion of Loop 410.

So we have for you an illustration of our traffic kite stuck in a congestion tree to remind you of the situation on Loop 410. In fact, we hope to be able to show you firsthand this section of 410 when we host your Commission meeting on January 29 of 1999. We are very excited about hosting this meeting, and we certainly look forward to your visit, and I only wish we had another Final Four during that weekend for you; it might be an additional incentive.

We thank you for your attention this morning and we'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

We do have at least two members of our legislative delegation with us this morning. I know that Representative Siebert is here and Representative John Shields, and I would like for both of you to come forward, maybe while we're in the process of answering any questions that might be asked. I would like for our members to greet you.

MR. SHIELDS: Commissioners, good morning. This is my sixth year unopposed, so it looks like, Lord willing, I've got two more years. Let me emphasize that the middle part of 410, for which we're asking funding, lies in my district.

Two significant facts: Five years ago there were major parcels of land there undeveloped. That is now totally developed between San Pedro and Wetmore which is at the international airport. A new outdoor mall has gone in the northeast corner of San Pedro at 410 -- I understand they're getting away from the indoor malls and going to these outdoor malls where you have to walk and get exercise -- big development; office, buildings, at least five new office buildings in the last five years there; it is totally built out.

The second key fact is that the intersection of 410 and 281 there at the international airport, as you know, is the only intersection in the United States of two U.S. roads without any connecting ramps. So that's part of our problem as well.

Thank you for your consideration.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Representative.

MR. SIEBERT: I'm just here to beg.

(Laughter.)

MR. NOVAK: He's really good at that.

MR. SIEBERT: They said, Just say a few words. And I know it's difficult for you, hearing all these statistics and facts and everything. And I really have to commend this delegation for the presentation that they've made here today, and they've always done a good job and represented San Antonio well. This group works together very well. I'm on the MPO and also on the San Antonio Transportation Alliance, and they coordinate all of these projects and put them in priorities, and we're all in agreement that this is a very important project.

All of you have been to San Antonio, and we appreciate you coming there. Commissioner Nichols was there not long ago, as you said, Mr. Chairman, with Senator Gramm. He has personally experienced the problems that we have in that section of the Loop.

We were going to a conference on the Byrd-Gramm bill to get those extra funds, and remember we were running late because of how bad the traffic was.

MR. NICHOLS: I thought you timed it that way.

(Laughter.)

MR. SIEBERT: And we were a little surprised, as you were, because it was a holiday and we didn't expect to see that much traffic. So you can see the type of traffic that we do have. I wish all of you could come and experience that, and we know that you experience it all over this state.

San Antonio has not received any of this strategic priority funding in some time. We're here to ask you to consider -- seriously consider San Antonio this time around for those funds. And we thank you for your time and the job that you've done, and I certainly appreciated working with you. Being the vice chairman of the Transportation Committee and the joint author of the TxDOT Sunset bill last year, working with you was a distinct pleasure. Thank you for the job you did.

And it's also my distinct pleasure to introduce one of the newest members of the Texas Turnpike Authority, Mary Kelly.

(Applause.)

MR. NOVAK: This concludes our presentation this morning and we'd be happy to answer any questions.

MR. LANEY: First of all, a comment. Do you realize how expensive your trip to San Antonio may be?

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Anne, welcome back. Do you have any comments, questions?

MS. WYNNE: I just want you all to go back and tell the Crier duo that you all handled this beautifully without them. This is a first and that they don't have to come anymore; you can do it all on your own.

MR. NOVAK: Who gets to tell her that?

(Laughter.)

MS. WYNNE: I think these are, as always, projects that we need to take a look at. I think one of the reasons why we haven't had to give you all strategic priority money is because your projects consistently rank so high.

I don't know how far down we will get in our NHS Category 3A money, Al, but I would think that eleven out of 60 would be a high enough ranking to reach at least the second project without needing strategic priority money; so it may be that we only need to look at one to get you there.

But when our staff gets back to us on these two projects, I'm sure they'll give us that information about how far down we'll get in the rankings, because eleven out of 60 should get you to your money in the next go-round.

MR. LANEY: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. You heard earlier the chairman talking about lack of funds and how few dollars we have, even though we seem to have a lot of money -- the projects are so massive.

I wanted to kind of toss out something for you to think about, and that is we normally think in terms of tolling when we're building brand new roadways, but we have so many needs like this that are very well needed that are going to take massive amounts of money all around the state. There's quite a list of projects in the San Antonio area.

There is a provision under the Texas Tollway Authority, even on interstates -- I believe they're checking that out -- when there's major expansion work or rehabilitation work on overpasses, interchanges, things of that nature, where we can toll. If that were to be tolled, it could pay for itself, with my rough numbers, in roughly a couple of years, and that money could expand into accelerating other projects.

I don't know how your community would feel about the possibility of accelerating these types of projects in the San Antonio area, but I think it's going to be something we're going to have to consider statewide on projects like this on a more frequent basis. And the legislature has sent us out to look for innovative ways to fund these type of projects. I don't guess you would want to make any type of -- it's something for you to think about.

MR. NOVAK: Yes, sir. You know, the problem has to be fixed on Loop 410, and I think any creative ideas, that we're more than willing to look at, and we're more than willing to do our part in our community. So we'll take your comments back -- they're appreciated -- and we'll certainly have discussion about that concept.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Let me echo what Mr. Nichols had to say. One way or the other, at some time or another, on some project or another in San Antonio, tolls will come to emerge, and Mary Kelly knows that message very well. So she will be, along with others in your area that are on the TTA board, great advocates of toll projects in your part of the state.

And it's coming, and what form it takes and the timing and the project is a little uncertain at this point, but whether it's something on these projects or high occupancy, toll lane, or something along those lines, the talk needs to begin in San Antonio, because it's going to begin in all the major metropolitan areas and some areas that aren't so urbanized. So please keep that in mind.

These are terrific projects. As Anne said, they both rank very well; one in particular is almost among the top ten. I think I would be relatively optimistic that one way or the other, we're moving in the direction of these projects. As you know, we take no actions on these requests during this meeting, but anybody who has been in the tree, along with this kite, knows what you're talking about.

So, appreciate the presentation. My compliments on the presentation. And it's always a major effort to muster this kind of turnout from anywhere in the state, and we very much appreciate your coming. Hopefully, this has been a little instructive for all of you. It always helps us understand the importance of the projects when we see this kind of turnout from as far away as San Antonio. So we appreciate your coming.

MR. NOVAK: We appreciate the opportunity to be here. Thank you very much for listening to us.

MR. LANEY: We'll now take about a five-minute break and allow a delegation to move out and one to move in. We'll resume in about five minutes.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

MR. LANEY: Our second delegation this morning is the Dallas-Fort Worth Area Partners in Mobility.

We're going to digress from the agenda for a moment. We've got a couple of awards to make, and while we had an audience here, I think it's an audience that will understand because you all have worked so long with the Commission, and I think you'll appreciate this. We will hear, no doubt, from this delegation that this is one of the fastest growing areas in the state, and so forth and so on, I'm sure.

(Laughter.)

MS. WYNNE: The fastest growing.

MR. LANEY: During the last month or so, there has been competition, and that competition is in the Austin area where Anne has lived, and this area has been growing awfully doggone fast too, in large part to Anne's efforts. Anne, about a month ago, had another child, and we welcome her back for the first time this morning.

And we have a couple of awards or presentations. The first, Commissioner Nichols, if I could get you to read it, please.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. "Whereas, the appointed officials of the Texas Transportation Commission strive to take such action as will likely result in economic and population growth of the state;

"And whereas, Commission Member Anne Wynne has made significant contributions to the state in her role as public servant;

"And whereas, recent efforts by Commissioner Wynne have resulted in an increase in the population of the State of Texas;

"Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Transportation Commission, that the Honorable Anne Wynne and her gracious husband, Fred Ellis, be recognized and congratulated for their recently successful efforts to assist in the population growth of the state."

Anyway, this is to you and Lila.

(Applause.)

MS. WYNNE: This is the first pink thing that's ever been in this room, I assure you. I thank you fellows for this. I have done my part. I have done more than my part; I've produced two new Texans in the space of 15 months. And so you guys are two behind, not just one behind, and I look forward to you all catching up with me. And I look forward to you all meeting our newest addition when she's Commission presentable, and I thank you for this nice award. It will go on probably her wall, I think; I'll put it in her room.

MR. LANEY: And it may be the last pink thing that ever graces these walls.

MS. WYNNE: I know that's true. There are some people that are rolling over right now, going, She brought pink in there, oh my gosh.

MR. LANEY: We have another, I guess, more routine award. In recognition and appreciation of Anne's five years of service on the Commission and guiding the Department of Transportation, we want to present Anne with the standard five-year certificate of service. Five years is a long time. Congratulations.

MS. WYNNE: Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

MS. WYNNE: Who would have thought I would have lasted this long. Wes, how does this compare with yours? I've got 32 to go?

MR. HEALD: Thirty-two to go, that's right.

MS. WYNNE: Thirty-seven to five.

DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA PARTNERS IN MOBILITY

(Becky Haskin, Mayor Ron Kirk, Mayor Jack Miller, Allan Howeth, Judge Tom Vandergriff, Judge Lee Jackson, Rep. Bill Carter, Rep. Terri Hodge, Rep. Fred Hill)

MR. LANEY: As I mentioned, our second delegation this morning is the Dallas-Fort Worth Area Partners in Mobility, no doubt to tell us how fast North Texas is growing. Let me call on Fort Worth City Council Member Becky Haskin, who will lead off this presentation.

I should add that Mayor Kenneth Barr was to be here. I understand his father has just recently passed away, and please pass on our sympathies and condolences to Mayor Barr when you return.

MS. HASKIN: I will. Thank you.

Would you like me to begin?

MR. LANEY: Please.

MS. HASKIN: Good morning, Commissioners and Mr. Heald. I'm Becky Haskin. I'm on the Fort Worth City Council, and I also serve on the executive board of COG and on the RTC board. We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with an update of our region's transportation needs. We're especially pleased with your selection of one of our own as your new Executive Director. Congratulations, Wes. You've done an excellent job for us, and we know you'll do an excellent job here, but we do miss you.

This is the fourth year that our Partners in Mobility Coalition has addressed this Commission. You may recall that our coalition consists of public- and private-sector leaders and organizations throughout the DFW Metroplex area. Let me please start by introducing our delegation to you, and I'll ask you to stand, please. Thank you for being here.

There are over 125 mayors, county judges, city council members, county commissioners, and business executives from throughout the DFW area here with us today. The fact that these community leaders have taken time out of their busy schedules to travel here to Austin each year illustrates the high level of interest our region has for mobility.

On behalf of the DFW Area Partners in Mobility Coalition, I want to thank this Commission and the Texas Department of Transportation staff for your past responsiveness to our requests and recommendations.

We want to stress today the continued importance of partnerships, which are the basis for the collaborative approach we are taking more frequently to pursue our mobility objectives. We also want to stress the continued importance of leadership. Leadership on behalf of the elected officials and all of those involved in addressing transportation issues is going to continue to be critical.

The transportation funding shortfall and mobility needs facing this state, and particularly in our large metropolitan areas, are a huge challenge for all of us.

I want to begin with a brief review of some of the key points we have raised with you in our previous presentations, because they continue to be highly relevant and important.

Mobility is a top-priority issue in the DFW area. The rising level of roadway congestion we are experiencing, along with the delays, associated costs, and loss of system reliability and frustration it imposes are significant concerns of both the business owners and citizens. They expect you and me to do something about this important situation and improving it, and we will do so.

Our region continues to be a leader in the state and the nation in its population growth -- as you have mentioned -- job creations and revenue generated by the State of Texas. North Texas consists of approximately one-third of the Texas economy -- one-third -- and is growing at unpredicated rates. The U.S. Census recently reported that in 1990 to 1997, population growth increases in North Texas were among the highest in the country. Of all the U.S. counties, Dallas County ranked 10th, Tarrant County 11th, Collin County 15th, and Denton County 32nd in growth.

The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex area population increased by nearly 600,000 during the last eight years. More persons have been added to our region in the time period than reside in all of Fort Worth today. It is truly a remarkable statement regarding the amount of growth we are experiencing and the mobility challenges we are facing.

As leaders, we must ask ourselves: How long will this economic growth be sustained if our mobility continues to decline and congestion levels increase? Are we acting responsibly if we do not increase the level of investment in our transportation infrastructure significant to maintain the reasonable mobility?

Finally, what are the costs inaction in terms of congestion, safety, air quality, and eventually economic loss in the State of Texas.

Three, we are concerned that Texas is not investing adequately in transportation infrastructure. Transportation is not getting the high priority. As a percentage of the state's budget, Texas' relative in transportation infrastructure has declined from 33 percent in 1960 to 8 percent today. This is a dangerous trend; it needs to be reversed.

Local governments are doing their part in North Texas. Of the 1.2 billion invested annually in the Dallas-Fort Worth area transportation system, over 55 percent is local funding. Following federal ISTEA reauthorization in the coming months, perhaps the Commission and our Partners in Mobility Coalition ought to join hands, walk across the street together, and visit with the leadership about the urgent need in Texas to invest more in the roadways and bridges.

The last point I want to review with you is our continued concern for funding capacity projects. Once again, we have included in your binders a list of those backlogged mobility projects. These are projects ready for contract letting over the next five years for which there is no construction funding allocated. These projects are urgently needed and we ask that you move as many of them as possible to the Priority 1 in the 1999 UTP your staff is developing now.

These four points I have just reviewed with you remain critical issues we feel that need to be addressed. Now let me introduce to you Mayor Kirk to speak to you about the progress we are making in the transportation partnerships. Thank you.

MAYOR KIRK: Thank you, Becky.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I have to tell you all this talk about pink things, recognizing the fact that tomorrow is the first day of baseball and sitting next to Judge Vandergriff, it makes me winsome for those pink things they used to sell at the old ballpark at Arlington; I wish we could have those back.

(Laughter.)

MAYOR KIRK: I'm thrilled to be a part of this delegation. It's my task this morning to share with you some of the examples of our regional partnerships that we think that have produced benefits that have been great for the Dallas-Fort Worth area and also for the State of Texas.

I think without question, the most successful regional partnership that we have in transportation has been our Dallas Area Rapid Transit system, which was recently named the transit agency of the year by the American Public Transit Association. As you know, DART represents a successful coalition of 13 cities. We work closely with TxDOT, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, the North Texas Tollway Authority, and the Regional Transportation Council.

As is illustrated by the highlights, DART is making increasing contributions to regional mobility. We've opened our 20-mile light rail starter system, additional HOV lanes, new commuter rail service, and our total annual ridership approached 70 million passenger trips this year, a 44 percent increase over the previous year.

With ridership increasing on the bus and light rail systems, DART has contracted for 34 additional rail vehicles, expanding our current fleet to 74 cars. Operating revenues have increased by over 6 percent, and the subsidy per passenger, more importantly, has declined by almost 20 percent.

Another multi-agency partnership involves the implementation of our commuter rail service plan. DART, along with RailTran, which serves Tarrant County, have collaborated to develop and operate the Trinity Railway Express, which runs between Dallas and Fort Worth and the central business district in late 2000. The first ten-mile phase of this plan is now operating between Dallas' Union terminal and the South Irving station, with an immediate stop at our Medical Market Center, and ridership has exceeded all of our projections by over 30 percent, and midday and evening departures have been added in response to demand. And we think that's going to go up when we open up our exciting new arena right there on that line.

Our regional partnerships have also resulted in remarkable progress on the construction and operation of our high occupancy vehicle lanes in our region. This, again, has been a collaborative effort between TxDOT and DART, using Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program funds provided by our Regional Transportation Council. It has resulted in over 37 miles of HOV lanes in operation.

And despite all the dire projections and debates over whether these would be useful in our region, the 635-LBJ HOV lane is already the most utilized in the state of Texas and the fourth busiest in the nation. Total HOV usage on the three freeways now in operation exceeds 80,000 commuter trips per weekday, and we're in the process of developing a fourth HOV project along the I-35/US 67 corridor south of downtown.

We commend and thank TxDOT for your efforts in helping to make HOV lanes a reality in our region. Our Metropolitan Transportation Plan calls for continued construction of extensive regional HOV lane systems fully integrated with our toll roads, and we look forward to working with you to construct this system.

I think the most recent product of our successful collaboration in transportation partnerships, not only in the region but with our legislative leaders and you, came with the assistance of Collin and Dallas and Denton and Tarrant Counties, and led to the formation of the new North Texas Tollway Authority.

As you know, the Senate Bill 370 was passed in the last legislature allowing the Texas Turnpike Authority to evolve into two agencies, and the new division of TxDOT that we now know as the North Texas Tollway Authority.

We think this will permit the development of projects decades sooner than otherwise would have occurred, and it will allow us to have a regional funding mechanism that means we'll use more toll roads and make a significant contribution to maintaining and enhancing our regional mobility.

Any review of our beneficial transportation partnerships in our region would be lacking without mention of our collaborative efforts with this Commission and our Regional Transportation Council. The combination of the two and selected funds that have occurred over the past years have resulted in expedited implementation of several critical mobility projects in the North Texas region, and we'd like to see this practice continue and pledge our full support.

Obviously we're concerned about what's going to happen in Washington with ISTEA, and I'm sure we'll all work together to try to make sure that legislation is passed and provide equal and greater funding back to Texas and overall funding levels increased for the future.

I've reviewed a few of these examples of our partnerships, because we think they represent some of our successes and show the pathway for us to work more beneficially in the future, and we look forward to working with you.

It's now my pleasure to invite to the podium the mayor of Denton, Jack Miller.

MAYOR MILLER: Thank you, Ron.

Chairman, Commissioners, we really appreciate being here today. Commissioner Wynne, Denton is the redbud capital of Texas; we have plenty of pink right now. You're welcome to our city anytime, and this would be an appropriate time for you to come.

As Mayor Kirk said, I am the mayor of the City of Denton. I'm also the chairman of the Regional Transportation Council for the Fort Worth-Dallas Metroplex.

I, too, would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and to congratulate Wes Heald on his appointment as our TxDOT Executive Director. Wes has not only done a terrific job as the Fort Worth District engineer, but since October of 1993, he was an important part of our Regional Transportation Council.

While we'll miss you, Wes, we know you're doing a good job here and will continue to do a good job here, and we pledge ourselves and our staffs to work with you in any way possible to make your career here successful and to help all of us.

I would also like to reiterate Mayor Kirk's comments regarding the partnership between the Transportation Commission and our RTC. We look forward to this continued partnership and the strategy with ourselves after the ISTEA authorization and it's in place.

Mayor Kirk also stressed our expectations for the North Texas Tollway Authority. On behalf of the RTC, I can tell you that we have never been more excited about the prospect of being able to expedite road construction in our area utilizing toll road revenues than we are right now.

Clearly, TxDOT does not have the funding needed to address all of our capacity needs. While we need to work together to increase traditional transportation funding, it is increasingly clear that we are going to have to look more and more to other sources of revenues for transportation funding.

Toll roads, as well as local government bond fundings, are examples of ongoing transportation strategies we are aggressively pursuing in our region to assist you and to assist us with the construction of major regional roadway facilities.

We are concerned, however, that in the absence of a formal TxDOT policy, that over the long run, our local funding initiatives may be seen as a substitute for state funding as opposed to an augmentation of TxDOT's continued investment in our region's mobility. We believe TxDOT needs to adopt a policy that encourages districts and regions to utilize toll road funding and other forms of locally generated public and private funding.

This policy needs to include a commitment from TxDOT that includes an incentive to the metropolitan areas to raise their level of investment in projects. This form of commitment could include such things as: advance funding for interchanges; a percentage contribution to the overall project financing that would be made available upon the sale of bonds by local governments; or a formula that gives districts credit for pulling its most competitive projects out of the competition for NHS funding and utilizing toll road funding.

While we believe that historically you have supported us and have done an admirable job in the absence of a formal policy on this issue, we raise this point for your consideration and that we extend our offer to work with your staff in the development of such a policy. We feel sure our friends in Houston, who are faced with the same things, would be more than happy to join in this effort as they, too, are actively involved in toll road construction.

We strongly urge you to act on this issue now. Look at it as a potential and an extension of our partnership and an opportunity to leverage your resources and our resources.

Now let me call upon Allan Howeth to continue our presentation.

MR. HOWETH: Thank you, Jack.

Good morning. I'm Allan Howeth, managing partner of the Canty Hanger law firm and co-chairman of the North Texas Commissioned Regional Transportation Task Force.

I'd like to bring to your attention some North Texas investment opportunities. I'm not selling investments here, but these are real opportunities where some of the partnering projects which Jack has talked about could be put to practice.

I'd like to mention some of the projects that the North Texas Tollway Authority is working on that could utilize TxDOT resources to leverage our investments. The first is the western extension of the President George Bush Turnpike into Irving along Highway 161 corridor. We're seeking a commitment from TxDOT in the upcoming UTP to help us move forward with this much-needed $112 million facility, which was the subject of a separate hearing this morning.

The 32-mile Southwest Parkway in Tarrant and Johnson Counties, we're seeking $50 million in TxDOT funding for interchanges in order to move forward on this long planned and anticipated project. And Phase 1 involves an 8.5 mile link costing $180 million from I-30 south to Alta Mesa Street.

The eastern extension of the George Bush Turnpike from State Highway 78 in Garland to I-30 in Rowlett, this will soon be in the major investment study phase and will likely require TxDOT involvement for a major bridge structure.

The Trinity Parkway from State Highway 183 southeasterly to Highway US 175. This $394 million project will require investment from the North Texas Tollway Authority, TxDOT, and the City of Dallas. The City of Dallas has included $84 million in its upcoming May bond election for this project.

This Trinity Parkway is critical to improving regional mobility, and it will serve as a reliever route for the downtown Dallas mixmaster which is a source of congestion. Sometimes it feels like it backs all the way up to downtown Fort Worth. Nevertheless, it does have a ripple effect on congestion throughout Dallas County.

Interstate Highway 635, LBJ Freeway, which has perhaps the dubious distinction of being the most congested, most heavily traveled freeway in the state of Texas -- the cost of needed improvements to this facility will be in the range of $1 billion or more. TxDOT has issued a contract for a feasibility study to analyze the use of congestion pricing and the development of high occupancy toll lanes, which would be another investment opportunity for the North Texas Tollway Authority and TxDOT.

The final toll road project I want to mention is the third phase, northern extension of the Dallas North tollway from 121 to US 380. This would be a ten-mile extension and most likely will require cooperative effort and funding between the North Texas Tollway Authority and TxDOT.

Now I'd like to call on County Judge Tom Vandergriff to continue our presentation.

JUDGE VANDERGRIFF: Thank you, Allan.

I am from Tarrant County, the home of the Angus G. Wynne, Jr. Freeway.

(Laughter.)

JUDGE VANDERGRIFF: I am so proud that you were there to help us baptize that artery, and of course, so happy to know of your attention to more important baptismal endeavors since that time.

And I must add how good it is to see Wes Heald again today. What a tremendous service this gentleman rendered for our region. We're so proud that he now will be able to help the state as a whole. You have chosen wisely, members of the Commission.

I want to speak to you about one final partnership effort which should be of interest to you. Mention has been made of the collaborative efforts of our region and this Commission in the legislative arena. I want to call to your attention policy petitions, letters of support, and resolutions in your binder provided by the Regional Transportation Council, the North Texas Commission, the Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition, North Texas chambers of commerce, and local governments endorsing the Byrd-Gramm amendment and urging the 76th Texas Legislature to increase appropriations to TxDOT by at least $1 billion annually.

We have told you in the past that our Partners in Mobility Coalition is committed to working in the interest of Texas transportation, not just North Texas, but the state as a whole, so we want you to see that our efforts are consistent with our words. We have played a lead role in assembling a Texas Transportation Funding

Coalition, consisting of chambers of commerce, metropolitan planning organizations, NAFTA corridor coalitions, and transportation interest groups.

Its purpose is to increase public awareness of Texas transportation needs, the limitations of current funding levels to address these needs, and the economic and quality of life costs of not increasing the level of investment we make in our transportation infrastructure. Ultimately, the goal is to build an informed constituency statewide, which will advocate the need for more resources to address Texas transportation needs.

We have included information in your binders highlighting the organizations and the individuals participating in this coalition, and a description of our mission and strategies.

Now, in addition to organizing this statewide effort, we have also developed a presentation for local elected officials and civic leaders on the dramatic economic growth our region has experienced over these last three decades; the resultant increases in travel and congestion we're facing; and the need to increase funding for transportation if we hope to avoid increased traffic congestion, and ultimately risking the economic growth and the quality of life that we enjoy today.

In short, we think a broad-based, grassroots effort is going to be required to act in 1999 to increase transportation resources. And we're attempting to play a leading role in developing this effort, because we think it is the right thing to do. We hope you concur, and we would welcome your active support and participation.

And now let me call upon Judge Lee Jackson to summarize and conclude our presentation.

JUDGE JACKSON: Thank you, Tom.

I am Lee Jackson, Dallas County judge and chairman of the Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition.

I know, Commissioners, that some of you may think that we're beginning to run out of new things to say on behalf of the dynamic and growing North Texas area, and my only answer to that is those of you who think that, we're here to speak to Commissioner Nichols.

(Laughter.)

JUDGE JACKSON: But seriously, you told us four years ago that unity was important, and we feel compelled, among other reasons, to show you that we continue to be unified. Mobility is very important to our region and your role in improving our area's mobility is too large for us not to come before you on an annual basis.

This year we tried to stress issues of leadership, partnership, and resources. The challenges we face in Texas transportation are simply too great for us not to join forces in looking for creative solutions, leveraging opportunities, and expanded resources.

We look forward to continuing our collaboration with the Commission and the TxDOT staff in the months and years ahead. So let me conclude by recapping the major points we've made this morning.

Number one, the TxDOT Dallas and Fort Worth Districts have indicated that $750 million in needed projects would be ready for contract letting in the fiscal years '99 through 2003, if construction funding were available. We ask you to carefully consider our list of backlogged mobility projects as you develop a UTP, and move as many of them as you can into Priority 1.

You've asked us in the past to set priorities. We think we've never had as many ready projects, and this is our priority list, a list of about $150 million a year averaged over the next five years of additional opportunities for additional funding and resources.

Number two, we've asked you to look at a policy that would provide incentives for regions to expedite cost-effective projects by leveraging local state toll road and private funding. This initiative would expand and make more formal our very effective regional partnership opportunities with TxDOT. We ask that you call upon our staff and our Dallas and Fort Worth and Houston leaders to help work to develop this policy.

Three, we ask you to look at the very specific tollway projects that we've outlined for you today that are nearing readiness to go to financing and that need your active participation and partnership, as you have done so well in recent years. These leverage opportunities most likely will provide you with the highest mobility return on your investment that you'll find anywhere in the state, we believe.

And fourth and last, please continue and expand upon the collaboration between the Dallas-Fort Worth Area Partners in Mobility, this Commission, TxDOT, and the Texas Transportation Funding Coalition as we endeavor to influence the federal reauthorization of ISTEA and important decisions to be made by the 76th Texas Legislature. We must work together to expand the resources needed to invest more adequately in Texas' transportation infrastructure.

I thank you for your kind attention and for all the support that you've provided North Texas. My colleagues and I are obviously available and willing to respond to any questions. I also want to recognize that we have several members of our legislative delegation here, at least three that I've seen coming in today: Representatives Bill Carter, Terri Hodge, and Fred Hill, who many have some remarks that they would like to add to the delegation's comments, if that's acceptable to the Commission.

MR. LANEY: That's fine, Judge Jackson. In fact, Representative Carter has signed up to speak.

REP. CARTER: It is a pleasure for me to be here and add our best wishes to Wes. I concur that you certainly got the very best when you selected him.

I have been in the legislature now for some 14 years and recently won my primary, so I guess I'll be here for another couple of years, so we have to deal with some of these problems. But it's my privilege to chair the Tarrant County Legislative Delegation and they certainly all are in full support of the activities of this group that is here this morning.

I must mention also that I have to get into this pink area.

MS. WYNNE: What have I started?

MR. CARTER: In the process of delivering nine pre-Easter gifts to my nine granddaughters and my three daughters and three grandsons and two great grandsons, I have done my part in this population explosion also.

(Laughter.)

MR. CARTER: But we also are trying to help in the automobile population area in Tarrant County this weekend with the Coca-Cola 300 and the NASCAR 500. If you want to see real traffic, I invite you to come to the speedway this weekend.

Mayor Tommy Brown is here, I believe, but he didn't have a chance to speak, so I must mention what I know that Tommy would have mentioned to you. On the interchange at Loop 820 and Highway 26, Tommy does not want that ski jump left out there. Wes has heard this story many times.

But we do appreciate all that you are doing for the state of Texas and transportation, and I hope that you realize how much interest and dedication has gone on by all of these people in this Mobility 2000 in our area. They have done an outstanding job and continue to do so, and we hope that we'll be able to help them out a little bit in the next session of the legislature. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Representative Carter, appreciate it.

Are there any other?

JUDGE JACKSON: Yes. Representative Hodge.

REP. HODGE: Just very quickly, I'd like to say to you the Commission members and to you, Chairman Laney, that I am extremely proud of being part this morning of the Dallas-Fort Worth Area Partners in Mobility.

As a new young representative, you never quit learning, so there were several things that I learned here this morning that I'm proud of, is that my group had such an eloquent presentation. They were not discriminatory with what they requested. They asked that you look at our projects and give us money. They talked about the wonderful work that they are doing as a group. And then they slowly eased it in on me and my colleague as to what they want us to do in the next legislative session.

(Laughter.)

REP. HODGE: So they are busy giving all of us an assignment, and I truly appreciate your consideration to assist them in their assignment. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Representative. I'm glad you picked up on that last note.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Representative Hill, do you want to add anything?

REP. HILL: (Speaking from audience.) Thank you, but I'll just let you know I'm here in support of my community and I appreciate the work that you folks do.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

JUDGE JACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners. I don't have any pink jokes; I couldn't think of any on short notice. But in all seriousness, Commissioner Wynne, in case this is your last time to hear our regional presentation, I do want to thank you for the significant, consistent support you've given to major projects in Dallas-Fort Worth. Thanks to all of you.

(Applause.)

MR. LANEY: I'm sure each of us has some questions. Let me make some remarks on the front end, though, if I may. And this may sound a little biased, since I'm from the North Texas area, but it is seriously not at all biased.

The ideas in this state on transportation don't all emerge from TxDOT. To a great extent, they emerge from TxDOT being pushed pretty hard to consider issues that are a little out of the ordinary, a little unconventional, and a little nontraditional. Of all the regional groups in the state, as far as I'm concerned, there is one that I consider, to a great extent, as sort of a think tank for new ideas, innovative ideas, pushing the edge of the envelope a little bit further each time, and that is the North Texas area.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate the effort you make in transportation generally, because I see the results in terms of the thinking in TxDOT. We see, to a similar extent, similar kinds of activities around the state, but never with the concentrated focus we see from the North Texas area, primarily the Regional Transportation group, and Michael Morris, and Lee Jackson, and the North Texas Turnpike Authority folks, and it goes on and on.

I should add that you all have an enormous opportunity over the years to come if you can keep your players at the table. When I say players at this point, I'm talking about the only three representatives we have in Congress on the State Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, if I'm not mistaken, are Kay Granger, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Max Sandlin -- Max is a little to the east of where you all reside; his district runs from Texarkana on the east side to around Sulphur Springs on the west side. But you've got two extraordinary advocates, as far as I'm concerned, because I saw them in action during the last couple of weeks, and that is Representatives Johnson and Granger.

They're young -- junior, I guess I should say. I should say young, now that I think about it.

MS. WYNNE: I think you should stick with it; I wouldn't take that back.

MR. LANEY: They are very young.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: And they are also junior, so they've got some seniority to build on that committee before they have anything even close to the kind of clout and representative force that some of the northeastern states have, but they are well on their way. They're learning the ropes and working hard at it. And they have had an impact, particularly locking arms with our majority leader, Tom Delay, who has done a magnificent job in handling our interests up there in transportation. So you've got the right team in place there.

You have clearly a very focused and interested delegation from the North Texas area here in Austin. You've heard a few of them speak, but it is a potent force to be dealt with and very, very highly educated on transportation issues.

So you've got a lot of things poised and working in your favor, but it all starts, really, with your innovative thinking and imaginative thinking about how to deal with some of the challenges you have in the North Texas area, which are legion. I know, I deal with them regularly. And ranging from the light rail to the heavy rail to the tolls to the HOVs to the normal capacity expansion projects, there are still some new tricks to learn, basically, and we are all going to be learning them together. So we appreciate you pushing us as hard as you do; please keep it up. We invite it, and it's not an idle invitation.

Sorry for the long-winded preface. Anne, do you have anything to add?

MS. WYNNE: I agree that we do need a policy about communities that are willing to encourage the use of tolls, whether they be toll lanes, toll roads, all the new things that we're talking about. And I think that the idea that you all would work with us and Houston to develop that policy, I think the time is right.

We had a delegation from San Antonio in here before, and Commissioner Nichols raised the possibility of looking at some of their projects as toll projects, and we saw some eyes roll. And it strikes me that 30 minutes later we've got another community that's coming in and saying: Give us more toll projects. So obviously, we have a need to educate all areas of the state about why they are beneficial and why those that have them want more.

And I think to encourage more tolling, we do need to develop a policy that says: We promise you're not going to be penalized if you use this method of financing. I think that's a great idea.

In the interest of consistency, I'm going to once again say that I think you all have done a wonderful job of working together. I still think that if you would look at your backlog of projects or look at some of these toll projects and maybe flip a coin -- you know, the odd year, the Dallas side comes in, and the even year the Fort Worth side comes in, or however.

Y'all are going to be here every year, and I think that if you come back, or in between the time that we make a decision and now, if you all would pick your two most compelling projects and say, This is where we want this backlog of money to go, or this is where we want these toll projects funding in the next two years, you stand a better chance of competing against the other communities who are coming in and saying, This is $32 million we want right here, and making their case for it.

So we'll certainly take a look at the backlog of projects, but I think that you would serve your own interests better if you can like put a little number one or number two against a couple of those projects.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Anne.

Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Some of the comments I had written down were almost identical to Commission Member Wynne's. When you made the comments concerning incentives, tolling, revenue sharing, local participation, whatever that mean is, I think that is extremely important to make sure that you do not get penalized on your fair share because you have done extra stuff. It does take a little bit of the pressure off the cooker.

But I totally support the idea of coming up with a policy to reward those communities that do that and let that be an incentive to help solving their own problems, all of us together. I know I'm going to be preaching that -- we'll probably be preaching that all over the state; it's extremely important.

It was a great presentation. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: I don't have any further questions, except I do want to say that Anne's point is important, and I do think there will be a ranking that emerges over the next few months in terms of these projects. Needless to say, we probably won't get to all $750 million of them next year. I'm sure we'll try.

MS. WYNNE: Lee says five will do.

MR. LANEY: Five will do. So we'll be working with you and working with the North Texas Regional Transportation group over the next few months as we move into the summer and then go through the UTP for the next go-round. But appreciate it. Appreciate the presentation, as usual. We look forward to seeing you next year.

Just a comment in conclusion -- and we say this basically because we see it happen all around the state -- it takes a big effort to bring this many folks here on a weekday morning, in effect, away from work away, from your office activities if you're elected officials. It is an enormous effort, we recognize that, and we very much appreciate it and appreciate your interest in transportation and your interest in what goes on here at the Commission and with TxDOT.

We like to do things openly and visibly, and to the extent you see us straying from the track, we hope to hear from you. But do continue to push us, continue to push our thinking, challenge us every step of the way, and make sure we are wringing the most effective results out of our very limited transportation dollars. And even with the benefits that we may see from Washington over the next few months, they are still very limited compared to the level and rate of rise in transportation demand and need around the state. So keep that in mind too. It may seem like we are about to become awash or aflood with new dollars, but that is not really the case in terms of the relative level of dollars versus need.

Again, I thank you very much for coming, appreciate the presentation.

We will take a five-minute break to allow the delegation to move out of the room and the next one to move in. Thanks.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

LUBBOCK COUNTY - LUBBOCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

(Todd McKee, Judge Don McBeath, Randy Neugebauer, Sen. Bob Duncan, Rep. Delwin Jones)

MR. LANEY: The third and final delegation we have this morning is the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce to discuss the expansion of Loop 289 in the City of Lubbock. I'll call on Mr. Todd McKee, chairman of the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee, who is leading this delegation. Todd.

MR. McKEE: Thank you, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Wynne -- and I think Mr. Heald is gone, but we appreciate him also -- for allowing our delegation to visit with you today about a project that's very important to the infrastructure of transportation in Lubbock, Texas, and the entire South Plains.

The people of Lubbock and the region are committed to this project, and I think you can see, both by your binder and by the amount of people that we brought with us -- we're a smaller delegation, but per capita, we're a smaller city. But I would like to have them stand, just to be recognized. And I would also like to recognize Senator Bob Duncan and State Representative Delwin Jones.

We are here to request funding for the construction of a portion of the east-west freeway project in which US Highway 82 will be upgraded to an access controlled freeway in the City of Lubbock. Once completed, the freeway will connect the growing retail and residential areas in southwest Lubbock to the major traffic generators of downtown Lubbock, Interstate 27, and also the other highways that come into our city.

Currently US Highway 82 is a major thoroughfare carrying traffic from southwest Lubbock to the jobs downtown, to school at Texas Tech University, and to the three major hospitals in which are some of our cities top employers. It is also a major carrier for traffic from the highways entering the city, those highways being I-27, US 62, US 84 -- U.S. 87, as well as Texas Highway 114. It serves as a connection for the people of the region entering Lubbock on these highways with the retail and entertainment venues in the southwestern portion of Lubbock, as well as the health care centers which are important to us, and Texas Tech University. However, because it's not a freeway and traffic does kind of slow down there, a lot of our folks are still using South Loop 289, which currently is carrying 79,000 cars per day.

It is important to stress that because of our city's position as a business, health care, transportation, and education center of the South Plains, the project will serve people from well beyond the city limits of Lubbock, Texas. As evidence of this fact, the South Plains Mall, which is one of our main retail centers in Lubbock, estimates that as much as 40 percent of their business comes from outside the city limits of Lubbock.

Furthermore, Lubbock's medical community serves people from 77 counties in West Texas and eastern New Mexico. You think about that, that's bigger than a lot of states that we have.

After visiting with Carl Utley and his staff at the Texas Department of Transportation Lubbock District office, we believe the logical first phase of our construction of this project is the reconstruction of Loop 289 and the US 82 interchange, and also the widening of West Loop 289 from a four-lane to a six-lane freeway. It is this portion of the project for which we are seeking funding for our delegation today.

At this point I'd like to call on County Judge Don McBeath to continue our presentation.

JUDGE McBEATH: Good morning, Chairman Laney, Commissioners Wynne, Nichols, and Director Heald.

The East-West Freeway, as I suspect you already know, has long been a top priority for the people of Lubbock and much of West Texas. In fact, this project -- which I think has been on the works for a number of years by TxDOT -- was first identified in the 1964 Urban Transportation Plan as a key component for the future of Lubbock's transportation system. Since 1964, obviously the freeway need has increased dramatically, as our community has grown, especially to the southwest as this freeway transgresses.

Much of that growth has driven the expanded priority of this project. The South Plains Mall opened in 1972 in southwest Lubbock, and that is, in fact, one of the largest malls in the southwestern United States. Along with the increase in that business obviously comes the increase in traffic. You also have to take into account that Lubbock, as far as a trade area, serves much of West Texas and a large portion of eastern New Mexico.

The proposal you have before you today which involves additional construction on Loop 289 will be a real generator, we think, for our economic future. Previous construction on Loop 289 and Interstate 27 have helped alleviate some of the traffic off of US 82; however, these two freeways which already exist in our community do not provide access to key traffic generators in the heart of our city and especially to Texas Tech University. Additionally, the potential to extend Interstate 27 into a major international trade corridor will increase traffic flow on that highway.

The East-West Freeway, the proposal before you, has broad support, and I think that's a point that we take great pride in bringing to this Commission. And as your packets will reflect, you'll find a tremendous level of support from across West Texas. You'll find support letters from 15 counties; you'll find support letters from eight cities, besides, obviously, the City of Lubbock; also the South Plains Association of Government. We think that helps emphasize that this is not a local project, this is, in fact, very much a regional project.

The East-West Freeway has also enjoyed a great deal of support from the Texas Transportation Commission and from your Department over the past few years. Although there has not been any asphalt laid up to this point, work on the East-West Freeway is already underway under your direction. To date, TxDOT has encumbered $30.4 million for the purchase of right of way on this freeway, and $24.2 million has already been spent, and much of that expenditure obviously is going to right of way and also going to a storm sewer system that you have installed.

There's also a railroad which will be displaced by this freeway. A right of way map has been developed for that project. The City of Lubbock is assisting with the clearing of the right of way, and we expect relocation to be around the year 2000 and completed by FY 2001 for the railroad.

Two engineering design contracts are already underway for this freeway: one is developing plans for the West Loop 289 portion of the project; the other is developing plans for the actual upgrade to US 82. Those plans are due in August of '99. The environmental clearance for the project is also completed; it was completed in 1995. So obviously the next step, and why we come before you today, is to ask for construction to begin, to be placed on the table.

As I close, let me state to you how we view this project at this point. Because of the right of way that has been completed, we now have a major incision across our community. We ask you to not stop now; don't let the surgeon take a break until the operation is complete.

I'll now introduce you to Randy Neugebauer, Lubbock City Councilman and chairman of our MPO. Thank you.

MR. NEUGEBAUER: Thank you, Judge.

Chairman Laney, Commissioner Wynne, Commissioner Nichols, Executive Director Heald. Thank you for allowing us to come today, and we're going to give back some of the time that Dallas took today. They have a larger delegation, but we do have an important message to bring to you today.

Someone asked me earlier -- I think Commissioner Nichols asked me if I brought my railroad track. I used that kind of as a prop the last time I was here, kind of a visual aid. I didn't bring that but I brought a deposit slip; I thought that might be more appropriate for this presentation today.

As the Judge has already mentioned to you, this is a number one project in our community, but we also understand $180 million is a lot of money, and so what we have taken is, divided this project into four phases that we think make it a little bit easier bite for all of us. And as you can see by our visual, we have 40.4 for Phase 1; 50.8 for 2; 48.5, and 39.9 million for a total of about $180 million.

We have taken the Phase 1 which we think is the most logical phase to begin with -- the plans will be ready for it -- and we have divided it into four basic projects. The projects were designed so that we could begin to let the East-West Freeway accept traffic onto Loop 289 and to get the major interchange and the roads in place to feed this freeway once the construction is completed. It's also a major source of traffic area in our community, and so the two projects become very logical as a starting place for this project.

We have divided, as I said, the Phase 1 into four different projects. What we've heard time and time again from the Commission is to come with some innovative ways, some different ways to look at funding these initiatives, and we have heard you and we have tried to address that. In addition to the local participation that's already being done on this project from the community, our MPO, working with TxDOT, began to sit down and look at some ways that we could request smaller numbers of dollars from you, and as the judge said earlier, make sure that we don't leave the incision open too long in our community for this project.

As we've said, we've divided Phase 1 into four projects totaling $40.4 million. What we've done is voted in our MPO to allocate our Urban Mobility money for year 2002 -- which really will be 2002 and 2003, because $8 million worth of Urban Mobility money in Lubbock is about a year and a half worth of allocation based on the current formulas. We would hope possibly, with the new ISTEA reauthorization, that those amounts might increase.

But what we're saying to you today is this is such a high priority project in our community, we're willing to put other projects to the side and put all of our Urban Mobility money for at least 2002 into this project, based on about a 20 to 80 percent allocation. And so really, rather than coming to you today to request $40.4 million, what we're asking you today is to allocate, in 2002, $32 million. We will put -- divert the Urban Mobility money of about $8 million to put with that, and we'll be able to fund Phase 1 with that $40 million that it takes to do that project.

We think that that makes it an easier bite. I know that there are a lot of demands today and a lot of requests, and certainly ours don't mount up to as much as maybe the San Antonio and Dallas delegations, but we have done, Commissioner Wynne, what you have said: we have brought a project, this is the project that we request. We're not asking for any others to be put in front of this one, but this is our number one priority, and we would ask your favorable consideration on this project.

At this time, I'll reintroduce Mr. McKee.

MR. McKEE: We'd like to thank the Commission for seeing us today. Our delegation is made up of our city leaders and they believe in this project, and we think it's something that we have to have to continue to grow and prosper in Lubbock. We appreciate your consideration of the $32.4 million, and this will begin the asphalt-and-concrete phase of the construction of the East-West Freeway.

We have sat over many meetings, the MPO, the city staff, and TxDOT, and tried to be as creative as we can and show our commitment before we could present this to you. Through that, the local MPO has shown its commitment to the project by requesting the use of $8 million in the Urban Mobility funding. This represents their full 2002 and 2003 fiscal year money, as well as 20 percent of the project.

We believe that the East-West Freeway is crucial to the completion of Lubbock's transportation infrastructure. Lubbock is the hub of the Plains, serving as a center for health care, transportation, education, business, and entertainment in much of West Texas and eastern New Mexico. So we leave that with you today.

The last person I would like to introduce to you today is Senator Bob Duncan, and let him close for us. Thank you.

SEN. DUNCAN: Thank you, Todd.

I want to first thank the Commission. I know I've been involved in politics for about ten years, and I've been watching the Commission over the last two years and the work that you've been doing, and I have really been impressed by the thinking outside the box you have done and the responsiveness that you have given to the areas throughout the state, including West Texas.

We appreciate all that you've done. You've heard our problems and issues before, and you have responded, and on behalf of West Texas, and generally the 28th Senatorial District, and Lubbock specifically, I want to say think you very much.

Back in 1989 I took a leave of absence from my law firm in Lubbock and went to work for John Montford, and that was a hell of a ride, I'll tell you. I learned a lot. If you know John T. you understand the vigor in which he takes on any project. And during that period, as general counsel for state affairs, I took on the assignment to start working on the East-West Freeway. That tells you how far this project goes back.

At that time, it was my job to negotiate with farmers and elevator owners and gin owners and others in the region about the relocation of the railroad. As you know, there's a railroad that goes down that, and there has already been considerable investment and solution to relocating that railroad.

The point is that this project has been on line for a long time. This is a regional project; this feeds right into the center of Lubbock. Right now it feeds right through Texas Tech University campus, where there's currently over $500 million in construction going on at this time as we speak today. The health sciences center and all of the medical complex is right -- this feeds right into it. So obviously, it is a major regional artery that will serve a lot of folks, as you can see from the different letters that you've had.

Delwin Jones and I and Carl Isett obviously are very strong behind this. Mayor Sitton asked me to tell you she regretted that she couldn't be here today to speak to you, but she is chairing a committee for the TML and is here in Austin but unable to be with us today.

So anyway, this is a project of the highest priority for our area, and obviously the city has invested, the State has invested in this project already, and we certainly would like to see it moving as quickly as possible, especially in this area. Where the number one phase is in an area of where the congestion, I think, will be building up first and an area, I think, that certainly our response to that area at this time as quickly as possible at this time would be helpful.

Thank you again. Good to see you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Senator Duncan. Representative Jones is signed up to speak. Would you like to speak?

REP. JONES: I'll just say hi and I'll back up the Senator.

MR. LANEY: Great. Thank you. Is that the conclusion?

SEN. DUNCAN: Yes. sir.

MR. LANEY: We appreciate the presentation. I knew it had been in the works for a while; I didn't realize you had been involved that long, Senator Duncan.

Any comments, Anne?

MS. WYNNE: I am familiar with this project.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: I have a couple of comments. I think y'all were in the room earlier when we were talking about incentives from communities to kicking in things, and you are obviously doing some of that here. But when we're thinking in terms of tolling roads and stuff, we normally think in terms of the metropolitan areas, the Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and stuff like that, but I think to accelerate the kind of work that the State and the communities want, that we might want to at least investigate and kick around in the local area on some of these possibilities.

For instance, even though this doesn't have the hundreds of thousands of cars a day -- I'm looking at on my sheet 43,000 cars a day on one side, 79,000 on the other -- at 50,000 cars a day times a 50 cent toll, that's $9 million a year. $9 million a year continually spun in that project would fund the entire project over a period of years and could accelerate the whole process and take pressure off other areas.

Have y'all considered that or talked about it locally?

MR. NEUGEBAUER: We have not, but we've been listening to you say that. And I think one of the things that's probably untested is in a smaller community the size of Lubbock, whether -- the design of this project is to take the congestion off of some of our major arteries and put it onto this freeway -- the question whether a toll would discourage that transfer to that freeway.

But I certainly think it is something that we need to look at and possibly study and see what the probability and the feasibility is of asking folks to do that in the smaller areas where they have some areas that they could relieve off of and avoid the freeway and thereby negate what the original purpose of that freeway is. But I certainly think it's  -- I mean, we understand thinking outside the box, and we appreciate your encouraging us to do that, and I think that that may be something that we need to at least explore.

MR. NICHOLS: That's the only comment I had.

MR. LANEY: As you know, we don't take actions on these projects during the meeting, but you've got our attention and we'll be glad to take a very careful look at it. We appreciate your breaking this into phases and working through the phases as you have. It makes it -- if it's going to be workable at all, that's the only way, particularly considering the traffic volumes, which are still a little light, but understand the need.

I think we've set a course, it's really just on how fast we accelerate the course on this thing. It's going to happen; it's when and how soon. We hear you loud and clear: the sooner the better, from your standpoint.

MR. NEUGEBAUER: Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Neugebauer.

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

MR. LANEY: That concludes the delegation portion of our meeting, and we will now proceed with our regular business meeting. Let me mention first that we're going to take one item out of order after we finish the minutes; the minutes will be next. The item out of order will be the Laredo Bridge IV issue. We understand that a couple of the folks have to leave to catch a plane to Sonora, Mexico, in fairly short order, so we'll move from the minutes to that particular agenda item.

The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the regular Commission meeting held on February 26, 1998. I don't believe you were with us at that meeting.

MS. WYNNE: No. So I need to be shown as abstaining, please.

MR. LANEY: Anne is abstaining.

Any comments or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept them.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion to accept them; I second it.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: So now we move on to the Laredo issue, and I'll turn it over to our newest addition up here.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Moving to Item 8.a. Webb County - Consider funding for Laredo Bridge IV roadway approach system. Mr. Al Luedecke, Director of Transportation Planning and Programming Division will be the presenter.

MR. LUEDECKE: Good morning, Commissioners.

The Department, the City of Laredo and the Federal Highway Administration have been working for more than two years to develop an new international crossing and facilities in Laredo. This crossing would supplement the newest crossing north of Laredo and would remove most of the truck traffic from the two older downtown bridges so they could serve the local vehicular and tourist needs without the traffic and confusion associated with truck crossings.

This is an extremely complex project in scope and cost-sharing responsibilities, as indicated in the color-coded exhibits A and B to the minute order. Funding would be provided by the Department in $34 million, including $10 million of the Laredo District's discretionary funds; the City of Laredo through a State Infrastructure Bank loan of $27.2 million; and Federal Demonstration Funds of $2 million.

I want to commend the Laredo District and the City of Laredo leadership and staff that have worked to get this massive project to this point. We're excited about this effort that appears to be finally coming together. Staff recommends your approval of this tender minute order. We'll be glad to answer any questions you might have.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have no questions. I move we accept it.

MR. LANEY: I want to make sure Anne doesn't have any questions. Okay. Anne doesn't have any questions. She may not want to vote either. So we have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: We have a motion.

MR. LANEY: Anne, you didn't have any questions?

MS. WYNNE: No, I did not.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion to accept it. Can I have a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Opposed?

(No response.)

MS. WYNNE: I apologize. I've never seen Al make such a quick presentation before.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Do we have a further presentation on this?

MR. HEALD: I thought there were some speakers from Laredo.

MR. LANEY: I don't have anyone signed up. I don't have any cards. Do you have any?

Were there any speakers, anyone who wanted to speak on the Laredo Bridge IV? I'm sorry. You've got to be careful now, since we've already accepted the proposal.

MAYOR FLORES: Not to worry.

MR. LANEY: You can only lose ground from here.

(Laughter.)

MS. WYNNE: Depending on the length of your presentation there, Betty.

MAYOR FLORES: That's right.

MR. LANEY: Welcome, Mayor.

MAYOR FLORES: Thank you very much, Chairman; good to see you. And good to see Anne; I haven't seen her in a while. And I want to thank Commissioner Nichols and Wes for coming to Laredo. It was good for the TxDOT maintenance conference to be in Laredo. We appreciate it; hope you come back soon.

I just want to, on behalf of the City of Laredo and all the people that have worked so hard with TxDOT to put this together, thank you and offer you a resolution that the city council passed in appreciation for the efforts of TxDOT, and specifically for the efforts of Bob Cuellar, who worked so hard with us in putting this together. So I would like just to read this one paragraph.

"Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Laredo that the City expresses its appreciation to the Texas Department of Transportation and especially to Mr. Robert Cuellar in his previous capacity as acting director, for working in a true partnership with the City in helping to secure necessary State financing for the construction of the Laredo Northwest International Bridge, related facilities, and major improvements to the connecting roadway system."

Thank you all very much, and I'd like to present this to Mr. Cuellar.

MR. CUELLAR: Thank you very much, Mayor.

(Pause for photographs.)

MAYOR FLORES: Thank you all again for everything. You know, I've heard all the presentations this morning talking about rush hour and congestion, and you know that our rush hour is international commerce and 18-wheelers. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mayor. We appreciate it very much. More than your services as mayor, we appreciate your lending us your daughter in the Laredo District. She does a terrific job.

MR. HEALD: Moving to Item 4. Environmental, Brazoria County - Consider funding for the Brazoria County Coastal Bottomlands Mitigation Bank, and Dianna Noble, Director of the Environmental Affairs Division, will be the presenter.

MS. NOBLE: Good morning. Commissioner Laney, Members Nichols and Wynne, Mr. Heald and Mr. Harding. I'm Dianna Noble, the Director of Environmental Affairs for TxDOT.

Agenda Item Number 4.a. regards the acquisition of 3,825 acres of coastal bottomlands that would be used to mitigate for transportation impacts to wetlands and endangered species habitat. At this time, I'd like to introduce Mr. Andy Sansom, the Executive Director of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. Mr. Sansom would like to make a few remarks regarding the proposed mitigation bank.

MR. SANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. Congratulations, Commissioner Wynne. Wes, welcome.

This is a good deal for both agencies. This is a project which, by your investment, will take care of the universal mitigation of some 20 to 30 projects that you look forward to in your Houston District. It will avoid the necessity of creating individual permit actions and mitigation projects for each of those things, which could cost you potentially twice as much money in the long run. I think more importantly, from our standpoint, it provides an opportunity to avoid, frankly, an inefficient expenditure on individual mitigation projects. By doing it in one central bank, you'll make a greater contribution to the environment in that region.

And I might say, members, that this area that is envisioned in this project has been identified as one of the most important areas for conservation in the United States. So TxDOT will be contributing immeasurably to the preservation of an important area.

Incidentally, this area will be a key stop on the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail, which is a joint project of these two departments.

And I might just say that I was reminded, as I visited with Arnold Oliver prior to the meeting, that we began this partnership together during his time, we worked continuously on it while Bill Burnett was here, and now I know from my meetings with Wes, it will continue. This is one of the most innovative and important partnerships in state government. We work very well together. There hasn't been a time in the last seven years when we have argued over any individual project because we have formed a sufficient partnership between our two entities to meet common objectives, and those being both economic and transportation development, and environmental protection.

So I strongly urge you to approve this item, to thank you for -- Dianna and her staff, and Bob Cuellar particularly, for all the work that you've done, and tell you that I have two members of my staff here in case you have any further questions. Otherwise, we appreciate this project very, very much.

MS. NOBLE: The minute order before you authorizes the acquisition, enhancement, and management of a mitigation bank for wetland and bald eagle habitat for projects within the Houston District. The mitigation bank would be located in Brazoria County and consists of 3,825 acres of land. The total cost of this bank is $4,560,000. I will be glad to attempt to answer any questions that you might have.

MR. LANEY: The first question I have for you, Dianna, is do you agree with what Mr. Sansom said?

MS. NOBLE: Yes, I do. The Department, as well as other departments of transportation, have found that project-by-project mitigation tends to be real costly. And even more of issue, in terms of TxDOT, is the time that it takes to mitigate and negotiate on a project-by-project basis. This mitigation is done beforehand, so it gives us the ability to expedite the permitting requirements on a project.

MR. LANEY: Have we been able to utilize existing land banks to a significant enough degree, or as much as we anticipated, when we first got into it, like the Blue Elbow Swamp and whatever else?

MS. NOBLE: We have the two banks that you mentioned. One is the Anderson tract that is located in Smith County, and we've used about 170 credits in that bank. On the Blue Elbow bank, we've used, at this time it is anticipated to use three acres. We have had some difficulty in using some of the credits on the bank; some of the things were misunderstandings between the Department and the Mitigation Bank Review Team. For example, in Blue Elbow, we had tried to use it for compensation of some violations that we had.

We are still negotiating on this bank, so we're hoping to have a better clarification on what the intended use is of the bank to avoid some of the misunderstandings that we have had in the past. But it has worked really well. The Anderson tract has worked definitely to our advantage.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Nichols, any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a question. On the multiple -- when you and I had a conversation on it, in the negotiation where you're talking about being specific on what it can be used for and it can't -- you talked about the multiple, and that's something that's offsetting acres three to one or five to one, or so on -- has that portion of the agreement been obtained yet?

MS. NOBLE: No, it has not, Commissioner Nichols. And I will point out the fact that on the other two banks, we had already done the negotiations with the Mitigation Bank Review Team related to the ratios, three to one, five to one, or seven to one. At this time, we have not completed those negotiations, and part of that is the Mitigation Bank Review Team has taken a slightly different approach on how they are approving mitigation banks. They have asked us to do a complete delineation of the bank -- which, by the way, Texas Parks & Wildlife is helping the Department to do -- in order to assess the value and the quality of the bank in order to determine the ratios that they would be willing to give us on this specific bank. So at this time we are still negotiating with the Mitigation Bank Review Team.

MR. NICHOLS: The Mitigation Bank Review Team, I assume, is very favorable of setting up a large project like this in advance?

MS. NOBLE: They support, and of course, by regulation, they are authorized to set up the mitigation bank. They have some concerns more related to certain groups who oppose the mitigation bank concept because of what they view as the ability to circumvent some of the procedural and administrative aspects of negotiating on a project-by-project basis.

One of the things that has been brought up is the fact that generally on a mitigation bank, when we have a mitigation bank, we are able to compensate directly in that bank.

The way the regulations are set up, you generally have to do on-site in-kind as a first option. So there is some opposition in terms of some of the environmental groups are opposed to the bank, but because of the fact that this is authorized under the regulations of EPA and the Corps of Engineers, they, of course, do support the concept behind the mitigation bank.

MR. NICHOLS: We will not hamstring those negotiations by approving this minute order prior to the ratios being established?

MS. NOBLE: No, because we have not signed the memorandum of agreement, and if I feel like we are not in a favorable position once we get into those negotiations, I will more than likely come back to the Commission and say that, at that time, I do not feel that the memorandum of agreement should be signed. However, at this point, I don't anticipate having any reason not to proceed with the bank.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. And the other question has to do on the finance. In the $2.2 million breakdown on the enhancement portion, 1-1/2 million is really a $75,000 a year over 20 years as opposed to cash up front, or does it go in a trust, or something?

MS. NOBLE: No. What we are anticipating doing, if this is approved, is developing a memorandum of agreement with Texas Parks & Wildlife that specifies the enhancements and the management that they will be responsible for, and it will be on a biennium basis. So as we develop the memorandum of agreement, we will anticipate, along with Texas Parks & Wildlife, what will have to be done, and then that amount will cover the activity that will be done. So it will be, we anticipate, for a 20-year period for 2.2 million, but not at a set amount; it will be negotiated on a biennium basis.

MR. NICHOLS: When we're looking at this overall figures, this is not all up front; part of this is estimated.

MS. NOBLE: That is correct.

MR. NICHOLS: I wanted to clarify that. And basically, I think this is a great way to do a project. It is very effective, because it does save a large tract as opposed to small tracts that are somewhat ineffective. I would think it would speed up projects, having that already approved, as opposed to case-by-case dragout.

That's all the comments I have.

MR. LANEY: Anne, any comments?

MS. WYNNE: No comments.

MR. LANEY: No comments.

It's taken a lot of work. I know it's complex, and we appreciate all the effort on both the Parks & Wildlife end of the line, as well as yours, Dianna. Appreciate it very much.

Can we have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: Move approval.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MS. NOBLE: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, we'll go to Item 9. State Infrastructure Bank. And I apologize, I should have taken care of this earlier since it's part of the funding package for the Laredo IV Bridge program. Frank Smith will be the presenter.

MR. SMITH: Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, and Anne, awfully nice to see you back.

The minute order that we have before you today for the Laredo project is a recommendation from the staff for a $27 million loan to finance the international bridge and the approach roadways. This will be in two agreements: one for a $1.8 million loan for five years, and the other agreement will be for a $25.2 million loan for a 23-year period. Both of these loans will consist of a 4.1 percent interest rate. And all of the staff, the divisions, submit this for your approval. Questions?

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

MR. LANEY: May I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. SMITH: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: We haven't voted yet, Frank.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: You're welcome.

(Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: Since you said Item 9.a., Wes, did you want me to leave Brazoria till later?

MR. HEALD: Can we just go ahead and cover it now, Brazoria County?

MS. WYNNE: Sure.

MR. LANEY: Well -- Mr. Hinojosa?

MR. HINOJOSA: I'm Noe Hinojosa, and we're financial advisor to the City of Laredo, with Estrada, Hinojosa & Company. Is the loan for 25 years? You said a $27 million issue, or financing, that is. Is it 25 years plus the grace period of seven years?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. HINOJOSA: Okay. Great. Clarification.

MR. SMITH: After the loan starts, correct, as we had discussed before.

MR. HINOJOSA: Great. Thank you.

MR. SMITH: Did everyone understand that on the toll projects, the grace period that we have?

MR. LANEY: Five year free interest only, and then amortizing starting the fifth year for the next 25 years.

MR. SMITH: That's right.

MR. HINOJOSA: The same thing for the small loan?

MR. SMITH: That's correct. We tied them both together just to make it a very good loan for both TxDOT and Laredo.

MR. LANEY: Same thing for the small loan except it begins amortizing after the fifth year, but only amortizes over a five-year term.

MR. SMITH: Exactly. That's correct. And there is no penalty clause for an early payment on those loans, as we discussed with Laredo.

MR. LANEY: Let me just, for the record, the gentleman who just spoke after Frank is Noe Hinojosa, from the firm of Estrada & Hinojosa, financial advisors to the City of Laredo.

So I think it's acceptable. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: On Item 9.b. Brazoria County, consider granting preliminary approval of an application from the City of West Columbia to borrow $605,360 from the State Infrastructure Bank for the relocation of utilities on State Highway 35.

MR. SMITH: This is the preliminary approval for the staff to approach West Columbia to negotiate the conditions or the terms of the loan. This is the first time before the Commission for this particular loan application, and the staff recommends your approval of this.

MS. WYNNE: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have no questions. I'll so move.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. SMITH: Thanks, Wes.

MS. WYNNE: Congratulations, Frank. You finally spent some of that money.

MR. HEALD: We're going back to Item 3 now, under Awards/Recognitions/Resolutions, Resolution to extend sympathy to the relatives of Paris C. Hood, Jr., Amarillo District, who died of injuries while performing his duties as an employee of the Texas Department of Transportation.

MS. WYNNE: Russell?

MR. HARDING: Commissioners, this is a resolution, as the Executive Director has said, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas, Paris C. Hood, Jr., was fatally injured while performing his duties as an employee of the Texas Department of Transportation;

"And whereas, Mr. Hood had served the Department of Transportation in a loyal and efficient manner and had earned the respect and friendship of his fellow employees;

"And whereas, it is the desire of the Texas Department of Transportation to honor his memory;

"Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Transportation Commission does hereby extend its sincere sympathy to the relatives of Paris C. Hood, Jr., and that this resolution be sent to his family."

And it's to be signed by the Texas Transportation Commission at Austin, this 30th day of March 1998.

MS. WYNNE: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Item 5. Promulgation of Rules and Regulations. This has to do with considering rule changes for proposed adoption under Chapter 1 - Management. And Bob Jackson, Interim Director of the Office of General Counsel, will be the presenter.

MR. JACKSON: This minute order proposes the adoption of amendments to Sections 1.1 and 1.2 relating to the organization responsibilities of the Commission and the Department. The revisions are primarily to reflect legislation enacted by the past session. Staff recommends adoption of the minute order.

MS. WYNNE: Any questions on this item?

MR. NICHOLS: I got all my questions answered earlier.

MS. WYNNE: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MS. WYNNE: I second.

All in favor, please say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 5.a.(2) is being deferred.

Going to Item 5.b., consider for final adoption changes to the rules. And we have three items here, and I believe Jerry Dike, Director of Vehicle Title and Registration Division, is going to present all three of those.

MR. DIKE: Thank you, Commission members. Would you like to cover all three in the same item?

MS. WYNNE: That's fine with me. Is that all right with you?

MR. DIKE: These are three sets of final rules for implementation of three bills this past session: Senate Bill 29, House Bill 1137, and the Sunset Senate Bill 370, Article 5.

MS. WYNNE: Hang on, Jerry, just for a second.

Is that all right with you?

MR. NICHOLS: That's fine.

MS. WYNNE: Excuse me. We'll take them all up at once.

MR. DIKE: The first one is amendments to Rule 17.2 and 17.9; the second one is amendments to 17.3 regarding certificates of title; the third one is amendments to 17.62 on the renewal of salvage vehicle dealers.

We did have public comments on the first set of rules; we had three comments; we took into consideration two and revised those rules accordingly; the third comment, the TxDOT did not have the authority to act on. The second set of rules, no comments were received. The third set of rules, we had two comments, and we took both into consideration and published the rules. And we recommend they be adopted as final.

MS. WYNNE: This is final adoption of all three.

MR. DIKE: Yes, ma'am.

MS. WYNNE: Are there any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions. I so move.

MS. WYNNE: I second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. DIKE: Thank you. And congratulations.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 5.b.(2), under Chapter 18 - Motor Carriers, and Lawrence Smith, Director of the Motor Carrier Division, will be the presenter.

MR. SMITH: Commissioners. You have before you a minute order proposing final adoption of modifications to Title 43, Chapter 18, subchapters (a), (b), (c), (e), and (f), concerning motor carrier registration, records and inspections, consumer protection, and enforcement. This minute order is necessary to implement related legislative changes as directed in Senate Bills 370, 1486, and House Bill 1418, all three of which passed during the last session of the legislature.

The minute order in history was considered at the January 29 meeting in Victoria, at which time the Commission chose to defer until further comments from the statutory Household Goods Carrier Advisory Committee had been received. In reaction to the deferral, the Household Goods Carrier Advisory Committee met on February 12 and on February 26, and drafted a resolution recommending the adoption of the proposed motor carrier rules as currently drafted. I believe each of you received a copy of their resolution.

I might say at this point that the Household Goods Committee will continue meeting, and their next meeting is scheduled for this Friday, April 3. They will probably bring back their recommendations to me, and I'll be forwarding back to you prior to the end of the year, regarding their further modifications that they're going to desire to make.

At this time, staff is submitting the proposed minute order for your consideration and recommends approval.

MS. WYNNE: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Just a comment. When the item was deferred in the Victoria meeting, the reason it was deferred, just for the record, was because the Motor Carrier Advisory Committee had not met and had an opportunity for input; so that was the reason for that gap in that thing. We do now have that resolution, so I'm satisfied, so I'll move that we accept it.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 6. Programs. Consider funding for two projects in Priority 1, Category 3E, National Highway System, Miscellaneous, and Al Luedecke will present this.

MR. LUEDECKE: Two safety and interstate maintenance related projects are currently being developed by the El Paso District with their District Discretionary Program. It's recently been determined that Category 3E, NHS Miscellaneous, is a more appropriate funding category for those items. This minute order before you authorizes the further development of these two projects in category 3E, and approval of this minute order will allow the El Paso District to redirect their limited discretionary funds to projects of more local community importance.

Staff recommends your approval of this minute order.

MS. WYNNE: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions. I so move.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LUEDECKE: Item 6.b., under Minute Order 87536, June 1988, the City of Austin agreed to pay 50 percent of the right of way and utility adjustment costs for a project on Spicewood Springs Road, programmed in the original principal arterial street system program approved in 1988. The City recently has indicated their desire to purchase 100 percent of the right of way and fund 100 percent of the utility adjustments. They also have agreed to provide relocation assistance as needed.

The minute order before you voids the original minute order and defines the City's new responsibility. Staff recommends your approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

MS. WYNNE: Motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LUEDECKE: Item 6.c. Last month the Commission approved the fiscal year 2000 District Discretionary Program in the amount of $50 million. Under the formula established for this category, $2 million is allocated to each district. Because of the additional maintenance and mobility issues that face the eight districts with metropolitan areas of over 200,000 population, the staff believes that these areas needed additional funding in this category.

The additional $15 million allocation to this program will be allocated based on the formula established for this program of 70 percent VMT and 30 percent registered vehicle after the basic $2 million allocation. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MS. WYNNE: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Well, I had had a lot of questions concerning this; I had talked to some people earlier on it. One of my first questions really was, we just got through approving this category for year 2000 last month.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And one month later to come back and change it kind of surprised me. But I know the metropolitan areas need this in their planning, and I guess they need it now, to know now, so they can do the planning process.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir. They're going to their bank balance trade fair programs this next week.

MS. WYNNE: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: Oh, I was going to see if you had any questions.

MS. WYNNE: No, I don't.

MR. NICHOLS: I'll move that we accept it.

MS. WYNNE: I'll second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Al.

Item 6.d., Carlos Lopez will present the Railroad Safety Funding changes for your consideration. Carlos is the Deputy Director of Traffic Operations Division.

MR. LOPEZ: Members of the Commission, good morning.

The minute order before you will expand the type of projects that are eligible for funding under the Federal Railroad Program and School Bus Program. Right now, what we can typically do is put up the gates and signals at crossings. What this will allow for is allow for the proper preemption of those traffic signals that are adjacent to railroad signals and also allow for some incentive payments to encourage the closure of railroad crossings that are not needed. Those incentive payments would not total any more than $7,500 per site and would be matched by the railroad companies.

These projects will be approved on an as-needed basis as they're developed by the districts in conjunction with the railroad companies.

We recommend approval of the minute order.

MS. WYNNE: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Just a comment. I think you did an excellent job in coming up with some incentives to close down some of these crossings that historically have been very dangerous, I think, for the State, and if you can accelerate those, hats off to you. So I move we accept that.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Carlos.

Agenda Item 7.a., Gary Bernethy will present this. It has to do with campaign signs on private property, and Gary is the Director of the Right of Way Division.

MR. BERNETHY: Good morning, Commissioners.

The 75th Legislature, Senate Bill 446 was passed which allowed political signs to be erected on private property adjacent to primary and interstate highways, with one caveat: that the Commission make a determination that the enactment of this law would not cause the State to lose any federal funds. Therefore, in December, we contacted the FHWA and got back in February a letter from them stating that there would be no loss of funds if Senate Bill 446 was enacted.

Therefore, we bring a minute order to the Commission where you can make the determination that there will be no loss of funds. Senate Bill 446 provided that it go into effect the first day of the month following the passage of the Commission minute order, so it would go into effect next Wednesday.

Staff recommends approval of the minute order.

MS. WYNNE: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions. So moved.

MS. WYNNE: I'll just say with my second that I'm glad we have this law, because I know it made many people in your division not popular in their local communities when they had to come in and say you've got to take that sign down, and I'm glad that y'all aren't going to have to do that anymore.

MR. BERNETHY: Thank you, Commissioner.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 10, Public Transportation. Jim Randall, Interim Director of the Public Transportation Division, will present this.

MR. RANDALL: Good morning, Commissioners.

The proposed minute order authorizes allocation of $4,256,081 in Federal Transit Administration funds to providers of transportation for elderly and persons with disabilities in Texas. The Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program provides funds for capital assistance to help meet the special transportation needs of the elderly and disabled population.

The formula for apportioning these funds is established in the Texas Administration Code, Title 43, Section 31. As directed by the Code, all 25 TxDOT districts will receive an allocation of the balance after reserving 10 percent of the FY '98 appropriation for state administrative costs.

With that, we recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Does anyone have any further comments or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Nothing.

MR. LANEY: Motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 11. Contracts, award or rejection of contracts, and Thomas Bohuslav, Interim Director of the new Construction Division, will present this.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Good morning, Commissioners.

Item 11.a.(1) is consideration of award for maintenance contracts greater than $300,000 for the March 10 and 11, 1998 letting. There were ten projects let, 51 bids, 5.1 bids per project average. The low bid total was $5,671,088.22, and the low bids were $1,044,646.63 less, or 15.55 percent under the engineers' estimate. We received two DBE/HUB bids.

Staff recommends award of all maintenance contracts listed in Exhibit A.

MR. LANEY: Motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 11.a.(2) is consideration of award of construction contracts for the March 10 and 11, 1998, letting. There were 94 projects let, 383 bids were received for an average of 4.07 bids per project. The total low bid was $124,371,641.08; low bids were $3,185,970.28, or 2.49 percent under the engineers' estimates. DBE/HUBS were low bidders on eleven projects for $6,806,773.73 of work, or 5.47 percent of the estimated work, and DBE/HUB goal is 9.1 percent for an amount of $11,371,606.66. We received 44 bids from DBE/HUBs and from nine different bidders.

Staff recommends rejection of bids for three projects, the first project being in Cooke County, on page 4, second from the bottom. It's job number 3024. The low bid was 52 percent over the engineer's estimate. The district believes that the reevaluation of construction phasing requirements will promote better prices and more competitive bidding for a future letting, and we would concur with the district's comments and recommend that this contract not be awarded.

In Waller County, on page 18, on the top of the page, job number 3036. The low bid was 40 percent over the engineer's estimate. The district feels that they can perform some design modifications to change a flexible base material to a thinner cement-treated base. This will reduce in the base quantities and allow bidders to obtain sufficient quantities from more localized sources. And we concur with the district's comments and recommend that this contract not be awarded and be rescheduled once the design modifications can be made.

In addition, in Navarro County, page 13, the bottom of the page, job number 3059. The low bid is 4 percent under the engineer's estimate. On this project we had the wrong set of general notes in the proposal, and there is potential for a claim on this project, so we recommend rejection of the bids on this project as well.

In addition, we have comments on other projects that we recommend for award. On page 15, the second from the bottom, job number 3096, the low bid is 52 percent over the engineer's estimate. It's a project in Sherman County, and according to the contractor, his prices reflect remoteness of the project and inadequacy of materials near the site, thus requiring hauling materials, concrete and so on a long distance to be able to do the work. And the second contributing factor is a lack of work in the area. So we believe the estimate was low on this project and higher bids are justified due to the small quantities.

There was reasonable competition on this project; the difference between the first and second bidder was less than $500; it's not feasible to redesign; and it's in a remote project location. So we concur with the district's recommendations and recommend this project be awarded to J. Lee Milligan, Incorporated.

An additional project recommended for award is in Galveston County, on page 7, top of the page, job number 3078. The low bid is 58 percent over the engineer's estimate. On this project, specialized equipment was going to be needed to remove a bridge, it was going to take a very large crane. We had good competition on the project; the difference between the first and second bidder is $15,000; and, therefore, we recommend that this project be awarded as well.

Additional project recommended for award is Tarrant County, page 16, second from the bottom, job number 3072. The low bid is 34 percent over the engineer's estimate, and this estimate was developed using district-wide averages, and they're not applicable for this project; they should have taken into account the size of the project.

In addition, mobilization should have been estimated at 10 percent, and that's the same amount that the Architectural Utilities, Incorporated, bid the project at. The difference between the low bidder and the second bidder is only 7 percent, and thus reflects good competition for the project, and redesign is not warranted. We concur with the district's comments and recommend award to Architectural Utilities be made.

Staff recommends award of all projects with the exceptions as stated.

MR. LANEY: Any comments or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion. Can I have a second?

MS. WYNNE: You may.

MR. LANEY: I have a second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 12. Contested Cases, Director of Staff Services Russell Harding will handle this.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, Item 12.a. on the agenda is a minute order to affirm the Department's denial of an outdoor advertising sign permit application made by Fidelity Economics Corporation for the reason that the granting of the permit would violate Section 21.153(e) of the Department's rules, which does not allow a sign to be erected within 750 feet of an existing permitted sign.

As you know from previous cases, the Department has responsibility for the regulation of outdoor advertising along the interstate and primary highway systems. The applicant, Fidelity, filed a petition for an administrative hearing contesting the denial of its permit application.

The hearing was held before an administrative law judge with the State Office of Administrative Hearings who, after hearing the evidence, issued a proposal for decision finding the Department's denial of the sign permit application was proper and justified.

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, except for conclusion of law number one, which incorrectly stated the basis for jurisdiction in the case, and adding two other conclusions of law to correct that error. The order we ask you to adopt further orders that the applicant's application for a sign permit and its request that the Department cancel an existing sign permit be denied.

MR. LANEY: Any questions? Can we have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HARDING: Item 12.b. is a minute order providing for the issuance by the Commission of a final order assessing a civil penalty of $2,250 against a licensed wrecker service business, Teresa Black, individually, and doing business as Black's Wrecker Service in Galveston, Texas, for violation of the Department's rules relating to towing and storage of motor vehicles. The Department is responsible for regulating activities of motor carriers and vehicle storage facilities in the state of Texas.

Following audits of this company's business records, which revealed a number of violations of the Department's rules, a complaint was issued by the Motor Carrier Division against Teresa Black, individually, and doing business as Black's Wrecker Service. An attempt to settle the case was not successful, so an amended complaint was filed by the division, along with a notice setting a hearing on the complaint before an administrative law judge with the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

The Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, and the ALJ issued his proposal for decision in what amounts to a default judgment, with findings of the violations as alleged by the Department and a recommendation for the assessment of a civil penalty of $2,250.

The staff recommends the Commission's approval of this minute order and the issuance of an order adopting the ALJ's findings and conclusions and assessing a civil penalty of $2,250 against this Respondent.

MR. LANEY: Motion to accept it?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 13, we're going to defer -- or maybe I should say temporarily defer until after Routine Minute Orders.

Agenda Item 14, I'll try to handle these all together, if that's okay.

MR. LANEY: Please.

MR. HEALD: Speed Zones, establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones in various sections of highways in the state.

Any questions?

MR. LANEY: We'll stop you if we have questions.

MR. HEALD: All right.

The next one is Load Restrictions, revision of load restrictions on various roads and bridges on the state highway system.

Next item, c., consider the sale of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner on FM 306, approximately 1.165 miles east of the Guadalupe River.

The next item, consider the exchange of a surplus drainage easement for a new easement on State Highway 276 at FM 548.

The next item, consider aerial easement with Ingram Enterprises, Incorporated, for construction/operation of a conveyor system over the highway on FM 199 in Somervell County. Mr. Chairman, we have a speaker on this.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Tommy Matthews, president of Westward Environmental, representing Ingram Enterprises.

MR. MATTHEWS: We only wish to speak in favor of it and to answer any questions should there have been any opposition to it. So with respect to the Commission's time, if there's no opposition, I won't tie up any more of it.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Right of way -- consider the removal of a tract of surplus right of way on Business US 287 at Wray Crest Road in Kennedale in Tarrant County.

Consider the exchange of drainage easements on RM 2244 at Buckeye Trail in Westlake Hills in Travis County.

Proposal to enter into a multiple use agreement with the City of San Antonio for the city to use state right of way under an IH-37 overpass structure to construct a parking lot to park large vehicles during events at city facilities. Question?

MR. LANEY: Do you have a question on that?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. We don't have copy of the agreement at this time; this is to allow them to go into an agreement. Will that agreement -- it needs to have terms, I mean, as far as length of time, and I would think, and a notice period. That's one of the questions.

MR. HEALD: Thomas, do you want to come up, please.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We can include those requirements in that agreement, yes. There is a draft agreement now being developed.

MR. LANEY: Do you want to see it before it's signed?

MR. NICHOLS: I would like to.

MR. LANEY: Well, why don't we develop the agreement and then send it to the Commissioners and have it on the agenda for approval at the next go-round.

MR. NICHOLS: That's fine with me.

MR. HEALD: Eminent Domain Proceedings, request for eminent domain proceedings on noncontrolled and controlled access highways.

And that concludes the routine minute orders, and staff would recommend approval with the exception of 14.d.

MR. NICHOLS: I had a comment.

MR. LANEY: Go ahead.

MR. NICHOLS: I wanted to back up on b. just a second, on the load and bridge zoning. It's probably a question and a comment. These restrictions that we're approving are to lower the permits allowable on those bridges because we've determined that they're not safe at a heavier loading over those bridges, is my understanding.

MR. HEALD: That's my understanding.

Is Robert here?

My understanding would be that based on the latest Brinsap inspection, that there was recommendations came out of that to lower?

MR. WILSON: Yes, sir, that's correct. We do the load rating on these bridges, and it looks kind of funny the way the numbers are in there, and it says legal and it goes to numbers that appear to be legal as well. But what happens is there are some bonded vehicles that have heavier axle weights than that, such as concrete trucks, solid waste disposal trucks, and they have axle weights as high as 46,000 pounds, and these structures have been rated that they could not handle those kinds of loads. So even though we show 80,000 pounds gross and 34,000 pound axle, then that's what these structures can handle, but that's the maximum they can handle at this point in time.

MR. NICHOLS: But on our 2060 permits -- because you and I had quite a bit of correspondence.

MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS:  On our 2060 permits --

MR. WILSON: It still won't affect those. They could get a 2060 permit.

MR. NICHOLS: That's my point. So we've determined that these are totally unsafe in these heavier loads, but when we do a 2060 permit, we allow trucks much, much heavier than we have determined to be safe to cross it. It's totally contrary. So we determine it's unsafe to be above this, yet we give somebody a permit to cross it at 50 percent more than that.

MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: That's the 2060 permit that went through the legislature. That's something we might want to go back and re-look at, because --

MR. WILSON: Sir, we pointed that out, and I pointed that out in testimony to the House Transportation Committee, last week, in fact, and showed them some pictures of a truck that made it over a load-posted bridge at 5,000 pounds -- actually made it over the bridge one time, turned around and came back and didn't make it the second time. And so that was our point in particular to them that the 2060 permits are a threat to safety, we believe.

MR. NICHOLS: That's really the comment I wanted to get out, because it took me a long time to really understand that. I asked that question over and over, because it just doesn't make sense.

MS. WYNNE: There's nothing that we can do about it. Right?

MR. WILSON: Not as I understand it. We don't have any way to deny those permits.

MR. HEALD: For $75 a year, they can get them.

MR. NICHOLS: With the existing legislation.

MR. LANEY: You've just begun to set your legislative agenda?

MR. NICHOLS: Ours. Okay. That's all I have. Thanks.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion to approve all of these items with the one exception of 14.d., which we're holding out for the next Commission meeting. Motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. LANEY: I have a motion. Can I have a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Mr. Chairman, we'll consider Agenda Item 13.

And, Mr. Bernethy, can you speak to that?

MR. BERNETHY: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, as of 11:57, it will no longer be necessary that we pass this minute order, but at this time Mr. Spencer Reid would like to make a presentation to the Commission.

MR. LANEY: Great.

MR. REID: Literally the high-noon drama here. I would like to report to the Commission here that we have closed on the Hog Farm this morning. I got the confirmation call literally about three or four minutes ago. I will just summarize.

As you recall, the bid amount was 18.3 million. Given the various extensions -- we granted three extensions and then this daily extension last week -- the total sum of money that should be placed in Fund 6 as soon as we can make the deposit -- which we might be able to make it by today's deposit; we're real close right now -- is $18,640,000. And so that closes a protracted chapter of this event here.

I want to publicly thank TxDOT and the staff over here for the efforts they've made. We had a lot of turnaround problems last week that the State was able to meet all of the obligations to keep this thing on track, and everyone performed very well, both at the district office and here at the main office. So I want to appreciate that publicly, and congratulate you.

MR. LANEY: Spencer, if I can, while you're standing up, let me publicly turn the table. This thing would not be closing today without your efforts and the efforts of the GLO staff. You did a phenomenal job, and I certainly compliment our staff -- we did a great job -- but you were clearly the leader on this one, so our hat's off to you and our great appreciation. I can't tell you how much it means to Fund 6 to have an additional $18.6 million added to it.

So it was just a tremendous job, and quite honestly, I think compliments all around, including the mayor, who stepped up on a Sunday afternoon, and then the city staff, but your guidance all the way was very special to us. Thanks.

MR. REID: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LANEY: We have an open comment session, but before we do that, I want to take a minute to recognize someone who won't be with the Department at the next Commission meeting, and recognize him. And there are probably comments by each of the Commissioners with respect to the role this fellow has played over the last number of years, but particularly over the last few months.

Bob Cuellar, can we get you to walk up for a second -- unless you've changed your mind and decided to stay -- I don't think that's the case. But I want to recognize you and your efforts, pre-dating my arrival by a long shot, but certainly an important force since I've been on, and within the last few months, stepping into the breach, in effect, between Bill Burnett's tenure and the beginning of Wes's, you were invaluable.

And I want to tell you even though it's the shortest stint of any Executive Director the Department has ever had, it was very, very valuable, as has been your participation in virtually every major decision, I think, that the Commission has been involved in since I've been on board. I can't tell you how much we appreciate your role, how valuable you've been, and how much you'll be missed. Great run. Appreciate it.

MR. CUELLAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LANEY: Anybody else want to add anything?

MS. WYNNE: Well, Bob Cuellar knows what I think of Bob Cuellar. It has been a great run, and you have done everything that anybody up here has asked of you since I've been here, and more. You're the best thing that's ever happened to Turner, Collie & Braden since I've been up here too. And I hope your golf game improves now that you have taken on this good job. And we wish you only the best and great success out there in the real world, and hope that you come back here often and get a lot of business from us.

MR. CUELLAR: Thank you, Commissioner.

MR. NICHOLS: I just wanted to say how much I really appreciated working with you the last few months. You've really put your head down to the task, got it done, did it very professionally, and absolutely everybody thinks the world of you, including myself. Thank you very much.

MR. CUELLAR: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: May I share something too? I guess I can speak as a district engineer, if that's okay. You know, Bob, you are a true professional, first class, well respected throughout the state, as far as people in the field go. I want you to know how much I appreciate it and how much help you've been in the one-half, two months that we've been together since I've been up here. You're going to be missed very much. I wish you very well.

MR. CUELLAR: Thank you very much, Wes.

If I could just take a second. I did want to thank the Commissioners for those very kind and generous words and for the opportunities you've given to me. I will certainly pass those on to the staff of this Department, which is certainly worthy of all those comments. And thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Great. You can also pass on to Turner, Collie & Braden Anne's comment.

MS. WYNNE: I think it will get there.

(Laughter; applause.)

MR. LANEY: Do we have business for an executive session? We do. So let's go ahead and do the open comment period.

This is the open comment session that we'll move into right now, and we have four speakers signed up. If anyone wants to speak who hasn't signed up, please fill out one of these pink cards, and you'll have an opportunity to speak.

The first is Dr. William Fisher.

Let me ask, are all the speakers on the same topic? Bernard Patten, Grant Greytok, Marta Greytok, everybody?

MS. GREYTOK: Mr. Chairman, we are all here on the same topic. I would just like to introduce our small contingent from the Clear Lake area, and Dr. Fisher will make the presentation, and we will yield our time to him, except for any questions.

MR. LANEY: Let me add something on the front end just to make sure the other Commissioners are aware of it. I believe the speakers are going to be addressing a matter that is currently in litigation involving the Department, so for both the Commission's end of it, as well as yours, we probably won't be asking very many questions, but we'll be glad to listen.

MS. GREYTOK: We certainly understand, Mr. Chairman. If there's any logistical question, though, we hope that you will clarify that.

What we have here before you is a mock-up of the bridge, and this is the Department's conceptual drawing, and it basically pretty much makes the case that we will be presenting to you today. Thank you.

And I'm sorry. For the record, my name is Marta Greytok.

DR. FISHER: Chairman Laney and Commissioners Nichols and Wynne. My name is Bill Fisher.

The delegation that is here now comes before you speaking for the City of Pasadena, Texas, the City of Taylor Lake Village, the Clear Lake Forest Community Association, Pappas Restaurants, Incorporated, and a large number of homeowners affected by what I'm going to discuss.

The District 12 of the Texas Department of Transportation has put us in a difficult position, and we are here to present this to you and seek your help. The Department has constructed a barricade across the channel between Clear Lake and Mud Lake for the express purpose of obstructing navigation. This barricade not only limits access of the community residents on Mud Lake into Clear Lake and into Galveston Bay, but it also increases our flooding potential, is a hazard to boating, prevents evacuation from Mud Lake in times of hurricane, prevents construction and repair of waterfront structures in Mud Lake, and decreases the property values of homes in the communities adjacent to the lake.

And we believe that the Texas Department of Transportation does not wish to see citizens in the state of Texas harmed in this way, and we appreciate this opportunity to share our concerns with you.

If you'll look at the second page in the binder I gave you, there's a map which shows you the area that we're talking about. It's adjacent to Houston, Texas, and the Johnson Space Center. And the colored map that you see there is from the Texas Department of Transportation.

I'm sure most of you know that the NASA Road 1 project was designed to both elevate and widen the roads along NASA Road 1. The plan was to raise these bridges to the FEMA standard or the low court elevation of eleven feet, and the reason for this was primarily due to subsidence in the area which has been between six and seven feet since 1960. And while the cessation of ground water removal has greatly decreased this, documents in the back of this binder will show you that there is still some small subsidence present in the Clear Lake area, and we are still sinking.

The result of the sinking land was that low pastures became lakes and once safe homes and roads became subjected to flooding, but the bridges on these roads also sank which made travel under them more and more difficult each year. Residents of the community on Mud Lake frequently took their boats under the NASA Road 1 bridge into Clear Lake and beyond into Galveston Bay, passing under that bridge, because it was the only way out of the lake.

Subsidence had sunk the bridge enough that over the past five years there were several days a month that boaters would have to wait for the tide to recede in order to get their boats under the bridge. And this was a particular problem in high water, tropical storms or hurricanes, when the water will rise three days before the storm comes and we would be unable to evacuate our boats.

So when the citizens of Mud Lake learned that there was a plan to raise the bridge, we thought it was a solution to a problem. But late in 1997, just about 20 weeks ago, though, without any public hearing or notification of any kind, the Texas Department of Transportation erected a barricade across the exit of Mud Lake for the express purpose of impeding navigation on federally and state designated navigable water.

The exact words taken from Texas Department of Transportation documents -- which are in your folders -- were that "the structure was to provide a solid barricade and prevent access to the lake," and in the second document, "to prevent motorboat traffic from entering the lake." And again, this is navigable water.

Members of the Armand Bayou Nature Center, a nonresident, non-taxpaying landowner on Mud lake, convinced TxDOT District 12 leadership that the lake should be barricaded. The nature center apparently felt that raising the bridge would allow larger boats to enter Mud Lake and that the wave action from the large boats would endanger their shoreline.

In short, the Armand Bayou group wanted TxDOT to close a public waterway so they could have the lake all to themselves. TxDOT apparently agreed and barricaded the lake last November.

At about the seventh page in your handout, you'll see the TxDOT documents reflecting this is a minor change, and again the words "solid barricade to prevent access and to prevent motorboat traffic from entering the lake" are in the TxDOT documents.

When this structure was built, nobody was notified: the City of Pasadena that has jurisdiction over the lake wasn't notified; the City of Taylor Lake Village, a community of 810 homes adjacent to the lake, wasn't notified; the Clear Lake Forest Community Association, in the middle of building structures, boat houses, ramps and bulkheads on the lake, wasn't notified; Pappas Restaurants, Incorporated, which owns 92 acres on the lake, wasn't notified.

No notification or opportunity for comment was given to the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Harris County Flood Control District, or the Clear Lake City Chamber of Commerce.

In sworn testimony at the injunction hearing we had last January 23, TxDOT officials acknowledged they had never inquired about a subdivision on the lake, they didn't know it was there, that they were unaware that boats regularly used the lake, and that they had done no study of boating traffic. The same officials also acknowledged that no attempt had been made to contact any resident of Mud Lake, that boater safety had never been addressed, and that the possibility of increased flooding had never even been considered.

It was acknowledged that no environmental impact statement had ever been prepared by TxDOT to evaluate the effects of this barricade. No finding of significant impact, or FONSI, was ever obtained by TxDOT for this barricade.

I have photographs of it. If you'll turn a few pages over, you can see several photographs showing the actual structure, which is substantial. It's six feet wide and consists of massive concrete beams. It was discovered when boaters on the lake went to take their boats out into Clear Lake and were unable to exit their own lake. And for several days, we were trapped in the lake until the tide went down enough that we could sneak out.

The following reasons summarize why we believe that the barricade should be removed at once. It's an obstruction to navigation on a designated navigable waterway. It acts as a two-stage dam, greatly increasing the risk of flooding -- and I'll show you that in just a moment. It's a dangerous object and a hazard to navigation hidden beneath the higher bridge and poorly seen at night.

It prevents evacuation of all watercraft in times of flooding from hurricane or other rising water conditions, for there is no other exit from the lake. It prevents all landowners adjacent to Mud Lake from building bulkheads, driving pilings, building boat houses, and repairing storm damage to these structures, for the necessary equipment to repair them can't get under the barricade.

It prevents all those who live on and have access to Mud Lake from enjoying the increased quality of life that access to open water provides. And finally, it greatly lowers the property values of the homeowners on the lake who now have very restricted access to open water.

As I'm sure you know, there's a federal statute which says, quote, "No bridge shall at any time unreasonably obstruct the free navigation of any navigable water of the United States." I've got a copy of that in there for you.

The flooding risk is also a concern. The old bridge that was recently removed by TxDOT was inadequate for a number of reasons, and that's why it was removed. Subsidence significantly lowered it, and what happened was that when storms would come, the debris from Armand Bayou would wash down, catch on the bridge, and form a dam.

During Alicia and Tropical Storm Claudette, what happened was the water rose at this dam until it could spill over the top of the old bridge, and it was fortunate that our slab heights were higher than the top of the old bridge, and so none of us flooded. But the new structure that you see here is a bridge which is seven feet higher than the old bridge.

Now, the additional unobstructed bridge gave us clearance that would have prevented the damming effect I just mentioned, but with the barricade placed immediately adjacent to but less than half the height of the new bridge, we've created a two-stage dam. What's going to happen is debris is going to block the lower part of the bridge, and when they reach the top of that, instead of spilling over, that will reach the upper part.

What you see over there is the TxDOT drawing showing the barricade and the bridge with the handrailing here. I don't have the resources that you do, but this morning, as I was putting on my tie -- this is the best I can do, guys -- but what we really have is a barricade here with about 50 inches of clearance off the water, and another one above it like this.

The result is that this is seven feet higher than the top of the old bridge, and if all the debris from Armand Bayou -- and I've got pictures of that debris from the hurricane in the binders that you've got -- when it hits here, it's going to cause the water to rise up and more debris -- there's tons of it -- will have to go to the top of this bridge before it can go over, and the risk is that we're going to have seven feet more water in our subdivision. Pasadena is concerned about losing their flood insurance; we're concerned about our homes flooding.

Now, the TxDOT hydrologists testified that -- they assured us that the barricade gives us at least the same amount of water flow under it as our old bridge did. But since the old bridge was inadequate, why are we replacing it with a structure that has similar problems?

The Armand Bayou folks were concerned about two things: wave action and access to their property. I've got pictures in here and videos showing wave action from storms and wind which is much more significant than boats do. And what you see in pictures here that were taken three weeks ago, waves crashed against the bulkheads for eight to ten hours. This is far more significant than boats would really do and it's not a real problem.

There also exists a natural barrier to any boats coming back there. The average depth of Mud Lake, except for a natural channel, is only two feet deep and nobody in his right mind is going to bring an expensive large boat back into water full of underwater hazards.

I have some pictures here showing a sign that the Armand Bayou has erected about a mile upstream into the Armand Bayou itself, which is upstream from Mud Lake, and the sign says: "No gasoline motors beyond this point." I've got a picture of it there for you. But when the wind blows the tide out, you can see that this sign stands in dry land, and the crab traps are visible here, the water is so shallow. There is absolutely no concern that any boat with any size can get back there, and I know it because I live there and I've tried.

We didn't want to have to come to this, none of us really want to have to be here with you. This bridge was discovered by a homeowner on the 23rd of December. We met with TxDOT officials on the 10th of January; they agreed to hold pouring the concrete cap because the concrete cap has not been poured yet -- they agreed to hold that until a meeting a week later.

We met with them a week later, and we were essentially offered nothing. We were told we had no choice, we had to take it, that they would not raise the bridge or consider our request. We said, We're going to sue you if you do this, because we have no choice. Subsequently, a court hearing was held on the 23rd of January. We obtained a restraining order and a temporary injunction halting all construction of the bridge. And at the request of the judge, a public hearing was held on this matter a couple of weeks ago at the Hilton.

In the rest of the binder you're going to find statements and documents which pertain to this, including a unanimous resolution by the city council of the City of Pasadena saying they want this thing raised to the original height of NASA Road 1; a unanimous resolution from the City of Taylor Lake Village saying the same thing; the Clear Lake Forest Community Association also saying the same thing; and a letter from Pete Pappas, the owner of Pappas Restaurants, Inc., saying he strongly opposes this structure and wants it raised to the original height, as the original plans called for.

We believe that this barricade is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, but the solution causes problems which are intolerable. We believe this structure is illegal, is a hazard to navigation, will flood our homes, and take value from the property that we've worked the most productive years of our lives to pay for. And we believe that TxDOT wants to be in the business of facilitating transportation, not in its restriction, and that what has happened on this lake does not reflect the wishes of the Commission.

And we believe this barricade is unjust, and we're here to ask you for relief from this injustice, and we ask you to raise the mud lake barricade to the height of NASA Road 1 or remove it entirely. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Dr. Fisher.

Are there other speakers who want to add? Ms. Greytok?

MS. GREYTOK: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add one or two points. This watershed in the area that we're looking at is approximately 63 square miles that actually comes down the watershed, filters and comes down through this bridge, so it's a substantial drainage site.

In looking at this particular drawing, you really can't see what you see from the Clear Lake side, which is the greater lake, and from that side you do not see the barrier that has been built. There are some pipes, some PVC pipes that are hanging down on the other side which have always acted to warn people that this is a shallow lake. One of the things that we had talked about was possibly signage up on the bridge beam itself saying something to the effect that this is a very shallow lake and underwater debris, extreme caution, or something like that.

I would also just like to say that Armand Bayou and Mud Lake -- and Mud Lake is the old name for it; you will see it referred to in Pasadena's resolution as Lake Pasadena -- when they actually came down in through there -- and I believe Ray Barnhart could tell you that long story, if you want to hear it, because he was with the folks who helped get this declared navigable way back when -- but at any rate -- and I was the mayor, Ray, who tried to undo all of that at the time -- another discussion that is very interesting.

But at any rate, when you come in from the lake side, this is a surprise, because as you enter under the bridge, if you see traffic going across the top, you are not expecting to have to duck suddenly in order to get under a low-lying bridge.

And in Dr. Fisher's presentation, he also has there for you very short comment about a young woman who was killed at another bridge near there on a jet ski just recently, and that bridge is several feet higher than this one will be. What happened is she went under the bridge and it was great; and when she came back, the tide had changed and she didn't know it and clipped her head. So that's the kind of thing that can happen here.

There is a jet ski rental place right on the other side, just right around the bend from where this is, and so there are jet skis on the lake all the time, and they do scoot under there. And, yes, they should go more slowly and they should be more cautious, but the fact is it doesn't always happen that way.

I think the only other comment is Dr. Fisher has a very scientific way of telling whether or not this bridge is lower than the one that the Department removed, and that is he has a big brass nail in his bulkhead that has been there for years and years, and if the nail is visible, he knows he can get his boat out under the old bridge; if the nail is covered, he knows the water is too high and you can't clear.

When he took his boat out to -- or when he attempted to take it out at Christmastime, the nail was clearly visible, but the boat would not clear under the bridge. So it's a very unscientific way to go at it, but it did seem to work for several years.

I think that concludes our presentation unless there are any questions that are of a logistical nature that you see in the packet that we could clarify for you.

MR. LANEY: Just one question. Can you give me some idea of at least your perceptions of what went on at the public hearing.

MS. GREYTOK: The first public hearing or the one that was called for by the judge?

MR. LANEY: The one called for by the judge a couple of weeks ago.

MS. GREYTOK: We had a very good public hearing. It's the kind of thing that you wish had happened before, because I think there were a number of things that the Department may have discovered that possibly enlightened them a little bit. The public came out very heavily. There were some who came and were obviously supportive of Armand Bayou but who, as they made their comments, said, While we support Armand Bayou and have been very involved in it, the fact is that this is a hazard to water exiting into the lake and on out into the bay, and they were very concerned about it.

Some even who had been asked to come and testify on Armand Bayou's side said, you know, when we saw what it was, we were very concerned and now have a different opinion of it. But it was a good hearing, it was very well conducted, and as I said, we just wish it was the kind of thing that had happened previous to that.

MR. LANEY: This has been informative.

MR. NICHOLS: I was just going to ask a question. You commented on a resolution from the City of Pasadena, which is in here with which I just looked at and read. I used to live in Pasadena. At the public hearing -- or the city council meeting where they passed this resolution, was the Department of Transportation there to present their side?

MS. GREYTOK: I do not believe so, Commissioner Nichols. I can't say for sure, because I was not in attendance at that meeting. However, I feel certain that Mayor Isbell would be happy to speak to that.

I believe Grant had a comment that he wanted to make.

MR. LANEY: State your name for the record.

MR. GREYTOK: Grant Greytok, and I'm also a homeowner in the area.

I would just like to add that what we tried to explain to TxDOT is that there is already an ordinance in effect from the City of Pasadena -- who regulates this waterway -- of a five-mile-an-hour speed limit, and no motorized boats past a certain point of Armand Bayou. Everybody that talked at the public hearing showed a big concern of having motorboats being operated in Mud Lake and creating waves.

All we are asking for is the ability to get our boats out of Mud Lake in order to run elsewhere. We're not asking to spend all day running up and down skiing in the backyards of our properties.

We're asking just to be able to have access to get out, and that if the concern is the wave action on Armand Bayou's property, then the way to regulate that is to enforce the ordinance that's in effect and enforce the five-mile-an-hour speed limit, but not to create a barrier that keeps us from being able to exit Mud Lake and on out to Galveston Bay, and to Florida, if we want to.

The other statement I'd like to make is I am an engineer, I work for Bechtel. We spend many, many man hours in the early design phases of projects of doing what we call safety by design, and that is, we review the drawings to see if we are creating an unsafe -- if what we're designing is going to be unsafe. And unfortunately, I don't think that that happened in this instance.

I think that not only do you have an unsafe environment from the water side of it, being boats being able to go under -- you only have about a four-foot clearance from the water line up to the bottom of the lower bridge, and that is very unsafe for boat traffic, but --

MR. LANEY: That's lower than the original bridge?

MR. GREYTOK: Yes, sir, it is. And I believe another greater concern that would concern everybody in the community is that you cannot see this walkway from the traffic bridge. It is much lower, to where even cars that are passing by don't even know it's there. And we have a big concern that, especially at night, people jogging across it, it's a great place for somebody to be attacked and not anybody ever know, because you cannot see it. There is some sense of security where you're up at a height where you have traffic going by and people can see you, but in this particular case, you cannot see, because you're eight feet lower than the traffic bridge up above you.

Other than that, I just want to thank you for your time.

MR. LANEY: Thank you. Appreciate the presentation.

MS. GREYTOK: Commissioner Nichols, in response to your question, before the ordinance for the City of Pasadena was passed after the public hearing, and they did have representatives present at the public hearing, so they were able to garner all the information that was needed. And the ordinance governing the speed on the lake is in the back of the packet.

MR. LANEY: Thank you. Thanks, Ms. Greytok.

We have one other person who I don't think has spoken, who might be a participant on this issue -- I'm not sure -- Bernard Patten.

DR. PATTEN: I'm a doctor also, a neurologist. I have nothing much to add except to say when we make a mistake in medicine -- and we do sometimes make a mistake -- we try and correct it as fast as possible. So the thing that is amazing me is how much trouble we have to go to to correct this obvious mistake. Thank you for listening.

MR. LANEY: Thanks.

Those are the only comment cards we have?

MR. HEALD: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: At his time the meeting will be recessed for the Commission to meet in executive session, pursuant to notices given in the meeting agenda filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. We will reconvene at 1:10.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the meeting was recessed, to reconvene following conclusion of 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. If there is no further business before the Commission, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Thank you all.

(Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: TxDOT Commission

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: March 30, 1998

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 146, 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.

04/01/98

(Transcriber) (Date)

On the Record Reporting, Inc.

3307 Northland, Suite 315

Austin, Texas 78731