TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

Thursday, June 25, 1998
9:00 a.m.

Dewitt Greer Building
Big Hearing Room
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

DEPARTMENT STAFF:

KIRBY W. PICKETT, Deputy Executive Director
MIKE BEHRENS, Assistant Executive Director
for Engineering Operations

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. LANEY: I'd like to call the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order, and I'd like to welcome all of you to the June 25, 1998, meeting of the Commission.

For the record, public notice of the meeting, containing all items of the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 3:54 p.m., June 17, 1998.

It's a pleasure to have all of you here, particularly those of you who have traveled the distances you've come to be here. I know that the Cameron County delegation is under a little bit of a tight time frame, and we need to move them on and off the stage, so to speak, so that they can get back down to the Board of Governors Conference, which they are valuable participants in, and we appreciate their effort.

I want to first recognize and thank Mike Behrens. He's sitting in, to your right, for Wes Heald. Mike doesn't realize it, but this makes or breaks his career with TxDOT. It's going to be tough duty today.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: And Commissioner Wynne will be joining us a little bit late -- I think 9:45 or so -- so we regret that she's not here to hear some of the early presentations.

Ordinarily, we'd spend a few minutes with comments from each of the Commissioners, but I think I'll save those until later, and I'd like to go ahead and now proceed with the delegation presentations. And let me ask and remind -- I think all of you have been through this drill to some extent before -- but we'd like you to keep your presentations, to the extent possible, to 20 minutes. Now, there's a little bit of leeway either side of that, but if you go over, we get unforgiving in our responses.

CAMERON COUNTY DELEGATION

(Judge Gilbert Hinojosa, Sen. Eddie Lucio, Mayor Henry Gonzalez)

MR. LANEY: So let's start with the first delegation, and again, I alluded to it already. The first delegation this morning is from Cameron County to discuss a project for the construction of US 77/83 and State Highway 4, an interchange where those two roads intersect. And I'll call on Cameron County Judge Gilberto Hinojosa to lead off the presentation.

Welcome, Judge. Glad to have you back.

JUDGE HINOJOSA: Thank you, Commissioner. And I'd like to defer at this time to my senator, Senator Eddie Lucio.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you kindly, Judge. And good morning, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, and ladies and gentlemen.

Today I'm here to speak on behalf of a project that is very dear to me and to very many of my constituents, the Los Tomates International Bridge crossing, as you see here before you. This endeavor, like many other international projects, has taken many years of hard work and dedication. This one in particular took the efforts of not only the local leaders you see here today, but it relied also on the hard work of many state and federal officials. All parties have worked together to assure that the project becomes a reality.

Today South Texas representatives come together to ask you for your support to fund the SH 4 overpass. This proposal is greatly needed by our region. The overpass will allow the smooth flow of traffic from the expressway to Los Tomates Bridge and Mexico. If this project fails to receive funding, we will most likely have a four-way stop intersection on International Boulevard with traffic coming to a complete halt, unfortunately. And obviously, if the project goes through, it will do away with a lot of traffic congestion that we see there at this time.

This proposal will not only result in eliminating some of the congestion problems that we are facing today, but it will also help our local community, such as the staff and students of the University of Texas at Brownsville, have a direct access to the university. As some of you have toured the area, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Now, as you have heard from our local officials on the project, your favorable consideration of this proposal, together with the pledge from Cameron County and the City of Brownsville of $500,000 and $5.5 million in local TxDOT funds, can become a reality.

Again, the proposal that is before you here today would ensure a smooth flow of traffic to destinations in the United States and Mexico. Now, some 15,000 vehicles, I'm told, are anticipated to use the overpass once it's constructed. Thus, I urge you today, Commissioners, to continue working with us and fund the US 77/83 overpass at SH 4, and to accelerate, if at all possible, its construction.

I want to thank you for your continued excellent work on our transportation infrastructure. I, for one, have seen a lot of it in the last ten to 12 years, and I certainly look forward to working with the Commission now that TEA 21 has finally passed and will be bringing additional transportation dollars to Texas.

I would ask you to give my best to Commissioner Wynne as well, and ask you to listen carefully, because there will be some excellent presentations. And I must get back to the Capitol at this time for a couple of meetings. But I'd like to introduce a gentleman that has served in various capacities, elected positions: school board, various judgeships, county court at law, and state judge, court of appeals, and now he's our county judge. He's an outstanding leader in our community, and I'd like to bring to the podium now county judge from Cameron County, Gilberto Hinojosa.

Thank you very kindly. Do you have any questions?

MR. LANEY: No, Senator, other than good to see you. Always glad to have you back, and appreciate your support. We're going to be needing your support on a number of issues as we move into January, and look forward to it.

SENATOR LUCIO: Well, I look forward to getting through this year, hopefully in one piece, and getting back to work on a full-time basis in terms of our legislative session. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you for coming.

JUDGE HINOJOSA: Thank you, Senator.

Good morning, Commissioner Laney, Commissioner Nichols. My name is Gilberto Hinojosa, as Senator Eddie Lucio has introduced me as. This morning accompanying me is a delegation from Cameron County, appearing before you to request funding of this critical project in Cameron County. We are here to request funding of an overpass for US 77/83 Expressway which is the future I-69. 77, as you well know, has been designated as part of the I-69 Highway system, the NAFTA Highway. And this will be at SH 4, and this overpass will provide direct access to the new Los Tomates International Border Crossing.

And I'd just to add -- Senator Eddie Lucio just now spoke on behalf of this project. This project has been in the making for a long, long time, and at least since he was a county commissioner back between 1978 and 1982; that is how long this project has been in the developmental stage. We've finally reached a point where we have begun construction, but it's a project that is long overdue for Cameron County.

Let me, at this time, ask our delegation to stand from Cameron County. We also have with us, who will be speaking after me, the mayor of the City of Brownsville.

Los Tomates, as you know, means "The Tomatoes," and it has historical significance. The whole area where the bridge is being built is called Los Tomates. There was a battle there at one time during the Mexican-American War. There's a school that is named Los Tomates as well, and the whole area -- there was a farm called Los Tomates.

And I have been saying for quite some time that these tomatoes, Los Tomates, are very, very ripe for the picking and it's time that we do something like them, like maybe we make a good little Mexican salsita that will be pleasurably to everyone that has a taste of it. We have been cutting up the tomatoes, slicing up the peppers and the onions and the garlic for quite some time, and we've cooked it up and it's ready to be served, but it has one last ingredient that is necessary for its completion, and this is the overpass at Expressway 77/83, designated as SH 4.

Today I will describe the Los Tomates International Border Crossing and its relationship to our requested funding for the overpass at SH 4. In August of 1988, this Commission passed a minute order committing to extend US 77/83 to the General Services Administration complex. And I'll invite you, when you get a chance, to take a look at our model, and it will show you exactly where the GSA complex is at, where the expressway is at today, and where we intend to extend it over to the complex.

From 1988 until 1996, Cameron County and the City of Brownsville, who are partners in this project, proceeded with the development and processing of a presidential permit, the U.S. Coast Guard permit, the preparation of environmental assessments, as well as obtaining funding for the Los Tomates border station facilities, funding from TxDOT, city and county bond funds, and we completed negotiations with Mexico to construct the Los Tomates International Border Crossing.

And by the way, those negotiations were completed about 24 hours prior to the groundbreaking and about two days prior to the expiration of the Coast Guard permit in June of 1997, so we barely made the deadline to get this project under construction.

During this entire time -- with the help, by the way, of your district office and your District Director Amadeo Saenz -- we also placed on a fast track the design process of not only the construction of the GSA facilities and the border station, the county facilities, but more importantly, the extension of Highway 77/83, which facilitated the obtaining of the diplomatic notes at the critical time that they needed to be obtained in order to meet the Coast Guard permit time.

So the journey through this process has included extensive negotiations with IBWC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Parks Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife, the Federal Highway Administration, the General Services Administration, the Texas Historical Commission, Mexico -- as I've mentioned earlier -- and numerous other governmental agencies.

Many times, and in fact, at the time that I took office, along the path of the development of this project, many people stated that the Los Tomates Bridge could not be built because of these difficult environmental and historical issues and because of the difficult developmental and financial issues that were associated with this project and the area where this project was going to be built.

When someone proposes to relocate levees along the Rio Grande that have been there for 60 years, build a highway through the middle of a city park, construct a bridge through an endangered species habitat, and locate an international border station adjacent to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Reserve, the project becomes, as you well know, very complex.

I'm here to tell you that we have accomplished this nearly impossible task, and we are not only building a new transportation facility in Cameron County, it's the first international bridge built between Brownsville and Matamoros in over 70 years, when Brownsville had a population of 25,000 people and Matamoros had a population of 45,000 people. Brownsville has, as you know, 150,000 people and Matamoros probably upwards of a half a million people.

But we are also greatly enhancing the environmental habitat for endangered species and creating an exciting new city park that is greatly superior to its previous location and facility.

All phases of this project either have been completed or are under construction, including Mexico's portion, with one major exception, the US 77/83 and SH 4 Overpass. And I think Senator Lucio briefly described the traffic nightmare that we will experience if this overpass is not completed at International Boulevard, or Highway 4, where the Expressway 77/83 today intersects. And there will be more discussion about that in just a second.

We ask you to allocate Category 12 funding in the amount of $4.5 million to this project and we request that such funds be allocated in order for the TxDOT Pharr district to let the construction contract in November of this year.

As I've mentioned earlier, TxDOT has been way ahead of schedule in the design process and has helped us facilitate the development of this project, and the startup of this project and because of that, and they're well underway in the design of the overpass as well.

The engineering plans for the project will be completed in July of 1998. All right of way has been acquired. If this project can be let in November of 1998, Amadeo Saenz, your district director in the Valley -- who has been extremely helpful, as I've mentioned, during the time period we've been working together, and not only in this project but in all our major infrastructure projects in the Valley -- he has estimated that it will be completed within one year of letting. That would be six months following the March '99 opening of the Los Tomates Border Crossing.

We presently have under construction, along with United States and Mexico, approximately $72 million for this project, and would like to conclude the project with your approval of the $4.5 million supplemental funding of the overpass at US 77/83 at SH 4.

Again, thank you for your attention. We invite you to visit our project while it is under construction. It is amazing to see the whole change in that area of Cameron County, of Brownsville. It has completely transformed the area. You will see a new Brownsville. It has allowed also for the development of our university in that area, providing in the levee relocation about 80 new acres for additional expansion for the college, and so it ties in beautifully to that. We extend a personal invitation for you to attend our March 1999 opening of this new international crossing.

Later in this presentation, John Hudson, from Traffic Engineers, will describe the overall project and why the overpass is so critical to the needs of our local community and to the success of the Los Tomates Bridge.

Before John comes up, let me introduce to you the mayor of Brownsville, Mayor Henry Gonzalez, to speak on behalf of the City of Brownsville. Thank you very much.

MAYOR GONZALEZ: Thank you, Judge Hinojosa. Good morning, Commissioner Laney, Transportation Commissioners. It is a pleasure to appear before you this morning to thank you for your support in Brownsville and Cameron County on this project. I am here today to request that you fund the final phase of this complex Los Tomates project.

In 1970, in Brownsville's first urban transportation plan, TxDOT, Cameron County, and the City of Brownsville defined the Los Tomates Bridge as our next major international border crossing. From 1970 to 1988, the city worked extensively on its major thoroughfare plan and the completion of the US 77/83 as a controlled access freeway between Harlingen and the city of Brownsville.

For the past ten years, the City of Brownsville has worked diligently to extend US 77/83 a mere 1.4 miles to the new international border station. We have anticipated TxDOT to complete the extension of US 77/83 as a controlled access freeway as part of the TxDOT minute order in 1988.

For the City of Brownsville, the real beginning of the implementation of the Los Tomates Bridge began in 1975, when the city began planning and then purchased 477 acres along the Rio Grande for the purpose of constructing a new international bridge. In 1988, the city and the county agreed to pursue the new international border crossing as equal partners, and throughout this time period the Los Tomates project has remained as the city's and county's number one priority transportation project.

This project has united the city and county such that other joint projects are being pursued. Now, as partners, we're requesting further funding assistance to construct the 77/83 and State Highway 4 overpass in order to complete the US 77/83 highway to the new border crossing.

We are here today requesting $4.5 million from the Transportation Commission to be appropriated for this project. This overpass, costing $10.5 million, is structured to be funded with $5.5 million from the local TxDOT District bank balance fund for NAFTA and urban mobility, and the City of Brownsville and Cameron County are here today pledging half a million dollars of local funds to complete the overpass and the final construction of I-69 to Mexico. We also urge you to advance this request in order to meet a November 1998 letting. Thank you very much.

Now I will ask our project manager since 1988, Mr. John Hudson, to describe the Los Tomates project. Thank you very much.

MR. HUDSON: Thank you, Commissioners, staff. It's been my pleasure to be with this project for a long duration.

To best describe this project, the scale model that's before you today has been used at 23 public meetings, and the purpose today is to present the overall plan and how the overpass fits into the project itself.

The project can best be described as three stages that include: the permit phase from 1988 to 1994; and then the design phase over a two-year period, '95 to '96; and then construction began on this project in 1996 and is underway today.

In October of '93, a presidential permit was issued, following six years of extensive planning, environmental assessments, and approval of a complex mitigation plan. The environmental plan shown on the slide here greatly enhances the wildlife habitat and has been complimented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as improving the habitat of the endangered species in this area.

Coordination with Mexico, as I'm sure you're aware, is an uncharted journey. In 1994, when we were ready to start the construction of the project, Mexico's administration changed and the Mexican peso was devalued. At that time, it was extremely difficult to obtain a construction commitment from Mexico, when their interest rates were at the 80 percent level for construction. Nevertheless, the project began, and I'll now go through a few slides to show the sequence of construction at this date.

Work began in October of '96 with the levee relocation, the first phase, by Brazos River International of Pasadena, Texas, at a cost of $2 million. As you can see from this slide, not all days were hot and dry as we have today; we had the first 90 days under rain.

The next portion of the project was a $4 million bridge that was 450 meters long -- one-third in the United States, two-thirds in Mexico -- was begun by Cameron County on June 16, as the judge said, actually three days prior to the expiration of the Coast Guard permit, which would have required redoing the environmental assessment.

The four-lane bridge was completed this past month on the U.S. side, and Mexico's construction is presently underway. Their contractor, ICA, has the contract for the construction of the bridge, the border station, and the roadway approach, and we have coordinated with them on a daily basis with our inspectors.

The next major phase, three, included a 75-acre modern federal border station constructed by MW Builders of Temple, Texas, at a price of $18 million. The aerial photograph shows the large area that is presently under construction. We waited a few days, trying to get the smog or the smoke to move, so that some of these aerials are still under the influence of the smoke we had from Mexico. But this shows you the massive area, as you can see the bridge, the large border station under construction.

Phase 4 and 5 included $17.6 million of extension of US 77/83, under TxDOT, by Williams Brothers Construction of Houston, Texas, from International Boulevard to State Highway 4. Based on numerous public meetings, the design in Brownsville included an elevated freeway over the original Lincoln Park, and it includes decorative bridge columns throughout this area, as you can see a little bit on this slide.

The city's original Lincoln Park will be relocated to a beautiful waterway along Lozano Baco, approximately 1,500 feet southeast of the original park. The new park is scheduled to be let for construction June '99.

Phase 6 includes the $3 million six-lane approach roadway to the bridge, it includes the utilities and drainage, all funded by Cameron County and the City of Brownsville. This phase was also awarded to Williams Brothers Construction Company of Houston.

Phase 7 includes the $2 million county toll plaza, as this bridge will be a toll facility, and it will include all the latest technology of ITS equipment, including AVI processing network with three other bridges, the latest information as far as x-raying trucks for quick processing. We also have 7,000 linear feet of queue storage for trucks from one border station to the next, so we should not have the massive problem that we see at the other bridges.

A vegetation plan, as shown on this slide, includes a plan where land will be transferred from the levee, the relocated levee, to the area along the river to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 176 acres transferred to them in exchange for a 17-acre wildlife refuge that is adjacent to the new border station. The refuge that the city will receive will continue in its natural state and organized bird activities will take place adjacent to the new Lincoln Park by the Audubon Society.

This next slide shows the model that's before you today, and it will include the construction of the $10.5 million overpass over State Highway 4 that we're here requesting this funding today, and we would like to request approval for the letting in November of this year. The project is projected to immediately carry 15,000 vehicles over the overpass, and 50 percent of these vehicles will access the University of Texas at Brownsville.

Most important, the overpass itself is the final piece of a master plan that was developed in 1988, and the cost of the complex is $83.2 million. As you can see from this slide, the funding comes from a number of sources, including Mexico as a partner, so we look at everybody as a partner.

Although there is considerably more to talk about this project than time allows today, this gives you a quick overview of the whole project and how the overpass fits into it. The most important thing is we don't want to bring traffic all the way from Corpus Christi on a controlled access freeway, take them through a signalized intersection, and then put them back on the expressway to get 1.4 miles to the border station. And that's what the overpass will serve today.

Thank you, and I believe our delegation will be prepared for any questions that you might have, and we appreciate it.

MR. LANEY: Appreciate the presentation.

Comments or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Comments. First of all, I think it's an excellent presentation. And I had no longer been on the Commission a few weeks than I became aware of this project. Y'all have done an amazing thing to pull all the various entities together in a real cooperative spirit into a magnificent project. Like you described it originally, it seemed almost impossible at first, but my hat's off to you. I think y'all have done a great job.

MR. LANEY: I'd add to that. I appreciate the presentation; thought it was a great presentation. It's a great project. And how you finagled $5.5 million out of Amadeo Saenz is beyond me, but that just means he's going to be back at our door saying, "How do we refill that bucket?"

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: This is a project I think that needs to be done and I'm optimistic that we'll get over the goal line on this. The only disincentive is that if we finish this project and you build it and it's the last phase of this overall master plan, we don't have any reason to get you guys back up here. That will do it for Cameron County; we'll be finished.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: As you all know, we don't make the calls on these kinds of funding issues on the spot, but we very much appreciate your very valuable and concentrated work on this project, and I'm very optimistic we're going to get there for you.

Thank you for coming. We're going to take a couple of minutes off and allow you all to move on, if you'd like. And I don't know if you're going to be taking your model, but I'd like to take a look at it before you leave, so why don't we recess for five minutes and then reconvene in five minutes.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

CITY OF GRAPEVINE

(Mayor William D. Tate, Jerry Hodge, Roger Nelson, Nancy Fleming)

MR. LANEY: If we can call the meeting back to order, please. Our second delegation this morning is the City of Grapevine here to discuss the construction of an additional two-lane bridge on Bass Pro Road over State Highway 121, and I'll call on Grapevine Mayor William Tate to lead off the presentation.

Mayor, welcome.

MAYOR TATE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols. We're honored, as always, to come before the Texas Transportation Commission on behalf of the City of Grapevine. We have a very fine delegation with us today, and we're here to represent not only our community but the region.

In addition to myself, Mr. Jerry Hodge, who's the director of public works for our city; Mr. Roger Nelson the city manager; and Nancy Fleming, who is the chief of staff for Senator Jane Nelson, will be joining with me in our presentation on what might be regarded as a rather small but also a very significant project within the City of Grapevine.

The project is located in the northeastern portion of our city; it's in Tarrant County; it's along Bass Pro Drive, which was formerly Bethel Road. It's named for the Bass Pro Shop that's under construction there that is anticipated to attract at least four million visitors a year. It's near the Grapevine Mills Mall that opened last fall that is estimated to draw some 16 million people each year to our city.

These attractions are becoming some of the best tourist attractions not only to our community but to the State of Texas and we're all very proud of them.

The purpose of the project is to widen Bass Pro Drive from its existing two-lane cross-section to a four-lane divided cross-section. The project is approximately 3,450 feet in length; it extends from State Highway 26 west to northbound State Highway 121 frontage road. And this obviously helps connect to 635 and Highway 114.

The entire Bass Pro Drive project includes: the widening of Bass Pro Drive from a two-lane hog-back road to a four-lane divided roadway; the widening of the approaches to State Highway 121; acquiring additional right of way for the road; installing traffic signals and coordinating those signals, and finally, to make it work, the construction of an additional two-lane bridge over State Highway 121, which will be used in conjunction with the existing two-lane bridge to complement the new four-lane divided cross-section of Bass Pro Drive.

The Bass Pro Drive project is an ongoing effort in our community to improve the infrastructure and the capacity needs, both for the residents of the City of Grapevine and a continually increasing number of regional commuters. As you know, it seems sometimes that all roads intersect or come together in the City of Grapevine. We are centrally located in the Metroplex, and consequently we have a lot of highways that come together. And we're not only having to accommodate [sic] highway for the traffic that we create within our own community, but we have pass-through traffic from the Hurst-Euless-Bedford area, Keller, Trophy Club, Roanoke, from Flower Mound and Coppell, from Irving; we have the benefit of a lot of pass-through traffic.

It's expected that the roadway construction will be completed in January of 1999, and with the help of TxDOT, the city hopes to have the entire project completed by the end of 1999.

My community is a very proud community. We take a great deal of pride in the efforts to monitor and control the dynamic growth that takes place in our region. Our community is nearing build-out from a single family standpoint. Some 800 lots is all we have left to build. We will top out at probably a community of about 45,000 people, but we have a lot of land around the highways and DFW airport that is set aside for commercial growth, and so our economic development efforts have been ongoing and very extensive and will continue to be.

We are enjoying the recent developments of the Grapevine Mills Mall, Bass Pro Shop, Embassy Suites Hotel, which was under construction. We have several other projects that are very exciting that are under planning at the present time. We have a 3.2 million square foot distribution center just off of Highway 121; we have two of the largest multi-screen cinema complexes in the whole southwest; and in addition, the city has promoted a multi-modal community which includes Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, the Tarantula railroad, the intermodal freight facilities, expanding hike-and-bike trails, not to mention all of the highways and the freeways and the arterials and the regional mobility that we have been a part of the planning for for some time.

The City of Grapevine has been blessed not only with economic growth, but we also receive the traffic congestion, which is probably the greatest challenge, not only for our community but for the entire Metroplex as we face the 21st Century.

And at the same time, we've enjoyed these successes and growth and the benefit that new development brings, we haven't forgot our historic past. Grapevine is one of the most historic cities in the State of Texas, the oldest surviving community in Tarrant County, founded in 1844, and we want to preserve that, and we've worked very hard to do that. We have a Historic Main Street program, which the city started, one of the most successful and the best in the State of Texas.

The city has been designated a tree capital city by the State of Texas for several years. We are preserving our historic neighborhoods through a Township Project. Lake Grapevine, which has attracted up to six million visitors a year, is in our community, the Fort Worth Tarantula Excursion Train, the development of the Grapevine Depot and Founders facility.

We're home to the Texas Wine and Grape Growers Association. The Texas wine industry has been heavily promoted in our community and is a growing industry. We have annual events such as Grapefest and Main Street Days that attract over 150 [sic] visitors each year, and we have the development of numerous events at the Grapevine Convention Center.

Our Grapevine Tourist Convention Bureau has brought national and international recognition to our community and our area. And so we're very proud of the past, and we accept the challenges that the future presents to us and are very excited about that opportunity.

We're here today to ask your help in assisting us to complete this one project, what we feel both has local and regional significance because it's a connector between two major highways, and it helps buy us precious time. The investment in our area to accommodate the traffic is going to be significant in the future, as you know, but what we've been trying to do -- like we did at William D. Tate Bridge and the Mustang Bridge -- we're trying to open up these bottlenecks with smaller investments to buy time until we can expand Highways 114 and 121.

And we appreciate very much the Fort Worth office of TxDOT, the assistance they've given us, the Commission's support that we've received through the years, and we're looking forward to many years of partnership together.

To expand on this issue, I'd like to now introduce Mr. Jerry Hodge, who is the City of Grapevine's public works director. He will discuss the current conditions of Bass Pro Drive, the technical aspects of our proposal, and the immediate and highly unique characteristics of Bass Pro Drive.

Mr. Jerry Hodge.

MR. HODGE: Thank you very much, Mayor Tate and Commissioners.

I would like to say one thing: Texas has a real friend in Austin today, and that's Wes Heald. Wes Heald is gold. We've known him for a long time. His goals are right along with our goals and that's to build highways in Texas, so Texas has a real friend in Wes. And I know he's not here today so I can say those types of things.

We appreciate very much the opportunity to represent this delegation here today. We want to discuss the need of the vital regional links in our area and especially the Bass Pro Bridge. As previously mentioned by the mayor, the original Bethel Road and Bethel Road Bridge were constructed to serve rural areas in the cities of Coppell and Grapevine; however, times have changed. Bethel Road is now known as Bass Pro Drive from State Highway 121 to Highway 26. It provides direct access to regional highways, Grapevine Mills and Bass Pro shops, the Grapevine recreational areas, direct access to Grapevine's main street area, and the rapidly developing warehouse and industrial areas in the City of Coppell.

The Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport is the second largest airport in the United States and is located just south of Bass Pro Drive. SH 121 is an extension of International Parkway, which is the spine road for the airport. Also, DFW Airport land actually abuts Bass Pro Drive.

The Grapevine Mills Mall is located just east of Bass Pro Drive and is considered the largest outlet mall in the Southwest. Bass Pro Shops and the Embassy Suites are several large economic development projects that we have going in this area, and certainly our warehouses are growing at a phenomenal rate. DFW Trade Center is 3.2 million square feet of industrial warehouse and distribution that's within approximately one mile of the Bass Pro Drive Bridge. Also, we have another 1.9 million square feet of warehousing going in on Highway 26 at 114 on the opposite side of the community.

Northwest Highway, Business 114, is now a partnership with TxDOT and the City of Grapevine. The project is being constructed to a five-lane cross-section. When complete, Northwest Highway/State Highway 26 will provide a direct route from State Highway 114 to the 121/IH 635 connection.

Traffic volumes have been increasing at an average rate of 8.6 percent since 1992. Based upon TxDOT traffic volumes, this is nearly three times higher than the accepted high growth rate of 3 percent as designated by the North Central Texas Council of Governments.

Furthermore, with respect to the freeways and state highways, there is incomparable number of merging state facilities located within the City of Grapevine. Within a three-mile radius of the Bass Pro Bridge, you will find: SH 121 intersecting with SH 121 Bypass and the business route of SH 121 through Lewisville; SH 121 intersecting with Farm-to-Market 2499 and State Highway 26; State Highway 121 and IH 635 Interchange; the SH 121 and SH 114 International Parkway Interchange at the north end of DFW Airport; State Highway 121/SH 114/SH 360 Interchange area -- Dallas may have the IH 35 and the IH 30 Canyon area; Grapevine has the 121/114/360 International Parkway funnel area, and we'll certainly see Grapevine down here in the future talking about the funnel area; all the highways around the area in Grapevine go through this funnel; and finally, the State Highway 114/FM 1709 and 26 interchange area.

These converging points create invaluable connections between the major state freeway facilities; however, merging points in combination with higher than average annual traffic growth have created unavoidable bottlenecks during peak hours of traffic or times of traffic incidents. Let us not forget that State Highway 114 is the direct feeder route to the Alliance Airport and the Texas Motor Speedway.

Bass Pro Drive, in connection with Northwest Highway and State Highway 26, provides an opportunity to relieve some of the traffic congestion within the funnel area, in particular, the east-west route connecting State Highway 114/Kimble Road and far west Grapevine to the IH 635 at Royal Lane in far east Grapevine. Based upon a travel time field study, Bass Pro Drive/State Highway 26/Northwest Highway offers an alternate route which is 1.3 miles shorter than the traditional freeway route.

Bass Pro Drive alternate route also offers a travel time savings of 25.8 seconds per vehicle during the a.m. peak period and 28.2 seconds per vehicle during the p.m. peak period. These alternate route savings result in a projected annual savings of 949,000 vehicle miles and 5,475 vehicle hours based upon four hours of peak time benefit. This substantial travel time savings offer both a reasonable benefit and a local benefit to the majority of the commuters traveling through the City of Grapevine.

The widening of Bass Pro Drive will add several items of improvement: add capacity to existing transportation infrastructure system; offer an improved alternate route which has potential to attract between 12- and 15,000 vehicles per day in the already congested State Highway 121/114 funnel area; provide a cost-effective solution while other major corridor improvements and studies are being completed. At the present time, we're working with TxDOT District 2 on a major investment study, and hopefully we can speed that along to be able to look at the alternatives that are available and come back to the Commission with improvements to the funnel area.

Based upon the construction costs associated with the widening of Bass Pro Drive from State Highway 26 and 121 -- which involves the construction of a four-lane divided roadway, adding a new two-lane bridge over State Highway 21 [sic], widening the approaches to the bridge, acquiring all of the right of way, completing design plans, specifications, estimates for all improvements, and installing and coordinating traffic signals -- the total project cost is approximately $4.6 million.

Of this total project cost, the City of Grapevine has committed $2.65 million, which is approximately 58 percent of the total cost of the project. The balance of $1.9 million is what is being requested from the Commission by this delegation.

The City of Grapevine has completed all plans necessary for the construction of the divided roadway and plans to let the project in August of this year, and anticipated completion date of the roadway section would be January '99. PS&E for the bridge section are approximately 85 percent complete; total completion of the bridge PS&E and final review by TxDOT are anticipated in January of '99.

Based solely on the future traffic projections, using existing traffic volumes plus newly anticipated trips generated by developments under construction, the existing two-lane bridge over 121 will exceed capacity by the fall of '99. For this reason, the City of Grapevine, in addition to providing over 58 percent of the total funding for Bass Pro Drive and providing all PS&E to the total project, stands ready to assist TxDOT in whatever tasks are necessary to justify and fund the construction of the additional two-lane bridge and to expedite the construction and to meet the projected capacity shortfalls in '99.

In closing, on behalf of the City of Grapevine, I would like to thank Rondell Fagan, past acting district engineer of Fort Worth District, and his staff, and Jerry Selby, deputy director of the Transportation Planning Programs for their assistance and guidance.

If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer those. If not, we'll move on to the next speaker.

MR. LANEY: Why don't you go ahead and we'll ask questions when everybody is finished.

MR. HODGE: I would like to introduce Mr. Roger Nelson, our city manager.

Roger.

MR. NELSON: Thank you, Jerry. Commissioner Nichols, Chairman Laney, thank you for the opportunity to address the Commission today.

Grapevine understands fully the impact, the benefit of partnering with TxDOT to construct projects. Grapevine understands very clearly the value of TxDOT help, because over the past five years Grapevine has put approximately $44 million into construction in its own transportation network. Many of these projects have also been along state highways and have been portions of state highway construction.

We are here today to ask again for a partnership with the Texas Department of Transportation, and a partnership that will help us to complete the entire Bass Pro Drive project before the end of 1999.

With TEA 21, we understand that TxDOT has enough money to fund approximately 40 percent of the projects before it, and with that understanding, Grapevine is committing 58 percent of the cost for this project. We are committed to $2.7 million of this $4.6 million project.

We also understand with TEA 21 the importance of community support, and I would ask for Grapevine's delegation to stand at this time, as we have a number of people who got up at approximately three o'clock this morning to make the trip here to show support for this project. Included in that group is Council Member Claudine Johnson as well as Council Member Roy Stewart.

In addition to our own support, Tarrant County, Denton County, the cities of Colleyville, Southlake, Flower Mound, Coppell, Hurst, and Grapevine have letters of support in your packet. Among the items of support in your packet also is a letter from State Senator Jane Nelson, and I would ask Nancy Fleming, who is the senator's chief of staff, to appear now.

MS. FLEMING: Good morning, Chairman Laney and Commissioner Nichols. Thank you for allowing me to appear on behalf of Senator Nelson.

During the past ten years, Denton County, northeast Tarrant County, southwest Dallas County has experienced phenomenal growth. During this past spring, Commissioner Nichols had the opportunity, and Senator Nelson the pleasure, of giving him a helicopter tour of the area and pointing out the various need areas in her senate district.

I do have a letter of support from the senator, which I think you do have in your package. I can either read it or just note that she has submitted a letter of support for the record.

In conclusion, she also asked that I thank the Commission, the staff of the Department of Transportation on all of their hard work and their efforts to secure the additional funding in the new federal transportation bill. That certainly is very important for the State of Texas and for the areas of our state that have got this phenomenal growth. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Ms. Fleming.

MAYOR TATE: Chairman Laney, that concludes our formal presentation. We in Grapevine know how hard the Commission has worked to get the new Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century approved; we're excited about all the new funding that will come our way. And we recognize that we must be a partner to meet the local share commitments as a part of that increased funding, and we stand ready in the City of Grapevine to work with TxDOT in the funding and construction of this project. And we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you again this morning.

Finally, I mentioned that the city has two annual festivals. Mr. Jerry Herrin, who is the executive director of the Grapevine Chamber of Commerce, would like to take one minute and make a presentation. Thank you.

MR. HERRIN: Chairman Laney and Commissioner Nichols, it's my privilege and honor to represent the Grapevine Chamber of Commerce, and on behalf of the board of directors and all the membership of the Chamber, we brought personal invitations for you to attend our Grapefest in September. It's September 11 through 13. So we would invite you to wear a cap that we brought for you, as well as a shirt here this morning and be a part of that festival coming up in September this year.

Additionally, we have photographs here of the Bass Pro project that's being built there off of Bass Pro Drive, that's a part of the project that we're here to ask for support this morning. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you very much.

MAYOR TATE: That concludes, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to appear. We think this is a good project. It makes a lot of sense to try to improve the traffic flow with as little expenditure of funds as we can, and we look forward to your assistance in trying to help us complete this project on time. We're here if the Commission has any questions.

MR. LANEY: We may have a few questions. Mayor, you might want to stand for a second. First of all, I very much appreciate, as does Mr. Nichols, the effort it takes to come down here, especially if you have to get up at three o'clock in the morning or thereabouts. We question your judgment.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: But we appreciate your effort, and would invite you to partake of our coffee downstairs and have a donut or something before you start the trek back. It's a lot of effort, and in some ways that's a measure of the importance of this project to the community, but a greater measure, and I think a measure that Ms. Wynne would be raising that she usually focuses on long before Mr. Nichols or I focus on it, is the willingness of the community to invest in a particular project. And the fact that Grapevine has, in effect, put on the table more than half of the cost of this project gets our attention.

Despite the fact that there are a number of rumors abounding that TxDOT is now, with TEA 21 behind us, flush with cash and never in need of anymore, that is not the case at all. We are still desperately short of what our needs are, so leveraging what available funds we have is still a very critical piece. And needless to say, some counties, some communities around the state are not in a position to afford this and we take that into account to contribute this level of the cost of their projects in their communities, but I know Grapevine is. And so this raises it to a level where we pay very close attention to it, because it allows us to spread our funds more effectively throughout the state.

So I appreciate all the work that's been done on that, and I think this is a very viable and important project for you all. If it wasn't, I don't think you all would be anteing up this much, so we appreciate that.

Mr. Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: A comment and then I have a question, I think for the staff. I would echo what Chairman Laney was saying about the local participation and the importance of the local vested interest. If a community does not have the commitment to put up its own money, a vesting of that community, then it certainly shows the other way on a project. So I also would commend you on that.

And really I think the question I had, in our booklet under the UTP status -- I don't know if we have somebody from Transportation Planning here. You said you had 85 percent of the plans and engineering done; I think I heard that comment.

MR. HODGE: On the bridge, yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: On the bridge.

MR. HODGE: And the plans are fully complete on the roadway.

MR. NICHOLS: So that probably is in Priority 2 then. Is that right? Then that's probably just a typo in my book. That's really all I had.

I will say, also, when I was up there -- Executive Director Wes Heald and I were both up there at the same time with Senator Nelson looking at these projects, and on our way to the meeting, I happened to actually get -- she timed it at five o'clock up in that area, I think on purpose, and I actually turned on Bass Pro Road and I was right in that area, and I think it was jammed up on some stuff, so I do remember Bass Pro Road.

(Laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: That's all I have.

MR. HODGE: Hope you remember it in the future and get to visit that area again once we have that facility open.

We appreciate the comment. We don't mind getting up at three o'clock. I'm more concerned with who's running the city and who's minding the shops in Grapevine today. We appreciate all the local support, and we appreciate your support. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you very much. Appreciate the effort.

We're going to recess for five minutes and allow you all to move out and the next delegation to move in. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

TEXARKANA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

(Robert E. (Swede) Lee, Judge James Carlow, George T. Shackelford, Rep. Barry Telford, Sen. Bill Ratliff)

MR. LANEY: I call the meeting back to order.

The third and final delegation we have this morning is the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce to discuss the construction of Loop 151 in the City of Texarkana, and I'll call on Mr. Swede Lee, president of the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce who is leading the delegation -- or so we are told, Mr. Lee.

MR. LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm really behind them, drumming them on. Actually, I'm not the lead-off batter in this group -- that's going to be Judge Carlow, our Bowie County Judge, so at this time I'd like to turn the floor over here to Judge Carlow.

MR. LANEY: Welcome, Judge. Glad to have you.

JUDGE CARLOW: Thank you, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols.

While we have many highway needs, I think that our primary concern and what we're here for today is to talk about the south loop around Texarkana. I'd also like to mention briefly during this presentation a little bit about the northern route of I-49 from Texarkana to DeQueen, Arkansas.

This loop was first envisioned and the need was realized back in 1956, and we have our City Manager George Shackelford here with us today, and at the time he was just a mere toddler, he was two years old in 1956; so I want to show you what's evolved with him during this period of years.

There was a study done by the Arkansas and the Texas highway departments to plan a loop around Texarkana, Texas and Arkansas. Its purpose was to obtain necessary information relating to the movements of vehicles into, within, and through the Texarkana area. A route was mapped and approved by the city, the county, and the state organizations on April 10, 1959.

In 1965, the Texarkana Urban Transit Study published the first volumes resulting from that study, which included the Texarkana Urban Transit Plan. This plan included all of Loop 151 on the Texas side and 245 on the Arkansas side. It has been contingently approved since 1965 by all participating bodies and the Federal Highway Administration.

Presently there are two sections of the loop that are completed: one on the Arkansas side, Loop 245, was completed from Interstate 30 to US 67 in 1971; and from 67 to US 82 in 1979. The section from US 82 to Line Ferry Road is currently under construction, well along construction, and we're told that Arkansas has funded the last leg from Line Ferry Road to State Line for construction in 1998 and 1999 at a cost of $8-1/2 million.

In Texas, on the other hand, Loop 151 was completed from Interstate 30 to State Highway 93 in 1984. So since 1956, on the Texas side, we've completed a whopping five miles. And we have talked to a delegation from Vidor here earlier, and they wanted to know how much is involved and how long does it take to get a loop around a city. I said, I can't tell you that, but I can tell you in 40 years we've completed five miles.

That same year in 1956, I've been told, the federal interstate highway system was started and they built 46,000 miles, and again, we've completed five.

In accordance with Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act, this project was submitted to the Council of Governments and was endorsed on July 30, 1987. The project is part of the Texarkana Urban Transit Study Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which was approved December 8, 1994.

This project is also part of Corridor 1, the US 71 high priority corridor that we call Interstate Highway 49 that was designated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

There are currently two sections of the loop under construction: that is on the Arkansas side, the state highway department is building main lanes and frontage roads for Loop 245 from US 82 to Line Ferry Road; while the Texas Department of Transportation is constructing frontage roads for US 71 from FM 3527 to FM 558. Both Texas and Arkansas deem this a much needed east-west facility to alleviate traffic congestion in the downtown corridor, along Interstate 30, and to help develop the economy of both cities.

Completion of the loop will take traffic -- and this is mostly a lot of truck traffic -- traveling from Little Rock to Houston off of Interstate 30 on Texarkana's north side, turning south at Loop 245 and following that route to Highway 59. This will help solve the congestion problems from State Line on Interstate 30 to Loop 151. The City of Texarkana and Bowie County have participated in the purchase of the right of way. We've provided funds for all of our part of the right The City of Texarkana and Bowie County have participated in the purchase of the right of way. We've provided funds for all of our part of the right of way required. Bowie County issued certificates of obligation in 1986, twelve years ago, to get our money for our part of the right of way, and our taxpayers have been paying interest on that right of way money for twelve years.

The estimated cost of the 3-1/2 miles that remain is about $40 million. I understand about $10 million of that money is already allocated. We think we've been patient long enough -- for 40 years, as a matter of fact -- and I respectfully request that we proceed without further delay to complete our part of the loop post haste and to meet Arkansas at the state line.

I-49 is currently under construction from Shreveport to Texarkana; it's now time for us to agree on a route and to build I-49 to Texarkana to DeQueen, Arkansas. We need to make sure that Texas has the money set aside for our responsibilities, and we respectfully request TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration to do this post haste.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. And at this time I'll turn the podium over to our City Manager George Shackelford. I'd like you to notice his height and size and how he has transformed since 1956.

MR. SHACKELFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was two years old when that took place.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioner, my name is George Shackelford, city manager of Texarkana, Texas. We appreciate the opportunity to come before this Commission to speak to you about the funding of the completion of Loop 151.

Also, with us today I do have several council members that I'd like to introduce very quickly: Ms. Nancy Talley, Ms. Willie Ray, Mr. Van Alexander, and Mr. Bradley Hardin. And also a member of our chamber board, Mr. Greg Arnold, is with us today.

You heard the past history of our project. My comments today will be very brief. I just want to assure you that the City of Texarkana, Texas, will do its share and whatever we need to do to facilitate the relocation of the water and sewer lines; there are some on the south part that will have to be moved; we will take care of our part with the construction of this loop.

Loop 151, like Judge Carlow said, is part of our Texarkana Urban Transportation Plan for many years and it's vital to our overall transportation plan for the south part and the north part of Texarkana.

In addition, the city is currently finishing the construction of a new park for Texarkana, 75 acres called Wallace Park. It was named after one of our recently deceased members of the city council, Mr. Grady T. Wallace. This park will be accessed from the frontage road of Loop 151 and also Leopard Drive which is another road that's currently under construction by state-city-county funds. The park will serve the entire community of Texarkana, and the complete access, will not be available total until the Loop 151 is finished.

Members of the Commission, it is important that this project be completed as soon as possible. It's obviously been a long process, but we're optimistic that this can get started and finished in a reasonable amount of time other than since 1956.

Thank you for allowing us to participate here. We did not get up at three o'clock in the morning, though, but we do thank you for allowing us to come. And I'd like to turn this over to Mr. Swede Lee, the director of the chamber of commerce.

MR. LEE: Thank you, Mr. Shackelford. Back again. The judge stole a couple of my lines of thunder here, so that will help out on the time.

I am the president of the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce. In getting prepared for this day, I started out by looking at an official 1997 Texas Transportation map with the idea of finding out which cities in Texas had one-fourth of a loop around them -- because that's really what we're asking for is a fourth of a loop. And I came up rather surprised, and I noticed some other things. In the entire state of Texas, only San Antonio, Dallas, and Texarkana are served by four U.S. highways; no other cities in Texas have four U.S. highways intersecting there.

I also noticed that with the completion of I-49 that the judge referred to, Texarkana will be one of only six cities in the entire state of Texas served by more than one interstate highway. I also noticed that all these cities we're talking about, other than Texarkana, already have a loop around the city connecting their highways.

In addition, there are two international trade routes, as you know, in the state of Texas: I-35 and Highway 59. Now, we know Corridor 18 and 20 and understand that, but the truth is, Highway 59 is already an international trade route, and it gets that by junctioning in Texarkana with I-30 and traveling I-30 and 40 to Memphis and the northeastern United States, and that is a primary trade route already for the flow of goods related to NAFTA.

When I-49 is complete, Texarkana will be the only city other than Laredo that has two international trade routes traversing the city, because I-49 will junction with 59 there and go serve the middle, central United States and central Canada. Loop 151 is an important and vital and absolutely necessary link in both of these highways.

Traffic counts from locations outside the loop on both sides of the city show that on our four U.S. highways -- disregarding state highways, only U.S. -- our traffic count is 65,857 vehicles a day entering and departing Texarkana. Now, these are about four miles outside the city, but all outside of the loop to eliminate local traffic.

Another 65,000 vehicles enter and depart Texarkana on I-30 every day. Out of this 131,000 vehicles, about 41,000 constitutes through traffic, and of that through traffic total, about 43 percent, according to our district engineer's office, are trucks.

I've got one little transparency here. I want to show this, because the district engineer's office made it for me. But this is important information, because today about 46,000 vehicles a day are on I-30 between the junction of Loop 151, Highway 59, and the State Line Avenue. These charts show you that if we had the loop operational today, the count would be 30,000 vehicles a day on that slab between Loop 151 and State Line. If we had the loop in place, instead of that section reaching 65,000 vehicles a day by 2010, by 2010 with the loop in place it'll just be back to about where it is today, around 40,000.

So it's kind of like that commercial: You can pay now or pay later. Go ahead and finish this loop and we don't have to put six lanes down on I-30; or if we don't finish the loop, that's not long in the making.

As I mentioned, we only need a fourth of a loop. The south loop includes about nine miles in Arkansas and about nine in Texas -- actually a little more in Arkansas than in Texas. The Arkansas section is going to be complete to State Line in the year 2000.

We've got a videotape here to show you exactly what has taken place in the past two years. You'll see on the split screen one picture taken in June of '96 and the other on May 22 of '98. To give you a comparison, we've put them side by side to let you take a look at the progress that's being made on the loop. If you'll start that video.

(Whereupon, a videotape was played.)

MR. LEE: This is the beginning point; this is the junction of Highway 59 now with Loop 151. You can see a few trucks down there, just by chance. This is another helicopter ride by remote control. But this section between 59 and Leopard Drive -- which we're coming up to where part of construction is underway -- is, of course, unchanged in the last two years, and that's about 1.3 miles all total.

Now you can see on the right side of the screen the dirt work as it had progressed to that point in June of '96 compared with May of '98 on the left, which is further along. You see on the right of the '98 up there, you'll see the complex, which is the Grady Wallace Park, with about four or five baseball fields and hiking trails, et cetera.

But I'd like to point out that all this work was done with demonstration money from the 1991 ISTEA bill that was put in the pot by Congressman John Paul Hammerschmit of Arkansas.

The work in progress concludes at Buchanan Road. There we'll have to have a bridge that I think is about a mile long over an existing set of railroad tracks and the Kerr-McGee storage area, as well as Days Creek and some lowland, so a part of this project will be on a bridge extending from this road across.

And I was going to spare y'all a little bit by speeding this thing up, but I found out our equipment here, you can either stop it or run it; it can't speed it up. So we'll just have to move through it; it takes six minutes. But fortunately we'll be on schedule, and we'll be finished at the same time.

MR. LANEY: All this development work is on the Arkansas side?

MR. LEE: All of this right here is still in Texas. I'm spotting the state line coming up here. The state line is just beside this clearing that we're approaching right now; that's State Line Avenue, and then we begin into Arkansas. Right now you can see State Line Avenue in the '98 film, the car running down the road there. The loop will go underneath State Line, and State Line will be going over it.

Now, in Arkansas they have 1.4 miles to get from the state line to the point of current construction. The first thing you'll come up on is construction of the interchange for I-49 south from Shreveport to junction with Loop 245. On the right green piece of ground and some dirt work and on the left you can see part of the bridge construction and dirt work that's going on down to the access ramp for the I-49.

They will be letting contracts this summer for construction to begin on I-49 south from this interchange towards the Louisiana line. But all this work has taken place in the past two years on this particular interchange.

As it moves on around, we're coming to Highway 71 South to Shreveport, and that section is scheduled to open before the end of this month to traffic from Highway 71 South to the Interstate 30. A couple of years ago, they'd plowed some dirt, and since that time all the concrete is down and complete with interchange at State Highway 196, interchange at US Highway 82, and about a quarter of a mile of bridge that had to be constructed over a railroad track and a county road.

In the interest of time, I won't take you all the way to the conclusion of this particular thing. I think what we're trying to show is that Arkansas is, in fact, funded to complete this project to the state line in the year 2000, and obviously without something to connect to on the other end, it's not going to be worth a whole lot. Thank you very much.

I would like to conclude my remarks with someone else's remarks, because we think that Commissioner Wynne summed up our position on this issue quite well at the Commission's meeting in Texarkana in July of 1996, where she was treated to half of that video, the first half. And I quote: "We definitely need to get behind this project. It has been on the drawing boards far too long. I live in Austin, and you all are used to cooperating with the State of Arkansas. I'm used to competing with the State of Arkansas, and I'm still not over some of those football and basketball defeats. So I don't want them to finish anything ahead of the State of Texas. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to give this project some real attention and some real dollars to get it on the path to completion."

That's what we're saying too. We do have to get along with Arkansas and everybody has got to coordinate these projects, but they're ahead of us and they're ready to finish. And the interesting thing about this is it's the only place in Texas you can build a fourth of a loop and get a half a loop for the constituents.

So when you start talking about matching money, we can line up and match with anybody because half of this job is paid for by the State of Arkansas. So far, all the money that's been expended on this project and all this program to be expended is demo funds. Max Sandlin, our representative, included about $9.7 million in this last federal bill for the interchange for Highway 59 and Loop 151; and the other, as I pointed out, came from ISTEA 91. All we want is about $31 million more and finish this job, and let's get if finished. Gene Adams said they'll be ready to go to bids by February of '99 if you'd turn that money loose, so make us number one.

Now I turn it over to Honorable State Representative Barry Telford.

MR. TELFORD: Thank you, Swede.

Chairman Laney, members of the Commission, staff. Appreciate the opportunity to be here today. George Shackelford was two when this project was started, I was ten; now I'm a man of almost 52, gray-headed and considerably overweight, and I'd like to see that highway get a little bit overweight up there and get the thing completed. It's time.

There is absolutely no reason to put this off any further, because frankly, we're looking forward to I-49 and that part of the state of Texas up there is looking forward to I-49, and the only way that that's going to truly benefit us is for us to complete this loop. And we'd appreciate any consideration you can give us on this. I know that time is of the essence; I think we've got a minute and 27 seconds left. I'm going to, as they say in Washington, yield the balance of my time to my colleague over in the Senate who needs no introduction, Senator Bill Ratliff.

SENATOR RATLIFF: Thank you, Barry. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Wynne, Commissioner Nichols.

I'm not going to tell you how old I was when they started this.

(Laughter.)

SENATOR RATLIFF: But I guess it's public record, so you could look it up.

I think that the members of this Commission know that I don't appear here very often, nor do I appear here very lightly, and that's the reason that I'm here today. Back when NAFTA was being debated, a fellow named Ross Perot talked about the great sucking sound taking place south of the border. I'm not sure we experienced a sucking sound, but we're about to experience a crunching sound, and it's going to occur in those places where all this traffic is going to converge.

There are a number of places where this traffic is going to cross the border coming into Texas, but there are only a precious few where it's going to leave Texas. If they're headed for the northeastern United States, they are going to go through northeast Texas. I mean, you can draw a line, and you can figure out the shortest distance between any two points.

I think Texarkana is going to experience the bulk of the impact of this through traffic, and if you drive I-35 and I-30 today, you can see what that's going to mean.

So there's no one that comes before you that appreciates your funding dilemma any more than I do, there's no one that appreciates the fact that we have to prioritize more than I do, but Commissioner Nichols visited with me not long ago -- just in the last few weeks, as a matter of fact -- to talk to me about your new philosophy, as far as the trunk system in Texas and trying to complete some projects, some projects that have been piece-mealed for many years. And he was so persuasive that I'd like to talk to you about that philosophy here.

That philosophy says that pieces of projects like this don't do much good and particularly if they come from Arkansas and stop at the state line. I would simply urge you to seriously consider applying that philosophy to this project. Four more miles is what we're talking about.

I know that -- or at least I'm advised that typically this money might come from your NHS Urban Mobility funds, but that the chances are that those funds are stretched far too thin and if we wait for that funding source, it may not happen. And therefore, what this is going to require is Commission discretionary funds, or at least that's what I'm told. If that's the case, I would just urge you, when you make your list for your discretionary funds, to put an asterisk by this project and see whether we can't get this project finished, as well as some of the other projects in Texas where Commissioner Nichols' philosophy of let's complete some things and get some traffic moving on those projects.

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence and members of the Commission for your attention. I do endorse what you've been told here, and I think this is a very important project for all the traffic that's going to converge on this part of the state. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Representative Telford and representatives of the Texarkana community.

Between Anne Wynne's athletic philosophy and Commissioner Nichols' trunk system philosophy, I'm sort of boxed in here; it's a good thing I've been quiet.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: It is a project that looks like it needs to be done, and it's an expensive project, unfortunately, but it's a project that's important.

I'll let you two respond. Any discussion? By the way, welcome; glad to have you.

MS. WYNNE: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Do you have any comments?

MS. WYNNE: I apologize for being late, but my son was playing in a golf tournament and somehow that came in a little higher priority than this loop.

I think I'm pretty much on the record as to what I think about this loop, and now that we have some extra money rolling around here, it seems to me that this is something that really does need to be tended to, and it folds in nicely with trying to complete things that we've started. And when you look at the traffic counts on the Texas side versus the Arkansas side, we're way over what they've already tended to. So you always hate when somebody says they're going to quote you, and I still stand by my quote; I felt all right about it.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, you always have to be careful what you say, but I do feel very strongly it's important to complete things we have investments in, because they are not utilized until they do. You showed me half of that video when I was up there last summer; you've added the '98 portion?

MR. LEE: Yes, we've added '98.

MR. NICHOLS: Gene, on the plans and specifications -- I know the thing is under Priority 2 and has been -- how far along are those?

MR. ADAMS: Commissioner Nichols, we have a consultant working on those now.

MR. LANEY: You might want to get to the microphone.

MR. ADAMS: Sorry. I'm Gene Adams, district engineer of the Atlanta District.

Commissioner Nichols, we have a consulting firm working on those plans right now. We have, I think, five parcels of right of way that will clear just any day; we should easily be able to make a February of 1999 letting schedule. So we're far along on these.

MR. NICHOLS: So right of way, except for a few parcels, is cleared and you've got the plans 70, 80 percent, is what you're saying?

MR. ADAMS: Right, exactly. And we're moving full speed on those things in anticipation of trying to -- you know, if we get construction funding, to be able to let those things at least in the spring, probably in February.

MR. LANEY: So if you don't get the funding, at least you'll have some really good plans.

MR. ADAMS: We'll have some good shelf plans, yes, sir.

MS. WYNNE: And you can show those to Senator Ratliff in February, and he'll be so happy to see them -- and I won't be here.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Any other comments?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: It's a worthy project and you've got our attention, needless to say. So we appreciate very much the effort and the presentation. I know it's a big effort to come here, even if you didn't have to come at three o'clock in the morning. We will be back to you on this. We've got a lot of sorting out to do and a lot of competition for projects, but as I said, this is clearly smack dab in the middle of the radar screen, in part due to your presentation this morning. So thank you very much, and thank you for coming.

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

We're going to move right on into the next item rather than recess. That concludes the delegation portion of the meeting and the next item will move us right into the business portion of the meeting.

The first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes of the regular Commission meeting held on May 28, 1998. Any discussion?

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept the minutes.

MR. LANEY: May I have a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Mike?

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to Item 3. We'll have a report from the Clear Lake Transportation Partnership, and to do that we have Mr. Charles Jacobson.

MR. LANEY: For all of you who are sitting farther back, feel free to move forward. It is a threatening Commission, I know, but if you'd like to move forward, feel free to do so.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Excuse the interruption.

MR. JACOBSON: Good morning, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols and Commissioner Wynne. Thank you for including us on your agenda this morning. I also want to thank Mr. Gary Trietsch, our district engineer, for inviting us to address the Commission. Gary is one of our advisory board members, and he is very supportive of the objectives that we have in our TMO.

This is my second visit before the Commission. Back in September of '93 I led a delegation from the Clear Lake area where we made our final and successful appeal for funds for NASA Road 1 upgrade. And I'm pleased to report that construction is proceeding nicely on Phases 1 and 2, and Phase 3 will be under contract by the end of next year.

The partnership is one of four TMOs operating in the Greater Houston Area that were formed in October 1995. Startup funding was provided through our local metropolitan planning organization, the Houston-Galveston Area Council, using CMAC funds, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds.

Our mission statement is quite comprehensive: "To assist and coordinate the efforts of employers, government agencies and others in designing and implementing programs that will support transportation demand management now and in the future, as a means of improving access to and around the Clear Lake Transportation Partnership service area." In summary, we offer a single point of coordination to address transportation mobility and air quality issues for our service area.

Our service area is quite large: It covers 250 square miles; it serves 18 municipalities, parts of three counties, Harris, Brazoria, and Galveston; there are 400,000 residents, 10,000 employers, 150,000 employees in that service area; it's bounded on the north by the Houston Ship Channel and on the east by Galveston Bay, on the south by Farm Road 646, and on the west by Farm Road 1128.

Our transportation objectives include: regional congestion management which includes thoroughfare improvement, traffic signal synchronization, project development with cities, counties and state, and commuter transportation; it includes ride share matching for van pools and carpools, and includes transit services, circulators, worksite-to-worksite van pool, carpool, et cetera, and long-range planning, which is a coordination of long-range thoroughfare improvement; and finally regional hike-and-bike trails, the augmentation of the existing system with a regional bike trail network.

Now, accomplishments to date are these projects in the works. We currently have four major committees addressing our transportation objectives. There are over 350 members serving on those committees.

The first, the Intelligent Transportation Systems Committee, and currently we are addressing the question of obtaining funding for the placement of fiber optics along major arteries in our region, for example, south on I-45 beyond where Transtar has already provided the cables, State Highway 146, State Highway 518, State Highway 35, Red Bluff Road, and NASA Road 1. These communications systems will greatly enhance mobility, not just on a daily basis but in the event of a major disaster such as a hurricane. Our goal is eventually to tie in with the Transtar system.

The Transit Services Committee is evaluating five major transit projects at this time: a Clear Lake circulator which would serve ten communities around Clear Lake and tie into Metro's park and ride; demand response service -- that is, a jitney service -- to service the 18 communities in our service area; worksite-to-worksite shuttles which address employee and employer needs; expansion of Metro service into our regional service area; van pool subsidy program and guaranteed ride home; working with Metro and HGAC, we promote ride share programs and provide a subsidy for van pool riders.

We currently have 32 vans operating that provide a vehicle-miles-traveled reduction of approximately 400,000 miles a month. In addition, there are 554 riders enrolled in our guaranteed ride home program.

A Long-Range Planning Committee works on a grassroots level to coordinate highway and transit improvements for our region. We then work closely with HGAC, Metro, and TxDOT to address Vision 2020 and make inputs to the Transportation Improvement Plan for our region.

The Transit Enhancement Committee: This committee has two subcommittees addressing regional hike-and-bike trails and scenic districts. The regional hike-and-bike trails subcommittee addresses coordination of trails throughout our service area. Each community has mapped existing trails, and we now are exploring connecting these trails between communities. The scenic district subcommittee facilitates the formation of scenic districts which address uniform lighting, signage, and landscaping. Both of these programs enhance and promote alternative modes of transportation.

The partnership's growth during its two years of operation is gratifying. Since the first of January this year, we have grown from 94 members to 151, and we look forward to continued growth. Those categories of membership are, for example, municipalities, counties, corporations, developers, real estate and financial organizations, and business and professional organizations -- 151 spread across those categories.

We have formed a strong public-private partnership with the communities, the business and transportation agencies -- that is, the HGAC, TxDOT, and Metro, and we have representatives from all the agencies serving on our board.

We're very pleased with the story that we have to tell you today, and I want to introduce the person that's responsible for making all this happen, our Executive Director Connie Elston.

There is an increasing need for the partnership's services in our rapidly growing area, and we thank you for your past and your continuing support. Thank you again.

MR. LANEY: Thank you very much.

MR. BEHRENS: Next we'll go to Item 4, Programs. And the first one, 4.a. Bexar County - Consider Authorization of State/Local Match Increase for the San Antonio Model Deployment Initiative, and I'll be presenting this to you in place of Carlos Lopez, who had a death in the family.

The minute order before you will authorize an increase in TxDOT matching funds for the San Antonio Model Deployment Initiative. This $13.6 million project began in September of 1996 and was composed of eight ITS related applications. As the project has progressed, changes in funding scenarios have resulted in a need to increase TxDOT's match. The increase in TxDOT's match will be made up of personnel costs expended for administering this project, district funds, and a recently completed state-funded research project that supported the MDI effort.

The staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Any discussion or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: I've already gotten my questions answered.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. LANEY: Can we have a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: Number 4.b. will be deferred to a future meeting.

Going to Item 5, Transportation Planning, we'll have discussion on the Texas Transportation Plan and a proposed minute order.

MR. LUEDECKE: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Al Luedecke, director of Transportation Planning and Programming for the Department.

The 1991 ISTEA required all states to develop a statewide transportation plan. By December of 1994, the Commission had approved the plan for Texas and for staff to begin work through 1996 to have over 200 potential actions identified in the plan adopted, so work to implement them could progress. Actions were assigned to the various divisions and districts to investigate, and where possible, implement the actions into the Department's policies and procedures.

The implementation process was overseen by the Department's multimodal planning team composed of district engineers and division heads. Each of the actions were studied and actions taken to implement the outcomes by the appropriate Department entity. A rather lengthy status report on all the actions has been provided for your review.

The new TEA 21 mentions a new requirement for a transportation plan, so as we evaluate the new legislation, we were wanting to reach a final disposition on as many of the current actions as possible. The multimodal planning team has determined that many of the actions are or have been institutionalized into the Department and those actions are listed in Exhibit A.

The six actions shown in Exhibit B have been implemented from the plan and approximately 40 actions we have termed as non-feasible. Non-feasible refers to a range of reasons we're recommending that no further action be taken at this time. In some cases, the actions are not practical, others may not be in the Department's control, and some cases ISTEA requirements that initiated the actions have been changed or eliminated in subsequent legislation. For these and other reasons, we're recommending that work on these actions be discontinued at this time.

Finally, there are about 80 actions that are still in progress. They're listed in Exhibit D. Staff will continue to work on these actions and as they are dealt with, will bring them to you for final disposition.

By concurring with the proposed dispositions, we'll be able to focus more efforts on those remaining ongoing actions and not have to bring them to you again. We will, of course, continue to monitor their applications and implementation.

The minute order you have for your consideration orders that these actions listed in Exhibits A, B, and C are complete. Actions listed in Exhibit D are approved for continued implementation, and we recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Discussion?

MR. NICHOLS: I've already received most of my answers. I want to say that most of my questions had to do with the not-feasible actions. Some of the items that were listed, such as management systems mandated by the federal government for us to implement -- they have themselves dropped those systems is my understanding.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir. They made them optional and it was a decision within the Department that the congestion management systems would be only in the TMAs, the large urban areas.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm fine with it.

MR. LANEY: Let me ask you about one of the non-feasible. I had a handful of non-feasible actions that seemed possibly more feasible than non-feasible or not feasible. One such as encouraging adoption of local land use and urban design policies, et cetera, supporting transportation -- why is that not feasible?

MR. LUEDECKE: For that particular one, I would believe -- and there are so many of them, I haven't got them all -- but I would surmise that that's a local issue, at the local area that we would have no direct involvement in. One example we found was that Houston is still the largest area in the country with absolutely no zoning, and it's very hard to encourage them to move on those items from the Department's standpoint.

MR. LANEY: There are a lot of areas that could be encouraged though and probably would be receptive to it, independent of Houston -- Houston is a bad example, at least for zoning.

MR. LANEY: Anne, any comments or questions?

MS. WYNNE: No pause will be reflected there.

(Laughter.)

MS. WYNNE: No. I mean, I know you all are working hard on this, and some of the not-feasibles I also don't like letting go of, but we'll get a chance to revisit them when the plan gets looked at again.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, we will.

MR. LANEY: We need to adopt these. Right?

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: Can we have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All those in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LUEDECKE: If I might make one sidebar comment. Anne Wynne was extremely involved in the plan as we began the arduous effort to get it up and running, and was responsible for a lot of the outside involvement we had in this, and we appreciate your work on that.

MS. WYNNE: Thank you. Appreciate that.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 6, State Infrastructure Bank, the a. Part, the first one, Fort Bend County, consideration of a loan to Sugar Land.

MR. SMITH: Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Frank Smith; I'm the director of Finance.

Item 6.a. is a request for Commission approval to proceed with negotiations of terms of a State Infrastructure Bank loan for $2.7 million to the City of Sugar Land. This is an expansion of US 59. This is the initial step in the two-step process right now, and staff does recommend this for approval.

MR. LANEY: If I can go back and elaborate, because I know this had some discussion, either at a prior Commission meeting or two, and among Commission members and their staffs, in that Sugar Land initially proposed this project and proposed that they would cover, out of their own funds, the match requirements or up to two seven or three or so, something like that.

And then based on that, I think we were encouraged that this was important enough, significant enough from their standpoint, that we would go ahead and approve our end of the funding of that project, only to learn following that approval that Sugar Land, in fact, wanted to borrow that money from our State Infrastructure Bank on terms that were a little more lenient than what is here.

And I think, whether it's Sugar Land or anybody else in the state, that is not a pattern to be followed, because I would at least detect, I think, a little bit of hostility on the part of the Commissioners to anyone who basically encouraged us to approve funding based on a proposed contribution, only to convert it to a loan from our State Infrastructure Bank.

And although I was initially opposed to any change at all, I do think limiting the term of the loan to three years takes it out of something more akin to the equity position that we would have in a 15- or 20- or 30-year loan, and has it, in effect, repaid to the SIB in very short order. And it's more akin to a real bridge loan and at something closer to a market rate, or at least more expensive than one of our otherwise -- what I would say, almost subsidized SIB loans for a project where we were extending credit for an extended period of time.

I'm comfortable with this, but still uncomfortable with the concept of any community coming and presenting a proposal that shows them contributing money, and then after approval, converting that into a SIB loan. I guess what I'm trying to raise with some emphasis is a very cautionary flag. For anybody else who wants to head down this path with this pattern, I don't think it would be well received.

With that, I'll invite any other comments or questions the Commissioners have about what is proposed and invite a motion.

MR. NICHOLS: My comments fall very similar to what the Chairman is saying. I felt like it really wasn't the way we were initially thinking in terms of it. By I do go back; they are as a community kicking in $3.9 million, and they're asking to borrow 2.7, and the three year, being able to get it back in that short a period, I think it certainly makes if viable.

My concerns on some of these have been related more to the interest rates and the terms being -- particularly when we have an entity that has a very good bond rating and does have the financial capacity to get bonds on the free market -- that we not be doing loans that are actually cheaper for them than going to the outside. And I realize that the interest rate on this short a loan is comparable to market rate, but when they go to sell those bonds, the cost of processing the fees, getting the bond rating and stuff like that, I don't remember exactly what that is, but it's 25,000 or 50,000 or something like that.

So when you are computing, I would just suggest that when the staff is computing these rates, they also take something like that in consideration in the future -- not that I would suggest changing this.

MR. SMITH: That's a good point. And as we've discussed, if the terms come out the way we intend to approach this, the rates will be above what they could go to the bond market for at their A-1 rating. And we did not -- I would have to say here, we did not really take into consideration the cost of, say, bond counsel.

MR. NICHOLS: And I realize there are situations where we will, like we have done on some others, go with even below-market rates, because the project is significant to the state. I'm not suggesting that we not do that in the future, but what I have a concern about is when people are going to pay, some of the communities that would consider normally going to the outside, that they don't just come to us because we're cheaper than the free-market system. That's my only concern; other than that, I support it.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. SMITH: This next item is somewhat of a contrast, and I think it shows the variety that the bank can apply itself to. This is for consideration for final approval from the Commission for a loan to Motley County for $33,300. This is a project to replace their off-system bridge that has burned, and they are now routing traffic, I understand, through the riverbed. The district is very much in support of this project.

It is a very small loan, but Motley County is not at the present time a disadvantaged county, but it is surrounded by disadvantaged counties. So their financial income is low and I really think, in discussions with you, Commissioner Nichols, I think this is in the spirit of what we've talked about before with counties and cities like this. And the staff does recommend final approval of this.

MR. LANEY: This is the only county in Texas that's not praying for rain. Right?

MR. SMITH:  Right, presently -- at least the citizens that live on the other side.

MR. LANEY: When will we see criteria that sort of framed this type of loan in terms of aggregates and rates and so forth from your staff?

MR. SMITH: Again, as we grow and learn in this process, we're, as of yesterday -- in fact, in our meeting with you and talking about budget and other issues -- we are in the process of developing some of those things right now that we could communicate to the people that would be coming to the Commission for loans.

MR. LANEY: I don't think you need to worry about, at least for the Commission, putting something in writing and then as things evolve, as situations appear and our approach evolves, there are changes. But right now I think at least there's a little bit of a perception that we see these on an ad hoc basis without any overriding, guiding framework. So I think it's very important that you go ahead and put something together with a clear statement in it, if you need to, that it's going to evolve and change, but what the framework of the thing is now is very important.

MR. SMITH: We agree.

MR. LANEY: Any other comments?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. SMITH: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: We have Item 7, under Rules and Regulations we have for proposed adoption under Environmental Policy, an MOU with the Texas Historical Commission and the Texas Antiquities Committee.

MS. NOBLE: Good morning, Commissioners Laney, Nichols, and Wynne, and Mr. Pickett and Mr. Behrens. For the record, my name is Dianna Noble, director of the Environmental Affairs Division.

Agenda Item 7.a.(1) is a minute order that proposes the repeal of existing Section 2.24 and proposes the adoption of new Section 2.24 concerning the memorandum of understanding with the Texas Historical Commission. The minute order further authorizes the publication in the Texas Register of the proposed repeal of the existing Section 2.24 and adoption of the new Section 2.24 for the purposes of receiving public comment.

Transportation Code Section 201.607 requires the Department to adopt a memorandum of understanding with each state agency that has responsibilities for the protection of the natural environment and for the preservation of the natural environment or for the preservation of historic or archaeological resources. Section 201.607 also requires the Department to adopt the memoranda and all revisions by rule and to evaluate and revise the memoranda every five years.

To meet the legislative intent and to ensure that historic and archaeological resources are given full consideration in accomplishing the Department's activities, the Department has evaluated the memorandum of understanding with the Texas Historical Commission and the Texas Antiquities Committee adopted in 1992 and is proposing the repeal of the existing rule and replacing it with a new one.

The MOU provides a formal mechanism by which the Texas Historical Commission may review TxDOT's projects which have the potential of affecting cultural resources within the jurisdiction of the Texas Historical Commission, in order to assist TxDOT in making environmentally sound decisions and to develop with TxDOT a system by which information developed by TxDOT and the THC may be exchanged.

At this point, I can summarize the MOU by section and/or I can answer any specific questions.

MR. LANEY: You're nodding. Do you want it summarized by section?

MS. WYNNE: That was this way; then to answer specific questions was this way.

MR. LANEY: Any specific questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I've read that whole thing and had a series of notes, which most of my notes were answered earlier. I was looking for the preamble again and the purpose of the whole thing. I think when I read it before it never mentioned the fact that our primary responsibility was the transportation, and I just wanted to make sure that there was an emphasis in the preamble that we are working toward transportation goals here also. We can consider that a comment and add that in.

MS. NOBLE: Under the responsibilities of the Department?

MR. NICHOLS: Public benefit.

MS. NOBLE: Subsection D outlines the responsibilities of the Department and the THC, and under the Department's responsibilities it indicates it includes planning, designing safe, efficient, and effective and environmentally sensitive transportation facilities. Would you like to see some different wording there, Commissioner Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: No. That's okay. I've got most of my questions answered already. Thanks.

MR. LANEY: Any other questions, comments? Can I have a motion?

MS. NOBLE: If there are no additional questions, staff does recommend approval of the minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Can we have a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: At this point we're going to recess for about 30 minutes for executive session. So more formally, we will recess for executive session and reconvene at about 11:45; the executive session, pursuant to notice as given in the meeting agenda filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. Again, we'll reconvene at 11:45. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the meeting was recessed, to reconvene at 12:02 p.m., following conclusion of executive session.)

MR. LANEY: The meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is reconvened. The Commission has concluded its executive session with no action taken on any matter, and we will now proceed with the items of business.

But before we do that, I wanted to present one award. This relates to the trunk system and all the notoriety it got and the success and the reputation achieved by one of our Commissioners during his whirlwind tour of the state. And so Anne and I would like to present you with your license plate.

MS. WYNNE: Oh, how perfect.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm blown away.

MR. LANEY: Congratulations. Just don't put it on your car.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Back to business.

MR. BEHRENS: Continuing on with Item 7, part (2), the a. part will be deferred to a future meeting, and we will go to the b. part, Chapter 4, Employment Practices, amendments to 4.63, 4.64, Employee Training and Education.

MS. WILLIAMS: Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Wynne. I would like to give you a brief overview of the changes being proposed to the training rules. All of these are related to recent organizational changes in the Department.

Currently the rules provide the senior management team member to make or approve certain decisions in the education program, specifically: approval to receive education assistance for out-of-career field of study; approval of an employee's request to miss a semester or semesters during an annual school year; and approval to deny participation during a particular semester because of extraordinary work requirements. We are proposing that the district engineer, division director, office director or administrator be the approval authority for these actions.

Also, the rules currently provide for the assistant executive director for Human Resources Management to approve the extension to the full-time master's program. We are proposing that the director of the Human Resources Division make this decision.

The rules also use the term "management team members" in numerous places, and we are proposing to substitute the phrase "district engineer, division director, office director or administrator" for "management team member."

Also, the rules refer to the Training Quality and Development Division, and we are proposing to reflect the Training Quality and Development Division as a section under the Human Resources Division.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

MR. LANEY: Anybody have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I don't.

MR. LANEY: These are proposed rules?

MS. WILLIAMS: These are proposed, and we recommend their approval.

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: We have 7.a.(3), Chapter 5, Finance, Hardship Financing for Utility Adjustments, Relocations and Removals.

MR. SMITH: Commissioners, I'm Frank Smith, director of Finance.

The rule changes that you have before you today will streamline the SIB process for loans of $250,000 or less.

MS. WYNNE: I think we're on the one before that.

MR. NICHOLS: We're on number (3).

MR. SMITH: I beg your pardon?

MR. LANEY: Hardship Financing for Utility Adjustments, Relocations, Removals.

MR. SMITH: Right. I'm sorry.

These are the rules for handling the utility adjustments that were stipulated in legislation coming out of the last session, which stipulate that we, in hardship cases, need to loan money for this relocation assistance at a set rate of 6 percent to the utilities, and the staff does recommend approval of these.

MR. LANEY: Discussion?

MR. NICHOLS: I think it's great.

MR. LANEY: Any more discussion?

MS. WYNNE: No.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. SMITH: Now to the item of the State Infrastructure Bank on our chapter for the rules governing the submission of these loans. We think that the changes that you have will greatly enhance the processing of the loans for $250,000 or less. An example of that would be the Motley County loan that we talked about earlier, where we could come to the Commission one time, instead of coming back twice for final approval. We think it would streamline that, and we would get those loan applications in, we would process them, try and negotiate the terms of those loans, and bring some sort of recommendation to the Commission for your consideration.

We think this is a good improvement to the process, and the staff does recommend approval.

MR. LANEY: I agree, Frank, I think it streamlines it and it helps out the process, but let me reiterate again that unless we understand the framework in which these appear the one time they appear before us, I, for one, am going to have a problem with it. We just need to know what the aggregate pot of the entire SIB amount is available for these smaller loans and so forth and so on -- you know, we've been through discussions. So please generate that, if you would, please.

MR. SMITH: Yes, we certainly will.

MR. NICHOLS: Along that same line, y'all are processing a number of loans all the time: you get the smaller ones and some of the really big high profile ones. I think it would be helpful -- I don't think I'm getting -- occasionally I see a report that shows some loans, but if we got just every other month kind of a reasonably short description of who is applying, the amount, what are we generally talking about, and kind of an update.

MR. SMITH: We intend to furnish that to the Commission every month.

MR. NICHOLS: Beginning?

MR. SMITH: Before every Commission hearing beginning with the next one.

MR. NICHOLS: Get it with the Commission book?

MR. SMITH: Yes, with the Commission book, or earlier, if you would prefer.

MR. NICHOLS: Personally, I would prefer earlier.

MR. SMITH: We have furnished a semblance of that, I think, a couple of times with what the bank account was, what loans we've actually established and what's pending, and then what the remaining bank balance is. We're going to expand that and have that for you every month.

MR. LANEY: And my understanding is you've just recently added someone with a banking background.

MR. SMITH: Yes, we sure did; we have a new staff person that will concentrate full-time on the State Infrastructure Bank.

MR. NICHOLS: Also, while we're still on the State Infrastructure Bank, I think most people are not aware that the new TEA 21 does not incorporate the SIB loan, drops it out?

MR. SMITH: TEA 21 did not provide for the extension -- continuation, let's say -- for Texas as we stand here today.

MR. LANEY: Well, let's not overstate it. We still have a SIB, the SIB stays in place, we just can't add funding after 1999.

MR. SMITH: Exactly. We can still draw down from our '96 and '97 apportionments and still continue the process for a number of years with the existing appropriation authority that we have. It just did not extend that into the appropriation for '98 and '99.

MR. NICHOLS: But were we not going back to the Feds under the technical corrections?

MR. SMITH: Texas and a number of other states -- and all of us are sort of working in conjunction with this cause -- were not really successful in getting anything done through technical corrections. Where we are right now, and here in about another 20 minutes, we'll have another conference call among those states and FHWA and a number of others talking about what our next step is.

The last time we talked last Thursday, we had issued a letter to the Secretary of Transportation -- that is a joint letter from AASHTO and from ARTBA -- stating the positions of the states on the State Infrastructure Bank and how important it is. We're hoping that that letter will have some impact on the appropriation process.

And if we look back to what happened when the original application was made for ten states -- of which Texas was one of those original ten -- during the appropriation process, the Secretary of Transportation opened it up to all of the states. We are hoping that that can be done this next time through appropriations. If that does not occur, then we would look to the next session for a piece of legislation that would bring in the rest of the states other than the four that have been legislatively approved.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. LANEY: One thing that's worth mentioning -- and both of you probably need to hear this, and you're probably aware of it, but just in case you're not -- we never formally moved the Bush Tollway loan into the SIB, and don't now plan on moving it into the SIB which leaves that much additional capacity in the SIB. So it's outside the SIB under TEO 45, or whatever you call it, innovative financing structure.

MR. SMITH: Exactly.

MR. LANEY: Just like a SIB loan but outside that, and so it doesn't absorb some of the otherwise available capacity.

MR. NICHOLS: I just know that in planning sessions over the past year, the SIB was so important and looking forward years having a vehicle not to just make loans for that amount of money but ongoing and recycling it was real important, and there is a possibility, even though we will have the funds that we are authorized for, that we currently have and are authorized to put in, we may not have the additional funds for the future that we once planned on.

MR. LANEY: Absolutely. It's a fight we still need to finish, and we need to have the SIB.

What's before us now is this one-step approval process for the loans up to $250,000.

MR. SMITH: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept it.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion; can I have a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: Item 7.a.(5), Chapter 15, Transportation Planning and Programming, Amendments to State Park Roads.

MR. KOVAR: I'm Robert Kovar, deputy director of the Design Division.

The minute order we have for you today proposes amendments to Section 15.6 of the rules concerning State Park Roads. House Bill 1359 of the 74th Legislative Session amended previous legislation where the Department was given the responsibility for the design, construction, and maintenance of roads and support facilities in and adjacent to state parks to include roads and support facilities in and adjacent to state fish hatcheries and wildlife management areas.

The current rules need to be amended to include these additional facilities for which TxDOT is responsible for road work. The current rules also need to be amended to clarify that the Department is only responsible for roads under the jurisdiction of TxDOT or the Texas Parks and Wildlife.

If you elect to approve the minute order, the Department will advertise for comments, address those comments, and bring the amended rules back to the Commission at a future Commission meeting for final adoption. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. LANEY: So moved. Any discussion?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: Item 7.b.(1) for final adoption, Management Rules, and this proposed minute order adopts amendments to 1.1 and 1.2 concerning organization and responsibilities of the Texas Transportation Commission and the Texas Department of Transportation.

The Transportation Code requires the Commission to develop policies that clearly separate the policy-making responsibilities of the Commission and the management responsibilities of the executive director and staff of the Department. The Commission, by Minute Order Number 107443, dated March 30, 1998, proposed the amendments to 1.1 and 1.2; no comments were received. Staff proposes the adoption.

MR. LANEY: My only comment is these things seem to me to be superfluous -- let's put it that way -- but I've been convinced by Bob Jackson and his staff that they think they're important. Do you all have any comments?

MR. NICHOLS: I just move we accept it.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion. Do we have a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: Item 8. Public Transportation, 8.a. Bell County, Approval for federal Section 5313 planning funds in Killeen-Temple Urban Transportation Study.

MR. RANDALL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Jim Randall, interim director of the Public Transportation Division.

This minute order approves the award of $70,503 in Federal Transit Administrative Planning Funds to the Killeen-Temple Urban Transportation Study for the coordination of public and human services transportation between these urbanized areas.

Over the last year, the Killeen-Temple Urbanized Transportation Study has convened meetings of all local public and human service transit providers to develop services supportive of Welfare-to-Work programs and programs that are available to the general public. This project is a result of the participants belief that their region's transportation services are too fragmented to serve those needs.

These funds will be used to prepare a transit coordination plan for the service between the Temple and Killeen urbanized areas. Local matching funds for the project are estimated to be $14,100. The Department has funds available under the Federal Section 5313 program for projects such as this, and we recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Discussion?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Anne, can we have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: Go ahead with 8.b.

MR. RANDALL: The next item, this minute order approves the award of $315,000 to purchase computer equipment for urban and rural transit districts using Federal Section 5313, Rural Transit Assistance Program, and 5313, Statewide planning dollars matched by state funds. Under the RTAP program, grant dollars are available to provide training and related support services for rural transit districts. A companion program for urban transit districts has been established by the Public Transportation Division with Section 5313 funds.

The division has moved toward electronic data sharing with the transit districts to increase efficiency and decrease error rates in data collection and the grant payment process. Many of the transit districts are behind current standards of office technology and need equipment upgrades. A survey of the 65 transit districts found that 58 considered this a priority and wish to participate in a computer consortium purchase.

The Federal Transit Administration has verified these are eligible program expenses. Consultation with our legal and procurement experts have yielded the recommendation that one of the transit districts lead a consortium purchase on behalf of all participating districts. The purchase would be made through the Texas Department of Information Resources.

Consortium participants will be urban and rural transit districts, who must agree to properly maintain the equipment and use it exclusively to support transit operations. And we recommend approval of this minute order.

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

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: Item 9. Contracts, we'll have the award or rejection of contracts for Building, Maintenance and Highway Construction.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav; I'm the director of the Construction Division.

Item 9.a. is for consideration of the award or rejection of building construction contracts let on June 4, 1998. These projects include renovation of the Beaumont District headquarters administration building, and construction of safety and rest areas in Colorado County.

We had three projects bid with 13 bidders for an average of 4.3 bids per project; the total low bid amount was $3,768,245.00, for an amount of overrun of $298,245, for an approximately 8.5 percent overrun. We recommend award of all projects. Any questions?

MR. LANEY: I have one question about the 30 percent, Yoakum County -- the Yoakum district. Excuse me.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We do have comments on that. The primary factor for the increased cost was the project has a high level of utility construction in it, and the construction industry currently has seen an upward push over the last four or five months in the amount of work, and that we don't expect any relief in that. So basically the utility costs were the driving factor there.

MR. LANEY: Can we have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 9.b. is for the consideration of the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on June 2 and June 3 of 1998 whose engineers' estimate costs were $300,000 or more. We had a total of 12 projects let, 33 bidders, for an average of 2.75 bids per project; the total low bid was $6,560,063.70, with an amount of overrun of $533,841.62, or an 8.85 percent overrun. We have no projects recommended for rejection. Any questions? We recommend award of all projects.

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

MR. LANEY: Just a minute. There are a couple of the overruns that were high enough to at least get my attention. Let me ask you a couple.

The El Paso district.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Number 4032?

MR. LANEY: Right, 4032.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Our low bid was from CD Maintenance. In this case, the El Paso district stated that the engineer's estimate was based on 1996 costs, and those have increased dramatically, and this is also the first time they've done this type of work in their area.

MR. LANEY: Okay. What about the Corpus Christi district, 4044 Nueces?

MR. BOHUSLAV: That's project number 4044. The low bidder was Orion Construction for a 74 percent overrun. And there had been no recent ferry landing work done in the Corpus District, and they based their prices on some work that had been done in the Houston district, but there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of marine work done, and because of that the costs were increased.

MR. LANEY: In what kind of work, marine?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes. This is to do some landing work for the ferries there.

MR. LANEY: I'm okay with that.

Anne, can I get a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 9.c. is consideration of the award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on June 2 and June 3 of 1998. We had a total of 116 projects let; total number of bids received were 395, for an average of 3.41 bids per project. The total low bid was $287,857,339.76, with an amount of overrun of $4,368,509.16, or a 1.54 percent overrun.

We have five projects we recommend for rejection, beginning with the project on the fifth page, the first listing at the top of the page; it's project number 3041; it's in Dallas County. We received one bid, the low bid being from Architectural Utilities, Inc., of Fort Worth for an amount of $88,800, for an approximately $63,000 overrun, or 247 percent overrun. This project requires the City of Lancaster to participate, and they do not feel that they should fund that project. We therefore do not recommend award of this project.

The next project I have recommended for rejection is on page 5, the second listing there; it's project number 3122 in Denton County. We received one bid, the low bid being from Mica Corporation of Fort Worth in the amount of $138,928.89, approximately a $46,000 overrun, or 49.85 percent overrun.

On this project, the district has stated that they properly estimated the project using district and statewide averages, and they believe the price quoted on many of the items by the contractor for this project are unreasonably high; and, therefore, they recommend that this bid from the sole bidder be rejected, and we concur with their comments and recommend this project be rescheduled for later letting.

Again on page 8, second from the bottom of the page is project number 3034 in Hardin County. We received two bids, the low bid being from APAC in an amount of $342,270.54, or approximately $67,000 overrun, or 24.4 percent over. On this project, the Hardin County participation, they prefer not to participate in the project; and, therefore, we concur with the district comments and do not recommend award of the contract to the low bidder.

Again on page 10, on the first listing at the top of the page, project number 3093 in Hockley County. We received one bid from J.D. Abrams, the low bidder, in the amount of $2,508,399.06, approximately $828,000 overrun, or 49.36 percent overrun. In this case, in talking with the only bidder, we found that there were numerous

move-ins required and the district feels that the higher cost is due to the move-ins, and they feel by rescheduling and redesigning the project that they can accommodate that and therefore reduce the cost. And we concur with their comments and recommend rejection of the project.

The fifth project recommended for rejection is a project on page 16, second listing at the top of the page, number 3102 in Nueces County. We had one bid received from Bay Limited in the amount of $6,861,058.89, approximately $3 million overrun, or 98.69 percent overrun.

MR. LANEY: That's a new high for this fiscal year, isn't it? Never mind, you don't need to respond.

MR. BOHUSLAV: On this project, we had higher liquidated damages included in the project, and the contractor included that -- feeling that they couldn't complete the work on time, they included that in their bid. There was limited work areas and traffic control plan limited the contractor completing the work on one side of the roadway before they could do the other side, and so there are numerous reasons for the higher cost. And the district feels that improvements can be made to the project that will attract more contractors and better unit prices, and we concur and recommend the project be rejected.

I have numerous other projects that exceed about a 20 percent value that we normally look at for recommendations to you each month. You can call my attention to any projects you want listed individually, but we have been doing some work and looking at what's happening with the economy and industry and cement suppliers out there, and I've been talking to you about it some. The general trend that we see is just that the economy is so good right now and the contractors are stretched so thin, it's hard for them to get skilled and semi-skilled labor.

Cement prices are going up; they're not the impact to the cost of the project that we may have presented before; we don't see that so much. It's on a limited basis, on an individual project basis, but the overall trend. And we can run highway cost indexes on just the concrete items. We don't see a dramatic increase in the structure cost and the concrete cost.

Basically what we're seeing are isolated incidents where concrete prices are going up. It seems as though Dallas is probably impacted definitely more than Austin and San Antonio; Houston seems to be coming around maybe; El Paso is not so much impacted. So it's becoming more regional now and predictions from concrete suppliers are that by the end of this year they expect to see a turnaround in the shortage of cement, depending, of

course -- the big key factor here is the weather; if we get any rain, it will help.

Do you have any specific projects you'd like to comment on?

MR. NICHOLS: I had made my list and sent it in, and you had responded and gone through them. You were talking about the concrete. The other thing that I noticed that seemed to run all through these was aggregate shortages, that the prices going up because the price of aggregates, since they were in a shortage, were also going up, and that did materially affect quite a few of these projects, it appeared.

MR. BOHUSLAV: There is a great demand on the amount aggregate, and producers can only get so much out, and they can only truck so much right now. That is an impact, and because the economy is so good and private construction is so high right now, it's really drawing down the stockpiles.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you think the shortages is directly attributable to just the good economy and a lot of construction, or do you think that the railroad problem we've experienced, the state has experienced in the past, has created part of that shortage because of the transportation costs?

MR. BOHUSLAV: This is the best opinion I can give you: I think the economy has a bigger impact on what's going on right now more than the railroad does. We only have a limited supply of bidders on projects, and you see each month those values come in about three. Here lately, because we have so many projects being let, the competition is less and the contractors are starting to fill their boat up a little bit about how much work they have, as well as suppliers. So that's kind of the trend that we're seeing now.

MR. NICHOLS: Thanks.

MR. LANEY: Any other questions?

MR. BOHUSLAV: The good weather also has a dramatic impact on what's going on.

MR. LANEY: And a lack of winter.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes.

I would like to point one more thing out. We, I believe, sent this to all of you, or did all of you receive this copy of the memo kind of outlining the overruns and so on and recommendations? And so I would propose in the future that you can refer to that, and if you have any further questions, I can respond to them instead of going through every single project. Would that be okay?

MR. NICHOLS: Very helpful.

MR. BOHUSLAV: And it's difficult to get it to you by the time, even a day or two before, so we worked it up and try to do the best we can. These recommendations come in very late.

MR. LANEY: That's fine. Appreciate it; it would be very helpful.

Any other comments or questions, discussion; otherwise, can I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: Item 10, Routine Minute Orders, I would suggest that we take these as a whole except for any one you want to do individually.

The first one is 10.a., Speed Zones, for the various counties where we're going to establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state. 10.b. Highway Designations, b.(1) Harris and Waller Counties, Business US 290-H, to extend the designation of Business US 290-H from the current terminus at FM 362 southeastward to US 290/State Highway 6 in west Harris County; b(2) Orange County, new location from FM 105 east of the City of Pine Forest, westward, southward, southeastward, and eastward to FM 105 in the City of Vidor.

MR. LANEY: And we have someone signed to speak on this item, so let's go ahead and take that now. Mr. Henry Stevenson signed up to speak on this issue. I'm surprised you're still here after hearing the trials and travails of Texarkana.

MR. STEVENSON: Good evening, Commissioners.

MR. LANEY: If you can introduce yourself, Mr. Stevenson.

MR. STEVENSON: My name is Sonny Stevenson, and I'm here in support of the Vidor Loop. We have really been thankful for the Commission's attendance to this loop in the past. The feasibility study has been completed in 1996, and TxDOT and the local office in Jefferson County there has been very helpful in moving this project along, as I know the Commission has been aware of it. And we would just ask for y'all's continued support of this much-needed project.

I can't help but be impressed and a little bit intimidated by some of the folks that have been here from other towns. We have a lot to offer in southeast Texas and the Vidor and Pine Forest area. We have on the northern part of this loop all the donated right of way for this project, and with some additional leadership that would come in effect, maybe we can have all the south loop part of it being donated also. It's a much-needed project. Basically the traffic congestion is one of the main problems that we have, and in some instances we're glad to have some traffic, and then the evacuation situations.

And I can't help but notice these situations in Texarkana with NAFTA and the folks down there on the Border. We have a tremendous increase in trucking, which is impacting our highway. We've been real fortunate in Vidor to have Highway 105, and the Commission has since allotted the funds to widen this project up there, very much needed.

And putting everything in perspective with the widening of 105 and this loop, it will have a tremendous impact not only on just Vidor and this traffic congestion, but the cities north, Buna, Evadale, Kirbyville, Jasper, and on up. We've been very fortunate a lot of this commerce is coming our way, and we're thankful for it. And we need all the leadership that we can muster to get these projects going. We're the new kid on the block; we've been at it now about six, seven years, not near as much as those folks in Texarkana, but the need is there, and all I can say is that we will appreciate y'all's input in the continuation of this project.

And we're much thankful for TxDOT and the people in the regional office there, Frank James and Walter Crook, and our county people over in Orange County, looking out for us. And we're very appreciative, and I appreciate you being attentive to this, and I'm impressed with the Commission. I've seen your attentiveness to these other folks that come up here talking with y'all, and I've seen some of the comments that you have made, that you are doing yourself well.

I appreciate it, and if you can help us move this project forward, we'd be very appreciative. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Mr. Stevenson. Appreciate the comments and the compliments to the Commission. There may be reason to be intimidated by some of the people you've seen in the audience, but you should never be impressed by the Commission.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Appreciate your comments.

MR. BEHRENS: 10.b., Right of Way Disposition, Purchase and Lease:

(1) Angelina County, FM 842 approximately 1.3 miles north of State 103, consider the removal of a tract of right of way from the highway system;

(2) Bexar County, I-10 at Wildwood Drive in the City of San Antonio, consider the removal of a tract of right of way from the highway system;

(3) Bexar County, I-10 at Summit Avenue in the City of San Antonio, consider the removal of a tract of right way from the highway system;

(4) Bexar County, FM 471 between Geronimo Road and Galm Road, consider the removal of a tract of right of way from the highway system;

(5) Fort Bend County, US 90A at Knight's Branch Road, consider the sale of a surplus drainage easement;

(6) Harris County, IH 610 at the northeast corner of Buffalo Speedway, consider the sale of access rights to the abutting landowner;

(7) Kaufman County, State Highway 205 at the northwest corner of US 80 in the City of Terrell, consider the sale of a surplus maintenance and warehouse site;

(8) Lubbock County, US 62/82 at Loop 193 in Wolfforth, consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner;

(9) Nueces County, IH 37 at Mesquite Street in the city of Corpus Christi, consider the removal from the highway system and the conveyance of a tract of surplus right of way to the City of Corpus Christi;

(10) Panola County, US 79 in the City of Carthage, consider the sale of a surplus maintenance and warehouse site to Panola County;

(11) Randall County, IH 27 at the northeast corner of Loop 335, consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner and sale of a surplus drainage easement;

(12) Tarrant County, IH 35W at Old Hemphill Road, consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner;

(13) Travis County, State Highway Loop at Industrial Oaks Boulevard, consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner;

(14) Dawson and Lynn Counties, right of way acquisition project for real property interests including crossings and joint use areas held by the South Plains Lamesa Railroad at various locations within said counties.

10.d. we have the Authorization of Building and Ground Improvements: in Cameron County, this is approval of funding for the Valley Travel Information Center in the City of Harlingen.

10.e. we have Eminent Domain Proceedings in various counties throughout the state.

We propose those to be adopted, except for ones that you might want have questions.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mike. What we'd like to do is pull two out of your batch of proposed approvals, and specifically 10.c. for action, but independent of the entire group, and 10.e., an item which I cannot participate in due to some apparent involvement of our law firm, so there's a conflict.

MR. NICHOLS: 10.c., that's Angelina?

MR. LANEY: 10.c.(7), the Kaufman County disposition, and 10.e. I'll just take myself out of the eminent domain proceedings generally, although it relates to one property, I understand.

So as to everything other than 10.c.(7) and 10.e., is there any discussion?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: And now why don't you all move on 10.e. fairly quick and then we can come back to 10.c.(7).

MR. NICHOLS: So you're abstaining from that. I move we adopt 10.e.

MS. WYNNE: And I second your motion.

MR. NICHOLS: All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: 10.c.(7), is there anything who wants to present anything? We understand it. This is disposition of surplus right of way; there were three bids received, and of the three bids two apparently had been marked changing the form of the bid that at least arguably might have been not in compliance with instructions with respect to the bid process.

I would propose that in connection with this matter that we -- I take it back. We received eight bids, and I would propose that we reject all bids and consider this property as a potential sale of surplus right of way at some future date. There were irregularities contained in the two highest bids, and ordinarily this might otherwise go to the third bidder, but I think there's a lot of gray area in this and a lot of uncertainty as to the proper approach to be taken on this, and I just propose that we reject all bids and reconsider this at a later date.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Do you have any further discussion? Excuse me.

MR. NICHOLS: No. I agree with that.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: We have Item 11, appointment of an interim director of the Texas Turnpike Authority Division, and I'll yield to the Chairman.

MR. LANEY: We have been in discussion with representatives of the North Texas Tollway Authority, the NTTA, specifically the chairman of that body, as well as the executive director, in connection with, in effect, the continuing employment by that entity of the former executive director of the entity, Jim Griffin. But during the pendency of continuing employment by the NTTA of Jim Griffin, we would like to, in effect, appoint Jim Griffin as the interim director of the division of TxDOT known as the Texas Turnpike Authority. And yet during the pendency of his interim directorship with us, he would remain in employ there, and we have proposed an arrangement whereby we would reimburse them for salary paid to Mr. Griffin and expenses incurred during this interim directorship.

But I would move that we appoint Jim Griffin under the terms still to be finalized, but virtually along those lines, to the position of interim director of our Texas Turnpike Authority Division, pending our selection of a permanent executive director, a process that's ongoing right now.

MR. NICHOLS: I'll so move on that -- second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Is there any other business, anyone signed up for the Public Comment session?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: 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.

(Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: June 25, 1998

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 115, 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.

 06/30/98

(Transcriber) (Date)

On the Record Reporting, Inc.

3307 Northland, Suite 315

Austin, Texas 78731