TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

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

9:00 a.m. Wednesday, August 26, 1998

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

DEPARTMENT STAFF:

CHARLES W. HEALD, Executive Director
MIKE BEHRENS, Assistant Executive Director
for Engineering Operations

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. LANEY: Let me call the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. I'd like to welcome all of you to the August 26, 1998, meeting of the Commission. It's a pleasure to have everybody here, although as Anne mentioned, it is as thin an audience as we've ever had, and we love it.

Public notice of the meeting, containing all items of the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 2:09 p.m. on August 18, 1998.

First of all, let me welcome Cathy Williams, who was recently selected as the Assistant Executive Director of Support Operations. Welcome, Cathy, if you're here. Would you stand up? And welcome.

MS. WYNNE: Congratulations.

MR. LANEY: I know that will be a relief for Kirby whenever you take office.

Commissioners Wynne and Nichols, do you all have anything before we move into the business as usual?

(Inaudible response.)

MR. LANEY: Okay. Now let's go ahead and proceed with the meeting.

Before we do that, let me just alert everyone to the fact that we are in the process of watching developments out of our Rio Grande adjacent districts. And you know, the wave of flooding is moving down in the direction -- has moved through Eagle Pass and is moving down in the direction of Laredo, and I know Luiz Ramirez is very much on top of it. We're moving some heavy equipment from some of our other districts to that area for digging ditches and disposal of debris. We're also moving water and other accessories, basically, to those districts that are in need, particularly in our Laredo District in the northern part of it.

We don't think there is any significant damage to our roads or bridges down there, but there has been some damage to one that's under construction. We won't really know until the waters recede, but it's an ongoing process. We are very fortunate, however, not to have had any injuries of losses in terms of our personnel. Everybody is accounted for, although we have had at least one family lose their home, washed away -- part of the TxDOT staff.

In any case, we're watching it, we're all concerned, but it's, I guess, a relief to know our people are okay and our transportation system seems to be very much intact.

Now let's proceed with the meeting. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the regular Commission meeting held on July 30, 1998. Any comments or questions or changes?

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion to accept them. Second?

MS. WYNNE: I need to abstain since I wasn't there.

MR. LANEY: That's right. I second the motion. All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: The minutes are adopted.

Wes.

MR. HEALD: Mr. Chairman, we have a joint resolution with the Texas A&M University commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Cooperative Research Program, and I'll read that. That's for your signature.

"Joint Resolution of the Texas Transportation Commission and the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents recognizing 50 years of the Cooperative Research Program.

"Whereas, the Texas Highway Department first established a research relationship with the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas soon after the Department's creation in 1917; and

"Whereas, this relationship was formalized 50 years ago in 1948 through Texas Highway Department Minute Order 25396, signed by legendary state highway engineer D.C. Greer, which formally approved the creation of the Cooperative Research Program between the State Highway Department and A&M College System; and

"Whereas, this 1948 action was advanced to 1949 by the 51st Texas Legislature with enactment of House Bill 789 directing the state treasurer to pay research billings submitted by Texas A&M from State Highway Department funds; and

"Whereas, these actions led the Texas A&M Board of Regents in June 1950, by Minute Order 139-50, and Administrative Order Number 24 to designate the Texas Transportation Institute as the unit of the A&M System responsible for the Cooperative Research Program with this Department; and

"Whereas, this relationship led to the signing of a formal memorandum of agreement between the Department and Texas A&M in December 1952, the signatories being former State Highway Engineer and Texas A&M Chancellor Gib Gilchrist and State Highway Engineer D.C. Greer; and

"Whereas, the implementation of this Cooperative Research Program has resulted in the saving of thousands of lives and billions of dollars for the people of Texas and the United States; and

"Whereas, the Institute's research staff has leveraged the State's investment in research producing, based on TxDOT estimates, an average of $22 in measurable benefits to the citizens of Texas for every dollar invested; and

"Whereas, the continuity of this program has allowed the Texas Transportation Institute to develop and maintain first-class research facilities and attract and retain excellent staff, which in turn has permitted A&M to produce over 4,000 graduates who are currently employed in transportation, many of whom are leaders in the fields; and

"Whereas, through their involvement in the Cooperative Research Program, many of these graduates became employees of the Texas Department of Transportation and other transportation agencies across the state and nation; and

"Whereas, the Cooperative Research Program created in Texas 50 years ago continues to be recognized by other states as a model to adopt and follow; and

"Whereas, this cooperative relationship has contributed significantly to both agencies being recognized as national leaders by their respective peer organizations;

"Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Texas Transportation Commission and the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents recognize the significance of the Cooperative Program and express appreciation to all of those who have contributed to this program over the past half century; be it further resolved that these two governing bodies look forward to a continuation of this valuable partnership as the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Transportation Institute work together to help meet the mobility and safety needs of Texas as the state enters the next millennium.

"Signed this 26th day of August 1998."

And I believe Dennis Christiansen is in the audience somewhere.

MR. LANEY: So we have a resolution to be adopted. With all those whereases, it sounds like it was written by our outside counsel.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Do we have a motion to adopt this?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Quite an accomplishment: 50 years.

MS. WYNNE: Do you have to be 50 years old to sign this?

MR. LANEY: Well, who does that apply to?

MS. WYNNE: Just asking.

(Laughter.)

MR. HEALD: We also have a resolution recognizing the 10th anniversary of the creation of the Public Transportation Division, and I believe Margot Massey, the interim director of that division, is going to read that.

MS. MASSEY: I am Margot Massey, the interim director of Public Transportation. A somewhat shorter resolution here, which I will read for you.

"Whereas, on September 1, 1988, Engineer Director Raymond Stotzer, Jr., created the Public Transportation Division in recognition of the key role that transit plays within the overall state transportation network; and

"Whereas, the Texas Transportation Commission recognizes the visionary leadership Mr. Stotzer provided to the Agency now known as the Texas Department of Transportation, and on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the creation of the Public Transportation Division wishes to recognize the efforts of department personnel and their industry counterparts to ensure the continued strength of transit consistent with Mr. Stotzer's original mission statement for the division;

"Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Texas Transportation Commission hereby extends its congratulations to the staff of the Public Transportation Division, the district public transportation coordinators, and our transit industry counterparts for the successes they've achieved in the past ten years, and challenges all parties engaged in this important work to maintain ever higher standards, to encourage, foster and assist public transportation operations in Texas.

"Signed by the Texas Transportation Commission this 26th day of August 1998."

And we also have in the audience today the Executive Director of the Texas Transit Association, Michael Plaster, and a member of the association executive board, John McBeth of Brazos Transit System.

MR. LANEY: First of all, that's another great accomplishment. Ten years of this division working is a great accomplishment.

Can we have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: And a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 3, Rules for proposed adoption under Item 3(a)(1), and Cathy Williams will be the presenter. And I, too, would like to welcome Cathy to our administrative staff.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Laney, Commissioners Nichols and Wynne, and Mr. Heald and Mr. Behrens. Currently I'm still director of the Human Resources Division.

I would like to give you a brief overview of the most significant amendments being proposed to the Substance Abuse Program rules. Currently the rules provide for pre-employment drug testing of all internal and external final applicants for commercial driver, safety sensitive and ferry boat crew member positions. We are proposing that all external final applicants be subject to pre-employment testing.

The rules also currently provide for reasonable cause drug and alcohol testing of employees and commercial driver and ferry boat crew member positions. We're proposing that all employees be subject to reasonable cause testing.

Currently employees who violate the substance abuse policy or who have a drug or alcohol positive test result are allowed two mandatory referrals to the Employee Assistance Program before being terminated. We're proposing to limit the number of mandatory referrals to only one. If an employee needs to be mandatorily referred for a second time, the employee will be terminated.

There are two types of mandatory referrals that will not count toward termination: employees who are mandatorily referred for the first time and assessed by the EAP as not needing assistance with a chemical dependency problem; and employees who receive a DUI/DWI conviction, the rules already provide for termination for employees who receive two DUI/DWI convictions within a five-year period.

Currently employees who are authorized to drive for the Department and who fail to report a driver license suspension within one work day are terminated. We're proposing to terminate only those employees who fail to report a suspended license but continue to drive for the Department. Those employees who fail to report a suspended license but do not continue to drive for the Department will be suspended for five days without pay.

Currently crew members are subject to random drug testing. We're proposing that they also be subject to random drug and alcohol testing.

Currently final applicants who have a DUI/DWI conviction are hired if they agree to be mandatorily referred to the Employee Assistance Program and complete the treatment program. We're proposing that final applicants for seasonal positions not be hired if driving is an essential function of the job and they've had a DUI/DWI conviction within the prior three-year period.

We're proposing that new employees in their initial six-month probation period be terminated if they test positive on any type of drug or alcohol test.

These proposed amendments will be published in the Texas Register and will be open to comments from the employees and general public. A hearing will be held on October 1, 1998.

At this time I would like to ask you to adopt the proposed rules as written.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Cathy. Does anyone have any questions, comments?

MS. WYNNE: This is just proposed. Right? I mean, we're just publishing them.

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. LANEY: Have you got a question?

MR. NICHOLS: I have no more questions.

MR. LANEY: May we have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll so move.

MR. LANEY: A motion from Mr. Nichols.

Anne, do you want to second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: We have a second.

All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: I would like to say, I guess, based on my experience as district engineer, this program has been very successful and very beneficial to TxDOT. There's -- it's been handled very professionally, it was done right, it was done for the right reason, and I think it's been a great benefit to the Department.

Agenda Item 3(a)(1), Employment Practices. This is broadening the eligibility criteria to allow for better control of our sick leave pool, and Cathy Williams will also handle this.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. A brief overview of these, during the past fiscal year, our sick leave pool balance has remained consistently high with an all-time high, an average balance of 83,000 pool hours. As a result, we are proposing to loosen the eligibility criteria and grant more pool hours, but while also reducing the opportunity for abuse and ensuring that the pool hours continue to be managed efficiently.

To loosen the eligibility requirements for the sick leave pool, the following changes are proposed: to change the definition of severe physical condition to a physical illness or injury that will likely result in death instead of a physical injury or illness that poses an eminent threat to life of the patient, or caused the employee to be off work for ten continuous weeks or more for a current episode instead of three continuous months.

We're wanting to broaden the criteria for the maximum number of hours that may be granted per catastrophic condition by adding the words "per employee." This allows TxDOT employees who are members of the same family and dealing with the same catastrophic illness or injury to each be granted up to the maximum amount for one condition.

We want to make it possible for an employee to receive a second grant of up to 720 hours if there's a different but related condition, for example, in the case of cancer that spreads from one part of the body to another.

To reduce the opportunity for abuse of sick leave pool hours, the following changes are proposed: to require the employee previously disciplined formally for abuse of sick leave to provide a second health care provider's certification from a different doctor chosen by TxDOT at their own expense; and also adding a provision indicating that the pool administrator may deny a request or require unused portions of a withdrawal be returned to the pool if the employee fails to cooperate with a medical records review, submits false information, remains off work because the employee is not following the doctor's prescribed treatment, or is abusing the sick leave pool rules.

These also will be published in the Texas Register and a public hearing will be held on October 1. And we appreciate your consideration.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: I'll invite a motion.

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 3(a)(2), Chapter 17 - Vehicle Title Registration having to do with the restitution liens, and Jerry Dike, director of the VTR Division will handle it.

MR. DIKE: Commissioner, members.

This minute order proposes the adoption of new Rule 17.10 concerning restitution liens, which allows a victim or attorney of the state to file a lien on any interest in a motor vehicle of a person convicted of a criminal offense to secure payment of restitution or fines or costs. This was authorized by House Bill 2830 in the 75th Legislature and it does not take effect until all counties have implemented the automated registration and title system. The last county will be implemented this month. We recommend adoption as proposed.

MR. LANEY: Does anyone have any questions about restitution liens?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Jerry.

Agenda Item 3(a)(3), Chapter 21 - Right of Way, amendments -- let's see, this has to do with metrics. Mr. Jim Henry, interim director of the Right of Way Division will be handling it.

MR. HENRY: Good morning, Commissioners.

This rule -- this minute order proposes the adoption of amendments to Section 21.56 of Title 43 of the Texas Administrative Code concerning metric equivalents and their use by utility companies.

Currently the rule provides that all utility plans must be done in metric units. What this amendment -- proposed amendment to the rules will do will strike the mandatory provision of that and allow the utility companies to do them in either metric or English units, depending on the other plans in the project. And we ask for your consideration in adopting this proposed rule.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

May we have a second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 3(b) -- and these are rules for final adoption -- Chapter 17, VTR, Jerry Dike will be the presenter.

MR. DIKE: Mr. Heald, Commissioners, would you like to do both of these together?

MR. HEALD: Go ahead.

MR. DIKE: The first one, the minute order adopts amendments to Rule 17.22 concerning refusal to register vehicles because the motor vehicle owner owes the County money for a fine, fee, or tax that is past due. This is commonly called the County Scoff Law Bill. This was authorized by House Bill 1532 of the 75th Legislature. The Commission adopted proposed rules on April 30; these amendments were published and comments were received and responded to in the preamble in your notebooks. No changes are made as a result of those comments. We recommend adoption of those rules.

The second set of rules is the minute order adopts new 17.52 concerning denial of vehicle registration or re-registration for a vehicle registered in counties that is included in a vehicle emissions inspection maintenance program -- and that is Dallas, Harris, El Paso and Tarrant Counties -- when notified by the Texas Department of Public Safety or Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission that the registered owner of those vehicles have failed to comply with the Vehicle Emissions Testing Program as required by Chapter 548 in the Transportation Code.

This was authorized by Senate Bill 1856 in the 75th Legislature. The Commission adopted these proposed rules on May 28, 1998, and we did receive several written comments, and had a public hearing. We've responded to those comments and changes are addressed in Exhibit B in this minute order. We recommend adoption of both rules as final.

MR. LANEY: Does anyone have any questions about either sets of rules?

MR. NICHOLS: Did we accept both?

MR. LANEY: Motion to -- final adoption of 17.22 and 17.52. We have a motion to adopt.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Jerry.

Agenda Item 3(b)(2)(a), Chapter 15 - Traffic Operations, having to do with the Logo Sign Program, and Tom Newbern, director of the Traffic Operations Division, will handle it.

MR. NEWBERN: Good morning. My name is Tom Newbern, director of Traffic Operations Division.

Agenda Item 3(b)(2)(a) concerns minute order for amendments to Sections 25.406, 25.409 concerning the Specific Information Logo Sign Program. These rules were developed in response to Senate Bill 370, Section 2.04 of the 75th Legislative Session. Section 25.406 allows the Department to grant a variance to the requirements for the Information Logo Sign Program for eligibility, location, placement and type of highway, Section 25.409 allows for broader types of variances to the requested eligibility for location, placement and type for major shopping area guide signs. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Again, this is final approval. Right?

MR. NEWBERN: Yes, sir, that's correct.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NEWBERN: Agenda Item 3(b)(2)(b) concerns the final adoption of new sections 25.801 through 25.806 about telecommunication facilities in the right of way. These rules were developed in response to Senate Bill 370, Section 1.20. The Department has received no public comments on these rules. The rules will allow the Department to issue a request for proposal for the placement of private telecommunication facilities within the median of a divided highway, enter into negotiations with those telecommunication providers submitting proposals, and to select a final offerer.

TxDOT will be able to receive compensation either in the form of payment or shared use of privately installed telecommunication facilities. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have a question. Originally when I looked at this, I was focusing more on the exclusive arrangement portion of that, and I'm finally satisfied with that, and I was not focusing on the median portion of this. And I understand the legislature allows us in here to put those type lines in the median. It doesn't require us to put those in the median. Is that still up to the project and the district engineer or Department?

MR. NEWBERN: TxDOT has the final decision as to whether or not we, the Department, allows those facilities to go in the median. It's our decision. We can take the offers and we can make up our mind whether we got a suitable offer to make it worth our while and to make that kind of decision.

MR. NICHOLS: But when I originally saw that, I had a lot of concern about lines in the median. So we are not required, but we have the option.

MR. NEWBERN: No, sir.

MR. LANEY: It's our discretion.

MR. NEWBERN: Only where we get a good deal.

MR. HEALD: I might make some comments -- and Tom, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not too sure I totally understand -- but the definition of a median, would you go over that now?

MR. NEWBERN: The definition of a median for this rule is considered from the frontage road to the frontage road, so it includes not only the traditional median, but the area between the main lanes and the frontage road.

MR. NICHOLS: So like on a divided four-lane highway, the strip of open land in the middle that most laymen would consider the median, we historically do not put utilities there.

MR. NEWBERN: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: But it is potential that utilities, under this provision, could be put in there.

MR. NEWBERN: That's right.

MR. NICHOLS: But we don't have to put those in there.

MR. NEWBERN: This just covers the telecommunications, and you know, I think we're all nervous about this, and the district engineers are pretty nervous about this, and we're embarking on something we've never done before, but there should be some value to the State or to TxDOT, we just don't know how much, and there's all kinds of problems out there. We're going to have to rely on the district engineers a lot.

MR. NICHOLS: The only question I had.

MR. LANEY: Do you have any questions?

MS. WYNNE: No, I don't.

MR. LANEY: Can we have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion, and a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: And a second. All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 3(b)(3), Traffic Operations Maintenance has to do with the debarment of a maintenance contractor, and Zane Webb, director of our new Maintenance Division will handle it.

MR. WEBB: Good morning. My name is Zane Webb; I'm the director of the Maintenance Division.

Commissioner Laney, Commissioners, Mr. Heald, Mr. Behrens. I submit for your approval and recommend your approval on final rules changing the authorization to debar a maintenance contractor. These changes were needed due to the recent reorganization of the Department and basically updates of existing rules. Do you have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I don't have any questions.

MR. LANEY: Do you have any questions?

MS. WYNNE: I do not.

MR. LANEY: Final adoption? I think we've had our bite at the apple on this already. Right?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

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

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: That you, Zane.

Agenda Item 3(c), Rule Review. Bob Jackson of the OGC office will explain this.

MR. JACKSON: Bob Jackson, acting general counsel.

The appropriations bill requires state agencies to re-adopt their rules every four years. We are one year into that four-year period. Prior to re-adopting, agencies are required to consider what are the reasons for each rule that continues to exist. A 30-day public comment period is required. This starts the process with Chapter 30, our rules concerning Aviation. Recommend approval of the minute order.

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

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Bob.

Agenda Item Number 4, under Programs, Al Luedecke, director of our Transportation Planning and Programming Division will handle. This has to do with -- I'll let you explain it, Al.

MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you, Wes.

Good morning, Commissioners. The City of Mart in McLennan County was recently selected as a site for a juvenile correction facility and they requested that a farm-to-market road be provided to connect the facility to State Highway 164. Minute Order 100593 of February 1992 permits the construction of FMs to new prison facilities up to a limit of $600,000.

This minute order tenders the offer to the City of Mart, and if accepted, will designate the road on the highway system as FM 3529. We recommend your approval.

MR. LANEY: Will the road be finished at or less than $600,000, or is there going to be an expense covered by the --

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir. The current estimated cost is $485,000.

MR. LANEY: New farm-to-market. Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Move we adopt.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion to adopt. Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: This is kind of a change in direction, when you stop and think about it: building farm-to-markets to prisons; not used to that.

Agenda Item 4(b), Jim Henry will handle this, approval of advanced right-of-way acquisition on a project on 820 in Tarrant County.

MR. HENRY: Good morning again.

This minute order is submitted for your approval to approve an early acquisition or advanced acquisition of certain parcels of right of way in Tarrant County on the expansion of Interstate Highway 820. This project is currently not in Priority II status and is not scheduled for letting until August of 2002. There were some parcels at three different locations that require early acquisition; one of the locations, the City of Haltom City has agreed to provide funding for the construction of frontage roads if we'll go ahead and buy the right of way now.

Another location, a developer is fixing to develop a hotel site and has agreed to wait for the development, the platting and all that stuff until we buy the property without it being developed as a hotel site, so this gives us the opportunity to buy it as an undeveloped piece of land.

The other location is in connection with an ongoing CMAQ project with the City of North Richland Hills. They need to -- we need to go ahead and buy our right of way to help that project come to a conclusion, the CMAQ project on certain bridge and intersection revisions. So this is submitted for your approval to allow early acquisition and funding of early acquisition of right of way on this project.

MR. LANEY: Sounds like a smart move to me. Does anybody have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Same type of comment: I'd just like to commend you for stepping forward, going a little out of the normal step to save a lot of money on this project. I think it shows great initiative. I move for it.

MR. HENRY: Thank you.

MS. WYNNE: Does this have anything to do with the former district engineer in this area?

MR. HEALD: Maybe. No comment.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Strike that from the record.

Anne, do you have a motion to make?

MS. WYNNE: I move approval.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Okay. Still under Programs, Agenda Item 4(c), approval of policy concerning the use of recycled products and materials, and Larry Zatopek will handle it.

MR. ZATOPEK: Good morning. I'm Larry Zatopek, director of the General Services Division.

The minute order before you will adopt a policy which encourages TxDOT employees to purchase recycled content products whenever they are available, meet specifications, and are cost competitive. The minute order also targets certain products which have been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Recycling Market Development Board. This policy is similar to one which has been adopted by the other agency members of the Recycling Market Development Board, which include the Department of Economic Development, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, General Land Office, and General Services Commission. And I recommend approval.

MR. LANEY: Larry, one question. How are we doing on this already? Do we do this already?

MR. ZATOPEK: This will certainly increase our purchase by adopting this policy. There -- what we've seen is that there are products that are available and over the last couple of years, many of those products, the quality is greatly improved. When we first got into this program, there were many concerns that recycled products were inferior, and a part of our emphasis here is to make sure that we're only buying quality products, and so we feel like this will really help our efforts but without reducing the quality of the products that we are buying.

MR. LANEY: So this encourages this direction, but doesn't force inferior quality products on us.

MR. ZATOPEK: Oh, absolutely not. In fact, even if this was more than encouragement, it still has that qualification that it has to be a quality product that meets specifications.

MR. LANEY: I think it's a terrific move.

Does anybody have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Same comment by me. I know I ask a lot of questions in these areas, but I do think it's a great program. You all accomplish a lot by your emphasis in this area.

MR. ZATOPEK: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Anne, any questions?

MS. WYNNE: No.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Larry, don't leave. Let me say that you can give Larry credit for this if you want to, but there's a lady in the audience that I think needs to be recognized. Why don't you introduce our recycle coordinator.

MR. ZATOPEK: Yes, I'd be more than glad to. For the last, I guess, close to five years -- over four, at least -- Ms. Rebecca Davio has been our recycling coordinator for the Department, and she has put forth a tremendous amount of effort in developing this program and the other agencies in the state look to her for guidance. And I can't brag on her -- I'd be up here all day if I bragged on her as much as I'd like to. Rebecca, if you'd stand up, please.

MR. LANEY: Great. Thanks.

Thank you, Larry.

MR. HEALD: She -- I have to add my two cents' worth. She's doing a great job, and believe it or not, she's very excited about this program.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: I believe it.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 5(a), Fort Bend and Brazoria Counties, and Al Luedecke will handle this.

MR. LUEDECKE: We're going to defer that one.

MR. HEALD: Oh, that's the one we're going to defer. That's right. I'm sorry. That will be deferred until we get the language straightened up in the proposed minute order.

Agenda Item 5(b), approval of adjustments to participation ratios in the economically disadvantaged counties policy. Al.

MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you, Wes.

Last month you approved a number of applications to adjust the local participation in several disadvantaged counties. This legislative program requires the Commission to adjust the local match funds requirements after evaluating the local government's effort and ability to meet the requirement. Section 222.053 of the Transportation Code defines a disadvantaged county as one that has, in comparison to other counties, below average per capita property value, below average per capita income, and above average unemployment.

We received four more applications from La Salle and Willacy Counties and the City of Socorro to adjust their participation ratios. In determining the adjustment rate, the following factors were considered and weighed: population level, bonded indebtedness, tax base, tax rate, economic development, sales tax.

The proposed adjustments for each project are shown in Exhibit A in your minute order, and we recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Does anyone have any questions?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Al, I would just ask before we, I assume, approve this that we -- that you all develop sort of a running total of the incremental increase costs to TxDOT on an aggregate basis.

MR. LUEDECKE: We have that.

MR. LANEY: So that we can see it and maybe include it in our books on a monthly basis so we can see it.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir. In the future we will.

MR. LANEY: Terrific.

Does anybody have any questions? No questions. Can we have a motion, please?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: I think we're also looking at the possibility of not bringing this before the Commission every time, develop it on maybe on every two months or quarterly basis.

Number 6, State Infrastructure Bank, Motley County. This has to do with a bid overrun adjusting a SIB loan, and Frank Smith will be the presenter.

MR. SMITH: Good morning. I'm Frank Smith, director of Finance Division.

Commissioners, I bring to you this item number 6 on Motley County again. You approved the loan for them a couple of months ago for $33,300. It was based on an estimate made by TxDOT of the project, which is an off-system bridge project. That estimate was $348,000 for the bridge. When the bids actually came in, the bids came back $482,000, which made Motley County short on their participation. They came back to us and they've asked for an additional loan of $13,412 to finance their portion of the bridge.

Staff is recommending this preliminary approval. It would extend the loan from five years to seven years. I would remind the Commission that this is a county that sits right surrounded by disadvantaged counties and probably just a couple of notches off from being included in that list. But the staff does recommend your approval.

MR. LANEY: So the amount of the loan is how much now?

MR. SMITH: The amount of the loan now would be $47,000.

MR. LANEY: Why did we extend it from five to seven years?

MR. SMITH: Just because of their ability to pay back the loan; they needed another two years to -- based on their revenue that's coming in to the county. They have very little assets.

MR. LANEY: You're convinced of that?

MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: Okay. One other question: we've approved it once, we're making an adjustment, this is still a preliminary approval; that means you have to revisit this?

MR. SMITH: According to the rules that we have in place right now, the -- our general counsel said that we had to come back to you twice. I think we have a rule change that Mr. Jackson will present to you today that after today and your approval of that, then anything under $250,000 will come to you one time.

MR. LANEY: Any questions about this loan -- this adjustment?

MR. NICHOLS: Moved.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion. Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 7, Public Transportation. We have four minute orders for your consideration under (a), (b), (c), and (d), and Margot Massey, the interim director of Public Transportation will handle it.

MS. MASSEY: Item 7(a), a housekeeping sort of item where the Houston Metropolitan Planning Organization has programmed $480,000 in congestion mitigation/air quality funds for Brazos Transit System's Montgomery County operation, which is non-urbanized, which means that the federal funds need to be transferred to the rural program, which is managed by TxDOT, and this minute order would give us the authority to apply for those funds and then contract them to Brazos Transit System, and we recommend your approval on this one.

MR. LANEY: Questions?

(No response.)

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

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MS. MASSEY: Item 7(b), this is the approval of Section 5311(f) funds for intercity bus planning and capital projects. Fifteen percent of our federal rural program is set aside for intercity bus support operations, and we've had a very cooperative working relationship with the intercity carriers in Texas.

We issued a request for proposals in March, received five proposals, and based on the criteria which is referenced -- the projected return on investment, improvements and customer service cost of improvements -- we're recommending three of those five projects. We do believe that the other two are meritorious, but they are not ready to move forward at this time, and we will probably be issuing another request for proposals shortly.

The three that are recommended would total just over $1 million, and we recommend your approval.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Could I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MS. MASSEY: 7(c) is the allocation of Section 5309 discretionary capital funds for rural transit projects. We were fortunate in the 1998 Appropriations Bill to have an earmark for rural transit capital replacement of close to $2-1/2 million. That was the good news; the bad news is we need considerably more, but we're pleased to receive these funds.

We -- our staff has developed a formula for the distribution of these funds which weights it very heavily on vehicle utilization -- in effect, to reward the operators with replacement funds who are using the equipment to the maximum extent, and it also recognizes the rural operating environment by weighting on population density and vehicle miles. We also recognize -- 75 percent of the funds would be distributed based on this performance formula.

The other 25 percent is in recognition that we just have some very old vehicles that are unsafe and we need to get them off the road. Even though those entities did not score as well under the performance criteria, the equipment poses a safety hazard or will shortly.

So we're recommending the approval of the distribution which is outlined in Exhibit A to this minute order, which awards funds for 46 vehicles under the performance formula and 20 additional vehicles under the safety issue. We recommend your approval.

MR. LANEY: Are those additional safety vehicles fairly well scattered around, or are they concentrated in one particular area?

MS. MASSEY: They're pretty much all over the state as well. Those vehicles in the safety category have over 200,000 miles on them, which is well beyond what is projected for a vehicle of that type.

MR. LANEY: What's projected for a vehicle of that type?

MS. MASSEY: It's generally in the 100,000-mile category, so they're about double where they should be. They've maintained them as well as they could, but we think they need to get them off the road.

MR. LANEY: Good idea.

Does anyone have any questions?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Allocation of about two million four. Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MS. MASSEY: Finally, item 7(d), the approval of Commission selected project funding for Hill Country Transit District, the City of Texarkana, small urbanized and non-urbanized rural operators. We're doing several things in this minute order, all relating to the state set-aside funds that are awarded at your discretion. Ten percent of the formula funds each biennium are set aside for projects that you deem meritorious, and that's split into halves. Half goes to the small urbanized program and half goes to the rural program.

We have two new urbanized systems that will be starting within the next six months. First is in the Killeen-Copperas Cove area, and that will be operated by Hill Country Transit District, which has been a rural transit operator for many years. The Cities of Killeen and Copperas Cove have elected to go with Hill Country Transit District as a proven entity with operating experience and that will be the operator in Killeen-Copperas Cove.

The other new start will be in the City of Texarkana and this will be jointly funded with the State of Arkansas who is proposing to move federal funds at the federal levels and Texas will administer on behalf of both states. That is one piece of what we're doing on the urbanized program is providing $200,00 -- or recommending that you provide $200,000 in state funds to each of those systems to match federal funds that those systems would be seeking.

The other part -- the largest part of this minute order relates to a shortfall in our state appropriations where there was a -- we were projected to receive $9-1/2 million in oil overcharge funds, and this was based on projected interest accruals which have turned out to be overly optimistic. At the present we are $2 million short on that and we're expecting that it will stay at that amount.

What we're proposing is that we -- that you approve using the balance of the Commission's selected project funds to bridge as much of that shortfall for the systems and award them proportionally to the rural and the small urbanized systems.

MR. LANEY: And under this minute order, we're moving slightly in excess of a million?

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir. It's about a million four.

MR. LANEY: The approach here is to look to general revenue, to the extent it's retrievable, for the remainder of that shortfall.

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: I know you've worked hard on this and I know the 2 million plus shortfall reeks havoc on this industry, so I hope we can get there, and appreciate all your effort on this front.

Does anybody have any questions?

MS. WYNNE: We have a speaker.

MR. LANEY: Oh, yes. Thank you. We have one speaker signed up to speak on this, Ms. Cheryl Dodd, administrator with Friends of Elder Citizens. Ms. Dodd.

MS. DODD: I'm speaking on this because of obviously --

MR. LANEY: Can you introduce yourself?

MS. DODD: I'm Cheryl Dodd, administrator, Friends of Elder Citizens from Palacios, Texas, Matagorda County.

We had submitted an application for Commission selected projects to begin a rural transit program in Matagorda County who was left out of the rural transit districts because of House Bill 2588, which grandfathered the districts. There are districts surrounding the county, but the county itself is not qualified to receive public transportation dollars because of that.

We made an agreement with Golden Crescent, and the County accepted it, to become part of their district so that these funds could be available, and because the project has not been selected, or if you choose not to select it, it doesn't mean that we'll never have public transportation, but in the ten years that public transportation has existed, there's been none in Matagorda County.

We are a 5310 elderly and disabled provider with vehicles with no capital from the State, so the fostering and assistance of public transportation in our county does not exist from the Texas Department of Transportation. So if we do not receive even a penny to become a 5311, then we are out again in the cold, and I just wanted everybody to know that. And I understand the shortfalls in the rest of the state and all the other districts, but they have a shortfall -- they have something and we don't have anything.

We would like to become a rural transit provider through Golden Crescent. We've done all of our homework. We have four vans from the 5310, but we have no operations. So we have elderly funding that takes them wherever they want to go, but the people who are not elderly, who do not have a medical indigent need have no source of public transportation in this county. And because we're doing all the other, we see -- I think all that was in the documents. So I thought maybe you weren't totally aware of all that and I wanted to be sure that you were before you vote to not give us any.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Ms. Dodd. Let me respond, if I can. I believe we were aware of it. And let me just say -- and I think I speak for the other Commissioners -- how difficult it is to make decisions based on funds shortfalls or shortages when we know we are, in effect, excluding someone or some project or program. Unfortunately, it happens over and over and over again, and we truly regret not being able to include the Matagorda County program in this, but it is a product -- I think you understand -- of the shortfall.

Prior to the shortfall, we had every intention of including you and making you very much a part of this program, but I think, unfortunately, the priorities are such that we've got to at least protect what's in place as best we can, and look for the opportunity to try to bring Matagorda County into the program as soon as funds allow it, but I'm afraid we're not going to be able to help you this time just simply because of the shortfall.

MS. DODD: Okay. And the last time it was the same thing. Is that correct?

MR. LANEY: I don't remember the last time.

MS. DODD: Because we did apply in '96 also -- '97.

MR. LANEY: I wish I could respond authoritatively; I can't.

MS. DODD: Well, we'll be back.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

Any comments or questions?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 8, under Aviation, Dave Fulton, the director of the Aviation Division will handle it, and we'll talk about Item (a) first; we have some speakers for (a).

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Wes. Chairman Laney, Commissioners Nichols and Wynne.

The first minute order we present for your consideration today is a request for approval of our annual Airport Development Grant Program. There is an attachment detailing the specific projects in this request. You will see that the total is approximately a little over $6.2 million. That breaks out 3.4 million federal, 2.2 state, and a little over $600,000 local funding.

The reason for the relatively low cost of the program at this time, as compared to our annual budget allocation, is most of the request is for engineering design. Once these projects are designed, we will come back to you for consideration for actual construction costs. We do this so we can obtain the most accurate cost estimate possible before requesting a grant to a community.

We are also beginning the third year of our administration of federal funds for reliever airports, and we've attempted to maintain the balance of funding between the reliever and the more community, general aviation airports around the state, and we think we've done that.

A hearing was held on August 3, 1998, for public comment. The Texas Aviation Advisory Committee reviewed the program on August 21, 1998, and recommended approval. We do as well.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Dave.

We have a number of speakers signed up to speak on this particular item, and because of the number, let me just remind those who are here and have signed up to speak to limit your comments to three minutes, and we'll enforce that, so please watch the timer while you're up here.

The first -- and I hope I'm reading this correctly -- Mr. Philip Savko, airport development manager, City of Sugarland.

MR. FULTON: Chairman Laney, I don't think this presentation is on this item. It was just a comment for the open period. Does it matter?

MR. SAVKO: Good morning. My name is Phillip Savko; I'm with the City of Sugarland, Sugarland Municipal Airport.

We're just speaking in support of our capital improvement program listed in the FY '99 budget that is submitted by the Aviation Department. I also want to recognize in attendance we have our airport advisory board member, Ms. Sims, and our manager Gary Hawkins.

We would like to thank TxDOT Department of Aviation for their help and support of the Sugarland Airport.

As you're aware, Sugarland Airport is located in the southwest section of Houston. We purchased the airport in 1990; we've come under the FAA program for commercial service, and now we're under the Texas Department of Transportation program. The airport has reached its capacity as far as based aircraft and our operations have exceeded our forecast to the year 2010. We're looking for the continued support of the Texas Department of Transportation Aviation Division in developing other projects as needed on the airport.

In closing, we just ask you that you support our project, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

Mr. David Pearce, airport manager, City of McKinney.

MR. PEARCE: Good morning. I'm Dave Pearce; I'm the airport manager for the City of McKinney. I'm also here to speak on behalf of McKinney and ask for your support on the CIP program.

I would like to publicly, first of all, thank Mr. Dave Fulton and his staff for the unbelievable support that we have had over this last year. We joke around a little bit and we say that he is able to get more mileage per dollar than anybody we've ever met, and he certainly has. Phenomenal support and has helped us both technically and financially.

One of the issues that you'll see on your program today is a lighting project for McKinney. McKinney has had two airport runway expansions over the last 20 years. With that expansion, we've had lighting that has been tacked onto an existing system and is really overtaxed. This project will put sufficient lighting on the runway. We do not have lighting for the taxiway, which this will incorporate and give an infrastructure there, so it will enhance our safety both from the air and the ground. And we do ask your support. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Pearce.

Mr. Blair Bisbey, secretary of the Texas Aviation Advisory Commission.

MR. BISBEY: May it please the Commission.

This is my second opportunity to appear before you, and I would like to thank you for what I anticipate will be the approval of my reappointment to a second three-year term on the commission. It has been quite an honor and a pleasure to work with Dave and the other people in the Aviation Division, and I know that you are as proud as I am to be associated with people that do the job that they do.

I'd like to recognize just a couple of the other people that are involved in doing such an incredible job of making Dave look so good. One of them is here today. Linda Howard does an exceptional job. Bob Woods and Bill Fuller also do more than is required of them.

This is not good government, this is great government that goes on in the Aviation Division, and I appreciate the opportunity to be involved with them for another three years.

We feel like the current year CIP is a good one because we are planning for the future. We are trying to deal with what the Federal Aviation Administration tells us they're going to be doing with the air navigation system, and we are poising ourselves to be ready when the GPS program comes on-line and VOR, or VORTAC, system that we've been using since World War II is gradually phased out. That's one of the reasons why you see so much of the money going into engineering projects this year.

Also, we've found through experience that it works out better if we have a better handle on how much these projects are going to cost before we make the estimates and then come for the funding commitments and then have to go back to the local sponsors and tell them: I'm sorry, it's going to cost more money than that.

The biggest goal that we have for the year upcoming is to try to get assured funding for the aviation program in the state. We have very much appreciated the support that we have from this Commission for the aviation projects in this state. I live in Jasper, Texas, which is over 250 miles from here. It's as far east as you can go without ending up in the State of Louisiana. I was able to spend the night at home last night and have breakfast with my family this morning and still be here in Austin to appear before this Commission, thanks to the excellent general aviation transportation system that we have in this state.

It's going to continue to be increasingly important in the future for us to continue not just to protect what we have, but to build for the future, and under the leadership of people like Dave Fulton and the staff that he's got, we are confident that we can do that.

We request your support, as we go before the legislature in the upcoming session, in trying to get assured funding so that we can make those plans.

I'd like to mention just briefly that the committee -- advisory committee will be meeting in Beaumont in December of this year, the 2nd and 3rd. Each of you will be receiving a written invitation at a later date from our chairman, but I'd like to make you aware of the fact that we will be meeting there and hope that you'll be able to join us for that. I'd also like for you to know that both me and all the other members of the committee are available at any time if you have a question, and we would encourage you to contact us if there's any way that we can help you. Again, thank you.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Bisbey, before you leave, are the others you mentioned in the audience somewhere?

MR. BISBEY: I don't believe we have any other committee members here with us today.

MR. LANEY: Thanks.

Mr. Scott Albert from the town of Fairview.

MR. ALBERT: Good morning. I'm Scott Albert, town manager for Fairview, located in Collin County.

I've a brief one-and-a-half page statement from the mayor of Fairview which I'd like to read into the record and also provide the chairman a paper copy of. Mayor Phillips from Fairview wishes he could have been here this morning, but we had a short notice of this meeting and he is unable to adjust his schedule. At this time I'll read his statement.

"Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. We're not sure that Fairview should even be at this meeting because we're not certain that the McKinney Airport Program and the expenditures for the McKinney Airport are actually on the agenda. I cannot tell that from what I was sent. Yesterday we were faxed a copy of an agenda and one of the TxDOT staff members kindly told us it was on the agenda. If it is, then my remarks may be appropriate; if not, then I apologize.

"Apparently under Item 8(a) there is a listing for various counties approval of Fiscal Year 1999 Aviation Facility Grant Program. It's possible it's under 8(b), approval of the revised Routine Airport Maintenance Program. At any rate, I'm here to comment on federal funding for improvements to the McKinney Airport.

"As I understand, the item is to award funds for some runway, taxi lighting, signage, and reimbursement for engineering and land and not for funding of new passenger terminals, or is it your understanding that this money is to reimburse will be used for that purpose? I respectfully ask that you consider the matters that were brought to the attention of TxDOT previously, specifically when I commented on August 3, 1998, at the public hearing in Austin. I have attached a copy of those remarks here and would ask that this entire package be entered into the record of this meeting.

"Because of short and inadequate notice, the town of Fairview is unable to adequately comment. In addition, we previously made a request under the Open Records Act for access to records so that we may adequately study the request for funding. We have received some documents but not all the files. As a consequence, we are not able to make effective comment.

"I would appreciate it if you would at least note my concerns regarding the issue of the possible non-compliance with FAA regulations regarding the location of landfills and airports. You all probably know all this because McKinney probably revealed it to you, but there are literally thousands of birds which flock across the airwaves at the McKinney Airport. This causes a major safety problem.

"Also, the landfill as a wildlife attractant is located well within the minimum safe distance for jet traffic according to FAA standards. As many as seven or eight years ago, there was a letter from the FAA stating that the airport or the landfill had to be shut down, one or the other."

MR. LANEY: Mr. Blair, if I can interrupt for a second. I don't know how lengthy your letter is, but your time is up, if you can wrap it up fairly quickly. We'll be glad to enter the entire thing into the record.

MR. ALBERT: Okay. I supplied you a copy.

MR. LANEY: Very good. Thank you. Appreciate it very much.

MR. FULTON: Just as an item of information, the City of Fairview did appear at the public hearing which I mentioned earlier, and also at the Texas Aviation Advisory Committee meeting to express their concerns.

MR. LANEY: Okay. We have a proposal before us to adopt the Aviation Facilities Grant Program, approaching $6.3 million. Does anyone have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have one question I did not think of earlier. The asterisk out to the side indicates a 10 percent vesting by the local entity.

MR. FULTON: The asterisk, I believe, is to delineate those projects we anticipate federal funding. I think there's a note at the bottom that states that those projects marked with an asterisk are anticipated to be funded with federal funds.

MR. NICHOLS: Ninety percent?

MR. FULTON: Yes, sir, 90 percent.

MR. NICHOLS: And then 10 percent local.

MR. FULTON: That's correct, yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: The ones without the asterisk --

MR. FULTON: Are state funds, 90 percent state, 10 percent local.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. That's it. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Anne, do you have any questions?

MS. WYNNE: No.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

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

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. FULTON: The second minute order is a request of approval for an increase in the maximum grant for maintenance -- airport maintenance to communities under the Routine Airport Maintenance Program. We began this program September 1, 1996, and it's been very successful. The program currently has a cap of $10,000 per airport per year on a 50/50 funding basis, state and local.

We have -- in talking with many of our districts, many of their projects that they have helped us with exceed the $20,000 amount and we haven't been able to do all the work. So at the same time, we have a statewide cap of $2.5 million per year statewide and we've only used approximately $2 million for the past two fiscal years.

I think Commissioner Wynne mentioned when we set up this program that "I think $10,000 per airport was enough," and I said at the time, "If all the airports used it, I think it's all we could afford." However, due to a lot of reasons, every airport doesn't do the maximum amount per year. I think -- so we feel to continue to protect the federal, state and local investment in our airport infrastructure, it would be prudent to increase that to $20,000 a year, which would cover $40,000 of maintenance and help us better protect our state's airports.

MR. LANEY: With a cap of two million five. Right?

MR. FULTON: Yes, sir, that would not change. We think we can fund it under the current cap.

MR. LANEY: Does anyone have any questions?

(No response.)

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

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. FULTON: Thank you.

The final minute order is for the purpose of appointment of two members to the Texas Aviation Advisory Committee. The terms of two current members expire August 31, 1998. Those two members are Mr. Bill Knowles of Palestine, who wanted to be here today, and Mr. Blair Bisbey of Jasper, who is here today. If reappointed, they will be reappointed for an additional three-year term to expire on August 31, 2001. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Now I understand why Mr. Bisbey was so complimentary to you.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: So moved. Does anyone have any questions, or a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: I have a note. I believe that Senator Lindsay is in the audience, although I don't see you somewhere -- there you are. Would you like to join us? I know you are under some schedule pressures.

No wonder I didn't recognize you.

SENATOR LINDSAY: We're here, of course, to -- Catherine Wray of our North Houston Association has handed out to you a map, and we're here to talk about a project that's been on the books for a long, long time, in conjunction with the Hardy Toll Road. The Hardy Toll Road has a history of its own that goes back a long time, and I thank the Commission for all the support they've given us on all the toll road projects in Harris County. And I will point out to you that they're all, as a group, doing very well. Hardy is not doing as well as we anticipated at the very beginning, but Sam Houston is more than making up for the budgetary shortfall that Hardy has, and the toll road system is in great shape.

But this project, the proposed expressway that you see at the bottom down there, is one that's been talked about going back, and has an extensive history attached to it. At one time we had approval -- or general approval from TxDOT, we had it from Metro putting in a substantial amount of money, and we had, of course, the Toll Road Authority funds available for it, and we had a sign-off at the time from the railroads on use of some of their right of way and thought we had a project really working.

Lanier had different ideas, though, when he came in office a little over six years ago, and he decided that he wanted to use the money that was dedicated from Metro for police protection for the City of Houston, so we lost a major funding source and that kind of cratered that project.

So Wesley Freise and I at the time decided that we wouldn't really bring this subject up again until we did that north connector into the airport, and you see that in red up there going into the airport off of Hardy Toll Road, and I'll report to you that that is now under construction. The City part is -- the contractor is on the ground and clearing and actually doing the work, and the County yesterday awarded a $16 million contract to fund their share off the airport right of way. So that project is going, which makes this project now -- or should bring this project back on the table to connect to Hardy downtown.

Presently we have a situation where users of Hardy come down and get off on the North Loop 610, most of which are going east to get on Interstate 45, some of which go -- I mean, going west to get on Interstate 45 to come on downtown, some of which also, of course, come to the US 59 also to come to the downtown area. But it's quite a queue to get off Hardy at 610 and then it starts causing traffic jams over on -- at the intersection of Loop 610 and Interstate 45 and I think creates -- that additional traffic, of course, plugs up your road, Interstate 45, as it comes on from 610 into the downtown area.

That could be alleviated by doing the proposed expressway that we have there, and we'd certainly like to see that done. It has a lot of benefits. You know, if you have wrecks on either one of those roads over there, 59 or 45, you have an alternate route to get out of town. You've got the baseball stadium being constructed right there where the end of it is, the culmination. That part of downtown is being revitalized. We're going to see -- we are seeing -- not going to see, we are seeing a lot of activity in that part of the downtown area of the City of Houston.

MR. LANEY: Where is the stadium, again, Senator?

SENATOR LINDSAY: Right almost exactly where -- just about two blocks where the red line ends at the south end there in the green area, the stadium will be right there in that corner of the downtown area. And that's -- so that's where that feeds into.

So it's a project -- in addition to that, the side benefits for eliminating a couple of railroad grade separation crossings that are between 610 and Interstate 10, of course, would be significant as well. Now, we don't know how many lives we'd save by constructing the 15 grade separations on Hardy from 610 going north, but we know it's a lot. You know, just a month before we started the Hardy Toll Road project, there were four people killed at one of those grade separations that we eventually -- or grade crossings that we turned into grade separations. So that's, again, some side benefits there with the cooperation of the railroad to make it work.

We're anxious, of course, to try to make this a project. We've scaled it back down to a project, or tried to. We've got different alternative plans. We'd like to see TxDOT put in as much as $15 million, and if it goes a little -- to a six-lane project instead of a four-lane project, then that number, we hope, would go up to $24 million. But it's a doable project, I think, at the $15 million contribution from TxDOT, $15 million from Harris County Toll Road Authority, and I think five, somewhere in that neighborhood, from the City of Houston as a participant.

So that's kind of it in a nutshell. There's so much history to this that I hate to get into it, but we've got a lot of activity going up in that neck of the woods. I've got another member of the North Houston Association here that would like to address you on a critical thing that's developing on US 59 and 610 as well -- a fellow by the name of Chip Hamilton -- because we're getting ready to have an explosion in that northeast quadrant of the Sam Houston Toll Road, but we don't have the toll east of US 59. And we've had as our number one priority project in the north part of the county, the grade separations and the construction of that interchange, or at least part of that interchange as time goes on.

But anyhow, that's my presentation in a nutshell.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Senator. Appreciate you coming.

Does anybody have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: The Hardy Toll project toward downtown is a great project, and I know there's been a lot of positive talk on it. I had not heard that there might be a consideration of going from four lane to six lane.

SENATOR LINDSAY: Well, I've got so many things on the table, I'm just telling you that the initial proposal that was given to TxDOT was for four lanes. There's been some talk by others outside of us to try to take it to six lanes. We're not really pushing that very hard, to be honest with you. You know, if there's a volunteer in the audience with another $8- or $10 million, we'd certainly take it, but I don't think that's going to make or break the project.

So if I could, I'd like to have Chip Hamilton come up and explain the problem at US 59 and Sam Houston Toll Road.

MR. LANEY: That's fine.

MR. HAMILTON: Thank you, Senator.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to come in and speak this morning. I appreciate the comments by the Senator. There -- as he expressed, there is an explosion of traffic population in this northeast Houston quadrant.

Beltway 8 and US 59 -- which has been on the plans for a long time and is scheduled as a high priority to go under construction -- is a critical need for this northeast quadrant. Currently, Metro and Harris County are opening West Lake Houston Parkway from Kingwood to the Beltway, and this will be an adjacent and parallel roadway to 59 to the Beltway about six miles off this intersection.

The estimated traffic count is between 15- and 20,000 cars a day, the day West Lake Houston Parkway opens, at the intersection of the Beltway and West Lake Houston Parkway. This traffic coming out of Kingwood and the Atascocita area will be diverting over to US 59. Now, this relieves a bit of the traffic congestion on US 59 at the front of Kingwood -- which is under construction currently -- but the queues presently at US 59 and the Beltway 8 are in excess of seven to eight minutes in the morning and afternoon traffic. We're talking about two lanes, stop lights, and substantially undersized access roads.

These fly-overs in this interchange are critical for the safety and for the convenience of this area in the near future. We estimate that the queues could -- certainly I'm not an engineer, but let me qualify that and tell you that my engineers have estimated that the queues could reach as much as 15 minutes at this intersection at high and peak traffic times if something isn't done seriously soon with the opening of West Lake Houston Parkway.

Thank you very much, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

Senator, thank you.

SENATOR LINDSAY: Thank you, Chip.

I would like to introduce three other people that are here representing the engineering firms that have worked on this project at one time or another: Paul Solaro with Dannenbaum Engineers, Brad Brown with Pate Engineers, and Chris Carter with Brown & Gay.

So again, thank you.

MR. LANEY: Senator, appreciate your presentation.

MR. HEALD: Moving on to Agenda Item Number 9, Contracts, Thomas Bohuslav, Director of the Construction Division, will handle it.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav, Director of the Construction Division.

Item 9(a)(1) is for the consideration of award or rejection of building construction contracts let on August 6, 1998. These projects are for the installation of gas monitoring systems in various counties in the Amarillo District, electrical renovations in the district warehouse in Dallas and Mesquite of Dallas County, and the renovation of the area engineer and maintenance offices in Silsbee and Kountze in Hardin County.

We had three projects let; total number of bids received were seven for an average of 2.3 bids per project; the total low bid was $914,517 for an amount overrun of 69 percent.

We have two projects we recommend for rejection, the first project being in Hardin County on BC20-206-2426, renovation of the area engineer and maintenance offices in Silsbee and Kountze. We received one bid; the low bid being from H.B. Neald & Sons, Inc., in the amount of $161,000, or a 53 percent overrun. The consultant in this case contacted the general contractor and some of the other five general contractors who attended a pre-bid meeting on the project, and they indicated that current construction market conditions in the area caused the cost increase and reduced competition.

Additionally, other projects in the private sector don't have the administrative requirements that we have in our contracts and that fact caused many of the smaller contractors to devote their time and effort to other work. We recommend this project be rejected.

In addition, in the Amarillo District, various projects, Project Number BC04-205-2442 for the installation of gas monitoring systems, we received two bids, the low bid being from Duke Electric Company, Inc., in the amount of $598,765 for 113 percent overrun. Again, the consultant underestimated the true cost of doing the work. Propane gas detection is new in the area of facility engineering and not many vendors are equipped to perform the work, and the district would like the project to be redesigned and relet at a later date. At that time they would perform additional advertising in order to draw more bidders in.

Staff recommends award of all projects with the exceptions noted.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion. Can we get a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 9(a)(2) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on August 4 and 5, 1998, whose engineers' estimate costs are $300,000 or more, as shown on Exhibit A. We had seven projects let; total number of bids received were 22 for an average of 3.14 bids per project; total low bid amount was $3,553,692.04 for an amount overrun of -- excuse me -- amount underrun of 7.46 percent. We have no projects recommended for rejection.

MR. LANEY: Comments?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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

MS. WYNNE: Second

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 9(a)(3) is for the consideration of award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on August 4 and 5, 1998, as shown on Exhibit A. We had a total of 100 projects let; total number of bids received were 326 for an average of 3.26 bid per project; total low bid amount was $217,472,807.38 for an amount overrun of .86 percent.

We have twelve projects that are recommended for rejection. Beginning on page 3, the second listing is project number 3029 in Bexar County. Received four bids, the low bid being from IHS Construction, Inc., in the amount of $982,080.54, or 27.66 percent overrun. On this project, the incorrect unit was used for the item, and therefore, caused -- could change who the low bidder was on the project; therefore, the district recommends that we relet the project.

Again a project in Bexar County, on page 3, the first listing there, project number 3078. In this case, we again had -- used the unit of kilograms and should have used megagrams for the unit, and it again changes who the apparent low bidder would be for the project. We again recommend rejection of that project.

Then again recommended for rejection, a project on page 4, third listing, project number 3077 in Brazos County. We received three bids, the low bid being from C.C. Carlton Construction of Austin in the amount of $4,638,724.41 for an amount overrun of 47.84 percent. In addition to the overrun on this project, there was an error with an item for bent concrete, and that error would create an approximately $900,000 overrun on the project, in addition to what's already shown.

MR. NICHOLS: This is the one in Brownwood?

MR. BOHUSLAV: No. This project is in Brazos County in the Bryan District. This is an office -- excuse me. This is a bridge project, and there's another one in Brown County that they have as well.

MS. WYNNE: Can you say what you just said again, but slower?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Okay. In this project, in addition to the overrun, we have an error in a quantity that could cause an additional $900,000 overrun on the project, and it would also change who the apparent low bidder was when we make the correction in quantity for the bent concrete item.

MS. WYNNE: It was our error, which would mean that the low bid would go up by $900,000?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes.

MS. WYNNE: Which then means that the second bidder is the low bidder?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Would mean because of the difference in unit prices for the project, the second bidder would probably be the low bidder, yes -- would be the low bidder.

MR. LANEY: Can you speak up a little bit? It's hard to hear you. Sorry.

MR. BOHUSLAV: All right.

MS. WYNNE: Do y'all understand that? I mean, that's a story problem, and it's our error in the quantity price. Right?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Our error in the unit quantities for the item is incorrect in the plans, yes.

MS. WYNNE: But if it's our error, then why wouldn't both bids go up by the same amount?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Because the unit price the contractor submitted was different -- significantly different. In this case the contractor submitted a bid of about $3,000 for the item, which is about six times the average unit price for that item, justified or not, and the next contractor down, I believe, is about $12- or $1,400 per cubic yard of concrete, and that's why there is a difference in who the apparent low bidder would be.

MS. WYNNE: We're going to hear from the contractor.

MR. NICHOLS: So we're going to reject and go back out for bid?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes, that's our recommendation.

Again on page 4, recommended for rejection on the bottom of the page is project number 3038 in Brown County. We received four bids, the low bid being from C.C. Carlton Construction of Austin, Inc., in the amount of $197,100 for an amount overrun of 34.52 percent. The contractor has been contacted and found that there were some unknown factors in the contract, one of those being the repair of any damage to city streets and moving the engine in this case within the project.

In addition, the district stated that contractors misinterpret the intent of providing references to Santa Fe Railroad Specification Manual, and rather than using the manual for dimensions of materials to be supplied, the contractor told the district that he thought he would have a large amount of testing to do for the required materials. The City of Brownwood was contacted and presented with this information, and along with the City of Brownwood, the district feels this project should be redesigned to eliminate the unknowns and relet at a later date. Therefore, we recommend rejection of the project.

Again on page 5, the next-to-the-last listing, project number 3115 in Comanche County. We received four bids, the low bid being from Prater Equipment Company, Inc., in the amount of $91,432.58, or a 32.45 percent overrun. The District recommends the bids be rejected because of an excessive unit price received from the bidders. All four bidders overran the estimate by 32 to 120 percent, and the District feels they can receive better bids if the project is relet.

Again on page 9, a project recommended for rejection, the second listing, 3031 in Ellis County. We received one bid, the low bid being from Koppell Construction, Inc., in the amount of $795,910.97, or an amount overrun of 59.59 percent. The District feels that the bids did not reflect adequate competition and did not recommend award. The contractor indicated he had reservations about constructing the bridge in standing water, and therefore increased his prices for some of the concrete work. The district is not necessarily in agreement with that, but they want to go back and re-evaluate the estimate and we'll resubmit the project for the next available letting upon your approval.

Again on page 14, a project recommended for rejection, the third listing on that page, project number 3018 in Lamar County. We received one bid from Buster Paving Company, Inc., in the amount of $735,683.56, or a 62.15 percent overrun. The district determined that the polypropylene soil reinforcement on this project is a new material and is a technology for road control that has caused Buster Paving to overbid the mobilization and polypropylene soil reinforcement.

It appears that contractors who specialize in this type of work were too heavily committed with other projects to bid on the project at this time, and Buster Paving is primarily a roadway contractor and they're not equipped for this type of work, and we feel -- the District feels that it would be better if we went and got more competition by reletting the project at a future date.

On page 14, the last listing on that page is project number 3050 in Liberty County. We received two bids, the low bid being from Champagne Webber, Incorporated of Texas in the amount of $969,024.35, or a 54.2 percent overrun. It's the District's opinion here that the unit prices were excessive and recommend we not award this contract. And at the time when we relet it, we expect lower concrete costs due to a higher supply at that time of Portland cement.

Again a project on page 15, the second listing, recommended for rejection is 3104 in Medina County. We received one bid, the low bid being from Hunter Industries in the amount of $956,705.95 for an amount overrun of 35.08 percent. The District tried to take into account here -- hang on a second. The District uses state and district average low bid prices to determine their estimated unit prices, and in addition, they took into account lower prices that they have received in this part of the district due to good local sources for roadway materials, and since the District cannot require the contractor to use local material sources, the prices ended up being higher than what they were expecting. We only got one bidder on this project, and the other contractors were -- because the other contractors were busy at this time with a considerable amount of work for contractors due to the upswing in the economy, they feel like a future letting would get more competition for the project.

On page 18, the next to the last listing, project number 3092 in Travis County, a project recommended for rejection. We received one bid from Hunter Industries, Inc., in the amount of $409,037.54, an amount overrun of 76.03 percent.

Beginning with the June 1998 letting, there's been a sharp increase in bid prices for some of the items due to the letting volumes that have resulted in some larger than normal overruns for this district. This increase was not anticipated in the comparison unit prices contained in the engineers' estimates. With similar type work let to contract this month, it appears to substantiate it.

The District had two other projects with similar type work and estimated costs in the August letting. Regardless of the fact that both of these projects overran the engineers' estimates, neither of those overran to the tune of 76 percent. And we feel that lack of competition due to the heavy workloads that the contractors are experiencing at this time resulted in the higher bid, and they'd like to reject the bid and go back and relet this one as well.

On page 19, the first listing, the project recommended for rejection is 3096 in Walker County. We received two bids, the low bid being from Kinzel Industries, Inc., in the amount of $3,586,138.91, or 38.09 percent overrun. On this project the contractor was contacted. They stated the bid was higher because all the subcontractors and material suppliers were quoting higher prices, especially for items involving concrete. The labor costs have also risen and he feels this is largely due to the commercial construction boom in Houston.

He stated the uncertainty in the subcontractors and material suppliers was a factor in the higher prices, and that most of the suppliers and subcontractors will only hold their quotes for a very short time, and therefore, the District recommends that we not award this project to Kinzel Industries.

Again, a project recommended for rejection is on page 19, the third listing on that page, 3016 in Webb County. We received three bids, the low bid being from Texas Traffic Control Systems in the amount of $66,710, or 90.6 percent overrun. The overrun is due to a conflict of information in the general note for pay item 680, installation of highway traffic signals. An addendum to correct this conflict was created but accidentally not sent out to bidders, and due to the confusion caused by this general note, this item was bid extremely high, and the district wishes to reject the bid so they can correct the general note and let the project at a later letting.

In addition, we looked at HCI, the highway cost index, and we're looking at -- from August of 1997, we're looking at about a ten point increase; we were at 118 based on 1987 year data and we're now at 128 percent of that mark.

Questions on any specific projects beyond those?

MR. LANEY: We might have some questions. First of all, we have a speaker, I think, signed up to speak on one of the projects.

MR. BOHUSLAV: I would like to add that the Motley County project is in this letting; it's recommended for award.

MR. LANEY: What county?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Motley, the SIB project.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Craig Carlton, C.C. Carlton Construction.

MR. CARLTON: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for letting me speak here. This is my first time, so I'm a little nervous, and I was trying to think of the last time I was this nervous, and the first time I was this nervous was when I was guarding Clyde Drexler when I played for the University of Texas basketball, and the outcome was not very good when he was at U of H. And the second time I was this nervous was when I got married, and I can say the outcome of that came out much better.

(Laughter.)

MR. CARLTON: Anyway, I'm here to speak on the Brazos River, which Tom has talked to y'all about, and we're in agreement with some things and we're in very much disagreement on some other things.

Number one, the projected estimate did overrun. I have provided you copies of reasons why it overran. This bridge goes across the Brazos River. When you do the Brazos River, you have to import barges. You can't bring barges up the river. You have to use specialized equipment. You've got a building mooring structure there where you attach your barges. In this case you'll need four barges: one for your driller, one for your crane, one for the driller's spoils, and one for your material barge.

My father, Harry Carlton, who is a World War II veteran, went to A&M -- we don't hold that against him, since I went to Texas; we have fun at Thanksgiving time anyway -- went up there and met with the gentlemen immediately. By their own admission, they did not include all this inland marine type of work. He met with the District there.

We're doing a very similar job for the Galveston area engineer, Jose Ramirez, in which the job was bid at $2.4 million and right now we're at about $3.6 million due to overruns. I'd like to bring to your attention in a letter that Jose Ramirez brought -- I mean, wrote to the fact that on the last sentence he says: "C.C. Carlton Construction Company has performed all the work to the satisfaction of the State and has been most cooperative in dealing with change order work."

So the reason I bring that to an issue is yes, there's a second issue to this: there was an overrun and we have proved to the district -- in fact, the district recommended award and then they rescinded their recommendation because then there was the second issue of the bust in quantities. Well, to say that we will go up 900 grand, well, the other bidders will also go up. And it states in the red book that any quantity that exceeds 25 percent, the engineer and the contractor will renegotiate the price.

Mr. Ramirez has made it clear that we have dealt previously with TxDOT in a very formidable manner. And so yes, there is a quantity overrun, and it doesn't matter if the State lets it now or lets it two months from now, the price of the project is going to go up, no matter what. We don't think we should be punished because of a quantity bust. We are a small company, me and my dad run it, and we take pride in what we do, and we sure hope after you all reviewing all these facts, that we will be awarded this project.

And then I'd like to address the other job which we were low on was in the City of Brownwood on the locomotion. Some of the comments made by Thomas were not from our company, and again, we put in a very -- what we think is a competitive bid. Yes, we were over the estimate, but we gave y'all a good bid and we feel like that should be awarded, too.

But I'm more concerned with this Brazos River because we should not be punished because there was a quantity overrun. And again, we've proven before that we deal fairly with the State whenever there is change order work. Thank you very much.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Do you have any further questions on that project, the Brazos County project?

MR. LANEY: Any response to the comments that Mr. Carlton made?

MR. BOHUSLAV: The -- we don't have an issue so much with the overrun as bid, but the fact that the unit price -- with the change in the quantity, the unit price that has been supplied on the project would make a difference in who the low bidder is if we change the quantity. Yes, that is in the specifications whereby if there is a change in a major item, we can go back and renegotiate the amount over the 25 percent above the quantity, but that's not in the award process. In the award process, we take the low bidder, and if there is a mathematically or materially unbalanced bid, we can't award it to that apparent low bidder.

MS. WYNNE: Are you suggesting that this is a mathematically or materially unbalanced bid?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Well, what I'm suggesting is we made the error, and I would allow them to bid the second time around. If we consider it -- we reject it based on that, we would not allow them to bid the second time.

MS. WYNNE: Right. I just want to be clear: it's not a mathematically or materially unbalanced bid if it's our error.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We'd like to consider it an error, yes.

MS. WYNNE: I mean, it can't be.

MR. BOHUSLAV: They submitted the bid based on what they submitted, and we're not going to question that. We would like to consider it just an error and go back to rebid the project.

MS. WYNNE: Could we carve off this bid and vote and maybe talk about this in executive session?

MR. LANEY: Any questions about any other items in the proposed approval, with the rejections, other than this particular Brazos County project?

MR. NICHOLS: None from me.

MR. LANEY: Okay. I would propose, then, that we approve the proposal Thomas has made with the rejections, but we do not -- we remove from consideration at this point this item 3077, which is C.C. Carlton's bid and the Brazos River project. Can we have a motion on that basis?

MR. NICHOLS: I move that.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would add basically the same thing I mentioned last time, that out of 100 projects, 3.26 bids is low. It is cause for concern. I think it has to do with contractor capacity about as much as anything. However, as Thomas said, there's only .86 percent overrun over the engineers' estimates, but I think when you look at the last two years, we've gone from over six bids per project to an average of just over three, so we do have some concern about both costs and number of bids and contractor capacity and kind of the trend that's being set.

MR. LANEY: We're also seeing, if I'm not mistaken -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't think we've ever seen this many rejections in one package. It looks largely because of not enough competition or high cement prices.

MR. HEALD: Well, it's -- I shouldn't get into this, I suppose, but we're grinding out a lot of contracts and there's no magic formula on engineers setting up the right amount in the estimate to begin with, because some of them do have some strange things, such as was just mentioned on the Brazos River crossing.

On the Brownwood project, I don't know that I'm an expert on that one, but as I understand it, it is an enhancement project and it involves moving a train from one side of town to the other, and I think one of the key things is Brownwood is having a hard time coming up with our match. They're trying to look for ways to get the cost down on this particular project.

MR. LANEY: We'll send you back to Brownwood.

MR. HEALD: And it might involve my taxes, so that's the reason I've got a personal interest there.

(Laughter.)

MR. HEALD: All right. We have one contract claim. This is agenda Item 9(b), and Mike will handle it.

MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, this is for a claim on Project BH 95(184) in Upshur County. It's for the approval of a claim settlement for Diamond K Corporation who submitted to us a claim in the amount of $42,007.26. The Contract Claim Committee reviewed the claim and offered a settlement of $13,000, it was accepted by Diamond K Corporation on July 22, and we recommend that this minute order be adopted to settle this claim.

MR. LANEY: Any questions about the claim or the settlement proposal? Anne, can we have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Mr. Chairman, we have several minute orders for your consideration under Agenda Item 10. Routine Minute Orders. We'll take them one at a time.

First is 10(a), Speed Zones. Establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state.

MR. LANEY: Do you want to take them all at once?

MR. HEALD: We'll just handle them all at one time, if that's okay.

10(b), Right of Way Disposition, Purchase and Lease. In Hall County, consider the disposal of surplus warehouse site to Hall County on State Highway 170; 10(b)(2) Marion County, FM 727 at Caddo Lake, consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner; 10(b)(3), Scurry County, State Highway 350 at 34th Street in the City of Snyder, consider the partial release of a surplus channel easement.

10(c), Approval of Donation to the Department. Fort Bend County, US 59, acceptance of partial land donation.

10(d), Eminent Domain Proceedings. Various counties, request for eminent domain proceedings on non-controlled and controlled access highways. The list is attached.

And this is for your consideration.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

(No response.)

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

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: I was prepared to say there will be no executive session, but I'm prepared to say we will have an executive session. Mr. Thomas, you need to be sure and attend this also.

Do we have an open comment speaker?

MR. LANEY: Let's go ahead and take the open comment now. Mr. Michael Aulick, Austin Transportation Study. A frequent guest in these quarters. Welcome back, Michael.

MR. AULICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman Laney, Commissioners Wynne and Nichols, and Mr. Heald. My name is Michael Aulick. I'm the director of the Austin Transportation Study, and I'd like to make a comment here on behalf of Senator Barrientos and Mayor Watson relative to projects that we're requesting and funding that we have brought to you.

In February we requested two projects: US 183 project to the north and State Highway 71 East out to the new Bergstrom Airport that will open on May 1. Both of these projects are in the Austin city limits and the priority for these projects is State Highway 71 East is our first priority, and Highway 183 is our second priority.

The total cost of these projects is $72 million and -- if I can put up the next slide -- we are offering a total of $11 million in local money for these projects. In February we offered $4 million of STP 4(C) funds from fiscal year 2002, and since the draft UTP came out, ATS has approved $4 million additional dollars through a State Infrastructure Bank loan that is pending before TxDOT currently. And then the City of Austin has offered $3 million in cash towards these projects. So of the total $72.1 million, we're offering $11 million, about 15 to 20 percent of that cost.

Staff has recommended the southern half of the 183 project in the draft UTP. Because both of these projects are so important, we ask your favorable consideration for both of those. And we -- the Austin Metropolitan Area is trying to cooperate with the Commission by providing this money, something we haven't done in the past, and at this point I'd like for you to visualize a big check of $11 million, a virtual check, and ask for your favorable consideration.

The community is united behind these projects. They're unanimously adopted by ATS and by the City of Austin. We understand there's very strong competition for these funds. I think Austin, the metropolitan area, has not been a full participant in the funding process in the past, but now we are, and we're trying to catch up on both of these projects.

As I said, 71 East is important because it will go to the airport, Bergstrom Airport, which will open in eight months, May 1. The 183 project is important because it will connect the US 183 toll road project. And if I can show the next slide -- and these are in your packet -- the total cost for State Highway 71 East is $40 million; we've offered $6 million for that project, leaving a balance of 34. US 183 North, total cost $32 million. The staff, Mr. Heald, has recommended the southern half of that at $16 million; we're offering an additional $4 million, and so the balance needed for those is $12.1 million. As I say, our contribution is in the range of 15 to 20 percent on these projects.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Mr. Aulick.

Any questions? Do you have a question, Anne?

MS. WYNNE: I don't have a question. I'd just request of the staff to take a look at this. This is pretty revolutionary that we get money from the City of Austin. I've been here now almost six years and this is the first time I've seen any money come from the City. I don't know where this 71 project ranked, but I've long said that the fastest way to make money in Austin when the new airport opens is to open a helicopter pad downtown to get you to the airport because I don't know how all these people are going to get to the new airport.

So could you all look into these and see if there's some way that we could make it work now that we have some money from the City on the table.

You might have to go back and get a little bit more, Mike, but we'll take a look at it.

MR. AULICK: Every year we get more.

MS. WYNNE: Yes. We like that.

MR. NICHOLS: I just have a question. I got a little bit confused on the math. I just got this packet a while ago. The local participation by all the different elements is a total of $11 million or $15 million?

MR. AULICK: Eleven million.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Because I thought I heard you say 15 a couple of times.

MR. AULICK: No. I said the local contribution is in the range of 15 to 18 percent of the total project cost, but 11 million total dollars.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks.

MR. LANEY: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Aulick.

MR. AULICK: Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Bob Gammage, citizen, wants to speak with respect to the Roy B. Inks Dam in Llano. Mr. Gammage.

JUDGE GAMMAGE: Thank you very much.

I understand I've got three minutes and I'll try to be as constrained as I can. Oh, yes. We've got one of these, or we used to have one of those on the court. Commissioner Wynne, it's sort of strange being on this side of the bench from you, but I'm honored. Thank you very much.

MS. WYNNE: Thank you, sir.

JUDGE GAMMAGE: Appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today. I'll try to be brief. I'm here, as I say, representing the Roy B. Inks Bridge in Llano, Texas. I have some exhibits. I was going to try to mark them up for you before I handed them out. I'd like for you to go with me through them, if you will, and I'll try to be very brief. They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

That color picture on top is the Roy B. Inks Bridge in Llano, Texas. It was built in 1936. It is a designated location on the National Register of Historic Places, as is the entire downtown community of Llano, the entire courthouse square area.

You can see this picture in the lower left was taken from the tower of the courthouse. That is Ford Street intersecting with Main Street; that's the main intersection in town on the courthouse square, and you can see one 18-wheeler headed south right now, had just come across the bridge.

The next page is a map. There's a series of about seven maps, just to try to give you some focus. Llano County is the westernmost county in the Austin-San Antonio corridor, the NAFTA corridor, the commercial corridor, the development corridor that everybody is talking about. It's intersected by Highway 71, Highway 16 and Highway 29. Highway 29 is east-west; Highway 71 runs from the southeast to the northwest; Highway 16 runs north-south.

The bridge is part of Highway 16. If you go on to other maps, the next one will give you a little more perspective, bringing it in. If you'll go on to what I think is the fourth map -- since I'm short on time -- you will see where the population center of Llano is. That star there is the county courthouse, that star right in the center.

You will see where the highways intersect; you will see back in the early '70s when Highway 71 was improved, they dead-ended it into Highway 16. Highway 71, over to the northwest, takes up again off of Highway 29. It was intended at that time to build a loop west of the city. That project has gone by the boards. Nobody is really interested in that now. I don't think the truckers are or anyone else. Maybe the contractors, but nobody really wants that who lives there.

However, most of the people -- and I've got to admit, the business community is a little divided -- most of the citizens who know what's going on, who are informed at this time, are opposed to having the Roy B. Inks Bridge torn up, or having 18-wheelers and pass-through highway traffic routed right through the historic center of town. It would bisect the population center of the community of Llano.

Highway 29 that runs east-west from Burnet over to Mason -- 71 takes up and heads over to Brady off of that -- is a commercial strip. It's developed into a strip center, if you will. We've got Taco Bell, we've got Pizza Hut, we've got Sonic, and some of you may be familiar with Cooper's Barbecue out there. We have four barbecue places in Llano. They're all honored by the Texas Monthly as top 50; Cooper's is one of the top three. If you haven't been there, I'll invite you. I'll buy your dinner, if that's ethical, just to introduce you to our town, because I'm going to make you look at the rest of it after lunch.

The next map gives you an even more graphic view. That is an historic railroad coming in there. It's being revived. Trains have come in there a couple of times the last two years. They're going to start trying to come in a couple of times a week, eventually probably every day, probably several times a day if it works out. But it also is on the Center of Historic -- excuse me -- National Register of Historic Places, the bridge is, the town is. And just keep going, folks.

What we're concerned about is not the historic nature of the bridge, though, so much as we are the quality of life in our community. We don't really like the idea of additional hazardous materials being hauled through the population center of that community, not just the business community, but the population center. It's a small town and those businesses are surrounded by residences. There's not a lot of places to go.

If you go back to the third-to-the-last map that I gave you, you will see over to the right, Oatmeal Creek on the river near the railroad tracks. That little road going right there used to be -- that north-south road used to be the highway into Llano. That used to be 71 before the improvements on 71 in the early '70s.

And this is an alternative I haven't seen considered anywhere. If a truck route were run north to south from 71 to 29, you would avoid the population center of Llano, you would avoid going through two school districts that the trucks now go through, and you'd have people going to Llano, hopefully, instead of through Llano.

We do invite people to come there, we do want people there, we are growing, we are thriving. There are other materials about historic Llano and whatever, but what we're after is preserving our quality of life and not having it destroyed. Traffic is such, commerce is such, the economy is such that there is eventually going to be a truck route, a highway vehicle route around the population center in Llano. In the next 20 to 30 years it's going to be an absolute necessity.

I would only ask you why would you want to go destroy that community, rip up an historic bridge, funnel traffic through the population center when you're going to have to bypass it anyway at some point.

My time is long expired. I'll be happy to accept any questions that you have.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Gammage. Appreciate it very much.

Anne, do you have any questions, comments?

MS. WYNNE: Judge, I know that you all are involved in the process.

JUDGE GAMMAGE: Yes, we are.

MS. WYNNE: Has there been a public hearing or there's going to be a public hearing?

JUDGE GAMMAGE: There have been no public hearings in Llano. We have filed open records requests; we're going to renew those requests because it was largely unresponsive. We have engineering studies that indicate that there has been no significant deterioration on this bridge. The oldest study they gave us was 1984, the most recent was 1996.

It won't hold some of the highway loads that people want to put on it, but it will hold the loads that are going over it now. And it certainly -- if you maintain Highway 16 north to south from Fredericksburg up to San Saba, Cherokee -- and they've expanded the road to four lanes up there -- it would still serve as a state highway.

Coming back from Houston -- I was in court down there yesterday or day before yesterday -- and driving back I stopped in LaGrange, I stopped in Columbus, I stopped in Bastrop, and I note that they're all bypassed. They all, however, have thriving downtown communities. Columbus has two iron bridges across the Colorado, two-lane iron bridges, one on 90 and one on 71, a bypass around. They have a thriving downtown community. They're not a ghost town. They're not going broke. They also have a little strip area that's developed out there.

You go into LaGrange, they still have their two-lane iron bridge across the Colorado on their business historic route -- which we would like to maintain. We don't want to shut everybody out.

MS. WYNNE: Right. I hope your business community becomes more aware of situations where we've been able to do just what you're talking about.

JUDGE GAMMAGE: We're trying to get the information, Commissioner, so that we can educate the community because we're educating ourselves along the way. We're waiting for traffic count information that we've requested. We're having forensic engineers examine the data that has been given to us so that we can -- we're dead serious about it.

MS. WYNNE: Well, you resubmit that Open Records Act, and we will be responsive.

JUDGE GAMMAGE: We have submitted it, and we're renewing our submission because it wasn't as responsive as we would have liked.

One thing does disturb us. Back in as early as December 1996, the engineers who were involved this talked about alternatives, options on how they're going to replace the bridge. They've never talked about preserving the bridge except as a one-way artery to funnel traffic through town and possibly build another one-way artery adjacent to it. That's not what we want.

MR. LANEY: Comments, Mr. Nichols?

MR. HEALD: If you'd allow me -- and I probably shouldn't get off into this, and I'm not an expert, but I did talk to the district engineer yesterday and we were scheduled to start our public involvement process, I believe, next month.

JUDGE GAMMAGE: September. Yes, sir.

MR. HEALD: I asked him yesterday to delay it and to look at some engineering cost estimates on some possible bypasses or loops, or whatever you refer to them.

JUDGE GAMMAGE: We really do appreciate that, Mr. Heald.

MR. HEALD: We're going to take another look at it. Probably will reschedule some time late in the year or early next year. So we're going to --

JUDGE GAMMAGE: It was sort of hard to swallow that public input was going to have a whole lot of meaning if we're going to do it in September, have a decision next spring and the decision was made a year and a half ago. We would really like to be a part of the process.

MR. HEALD: The project that's set up, it is a funded project, and it was programmed with Federal Aid Bridge On-system funds. It's a $6 million job. As I understand it, the district proposal was to take the old bridge, not tear it down, but to move it just immediately upstream or immediate downstream, save it for historic purposes, perhaps let it be a pedestrian bridge or bridge for pedestrians and build a new four-lane bridge which would connect both the north and the south ends of it -- it's four lane now -- anyway, a new concrete bridge. That's what little I know about it.

JUDGE GAMMAGE: Well, there are two-lane highways coming into Llano. All the highways coming into Llano are two-lane. Highway 71 is two-lane. It's four-lane over as far as 281. It's got shoulders as far as Horseshoe Bay. It doesn't even have shoulders past Horseshoe Bay.

MR. HEALD: Oh, I meant just immediately north and south.

JUDGE GAMMAGE: Immediately north and south, but if they build that bridge, they're going to have to tear the front off the historical museum which used to be the old Brull Drugstore and it's one of the historically designated places as well.

We would like some reconsideration. I don't purport to represent the entire community of Llano at this point. Our business community, those who have been vocal about it, is divided on it: some are for it, some are against it. No one wants to put the strip on Highway 29 out of business. In fact, I think most of us would like to see more development over there and traffic funneled through there. The vast majority of us do not want it funneled through the center of town and the courthouse square.

And another bridge beside the old one or moving it for a foot bridge and putting a four-laner in there would not solve that problem. We'd still have the hazardous materials. We'd still have the heavy through traffic. We want the to traffic at that point, not the through traffic.

And to the extent that we can arouse them, we're going to have many citizens in Llano participate in this. We want to educate ourselves, we want to educate them, we all want to be better informed, fully informed. It sort of sneaked up on us, quite frankly. It's a sleepy little town. That's why most of us are there.

MR. LANEY: Any comments, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: No. I would reserve my comments till after the process with the community meetings.

JUDGE GAMMAGE: Thank you very, very much.

MR. LANEY: We appreciate your comments, Judge. Thank you.

Do we have anybody else signed up?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: At this time, the meeting will be recessed for the Commission to meet in executive session pursuant to notice as given in the meeting agenda filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. The executive session is for the purpose of seeking legal counsel in connection with the one issue we reserved in connection with the contracting approvals.

We will reconvene at 11:35. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the meeting was recessed, to reconvene at 11:35 a.m., following executive session.)

MR. LANEY: The meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is reconvened.

The Commission has concluded its executive session with no action being taken on any matter. We had reserved for later action item number 3077, a contract let for a project in the Bryan District relating to the Brazos River, and staff had proposed that we reject the bid. I would like to make a motion that we follow the staff's recommendation and reject the bid based primarily on a mistake in the bid process. Any comments or questions? If not, can I have a second?

MS. WYNNE: I second the motion.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion. Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Thanks.

(Whereupon, at 11:49 a.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: August 26, 1998

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers

1 through 102, 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.

08/31/98

(Transcriber) (Date)

On the Record Reporting, Inc.

3307 Northland, Suite 315

Austin, Texas 78731