TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, November 19, 1998

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

DEPARTMENT STAFF:

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

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. LANEY: Good morning. I'd like to call the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order, and I'd like to welcome all of you to the November 19, 1998, meeting of the Commission. It's a pleasure to have all of you here today.

As we head into the holiday season, let me just, on behalf of the Commission and the Department, caution everybody -- to the extent you're going to be driving -- it is a dangerous season, so be very, very careful on our highways.

I would note for the record that public notice of the meeting, containing all items of the agenda, was filed with the Secretary of State's Office at three o'clock p.m., November 10, 1998.

We have two delegations today, in addition to our regular business agenda, and we'll be hearing from quite a few people, I think, other than those two delegations, perhaps in our public comment period following the normal business.

Before we get going, I wanted to give the other members of the Commission the opportunity to say anything or add any comments that they'd like on the front end.

Anne, would you like to add anything?

MS. WYNNE: No, thanks.

MR. LANEY: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I appreciate everyone being here also. You might have noticed charts in the lobby that very descriptively show some of our funding needs and problems. Take a look at them.

That's all. Thanks.

MR. LANEY: I reiterate what he says: It's worth taking a look at, particularly a couple of the charts that are very instructive about some of the major financial issues facing the Department as we head into the next session, and indicative, also, of the help we're going to need in the session in wrestling a couple of the major issues to the ground, particularly relating to highway funding and DPS allocations and the point of collection of the fuel tax.

What we are facing is a very difficult issue with respect to our state match of an additional $200 million a year without some rearrangement with DPS. And what we are leaving on the table, we believe -- with respect to the point of fuel tax collection, currently at the retail or distribution level, and proposed by us to be moved to the rack -- terminal rack or wholesale level -- is in magnitude almost inconceivable, what we think is on the table.

So please take a look at it. It is important to the Department, and I think it's important to all Texas, with respect to transportation issues.

Let's go ahead and move into our delegation presentations. As a reminder on the front end, I'd like to remind the delegations to adhere, to the extent you can, to the 20-minute limitation.

CITY OF WICHITA FALLS

(Mayor Kay Yeager, Judge Nick Gipson, Rep. John Hirschi, Bruce Schneider for Sen. Tom Haywood, Jim Boynton for Rep. Charles Finnell)

MR. LANEY: The first delegation this morning is the City of Wichita Falls to discuss improvements to 287 and US 82 in the City of Wichita Falls. And let me call on Wichita Falls Mayor Kay Yeager.

Welcome back, Mayor Yeager. Glad to have you back.

MAYOR YEAGER: Thank you. It's good to be here for our what, third annual appearance? We have a long way to go to get with the mayor from the East Texas community who has been here what, 40 times or whatever.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR YEAGER: It is a pleasure to be here this morning, and I thank you, Chairman Laney, Commissioners Wynne and Nichols, Director Heald. I am, as you said, Kay Yeager, Mayor of the City of Wichita Falls.

We are especially pleased this morning to have with us Representative Hirschi; and, also, representing Senator Haywood, Bruce Schneider; and Jim Boynton representing Representative Charles Finnell, who could not be here this morning. We, again, appreciate this opportunity to appear before you.

I would also like to recognize and express my appreciation to Judge Nick Gipson, and to the Highway Needs Committee of Wichita Falls, Wichita County, chaired by Clarence Muleberger who keeps after us to keep this push for our highway transportation going.

We are certainly appreciative of the support of the Commission for the funding of the US 287 overhead and creating the Priority Corridor System. This is a major step towards an improved highway system in the North Central Texas area, one that is fundamental to our presentation today.

Further, we are grateful for the cooperation and support that we continually receive from the entire staff in the Wichita Falls District office, as well as the staff here in Austin. We appreciated the support that we received from Gene Adams who was all too briefly our interim District Engineer; and we are very pleased with the positive, progressive, and cooperative attitude of Joe Nelson, our new District Engineer. He's only been on board for about two weeks, but we really look forward to a great relationship with him.

It is our intent to continue to work in a very close and cooperative manner with everyone at TxDOT, from the Commission down. We appreciate the efforts, again, of the staff to meet the November timeline of the overhead, and anticipate moving forward with this long-anticipated project.

Certainly everything we discuss with you today continues to recognize our neighbors, both to our north and south, to promote the economic development of North Central Texas by developing our highway system, Interstate 44, US 287, 82, and 277, into a safe, efficient, modern corridor of surface transportation and rural, one that is beneficial not only to our economic well-being, but also to that of the entire State of Texas and Oklahoma, as well as the eastern part of the United States.

Basically, we are here today to request completion of the Kell Freeway project which was begun in 1967, a project that still remains only 30 percent complete, and to request the design and construction of the interchange between US 287 overhead and Kell Freeway and the on-ramp to provide access to the overhead from Fifth Street.

As you will recall, just last spring, the Commission designated US 277/US 83 as a Phase 1 priority corridor. As you will see in the ensuing video presentation, the request that we are presenting today would create a vital link between the corridor and the overhead. In fact, another item on your agenda today is a request to designate Kell Freeway as US 277, and the current US 277 through Wichita Falls as Business 277. This designation, along with the completion of Kell Freeway, would provide a much safer and more efficient means of transportation through Wichita Falls.

Everything that we are presenting today would bring to fruition and completion partnerships and commitments that began some 30 years ago.

At this time, I would like to begin the video to give you a visual concept of the projects that we are seeking.

(Whereupon, a videotape was presented.)

MAYOR YEAGER: Here we see the relationship between 287, the proposed overhead, and Kell Freeway. This is the area where the interchange would be. While the Kell Freeway right of way is generally 450 feet, at this point it is 1,100 feet wide. Notice the termination of the main lanes to the west.

This is the current exit west from US 287 to the Kell frontage road. Note the turning movements and the lane changing. Here's a view exiting from Kell turning north onto US 287. Note the 90-degree turn onto the frontage road. The accident rate within this two-block area is higher than would be expected because of the turns and merging traffic. Without the interchange, these conditions would continue upon the completion of the overhead, increasing problems with traffic flow and safety, and negating the effectiveness of the overhead.

Here we look westward at the 2.2 miles of main lanes that were completed in 1988. At the end of the westbound main lanes, the frontage roads again carry the full traffic load. From this point westward, Kell Freeway primarily consists of two sets of three-lane frontage roads.

Traffic counts during the past 20 years have increased at an average yearly rate of 7.35 percent, accelerating the deterioration of the frontage roads. TxDOT has just completed a $2.3 million maintenance contract for repairs on the frontage roads, leaving more than half of the job to be done. Note the rebar rust, the longitudinal and transverse cracking, and the spalling remaining to be done.

We look again at the section for which we are requesting Priority 1 status. Within the next week, the schematic prepared by Carter-Burgess is expected to be delivered to Austin to hopefully begin plan preparation. This segment is 1.6 miles of main lanes and includes three grade separations.

This is perhaps the area of the most intense and largest scale development at the current time. Commercial development has been significant along this western Kell corridor, and the pressure continues to increase. Within the last year, we have seen the construction of a 68,000-square-foot state of the art supermarket, the start of a new car dealership, the completion and opening of another large dealership, the opening of two retirement centers, and the start of Kell West Regional Hospital, and a regional oncology center.

A new 62,000-square-foot retail center fronting on Kell, 124,000-square-foot shopping center fronting on Kell, and a 224,000-square-foot prototype regional

Wal-Mart are all planned along the Kell corridor for 1999.

The Priority 2 status awarded last year ended here and did not include the bridge at Fairway. We can see the challenge presented by not having the Fairway grade separation, with the traffic exiting the main lanes having to traverse the intersection, and then going up onto the last half mile of the completed main lanes.

Now we follow the rest of Kell, exiting the main lanes, and again seeing the completed frontage roads. We are requesting Priority 2 status for the rest of this project from the completed lanes to its connection with the Phase 1 Priority Corridor. All utilities have been relocated, and dirt has been impounded for the bridges at all grade separations since 1976. Planned for 1999 at this intersection is construction of a 104-acre regional Alzheimer's treatment center.

We are looking at the western end of Kell, US 82, showing the frontage roads and the right of way as they merge with US 277 and transition into a four-lane undivided road to Holliday and then west-southwest to Abilene, the US 277 Phase 1 priority corridor.

Since 1967, we have spent $3 million for right of way acquisition. This was spent when the split for the acquisition was 50-50 instead of today's 90-10 split. In today's dollars, that $3 million is approximately $14-1/2 million.

We removed 448 properties from the tax rolls in 1967 as the right of way was purchased. Conservatively, the City, the County and the school district have lost approximately $18 million in tax revenues.

The community feels that we have made a considerable monetary contribution to this project through our 50-50 right of way purchase and the loss in tax revenue. We feel that the city has upheld its commitment on Kell Freeway.

We realize that our traffic problems and project size pale in comparison to problems in other parts of the state, but to Wichita Falls and North Central Texas, they pose real and big problems and barriers to the economic development of this area.

While Kell Freeway can be seen by some as a local issue, its completion is an integral part of a statewide transportation system. It is obviously the connection that would complete the Wichita Falls-Abilene Priority 1 Corridor. Upon completion of that corridor, it would be a travesty to dump increased truck and automobile traffic on the access roads that, as you have seen, are deteriorating and have exceeded their design life.

It would be a consummation of the north end of an alternate NAFTA corridor, providing relief for the

I-35/US-59/I-69 corridors, opening the door for economic development and redevelopment in a large portion of our state. It would indeed open the door to opportunities of developing multi-modal and intermodal transportation facilities in North Central Texas.

With the current air quality problems in the DFW area, we should all be cognizant of what is probably the largest contributing factor: NAFTA truck traffic. This alternate route would assist DFW in reducing vehicle emissions and congestion by trade traffic. The I-20 node at Abilene, upon the completion of the Phase 1 Priority Corridor provides an almost immediate relief to some of the problems of the Metroplex.

But perhaps most importantly is the opportunity to significantly enhance this major transportation artery through a rural portion of North Texas, an opportunity to expand the social well-being and economic opportunities for not only Wichita Falls but also our neighbors in the 360 degrees around us, to allow us to become a contributor to the growth and quality of life of our state and to realize the full utilization of our natural and agricultural resources.

At this time, I would like to ask Judge Nick Gipson, Wichita County Judge, to conclude our presentation.

JUDGE GIPSON: Good morning. Every time I follow Mayor Yeager, I kind of feel like following Juan Gonzalez after he's hit a grand slam, and the best thing I think I can do is, at the very best, get on base and certainly don't strike out.

I come here today with mixed emotions, because at the end of this year, I do leave office as Wichita County Judge, and this will be the last time I'll get to come before this Commission, and we've been coming now for our third annual meeting. But let me say that the achievements that we've accomplished over the last few years, through the efforts of this Commission, have been something that have been a high point of my tenure in office for the 13 years, so let me thank you all for that.

My task or my job on this team today is to give you a summary of what we're asking. And although we've given you a five-minute video and Mayor Yeager has told you, in pretty capsulized form, what we're trying to get across to you, let me summarize what we are asking. And you can look at the overhead.

In summary, we're asking the Commission to: number one, fulfill its commitment to complete the 30-year-old Kell project, moving a segment from Kemp west to Fairwway, including the Fairway grade separation to Priority 1, and the rest of Kell West to the connection of currently designated US 277 to Priority 2.

Secondly, we're asking you to move the interchange at US 287 and the Kell Freeway, as well as the Fifth Street on-ramp, to Priority 1. On your overhead, as you can see, there's your Priority 1 and your Priority 2, and then way up here is the ramp that we're talking about, the Fifth Street ramp.

As we view the overall request, in addition to the anticipated letting of the contract for the US 287 overhead project, the timing for granting our request falls into a sequential order where both funding and construction would follow in a very logical order and progression.

There are economies of proceeding to Priority 1 on the Kell project, as outlined here, including the grade separation at Fairway to connect with the completed main lanes just west of there; there are economies of proceeding with the interchange between Kell and US 287 towards the end of the overhead construction; there are economies of proceeding with the on-ramp from Fifth Street to the overhead as the overhead construction is completed and proceeds.

With your help and support, we can realize dreams that began 30 years ago, commitments that were made over 30 years ago, and connections that must be made to complete a corridor that has vast implications, not only for Wichita Falls and North Central Texas, but for the entire state. We ask for your serious consideration of this immediate logical progression of these projects by moving up the priorities as we're requesting.

As you know, we have built a good relationship with this Commission based upon trust and forthright discussions of issues, which have proved to be worthy of the funding and the completion to better our area of the state. We come to you again with the projects before you asking for the same support.

Again, it's been my pleasure to come before you the last few years, and I'm always going to reflect upon these occasions in fond memory. So, thank you for your attention.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Judge.

Also signed up to speak on this particular issue is Representative John Hirschi. This is going to be your last time to appear, too.

REPRESENTATIVE HIRSCHI: That's why I've got a smile on my face.

(General laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE HIRSCHI: Thank you, Commissioners, for hearing me this morning.

It was my great pleasure to have arisen at five o'clock this morning in order to appear before you in support of this much needed project. I think the need for this long overdue project is obvious, and I hope very much that you will favorably consider our request. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

Bruce Schneider, representing Senator Tom Haywood.

MR. SCHNEIDER: Commissioners, thank you for allowing me to make a few brief comments on Senator Haywood's behalf. My name is Bruce Schneider, and I'm Senator Haywood's District Coordinator based in Wichita Falls, Texas. Tom asked that I convey to you his strong support for the development and completion of the I-44, US 287, US 82, and US 277 projects.

Senator Haywood recognizes that the Kell Freeway project, begun in 1967, needs to be completed and urges Kell's completion at the earliest possible date. Additionally, Senator Haywood urges the designation of Kell Freeway as US 277, and the current US 277 as Business 277.

Senator Haywood asked me to convey to you if he can help you or if his staff can help you on this project or any other projects, please feel free to call. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Schneider.

Jim Boynton, representing Representative Finnell.

MR. BOYNTON: It's a pleasure to be before you. I'm a last-minute call-in. Until this morning, Representative Finnell was planning to be here, but some business back in the district has kept him there.

He wants to thank you for all the help you have provided on these projects in the last few years, and would point out our wholehearted support for this current proposal, which he thinks would make more logical the Corridor 1 status that you gave last. And so with that, I will get by. Thank you all.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

Mayor, I understand the bids on the elevated portion over Wichita Falls were opened last week.

MAYOR YEAGER: That's correct.

MR. LANEY: That's exciting progress, I would think.

MAYOR YEAGER: We're looking forward to it.

MR. LANEY: That isn't enough?

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: You don't need to respond to that.

MAYOR YEAGER: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Commissioner Nichols or Wynne, do either of you have any comments or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No. I have no comments.

MS. WYNNE: Once again, you all have done a good job of stating your case. And for these elected officials that think that you're not welcome as regular citizens, we want you to know that you can come back in any unofficial capacity and support other projects.

You're on your way, and in slow steps -- don't give up on us -- I think we'll get you all there.

MAYOR YEAGER: We'll keep coming back.

MS. WYNNE: Please do.

MAYOR YEAGER: Thank you all.

MR. LANEY: Let me mention a couple of things. I think, at least with me, and I'll bet with each of the others, you hit a nerve when you talk about the fact that in 1967 or '70s or whatever it was, that we, in effect, took property like this off your tax rolls, and it's been sitting there with dirt impounded and ready to roll since the late '60s or early '70s. We have a couple of other situations like that around the state, and every time I see them, it's like fingernails on a blackboard.

It's very difficult to justify why we haven't done that, or maybe the other way around, why we did it then. And that, I can't assume responsibility for, but I think there is a need here. How quickly we move this direction remains to be seen. These are expensive projects and important, I know, to Wichita Falls.

You got our attention. We'll take a look at these very closely and get back with you all on them.

But I did want to take a minute, since this is Representative Hirschi's probable last appearance -- I know it would have been Representative Finnell's last appearance -- and Judge Gipson's, we have certainly enjoyed interactions with you all over the last several years and very much appreciate all of your input and guidance and responsiveness when we needed it. And we intend to continue to be responsive to you all to the extent we can be, even after you're out of office.

So we very much appreciate all your input and involvement, and would encourage you, as Anne just did, to continue it.

So if there are no other questions on this, appreciate the presentation. I know it is a big effort, particularly a big effort to get up and drive at five o'clock in the morning from Wichita Falls -- or fly, as the case may be, whatever way you went. We appreciate the effort and look forward to getting back to you and working with you in the future.

Why don't we recess for about five minutes and allow the Wichita Falls delegation to move on out.

Please do take a look at the placards on the way out. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

UPTOWN HOUSTON DISTRICT

(Judge Robert Eckels, John Butler, Senator Mario Gallegos, Senator Jon Lindsay, Gary Trietsch)

MR. LANEY: Our second delegation this morning is the new thriving metropolis of Uptown Houston which is not on our map yet, but we will probably get it on the map after today, I think.

The Uptown Houston District to discuss the reconstruction of IH 610 in the City of Houston. Glad to call on our good friend Judge Robert Eckels. Glad to have you back, Judge Eckels, to lead off the presentation. Welcome.

Let me just mention there is a little control on the right side that you can raise the dais with. It looks a little low for you.

JUDGE ECKELS: This is pretty slick; we need one of these at the Commissioners Court.

MR. LANEY: It cost $14 million.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE ECKELS: Maybe if I could control it from behind the table, it might be worth that.

MR. LANEY: He can; watch out.

JUDGE ECKELS: I do thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here today with you and for your attention to the constituents across the state. I am here today as County Judge for Harris County, representing the region, as well as the Uptown Houston area, but also as the chairman of the Transportation Policy Council for the Houston-Galveston Area Council, our MPO for the Houston region.

I want to introduce our Harris County delegation that is here. I won't go through the individual introductions, but we do have with us Senator Lindsay and Senator Gallegos, as well as representatives of the Uptown Association and various folks around the Houston area, and parks folks, and some others that have been involved in discussion on this project. If you all could just raise your hands or stand up or something here to let them see the group that we have here today.

John Butler will conduct most of this presentation when we get to it, but I do want to again thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here to talk a little bit about the West Loop, the Interstate 610 system in Harris County. The West Loop is -- I would describe as the linchpin for the interstate system in our community.

The personal experiences I've had on the West Loop: I've been rear-ended twice on Westheimer and Richmond exit. Just by the grace of God that I haven't been the one doing the rear-ending in those two locations. I've done my share of that in the past in other places.

But it is a severely congested section of the freeway. It has issues that go much beyond those safety issues. The congestion restrains economic development in the area, I think, contributing to the urban sprawl problems in our community, but more importantly, it also affects dramatically the air quality in that region of the community, as well.

John Butler, a former member of this Commission will lay out most of our proposal today, but I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. We are going to be asking you for the funding to eliminate the gaps in this project. We have brought together, I think, a unique coalition of folks to support this, representing the community interests, environmental interests, park interests, the business interests, the folks who are traveling that freeway every day. It is not usual that we can get all of these groups to come together and agree on something, and that is what they have done here in this process.

And what we need is about $50 million to eliminate those gaps in the funding. The traffic counts are in the hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day. It is a big problem, and in order to make it work to its design capacity and efficiency, we need to make it a complete project, just not partial projects. So that's why we're here today.

And with that, I'll introduce to you John Butler and let him make the formal presentation, unless there are any immediate questions for me.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Judge.

Welcome back, John.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Familiar territory for you.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. Commissioner Wynne said did I miss being back here. I said, No, I don't have to come up here every month. But it's good to get back here.

Look, I'll dispense with some of the formal salutations and so on, in the interest of brevity. I know that there's a great premium on brevity, having sat back there.

Known locally as the West Loop -- and by the way, we have kind of a slide show, so you might want to turn to look at it. But known locally as the West Loop, Houston's Interstate Highway 610 is just about 30 years old. The world has changed a great deal since I-610 was constructed. Thirty years ago there was no Galleria. Downtown was Houston's only office center, and Tanglewood which abuts the Galleria area, was a suburban community. Today Tanglewood is considered a close-in neighborhood along the West Loop, Uptown has grown to be the third largest employment center in Texas, and the Galleria is recognized as an internationally famous shopping Mecca. Designed almost 40 years ago, I-610 is trying to keep pace with the ever-changing environment.

Between 1963 and 1968, the West Loop was constructed to be the first loop around Houston; it was designed to accommodate 125,000 vehicles per day, while the pavement was intended to last 20 years. The original design of the freeway could not have anticipated the radical changes of Houston.

This project has been proposed to meet these changes. The proposed improvements to the West Loop run from Beechnut -- that's on the south -- through Bellaire, Uptown, Memorial Park, and on to I-10. The proposed project is a high priority for the Houston region. There's a great need for these improvements.

Equally importantly, we have reached a community consensus. The Commission and the District has committed $90 million for the construction of three of the five segments of the project. We respectfully request an additional $50 million to be allocated to fund the shortfall. This shortfall is defined as making important improvements in the gaps in the project. This will allow the much needed project to be implemented in a timely and efficient manner.

The West Loop is a high priority project for the Houston region. It connects three of the state's busiest freeways. It serves busy employment centers in Houston such as Uptown and Greenway Plaza. It is a key segment of Houston's transportation system. It serves work trips, delivery of goods and services, and interstate commerce.

Let's discuss the most significant reasons that show the need for these improvements. The West Loop is one of the most heavily traveled and congested freeways in the state of Texas. The congestion is legendary. The pavement has lasted ten years longer than the period for which it was designed. Due to the deteriorated pavement, maintenance costs for the temporary repair of the facility continue to increase.

The West Loop, as previously mentioned, was originally designed to carry 125,000 vehicles per day. Today the freeway accommodates 271,000 vehicles per day, giving it the distinction of the third most traveled freeway in the state.

The roadway remains at severely congested levels for more than 12 hours a day. In an attempt to ease the congestion, the outside shoulder has been converted into a travel lane. The congestion causes ramp queues to back into the freeway lanes. Unsafe weaving conditions result in accidents and further congestion.

I would have you look at the chart on this next slide. The red line is at 1,750 vehicles per hour per lane, and it represents the volume of traffic above which a facility is severely congested. The chart illustrates the West Loop operates at congested levels for over 12 hours a day.

I think it's kind of interesting to look at the peak on the left between 6:00 and 9:00, which would indicate that there is -- at the peak for the day. And what I think you find there is that all of the traffic on the freeway -- or certainly not all of it but a large part of it -- is coming into the Galleria area and exiting. So you have a fairly high efficiency -- I think as anyone would agree -- on the traffic flow.

If you'll notice, we have a very short period in the middle of the day that's below congested levels, between 10:00 and 11:00, and shortly after that, it ramps back up. The interesting thing is the p.m. peak, you don't, number one, get to the high levels that you had in the morning, but it lasts for many hours. I think the problem there has to do with the fact that you have a lot of weaving movements that really reduce the capacity of this section of freeway.

As an item of anecdotal interest, at six o'clock this morning on the way to the airport to attend this meeting, it took me about 1-1/2 miles to move over three lanes to avoid having to make an exit on 59 South. That's right in that period where the traffic is growing, and I'm always confounded when I get out at six o'clock in the morning that I see a section of freeway almost at peak levels.

Another common measure of congestion is vehicles per lane per day. Typically, planners have used a threshold of 13,000 vehicles per day per lane as defining a congested facility. The West Loop carries between 27,000 and 32,000 vehicles per lane per day. I think anyone would agree that's an extremely high level of congestion.

The use of the shoulder as a travel lane only exacerbates the deterioration of the pavement. This is a picture of the West Loop at four o'clock in the afternoon on Tuesday: Stop-and-go conditions already exist; high demand at limited entrance and exit ramps result in excessively long queues; unsafe weaving conditions create accidents and increase congestion; congestion encourages drivers to take additional risks and violate basic traffic laws.

A case in point is the entrance ramp to the right of the picture. Motorists tired of waiting in traffic actually use this single lane entrance ramp as a two-lane entrance ramp. And I would say that is a common condition. I office just to the right of that, and that's more typical than it is unusual.

The West Loop has far exceeded the useful life of the original pavement. Although TxDOT has actively repaired the roadway surface, the rate of deterioration exceeds the rate of repair. Examples of the types of pavement failures present on the West Loop -- this looks a little bit like what we just saw from Wichita Falls.

The successful effort of TxDOT in repairing some of these worse sections of pavement has improved the overall ride quality of the pavement. Even though TxDOT has performed full-depth concrete repair on the West Loop, within the last six months, pavement sections are still in need of repair.

The pavement deterioration along the West Loop has begun to accelerate in recent years. This is due to the excessive loading, increased truck traffic, and greater-than-expected traffic volumes. Spalling and pinchouts are common along the West Loop. Here the repeated pounding of vehicle loads has destroyed the structural integrity of the roadway.

The pavement repair costs on the West Loop for the past three years have totaled $5.27 million. Preventive maintenance is only a short-term fix and will require additional repair at an ever-increasing rate. In short, this is a Band-Aid on a symptom; it does not address the problem. In addition, the night work required for such a heavily traveled area increases the cost of maintenance work. As evidenced from the slide, the maintenance costs on the West Loop have increased exponentially over the last ten years. This trend will only continue until the freeway can be reconstructed.

Credit should be given to the Houston District Engineer, Gary Trietsch, who is here today, and his staff for the maintenance work performed on the West Loop thus far.

Given the great need for the project in terms of mobility and maintenance, TxDOT has developed an improvement plan which meets the needs of the West Loop and the Houston community. The proposed plan minimizes merges and weaves, provides new entrance and exits, and maintains lane balance, while providing a new roadway surface, including bridges and improved safety features.

All of these improvements will enhance the operational efficiency of the freeway without adding -- and let me just emphasize -- without adding main lane capacity. We, obviously, would like to have a lot of new main lanes, but we realize that's not within your means. This does a lot to improve the efficiency of existing lanes.

The proposed plan will reduce congestion and reduce maintenance costs, while improving air quality and public safety. I don't have to tell you the issue of air quality that Houston faces.

The operational improvements address operational deficiencies to the West Loop, eliminating weaving movements that are core to the congestion problem. Once again, the credit needs to be given to Gary Trietsch and his team of engineers. This plan recognizes and effectively addresses the deficiencies in the West Loop, all achieved without the addition of main lane capacity.

Reaching a consensus for the West Loop has been a long and arduous process. Several improvement plans have been offered to the community; one or more local community groups have rejected each of the proposed plans. However, recently, local groups formed the West Loop Coalition in an attempt to cooperatively work to reach a consensus for much-needed mobility improvement.

The coalition is comprised of entities representing the park and environmental interests, Uptown business interests, homeowner associations, the City of Houston Parks Department, and the City of Bellaire. After more than four months of intensive planning and numerous iterations, TxDOT and the coalition reached consensus on the geometrics of the proposed plan.

Present today are representatives of the West Loop Coalition. I'd like to introduce Sadie Gwin-Blackburn, who is the former chairman -- and that was for 24 years -- of the Memorial Park Advisory Board, and the current chairman of that board, Claire Caldwell. If you all would stand -- they're sitting right here -- and we would like to introduce them to you. And they have been very important to this process.

Honorable David Strauss, council member from the City of Bellaire, was to be on the plane with us, but either missed the plane or got hung up in traffic -- I'm not sure which. And Kendall Miller and John Breeding represent the Uptown Houston Association.

The Houston-Galveston Area Council -- that is our local metropolitan planning organization -- supports these projects. The projects are included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, and conform to the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality Attainment.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority also recognizes the proposed plan. An envelope was reserved within the proposed I-610 improvements for future transit facilities. Metro has now begun a major investment study regarding the use of the West Loop as part of its transit and high-occupancy vehicle system.

Although a plan has been developed that meets the needs of the West Loop and the Houston community, adequate funding has not been committed to permit the construction or complete construction of the project.

Now, this is really key, and I really wish you would look at this particular slide. This proposed project is comprised of five individual segments. Two of the segments have yet to secure construction funding. These are the gaps that the judge spoke about earlier. This funding gap leaves the West Loop in pieces of partially funded projects.

And this is the most important statement, I think, that I will make today: Partial construction of the West Loop would create a traffic nightmare during construction, with the end product itself providing no visible sign of congestion relief.

You're talking about one of the most heavily traveled arteries that clearly needs to be maintained. We're talking about tremendous disruption to the traveling public, and there will be no measurable relief of the congestion without adding the funding for these two gaps.

Total construction cost of all five segments of the proposed project is $140 million. Now, if you look at the chart there, the 1999 Approved Unified Transportation Program has allocated $90 million to construct three of the five segments. Of that, $50 million has been reserved and programmed by the District. The Commission here has allocated $40 million, again for the maintenance improvements.

What we're asking for is this unfunded shortfall of $50 million to improve these two gaps. The delegation respectfully requests the Commission to commit this additional $50 million.

By the way, there's a schematic. It involves really some access roads and some ramps that allow us to bypass the major freeways so that you could enter outside of the congestion area, you can enter the main lanes of 610. And we think this will markedly reduce the congestion. And my experience with living there, there's no question this needs to be addressed.

The Houston region recognizes the importance of the West Loop to the entire metropolitan area. There's no question as to the need for improvements on the West Loop. Severe traffic congestion negatively impacts air quality and the local economy. The pavement condition is deteriorating at an ever-increasing rate creating a greater maintenance liability.

Houston community interests have worked cooperatively with TxDOT to reach a community consensus -- and we're very proud of that -- in support of this proposed improvement plan, in order to accomplish this construction, and this additional $50 million is needed to secure the solution. Your commitment to our request is welcomed by the citizens of Houston.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, John.

We have a couple of senators signed up to speak to us this morning. Senator Gallegos.

Welcome, Senator. Appreciate all your good work on the Senate Interim Committee on Transportation.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, Mr. Heald, Mr. Behrens and Mr. Pickett.

I think Mr. Butler really hit everything on the head. I did get up at five o'clock this morning to get here, knowing that I didn't have to go through the 610 Loop to get to the airport.

But I would like just to point out that most of the television channels in the morning, when they start the reports, they start at the 610 and West Loop. The majority of the loop that's in question here today for the additional funding sits in my district. The entire Galleria Mall area is in my district. That's why I'm here with the delegation to support the additional funding.

I think that the statistics that Mr. Butler pointed out to you, truly, I think they're more. And if you look just around the Galleria area, it's going to be worse here these next two months in November and December. I think that the delegation that's with me today will confirm that.

But I try not to go through the 610 and West Loop; I'm a firefighter, I know the back roads, and I'll catch Richmond or Westheimer and through the ones that say No Through Trucks Allowed, that's where I go.

But just to be brief, it's a mess, and really that area does need the additional funding on the Loop 610. And we're just asking for your support, along with my colleagues, Robert Eckels and Judge Lindsay. So anything you can help us with is deeply appreciated. And I'll answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Senator.

Senator Lindsay.

SENATOR LINDSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This might be the last time I get to be in front of you with Anne on the panel, and I want to thank especially Anne -- the rest of you as well, but Anne's past votes on things like the South Belt and the very delicate negotiations we had on acquisition of the bridge and all those kind of things. And it's all working, I'll report.

MS. WYNNE: Happy to hear it.

SENATOR LINDSAY: But, you know, I think it's safe to say, when you see 271,000 vehicles a day on this particular road -- although this is not in my district directly, but it's safe to say that my district, all seven of the senators that represent Harris County or part of Harris County, probably all 26 of the House members who represent part or all of Harris County, are affected by what happens on 610 West and the Loop, and so needless to say, we support -- I would imagine to a man, we support this project from the elected delegation. It's needed, there's no question about it. You've seen the presentation, and I know you'll do what needs to be done. And the bottlenecks, of course, are at two critical points: one at 59 and at I-10, the very worst places you could put those kind of bottlenecks, which is what will continue if we don't get the additional funds.

I know there's a fund problem. I hope to work with you during the session on that. I'm anxious to work with you during the session on that. I think we can be successful at least on some of it, if not all of it.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Senator.

I think we may have a few questions, and I don't know, John, if you're the one to answer them or not. Gary Trietsch might be the guy to answer them, and I don't know if he's here or not.

MS. WYNNE: He is.

MR. LANEY: We know you're there in case we need you, Gary.

Robert, any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I was going to compliment you on developing a consensus in that area. I know it was a very difficult thing, there was a lot of groups, but I highly compliment you on that. I think everyone understands the critical nature of this.

The one thing that I keep seeing on my sheets that you didn't talk about: the high volume today, but over the next 15, 20 years, the projected volume that's going to be on top of that being a 45 percent increase in volume -- where are those vehicles going to be.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. We've got a serious long-term problem there. This problem of the weaving -- and what we're trying to solve right now is the weaving. We know you've got limited funds, and there's a long-term problem there, but this probably is the single most cost-effective project that I think I've ever seen.

I'm really surprised, and I've got to take my hat off. I think Uptown, the park coalitions -- I think everybody really deserves to stand up and give applause to Gary and his staff. They're the ones who worked this out.

And fundamentally, what we're talking about is providing entrance points outside that do not require all this additional weaving. It does limited violence, you might say, to the notion of peaceful communities and the tranquility of the park, and I think that's why we were able to reach consensus.

Gary and his staff first came up with the ability to solve most of the problem on the south end, and what we simply did was said, Let's look at flipping it and solving the north end of the problem also. And as I say, I think it's an extremely cost-effective thing.

As we were going through this presentation, the realization that we go through all this pain of having to reconstruct 610 and seeing no measurable impact on relieving congestion, going through all that pain and trial and tribulation, it really hit on me that that would be a travesty to put people through all that pain of reconstruction and not deliver any benefit.

So I think it's unique. I commend the park people. It's amazing. Congestion does wonders in terms of reaching consensus. When you've got a problem that everybody knows has to be fixed, generally you put your mind to it and try to come up with fairly innovative approaches, and I think that's what we've done.

But we've got long-term problems in the area that aren't going away, but we wanted to come to you because we thought this was a small enough bite, an issue that could be resolved relatively quickly. I know, from my experience, that while $50 million is not pocket change, it's something one can generally scrub up if it's a valuable project. And so that's why we wanted to come with kind of a bullet point to get you to consider.

MR. NICHOLS: That's all.

MR. LANEY: Anne, any questions?

MS. WYNNE: I do, and I think Gary may be the one that needs to answer these. The request is for $50 million and you show two unfunded projects, and my question is how does that $50 million break down. I would suspect that the vast majority is at the 59 interchange, and has that neighborhood -- is it peaceful with what's going to happen at 59 and 610?

MR. BUTLER: I'll let Gary answer that.

MR. TRIETSCH: It's the work primarily around 59, and we think we'll probably know in a couple of days, but we've been working with Bellaire, and right now we think we've got that problem solved. I won't guarantee anything, to be real honest. And at the I-10 part of it, we've worked with the park people, and we're as close as we can probably get on all of this. And it will take some right of way, but it will be very limited; in most of the cases it will be built within the existing right of way.

MS. WYNNE: So of the $50 million, what is for the interchange of 59 and what is for further up close to 10?

MR. TRIETSCH: I think it's about $30 million around 59 and $20 million at the north section around I-10.

MS. WYNNE: But if you're not able to reach agreement with the 59 people, then you're forever going to have an unfunded gap in your 610 project.

MR. TRIETSCH: Yes. We have the final public hearing next Tuesday night on that, so we'll be wrapping that up. We will know very shortly.

MS. WYNNE: I just didn't want to leave the impression that we had looked at the 610 project and chosen to take two bites out of it, because you have another neighborhood that -- I've been here now almost six years, and 59 has been on their agenda for the whole time and it's not as close to being solved. Accurate?

MR. TRIETSCH: Well, I think we've got it solved.

MS. WYNNE: Okay.

MR. TRIETSCH: I don't want to mislead anybody. It could all change in one day, but I think we've got the consensus. We're down to one ramp and we've got a proposal to them right now that will allow us to build. What we are proposing to them is let us build what we think how it will work best, and if it doesn't, we will make provisions in the plans to come back and build a braided ramp in years to come. So I think everybody right now is happy with that concept.

MS. WYNNE: Well, that interchange, though, in terms of our funding categories, is on its own way. I mean, we don't need to go find the new money for that. Am I right?

JUDGE ECKELS: There's a section of 59 that has had a lot more controversy. It's a little bit further in.

MS. WYNNE: Right.

JUDGE ECKELS: This area here, I think we've basically got it resolved.

MR. TRIETSCH: Yes. We're talking about two separate -- the other section around Montrose, yes, we've got right now all of those issues resolved, and matter of fact, we even took bids last April, and were not able to get all the funding from Metro, but just last week we've got that issue resolved. And my Thanksgiving present is supposed to be that that's supposed to resolved by next week from Federal Transit Administration, and we plan on reletting that in the spring as soon as we get that back in the pipeline.

But, yes, that's a different issue and we meet with them quarterly.

MS. WYNNE: I knew the bigger problem was further down the road, but that interchange, as a project, has a price tag, and it's in our pipeline somewhere. Am I right?

MR. TRIETSCH: Yes.

MS. WYNNE: So why are we looking for new money to do that interchange?

MR. TRIETSCH: Well, this is not a rebuild of the interchange, it's just work in the interchange area: extend the frontage roads on 610 underneath 59, and some of the connections, but it's not a total rebuild of the interchange.

MS. WYNNE: Well, I know -- believe me, I knew for $30 million we wouldn't be getting that. And I don't want to belabor this. I just thought that we had -- some of the money that I thought you were asking for, we already had moving in the pipeline as part of a project, and that we really didn't have to go look for new money for this.

MR. TRIETSCH: I think you're right; it's in Priority 2. The point is we've kind of got to have all of the fund -- we need this whole thing in Priority 1. We need to let all of this in about a three-year time frame. What John was talking about is that once we start work, we can't kind of stop. And until that issue is resolved, we're real hesitant about starting work and not sure that we're going to have the money and when.

MS. WYNNE: It's just from our viewpoint, it's different saying you have to go find new money. The money is there, you're asking to take this whole thing and move it up.

MR. TRIETSCH: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Fundamentally, we'd do it as one project rather than do it piecemeal.

One other thing, just to go back to one of the questions Commissioner Nichols had. You asked about the -- there is improvement in mobility, clearly, because going under 610 and I-10 and being able to enter the freeway south or north of the weaving movements and the congestion gets you tremendous improvements in mobility. This is estimated to improve the mobility on the West Loop, even though it's using 271,000 cars a day, by about 35 percent.

The net of it is, if you think back about that congestion chart, the efficiency of the lanes goes way up, and even during congested periods, we'll see a lot more movement along those existing lanes when you don't have to slow down for all those weaving movements.

MR. LANEY: John or Gary, why are there no HOVs in place already?

MR. TRIETSCH: The Metro part that John mentioned between 10 and 59, this plan makes provision for HOV, two lanes of HOV, one lane in each direction. Metro is doing a major investment study right now; they just don't exactly how it will be configured, but we are making provision for whatever way they land that we've got the space in there for them, plus, when they can come up with their money. But it will be designed and built so that the HOV lanes can be put in in the future.

MR. LANEY: Is it ready to go?

MR. TRIETSCH: The project?

MR. LANEY: Uh-huh.

MR. TRIETSCH: We have two public hearings to finish up. Like I said, Tuesday night we will do the public hearing from 59 south to Braeswood. Then we will, right after the first of the year, probably early February, or in February, have the public hearing from 59 to I-10. We are trying to have plans ready to let the first project next summer down at the southern end.

MR. LANEY: Spend one minute, if you would, Gary, on what John has described as the -- I don't know -- the entrance ramps or the entrance. It sounds like a different, an unconventional approach to depositing traffic into the main lanes.

MR. TRIETSCH: It's slightly unconventional, primarily in the way they are built. They are going to be a lot longer than typical ramps. Some of them will be elevated and go over the cross streets, but to get them past a merge point or a weaving point where it gives them more time to make the merges and weaves, keeps some folks out of the intersection. So in some sense of it, it's not a collector road system, but in short areas it could look like a kind of collector road system between the frontage road and the main lanes.

MR. LANEY: Does anybody have any other questions?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Anything else, John? Great.

We appreciate the presentation. It looks like a very important project, and we'll dig in on it very quickly, but we appreciate very much the effort, and all the elected officials coming, as well as others. We're glad to have you all here and appreciate your taking the time and effort to bring this to our attention as emphatically as you have. Thank you.

We'll recess for five minutes and allow you all to move on. Thanks.

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

MR. LANEY: We'll reconvene the meeting. We have concluded our delegation portion of the meeting, and we'll now proceed with the regular business meeting.

The first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes for the regular Commission meeting held on October 29, 1998. Are there any comments or questions or corrections on the minutes?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Hearing none, can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: The minutes are adopted.

The next item, a very special item, as far as I'm concerned and the other commissioners are concerned, and as far as that concern, I think the State of Texas is concerned, and it is the recognition of one of our employees in the Del Rio area. If I could ask Robert Parker and his family to come on up, we'd very much appreciate it.

MS. WYNNE: Come on, don't be shy.

MR. LANEY: Bob, welcome. We don't mean to make you all uncomfortable, but we are certainly glad to have you all here on this occasion.

I had a chance to visit briefly with Bob last week or the week before when I was somewhere in your vicinity -- it's hard to remember where I was; I think in the Eagle Pass area -- and we had a chance to visit a little bit about the floods in Del Rio. And I think from the standpoint of the Commission, there is no moment in the life of an organization like TxDOT's that is more inspiring than to see the kind of dedication of the employees of TxDOT in a situation as dire as the flooding in Del Rio.

You rarely see it, in part, because we rarely see those kinds of situations, and when they happen, interestingly enough, it is often and usually not the first agency that they call -- DPS is not the first one they call -- all involved call the Department of Transportation, because they have the expertise, the equipment, the manpower, and truly the dedication that is hard to describe, particularly in situations such as we had in Del Rio, where there was so much devastation and so much loss of life.

And it is truly inspiring to the members of the Commission and those of us who are aware of it at TxDOT to see how willing employees like Bob Parker are to invest his time and effort virtually nonstop till probably somebody like Luis Ramirez has to tell him: Stop working, you need a break and a breather. And I'm not sure he obeys those kinds of orders, even under the circumstances.

But Bob Parker, who is our area engineer for Del Rio -- and that's in our Laredo District -- was, in effect, leading the charge. And we want to honor you and take the time really to pass on regards like we rarely see, and compliments. And we have a resolution that I'd like to read, and then I think I might want to invite other members of the Commission to add anything they'd like.

The resolution reads as follows:

"Whereas, torrential rains caused streams and rivers to flood roadways and destroy homes throughout many parts of Val Verde County in August 1998; and

"Whereas, Robert C. Parker, Professional Engineer, Del Rio area engineer for the Laredo District, coordinated activities of the Texas Department of Transportation and worked in conjunction with the National Guard, Department of Public Safety, Texas Task Force, City of Del Rio, and others at the Del Rio Command Center to provide for the safety of Val Verde County residents; and

"Whereas, Texas Department of Transportation crews from Laredo, Odessa, San Antonio, Yoakum, San Angelo,

El Paso, and Fort Worth Districts, together with the Austin Design Division, worked diligently to keep the traveling public safe; and

"Whereas, these employees monitored flooded areas, removed debris after flood waters receded, repaired damaged highway surfaces, evaluated bridge structures, distributed water" -- drinking water, that is; they didn't need the other kind of water -- "and provided assistance to state, local, county and city officials; and

"Whereas, Texas Department of Transportation personnel exhibited dedication, teamwork, a willingness to work long hours in an unselfish spirit of cooperation;

"Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Texas Transportation Commission recognizes the dedication of Robert C. Parker at the Del Rio Command Center and the dedication of the Texas Department of Transportation employees whose steadfast efforts aided the traveling public, local officials and their communities."

And to your family, you ought to be awfully proud.

Anything, Anne?

MS. WYNNE: I do not; I think the resolution says it and what you said before, and we thank you so much and everybody else -- I know you didn't do it by yourself --

MR. PARKER: That's true.

MS. WYNNE:  -- and I know you will pass on our congratulations to everybody that helped you.

MR. PARKER: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I'll echo those earlier comments. Thank you very much -- thank you and your employees, both, because as I understand it, they all jumped in and helped also. I was real tickled that you brought your family up to be here today with you. And like the Chairman said, we're proud of you, and I know they're proud of you, too. Congratulations.

MR. PARKER: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Robert, do you want to say anything?

MR. PARKER: I don't have much voice this morning; I'm wrestling with laryngitis, but I would like to express my appreciation to the Commission and to all of you. And as Commissioner Wynne said, it was a team effort, and I'm just glad that I was there to help. And I really appreciate this resolution very much. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, and thank you all.

MR. HEALD: Bob, before you leave, I want to tell the commissioners I had occasion to go to Del Rio myself, and to see the way that he worked with the emergency center and the associations and the relationships he had with those people down there, it was just unbelievable. Representative Gallegos said he could walk on water. I don't know whether he can or not, but that's what was said.

And then I understand that he brought people to his home and fed them out of his home, let them use his home to take showers in. So he did a great job, and I think it's pretty typical of what TxDOT is all about, especially out in the field and the area offices and the maintenance offices. So my congratulations to you, also.

MR. PARKER: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you very much.

(Applause and pause for photographs.)

MR. LANEY: Robert, we've been reminded that you can't use that resolution until we adopt it. So we've been reminded to do something along the lines of adopting it. So that was the resolution. Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor of adopting that resolution, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 4, Report to the Governor and Legislature, and this is a report that was required by Senate Bill 370. And I appointed a committee. I better look a minute here and see who is on the committee. Gary chaired, and who else was on it, Gary?

MR. TRIETSCH: Robert Wilson and Thomas Bohuslav.

MR. HEALD: Okay. To put something together for your consideration on addressing contractor timeliness and some other issues.

MR. TRIETSCH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Gary Trietsch, and I'm the District Engineer in the Houston District.

One of the perks of becoming district engineer was not to have to do this, but --

(General laughter.)

MR. TRIETSCH:  I've never been known for my diplomacy, but it is with privilege that I do get to come today to present this to you.

Senate Bill 370 from the 75th Legislative Session required that the Department review our rules and the state laws in order to identify changes that could reduce the time and expense of construction and maintenance projects. And the Commission is required by that statute to report to the governor and the legislature by December 1 with the results of that review.

And as the executive director stated, the committee was put together, but I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the Maintenance Division, Legislative Affairs Office, and Office of General Counsel all acted as resource and had a great deal of input as we analyzed these issues pertaining to construction, maintenance, preliminary engineering, and right of way acquisition, because all of these elements are part of getting a project completed.

Principally, the report that you had is divided into two parts. The first part is administrative changes that are within TxDOT's control or in our process or our rules, those things that we can change without going to the legislature, and most of these you will find in the report have already been implemented or in the process of being implemented.

The second part of the report makes recommendations to the legislature for their consideration about making the changes in the statutes.

I will not go through the report, but I'd like to point out a couple of items. One on the section about A plus B bidding and incentive/disincentive provisions -- these are two separate tools which can be used separately or together.

And I might mention that if we get 610, we will definitely use incentive/disincentive provisions, but it also should b noted that we will use the incentive/ disincentive provisions much more frequently than the A plus B bidding. Pierce Elevated that you've heard about, had both of these, but A plus B is really when you want to squeeze down the time, and you give the contractor a chance to bid on that. The incentive/disincentive, we set the time but we also pay for early completion or create a disincentive for late completion.

The other thing is the issue of timely relocation of utilities. And the reason I bring this up is that there's a provision in TEA 21 that required the General Accounting Office to also review this issue. And as a matter of fact, the GAO is in Texas this week. As I speak, they're in the Dallas District and the Houston District interviewing our folks and contractors and utility companies. But this is a report that will go back to Congress sometime, I'm assuming, next year from a nationwide perspective to see how it impacts Federal-Aid projects.

This study is to assess the impact that a utility company's failure to relocate its facilities in a timely manner has on the delivery and cost of federal projects. Also, the GAO is to assess methods states use to mitigate such delays, including the use of courts to compel cooperation, the use of incentives, the use of penalties, and whether states compensate highway contractors for utility delays.

This minute order is to adopt that report, submit it to the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the House of Representatives. And one final comment, as so often you do after you read this thing for the 37th time last night, in the section back on A plus B bidding, in our status we only mentioned A plus B bidding and not the incentive/disincentive. And if you would agree, I would propose also adding another sentence to that -- I think that's on page 2 at the top. It says: "The Department has implemented policies and strategies for the greater use of incentive/disincentive on projects."

The reason I say we need to put that in the report, the executive director issued a memo last summer that directed all of the districts to look at all of the major projects, to look at this, and matter of fact, at our district every major project we do look at this. We don't necessarily put it in all of them, but probably all of the high-profile projects, you will see incentive/disincentive in the future.

With that, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

MR. LANEY: Any questions, Anne?

MS. WYNNE: No.

MR. LANEY: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MS. WYNNE: Good job.

MR. LANEY: Yes. Great job.

So at this point, we need to adopt this, I presume, in order to send it over to the governor's office, lieutenant governor, and speaker.

Can I have a motion to adopt?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. LANEY: And a second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: What the report basically is, Commissioners, it's just options for the district engineers to utilize, and we're not trying to say that incentive/disincentive is good for all projects, and we're not trying to say A plus B bidding is good for all projects, but we're saying based on the project and based on the decision by the district engineer and his staff, we feel like there's a place for a lot of different options to try to help speed up some of our construction work.

And we, to be honest with you, don't know what to do with utilities; we're struggling with that. It's just a tough issue.

Okay. Agenda Item Number 5, Programs. Al Luedecke has got two items for your consideration.

MR. LUEDECKE: Good morning, Commissioners.

Item 5(a) concerns two bridges in Lamar County on FM 1510 that are scheduled to be replaced in 1999. A third bridge on this road warrants replacement, but is not yet ranked sufficiently in the Bridge Program to be funded. Because these three bridges are in such close proximity to each other, we believe it's cost effective to go ahead and replace the third bridge at this time. Additional cost is estimated to be $115,000 and would be funded from the On-State Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation Program, and we recommend your approval.

MR. LANEY: This just moves this third bridge up to Priority 1, is basically what you're saying.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LUEDECKE: Item 5(b), TEA 21 identified a number of projects in Texas in the High Priority Projects Program that are not construction projects and thus would not be approved under the UTP. These are studies designated in four locations around the state and shown on Exhibit A in your books. Because these projects will not appear in the UTP, this minute order is prepared for your consideration.

There are two other studies in the Houston District that are not a part of the High Priority Projects Program that we believe also need your approval. The first study was to compare alternatives for the location of future

I-69 through the Houston metropolitan area, and the second will develop a landscape plan in the district.

After further discussion with the district, we've determined that the landscape plan for the Houston District is a routine project that should not have been placed on this list.

We recommend your approval of all of the listed projects except for the last one regarding the Houston landscape plan.

MR. NICHOLS: You're saying except the landscape plan.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: A total of about $4,312,000.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: Any questions about this?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Al.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 5(c), Carlos Lopez -- and (d).

MR. LOPEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Carlos Lopez. I'm Deputy Director of the Traffic Operations Division.

The minute order before you will authorize TxDOT's match for Houston's ITS Priority Corridor project. TEA 21 earmarked $1.5 million for this project in FY 98 funds. TxDOT's match will not exceed $375,000 and couldn't be less because of the number of public entities that are involved in this particular project. The specific projects that will be accomplished will be determined over the next few months. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Any questions, additional funding for Houston ITS?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: 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. LOPEZ: The next item, the minute order will authorize funding for installation of signs at all Texas-Mexico border crossings, which will warn motorists that it is illegal to take guns or ammunition into Mexico. This is an issue that has gotten a lot of attention at the national, state, and local levels. Many United States citizens are spending time in Mexican jails for either knowingly or unknowingly carrying guns or ammunition into Mexico and not being aware of the penalties for this under Mexican law, and TxDOT wants to do its part to help warn motorists about this.

I've got a picture of what the signs will look like. You can see there's bright colors on it; they're going to be 12x18 for the overhead signs at the major ports of entry, and we will have a slightly smaller version at the not-so-major ports of entry that will be a sign on the side. And we will let one emergency contract to get this done. So we recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: What's the little logo thing at the top? Is that a separate sign?

MR. LOPEZ: Actually, we took this from the El Paso District. They had this logo already on some of the signs they have in their area, and it's a symbol sign with a cross through it, and that's a gun is what it is.

MR. LANEY: Is that part of the other sign there, or is it separate?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes, it is; it is part of the sign assembly that would be put up with this particular funding.

MR. LANEY: And this is at all crossings?

MR. LOPEZ: All existing crossings, right. And it will be change ordered into some of the crossings that are being built right now, like Los Tomates in Brownsville.

MR. LANEY: I'm sorry, I misunderstood. Say that again.

MR. LOPEZ: With this minute order, we will put the signs up at all the existing crossings. There's one under construction right now in Brownsville, the Los Tomates Bridge, that we'll actually change order into that project to get these signs up for that particular bridge.

MR. LANEY: Anyone have any questions about this sign program?

(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. LOPEZ: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Carlos, would you give us some kind of idea about time frame on the emergency contract?

MR. LOPEZ: Sure. The Pharr District has taken the lead in putting a set of plans together, and they should be ready by tomorrow. We should be able to start taking verbal bids next week. I think what's going to take the most amount of time in getting the signs up is actually getting the steel for the cantilever structures for the overhead signs. If we're lucky, maybe February we could have the overhead signs up, maybe even sooner for the signs that are on the side of the road.

MR. LANEY: Are they going to be far enough away from the crossings so people can get out of the line?

MR. LOPEZ: The intent is to place these signs before the last turnaround, to let folks --

MR. LANEY: Or throw their guns out the window?

MS. WYNNE: Yes. We can have a little trash --

MR. LOPEZ: Once you get to the bridge, it's too late at that point.

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Carlos.

MR. LOPEZ: Okay. You're welcome.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 6(a)(1), the Promulgation of Rules and Regulations, the Rules for Proposed Adoption. Thomas Bohuslav will handle the first one.

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

Item 6(a)(1) are proposed repeal amendments and new rules concerning the Department's Business Opportunity Programs. New Section 9.59 will be replace repealed Sections 9.59 through 9.61, and amendments have been made to Sections 9.51, 9.56, and 9.58.

There are two primary reasons for changing the rules. One was to modify the complaint procedures concerning the Business Opportunity Program. The old process was a three-step process; this new one will be a two-step process, whereby an aggrieved party will file a complaint directly to the Construction Division. And if the aggrieved party wishes to appeal the determination, the appeal is made directly to the executive director.

The second reason for the changes are to remove the ability of vendors to protest purchases, since using this procedure is no longer needed. Vendors may now contest purchases pursuant to Section 9.3 concerning protests of Department purchases under the State Purchasing and General Services Act, in accordance with Government Code Section 2155.07.

And these rules will undergo a comment period prior to bringing the final version to you in a few months. Any questions?

MR. LANEY: Robert, any questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: No, no questions.

MR. LANEY: Anne?

MS. WYNNE: No, sir.

MR. LANEY: Proposed Rules, can I have a motion to adopt them?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 6(a)(2), more rules for proposed adoption, Robert Wilson.

MR. WILSON: Good morning. I'm Robert Wilson. I'm Director of the Design Division.

This minute order that I'm bringing to you today, proposed amendments to the Texas Administrative Code Sections 15.50 through 15.52, and 15.54 through 15.55, concerning federal, state, and local participation in TxDOT projects.

The amendments proposed would outline a process to allow approval of local entities to let and manage projects or to perform certain projects with their own staff. They would also allow a process to allow local entities to pay their portion of funding on a Department job in incremental payments during the time of construction.

Amendments would also add more funding alternatives to various categories to fully utilize federal funding in some areas such as preliminary engineering, purchase of right of way, and eligible utility adjustments. These in the past have been primarily 100 percent state funded and the amendments would allow more use of federal funds in those areas.

In particular, one of the changes would allow us to purchase 100 percent of the right of way using federal or state funds and not have to require use of local funds on the Phase 1 Trunk System corridors. This should help expedite a lot of projects by using more federal and state funds in that area.

If you approve this minute order, these rules will be advertised for comment by the public, we would address any comments received, and bring final rules back to you for your approval at a future meeting. And staff would recommend your approval of the minute order.

MR. LANEY: Do you have some comments, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I think you have done a good job on these. I was very supportive of what you've done. I had a question, really, on page 24 of 37. And I think I had sent some GroupWises back and forth. Lines 13 to 16.

MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: In approving a waiver, it says, "The Commission will base its decisions on" -- and then it lists about three or four things related to a community.

MR. WILSON: Correct.

MR. NICHOLS: This is different than before and has been added and was not statutorily required, as I understood it, but was trying to basically tie down the options under which we could make a waiver.

MR. WILSON: Correct.

MR. NICHOLS: I hated to see us tie down future Commissions to only being able to consider these things was where my concern was, and had requested that we -- or at least consider adding "and other conditions that the Commission may deem pertinent."

MR. LANEY: Adding it to the end of that sentence?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes.

MR. WILSON: To the end of that sentence, it would be on line 16 then.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes.

MR. WILSON: So I would add the wording: "and other conditions the Commission would deem pertinent."

MR. LANEY: Yes. "Or other conditions."

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. LANEY: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Rather than tying future Commissions down to only those, and as I understand, that's an internal thing that was generated.

MR. WILSON: Correct.

MR. LANEY: It just adds flexibility.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, that's it.

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

MS. WYNNE: No.

MR. LANEY: That change is fine with me too, I think. Do you want to make a motion to adopt it with that change?

MR. NICHOLS: I move we adopt it with that suggested change.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Robert.

Agenda Item 6(a)(4) will be deferred. We'll moved to 6(b)(1), Rules for Final Adoption. Dianna Noble will -- is she here?

Oh, I missed one, I skipped one. 6(a)(3), Right of Way, Jim Henry. Sorry, Jim.

MR. HENRY: I'll have to do the opposite of Thomas, I guess; I'll have to go down on this thing a little bit and mess it up for everybody else when they come up.

Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jim Henry. I'm the Interim Director of the Right of Way Division.

The minute order that you have before you proposes the repeal of and amendments and additions to certain sections of the Texas Administrative Code relating to the regulation of outdoor advertising signs. We've made a number of changes to existing definitions in order to clarify their meanings as they were used in the remainder of the sections of the Code relating to outdoor advertising signs. Some new definitions were added, again, to clarify and to give the meanings that were used in new sections and some amended sections that were put into these proposed rules.

The amendments to the existing rules were made to clarify certain requirements of the rules, to delete certain obsolete requirements that are no longer needed, to make additions to existing rules to facilitate the administration of the Outdoor Advertising Program, also to modernize our rules to allow for the utilization of new technology that's used throughout the sign industry. These are changeable signs, these tri-vision signs, things like that, that the rules didn't provide for before.

A change was needed to implement the new state law regarding political signs outside of the right of way, and also to make some minor technical corrections to the rules relating to the Department's name and sections to subsections and things like that.

There were two sections that were being repealed. Unfortunately, we don't have a loss of rules, we have to readopt those same sections under the same numbers to make them more in compliance with the current requirements of Title 23, of the Code of Federal Regulations.

We also had to add another new section regarding Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and two new sections were added in order to address some concerns that had come up in the administration of the program. We had been having some problems with the sign companies cutting the vegetation on our right of way to see the signs, so we had some rules added in that regard.

This is the first major rewrite, I guess you'd say, of these sign rules in a long time. They needed a lot of weeding out, a lot of clarification in order to help facilitate not only the outdoor advertising industry in carrying out their programs but to facilitate our employees in carrying out our mandated regulation and control of outdoor advertising signs.

So we do recommend your favorable consideration of these proposed rules.

MR. LANEY: Anyone have any questions about the rules, proposed sign rules?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

MR. LANEY: Proposed sign rules. Can I have a motion for that?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: As I mentioned, earlier, we're going to defer the next item.

Agenda Item 6(b), Rules for Final Adoption, number (1), and Dianna will handle that.

MS. NOBLE: Good morning, Commissioners, Messrs. Heald, Pickett, and Behrens. For the record, my name is Dianna Noble, the director of Environmental Affairs.

Agenda Item 6(b)(1) is for the final adoption of the memorandum of understanding with the Texas Historical Commission. The minute order before you adopts the repeal of the existing Section 2.24 concerning the memorandum of understanding with the Texas Historical Commission and the Texas Antiquities Commission, and simultaneously adopts new Section 2.24 concerning the memorandum of understanding with the Texas Historical Commission.

It is the intent of this MOU to provide a formal mechanism by which THC may review TxDOT projects which may have the potential to affect cultural resources within the jurisdiction of the Texas Historical Commission in order to assist TxDOT in making environmentally sound decisions.

A public hearing was held July 28, 1998. No comments were received on the proposed repeal or new section at the hearing, nor subsequent during the public comment period. Staff recommends adoption.

Do you have any questions?

MR. LANEY: Any questions with respect to this MOU?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

MR. LANEY: Motion, Anne?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 6(b)(2), again Diana, but with a different last name.

(General laughter.)

MS. ISABEL: Good morning, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, and Commissioner Wynne. My name is Diana Isabel, and I am the Director of the Human Resources Division. I'm here today to talk to you briefly about the final adoption of the Substance Abuse Program Rules.

You approved the proposed amendments to the Substance Abuse Program in August of this year. An administrative announcement was sent to all employees requesting their review and proposed changes on September 11. We asked for comments on the rules, and that comment period ended on October 12. A public hearing was held on October 1 for oral comments. Although no oral comments from interested parties were received, we did receive 15 comments from employees during this period. You received a summary of those comments and our responses in your briefing books.

In response to the comments we received, we made the following changes to the proposed rules. The Department is deleting from the definition Conviction of DUI/DWI, the provision for employees under 21 years of age who are convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol by a minor, a DUI/ABM. The reason for this is that the Department recognizes that a DUI/ABM prohibition could not be enforced since the offense does not appear on an individual's driving record.

The Department is adding the phrase "any other alcohol or drug-related arrest or conviction" to replace the DUI/ABM for the purpose of license suspension.

In addition to those changes the Department is making from comments received, the Department is also clarifying some of the sections in the rules that resulted from the proposed amendments.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the Commission today. At this time, I would like to request that these rules be approved for final adoption. Thank you for your time.

MR. LANEY: Does anyone have any questions or comments about these rules?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I think it's great. I so move.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Item 6(b)(3), Mike Behrens is filling in for Jerry Dike on this item.

MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, this minute order adopts a new Section 17.10 concerning the filing of restitution liens by a victim or by an attorney for the state against a motor vehicle owned by a criminal defendant to secure payment of restitution, fines, or costs ordered by the court. This was authorized by House Bill 2830 of the 75th Legislature, but did not become effective until all counties implemented the automatic registration and title system which occurred in late August 1998.

The Commission adopted proposed rules on August 26. The new section was published and comments were received. The comments are responded to in the preamble in your notebooks. We did take some of the comments into consideration and clarified those portions of the rules that were applicable. We recommend adoption of these rules.

MR. LANEY: Comments or questions?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: 6(b)(4) more rules for final adoption, Jim Henry.

MR. HENRY: Good morning, once again.

The minute order that you have before you is for the final adoption of an amendment to Section 21.56 of the Texas Administrative Code relating to the use of metric equivalents in the preparation of utility relocation plans.

This amendment will eliminate the mandatory provision which required all utility plans to be converted to metric equivalents. Under the amendment, the plans may be converted only if necessary.

No public comments were held. You agreed to and passed proposed rules some time ago, and this minute is for final adoption and we recommend final adoption of these rules.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Yes. I figured you'd be in favor of this one, Robert.

(General laughter.)

MS. WYNNE: Second. I know Robert is the one that made this happen, but I just want everybody to know that I said that until they changed the yardage signs on football fields that I was not going to be in favor of changing metric a long time ago. So I knew this was going to happen. Second.

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Well, there is this provision in here that says 100 yards now equals 100 meters.

MS. WYNNE: Oh, really. Well, I'd vote against that.

(General laughter.)

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Item 6(c), Rules for Review, Doris -- is Doris here? -- Doris Howdeshell.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Good morning, Commission. My name is Doris Howdeshell, and I'm the Director of the Travel Division for the Department.

The minute order that you have before you today concerns the rule review of Chapter 23, which concerns travel information. The topics that are covered in this particular chapter are the general provisions, of course, and then we have basically three categories: Texas Highways magazine, travel information centers, and travel literature, and this minute order will get the process going in order for us to review and readopt rules. And I recommend approval of the minute order.

MR. LANEY: Motion, Anne?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: 6(c)(2), Margot Massey.

MS. MASSEY: Good morning. I'm Margot Massey of the Public Transportation Division, coming to you to propose action on the rule review of Chapter 31 which deals with Public Transportation Rules.

Included in that chapter are the general provisions. These rules actually constitute our State Management Plan required by the Federal Transit Administration as well, relating to the Federal programs we administer. So they're a critical element. We have property management standards, financial oversight, and various other provisions.

We also have our Rail Safety Oversight Program rules in there which are the most recent additions, as well as provisions which mirror the state statutes on state transit funding.

There were no comments received in response to the advertisement for comments. I think, as noted by the chairman of our advisory committee, that these were very carefully crafted over ten years time. We would propose adoption of the minute order.

MR. LANEY: So they're perfect now. Okay. Proposed readoption of existing perfect rules.

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Margot.

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: Item Number 7, Transportation Planning. Al Luedecke has the next two items.

MR. LUEDECKE: In my excitement to be up here a little earlier, I forgot to identify myself, so I, for the record, will say I'm Al Luedecke, Director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

MR. LANEY: Everyone knows who you are, Al.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir.

MS. WYNNE: And I have to tell you, you excited or are you unexcited? We don't know.

(General laughter.)

MR. LUEDECKE: That's why I play poker; it works in poker very well.

MS. WYNNE: There we go.

MR. LANEY: It works with the Commission too.

MR. LUEDECKE: I hope that's favorably.

MS. WYNNE: It is.

MR. LUEDECKE: The Fort Bend Parkway Association was established by the Commission in 1990 under the current Transportation Code, Chapter 431, for the purpose of promoting and developing State Highway 122 from Beltway 8 to State Highway 99, the Grand Parkway, in the Houston District.

In a recent report from the association to the Commission, we discovered that project expenses for the development of State Highway 122 were reviewed and approved and paid for by the county rather than by the association. Further, it was revealed that the association never had any funds to use to develop this facility; therefore, the funds nor the development were ever reviewed or approved by the Commission as required.

The association representative stated that the association was simply acting as an advisor to the county. In view of this information, we believe that the association is not acting on the Commission's behalf, as was the original intent of its formation, and is therefore not needed today.

We recommend that it be dissolved, as permitted in Texas Administrative Code Section, 15.91, and the minute order before you dissolves the transportation corporation, and we recommend your approval.

MR. LANEY: Any questions about the proposed action to dissolve Fort Bend County Parkway Association, or comments?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: And I'll second and say thank you for looking into this and doing this, and this is what needed to be done.

MR. LUEDECKE: We delayed it last time because we were afraid not everyone had been properly notified, and we wanted to be sure.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: I would also suggest we send the current board members a thank you letter for serving.

MR. LANEY: Good idea.

MR. LUEDECKE: We'll take care of that.

I have Item 7(b), also. The Department has received additional applications from several counties and cities within those counties around the state that have been designated as disadvantaged under the Texas Administrative Code, Section 15.51 through 15.55. These applications are to reduce required participation in local projects. Information on these projects can be found in your materials for this item.

Staff has recommended an adjustment to each of these projects based on the process established for this program. The adjustments to their impact on the participation amounts are found in Exhibit A of the minute order prepared for your consideration. We recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Does anyone have any questions? Anne, can I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: Do you have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Oh, I was just going to make a comment. I was going to say I know the legislature put this program in and it's a very difficult thing, very critical for these communities, and I just wanted to say I think you have done an outstanding job of putting this together and taking a good approach to it.

MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you, sir. We worked with the Finance Division on this. It's been a good project.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Item 8, Public Transportation. Margot Massey will handle it.

MS. MASSEY: Again, I'm Margot Massey with Public Transportation.

This is a less than perfect item.

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: But you're still Margot Massey.

MS. MASSEY: Yes. I'm still Margot Massey.

A reallocation of some Elderly and Disabled Program funds within the Austin District. I do apologize to the Commission for being unintentionally cryptic in our attachment to this minute order of not describing exactly where the funds were coming from and where they were going to.

We had two agencies that had turned down some money, the Mary Lee Foundation and Woodside Trails, and we're actually giving those funds to the Capital Area Rural Transportation System, and putting some -- the balance, the Austin District wants to reserve for contingencies on project overruns. We do recommend approval of this.

MR. LANEY: Any questions about these?

MR. NICHOLS: I've had all mine answered.

MR. LANEY: You got a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Item 9, Frank Smith.

MR. SMITH: Good morning.

This item I bring to you today is a request from the City of Anthony for a SIB loan to purchase right of way for the State Highway Spur 6 project. The minute order states that the loan is not to exceed $150,000 and is to be repaid back in ten years at 4 percent interest.

Now, earlier you approved an adjustment for the City of Anthony as a disadvantaged county, and that goes hand-in-hand with the SIB loan. With that action this morning, the amount of the SIB loan would be $76,950, and to keep the monthly payments for the repayment of the loan in line with the $150,000 for ten years, we would recommend that the loan be repaid in five years at 4 percent, if the Commission so chooses.

So that is the recommendation of the staff to make a SIB loan to the City of Anthony for $76,950 for a five-year period at 4 percent, and this will keep their payments the same as they would have been originally.

MR. LANEY: Actually, it will make the payments just slightly higher probably, because it's a little more than half of the 150. Right?

MR. SMITH: Actually, the payments come in a little bit lower.

MR. LANEY: Do they? Good.

MR. SMITH: Yes. They were at about $18,495; they're at $17,285 now, so it's a little less.

MR. LANEY: So their expectations for 150 were at about 18, and by operation of the disadvantaged county discount, concession -- whatever we call it -- contribution, the total borrowing amount is reduced, but the payment expectations remain the same.

MR. SMITH: That's correct.

MR. LANEY: And our receipt expectations remain the same in terms of the timing of those.

Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I was just going to -- the City of Anthony is not here, of course, to speak for itself, but I notice in the audience Joe Pickett -- Representative Pickett.

MR. LANEY: He's always here.

MS. WYNNE: He can't stay away.

MR. NICHOLS: He's always here. I didn't know if he had anything.

MR. LANEY: Would you like to add anything, Representative Pickett?

MR. NICHOLS: It seemed he was aware of this or I knew he was involved in this. I just wanted to see if he had any comments.

REPRESENTATIVE PICKETT: Just real briefly. For the record, Joe Pickett.

The mayor of Anthony basically asked me to convey that if there was a change like that from ten to five, that they would be amenable to that, so that there really isn't any objection. The numbers have been battered about so much, they really believe it's a different number, but it's not so far off that it won't be okay. Mayor Franco basically said, Mr. Pickett, I trust you, which is awfully dangerous.

(General laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE PICKETT: But we've gotten such good participation on your side, and thanks to Kirby's work. I mean, really, it's up to you. The town of Anthony is not going to reject or grumble about any of the final details right here. This will help them quite considerably. In fact, at one point they were considering putting up some cash immediately and we found out that that really isn't going to speed up the process any more, so they'll do this.

I think the only question that the mayor had wanted me to ask was if it really is a necessary monthly thing or could they make annual payments. Is that part of the agreement that still needs to be hashed out or --

MR. LANEY: On that point, my feeling -- what is -- the minute order doesn't go into that kind of detail, does it?

MR. SMITH: No, it does not, and it leaves that up to us to negotiate that with the City of Anthony.

MR. LANEY: All right. I certainly don't think it needs to be monthly. Whether it's quarterly or semi-annually or annually, I'll let you all work that out.

REPRESENTATIVE PICKETT: I think that was the only question the mayor had. I think that they were looking at more of an annual thing, because they could plan once a year if they needed to sell bonds or something. I know it's a small amount, but for them it's big.

MR. LANEY: We understand. We can just let you all work that out; that's not a concern.

MR. NICHOLS: I was just going to say, based on the Finance recommendation to take the 76 to five years, and based on the state rep saying -- he has indicated that the city is fine with that, I would move that we do that.

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

MS. WYNNE: We do. Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

REPRESENTATIVE PICKETT: Can I get a home equity loan at 4 percent for five years?

MS. WYNNE: For you today?

REPRESENTATIVE PICKETT: I drive my car up to my house every day.

(General laughter.)

MR. HEALD: Joe, one thing for sure, there's a lot of us know a lot more about Anthony than we did a few months ago.

REPRESENTATIVE PICKETT: And I don't think it's a problem, but as far as municipalities go and as far as the statute dictates, it actually is the Town of Anthony. There is distinction in the law and I hope that doesn't matter, but it's Town of Anthony, not City, and that has something to do with some of their --

MR. LANEY: The price goes up for towns.

REPRESENTATIVE PICKETT: On behalf of the City of Anthony, I appreciate it.

(General laughter.)

MR. HEALD: Moving along to Item Number 10, Contracts, Thomas Bohuslav.

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

Item 10(a)(1) is for the consideration of award or rejection of building construction contracts let on November 5, 1998, as shown on Exhibit A. There were seven projects that were let. Total number of bids received were 39 for an average of 5.6 bids per project. Total low bid amount was $14,158,125, for about a 7 percent overrun.

We have one project we recommend for rejection, being in Donley County, which is at the top of page 2. We had four bids received, the low bidder being Reynosa Construction, Inc., in the amount of $1,894,000, or a 72 percent overrun. And the consultant on the project offered the following comments. It stated that comparable projects of this size have not warranted this cost per square foot, and they recommended rejection of the bids. And staff concurred with the consultant's comments.

And I believe we may have one speaker on this.

MR. LANEY: We have one speaker signed up to speak on this item, Mr. James Bickley, Vice President of Austin Engineering.

MR. BICKLEY: Commissioner Laney and other Commissioners.

I'm not sure exactly what responsive means, and I'm not trying to play on words, but in preparation of the bid, there was a set of plans sent out and also an addendum with a second set of plans.

We did receive all of the plans and addenda, but in preparing the bid, I only used the addenda plans instead of the entire set. I have no good excuse; it's just that I was not aware of them. And that's what was used in preparing the bid. I do not know if that would fall under whether a bid would be responsive or not.

And because of this, not having the entire set of plans while I was preparing the bid, there were certain items left out. I did write a letter to Zane Webb, and if you'd like, I'll give you a copy of it -- it's a very, very short letter explaining what was left out and the significant difference between what the estimate was and what our bid was and the second low bidder.

MR. LANEY: Sure. If you want to leave the letter here, that would be fine.

MR. BICKLEY: Thank you.

MR. BOHUSLAV: This is the Camp Hubbard site improvements project, the first project. This is that first project, this Hubbard -- Camp Hubbard site improvements project, I believe. Is that right?

MR. LANEY: Oh, I see.

MS. WYNNE: I'm not sure I do. Just a second.

And so you're here today, Mr. Bickley, to say that had you looked at both sets of plans in preparing your bid, you would not be 42 percent under?

MR. BICKLEY: That is correct. Yes, ma'am.

MS. WYNNE: And what would your bid be, sir?

MR. BICKLEY: It would be a minimum of 100,000 more, but the bids were -- our bid was $287,000, the next bid was $461,000 something, and the estimate was $500,000. And the other bids were on up above a half million.

MS. WYNNE: And did you have to submit a check with your bid?

MR. BICKLEY: Yes, we did.

MS. WYNNE: In what amount?

MR. BICKLEY: The check was in the amount of $15,000, a cashier's check.

MS. WYNNE: We may need a little legal help on this one, but I don't see that awarding this is going to serve anybody, so maybe we delete this one and come back?

MR. NICHOLS: And discuss it in closed session, then come back and take action?

MS. WYNNE: Yes, sir.

MR. BICKLEY: I thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Appreciate it.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We recommend award of all projects, with the exception stated, and if you want to reserve --

MR. LANEY: I'd like to make a motion that we adopt all of these with the elimination from the list, for the moment, of item number 1, this Camp Hubbard site, and vote on all the others for adoption and reconsider that in executive session.

MR. NICHOLS: When you say adoption, he had recommended one rejection.

MR. LANEY: Adoption of the recommended projects.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We had Donley, yes, was recommended for rejection.

MR. LANEY: But just eliminate for the moment from the list this one particular issue with respect to Camp Hubbard.

I made a motion. Can I have a second, please?

MS. WYNNE: You certainly may.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MS. WYNNE: And Mr. Bickley, will you stay around in case we -- thank you.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 10(a)(2) is for the consideration of the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on November 12 and 13, 1998, whose engineers' estimated costs were $300,000 or more, as shown on Exhibit A.

A total of 12 projects let, 38 bids, 3.717 average number of bidders pre project. The total low bid amount was $4,848,896.12, for an approximate 5.64 percent overrun.

Staff recommends award of all projects in the exhibit.

MR. LANEY: Any 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. BOHUSLAV: Item 10(a)(3) is for the consideration of award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on November 12 and 13, 1998, as shown on Exhibit A.

We had a total of 80 projects let. Number of bids received were 356, for an average of 4.45 bids per project. The total low bid amount was $254,608,378.26, for an approximate 9.72 percent overrun.

We have two projects we recommend for rejection, the first project being in Potter County. It's project number 3021 on the top of page 13. We received two bids, the low bid being from L.A. Fuller & Sons Construction, Inc., in the amount of $2,950,940.55, or about a 95.56 percent overrun.

This is a rehab-upgrade project on a city street in the city of Amarillo, and we discussed the project with the district. and they stated the traffic control in the plan is too restrictive. In addition, the City of Amarillo is participating to the amount of 20 percent on this project. And both the city and district would like to redesign and relet at a future date.

An additional project recommended for rejection is project number 3055, the third listing on page 14; it's in Titus County. We received two bids, the low bid being from TLS Traffic Controls, Inc., in the amount of $177,884.69, or approximately a 29.04 percent overrun.

This project specified the installation of a video detection system, among other things, and the district would like to redesign the project to try to reduce the cost and resubmit for a future letting when funds become available.

Do you have any other questions on any of the other projects?

MR. LANEY: Does anybody have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second, Anne?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BOHUSLAV: And I did briefly check, and you asked last meeting about concrete prices, cement prices, and what we found is that there is not so much of a shortage these days but the prices remain high. We usually have about $55 a ton for cement, and cement is running about $75, $78 a ton these days, so it's still running high.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Thomas.

MR. NICHOLS: The -- in that same category of conversation about costs going up, one of the things we have tried to point out to the public is that part of our needs, our shortfalls, have to do with prices going up of materials and construction on road-related materials, and I know that a good while back, whenever we would get the summations of these large number of contracts, quite often I was used to seeing an average under-estimate and recently I've seen it consistently over.

And on this particular group, $250 million worth of contracts, there's about 10 percent over, so that's $25 million basically cost erosion, just because of the tightness of the market and the economy.

That's not a question, that's just something I wanted to add.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We had two projects in this letting that consists of $16 million of the overrun, a project in Amarillo and one in Wichita Falls. Each of them are about $8 million apiece, large projects.

MR. NICHOLS: And that cost -- the overrun from our estimates also, in effect, will be reductions on future new projects or maintenance or something of that nature. Isn't that correct?

MR. HEALD: Commissioners, one of the indicators that I always look to is the number of bids. I don't know what it serves other than the fact that it shows you how much competition is out there. And we did go up from about 3 point something to 4.45 bidders per project this time. So we're always concerned about capacity of the contractors.

MR. LANEY: Okay. Number 10(b), Claims. Mike.

MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, we had one claim we need settlement on. This is in Pecos County. The contractor was H.J. Henke Company, Project RMC 600129001.

The contractor filed a claim in the amount of $10,000. It was reviewed by the contract claim committee. We recommend a settlement of $347.31. And we have forwarded this to the contractor and have no comments from him, so we recommend that this settlement be awarded.

MR. LANEY: Motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 11, Routine Minute Orders. I'll go through these until you stop me.

Speed Zones: Establish or alter regulatory or construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state. These are minute orders for your consideration.

Load Restrictions: Revision of load restrictions on various roads and bridges on the State Highway System.

Highway Designation in Wichita County.

Right of Way Disposition, Purchase and Lease: Angelina County, State Highway 94 at Ellis Avenue in Lufkin, removal of right of way from the State Highway System; Frio County, US 81 in Dilley, sale of a surplus maintenance warehouse site; Maverick County, US Business 277, designation of a portion of a tract of land as an uneconomic remainder; McLennan County, IH 35 approximately 0.5 mile south of Elm Mott, sale of a surplus right of way easement.

Moving on to Approval of Donations to the Department, Clay County, FM 1197, acceptance of land donation; Dallas County, State Highway 190, acceptance of land donation.

Lee and Milam Counties, FM 112, from 0.4 mile west of Lee/Milam County line easterly to 1.4 mile east of Lee/Milam County line. This is to authorize an agreement with Aluminum Company of America to relocate a portion of FM 112, and I believe that's at their total expense.

Eminent Domain: Various counties, request for eminent domain proceedings on non-controlled and controlled access highways.

Is this the -- coming and going?

Okay. I believe that's it, Commissioners.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

MR. LANEY: Can I 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: Okay. And I believe we're going to need to go into Executive Session.

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, and we will reconvene in ten minutes.

(Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the meeting was recessed for Executive Session, to reconvene at 11:53 a.m.)

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.

I would, at this point, like to reconsider in Exhibit A of the building construction contracts, Travis County, project number MBR-44-2907, relating to the construction bid with respect to Camp Hubbard site fire protection. This is the one that we postponed with respect to the under bid.

Can I have a motion, Robert, with respect to adoption of this? This is a proposed for award.

MR. NICHOLS: I move that we award this.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: It is awarded.

If there is no further business before the Commission, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: The meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:54 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: November 19, 1998

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 105, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Peggy Bynum before the Texas Department of Transportation.

12/01/98

(Transcriber) (Date)

On the Record Reporting, Inc.
3307 Northland, Suite 315
Austin, Texas 78731