TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, August 31, 2000

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

JOHN W. JOHNSON, Chair
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
DAVID M. LANEY
 

DEPARTMENT STAFF:

CHARLES W. HEALD, Executive Director
HELEN HAVELKA, Executive Assistant, Engineering Operations

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It’s 9:06 and I would like to call the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. Welcome to our August 31 meeting. It's a pleasure to have you here today.

I will note for the record that the public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 9:19 a.m. on August 23.

Before we get started I will ask my colleagues on the commission if they have any comments that they would like to make. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I wanted to recognize the young engineers in the back corner from Abilene. I understand -- I was visiting with you a while ago and I'm tickled that you're here to see how we conduct some of the state's business. I know this is kind of a mystery operation to a lot of people, so I'm glad you're here.

And as I was mentioning earlier it's probably not as typical of a meeting as some of them we have because there's not as many delegations and stuff to make presentations. Anyway, I think it's great you're here. Welcome.

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome.

David?

MR. LANEY: I have nothing to add, Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Before we proceed with our regular meeting let me remind anyone who wants to address the commission to fill out a card at the registration table. To comment on an agenda item please fill out a yellow card, and if it is not an agenda item we will take your comments during the open comment period at the end of the meeting. This would require a blue card.

Each speaker, regardless of the color of the card, will be allowed three minutes and we ask that you please adhere to that time limit.

We will begin with the approval of the minutes of our regular meeting in July, which was held in Lubbock, Texas. Is there a motion to that effect?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Wes, I will turn over the regular part of the agenda to you, please.

MR. HEALD: Good morning, commissioners. Our next item on the agenda for your consideration is a resolution. Ten agencies and organizations in the Houston-Galveston area have formed a partnership to promote alternative transportation strategies in the eight-county nonattainment area.

The effort called Commute Solutions, a Smarter Way to Go, will offer alternatives to commuters during the month of September, and we ask your consideration of the resolution before you commending this partnership for its work toward improving mobility and air quality in the Houston-Galveston area.

And, Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Alan Clark is here and wishes to speak to this.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, commissioners. I want to just say thank you and also mention that this partnership extends beyond the Houston-Galveston area. There are similar groups to ours in Austin, Corpus Christi, El Paso, and San Antonio that are also observing what we're calling Commute Solutions month.

As my district engineer Gary Trietsch is fond of saying, he's not looking for more customers, at least not right away, and what we're trying to help Gary do is find a better way for a lot of people to get where they're going.

We appreciate the department's support for this in our particular neck of the woods. We particularly appreciate the Houston District's support for this, and it is a program that I think will, over time, have a measurable impact on travel in our area.

Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Do we have a motion to approve the resolution?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: The motion carries.

MR. CLARK: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Alan, I think we'd like to present this. We have a signed copy, so if we could get a picture?

MR. CLARK: Sure.

MR. JOHNSON: Do we have a photographer available?

(Pause for photo.)

MR. JOHNSON: Wes?

MR. HEALD: We'll move right on into the business part of our commission meeting, starting with Item Number 3, a report from Aviation Division regarding the small market air service needs assessment, and Mr. Fulton will start this off.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Wes, commissioners. My name is David Fulton for the record, TxDOT Aviation Division director.

On July 29, 1999, the Texas Transportation Commission approved a grant to undertake a study to investigate opportunities for improvement of scheduled commercial air service for some 26 cities in Texas, and also five cities in New Mexico. The study was funded at 90 percent funding from the Federal Aviation Administration, 5 percent state, a joint effort of Texas and New Mexico, and 5 percent local.

The study, conducted by the firm of Wilbur Smith and Associates, has been completed and will be presented this afternoon to representatives of the cities participating. Pam Kiedel, project manager for the study, is here this morning to present the commission a brief overview of the results of the study.

MS. KIEDEL: Thank you, Dave.

I'd also like to recognize two other participants as part of the study, and that would be Randall Weidemann from Weidemann Associates, and Lois Kramer from Kramer Associates, who participated in the study.

We have a Power Point presentation. There we go.

The study's purpose was to address the needs of a diverse group of airports. We had 31 airports, as Dave mentioned, that participated in the study, and they're a wide range of different types of service, including nine airports that are currently not -- that don't have commercial air service -- to provide useful analysis to these airports on a community-specific basis so they could take the efforts from this study and actually move forward to try and improve their service.

These are the 31 communities that participated -- range in the east from Texarkana, over the border, the five communities in New Mexico, and range in size from airports such as Alpine and Del Rio to larger airports as Amarillo and Lubbock.

The process that we used to identify demand and look at the study was to first gather data, provide a history of service, what's gone on in each of those communities, how has airline service been provided in the past, to look at industry trends, both nationally and in Texas and how those are impacting the communities and air service to determine the level of demand that's being generated in each of those communities through surveys of travel agencies and businesses that we did.

And we also conducted community meetings in each of the 31 markets to really get a flavor or feeling for what's going on and what each community felt was adequate air service for them.

Through that process we actually developed an estimate of demand. We know today how many emplanements or people are getting on the airplanes today, but what we don't know is how many people are actually traveling from those communities. So we used this process to determine that level of demand, to analyze it using a ROD analysis computer model that replicates the airlines' process to evaluate service options.

We also did a fly-drive analysis, looking at the cost of driving versus flying to provide that information to the communities, and then finally developed an action plan: What do you do with the information that you have and what really are the opportunities for each community to improve air service?

We have identified specific marketing items for each of the communities, and then also areas of potential state and federal involvement.

Air service today at the small airports is in crisis. There is a lot going on; I'm sure you hear about it on a regular basis. There are routes that are being abandoned by the carriers, especially as they move towards larger aircraft. Historically, a lot of the communities were served by turboprop, small aircraft. A lot of the carriers are moving towards what they call regional jets, which are jet aircraft that are better accepted by the communities and that is really having a tremendous impact.

I'm sure you also hear a lot about the disparity in airfares; what you see in cities that are served by Southwest versus the small communities, and this has really compromised service and actually resulted in a loss of service in many of the communities.

There are some specific trends that we identified as impacting Texas airports and also some of the New Mexico airports. Delta's reduction at Dallas-Fort Worth International -- they used to operate an airline connecting hub there and have reduced that -- are picking that back up somewhat lately, but that has impacted the service that's provided.

Again, the replacement of the turboprop aircraft with regional jets or RJs, which has had a tremendous impact nationally and especially in Texas -- obviously the Wright and Shelby amendments and how those have impacted service. And probably the most important trend is Southwest Airlines and their ability to attract people from long distances, impacting the ability of the small communities to really retain their travelers.

Action is needed in order to move forward to make improvements at these airports. There are some federal activities that are taking place, some state activities that we think show potential, but most importantly, it has to start on the local level. In order for improvements to be realized you have to start on the local level and really have that grassroots support to move forward.

The federal actions that are taking place -- recently there was a bill that was passed. It's called Air 21. It's the short version for the Wendell Ford Investment Act. There are two parts of that program, which really funds airport development that are air-service specific.

One is a pilot program for small communities. The DOT is going to select 40 communities across the country, assuming that a full appropriation is made to participate in this pilot program. Each community would get $500,000 to spend on either subsidizing, improving, in some way affecting air service.

There's another program that's called the Regional Air Service Incentive Program, or RASIP, and that is actually a program where they will provide federal credit instruments to carriers to purchase regional jet aircraft, which is the trend and where things are going, and they see this as a possibility for small communities to participate in the regional jets.

Some of the state actions -- we actually looked at all of the other programs that are being implemented by other states. Other states are doing this same type of study for their communities to find out what's out there, what the possibilities are. They also support the communities in their meetings with carriers to try and get better service, and also sometimes provide marketing monies to the smaller communities to try and attract carriers and improve their service, supporting infrastructure needs to ensure that the infrastructure exists for the carriers to operate, and then again possibly participating in the Air 21 pilot program through the state level.

And finally, at the local level we identified several different activities, the first of which would be to establish a task force that was really looking at air service issues on a regular basis, because there is so much activity and it's a lot of work to keep up with to monitor the changes as they continue to take place: the changes in the carriers, the changes in the equipment.

We identified some ideas for subsidy opportunities that exist, especially for those communities that don't have air service today and that from our analysis were identified as not having the potential to support traditional air service, the American Airlines, the Continental-type service, but really more of a nontraditional smaller carrier.

And then finally marketing and education: In order to really improve air service you've got to market it and you need to educate the people in the community about using the airport and using the service, because it's kind of a chicken and the egg. Which comes first, the carrier or using the service? And in order to maintain it you really have to use the service that you have.

Thank you very much.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Pam.

I would like to add that this is a serious issue for Texas. It's not just an air transportation issue. It's an economic development issue.

For example, a couple of years ago the round trip fair from San Angelo to DFW was in excess of $600. Well, that really impacts the local economy, and I think I will add one other thing. I think we can help to make a difference. It again has to start at the local level.

Longview-Gregg County -- about nine months ago American said they were going to discontinue their service, the only service they had. The business leaders got together, met with American, and they changed their mind. So if there is the right approach I think there are some opportunities. They still now have the service, American Eagle, at Gregg County.

So it is -- we have more air carrier airports than any other state, which probably doesn't surprise you, and we'd sure like to retain those.

So thank you.

MR. LANEY: I have a question.

MR. FULTON: Sure.

MR. LANEY: So you have a copy of copies of the more detailed report?

MR. FULTON: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: Can you comment on that?

MS. KIEDEL: They're actually being finalized right now. Each community is getting its own separate report, so there are 31 separate reports that are being prepared. And we're waiting for final comments, but they should be available probably by the end of September.

We're also preparing a color executive summary, and that's in the works at this time. But again, by the end of September.

MR. FULTON: We'll provide any and all of that you want. Just have your assistants let us know, and if you want the complete package we'll get it to you or whatever part you would like to have.

MR. LANEY: When it appears I would certainly like to have a copy and I'll bet the other two would as well of the executive summary, and you can send Robert all 31 copies of it.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Dave, I want to congratulate you and the Aviation Division on the work that you're doing.

MR. FULTON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I think this shows what a huge task that you have. This is a very large state. It has significant number of airports of all sizes and types, and they are all important from the smallest communities to our larger ones.

I hasten to add that due to your educational background I'm not surprised at this excellent work.

MR. FULTON: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: The next item is Number 5, still Dave's part of the program.

MR. FULTON: Right. Item 4 is a minute order. It contains a request for funding approval for 32 airport development projects, two requests for increased funding for previously approved projects at Bryan and Decatur, and a request for a loan from the Aviation Division Loan Program.

The Bryan project increased in cost from $1.17 million to $1.87 due to a change in scope during preliminary engineering. That was basically preservation. It became reconstruction as we did the preliminary engineering.

The Decatur project was originally approved in the amount of $600,000 based on preliminary cost estimates. The actual bid was $818,000. Our engineering staff feels that the bid amount is within a reasonable range and we would recommend the increase in grant funds.

The request for a loan is from the City of Brenham to construct a large maintenance hangar. The cost of the hangar is estimated at $368,000, with a loan request for 90 percent of that amount or 331,000. If approved, the loan is for a term of ten years at 5 percent interest.

Fifteen of the projects are programmed to be funded with federal and local funding, 20 are programmed to be funded with state and local funding. Total estimated cost of all the projects is $8.7 million. That's about 5 million federal, 2.8 state, and about $900,000 in local funds.

A public hearing was held on August 14 of this year. No comments were received.

We'd recommend approval of this minute order and we'd be happy to answer any specifics on any of these projects.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: There's a motion.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, David.

Item Number 5, public transportation. Margot Massey.

MS. MASSEY: Good morning. I'm Margot Massey with the Public Transportation Division presenting our monthly item on toll credits. I do think that this will take up permanent residence on the agenda.

The request before you today is to provide $154,471 in toll credits to the transit system that operates in Killeen, Copperas Cove, and Harker Heights. That service began earlier this year. They're phasing in their initial capital purchases and it's been extremely successful. The public response to the system has been very strong so we're quite encouraged.

And I understand from my accounting firm of James Bass and Company that Federal Highway Administration actually approved the toll credits -- certified the account yesterday, so we are in business.

We recommend your approval of this item.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 6, administrative rules, and we have a number for your consideration starting with 6(a)(1) employment practices, and this is a rule for proposed adoption.

MS. ISABEL: Good morning. I'm Diana Isabel, the director of human resources, and the proposed minute order that you have in front of you today is to amend Section 4.50, 4.51, and 4.56 concerning the department's sick leave pool program.

These proposed amendments are necessary to ensure that our employees -- that the employees who save their vacation time can be rewarded by not having to use this time or compensatory time before being eligible to receive sick leave pool hours if they have a need to do that.

The amendment also changes the definition of severe psychological conditions in order to update the average length of in-patient hospital stay for suicidal and/or homicidal patients and to broaden the criteria for what contributes to a severe psychological condition, and we would recommend the approval of these proposed amendments.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MS. ISABEL: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Diana.

MR. HEALD: And now 6(b)(1), starting -- this is rules for final adoption. Richard Monroe will handle 6(b)(1).

MR. MONROE: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Richard Monroe. I'm general counsel for the department.

By approving this minute order you would approve a streamlining of our rules addressing due process rights for people who have a complaint against the commission. This was necessitated by two pieces of legislation, one in '97 and one in '99. We have deleted the unnecessary sections and done some general cleaning up.

These rules were published for public comment in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. No comments were received. I would recommend your approval of the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Do people actually have complaints against the commission?

MR. HEALD: Okay. 6(b)(2). James Bass, under Chapter 5 finance.

MR. BASS: Good morning. For the record, I'm James Bass, director of TxDOT's Finance Division.

This minute order adopts revisions to the sections of the Texas Administrative Code that cover the department's ability to finance a utility adjustment, relocation, and removal that is not eligible for state reimbursement when a short-term financial condition exists that prevents the utility from being able to fund a relocation.

Back in May you approved the proposed amendments, repeals, and new sections for publication in the Texas Register, and no comments were received. We recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, James.

And the last minute order under rules -- administrative rules is Agenda Item 6(b)(3), Al Luedecke.

MR. LUEDECKE: For the record, I'm Al Luedecke, director of Transportation Planning and Program Division.

On June 23 of this year a public hearing was held to receive input on the proposed amendments to the rules concerning the addition of two selection criteria for highways on the Texas Highway Trunk System. The proposed amendments will give consideration to closing gaps in the existing selecting criteria and providing system connectivity.

Five participants provided oral comments and testimony at the public hearing, and seven written comments were received before the July 10, 2000, deadline. Of the 12 comments received, four supported the two new proposed criteria and eight suggested either additional criteria or specific highways to be added to the trunk system. The comments and responses are shown in your books as Exhibit B.

After reviewing and analyzing the current criteria and public comments we believe that these additional selection criteria will allow the commission to amend the system so it will provide more statewide coverage and more directional opportunities to meet the new demands placed on it from a growing economy in Texas and from NAFTA.

Staff recommends your approval of the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, Al.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 7 under transportation planning, we have four minute orders for consideration, and Al still has the floor.

MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you, Wes.

The minute order we bring for you today tenders a proposal to Fort Bend County and the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority for the development of State Highway 122 as a new toll facility.

This proposed new toll facility called the Fort Bend Parkway follows the route of State Highway 122 from Beltway 8 to the proposed State Highway 99, a distance of approximately 17 miles. The parkway is proposed as a county toll project and will be operated and maintained as a county road.

In order to accomplish this, a $17.1 million authorized by the commission in the 2000 Year UTP for the construction of two-lane frontage roads on current State Highway 122 from Beltway 8 to State Highway 6 needs to be redirected for the construction of the eligible portions of the interchanges that will be necessary for the toll road at Beltway 8 and State Highway 6.

The minute order you have also addresses the funding and project development responsibility for the county and the toll authority and the department.

One important provision for the department is that upon approval by the commission of the Fort Bend Parkway as a toll project, the department will cancel the project to construct the frontage roads and will remove State Highway 122 from the state highway system so it can be developed as a toll road.

We recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. LANEY: I've got some comments if I could make a couple.

MR. JOHNSON: Certainly.

MR. LANEY: I've got two issues with this, Al, both of which I'll raise but one of which I'll attempt to address with an amendment. I've run the language of the proposed amendment by Richard Monroe and I think it's okay from a legal standpoint. I want to see from a substantive standpoint if you have any concerns, Al. I need to hear from you.

MR. LUEDECKE: Sure.

MR. LANEY: The first concern I have is my, at least, personal adamant opposition to any proliferation of regional toll authorities. This is a grandfathered pre-existing regional toll authority and so there's a difference there and this has been a project in the works for a long time.

My concern is that this may provide some incentive for other efforts to be made around the state for a re-creation or a regeneration of additional toll authorities. We can't do much about that, other than to see how that plays out.

The bigger concern I have is that this is a very important highway segment, in my judgment, and I think will be a great relief in the Fort Bend County area, and I'm concerned that the Fort Bend County Toll Authority does not either have the financial or organizational strength to get this project going.

But again, I think we need to give the Fort Bend County Toll Authority the benefit of the doubt on this, and what I would like to do though is provide a period of time within which they need to, in effect, get this thing up and running or this minute order becomes void, and TTA at least has the option to step in and take this thing and move it forward.

So what I would like to propose is this language, and I won't read the entire minute order, but if you could follow me from the proviso or from the first, "It is therefore ordered by the commission that the executive director or his designee tender the following proposal to the county and the FBCTRA.

"Provided that the county and the FBCTRA will -- and this is the first additional language -- "before June 30, 2003," then continue with 1 unchanged, 2 unchanged, and then paragraph 3 would read in its entirety as follows:

"Upon approval of the Fort Bend Parkway as a county toll project under Transportation Code Section 362.051 contractually assume responsibility for its construction, maintenance, and operation and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the commission its ability to provide 100 percent of the construction costs of the portion of the toll facility from Beltway 8 to SH 6, excluding the 17.1 million to be used on portions of SH 6 and Beltway 8 interchange as eligible for state highway funding.

"Any costs exceeding 17.1 million for the project to construct interchanges will also be the responsibility of the county and FBCTRA."

That's the end of paragraph 3. Then I would begin the next lead-in with the word, "then, the Texas Department of Transportation will," and that continues paragraph 4 unchanged at which point we would add this paragraph.

"It is further ordered that in the event the county and the FBCTRA are unable to meet their obligations under this minute order in a timely manner, this minute order will become null and void and the Texas Turnpike Authority, a division of TxDOT, may assume responsibility for the development of such toll facility."

I would propose those as an amendment to this minute order mainly to provide focus, direction, and incentive for moving this project forward. There's always flexibility down the road if need be, but I think this is an important project and an important precedent for a pre-existing regional toll authority and I'd like to see it move in that direction.

I should add that at that date, Johnny, I presume, will still remain on the commission and probably chairman and will have a long history of this and will be as familiar as anybody, being from Houston, so I think he'll be in the perfect position to decide which way we go at that point.

I'd like to propose that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Amend the motion? All right. An amended motion.

Mr. Monroe?

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir?

MR. JOHNSON: Is what we proposed in accordance with generally accepted procedure?

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

There's an amended motion before us. Is there a second?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll second it.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor of that motion, please signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Al, thank you, and David, thank you, too.

MR. LUEDECKE: I have 7(b). Minute Order 107367, dated December 18, 1997, tendered a proposal to the Grand Parkway Association for the development of Segment I-2 of the proposed 99 or Grand Parkway.

This minute order required the association to execute an agreement with the United States Steel Corporation relating to the design and construction of segment I-2. In that agreement US Steel Corporation agreed to provide funding for the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates for a segment of I-2 and to extend the escrow agreement for the right of way necessary for Grand Parkway.

Cedar Crossing Limited Partnership has now purchased from US Steel Corporation the property which includes a portion of segment I-2. US Steel Corporation has assigned its interest in the design and construction of I-2 to the partnership, and the partnership has agreed to fulfill all of US Steel's obligations under the December 1997 minute order.

This minute order presented for your consideration amends the original minute order to substitute the Cedar Crossing Limited Partnership for US Steel Corporation as the responsible party for obligations relating to the development of Segment I-2 and the Grand Parkway.

We recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have a comment and a question.

MR. JOHNSON: All right.

MR. NICHOLS: The comment basically is I think it's a good thing for the state. I remember when all that original agreement was hammered out in the first place and they stepped forward to help contribute toward the Grand Parkway with land and money. So I think this change is fine.

The question I have is in that original agreement, the one we're talking about transferring over, there were two different dates. One was like a 15-year term, which I know is way out there, but there was a shorter date I'm trying to recall that referred to a letting of construction on that segment where they would participate and kick in a certain amount of money.

Are we on schedule to meet that date?

MR. LUEDECKE: I can't answer that question, but I can sure get back to you with an answer.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. We don't need it for this meeting but I want to make sure we're still on.

MR. LUEDECKE: We'll have that information for you.

My sense of the thing is, yes, we are on schedule, but I don't know that for a fact.

MR. NICHOLS: Unless somebody else has a comment, I'll move.

MR. JOHNSON: I have one question, Al. Have we satisfied ourselves that Cedar Crossing Limited has the capacity to do everything that US Steel was committed to do under our agreement with them?

MR. LUEDECKE: They're very enthusiastic and apparently very well-funded operation. They have quite a design in mind for that area, and I think, yes. The answer is yes.

MR. JOHNSON: There's a motion to --

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON:  -- and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. LUEDECKE: Item 7(c) -- currently Texas' share of the National Interstate System totals 3,233 center line miles. While the interstate system accounts for only 8 percent of the total lane mileage in the state highway system, it carries approximately 32 percent of the state's total vehicle miles traveled.

As mainline truck traffic increases we're experiencing significant deterioration in the condition and ride quality of some of the state's interstate highways. A review of the current revenue estimates has provided an opportunity to consider additional allocations to the state interstate maintenance program.

This minute order provides a supplemental allocation of $230 million in Category 2, Interstate Maintenance Program, for full depth rehabilitation in specific distressed areas for sections of the main lanes on the interstate system. The distribution of this additional programming authority is based on data derived from recent pavement condition scores and interstate condition assessment report done by the Maintenance Division.

A specific site-based listing of the affected districts highways beginning and ending mile points, road bed orientation, and the amount of programming authority proposed by this minute order is shown in your books as Exhibit A. We believe the supplemental allocation program will address the rehabilitation needs of those most distressed pavement sections in our state system so that the current existing formula for allocation of the regular allocation will better fit the districts' needs.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you.

MR. LUEDECKE: 7(d) -- I bring before you the fourth quarter program for the disadvantaged counties to adjust matching funds requirements.

In your books there's Exhibit A that lists the projects and staff recommended adjustments for each of them. Adjustments are based on the equations approved in earlier proposals. There are 33 projects in 12 counties, and the reduction participation for these projects is $2,439,000.

We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. LANEY: I have a question. There's a statement in here of total estimated adjustments to date, including this minute order, are almost $17 million. Is that from the inception of this program or just this year?

MR. LUEDECKE: I believe it’s from the inception of the program.

MR. LANEY: Thanks.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 8, under turnpike projects, we have two minute orders. Phil Russell?

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you. It's always a tough job following Al or James Bass, not the least of which is this podium's too darn high. Now we have it adjusted accordingly.

Good morning, commissioners, and Wes and Helen. My name's Phillip Russell. I'm the director of the Texas Turnpike Authority. Today we have two minute orders, the first of which is an advanced funding minute order for State Highway 130.

If you will recall back in December of last year the commission approved our blanket minute order, our umbrella minute order that essentially created the template for the advancement of funds to the Texas Turnpike Authority. Under that umbrella minute order all of the funds that were advanced would be repaid through future bond issues provided that the project ultimately was constructed as a turnpike project.

Following that umbrella minute order we had three project-specific minute orders that were also approved for State Highway 45, Loop 1, and US 183A. The minute order before you requests the advance of up to $51 million for the development of State Highway 130, and that would be reimbursed by future bond proceeds, again, provided that the project ultimately is constructed as a turnpike project.

And the Turnpike Authority requests your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion to that effect?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Phil, thank you.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.

Our second minute order is for our Loop 1 project. Statutorily, the commission must approve each environmental review undertaken by the Texas Turnpike Authority for potential turnpike projects prior to the beginning of construction.

Loop 1 is a seven-mile project that begins in the Parmer Lane area. It extends over to County Road 170, which is slightly east of I-35 there in Round Rock.

The final environmental impact statement for Loop 1 was approved on June 9, 2000, and a record of decision was issued by the Federal Highway Administration on July 25, 2000, and this completes the environmental review process.

This minute order requests the commission approval of the environmental review for Loop 1.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Congratulations on your record of decision.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: With that, I so move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

We have a question or two from Mr. Laney, I believe.

MR. LANEY: Phil, on the segment of road we just -- on the record of decision, basically, there's another part. I believe it's farther to the west, between MoPac and Parmer Lane that is -- are you familiar with where I'm talking about? It's farther along the route that you're developing as what Loop 1 --

MR. RUSSELL: Is it on State Highway 45 or on the Loop 1 project?

MR. LANEY: I think it's on the Loop 1 project, maybe 45, between MoPac and I-35. Are you familiar, between MoPac and Parmer Lane --

MR. RUSSELL: Right. The L.

MR. LANEY: Yes. That's a mess. Is that part of your --

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY:  -- thinking in terms of development of -- I mean what's the timing on something developing there?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes. This minute order includes that section of the L, approving that environmental review process. At this point we're cleared to start acquiring right of way. We have plans developed. We're trying to head up the right of way acquisition process as we speak.

MR. LANEY: What is your best estimate as to the first of these projects beginning to move forward in a -- from a construction standpoint?

MR. RUSSELL: Of course, our first project is what we call the green plan, the frontage road plan that will be let in October.

MR. LANEY: The first main lane project.

MR. RUSSELL: The main lane project -- we anticipate letting about this time or perhaps a little earlier next year, so we're ten months away from construction.

Plans are essentially complete. They're under the final review now. We're trying to work very closely with the various entities to come up with that right of way acquisition money.

MR. LANEY: So from a funding standpoint, aside from right of way acquisition money, from a bond funding standpoint, what is the timing of your going to the market, more or less?

MR. RUSSELL: More or less probably next spring. We won't know until we have our investment grade report completed.

MR. LANEY: So once you do that we will begin to see reimbursement on some of the funds we've advanced to TTA?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: For those that track back to that particular project?

MR. RUSSELL: That is correct.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Phil.

MR. MONROE: Excuse me. Perhaps I'm getting paranoid about anything having to do with the environment or environmental studies these days, but I would like to bring to the commission's attention that the minute order originally presented to you outlined an area of approximately four miles to be the subject of the study. As Mr. Russell said, it is in fact seven miles in length, approximately.

You have approved the minute order but I did want to bring that to the attention of the commission and make sure that the minute order is approved with that modification.

MR. JOHNSON: The minute order does -- that was approved does state 7.1 miles.

MR. MONROE: Thank you, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Item Number 9 under traffic operations -- Carlos?

MR. LOPEZ: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Carlos Lopez and I'm director of the Traffic Operations Division.

The minute order before you authorized the use of discretionary federal funds awarded to Texas under the Intelligent Transportation Systems integration program of TEA 21 and also authorized a required state match for these funds.

The goal of the federal ITS program is to accelerate the linking of existing installations, the development of ITS plans for the connection of various system components so that they can work together.

The federal funds in this minute order were designated to the State of Texas, Houston, and Fort Worth through the FY 2000 USDOT appropriations bill. With the funds designated for the State of Texas we are proposing projects or plans for Amarillo, Atlanta, Childress, El Paso, Tyler, Dallas, Austin, and for commercial vehicle operations. So you can see ITS is no longer just an urban thing.

We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Carlos, I'm assuming that in the non-urban areas we're talking about ITS on the interstate system. Is that right?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes. It's mainly on the interstate system. It may be also on some primary US routes like maybe 287 in Amarillo and Childress, but they'll be mainly plans in those areas.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Carlos, you're not fixing to leave, are you?

MR. LOPEZ: No.

MR. HEALD: I need to see you after the meeting real quick.

MR. LOPEZ: Sure.

MR. HEALD: Item Number 10 --

MR. LANEY: It was something you said.

(General laughter.)

MR. HEALD: Well, let me just tell you what it is. Carlos -- when I told him about a wigwag railroad traffic signal he looked at me like, Oh, sure. We have some pictures up here and I want to show you there is such a thing. Okay.

Item Number 10, contracts. We have, I believe, the first four minute orders Thomas will handle.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav, and I have a recommendation that we go ahead and do the agenda in the order of height with the tallest going first, then we won't have to mess with this thing anymore.

Item 10(a) is a minute order that establishes fiscal year 2001 Historically Underutilized Business goal of 26 percent for building construction contracts, 57.2 percent for special trade contracts, 20 percent for professional service contracts, 33 percent for other services contracts, and 12.6 percent for commodity purchasing.

The annual HUB goals are established pursuant to Title 43, Texas Administrative Code Section 9.54. To maintain consistency with the Government Code Section 2161.002 the department made use of the disparity study conducted by the General Services Commission. That's this study here -- in setting its goals.

Staff recommends approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. LANEY: I have a question.

MR. JOHNSON: David.

MR. LANEY: Are these different from last year's or the last time we --

MR. BOHUSLAV: These are the same goals that we used last year, with the exception of construction maintenance -- highway construction maintenance program. They're not included in these goals.

MR. LANEY: The same as last year?

MR. BOHUSLAV: The same as last year. The General Services Commission conducts those studies for us and they give us the goals. Yes.

MR. LANEY: Thank you. That's all.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 10(b) is for a minute order that establishes the Small Business Enterprise goal of 23 percent for fiscal year 2001. The annual SBE goal is established pursuant to Title 43 Texas Administrative Code Section 9.55 and is applicable to highway construction maintenance projects funded with state and local funds.

The goal was established by adding the amount of work subcontracted by SBEs to the amount awarded to prime contractor SBEs in fiscal year '99. An assumption in identifying SBEs was made. We added an additional 5 percent figure to the amount for suppliers.

Staff recommends approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: I have a question. On both the HUB goals and the SBE goals how are we trending in terms of meeting those goals in the current fiscal year?

MR. BOHUSLAV: We've had some significant changes in those programs in the previous year. We -- do you want to talk about DBE also, because we have actually a DBE program as well --

MR. JOHNSON: Sure.

MR. BOHUSLAV:  -- that's just a little bit different.

Let me first start with the DBE program, and that program has changed significantly in how we certify DBEs.

Currently we probably do not have a problem in how we look at those goals from a standpoint of awards. We are looking very good. We're looking at about 20 percent actually showing up for the awards, subcontractors and prime contractors. The payments that we receive -- we haven't quite -- we get information from contractors. We haven't quite seen those ramp up to that number, but we do expect to meet our goals regarding the DBE program.

And the DBE program goals are the 11.9 percent for the previous fiscal year and we're proposing again for this year as well.

For the HUB program I can't give you specifics on it but I tend to think we're probably going to be about the same kind of shape, knowing that we -- in those areas that we've been we'd probably be about the same place we were last year right now. I don't have the specifics on that.

For the SBE program -- it's brand new and don't know where we're going to be.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, my interpretation is that we are on track to meeting our goals.

MR. BOHUSLAV: With the exception of the construction and maintenance -- highway construction and maintenance programs, because of the changes we've had in that, I can't tell you exactly where we're going to be. We're going to continue to measure that and support that program, ask contractors to volunteer -- submit their payments to HUB contractors out there.

But I can't tell you just yet where we're going to end up in that area.

MR. JOHNSON: Thanks.

MR. HEALD: Mr. Chairman, let me add -- and, Thomas, correct me if I'm wrong -- there's been some reluctance in the past to not report certain DBE or HUB money or work that's been done by those kind of people because they're afraid we'd raise the goals, and I think now that we've got the AGC's buy-in in that they're going to be very honest and report all HUB and DBE activity -- is that correct, Tom?

MR. BOHUSLAV: That's correct. In the old program -- the beginning of the program -- two things occurred. One, the goals were set based on what you did previously, so the more you did the higher you set your goal, and you never could catch up.

And the other issue was that if you said you were going to do an amount over the goal we were required to hold the contractor to the amount that they committed to above the goal as well, so they didn't want to show any more than what they had to do to meet the goal out there.

So those two changes and discussing that with the -- taking those two issues away from the contractors -- they really are open to doing -- volunteering and showing everything that they're doing out there.

MR. NICHOLS: Now I've got a question or comment -- yes. It's a question.

On our -- someone who's in this group that we're trying to monitor and work toward increasing, as they get larger and their dollar amounts of contracts reach a certain level -- I think it's 20 million or something like that -- then they in effect graduate -- that's probably not a proper term -- and are no longer counted. So those are really the success stories.

And at one time I know we were not even tracking those, which are the ones that we should be keeping up with. Are we still currently tracking those now?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes. We continue to track those and keep up with those and report those outside the program and just make -- in our reports we identify those and just say, This is additional work for former DBEs or HUBs, whatever the case may be, that we're still extending with them even though they've graduated.

Now, there are some changes we expect soon in the DBE program. We lost several fairly large DBEs because of a personal net worth requirement of $750,000, and that took out several DBEs in the program.

In the HUB program --

MR. NICHOLS: Would you repeat that one more time?

MR. BOHUSLAV: There's a personal net worth requirement of $750,000 that was not in the program before and that's taken several larger DBEs out of the program. That happened over last year.

So -- but we continue to track those firms regardless. Now, some of those are suppliers and it's difficult to track them, but if they're prime contractors we can track them.

The other side of that is that in the HUB program, I believe they utilize the Small Business Administration values for contractors in regard to when you graduate, and I believe that was just raised. It was $16 million and I believe it's gone to $26 million, so I expect General Services to adopt that into -- and we will be using that value in the future, which means that for some that had graduated previously they may be able to come back into the program again.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. BOHUSLAV: There is no personal net worth requirement in the HUB program.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: On Item 10(b) we'll entertain a motion for its approval.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 10(c)(1) is for consideration for the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on August 3 and 4, 2000, whose engineered estimated costs are $300,000 or more, as shown on Exhibit A.

We had 15 projects and we came in at 11 percent under. Staff recommends award of all projects in the exhibit.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 10(c)(2) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway construction and building contracts let on August 3 and 4, 2000, as shown on Exhibit A.

We had 163 projects. This was quite a large letting. $520 million is what we received for bids. The average number of bidders was 3.9 bids per project.

We have five projects we recommend for rejection. First project is Project Number 3021. We had one bidder. This is an HES project. It was 20 percent over. We had some errors in the proposal on that project. We'd like to go back and adjust that and change the scope a little bit. We need to eliminate some items of work.

The second project recommended for rejection in Project Number 3103. This project was 29 percent over. This is a CMAQ project and Harris County is controlling the funds, and they would like to reject this project and go back and revise the scope and see what they can do to get this project down in cost.

The third project recommended for rejection is Project Number 3126, a project in Hood County. It's 30 percent over and we only had one bidder. We'd like to get some more competition and go back and re-let this project, see if we could save money to the state on the project.

Project Number 3147 -- this project is in Presidio County. It's 44 percent over, and we'd like to go back and redesign and bring the cost down to a level equivalent to the available funds for the project.

And then Project Number 3173 in Randall County -- it was 67 percent over, only had one bidder. Had some concerns about the material specifications on this project and some working conditions. We'd like to revisit those and do some redesign and come back and re-let it at a later date.

With the exceptions noted, staff recommends approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have a question. I notice on the maintenance contracts and on -- these particular group of contracts the numbers are coming in underrun. We had an underestimate.

We had a period of time -- I believe it was last year or maybe the year before for a couple of years in a row almost always it would come in over. This is a $37 million underrun. Are we seeing some kind of a trend in material prices, or it is contractors getting caught up because of the dry weather, or can you comment as to why we're seeing more of a consistent underrun pattern now?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Let me speak to this month first, that we have several projects this month -- one project, for instance, in Grayson County that was estimated at $22 million, I believe, but came in at $12 million, and it surprised us.

The contractors were hungry for this job. They needed work in the area. The contractor that got the job were normally their remote location. This one -- he's already set up on the job. He's got an adjacent project. He's got material sources, everything ready for it there. He bid prices on a bank that we haven't seen in 20 years probably, 71 cents a cubic yard.

But we have also several painting contracts in this job, and normally our painting contracts that require some environmental issues that we handle -- dispose of the paint properly. And the contractors that bid it -- and all of them bid it pretty low -- they cut our prices in half nearly again.

They think they can do it a lot cheaper than what we used to estimate in the old -- under previous estimates in the past.

In regard to the trend, we've been encouraging districts to increase their estimates because we had been seeing that 10 percent increase per year over the previous years, and we've been encouraging they get their estimates caught up, not to use historical data and use more recent data and move those prices up, because costs are going up with that.

And so we think they've caught up with that and are pushing their prices up to address that, and we think they've caught up and maybe overreached a little bit. That might address part of it.

As big a letting as this was, it seemed with the weather that contractors are needing the work, and that's as general as I can get. I can't give you much more than that. You have to go to each project to get more specific than that.

MR. NICHOLS: Thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: I think we have a question.

MR. LANEY: Let's see if you're familiar with this one, 3141 in El Paso, overpass widening, almost 60 percent over, one bidder. What got you comfortable with that one?

MR. BOHUSLAV: That project -- and I do have it here if I can find it -- (Perusing documents.)

MR. LANEY: It's on page 9.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We did have one bidder on it, and my understanding is that the district on that project -- if that's a $2 million job, $3 million job?

MR. LANEY: Well, it was 2 million and --

MR. BOHUSLAV: The district -- their funds will lapse on that project and they would lose their funds for the project if we don't let it this year. And they feel comfortable with it, and the cost -- in discussion of the cost with the contractor, they felt that the prices were reasonable. They just had a bad estimate on the project and they supported going ahead and awarding it to the contractor in this case.

MR. JOHNSON: Just out of curiosity, why would that particular project just draw one bidder? Obviously that requires speculation on your part, but I'm just curious.

MR. BOHUSLAV: I don't know. There are cases where contractors have a control over the material sources, and they tend to dominate in those areas in parts of the state where they actually have the pits and the resources to use the job.

This contractor, I think, pretty well for the larger projects in that area dominates in that regard. One of their competitors, I think, in the area -- I don't see where they bid on this thing. But they tend to dominate these type of projects in that area.

With a large letting it may be the case that contractors did not feel that their time would be expended efficiently by folks that are on that job that provide prices. Speculation.

MR. LANEY: Back to the issue of the funds lapsing if they're not used this year, I don't understand that. What are the funds that would lapse if they weren't used?

MR. BOHUSLAV: These are STP funds and that's the information that was given to me. Is Al still here? STP funds in El Paso. They were issued in '94 and they would lapse at the end of this year if they do not use them.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thanks.

Any other questions?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion for approval?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, Thomas.

MR. HEALD: Thomas, before you leave, do you have the exact number of how much we let in this fiscal year? Is it 2.87 or something like that?

MR. BOHUSLAV: I can get that.

MR. HEALD: Well, we didn't quite make our 3 billion that we were hoping for, and I think we would have. I think the districts had everything ready for a $3 billion letting, but mainly I think it was on account of the wetlands problems we were having, that we had to hold up some jobs.

So I guess what I'm trying to say, we think that the districts and divisions have done an outstanding job again for the second year in a row gearing up to this, but unfortunately we had some environmental problems.

MR. BOHUSLAV: I'll get you some.

MR. HEALD: Contract claims, Item 10(d). We have two, and Mike will handle that.

MR. BEHRENS: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Mike Behrens, engineering operations.

We have two claim settlement minute orders this morning, the first being one in Brazos County. The contractor was Young Contractors, Project F 471(36). The contractor filed a claim in the amount of 239,522.72 for additional compensation for issues that arose in the construction.

The contract claim committee met on July 19, 2000, and after consideration offered a settlement of $50,000. This was accepted by the contractor on July 27, 2000.

We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Okay. The second claim is in Medina County in the San Antonio District. The contractor was Alice Roofing and Sheet Metal Works. It was a maintenance contract 159XXR1031. Contractor submitted a claim of $19,825 due to some improper calculation of monies due to him after the contract was canceled.

We reviewed that claim on July 19, 2000, and offered a settlement amount of $7,600, and we also agreed to change the terminology of a default of contract to a termination of contract. And this was accepted by the contractor on July 24, 2000, by letter.

We also recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion is carried. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 11, routine minute orders. And as usual, I'll go through these unless you stop me. First one being 11(a) Speed Zones -- establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state.

11(b), Highway Designation in Collin County -- FM 544, remove a segment of FM 544 from the state highway system from State Highway 78 south to the Dallas County line.

11(c), Highway Relocation -- Rusk County, FM 3231 south of Tatum. Authorize relocation of FM 3231 from FM 1251 north, approximately 2.5 miles to be funded 100 percent by Texas Utilities Mining Company.

11(d) under Right of Way Disposition, Purchase, and Lease, starting with (d)(1), Bastrop County. Old SH 938 near Paige -- consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner, and that being for appraised value.

(d)(2), Bell County, US 190, southwest corner at Willow Springs Road in Killeen. Consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner. That also being for appraised value.

11(d)(3), Dallas County -- US 75, Southwest quadrant of State Street in Dallas. Consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner, that also being for appraised value. All these for appraised values.

11(d)(4), Fannin County -- FM 68 north of SH 34, west of Ladonia. Consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner.

(d)(5), Harris County -- IH 45 at Holzwarth Road north of Houston. Consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner.

Again, in Harris County being (d)(6), SH 288, southwest corner at Southmore Avenue in Houston. Consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner.

And then 11(e), Eminent Domain Proceedings, various counties in the state. Request for eminent domain proceedings on both noncontrolled and controlled access highways, and there's a list for your consideration.

And, Mr. Chairman, that ends the routine minute orders.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions relative to the routine minute orders?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved we accept them.

MR. LANEY: Seconded.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Mr. Chairman, we do not have -- we're not calling for an executive session. Under our open comment section we have two who have signed up to speak.

MR. JOHNSON: Before we proceed to the open comment period, please for the record, state your name before you begin and remember that there is a three-minute time limit. And to make it easier for you to observe the time limit, on the dais is a clock.

Our first speaker who wants to discuss the Draft 2001 UTP as it relates to Interstate 10 West and US 59 South in the Houston District is Alan Clark.

MR. CLARK: Thank you again, and I'll be brief.

I'm here representing Judge Robert Eckels, who is the chairman of our region's transportation policy council, the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria metropolitan area, and I would just briefly read the letter to you, written to Commissioner Johnson.

"Dear Commissioner Johnson, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2001 Unified Transportation Plan released by the Texas Department of Transportation for public comment. Over the next 20 years the Houston-Galveston region's population and employment is expected to increase by 1.9 million residents and 1.2 million jobs.

"By 2020 almost 6.5 million persons will call our part of Texas home. Expansion of the region's roadway system and development of new transportation technologies and strategies are essential to maintain the state's economic competitiveness and improve the quality of life for all who live and work here.

"Our region supports the commission and statewide efforts of groups like TEX-21 and the Texas Transportation Funding Coalition to advocate preserving the integrity of tax dollars for infrastructure maintenance and development.

"As chairman for the region's Transportation Policy Council, I've been asked to express deep concern over the apparent lack of funding for two critical projects in the Houston region. We recognize the commission cannot fund all needed projects in the state or in our region. Therefore, we have proposed to provide substantial funding toward construction on the Katy Freeway from Mason Road to the Fort Bend County line.

"Unfortunately, the commission has apparently declined to participate in this project at this time. I urge the Texas Transportation Commission to develop an implementation plan for the Katy Freeway that would allow local governments to expedite its construction.

"Secondly, the Transportation Policy Council requests that the commission retain priority one designation for both frontage roads and main lane construction on US 59 from SH 6 to approximately the Grand Parkway.

"At the request of the Texas Department of Transportation, the TPC agreed to split this project into two projects to accommodate actual funding availability. Understanding that the construction of the main lanes will occur at a later time, we request that this project remain in priority one so that it may be constructed as soon as funding becomes available.

"Thank you for your continued partnership in improving mobility in the Houston-Galveston region," and the letter's signed Robert Eckels, County Judge.

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

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

MR. CLARK: Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Our next speaker speaking on the Draft 2001 UTP as it relates to US Highway 59 funding in Fort Bend County between SH 6 and 99 is Dale Rudick.

Welcome. Please state your name, and --

MR. RUDICK: Thank you, commissioners. Dale Rudick. I'm with the City of Sugar Land, transportation and utilities director.

I'm glad to be here today. The mayor had a previous commitment and asked me to be here on his behalf. We're very pleased with the progress of US 59 through -- expansion currently ongoing through Fort Bend County in Sugar Land. We thank you for your support, and this project seems to be already improving mobility as we're getting ready for some frontage roads to go over Oyster Creek.

We're here today to ask you for your continued support of US 59. The commission had previously approved continuation of the project from SH 6 to SH 99, which is the Grand Parkway, in the UTP. It has come to our attention that it's now proposed in the upcoming UTP to be phased.

The frontage roads would be Phase 1 and would retain priority one status. However, the main lanes are now proposed to be priority two and we would again have to compete for funding. We feel this is a step backwards in going from priority one to priority two and to funded to not funded.

In response to TxDOT's request for comments on the proposed UTP, the city council of Sugar Land has passed Resolution Number 0042, and I'd like to read that for you.

"A resolution of the city council and the City of Sugar Land, Texas, committing the city's support for the US Highway 59 expansion between SH 6 and SH 99.

"Whereas, the Houston-Galveston area council will be recommending projects to the Texas Transportation Commission to be approved for the Unified Transportation Program, and whereas the Department of Transportation is recommending an amendment to the UTP for the US 59 project between SH 6 and 99, and whereas this amendment changes the priority status of US 59 main lanes to priority two, which is considered unfunded, whereas Fort Bend County is the fourth fastest growing county in the country and the first fastest growing county in the State of Texas, and whereas Fort Bend County is one of the few areas in Texas that is receiving national recognition for its economic growth, and whereas Fort Bend County continues to successfully attract businesses from other areas such as Sabic America's Tramontina USA, Noble Drilling, Fairfield Industries, and Neon Systems, and whereas the US 59 corridor is of vital importance to the continued growth and prosperity of Sugar Land, Fort Bend County, and the State of Texas, now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of Sugar Land, Texas, that the city council requests the HGAC and the Texas Transportation Commission ensure the main lanes of US 59 between SH 6 and 99 remain at priority one status and show as a funded project in the UTP.

"Passed and approved July 25, 2000, Mayor Dean Hrbacek, Mayor."

I would be glad to answer questions, but in the interim I thank you and I will be glad to submit a certified copy of that resolution to Alan.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions or observations?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: For both of our speakers I have an observation and it is this. These are two projects that are extremely important, not only to the local areas that they serve but to the state as a whole and to this commission, and I think I'm accurate in stating that I believe it will -- it's the goal of the commission that both of these projects and similar projects around the state that are of this magnitude and importance -- the goal will be for a seamless construction project. There will not be any halts.

In other words, when we start at one end we will continually work until we finish the project and complete what we start.

I recognize that from time to time it appears as though there might be a hitch in our get-along, so to speak, but that is the goal of the commission, and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that goal is met.

MR. RUDICK: Thank you. All of us would be very grateful.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions or observations?

Yes, sir?

MR. HEALD: I intended to also express my pleasure to have the engineer group from Abilene here. I hope you get a chance to maybe come up on the second floor and visit, but it's good to have you here. But I hope you understand that by your attendance at this meeting you are dedicating the rest of your career to TxDOT.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Well said. Is there any other business to come before the commission?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: There being none, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: We stand adjourned. For the record, it is twenty minutes past ten. Thank you very much for your attendance.

(Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the meeting was concluded.)

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: August 31, 2000

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 67, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Pat Alex before the Texas Department of Transportation.

                     09/05/2000
(Transcriber) (Date)

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