TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

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

9:08 a.m. Thursday, September 28, 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 is 9:08 a.m. and I will call this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. Welcome to our September 28 meeting. It is a pleasure to have you here today.

Please 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 11:17 a.m. on September 20.

Before we get started I'd like to ask my colleagues if they have any comments they would like to make. David?

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Johnny. I just wanted to thank the El Paso delegation for the generous dinner and hospitality last night, as usual. In fact, we're to the point where we don't expect anything less of the El Paso delegation, but we thoroughly enjoyed it last night and I appreciate very much the effort on your part. It's good to see you here this morning.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I'm sorry I missed the dinner last night. I think that's the first one I've missed since I've been on the commission. But wanted to say how much we appreciate all of you, particularly from El Paso going the long distance, taking the time -- day out of your life to be here and present the needs of your community, and we appreciate it. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thanks.

I'd like to echo what David said about your gracious hospitality last night and also reinforce something that I said in February. Thank you not only for last night but your extraordinary hospitality during the commission's meeting in February in El Paso. We're extremely grateful for that.

Before we get started I'd like everyone to know that Item 10(c)(1) on today's agenda has been deferred, and Item 7(b) will be moved up to the lead-off position after we reconvene following the presentation of TEX-21.

While our guests from El Paso prepare to address the commission may I remind anyone here who wants to address the commission to fill out a card at the registration table. If you want 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.

To register to speak during that time, please fill out a blue card and regardless of the color of the card, please remember that each speaker will be allowed three minutes.

We will begin this morning with the delegation from El Paso, and County Judge Dolores Briones will lead the presentation, I've been informed. Is that not correct?

JUDGE BRIONES: I'm going to defer to the mayor.

MR. JOHNSON: Mayor Carlos Ramirez. I apologize for that egregious mistake, but welcome, and thank you.

EL PASO

(Mayor Carlos Ramirez, Dolores Briones, Tom Ruiz, Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, Rep. Joe Pickett, Rep. Norma Chavez, Rep. Pat Haggerty, Rep. Manny Najera)

MAYOR RAMIREZ: Team El Paso -- anyone of the members of Team El Paso can represent us well, so no mistake.

Good morning, commissioners. It is my pleasure to be here today on behalf of Team El Paso and the El Paso MPO. I want to thank the Texas Transportation Commission for their support that you have shown for a community's regional transportation needs.

We have a delegation from El Paso that's here today and I would like to ask them to stand. Would the El Paso delegation please stand? Thank you.

Through the years your support of our strategic priority projects have brought us closer to our goal of developing a transportation system that can move people and commerce in a safe and efficient manner. Today we are here to ask you to fund three strategic priority projects that will bring us even closer to that goal.

Specifically, our request include project number one, Alameda Avenue, which is US 80 or Texas 20. We are requesting priority one funding for the project segment from Lee Trevino to Loop 375. The amount requested is $21.6 million.

Project number two, the Border Highway Extension East. We are requesting preliminary engineering and priority two authorization for a 32-mile, four-lane expressway with connections to Interstate 10 Highway and the ports of entry. The amount requested is $4.8 million.

Project number three, Loop 375 at Zarogoza Road and Montwood Drive interchange. We are requesting priority one funding for the second final phase of a regional significant interchange. The amount requested is $17.4 million.

All three of these projects surfaced as community priorities because of the unique dynamics of our region. I'd like to take a moment to share a couple of facts with you.

Our region has a history of being a transportation hub for North America. Our coordinates have made our region a strategic transportation hub for more than 400 years. From the Camino Real to NAFTA, El Paso has played a key role in facilitating commerce for over 400 years. This region has been the primary transportation gateway for people and goods moving through the Americas.

We live in the crossroads of a major east-west and north-south corridor. Today the El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico region is the largest binational metropolitan area on the U.S.-Mexico border and in the world. Population in the region continues to grow at an estimated 3 percent per year. However, the changing face of commerce and transportation calls us to make the necessary investments to upgrade our infrastructure.

With this in mind I'd like to talk about project number one, the Alameda, Monterrey, station between Lee Trevino Drive and Loop 375.

As El Paso grows and prospers we need to ensure that the oldest and most historic commercial and residential areas evolve as well. Alameda Avenue modernization project is critical to these efforts.

Alameda Avenue, US 80, or Texas 20, was built in the early 1920s at a time when this region's economy was driven mainly by farming. Since its construction Alameda has served as a main artery from the Mission Valley into El Paso. Today it has the most transit routes of any arterial in El Paso.

Over the years Alameda developed into a bustling commercial district. As a matter of fact, the historic downtown Ysleta district is within this section of Alameda, Lee Trevino to Loop 375. Eighty years after its construction commercial development continues to grow along Alameda but it's limited to the constraints of an antiquated rural road. Furthermore, the sorely inadequate pedestrian and drainage facilities make this stretch of Alameda a hazard to everyone who uses it.

We are here to ask for your support in modernizing the infrastructure of one of the oldest transportation corridors in El Paso. This infrastructure revitalization effort is a critical component of our larger plans for this area. As you know, this section of Alameda is part of our empowerment zone. Your support for this project coupled with the economic and social investment in this area will help ensure the viability of the commercial and residential community along Alameda.

When completed Alameda Avenue will form part of the backbone of this region's transportation facilities along with Interstate 10, Loop 375, the proposed Inner Loop, the proposed Border Highway Extension East, the proposed Northeast Parkway and International Beltway, which the Domenici [phonetic] Highway in New Mexico or Loop 375 in El Paso, and the Nuevo Casas Grandes [phonetic] Highway in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico.

The City of El Paso is contributing about $4 million, out of which 200,000 have already been spent, leaving a commitment balance of $3.8 million as local contribution funds. We ask that you support this project.

Commissioners, at this time I would like to introduce to you our immediate past chair of the transportation policy board, our county judge, Dolores Briones. Thank you.

JUDGE BRIONES: Good morning, commissioners.

You just heard about the critical needs of the historic Alameda area. For our second request I'd like to take you a little further east into the Mission Valley.

This project would allow us to begin preliminary engineering and authorize priority two status for the Border Highway Extension East project. The current concept of the Border Highway Extension East project would be a 22-mile, four-lane expressway with connections to I-10 terminating at the Fabens port of entry. This request would authorize our district office to proceed with plans to construct a new location four-lane expressway from Zarogoza Road to Herring Road.

Why do we need this project? Let me share a few facts that will shed light on the answer.

In 1999 El Paso handled over 18 percent share of the total U.S.-Mexico trade, or $32.6 billion, 12.9 billion in exports and 19.4 billion in imports. The Mission Valley is one of the most rapidly growing areas in the region. Between 1990 and 2010 the Mission Valley is projected to experience a 42 percent population increase. In 1998 the Zarogoza port of entry handled over 3 million passenger vehicles and nearly 300,000 commercial carriers.

Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, is home to over 380 twin plant companies, the most of any Mexican city, much of the newest developments in Ciudad Juarez in the southeast paralleling the Mission Valley.

Approximately 98 percent of all trade through the El Paso District is handled by trucks. Trade with Mexico is one of the fastest growing segments of the Texas and U.S. economies. With this in mind, it is important to consider a couple of things.

First, how is this growth affecting the Mission Valley, given its current infrastructure, and secondly, what is the potential for growth in the area with the construction of the Border Highway Extension East? The lack of appropriate infrastructure in the Mission Valley has been an impediment to economic opportunity. According to the 1990 census, unemployment in this area exceeds 16 percent, far greater than the 10.7 percent unemployment rate for El Paso County as a whole and more than double the 7 percent national rate.

Participation in the labor force itself was 5 percent less than the norm for El Paso County.

These unemployment rates in the area are related in part to the low number of employment opportunities in this area. As the number of agriculture-related employment opportunities have continued to drop, the residents of the Mission Valley have been hard pressed to find other kinds of work in this area. Job opportunities outside of the area are also difficult to access because of limited transit services.

While the smaller communities of Socorro, Clint, San Elizario, and Fabens are beginning to benefit from the success of the twin plant industry, the economic opportunities have not been fully captured by the Mission Valley. Furthermore, the truck traffic generated by those industries is creating elevated levels of congestion on the streets of these smaller communities.

The area is prime for industrial development but currently lacks the infrastructure needed to make use of its location.

Extending the Border Highway will pave the way for industrial and commercial development in the area, thereby enhancing the quality of life of the Mission Valley community. New businesses will bring with them an increase in employment opportunities as well as basic products and services. Currently, residents of this underserved area must travel long distances to purchase items and services such as higher education at the University of Texas at El Paso and other private colleges that many of us may take for granted.

In the near future a new commercial port of entry will be constructed in Fabens, Texas, and a third port of entry is planned to be built in the city of Socorro. Also, the county is not only focusing on the development of an industrial park near the Fabens port of entry, but also building a fund to purchase right of way and to pay our share of the building of the bridge.

Consequently, the Border Highway Extension East project is needed to connect all of the ports of entry with the commercial and residential areas providing the Mission Valley with the infrastructure to facilitate economic development.

From a different perspective, the extension of the Border Highway East would help preserve our region's 400-year history by protecting the three historic missions along Socorro Road, FM 258, which is currently one of the primary arterials through the Mission Valley. Preserving the unique history and culture of our Mission Valley is also critical to expanding the tourism industry along the Mission Trail.

Whether it be for safety, economic development, education, or historic preservation and tourism, the Border Highway Extension East holds significant promise for the Mission Valley. I urge you to support this project. As the community commitment, the City of El Paso would contribute 250,000 toward this project.

I would now like to introduce to you our current TPB chair and mayor of the Town of Horizon City, The Honorable Tom Ruiz.

MAYOR RUIZ: Good morning, commissioners.

I'm the mayor of a town whose total population represents less than one half of 1 percent of the head count of the region, so I hope you can understand what a privilege it is for me to follow in the footsteps of Mayor Ramirez and Judge Briones as the TPB chair. As the new chair of the TPB I want to thank you for all your support through the past years and we look forward to continuing our good relationship with you in the future.

The third project we bring to you today is the final phase of a multilevel interchange that would connect Loop 375 with both Montwood Drive and Zarogoza Road. This project is the key component of a completed outer loop that would relieve commercial and commuter traffic congestion throughout the El Paso MPO study area.

This project will be completed in two phases. Phase one is being funded with border initiative funds that were designated by -- for El Paso by the commission, and phase two is the final phase of a multilevel interchange.

Permit me to share with you some key figures that illustrate the importance of this project. Since the twin plant industry first took root in El Paso in 1968 northbound freight traffic has increased by approximately 831 percent; some 65,000 trucks back then versus 606,000 trucks today. This increase in truck traffic has placed a tremendous strain on our community's current infrastructure.

With the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 this infrastructure has deteriorated somewhat and can be expected to be further deteriorated in the future. Loop 375 in East El Paso facilitates commercial traffic from El Paso International Airport, Fort Bliss Army Airfield, and the Butterfield Trail Industrial Park, over Interstate 10 and the Zarogoza port of entry.

In and of itself Butterfield Trail Industrial Park is the home of some 70 corporations, employing nearly 6,000 people, bearing the associated traffic.

The El Paso International Airport has just completed its new air cargo facilities. This expansion multiplied the commercial capacity of our airport. Air cargo volumes are expected to go from 95,000 tons in 1999 to 140,000 tons in 2002. Consequently, we will be experiencing a marked increase in commercial traffic to the airport via Loop 375.

East El Paso is the fastest growing area of the county. Population projections for the east part of the city are estimated at a 90 percent population increase between 1990 and 2000. This population growth, coupled with the boom in commercial traffic, has brought forth a strategy to create a commercial and non-commercial interlink between the region's two international airports, and a key component of this link is, of course, Loop 375.

It should be clear that mobility and safe access to Loop 375 are critical issues given the current and projected growth in population and commercial traffic in this area. Currently, Loop 375, Montwood Drive, and Zarogoza Road all meet at this at-grade intersection, limiting access and mobility.

The speed of the travelers on the loop in combination with the confusing array of traffic signals where these three roads intersect has resulted in a number of traffic accidents.

This Loop 375 project will enable the movement of commuter and commercial traffic on the east side, relieving some of the serious safety problems, congestion, and delay costs to regional business activities. This project would also bring us one step closer to developing a true expressway loop around El Paso and an international beltway comprised of the Domenici Highway in New Mexico, Loop 375 in El Paso, and Nuevo Casas Grandes Highway in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico.

As a local commitment to this project the City of El Paso is contributing $1 million.

In closing, I'd like to point out that there was considerable communitywide prioritization that went into the selection of these three projects. The projects we brought before you today represent the key areas of the community that require urgent attention in the area of transportation infrastructure.

Interestingly enough, each project serves a different need in our community. The Alameda project will bring a historic business district into the 21st century, the Border Highway Extension will allow our rural areas to capitalize on expanding economic opportunities while protecting the historic Mission Trail. Loop 375 interchange at Montwood and Zarogoza would facilitate safe and effective commercial and commuter mobility and brings us closer to a highway loop.

On behalf of the El Paso delegation, I urge you to support our funding requests for these three strategic priority projects.

Before I relinquish the podium to the members of our state delegation I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to acknowledge the outstanding and dedicated work of our district engineer, Ms. Maribel Chavez. She has become a very good friend and a dedicated worker and a key leader in everything we do in the El Paso region, and we are grateful to you for assigning her to our region.

At this time I'd like to introduce to you some of the members of our state delegation. Representing the western part of El Paso County and the City of El Paso is our lead senator, Senator Eliot Shapleigh; representing Horizon City in the eastern part of the county and other parts in West Texas, Senator Robert Duncan; Representative Joe Pickett from El Paso; Representative Norma Chavez from El Paso; and Representative Manny Najera from El Paso.

Representatives Paul Moreno and Pat Haggerty couldn't be with us this morning.

Again, on behalf of the entire delegation, I want to thank you for your time, allowing us to be here before you and the privilege of addressing you. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for that very informative presentation. It's wonderful to see Senator Duncan and Senator Shapleigh and Representatives Pickett and Chavez and Najera here also, and we'd like to welcome them.

I guess I'll ask Robert and David if they have any observations, comments, or questions.

Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Can we move these posters first of all, because everybody can't see?

I just wanted to compliment you on your presentation in the El Paso area. You have done yeoman's work in the last several years regarding transportation. It is so difficult for a community to pull together and work closely together on a regionalized approach to build consensus and support for the priority of projects. I know that's a very difficult thing to do. You not only have done it, you have done it very well, stepped up to the plate with local vista and things of that nature.

It is very helpful, and we understand the great needs of the El Paso area and are supportive of transportation out there, and I just want to thank you for your presentation.

MR. JOHNSON: David?

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Chairman. Just a couple of words to add.

First of all, I appreciate the effort that went into the presentation and appreciate the importance of the projects to El Paso.

Over the years the impression I think left with a number of us, not just on the commission but elsewhere around the state is that -- and by a few people is that somehow or other El Paso is way, way off in a different time zone and otherwise unattached to the state. I've got to tell you on the basis of what I've seen over the last few years culminating in some of the conversations and facts communicated to me last night about what's going on with El Paso -- El Paso is truly a city on the move.

It is not stalled. It's not stuck in a ditch. It is not unattached to the rest of the state or the state's economy, and I am impressed with all you all have accomplished.

And I'm also pleased that this department has been a good partner with you all, and I think has complemented at least some of your activities. We never can do enough, but I'm impressed and I honestly think you all are headed in an accelerating pace in a very constructive direction. We appreciate it and salute you for all your efforts.

Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, David.

Mayor Ruiz, I'm glad that you recognized Maribel Chavez's work. She's a very important member of the TxDOT team and she's also a very important member of your community, and I think it reflects well on our department that she is -- plays such an important role in your community and binds together proposals like this and work that needs to be done. And thank you for mentioning her.

I wanted to mention something a little bit different from the presentation and laud the MPO for the work they're doing on the environmental issues. From what I understand, El Paso has probably come the farthest in the shortest period of time, recognized by the excellent work that you're doing in the area of modeling, and please accept our congratulations, because these issues are becoming more and more important and they will play an important role in future decisions -- or enable us to make future decisions.

And I think you've done a marvelous job of recognizing the critical nature of the environment and the laws that pertain thereto, and I want to salute the area for moving them to the top of the agenda and accomplishing what you have done in a short period of time.

As you're aware, we don't consider -- or we're unable to consider things of this nature at meetings like this, but please rest assured that this will receive a very high consideration and hopefully we'll have the funds to enable us to do a lot of the work that you deem to be so important.

Is there anyone else that wants to speak? Yes, sir?

MR. LANEY: I may add a little something.

MR. JOHNSON: I have a card here from Senator Duncan. Did you want to add a word, Senator, or Senator Shapleigh?

MR. LANEY: Maybe we should ask is there any legislative representative who does not want to add a word.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR SHAPLEIGH: Commissioners, we're delighted to be here.

Commissioner Nichols, you had mentioned a little bit earlier about regionalization, and I want to talk a little bit about the journey that we've taken towards regionalization because you're seeing it in Houston and in Dallas especially. But I don't think there's a place that has more of a challenge in Texas than El Paso.

If you look at the geography you're looking at 60 degrees of a 360-degree circle. You've got three states, two countries. When you look at a regional loop that loop goes through -- it's an international loop, goes through two countries and three states.

And I want to extend to you an invitation to come to a regional conference in October -- at the end of October. I think it's the 27th -- to attend the first regional conference on infrastructure in the El Paso area, because we've recognized we can't do our planning if we don't have our sister city of Juarez at the table and our sister state of New Mexico.

When we look out over our issues we've realized we are a port. We're much like the Port of Houston except we're on a border. And I think increasingly the future of these border ports is going to be to look at themselves as ports and how to expedite this traffic that we all depend on in Texas.

We're going to wrestle this session with Texas infrastructure. Texas is 80 percent of the nation's surface transportation coming through our southern border, and we take a disproportionate share of that traffic through Texas cities like Dallas, like San Antonio, like Austin. And the very issues that Texas takes to Washington about this funnel coming through our communities that's so important to trade south -- we get magnified at border ports because it all ends up there.

So we recognize not only do we have an obligation to the State of Texas but to the nation to solve in the most efficient and cost effective way these issues of international transportation.

We have come a long way as a community from where we were four and five years ago in identifying the key infrastructure priorities for us, but so has the commission in recognizing Texas' role in international trade. And I wanted to thank you for what you have done to push that forward, especially you, Commissioner Laney, who sat in this seat for many years looking at these issues from that level, but I think we as a state are now recognizing that with this trade in Mexico being one of the foundations of our economy, these border ports have suddenly taken more importance than they may have in years past, so thank you so much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Senator Duncan?

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you.

As you know, I represent the western half of El Paso, including Horizon City Mayor Ruiz spoke for, and since that district was created in 1991 I think it had about 41,000 was the population and the '98 figures we're looking at in redistricting now shows that that particular area, Western El Paso, where some of these projects are being looked at has of now 135,000, so the growth has been tremendous in that area.

But also I think there has been significant growth I think as you have recognized in El Paso in that there has been a very concerted effort by all of the delegations there and the different interests and stakeholders in that community and region to work through and decide what their priorities are and to stick with those priorities and go about this in an organized fashion like I think you've seen with this presentation.

I think the needs that they have there are critical and important needs for that community to grow, and I would request that you give those your utmost consideration, and appreciate your kind observations this morning.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Representative Chavez?

SENATOR DUNCAN: I might also recognize that Representative Haggerty I think is here as well.

REPRESENTATIVE CHAVEZ: Thank you. I have a little bit of a presentation.

First of all, I just wanted to thank you, Chairman Johnson, and Commissioner Laney and Commissioner Nichols. I enjoyed the dinner last night and our conversation, Commissioner Laney, and I also have for you when I give you what I've got -- and excuse me. I may burst out into a cough -- an alternative to your Amigo Man pin and that's an El Paso pin, so that you have the choice whenever you come to El Paso.

My mom loves the Amigo Man. I prefer to wear the other pin. Thank you.

We are grateful for this opportunity to address you this morning regarding El Paso's transportation needs, and I join my colleagues, Representative and Chairman Haggerty, Representative Pickett and Najera, and our Senators Eliot Shapleigh and Senator Duncan in humbly requesting full funding for all three projects.

You've heard the overview by the county judge and the mayor and Mayor Ruiz on the regional needs and the three projects that we've proposed, and I'd like to just elaborate a little bit and focus a few remarks on project number one, which is the Alameda modernization enhancement project as there are many people here from the Alameda growth corridor.

The Alameda modernization enhancement project is not the Alameda growth corridor but it is an important link to the revitalization of Texas Highway 20. The corridor is represented by numerous elected officials, including three state representatives, two county commissioners, and three city representatives. And many of those members are here today if they'd like to stand, those of you that represent the corridor. Commissioner Teran, Councilman -- Commissioner Hooten.

And we see the funding for this project, Chairman, as seed money that will ultimately lead to full funding for the true Alameda improvement project.

The corridor runs 12.1 miles from Loop 375 to Piedras Street in central El Paso. And again, I'm strongly advocating for this very important first step to revitalize what we see is the heart of the community.

Last night I presented you with a brief little packet, and I just gave you your packet today, Commissioner Nichols, which included a brief description of the corridor and the importance it has to the community. I included several articles available documenting the neglect of the state highway. And finally it includes a resolution that we passed in January of 2000 supporting moving forward with the project.

But it also included an open records request to our regional district director, Maribel Chavez, and this book here is the result of the open records request. And I want to publicly acknowledge and thank Maribel Chavez for -- and her staff for providing an outstanding in-depth report documenting the history over the last seven years, beginning in 1993 where we were.

Commissioner Laney, you and I discussed -- spoke last night, you recall, the beginning of that process, and where we need to be to move forward with it.

For the record, Alameda is US 80, Texas 20. It was developed in the 1920s, and Alameda means grove of trees and it is said that once upon a time in the old days along the Rio Bravo, which is what it used to be called, Alameda was lined with groves of trees. Now it's the Rio Grande and our water's kind of dammed up in New Mexico.

Alameda Avenue or Texas Highway 20 is the first major highway in El Paso which precedes IH-10 as well as Montana, Texas Highway 62. It was the early business district of El Paso. It is a major commuter artery for tens of thousands of El Pasoans. The census information indicates it is approximately 80 percent Hispanic, and the average annual income is well below the national average, and there's a great number of aging and elderly people who live in the area.

The working people along the corridor who live, who work, who go to school, go to church, go to libraries, these are the people who have built the city of El Paso, who have paved the roads, who have built the houses and the public buildings of El Paso County. Garment workers, steel workers, bakers, small businessmen, small businesswomen, truck drivers. They live among dairy workers, clerks, retired military, and senior citizens.

It is a working class, blue collar community. People along this corridor are self made and most of their homes are paid for. Most of them are humble, small dwellings with pride of ownership.

The corridor represents taxpayers who want their hard-earned dollars to be spent on worthy transportation projects, and I'm not diminishing in any way the importance of the seamless border concept or the international beltway and hub, but I think it's important we also invest tax dollars to protect the inner cities and the economic development opportunities along this area.

Funding for this project will clearly indicate to the working people of the area that their tax dollars are working for them. It's a historical indigenous and mission trail. It runs 12.1 miles. It has five elementary schools, two middle schools, four high schools. Historical markers include Ysleta High School, the location of where Santa Cruz Mission and San Lorenzo Mission was -- once stood -- there's more than 636 small businesses.

It's 92 percent Hispanic-owned businesses. Forty percent of these businesses are women owned. And a majority of these businesses are vehicle related.

And just brief information -- when I was looking through the document last night, again, the first request to address this was in 1993 by former city representatives Nacho Padilla and Barbara Perez, and the minute orders which moved forward the Artcraft Road to project level one was -- were signed on the same day as the minute order for the feasibility study for Alameda project. It was signed on May 24, 1994.

So here we are seven years later. We ask for funds to begin this project in the most expedient location along Alameda, and that's at Loop 375 going west to Lee Trevino. It is the beginning, and I truly enlist your support.

Chairman Johnson, I would like to present to you a puZ o de tierra which is a handful of earth placed in this vial and this soil comes from Loop 375 area. It represents the seed that we must plant and must harvest in order to link the Alameda enhancement project to the Alameda improvement project.

Businessman Carlos Sandoval has worked and lived along the corridor and is here today on his own because his business must strive along the Alameda corridor in order for him to provide for his family.

Commissioner Laney, for you I provide you with a puZ o de tierra which is handful of earth in this vial, and this soil is from Cesar Chavez Academy on Alameda Avenue in the center of -- Cesar Chavez Academy is the center of the Alameda Corridor. And here today representatives from Cesar Chavez Academy are Jose Estrada and student Hector Castro.

I gave the Academy one of my frequent flyer miles so a student could be here to present this. And a body can live without a leg and it can live without an arm and it can live without an eye, but it cannot live without a heart, and this phase of the project is a very vital organ to the economic life and sustainability of the community.

And so, Chairman -- former chairman and commissioner, this is for you.

And, Commissioner Nichols, I present -- and Senator Duncan, I would like to present to you a puZ o de tierra which is handful of earth placed in this vial, and this soil is from the Texas Tech Health Science Center and Thomason Hospital, where the vision is to build a border health institute. Both Texas Tech and Thomason are on the last phase of the Alameda corridor, and this vial, a puZ o de tierra, represents the soul where the indigent have hope for quality health care.

Again, I thank you for your leadership and consideration. I thank Maribel Chavez for continuing to meet with me over the last several months for assistance as we're going to be coordinating bimonthly meetings beginning this month at the TxDOT office in El Paso for interested parties and elected officials and citizens in order to identify all the wonderful various funding sources out there, federal and state, so we can move the project forward.

So, Chairman, you hold the seed, Commissioner Laney, you hold the heart, and Commissioner Nichols, you hold the soul. With that, I truly appreciate your leadership. I do enlist the support of all the projects and I ask you to consider all areas as you move forward with your decision.

Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Representative Najera?

REPRESENTATIVE NAJERA: Thank you very much.

It's wonderful to be here again. Last time I was a little bit late and if I remember correctly Mr. Laney almost canceled the money for Darrington Road, because he said that anybody that came up and spoke afterwards would cancel the money. So this time I decided to get here on time. I came in last night.

But thank you very, very much for all of your assistance that you have always given us. Thank you very much for the excellent presentation that El Paso Team came up with. I think the only thing I would say would be that whatever happens along the Mexican-American border is going to influence what happens in the rest of Texas, and I think that what we are asking for in El Paso is definitely going to improve the movement of NAFTA product, which will, in turn, assist again the state of Texas.

I think that the presentations have been excellent, and I think that at this point I will merely say thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Did Representative Haggerty arrive?

VOICE: From what I've heard, there’s absolutely nothing I would add.

MR. JOHNSON: All right. Thank you.

Representative Joe Pickett.

REPRESENTATIVE PICKETT: Good morning.

I also brought a guest. He's in the back. His name is Gregorio Malonovich. He's from Bulgaria. He's the gentleman in the dark suit with the glasses, and I appreciate Representative Haggerty picking him up at the airport.

Gregorio is from the International Olympic Committee. He is on the site selection committee, and I'm here to give you a different viewpoint on these projects and why they're important to El Paso.

I have a letter right here in my breast pocket that I will make public after this meeting to the media that names El Paso, Texas, as the alternative site for the 2004 Olympics. And the reason we're able to be bestowed that honor was that they looked at all the cooperations going on in El Paso -- the county is building soccer fields; the city is building a hockey rink and sportsplex; The University of Texas at El Paso has a Sun Bowl that can be used for many events.

So why would that mean anything? Why are we here before you? Because we need that transportation infrastructure to tie it all together in case we're the backup site for the 2004 Olympics.

The 375 overpasses will be the site of the street luge, so we need that completed. The Texas 20 will be a part of the marathon races that will continue to the east along the border highway that will go around the missions. So you can see how important this is to our community to be the backup site for the 2004 Olympics in El Paso, and you play a big role in that.

What I really want to say honestly is that these three projects -- Texas 20 as Representative Chavez said was there before Interstate 10. It will be there after we complete the loop someday. It will be there with all the NAFTA increase and it's time that we pay back to the community in that area the use of Texas 20 and bring us into this phase of our life in El Paso. It's needed drastically.

The overpass at 375 -- as you know very well, we've been successful coming before you biting away at that elephant. A good friend of mine says, How do you eat an elephant? It's a bite at a time. And you have helped us with the creation of this someday loop that actually will go around El Paso, so we feel this is vital and that you, TxDOT, besides El Paso that has so much invested in that, that you need to keep going on with the project.

And the border highway extension, because it's time. We need to be doing these things before, not after. NAFTA caught a lot of areas with the growth and expansion that nobody expected. The growth is in that area. It is time that we work on it now. We can't wait farther in our MTP to move that project. It needs to be done now as well.

So I urge you to take consideration of these projects. We do have matching funds coming from our community, and if you won't do it for El Paso or you won't do it for Texas, do it for America.

Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there anyone else from Team El Paso that wishes to address the commission?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Before we take a brief recess to allow Team El Paso and anyone else who wants to excuse themselves to do so, two words about press conferences. I'm sure Representative Pickett will be holding one concerning the 2004 Olympics, and Judge Briones and Commissioner Laney have asked me to announce that since they're both Stanford graduates they will not be holding a press conference concerning a recent football game.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: But we will stand in recess for about five minutes.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

MR. JOHNSON: We'll reconvene this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission.

Did you have something you wanted to --

MR. LANEY: Is Maribel Chavez still here?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: She's just not admitting it.

MR. LANEY: Maribel, are you here?

VOICE: She just walked out.

MR. LANEY: She did? All right.

MR. JOHNSON: We will begin with the approval of the minutes of our regular meeting held in August. Is there a motion to accept the minutes as presented?

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.

Our next item is a report from the Transportation Excellence for the 21st Century Coalition or TEX-21. I believe that Linda Harper-Brown of Irving will be the lead. Welcome, Linda.

MS. HARPER-BROWN: Good morning. I am Linda Harper-Brown, chairman of TEX-21 and a member of the Irving City Council, and thank you for allowing me to be here this morning and to give you an opportunity to hear how TEX-21 has -- the successes that we have achieved and the work that we have still in front of us.

We appreciate the work that you do and understand that producing a top transportation network in a population boom without sufficient and continually dwindling resources is a difficult job. Your work truly is a public service.

At the 1999 Transportation Summit in Irving several local officials from North Texas came together to see if there was enough interest to try something new for transportation. As you are acutely aware, traditionally each region of the state has competed against all the other regions for the limited transportation resources that are available. At the 1999 Transportation Summit a sense of the summit resolution was passed calling for the development of a comprehensive transportation funding solution through a coordinated statewide effort.

This effort was named TEX-21, which stands for Transportation Excellence for the 21st Century. The City of Irving officials took the initiative and with the support of and the encouragement of people like Dallas County Judge Lee Jackson, Regional Transportation Council Chair Jack Miller, and several others we began to travel and talk to local officials in other areas of the state to see what their level of interest was.

At these regional briefings North Texas officials were well received by local officials from El Paso, San Antonio, Austin, Houston, and other cities. In each of these cities local officials were invited to attend a meeting in Irving on November 8 to determine if enough interest existed to form a statewide coalition for transportation improvement. I can tell you as well that for the first time ever the Texas Municipal League has formed a task force regarding transportation, and I am the chair.

Last week during the state of the cities at TML in Austin when I asked our legislators if transportation would be an issue in this session or be addressed in this session, there was resounding applause from every city that was represented across the state. I believe that our efforts are continuing to gain support and I believe that it is vitally important for the entire state of Texas that we be successful in this session.

These cities that we represent today are rural as well as urban areas. They all have transportation issues, whether it's the dangerous situation on their rural roads, the maintenance issues, or the congestion and mobility issues that the bigger cities face.

On a personal note, I just want to thank you for choosing the city of Irving as a future meeting site and look forward to seeing you in January.

Now I have the distinct honor of introducing to you a semiretired politician, semi- only because the one issue that he is not going to give up is the transportation issue, and he continues to work with us as co-chair of TEX-21, former mayor of Denton, Jack Miller.

MR. MILLER: Thank you, Linda. I wasn't sure you were going to introduce me.

I am a former mayor. I became hooked on TEX-21 as a mayor, and I'm still hooked on TEX-21 as a former mayor and private citizen.

Linda mentioned the meeting in Irving in November. Leading up to that TEX-21 meeting we the TEX-21 officials briefed and sought input from key legislators from throughout the state, including Lt. Governor Rick Perry, Senate Finance Chair Bill Ratliff, Senate State Affairs Chair Florence Shapiro, Senate Border Affairs Chair Eddie Lucio, Senator Eliot Shapleigh, House Appropriations Chair Rob Junell, House Transportation Chair Clyde Alexander, and many others.

These legislative briefings continued for the next several months and they've continued throughout the TEX-21 process.

At the Irving meeting approximately 50 people from around the state including local and regional officials, representatives of various transportation coalitions, and Senators Shapiro, Lucio, Shapleigh, and Representative Kenn George discussed the feasibility of a statewide grassroots transportation coalition.

Charlie Ball, director of real estate and construction for Dell Computer was there, and he told the group that Dell's decision to move 10,000 jobs to Tennessee was greatly influenced by their concern that Texas was not making the necessary commitments to our transportation infrastructure. Charlie Ball referred to this as the proverbial canary in the gold -- coal mine. I wish it were a gold mine -- canary in the coal mine predicting that Dell and many other companies would soon be expanding and looking instead of inside of Texas looking outside of Texas.

They know there's going to be expansion. The question is where will that be.

Those present at the Irving meeting decided that a statewide transportation coalition should definitely be pursued, and so since that time we have embarked on that and we've had a series of meetings for TEX-21 throughout Texas, and it began at that time.

At this time I take pleasure in introducing a person who is now wearing a different hat than he wore a few minutes ago, and if you can envision that TEX-21 hat and take off the El Paso and make it a statewide issue, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce a friend and when I was a mayor, fellow Mayor Carlos Ramirez.

MAYOR RAMIREZ: Thank you, Jack. This is one-stop shopping. Today I'm pulling double duty very proudly.

As the mayor of the alternate site for the 2004 Olympics, it is my privilege to be here today to be a part of TEX-21. To date we have had meetings in Laredo, San Antonio, Austin, Lubbock, Houston, Irving, El Paso, and Midland-Odessa. The invitation letters to these meetings are included in your packets.

More TEX-21 meeting are scheduled for Corpus Christi, Dallas, and Fort Worth, with another meeting to take place in Austin after the legislative session begins.

We are very fortunate to have local, state, federal, and international transportation experts address our coalition and educate us with specific knowledge that is needed to tackle transportation challenges from a statewide perspective. The amount of transportation wisdom that these people have freely given us is nothing short of amazing, and we would like to once again thank them publicly for their time and knowledge.

Of course, this list doesn't include all the knowledgeable people who are members of the coalition and have actively participated in the TEX-21 committee process. And you see on the screen the featured speakers. Through the series of statewide TEX-21 meetings the media has responded positively to our efforts. Television, radio, and print media have carried the TEX-21 message.

At many of the meetings TEX-21 officials met with the editorial staff of the local newspaper. Several of these meetings resulted in editorials that are endorsing the TEX-21 coalition. These editorials are included in your packets.

As the mayor of El Paso, I have to tell you that this TEX-21 effort and the networking that has resulted from it I think is going to be extremely beneficial to the infrastructure -- the transportation infrastructure efforts of our state.

It is now my pleasure to introduce Mark Scott, who's a council member for the City of Corpus Christi, to speak about a couple of other items. Mr. Scott?

MR. SCOTT: I told the chairman that I'm from Corpus. We don't get toys like this so I just wanted to come and be able to rise to this thing. I'll be a hero back in town when I get there later today.

The TEX-21 committee structure consists of three committees with broad jurisdictions which are chaired by local officials from different areas of the state. The TEX-21 committee process was designed to allow the members of the coalition to learn about, discuss, and take positions on a broad range of transportation issues in an established, open, and, I'd submit to you, very frank process.

Elected officials from across Texas volunteered to serve as committee chairs, conducting the committee meetings, setting the committee agenda, and securing expert speakers to educate those in attendance. These committees were essential in studying a myriad of transportation issues in producing 18 position statements. These resolutions are included in your packet and represent a tremendous amount of discussion, debate, and deliberation by officials from all regions of Texas.

The resolution process addresses a broad range of topics including NAFTA, finance, air quality, design and safety. Many may find it surprising that a consensus could be reached on so many issues by officials from different areas of the state. But the truth is that through the TEX-21 process, coalition members discovered that they have very much in common with other regions.

In fact, almost all of the resolutions were passed unanimously. In fact, something that became apparent through the process is that various NAFTA trade corridors throughout the state provide an unprecedented opportunity to unite the state's urban and rural transportation interests.

The I-69, I-35, MOTRAN, ports to plains, and the US 54 corridors pass through all sizes of urban cities and long stretches of rural counties. After examining the five corridors I just mentioned, we concluded that 179 counties of the 254 counties in Texas have either a trade corridor running through it or are directly adjacent to one of these corridors. These 179 counties contain approximately 18.2 million people, or 91 percent of Texas' population.

After viewing these numbers it became very clear to us that the NAFTA trade corridors are the key to uniting the rural and the urban areas of Texas behind the transportation infrastructure improvement.

Our 18 resolutions plus a few more that are expected in that fine city to the south, Corpus Christi, form the TEX-21 legislative package. Over the last year we have worked with several of the interim legislative committees that are in charge of studying transportation issues. We feel confident that our coalition has assisted these committees in studying their charges, and that this will be reflected in their findings. We also believe that our legislative package will be very much in step with the interim committee reports.

Now, I'd like to turn it over to our famed colleague from the north, that little suburb north of Corpus Christi, Houston, and let Carroll Robinson wrap this up. Carroll?

MR. ROBINSON: I won't play around with the podium. We're fortunate in that small suburb to have one that goes up and down, so I've seen it and I've had the thrill.

When I got on a plane this morning to come up before we took off they had the -- the pilot got back on and said we had that warning horn that goes off. We can't take off yet. We have to stay here on the runway for a minute and we have to check everything out. And it gave my heart a little pause but I was glad they had the technology -- the infrastructure to do the things that were necessary to protect my interests, protect my safety, and make sure that my wife did not have to collect on my insurance that early.

All that said, it crystallized my thoughts and it took me back to a song that was way before my time. And it says, United we stand, divided we fall. And local elected officials from around the state have all come on board to understand that anthem. We've learned that if we go divided one from each other we'll never get anything done on what we consider one of the primary issues of this state as we move into and through this next century.

And we're convinced that working together and putting aside regional and city interests and self-interests in order for this greater interest we can get some things down. We have this small and I think it's the cornerstone outlook that if we all work together, local elected officials working in partnership with the business community, county commissioners, and others represent the most interests. We represent the people on the ground who live in the state who need to move around for work, for health purposes, and if we can come together on that basis we can get some things done.

We're from Houston, Dallas and the Metroplex. Sandy Greyson, my co-chair of the finance committee, could not be here but she's been at the meetings. We are from San Antonio, the Valley. We stretch west through El Paso and the border, the Panhandle, East Texas, and the Golden Triangle, and we understand that for all of us transportation has got to be up there with education and public safety if we're serious about talking about the future of the state of Texas.

And it's not just about mobility and reducing congestion. It's about clean air. And you commented this morning about the fact that El Paso -- and I think all of us across the state realize the importance of protecting our environment. We understand it's not about clean air only but it's about the quality of the water we drink. It's also about wetlands and the scenic beauty of the state of Texas.

We understand that if we do all these things together, if we work with the commission, we work with our executive director, we work with the members of the legislature, we can get some things done.

Commissioner Nichols, one of the things I want to say is I'm surprised this morning somebody else brought the props and not you. Your props have been, I think, a fundamental part of why so many of us have come to realize that we've got to make sure we put this issue on the front burner.

We were talking during the break and you made a very salient point. Every morning the news talks about transportation and they talk about it in the context of congestion. They talk about it in the evening time and they talk about it during the day on the radio, but when it comes time for the legislature to meet somehow that issue falls to the wayside and everything else supersedes it.

And I make this point consistently and all the members of this coalition, under the leadership of Jack and Linda, have tried to convey this entire notion to folks around the state as we've traveled: You can't move an ambulance without good infrastructure, and if you can't move an ambulance -- if you can't get EMS services, you don't have public safety. If you call 911 and the police car can't get there because they're backed up in traffic, you don't have public safety in this state.

If those yellow buses can't pick up our kids in the morning and get them to school on time we don't have a future in the 21st century in terms of global economics because our kids can't get to school on time, they can't get the good education they need. And if we have cars backed up and smoke is coming out of their tailpipe or we have bad trucks on the highway and they back up our congestion, we don't have economic development in Texas.

And so people have to understand it may not be sexy, it may not be the prettiest issue, but without transportation for the 21st century we're going to have a problem in the state of Texas. So all of us local officials come together and we come here today to say we want to work with you, we want to support your effort, and we are ready, willing, and able to do all that we need to do to represent the most special interests in the state of Texas, and that's the working men and women, the families who have to live in this state as we go into the 21st century.

So thank you all for all you do.

MR. JOHNSON: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for that very enlightening and worthwhile presentation. I would like to ask my colleagues if they have any observations. David?

MR. LANEY: Nothing to add. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Just thank you for the incredible work you've done. There's a lot of people around the state that have contributed voluntary time to work on this issue, and one of you commented earlier that it's amazing as you go around the state you realize the common concern for transportation. It affects the quality of life for all of our citizens whether it's for work, play, or going to school.

And I know you all had a difficult time trying to pull consensus. Not so much difficult but it was a real big task to bring a consensus of specific issues -- legislative issues to be focused on beginning in January, and that is very helpful to the legislature, I would think, that there was a statewide consensus from the citizens and volunteers to do that.

And as far as my props, I can tell you they're not -- most of them are not state approved or state funded.

MR. LANEY: Or commission sanctioned.

MR. NICHOLS: Or commission sanctioned. But I thank you and look forward to -- I know you're not through. You've got a lot more work to do, and I remember the last legislative session I heard a lot of people talking about transportation.

We see it so much in this room, and as we go around the state, the needs versus the resources -- and I was amazed when we went to legislative session last year and you read the papers, top five, top ten issues, and transportation was not even listed. I think from some of the work that you have done, some of the work others have done, I think that that will change this year. I think it will be a significant issue.

I appreciate it.

MR. JOHNSON: I would like to reinforce a little of what Robert said. Thank you so much, number one, for the work you do. I believe it will benefit greatly the citizens of this state and expresses a priority need that we have felt for a long time. And I think you put it in the center of a lot of screens, where heretofore it's sort of been on the periphery.

I want to also echo something that Councilman Robinson said about standing together. We will accomplish so much more having a common united front with common united goals than we will in a fragmented sort of approach, and we want to work for those common goals with you, and thank you for your efforts and the work that you do.

We will take a brief recess and allow --

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, could I just remind that there is an alternative to TEX-21 and it's SIT-21, Stuck in Traffic for the 21st century. So I think we have a choice. We can go one way or the other.

MR. JOHNSON: That's well put.

We'll take a brief recess.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

MR. JOHNSON: I'd like to reconvene this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission.

Wes, I will turn the meeting over to you for the remainder of our agenda.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, commissioner. Before we get started I'd like to repeat what was said earlier, that we have deferred Item 10(c)(1). Second we're going to move up Item 7(b) at this time, the acceptance of the department's Unified Transportation Program, and Al Luedecke will present this to you.

MR. LUEDECKE: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Al Luedecke, director of transportation planning and programs for the department.

Item 7(b) is a minute order we bring for you today, approves the 2001 Unified Transportation Program, or UTP. The UTP updated annually and submitted for the commission's approval is the department's ten-year plan for transportation and project development.

Exhibit A is the structure of the various categories of work including levels of authorization, descriptions, restrictions, methods of allocation, and policy. Exhibits B through Q contain the projects listing by categories.

One category has been modified. Exhibit N is amended to modify the name and selection criteria from Category 13(c), NAFTA discretionary to Category 13(c), border trade transportation projects. This category change is made to adhere to the project selection process hearing Minute Order 108045.

The Exhibits R through S contain projects delayed from previous fiscal years. They retain priority one authorization and the 2001 letting list for project-specific categories. Exhibit T includes information from the 2001-2003 aviation capital improvements program, and Exhibit U, public transportation, contains information on transit programs. Actual transit program allocations and grants recipients will be approved by future minute orders.

The Exhibit V states that any section of an existing county road or city street not presently part of the state highway system that is selected for development and construction with 100 percent state funds in the 2001 UTP is designated on the state highway system for the duration of construction.

On January 17, 2000, a draft copy of the 2001 UTP was made available through the districts for public comment. Following the 45-day comment period a total of 40 comments or letters were received relating to projects in the 2001 UTP. A summary of the comments has been submitted to the executive director for your consideration.

Through an administrative oversight a new priority two project was omitted from the original draft that was sent out to the public. It has been included in the revisions you are considering, and it was the Austin District and Williamson County, and it is an interchange project at I-35 and Greenlawn that was estimated at $10 million. It will be developed in Category 13A, state-funded mobility.

The final UTP authorizes a total of $14.8 billion for all the applicable categories, and of this total $5 billion is priority one and $9.8 billion is priority two. With approval of this minute order the department may continue project planning and development for fiscal year 2001 and beyond.

The staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, comments, discussion?

MR. LANEY: I've got one.

MR. JOHNSON: David.

MR. LANEY: Al, I don't know if it's in already or not, but if not I'd like to propose that we amend the minute order to include a $6 million allocation to the combined projects of the Mountain Creek Parkway and Rosedale projects for allocation between those two projects as the MPO in the North Texas area sees fit, as long as both of them move forward.

MR. LUEDECKE: Certainly. We can take care of that.

MR. LANEY: That's one amendment.

MR. NICHOLS: So that's a motion with an amendment?

MR. LANEY: That's a motion with an amendment.

MR. NICHOLS: I'll second the motion and the amendment.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, Al.

MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Okay. That moves us to Agenda Item Number 4, Aviation. Dave Fulton will be the presenter, and we have two minute orders for your consideration.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Wes.

Commissioners, my name is David Fulton, director of the Aviation Division. Item 4(a) is a minute order containing a request for funding approval for non-airport planning and development projects and a request for a increase in funding for a previously approved project at Mesquite.

The Mesquite project was a transition project from the Federal Aviation Administration during 1997 when reliever airports became a part of the state block grant program. Cost increases were due to inaccuracies in cost and omissions of items of work in the original estimate submitted to the department.

Our engineering staff feels that the additional funding requested is necessary to complete the project. Six of the projects are programmed to be funded with federal and local funding, four are programmed to be funded with state and local funding. Total estimated costs of all the projects shown on the Exhibit A is $2.6 million, 1.9 federal, 450,000 state, and $260,000 in local funding.

The Aviation Division recommends approval of these projects.

MR. JOHNSON: Any discussion?

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. FULTON: Okay. Item 4(b) is a request for temporary delegation of authority to the Aviation Division to hold public hearings to receive comment on requests for airport improvement grants. The temporary authority is necessary to conduct these hearings until the rule change proposed in Item 6(a)(1) becomes effective, and we'd recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second it.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, Dave.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 5 (a), (b), (c), and (d) -- four minute orders under public transportation. Margot Massey.

MS. MASSEY: I'm Margot Massey of the Public Transportation Division.

Item 5(a) on the surface looks a bit odd. What is happening is the transit system based out of Glen Rose, Texas, which also serves Hood County wants to acquire a facility that is currently owned by TxDOT but is surplus. It's an old maintenance facility and it will be ideal for transit purposes.

The district advertised it for public bid and the transit system was successful bidder and is requesting $400,000 to purchase the property. We recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Motion? Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a question, and I -- when I received my briefing book I'd sent that question in, and it really had to do with in effect what we're doing is granting money to buy something from our self --

MS. MASSEY: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- but the money reduces the transit money category, which is already pretty tight.

MS. MASSEY: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: I had commented in one of my notes that I'd sent through that could we not instead consider leasing that as opposed to expending the money and pulling that money down to buy it from ourself? We would still own it. We could lease it on a 20-year lease or so and save that money, keep that money in that system, and the only comment I think I got back was the Fort Worth District would prefer to sell it as opposed to leasing it.

That's your old back yard.

MR. HEALD: Well, I don't know that I can give you a good answer to that. We were trying to get rid of that site. We did some -- we combined a couple of maintenance sections when I was district engineer there, and we were focused on trying to get rid of that property.

It's no longer needed for our purposes, but as far as the pros and cons of leasing it versus selling it, I can't give you a good answer. I would just have to rely on what the district's telling me. We could certainly check into that if you'd like.

MR. JOHNSON: Margot, do you feel that the movement of -- a $400,000 grant such as this will put an unnecessary tightening of the funds available for other public transit needs?

MS. MASSEY: Most definitely. It's an expenditure I would rather we not have to make, but I can also appreciate the district's position in this, that it's property that they no longer need and would prefer to -- their preference is to have the money in hand to apply to other projects that they need to work on. So it's a difficult situation all around.

To me it's worth doing. It's an excellent investment for the transit system --

MR. JOHNSON: For the transit.

MS. MASSEY:  -- and if it comes to letting this opportunity pass then I would say let's spend the money.

MR. HEALD: One other comment I might make. They initially wanted us to give them the property, and by law we cannot do that.

MR. NICHOLS: We can't give them the money -- the property but we can give them the money to buy the property?

MR. HEALD: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, I had made a suggestion that would save the money, keep the money in the transit system and put the property to good use. And I really haven't had any good input back on that, so I'm not quite sure what the disadvantage of doing that is or if there's a real problem that needs to be -- that we need to sell that.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, why don't we defer this item until --

MR. NICHOLS: That's fine with me.

MR. JOHNSON:  -- future action.

MS. MASSEY: Well --

MR. JOHNSON: Or is there a time?

MS. MASSEY: There is a potential problem in terms of the sale that I think there is a time deadline on completing the sale. Now, that would conceivably go out the window if we're pursuing other options with the districts, but as it stands now that is something to keep in mind and that was why we were -- we had it scheduled for today.

But I would --

MR. JOHNSON: If we deferred this to the October meeting the transaction might be impaired due to --

MS. MASSEY: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON:  -- time delay?

MS. MASSEY: Yes. The district might wind up having to go back out for bids again, which is something of a problem.

MR. HEALD: Margot, do you know if they would be willing to lease? Is there -- as far as on their side are they willing to lease, or do you know?

MS. MASSEY: The Transit System is willing to move into the facility under almost any condition. They're currently in an old laundromat, so -- but that's an improvement. They started out in the city jail. So they've gotten out of jail and are now taking in washing too.

But it does not matter to Barbara Perry of the Transit System. She just knows that it's an ideal location for their operations in Hood County. And again, I think there may be legal issues from the district's perspective of wanting to dispose of the property and any potential liability or other factors relating to that. They would soon pass that on to someone else.

MR. HEALD: I believe that we can overcome those difficulties. We've had this property vacant for at least probably four years, and I don't see any urgency as far as the sale.

MR. LANEY: If I may make a suggestion? What if we were to -- and this may be an impossibility -- what if we leased it to them for a nominal amount for 60 or 90 days while we work through all this stuff, and then work through either sale or a longer term lease or something like that? Allow them to move on in and start using it, because one way or the other I suspect they're going to end up in our facility, and it sounds like the sooner the better.

Is that an appropriate resolution?

MR. NICHOLS: I think that's fine.

MR. JOHNSON: We'll proceed in that vein.

MR. NICHOLS: It looks like you've got a legal opinion here.

MR. LANEY: I knew I'd get in trouble.

MR. MONROE: Was there a vote taken on that?

MR. JOHNSON: No. Not yet.

MR. MONROE: Do you recommend that a vote be taken? On Mr. Laney's order you, Mr. Johnson, could direct Mr. Heald to look into the matter and proceed accordingly.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'll entertain a motion, David, to the effect that you've stated.

MR. LANEY: Then I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: I second it.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, Margot, and thank you, Counselor.

MS. MASSEY: Moving right along, Item 5(b) is the award of some discretionary state funds to continue service in Matagorda County. This is one of the irregularities. We can't give formula funding until we pass through a biennial funding cycle, so you made a similar award last year, and the system is doing very well. The service is thriving in Matagorda County.

We recommend approval of this award to Golden Crescent Regional Planning Commission, which is the transit district.

MR. JOHNSON: Any discussion, questions?

(No response.)

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.

MS. MASSEY: Item 5(c) toll credits as promised. We're requesting toll credits for Brazos Transit District to accomplish vehicle purchases, construction of multimodal terminal in Lufkin, and to purchase a facility in Livingston, and toll credits for Golden Crescent for the purchase of transit vehicles.

This is a total toll credit award allocation of just over $800,000. We recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any discussion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: Second?

MR. LANEY: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MS. MASSEY: The last item, Item 5(d), proposed award of federal funds to Central Texas Trails, which is an inner-city carrier proposing to subsidize continuation of a route from Waco-Athens to Tyler for two years. It's about $37,000 a year and the company would of course put up a like amount to continue this service.

A couple of things about this. They had actually abandoned the service earlier this year and reinstated it at the request of the state representative from Athens because Central Texas is the only carrier that provides inner-city bus service to Athens, Texas.

The state representative indicated that he would approach TxDOT about this and seek some remedy to the situation, and the result is the minute order you find before you today.

I would say this is also -- this is the only such request we have received from an inner-city bus operator, would be the first time we've awarded an operating subsidy. I don't anticipate additional requests from other carriers and I look upon this as something of an experiment to see if given a two-year window of opportunity they can rebuild ridership and market the service and preserve ultimately the private sector service without state subsidy from Athens in particular to Waco and Tyler.

I recommend approval.

MR. NICHOLS: You said they did discontinue service for a while?

MS. MASSEY: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: For how long a period of time?

MS. MASSEY: I believe it was a period of one to two months.

MR. NICHOLS: I think I had expressed a little concern that we're setting a precedent here possibly subsidizing a carrier for this type of traffic, and I'd like to see us kind of investigate this a little bit further before we make a final decision on it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: All right. For the record we'd note that there was no action taken on this item.

Thank you, Margot.

MS. MASSEY: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Item Number 6 under administrative rules, we have several minutes orders for your consideration under proposed adoption starting with 6(a)(1), under management.

Dave Fulton.

MR. FULTON: Again, for the record, my name is David Fulton, director of the Aviation Division.

Item 6(a)(1) is a proposed rule change granting permanent authority to the Aviation Division to hold public hearings with regard to airport improvement grants. We would recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

(No response.)

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. HEALD: 6(a)(2) under environmental policy, Dianna Noble.

MS. NOBLE: Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Heald. For the record my name is Dianna Noble and I'm the director of environmental affairs.

Agenda Item 6(a)(2) is for a minute order for the proposed repeal of existing memorandum of understanding with the Texas Water Commission and with TNRCC and proposes a new memorandum of understanding with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission.

The department is required to adopt memorandum of understanding with each state agency that has a responsibility for the protection of the natural environment or for the protection of historic or archaeological resources. TNRCC has the oversight for the quality of the state's air and water resources. The proposed MOU will allow the department to comply with Transportation Code 201.607 requiring the proposed MOU and should provide for the timely and effective review as a result of increased coordination and communication between TxDOT and TNRCC concerning water and air issues associated with transportation projects.

If the commission agrees with the proposed repeal and adoption, staff will plan and schedule and conduct a public hearing and will publish the proposed repeal and adoption in order to solicit public comment and input. Staff recommends adoption of the minute order.

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.

MS. NOBLE: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Continuing under rules for proposed adoption, 6(a)(3), contract management, Thomas Bohuslav.

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

Item 6(a)(3) is to rules proposed for amendments to Sections 9.11, 9.12, 9.14-9.16, and 9.18 of Title 43 Texas Administrative Code. With the amendments we've clarified requirements for alternative bid items, rounding of bid prices, and tie bids. We've also modified bidder qualification requirements for weight projects. The weight projects are those that do not require audited financial statements.

The waiver applies to almost all construction maintenance projects less than $300,000 and almost all maintenance projects, even those above $300,000. The amendments allows the contractor to use compiled financial statements instead of the more costly reviewed financial statements for weight projects for projects greater than $1 million. For each year of experience -- of construction maintenance experience above two years we'll grant an additional $250,000 bidding capacity, up to a maximum of $3 million.

We've also handed you some minor changes on pages 7 and 23 this morning. Staff recommends approval.

Do you have any questions?

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.

Thank you, Thomas.

MR. HEALD: Item 6(a)(4), contract management, Jennifer Soldano.

MS. SOLDANO: Good morning. I'm Jennifer Soldano of the Contract Services Office.

This minute order proposes amendments to Sections 9.80-9.83 and Sections 9.85-9.87 and new 9.87 concerning contracts for the scientific, real estate appraisal, right of way acquisition and landscape architectural services. The amendments add appraisers to the types of services that can be procured with the use of precertification procedure and competitive sealed procedures. This complies with the revision to the Government Code Section 2254.003 that was made in 1997.

The amendments provide that the department will give notice of appraisal procurements, provides a process for potential provider to obtain a request for proposal packet, and it provides that the appraiser must be precertified in order to be evaluated. The amendments also provide that evaluation criteria.

The amendments provide that the department may discuss best and final offers for appraisal services in order to obtain a contract that is in the best interest of the state. Other amendments provide that the work authorizations under an indefinite delivery contract will be issued within two years of the execution of that contract except for scientific services. For those services the initial work authorization of any specific project will be issued within those two years but the tasks or subtasks may be issued after that period provided that the task doesn't initiate a new project.

The additional time is needed to begin tasks or subtasks because often the complete scope of a scientific services project cannot be determined until the initial scope of the project is complete.

New Section 9.89 lists the minimum education experience requirements for precertification for the appraisers. It also establishes an application process and a renewal application every five years. An appraiser may appeal denial of precertification by submitting an appeal to the director of right of way, and the appraiser may appeal that determination to the executive director.

We recommend adoption of this minute order.

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.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 6(a)(5) under public transportation, Margot Massey.

MS. MASSEY: I am still Margot Massey of the Public Transportation Division. We presented you in your notebooks a modest little rule revision, 90-some pages, and I want to focus on what are the substantive changes because there is a lot of things that I would characterize as housecleaning and editing, but there are some substantive changes in various places in this.

In Section 31.16(c) and (d) -- this reflects language regarding the state administration of federal discretionary grants. That's Exhibit D, pages 1 and 2. And that reflects current practice. You've approved a number of minute orders on those grants. We are now putting that language in the rules.

Section 31.21 is actually being split apart, again, to reflect current practice and changes in federal law. It -- 31.21 now discusses only the 5303 grants that go to metropolitan planning organizations, and new 31.22 describes the statewide planning projects, again, many of which you have approved in the past under Section 5313, and that is found in Exhibit D, pages 2 and 4 -- 2 through 4.

Probably the biggest change is in Section 31.31, which is Exhibit D, pages 15 and 16, where we are changing the award and planning process for the federal program that serves elderly and disabled people, trying to enhance coordination efforts by awarding those grants through the public transportation systems after a local planning process identifies priorities and unmet needs to bring the investment we already have in public transportation infrastructure to bear to assist with special need populations.

And we think that has great merit and it will also enhance our future efforts in cooperation with the Health and Human Services Commission that we've discussed with you previously. But I do believe that is the area we will get the most comments about.

Section 31.36(d) -- this relates to inner-city bus projects and we're correcting an earlier error that existed in our rules that did not recognize we award funds under that program to inner-city bus carriers, so we're now cleaning that up.

The other -- probably the second most important change is to incorporate performance standards that were previously in statute but under House Bill 1980 in the 76th Legislative Session those were removed from statute and given to you to establish and place in the administrative code.

The difficulty with the old methodology was the same standards were applied to all sectors of the transit industry and what is an accurate reflection of performance for a metropolitan transit authority does not work as well for a small city or for a rural population, so we are adopting -- or proposing sector specific performance measures in 31.48. It's on Exhibit E, pages 9 through 10.

And finally, in Section 31.53 which is Exhibit F, pages 1 and 2 -- formally sets maintenance requirements that are already observed for urban transit districts and we also think most rural transit districts, but it will also establish this for our elderly and disabled program, which should have minimal impact in the long term as we propose to award those funds to urban and rural transit districts.

The Public Transportation Advisory Committee reviewed these rules on August 18 of this year and had a number of comments that they asked me to present to you. Specifically, they feel that the sealed bid threshold amounts mentioned in Section 31.43 which reflects state law should merely -- that we should not include the dollar amounts in the rules but should instead merely reflect that we will follow state law, because that dollar amount is expected to fluctuate over time.

My aside on that is that because the administrative rules are a valuable reference for a lot of members of the public, we feel it's more appropriate to state the dollar amounts so that they do not have to go to another resource and find out what the state standard is, and we'll revise it as needed over time.

Also in Section 31.44, the same bid threshold amounts occur there. They also believe that subrecipients should be allowed to self certify their procurement standards rather than submitting all this material to TxDOT.

My aside on this would be the Federal Transit Administration holds our agency responsible for overseeing these processes, and without a certain level of documentation we're not certain that we can certify that all is being accomplished correctly.

The final comment related to Section 31.48 in the performance measures, and the committee's comment was it appears to be confusing and not enlightened by enough industry comment in their development at this stage. That specifically related to reporting requirements for the 5310 program, accident reporting by the metropolitan transit authorities, and failure to close the loop with an industry committee.

I would advise you on this that it was August 16, two days before the committee met that I was first alerted to some confusion among the group from the industry that had worked with us on developing draft performance measures. We felt that we had told them, Okay, this is the final version and do you have any last comments, and we received no comments. So we interpreted that as consensus and still have not heard anything to the contrary from members of the committee that worked with us on that.

But I did report this to the advisory committee. I absolutely felt they should be aware of it and that there was this question pending. The advisory committee will meet again on December 15 for final review of these rules as is allowed under their statutory and the administrative code.

With all of that, we recommend approval -- ask for your approval to move forward and publish these. We will have a public hearing on October 30.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 7(a) under transportation planning, Al Luedecke, authorize feasibility studies.

MR. LUEDECKE: Commissioners, I'm Al Luedecke, transportation planning division.

This minute order authorizes two feasibility studies, one for Loop 335 in Amarillo and one to determine a viable east-west route through Plainview. The specific projects are listed in Exhibit A with a brief description and the approximate study cost. It's necessary for the department to conduct these studies so the potential projects can be evaluated and considered for inclusion in the future Unified Transportation Program.

We recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Al.

Item 7(b) has already been taken care of. That moves us to Item Number 8 under traffic operations. Carlos Lopez.

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

The minute order before you authorizes an additional $300,000 for the railroad signal maintenance program to repair signal activation equipment at railroad crossings on the South Orient Railroad.

We recently conducted a field assessment of all the signal systems on the railroad. Much of the rail line and signals have been out of service for the past 24 months. In fact, the South Orient has been flagging trains through all the crossings that have lights on the portion of the rail line still in service between Coleman County and San Angelo.

Since all the systems have been out of service for a while, many of them are in need of maintenance and repair. The $300,000 will be used to replace batteries and battery chargers to ensure consistent activation of the warning devices. These funds will also cover the replacement of a set of wigwag signals.

We recommend approval of the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: This is -- I think when I talked to Jim Randall was contingent on successful --

MR. LOPEZ: That's correct. These funds will not be spent until --

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Carlos.

MR. LOPEZ: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Item Number 9, contracts. We have several minute orders for your consideration and Thomas Bohuslav will handle all of those.

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

Item 9(a)(1) is for the consideration of the award or rejection of the highway maintenance contracts let on September 7 and 8, 2000. These engineer-estimated costs are $300,000 or more. We have five projects that came underrun a little bit, 3.5 percent.

Staff recommends approval.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 9(a)(2) is for the consideration of award or rejection of highway construction building contracts let on September 7 and 8, 2000. It’s 71 projects, an average of 4.46 bids per project. We have one project we recommend for rejection. It's in Travis County. It's a building project that was over by 97 percent. It's project CBC 470-00-001. It's -- they'd like to go back and do some redesign on the project, redesign the foundation and the roof of the structure and go back and relet it.

Staff recommends approval of all projects with the exception noted.

MR. JOHNSON: I have a question. Is Richard Monroe here? On page 6 there is a project in the Houston District in Fort Bend County of which an enterprise that I'm an officer of has a subsidiary that owns a tract on that section of road. This is on FM 521.

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: It occurs to me that I have two options here. I can not vote, which means -- I couldn't take part and we don't have enough so we'd have to defer this item and -- or I could vote with that acknowledgment that an enterprise that I am a shareholder and an enterprise of which I'm a shareholder has a subsidiary and has a tract of land on this section of road.

My question is if we were to defer this to the October meeting would it affect the bidding letting schedule that we're to comply with in our understanding as we open bids, for example, or could this be deferred and let at the October meeting?

MR. MONROE: I can answer the legal question. You should recuse yourself from this --

MR. JOHNSON: Okay.

MR. MONROE:  -- Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, that simplifies matters.

Now, Thomas, does this have to be rebid or does this --

MR. NICHOLS: Is David going to be back?

MR. JOHNSON: I don't think so.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We do not have anything necessarily that says that we can defer. We can -- we can't even conditionally award then, is what you're saying. We have deferred some projects in the past. I don't know that there's any language that says we can do that but we just do it. It's similar to the conditional award process we have, and if we use that and then come by commission in October and do a full award we might could do that.

But there's --

MR. JOHNSON: Why don't you investigate the avenues and -- to do that, and I would entertain a motion for approval with the exception of this one project.

MR. NICHOLS: Well, I'm glad you're not going to have to go to jail.

MR. JOHNSON: I'm not planning on it.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BOHUSLAV: Let me clarify. We are deferring this project until the October award?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes. We're deferring it for action until you report back on what the appropriate action to take. I assume we have to rebid and I apologize to all those --

MR. BOHUSLAV: Any language I know of is we are to make award within 30 days. I think that's within our rules right now. That is some concern, so we might could do something -- a quick meeting sometime between now and -- shortly, before the 30 days is over with. That might be of concern.

MR. JOHNSON: We'd have to go to the public record and -- why don't you just investigate the avenues and see what the appropriate steps are, and if we have to rebid -- I apologize for that, but it's an unfortunate occurrence of timing.

MR. HEALD: Okay. Zane, come on up.

The next item is 9(b), and my apologies. I was told that Thomas was going to handle this so this is your item. Go ahead.

MR. WEBB: For the record I'm Zane Webb, Maintenance Division.

The minute order you've got before you is a simple award to the second low bidder. On San Angelo District, RMC contract number 6057-37-001, picnic area maintenance. The apparent low bidder failed to return the required insurance and subsequently indicated he would not perform the contract and was declared in default.

The lowest bidder indicated in writing that they would like to do the contract at the apparent low bidder's price. The original bids were only $154 apart. To save the administrative cost of rebidding the contract and possible higher bids, we're recommending approval of the minute order and thereby award the second low bidder.

MR. NICHOLS: Timewise -- I'm curious. From the time we found this out and they told us that to get to today's meeting so we could vote on it, is that a matter of a few weeks, or is that like a whole month?

MR. WEBB: Commissioner, it's probably a little bit longer than that because we actually had to declare the -- now, once the apparent low bidder was declared in default, from that point to this is pretty quick. But we give a lot of latitude to getting that apparent low bidder into default so that that takes a little bit of time.

Once you find out that that person's going to be in default then getting the agreement from the second low bidder is pretty quick. Yes, sir. Probably within a couple of weeks.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Versus if we had to go back and re-advertise 60-90 days?

MR. WEBB: Probably 90 days at least. Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Ninety days minimum? So we pick up two, two and a half months, something like that?

MR. WEBB: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

I so move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Zane.

MR. HEALD: Zane, how many of these have we had since the legislation has passed?

MR. WEBB: Mr. Nichols is correct. Four of them.

MR. HEALD: Four of them? Okay.

MR. WEBB: I assured him there wouldn't be that many.

MR. HEALD: I think we had some doubt about how much value this would be, but it looks like it's paying off.

The next item is 9(c), contract claims, and Mike Behrens.

MR. BEHRENS: Mike Behrens, Engineering Operations.

This minute order recommends approval of a claim settlement for a contract claim filed by Harris Acoustics for project IM 20-5(115)500 in Kaufman County. The contractor filed a claim in the amount of $889,372.75 requesting additional compensation for costs incurred due to material changes, reduction in the amount of work to be performed, and other miscellaneous issues.

On August 17, 2000, the contract claim committee met and we considered the claim and we offered the contractor a settlement of $315,000, and by letter August 22, 2000, the contractor accepted this settlement, and we recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: I'd like to compliment, once again, our contract claim process. This is just great the way we've been able to work this out.

With that, I'll move that we accept that.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: The second claim is for a contract claim filed by M. Hanna Construction Company for project CSR 1734-36 and project IM 20-5(118)501 in Kaufman County in the Dallas District.

The contractor filed a claim in the amount of $26,705.66 for project CSR 173-4-36 and a claim for $40,777.57 for project IM 20-5(118)501 claiming wrongful default. The contractor requested the defaults to be rescinded and that liquidated damages be returned on both projects.

We also met on August 17, 2000, to consider this claim and we offered the contractor a settlement of $20,000 for both projects but we did not rescind the defaults, and we recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, Mike.

MR. HEALD: Item Number 10 under routine minute orders, and there's -- as usual, there's a number of these, and I will present these to you starting with 10(a), speed zones. Establish or alter regulatory and construction bids on various sections of highways in the state. There's a list there for you.

Number 10(b), highway designation. This has to do with designating a new farm-to-market road in Lampasas and Coryell counties as FM 3536 from FM 2313 to County Road 3220 northeasterly to FM 1113 and redesignate a segment of 2313 from County Road 3220 West to FM 580 as FM 3526.

Under right of way matters, it being 10(c) and (c)(1), and we're going to defer the -- we have deferred the first one, that being 10(c)(1). The second one, 10(c)(2), Dallas County -- this minute order provides for the sale of surplus right of way -- surplus access rights along IH-20 in Dallas, and my understanding is the frontage road extended -- the access rights still belong to the state, and so it's necessary that we establish the value and that being $80,275 was established so far as the reasonable value of the state's interest in access rights, and this is -- has the concurrence of the Right of Way Division.

Item 10(c)(3) in Fayette County -- minute order provides for the sale of three tracts of surplus right of way containing -- where there's three tracts and they're in your packet there. And this is to sell the surplus land to respective abutting landowners for established appraised value. Right of Way Division concurs in this.

10(c)(4) in San Saba County -- minute order provides for the conveyance of .837 acre tract of surplus right of way in exchange for 2.342 acres of needed new right of way and for the sale of a .378 acre of tract of surplus right of way, that being on FM 580.

Item number 10(c)(5) -- this minute order provides for the release of two surplus right of way easements contained on 2.479 acres and .574 acres in Tom Green County on Business 67, State Highway Loop 306.

10(c)(6), Upshur County -- minute order provides for the conveyance of .036 acre tract of surplus real property in exchange for .015 acres of needed right of way in Upshur County.

Item 10(d), building and ground improvements, being 10(d)(1) -- this is to authorize the installation of pay telephones at travel information centers in Harlingen, Orange, and Amarillo.

10(d)(2), approve the construction of the travel information center in Amarillo and a maintenance building at the Texas travel information center in Texarkana.

10(e), eminent domain proceedings -- request for eminent domain proceedings on noncontrolled and controlled access highways, and there's a list for your consideration.

Mr. Chairman, that completes the routine minute orders.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Staff is not requesting executive session, which moves us to the open comment period. And, Mr. Chairman, I believe we have at least one speaker, Roger Baker who wants to speak on the long-range transportation planning.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: Yes. My name is Roger Baker and I'm here giving my own comments as a citizen.

My reason for appearing here today is to distribute some information that I believe is quite important for you to take into consideration in planning your highways in the future. Specifically, I think the end of cheap oil is going to become rapidly more important as a consideration in the management of this agency.

In fact, it appears that world oil production may peak within five years, making your existing long-range plans questionable. Your big problem now is that you're struggling to keep up with urban roadway demand, which is largely dictated by land use planning. Soon I think you will have to confront and deal with permanently high fuel costs and all that that implies for your agency.

So far as I know, the future availability of fuel cost is rarely, if ever, taken into account in transportation planning. Even the Texas Turnpike Authority which builds roads with borrowed money, never looks at the future of fuel price or cost of oil, or at any rate, David Kopp told me that it wasn't, so it wasn't taken into account in the SH 130 feasibility analysis.

In reality, all of the world's oil producers are now pumping at near capacity but are unable to keep up with world demand, which is highly inelastic. That is why the price of oil has more than tripled in the last year and a half.

These facts should concern the TxDOT administration, but what should concern you even more is that there is little light at the end of the tunnel. Maybe you think oil will get cheap again next year or pretty soon, but that may not be the case.

So at this point what I'm going to do is distribute several articles by geologist and petroleum economist Collin Campbell [phonetic] with lots of numbers and figures, and you can read it for yourself and I hope take it into account in your thinking, so I've got some copies to give you here. It fact, it has nice large print so you can read it real easy.

MR. JOHNSON: Any observations or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I take it you're not in the oil business?

MR. BAKER: I'm an oil investor.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Are you aware that on our -- that we do have some public hearings scheduled for input on the new state plan that -- you can go to those hearings also and give input.

MR. BAKER: Right. But I thought I'd go straight --

MR. NICHOLS: I think that's fine. That's very appropriate. I just want to make sure that you were aware that there were going to be some specific hearings on that issue.

MR. BAKER: Okay. Well, I'll be happy to spread the word everywhere I can, so thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Baker, I think your observations are right on. My belief is that we need to take into consideration variables such as the price of fuel, the price of parking in our urban areas. Those are things that are unknown currently what they're going to be six months or six years from now, but certainly the price of fuel is one that we have seen rise at an inordinate rate, and it's based on a supply-demand factor, and it's one that all the economists could gather and probably not agree on where it's going to be a year or five years from now.

But we do need to take variables like that into consideration, and when we do our planning, because it's going to affect people's ways of life, their quality of life, and their style of transporting themselves and goods from place to place.

I think your observation is right on and I appreciate your being here.

MR. BAKER: Let me just leave you with one fact to keep in mind. We're only finding one new barrel of oil for every four barrels that we're using currently.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there any other business or speakers?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: We're going to take a brief recess, hopefully so Commissioner Laney can come back and vote on the item under the awarding of contracts that we were unable to conclude our business, so we'll stand in recess for just a few minutes. And if he is not back in say 15 minutes -- is that a sufficient time, do you think? -- then we'll reconvene and we'll adjourn, but hopefully we'll be back.

So we'll take a brief recess. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting to consider the one item, part of the construction letting on Fort Bend County on FM 521. For the record, the project number is STP 2000(717)R, found on page 6.

I will entertain a motion to approve that item.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: For the record, please note that the chair did not vote, recused himself.

All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Those opposed, no. The motion carries.

Is there any other business?

(No response.)

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

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: We stand adjourned. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

(Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.)

CERTIFICATE

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: September 28, 2000

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 96, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum before the Texas Department of Transportation.

10/02/2000
(Transcriber) (Date)

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