Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

Commission Room
Dewitt Greer Building
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas 78701-2483

9:00 a.m. Thursday, September 27, 2001

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

JOHN W. JOHNSON, Chair
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
RIC WILLIAMSON

STAFF:

MIKE BEHRENS, Executive Director
RICHARD MONROE, Legal Counsel
HELEN HAVELKA, Executive Assistant, Engineering Operations
 

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. Before we get started, I have an observation and a request. On September 11 and the days since then, I believe an indelible mark has been left on all of our lives and our thoughts. I thought it would be appropriate that we started the meeting with a moment of silence, a moment of silence in memory of those lost and perhaps a silent prayer of thanksgiving for those who survived the disasters, and also a moment of thanksgiving for the thousands of people who made heroic efforts to be involved in the rescue efforts. So if you will, we’ll have a moment of silence.

(Pause.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

It is 9:07 a.m. and I would like to call this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. Welcome to our September meeting; it is a pleasure to have you here today. Please note for the record that public notice of this meeting, containing all items of the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 2:43 p.m. on September 19.

As a usual custom, before we get started, I’d like to ask my colleagues, my fellow commissioners, if they have any observations or comments. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. As the chairman said, the world is not the same place as it was a couple of weeks ago, and it’s amazing how much of the story relates to transportation and the importance of transportation, the uses that have gone on related to it. I can assure you that this department will do everything within its power to make sure that our transportation system operates as smoothly as safely as we can.

We are always ready for catastrophes, disasters. I think the most recent one in South Padre -- which was just an accident -- is a pretty good show of how fast the department can jump in in a tragic situation.

And other than that, I know there’s a lot of people who have come a long ways to be here today to present their transportation needs. I want you to know that we appreciate the efforts that you make to go this far, and we look at it with great seriousness and it does make an impact on what we do and the decisions we make. Other than that, just thank you for being here.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

Echoing and agreeing with Commissioner Nichols’ remarks, and adding the following, I think our culture has changed in ways that we yet don’t understand, and maybe will not understand for a few years, but I think certainly how the Transportation Commission reacts, not only from a security perspective but from a perspective of providing alternative methods of transportation in our state to our citizens, to the business owners of our state, will probably become more of a focal point over the next few years. And specifically I speak of rail and the prospect of taking a step back and understanding how we can perhaps lead a re-invigoration or a reinvestment in rail in the state.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

This morning we have a very active and full agenda. We have three delegations. One note, on the agenda we will move the South Padre Island minute order consideration up to the third item immediately following the approval of the minutes, and in so in essence, it will be like a fourth delegation.

BOWIE COUNTY

(Judge James Carlow, Rep. Barry Telford, Mayor Paul Meadows, Commissioner Carl Teel.)

MR. JOHNSON: Our first delegation comes to us from Bowie County, and Judge James Carlow, I believe, will get us started. Is the good judge here? Welcome.

JUDGE CARLOW: It’s a pleasure this morning to be able to address you, and it is a long way to Austin from Texarkana or DeKalb or New Boston, but this is a worthwhile project and one that we were glad to spend our time and travel to try to help make it come to fruition.

My name is James Carlow; I’m county judge in Bowie County. I have with me today -- and I’ll start in the most important order -- I’ve got two commissioners -- even when the governor is in Bowie County, these commissioners -- they get introduced first.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE CARLOW: Commissioner Carl Teel, Commissioner Dale Barrett; our mayor from DeKalb, Paul Meadows; and I guess which should have been first, Barry Telford is here with us, he is our state representative, he’s also interested in this project because he lives in DeKalb and he has a business along this route.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We really didn’t need to say that.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE CARLOW: Well, maybe it’s a block off the route.

US 82 is a National Highway System route which traverses North Texas from Texarkana to Paris to Wichita Falls and then on to Lubbock and into New Mexico, and it’s part of the Texas Trunk System. Our project is located on a 14-mile stretch in Bowie County which connects Interstate 30 with US 259 between New Boston and DeKalb and is heavily traveled by both local and regional traffic.

An abandoned railroad corridor traverses the entire length of the project and is currently owned by the Rails to Trails Conservancy. The Rails to Trails Conservancy has rail-banked the corridor and it’s reserved for hike and bike trail use. Barry Telford and I, along with TxDOT officials, have coordinated at length with the RTC to enable a joint use of the corridor for both highway and pedestrian use.

As a result of the joint use agreement, Bowie County is willing to serve as a trail manager and has applied for Federal Enhancement Program funds to help construct the trail portion of the project. Our nomination is currently being reviewed by TxDOT. Further, Bowie County is committed to donating up to 70 feet of the railroad corridor for the highway widening improvements. This donation represents a potential savings of $10 million in right of way costs for the state.

Serving as trail manager represents a long-term commitment to the project on the part of Bowie County. Bowie County has agreed, under this process, to see that the trail is developed according to the standards of the RTC and to maintain it in perpetuity.

TxDOT has proceeded as expeditiously as possible to engage the services of engineering consultants to complete the advanced planning, environmental clearance, schematic preparation and PS&E completion of the project. We’ve been assured that this is one of the highest priorities in the Atlanta District, and if funded, this project is anticipated to let to construction by Fiscal Year 2005.

A number of parties have worked very hard to advance this project over the last several years, and we’d sure like to see it go to letting when the PS&E is complete.

This project was initiated by the department in 1979. Due to lack of funds and slow traffic growth, the project was essentially shelved until the mid ‘90s when traffic levels increased to the point where four lanes were warranted. A major hurdle has been the balancing of the cost of the right of way and environmental concerns.

The north side of the right of way is continuously developed with residential and commercial establishments. The cost of right of way from this side, the north side, exceeds $10 million, and the construction cost is only $25 million. On the south side of US 82 --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait, what did you say?

JUDGE CARLOW: I said if we bought the right of way on the north side of 82 -- which is what we would have had to do several years ago before they abandoned the railroad -- the cost of that right of way would have been over $10 million. By being able to move it on the right of way of the railroad to the south, we’re working that through with the Rails to Trails Conservancy.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So your right of way is going to cost less?

JUDGE CARLOW: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It’s going to cost less because it’s not developed.

JUDGE CARLOW: That’s right, and because the county already has -- almost has possession; we’ve got an agreement with them; we don’t actually have the deed yet but I’ve got a contract.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is it your observation, as a local elected official, that right of way costs to both the state and local government is always less expensive when you’re purchasing undeveloped property?

JUDGE CARLOW: Yes, that’s for sure.

On the south side of 82 lies an abandoned railroad corridor but getting access to this property has had its hurdles as well. One of these is the fact that the corridor has been rail-banked, preserved and protected under federal law, for hike and bike trail use. A number of people, including myself and Barry Telford, have spent a number of years negotiating with RTC for a joint use agreement of this corridor. Last year we succeeded in executing an agreement with RTC and we now have this agreement with them which would allow development on the extreme south side of 30 feet for a trail and the other 70 feet can be used to widen 82 to a four lane.

Traffic has grown steadily over the last ten years and continues to grow. This section of US 82 is used by both residents and businesses along this route and also by traffic heading north into Oklahoma via 259, and northwest on to Paris.

This slide shows a school that’s adjacent to 82 on the north side. Malta School here is, like I said, right on the north side of the highway, and if we try to expand, as we did earlier, to the north it would mean removing the school. There are also five churches along this right of way on the north side.

Back in May we held a public hearing and we had it at the Malta School which would be impacted by this project. It was well attended and all of the attendees were excited about the project and eager for construction to begin. I’ve been around a long time and I’ve been to a lot of public hearings and there’s always somebody against whatever it is, no matter how good the project is, but with this particular project, I have had no one that’s been opposed to it.

As I said, the support has been overwhelming for the project and they don’t understand why we just can’t start turning dirt next week, they don’t realize the process takes time, but they are excited about the future.

As I mentioned earlier, the Malta School is there, there’s five churches along that right of way, as you saw in an earlier slide, there’s numerous businesses, residences. It would really impact the area if we had to move to the north.

We also get an added benefit, and of course, it’s the most important benefit from the RTC perspective, and that’s to construct a trail for hiking and biking along that 30 feet on the south side. This is probably the best picture we could get of that abandoned railroad; most of the places it’s grown up. It’s going to take a lot of work and it’s going to take a lot of maintenance over the years to make this a nice amenity for our area.

As you can see -- I travel this road a lot because I have a business in DeKalb -- but it’s hard to pass on this road, it’s a two-lane road with a lot of traffic, there’s a lot of hills on it, and it’s virtually impossible to pass from New Boston to DeKalb.

Our current status, the agreement with the RTC has been completed, has been signed by RTC and by the county; the engineers have already started to work on this project; we have an enhancement project that’s under review by TxDOT at this time to help with the construction of that trail.

Bowie County, as I’ve said earlier, has already entered into an agreement with RTC and we’ll have control of the 100 feet. We want to donate 70 feet of that to TxDOT to be used for the other two lanes.

We’ve had several accidents in the last ten years, even more in the last five years, with a lot of injuries and some fatalities along this route, and we feel that by making this four lane, it would make it a whole lot safer highway.

And finally, we’re excited about the opportunity to get this project funded, get it let for construction, and we’d appreciate your consideration. I’d like to thank all of you this morning for your time and attention, and I’d like to turn it over now to Representative Telford.

MR. JOHNSON: Representative Telford, it’s nice to have you here.

MR. TELFORD: Thank you. Let me straighten something out. Everybody has got to be from somewhere and I live in DeKalb and I’m proud of it. My business is located about a mile and two-tenths away from where this project would begin. By the way, Senator Fraser also has a business on US 82 but it’s even further on the opposite end of this project, so I wanted to, for the record, say that this is not my business, it’s only my business in the sense that I represent Bowie County and that I also represent my hometown and I love it and it’s part of rural Texas, big time.

Commissioner Nichols, and I think maybe Commissioner Johnson, came to some of the rural development meetings that were held during the last interim and DeKalb fits most of that mold, and I am absolutely and utterly convinced that transportation is going to play a role, a big role in the future development of rural Texas.

You’ve already started on US 82 around the Sherman area, moving on to Bonham and that area, widening 82, and we would like to see, obviously, some work started on the other end of that, linking Interstate 30 at New Boston with Interstate 35 in the Sherman-Denison area. I’m convinced when that project is completed, the entire northern tier of counties in the state of Texas will be benefited.

I only have one of those particular counties along that route; however, Red River County -- where Clarksville is located -- is one of the poorest counties in the state outside the Valley, and I’m convinced that that type of project will ultimately benefit counties like Red River County, in addition to moving traffic, providing a truly viable alternative for truck traffic along 82, and tourist traffic as well,

The last thing that I want to point out is what the county has done, just in case that you missed that. Bowie County is willing -- they, like the Texas Highway Commission, do not particularly -- aren’t that crazy about trying to manage a bike trail and a hiking trail. But I can tell you the stretch between DeKalb and where this project would end, for a hike and biking trail, in my judgment, is not something, even if left the way it is, that’s going to attract a large number of people. If you don’t believe that, just come and I’ll show you where it’s at.

The fellow from Florida came by and he was just ecstatic over what he kept calling a canopy.

MR. WILLIAMSON: A what?

MR. TELFORD: A canopy. That’s what I said and that’s what Judge Carlow said. And what he was talking about is a thicket that’s grown up beside the old railroad right of way, and he was quite ecstatic about that, but it’s just a thicket.

(General laughter.)

MR. TELFORD: There’s not any waterfalls to walk by, there’s not any pretty streams, unless you’re in a flood stage. I mean, the best thing that could happen to this is to turn it into a highway, and the county is willing to step up to the plate, assume that responsibility from one end of this project past the other end, actually, because they’ve assumed the responsibility, if I’m not mistaken, all the way across Bowie County along this hike and bike trail and along 82. By the county doing that, at some point, I’m convinced, the state of Texas is going and was going to widen US 82, and the fact of the matter is without the county doing this, you would have been forced to get on the north side of the highway, and when you did, then you’ve got a lot of developed property that we’ve got to purchase -- a school for one thing.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Where the right of way is more expensive.

MR. TELFORD: Where it’s more expensive. So they are, in effect, making this project somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million cheaper, and I want to stress that, because as Commissioner Williamson has done, I’ve served on the Appropriations Committee in the House and these things have some importance.

So any consideration you can give for this project would be appreciated. I think it’s a worthy project and it’s one that brings us that much closer, Commissioner Nichols, to having a viable rural Texas. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And Chairman Telford, just so you know, I pointed that out to the man on the record because I knew you wouldn’t want that to be unanswered and that’s not the kind of thing that in elected life you want to be on the record, anyway.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Are there any other presenters with the delegation?

MR. WILLIAMSON: They get an award for quickness.

MAYOR MEADOWS: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here before you today. My name is Paul Meadows; I’m the mayor of the City of DeKalb. For many years we have seen the need for the widening of US 82 because of the increase in the traffic flow and we just wanted to appear before you today to just impress upon you the importance that we feel like is there to see this project move forward.

One of the main concerns that we have certainly is the safety of the citizens and the general public as they travel up and down this corridor between the city of DeKalb and New Boston and Interstate 30 which is a major thoroughfare through our area. We feel like that the widening of this would greatly enhance this, as it’s already been pointed out earlier that the passing zones in this are just nearly impossible.

One thing, too, that we’re looking at, as I think has also been noted, the development of rural Texas is somewhat difficult at times because of transportation problems and because of locations. We feel like with our location, the way we’re sitting right now between Highway 259 which is a major north-south corridor for us and also Interstate 30, that the connection of a four-lane highway between the two would greatly enhance our ability to grow economically.

So we just wanted to come before you today and just hopefully encourage you to support this project. As was mentioned earlier, the public support of this has been overwhelming. I suspected that we would have some opposition to some type of new construction, especially in a rural area, but the support has been exceedingly -- we’ve been ecstatic with the support that we’ve had there. So we really want to encourage you and we would appreciate any support that you might give us in this. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. TEEL: Thank you. My name is Carl Teel; I serve as Bowie County commissioner, Precinct 4, which is impacted by this particular project, and I wanted to come and lend my voice of support to all that’s been said, our county judge, our state representative and the mayor, saying that there has been universal support from the citizens of our area.

We hope that you’ll give favorable consideration to this project. Thank you.

JUDGE CARLOW: That’s all we have.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Chairman, would perhaps one of the gentlemen address, is there any military consideration to this?

JUDGE CARLOW: Not that I can connect. We do have a military depot that just east of New Boston which would be three or four miles from this project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And this would not enhance transport of goods and services to or from the depot?

JUDGE CARLOW: If they were traveling along 82, it would.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Anything else, any other questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I’ve got some in a minute. I was just waiting my turn.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Well, go ahead.

MR. NICHOLS: I’m not sure if I’m going to be asking you a question or somebody else, but first of all, I wanted to say to Chairman Telford -- if he’s still back there -- I told him personally, and I wanted to make sure I said it also in front of you, how much we appreciate your support of transportation, sir. I know during the last few sessions, personally, every time I needed advice related to that, every time I ever called or needed to go in and talk to you, you always saw me. He was always very helpful, candid at times -- which you need -- but very supportive and helpful, and we very much appreciate it, sir.

MR. TELFORD: Well, Ric Williamson trained me on candor.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Related to 82, I’ve got a number of comments and then I’ve got some questions. 82, as you are already aware, is a connector between 30 and the northeast corner of Texas, all the way across to US 75 heading north out of Dallas, up to that part of the state, so it’s a good connector all the way across, and as you mentioned earlier, a lot of sections of that have been built into divided four lane, so I think the state has incrementally kind of worked across a number of pieces of that.

I know that this project has what we refer to as a Priority 2 status. When it reaches a Priority 2 status, that is a commitment by the department that it will be built, and it gives the district the authority to work with the locals to acquire the right of way, to develop the plans, to move it along to the point through the environmental process and everything, to go to construction. I think it’s probably laid out now looking to that perfect point in time where it reaches a point that we can start flagging the actual construction dollars.

But at the same time, it’s also on the Texas Trunk System, and I know as we looked at the different corridors on the Texas Trunk System several years ago, going into what we refer to as Phase 1 Corridors, 82 was looked at and ranked quite well at that particular point in time because it was such a large connector across there and there are a number of sections that are built as four lanes and others that are committed, so there’s only missing gaps.

About one year from now, I think either next summer or next fall, the state is going to be having statewide hearings again on Phase 2 corridors to help begin the process of establishing which corridors in the state -- and there’s a geographic fairness around the state and balance also -- should be locked in and committed to completion to fill all the gaps. So I want to let you know, because that not only will affect you on this project but the gaps in between on the other areas of 82 that are going to be important to you as you move through the state.

So I would encourage you to keep your ear to the ground. I’m sure the district engineer will be informing you when those hearings come along, and participate in those; I think they’re going to be real important to you.

More specifically, on some of these questions I have relates to the rail-banking. How long of a section did the Rails to Trails Conservancy obtain? Did they obtain more than this, or 30 miles or 50 miles?

JUDGE CARLOW: The RTC has this old railroad rail-banked from New Boston to, I think, at least to Paris.

MR. NICHOLS: All the way to Paris? Okay. Is this the Rails to Trails Conservancy in Washington, DC?

JUDGE CARLOW: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: So the home-based organization itself purchased it -- rail-banked it.

JUDGE CARLOW: Actually, it was donated by the railroad to get some tax credits. We tried to buy it from them before they actually donated it to RTC.

MR. NICHOLS: But it’s not controlled by any local group in the state of Texas, but by the Washington, DC organization.

JUDGE CARLOW: That’s right. They do have an office in Florida.

MR. NICHOLS: And it is rail-banked? I mean, it is under rail-banking?

JUDGE CARLOW: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Because rail-banking actually activates the federal eminent domain rights over state, local, county, whatever rights, so that is a taking, in effect, under the Trails Act.

Do you know in this particular section if all of that land that was taken by eminent domain under the rail-banking is fee simple land, or is some of that reversionary land, or do you know what I’m talking about?

JUDGE CARLOW: I know what you’re talking about. I think it’s fee simple; I need to make sure that that’s right.

MR. NICHOLS: Because you keep referring to two different projects. I know the Rails to Trails Conservancy is interested in one project that is submitted for the bicycle trail on the remaining portion, I assume, of the right of way, and you’re interested in the highway portion of it, but are they trying to tie in your agreement for your 70 feet for right of way, are they trying to tie one project to the other? In other words, are they saying we’ll donate the 70 feet to you for your portion of the highway expansion but we want to make sure that we’re getting a bike trail, or something like that?

JUDGE CARLOW: The way it works is that all that they’re interested in is a bike trail, all that the county is interested in is a highway.

MR. NICHOLS: I understand that.

JUDGE CARLOW: So when they came to me and wanted the county to assume the responsibilities, over time, for the construction and maintenance of that trail, I tell them I am not interested. We’ve got 1,200 miles of trails in Bowie County, we call them county roads; we’re not looking for a trail, we’re looking for a four-lane highway.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I understand. But you cannot get the 70 feet from them unless they agree to let you have it.

JUDGE CARLOW: The deal was the county commissioners court will assume responsibility to build you a trail on the south side of this property; we get the 100 feet, we build a trail, and we donate 70 feet to TxDOT for that highway. Without that commitment, we don’t want to do this deal, we do not want this trail.

MR. NICHOLS: So you are, in effect, as a county committing to the RTC to build that trail in exchange for the donation of the 70 feet.

JUDGE CARLOW: That’s right, that’s what we’re paying for it.

MR. NICHOLS: So you are the sponsor, I’m assuming, of the application under the Transportation Enhancement Program.

JUDGE CARLOW: That’s right.

MR. NICHOLS: In our rules, you may or may not be aware, that one of our rules in Transportation Enhancement Projects -- which are normally of a recreational but should have some impact to transportation -- we are prohibited in our rules from participating in a project where land is taken by eminent domain. That’s in the rules.

Now, if that land is fee simple -- in other words, the railroad owned it outright and it was not private property with an easement that’s reversionary, then fee simple, that makes it real easy to work with. But if it’s privately owned land that the railroad had an easement over and it was taken by eminent domain, then we are prohibited from participating.

JUDGE CARLOW: The railroad voluntarily donated it to RTC.

MR. NICHOLS: I understand.

JUDGE CARLOW: They’re giving us a quitclaim deed for it.

MR. NICHOLS: If it’s rail-banking -- well, if it’s rail-banked -- well, I would advise you to seek additional legal counsel on that. The railroad can give you a quitclaim but you cannot do that under a rail-banking. A rail-banking is a temporary taking by the federal government and a lending for recreational purposes for the long-term benefit of transportation, ultimately, but it is a taking under eminent domain. And to transfer land over -- I’m not a lawyer, I’m an engineer so I’ll probably muddle this up, but I’ve seen this before -- and to be able to actually donate or transfer fee simple land, you have to abandon and reverse out the rail-banking, actually back it out and do a fee simple before you can do the other.

So it’s important, that’s why I’m concerned about the two being tied together.

JUDGE CARLOW: We had looked into this and I’ve had our attorneys work with RTC attorneys on it. I know what you’re talking about, and before we entered that agreement and we’re comfortable with it, you know, there could be something, but I feel pretty good about it.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

JUDGE CARLOW: Originally -- I don’t know how far to go with this; I think I’ve probably gone far enough.

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, I appreciate the efforts you have made in supporting us, the department, related to this transportation on 82; I think it looks like a good project.

JUDGE CARLOW: We’ve appreciated our relationship with TxDOT over the years; they’ve done a great job in the Atlanta District for us.

Anything else?

MR. JOHNSON: I have a question of Bob Ratcliff. Bob, I see you back there so you can’t hide. My status report shows that the estimated cost of this project is just a little north of $26 million. For funding purposes is it possible, since $26 million is a pretty good bite, to divide this into maybe two projects?

MR. RATCLIFF: Yes, sir, we could divide this into two projects. It would probably divide at Malta.

MR. JOHNSON: Thanks.

Any other questions? Ric, did you have anything, or Robert?

Well, we appreciate your being here, and as Robert said and Ric also, it enables us when delegations are here to learn what are the important things in your part of the state, and for your appearance here we’re extremely grateful. We do not make decisions on the spot but we’ve learned quite a bit about this project that you’ve presented and hopefully we’ll find a way to get it done.

We will take a brief recess to let our friends from Bowie County get back to where they need to get to, and the next delegation will come to us from Metroport Transportation Partnership in the Metroplex. So we will take a brief recess.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Before we take the break, might I ask of you or Mr. Nichols, with regard -- just so they’ll know, with regard to Proposition 15 on the constitutional ballot this next November, is it accurate to infer that if Proposition 15 were to pass and we were to aggressively pursue alternative financing for large urban projects in our state that we would, in effect, be releasing some funding that would flow out to the rural areas such as this? Is that an accurate inference?

MR. JOHNSON: I believe it to be accurate. My sense is that Proposition 15, the passage and subsequent funding of the Mobility Fund, is like the rising tide that all ships will benefit.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So everyone will benefit from it, including projects in Northeast Texas. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: We’ll take a brief recess. Thank you very much to our good friends from Northeast Texas.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

METROPORT TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP

(Trent Petty, Gary Fickes, Glen Whitley, Mayor Rick Stacy, Mayor Dave Phillips, Mayor Scott Bradley, Nancy Fleming, Rep. Vickie Truitt)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting. I apologize to those of you on my right and to the left side of the auditorium where we have lost visual contact but there seems to be something that has been placed between us.

Our next delegation comes from North Texas and we would like to welcome our good friends from the Metroport Transportation Partnership to Austin. Trent Petty from Westlake I believe will commence the presentation. It’s great to have you here.

MR. PETTY: Thank you very much, commissioners. It’s our honor to be again before you today, and we do apologize for the visual obstacle; we can remove that here in just a moment.

We’re very fortunate today to represent the eight cities of the Metroport Cities Partnership. We have many of our local mayors, elected officials, our state representative, our county commissioners here today. I’ll briefly introduce those folks to you but they’ll be up in a just a moment.

State Representative Vickie Truitt is here behind me; Commissioner Glen Whitley; Southlake Mayor Rick Stacy; Keller Mayor Dave Phillips; Westlake Mayor Scott Bradley; and a number of other officials. I’d just like for the delegation that’s here today from the Metroport cities to please stand very quickly so we’ll kind of know who we have. We’ve got a big group backing us up today and we appreciate their time to come out and visit with you as well.

We’d also like to start out by first of all thanking you for the support that you’ve given to north Tarrant County, especially the Funnel Project. The effort that you’ve put in, the vision is certainly something that will help our region for years to come. We know that doesn’t happen without people like Steve Simmons and Jay Nelson, and we certainly recognize and appreciate their support as we follow through on this project, too.

The project that we are about today is a request, not for money but a request that we outline a system that will allow us to extend Farm to Market Road 1938, extend the FM extension, and to also place this on Level 2 classification for priority to get this project on the system. Looking at the map behind you, Peggy is going to outline where this project extends. If you’ll look at the pinpoint right there -- Peggy, go down to 1709 -- right there is the beginning of that project. It will simply extend all the way up, making one constant connection all the way from 183A/20 to 114.

This project has been planned by the North Texas Council of Governments all the way back in the late ‘70s; it’s been on the mobility transportation plan and updated each time that this project someday be accomplished. We believe it will be one of the most significant north-south routes that could be identified in the Metroplex. It will be the only north-south route arterial that we have between Highway 377 and State Highway 26, an area that serves approximately 200,000 people.

We don’t ever come to the commission with our hand out without bringing what we consider to be our part to the table. We have put together a group of businesses, communities, county officials that have brought essentially 50 percent, ultimately, of the funding of this project to you. The estimated construction cost of the project will be $13.7 million if it’s placed on the Level 2 Priority funding. Between the right of way designations that we’ve been able to already acquire, the engineering dollars that we’ve been able to put together, we’ve come up with $13 million in in-kind contributions and right of way ourselves.

So we appreciate the opportunity to bring that to you. We have already received over a million dollars in cash contributions from private entities, not including the cities’ money, to make this project happen. So we see ourselves as partners with the commission on projects like this. We know it’s our responsibility to bring as much as we can to the table, and on this project we bring the right of way, the engineering, and we also are offering to provide all the landscape right of way maintenance on the project for the entire 3.5-mile length.

The FM designation is important to us. Commissioner Nichols asked me yesterday if we have a lot of farmers traveling this road. We don’t anymore; I’m certain that there used to be. Representative Truitt told me she knew there was a farmers’ market down there at one point.

The fact is the FM extension of this roadway allows us to access even more local funds through Tarrant County, and Commissioner Glen Whitley is here and will address that with you in just a few minutes. By establishing the FM designation, we’re allowed to then access over $5 million worth of right of way acquisition monies from Tarrant County. Without that, it becomes a much more arduous, if not impossible, process to get that county funding, so that’s why we’re requesting the FM designation.

What does this road do for the state of Texas? If you’ll look at the map above, you can see on the right -- it’s difficult to see and I apologize for that -- on the right is the infamous area where the Funnel will occur, centered by DFW Airport, and on the far left-hand side of the map Alliance Airport.

The 3.5-mile stretch that we’re asking be connected will essentially, again, be the only north-south arterial between those two elements, an area, a corridor that’s continued to grow, and an area that TxDOT has already committed significant funds to improving, as we speak -- the Highway 114 project is moving on -- and this will essentially allow us to connect two major construction processes, that being the 820 and the 183 Loop and the 114 project currently under construction. This construction will allow us to essentially complete that loop and provide access to both of those major construction projects which we see as a big benefit for TxDOT and for the state.

This roadway will also facilitate an arterial connection, ultimately, to the Cotton Belt Rail Line, a Dallas Area Rapid Transportation Project that will provide light rail access at some point to the areas, again further relieving this congestion. That Cotton Belt Rail Line essentially runs through Grapevine down through near Highway 26. This will give us a north-south route, especially for the southbound traffic, directly to stations that occur along the Cotton Belt.

Finally, it does allow us to maximize your money, your efforts to projects currently under construction. It will provide us a significant reliever once the Funnel project begins and you consider the traffic from 121 and 360, 114, all combining and getting access to DFW Airport, this will be the major north-south reliever while that project is under construction, as well as providing up to 25,000 new employees access from the south between the Fidelity, Sabre, Solana, and new projects occurring in the Westlake-Southlake corridor right now.

I’d like to introduce to you some of our specific officials this morning that are going to come and visit with you about our efforts. First of all, Mr. Gary Fickes who is president of the Metroport Transportation Partnership, and then we’ll follow that with our local mayors. Gary.

MR. FICKES: Thank you, Trent.

I want to thank the commission and Mr. Behrens for the opportunity to visit with you here today. As you know, Metroport Cities and Metroport Transportation, we’re a public-private partnership comprised of eight cities, two counties, four school districts, numerous corporations in our area, and probably hundreds of volunteers. Our main area focus has always been between DFW Airport and the Alliance Airport. Since 1995 we’ve primarily focused on transportation and mobility in that area.

Our organization, as you know, has supported numerous projects in our area that have received favorable consideration from you. We want to thank the commission, we want to thank TxDOT and your staff, we also want to thank our district office and their staff for all their work they’ve done to help us.

Those projects that you have been, obviously, instrumental on have been State Highway 114, the Funnel project -- which I’ll just start with Highway 114, 121, 635, 26, 2499, 1709 -- that’s the Funnel; also Northwest Highway in Grapevine, 377 in Keller, 170 and also the proposed improvements along Highway 26 in Colleyville. We appreciate all the effort that the commission and the understanding that you have given us in our area.

Our economic health in our region remains tied to our ability to provide infrastructure for mobility. As you know, we’re probably one of the fastest growing areas, not just in the state of Texas but in the whole country. The extension of 1938 to us is a critical component of our transportation needs. This is going to provide a great north-south connection between 820, 183, and Highway 114.

In your packet that we passed out, you’re going to notice several letters from local corporations. These corporations employ thousands of residents of northeast Tarrant County and southern Denton County. As other members will tell you, and as Trent told you earlier, these corporations have donated literally millions of dollars’ worth of right of way and they’ve also shared in the cost of engineering and the environmental work because they all understand too that a safe and direct route to work is going to benefit everybody in our area.

This project, again, exemplifies the purpose of Metroport Cities and Metroport Transportation. We’re here in a united effort to bring you our commitment, both financially and in spirit. This coalition of cities, counties, school districts, citizens and corporations is one that we’re very proud of.

We appreciate your favorable consideration of our request, and at this time I’d like to introduce Commissioner Glen Whitley from Tarrant county. Glen.

MR. WHITLEY: Thank you, Gary. Commissioners, Mr. Behrens, I’m Tarrant County Commissioner Glen Whitley and I represent the northeast part of Tarrant County.

Tarrant County is very supportive of this project and I’m here today to request the farm to market designation as well as the Priority 2 status. We’re going to purchase the right of way on this and basically what we’re going to do is we’re going to be purchasing the right of way from the town of Westlake south to where it intersects 1709. We estimate that that’s going to take probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 24 months and will cost approximately $5 million.

In the past, if you look at this, you’ve got a big commitment already in this particular area from the standpoint that you realigned 1938 where it intersects 1709, and also you realigned the intersection up on 114 in anticipation of this road being built where we’re talking about, in the project that we’re talking about from that standpoint.

You’ll also see in your packets a resolution from Denton County. We’ve worked with our neighbors to the north on this project, and both us and Denton County are very supportive of this project going forward. We’re looking forward to again working with Steve Simmons and getting this project underway, and again, I want to thank you for your consideration on this project. And now I’m going to introduce Mayor Rick Stacy from the City of Southlake.

MAYOR STACY: Thank you, Glen. Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Behrens, we’re so honored to be here again today. And you might ask, well, you boys don’t ever get enough because you’ve got construction going on all over your area right now. As you know, I’m the mayor of the City of Southlake and we do have major construction going on through our community. Along Highway 1709 we’re enhancing every one of those intersections right now so that people can continue to move through there, and as you know, we have tremendous construction going on on 114 through our community.

I’m real proud of my neighbors, Westlake and Keller, because about three or four years ago when we first started to bring this project forward, we frightened some people; I mean, we really alarmed a few folks. For some reason they had no idea that 1938 might extend to the north, and so we began to have prayer meetings and public meetings and planning meetings and all the different kinds of meetings, jointly with Westlake and Keller and Southlake, to inform the people, and now I can assure you that not only are the people informed -- other than maybe a couple moving in from Oklahoma in the last couple of days -- everybody knows that this road needs to go forward. So we’re quite excited about it.

Watching our community grow from 256 people to about 22- or 23,000 presently, we’ve learned one or two things. One is that most everyone moving into town would love to have a freeway to an exit -- to a frontage road, Mr. Williamson -- that’s about a mile from where they live, and then they take a three-lane or a two-lane road about a quarter of a mile and turn one time onto a cul de sac where they raise their family. That’s what everybody would like to have moving to our community.

We have learned that cul de sacs are a huge problem as we begin to back up cul de sacs to one another. Unfortunately for the state, 1938 doesn’t dead end or end in a cul de sac at Southlake Boulevard, 1709, because there is a trail there, but it almost looks like it. It would kind of be like building Central Expressway north to Northwest Highway and then stopping, not going on to LBJ because for the first time we’re about to have a freeway through our community when 114 is completed and we must build roads to get to it, so this is a very, very critical part.

We have already acquired the Sabre Group; they’ll be opening before the end of the year. We have just broken ground on Verizon Knox Center; we’re going to have thousands of people working on that corridor on 114. They need a way to get to the south, so this will open it up all the way back to Northeast Mall and that famous intersection there that I understand is now being proposed as the Wes Heald Interchange between Northeast Mall, 820, 26, all that stuff. But this is a very vital corridor and we certainly look forward to participating.

I understand through all the designs that we’re now going to have a beautiful road through there, including a trail. I want to assure you, like the man who was up here earlier, that if you ever see me out jogging, you need to call the police because there’s somebody chasing me.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR STACY: We do intend to build a nice trail along that corridor for those people who do like to jog. Thank you very much.

At this time I’d like to introduce Mayor Dave Phillips from Keller.

MAYOR PHILLIPS: Thank you, Rick. Good morning, commissioners. I’m Dave Phillips, the mayor of Keller.

And in addition to the collective effort that we’ve had with Southlake and Westlake to meet the concerns of our affected citizens along this project, we spent a considerable amount of staff time and professional time meeting with basically the 15 residents that we have along this road, and I believe the effort we’ve expended before bringing this project to you will benefit us greatly as we move forward.

The extension of FM 1938, as far as Keller is concerned, will most importantly take traffic out of our neighborhood streets. As you’ve heard about all the development along 114, that traffic now finds its way through northern Keller, and as more and more people work there, we expect more and more traffic. It also will serve as an important connection to our new town center complex which actually is located halfway between Highway 377 and this proposed extension of FM 1938.

We consider this particular project to be, as we call it, the crown jewel of Keller, and we’re committed to this project moving forward and certainly the access from FM 1938 benefits that project as well. So we have both the residential aspect of keeping the neighborhoods safer and also the commercial aspect of helping our major commercial project move forward.

As I understand, the environmental report will be clean with no significant findings of adverse conditions and this report will be forthcoming as soon as it is complete.

I want to thank you for your time, and it is my pleasure to introduce Mayor Scott Bradley, my neighbor from the town of Westlake.

MAYOR BRADLEY: Commissioners, Mr. Behrens, it’s a pleasure to be appearing before you this morning.

Every morning, at least on weekdays, thousands of cars converge in Westlake and its neighbor Southlake for the Solana complex where thousands of workers come every day. In addition, the Fidelity complex, which is just across the street from the Solana complex, draws thousands of employees. In addition, shortly, as Rick Stacy pointed out, additional employees will be converging just across 114 from where we would expect 1938 would connect to 114 at the Sabre complex.

Now, many of these employees are coming from the mid cities and since there is no direct connector, you can guess where that traffic goes: it filters down through the neighborhoods and does cause some tension with respect to the safety issues for the people who live in these communities. They’re filtering through Keller, they’re filtering through Southlake, actually Colleyville also, and of course heading in through Westlake.

If you designate this as a farm to market route, it will allow us to acquire the additional right of way. At this point in time, Westlake has acquired 100 percent of the right of way needed for this roadway, and as a part of our local contribution, our group is prepared, of course, to provide the right of way, both that that we’ve been able to acquire already and that which Glen Whitley will be able to acquire through condemnation. We’re also providing the design, the engineering and the environmental impact statements for the project.

So we think we have a project for you that would be ready to go and we would appreciate very much your consideration in forwarding this project.

MR. PETTY: Thank you, Mayor Bradley.

We’re also very blessed in our area to have fine, fine state representation. I’d like to introduce, first of all, Nancy Fleming from Senator Jane Nelson’s office, who I believe has something to read. Nancy.

MS. FLEMING: Good morning, commissioners. I’m Nancy Fleming with Senator Nelson’s office. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on her behalf. You should have in your briefing materials a letter that she wrote earlier in the month about the importance of this project. I won’t go back over that letter and I won’t restate the importance of what these individuals have already eloquently stated as the need for this project.

But if Senator Nelson was here, she would ask you as you are considering this request that you recognize three important things, and that is the cooperative efforts of this coalition -- I know you’ve seen this delegation appear many times before you; they’re always very well prepared and have thought through not only how this will help their area but how they also connect in with the other arteries in the Metroplex, but more importantly, their commitment and willingness to also come to you, as Mr. Petty said, with a commitment for funding to see this project through.

I know that the commission for many years now has talked about the importance of communities partnering with the department on projects and this group of communities I think has done that extraordinarily well over the years, and would ask that you give this your utmost consideration. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. PETTY: Thank you, Nancy.

You’d be very hard-pressed to find a state representative that has generated the following and the support that Representative Vickie Truitt has generated in our area. She is absolutely one of us, she lives among us, she has been our leader, our friend and our supporter now for two terms, and we’re very, very honored to have Vickie with us today and she’d like to make a few comments. Representative Truitt.

MS. TRUITT: Thank you, Trent. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners, Mr. Behrens. I want to thank you again for the chance for us to be before you this morning.

In meeting my constituents here this morning and hearing what they have to say so eloquently and how well prepared they are makes you understand how proud I am to represent this fine group of people in the area of northeast Tarrant County. I grew up there. In fact, I grew up on Farm to Market 1938 on a farm south of where this project is proposed.

MR. JOHNSON: You don’t own a business on this proposed project.

(General laughter.)

MS. TRUITT: No, sir, no personal interest there, other than for the benefit of my constituents and their mobility.

You have demonstrated on numerous occasions your understanding of our region’s mobility issues and we appreciate and sincerely thank you for that.

I want to mention three things about this project. One, the characteristics of the project, the cooperation of all of the entities involved to obtain right of way, to work on the engineering, the environmental studies, the proposal to care for the future maintenance of the rights of way, et cetera.

And Commissioner Williamson, we heard you on the access issues, as we talked about some yesterday, and on this project I think you will see that these communities are planning ahead to eliminate or avoid circumstances, as we heard you talk about yesterday.

A crucial component of this project is the farm to market designation on the extension. It’s a natural extension for it to pick up there where it stops at 1709 and move north toward 114, but the FM designation is crucial because of the funding for the right of way. It would be a much more difficult project without that.

Finally, the timing. A couple of years ago, we wanted to bring this project to the commission but knowing how this commission wants all of the parties on board and all of the ducks in a row, there were a few people, as Mayor Stacy alluded to, that had some concerns about it, and we went back and the cities very actively involved the citizens and now everybody has signed off on this.

That’s why we’re back before you now. As someone stated yesterday -- I believe it was Trent Petty -- the stars are aligned now. But if we don’t act now, the universe is going to move, the stars are going to move. And right now there aren’t a lot of people living up there, but as you know, our area is experiencing dramatic and very rapid growth, and if we don’t do this now, it will be populated and it will be much more difficult to address and we’ll forever lose the opportunity to complete this missing link in a very important north-south corridor. If you see how far you have to go east or west to get north to 114, this is a very important pathway we need.

We need the farm to market road designation and we need immediate action on the project. and we very sincerely appreciate your consideration. I thank you and we thank you for Steve Simmons in our Fort Worth region.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Representative.

MR. PETTY: Thank you, Representative Truitt.

In summary, there is a reason we’ve put this gargantuan picture up here in front of you and blocked everyone’s view. One of the key components, we believe, of asking for any state assistance is to make certain that we plan according to state parameters, that we try to accomplish your goals for moving people in Texas. If you’ll look at this roadway and the way it’s lined out, you’ll see in bold yellow the intersections that have been designated as access to this roadway.

One of the things we have sought to do is through constructing and configuring these medians as we do, we have eliminated most, if any, of the driveway access properties from having full access to this roadway, rather trying them to funnel them into intersections and using arterials to get this roadway instead of having driveway after driveway after driveway enter onto it.

So the configuration of it, the planning of it has been done in concert with TxDOT recommendations and TxDOT staff, and that’s why we wanted to illustrate to you that even though it looks like a residential area on the lower portion of the map, those intersections are arterial intersections that we’ll be able to prevent access that will cause us problems down the road.

In summary, there are three points I think we’d like to leave you with. We do believe our role is a partnership with TxDOT and we take that partnership quite seriously. We bring money to this project; we bring the support not only of our local representatives, our elected officials, we bring the citizen support; we bring the North Texas Council of Governments’ support; we bring the support of businesses who have kind of put their money where their mouth is, if you will, on this project; we bring the development community’s support; and we bring the support, I think, of the state of Texas through the TxDOT staff, through the work that they have done in helping us plan this project. We feel very, very good about the project.

Three things that we are asking for again: first of all, the FM designation to be extended; secondly, we certainly need the Priority 2 classification; and we’d like for you to recognize the fact that by offering to maintain this roadway, we’ve eliminated TxDOT expenditures in the future. Restricting the access, helping with the maintenance dollars, bringing our money to the table, we believe it’s a project that deserves strong consideration.

We’re very honored to be here today before you and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have of any of the delegation.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions or comments, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: A couple of comments. First of all, on the FM designation, I want to pass on to the other two commissioners that Representative Truitt did assure me that among all these new glass buildings there was a produce stand.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I got most of my questions all answered yesterday in our meeting on this, but I once again want to commend you for the work you have done in putting all the communities together. They said all the stars are aligned or it’s the moment that everybody is together on exactly what to do, and I commend you for putting it together -- that’s what you’ve done as a group -- which is very helpful to us.

The cities’ commitments to maintain basically from the curb out is very important to us also, and I know that we do now have the authority, with some recent legislation, to have an understanding and agreements with cities to do that kind of stuff, very helpful.

I have a question but I don’t think it’s to you. It’s either going to be -- is Steve Simmons -- I think he’s still here. Steve, I’m not sure if I need to ask you this question or Executive Director Mike, but in going from a non-status to a status, do you already have a CSJ number on this project?

MR. SIMMONS: No, sir, we do not, not at this time.

MR. NICHOLS: So we’re going to have to get a CSJ number, we’re going to have to at some point have a designation of a farm to market by the commission, and then we will also at some point have to get it in LRP or Priority 2 status or something like that. Which of these steps?

MR. SIMMONS: Our next step is to do a program assessment on the project to be able to get a CSJ for it and then the minute order that would designate it as an FM.

MR. NICHOLS: How long does that take?

MR. SIMMONS: We can probably have it done by the end of the week if you tell us to.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Well, it’s not an action item on the agenda that we can tell you to, but you might want to really --

MR. SIMMONS: The priority assessment does not take very long to do; it’s about a four-page document and we can get it done fairly quickly.

MR. NICHOLS: And then once you do that, that gets you your CSJ number, and then does the FM designation come before the -- do we know the order of those two?

MR. BEHRENS: It would need to come first.

MR. NICHOLS: Which one would come first?

MR. BEHRENS: The FM designation.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I would personally like to see somebody at least put all that together to see what steps are needed and what that timetable could be and let us take a look at it.

MR. SIMMONS: I’d be happy to work with staff to do that.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. That’s all I had. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Steve, will that be available before the next meeting? Let’s just put this in a time reference.

MR. SIMMONS: Yes, sir, we can do that.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. I would like to, as you know I like to do, use Trent as an opportunity to share with many members of the audience that I know have expressed concerns to us about our frontage road/service road access policy, and I know in particular there are several members of the major city media here who I’m sure will want to write about this.

Tell me why you decided on your own to have limited arterial access and avoid, in effect, a service road and multiple entrance and exit ramps.

MR. PETTY: The first thing, Commissioner, that it does is it forces cities and local entities to plan correctly for growth instead of allowing the density to all run to the same spot and create 40 different intersections and 20 driveways.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Which disrupts traffic flow?

MR. PETTY: Totally.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And produces congestion?

MR. PETTY: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Which then contributes to pollution?

MR. PETTY: That’s correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. PETTY: That’s why we did it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So without any prompting on anybody’s part, just using your own common sense and logic and sharing information from professionals who understand this stuff, you’ve reached the conclusion that controlling service and frontage roads and access on-and-off ramps is a very logical, conservative, efficient, and effective decision for a governmental body to make.

MR. PETTY: On this section of roadway it’s the best thing we could have done, no question about it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And is there any reason why the State of Texas should look at its interstates any differently?

MR. PETTY: Thank goodness that’s your decision and not mine.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. PETTY: By the way, we did -- on your other note, though, Metroport Cities was one of the first organizations to pass a resolution supporting Proposition 15, so we are for it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, thank you, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Any other observations, questions?

To everybody in the delegation, thank you so much for making the effort to be here. I think you get a sense that we value your opinion and we think very highly of what you have presented, and obviously since step one requires no expenditure of funds, I think it has a strong likelihood of moving forward. From that point, obviously the challenge becomes a little greater, but we do appreciate your illuminating the situation.

As I said to the first delegation, and will say to the third, having you here is so meaningful because it enables us to know what is important to you and your area, and we can’t get everywhere in the state. We try, but we can’t get everywhere, and that’s why these delegation presentations are so vital to the decision-making process.

We will take a very brief recess to allow our friends from the Metroport to go back to the Metroplex and the third delegation can get seated, and that one will be from Temple. So we’ll take a brief recess. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

CITY OF TEMPLE

(Mayor Keifer Marshall, Judge Jon Burrows, Mark S. Watson, Rep. Dianne White-Delisi),Senator Troy Fraser.)

MR. JOHNSON: Our final delegation of the day comes to us from a little bit closer by, that being from Temple, and I believe that Mayor Keifer Marshall will be the lead speaker. Mr. Mayor, I understand this is your first term.

MAYOR MARSHALL: Second term, Mr. Johnson. Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, on behalf of the 55,000 citizens of Temple, to talk to you about Northwest Loop 363, and we have a group here to represent Temple. First, I want to introduce our Senator Troy Fraser from District 24, our great senator; and Representative Dianne White-Delisi from District 55; and then Judge Jon Burrows from Bell County; the Temple City Council members that are here are Councilperson Sally Myers and Councilperson Martha Tyrock; and then we also have members of the Temple Chamber of Commerce, the Temple Economic Development Committee, the Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number 1, and the Temple Business League. And would all of you stand up, please.

We turned the lights out in Temple and everybody came down here. We’re glad to have all of them here.

At this time Judge Burrows would like to say something on behalf of the county on this project. Judge Burrows.

JUDGE BURROWS: Thank you, Mayor, members of the commission. I am Jon Burrows, Bell County judge and here representing the 238,000 citizens of the 19th largest county in Texas, Bell County. Bell County, as you undoubtedly know, is home to the largest military installation in the free world, Fort Hood; it’s home to one of the nation’s largest medical facilities, Scott & White; and home to Temple’s prosperous and growing industrial park.

Today Temple brings before you an issue that has the support of the region. We have resolutions from, of course, Bell County, from the cities of Killeen and Belton and Copperas Cove and from the Killeen-Temple Urban Planning Study on an issue that I dare say every resident in Bell County will be affected by, either currently travel or will travel on Northwest Loop 363, and especially will do so during the Temple construction phase of I-35.

During the planning discussions on I-35, I learned a new transportation phrase, and that’s: Find a Way. That’s when traffic is slowed or stopped, they will somehow find a way around the cause of the slowdown. I did that this morning coming in from Temple on I-35, hitting the north side of Round Rock, coming to a halt and looking for a way to get here. I took 1325 and came around and down Burnet Road and got here, and that’s what will happen when we have construction going through Temple, and the way that will be found will be Northwest Loop 363. It is inevitable, and despite what anyone says, Loop 363 will be the construction corridor or will be the I-35 west through Temple.

Personally, I already use this route on a regular basis. I live just off the loop and my daughter attends Baylor, and this is our route back and forth to Waco, so I’m very familiar with how critical the loop is to the flow of commerce in the industrial park, I see it on every trip. Whether it’s evidenced by the trucks of Wal-Mart or McLane’s or PFG or WilsonArt that travel on it, or the trains of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe that cut across it, the critical importance of the free flow of traffic on the loop is readily apparent.

As a regular traveler on I-35 going south where construction has already been going on, I am very familiar with the accidents and collisions that occur during construction that shut down or slow down the interstate, and it is naive to think that the same will not occur in Temple. It’s also naive to think when I-35 through Temple shuts down or slows down that the traffic will not find a way on to the loop.

During the recent rains, I saw this concept happen when parts of I-35 were closed. All of a sudden a heavy stream of heavy truck traffic came down Highway 317 through downtown Belton next to the courthouse. They had found a way to go around I-35. And so when the accidents happen along I-35 construction through Temple -- and they will -- traffic will find a way and that way will be Northwest Loop 363.

And the way it finds, unless this request from Temple is approved, will be a two-lane road, already heavy with local truck traffic, crossed twice by railroad tracks, and this way will also come to a halt, endangering lives, endangering commerce, and endangering the economic future of currently strong Temple industries. And the approval of this request doesn’t just affect Temple; it doesn’t just affect Bell County. It affects the thousands upon thousands of cars and trucks that travel I-35 every day; it affects whether or not Temple becomes a bottleneck for traffic during the estimated ten years of construction to come.

For these and many more reasons that will be more eloquently stated by those that follow me, it is essential that as an integral part of the I-35 expansion through Temple, the long-promised improvements to Northwest Loop 363 must be completed before the expansion begins so that Temple has an adequate way and place for those who will be driving on it whether it is adequate or not.

The economic well-being of Temple and Temple’s industrial park and Bell County will be dramatically affected by your decision. I strongly encourage your approval of Temple’s request here today. Thank you very much.

MAYOR MARSHALL: Thank you, Judge. And I think you can tell from that we do great partnering in Bell County, and I think Commissioner Nichols knows that at some of the meetings at the airport over in Killeen, we’ve been there and we’ve supported them and they support us in everything that we do.

Over the years, the city has worked with TxDOT on the development of the Northwest Loop 363 from State Highway 36 to State Highway 53 northeast to Interstate Highway 35. The key elements of this project are four lanes with a depressed median, continuous frontage roads, grade separations for the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe main line, and reinvestment zone spurs, and interchanges at State Highway 36 and State Highway 53 and Industrial Boulevard.

The City of Temple delegation, this project has received resolutions of support from the following entities: from Bell County -- as you just heard the judge; from the City of Belton; from the City of Killeen; the City of Copperas Cove; from the Killeen-Temple Urban Transportation Study, KTUTS; and CTCOG.

And Northwest Loop 363 is a vital link to the city’s northwest industrial park. The northwest industrial park is home to over 70 manufacturing or distribution facilities which use Northwest Loop 363 to import raw materials and transport finished products. It’s the gateway to the Scott & White Hospital where 137-some-odd million dollars is about to be spent on new facilities there; and it’s also the gateway to other things on the southeast part of Temple, our college and the VA center.

Northwest Loop 363 we think links the industry to the world. If you look at that map there, we’ve got 70 industries that are marked in yellow out there that use that loop for their distribution and their truck operations. Over the years, the Wal-Mart Distribution Center, WilsonArt, PFG, and any number of other firms, Acer and the McLane Corporation, Doan Products, Performance Food Group, all use this right of way to move their products. And the last one on that map up there is PACTIIV. PACTIIV has over 1,000 employees and truck a lot of material out of Temple.

Now I’d like to call on our city manager, Mark Watson, to give you kind of a historical background on this project. Mark.

MR. WATSON: Thank you, Mayor. Good morning, commissioners. On behalf of the city, we certainly are pleased to make this proposal to you this morning.

Historically, the City of Temple has been in a partnership relationship with the Texas Department of Transportation on this project going way back to 1985 when we began to establish a scope of construction and right of way. In 1987 we actually allocated $2.6 million in present value for the acquisition of those rights of way. It’s been planned since the inception of our reinvestment zone -- which is a very large area of our community -- with Loop 363 bisecting that reinvestment zone and being the most critical transportation component of that. We’ve been anticipating this eagerly for many years as a complement for our total reinvestment zone area.

As we move on up in the years, in 1987 the city sold bonds in the amount of $4.7 million, in present-day dollars, for the relocation of utilities and interim construction.

MR. JOHNSON: How much was that in 1987 dollars?

MR. WATSON: In 1987 dollars, $2.6 million.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WATSON: In late 1987 we began the construction of the existing two-lane roadway through the industrial park, which is the present roadway configuration that we have today.

The city saw a need for this road and conducted the planning associated with it, funded it and built it in advance of the needs that we have today. We noticed that this was quickly funded and it was also built to TxDOT standards at the time that that roadway was built.

In 1994, as the years progressed and on the advice of then Governor Ann Richards, the cities of Temple and Belton made an additional delegation appearance and discussed the upgrade of the Northwest Loop, and that was to develop the four-lane road with a depressed median, continuous frontage roads, develop grade separations for the roadways, and develop an interchange at State Highway 36 and 53.

Since 1994 there have been several partnership activities that have occurred with TxDOT. We have undertaken studies on the Northwest Loop from Hopi Drive northwesterly to its intersection with Interstate 35; we’ve also studied the Southeast Loop 363 project up to Hopi Drive which also integrates with this project, and just later this week, as a matter of fact, we have a value engineering study on the Northwest Loop 363 project that will be discussed. Designs have been forthcoming for many years and I think we are now in the discussion stages to really determine what the final configurations of these roadways will look like.

Commitments have continued and the studies have continued and at this point in time we’re here today to request movement toward higher priority status.

As we look at the overall importance of Northwest Loop 363, we’ve identified previously through some of the slides and the maps the industries, and these are just a representative sample of some of the industries that are available, and as we have talked with them and their activities, we have seen ourselves become involved with greater groups and organizations, such as the Austin-San Antonio Corridor Council and the activities that they bring as far as moving trucks and traffic throughout the state of Texas.

Recently we’ve been getting involved with some of the security issues associated with Fort Hood and looking at impacts over in our areas and with the airport.

If we look at the next slide there, the Northwest Industrial Park is part of our tax reinvestment zone; it’s only one of two in the state that were originally configured. Today it has a taxable value of $209 million, over 12,500 acres. It represents roughly 29 percent of the total area of our 70 square miles of Temple city limits, and we are in the 18th year of development.

To give you an idea of some of the expansions that have occurred, the PACTIIV Corporation recently conducted a $75 million expansion and these are major improvements, and we’ve been involved with some other projects that have involved hundreds of millions of dollars.

This reinvestment zone also involves a resurgence in the downtown which TxDOT has invested in in the railroad depot and other facilities. So as a concept, the reinvestment zone becomes very important, and Loop 363, as identified there on the map, goes right through the middle of it and is quite important to us.

The master plan for the reinvestment zone also calls for the redevelopment of our airport as a business and freight and corporate style facility. It also calls for the development of an intermodal rail yard with the B&SF on the north side, and we have gone through some of the planning process to that.

At this time we could thank TxDOT for their investment in the Draughon-Miller Airport located in Temple, and we’ve been involved with runway construction, general terminal rehabilitation, runway lighting, and a major master plan that calls for major industrial facilities, and just in the last two weeks we’ve been called by major freight haulers that are beginning to look at that airport. So this continues to add to the needs of our region.

The city council and the board of directors of Reinvestment Zone 1 are utilizing zone funding and are currently planning the construction of arterial roadways and corridors to open up many, many new acres in this area. We call for an estimated $85 million in infrastructure improvements that involve water, sewer, telecommunications, and least of not which is Loop 363. It will become the central corridor for that area, and as Temple is so located, we are central to serving all of the rest of Texas with our activities and businesses.

The expansion of the Northwest Loop is also vital to Texas as a whole and the expansion will provide a potential needed alternative route for Interstate 35, should it be required during construction, and we’ve gone through significant planning processes, both locally and regionally in planning how do we improve Interstate 35 through Temple and this project, under the leadership of Richard Skopik, is moving forward quite nicely and we’re very pleased with that progress and we’ll be moving forward with that.

Within the expected ten-year time frame of construction for Interstate 35 and the improvements in there, we believe the Northwest Loop will become a critical element of making this whole project work during the next decade.

As far as costs concerns and community concerns, we bring to your attention that Temple is already committed as a partner to this project. We are into this and we would like to see it come to a successful conclusion. The city recognizes the needs by the highway department to make it a complete loop and there have been costs added in for that completion through the Hopi Trail area.

The total estimated costs are $35.2 million. Of that cost at the present time we’ve expended -- again in today’s dollars -- approximately $7.5 million, and we would like to come back and consider additional assistance a year from now as required.

For community concerns, the frontage road element. It’s our understanding that the Transportation Commission is considering a policy that would eliminate the construction of parallel frontage and access roads. We’re affected by many years of planning on this project and certainly some prior commitment. We believe that your policy is in its infant stages, and as we begin to do it, we are pleased to work with you in looking at how this policy affects this project and how it can best be implemented.

On the positive aspects for eliminating the roads or reducing those roads, it reduces widths of right of way that are required, it reduces initial construction costs, future maintenance costs, and preserves capacity for future traffic. On the negative side, we already have the right of way purchased for the necessary roadways that we’re talking about and the elimination of frontage roads would be inconsistent with the pattern that we have planned for so many years, over the last 18 years, for this particular project. We will work with the commission, certainly, for fair solutions.

I’d like to turn it back over to Mayor Marshall for our final request and summary.

MAYOR MARSHALL: Thank you, Mark. We want you to know that we appreciate what you have done for Temple -- and our partnership with TxDOT has been great for a long, long time -- what you are doing now for Temple, and what you will do for Temple. What we’re requesting is that the City of Temple is requesting that the Texas Transportation commission consider Priority 2 status authorization for the improvements to the Northwest Loop 363 from State Highway 36 to State Highway 53 northeasterly to Interstate 35, and the City of Temple is also asking for the opportunity to appear before the commission in the summer of 2002 to request Priority 1 status for this project.

We appreciate so much your time and we’d like at this time to introduce who we think is the most effective member of the House of Representatives that we’ve got in the state and that’s Dianne White-Delisi. Dianne.

MS. WHITE-DELISI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols, my colleague from the House, Commissioner Williamson.

These are indeed serious times. After September 11, the American public took to the highways instead of the airways, and mobility by roads suddenly became more of an important issue in America and certainly in Texas than it was last month. Now our own President Bush has challenged us as a nation to get to work and to keep America moving and to keep goods and services flowing. We in Temple, Texas want to do our part and we’re committed to do so.

We’re blessed in Temple to have the diverse economy that we do, and it’s undergirded by some extraordinary businesses that have decided to locate in Temple over the last several decades, and these services provide essential services to Texas and to America, and I would just like to tell you three small stories.

As most of you all know, I’m a grandmother and so Wal-Mart is my favorite store.

(General laughter.)

MS. WHITE-DELISI: Now, those goods that are provided when I need those extra diapers, I go to Wal-Mart. We have a huge Wal-Mart distribution center that is located along this area that we’ve been discussing. Bob, I was in Jacksonville not long ago and you have a Wal-Mart Super Center in Jacksonville, Texas -- it’s incredible. So the services that are provided are essential not only for rural Texas but for cities. So these Wal-Mart Super Centers are supplied by the distribution center and those trucks are leaving from the location feeding off of the Northwest Loop and onto interstates and across America.

The next story that I want to tell you is about WilsonArt. Amazingly enough, we sometimes think that Formica is the large supplier of laminate across America, but it’s not, it’s WilsonArt. WilsonArt has more than one-half of the market share for the whole United States, so when you go home tonight and you tap your countertop in your kitchen, more than likely that is WilsonArt laminate. WilsonArt moves its good through the Northwest Loop on to your interstate system and across America for those goods.

And lastly, PACTIIV, the molded food containers when you leave Austin and you travel up I-35, we know that you’re going to stop at Las Casas Restaurant and get Ralph Sheffield’s white wings, and when you take those home with you, that Mexican food will be in a molded food container. Those molded containers come out of this facility that’s on the Northwest Loop and they are shipped all across America.

So all being said, mobility, I know, is your chief responsibility, but please remember that we as Temple taxpayers have already committed, already paid out of our own pockets, 21 percent of this project. We’re committed, too, to stand shoulder to shoulder with the president to keep America strong and to keep goods and services moving.

It’s our commitment to you, we stand ready to work with you, any time of night or day, as you undertake this extraordinary continued task that you have for mobility. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MAYOR MARSHALL: Thank you, Dianne.

And now I’d like to introduce the outstanding state senator from the State of Texas, Mr. Troy Fraser. Troy.

SENATOR FRASER: Thank you, Mayor. Good to be before the commission today, Chairman Johnnie, good to see you, and Robert, Ric. For the record, my name is Troy Fraser; I’m the state senator for District 24, and also for the record, it should be noted that I have served in a body of the legislature with at least one member of this commission.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Very true.

MR. NICHOLS: Is that good?

(General laughter.)

SENATOR FRASER: It was for the record, Robert, just a matter of fact.

I appreciate you allowing me to come before you today. Johnnie and Robert, you know, we’ve been before you many times, and I tell you, I’m excited to have Commissioner Williamson on the commission; he’s going to be a great addition to the commission. We appreciate you being willing to serve.

I’m not going to repeat any of the things that have been said but will try to make a couple of points. I’m actually here wearing three hats today: not only am I representing this area as their state senator, I also come as a member of the Senate Finance Committee that looks at making sure that we’re doing things that are good for the state as a whole, but also a member of the former interim committee looking at transportation needs in the state.

The third hat I would wear -- and I would make this point to Commissioner Williamson -- I do not own a business today on the loop but I’m a former owner of a business. I’ve got a lot of experience in moving trucks up and down this route, and I would note that this group from Temple this morning almost was late for the hearing because they got detained on the interstate, tried to come in for over 30 minutes and couldn’t get through. I’m also very aware -- as when we came forward to you and asked you for funding to upgrade that section between Waco and all the way up to past Salado and you agreed to do that as this project progressed -- that we realized that there’s three segments in the Temple area that are going to be some of the most difficult that we’ve got along that section, and it’s evidenced by the fact that they’re kind of at the back of the line and one of the later ones we’ll do.

I’ve always had a concern as someone that not only travels that but also has moved a lot of trucks up and down that route, what happens when we start working on those real tight sections with those bridges and where are those trucks going to go, and I think the answer is going to be easy to realize that those trucks will find an easier route. They’re already starting to move along that 363 route. I’ve seen it change drastically in the last four or five years, and as we move forward with this construction on 35, the traffic will find a place to go, and whether we designate it a reliever route, it will become a reliever route.

So from a standpoint of the good of the people of the state trying to move along a north-south routing and to move traffic in an orderly fashion, we almost don’t have a choice except to find a route around some of that construction. This is a natural route to go. I would stop short of suggesting that we declare this a reliever route because I don’t think we have the authority to do that, but I think the public will declare it a reliever route just because that’s going to be the easiest way to go.

The other thing that I would make a point about is the fact that the decision we’re making right now on frontage roads on the projects we’re funding, I support both your and the governor’s position on that because I think it’s probably a good policy in most areas. But I would say in this particular area that that in itself may end up causing more congestion than helping because if those trucks are in fact coming through and if they’re going to be stopping at these 70 facilities that are there, they’ve got to get off the highway in an orderly fashion, and if we don’t consider during this period of having the frontage road as a reliever to get them off, I think we’d be making a severe mistake. So I think this is one case that an exception to the rule probably should be considered because it’s one, I think, in the full scheme of the development of 35 that should be looked at.

The last point I would make -- and Dianne touched on it slightly -- was that in ‘93 that the City of Temple was encouraged by then Governor Ann Richards. She helped in the recruiting of Wal-Mart into this area and the promise was made through Wal-Mart/Drayton McLane, the McLane Corporation that if they would relocate here that the state would come in and assist in this project, and it was a promise made that we still need to continue our state commitment of honoring that.

The last thing I would add -- and I will bring back to the attention the chart that was shown of the total project cost of $35 million -- every time we talk when we’re talking about a project, Robert, when you come to the legislature, the question I always ask: How much is the other party putting in, what is the community putting in? They’ve got 21 percent of their money in right now and appear very willing to be a partner in this project throughout. So for a bang for our buck, from a state perspective, I can’t imagine this being a better opportunity for us to do something for not only the people of Temple but I think this is really good for the state of Texas.

Thank you for allowing me to visit with you today.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MAYOR MARSHALL: Thank you, Senator.

The other day I was watching a news program on sports -- I’m a sports fan; I know all of you are -- and I was watching them interview Mack Brown and they were asking Mack Brown, the sports writer: How do you pick between these fine players you have down here? And Mack Brown thought about it and he said, Well, I asked Darrell Royal how you do that. And he said, Well, what did Darrell say? He said, Darrell said some players have "it" and some players don’t have "it." And he said, Well, how do you determine what that is? And Darrell says, I don’t know that, but some have "it" and others don’t have "it."

I hope as a community we have "it" in your estimation, and we appreciate your time and look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you so much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Comments or questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Robert, do you have any?

MR. NICHOLS: I didn’t have any questions. I had previously spent time with the mayor on this project, we spent one afternoon or several hours going over it in pretty great detail, and I appreciate that. So that pretty much answered all my questions with regards to it.

On the frontage road thing, I know we need to work together to try to find something. Our primary concern is to build things in the future that will continue having usable flow of traffic, and in that light, that’s the direction we’re trying to go.

So I don’t really have any questions on the project. I did want to say, Senator Fraser, we appreciate all the work that you do in helping us during the session, the support you’ve done, and the same thing for Representative Delisi. I did not know that you came to Jacksonville and shopped at our Wal-Mart. I knew Martha Tyrock had connections with Jacksonville but I didn’t realize you did.

SENATOR FRASER: All of us come over and shop at Jacksonville.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: That must have been that day. But we really do appreciate what you have done for supporting transportation during the legislature.

MAYOR MARSHALL: And we’d like you to know that the City of Temple and all the people there are supportive of Proposition 15 this November.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Don’t get too far away, Mayor.

Mr. Chairman, did I see Mr. Skopik in the audience someplace?

MR. JOHNSON: Richard?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Could we ask him to come forward for a minute.

MR. JOHNSON: I thought you ought to get him up here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I do, I like this guy. He works hard; I like people who work hard. I want to ask him a couple of questions in a moment but I want to be sure I have my facts correct. We are at some point scheduled to rework Interstate 35 through the city of Temple. Is that correct?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, sir, that’s correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And will we be adding lanes, main lanes?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Will we be doing that by expanding to the middle, or are we going to be expanding to the outside edges?

MR. SKOPIK: That’s under study right now.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And if we expand to the outside edges, will we have to make a decision between capturing the frontage road and calling it a main lane, or building a new frontage road and moving it out? That’s the decision we’ll have to make?

MR. SKOPIK: Absolutely, and right now, as we stand, I can envision that throughout the corridor through the Temple area that there will be areas where we’ll stay along the existing center line and expand equally on each side, there will be areas where we’ll shift to one side to flatten some horizontal curves, and because of the businesses in there or the non-development on one side and businesses on the other, trying to minimize impacts, we’ll be shifting to one side or the other. So I think we’re going to see a mixed bag in terms of what we do with the alignment and its effects on either both or one frontage road or the other.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is it probable that we will have to purchase right of way and relocate some of the businesses along that route?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And do you have any projection that you could share with us as to what the probable cost to the State of Texas would be to do that for Temple alone? And if you don’t have it, that’s okay.

MR. SKOPIK: I really didn’t come with that information.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But it is generally true that it’s logarithmically more expensive to relocate businesses that have built up on the edge of the frontage road than it is to build a road or to buy right of way where there’s no businesses. Correct?

MR. SKOPIK: Absolutely, especially if they’re flourishing businesses at this point.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you so much. And just hang on a second, Mayor, there’s a question I want to ask you, but I want to ask of our department do we have any employees present that have any familiarity with the right of way purchase program we’ve got going in San Antonio right now?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Perhaps the chairman would know. Is it accurate -- or perhaps our new executive director would know, maybe I ought to ask him -- is it accurate that I have been told we may be paying as much as $15 million for about a quarter of an acre right of way on an existing interstate in the very near future?

MR. BEHRENS: You’re correct, Commissioner. In our financial planning meetings we’ve discussed the $15 million parcel purchase in San Antonio.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And Mr. Executive Director, without holding you to the penny, how many main lane miles could we build of new interstate anywhere in the state for $15 million where we didn’t have right of way considerations?

MR. BEHRENS: Probably four to five miles.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Four to file miles. So for one quarter acre parcel of right of way we’re going to have buy of a business located adjacent to a frontage road, we are sacrificing four to five miles of main lane construction in, say, Bell County, Texas?

MR. BEHRENS: That is correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mayor, how would you feel about us -- after we get through rebuilding your interstate through your city, how would you feel about us moving, say, 20 miles west or 20 miles east and just building a whole new highway?

MAYOR MARSHALL: Well, I think sometime in the future that’s going to be needed, and so we would support it; we always support what TxDOT does.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And other than -- and I understand the senator’s concerns about the frontage roads and its impact on existing businesses, and a deal is a deal and we honor that -- but do you, as a guy that’s been in public service a lot, do you understand where the commission is in terms of trying to get a grasp of the frontage road and the on/off ramp business?

MAYOR MARSHALL: Absolutely, I do.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And without putting you in a bad spot, Mayor, is it your belief that this commission is trying to approach it in a conservative logical way?

MAYOR MARSHALL: I think that you’re doing a great job. I think you’re doing it in a logical way and I know you’re all conservative, so yes, I think you’re doing a good job.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to tell you how much I appreciate you dialoguing with me about it, and while you’re at the microphone, let me just add to Mr. Nichols, Senator Fraser and Representative Delisi, we have no more two better friends in the world of transportation than you two, and we are deeply appreciative of all the hard work you give to promote transportation in the state. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I have one question and it’s ultimately that the desire is that Loop 363 be a four-lane divided loop around the entire community.

MAYOR MARSHALL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Currently how much is four-lane divided?

MAYOR MARSHALL: Five miles, which is on the southeast.

SENATOR FRASER: Approximately 50 to 60 percent of the loop; it’s a little over half, I believe, now in four-lane.

MR. JOHNSON: So in essence, we’re trying to finish what we’ve started a long time ago.

MAYOR MARSHALL: Right.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Behrens, I’ve got a question. Do you know who Mack Brown and Darrell Royal are?

MAYOR MARSHALL: He probably knows Darrell well and he’s going to learn about Mack Brown.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: We are delighted that you’ve come to share this information. As I’ve mentioned to the delegations, it’s so important for these types of visits because they illuminate the needs of the communities around the state, and we’re all well traveled but this is a large state and it helps to have these sessions where we can understand what are the priorities of Central Texas or Northeast Texas or the Metroplex. And so I cannot thank you enough, and we look forward to working with you and Richard Skopik -- who does a marvelous job -- on this project and many others in your area.

MAYOR MARSHALL: One little more thing that’s good about Temple. All of you know Drayton McLane who is our outstanding citizen that’s done so many things, been such a success, bought the Astros and now they’re going to get them in the World Series -- we’re planning on that -- and Drayton spent a tremendous amount of money on the Astros and the coaches and on the managers and all, but he and I use the same barber and this barber is 80 years old and he used to play in the Texas League, and most of Drayton’s good advice comes from that barber and he’s helped make that team what it is. So it’s another little mark of the Temple community that does real well for all of us. Thank you.

(General laughter and applause.)

MR. JOHNSON: We will take a short recess so our friends from Temple can get back up I-35 in hopefully a less congested way. I would like to remind the good people from South Texas who want to address the commission on the South Padre Island Causeway that that will be the next item on our agenda, and we will take a short recess to let one arrive and one depart. Thank you.

(Off the record.)

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S (Cont’d)

MR. JOHNSON: The meeting is reconvened. Anyone who would like to address the commission should fill out a card at the registration lobby, and we would ask that should you want to comment on an agenda item, that you fill out a yellow card, and if it is not an agenda item, we will take your comments at the open comment period at the end of the meeting and for that we would ask that you fill out a blue card. And regardless of the color of the card, we would please request, especially given the number of speakers on 7(c), that each speaker take a maximum of three minutes.

The formal part of the meeting begins with the approval of the minutes of commission meeting held in August. Is there a motion to that effect?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

We will now move to item 7(c) on the agenda, and I’m informed that there are a number of speakers, and hopefully we’ll have you in the right order. Speaking first on Item 7(c) is Mayor Patrick Marchan. If I mess up anybody’s name, please forgive me.

MR. BEHRENS: Johnnie, could we get Jim to introduce that?

MR. JOHNSON: I apologize. Jim Randall with TP&P.

MAYOR MARCHAN: And then could we ask Mayor Cyganiewicz to go first?

MR. JOHNSON: If it’s all right with Mayor Cyganiewicz.

MAYOR MARCHAN: He has asked, and that’s okay by me. He’s got an earlier flight to catch, and we’d like to oblige if we can.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, we’ll work with you. You were number one on the list that I had.

MAYOR MARCHAN: Okay, thank you.

MR. RANDALL: Good morning. I’m Jim Randall, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division. This minute order authorizes long-range product status for a proposal to consider a second causeway crossing the Laguna Madre to South Padre Island. This proposal was initiated by Rider 65 to the Department’s appropriations for Fiscal Years 2002-2003.

LRP status allows the department to evaluate all alternatives, conduct environmental impact studies, hold public meetings and hearings, and draft right of way maps. During this initial phase of the project development, the department will examine the social, economic and environmental impacts of this proposed project. Projects with LRP status are not listed in the department’s Unified Transportation Program and are not approved for construction or right of way acquisition.

With approval of this minute order, the executive director is authorized to proceed in the most feasible and economical manner with LRP activities. The final decision to authorize or not to authorize development of the proposed project will occur after the completion of the LRP activities. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Jim.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Before we take witnesses, Mr. Chairman, could I ask Jim a couple of quick technical questions?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: All of us have received or I assume all of us have received letters -- I know I’ve received a tremendous amount of mail about this project, and I’ve tried to sort through what the largest concerns are, and they all seem to kind of come down to the economic impact on one area of the state.

As part of our research, if the minute order is approved, would we contract with an outside consultant, for example, to give us sort of an independent assessment of the economic impact on this one area plus the entire area, or would we attempt to do that internally, or do you have an idea?

MR. RANDALL: We have that capability. We’d leave it up to the district engineer in the Pharr District to make that decision.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Jim.

MR. JOHNSON: I believe the first speaker is Mayor Ed Cyganiewicz, and I’m glad that your colleague, Mayor Marchan, said your name because I think I would have butchered it. Please take the dais.

MAYOR CYGANIEWICZ: Thank you, commissioners, and thank you, Mayor Marchan.

First, let me thank those commissioners and Mike who attended that very important briefing yesterday regarding the collapse of the Queen Isabella Causeway. It was a very uplifting meeting for me and I know my residents are going to be very encouraged when I get back down there to communicate some of the good news regarding TxDOT’s actions, and it was a wonderful press conference and I appreciate your concerns and taking the time to attend that briefing.

Also, Commissioner Nichols, at the commencement of this meeting mentioned the September 11 incident and a moment of silence, and of course we’ve had our own little disaster on September 15 and we’ve lost lives in that incident, and I would hope that we could all throughout the day at least remember those people that lost their loved ones. South Padre Island and Port Isabel will not be the same until this bridge is constructed, so there’s a lot of parallels between those two disasters, of course ours being a much minor scale.

I also need to thank our district engineer, Amadeo Saenz, and I saw him today and I’ve been talking with him six or seven times a day since this tragedy occurred on September 15, but he and his staff have been wonderful. He’s very competent and he’s attending to all our needs as best as he can, and we’re very much appreciative of that.

Obviously the causeway collapse has heightened the awareness for a need for a second causeway. We’re running these ferries at this time and I believe Mayor Marchan is probably in agreement that we hope that that could also be considered as a third option. But I’m of the opinion that there’s no alternative except for a second bridge, and I’m not sure if today is the time and place to debate the location. What I am urging you all to do is -- and I think Mayor Marchan will come up here and say the same thing, to a certain degree, and Mayor Marchan has been a good friend of mine and he’s a good mayor, and no matter what happens regarding this project and how this project progresses, South Padre Island and Port Isabel will remain partners in many, many, many endeavors.

We’re urging you -- or I am urging you to proceed to this designation of long-range plan. My understanding is that the next step that is essential for this project, no matter where the site may be, would be the environmental impact study. We think that that should be done immediately.

Again, Amadeo and some of these other officials have indicated that that type of designation and that type of study would unnecessarily involve all different potential sites and all different potential locations, and Port Isabel’s position in many of those letters Commissioner Williamson and everyone else has received is really a debate about the location.

I urge you let’s go forward now. I know that location area of concern will be addressed through the environmental impact and any other studies that may be necessary. I’m asking that that be done immediately; there’s funding in place. Again, that type of study is necessary before any additional progress is made on this project as a whole. That process would provide ample opportunity for public hearings, ample opportunity for people to voice their concerns about the environmental impact, economic impact, and location concerns.

So I think this step would take care of Port Isabel’s concerns regarding location and their hesitation about the proposed Holly Beach location. Again, gentlemen, please, we’re in an emergency situation, and I know that you can’t take care of that now regarding the second causeway, but we hope that this has heightened the awareness of the need for a second link, and I’m again urging you to proceed immediately to this next step which would be the environmental impact study.

That’s all I have. I’m trying to make an emergency meeting with my staff at four o’clock, and what I’d like to do again, thank Mayor Marchan and his delegation, and also introduce Mr. Richard Franke who will address you briefly regarding -- he’s the chairman of our economic development corporation.

Any questions?

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for being here.

MAYOR CYGANIEWICZ: Gentlemen, I appreciate it very much. Thank you.

MR. FRANKE: Thank you, Ed.

Commissioners, I’m pleased to be with you this afternoon.

MR. JOHNSON: Would you state your name for the record?

MR. FRANKE: Yes, sir. I’m Richard Franke, president of the South Padre Island Economic Development Corporation. I’m here, along with Ed Cyganiewicz and others, to urge you to move forward on the next phase of the project.

We came before the Texas Turnpike Authority -- and Commissioner Nichols was at that meeting, and perhaps others were -- about six months ago to bring forth the tollway feasibility study which the economic development corporation conducted about a year ago, and that was presented to you at that point. We were urged to go to the next step which was the investment grade feasibility study. That’s not feasible to do to get into that until the environmental assessment is made and causeway alignment is determined, but we are prepared to move forward. South Padre will do what we need to to participate in this project; we’re anxious for it to move forward. We at EDC have budgeted about $200,000 to move into the investment grade study at the appropriate time.

A few things that I’d like to briefly mention to you as to what our thoughts are and how we’ve approached the project. We view the causeway as falling into two categories: one is a safety issue and the other is a convenience issue. Both of these issues go into the long-term planning for South Padre Island to be a resort area that can compete with other resort areas throughout the country, and there’s beginning to be and has been a great deal of competition, and so Texas’ premier beachfront area -- which we feel we are -- we need to protect those issues.

In the way of safety, we think that this is a real important issue. As all of you know, South Padre Island has only one access to the mainland; that access has been severed at this point. The imposition and inconvenience to the guests, the visitors, the residents, is extremely substantial.

One thing that I might mention to you, and the mayor mentioned that we did have loss of life associated with the causeway going out -- I think we’ve lost ten individuals in that situation -- and this is what we talked about six months or a year ago, two years ago as one of the reasons that we needed to proceed with a second causeway is that such as an incident as just occurred could occur -- we really felt like it would be a remote possibility that it would.

But had this happened at, say, the last week of July when the island is 100 percent occupied, maximum capacity and everything, and at the same time a hurricane approached the island, the disaster that happened in New York, the loss of lives could be minor by comparison to the loss of lives that we could have had on the island. Were a substantial Category 4 or 5 hurricane to come across, unable to evacuate the people from the island, and I mean, we literally could have a huge, huge disaster.

So time is of the essence. We’re most anxious to proceed with it. Most of the requests that I’ve heard this morning -- I’ve sat through all the other presentations that you’ve heard -- are basically convenience requests, convenience of traffic rerouting or convenience for various individuals to make it to work or school or home in a more convenient manner. This is a real safety issue and I think it needs prompt attention, and we would urge you to go to the next phase.

We are then prepared to do the investment grade study. It is a tollway that’s being proposed, as you all know, and it needs to be conveniently located so that it is a viable tollway. I think that’s the only way that we’re going to get it funded unless the state decides otherwise, but we’re just very interested in seeing this project move forward.

I do appreciate your time -- I may have taken a little bit longer than I should have, but I just wanted to emphasize how important the project is to us, the whole community, and the state.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for being here.

Just for the record, this currently is not -- whether this becomes a toll bridge or not, or a toll causeway or not is not an issue at this point in time, that will be determined later in the funding process.

Mayor Marchan.

MAYOR MARCHAN: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, my name is Patrick Marchan and I’m the mayor of Port Isabel. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this commission this morning.

Our prayers and our thoughts are still with the families of those individuals that lost their lives or were injured in the partial collapse of the Queen Isabella Causeway on September 15. At this time I’d like to take the time to thank TxDOT for the aggressive response, and I know Mayor Cyganiewicz mentioned Amadeo Saenz who has been a great friend, and as Mayor Cyganiewicz said, he is a very competent individual, and we appreciate all he has done for the area.

I’m here with a group from Port Isabel and the Rio Grande Valley, and at this time I’d just like to ask them to please stand. Thank you.

I would like to start by saying for the record that the City of Port Isabel has not now, nor have we ever -- and I emphasize ever -- opposed a second causeway to South Padre Island. We do, however, oppose the proposed site at Holly Beach or any other site that is west of Port Isabel, and we have opposed that site since discussions on the second causeway began.

Several people and newspapers continue to say that Port Isabel opposes a second causeway but we do not.

We’re here to support the request to proceed with environmental impact studies for all potential sites to South Padre Island, including a bridge at the old causeway site or a sister bridge next to the existing Queen Isabella Causeway. In addition to a permanent link in the vicinity of the current causeway, we support a permanent full-time ferry system which seems to be popular with many.

Many governmental entities, businesses, environmental and civic groups have joined us in opposition to a possible causeway at the Holly Beach site. Most, if not all, will join us in support of another causeway at one of the alternate sites.

Some of the advantages of one of the alternate sites are as follows: another bridge could be built immediately with little opposition; another bridge would benefit the residents of both Port Isabel and South Padre Island; another bridge will prevent business losses and unemployment that a Holly Beach causeway would cause; another bridge will be much less expensive to build; another bridge will be much less destructive to the environment.

We urge you to initiate the environmental impact studies that will encompass all sites and hope that immediately thereafter plans may be implemented for construction of a new causeway in the vicinity of the Queen Isabella Causeway.

I hope that the speakers to follow will be informative and that perhaps questions you might have had will be answered with the following presentations. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You’re not leaving, are you?

MAYOR MARCHAN: No, sir. I’ll be right here.

MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker is Jonathan Gracia.

MR. GRACIA: Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jonathan Gracia, for the record. I am currently the economic development administrator for the City of Port Isabel. Today I’m here in order to shed light on a document called the Rio Grande Valley Regional Mobility Plan.

Most call the plan an important document that reflects the transportation desires of city and county officials throughout the Valley. Instead of a document, I like to think of the regional mobility plan as the Valley’s transportation bible. A mobility task force comprised of economic development experts, city planners, city managers, and other transportation professionals throughout the Valley developed the regional mobility plan.

At its core, the mobility plan seeks to heighten those transportation projects deemed beneficial to the continued prosperity of the entire Rio Grande Valley. Projects such as I-69 that serve to benefit all Valley communities are addressed in this plan. Public officials were wise enough to come together in 1996 in order to produce a plan to present to the Texas Transportation Commission because they knew the importance of every dollar to the Rio Grande Valley.

The Valley is now characterized with an emerging economy and a booming population. It is no longer the back door of Texas but instead now considered the front door to the United States. Valley leaders were fortunate to have the foresight to conceptualize and discuss regional priorities with spending transportation dollars.

The Rio Grande Valley Mobility Plan declares the transportation needs of the Valley and the plan is a consolidation of the metropolitan areas’ transportation plans for MPOs, counties, and rural communities throughout the entire Valley. The plan seeks to acquire increased transportation dollars for the Pharr District TxDOT office, and most importantly -- and I wanted to quote this one section -- "the plan was developed within the context of other existing plans for land use, community development, environmental resources, increased use of transit, and other community issues. The plan includes community involvement and public participation."

I’m well aware that inclusion of a project in the Rio Grande Regional Mobility Plan is not a requirement for consideration as a project by TxDOT; however, until today there has been little opportunity for public comment concerning the proposed second causeway at Holly Beach. Today I implore the Texas Transportation Commission to allow the Rio Grande Valley the opportunity for additional public comment on the possibilities of alternative access sites other than the proposed second causeway to Holly Beach.

Why should we do this? Because even as I stand before you today, the proposed second causeway to Holly Beach has not been included in the Rio Grande Valley’s regional mobility plan, otherwise known as the Valley’s transportation bible. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sir, is Port Isabel a part of the --

MR. GRACIA: The MPO? No, sir. We lie right outside the boundaries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Will you be inside the new proposed boundaries?

MR. GRACIA: Not for another 25 years.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And is that by choice or by law? I need to learn about this stuff.

MR. GRACIA: It’s by law.

MR. WILLIAMSON: By law.

MR. GRACIA: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If the law didn’t prevent you from being part of that MPO, would you be?

MR. GRACIA: I wouldn’t say that’s my decision; I’m not sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. GRACIA: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker is John Haywood, the city attorney from Port Isabel.

MR. HAYWOOD: Good morning. Thank you. First of all, I’d like to thank TxDOT employees for assisting Port Isabel with the information we’ve needed and for our presentation this morning, and those include Helen Havelka, Alvin Luedecke, Jim Randall, Max Proctor, and Howard Lyons, and last but not least, Amadeo Saenz.

I’m going to speak just very briefly about the 1998 Texas Transportation Institute Study and the Year 2000 Wilbur Smith Economic Feasibility Study. On the TV screen, we probably ought to back this up. If we can go ahead and go up to the top. In 1998 TxDOT did a study that considered five sites. One was at Port Mansfield, approximately 25 miles north of South Padre Island. And then they considered four other sites: the Holly Beach site which we are here to oppose; the Laguna Beach site which was considered too long, too expensive; the sister bridge site; and the Delmar Beach crossing from Boca Chica Beach to South Padre Island.

The 1998 study made a lot of findings but these are very significant ones: the Queen Isabella Causeway is operating only at 34 to 36 percent of capacity, it is adequate for traffic and evacuation; the Holly Beach/Laguna Vista route saved only two miles of driving for motorists from the north; and valuing travel time for all vehicle occupants, every man, woman and child, at $11 per hour, no alternative study achieved a benefit-to-cost ratio of one, meaning they would cost more than they were worth.

These are the costs they came up with: the Holly Beach bridge being 7.6 miles at $106 million; Laguna Vista, 8.5 $114.3 million; the sister bridge, 2.5 miles, $23 million -- those are 1987 dollars.

And on October 9, your executive director Mr. Heald sent you a memo -- I believe only Commissioner Nichols was here at that time -- that said that none of the TxDOT study alternatives were feasible because of the low benefit-to-cost ratios. He stated that federal funds would be needed to build any of these alternatives, but that the low benefit-to-cost ratio did not meet Federal Highway Administration standards for funding.

Alternatives not studied by TxDOT in that study have become kind of important today. They did not mention the need for emergency access by ferry, the building of approaches and landings in case of need. I guess we all know today that would have been a wise thing to do.

The other thing that they did not study is the original causeway site as an alternative route, and I want to point that out to you with my first map for those of you that don’t know where the original causeway site was, it is right here, and it’s 1.2 miles. It’s the shortest distance between the mainland and the island. They did not study that as an alternative site.

Using the TxDOT study calculations, a four-lane bridge with a ten-foot parking lane on both ways at the original causeway site would cost $16 million, just $6 million more than you already have allocated for another access. Ferry service at that site would cost $18 million but at $2 a vehicle would produce a half-million-dollar per year profit. These scenarios are popular and we’re asking that they be studied even though they were not included in the original study.

Last November, Wilbur Smith did an economic feasibility study for the second causeway for South Padre Island EDC. They proposed a Holly Beach site ending 3.5 miles north of the town of South Padre Island, a two-lane 7.6 mile bridge with a toll on the Queen Isabella Causeway, the cost would be $82.6 million, without a toll on the Queen Isabella Causeway, the cost would be $80.8 million. These amounts do not include the road work that would be done leading to the bridge. They found that 59 percent of all South Padre Island visitors spend dollars in Port Isabel, an average of $29; tourists traveling from the north would be diverted; 33 percent of the traffic would be diverted the first year, 42 percent of the traffic diverted the fifth year.

This is an alarming scene for Port Isabel. Here I’ve put up for you to look at a map of Cameron County. In the blue, the lower route here is the traditional and now used 77/Highway 100 route to Port Isabel and South Padre Island. In the red above it is apparently the 106 route that would be used to reach Holly Beach. As you can see from this route, you can see why Port Isabel is very alarmed about the traffic diversion because they simply aren’t going to get anywhere near Port Isabel with using that new bridge.

I know I’ve used my time. If there’s any questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Next speaker is Jerry Walker.

MR. WALKER: Good morning. My name is Jerry Walker, and the City of Port Isabel hired my firm Impact Data Source, to do an economic impact analysis of the second causeway proposed for Holly Beach.

Impact Data Source is an economic consulting research and analysis firm based in Austin; I’ve been an Austin resident for 30 years. We’ve performed over 350 economic development impact analyses of projects in Texas and various other states around the country over the past eight years. One of my largest clients is TXU Electric and Gas and they contract with me to do economic impact analyses of firms that are considering locating in cities in their service area, and I’ve also done a lot of economic impact analyses of various projects in the Valley, including Harlingen, Mission, and in other places, but I’ve also developed economic impact analysis models for cities and utilities in Texas as well as for the states of Kansas and New Mexico.

My analysis of the second causeway at Holly Beach showed that the economies of Port Isabel and other communities along State Highway 100 will be severely damaged if a second causeway is built at Holly Beach. In my analysis I used numbers from the Wilbur Smith study that Mr. Haywood discussed that was conducted for the South Padre Island Economic Development Corporation.

What the Wilbur Smith study showed was that 45 percent of the traffic currently on the Queen Isabella Causeway will be diverted to a second causeway if built at Holly Beach, and that’s about 2.8 million vehicles a year that would be diverted from the Queen Isabella to north about seven miles north of the Holly Beach bridge. The majority of this traffic will be tourists, those coming from Austin and various other places in North Texas, for example, that are visiting the island that will no longer go through Port Isabel, and those tourists spend money in Port Isabel. So they’ve largely bypassed Port Isabel and they would shop in places like Harlingen, for example, to buy their beach gear and that sort of thing before they get to the island; those things are currently purchased in Port Isabel.

To determine this spending, how much money these tourists spend currently, Wilbur Smith and TxDOT conducted a survey of folks that were going across the Queen Isabella Causeway back in 1999; they asked each one of those people how much money they were spending. And probably about 7,500 people a day go across the bridge to go to work in South Padre Island; the other people, about 14,000 a day or so, are tourists that go across on average per day, and the survey showed that 59 percent of the vehicles stopped and shopped in Port Isabel before going across the bridge, and each of these, primarily tourist vehicles, spent an average of $29 passing through Port Isabel before they went to South Padre Island.

But in order to get kind of a feel for spending, we also interviewed 15 business owners in Port Isabel to determine how much money that each one of these businesses derived from tourist spending, folks passing through Port Isabel going to the island. And in most cases, 60 to 70 percent, some a little bit less, of the amount of business of these particular business owners was from tourist traffic, folks driving through going to Port Isabel, stopping before they went over, at Wal-Mart, H.E.B. and convenience stores and various things to get their beach supplies and goods for the week or two, or two or three days, that they would need over in Port Isabel.

With all of that, here’s what we found. We found that if these tourists, as projected by Wilbur Smith & Associates, do not stop in Port Isabel and spend money as they do now, the following will occur: 46 percent of the retail sales in the City of Port Isabel will be lost in the first year that a Holly Beach bridge was open or built, and this amounts to about $53 million a year in sales; by the tenth year after the Holly Beach bridge is open, about 57 percent of the retail sales in Port Isabel will be lost, and this will amount to about $93 million a year in lost retail sales in Port Isabel.

This, in turn, does a couple of things. Obviously it has a negative impact. Over a ten-year period after the Holly Beach causeway is opened, Port Isabel would lose about 917 workers; that’s about a third of their current workforce. In addition, over a ten-year period, those workers, if they lose their job, would lose $118 million in lost salaries.

This also means that many of the 173 retail businesses in Port Isabel may close, including Wal-Mart and H.E.B. H.E.B. officials have said that it took us a long time to get the numbers up in Port Isabel before we could open a store there; Wal-Mart said the same thing. And obviously, Mr. Butt doesn’t want to lose money in his stores so he would close those, or potentially would close those. Obviously, I’m not speaking for him but they depend on beach -- if you ask business owners in Port Isabel, they depend heavily on beach traffic, they call it. So it would severely affect the 173 businesses, including H.E.B. and Wal-Mart.

This also, if the city loses their retail sales, loses their workers, it would affect city revenues and the ability of the city to provide services. In the first year that a second causeway would open at Holly Beach, the City of Port Isabel would lose property and sales taxes of over $700,000 a year, and that’s a very significant portion of their operating budget. The city’s general fund revenues initially would be reduced by at least 15 percent, and half of the city’s economic development sales tax collections would be lost. So they would lose their ability to -- it’s a snowballing thing and they would lose the money to find alternate ways to boost their economy.

We concluded from our analysis that selection of the Holly Beach site as a site for the second causeway would severely damage the economy of Port Isabel but also the other communities along Highway 100 going into South Padre Island. However, we also found the second beach site in the vicinity of one of the alternate sites could be very beneficial economically to Port Isabel as well as to South Padre Island. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I would like to remind the speakers the issue today is not whether we’re going to consider the Holly Beach site or approve the Holly Beach location, it is not whether we’re going to have a toll facility or not, but simply the decision on the minute order is whether to put this in the long-range plan so that this issue and all the tangential issues can be studied, and having said that, I welcome your comments, but also please adhere to the three-minute time frame. We’re getting some repetitious and redundant work on just one aspect of the whole picture and we’re just, by minute order, attempting to start the study process.

The next speaker is Karen Chapman who represents the Texas Center for Policy Studies. Karen, welcome.

MS. CHAPMAN: Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Behrens. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you, and taking your remarks into account, I am going to address the environmental impacts to not only the Holly Beach alternative but in general other alternatives that might be proposed.

I am here actually on behalf of the Lower Laguna Madre Foundation, a non-profit conservation organization in South Texas, in addition to the Texas Center for Policy Studies. I’m employed at the Texas Center; I’m on the board for the Lower Laguna Madre Foundation.

The Texas Center has produced this newsletter entitled "Boon or Boondoggle" which specifically addresses the Holly Beach location, and I believe you probably got a copy of this. If not, I have additional copies.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So you’re for a causeway?

MS. CHAPMAN: We consider the Holly Beach alternative to be a boondoggle at this stage.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh. Sorry.

MS. CHAPMAN: We are opposed, just to make it clear, to that location. We are at this time opposed to any causeway being considered. That was my closing remark, but I’ll just start with that so you’re clear where I am.

And I just want to start out by saying that we are very sorry, we were very sad to learn of loss of life and certainly an incident that no one anticipated happening but it is extremely tragic and unfortunate, especially for the citizens of South Padre Island and Port Isabel. I understand the additional pressure that you face at this time and community leaders in trying to provide an additional access point to South Padre Island.

I just want to say that a Holly Beach causeway location, in our estimation, is one of the most environmentally damaging alternatives that has been proposed. I think it would be a waste of money to spend any additional funds on this option, as you look at the alternatives. I would recommend striking that one from any of the alternatives that you consider. I think it doesn’t merit the cost of doing environmental impact studies, and let me tell you why.

I’m going to talk about impacts to wildlife habitat, specifically with relation to the Holly Beach alternative, but as you look at additional alternatives, please consider these. We have a federally listed species, we have several federally listed endangered species in South Texas and the ocelot is the primary species of concern that we’re going to look at at this time. It’s been listed since 1972, it does use some of the Holly Beach area and other areas in South Texas as breeding range. There are about 80 -- this is an estimation -- about 80 individuals left in the U.S. of this creature; it’s a small spotted cat; it does reside in South Texas only; its former range extended to Arizona but it does not exist in Arizona any longer.

We have about 30 to 35 individuals left in South Texas; most of these are concentrated on Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge; however, individuals do travel from the refuge to access other habitat locations throughout the Valley and any additional infrastructure development that takes place that cuts off those transportation routes for the ocelot would be a very large concern to us.

Just a note about the nature of their habitat. They utilize thorn scrub; most of the thorn scrub habitat has been destroyed in the Valley, and this is why they’re endangered. Thorn scrub of the type you can barely stick your hand into is the kind of habitat we’re talking about; it’s very inhospitable for humans but quite hospitable for ocelots and other wildlife.

Other species that would be impacted by the removal of brush are, of course, many. We’re talking about a very biodiverse region in South Texas: birds, butterflies, et cetera. Many of these species are important for nature tourists who visit the region, and nature tourism is emerging as a very important economic development factor for South Texas and the Lower Rio Grande Valley.

We are also concerned about the impacts to the Laguna Madre bay system. We’re talking about sea grass beds specifically, any resuspension of sediment or suspension of sediment that would occur as a likelihood of constructing a causeway over the Laguna Madre would not only shade out some sea grass beds but would also cause suspension of sediments, blocking light to those sea grass beds -- they need light in order to grow. The sea grass beds are the cornerstone of life in the Laguna Madre; the Laguna Madre itself is worth about half a billion dollars, $180 million in sport fish recreation alone to the region and to the State of Texas.

I’ll just conclude by saying that whatever alternative you do consider, I’d like to recommend that it be concentrated in an area that will have less impact on very valuable habitat. I would also remark that endangered species can be viewed as economic development enhancements rather than impediments to construction and development as they more frequently are viewed.

The full participation of the public, of course, is necessary and full consideration of the impacts to biodiversity in general in the Valley. And I also want to conclude by saying that I think a ferry system would be wholeheartedly supported by the environmental community. It may not be the only alternative you consider but we consider that to be an enhancement for nature tourism.

If you saw your Austin American-Statesman this morning, there was an article in the Metro State section with people riding the ferry from Port Isabel to South Padre Island with several dolphins alongside, and they were obviously enjoying viewing those dolphins very much, so we consider the ferry to be a viable alternative, but we are not recommending at this time approval of the minute order under consideration today for the proposed alternative or any causeway at this time. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Karen, let me ask you two questions.

MS. CHAPMAN: Sure.

MR. JOHNSON: One is Mr. Haywood had a map that showed some of the potential routings that were under consideration or had been studied before.

MS. CHAPMAN: Right.

MR. JOHNSON: Do any of those not encroach on the Laguna Madre?

MS. CHAPMAN: The Delmar Beach crossing would be the only one.

MR. JOHNSON: Which is the southernmost which runs basically north and south.

MS. CHAPMAN: Right.

MR. JOHNSON: Second question, assuming the Isabella Causeway is up and running, would you ride a ferry boat, and also assuming that the Isabella Causeway is running at 34 to 36 percent capacity, would you ride a ferry boat if your terminus on both sides of the water is at nearly the same point, and would you do it all the time, some of the time, or just a few times?

MS. CHAPMAN: Well, I can only answer this personally. Our position is that a ferry is preferable, but yes, I would definitely ride a ferry, I think I’d ride it more often than traveling the causeway but that’s because I appreciate the wildlife viewing opportunities. Maybe not every citizen does, but I don’t think I’m alone in that either.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MS. CHAPMAN: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Next speaker is, I believe, Judy Vera.

MS. VERA: I think it’s still morning, commissioners, gentlemen. I’m Judy Vera, regional co-chair for Valley Interfaith, and I would like to acknowledge the Valley Interfaith members that are here with me, so please stand. Thank you.

Valley Interfaith has worked very closely with Port Isabel to develop leadership and to work with public officials on initiatives such as job training, education, and healthcare. Our concern has always been with the quality of life and preparedness of the workforce of our community. Our comments will reflect those. Rosa?

MS. BODEN: Hello. My name is Rosa Boden. I am the leader of the Volunteer Faith Organization from Port Isabel and other Valley cities.

We are here to make you aware of the huge unemployment in our city, the lack of island access has also caused major damage in our economy which has a direct impact on our workforces. We are needing an immediate solution to the causeway tragedy. Residents of Port Isabel have lost their jobs due to this disaster. Also, we are here asking is that both stay in local government focus in job training, adult education, and in other strategies. That will greatly prepare the workers in our area for better paying jobs that cannot be affected due to the island access.

I’m going to introduce you to little stories that can explain to you what is happening.

MS. PADRON: Mi nombre es Ipolita Padron. (Speaking Spanish.)

MS. BODEN: She is Ipolita, she works on the island, she loves her job completely, she has family, she’s a single mother, and she has payments every month like us.

Please.

MR. HERMIDA: (Speaking Spanish.)

MR. JOHNSON: Could you for the record ask the people who speak to tell their names so the record can pick them up.

MS. BODEN: Yes. He’s Simon, he’s a shrimper, and he’s worried because he’s new, he’s looking how the new causeway can destroy the nests for the brown shrimp and other species, and this is the life for Port Isabel.

MR. PEREZ: Gentlemen, my name is Memo Perez and I’m also a resident of Port Isabel. I was personally affected by this tragedy we had on the causeway. My wife has lost her job, and as you can see by all the people attending this meeting this morning -- we got up at two o’clock in the morning to come here -- all of them have been affected.

It’s not just the island, it’s the economy of Port Isabel also. So I just wish that whatever decision you gentlemen make, that you make the right one. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. GARZA: Yes, sir, my name is Eddie Garza. I also lost my job on the island, and I would like to know if there’s a possibility they’re going to help us out in any way to support our families during the future. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MS. VERA: Thank you, gentlemen, for listening to us, and as you know, it not only affects Port Isabel, it affects Brownsville too. We have a lot of people that work on the island that are not going to be working.

MR. WILLIAMSON: More importantly, it affects Texas.

MS. VERA: Yes, definitely. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

MS. BODEN: It’s less taxes for our schools, for our libraries. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Next speaker is Margaret Rivera, president of the Port Isabel Chamber of Commerce. Welcome.

MS. RIVERA: Hello. Thank you for allowing us to speak today. I’m going to make this very brief. For the record, my name is Margaret Rivera and I’m a lifelong resident of Port Isabel. I am the store manager of Wells Fargo Banks in Port Isabel and South Padre Island, and I currently serve as the president of the Port Isabel Chamber of Commerce.

Because of the time constraints, I will submit these comments to you at a later time, but I do want to let you know that we, as a business community, are united and opposed to a Holly Beach causeway. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I know we’re short of time, but I just want to be sure I’m hearing the opposition correctly. All of you are focusing kind of on Holly Beach but do I hear you say that you may not necessarily be opposed to another causeway.

MS. RIVERA: Oh, no, we are definitely not opposed to another causeway. We certainly believe we need one; obviously with this tragedy that just happened, you can see we do need one, but we would rather see it in a site in Port Isabel somewhere. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker is Dr. Joseph Zavaleta, city commissioner from Brownsville.

DR. ZAVALETA: Yes. Good afternoon. I’m Dr. Joe Zavaleta, mayor pro tem City of Brownsville. I’m here representing the City of Brownsville. We just passed a resolution in support of the resolution of Port Isabel opposing the Holly Beach causeway.

My brothers and I built a condominium, the first condominium at the island many years ago, and of course, all the people that worked there were people from Port Isabel. As a matter of fact, the island was built on the backs of the people of Port Isabel.

The proponents of Holly Beach, in my opinion, only have one agenda, and I’m sorry to say it’s greed. There’s no reason why another causeway cannot be built near the present causeway or very close by.

Port Isabel is a very historic city, people have been sailors, shrimpers, and workers and so forth; the economy will be destroyed, as you heard before. I would like to introduce, for the record, the resolution that the City of Brownsville passed. If you want me to read it, I will read it; otherwise, I’ll just submit it to you. What would you want me to do?

MR. JOHNSON: I think a submission will be fine; we’ll make it part of the record.

DR. ZAVALETA: Very good. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don’t have a question, but as a former member of the legislature, and as someone who is perhaps sensitized to the emotional arguments for and against something like this, I hope you weren’t including Senator Lucio in your comments about greed, because I want to tell you he has been interested in a second causeway in that area, irrespective of location, for a long time. He was working on this as a House member when I served in the legislature, and I just want to make the record clear -- I can’t change your individual minds and don’t intend to, but Senator Lucio has focused on a second causeway for many years. I think it probably matters less to him where it is as much as that it gets done one way or the other. And if he wasn’t intended to be rolled into your comment, then I apologize for bringing it up.

DR. ZAVALETA: Well, for the record, let me state that I am not opposed to a second causeway, the City of Brownsville is not opposed to another causeway, it’s just the location that we’re opposed to. In my opinion, there’s no reason to consider anyplace else other than a sister causeway. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Next is David Privett who is the mayor of Laguna Vista.

MAYOR PRIVETT: Good afternoon. My name is David Privett; I am the mayor of Laguna Vista, Texas, and Laguna Vista supports Port Isabel’s resolution against a second causeway located at Holly Beach.

Many cities in the Valley, including the largest city Brownsville, and numerous national companies, including H.E.B., Wal-Mart, Pizza Hut, Church’s Chicken, McDonald’s, and the entire business community of Port Isabel are supporting Port Isabel’s resolution 2001-33 which opposes a second causeway at Holly Beach.

Laguna Vista realizes that a second causeway is needed and we are in full support of that for many reasons. However, we feel that the proposed location at Holly Beach benefits no community while posing an economic threat to the Laguna Vista, Port Isabel, Los Fresnos, Brownsville, and the surrounding communities. We would wholeheartedly support a second causeway at the location of the original causeway which was deemed the best location for a causeway at the time it was built, or a sister bridge to the Queen Isabella Causeway. Why not go back to the best location rather than the fourth or fifth best location at Holly Beach?

The original location would be 1-1/2 miles long and would cost less than one-fourth of the proposed location at Holly Beach, in excess of $100 million and 7-1/2 miles long. Locating the new causeway at the old location would also provide a second exit for residents of Outdoor Resort who currently only have one exit off their island also, and not adversely affect the economy of Port Isabel and surrounding communities.

If the recent disaster at the Queen Isabella taught us anything, it’s that if a second causeway is built, it should not be where it will adversely affect the environment and be subject to damage from barge traffic on the Intercoastal Canal. A new causeway at the original location would ensure no barge damage as barges do not travel in that area.

I would urge the Texas Transportation Commission to take no further action until public hearings are held and the public has an opportunity to be heard. Let’s do what’s best for the majority of the citizens of the Laguna Madre area. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker is Jerold Schmidt.

MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Jerold Schmidt; I’m president of Outdoor Resort, South Padre Owners Association. If I may, we’re located on Long Island right here across a swing bridge that connects us to the mainland just south of Port Isabel.

I’ve tried to edit out any of my redundancies here so I apologize if I get repetitive anyplace.

Let me tell you a little bit about Outdoor Resort. We’re a gated community just across the Intercoastal Waterway by swing bridge from Port Isabel. Outdoor Resort consists of 1,021 properties with some 900 owners, approximately 400 year-round residents and registered voters. Many of our properties are available for long- and short-term rental, providing accommodations for vacationers and winter Texans who come to the Lower Laguna Madre area.

The recent tragic event on September 15 that resulted in damage to the Queen Isabella Causeway makes our appearance here even more crucial. We consider ourselves to be a sister community of both Port Isabel and South Padre Island. Our residents regularly shop and dine there, many of us own property and businesses there. Much of what affects those cities directly affects Outdoor Resort.

Living on a coastal waterway as we do, we understand clearly the critical nature of safe and dependable bridges. Outdoor Resort depends solely on the Long Island Bridge for its own vehicle access to and from the mainland. We favor a second causeway; we simply request that this commission conduct hearings to consider alternatives to the proposed second causeway at Holly Beach. Such alternatives could include a sister bridge or augmented access to the existing Queen Isabella Causeway, either of which we think would be more economical, environmentally sound, and expeditious.

As a matter of fact, a second causeway at or near the old original causeway from South Padre, having its terminus on or with access to Long Island, would better serve the needs of as many as 3,000 persons who occupy Outdoor Resort during peak times.

We also ask this commission, not as an alternative but in addition, to consider permanent provisions for vehicle ferry service to and from the South Padre Island. Long Island is ideally situated for that purpose as well.

In summary, the residents of Outdoor Resort believe there are alternatives to the proposed second causeway at Holly Beach that are more efficient and practical and that better serve the public interest. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Calvin Byrd.

MR. BYRD: Good morning. My name is Calvin Byrd; I’m a lifelong resident of Port Isabel; I had the honor of serving as mayor of Port Isabel from 1990 to 1996.

I’m going to make my comments real brief; I apologize for the fact that we’ve probably gone over our time quite a bit, and we probably strayed from the agenda item. I know you keep hearing Holly Beach mentioned in most of the comments, and there’s a good reason for that. Holly Beach has been the site that has been discussed and presented and we really weren’t sure what was going to be discussed or considered today, so that’s why you see a lot of those comments addressed toward Holly Beach. In fact, like Mr. Franke said, six months ago when they presented their findings to the Turnpike Authority Board, the Holly Beach site was the site that was presented.

I’ll just present the rest of my comments in writing. It deals with safety and I firmly believe that when safety is considered, along with the other aspects -- being environmental, economic, and bridge cost -- that safety will drive the site selection process away from the Holly Beach site and to some of the alternative sites that have been discussed today. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Joe Ochoa, chief of police, Port Isabel.

CHIEF OCHOA: Thank you, gentlemen, for giving us the opportunity to be here.

Like Mr. Bryd, I also would like to cut it short; I know that we’re running out of time. My presentation, in essence, was going to be just to present to you a traffic flow plan that we have been working on in the Port Isabel-South Padre Island area with the participation and cooperation of the surrounding law enforcement agencies which includes South Padre Island Police Department, the Cameron County Sheriff’s Office, and the Port Isabel Police Department and the Texas Department of Public Safety.

There are certain periods of the year where the high volume of traffic backs up and it’s caused by, of course, South Padre Island not absorbing the high volume of traffic efficiently, and whenever we have traffic accidents on the causeway itself. Our plan was just to divert the traffic and move it over to the cleared lanes on the other side in order to keep the traffic flowing smoothly. That’s what I was going to do, but I’ll do that in writing and I’ll submit it to you so we can save time. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Tom Hansen, chairman of the board of SPI, which I assume stands for South Padre Island Chamber of Commerce

MR. HANSEN: Yes, it does, Mr. Commissioner, South Padre Island Chamber of Commerce.

Even though some of these are my friends from Port Isabel who have been speaking against the project with the idea that it’s the Holly Beach project that we’re talking about, I don’t represent them. I am for the minute order. I believe that for anyone to argue against the minute order being passed and this project going ahead is unconscionable, based on what’s just happened. We desperately need a second link; you’ve heard that. I know Mr. Behrens was at the meeting yesterday and maybe one or two of you also were where a lot of discussion went on over things that need to be happening down there.

I have businesses on both sides of the bridge. I know that my business in Port Isabel hurts worse when there’s traffic jams; that causes my business more problems than any other factor. I believe that the reason Holly Beach was picked, among others, was that it would help the entire traffic pattern flow in the Lower Laguna Madre area. I’m not here to even argue that; I don’t think that’s what any of us are here for today.

Much of the study that you’ve heard has been just picking selected facts, some even questionable, with an idea toward looking at negatives toward the Holly Beach project. I think what we need to do today is focus on the fact that the study needs to go forward to get a second project moving, wherever that may be, and most of us that I know on both sides of the bridge would be in favor of that -- most of us.

I don’t think anybody would argue that the area needs to be able to get people to the island because most visitors are coming to the island. People that come to the island, if they came on a second bridge, would turn right around and come back to Port Isabel. We now, because of a lot of effort from the business community and the town of Port Isabel, have some attractions where three years ago maybe we didn’t have a lot of reason for people to want to stop in Port Isabel, now there is. So I don’t believe in the economic dislocation, I happen to disagree with some of my counterparts in the business community in Port Isabel. I don’t think that a second causeway at Holly Beach or even all the way up at Port Mansfield would be a negative to Port Isabel because they’re still going to come across and load up their groceries, et cetera, at H.E.B. or Wal-Mart or whatever.

So I would like to encourage you to please pass this minute order and get this project going so that we can decide wherever the second link needs to be. Like many of us here, I lost friends that night; my wife was 15 minutes in front of being one of the victims, so it really gets close to home for me and it’s emotional to me. I have a lot of money invested on both sides of the bridge and I want to see what’s best for that area, not just for the 100 corridor or for the north end of the island or any of the other areas that some of the individual interests seem to be concerned about, and I have confidence that the study that you will commission will accomplish that. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Dawson Sterling?

MR. STERLING: I can make this very brief. I support the minute order. I don’t detect very much opposition to it; therefore, I support it. My name is Dawson Sterling -- I’m sorry, I forgot. I also do not concur with most of the remarks made by those who have a predetermined idea of where the causeway should be. I would offer our assistance, my assistance to Mr. Saenz, to his associates, to the commission ultimately. And with that, I think then will be the time for the commission to analyze and determine where should it go. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Jim Randall and Amadeo Saenz -- is Amadeo here? Could you come up, please?

The minute order that’s under consideration will basically move this project into the long-range plan category and by that it will commence a study that will study alternatives, the environmental impact of those alternatives, and the economic impact of those alternatives. Is that a fair and accurate statement?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. It will allow Amadeo to charge against a particular charge number for the activities of all these.

MR. JOHNSON: And several potential routes will be under consideration.

MR. SAENZ: I’m Amadeo Saenz, district engineer. I would think that we would look at all the routes that have been looked at so far, and with some early public involvement, there may be some other ones that we may want to review, as well as there’s the possibility of looking at different modes -- the ferry operation may be something to look at as a short-term.

MR. JOHNSON: You mentioned public involvement. Could you maybe embellish on that in terms of how you foresee us going forward and having public hearings, et cetera?

MR. SAENZ: We basically at the district -- and really for all projects -- we usually start a project that is in the LRP process, in the early planning process with basically a focus group meeting or a general public meeting to solicit early input into how we’re going to approach the project, what alternatives are out there, and what would people like us to see. And then we can take that information, we move forward, we basically go through the evaluation or an analysis period collecting information to look at each of those alternatives, running some kind of a matrix.

Then we come back to the public and basically provide them with information as to what we’ve come up with so far, and eventually we get to the point that you come up with a preferred alternative, giving the reasons as to why and why not, and why and why not the other alternatives were not used. And then of course, all of this is done, and the environmental process is ongoing where we’re coordinating with the resource agencies, coordinating with local officials to come up with, eventually, a preferred alternative, a submittal of an environmental impact study or an environmental assessment to the Federal Highway Administration for a record of decision so that the project can then move forward. That would be what we would be doing in this first phase.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I have a number of comments. First of all, let me just say it’s not a question to you so much as it is we recognize on the mainland side there are significant economic effects, either of the second causeway or of getting the existing causeway completed in a very fast period of time. A number of people talked about losing their jobs. For those, let me just say I can assure you that this agency is working as fast as it can. We’ve been given full authority and funds to get the existing causeway built as quickly as possible.

The department, Amadeo and everybody down there, we have jumped through hoops to begin trying to at least move people with ferries, bringing more ferries in. I’m not going to get into all those kind of things, but there’s a lot going on to try the best we know how to get the economic vitality going as quickly as we can and complete the broken causeway.

This causeway, the second causeway, if it is to be built, I know there’s probably a concern -- I’ve seen audiences that have a lot of fear or concern of whether or not the department has already made up its mind because of drawings you’ve seen. Let me assure you -- and I think the other two commissioners can do the same thing -- this agency and this commission has not made a decision either privately or publicly to build a second causeway, to locate it, or to locate it in a particular place; those decisions have not been made.

The public hearing process is a very open process. Any objections, anything that’s very favorable, we look at both sides. You’ve got to have somebody out there that you can count on that’s going to be fair and impartial, and that is this commission, and that is the way we will be during this entire process.

Now, during the legislative session, a number of bills float around on a number of different issues, and of all things, there were two different pieces of legislation related to this subject. I believe there was one that prohibited the existing causeway from being a toll road -- which I don’t think we were going to toll it anyway -- that I don’t think would be what the commission would do to toll any existing capacity in the state. Secondly, there was a rider that related to funds, making funds available for a second causeway.

Now, it would be naive on all of our parts to ignore the fact that there are discussions underway by a lot of different people for and against a second causeway. What we are going to take action on -- which has been said a number of different ways -- relates to generating a formalized process to go through all this as opposed to an informal process.

Has the copy of this actual minute order been distributed? So they don’t actually know -- we’ve explained what we’re talking about doing but nobody has actually read to the public what this minute order says. It’s fairly short. I would recommend -- I’ll put our executive director on the spot -- just to try to eliminate some fear, it’s only a few paragraphs long, I would like the executive director to read the entire minute order and ask you to listen very carefully to what it says, and I think what you’ll hear is what both sides are all saying, and that’s what we’ll be taking action on.

So I’m going to ask him to read that. You don’t have it in front of you, do you? Do you want my copy?

(General laughter.)

MR. BEHRENS: I’ve got it.

This minute order says: "In Cameron County, a second causeway crossing the Laguna Madre to South Padre Island is being proposed for long-range project status." That’s what we call LRP. "This proposal was initiated by Rider 65 to the Texas Department of Transportation’s appropriations for Fiscal Years 2002-2003.

"LRP status allows the department to evaluate all alternatives, conduct environmental impact studies, hold public meetings and hearings, and draft right of way maps. During this initial phase of project development, the department will examine the social, economic, and environmental impacts of this proposed project.

"Projects with LRP status are not listed in the department’s Unified Transportation Program and are not approved for construction or right of way acquisition.

"It is therefore ordered by the Texas Transportation Commission that the executive director is hereby authorized to proceed in the most feasible and economical manner with LRP activities. It is understood that the final decision to authorize or not to authorize development of this proposed project will occur after the completion of LRP activities."

MR. NICHOLS: That is the minute order in its entirety, I think it fits what everyone has said, and with that having been said, I’ll move that we adopt it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: Might I ask a question? Karen Chapman, I asked her about the possibilities for a causeway which would not encroach on the Laguna Madre and she mentioned, I believe, it’s the Delmar potential. Is she still here?

MR. BEHRENS: I think she just left.

MR. JOHNSON: Would the minute order cover a study of that possibility, even though it says in the minute order that the causeway crossing the Laguna Madre, and my interpretation was she does not believe that.

MR. BEHRENS: My interpretation is that it would cover any alternative. Like Amadeo Saenz said earlier, we would look at the ones that have already been put in previous documents but we would also look at other things.

MR. JOHNSON: There is a motion and a second before the commission. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. The minute order is approved. Thank you, Jim.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Even if it wasn’t included, once the chairman asked about it, I’m sure it got included real fast.

MR. JOHNSON: If our friends from the South Padre Island/Port Isabel want to excuse themselves, we certainly understand that there are long drives and airplanes before you, and we appreciate your taking the time and making the effort to come this great distance to let your views be known. We would hope that you understand a little better how the system works and that no final decision will be made on this issue; if ever, that the final decision will be based on some very extensive studies, and it will be done by an impartial group of three who have the best interests not only of your area but of the entire state at heart.

Thank you very much for being here.

MR. MARCHAN: Well, we thank you and we thank you for your patience.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thanks for coming up. We’re going to come down and visit pretty soon -- on a vacation, not on business.

MR. JOHNSON: We’re going to take a very short recess.

MS. BODEN: And I hope your study of our bridge, you can rebuild this more with more access to the people.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for coming.

MR. JOHNSON: We’ll take a very short recess.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

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

The next order of business is the rest of the agenda and our housekeeping items. I take a great deal of pleasure in welcoming Mike Behrens to the dais. This is his first meeting; he became the executive director on September 1. And Mike, I think I speak from the commission but I know I speak from your fellow employees that we look forward to your service and we have a great deal of confidence in your leadership and ability as this agency moves forward.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we will move forward.

Item number 3, Aviation, Dave Fulton will make that presentation.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Mike.

Item 3 is a minute order containing a request for grant funding approval for eleven airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all the requests, as shown in Exhibit A, is approximately $7.3 million: $4.7 million federal, $1.2 million state, and $1.4 million local funding. A public hearing was held on September 10 of this year; no comments were received. We would recommend approval of the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Are there any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. FULTON: Mr. Chairman, just a moment if you would permit me. I would like to apprise you of something you might not be aware of. I know you’re aware of the impact on commercial scheduled airline transportation economically due to the security measures that have been put in place. Non-airline aviation in Texas has been impacted severely as well; many small businesses will probably go out of business; we don’t know how long it will last. This continues in the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston areas only at this time. We’re trying to serve as a communications vehicle between those users and the federal agencies that are tasked with trying to correct our situation. I just wanted to make sure you’re aware of it; you may be contacted by some people about that.

MR. JOHNSON: My colleague Mr. Nichols, who flies a lot, has alerted me, but I think your observations are very appropriate.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I recognize there’s a lot of the FBO operators and small airports who have just gotten hammered, and the ones in the community airports surrounding the Metroplex inside the Class B airspace, they’re just in terrible shape, absolutely terrible shape. Do you have any indication as to when the VFR ban will be lifted in the Class B airspace?

MR. FULTON: I do not. The agricultural industry is back in full force, and hopefully that won’t be affected again.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4, Public Transportation that deals with funding in several cities in Texas.

MS. MASSEY: I’m Margot Massey, director of Public Transportation Division, and our request is for you to exercise your discretion relative to state funding to award dollars for four cities, and this is very important, what’s happening with this minute order.

First of all, Midland-Odessa are the only small urbanized cities in this state, in the 50- to 200,000 population, that do not currently have transit services. They have come together to form a single urban transit district and will move forward together to provide much needed transit services in those two cities. We’re recommending $500,000 in state funds which will be augmented with federal funds to get them rolling within the next year.

Secondly, the City of Longview has currently operated, or to date operated predominantly elderly and disabled service only within the city, and they have done a lot of work in outreach and public hearings and have been very attentive to what they heard and have elected to implement fixed-route service. We’re proposing an award of $200,000 in state funds, and I would note that the City of Longview has put up a greater amount in local funds to make this happen, and we’re also hoping to augment that with federal funds later this year.

And finally, the City of Denton got caught in a statutory funding anomaly -- it’s kind of the Bermuda Triangle that we operate within sometimes of the parameters on the formula that you get money based on what you spent in the previous biennium, and if you have a procurement situation that doesn’t get concluded in a biennium, it will be reflected in future allocations. We’re recommending an award of $200,000 for Denton to get them out of that odd spot they find themselves in.

So we recommend your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: One question, or do you know what’s coming?

MS. MASSEY: Alternate fuels, yes, sir. All present and accounted for. All cities that have capital expenditures under this minute order will be pursuing alternate fuels only.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Margot.

MR. BEHRENS: We’re going to change the order. We’re going to go to the rules but we’re going to the final adoption rules first, so we’ll consider 5(b)(1) and that will be Management, and that will be presented by Jim Randall. I didn’t mention earlier but Jim has been selected as our new director of our Transportation Planning and Programming Division, and Mr. Chairman, he does know Darrell Royal.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: How about Mack Brown?

MR. BEHRENS: I don’t know if he knows Mack or not.

MR. RANDALL: Not as well as I know Coach Royal.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So this is like a formal hand-off from Mr. Luedecke to you. Huh? This is it?

MR. RANDALL: We come from different sides, I guess, is the best way to say that. He hasn’t seen how I redecorated his office.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It went from maroon to orange overnight.

(General laughter.)

MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. This minute order approves the final adoption of amendments to Section 1.84 under Title 43 of the Texas Administrative Code concerning statutory advisory committees to establish the Border Trade Advisory Committee. Senate Bill 195, passed by the 77th Legislature, established a Border Trade Advisory Committee as an official advisory committee to the Texas Transportation Commission and allows the department to adopt rules governing the committee.

This seven-member committee appointed by the commission will provide the commission and the department with a broad perspective regarding the effect of transportation choices on the border trade in general and on particular communities. The proposed amendments were published in the August 10, 2001 issue of the Texas Register for the purpose of receiving public comments; no comments were received. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Seems like we ought to ask him something.

MR. JOHNSON: On his maiden voyage.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: We’ll have 5(b)(2) which is final adoption for Public Information rules.

MR. MONROE: For the record, my name is Richard Monroe. I’m the general counsel of the department.

In the most recent legislature, the legislature passed two bills which necessitates changing our rules concerning access to official records, and perhaps the more significant piece of legislation, the legislature created the right by which an individual may request information about himself be corrected. We have proposed rules that would carry out that intent of the legislature.

The legislature also, in passing House Bill 1544, thought to bring state standards as to release of information more closely in line with federal law along the same lines, particularly eliminating a requirement that we had that motorists elect not to release personal information.

These proposed rules were approved by the commission; they have been properly published in the Texas Register; no comments were received; and I would recommend that this minute order be passed by which these rules can be finalized and adopted.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: We’ll have 5(b)(3) which is final rules on Bid Bonds.

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

Item 5(b)(3) is the proposed final adoption of amendments to Section 9.14 of the Texas Administrative Code. House Bill 1138 of the 77th Legislative Session requires the department to allow the use of cashier’s checks, money orders, or bid bonds, or any other method determined suitable by the department for bid guarantees. These rules eliminate the limit of $300,000 for the use of bid bonds for bid guarantees.

These rules were published in the Texas Register; we received no comments. Staff recommends approval.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: We’ll go back to 5(a)(1). This will be rules for Proposed Adoption, and we’ll have Richard Monroe discuss the Advisory Committee rules.

MR. MONROE: The Government Code requires that, on a regular basis, departments of state government consider sunsetting their advisory committees. We’ve already heard that the department will establish a Border Advisory Committee. By approving this minute order, you will send to the Texas Register for public comment certain amendments to our advisory committee rules, and I would particularly draw your attention to three important changes.

We would propose to abolish two statutory advisory committees: the Household Goods Carrier Advisory Committee, and the Vehicle Storage Tow Truck Rules Advisory Committee. We would also seek to abolish a departmental advisory committee -- that is to say non-statutorily required -- the Statewide Transportation Policy Committee which has been inactive for several years and the department feels that other contacts are far more appropriate to gather the type of information we need on statewide transportation planning.

As for the first two statutory committees I mentioned, the Household Goods Carriers Advisory Committee has not met for several years; the Vehicle Storage Facility Tow Truck Rules Advisory Committee performs a function which the department believes is much better served by direct contact with industry. I can also report to the commission that industry groups have been contacted and that our feel from the industry is that they also feel these committees could be done away with.

Once again, these are being published only for comment; if there are people who feel otherwise, they can certainly come forward and tell their side of the story. I would recommend that the minute order be approved and we will go ahead and publish these proposed amended rules in the Texas Register for public comment.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Richard.

MR. BEHRENS: We have 5(a)(2) rules in our Contract Management area.

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

Item 5(a)(2) are proposed amendments to Section 9.5 concerning special labor provisions for determining the prevailing wage rate. Senate Bill 311, 77th Legislative Session, amended the Government Code, Sub-chapter (a), Section 2258.022 requiring that we consider additional formulas for determining prevailing wage rates for counties bordering Mexico and counties adjacent to the counties bordering Mexico -- that’s about 29 counties.

Under the law prior to the amendment, the department used U.S. Department of Labor wage rates for the state. Under the amended law, the department must use a higher rate: (1) determined from a survey conducted in a political subdivision, or (2) arithmetic mean between the rate determined from a survey conducted in the political subdivision and the rate determined from the statewide survey; and (3) if applicable, the arithmetic mean between the rate determined between the rate determined from a survey conducted in the political subdivision and the rate determined by the U.S. Department of Labor.

These rules will now refer to the statute, and staff recommends approval. Do you have any questions?

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thomas, thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: We have item 5(a)(3), subsection a., rules concerning the Border Colonia Access Program.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir, Jim Randall, Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

This minute order proposes new Sections 15.100 to 15.106 to Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, concerning the Border Colonia Access Program. Senate Bill 1296, passed by the 77th Legislature, added Government Code Chapter 1043 which requires the Texas Public Finance Authority, in accordance with requests from the Office of the Governor, to issue general obligation bonds and notes in the aggregate amount not to exceed $175 million, and as directed by the department, to distribute the proceeds to counties as financial assistance for colonia access roadway projects that serve the border colonias.

Senate Bill 1296 requires the commission to establish a program to administer the use of the proceeds of the bonds and notes. Senate Bill 1296 will only take effect if the constitutional amendment proposed in Senate Joint Resolution 37 is approved by the voters. Rider 52 to the department’s appropriations for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 requires the department to establish a transportation program to improve access to colonias.

Senate 1296 and Rider 52 require the commission and the department to consult with the Office of the Governor, the Secretary of State, the Texas Water Development Board, and the Texas A&M University Center for Housing and Urban Development in developing the rules and procedures for the Border Colonia Access Program. The department participated in a working group, including representatives of each of these entities, in developing the proposed rules for the commission’s consideration.

New Sections 15.100 to 15.106 implement the requirements of Senate Bill 1296 and Rider 52, set forth the procedures by which an eligible county may apply for assistance under Senate Bill 1296 and Rider 52, and establish criteria by which the commission will select projects.

The minute order presented for your consideration authorizes publication of the proposed rules for adoption in the Texas Register for the purpose of receiving public comments. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: We have item 5(a)(3), subsection b., Design Considerations presented by Bob Kovar.

MR. KOVAR: For the record, my name is Robert Kovar and I’m the interim director for the Design Division.

This minute order proposes the adoption of new Sections 15.120 through 15.122 concerning the design considerations when developing transportation projects.

Senate Bill 1128 of the 77th Legislature added a section to the Transportation Code to require the department to consider certain design factors when developing transportation projects. Senate Bill 1128 further required the department to develop rules.

The design factors to be considered when developing transportation projects, as specified in the Senate bill, are: safety, durability of the project, the economy of maintenance of the project, the impacts on the environment, the scenic and aesthetic character of the project location, preservation efforts and affected communities, and access for other modes of transportation. The proposed rules describe how the design factors will be considered during the development of transportation projects.

Your approval of this minute order will authorize the department to advertise for public comment in the Texas Register on the proposed rules. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second, with one comment. You’ve already gotten my notes with regard to the definitions. I think it’s real important in these definitions that they be user-friendly to the public and in the definitions are rehabilitation, restoring and reconstructing. I think there’s probably -- I think we ought to work toward, as we work toward the final rules, a way to show that that’s really all the same thing but at three different levels.

MR. KOVAR: Yes, sir, we’re going to work on that. We got your note and we’ll work up something and work with you on that.

MR. NICHOLS: Which doesn’t really change the effect of what you’re trying to do, but I think it would be easier for people to understand.

MR. KOVAR: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, that’s all. I did second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 5(a)(4), proposed rules for Right of Way.

MR. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is John Campbell, director of the Right of Way Division. I’d like to present for your consideration this minute order item 5(a)(4) which provides for the proposed adoption of amendments to rules in various sections of Title 43 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 21 with regard to the operations and responsibilities of the TxDOT Right of Way Division.

These amendments clarify existing policies and incorporate provisions to reflect various changes in state and federal law. We’d recommend them for your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, John.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 5(a)(5) Traffic Operations, rules concerning establishment of speed zones.

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

The minute order before you implements provisions of House Bill 299 of the 77th Legislature. House Bill 299 allows the department to establish a maximum 75-mile-per-hour daytime speed limit on any portion of the state highway system located in a county with a population density of less than ten persons per square mile. Before a higher speed limit may be created, the commission must find that it is reasonable and safe. In addition, any 75-mile-per-hour speed limit will not apply to large trucks. The nighttime maximum speed limit will remain at 65 miles per hour.

The proposed amendment directly follows the provisions of House Bill 299. The rules also list the counties that will be eligible for the higher speed limit and note that this list will be revised with the release of each federal census. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: And we’re absolutely certain that these speed limits don’t apply to any of the urban counties or next to urban counties of the state?

MR. LOPEZ: Only the most sparsely populated counties will this apply to.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 6, State Infrastructure Bank, we have two minute orders and they will be presented by James Bass.

MR. BASS: Good afternoon, commissioners. I’m James Bass, director of Finance for TxDOT.

As Mike said, I have two minute orders. The first one, agenda item 6(a) seeks final approval of a loan to Universal City in the amount of $305,000 with up to an additional 20 percent to pay for the reconstruction of Kitty Hawk Road from the south city limits to Loop 1604. Interest would accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4 percent with payments being made over five years. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BASS: Agenda item 6(b) seeks final approval of a loan to the City of Socorro in the amount of $420,000 to pay for the city’s portion of the costs to acquire right of way necessary to reconstruct and widen Horizon Boulevard from FM 76 to Rio Vista Road. Interest would accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4.3 percent with payments being made over a period of five years. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 7, Transportation Planning, there will be two minute orders, item (a) and item (b), presented by Jim Randall.

MR. RANDALL: Jim Randall, Transportation Planning and Programming Division. Item 7(a), the minute order we bring before you today approves the 2002 Unified Transportation program, or the UTP. The UTP, updated annually and submitted to the commission for approval, is the department’s ten-year plan for transportation project development.

Exhibit A is the structure of the various categories of work including: levels of authorization, descriptions, restrictions, methods of allocation, and policy. Exhibit B contains the Bank Balance Program amounts as approved by previous minute orders. Exhibits C through R contain project listings by category. Exhibit S contains projects delayed from the previous fiscal years that retain Priority 1 authorization; and for the project-specific categories, Exhibit T contains a listing of projects with funding authorizations that are scheduled to be awarded construction contracts in Fiscal Year 2002. Exhibit U includes information from the 2002-2004 Aviation Capital Improvement Program. Exhibit V, Public Transportation, contains information on transit programs; actual transit program allocations and grant recipients will be approved by future minute orders.

In July of this year, a draft copy of the 2002 UTP was made available to the districts for public comment. Following the 45-day comment period, a total of 261 comments or letters were received relating to the projects in the 2002 UTP. A summary of the comments have been submitted to the executive director.

The final UTP authorizes a total of $16.3 billion for the project-specific categories. Of this total, $6.7 billion is in Priority 1 and $9.6 billion in Priority 2. With approval of this minute order, the department may continue project planning and development for Fiscal Years 2002 and beyond. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, observations?

MR. NICHOLS: Does this include strategic priority projects also?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir, that’s in Exhibit L.

MR. NICHOLS: And the staff recommendations?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt the UTP as put together, with one exception in the strategic priority projects. I would like for us to kind of pull, until further study, Project Number CSJ0151-09050 -- it’s in the Austin District -- pull that out and hold it until we have time to study it a little bit more. Other than that, I was fine with it.

MR. JOHNSON: The UTP does have the addition strategic priority selections, one in Harris County, one in Denton County, and one in -- is there another one?

MR. WILLIAMSON: El Paso County.

MR. JOHNSON: El Paso County. So those three have been added, and I believe Mr. Nichols has made a motion that we accept the recommendations of the UTP and delete one project that he identified from strategic priority which is in the Austin District.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir, we’ll make those revisions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And if we approve the motion, do you have any idea, Jim, about how much is left for us to consider for other emergencies that we might want to consider?

MR. RANDALL: Offhand, I believe we’re talking about $35 million.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does that include the Austin deletion?

MR. RANDALL: When you take the Austin deletion off, I think it’s $10 million, if I’m not mistaken.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So about 25-, and then plus the Austin deletion takes it to about 35-. So we still have some room to consider some other things that might have come up. I second.

MR. JOHNSON: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Moving on, item 7(b). This minute order authorizes a $40 million supplement to the Category 11 State/District Discretionary Program for Fiscal Years 2002-2005. This program addresses miscellaneous projects selected at the districts’ discretion. Projects must be on the state highway system and these funds cannot be used for the purchase of right of way. The program allocations are based on vehicle miles traveled and registered vehicles.

Currently the commission has authorized three district discretionary programs for 2002-2005 by minute orders approved in January of 1999, 2000 and 2001. These bank balance allocation programs provided each district a minimum of $2 million.

Rider 34 to the department’s appropriations for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, approved by the 77th Legislature, directs the department to allocate a minimum of $2.5 million for each district for each fiscal year under the state discretionary program.

Exhibit A identifies a supplement to each district for Fiscal Years 2000 to 2005. Those districts that were not supplemented by this proposed minute order received previous distributions which were in excess of the requirement by Rider 34. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 8 will consider a specific frontage road approval in Dallas County, presented by Bob Kovar.

MR. KOVAR: For the record, my name is Robert Kovar; I’m the interim director of the Design Division.

The minute order we have for your consideration approves construction of an approximate two-tenths mile section of frontage road on the north side of Interstate Highway 635 from two-tenths of a mile west of Olympus Boulevard to Home Depot Drive in the City of Irving. One hundred percent of the project cost will be provided by the city. The frontage road extension will provide access to a new public street planned west of Olympus Boulevard. No private access to the frontage road will be permitted.

The district and the city have been working toward development of this project for several years and the department has determined that the proposed extension will provide for improved circulation for the area and will be beneficial to safety and operation of the local area.

Commission approval will authorize the department to enter into any agreements necessary to construct the project, conditioned upon no private access being provided to the frontage road. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: We have two people who have registered to speak on this particular agenda item. Linda Harper-Brown who is a council member from the city of Irving, and no stranger to these premises, and we’re delighted that you’re here. The City of Irving is a great partner of this department.

MS. HARPER-BROWN: Thank you very much, Commissioner, and it is good to be here today and I appreciate this opportunity. My name is Linda Harper-Brown and I am a member of the Irving City Council.

This minute order authorizes the extension of a 500-foot segment of the frontage road along the north side of Interstate Highway 635 between MacArthur Boulevard and Beltline Road within the city of Irving, Dallas County. What was thought to be a routine frontage road extension has become an emergency situation for our city and the owner of the adjacent property, Home Depot. Home Depot is currently completing construction of a new 130,000 square foot retail facility. The primary access to this new store will be the extension of the existing frontage road along the north side of Interstate Highway 635.

The City of Irving, Home Depot and the TxDOT Dallas District have been working for over 18 months to develop these plans and the specifications for this proposed frontage road extension. The plan was based, of course, upon the previous commission minute orders and the frontage road policies and TxDOT agreements that were in place, of course, 18 months ago.

I present to you for your records a complete file that has all the documentation of all the involvement with TxDOT in this project. It also includes letters of support from Senator Jane Nelson, Representative Hartnett, Representative Allen, Representative Marchant, and Representative Garcia.

And now I’d like to introduce our city manager, Steve McCullough, to provide you with additional details on this project.

MR. McCULLOUGH: Thank you, Councilwoman Harper-Brown.

The City of Irving and Home Depot were recently informed by the Dallas District that due to a change in the frontage road policy, we could not continue the approval process for opening of this store. We have all relied in good faith on previous agreements. Home Depot has already deposited $828,000 with the city which covers the entire cost for the design and construction of these improvements. This Home Depot facility is in the final phase of construction and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City of Irving is now dependent on commencement of construction on the frontage road -- that is the contract that the city entered into with Home Depot.

This segment of the frontage road is key to the ultimate success of this retail facility and the city’s transportation mobility in the surrounding area. The City of Irving respectfully requests that the commission approve this frontage road extension project and that you authorize the Dallas District to immediately continue with the letting at the earliest possible date.

The City of Irving truly does consider itself to be a friend and a supporter of the commission and of TxDOT. Based upon our relationship and mutual respect, we would request that you and the TxDOT management use great care in the development of the new frontage road policy. Please consider the potential impact that it will have statewide on the many current city comprehensive plans and master transportation thoroughfare plans, especially of more mature cities, which have been based upon the current TxDOT policies.

Please understand we want to work with you and TxDOT staff to the greatest and fullest extent possible to meet the transportation needs of the state, and we want to work with our property and business owners. We really are in a bind on this one because of existing contracts and construction that is underway by Home Depot and the good efforts of the City of Irving and the Dallas District. So on behalf of the City of Irving, thank you again for your consideration in this matter.

And also, the city council and management of the City of Irving would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the commission and your management and staff -- and we look forward to working with Mr. Behrens in the future -- for the cooperative support we have received for Irving’s annual Texas Transportation Summits and for the efforts of TEX-21 in supporting the promotion of transportation across the state of Texas. We look forward to working with you on the numerous TxDOT projects that will involve our cooperative efforts in the future.

On behalf of the councilwoman and myself, we stand ready to answer any questions you might have and look forward to your decision.

MR. JOHNSON: We do thank you.

Any questions or observations?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a question for the gentleman, or Robert, if you want to go first?

MR. NICHOLS: No, go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does Irving zone property?

MR. McCULLOUGH: Yes, we do.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you have classifications of commercial zoning?

MR. McCULLOUGH: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How do you address on your city streets the matter of ingress and egress for commercial operation on any of your city streets?

MR. McCULLOUGH: Well, I would like to call upon a more qualified person to answer that question, our director of Traffic and Transportation, Mr. Jim Cline, who is with us here today.

MR. CLINE: Thank you. My name is Jim Cline; I’m the director of Traffic and Transportation for the City of Irving.

Access to and from arterials and to and from frontage roads is very important to us and we watch very carefully on that so that we don’t create additional congestion on our roadways.

MR. WILLIAMSON: On your city roads.

MR. CLINE: City roads and the TxDOT facilities as well.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So by inference, at least the City of Irving in this great state of Texas recognizes that the creation of on/off ramps creates congestion on city streets -- on/off ramps being driveways into and out of commercial areas.

MR. CLINE: At times it does, sir. There’s a number of factors that go into that and how we provide that access. It has to be provided somewhere so we have to work our way through that and try to do it in the most feasible way possible.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So in that regard, you will pass along to all of those great House and Senate members who are endorsing this on/off ramp -- most of them my former colleagues -- that TxDOT may be approaching the access issue much the same way as the City of Irving approaches the access issue.

MR. CLINE: The philosophy of trying to minimize the impact to the roadway system, yes, we do approach it the same way.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So congestion for us is no different a problem than is congestion for you.

MR. CLINE: I’d like to think of solving the congestion problem on the highway system and the city streets as a team effort between the city and the commission and our district.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That was the only question I had, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NICHOLS: I’d like to echo what they were saying, how much we appreciate the leadership you’ve provided in helping transportation all the way around the state and what you’ve done related to this project. We also understand that people have spent significant amounts of money on construction with the anticipation of being able to go into the next street, particularly the Home Depot Drive, using this frontage road, and that’s what this minute order relates to.

We will be in the future addressing a different approach to our frontage road policy and access and we will have plenty of time to have input from the City of Irving, the entire Dallas-Fort Worth area, and the rest of the state on how we approach that. But obviously, we’re going to have to in the future get substantially tighter on some of these things. Some of them make a lot of sense, some of them don’t. I think there’s more of a fear out there right now.

Anyway, this minute order, in effect, would approve the construction of the frontage road from .2 miles west of Olympus Boulevard to Home Depot Drive, as I think you stated a while ago, but provides no private access permitted to the frontage road. In other words, I don’t think you’re really wanting to build a bunch of driveways onto it anyway.

But anyway, with that, I move that we adopt this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MS. HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, commissioners. We appreciate the comments that you made earlier, Mr. Nichols, about the fear because I think that is a big problem right now. I know there are several areas, not only Irving, that have projects that are pending that they’re not sure what’s going to happen. I believe Corsicana right now has a $200 million project that is contingent upon the same efforts of having a service road, and I believe that’s more value than they have in the entire county. So when you think about the congestion, and Commissioner Williamson, you know as well as I do that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and I understand your concern about the air quality and the congestion and things, but again, we have to think about economic development, and somehow we have to balance.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But you know what, congestion and mobility and air quality have been taking a back seat for several years and we can’t let that happen anymore.

MS. HARPER-BROWN: No, we can’t. But I think working together, just as you said, and I think getting input from everyone, we can come to a solution on this that works for the state. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: So we can get you out of your bind, I’m going to call for a vote on this motion and second. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: One observation, and I think the appropriate word has probably been used, and that is "fear." My sense is that when people get wind of what’s going on, they think: Oh, my gosh, there will be no frontage roads, there will be no access. And although that’s the message they’re receiving, I hope that’s not the message that we’re delivering.

The way I view this policy, we’re going to take a lot of public input, we’re going to take time to develop the policy. My sense is the commitments that have been made, we intend to honor. Commitment is a delicate thing; in definition by one person might not be the same as a commitment received by another, and so there will be a fine line to work on there.

But I also view this somewhat as a little bit of abstract art. I think my fellow commissioners, if you ask us to each tell you where we were on this particular matter, you’d get three different answers. I think you could narrow them down and arrive at the same place, but I think we’d probably get there a little differently.

Where I come from is that we’ve taken something that was assumed which is frontage roads with access and we’ve now gone 180 degrees polar to that and we’re going to assume no access and no frontage roads. Then if we conclude by studying the corridors that they’re in, that frontage roads are vital and necessary to the development of the corridor and they do not create a congestion and safety issue, we can proceed with that, and then access to those frontage roads become the second issue to that.

I think probably Robert and Ric, I don’t want to put words in their mouths, but I think they probably get there a little bit differently than I do, but I think we have the sense that the congestion issues created by frontage roads are something that we’ve sort of brought upon ourselves and we’ve got to step back and solve these issues. And I concur with you 100 percent that working together, traffic flow and the lack of congestion and care for the environment call all be accomplished.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I do arrive at the same place as you do. As you so wisely noted, we probably all get there a different way. After 12-13 years in the legislature, I grew weary of not just being straight up about problems. Now the reality is we have a problem in six of our highly urbanized areas, and the Texas Department of Transportation is contributing to that problem by allowing traffic-stopping on/off ramps almost at will, just because I or you or someone else has the money to pay for it.

Home Depot is a great corporate partner of Texas and we’re glad they’re coming; again, we’re glad they’re in your area, we wouldn’t want to do anything to discourage that. But the truth is when that ramp opens, congestion gets worse in your neighborhood, and as long as we don’t have the courage to stand up and call a spade a spade, we’re guilty of helping contribute to that problem, and we just can’t do that anymore. If we put a ramp every 60 feet, as most economic development people in Texas would have us do, we would have no mobility in urban Texas in ten years, and somebody has just got to stand up and say: Wait, let’s think about this from the perspective the chairman has laid it out.

And I think your summary, from my standpoint, John, was excellent.

MS. HARPER-BROWN: And commissioner, that’s what I want you to know, we have thought of that too. On our MIS’s that we’ve looked at, we have already told our citizens and our businesses there will not be as many on/off ramps as there is now, say for instance, on 183, because we just know that’s a dangerous situation and it does cause congestion. But I think, as Steve alluded to, when you have a city that’s already built out and done your planning on all your side streets and things, that’s where the fear comes in about what are we going to do about those existing service roads.

The other thing that we’re concerned about, of course, is our MIS, and the example I’ll give you is Loop 12, and you know how, say, in the environmental phase or some phases of it, you can get so far down in an MIS and something happens and then you’re all the way back at the beginning again and it can delay a project for 10 or 20 years, as we’ve seen on so many of the projects in our state.

We’re concerned now that when we come back and re-evaluate -- and it’s just something for you to consider when you’re studying this policy -- will we have to begin all over again on our MIS for Loop 12 now because we justified the building to begin with and now will we have to go back and begin that process all over, which is another fear that we have as cities.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Anything else on item 8 on the agenda?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: So let’s proceed.

MR. BEHRENS: We’ll go to item 9, Maintenance Operations, and there will be two minute orders that Zane will present to us.

MR. WEBB: Good afternoon, commissioners, Mr. Behrens.

Agenda item 9(a) approves expenditures of Capital Improvement funds for FY 2002-2003. The proposed projects are listed in Exhibit A. The minute order does state that additions, deletions, or substitutions can take place as long as they’re within the intent of the program and within funding limits. I recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Zane.

MR. WEBB: Agenda item 9(b) is on here to allow the commission to set a level of service under the General Accounting Standards Board Statement 34. Now, what that statement says is that we’ve got to either do an inventory of our entire highway system or we’ve got to do an assessment of that system and report where it’s going on a regular basis.

Since we were already doing an assessment of the system under the TxMAP, Texas Maintenance Assessment Program, it just made good sense to set our standards based on something that we were already doing. Well, what we’ve done is we’ve set a standard for 80 percent on interstate and 75 percent on non-interstate roadways, and we’ve backed out the present cost of maintaining all the roadways across the state back down to those minimum levels of service and shown that as the cost of maintaining that level.

So in effect, what we’re asking you to do is to approve a minimum level of service under GASB 34.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I know Zane has been trying to talk us into this for a long time.

MR. NICHOLS: I have a question. You weren’t responsible for this when you were in the legislature, were you?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No. That was USAS, this is GASB. We can blame all the CPAs out there for this one.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions? I know Zane is ready to give you a very intricate, well-defined answer on GASB 34.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 10, Contracts, the contracts in both Maintenance and Highway and Building Construction that we’re recommending for award this month.

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

Item 10(a)(1) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on September 5 and 6, 2001 whose engineer’s estimated cost are $300,000 or more. We had 16 projects, and the average number of bidders were 3.13 per project.

We have one project we’d recommend for rejection; it’s a project in Tom Green County, Project Number 4018. We had one bidder, it was 46 percent over, a joint crack and seal contract. We feel like the prices were high on this project and there was a requirement that they had four crews in the contract, and the district would like to go back and change that requirement and try to solicit additional bidders.

Staff recommends award of all projects with the exception noted. Questions?

MR. JOHNSON: Thomas, are we just on the Maintenance section right now?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: All right. Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 10(a)(2) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway construction and building contracts let on September 5 and 6, 2001. We had 87 projects; the average number of bidders was 4.18 per project. We have three projects we recommend for rejection.

The first project is in Brazoria County; it’s Project Number 3023; it was 47 percent over. This is some work we’re doing with the City of Alvin there and they’d like to go back, since they have some funds in this thing, and see if we can work on the cost. In addition, we found some additional problems with the building that they’re working on there and we’ll have to revise the PS&E to address those issues.

The second project recommended for rejection is a project in Cherokee County, Project Number 3043; only had one bidder on this project, 52 percent over. This is for some surface work, and the prices were high and we only had the one bidder and we’d like to go back and try to solicit some more bids on this project as well.

The last project recommended for rejection here is in Gaines County, Project Number 3019; we had two bidders on this project that included some landscape work. Both of the bidders submitted their bids and they had some errors in their bids which caused their bids to be higher than what they really wanted to bid. In addition, there’s a couple of errors that we had in the plans that we need to correct so that we have properly competitive bids on the project. We’d like to go back and make the corrections and re-let the project and try to solicit more bids again.

Staff recommends award of all projects. I would like to highlight one project here. If Mary Lou could come up here, she’d like to talk about one project in Burleson County we have some special work on.

MS. RALLS: For the record, my name is Mary Lou Ralls; I’m director of the Bridge Division.

We have an innovative project among this month’s projects recommended for award. The project is in Burleson County which is in the Bryan District; the county seat for Burleson County is Caldwell. The project is a bridge widening on FM 1362 crossing Sue Creek. The existing structure was built in 1947 and consists of two concrete pan girder spans. The existing bridge is classified as functionally obsolete with a narrow bridge width and has an inadequate load capacity. The rehabilitation project uses 6A funds and will strengthen and widen the bridge.

The innovation on the project is carbon fiber reinforced polymer planks and fabric that will be epoxied to the beams to strengthen them to handle current loads. This technology is a spin-off from the military and aircraft industry. While this project is in its first use in Texas, this CFRP application has been in use in the United States for a number of years and longer in Europe.

FHWA sponsors the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program which provides funds for the first use of a technology in a state. FHWA has provided a total of $95,000 for this project to cover the additional cost for the innovation as well as funds for short-term performance evaluation.

The innovation on this project allows the existing bridge to remain in place under traffic and be widened instead of being demolished, thus avoiding the need for a detour that would otherwise be required during demolition of the existing structure and subsequent construction of the new structure. In this particular case, a detour of six miles for local traffic and 14 miles for through traffic would have been required.

Implementation of this technology in Texas will provide us with another tool to reduce traffic disruptions by strengthening existing structures and also repairing impact damaged structures rather than replacing them.

MR. NICHOLS: Is this the first time we’ve used carbon fiber reinforcement on bridges?

MS. RALLS: On this application, yes, it is.

MR. JOHNSON: This application being reinforcement of the bridge?

MS. RALLS: Right, the beams. It will be epoxied to the bottom of the beam stem

MR. NICHOLS: So you use the epoxy to attach it to the steel?

MS. RALLS: To the concrete. It’s one of the old pan girder bridges, it’s a cast-in-place concrete bridge.

MR. NICHOLS: I actually worked with carbon fiber reinforcements in the plastics.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Kind of like alternative fuel stuff, now we’re getting into your line.

MR. NICHOLS: I actually know what that is. Are you ready for a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does that stuff we’re fixing to use have a spec number?

MS. RALLS: I’m not sure how we -- it’s a new product.

MR. BOHUSLAV: I think it does have a spec number.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It has spec number approved by the Spec Committee?

MR. BOHUSLAV: It’s a one-time use.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it doesn’t have a catalogue spec number, it’s just got a number.

MR. BOHUSLAV: It does have a catalogue spec number.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It does have a catalogue spec number.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This is the first time we’ve used it and it’s got a catalogue spec number?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Any spec we use has been catalogued with a spec number.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, okay. So it’s not available on a just-whenever-we-want-it basis yet, we’re still testing it.

MS. RALLS: Right. Well, this is a demonstration project to see how it performs.

MR. BOHUSLAV: You didn’t want the number, you just wanted to know if it had a number.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I’m just kind of interested in things that are sole-source. So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: Thomas, I have one question. It appears -- and this might be a mis-impression on my part -- that this month there seemed to be a larger number of bids that we either considered some that were rejected, that our estimate varied from the low bid by a considerable percentage, and some of them had four bidders or so and the bids covied up and so I think that was just a mis-estimate, maybe not considering everything that should have been considered.

Is my impression correct and is this month an anomaly or are we seeing a trend where our estimates might be missing the fairway more than they used to?

MR. BOHUSLAV: I look at these each month and I don’t necessarily judge them based on your statements, but I didn’t see anything unusual this month. We do have the one project that’s 74 percent over that we’re recommending for award, but we had justification for the award. I couldn’t see anything this month that was much different than months past. There are times when we have a lot more variability, due to just maybe economic conditions more than anything else, but I didn’t see anything unusual this month.

MR. JOHNSON: And your sense as to the number of projects that this affects, the variation between the estimate and the low bid is considerable, this is a normal month, or do you feel like I do -- I don’t want to put words in your mouth -- that this might be a little higher than the norm?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Chairman, let me echo that. Tom, I had the same observation. It just kind of jumped out at me when the packet was presented for review, it sure looked like there were a large number that were over and that the numbers themselves were a little bit up.

MR. BOHUSLAV: I’d have to go back and do just a straight calculation of number of projects, how many were this much over, and so on and so forth, but I didn’t see so much that this month that we had an unusual percentage that were over. What you’re seeing in the memo that we send you is those that are 10 percent for one bidder and 20 percent for two bidders, but generally estimates overall, construction cost versus estimate, was pretty close like it’s been in the past.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Who makes the estimates?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Whichever project engineer is responsible for the design of that plan is the one that signs and seals that set of plans or they’re responsible for the estimate on that project. It could be a consultant has done it or it could be someone in the department has done it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, for example, did Luis do the estimates for the two down in Webb County?

MR. BOHUSLAV: I beg your pardon, sir?

MR. WILLIAMSON: The district engineer, was he responsible for the two down in Webb County?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Whoever signed and sealed that proposal was responsible for that estimate.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is it logical that the DE or the AE signed and sealed the proposal?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Probably the area engineer signed and sealed the proposal; most cases that would be the case, yes, unless a consultant did it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I’m kind of curious. I put this question to Randall the other day and he was responsive but I don’t think he could tell me right off the top of his head. Is there any law, rule or regulation, or culture that prevents us from setting a group up within the department to bid on these projects internally just to see what we would come up with in isolation from the estimate?

In other words, whoever seals a project and sends it to you for their business plan, is there anything that prevents us from having a group over here someplace --

MR. BOHUSLAV: The Construction group. I’d refer to our legal counsel on that, if they’re here.

MR. MONROE: Just so I make sure, do you have in mind an internal group that, say, would compete with the other contractors?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Or at least offer a competing bid that would give us a comparison with the private sector bids. In other words, a group that you could set up and say: Act like you’re a construction company, take this proposal and prepare a bid for us so that we can compare that to the range of bids we receive from the private sector.

MR. BOHUSLAV: There is a statute -- or regulations under federal regulations that would not allow us to do that. There are federal regulations that would not allow us to do it for projects with federal funds; state funds, I don’t know.

MR. JOHNSON: I don’t think we could possibly actually submit a bid. I think we could compare --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do it for comparison.

MR. JOHNSON: -- a derived bid to what the final low bid is versus what the area engineer’s estimate is, I think that we could do that, but we cannot be part of the bid process and submit a bid.

MR. MONROE: You’ve got two problems there. There might be at least an implication there that maybe our group had an inside track on things, particularly since the commission must approve all the bids.

As you recall from your days in the legislature, you start with the proposition that an agency cannot do anything the legislature does not specifically say it can do, so my answer would be since the legislature has not specifically given us that authority, I could not advise this commission to embark on a program like that. Could the legislature give us that permission? Yes, I suppose they could. But right now, without the specific authority, and given the whole history of judicial decisions, attorney generals’ opinions and things like that, I could not advise that we embark on a program like that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I’d like to make a suggestion kind of related to this issue, and something I know we can do, and that is the information that you have, you have it every month, I’ve seen it every month sine I’ve been here -- you have the dollars bid, you have the number of jobs, and then you also know how many came in more than 10 percent over or under, you’ve got it every way in the world -- it would be fairly easy to get somebody to put this on a spreadsheet and then go back several years and do some statistical charting and graphing and see if the number of overbids versus the estimates has climbed or gone down or has it stayed fairly stable.

In other words, you said you’ve looked at it but you weren’t really looking at in that light, but it would be pretty easy to go back and just run some charts and see if our percent overruns is increasing or decreasing, or for estimates. You could do it on a numbers basis or you could do it on a dollars basis. In other words, you could go back and do a one-bid, two-bid -- you could play with it several ways.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Just so you know, I’ve plotted those kind of things, looking at statewide bidders per projects, under run, overrun on projects versus size of letting to see how that impacts, and I didn’t see any trends, have not seen any trends, and basically the economy is a big driving force on what our bids look like. Overall state economy has a big impact on what we do out here, so our letting size didn’t seem to have a big impact.

The other problem you have, when you look at estimates, when the estimate was developed, a lot of it is based on history. They use prices that they received on jobs in the past and they made adjustments from there, and if we hit a spike in our cost over a period because the economy may be real good, that historical value is not so good anymore. So it’s related a lot to that and these individual estimates here are not a good barometer sometimes to say whether or not -- they may say something about how you’re estimating jobs but they don’t necessarily say anything about what’s happening with our construction business.

MR. NICHOLS: In other words, you’re saying like about a year and a half, two years ago when we had that big spike in concrete prices?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes, two years ago.

MR. NICHOLS: It was a huge spike, it shot way up, and it was almost a shortage, you couldn’t even get it, and the prices went up accordingly. So even though that may have gone down, since that was some of the time period, we may be using some of the estimates?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Right, then those would still impact projects. Correct.

MR. NICHOLS: If you’ve got that historical charting that shows over a period of time some of these, I know I’d like to take a look at that.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We’ll put something together for you based on a project basis, and then also overall, seeing how things occur overall.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I think so. Don’t create a big project out of it. I think you’ve got enough information just on the top of these that if you looked it from a period of time, you could do it.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Is your interest primarily in cost of construction or is it just about individual estimates?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think that if we -- this is my view -- if we’re going to ask the legislature in a year and a half for a considerable number of new employees, hopefully related to Proposition 15 passing and to an increased budget, I think that we can expect questions along the lines of how well do you design your projects, how well do you control costs, what’s your cost per maintenance mile, cost per construction mile, cost per rehab one, two and three mile. I think we can expect some accounting-type questions.

And what caught my eye and the reason I asked the question about setting up a competitive bid group, not necessarily a construction -- although that may come some day -- but a competitive bid group is because I’m aware that a lot of time when those plans are sealed, it may be six months, a year -- I don’t know, I guess it could be a year and a half later before they’re let.

I just think it would be a good internal check-off if you had a group of professionals, not a big group but two or three or four men and women who would take those same projects and go out and try to build what they think a competitive bid ought to be and submit it to the staff at the same time the sealed bids are submitted. And you pull them up and say: Well, the private sector that’s going to win the bid said $1.7 million, our internal bid group said $1.65-, that’s pretty good; as opposed to four covied up private sector bids at $2.9 million and our internal guys say it ought to be $1.6-, what’s the deal?

And that was the question I was trying to get to, Richard.

MR. MONROE: Nothing at all wrong with that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Tom is saying nothing is unusual, and I trust him and take him at his word, it just struck me as there being a lot of bids that were a little bit high.

MR. BOHUSLAV: I think Bob could confirm that the districts review bids as well as, I believe, the Design Division will review the bids, and I’m not sure if Maintenance -- Zane’s office will review the bids -- excuse me, not the bids but the estimates before the bid, they’ll review those before they’re sent out. So even though an engineer has signed and sealed that proposal, it does undergo another review process at the district level usually and at the Design Division level as well.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How many of the projects have gotten rewards and penalties for finishing soon and not finishing on time?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Fifteen projects out of 80.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are we getting better at that? Can we get to 80 out of 80 having rewards and penalties?

MR. BOHUSLAV: We’re analyzing that right now to see what percentage -- you know, it’s dollars really more than it is projects here because your bigger projects are going to be the ones you’re going to look at a lot more.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, let’s ask the question in dollar volume terms.

MR. BOHUSLAV: The dollar volume -- and it’s in that memo that I did send you -- we had 87 projects, 15 projects; the dollar volume was about $78 million out of $219 million.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And that’s both of them or one or the other, reward and penalty?

MR. BOHUSLAV: This one is categories and it’s the last sheet in the memo that I sent you on this issue. It’s miscellaneous: it may be calendar days, maybe just disincentive, it may include incentives and disincentives.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did we incentivize the causeway work?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes.

MR. BEHRENS: Yes, we did.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Why did we do that, why did we incentivize the causeway work?

MR. BOHUSLAV: To get that bridge open.

MR. WILLIAMSON: To get the project finished. Well, it sounds to me like that’s a good idea for everything. Get the road finished. Just my personal opinion, that’s all.

MR. JOHNSON: I have a work group that would agree with you as part of their report, but it’s project delivery from conception to ribbon-cutting, but time is very important in everybody’s frame of reference. My father often told me that’s all we have in this world is time.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That’s absolutely all God gives you when you hit the ground is time.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, do you have something?

MR. NICHOLS: Do we already have a motion?

MR. JOHNSON: I’ve had a motion from Mr. Williamson, yes.

MR. NICHOLS: I’m a little lost. I do know which item we’re on. I’ll second that, but I’d also like to say, Mary Lou, since you’re up there also, that my hat’s off to your division for the quick turnaround on the design related to the causeway collapse and replacement. I know you really jumped through some hoops, or your people did.

MS. RALLS: Thank you. We support the districts.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hat’s off.

MR. JOHNSON: There’s a motion and a second before the commission to approve this item. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 11 is our Routine Minute Orders. The Routine Minute Orders are as listed on the posted agenda. If you would like to have any of them individually explained or anything, we can do that, but otherwise, I would recommend that those be approved as printed and recommended for adoption.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

We have one speaker who would like to talk in open comment session.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Our favorite topic.

MR. JOHNSON: Daryl -- I’m probably going to butcher your name here -- Schliem, who wants to speak on the frontage road issue here, especially in Corsicana and Navarro County which I believe Linda Harper-Brown also referred to.

MR. SCHLIEM: Yes, she did.

Chairman, commissioners, executive director, I’m Daryl Schliem the executive director CEO of the Corsicana Navarro County Chamber of Commerce. I’m sorry we don’t have numbers here, but you know the size of Corsicana and Navarro County, percentage-wise. City Engineer Connie Standrich and I represent percentage-wise we have our numbers here today.

One of the projects that we would like to address the commission with is a frontage road that we have in Corsicana that recently we’ve worked through the stages, and bear with me as I recap. As of July 7 of 2000, we met with the local city officials -- Darwin Myers does an outstanding job representing TxDOT with us. On August 8 of 2000, we met with Jay Nelson’s district to discuss this project, and moving forward, in October of 2000 a schematic was submitted to the area engineer’s office.

The city was then advised in January of 2001 that the project had to be reviewed and funding needed to be provided before this project could move forward. The project was proceeded, local TxDOT officials were kept informed of our progress, and in August of this year, our city council in Corsicana issued a $2 million bond to fund this project.

The project is a continuation off Interstate 45 with US 287 and South 15th Street that would not add any off ramps or on ramps to the existing frontage road that is there.

The major issue we’ve been working with is a project that could affect Navarro County drastically. It is a $200 million project, in excess of; we right now are in the bonding stage of a million-and-a-half dollar bond from the developers that want to start construction, as of November 1 to start turning dirt. And the impact to Navarro County, and also I think to the State of Texas, is in excess of $400 million of commercial retail sales in this development.

Again, the developer has not allowed us yet to name the company coming in; I can tell you that it is a large hunting-fishing store, along with two hotels, three restaurants, and a commercial retail shopping center for the ladies in Corsicana and Navarro County. We are relying heavily on this project and have put a lot of work and effort into it.

Before I end, I do want to thank you for the projects that you have going on in Navarro County. I know there’s about $58 million currently under construction, along with the proposed Highway 31 realignment set to be let in 2003.

I respectfully request that you consider these actions in respect to our project. It kind of would be what we call an emergency situation, similar to what Arlington came forward with. The developers are waiting on the bond issue and to start construction on this project until we know that a frontage road could be continued through there.

When this issue comes before you -- I know that it has not been on the agenda today and no action can be taken -- we hope that you will consider it favorably for the citizens of Corsicana and Navarro County. And again, thank you for your time after a long day and we appreciate any effort that you’ve given us in Navarro County. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Daryl, thank you for coming this distance and making those comments.

Any observations or questions? Any other business to come before the commission? If there is no further business, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: I’ll second that.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Please note for the record at 2:06 p.m. the meeting stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 2:06 p. m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Department of Transportation

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: September 27, 2001

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 201 inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Sunny Peer before the Texas Department of Transportation.

 __________10/01/01
(Transcriber) (Date)

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