Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, November 15, 2001

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

ROBERT L. NICHOLS, Presiding Member
RIC WILLIAMSON

STAFF:

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

PROCEEDINGS

MR. NICHOLS: We'll declare this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission open, in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law. Today's date is November 15. Time is 9:12. Let the record show that a public notice of this and all items on the agenda was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 2:47, November 2.

Do you have comments you'd like to make?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I apologize for the little bit of a late start. We had a -- I think a little bit of a transportation problem getting Commissioner Williamson here. He did not get here by state transportation, state-supplied. He arrived by state-approved transportation.

Before we get started, I'd also like to say -- remind everybody that today is Texas Recycle Day, November 15, to try to create awareness around the state of every opportunity to recycle goods. It's good for the environment; it's good for the economy. The Texas Department of Transportation makes a great effort to recycle goods itself, and is one of the higher ranking agencies in the state with that regard.

Before we get started, I'd also remind anyone who would like to address the commission to be sure to fill out a card that's on the counter out there. If it's an item that's on the agenda, it will be a yellow card. If it's an item that's not on the agenda, it will be a blue card. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak. We'll have to limit those comments to three minutes, with the exception of state elected officials. They can speak as long as they would like.

And we begin this morning with Item Number 1, a public hearing regarding our highway project selection process. Call on Jim Randall.

MR. RANDALL: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Jim Randall, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division for the Texas Department of Transportation.

The notice for this public hearing was filed with the Secretary of State on October 3, 2001, and published in the Texas Register on October 12, 2001. And I am pleased to make this presentation on behalf of the commission.

This public hearing is conducted annually in accordance with the Texas Transportation Code, Sections 201.602 and 222.034. Section 201.602 prescribes that the Texas Transportation Commission is to hold annual hearings concerning its project selection process and the relative importance of the various criteria on which the commission bases its project selection decisions. The commission will receive data, comments, views, and/or testimony from any person, organization, or group, and their representatives.

Section 222.034 states that the federal aid for transportation purposes administered by the commission shall be distributed to the various parts of the state for a funding cycle through the selection of highway projects in the state in a manner that is consistent with federal formulas that determine the amount of federal aid for transportation purposes received by the state. The distribution under this section of the Texas Transportation Code does not include deductions made for the state infrastructure banks or other federal funds reallocated by the federal government. The commission may vary from the distribution procedure provided it issues a ruling or minute order identifying the variance and providing particular justification for the variance.

The commission will consider comments made at this hearing and written comments following this hearing until January 29, 2002. You can send written comments to the address or email shown. A minute order describing the commission's decisions relating to the project selection process and the distribution of federal aid will be made at a subsequent public commission meeting. I will show these addresses again at the end of the presentation.

You can refer to a public hearing document that was made available to those who requested it and follow along during my presentation. If any of the folks in the audience did not get a copy, they're available in the foyer.

TxDOT is multimodal and relies on the following modes of transportation to address the needs of the public, including: transit programs, aviation programs, highway programs, rail and water transportation. I'd like to point out here the programs will be developed for rail and water transportation in the future, as TxDOT becomes more involved with these modes. But now I'd like to further discuss transit, aviation, and highway programs, and I'll start with transit.

TxDOT does not now own or operate transit services in Texas. It does, however, have a financial interest in the most public systems through the allocation of federal and state funds. Funds are allocated to urbanized areas: those areas of 50,000 or greater population not served by a transit authority; non-urbanized and rural areas; and for elderly and disabled transportation.

For urbanized areas, these agencies apply directly to Federal Transit Administration for federal funds. State funds support capital, administrative, and operating expenses. Ninety percent of the state funds are distributed as directed by statute or the Texas -- or by the Transportation Code, while 10 percent are distributed at the commission's discretion.

For non-urbanized and rural areas, funds support capital, administrative, and operating expenses with federal and state funds flowing through TxDOT. Ninety percent of the federal and state funds are distributed by statute or the Transportation Code, while 10 percent are distributed at the commission's discretion.

Elderly and disabled transportation funds support capital purchases, purchases of service and preventative maintenance. Federal funds flow through TxDOT and are allocated to the districts and metropolitan planning organizations as directed by Title 43, Texas Administrative Code. Projects are selected by TxDOT in consultation or cooperation with the metropolitan planning organizations and local officials, and no state funds are provided.

TxDOT is not involved in the federal grant process for metropolitan transit authorities, or MTAs, in Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. The authorities are not eligible to receive state funds and must rely on local sales tax to support their activities.

TxDOT addresses the needs of general aviation through the Aviation Facilities Development Program. This program provides assistance to public entities for the purpose of establishing, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging, or repairing airports, airstrips, or navigation facilities.

The planning process, which is documented in the Texas Airport Systems Plan, or TASP, identifies those airports and projects which will best support the attainment of the airport system plan objectives. The primary objective of TASP is to develop a statewide system of airports that meets the goals of providing adequate access to the population and economic centers of Texas.

Adequate access expressed in terms of driving time between activity centers and appropriate airport facilities: Scheduled air carrier service should be within a 60-minute drive for virtually all Texas residents. Business jet aircraft access should be within a 30-minute drive of significant population centers or mineral resource centers. Light piston-engine aircraft access should be within a 30-minute drive of agricultural centers.

MR. NICHOLS: I guess so.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm just curious, Jim. What is a mineral resource center?

MR. RANDALL: I would assume that that would be a -- one of our -- not knowing the airport -- the aviation program, I would assume that would be one of our maybe refineries or something like that?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. So a processing plant, as opposed to  --

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  -- the wells or the mines themselves.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. That makes sense.

MR. RANDALL: I don't know -- if Dave Fulton was here, he might be able to enlighten us on that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, that would make sense, if that's what a mineral resource center is. If it's where the minerals are actually mined, it would be kind of hard for us to achieve that.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

Criteria for project selection is based on the identified need related to the TASP objectives, the amount of sponsored commitment, the system priorities that are identified in the TASP, and the availability of state and federal funds.

Highway programs make up the majority of transportation programs TxDOT develops. These are the programs most familiar to the citizens of Texas. The projects in these programs are financed through federal aid and state funds. Both these revenue sources are sponsored, in large, by the motor fuel tax. The federal portion of the taxes collected in Texas go back to the state with restrictions on its spending.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21, is the current federal transportation bill that authorizes the development and construction of federal aid projects. TEA-21 was passed by Congress and signed into law by the president on June 9, 1998. This bill spells out the current restrictions on federal aid funds.

Several major programs are allocated to Texas based on the quantifiable data which compares Texas to other states and commonwealths within the United States. Those major federal aid highway funding categories allocated to individual states include: the Interstate Maintenance Program, the National Highway System Program, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement Program, and the Highway Bridge Program.

In the past, TxDOT created separate funding categories for each of these programs in order to assure that the construction spending was within the federal limitations. Setting up categories in this way has the benefit of assuring projects qualify for federal funds from the project's inception forward, but this process also has the following disadvantages: The same system was used to grade state-funded programs; therefore, 34 categories were created in all, with some of the federal and state categories overlapping in their strategies to improve the transportation system. This also made the programs and the project selection process confusing.

Recently, TxDOT staff requested the Texas Transportation Institute to perform a survey of TxDOT district planning and metropolitan planning organization personnel, as well as county judges. The survey focused on the perceived limitations in TxDOT's project selection and funds distribution process and suggested improvements.

The report results in specific recommendations that TxDOT will use to improve highway construction, project programming, and the general understanding and acceptance of TxDOT's procedures.

In addition, Governor Rick Perry has requested the Texas Transportation Commission to simplify the project planning process and deliver highway improvements in continuous and complete corridors, thereby increasing efficiency and decreasing inconvenience to the motorists.

TxDOT is now proposing to change the project selection process based on these recommendations. All the pertinent changes are included in the public hearing document.

The primary focus for these changes include: Simplifying the process by reducing the number of highway funding categories from 34 to 12, using less confusing terminology regarding project authority levels, and providing better education and training on the new categories and their guidelines.

The proposed changes will be incorporated into the 2003 Unified Transportation Program. In order to simplify the process, TxDOT now proposes to consolidate eight existing maintenance and rehabilitation categories into one, Category 1 - Preventative Maintenance and Rehabilitation.

In addition, we propose to collapse 12 statewide mobility categories into the following three: Category 2, Metropolitan Area Transportation Management Areas, or TMA, Corridor Projects; Category 3, Urban Area Non-TMA Corridor Projects; and Category 4, Statewide Connectivity Corridor Projects.

Category 5, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, or CMAQ, will remain. This is true for other categories, including Category 7, Surface Transportation Program, or STP, Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation; Category 8, STP Safety; Category 9, STP Transportation Enhancements; and Category 12, Strategic Priority.

TxDOT proposes to combine three bridge replacement and rehabilitation categories into one, Category 6, Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation.

Category 10, Miscellaneous, will combine our existing Miscellaneous category with the State Park Roads Program.

And finally, TxDOT proposes to combine four mobility categories into Category 11, District Discretionary. These three major mobility categories will focus on providing continuous and complete corridor improvements throughout the state, although a corridor project selection process has not been formulated at this time. The exact process or formula will be determined by collaborative effort between TxDOT staff and our transportation partners, including the metropolitan planning organizations.

We invite the public to comment on the selection criteria for these three categories through written correspondence regarding this hearing.

The remaining portion of this presentation is intended to fulfill the requirements of Section 201.602 and 222.034 of the Texas Transportation Code and describe how the previously mentioned federal aid funds will be incorporated into the new categories.

The Interstate Maintenance Program funds will be incorporated into the new Category 1, Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program. The Interstate Maintenance Program funds are allocated to the state based on the following weighted percentages: 33-1/3 percent based on the lane miles of interstate system within the state, 33-1/3 percent based on the vehicle miles traveled on interstate system within the state, and 33-1/3 percent based on the state's contributions to the Highway Trust Fund due to commercial vehicles.

TxDOT proposes to allocate its Interstate Maintenance Program funds to the TxDOT districts based on the following criteria: 45 percent based on the equivalent single-axle loads per interstate highway section -- this criteria is an indicator of the amount of commercial truck traffic operating on the interstate highways within a district; 10 percent based on the interstate highway lane miles within a district; and 45 percent based on the interstate lane miles within a district with substandard stress scores.

The reasons for the variance from the federal funds -- federal formula are: individual TxDOT district or regional contributions to the Highway Trust Fund cannot be quantified; the federal formula does not account for pavement distress; the federal formula does not account for the volume of commercial truck traffic; and the federal formula does not account for the region's need to build new interstate or add capacity to the existing system.

National Highway System Program, or NHS funds, are allocated to Texas based on the following: 25 percent based on lane miles of principal arterial routes within the state; 35 percent based on the vehicle miles traveled on these principal arterials; 30 percent based on the amount of diesel fuel used with the state; and 10 percent on the quotient obtained by dividing the total lane miles on the principal arterial highways by the population.

TxDOT proposes to use its NHS program funds to fund the following three specific categories: Category 2, Metropolitan Area (TMA) Corridor Projects; Category 3, Urban Area Non-TMA Corridor Projects; and Category 4, Statewide Connectivity Corridor Projects.

The reason for the variance from the federal NHS program formula are: individual TxDOT district or regional usage of commercial diesel fuel cannot be quantified; the federal formula does not account for pavement distress; the federal formula does not address TxDOT strategy of system development and preservation; the federal formula does not address specific TxDOT district or regional needs, such as congestion relief, improved operations, and pavement rehabilitation needs.

The Surface Transportation Program, or STP, funds are allocated to Texas based on the following criteria: 25 percent based on the total miles of highways within the state that qualify for federal aid funds; 40 percent based on the vehicle miles traveled on highways within the state that qualify for federal aid funds; 35 percent based on tax payments from within the state into the Highway Trust Fund.

TxDOT proposes to use its STP funding in the following four categories: Category 7, STP Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation; Category 8, STP Safety; Category 9, STP Transportation Enhancements; Category 11, District Discretionary. Categories 7, 8, and 9 are required sub-allocations of the STP program funds.

The reason for the variance from the federal formula are: TEA-21 requires TxDOT to suballocate the funds in a manner that differs from the federal distribution formula.

And finally, the Highway Bridge Program. The Highway Bridge Program funds are allocated to Texas based on the relative share of the total cost of deficient bridges as compared to the totals of other states.

TxDOT proposes to use the Highway Bridge Program funds on projects in Category 6, Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The ranking and selection criteria for this category can be found on page 10 of the public hearing document.

The reasons for the variance are: the federal allocation formula does not address the selection of the most functionally obsolete and structurally deficient bridges, and the federal formula does not assure required minimum funding levels for off-system bridges are achieved.

An important factor in the project selection process is the amount of funds available to build projects. In order for TxDOT's project development process to maintain its efficiency, projects must be selected several years in advance of their actual funding. TxDOT uses funding forecasts to predict future revenues from federal and state sources, and the programs or selects projects corresponding to the anticipated funds. When the dollars become available, the program projects are then funded and constructed. In other words, programming is a commitment to construct the project when the forecasted funds become available.

TxDOT's proposed programming levels for fiscal year 2006 can be found on page 13 of the public hearing document. These are programming levels for highway programs only. The values are subject to change as the funding forecasts are further refined.

Once again, I would like to call your attention to the public hearing document that was made available in the foyer. This document contains the information regarding each proposed category including the TxDOT category name and number, the entity responsible for project selection, whether the program is treated as a bank-balance program or is authorized as individual projects, the allocation and ranking formula that is involved, and a brief summary of the type of work the program addresses.

As promised, here are the addresses to send written comments. Again, the deadline is January 29, 2002. On behalf of the commission, I'd like to thank you for listening to this important information, and this concludes my presentation.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Jim.

Do you have any comments or questions before we get into the public comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Only that I'm real proud at what they've done so far, and I'm real pleased with it.

MR. NICHOLS: Couple of questions I had before we get into the public comments. The -- okay. After today's hearing, the public will have how many days to send in written comments?

MR. RANDALL: They'll have 75 days. They'll have until January 29, 2002.

MR. NICHOLS: And the formal approval of this after all that is --

MR. RANDALL: Will be in February 2002 at that commission meeting.

MR. NICHOLS: I'd also like to compliment your group and administration for the rework of this very complicated and important process.

For the public, an awful lot of what was said today is very significant in the fact that we're trying to take a process that has evolved very logically but had become very complicated for the public to understand, even professionals out in the field. We're taking 32 of our funding categories and bringing them down to 12.

We're trying to put more authority, as well as responsibility, at the district level, closer to the projects, so that we can tackle entire projects, whether it be a metropolitan, urban, or rural connectivity project.

So -- and rather than telling that district which segment you will do first, we're going to commit to the entire project and then let that district determine which is the best way to put it together and which funds, and so on, in their area.

It's very significant. I think it's going to be a great -- but -- so, with that --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chair, do I understand that by January 2003 or thereabouts when we journey across the street to explain our program that our friends in the House and Senate will hear us using common words like "plan," "develop," "construct"?

MR. NICHOLS: (Laughs.)

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. That -- once y'all approve what we've presented here at the public hearing, we'll draft the 2003 UTP, and in that draft that goes out to public comment, that's when the folks will see our new terminology to try to make it more understandable to everybody.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I say that not -- I mean, laughingly, but seriously, Senator Duncan, that one of the complaints that Mr. Nichols and Mr. Johnson and I heard during this last session is, you know, You guys bring us papers, and it's written in a language we can't possibly understand. And so I think what we're going to bring you in January of '03 is something that we can all understand. Your project's either in the development stage or the planning stage or the construction stage, period.

MR. NICHOLS: I think also -- you may not have touched on it, but I think we're going to be working to put all of this in a very simplified booklet -- hopefully, it will available sometime in the spring or early summer -- that will explain all this in terms and pictures and kind of do a statewide, regionalized approach, so that somebody can look into a region and see what we're doing not only currently but with some of the plans in the future.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm particularly excited, Chairman, that this approach apparently offers a possibility of less disruption to the traveling public on a corridor basis. I think that's wonderful.

MR. NICHOLS: So we'll get into our public -- yes, sir. Okay. First card I've got is Senator Robert Duncan.

Senator, we certainly do appreciate the work you've done in support of transportation over the years.

SEN. DUNCAN: Well, thank you. We appreciate the work y'all have done to allocate transportation needs across the state. We know it's a tough job.

But, you know, I'm excited about today -- as I was perusing my Texas Register and I saw a notice of this hearing -- you know, they need pictures in that book.

(General laughter.)

SEN. DUNCAN: No. I really became excited at this concept, because I do believe that, Commissioner Williamson, you're exactly right: The complexity of highway funding, I think, even confuses legislators, believe it or not.

And I do believe that the goal here is appropriate. I'm excited about it. I have been briefed on it, and I commend the commission for taking this bold step, and the staff for the hard work that they've done here.

The new district that I have -- and I'm particularly interested. I just wanted everybody to note that the proposed new district that I have has 18 percent of the state's land mass in it. So that -- I think 18 percent of the state's highway funds then probably ought to be going there. I'm not sure if that's how this new plan works, but --

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: So using the -- some of the urban complaints recently, we should allocate based on road miles.

SEN. DUNCAN: Yes, well, or land mass. Land area would be a -- I think, with all seriousness, I do think that this plan would work well, will work well. There were a few questions that I had that I just raised, rhetorically, or at least at this time, that perhaps should be addressed.

First of all, I want to say that it looks like this plan, for projects like the East-West Freeway that you have been supporting and working on in Lubbock, I think that for that type of a project this plan works very well. I think it would give us the ability to tell our constituents in the Lubbock and in the West Texas region that that highway has -- it will be completed at some date in time and not -- we're not having to go piecemeal to construct that, which means efficiency not only in your highway-dollar allocation decisions that you make, but it also means efficiency in our communities, because of the decreased congestion.

And when you speed those things up, it just -- highway construction costs a lot of dollars that we don't see, economic development dollars or just retail dollars. So we see speeding these projects up and being able to put them on some predictability with regard to completion is a good idea.

The concerns I do have is -- and I look -- referring back to the East-West Freeway issue -- Lubbock would be a region that would basically be kind of like a UIL realignment issue. When you have these -- when you transition from urban to metropolitan, Lubbock is right on that cusp. And the question I would have is is what if you have your funding -- if you gain your funding while you're in an urban category but then you transition to a metropolitan category, do those funds transfer, do you maintain your status quo, or do you lose when you get elevated up?

MR. NICHOLS: We've got -- Jim Randall could probably answer that, but as I understand it, once a commitment is made on a project, then that project -- it's project-specific.

SEN. DUNCAN: So the project's grandfathered in --

MR. NICHOLS: Yes.

SEN. DUNCAN:  -- regardless of the transition.

MR. NICHOLS: If there is a commitment on a project, it is grandfathered in.

He's shaking his head yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. Senator, traditionally on almost all the changes that we've made, and certainly all of the remarkable changes we've made in the last six months, we're attempting to hold to the standard that if we gave our word, we keep it.

SEN. DUNCAN: Well, I assumed that was the case, and I just -- but I wanted to at least raise that --

MR. NICHOLS: Point on the record?

SEN. DUNCAN: Well -- exactly.

(General laughter.)

SEN. DUNCAN: And you've been there; you know. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

The other thing is is that how is the money going to be allocated between the three categories. Population seems to be a driver. You know, with more corridors than money, it will tempting also to do things like perhaps fund a percentage of a corridor as opposed to -- like 70 percent or 80 percent as opposed to 100 percent. And I would encourage you to do the best you can to fund 100 percent of these corridors so that we don't get back into the same mode of, Well, how -- when are we going to get the rest of it done.

The whole advantage of this, it seems like to me, is to put a beginning and an end to a project, which I think all of us would like to see, and would make these -- make our constituents, I think, feel more confident in what we're doing. So I encourage that, as well.

But I really want to put -- I want to go on record as supporting this concept wholeheartedly. We really believe in what you're doing here, and I think it will be best not only for rural Texas but all Texas. So thank you for your work. And if you have any questions of me, I'll be happy to address them.

MR. NICHOLS: On your question or concern about how is the funding going to change, over the next -- first year of this change, going from 34 categories to 12, they are going to take the same allocation formulas and just squeeze them into those so that each area is basically getting pretty much the same as it was.

SEN. DUNCAN: Same as it is.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. And then as we go into the second year using this, we're going to develop -- and he covered it -- a few of those categories, we're going to try to develop a means in which everybody can participate on how we arrive at some of those. So it's going to be a one-year study on that, hoping [phonetic] -- input and so on.

SEN. DUNCAN: So that will be something --

MR. WILLIAMSON: We recognize, Senator, that the worst thing that can happen to us, in effect, the largest central state agency distributing state tax dollars, is to pit Houston against Lubbock and Dallas against Rio Grande City. We know that's not good for us; it's not good for the state.

In fact, we work very hard every day to try to say to people who complain, This is one state, one people, sometimes my district gets more, sometimes it gets less, but we need to focus on the state's needs and not divide ourselves. So we hear clearly what you're saying. We're not going to let that happen.

SEN. DUNCAN: All right.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

SEN. DUNCAN: Thank you. I appreciate it.

MR. NICHOLS: Next is Representative John Shields.

MR. RAINES: I'm not Rep. John Shields, as you can tell. I'm one of his staffers. My name is Stephen Raines. And actually, and I'm going to submit comments on his behalf, if that's all right with you.

MR. NICHOLS: That's fine.

MR. RAINES: I'm just going to read them into the record, and then we'll submit the written ones later, if that's all right.

MR. NICHOLS: That's fine.

MR. RAINES: Thanks.

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Transportation Institute's final report on TxDOT's project selection funds distribution process.

First of all, I want to thank you for all your help in providing the state discretionary funding for San Antonio and Bexar County area. Your most recent distribution of $144 million in strategic priority funding was helpful in a number of projects, and your assistance with Loop 410 and the Kelly Parkway is also appreciated.

In 2000, the San Antonio District had almost 1.5 million vehicles driving 35 million miles per day, representing 12 percent of the state's total vehicle miles traveled daily. However, we also have 10,366 on-system lane miles or 18 percent of the state's total lane mileage. That mileage is mostly attributable to the transportable planning and successful construction efforts of former TxDOT district engineers.

That extra mileage may also help explain why San Antonio was ranked 22nd best in mobility of the 70 major cities across the United States. Even so, according to some of the San Antonio Metropolitan Planning Organization information we've received, San Antonions suffer from 26 million hours of delay annually and lose 38 million gallons of fuel are wasted idling in congestion. And our annual congestion costs are estimated at about $395 million, or $435 per driver.

To make matters worse, our metropolitan transportation plan projects that by 2025, San Antonio's population will increase 34 percent, from 1.5 to 2 million. Vehicle miles traveled daily will increase by 60 percent, from 35 million to 56 million miles per day. Traffic congestion levels will increase by 60 percent in spite of $9.6 billion in transportation investment, which would include 5.6 billion for roadways and $4 billion for transit.

San Antonio fully supports the recommendations that you have today and the idea to overhaul the project selection funds distribution process. The categories of the plan, develop, and construct that you were talking about earlier will not significantly be different from the long-range,Priority 2 and Priority 1 plan and be more plainspoken in their functions for citizens and leaders, as Commissioner Williamson said earlier.

I want to applaud the idea of collapsing the 34 separate funding categories into 12 and giving the local TxDOT districts extra flexibility to pursue mobility projects in accordance with the desires of the local citizens. I especially like the idea of abandoning a cost-effectiveness index that has prevented San Antonio from bringing corridors and projects critical to maintaining area levels of mobility forward from our long-range plan category to Priority 2.

Competition at the state level through the CEI process has seriously impeded regional efforts to try and keep pace with growing congestion. The transportation plan suggested by TTI to involve MPOs and the development of a new corridor selection process for the 2004 Unified Transportation Plan also will improve the process.

Please recognize that San Antonio's Priority 2 corridors and projects have been handicapped and that they were originally selected through the cost-effectiveness index process. This resulted in funding only small pieces of various critical corridors throughout the San Antonio area.

At expected of levels of funding, it will take San Antonio to at least 2013 to complete current Priority 2 projects. Accordingly, some catch-up mechanism should be considered for assisting these projects and the entire corridor to sooner completion.

There also needs to be a fair share on return of investment, which you talked about earlier, Commissioner. Metropolitan areas should be guaranteed a minimum return --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Not a term I like to hear.

MR. RAINES: Okay. I'll keep that in mind.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I made it pretty plain that fair share can't be defined.

MR. RAINES: Absolutely. That's why we just want to make sure we understand we'd like a fair share and it's your idea to determine that.

(General laughter.)

MR. RAINES: We just like to make recommendations.

According to the San Antonio Metropolitan Planning Organization estimates, the metropolitan area slice of the TxDOT Priority 1 funding has dwindled from '98 to 2001 from 92 percent to 81 percent.

MR. WILLIAMSON: In fact, let me just say right now, because John's a friend of mine, and I know you'll go back and report to him, and I hope he's a state senator someday, as apparently he wishes to be.

Here's the dilemma. Your testimony, first of all, you offer facts and figures, and I guess you're going to provide us a source for that at some point so we'll know -- unlike recent articles in the Houston paper, we'll know what your source is.

MR. RAINES: The source for the information in these comments we got from the metropolitan planning organization.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Ah.

MR. RAINES: And their formulas for determining that, I think, they can probably provide to you, and someone will see to that --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh. So you're reading into the record as factual actually what someone else has provided to you, but you don't know what the source of that is --

MR. RAINES: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  -- other than -- you know, the newspapers do that a lot now. The problem with defining fair share is, you've just told us that you liked changing it to a corridor approach because the bits and pieces, the piecemeal process, drags things out. And yet the reason we find ourselves in the piecemeal bind is because every year, apparently, all of the constituent groups of the state want their fair share.

MR. RAINES: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So we have this dilemma. You've got Houston, San Antonio -- although not Dallas anymore, interestingly enough -- coming to the commission and raising Cain about fair share.

MR. RAINES: Sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So we do things piecemeal so it is kind of fair share, and then people start raising Cain about piecemeal and never get anything finished.

MR. RAINES: You're exactly right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So you might pass along to John, we're trying to get to a point where it's fair share for the state and not for one piece of the state.

MR. RAINES: And I think that's what the comments he was wanting to make are. I think you've made a very good improvement in that process. We just want to make sure that our fair share is definitely our biggest interest here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think I'm going to win.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Fair share. Hm.

MR. RAINES: The only other comments I had was with the passage of Proposition 15, hope there'll be more funding available in years ahead. And thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. If you want any future comments or information on these, please contact him at the office or myself. I can help you.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you very much.

MR. RAINES: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I appreciate it.

Next card up is Representative Gary Walker. I call him Chairman Walker.

Now, as I understand it, you did not want to speak, but you wanted to be shown as -- on record as in favor of this. Thank you very much. And, sir, we really do appreciate the help you've given us, particularly last session. I know a couple times they got in a pretty good pinch, you came in and raised up the flag, you helped, and I really appreciate that.

Individuals, as a reminder, as I go through these names and you come to the podium, state your name officially for the record to the mike. And also, there's a three-minute timer that's green. When there's one minute left, it turns yellow, and when the three minutes is up it turns red. Try to be fair to everybody. If we ask questions, then we extend the time on that.

Kevin Evans, from Lubbock.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hey, Kevin.

MR. EVANS: How are you today? Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Kevin Evans, president of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor Coalition, representing them here today on this matter. Bring you greetings and regrets from our chairman, Randy Neugebauer. He is not able to be here. He's trying to make a living, and I keep chastising him as my volunteer chairman for trying to make a living, but he keeps telling me he doesn't care and that that's what they hired me for. So I'm happy about that.

I'd simply like to say, Ditto. As usual, Senator Duncan makes my job extremely easy. We certainly would echo everything that he has said.

Want to congratulate the commission, the staff, for doing an excellent job in taking what the senator described as a very bold step, and it is, in the right direction. Certainly we're excited about the continuous and complete corridors aspect, being a trade corridor that goes from Laredo to Denver.

Just finished up another summit conference in Lubbock. It very successful, very well attended. Know that many of you couldn't be here, but would like to tell you that your staff that participated in that did an absolutely wonderful job, very informative. And hopefully you'll make the next one.

Simply say thank you for making this effort. We will be submitting written comments, and we're very excited about the change in this process.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Larry Hertel, Lubbock.

MR. HERTEL: Yes. I'm Larry Hertel, city engineer with the City of Lubbock.

In a joint meeting of the Transportation Policy and Advisory Committees of the Lubbock MPO, there was a unanimous vote to support the proposed changes to TxDOT's project selection process. These changes to simplify the process and deliver highway improvements in a continuous and complete corridors are concepts that we certainly favor and support, and I'm just here to indicate the support of the Lubbock MPO and the City of Lubbock.

Thank you very much.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Bob Anderson, county commissioner, Hood County.

MR. WILLIAMSON: My part of the world.

MR. ANDERSON: Thank you for allowing me to speak to you this morning.

I'm from Hood County. County seat is Granbury, Texas, that lies just southwest of the Fort Worth-Dallas area. We have experienced a 40 percent growth in our population over this last decade, and it doesn't appear that it's slowing.

And as I sat and listened to the larger metropolitan areas and their growth and their challenges that they have, I just want to hold up the smaller areas that lie contingent with the Tarrant counties and the Dallas counties, that we are under great stress under a situation that is causing us a lot of problems.

We're experiencing 38,000 cars a day, plus -- at a business bypass split in Hood County. The bypass -- it was built in the mid-'70s -- is greatly congested.

Hood County recently developed a master transportation plan, and I appreciate the changes that have been made in the process. I think it'll be beneficial to us to complete -- help us complete this master transportation plan with the assistance of the state.

So I am in favor of this and hope to be coming before you very soon for proposals and assistance to develop this master transportation plan for our community. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Commissioner.

Tommy Eden, Austin.

MR. EDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commission members. My name is Tommy Eden. I am concerned about the need -- if you're dealing with federal programs, the need for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure whenever you do new construction. And I want to provide you with copies of the Federal Highway Administration's Design Guidance.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you ride your bicycle today?

MR. EDEN: Yes, sir.

I would like to point out to you on page 4, at the bottom of page 4, the policy statement, which generally states that bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be included in any new construction and reconstruction projects except where either bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law or where the cost of establishing these facilities would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use or where sparsity of population or other factors indicate an absence of need.

TxDOT's policy does not conform with this policy. According to TxDOT, the department provides for sidewalk construction on designated state highway system when replacing an existing sidewalk where highway construction severs an existing sidewalk system making connections within a highway right of way to restore sidewalk system continuity or where pedestrian traffic is causing or is expected to cause a safety conflict.

I would ask that any policies that you make conform with the Federal Highway Administration's requirements. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, sir. And I'm not going to try to respond to your concern at this moment, because I'm not that aware of this particular issue, but I am going to request to our executive director, Mike Behrens, that he have someone in the department check into this and respond officially back to you. So we have your address? This is your -- okay. This is your proper mailing address. And we will do that.

MR. EDEN: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

I'm showing -- now, I had a card for Sam Dawson, but as I understand it, you did not want to speak, but is that correct? Okay.

Now, I have no other cards from the public or this audience with regards to the public hearing. Is there anyone in here who wanted to speak who did not fill out a card? Please raise your hand.

(No response.)

MR. NICHOLS: If not, do you have any additional comments or closing?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Then I declare the public hearing closed. And we're going to take a short break to allow our next delegation to come in. So we're going to take about a three-minute break, three-minute recess.

(Off the record.)

MR. NICHOLS: We are reconvened. We very much appreciate the long distance you all have traveled to be here today. And I'm somewhat familiar with Big Spring. I used to buy a lot of polystyrene from up there.

MR. CROOKER: Oh, that's great. We were blessed with a five-inch rain yesterday, I understand. It's our first rain in so long I can't remember when it happened. It doubled our rainfall, I think.

MR. NICHOLS: You're Bill Crooker?

MR. CROOKER: Crooker. Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Go ahead and start, sir.

BIG SPRING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

(Bill Crooker, Senator Robert Duncan, Kevin Evans, Mayor Russ McEwen)

MR. CROOKER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Bill Crooker, county commissioner of Howard County. Our purpose this morning is to present to you the need for a truck reliever route for US 87, the main north-south highway through Big Spring.

Big Spring is located at the crossroads of US 87 North-South and Interstate 20 East-West. 2000 census report shows 33,627 people in the county with 25,233 of these living in the city. This is a small increase over 1990.

Our first speaker this morning is our state senator, Robert Duncan.

SEN. DUNCAN: Thank you. It's a pleasure, once again, to be -- this is a dual appearance day for me, but I always enjoy being here again.

Big Spring is kind of right in the heart of the current Senate District 28, and something happened along the way in redistricting and it got -- I don't know what happened, but it got removed. We're trying to get it back. But I think this crossroads issue is very important for us to look at, especially when we're talking about east-west corridors and north-south corridors.

One of the primary -- and I think -- I always try to pick -- on transportation projects, I think y'all have noticed, I've tried to pick a few. I don't try to go for the whole bunch of them and be strong advocate for. This is one that I am a strong advocate for, because if you've been to Big Spring, if you're going north-south and you see -- if you go through the community there, you'll see that a truck has to go through -- if it's going north-south, going from Lubbock to San Angelo under the current configuration, or Amarillo, down that highway, which is a major corridor, and will be more of a major corridor with Port-to-Plains, it'll have to go through 52 intersections, eight signal lights, and two school crossings in order to get through the city of Big Spring.

That obviously is a safety issue that we have. It's also an environmental issue. It's also, as well, an efficiency issue for trucks that will be going that way. We know that this is one of the key, and probably one of the first projects, that ought to occur on the Port-to-Plains bypass, when we look at these bypasses.

The committee -- or the community is 100 percent committed to this. We don't even have to call it a reliever route. We can call it a bypass. The community has committed significant local funds to obtain right of way, and this is a high -- this is the highest priority in transportation in Howard County and Big Spring. And they have been strong supporters and participants in the Port-to-Plains concept that you recently approved with regard to the designation of that corridor.

So I'm here to ask that you -- specifically, I believe, the prayer should read -- select that this corridor or that this route be selected for phase 1 of the trunk system when the corridor -- when the commission prioritizes your Priority 2 corridors. So we would appreciate your consideration.

If there is any questions I can answer for you, I'll be happy to do so at this time.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

SEN. DUNCAN: Thank you very much.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Senator.

MR. CROOKER: Thank you, Senator.

State Representative David Counts could not be with us today. He has written a letter to each commissioner in support of the project, and I have given these letters to Helen.

Our speakers this morning are myself, Bill Crooker, county commissioner of Howard County; Kevin Evans, president of Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor; and Russ McEwen, our mayor.

The project began with a Lubbock to Interstate 10 Amarillo North Route Study Phase 2, by HDR Engineering, published in September of 1997. This study presented ten improvements possible for the Big Spring area. One of the ten, a truck reliever route to the west of Big Spring, received 123 votes from 300 people attending this public meeting in May of 1997.

A task group was formed in December 1999 to study and determine the most suitable route. The members were composed of city and county officials, chamber of commerce members, citizens, and representatives of TxDOT's Abilene District. After two public meetings in April 2001, a feasibility report outlining the proposed project was written and distributed to interested parties in May of 2001.

The proposed project includes phased construction. Phase 1 would be a four-lane divided highway with three intersections. There would be no frontage roads now or planned in the future. This would be in compliance with TxDOT's new frontage road policy.

Phase 1, the south section which you see on the screen, the reliever route is the pink line starting at US 87 on the south side of Big Spring, proceeding westerly, then turning north, going past the McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark, where it meets Interstate 20 on the west side of Big Spring. This is approximately six miles.

The blue line shown is the existing Interstate 20 and US 87 North. Conceivably, a truck can enter the reliever route at US 87 South, take the new highway to Interstate 20, then take Interstate 20 East to US 87, and then continue on to the north. Thereby, using two existing roads, Interstate 20 and US 87 North, the truck can bypass Big Spring.

Phase 2, the north section, would follow the blue line beginning at Interstate 20, going in a north, then a east direction, connecting West 87 north of Big Spring. This would approximately be seven miles.

Howard County, by resolution, is willing to pay for the right of way and utility adjustments in Phase 1, estimated at $300,000. I have a copy of the resolution, and it has been given to Helen.

Incidentally, in our last project of widening US 87 back about 12 years ago, we committed to TxDOT about $750,000, and we're glad to do this. We understand the reasoning.

The 1999 ADT for US 87 through the city was between 11- and 13,000 vehicles per day. There are four factors, however, that will significantly impact the future traffic. They are US 87 is a high-priority corridor in the National Highway System; US 87 is a Priority 1 Texas Trunk System route; US 87 is designated as part of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor by TxDOT; and US 87 is the primary route for the Texas Agricultural Corridor.

Route selection rationale is the east route, Farm Road 700 to Interstate 20, has become a main artery for local traffic, and many businesses have been located along this route, including a Wal-Mart Supercenter and a shopping mall. Current speed limit is 45 to 50 miles per hour. Overpasses would need to be constructed at seven intersections in order to move through traffic at 60 miles an hour.

However, the west route has the lower overall cost, has even terrain, passes within one-half mile of the McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark, and would need no overpasses.

Our recommendations include the following: that TxDOT construct a truck reliever route west of Big Spring. We are seeking project-specific funding, and funding level will be $15 million.

The advantages are there's a strong public support for this project, as evidenced by the May 1997, September 2000, April 12 and April 24, 2001, public meetings attended by over 300 persons.

The preferred route has a minimal amount of right of way to obtain, while using the maximum amount of existing roadway. It frees the main north-south corridor through the community to local traffic. It will reduce traffic accidents and provide a hazardous cargo route around the city, which I think is very important.

A reliever route west of Big Spring would encourage industrial development at our McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark, help fulfill Ports-to-Plains and Texas Trunk System objectives, has the potential of giving some relief to the heavy traffic on Interstate 35 corridor.

And now we will hear from Kevin Evans, president of Ports-to-Plains Corridor.

MR. EVANS: Thank you, Bill.

Gentlemen, on the map that you have there before you, you see a lot of green stars. Those represent reliever routes that are working at some stage or another in those communities along the route. And as Randy Neugebauer pointed out yesterday in a meeting I was at, some of those are in the matchbook stage, where they're still drawing pictures on the back of a matchbook, talking about it in the coffee shop. Some of them are in construction. Some of them in line to be funded. And then at the heart of our route in Texas, you have Big Spring. As you can see, they're fairly far along on their planning process.

We feel like we have a transportation crisis here in Texas. Proposition 15 -- and by the way, congratulation on all of your work on that -- is going to go a long way to help that and begin the process, we hope. But still, you can see the statistics there I get from Bill Webb, president of TMTA here in Texas: 31 million by 2025; 50 percent increase in the overall state; 50 percent of that will be in the DFW/Houston areas. They're going to need more alternative routes, more relief of some type. We hope to be that relief.

Truck crossings up, commercial mileage up -- all those things you're aware of. Trade traffic increasing. I like to use this slide because I got the information from Ed Wueste here at TxDOT, going from, I believe, around '99-2000 of $200 billion a year trade with Mexico to 800 billion by the year 2010 was the estimate we had at that time; current annual rate of increase about 15 percent.

There's going to be an increase in trade traffic in Texas. We don't -- we know we're not going to get the lion's share of that increase, but obviously, we are going to benefit and be responsible for a big part of that up the Ports-to-Plains Corridor.

TEA-21, Ports-to-Plains, and Big Spring share some common goals. Promoting safety for the route is a very obvious need. If you've ever been down Gregg Street, it is an amazingly long journey, and it is, even with the great improvements that have been made in recent past, still very dangerous and very tedious for trade traffic.

We will improve access along the route. The interconnection with I-20 will be greatly improved. Construction of the reliever routes utilize less congested border crossings. We're promoting that very heavily in Acuña-Del Rio and Piedras Negras-Eagle Pass -- alternative routes, economic development, and balanced growth.

Big Spring is at the heart of the Ports-to-Plains route in Texas, and they need a reliever route sooner than later. And you'll notice -- you may not have known that Michael Behrens was a doctor, but there he is performing a bypass operation for Big Spring.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me wait for the appropriate time to raise this question.

MR. EVANS: I didn't say "fair share."

MR. WILLIAMSON: I know. And we appreciate that.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I know that you never made that argument. Even in Ports-to-Plains you never made that argument. You made the argument that it was in the state's best interest.

MR. EVANS: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I personally appreciate that. I want to know if it's possible to bring the slide back up that had all the green stars on it. Can that be done?

MR. EVANS: May take him a second to run through them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I want to ask you, as a person who's identified -- among many, but you're prominently identified with the Ports-to-Plains concept -- has anyone involved in Ports-to-Plains started to discuss the possibility of a Regional Mobility Authority to expedite or to entrepreneurially plan to bring Ports-to-Plains to fruition much faster than we all realize is possible in the current funding scenario?

MR. EVANS: The board has not discussed it openly. Randy Neugebauer and I and, of course, Tommy Gonzalez, my predecessor, and one other board member locally have had that discussion just recently.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, the reason I ask the question is one of the persons involved in it -- there's no reason to bring his name into it -- opined to me recently that if you took the tax base from Stratford to Del Rio -- not down to Laredo yet, but just from Stratford to Del Rio -- if you looked at the tax base of those counties and communities that would benefit directly from Ports-to-Plains, you could make a reasonable argument that a combination local government-state government-private sector partnership might could well pull off a transportation corridor that included concrete and rail that would result in tremendous economic benefits to those tax bases to the extent that those tax bases could afford to make some financial commitments to the whole project.

And I just want to encourage you to explore that. I mean, I think there's -- if Lubbock, Senator Duncan would argue that a completed Ports-to-Plains would provide X amount of economic growth; if Del Rio could argue that a completed Ports-to-Plains, at least at their border crossing, would result in X amount of international trade; if Stratford could argue that Ports-to-Plains would result in finished cotton crops or milo crops or whatever being processed and sent to market sooner, and then the argument is we will all benefit economically if we will invest, is it possible to figure out a local government-state government-private sector partnership that can make this thing happen a lot faster?

And I just would encourage you to do that.

MR. EVANS: We would love to explore it, and I will be visiting with you more about it in the future and get some more of your ideas.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Proposition 15 gives us at the commission tools to do things that we haven't had in the past. And we are open for business, and we're thinking outside the box.

MR. EVANS: Appreciate it very much.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Kevin.

MR. EVANS: Thank you. And now I introduce Mayor Russ McEwen.

MR. NICHOLS: Welcome, Mayor.

MAYOR McEWEN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate the chance to be here. And, Commissioner Williamson, it's an intriguing idea that you have, one that I have not heard about up till now, but certainly does have great merit as I think about what we're trying to do in Big Spring, obviously, and then looking at what we want to do up and down the corridor. I think --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, Mayor, and I have to give credit where credit's due.

MAYOR McEWEN: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The man that appointed me to this position told me a year ago he had a vision for transportation in this state, and he intends his vision to be brought to fruition. And Proposition 15 is a large part of the governor's plan to rebuild the infrastructure of the state. And he was deadly serious when he told me that, and he's deadly serious now. He wants to get Texas moving.

MAYOR McEWEN: Well, obviously, you are too, and I commend you for that, sir.

We do have safety issues in Big Spring that are significant, as Senator Duncan alluded to earlier, as to the number of places that US 87 has crossings in our community. US 87 uses an existing city street that passes through the main business district in Big Spring.

And if you're familiar with Big Spring at all, you know that there are significant grade changes on this street that create hazardous intersections at FM 700, 10th Street, 4th Street, and Sgt. Paredez Street. At each of these intersections, trucks must contend with stoplights after traveling significant distances on fairly severe down slopes.

Approximately 1,750 trucks pass through Big Spring via US 87 on a daily basis. These statistics are provided by TxDOT, and they've indicated an approximate 5 percent increase in truck traffic on an annual basis.

It is our belief that there will be even a greater increase when US 277 between Del Rio and Sonora is finished and the extensive rebuild of US 87 at Tahoka is completed.

From an economic standpoint, this reliever route will come within a half mile of McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark with an exit running directly into the west side of this facility. With the Ports-to-Plains Corridor becoming a major trade route, the accessibility of an airpark, combined with the fact that Interstate 20 runs directly north of McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark, gives Big Spring two major opportunities for economic growth.

NAFTA will bring goods up this corridor that will need to be shipped north, east, and west. This suits Big Spring's location perfectly. We are in an ideal position to become a major warehousing and distribution location, because we will be at the crossroads of IH-20 and Ports-to-Plains.

Secondly, intermodal transportation makes abundant sense at our airpark. Using proposed and existing facilities -- these including a modern airpark with a brand-new terminal, a railhead that could be expanded, and the proposed truck reliever route -- it will give us an opportunity for intermodal transportation that has become very important in today's economy.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you today and would entertain any questions you might have.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Mayor. Is that the end of the presentation?

MAYOR McEWEN: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MAYOR McEWEN: Mr. Crooker has a short summary.

MR. NICHOLS: Any questions at this point? I'll reserve my questions to the end. Thank you.

MAYOR McEWEN: Thank you, sir.

MR. CROOKER: Thank you, Mayor.

At this time, I would like very much to have the Big Springers and -- the contingent from Big Spring and Ports-to-Plains persons present, please, stand up. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Did y'all drive in or fly in?

MR. CROOKER: I think they did both. I think the mayor said he came by boat.

MR. NICHOLS: By boat?

(General laughter.)

MR. CROOKER: At this time, I would like to extend my thanks and compliments to Bill Hale, Abilene District Engineer, and his staff, in particular Art Barrow, our Big Spring area engineer. They've been most helpful and supportive in this project. In this summary, I'd like to say my sincere thanks to each commissioner for your time and interest.

In closing, I would like to say this reliever route is a safety issue, an economic issue, and a trade issue. We urge you to do everything possible to bring this project to fruition in a realistic time frame. And I thank you very much.

And now we would like to entertain any questions you might have.

MR. NICHOLS: Did you have any questions? I had a few. The original estimate on this was about -- it may be that Bill Hale, which we're very proud of, by the way, as a district engineer -- was about $49 million. Now, that's for an entire four-lane divided for that entire --

MR. CROOKER: Correct.

MR. HALE: [inaudible]

MR. NICHOLS: Into the mike. We can't hear you. I can hear you, but --

MR. HALE: Okay. The department -- that's for the entire phase or entire project from north to south of Big Spring.

MR. NICHOLS: On the west side.

MR. HALE: Right. And that first phase going up to 20, then over to 87, and on up out of Big Spring is --

MR. NICHOLS: It was proposed to be -- in that first phase, to be a four-lane divided?

MR. HALE: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. As opposed to if we acquired enough right of way for a four-lane divided and got a two-lane in there to start with, that would at least begin the process so we can maybe take this thing in smaller -- okay. That's what I was trying to understand.

MR. HALE: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Now, that -- as I understand it, this route is on Phase 1 Corridor, Texas Trunk System?

MR. HALE: Yes, it is. We're asking for it to be on Phase 1 Corridor System.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible]

MR. HALE: Okay. It is.

MR. NICHOLS: It's on the Texas Trunk System?

MR. HALE: Yes, it is.

MR. NICHOLS: Jim? Where's Jim? Is it on the Phase 1 Corridors of the Texas Trunk System?

MR. HALE: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: I think it is.

MR. HALE: Yes, it is.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm pretty sure it is. We have -- and I think this is important for y'all to kind of recognize this. When we established the Phase 1 Corridors of the Texas Trunk System, it was to try to take logical alignments with geographical distribution around the state that would work for the entire state, and then line up some of these gaps and fill them in.

And when we established that several years ago, the idea was to have the whole thing, all those gaps closed in inside of ten years. And I think there's about seven years left of hammering those gaps. I drive around through there; I'm seeing some of them get closed now.

Now, we also recognized at that point that we did not address the reliever route issue on those corridors, that we knew that as we got into the Phase 2, for lack of a better word, that we needed to address those. We knew that reliever routes, the arguments of, you know, what happens to our retail, and all that kinds of stuff, would be more lengthy, that it would be a little more expensive. We could get the long stretches quicker, more dramatic, and start moving vehicles.

But Phase 2 hearings and what that money is to be spent for is approximately scheduled to be next summer, probably at the end of the summer, somewhere in there. I'm not sure. And we had thought -- and we almost did it last time -- and I'm pretty sure that one of the big issues will be to take that funding source -- not a new funding source, but that existing funding source -- and take a percentage of that to apply to the reliever routes on the Phase 1 Corridors. The great bulk of the Ports-to-Plains issue is -- route is on that.

So we know we can't create a corridor and shove all that traffic through the middle of the cities that aren't prepared for it. But -- so that funding source -- that's a perfect place for a project like this. And if you believe in that and you want to have input into the criteria supporting that, you -- everybody in the state will receive notifications of those hearings that will begin sometime next summer. So that would be a good opportunity to get in for that also.

Secondly, I compliment you for a very good presentation. I used to -- as I said before, I did -- I used to buy a lot of polystyrene out in Big Spring, and I had forgotten all about that airport. But I lost an engine on my plane once and landed there, and I will never forget that airport. They treated me real nice there, so I appreciate it.

No other comments?

(No response.)

MR. NICHOLS: We thank you very much, and everyone who has driven so far, flown, or come by boat. We recognize that you come -- communities don't happen; they're built by people who are concerned. Y'all obviously are very concerned about the future of your community and have taken that extra step away from your daily lives and work to present your needs and dreams for your community, and we very much appreciate that. And have a safe trip back, and thank you.

We're going to take a three-minute recess, give them an opportunity to leave.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

CITY OF WICHITA FALLS

(Judge Woodrow "Woody" Gossom, Representative David Farabee, Brooke Boddy)

MR. NICHOLS: Next delegation, City of Wichita Falls. Welcome. Judge Gossom.

JUDGE GOSSOM: Thank you, sir. Good to see you, Commissioner.

MR. NICHOLS: Good to see you again.

JUDGE GOSSOM: We enjoyed having you in Wichita Falls, and I hope you were able to travel back 281 safely.

I did want to tell Commissioner Williamson, the last time we were down here to talk about 281, he did ask if we could get right of way donated. Now, we've done that to the Wichita County line, sir. I wanted to let you know. We even got the road built all the way there too.

It does give us pleasure to come down and be able to visit with you all today. We hope we can drag some of this rain back home with us, just in case you get too much down here.

Mr. Behrens, it's good to see you. We haven't had a chance to talk with you since you got your new position, but congratulations.

I do have one small thing. I want to be sure you realize something. Everybody else got one of these ties last time. We want you to consider that tie [inaudible] necktie [inaudible] Wichita Falls in the center of that, we'd like you to proudly wear it.

At this time I would like to ask Representative David Farabee from Wichita County to come forward to speak. He'll be followed by Brooke Boddy representing Representative Hardcastle's office.

REP. FARABEE: Thank you, Judge Gossom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner. And, Mr. Behrens, welcome. Good to have you aboard.

It's neat to have this opportunity today. Yesterday as I was driving in, I thought I could beat traffic through Fort Worth, so, Commissioner Williamson, I took 180 over at Mineral Wells and hit 171, and it took me about 45 minutes longer. So anyway, I got a taste of Weatherford, had an opportunity to go through your beautiful community and see your courthouse again. It's always a neat experience.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We hope you left a few dollars.

REP. FARABEE: Oh, yes, I did. Yes. I had to, at least -- yes, because there were just a few stoplights on that route.

As you will hear from our distinguished county judge and you will also see by the attendance of the numerous local officials in our region, these projects are important for our area. And I join Representative Hardcastle and his staff member today in affording my strongest support.

As you'll hear, the interchange at US 287 and US 82 and 277 is structurally ready to go. We had the dedication of that facility, our overhead, just this week, and it was a neat experience.

My hat's off to John Barton and Joe Nelson who do a wonderful job. Anytime I have a concern from one of my constituents on a transportation issue, I call them, and then within hours, within hours, I hear back from the constituent saying, They were the most pleasant people in the world to deal with. And so it says a lot for them.

But it was a proud moment for us to dedicate the overhead just this week. But that is our number one project, and you'll hear of some other projects as well that are important to us, such as the extension of US 82/277, which we commonly know as Kell Freeway, which is in progress.

But we need to continue the progress on that piece of transportation infrastructure, because of the new industries and businesses that are locating. We recently had one of the wireless companies that has located a 450-employee operation on that piece of highway and adds to the transportation needs. That -- in front of that is in progress, the construction, but as we move further west into Archer County, I think it's important that we also keep that project in mind, and that would be US 82/277.

But again, if I were to come before you today and tell you what I feel is our strongest need -- and I think you'll hear this again from Judge Gossom and other members of our group making presentations or that you'll visit with -- is the interchange of 82/287, now that we've got the overhead completed through the city.

So I want to say thank you to Commissioner Nichols for coming to Wichita Falls. Obviously the overwhelming support of Proposition 15 was buoyed by your attendance at that meeting. And also to Commissioner Williamson, thank you for making Weatherford a wonderful place to be last night as I traveled this way.

So are there any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll probably save most of my questions till the end after we hear all the comments and the presentation.

REP. FARABEE: Well, thank you for your hard work.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you for everything you do.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Will this be the only time you'll be at the podium?

REP. FARABEE: Today. I just wanted to get my fair share of time in today.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: On a personal matter, Mr. Chairman, I have three children, and I'm painfully aware that the road I travel through life will affect my children. And I want to take this moment to tell you -- I don't know you personally -- but I served on four intense and difficult conference committees with Ray Farabee, and I shared some acreage with him for a time. And I want to tell you that Ray Farabee paved the way for good thoughts about his family.

He was -- is, was one of the most dedicated and best public servants I observed in my years in the legislature.

REP. FARABEE: Thank you. And rest assured that he and I talked before I assumed my position. I asked him, you know, who are some of the shining stars you've seen come through the process, and he commented on your ability to take the budget and really work each agency to be responsible for their resources. And your name came up in that conversation, so he thinks highly of you as well.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I appreciate that.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MS. BODDY: My name is Brooke Boddy, and I'm here today for Representative Rick Hardcastle. And I first want to thank you for allowing me to come and speak and for you to hear my comments. He isn't here today due to a family illness that is keeping him in Vernon, but he did want me to share with you and that he is very adamant of his -- he has such a strong support for this project and that it does affect his district as well as Mr. Farabee's, in that House District 68 surrounds Wichita Falls on every side excluding Oklahoma.

But -- and all of the local highways feed into this area, and it is a safety issue as well as an economic issue to have this corridor fixed.

Actually, that's -- I just wanted to show his support today of this -- both of the priority of grades [phonetic] and to encourage your consideration. And I will pass it on to the experts over here that have a lot more information than I probably ever will.

But do you have any questions for me that I can answer on his behalf?

MR. NICHOLS: I don't.

Do you? No.

MS. BODDY: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

JUDGE GOSSOM: I do want to thank Representative Farabee and Brooke for coming representing Representative Hardcastle. They are -- you know, in the redistricting process, one of the things we will hate to lose, we have right now -- we're very fortunate to have dual representation of two good state representatives there.

We do have a good delegation for the City of Wichita Falls, and I'd like to recognize a few of those people. First of all, we have City Councilwoman Linda Ammons. Also from our MPO, Staff Director Steve Seese is here. We have a committee that's a city-county committee called Transportation Needs Committee, and from that committee today we have Ms. Donna Adams, Mr. Paul Foley, Mr. J.W. Martin. And citizens we have Jon Moller, one of the people that's been a vital public support to this.

Also a couple of people that we have with us that we couldn't do without is our district engineer, Joe Nelson, has come. And from my days as a county commissioner to my days as a county judge, Joe has brought in and assembled a staff -- John Barton's here, Andy Petter. When you go out there, it's not how we can't do something; it's how can we do something. And that is a welcome attitude, and that has got to be -- come from the top down to get out to the field, and we appreciate it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean he asked, Why not, instead of, Why?

JUDGE GOSSOM: Really, why not get it done today instead of tomorrow.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I like that.

JUDGE GOSSOM: I like that. I like that.

At this time, I would like to -- we're going to show you a video. This is not going to follow the other information that you were sent by the delegation, so if I could ask you all -- I assume that's the screen you all use, and we'll follow through there and give you an idea of some of the highlights of our petition.

If you look at this, this is a slide showing the regional concept of what you have done for us already from Abilene to Wichita Falls in the designation of 277/82. If you look here, one of the things, thinking of the NAFTA concept, that right now to go from El Paso to Oklahoma City, one route's 819 miles, while another one's 799. The short route through Wichita Falls is 752.

As you fly here with me, you will see now a slide coming in from the north of the new overhead project. As you look at that, it gives you an idea of the expanse across the Wichita River and what happens there.

We now swing around, if you'd look -- this is the beginning of US 277/82, and if you look here and here, those are two very important ramps. And if you look up to the north, that's where we're going to be coming in from.

Right now, as you look at this slide, if you were coming north, you have to get off and take the lower route and come through here. You can't take this exit here. You can't come back this way. You're going to stay the lower route. These ramps are going to be very important as we come in for people to exit to US 82/277 going west or coming in from the west to be able to go north or south is important.

The last one will be the highest to come in. The view we're giving you here at this time shows you that when people have to go to the lower area that they're going to go through eleven traffic-controlled intersections. They're going to come here and have to make this turn and look up and see, Gee, I could've come straight through if that overhead would have let me get off -- we'll be there in a second -- somebody needs to push the accelerator just a little bit.

Now, if you'll look right there, there's a ramp to nowhere. It will come and land and come down and allow you to come in. The significance here of this slide shows you that you have an intersection here -- that's the interchange -- comes out here to Barnett Road and to Allendale Road. Both of these are level service of E or below, all -- and including this one -- for what happens -- then we come out here to Farm-to-Market Road 369.

This is what you're doing for us today. This is the beginning of the project that's going to take you out to those other two intersections I pointed out coming from the interchange.

If you note, those overpasses come in to cover those heavy traffic areas. In that area, current construction of the four-lane from Kemp to Fairway, we have seen the growth in this area -- you see the Lowe's sign there till Wal-Mart that's just out of your picture to the south. Across the way is a 200-unit assisted living center, a brand-new car dealership, a new strip mall.

Representative Farabee mentioned the Cingular Wireless with 450 employees in it. There's another 200-unit assisted living center there, and behind it a 400-unit apartment complex. As we pan back, you're seeing the addition to a subdivision that had been there for years that now is doubled, and back in the area you see a new school.

This area is growing significantly as we look at it. Those intersections -- we show you again -- if those are brought in to the program as the extension beyond Fairway, we will take away what is becoming the two most dangerous intersections in Wichita County.

I want to bring you back and talk to you just in a summary. What you see here, we can't get up to that brand-new highway you have built us there. That's the beginning of US 82/277, which will tie in to three other major highways there.

Once again, I'd like to point out those ramps to the right side and to the left are very important to have the safe traffic flow through Wichita Falls. With those put in, we will gain mobility and safety and actually economy for those people in the professional transportation industry.

MR. NICHOLS: I kept reaching for my seat belt every time I'd think it was --

JUDGE GOSSOM: Well, we had Les Finnell, former State Representative Charles Finnell's brother, fly that for us. We really should have had his wife. She's really a better pilot. But we couldn't say that; it was a free ride.

Let's tie together some things about this. You have much of this information already to you. Funding. Wichita Falls began this project with the purchase of the right of way in 1967. Since that time, we have developed an MPO group and it's come together with the City of Wichita Falls, and working with the endorsement of our district TxDOT office, there's a commitment of $5 million in future 4-D funds to the interchange. There's a commitment of $4 million for the final section of the main lanes.

Early completion of the overhead project, which without rain has gone very well -- I'm not sure the tradeoff's as good, but it's been great -- that project, with the overheads finishing early, will leave approximately $1 million in that fund, and we would like to see that put into that interchange project.

The interchange ramps and the new overpasses will improve transportation and efficiency for this very significant transportation corridor from the west of El Paso to the Northeast. It makes an excellent tie-in.

While we're doing this, we're going to replace the service lanes that were built in 1988 with the four-lane divided area. Those roads have decreased and their deterioration has been 68 percent in the measurements since 1993 to 2000. We're using service roads for main thoroughfares.

We have regional support in this. You have letters in the packet. We did talk to Representative Counts, and he unfortunately couldn't be here for Big Spring's presentation either. He sees both projects as vital to his district.

We want you to raise the priority of the second half of this. We want to see it go into Phase 1 and be a high priority to open that corridor from the interchange of the overhead highway of I-44 that brings together a tremendous hub of highways. You have I-44, US 82/277, US 281, and US 287 that would come into that area.

If you can do this for us, the effort that you gave to Abilene and to Wichita Falls when you approved the four-laning of 277 to Wichita Falls, we won't get them there and then bring them to a bottleneck. We could bring them to a safe way to pass through Wichita Falls on the commercial route they have picked that is the shortest from that direction going to Oklahoma City and the Northeast.

Thank you very much. We'd be glad to take questions.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have any comments or questions? I had a couple.

JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: So in summary, because of all the new construction on the freeway and the corridor, what the problem is is we need more construction.

JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm teasing with you, but I think y'all have done a very good job in putting together your projects and working with the district and showing the needs and stuff and participating. And you've done it with a united front from the Wichita Falls area.

JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And most everything that you're pointing out is of a regional significance. I have driven across this route three times in the last three weeks myself, and I remember before the flyover was constructed, I don't remember how many stoplights there were, but I swear --

JUDGE GOSSOM: Eleven.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I was going to guess 12 or 13. But I'm sure you know. Between the two of these, the interchange and the Kell Freeway, if you -- have y'all, as an area, tried to prioritize one or the other, if we could only do one of those two? I don't want to put you on the spot --

JUDGE GOSSOM: We have not formally done so. We knew you would likely ask that, and I tried to avoid that in my presentation.

MR. NICHOLS: I understand.

JUDGE GOSSOM: But the honest realization is the ramps are the most important. That's the significant congestion. But as you just pointed out, Commissioner, the success of the ramps has even made the other traffic problems. When we do this and you still have the crossings at Allendale and Barnett, which both have farm-to-market road designations -- those are the two most unsafe crossings -- it's going to become readily apparent that we need to get to the west of Farm-to-Market Road 369.

MR. NICHOLS: And as the missing gaps on that corridor are completed, you're going to have increased truck traffic coming the other way.

So I may have a question to our district engineer. On the missing gap or the two-lane gap that's going to four-lane between Abilene and up, what is the status on that as far as the construction estimated completion? Or is that -- oh. That's in the other district, isn't it, part of it?

MR. NELSON: Well, part of it --

MR. NICHOLS: Oh. Y'all work together.

MR. NELSON: In our district, we are still awaiting letting the first project and hope to be able to do that in 2003. And we are trying to accelerate the plans so that we will be able to let them in a little more rapid succession. I think our last project was to have been let in 2008.

MR. NICHOLS: The last of them?

MR. NELSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: So within a -- there'll be significant construction between three years from now -- two years from now and five years from now --

MR. NELSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- with an estimated completion of about seven years.

MR. NELSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And when that's completed, that's when you're going to start seeing more trucks divert up to that area, I guess.

MR. NELSON: We're seeing our truck traffic increase. I think everybody around the state is. But we have seen some pretty significant increases. Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Anything else?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. We very much appreciate y'all taking the time to be here, and appreciate what y'all have done. And there's -- did you have something else? I see --

JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir. I do want to give you a resolution from Abilene supporting this. The other thing, I'd like to just pull back in and kind of remind: I know we've been blessed by you all's attention to the area. But in the original investment put in by the City of Wichita Falls to buy the right of way in today's dollars now is a $20 million commitment for a project that started in -- as Arnold Oliver says, I was brand-new to the department, I went through, I retired, and eight years later it still isn't complete, but it sure is a heck of a lot farther along. We appreciate it.

Let me give you this resolution, and we're finished.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, sir.

JUDGE GOSSOM: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: That's it? Complete?

JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you very much for the trip. I assume most of y'all -- drive safely. The street's wet; be careful. And I look forward to being back up in the Wichita Falls area. Y'all's hospitality is always very nice.

We're going to declare a three- to five-minute recess so y'all can have a chance to get up and go. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

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

MR. NICHOLS: We'll reconvene. Item Number 3, approval of the minutes from the October 25 meeting.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

And now we have a resolution. Great pleasure. Kirby Pickett. Where's Kirby? What? There he is. Kirby, come up to the front. We have something kind of special for you up here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. I went out and bought a pair of brown pants for you.

MR. PICKETT: Very good. I appreciate that, Commissioner.

MR. NICHOLS: Now, we've got -- we know how much you like informal -- things to be informal and casual and things of that nature. So today's we're going to do it in a very formal manner. A resolution, framed, sealed, signed. Stand up and read it:

Whereas, the Texas Transportation Commission takes great pride in recognizing Kirby Pickett, an outstanding, dedicated transportation engineer, who has served the Department of Transportation for four decades, most recently as deputy executive director;

Whereas, Mr. Pickett earned a civil engineering degree, 1961, University of Texas and received his license professional engineer in 1965 and license in professional land surveyor -- I didn't realize that -- in 1980; devoted 40 years -- 40 years -- of his life to public service by holding various positions including engineering assistant, Mount Vernon; area engineer, Sulphur Springs; district design engineer and assistant district engineer of Paris, Texas; became district engineer in Waco District in 1986; performed exceptionally in fulfilling his responsibilities for all transportation projects and programs in the eight-county district;

Whereas, he was recognized by his peers as the Dean -- you have to be kind of old, as I understand, on that one -- Dean of the District Engineers, 1995; and championed the department's research program by pursuing his commitment to deliver quality transportation products and services, keen interest in and deep appreciation for the rich history of the department prompted his oversight in the opening of the department's historical exhibit in the Dewitt Greer Building;

Whereas, Mr. Pickett is an exemplary and distinguished gentleman, highly regarded by his wife Gerry and his son John as a committed and devoted husband and father; and

Whereas, Mr. Pickett will now retire -- although I understand you have to stay till the end of the month --

MR. PICKETT: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- although he will now retire from public service to pursue a life of private endeavors, the department and the Transportation Commission hereby recognizes and thanks Kirby Pickett for his professional career achievements and loyal service on behalf of the State of Texas. Signed by the entire commission.

So, congratulations.

(Applause.)

MR. PICKETT: Well, thank you very much. It's been interesting. In some ways, it seems like a very short time ago that I started. I think there are a lot of factors in deciding when to retire, and until August when Wes retired -- we have eight pictures on the back wall of previous state highway engineers. Until Wes retired, before they put his picture up, I had not worked for all of them. Gib Gilcrest left the department the year I was born is the reason that happened.

But once they moved his over to the side wall and put Wes' up, I now have worked for all eight of the folks on the back wall, including, since September, Mike. So I think that was a good clue for me.

But anyhow, do appreciate the resolution. And I'm going to miss seeing what in the world y'all do next.

(General laughter; applause.)

MR. NICHOLS: Gerry, you want to come up here too?

(Pause for photographs.)

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Mike, I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to you to go through the rest of the items.

MR. BEHRENS: Okay. We'll start with Item Number 5, which is a report from the Grand Parkway Association, and Jim will introduce the folks from Grand Parkway.

MR. RANDALL: Jim Randall, Transportation Planning and Programming Division. Department rules pertaining to transportation corporations require that a corporation make an annual report to the commission on its current condition, status of projects, and activities undertaken during the preceding 12 months. Mr. David Gornet, director of the association, is here today to give you this report.

MR. GORNET: Good morning, Commissioners. I appreciate the chance to come and visit with you all and give a presentation on the status of the Grand Parkway Association and our project.

First, I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce myself. Commissioner Nichols and I have met previously. Commissioner Williamson, I don't know if I've had the honor. I have 20 years' experience in transportation planning, have spent the past two-and-a-half years with the association. Previously, you all have heard from Ms. Diane Schenke as the past executive director of the association. She resigned this past spring to join the Nature Conservancy of Texas to go work on the green side and try to develop habitat, and she's looking forward to working closely with the association so that she can do mitigation projects and such to help preserve habitat while we can move forward with our transportation needs.

And to assist me, I have recently hired Ms. Robin Sterry, who -- formerly of TxDOT, she has 16-plus years' experience with TxDOT and most recently was the Houston District environmental coordinator. And when I was looking for someone to help assist me, I wanted someone that knew the project, knew the people, and knew the process that was involved, and she fulfilled all of that to a T, and so I welcome her assistance in us trying to push this project forward.

We'll go through a report on the status of the project. If y'all have any questions, please feel free to interrupt me at any point in time. Robin, first slide.

The Grand Parkway Project was first proposed in 1961 by the City of Houston as part of its master planning efforts. In 1968, it was formally included on the general study plan for the city of Houston for the 1990, their 20-year horizon plan.

In 1984, the Grand Parkway Association was established as a state transportation corporation. It's my understanding we are the last of the remaining state transportation corporations. And the entire loop of the Grand Parkway since 1984 has been designated as State Highway 99. We currently have open, from I-10 to US 59, about 19 miles of that.

Next slide. The purpose of the Association of State Transportation Corporations was to facilitate public-private partnerships between TxDOT, who had limited resources, and local counties, cities, authorities in the Houston region, such as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or the Harris County Tollroad Authority, and private landowners. The association works as a go-between between all these organizations to help move the project forward as quickly as possible.

Besides working that partnership, the Grand Parkway Association -- or the Grand Parkway Project enhances regional mobility; we address the existing and projected congestion; we look to minimize overall impacts to both the human and natural environments, work on hurricane evacuation needs for the southern area of the metropolitan region of Houston, and we try to exemplify responsible planning.

For years the Grand Parkway has been identified as a project necessary for the metropolitan area of Houston. It's been continued in the Houston-Galveston area councils' master planning efforts for 2020 and now in 2025. We work to preserve the corridor, provide for limited access highway, and ultimately we hope to reduce the time and cost of project implementation through our partnerships.

What we're trying to provide is not this, which is a picture of FM 1960, which is oftentimes what happens when we have a good road, but growth occurs so rapidly that we can't respond to those changes in a timely fashion. You end up with a lot of congestion in an unsightly fashion.

We're trying to develop a highway without billboards. We use scenic easements, when we can get those from the adjacent landowners, that's limited access with no driveways on and off, that meets the needs of our transportation system; that is, to provide mobility.

We're also trying to develop it with a minimum amount of frontage roads in accordance with you all's June action. This has been in place since 1984 for the Grand Parkway to try to minimize the amount of frontage roads so that we can, again, address mobility and not the access to the local properties.

What we have is a highway that has ramps on and off, but the major thoroughfares and ultimately the development will occur along the thoroughfare network, and the highway will continue to serve its mobility functions.

This is an overall map. Segments have been labeled, obviously, going clockwise, A through I-2. I'll go into details on each of the segments. That's the general map. We have segments A and B, which are in the -- A goes from 146 to I-45 in the League City and Dickinson area of Galveston County. As yet, we have no studies underway in that area, and we're not expecting to start a study in that area in the near future.

Segment B, the commission has recently acted on a partnership with Brazoria County. Galveston County is funding this out of its bond issue that it did last November, for us to initiate a study. We're now negotiating those contracts with a consultant and with the Houston District to get those approved.

Segment C, you all probably received some comments in years past on the actions that we're taking there and looking at alternate alignments that were close to Brazos Bend State Park, and those have received a lot of opposition. The blue line we're proposing there is a mile and a half north of the state park. It's out of the watersheds of the streams that feed into the state park and will minimize impacts in there. It still traverses a large part of the Brazos River flood plain, but unavoidably, we're going to cross the Brazos River down in there somewhere.

The remaining activities we have on C, we've already had the draft environmental impact statement, the public hearing. We're looking forward to publishing the final environmental impact statement this spring and getting a record of decision as soon as possible so we can move that forward.

Fort Bend County, last November, passed a bond issue that included $7.3 million of design money, and they're looking forward to participating and partnering with TxDOT to move into construction as quickly as possible.

Segment D is the segment open 19 miles from US 59 to I-10. That's had a tremendous amount of traffic growth over the past few years, 40 percent from '97 to '99. We do not have 2001 numbers yet.

The next segments we're looking as a package, Segment E, F-1, F-2, and G, that go from I-10 to US 290 to State Highway 249 to Interstate 45 North to US 59 North around the west and northern sides from the metropolitan Houston area. That study started in July of 1999. We're anticipating four environmental documents for that. It's possible that it could become a tollroad. The Harris County Tollroad Authority and TxDOT are participating in the funding of the route environmental studies for this.

There's also some interest in designating that as I-69. U.S. Representative Kevin Brady is very supportive of that being I-69, although that does raise some concerns with local citizens, particularly in the F-2 area, over the increased truck traffic.

The progress we've had on that -- we started in July of '99. We held meetings in August '99, February and June of 2000, and we looked at going from a wide study area, narrowing that down to corridors and then to specific alignments for consideration. Those alternative alignments through that whole area we presented in October, and we've been taking comments on that and refining that.

And in specific segments, on E we go from the orange alignments that were recommended ones to the purple one that is the preferred route that we're going to be documenting our draft environmental impact statements.

On Segment F-1, again, we had numerous alternatives and a preferred route that we intend to recommend.

Segment F-2 -- this is an area where we had a lot of concern, and you all probably got letters from -- and the laser pointer's not working very well up there -- south of where it says Spring Creek, west of the town of Old Town Spring, we have -- you can see with the greater number of alternatives, we were trying to find a solution that worked to avoid impacts to the businesses, to the homes in the area, as well as to minimize impacts to the developments that are oncoming.

That's a very rapidly growing area, and I've had statements made by the local citizenry, Why would you want to put a new road in the fastest growing part of Harris County. And I think they've answered the question for themselves, is because we need to look at transportation as an infrastructure, just like water supply or drainage, that they need to -- we need to plan for so that as the area grows, we can make those improvements.

Segment G from I-45 to US 59, again, the alternate routes and the route that we look to recommend as the preferred. The schedule of activities remaining is to publish the draft environmental impact statements for all four segments. They will be done sequentially, starting with E and then F-1, F-2, and G.

When I talked about those recommended preferred alternatives early, those have all been coordinated through continuous meetings with the resource agencies, have been as cooperative as you might expect on a new location highway project, as well as with the TxDOT district personnel, personnel in Austin, and Federal Highways. And we've come to consensus on what to recommend based on minimizing impacts to the human and the natural environment.

Again, we're going to publish the draft environmental impact statements, hold our public hearings, do the final environmental impact statements, and hope to have records of decisions on those segments in 2003.

Again, Harris County Tollroad Authority, the Harris County government, is very interested in moving this as fast as possible and would like to partner with TxDOT. And the passing of Proposition 15 will help facilitate that, and so that could move it into construction in as early as 2004, if the resources available are available with TxDOT as well as with the Harris County Tollroad Authority.

One segment we don't have any studies on, or two segments, are H and I-1. When we met yesterday morning with the Montgomery county judge who has part of segment H, he says, We need to do this whole thing. And I said, Well, Judge, when you talk to Gary Trietsch there in the Houston District, or if you have a chance to visit with any of our commissioners, tell them that, and we'll see how we can move to build the partnership to get that planned and move forward so that we can have the corridor preserved and be ready to address the needs of that area as it grows.

Segment I-2 is ready for construction. We're signing the donation deeds on that segment. It's currently -- it's programmed for April of 2003, and we sure hope to hit that target date -- for the northern segment in -- April 2002 for the northern segment, 2003 for the southern. And that will match with the agreements that Commissioner Nichols negotiated with the U.S. Steel Corporation two or three years ago, so that we can continue to get their funding and their donations.

That's the end of our presentation. I'd be glad to answer any questions.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: You do work for this association.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You also do work for the Greater Houston Partnership?

MR. GORNET: No, sir, I do not.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: That's it?

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's it.

MR. NICHOLS: I had several questions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm just looking for the guy that does.

MR. NICHOLS: The -- I'll bet you find him now.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Now I lost my train of thought.

Okay. On the -- first of all, very good report. And the greater -- the Parkway's a great project. It's certainly going to be well -- it's greatly needed as time develops. I think it's about 170 miles around or something to that nature?

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir. 177 miles.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Now, I went to y'all's board meeting a couple years ago, and as we talked to the board and the different members, since this was being developed as a very restricted access -- I think was the term you used -- it looked like a perfect opportunity for it to be developed as a tollroad. But we also recognized at the time that as it's developed in segments, which is all that could be afforded, that each segment with the beginning traffic probably would not support it as a tollroad.

But the whole world began changing, I think, November 6, because now the citizens of the state have agreed that the Department of Transportation can participate with highway funds on toll projects, and I think we're going to be very anxious to take any project and develop it as such, particularly on new locations like this. So I hope that as y'all develop and move forward, that as you have your public hearings that we make sure that we're leaving that option open.

MR. GORNET: We are, sir. And very specifically in the E, F-1, F-2, and G areas in western and northern Harris County, we have been working keeping the Harris County Tollroad up to date on what's going on. They were anticipating the passage of Proposition 15 on November 6, and they are interested, as I stated, in making this a tollroad. And we have developed it so that we've already talked about, Well, if you do it as a tollroad, where do you have your ramps on and off; where can you put your plazas.

So we're thinking ahead and to that fashion, because that will be a very obvious opportunity to do a toll facility, and the synergistic effects of each of these segments building upon one another will help grow that traffic so that it is a viable toll project.

MR. NICHOLS: And the issue of whether that falls into the Harris County Tollway Authority jurisdiction or regional mobility or whatever, those issues we're going to work out along the way --

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- as long as in that process you're developing it as -- at least the option of a tollroad in there.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: The section that goes to the U.S. Steel property, we had told them that that could be developed as a tollroad. Is that being currently laid out? I think it's being laid out as a non-tollroad.

MR. GORNET: It is being laid out as a non-toll facility at this point in time.

MR. NICHOLS: Now, I know there's -- I'm going to ask our executive director, since Gary's not here. With the new authority that we should have when the canvassing is complete, I know when he laid that thing out, that was one of the ideas. It was developed as a non-tollroad, but it was very limited access and stuff.

Is there still a possibility that before that thing is completed it might be a tollroad? Could we -- I mean, have we gone so far that we can't do it that way? Because we told U.S. Steel, who was the bulk of the property owner, in that agreement that it might be a tollroad. I don't think they had a problem with it.

MR. GORNET: I believe they could still be -- they're just starting the design on that southern segment from 565 down around to 1405 -- that we could implement it.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. BEHRENS: I think the biggest impact would be probably, as -- you know, we look at it now, and see if there's areas that we can pinpoint for toll booths and things like that. That's the major change in the design, would be location of toll booths.

MR. NICHOLS: Would you get whoever to dig into that and --

MR. BEHRENS: Sure.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- let's get back on it? It might be Phil. I'll direct my comments to Mike, since you're over there. You weren't prepared for that.

What else?

MR. GORNET: That was it, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Very nice to meet you. I look forward to getting back down to one of your meetings, possibly this coming year.

MR. GORNET: We will make sure we keep you all apprised of when our board meetings are. Well, they're always the second Thursday of the month, typically at 8:30 in the morning. And we'll make sure you all get the notices of them.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

MR. GORNET: Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

Did you have a question?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No.

MR. NICHOLS: Excuse me a second.

(Pause.)

MR. BEHRENS: Okay. Before we get to Item 6, we will cover Item 6, and then we're going to move to Item 11, which will consider the agreement with Transportation Corridor Constructors. So those of you that are going to be involved in that minute order and those of you that are going to be commenting when that item comes up, I just wanted to give you some warning.

So now we'll take Item 6, and then we'll go to Item 11. And Dave Fulton with the Aviation Division will present Item 6.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Mike. My name is, for the record, David Fulton. I'm the director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.

Item 6(a) is a minute order containing a request for reauthorization of the Routine Airport Maintenance Program for fiscal year 2002. This program provides 50-50 matching funds to assist communities in the maintenance and preservation of their airports, not to exceed $30,000 per airport during the year.

Item 6(b) is a minute order that contains a request for grant funding for eight airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all requests as shown on the Exhibit A is approximately $8.8 million, 5.2 federal, 2.5 state, and 1.1 local. A public hearing was held on October 29 of this year. No comments were received.

I'd be happy to attempt to answer any questions, and we would recommend approval.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: We've got a motion, a second. I've got a couple questions --

MR. FULTON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- or comments. First of all, on the state dollars -- most of this is federal funds, but on the state portion, as I understand it, the money comes out of the nondedicated portion of the Highway Fund?

MR. FULTON: That's correct. Yes, sir. We do not get any general revenue funds for our program. The department -- the commission has committed approximately 16- or $16-1/2 million a year for a state grant program from the nondedicated portion of the Highway Fund.

MR. NICHOLS: Nondedicated portion.

Second question, which I had asked, and I want to make comment on, which you had answered previously, has to do with one -- most of these airports we work with are publicly owned, city owned, county owned, things of that nature. Occasionally -- that's why I flagged this one -- it is a privately owned airport. Clover Acquisition Corporation, Clover Field? Correct?

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

MR. NICHOLS: When I asked the question, What is going on, you -- would you explain that situation?

MR. FULTON: I will. Yes, sir. First of all, state funds are statutorily prohibited for use on private-use facilities. So no state funds are ever allocated to airports that belong to private individuals.

The federal government, the FAA, does have a program that airports that have been designated as reliever airports, relieving congestion at major urban air carrier airports, are eligible for funding, even if they are privately owned. It's the only category of airport that is privately owned that is eligible for federal funding.

There are 21 relievers in Texas, and there are, I believe, two that are privately owned -- three that are privately owned. So they are eligible for federal funding.

MR. NICHOLS: And there is an agreement in writing that they cannot pull the public status away next year or the year after.

MR. FULTON: That's correct. The federal regulations require a minimum of ten years. We negotiated 20 years. And their obligation is to ensure they will operate that airport.

MR. NICHOLS: So there is an obligated 20-year commitment --

MR. FULTON: Contractual obligation that they operate it for a minimum of 20 years. Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. I seconded that motion. All in favor, say aye.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

Thank you.

MR. FULTON: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Okay. Now we -- as we stated, we'll go to Item 11, and 11(a) will be deferred, so we'll move to Item 11(b), and Phil Russell will make that presentation.

MR. RUSSELL: Thanks, Mike. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Phillip Russell, and I am the director of the Texas Turnpike Authority Division.

In June of 2000, the TTA received an unsolicited proposal from the Transportation Corridor Constructors. This consortium is composed of the Zachry Construction Corporation, Strategic Land Management Consultants, and the HNTB Corporation.

The proposal provides for the construction of a ten-mile turnpike extending from FM 1626 on the west to US 183 on the east side in Travis and Hays counties. The proposal includes for right of way acquisition, design, and construction services.

The proposed State Highway 45 South project will provide safety and mobility benefits for the regions while providing a critically needed east-west arterial for northern Hays and southern Travis counties. The connection to US 183 and proposed State Highway 130 will provide a more direct access to Austin Bergstrom International Airport.

The proposal specifies a fixed sum project cost of $120 million dollars, which includes TxDOT participation of 17 million and the issuance of approximately 100- to $103 million in bonds. Interchanges, bridges, ramps, and other improvements identified by the department would be included in the $17 million. All project right of way would be provided by the consortium.

The unsolicited proposal has been processed in accordance with the TTA Exclusive Development Agreement rules, which require a posting period to allow for competing proposals and the acceptance of a financial feasibility certificate. No competing proposals were received, and the financial feasibility certificate was received and approved.

A preliminary traffic and revenue report has been compiled by the URS Corporation, which indicates that the project is potentially feasible. Of course, an investment-grade traffic and revenue report will be required prior to any bond issuance.

The minute order pending before you would authorize the department to negotiate in a development agreement with the Transportation Corridor Constructors. And, of course, we would bring the negotiated agreement back to the commission at a later date for your approval.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order, and I'll be happy to address any questions you might have.

MR. NICHOLS: There probably will be some questions. We've got a number of people who have signed up to speak, and we'll go to those and then stay handy.

First speaker is Mike Aulick, executive director, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

MR. AULICK: Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael Aulick. Representative Krusee is also in the audience on this item. I don't know if --

MR. NICHOLS: I think he had requested to speak later.

MR. AULICK: Okay. Thank you. Maureen is handing out a letter that we sent to Phillip Russell.

I'm Michael Aulick. I'm here from CAMPO, and I'm here to help. That's supposed to be a joke.

(General laughter.)

MR. AULICK: Thank you. Sometimes CAMPO has -- our reputation precedes us. But what I wanted to do is come forth and talk about what CAMPO has been doing related to this project. And personally, I endorse the action of the minute order. My board hasn't taken an action on it, but I personally endorse that.

What our board has been dealing with is the timing of State Highway 45 South. We've been dealing with Loop 1 project with the Austin District, trying to move it from the major investment study process into the NEPA process, and we've had a special committee and technical teams reviewing that. And one of the things that came out of that process was to endorse the completion of Loop 1 to the north, the tollroad extension, release that right of way funding for Capital Metro through the city of Austin. And that was done.

And then the board on -- they did this on October 8. They said we should proceed on Loop 1 North. And then on 45 South, the language that's there in the letter, it said, "State Highway 45 South should not be completed between FM 1626 and I-35 South until SH 130/State Highway 45 South is completed from I-35 North to I-35 South so as not to turn Loop 1 into a bypass."

And the basic issue is what is the first bypass. And my board was indicating they would like the bypass to be on the east first; that is, 45 and 130.

MR. NICHOLS: You're talking about the entire CAMPO?

MR. AULICK: Beg your pardon?

MR. NICHOLS: When you say the board, are you talking about the entire CAMPO.

MR. AULICK: Yes. The entire CAMPO board on October 8 --

MR. NICHOLS: Voted on that?

MR. AULICK: Yes. They did that on October 8 by motion.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, wait a minute now. Is there a difference between the Policy Advisory Committee and the CAMPO board?

MR. AULICK: No. I'm sorry. The official name is Policy Advisory Committee. I --

MR. NICHOLS: That is not the full --

MR. AULICK: Twenty-one member --

MR. NICHOLS: That is the 21-member CAMPO?

MR. AULICK:  -- Policy Advisory Board.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So the Policy Advisory Committee is made up of one and the same people as all the members of CAMPO.

MR. AULICK: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

MR. AULICK: It's chaired by Senator Barrientos.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. AULICK: So on October 8, they adopted those two -- that motion with the language shown there. And then they also set a hearing for this coming Monday, the 19th, to consider that as an amendment to our long-range plan. We meet November 19 with a hearing, and then we would vote on December 10 on that amendment to our plan.

So I wanted to come and tell you where we are in the process. It's an issue of timing. And again, the motivation was to try to have a bypass on the east opened before there's, quote, a bypass on the west.

And really, what I'm asking -- I just want to inform you of that, and then essentially just ask for discussion and coordination on the issue of timing --

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. AULICK:  -- of the road, as we go on. As I said, my board hasn't taken a position on the exclusive development agreement. Personally, I think that's something that I would endorse being done, and our issue is just timing. And we would just like to --

MR. NICHOLS: So you're not opposed to the project --

MR. AULICK: No.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- as a group. You just --

MR. AULICK: It's in our -- the project is in our plan.

MR. NICHOLS: Did you have any questions for --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Why was I under the impression that CAMPO had previously indicated some kind of support for this?

MR. AULICK: It's in our plan.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Was I misinformed?

MR. AULICK: The road is in our plan, which we adopted in June of 2000, State Highway 45 South.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And was it in your plan in June of 2000 with these exceptions?

MR. AULICK: No.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. So it's not been misrepresented to me, then. Because it's been represented to me that this was part of your approved plan for the area without these exceptions you're now making us aware of.

MR. AULICK: That is correct. These exceptions were adopted on October 8 and will be formally considered in a hearing this coming Monday and a vote on December 10.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Don't misunderstand me, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to be misunderstood by our own department. Senator Barrientos is a personal friend of mine. I have deep respect for him. Don't want to be in a position of being on the other side of the table from him. But how does your organization expect us and private sector participants in the transportation world to plan if you adopt plans and then at kind of the last minute come tell us that you want to put provisos on them? How can we be logical and prudent and visionary under those circumstances?

MR. AULICK: Well, I don't know if I can completely answer that question, but this issue came up because we were talking about Loop 1 and what should happen to it. And that discussion --

MR. WILLIAMSON: But this proposal, as I understand it, doesn't connect to Loop 1, does it?

MR. AULICK: It would allow eventually the connection of Loop 1 on the south to I-35.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I thought there was some physical gap between the start and the stop of this proposal and the south end of Loop 1.

MR. AULICK: There's a project from the south end of Loop 1 to 1626 that's funded and I think expected to go to contract this year, which would be a two-lane road built with, I believe, state funds, to connect from Loop 1 to 1626. And this project would take up from there and continue over to I-35 and then to 183.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So are you saying that this proposal that Mr. Russell's brought to us is contingent on this other thing? Are you leading me down that path?

MR. AULICK: No. I'm saying the action that's before you today, CAMPO does not oppose that. All we're talking about is in the future, when we talk about the timing of the projects, we'd just like to -- my board would like to have discussions with TxDOT in considerations of the timing.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, then wouldn't it be more logical for you to be talking to us about the piece that connects this project with Loop 1? I mean, what -- I don't understand.

MR. AULICK: Yes. Well, that one was approved to bypass traffic that's coming out of Hays County trying to get to Loop 1 that was otherwise coming up Brody Lane through Shady Hollow. And so the connection from 1626 to Loop 1 was put in there to prevent the traffic from going through that neighborhood and be able to go directly to Loop 1. That decision was made several years ago, and then the commission decided to fund that.

So, I mean, that part, there's a rationale for that part, and now we're talking about moving east towards I-35. And, I mean, we don't -- I just wanted to make it clear what CAMPO has done and what we're considering doing formally and make sure there's no -- some people have said CAMPO's opposed to the road at all, and that's not true, because it is in our plan.

MR. NICHOLS: Let me ask a couple questions. And don't leave the podium, but I need to ask Phil a question.

On the -- when this proposal for the exclusive development was brought to the TTA board, it was an unsolicited proposal.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. But it was a project that was on the books as approved by CAMPO at the time. About when was the first action or posting of an action that ever occurred by TTA or discussed in an open meeting by TTA? Do you happen to recall --

MR. RUSSELL: On this proposal?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Was it six months ago or --

MR. RUSSELL: I think it was brought to us originally in the July 2000 board meeting. And if memory serves me, it was posted somewhere probably in the September time frame of that same year, September --

MR. WILLIAMSON: 2000 or 2001?

MR. RUSSELL: 2000.

MR. NICHOLS: 2000.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Over a year ago?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. We had -- I remember some of the initial conceptual on that. But CAMPO approved the list of projects in 2000, June of 2000. I think shortly after that -- and the official action that was posted for the entire public to see and participate began in about September.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: It was just a little over a year ago. And the TTA board, which normally meets here in this room, which met approximately once a month or every other month or something like that, there were a number of actions scattered over the year with regards to that. Some were the concept of the board -- I'm on that board -- and whether or not that board wanted to move forward. I think they chose that they did. They advertised for other proposals.

MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. 45-day advertising period.

MR. NICHOLS: And there were time periods. And then as that closed out, it was posted again and advertised. The board had more discussions, and they've had updates.

The commission later took action. I think there were some resolutions from the Transportation Commission, so they were -- I mean, it's not as if this was something that was slipped in under the tent, is my point. In all good faith -- and I think in all good faith of CAMPO in approving a list of projects, we have been trying to proceed forward in an open, forthright manner with the projects, knowing that CAMPO had asked us to do this. And I was not aware of any requests or restrictions of timing of other projects at that time.

But the -- there have been numerous actions and public notices and discussions, most of which have been in this room in front of the whole world. I don't know how many meetings we've had on that thing in this room, but probably at least six or eight or nine over approximately a one-year period of time. So I was trying to get the timing from you.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Did you -- were you -- Michael, were you aware of any of those meetings?

MR. AULICK: Yes, sir. And I attended at least one of them and, you know, just to say it was in our plan and we'd just like to be involved in the discussions of what was going forward.

The thing I'm bringing to you today came out of the deliberations that my board has been ongoing since June on Loop 1 HOV and looking at the entire corridor. And that's where this came from. That's the reason I'm bringing it to you now. It was first adopted October 8, and then as I say, it's currently being considered for formal adoption in the plan. But --

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Well, I was in receipt of the letter that you sent, but it's dated October 29, so I got it -- well, they usually stamp them when I received them. But really, I only got mine just less than a week ago.

MR. AULICK: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: So that's the first time I've really gotten any kind of notice from anybody representing CAMPO that there is a timing mechanism in there.

Do you have anything further to add?

MR. AULICK: Well, I just want to make it clear that personally I support the recommended action, 11(b), and all I'm bringing to you is what the board is doing relative to timing.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you very much.

Next speaker is Bill Bundy? -- I can read; I just have a hard time reading the writing -- with Save Our Springs? I have a card from Bill Bundy. It could be Bunch -- it's just hard to read the writing -- the executive director of Save Our Springs Alliance. Is he in the room or out in the hallway?

MR. WILLIAMSON: They're checking. He's maybe out in the hallway.

MR. NICHOLS: He's checking. He may be in the hallway. He's officially showing he's opposed to the project. I'm going to hold this card, since he's not here.

We have Representative Mike Krusee.

REP. KRUSEE: Good morning, Commissioners.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning.

REP. KRUSEE: I'm shown as being on this item, but I want to make clear that I'm not against the item at all. I really am in support of it and think you should take action today on it.

The reason that I'm -- Gary Bradley has been a very valuable member of this community, and this is another example of his valuable contributions to this entire region.

But this is really my first opportunity to address you since Proposition 15 passed. And I wanted to let you know that we are very excited here in Central Texas about the opportunity to take advantage of the Regional Mobility Authorities.

We are working together as a region, the -- all the different various political jurisdictions -- the counties, the cities -- exploring whether this can be a valuable tool. Right now it looks like it can be. We are very interested, eager, and we're going to be aggressive in trying to work with you in setting up a Regional Mobility Authority, at least for Williamson and Travis and perhaps also with Hays County.

And the only thing I'd say is as you are considering any -- whether it's this item or any other item here in Central Texas, please bear that in mind and don't take any action -- and I don't believe this action today would preempt an RMA for this region -- but as you consider those items, please don't take any action that would preempt the work that we would like to do on 183-A, on SH 45, on the MoPac extension, and SH 130.

We're very excited about the new tools that have been given to us by the voters of Texas to build more roads and to build them quicker and more efficiently.

Also wanted to add a personal note, and that is there's two people in particular I wanted to note. Phil Russell and Bob Daigh over at the Turnpike Authority have just been excellent. They have been -- I can't name another state agency in Texas where they have been more responsive to our needs in getting these things done. I mean, late at night, going to town hall meetings, whatever it takes, they will interrupt their day, come up with the information we need, show up to the meeting where we need them, and do an excellent, professional job of representing themselves, sometimes against hostile crowds or crowds that aren't really quite sure what's going to happen. They've just been excellent.

The other point that I wanted to make is that I know in the past the Central Texas region hasn't always agreed on what they want to do and the direction they want to go. But during the last year, and especially during the last, you know, six months or so, I've seen this region come together like it never has before. A lot of that has been due to leadership on the part of people like Mayor Watson of Austin and Lee Walker with the Capital Metro Authority. But also at Travis County -- and you've seen how the voters overwhelmingly approved the bond so we could go forward with the right of way.

I really do think that we have turned the corner in Central Texas, and we are all working together in unprecedented way to move forward on these projects.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

Do you have any --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I just, for one, want to thank you for taking the time to come up and express interest in the -- something that's important to me, the Regional Mobility Authority. And I also want to thank you for -- anytime leaders stand up and say, Give us a chance to work together; give us a chance to solve our own problems; give us a chance to take advantage of the tools, that is an exciting thing. And I personally thank you for those words and thank you for coming and making us aware of your interest.

REP. KRUSEE: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you for your time today.

I'm going to give one more opportunity for -- it's either Bill Bunch or Bill Bundy? -- I'm sorry; I can't read the writing -- Save Our Springs.

MR. CLARK: Hello. My name is Colin Clark, and I work for Save Our Springs Alliance. Bill was here earlier, and I stepped outside because --

MR. NICHOLS: Bill Clark?

MR. CLARK: Colin Clark.

MR. NICHOLS: Colin.

MR. CLARK: I believe we were on Item 5, and I stepped out, came back, and somehow got to 11(b). So will Bill not be able to speak?

MR. NICHOLS: Go ahead.

MR. CLARK: Okay. I'll speak on behalf of him for the Save Our Springs Alliance. We have an objection to Item 11(b). We feel that authorization to construct State Highway 45 South from 126 [sic] to 183 will create an interregional loop, a bypass of I-35. And the technical team of CAMPO recommended that they not start on Highway 45 South until State Highway 130 has been completed to prevent that problem.

But also there are plans to bury I-35 through Central Austin, and we feel that if Highway 45 is completed before I-35 is rebuilt that we'll also create a western loop, an interregional bypass. And what this will do is create tremendous development pressure in that part of Austin, and that region has had a lot of growth. And the city of Austin and surrounding regions have been trying to protect the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer. And we feel that this loop, if created, will put pressure on more residential/commercial, more infrastructure development over the region that TNRCC has found to be the most sensitive aquifer in the state of Texas to pollution.

So we request that you deny this until both Highway 130 is completed and I-35 through Central Austin has been redone and completed. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Did you have any questions you wanted to ask him?

MR. WILLIAMSON: You want me to go first?

MR. NICHOLS: Sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's a comfortable relationship.

MR. NICHOLS: Go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to be sure I understand your objection or the objection of your organization. If we move forward with this proposal and then 45 or 60 or however many days from now approve it, we've in effect, in your view, laid the groundwork for a western bypass, when at some point down the road if there's ever enough money there will be an eastern bypass. And having an eastern bypass is more complementary to your viewpoint of environmental protection than the western bypass.

MR. CLARK: Correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: The -- I had received y'all's letter, which I think spelled out pretty much most of what you had said, but I appreciate you taking the time to be here today and get this on the record. But in the letter, I don't believe it ever said y'all were opposed to the project. But as CAMPO executive director was saying earlier, it was more of a matter of timing, wanting it to be completed after the 130 project.

And it referred to a lowering of I-35?

MR. CLARK: Correct.

MR. NICHOLS: I was not even aware that we were considering taking I-35 and lowering it. Is that something you're aware of? I've never heard of it. I've been on the commission four-and-a-half years. I know there's a lot of projects I've never heard of.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean you haven't heard of Garbade's Gully?

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Are you aware of that project?

MR. BEHRENS: They have a study going on I-35, and there's various schemes that are being looked at, and I myself haven't seen anything that lowers it, but there is a look at a rebuild one day.

MR. NICHOLS: I wasn't aware of that.

MR. CLARK: Okay. Well, our concern would be that even if we had the eastern bypass, that should I-35 have serious construction which would basically block traffic through it, if we also have a western bypass, then, you know, we're still going to see tremendous traffic --

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. In that letter, as I recall, it never said you opposed the project, but just the timing of the project. So, I mean, if you're -- this is about as official record as you can get today. So if you're opposed to the project at all being built, now is the time to say it, but if you're not opposed to the project but just opposed to the timing of the project, that's more appropriate -- either appropriate -- whatever -- I'd just like you to clarify.

MR. CLARK: Okay. Well, I'll state that at this time we request that the project not be approved until Highway 130 is built out and any reconstruction on I-35 which would push traffic onto a western bypass.

MR. NICHOLS: So that it's a matter of timing. You are not opposed to the project, just the timing of the project.

MR. CLARK: At this time, yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Does that mean at a later time you may be opposed to the project?

MR. CLARK: Perhaps.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. CLARK: I'm speaking on behalf --

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to understand.

MR. CLARK: Okay. I mean --

MR. NICHOLS: I mean, so often we have projects where people --

MR. CLARK:  -- projects change, and this -- maybe 130 --

MR. NICHOLS:  -- things --

MR. CLARK:  -- never happens, you know. At this time we request that you don't buy into this project.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. You did a good job. I appreciate you taking the time to be here.

Did you have any more questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm pretty impressed. Did a pretty good job.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So thank you very much.

MR. CLARK: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Is there anyone else here who wanted to speak on this issue who did not fill out a card?

Yes, sir. Would you like to fill out a card?

You want to try to give him a card? I want to make sure everybody has an opportunity to speak on this issue, that no one's denied an opportunity. So she's getting you a card, so while she fills it out, would you just state your name for the record?

MR. COVINGTON: My name is Sid Covington, and I was one of the members of the CAMPO special committee on the Loop 1 project, and I just wanted to clarify some of the things that Mr. Aulick had said and that Representative Krusee said about this.

That, you know, I think the -- this whole issue of the 45 North and the 45 South came to the forefront during this special committee that was formed in, what, August, I believe. And as part of that committee, we had a set of experts that we hired and brought in from around the country.

One of the recommendations they made was to delay the completion of the southern portion of MoPac where it ties into 35, go ahead and complete the northern part, what's called the Big T, but not create an east -- or a westbound loop around 35 until State Highway 130 was done. So that was really a recommendation that's come up fairly recently by this set of experts that we had brought in to study this.

MR. NICHOLS: How long did that group of experts study this?

MR. COVINGTON: They were actually involved in the process -- and I'm not exactly sure. Mike Aulick could give you a better answer than that. He had sent them a lot of information that they studied in advance. Then they actually were here in town for a week and met with stakeholders for a week. But they had an awful lot of information prior to that that they looked at before they made their recommendations.

Essentially, following their recommendations, then the motion was brought up at the CAMPO meeting. As Representative Krusee said, the CAMPO Policy Advisory Committee did pass the motion. That's what they are going -- you know, planning now to implement into the 2025 plan, so the 2025 plan is modified to reflect that motion.

This motion and this recommendation was also very heavily referenced, and I spoke and clarified it, to the City of Austin city council meeting on October 25, I believe, when the city council voted to release Capital Metro funds to acquire right of way for the northern portion of the Big T, the northern extension of MoPac and State Highway 45 on the north.

So there's some concern -- and I talked to one of the council members yesterday -- there's some concern that if this --

MR. NICHOLS: You talking about the city council or --

MR. COVINGTON: The city council.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- or CAMPO members?

MR. COVINGTON: The city council.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. COVINGTON: There's some concern by the city council now that if this agreement isn't upheld, since that's what was used as an argument for releasing that money to acquire that right of way, that could put that right of way acquisition in jeopardy.

I did speak -- I did meet with Chairman Johnson on October 17 and have kind of reviewed this with him and have been trying to meet with Commissioner Williamson, and we haven't been able to work out schedules together. But we haven't -- this is not something that just kind of changed for the sake of change. It's a very reasoned thought. It makes sense to a lot of people, and it represents, I think, you know, a very good solution to this.

Again, I'm not opposed to this at all, and particularly since this looks like, you know, the beginning to negotiate a development agreement. I think that should move ahead with the caveat that we do want to pay -- or make sure that they pay attention to the timing issue.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. You have any?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much. I appreciate the clarification.

I've got another card that was filled out, and before I get into that speaker, if there anyone else who wants to fill out a card, now is the time.

Gary Bradley?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Who?

MR. BRADLEY: Thank you, Commissioners. I just wanted to clear up a couple of things that previous speakers had talked about. The first speaker that was representing the Save Our Springs Alliance, that organization also opposes Loop 130 or the 130 project. So if we follow their train of logic, we would never get to build this segment, because the others would never get built either.

In terms of the last speaker and this study group that was put together by CAMPO and the City of Austin, when he says it involved the stakeholders, I beg to differ. That study was styled as U.S. 183/Loop 1 Study. SH 45 was not even on the heading. And not one of the communities or Hays County or Southeast Travis County -- none of the people that would be impacted by the project that's before you today were invited to participate in that one-week study. And so I just want to clear up those two things.

In summary, though, I would really like to compliment the people that we've had an opportunity to work with in your organization: Phillip Russell, Bob Daigh, Jim Griffin. Been exemplary. There have been two occasions where we've had a semi-crisis in terms of trying to meet deadlines in moving our project forward, and they've always been willing to step up and give us the time that we needed to accomplish our mission.

And I want to thank you for your consideration, and I certainly want to thank the staff for their help. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Monroe, are you on standby? Stop me if I wander into territory into which I should not wander.

I appreciated Representative Krusee coming before the commission a few minutes ago and expressing his interest in helping lead collective community-based, regional thinking about solving regional problems. As I consider my position on this proposal, I am extremely concerned that we not do any damage to the potential of a Regional Mobility Authority involving at least Williamson and Travis county and perhaps Hays and perhaps counties to the west and east.

And since you are one of the parties with whom my department employees will be negotiating, I want to know -- if I can ask this question, Mr. Monroe -- and if I can, what your response is.

Would you at any time have any intention of being an impediment to the formation of a Regional Mobility Authority which might require this road, if it were to be built, to be handed over the Authority -- without any monetary loss for anyone -- do you intend to be an impediment to that?

MR. BRADLEY: I wouldn't want to speak for my partners, Zachry Corporation or HNTB, but I wouldn't see any objections to that, Commissioner. Our goal here was to simply get this road built, as you know.

And I wouldn't think that -- part of the problem that we've had when you talk about regional mobility, it's an educational process, you know, because not all the members of this region are aware of all the regional problems. So we have a learning curve.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But if that learning curve is met, Mr. Bradley, and if the good citizens of these counties decide that they want to collectively and cooperatively and regionally begin to solve some of their regional transportation problems --

MR. BRADLEY: Absolutely. If --

MR. WILLIAMSON:  -- then you don't intend this project to be an impediment to that.

MR. BRADLEY: No, sir. It should be in support of that, because if you're going to reduce congestion, and we now have the classification of being the most congested city of our size in the United States, then I think building roads is -- has to be a major part of that answer. And so that's what we're for: building roads and building them in this region and doing that as economically as we can for the taxpayer.

So, no, I'm all for regional cooperation. It's just that we need a very balanced representation in that regional planning, because there are limited resources. Everyone recognizes that. And for those resources to be used in a -- distributed in a fair and equal manner, then you have to have a fair representation of stakeholders at the table to do that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think our rules will require fair representation of everyone. That's --

MR. BRADLEY: That's all we ask.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you.

MR. BRADLEY: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm going to give Bill Bunch another opportunity. You are here, as I understand it.

MR. BUNCH: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Sorry you were not here a little earlier, but we will make sure that you have that opportunity.

MR. BUNCH: Thank you. I have a letter also.

I'm Bill Bunch with the Save Our Springs Alliance, also a member of a recently created larger umbrella group looking at the MoPac corridor called the MoPac Boulevard Alliance. And I provided you a letter from them.

We recently carried out a fairly in-depth public information request to the Turnpike Authority to try to get better information about this project, which we do oppose. And we hope that you will slow down and take a closer look at this.

Part of the reasons for that concern are both the threats to the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer, which the state has recognized as more vulnerable to pollution than any other aquifer in Texas.

The other concern is converting MoPac from what is basically a local commuter highway into a major interregional bypass for I-35. And we don't think that goes away just by slowing down and waiting for 130 to be built, because there are other proposals to improve I-35 through downtown. That'll be a huge, very extended construction project. And if you have a very quick bypass over to MoPac open up during that time, I think you have very serious impacts on neighborhoods and commuters in the whole MoPac-183 corridor.

The toll projections, the revenue projections that have been made so far, heavily dependent on very intensive growth over the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer. And we've seen that actually the reverse has been happening, where developers are selling out for preserver lands so that these projections are really being scaled back.

Also, an important historic point here. Mr. Bradley came to this commission, previous version of this commission, for the MoPac South extension, and just as here, promised to donate all the right of way. That right of way was not donated, and in fact, Travis County and the taxpayers had to step in and deliver right of way that had been promised to the state and to the local community. So there's a track record here where it's very important to pay attention to what promises are being made for revenue streams and for right of way on the financial side.

You probably know that the City of Austin did vote to remove this piece of -- or at least a part of the project from 1626 to 35 from the local transportation plan. And that was a unanimous vote, so there's a very strong community opposition to this project.

And with that, I appreciate your time and allowing me to come up and speak after my turn.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

Do you have any more comments before we get into our questions for Phil?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have some questions for Phil.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Now will be a good time.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know Mr. Bradley very well. I'm -- I happen to believe that all men and women are men and women of their words when they give it, be in Mr. Bunch or Mr. Bradley or Mr. Russell. All that being said, you're going to begin to negotiate, I assume, if we pass this.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Watch me, please, Mr. Monroe.

It is this commissioner's wish that its agency employees at no time allow anyone to lay an impediment or a roadblock to the formation of a Regional Mobility Authority. Please bear that in mind when you are visiting, if you're allowed to visit -- and we don't [indiscernible] -- because it's my belief, and I say this with -- I don't know Mr. Covington either, but I say this with respect, sir, and with respect to you and your position on clean water.

The reality is the state has wrestled for years with how to properly support the Travis County/Central Texas growth in an environmentally sensitive and commercially logical way. I must say that despite our best efforts, we probably have not been part of a successful story and that success will only occur when the region develops its own governing body and has to face itself on how to solve these problems and leave us pretty much out of it to rely on how to get people from Austin to San Antonio or from Austin to Houston.

And accordingly, I don't want us to do anything that interrupts the ability for men and women to be responsible for solving their own regional problems. Please bear that in mind.

That's all I have to say.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I had a comment or a question. Okay. A number from the CAMPO concern of the timing of 130 and from the original letter from Save Our Springs on the timing for like the 35 and the 130, this -- the MoPac Boulevard I just got today -- but as I understand it, on the 130 project and the north T, we have gone out officially requesting proposals?

MR. RUSSELL: On the 130 project, we have gone out for proposals. We expect those back in first part of next year.

MR. NICHOLS: We have received our record of decision and all those kind of things?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, on 130.

MR. NICHOLS: And on 130, which is a timing issue for CAMPO. That, as I understand it, has been developing quite rapidly as far as a project.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And that the tie-ins on the north end -- in other words, the revenue studies, as I understand it, have been underway for a number of -- period of time.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: A lot of people have spent a lot of money, both the department and some of these entities, in the development of that thing and probably anticipation of letting something actually go out early next year?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. And then on this project, if we wait until -- so we're moving forward on 130 as rapidly as we know how.

MR. RUSSELL: That is correct.

MR. NICHOLS: I don't know of any way to go any faster. And there's a pretty strong commitment, I believe, from the previous TTA board, as well as the commission, that if the numbers all fit and the volumes fit and the environmental fits, that we were going to try to move forward on that thing as rapidly as we can.

This project also becomes a critical link. If we wait until the 130 is complete before we even begin this process, that we will have years of delay of this process, plus lose the revenue studies, the environmental studies all have to be updated again. Is that correct?

MR. RUSSELL: That is correct. And on the 45 proposed project, the eastern side of that will have to go through fairly arduous environmental studies.

MR. NICHOLS: Which we've already done.

MR. RUSSELL: No, sir. On 45 South, the proposed project, on the piece between 35 and 183, there'll have to be significant environmental studies on that piece.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean it's not something -- that part hasn't already been done by the private sector entity or us already?

MR. RUSSELL: No, sir. There is no environmental clearance on --

MR. WILLIAMSON: So how long would that take?

MR. RUSSELL: It should take a while. There'll be a lot of coordination activities --

MR. WILLIAMSON: A month, six months, a year?

MR. RUSSELL: Probably more than a year.

MR. NICHOLS: So even though we approve the development of an agreement, we could not actually start construction until that environmental study is complete.

MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, well, that -- that's a lot of time.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Yes. So the timing of the completion of these things is kind of what my point is. We're -- we are moving rapidly and as fast as I know to move on 130. It is a reality.

MR. RUSSELL: We're moving as quickly as we can on 130, and if we're given the go-ahead to move forward on this project, it would allow us to sit down and start talking with various environmental issues that are out there on 45 South. This would give us the ability to start that.

MR. NICHOLS: If there's a timing, it's -- it may not be too far different.

MR. RUSSELL: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you very much.

Do I hear a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I move we accept or approve Item 11(b).

MR. NICHOLS: I second. All in favor, say aye?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

Thank all of you for being here.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll move back to Item 7, Public Transportation, and we have two items. Margot Massey will present these, please.

MS. MASSEY: Now for something completely different, Item 7(a). We had asked you in August of this year to approve $30,000 to do the 2002 Public Transportation Conference. And we erred in that by not consulting as closely as we should have with our industry partners, namely the Texas Transit Association, and we're probably mistaken in thinking that because it was in Lubbock it was somehow -- we would get that West Texas rate. And that's not the case.

The conference costs what it costs, irregardless of the location. So we are coming back to you today somewhat hat in hand and asking that you approve an additional 20,000 to up the contribution to a reasonable level. The conference costs approximately $150,000 a year to put on. It is a rather large undertaking, and I recommend this as the appropriate level for TxDOT participation.

MR. NICHOLS: Comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: What good comes of it to us?

MS. MASSEY: It gives us an opportunity to discuss a lot of important issues, for example, anticipating maybe one of your other questions, sir, there will be an entire track in the conference discussing alternative fuels.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh.

MS. MASSEY: Funding and technology and --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Perhaps you can amend that to include also how transit interrelates with Regional Mobility Authorities.

MS. MASSEY: Yes. Yes. I'm sure that will find its way onto the agenda.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you seek a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: Oh. Do you have anything else? If you would like --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. I'm going to second that, but I would like to make a comment before we vote. The -- at one time, we -- and it's not the conference; it's the expenditure related to the conference. At one time, we did all this work internally.

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir. We did that for 25 years.

MR. NICHOLS: And then the Transit Authority, as I understand, the association wanted to do it.

MS. MASSEY: Actually, sir, to be technically correct on that, that recommendation came from your public transportation advisory committee, which we recognized as --

MR. NICHOLS: And then so we began -- as opposed to doing the work of reservations and passing out badges and calling speakers, we began paying a consultant or somebody --

MS. MASSEY: Right.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- to represent the association to do that work for us.

MS. MASSEY: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: And that number, dollar figure, just continues to climb. So we had approved 30,000, and now we're requesting an additional 20,000.

MS. MASSEY: Actually, sir, we -- you had approved 50,000 in the two prior years, and this amount is certainly comparable to what the department spent. I have a staff person who spent most of her time doing these kinds of conference planning and arranging things, and it is staggering, the amount of work. Plus we had the mail costs, which are now being absorbed by another entity, but we incurred the same amount of costs when we did the conference ourselves.

MR. NICHOLS: I -- we have a motion and a second. Is that correct?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm just -- would like to say that it -- surely, between the association and all those people out there, we could ask, request that some of those association members divide up some of this work and possibly save the state of Texas some of that money and then put it back into transit as opposed to paying somebody to conduct a hearing.

There's a lot of people that do a lot of work in these associations, if we just ask and then coordinate it. So that's my only comment.

So a motion and second. All in favor, say aye.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

Thank you very much.

MS. MASSEY: Thank you.

The second item is asking for the award of $39,500 in toll credits to be used as match for the City of Victoria through Golden Crescent Regional Planning Commission. Yes, these will be alternatively fueled vehicles.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And a tip of the hat to the City of Victoria.

MR. BEHRENS: Go to Item 8, our Administrative Rules, both the rules under proposed adoption will be deferred, so we'll go to the rules under Item 8(b). Number (1) is Finance. And these are rules for final adoption. Thomas Doebner.

MR. DOEBNER: Good morning. My name is Thomas Doebner. It's good afternoon. I'm sorry. My name is Thomas Doebner with the department's Finance Division.

This minute order is for the final adoption of rules to allow the department to collect $25 for the processing of a return or a dishonored check. And these -- we did not receive any public comments during the open comment period; and, therefore, we recommend adoption.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to know if you have anything to report to us on changes in the TxDOT family?

MR. DOEBNER: There was a baby girl born last -- yesterday afternoon about five o'clock.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did they name her Jimmette?

MR. DOEBNER: I have not heard the name yet.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Or Jamette?

So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 8(b)(2), rules on Chapter 9, Contract Management.

MS. SOLDANO: Good afternoon. I'm Jennifer Soldano, director of the Contract Services Office.

This minute order adopts new Section 9.9 concerning interlocal contracts. House Bill 1831 added new Section 201.209 to the Transportation Code, which was effective September 1. This statute authorizes the department to enter into interlocal contracts with one or more local governments.

These rules were proposed in August and published in the Texas Register on September 14. No comments were received, and we recommend adoption.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

MS. SOLDANO: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 8(b)(3), VTR rules on Chapter 17.

MR. DIKE: Commission members, I'm Jerry Dike, director of Vehicle Titles and Registration Division.

We have a minute order here adopting the amendments to Rules 17.24 and 17.28 concerning disabled person license plates. It also sets a $30 fee for the YMCA plate, and it allows podiatrists to sign disabled applications for foot disorders. These rules support three bills from the past legislative session, House Bill 15, 1831, and Senate Bill 777.

The commission passed these to be published in the Texas Register August 30. They were proposed, and no public comments were received. We recommend adoption.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

MR. DIKE: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 8(b)(4) under Chapter 25, Traffic Operation. Mary Lou.

MS. RALLS: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Mary Lou Ralls, director of the Bridge Division.

The minute order before you is for final adoption of rules pertaining to Transportation Code 621.301 regarding the policies and procedures governing department concurrence with a county's proposed load limit for a county road or bridge. Department concurrence will help ensure uniform load limits for all public roads and bridges.

These rules were posted as required in the Texas Register. We received no comments. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. NICHOLS: As I understand it, this will be the final step in the trucks that are too heavy for a bridge is now -- it will now be illegal for them to drive on it -- is that correct? -- unless there's no other way to get there.

MS. RALLS: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And if there's no other way, they have to get a permit?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MS. RALLS: No. 2060.

MR. NICHOLS: But it covers 99-point-something percent of all the situations. This is pretty close.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This was your baby, wasn't it?

MR. NICHOLS: It was all of their baby. I think it was the whole department's baby. I think I'm the one that is shoved up there in front of them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, then I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

MS. RALLS: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 8(b)(4)(b), Safe Routes to School.

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

The minute order before you addresses final adoption of the initial set of rules to establish the Safe Routes to School Program as required by House Bill 2204 of the last legislative session. The goal of this program is to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety around school areas.

House Bill 2204 also makes Safe Routes projects eligible for Federal Hazard Elimination Program construction funds, although the bill does not dedicate any specific funding amount for these projects.

We received public comment from five individuals during the development of this phase of the program rules. We have responded to each issue raised by the commenters and accommodated them whenever possible.

The department is developing rules in two steps for this bill. The first step, as contained in this minute order, describes eligible product types and the applications to the middle process.

The second round of rulemaking will focus on the factors the department will use to evaluate Safe Routes to Schools projects applications. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: I had a -- did you have a question?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No.

MR. NICHOLS: I had a question. One is a comment, and one is a question. On the comment side, congratulations. I think it's going to be a good thing. As I understand it, a lot of these projects probably will qualify, as we get into the transportation enhancement.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: So that's going to be great. So the kids can get to school on their bicycles in a more safe manner. So I think that's outstanding.

Number two, the people who sent in their comments or had comments in public hearings for which you have addressed -- and I've read all the responses -- do we automatically send a copy of that response to the people who made the comment?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes. In fact, we sent a copy of the draft minute order to them earlier this week to let them know how we were going to respond.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So each one of those commenters does get a response back.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes. That's right.

MR. NICHOLS: That answers my question.

Motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 8(b)(5), Amendments to Oversize and Overweight Vehicle and Loads rules.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Commissioners, for the record, my name is Monty Chamberlain, and I'm the business services manager for the Motor Carrier Division.

The minute order before you is for final adoption of amendments to Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 28, subchapters (b) and (c) concerning permits for oversize/overweight vehicles and loads. As you're aware, the amendments were proposed at the August 30 commission meeting, and the rules were subsequently published in the September 14 issue of the Texas Register.

The department did receive four written comments, and a public hearing was held on October 23 of this year, in which the department received four verbal comments. All the comments received have been addressed in the adoption preamble. Any changes made to the final rules are also explained in the preamble, which will be published in the Texas Register upon your final adoption.

At this time, we're submitting the final adoption minute order for your consideration and recommend its approval.

MR. NICHOLS: Question or motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 9, Transportation Planning. There's two sections to that. Jim Randall will handle it.

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

Item 9(a), we bring you the first quarter program for disadvantaged counties to adjust matching fund requirements. In your books is Exhibit A that lists the projects, and staff's recommended adjustments for each of them.

The adjustments are based on the equations approved in earlier proposals. There are seven projects in three counties. The reduction in participation for these projects is $187,014. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Item 9(b). This minute order authorizes the executive director or designee to enter into a funding agreement with the Northeast Texas Rural Transportation District to provide no more than $300,000 in state funds for the acquisition of approximately 25 miles of railroad right of way in Collin and Hunt counties.

Rider 62 to the department's appropriations for fiscal years 2002-2003 requires the department to allocate 300,000 for the purchase of abandoned railroad right of way within and joining NETEX. NETEX intends to enter into an agreement to purchase the right of way from the current owner and is seeking the appropriated funds to facilitate the purchase of the railroad corridor. This minute order provides that as a condition of receiving these funds, NETEX shall agree to convey to the department a 300,000 security interest in the right of way including a first right of refusal to purchase the property for $300,000.

The proposed acquisition of the abandoned rail corridor could help preserve the right of way for future rail-freight shipments and for future light-rail transportation from Greenville into the urban areas of Dallas and Fort Worth, thus providing an economic, environmental, and transportation benefit to the people of Texas. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No questions.

MR. NICHOLS: Motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 10, the State Infrastructure Bank loan, Thomas Doebner.

MR. DOEBNER: Again, my name is Thomas Doebner with the department's Finance Division. This minute order is for preliminary approval of a request from the City of Leander to borrow $7.9 million from the State Infrastructure Bank.

They have not requested any specific terms at this time. Our rule of thumb would show about a 12-year term. They have a BBB bond rating, and yesterday their market rate would have been about 4.83 percent if they were going to sell bonds on the market. They are not part of an economically disadvantaged county, and they're not part of a border district high-priority trade route, so our negotiations with them will be close to market rate. We recommend approval.

MR. NICHOLS: I have a question.

Do you have a question?

Question: It's not on this application. I support the application, but the question is, when we set up the SIB rules in the first place, the process, originally we had a one-step process, I believe, or was it a two-step process?

MR. DOEBNER: There's a two-step process if it's over a certain amount, and I believe it's 250,000.

MR. NICHOLS: Two-step process on everything, and then later we came back and said if it's under 300,000, so we could make it into a one-step process.

MR. DOEBNER: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: So it was a two-step to start with, and a one-step on smaller ones.

MR. DOEBNER: I'm not sure that it was ever two-step for the small ones, but I am not positive of that.

MR. NICHOLS: It was either two-step for both or one-step for both. We made a correction along the way. I do recall that.

MR. DOEBNER: Then it must have been a two-step for both then.

MR. NICHOLS: This is not law; this is internal procedures. Now that we've used this for a while, you know, I'm anxious, just like everybody else, to, when we know we've got a good project, try to minimize and shave time off.

Do you still feel like we need a two-step process on those figures above 300,000?

MR. DOEBNER: In some cases, yes. The entity that is borrowing the money wants an indication -- before they go out and change tax rates or before they get their counsel to take some action that would cost them money, they want an indication from us that y'all are probably going to approve it. And that's what they get from preliminary approval.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So y'all don't feel like that we're delaying any projects or holding up because of the two-step process?

MR. DOEBNER: No.

MR. NICHOLS: If we start seeing situations like that, let us know, because that is an internal process; it could be sped up.

All right. Motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: We have covered Item 11. We go to Item 12, Contracts. Thomas.

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

Item 12(a)(1) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on November 6 and 7, 2001, whose engineer's estimated costs are $300,000 or more. We had 13 projects we let.

We have one project we recommend for rejection in Tom Green County. It's project number 4007. We had four bidders. It was a crack sealing contract. On this project, we had advertised it, and the proposal required that the contractors be prequalified, that they submit an audited financial statement to be able to bid the job.

After release of the proposal and after advertising, we changed the system to allow contractors who were not prequalified, that were basically bidders -- questionnaire contractors, to submit bids to solicit bids for the job.

We'd like to recommend that we reject this project because there may be other bidders out there that would have bid if they saw that it was not a [indiscernible] project. And we'd like to solicit more bids, and we felt there could be some harm to the contractors that did submit bids that were prequalified to fill out acceptance of all projects here.

Staff recommends approval, with the exception noted.

MR. NICHOLS: Question.

MR. WILLIAMSON: None from me.

MR. NICHOLS: Motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I move.

MR. NICHOLS: I second. All in favor, say aye.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 12(a)(2) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on November 6 and 7, 2001. We had 31 projects, and we have one project we recommend for rejection. The project is in Bowie County.

It's project number 3022. We had one bidder; it was 26 percent over. We had a problem with a base item on the project. We identified the wrong type of description code for it, and we'd like to go back and make that correction and also solicit more bids so we have more competition on the project.

Staff recommends approval with the exception noted -- award of all projects with the exception noted.

Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Motion or questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 12(b), which is Contract Claim, Amadeo Saenz.

MR. SAENZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive director Engineering Operations and also chair of the TxDOT Claims Committee.

The minute order before you basically approves a claim settlement for a contract by Taylor Mowing Service, project RMC 603351-001, Upshur County. On October 3, the Contract Claim Committee -- the TxDOT Claim Committee considered this claim and made a recommendation for settlement to the contractor. The contractor did not respond to the committee's offer within the specified 20-day time period; therefore, the committee's recommendation is considered final, and the contractor is barred from any future appeal.

The committee considers this to be a fair and reasonable settlement offer and recommends your approval.

MR. NICHOLS: Question?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm comfortable about these things. So move.

MR. NICHOLS: I got a motion. I'll second it. Before we vote, I want to say it's good to see you at the podium in your new position.

MR. SAENZ: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: That's the first time -- I believe it's the first time you've been up to the podium in your new position. Is that correct?

MR. SAENZ: It is, today.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. And Mike had given me some trick questions to ask you.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: And I was looking around for them here, so I couldn't really find them. So I'm going to use them the next time. So be prepared the next time.

MR. SAENZ: Okay.

MR. NICHOLS: With that, all in favor, say aye.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

MR. SAENZ: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Okay. Item 13, Routine Minute Orders. Those are listed as posted in the agenda. We would recommend approval of those minute orders. If you have any one that you would like to have discussed, we can do that; otherwise, we would recommend approval of the routine minute orders.

MR. NICHOLS: Do we have any commenters on it or any other -- okay.

Do you have any question on any of these?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No questions, and I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: I'll second. All in favor, say aye.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: I don't think there's any need for an executive session. And we have two people signed up for open comment.

MR. NICHOLS: Open comment. One's yellow, and one's blue. I thought the yellow was on the agenda. Okay. Open comment. Winifred Kelsey, executive director, Scenic Austin. Welcome.

MS. KELSEY: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Winifred Kelsey, and I'm here today representing Scenic Texas. I'd like to speak to you about the interim study to reevaluate Texas becoming the 49th state to participate in the National Scenic Byways Program.

The last evaluation took place in the early 1990s during the ISTEA era. As you know, some of the rules changed when, in its next life, ISTEA became TEA-21. One significant modification for assessing whether Texas should participate in the Byways Program has to do with donor states. In the original version, it didn't make sense for a donor state to participate. However, with the advent of TEA-21, that is no longer the case.

Texas and Montana are now the only states that have not elected to be eligible for federal funding that is available to implement corridor management plans. Granted, the allotted funds to do not represent a substantial amount of money, but the awards can provide rural communities in which we so often find our most scenic roads and vistas with enhancement tools otherwise unavailable to them.

Another concern expressed in the original study was that the federal government would compromise or even withhold a state's entire transportation package if a corridor management plan was not implemented correctly. In the history of the program this has never happened. Those administering the National Scenic Byways Program have assured me that TEA-21's funds linked to the program are unrelated to the general transportation budget.

There's been a misconception perpetrated that a corridor management plan is irrevocably thrust onto a community without local consideration. This is simply not the case. Corridor management plans are developed and implemented on the local level. The Scenic Byways Program is voluntary, and nothing happens unless a local community wants to seek Byway status. The only input that the federal government has is when a locally developed plan is submitted for federal review and is either approved or denied.

Because these guidelines are clearly delineated and projects size are small, departments of transportation have not been burdened by this program. Indeed, the rest of the country has discovered the wisdom of participation. Rural communities, almost without exception, are looking for economic development tools. The tourism generated by appearing on the National Scenic Byways map can be a measurable boon not only to the community but also to the state.

Tourists must travel to their destinations, and very often they do so by car. No doubt about it, in Texas that can mean a long way on our impressive highway system.

You may be asking yourself, Well, what's the problem here? And I have to tell you, I'm stumped by our elective. The only stipulation for becoming a National Scenic Byway is that once a Byway is designated, you can't build any new billboards on that strip of road. Not a single billboard comes down.

In a recent scientific study conducted by social scientist Dr. Stephen Klineburg [phonetic], 80 percent of Texans indicated that when it comes to billboards, Texas has enough, and we don't need any more.

The second charge that the TxDOT committee appointed by the legislature is to evaluate Texas landscaping laws. In the same survey, Texans revealed that they want their roads better landscaped. There are those who would like to clear-cut vegetation that obscures the visibility of billboards from any angle.

Our major metropolitan areas across the state are demanding that the view from the roadway be visually improved. These cities are implementing comprehensive, low-maintenance landscaping plans such as Houston's Green Ribbon Project. And these changes that have been put forward by the outdoor advertising groups would eviscerate these beautification efforts.

Texas is a magnificent place, and part of our responsibility is to leave it in better shape than we found it. While that obligates us to growth and development, we must be ever mindful that preserving and enhancing Texas' natural beauty must be an essential part of this mission. Scenic Texas is ready and willing to assist TxDOT in its assessment of Scenic Byways in our state's landscaping practices.

Thank you for this opportunity to address you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I do have a question for you.

MS. KELSEY: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You said that if that happened, we couldn't put any more billboards up on our route that had been recognized as such?

MS. KELSEY: Yes. On a road that's been designated as a Scenic Byway, the only stipulation is that no new billboards can be erected. They don't take any down, but --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. How would that affect flowers planted on the right of way that advertise the logos of companies?

MS. KELSEY: Flowers planted? Do flowers advertise --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, let's say that, for example, Nike came to us and said, We'll pay Fund 6, the concrete fund, $100,000 a month if you'll let us plant flowers along this bank in Houston that's our swoosh sign, and we'll maintain it; we'll water it. It'd be a white background and a red check.

MS. KELSEY: From the pictures I've seen from other states where they have gotten private donations to help with these initiatives, part of it goes into actual signage, and so it's -- and some of that is like an Adopt a Highway sign, and all those can be included into this program.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But you don't know specifically if that would prohibit us from letting somebody plant flowers to advertise their logo.

MS. KELSEY: I know specifically in other states they've been able to do it, and so I --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

MS. KELSEY:  -- but I don't know exactly, but I've seen it in other states, so I assume it would be --

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're not going to action on this, are we?

MR. NICHOLS: Cannot take action.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Nice to see you.

MS. KELSEY: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

We have one additional card for the mayor of Corsicana, April Sikes, but I think I see the whole Corsicana delegation back there. I'd encourage y'all all to --

MAYOR SIKES: I don't know whether that's to protect me or y'all.

MR. NICHOLS: Greetings. I live down the street from y'all in East Texas.

MAYOR SIKES: Great.

MR. NICHOLS: Jacksonville. Yes. We play y'all in football, basketball, and everything else.

MAYOR SIKES: I think I should say before I start that I'm all for the RMAs and alternative fuels.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR SIKES: All right. Let me say good afternoon. I am April Sikes. I'm the mayor of Corsicana, and I want to introduce a few people who are with me today. We have Truitt Gilbreath, who is our city manager; Connie Standridge, our engineer; and Daryl Schliem, who is the director of our chamber of commerce; and Billy McManus, who is our Navarro County commissioner for Precinct 2.

With that said, I am the proud mayor of Corsicana, which is located, as you know, about 60 miles south of Dallas. I'm certainly proud to be here, and I'm certainly not too proud to beg, plead, and make promises with regards to our frontage road project. I have, however, promised the others in the group who know that I'm also not to proud to cry that I would not do that while I beg, plead, and promise.

It is an overwhelming responsibility to me to stand before you and ask for your help on behalf of the citizens of Corsicana and the citizens in Navarro County. You are familiar, I know, with our frontage road project, and in your packets, there's a letter that I have submitted that outlines the history of that project.

We have been told that now our package is in your hands, and the ultimate decision about that frontage road will be yours. So my real purpose today in visiting with you is to express our concern for the future of our project.

The city, county, school, our whole community, in fact, began a process about three years ago to enhance the quality of life for our citizens, and our correspondence to you will reflect a written request to TxDOT in July of 1999 for construction of frontage roads.

From this request, we were told that frontage roads could be built using our local funds. The community group then identified an underutilized tract of land which is along I-45 and 287 intersection. That land showed the greatest economic potential that we had in our county.

This property was purchased for the development of a business park using favorable provisions of our economic development laws obviously designed to promote business in Texas. A bond issue was then passed to fund construction. A tax increment financing district was formed. A reinvestment zone and an enterprise zone were established. And for those of you on the commission, you know how hard that is to get those things done, and with unanimous votes, I'd like to add.

Then our project plan was developed with potential investors, and in May of 2001 an agreement was signed for a $20 million development with the expectations that over $100 million would be invested by these developers within the next ten years.

Having lived in Corsicana all my life, I can assure you that $100 million deals don't come often. In fact, this is our first one, and it's obviously, to us, an opportunity of a lifetime.

When these developers first surfaced, I didn't believe they were real people who were coming and willing to spend this kind of money in our community, but they are. And in your packet, you'll find a letter from one of those men, by the name of Thomas Schrody [phonetic].

Our agreement with these developers required that the city would facilitate the construction of the frontage road, and we believed in good faith that the frontage road would be constructed when we made that agreement. We now have until December 18 to fulfill our obligations under this agreement, and frankly, our time is running out.

I will do anything you ask of me to assure that this road is built. Regardless of what the others think, I'll start bawling if I have to, because this development is like none other that Corsicana has ever seen, and we have the money to build the road. We have the developers who are ready to start the project tomorrow. The only thing left to secure this future which is extremely promising to our town and to our county -- the only thing left is for you to allow us to build this road.

I wondered how many times I could say "please" in three minutes, but I would just say, please, say yes. I urge you all to search your hearts and to find a way to allow this to happen. It will forever change the lives of the citizens of Corsicana and all of the citizens of Navarro County. And in exchange, I can assure you that all of us will be forever grateful to you for having done that.

And with that said, I'm going to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you very much. Obviously, we're in the process of changing frontage roads policies, and the access rights on -- particularly on the interstate eventually end up being approved by the commission, and those had not been approved at this point.

I was not aware until you spoke that you had a December 18 deadline.

MAYOR SIKES: And we just fairly recently were basically presented with that deadline. I think our developers had heard --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Who presented that to you?

MR. SCHLIEM: The deadline --

MR. WILLIAMSON: The developer?

MR. SCHLIEM: Yes. The developer -- when we had them in, we've had ongoing negotiations with them, and I think you'll see the master plan that is in --

MR. NICHOLS: Well, I mean, when you get a package, you don't have a time to have a conversation, listen, and read at the same time. But we will go through this.

MAYOR SIKES: Sure. And you'll see in there, but the bottom line is, we've said to these men, Just trust us and bear with us, and they have done that. But now they're kind of getting tired, and they want some sort of answer as far as the road goes.

MR. NICHOLS: I think you've made a very good awareness of the problem and the situation and the importance of it and the timing element. I appreciate you coming up today. Very important. We cannot take action today, as you know, because it was not posted on the agenda for action.

MAYOR SIKES: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: But I'm going to be in Corsicana in about four hours.

MAYOR SIKES: Great.

MR. NICHOLS: But I've got my daughter's basketball game I've got to go to. I think that's -- but I will come back to Corsicana in a few days.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You're admitting that?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. I have a 15-year-old daughter.

MR. WILLIAMSON: No. You're admitting you're going to Corsicana?

MAYOR SIKES: We would have never believed it.

MR. NICHOLS: You would never believe I had a 15-year-old daughter?

MAYOR SIKES: Never. Never.

MR. NICHOLS: I've got them about 30 years old all the way down to 15. Same wife, too, you know. Yes. We were in Corsicana playing basketball not too long ago. The -- but I would like to come back to Corsicana early next week. Who would you like me to meet with?

MAYOR SIKES: We will have anyone present that you would like to speak with.

MR. NICHOLS: Who do I need to contact? Do I need to contact you?

MAYOR SIKES: If you will contact our --

MR. NICHOLS: Our assistant, Sallie Burk, back there at the black -- the -- would you give her the phone number of whoever, and I'll try to set up something so I can at least come over there and --

MAYOR SIKES: That will be great.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- get into it.

MAYOR SIKES: We really would appreciate the opportunity to show you what is on line for that project. It's really unbelievable.

MR. NICHOLS: We cannot take action.

Do you have any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. My colleague is going to take the lead on this, and I'm sure he'll make the right decision. I want to ask you a couple questions about this developer.

MAYOR SIKES: Certainly.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did the city have to give any tax abatements to this guy? Did the county or the school district have to give any tax abatements?

MAYOR SIKES: We have not. What we have done is we developed the TIF, the tax increment financing district, which is also -- when you talked about the RMAs, that's -- we're trying to get a more regional attitude even within -- with our developers. We've basically had people working against each other, and now we're all together.

And so the city, the college, and the county taxes will be deferred to pay back the TIF.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. And did you have to put any cash into the deal?

MAYOR SIKES: We --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Like did he require you to go buy the property from someone?

MAYOR SIKES: We did purchase that tract of land. Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That he's going to use.

MAYOR SIKES: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And has someone gone to Minnesota and made sure they're really doing something?

MAYOR SIKES: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Physically.

MAYOR SIKES: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Not digital cameras.

MR. WILLIAMSON: No.

MR. SCHLIEM: Yes. As a matter of fact, when -- Mr. Nichols, when you attend, I do have probably 20 sets of film on the digital cameras, and my wife and I had to go on up along with one of our councilman. Jay Waterman also was up there and stayed overnight at the hotel and went through their whole thing.

They have nine of these operations, two in Nebraska, one in Owatonna, Minnesota, is what we are designating.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What's their target market?

MR. SCHLIEM: Tourists. It's a tourist destination with a water park and with a -- and the region -- we're in such a designated area. Corsicana is located -- it has about a million more people to draw from in a 350-mile radius than the rest of the communities we were against in Texas. And they are a large hunting, fishing, and retail store for gentlemen, and the other part is for the ladies that hunt, they will also have shopping for -- a retail center similar to what Hillsboro has, along with a 190-room hotel, a one-acre indoor water park, and a six-acre outdoor water park.

And it's more of destination center is what they will make --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, let me just say, you couldn't have a better guy looking into your deal than Mr. Nichols.

MAYOR SIKES: Well, we appreciate that. And like I say, we were, ourselves, frankly leery. And that's why people have actually gone, just as you suggested, to see it for themselves.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we're catching a lot of grief now about our position on frontage roads and ramps, and we're willing to take that grief.

MR. NICHOLS: One of the main things we hope to accomplish -- of course, this is something that's going to come out as rule, then be debated, and all that kind of stuff --

MAYOR SIKES: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- is that wouldn't it be nice to know that you had those access rights at the beginning before you did all those steps?

MAYOR SIKES: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Rather than doing all those steps and hoping --

MAYOR SIKES: And hoping.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- they're approved?

MAYOR SIKES: Yes, sir, it would.

MR. NICHOLS: I think that is -- I know from what I had seen -- would eliminate a lot of grief in the process.

MR. SCHLIEM: And we are requiring a $1-1/2 million bond if they default of any building for this. And we only have about $800,000 into the land. So if they do not come through with their $20 million minimum development, the $1-1/2 million bond or letter or credit will be called to pay the city back for their --

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. We'll try to set up something either next week, whoever you want me to get with or whatever.

MAYOR SIKES: Great.

MR. NICHOLS: I will have read the packet by then, and try to get with Sallie back there.

Sallie, would you hold your hand up? Do they know who -- okay.

MAYOR SIKES: Thank you very much.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, everybody.

MAYOR SIKES: We appreciate it. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Any further business?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: No need for an executive committee?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Do I hear a motion to adjourn?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is there anybody from the Houston Chronicle present?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I have some facts and figures I was going to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, but I suppose the Houston Chronicle is really not interested in seeing what goes on at the Texas Department of Transportation, so I'll move we adjourn.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

(Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: November 15, 2001

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 185, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum before the Texas Department of Transportation.

                         11/18/01
(Transcriber) (Date)

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