Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, December 13, 2001

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

STAFF:

MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director
RICHARD MONROE, General Counsel
HELEN HAVELKA, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director
 

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:16 a.m., and this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is called to order. Welcome to our final meeting of the year. It is a pleasure to have you here today.

Please note for the record that public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was filed with the Office of Secretary of State at 4:36 p.m. on December 5, 2001.

Before we get started, I would like to see if my colleagues, the fellow commissioners, have any comments. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I'd welcome everybody here today. Have a great holiday and drive carefully. That's all.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's a pretty good way of summing it up.

MR. JOHNSON: I concur. We certainly hope that everyone has a very meaningful and special holiday season, and please drive carefully.

As we go through the agenda I would ask that if you would like to speak on an agenda item that you fill out a yellow card and submit it so we may call you at the appropriate time, and if you would like to address the commission at the open session at the end of the meeting, please fill out a blue card, and please be mindful that time is very important, and we ask you to hold your comments to three minutes or thereabouts.

We will commence the meeting by having the approval of the minutes of our two commission meetings that were held in November, the normal commission meeting and then the enhancement meeting. Is there a motion to that effect?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Mike, I will turn the agenda over to you.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll begin with agenda item number 2, aviation. Dave Fulton will talk about funding for airport improvements.

MR. FULTON: Good morning, commissioners and Mike. My name is David Fulton, director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.

This minute order contains a request for grant funding approval for four airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all these projects shown in Exhibit A is approximately $547,000: 438,000 federal, 54,000 state, and 54,000 local.

A public hearing was held on November 26 of this year, and no comments were received. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: One short question.

MR. FULTON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: To what extent when we're going through these projects and recommending them for approval or disapproval -- to what extent do we consider what we may or may not be doing to enhance connectivity of these airports to our state highway system, and in particular to any proposed expansion of our system? Do we ever give that any kind of thought?

MR. FULTON: Let me see if I understand your question --

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I'm not suggesting that we should. I'm just curious.

MR. FULTON: The connectivity between the highway system and the airport system?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.

MR. FULTON: We haven't done a great deal of that. Fortunately, we have a fine highway system in this state, but most of the airports are pretty well served. We do consider the access road into the airport from a major highway eligible for funding. It's both federally and eligible for state funding.

There has been discussion at times at the larger airports to look at access there, but for the general aviation airports we have not done anything to that regard.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's something we might want to start considering in the future.

MR. FULTON: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, chair.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, David.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 3, public transportation, Margot Massey.

MS. MASSEY: Good morning. I'm Margot Massey, director of Public Transportation Division.

The item we have before you today is request for toll credits of $125,023 for the City of Longview. You may recall that in September you approved some state discretionary funding for Longview to help them implement fixed-route service. They don't have federal funds yet. We're hoping they'll flow soon, and these would go along with the state funds to buy alternatively fueled buses for their fixed-route system.

We recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Can I get in one question, chair?

Margot, you're doing a real good job of pushing public transportation towards alternative fuels. Do we have a mechanism in place where we're letting the EPA and TNRCC know of our efforts to --

MS. MASSEY: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  -- contribute to --

MS. MASSEY: We've communicated with both those agencies and the land office and comptroller's office.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, chair. So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item number 4 -- we have the proposed adoption of our administrative rules, the first being 4(a)(1), employment practices.

MS. ISABEL: Good morning. I'm Diana Isabel, director of human resources.

This proposed minute order has two actions. The first is to repeal Section 4.60 through 4.64, and then we want to simultaneously propose adoption of the new Section 4.60 through 4.63 concerning employee training and education. The purpose of this repeal and modification is strictly to revise and simplify the structure, clarify the meeting, and shorten the length.

Some of the major -- there aren't any major revisions. We have done a little bit of cleanup to require employees to attend accredited colleges and universities and allow latitude in taking correspondence and internet courses, and we also are ending the authorization of a waiver that was there so if an employee leaves our employment under the master's program and goes to another state agency we no longer would allow that waiver.

Staff recommends that this proposed minute order be adopted. Are there any questions?

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Only comment.

In the rework of these rules you reduce the volume by 25 percent.

MS. ISABEL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Hats off to you.

MS. ISABEL: We have to thank OGC for that.

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any questions. I'll move --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MS. ISABEL: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 4(a)(2) -- we have the proposed adoption of our control of access and frontage road rules, and for the first time at a commission meeting as the director of Design Division, Ken Bohuslav.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: My name is Ken Bohuslav, and I am the director of the Design Division.

The minute order we have for your consideration proposes adoptions of amendments to the department's frontage road policy contained in Title 43 of the Texas Administrative Code Section 15.54. On June 28 of this year the commission adopted minute order 108544 that directed staff to review and modify the existing rules in Section 15.54, and to better define the policy outlined in that minute order. That review is now complete.

Proposed amendments emphasize that the department will not automatically include frontage roads during project development, but that they will only be included where there are good engineering reasons or when frontage roads construction is determined to be in the best interests of the state.

Proposed amendments codified the commission policy outlined in minute order 108544 to state that all freeways and relief routes shall be designated as controlled access highways. In addition, proposed amendments focus on when access to any new frontage roads would be permitted. Unless the frontage road is provided specifically to resolve a landlocked situation or because purchase of access rights is too costly, access will not be permitted to the highway rights of way, including any frontage road constructed for engineering reasons, as mentioned previously.

Commission approval will be required before any new public or private access to a controlled access facility could be granted. This approval should be sought early, before adjacent property owners make any investments based on assumptions of access to the right of way.

Due to the interest in these frontage road rules, we have scheduled six public hearings around the state to receive public comment. Hearings are scheduled as follows: January 8 in San Antonio, January 15 in Irving, January 18 in Houston, January 22 in Lubbock, 23 in McAllen, and January 24 in El Paso.

At each location we'll begin at 2:00 p.m. with an open house format to give interested persons an opportunity to clarify any questions they have about the proposed amendments, and this will be with the department staff on an informal basis. At 4:00 p.m. we will begin the official public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comments on the proposed rules. Public hearings will last until at least 6:00 p.m.

Comments may also be submitted in writing up until February 4, 2002. Comments will then be addressed before the final rules could be adopted.

Staff recommends your approval of the proposed rules for publication in the Texas Register. The preamble to be published in the Texas Register will include the dates, location, times of each of the six public hearings. Your approval is recommended.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're still thinking about it. Is it true -- do you know, or do you know, chair? Somebody told me yesterday that the Greater Houston Partnership has endorsed our frontage road policy.

MR. JOHNSON: I have not heard.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And the Harris County -- is it MPO or traffic --

MR. JOHNSON: HGAC.

MR. WILLIAMSON: HGAC has endorsed the frontage road policy?

MR. JOHNSON: My information is they were going to consider it and they believed they were going to take favorable action, but I haven't heard their final decision.

We do have Representative Joe Pickett, who filled out a card.

Representative Pickett, did you want to say anything about frontage roads or the border colonias?

REP. PICKETT: I'll wait on the group --

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, if you need a motion I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm going to second it, but I was going to make some comments.

I probably, on this one single issue, received more phone calls, letters. I wouldn't put them in a category of fan mail, but a lot of letters related to the issue because it is one of great concern and sensitivity to communities in economic development as well as moving people, and there's a lot of concern and fear out there. For those people who are listening to that and who will be reading the transcript, these public hearings -- this is a proposed set of rules.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: That's very important to emphasize. And that through this process once we have a document out there for everybody to read and look at, through that public hearing process we'll be taking very serious input. And this thing may be shaped and molded slightly differently than the way it's proposed. But the best we have seen -- this looks pretty good to me.

So anyway, I've already made my second.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, extremely well said. The six open hearings around the state I think are extremely important. They're hopefully convenient to anyone who has something that they want to say about this particular issue. This has, as Robert mentioned, probably brought more attention than any other item certainly since my stay on the commission, and it's an extremely important one, and for that reason we want to make sure we get it right, and we want to make sure that we hear everybody who has -- is affected by it and has an opinion.

So I encourage you to attend and participate in those January hearings.

There is a motion and a second to that effect. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Ken, thank you.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: I would also mention that copies of the proposed rules that you passed this morning are available at our public information office, which is on this same floor on the other side of the elevators.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for doing that. I'm sure there are a number of people in the audience who will avail themselves of that opportunity.

MR. BEHRENS: Moving on to agenda item 4(a)(3), vehicle titles and registration rules, Jerry.

MR. DIKE: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Jerry Dike, division director of Vehicle Titles and Registration Division.

And this minute order proposes the adoption of amendments to rule 17.1 through 3, 17.21, 17.22, and 17.52 to update these rules and bring them into compliance with state laws that passed in the previous legislative session: House Bill 642, House Bill 2134, House Bill 2217, House Bill 1378, and House Bill 2204 on various registration and titling issues.

These proposed amendments correct the existing rules and ensure they're consistent and clarify language.

Staff recommends your approval of the minute order to propose these rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, Jerry.

MR. DIKE: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 4(a)(4), right of way rules on relocation assistance and benefits.

MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning. For the record, my name is John Campbell, director of the Right of Way Division.

I'd like to present for your consideration item 4(a)(4), which is a minute order for the proposed adoption of Sections 21.11 -- I'm sorry -- it's the proposed adoption of the repeal of Sections 21.111 through 21.117 of Title 43 of the Texas Administrative Code, and new Sections 21.111 through 21.118. These sections concern the relocation assistance benefits and procedures of the department.

Staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

John, thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(a)(5), Travel Information magazine advertising.

Doris.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Good morning. For the record my name is Doris Howdeshell, director of the Travel Division at TxDOT.

The minute order you have before you this morning proposes new Section 23.29 concerning magazine advertising. The Texas Civil Statutes Article 6144(e) authorizes the department to publish Texas Highways, which is the state's official travel magazine, and other travel literature for the purpose of assisting and encouraging travel in Texas.

In furtherance of that purpose the department may include certain paid advertising in travel literature, provided that the quality and the quantity of those products are maintained.

New 23.29 prescribes department policies and procedures related to advertising content for the magazine. Subsection (b) actually prescribes subjects acceptable for advertising. Subsection (c) specifies those subjects that are not acceptable for advertising in the magazine. Subsection (d) prescribes policies and procedures for soliciting advertising sales and accepting orders, and then the last section prescribes conditions under which the department will not accept advertising or will remove an advertiser.

Staff is recommending approval of the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a couple of comments. Some of them may even be a question.

I had sent you -- well, first of all, let me just say I think this is great. I know there's been a great concern about the quality of the magazine possibly going down by including advertising, and I think a lot of us are very sensitive to that. I feel like that's important. The quality of the magazine certainly has been outstanding.

But also I know that I have sat through a couple of legislative sessions where members of the Finance Committee were very concerned that in effect that magazine was operating at a pretty substantial deficit, and that in effect we were having to take tax money and subsidize the issuance of the magazine. This will allow the magazine to stand on its own, which I think is important. And we'll take the direction that they gave us.

Secondly, related -- I had sent you a number of questions which you had responded to. I was a little concerned -- since this is proposed we'll have to have comments and possible changes, but I was concerned because the rules were written strictly for mail. It did not allow the use of electronic communication or orders --

MS. HOWDESHELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- in some of this stuff, and I certainly do not want to exclude mail, but I think it would be important to consider at least the option in the proposed rules or the possible reworking of these rules when they come back around -- the inclusion as an option the use of electronic communication or orders.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Yes, sir. And after I had answered your questions earlier in regard to mail as opposed to electronic I have gone back and reread the proposed rules, and there is a place in there that I think it would work very well just to change one word where we actually remind advertisers of what the insertion order deadlines are. It actually says we will remind them by mail.

If we could just change the word "mail" to a reminder will be sent instead of mailed, it allows us the option to do at least a reminder electronically as opposed to just the --

MR. NICHOLS: That was my only comment.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. I watched this one from a distance because I'm generally -- having been in the position that some of those finance people are I understand what the argument is. It occurs to me this is a great publication, like PBS when they started advertising a little heavier -- I don't think it's going to hurt us, and it's going to help us.

But you know, this magazine might be a good tool for the commission to begin to educate the public on the changes that Governor Perry and this commission are bringing to the transportation system.

It might have been interesting, for example, to have had a short article about the frontage road issue and the whys and the background of it, and while I'm not suggesting you add 50 pages to your text, I think that when Joe Pickett is vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee in a year and a half and we come before him and show that we're using the magazine to convey information to his taxpayers he might find that attractive. It's something to think about.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Yes, sir. Thank you for your comments.

Mr. Nichols, I would like to add that we are selling advertising in other publications, and although we are not required by legislation to either have a subscription price or break even or make money on those publications, we are doing fairly well.

An example is the Texas State Travel Guide. We actually are mandated by law to hand that guide out free of charge. It's a 265-page publication, and we print 1.2 million of those a year. Net ad revenue this last year was a half a million dollars. The product costs about a dollar a piece to print, so it's about half paying for itself through ads.

However, those ads -- some of those ads are sepia-toned black and white and would not be the quality of what we would put in the magazine in regard to four-color printing.

MR. JOHNSON: Doris, one of the observations that I have is the Texas Highway magazine I think is in a league of its own, and you and the people who work on it should be congratulated on that, and the people who have gotten it to where it is.

I concern myself with a radical change -- and I'm certain we're not going down that alley, that this is a radical change. If we're going to all of a sudden with deference to my friend Rad Sallee in the front row over here look like a newspaper in terms of all the ad space that's being provided, and so my observation is if this is done in extremely good taste it can blend in with what we're doing, but I also think there's a limit.

Now, we do have a physical responsibility to endeavor to have these items be as close to economically on a break-even or positive level as possible, but this magazine has been a superlative product since its inception, and I hope people will understand and appreciate that, and that we will endeavor to maintain the highest quality not only of what's in it in terms of -- for the readers, but also, in our approach to the advertising, that it be somewhat limited and it not become overly saturated with ads.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Absolutely. That is our goal.

I will tell each one of you that it was a very difficult decision for our staff to come to because of the history of the magazine and the beauty of the magazine to actually consider accepting ads.

For the record, last year we lost about $280,000. We have a rider in the appropriations bill -- it's number 5 -- that requires us -- the language is a little ambiguous, but it requires us to approximately break even. Our goal is to do just that and to control the quality very tightly.

For example, our revenue projections were based on for the first year inside front cover, inside back cover, a couple of full-page ads, and a couple of half-page ads. So we're not at this point even talking about adding ten pages worth of ads.

MR. JOHNSON: When you talk about projections we're dealing with a fiscal year here and not the calendar year?

MS. HOWDESHELL: Correct.

MR. JOHNSON: So the fiscal year has -- when you get up and running with this will probably have four or five months left and maybe two issues -- two or three at most?

MS. HOWDESHELL: Our goal is to actually have the first ad in the magazine August of this year, which of course will only be one month during the current fiscal year.

Well, our projection is that we will actually lose about $10,000, because we have a number of start-up costs. But then the following fiscal year we project that we'll make about 120,000, because we'll have the full 12 months.

MR. JOHNSON: Anything else?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Doris, thank you very much.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(a)(6), rules on contracting and procurement procedures, Texas Turnpike Division.

MR. RUSSELL: Good morning. For the record, my name is Phillip Russell, and I'm the director of the Texas Turnpike Authority Division.

As you are aware, under Senate Bill 342, which created the regional mobility authorities, the Senate Bill 342 also dissolved the Texas Turnpike Authority board of directors and provided that all rules, policies, and procedures of the TTA board would continue in effect until superseded by action of the Commission. TTA staff has been working very closely with administration and the Office of General Counsel to merge the TTA rules, procedures, and signature authority as appropriate with those of the department.

Minute order pending before you proposes the repeal of the following sections of Title 43 of the Texas Administrative Code: Chapter 50, relating to the Texas Turnpike Authority board and employees, the public involvement procedures, and signature authority; Chapters 53.60 through 53.71, which related to the disadvantaged business enterprise and historically underutilized businesses -- or the procedures; and Chapters 53.90 through 53.94 relating to the review of contract workforce.

The rules relating to the board are no longer needed with the dissolution of the TTA board. Existing TxDOT rules governing the remaining areas will result in duplication of effort.

One exception to this will be the signature authority, which is outlined in Chapter 50, and a separate minute order will be presented to you later on today, and staff recommends repeal of these rules and the approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a few questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Phil, is there anything we're abolishing that will disrupt the flexibility of the department to negotiate the four exclusive development agreements authorized under the statute related to constitutional amendment 15?

MR. RUSSELL: No, sir, Mr. Williamson. I can't think of anything that would affect us.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, chairman.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, Phil.

MR. BEHRENS: We now have rules for final adoption under 4(b)(1). We have management rules concerning advisory committees.

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

Pursuant to appropriate law, this commission is required to review its advisory committees from time to time and to renew the mandate of those which are necessary and to disband those committees who have either outlived their usefulness for one reason or another or are otherwise not required.

No comments were received when we published these rules for comment. By these rules you would abolish two statutory advisory committees, the Household Goods Carriers Advisory Committee and the Vehicle Storage Facility/Tow Truck Rules Advisory Committee. Neither one of these has met in some time. Representatives of the industry have indicated to our division that these rules are no longer necessary. You would also abolish the Statewide Transportation Policy Committee, which has not met in several years and is no longer necessary.

By this minute order you would continue the existence of the Aviation Advisory Committee, Public Transportation Advisory Committee, Port Authority Advisory Committee, and the Bicycle Advisory Committee.

I would recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: We have one person signed up to speak on this item. That's Tommy Eden.

Welcome, Mr. Eden.

MR. EDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commission members. My name is Tommy Eden.

I'm afraid I signed up to speak on the wrong item. I had meant to sign up under 4(a)(2), which is about construction. If you'd prefer I can hold my comments until the end or I could address the issue right now.

MR. JOHNSON: Four(a)(2) is on --

MR. EDEN: Construction. Amendments to 15.54, construction, control of access on freeways/frontage roads.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, since you're here and up, why don't you go ahead?

MR. EDEN: Okay. I spoke to this commission last month concerning the need for policies -- a policy change regarding the construction of sidewalks on TxDOT highways, and the differences between the policy of TxDOT and the policy of the Federal Highway Administration, and I gave the commission members who were here a copy of the Federal Highway Administration policy. I'm sorry I didn't bring it with me today.

But as you may already be aware, TxDOT's policy is more or less stated in the Texas Administrative Code as providing for sidewalk construction when replacing an existing sidewalk where highway construction severs an existing sidewalk system or where pedestrian traffic is causing or is expected to cause a safety conflict.

Now, these rules are much less stringent than the ones that are required by the Federal Highway Administration, and as I mentioned last month, the Federal Highway Administration requires that sidewalks be constructed when -- both pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities be included in any project unless pedestrians are prohibited from that highway or where the cost of building those sidewalks is more than 20 percent of the cost of the greater project, or where there is not a great deal of need; for instance, where there was a cul-de-sac.

I would hope that this commission could bring the Texas Administrative Code in line with the Federal Highway Administration requirements by requiring that sidewalks be built under those circumstances where they are required by the Federal Highway Administration, so if you can start the process of making that change to the Texas Administrative Code that would really help everyone, because most of these highways are built without sidewalks, and that simply violates the Federal Highway Administration's guidelines.

Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Question?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. I have a question.

I remember when you spoke, and the question of whether or not we were in violation of the Federal Highway guidelines I think was directed to our staff. I think we had asked staff at that meeting to try to find where that discrepancy is that he's referring to and respond back to him. I think -- did we do that?

MR. BEHRENS: I think we're still working on that.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. EDEN: I did receive a response from your staff. Basically it says, "As you pointed out in your comments, federal policy requires safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists be given full consideration during the development of all federal aid highway projects. We believe TxDOT's current policy meets the federal requirement that full consideration be given during project development."

That's more or less all it says. It goes on, but that's the crux of the matter. It does not say anything about how these -- other than referring to the codes that I just mentioned, it really doesn't say anything about how the Texas requirements meet the federal requirements.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, staff is continuing to look at the matter, and we appreciate your being here.

MR. EDEN: Okay. I'll be glad to come back next month if you need another update on the same problem, because I will continue with this issue until I see an improvement in this.

Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We'll always be glad to see you.

MR. JOHNSON: Now we're on 4(b)(1). There were no comments. Correct?

VOICE: That is correct, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you.

MR. MONROE: At the risk of being something of a grinch, if the commission does want to deliberate on the subject of sidewalks we could always put it on the agenda so that everyone who has an opinion on sidewalks can come and give their story too.

MR. JOHNSON: We'll take that into consideration.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(b)(2), contract management, Thomas Bohuslav.

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

Item 4(b)(2) are proposed amendments to Section 9.5 for final adoption concerning special labor provisions for determining the prevailing wage rate. Senate Bill 311, 77th Session, amended the Government Code Subchapter (a), Section 2258.022, requiring that we consider additional formulas for determining prevailing wage rates. For counties bordering Mexico and counties adjacent to counties bordering Mexico -- that's about 29 counties -- these rules will now refer to the statute -- the amended statute, and they were published in the Texas Register October 12 for public comment. We received no comments.

Staff recommends approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I actually have a question, and I apologize for not sending you that question before. But this goes back to the Davis Bacon Act and all that.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: We have Davis Bacon Act that we require for federal aid projects, and we also have state laws for wage rates.

MR. NICHOLS: On the federal requirement that has to do with new construction projects and not necessarily maintenance?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: It applies to construction projects. Not necessarily new construction, but the construction -- it does not apply to maintenance projects. I can't say we do not use federal funds for maintenance projects. I can't say if they would apply for a maintenance project.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. We won't get into it here.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: Yes. Richard advises me if it's federal funds used on a maintenance project that Davis Bacon would apply.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And we don't have any choice in this matter, Thomas?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: To what extent -- when our contracts are negotiated or when our bid documents are prepared to what extent do we allow contractors to take the lower one of these wages into consideration in their proposal? At all?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: We determine the wage rates. The wage rates are included in the proposal, and those are the minimum wage rates for the classifications for that contract. There is no negotiation for that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: We, in concert of course with -- Department of Labor actually provides us the wage rates for federal aid projects, and for state projects we include the provision that addresses these statutes here, but the wage rates are included and therefore that contract had minimum wage rates.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does this drive up the cost of projects to the state?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: It will. Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: I have always thought that was a bad thing, because the government basically in effect is requiring businesses to do things that they don't normally have to do, but it is a federal requirement, so that was the argument or battle that was won or lost up in the -- at the federal level. And I remember -- I came and we spent an afternoon working on that one time, and I was thinking that -- for some reason I had recalled that if it had to do with maintenance we were not required to do it, and I don't remember why --

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: Let me straighten everything out here. First off, federal aid funds require that we use USDOL, Department of Labor, wage rates. For any construction contract we would use federal funds we'd use those.

For state-funded projects we have state statutes that require classifications in wage rates, and we actually use -- we have the option through the law to use USDOL wage rates, and we use those and include those on state construction projects.

The statutes for state-funded projects make an exception for maintenance projects such that all you have to pay is the minimum federal wage rate, which is $5.15 I believe, so maintenance is an exception unless you use federal funds.

MR. NICHOLS: That may be what I was thinking about, and what we do is -- that's the separation between maintenance and new construction, that one statutory requirement at the state level, but as we go into construction and the definition of what construction is, the construction division sends out contracts related to rehabilitation, resurfacing, some of those things, which could be interpreted to actually be maintenance projects, but because of the size of them they're sent out through construction, and therefore are being categorized as a construction project and having that extra requirement put on them that if they were sent out through the maintenance category they would not be required to put on them.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: That is an assessment that we have historically -- and this is back before my time -- historically classified these projects into construction and maintenance the way they're handled through our funding, and that's how the determination is made as to whether or not it's a construction project or maintenance project and whether or not the labor provisions apply.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So what happens if we don't pass this?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: I do have a copy of the -- of what we included in our contracts just so you'll understand it better here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does this make it worse, Thomas?

MR. NICHOLS: I think we should pass it. I also move -- I just think it's an issue that there is a choice that we can make internal to this agency as to how we want to categorize some of those and affect at a state level requirements put on contractors for some of those things, and I think that's something that can be -- and this is not an appropriate time to get into it.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: We could go back and reevaluate that and make -- determine the most appropriate way to look at it -- relook at that again.

MR. NICHOLS: I'd like to see us do a reevaluation of that. It's a carryover, so I guess I direct -- I guess that's directed to you, Mike, to -- let's at least take a look at it, see what the impact would be. Is it something that would possibly save the state some money, or would the reprocessing of contracts in two different manners actually offset the -- I don't see what the benefits are.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did I understand this correctly, Thomas? This mostly affects the border area?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: This affects those counties that are adjacent to the border and those counties that are adjacent to the counties that are adjacent to the border.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The only reason I was curious about -- the only reason I instituted the dialogue is that having spent some time on the border recently and looked at some transportation projects that border members think are important to the state it occurs to me that every time we drive up the cost of project A we're making project C -- pushing it one more day down the road, and it just seems to me that the balancing of social justice against efficiency and effectiveness for economic development of the areas are in conflict.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: The additional provision that was included in the statute basically says that you have to do another calculation, and we do our calculation based on basically counties, and we tend to group counties with USDOL if they have uniform wage rates in those counties.

This additional provision will require that we take those localities and take the mean between that locality-calculated wage rate and the statewide-calculated value, which would be an average statewide value, and we take that mean and we apply it to those counties which will be -- we won't use the locality. We won't use the statewide USDOL. We will use the average between the two, which will be the higher value.

MR. JOHNSON: Did Mr. Nichols move?

MR. NICHOLS: I did make a motion.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Behrens, would you continue to investigate --

MR. BEHRENS: Yes, we will.

MR. JOHNSON:  -- this matter? And there's a motion --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: The motion carries.

Thank you, Thomas.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(b)(3) -- we have our final adoption of the border colonia access program rules.

MR. RANDALL: Good morning. My name is Jim Randall. I'm director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

The minute order we bring before you today adopts new Sections 15.100 to 15.106 to Title 43 Texas Administrative Code concerning the border colonia access program. Senate Bill 1296, passed by the 77th Legislature, requires the Texas Public Finance Authority, in accordance with requests from the Office of the Governor, to issue general obligation bonds and notes in an aggregate amount not to exceed $175 million, and as directed by the department to distribute the proceeds to counties as financial assistance for colonia access roadway projects to serve border colonias.

This legislation requires the commission to establish a program to administer the use of the proceeds of the bonds and notes. Rider 52 to the department's appropriations for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 requires the department to establish a transportation program to improve access to colonias. New Sections 15.100 to 15.106 implement the requirements of Senate Bill 1296 and Rider 52, set forth the procedures by which an eligible county may apply for assistance, and establish criteria by which the commission will select projects.

On October 29, 2001, a public hearing was held to receive comments concerning the proposed adoption of the new sections. Seven participants provided oral comments and testimony at the public hearing, and one set of written comments was also received. Of the 12 comments received, five were concerned with project selection criteria, three wanted clarification on how the funds could be used, and four were concerned with model subdivision rules, program expansion, project scoring, and projects within a city's limits.

The comments and responses are shown in your books as Exhibit B.

The department has revised the definition of minimum colonia access road standards under Section 15.101 to make the road standards more flexible. The requirement to have the more stringent standards from AASHTO, or the county's road standards have been removed. Instead, if the county does not follow the AASHTO road standards then the executive director or designee may approve the county road standards.

This change will allow the department and the county to reach a mutual acceptable road standard that will provide safe roads for the traveling public while maximizing the program funds.

After reviewing and analyzing the proposed rules and public comments, we believe new Sections 15.100 to 15.106 implement the requirements of Senate Bill 1296 and Rider 52 and provide for the administration of the border colonia access program.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have several questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: I believe there are some questions, and then I believe Representative Pickett wanted to enter a comment, so why don't we go to the questions first?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. It will probably be more appropriate because Mr. Pickett might want to comment on some of my questions.

I have several questions, Jim. I've asked staff continually through the last 60 days about some items of concern to me. First, let me just say that I know that the governor has been most pointed in his insistence that we move along with these rules, and I'm sure we're going to, but I have three concerns that are concerns today and will be concerns a year from now and two years from now.

First concern is regarding the contracting process for these roads. Under these rules to what extent will the Department of Transportation have any involvement in the design and the let of contracts related to this money?

MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. Within the rules we have three sections: one course under design criteria, which I just mentioned, that has to be approved by the executive director or designee regarding whether it's AASHTO standards or county road standards.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Every dollar spent in the program?

MR. RANDALL: Sir?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Every dollar spent in this program is subject to that?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

MR. RANDALL: We also have provisions of the rules for certification in which the county will certify to TxDOT that they have provided -- have abided by all the requirements within the rules. We also have a compliance provision within the rules that says that if for some reason the county does not comply with the rules they can be withheld from the program until they can be reestablished in the program for following our requirements.

And finally, the department has what we call local public agency projects, and it's a procedure in which the department works with locally let projects such as enhancement projects to make sure they follow the contracting provisions that we have set up.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. So there's no chance that any of this money is going to be spent under contracts that weren't made available to the public and fully scrutinized by the public so that the public has confidence that these roads were -- that these contracts were negotiated under some sort of competitive basis?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. Those provisions should be in place.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. My second question or my second area of concern -- back to the design or the standards, my concern is based upon this: The governor and the legislature led the citizens of this state to make this capital commitment, and as is frequently the case in the legislative world, the governor and the legislature have asked the Department of Transportation to be responsible for this program. But unless I'm missing something this will be the most aggressive this department has ever been in handing control of a project over to local government while maintaining some degree of responsibility for the quality of that control down the road.

If I'm wrong about that, Mike, I've got tough skin. Tell me I'm wrong. But it just appears to me that this is a step in a new direction, which is not new for this commission. We've done a lot of that. But it looks to me like this is the most aggressive we've ever been in being responsible for dollars and saying, Here it is, whichever community, and I just want to know that our quality control -- the greatest amount of quality control are reflected in these rules while granting the greatest amount of local flexibility.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. We're confident of that as well as with our district engineers and district staff that can follow up on the projects, and we'll follow through with the rules as well --

MR. WILLIAMSON: The worst thing that can happen is for us to spend this money to help people and these roads get built at twice the cost they should be, or they start falling apart in two years, as has been the case in the past when other governmental entities have tried to build these roads.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir --

MR. WILLIAMSON: We don't want to be associated with failure. We want to be associated with success.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. I think TxDOT staff is well aware of that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: My third area of concern -- and it appears in some background information -- is the money being apportioned in a logical and fair manner amongst all counties --

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  -- in your mind?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. The way the rules are set up is that the money will be allocated essentially in two phases. First 50 percent of the distribution will go to counties based on the colonia population within the county, with of course the county with the highest colonia population will have the highest number of dollars available for their work.

The second provision is that the second 50 percent of the distribution will go to projects that are -- or evaluated on a project-by-project basis, so essentially we have two tiers. One, 50 percent will go to the counties based on their colonia population; a second fund or pot of money which will be distributed solely on the project's merit.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

Well, I appreciate you allowing me the dialogue, chair, and like I say, I know the governor has made it clear to all of us that this is an important thing to him, and I'm fully supportive of that. I just -- I don't want to be associated with failure. I want our department to be associated with success. Let's just all kind of keep that in mind.

MR. RANDALL: We understand that.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: Good job. I think it's been an issue that's been thoroughly fleshed out, a lot of public comment, modifications, changes, and I think what you have put together is probably the very best approach with everything we've known, and I echo what Ric says. It's a very large program, and it's going to be locally controlled with some state responsibility, so let's hope it works good, and we're certainly going to be watching over it.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. I need to mention that Mr. Saenz has taken a real leadership role in this program, and we appreciate his experience in this area.

MR. JOHNSON: Jim, a question. Actually, two questions. First of all, how extensive was the input throughout the process in terms of arriving at our final rules, and secondly, to follow up on Ric's observation that there is a lot of local input here, a lot of local control, and yet there's a TxDOT stamp, signature, brand, whatever, on that, and when these things are constructed we turn maintenance of these roads back to the county, and do we not have some exposure there in terms of the product being maintained and having our signature, stamp, whatever on it?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. I'll answer your second question first. Yes, sir. The way the program's set up these will become county roads maintained by the county -- road, their responsibility. However, in the rules a provision for the counties to acquire materials for the maintenance of the roads, so hopefully that will help address some of the issues you have there. At least there will be an area that they can get materials to help maintain those colonia roads.

As far as input, as I said earlier, we had a public hearing. We had seven individuals to show up that made comments. We also -- Mr. Behrens appeared before the Senate Border Affairs Committee and addressed several of the issues that the committee members had concerning the program, and also Mr. Saenz has met with the ad hoc committee that Senator Lucio set up concerned with the county judges and sat down with them and hopefully addressed some of the issues that they had.

So with those three actions we feel that we fairly well covered all the issues and concerns of the public.

Also, if I can add that if we get into the program and we see that we need to adjust the rules, we can always come back to the commission and ask to revise the rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Representative Pickett, did you want to address --

REP. PICKETT:  -- end of the last question. I'm just learning to walk again. Excuse me. I had to buy a pair of shoes. They keep taking my boots away from me in the airport, so this is new for me.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought you were going to say Shapleigh kicked you in the ankle and you were on crutches for a while.

REP. PICKETT: No. He bites, but the dentures fall out usually.

(General laughter.)

REP. PICKETT: Thanks, Ric. That will be in the paper tomorrow, and I'll be in trouble.

You echo some of the same concerns that I have, and the ad hoc committee that Senator Lucio put together -- one of the county commissioners from El Paso was there at that meeting, was on that committee, and it doesn't really matter what you do. There's going to be somebody wanting to try to tweak it with a little advantage towards theirs, and at this point I can't tell you what would be the advantage in my community or I'd have even more suggestions.

The 50 percent coming off the top for population sounds good, and I've already been asked questions about the new census. We're not really using the census. We're using Water Development Board numbers, and I know that this goes back to the 1989 model subdivision order rules, but actually House Bill 1001 that passed in '95 would probably have more of an impact on whether those colonias had been growing during that six year period, so I have a little concern there.

The adjusting the rules is probably the most important. I know it sounds like -- I'm hearing that you're negotiating with the governor's office in talking about a first $50 million issuance. I think that's a good idea, because any comments that I have I would really probably make those after the first issuance, because I could see where some of the comments were made about the abutting. There was one of the five criteria that says, well, if you pave a road but if there's people within an eighth of a mile of there, that's a larger number that's served, but it's not counted because they're not abutting.

That may be a fallback on your next round because the five criteria are pretty easy to meet, and I have a feeling that we're going to get to a point of what are we going to do when that second 25 million is based on the five criteria when everybody meets the five criteria. We don't really show what we're going to do when everybody rates a hundred.

That's not addressed in your rules, because I think everybody's going to rate a hundred or everybody is going to rate 80, and the reason 80 is because of that school bus issue.

Since House Bill 1001 a lot of areas have pushed for schools to be located in colonias areas to where we may have been busing back in '89 and busing before 1996. It may not be the same issue. So I have a little concern about the bus part of it, but if we're going to come back and maybe revisit it, I don't know what I would do differently. The 50 percent population, the preparedness -- and we're all going to have to rely on our districts and TxDOT.

The county as you know works a lot differently than TxDOT does, and being prepared is what my message is going to be to my community for that other 25 million, but I would like to leave it open, commissioners, and Ric especially for a second go-around.

And Mr. Randall is absolutely right. I think we may see some tweaks in two of your five criteria. I think that would help.

Other than that, my message is going to be -- to the people that I'm going to work with this week that we ought to embrace it and be ready, and in my position as chairman of the MPO I'm going to form an ad hoc committee, because we heard concerns from our county about the AASHTO, and I appreciate the staff taking that as one of the major considerations, and I visited with Mr. Saenz, and I'm now adding him to my speed dial.

And with that, if you have any questions -- but I think the second round is where you're really going to get some hard comments. The 100 percent population may not have been a bad way to go and then take the criteria. If you didn't meet the five it fell out. Doing it bass-ackwards. Because there's going to be -- and again, Mr. Saenz and I have already come up with a proposal on how to present projects from our county, and I think all the others are going to figure it out too. It's pretty apparent.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, my comments and my dialogue with Jim on the record about the success versus failure -- it's my instinct that if we're successful -- when I say "we," I mean the legislature, the governor, and the department -- if we're collectively successful with this, this will just be the first of several rounds of going to the public and receiving permission to make needed capital infrastructure investment in our Border.

But we have to be successful this first round. There's nothing that breeds self confidence in a program like success.

REP. PICKETT: And actually, to make a comment from the legislative side, at that time the secretary of state came to our general government committee with that rider, now known as Rider 52, and where originally he thought it may not have been successful -- want to be more successful, there was going to be a dollar amount proper added to that rider, and it would have actually limited us, because it's a lot less than this issuance that passed the public, so it actually was a better route that we took as well.

MR. JOHNSON: I think your observation that we need to have the ability to tweak these as we learn in actual application that they need some modification is very appropriate.

REP. PICKETT: And again, you're doing all the things that I would suggest. Don't issue the 175 million, because right there we're going to find out real quick. And I understand you want to move fast or going to try to do this in a few weeks in January with possibly another letting six months after that. But again, you're going to probably see the projects come forward and may have to tweak that 50 percent, because again, I don't see any of the projects that we're presenting from our area aren't going to meet the five criteria all the time.

And if any way that we can manipulate that five criteria we're going to do it, and I'm going to make sure we do it, so then what happens when you've got $100 million in requests for that balance that's left over and everybody meets the criteria? And what you do now and the other ways that you rank projects is a little bit more tedious. And I'm not asking you to add any more. Please don't do that. But there's probably going to be a way that you're going to have -- again, I appreciate it, and would like you to move forward. We're ready to go.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I know that you and your colleagues from all the border TxDOT districts worked extremely hard on the passage. This is the result of Proposition 2, and the governor traveled extensively from -- I was with him in Amarillo when he spoke on Proposition 2, and it was very --

REP. PICKETT: And we were a little worried too, chairman. Candidly, a lot of people don't understand colonias. If it's not in their backyard -- we were worried that a lot of people would vote against it because of reasons of not understanding how these were all created, and it really was --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, it was interesting. I don't know what message he used in Amarillo, but I was with him in the Dallas area, and his basic message was that's part of our state and we need to fix this problem.

MR. JOHNSON: Exactly.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And that's just the bottom line.

MR. JOHNSON: The situation down there is un-Texan. It's un-Texas-like.

REP. PICKETT: Absolutely.

MR. JOHNSON: And he did a marvelous job of carrying that message as I know a lot of people did in the border communities.

REP. PICKETT: And again, the reason I didn't mention anything on the access roads is we're trying to have a policy for our region before your public hearing on the 24th, and I appreciate your bringing that forward. We didn't have anything to do the rest of the year. We were just worried about amending our TIP and working on the MTP and air quality modeling, so we had two or three hours --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Have you got your regional mobility authority organized yet?

REP. PICKETT: Absolutely. Again, thank you, commissioners.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions or comments on this issue?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Jim.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(b)(3), the final adoption of rules concerning design.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: Again for the record, my name is Ken Bohuslav, and I'm director of the Design Division.

The minute order proposes the final adoption of new Section 15.120 through 15.122 concerning design considerations when developing transportation projects. Senate Bill 1128 from the 77th Legislature added a section to the Transportation Code requiring the department to consider certain design factors when developing transportation projects. The bill further requires department to develop rules.

The proposed rules describe how the design factors will be considered during the development of transportation projects. The proposed rules were presented to and approved by the commission at the September commission meeting. The rules were subsequently advertised for comments in the Texas Register. No comments were received on the new sections.

However, the department made one minor revision to the proposed rules. The definitions of resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction have been revised to improve the clarity and to identify the appropriate design criteria that applies to each type of project. With these minor changes staff would recommend your approval of the final adoption of these rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: The motion carries.

Thank you, Ken.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(b)(4) for final adoption, rules on land acquisition procedures.

MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning. Again, for the record, my name is John Campbell. I'm the director of the Right of Way Division.

I'd like to present for your consideration item 4(b)(4). This minute order provides for the final adoption of amendments to rules, including various sections of Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 21, with regard to the operations and responsibilities of TxDOT's Right of Way Division. These are specifically in regard to land acquisition procedures.

By Minute Order 108649 on September of 2001 these rules were presented for proposed adoption. They were posted for public comment. No comments have been received, and we have not incorporated any changes to the rules as originally proposed. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: John, I hadn't asked my staff to dialogue with you as the rules were being developed, because as you know by now my concern of the awesome power of government to take people's property away from them.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I understand there are times when we have to do that, but I just want from you to me assure me that we're not doing anything in here that is diminishing private property rights unfairly.

MR. CAMPBELL: I can guarantee for you, sir, that we do not do anything that would unnecessarily impose upon private property rights.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you.

So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: The motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(b)(5), final rules on traffic operations.

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

The minute order before you implements House Bill 299 from the 77th Legislature. House Bill 299 allows the department to establish a maximum 75-mile-per-hour daytime speed limit on any portion of the state highway system located in a county with a population density of less than ten persons per square mile. Before a higher speed limit may be created the commission must find that it is reasonable and safe.

These 75-mile-per-hour speed limits will not apply to large trucks. The nighttime speed limit will remain at 65 miles per hour. The rules also list the counties that will be eligible for the higher speed limit, and that this list will be revised with the release of each federal census.

The department received no public comments on this item. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, comment?

MR. NICHOLS: Two comments. One, I'm absolutely amazed there were no comments on this. Raising the speed limit to 75 miles an hour -- the state has gone -- the whole transportation speed thing went up, came back down, went back up, and I'm just flabbergasted. That's the first comment.

Second comment is when we fight -- this is the rule for the authorization to do that. When we reach the point that we have a recommendation to actually change one to 75, I would appreciate it if somebody would give me a call --

MR. LOPEZ: Sure.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- as opposed to just finding it routinely in a minute order.

MR. LOPEZ: We'll probably start seeing some next month.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me ask you. Any of them in Weatherford?

(General laughter.)

MR. LOPEZ: No. This is --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me assure you there's no 75 mile an hour in Parker County, Texas. Let me ask you. Is the source of your curiosity, Mr. Nichols, that you think that we ought to go to 75 or we ought not to, because I'll go on the record in telling you I think it's insane to do that, but I'm not in the legislature anymore.

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't get to vote in the legislature, and they didn't ask me for my comment.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What would your comment have been?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move that we accept this --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Too damn fast. I so second.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I have a question. Did the statute -- this does not apply to light trucks and light trucks pulling trailers. Correct?

MR. LOPEZ: It does apply.

MR. JOHNSON: It does apply?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: In other words --

MR. LOPEZ: It's the big 18-wheelers that it will not apply -- so if a highway has --

MR. JOHNSON: Is that part of the statute or is that part of our --

MR. LOPEZ: It's part of the statute.

MR. JOHNSON: All right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It just shows you just how much common sense -- I travel the roads of many of these counties in my business, and for example, I can well imagine a truck doing 65 on State Highway -- US 80 going west from Breckenridge to Albany. Is that correct? Is it 80? I can well imagine how much fun it's going to be to try to stay out of the way of some guys going 75 miles an hour in their Suburban and staying in front of a heavy truck doing 65 or 70 that doesn't want to break the law, and I'm sure there are some truck drivers out there who don't want to break the law.

I just find this amazing.

MR. JOHNSON: I believe there's a motion and a second to this item. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Carlos, thank you.

MR. LOPEZ: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, on item 4(c), this has been discussed and it's been decided to defer until the January meeting. However, Dianna Noble is here available if anybody would want to have any discussion concerning this agenda item.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I wish to have a discussion.

MR. BEHRENS: Dianna, will you come forward?

MS. NOBLE: Good morning, chairman, commissioners.

The original item, item 4(c)(1), was for the deferral of an MOU with TNRCC. The commission in October 25, 2001, had proposed a repeal and proposed a new MOU to replace a previous MOU. We did have a public hearing on November 27, 2001.

Going back to the commission meeting of October 25, there had been a direct question from Commissioner Williamson related to provisions related to the state implementation plan, language that had been contained in the previous MOU. The question was related to whether or not those provisions were still maintained in the newly proposed MOU, and my response was yes.

Subsequent to that in an attempt to transfer the language to Commissioner Williamson I noticed that language was not contained within the proposed MOU and notified the administration as well as the commissioner's aides, so there was some discussion about whether or not we needed to go ahead and amend the proposed MOU to include those provisions.

Would you like further discussion?

(No response.)

MS. NOBLE: The original MOU had had that language related to the SIB that included TNRCC involving and informing TxDOT related to the state implementation plan and the mobile sources. That specific language does not include any threshold related to TxDOT approving the mobile emissions, but more the technical involvement of TxDOT's expertise in how mobile sources contribute to air quality; the issue being that motor vehicle emission budgets are part of a huge pie in which TNRCC allocates portions of that pie both to point sources, off-road sources, and mobile sources, and obviously TxDOT's expertise is within the mobile source vehicle emissions budget.

I believe that there is a mechanism for continuing discussions with TNRCC on how they should involve TxDOT in the development of the motor vehicle emission budget as well as other issues in the SIB that do impact transportation.

And some of the mechanisms that are available to us are through a work group that had been formed a couple of years ago when Mr. Heald was still the executive director. There was a work group that was developed to address air quality issues, one of which is the technical side of transportation conformity, and we could ask that work group to develop a process or procedure.

A second mechanism is through a letter agreement. That doesn't necessarily put it in an MOU form, which is in a rule form.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The whole matter is before us at my request, chair, simply because I had the opportunity during the spring to sort of witness the legislative give and take over the Harris County area SIB, I guess, nonattainment issue. And it occurred to me that -- we're not attacking TNRCC when we say this.

It occurred to me that the transportation world has an awful lot to gain or lose by participating in the discussions and the final decisions about how attainment is to be had, and in visiting with various people it occurs to me that we should at least defer action on this and give staff an opportunity to work something out by letter agreement that gives us some level of comfort that we have some stake, some sitting at the table to negotiate these matters.

Now, I'm well aware that industry's position is, well, if you've got a seat at the table then we ought to have a seat, but as a business guy I can say this with a clear conscience. My oil and gas company is not the same thing as the Fort Worth district office of TxDOT. TxDOT -- we are part of government. We represent all people who have no face in the process.

We're not the same as a chemical company or a refinery, and the very notion that someone would say, Well, if TxDOT's got a place at the table then we need to have a place at the table too -- that's ridiculous. We're in the business of regulating these things and managing these things, and I will speak publicly and privately when necessary to point out the difference.

I think it's silly that I should expect to sit at the table with the Railroad Commission as they work out rules to regulate my business. That's nuts, and anyone who would think they should is nuts. But I do think this department has an appropriate place in that process, and I know you'll do the best you can to get us there, and I request that we defer action on this and we give staff time to do that.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, do you have any --

MR. NICHOLS: No. So we need a motion to --

MR. JOHNSON: Defer or withdraw? We don't need a motion on it? Okay.

Thank you, Dianne.

MS. NOBLE: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 5 under frontage rights and access rights, 5(a), Navarro County, the minute order for construction of a frontage road.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: Again, for the record, my name is Ken Bohuslav, and I'm the director of the Design Division.

The minute order we have for your consideration approves construction of approximately 0.8 mile section of frontage roads on the east side of Interstate 35 from 15th Street to US Highway 287 in Corsicana. One hundred percent of the project costs will be provided by the city. Two new public streets are proposed to access the frontage road and would be approved by this minute order. No other public or private access would be permitted.

The department has determined that the proposed extension will be beneficial to the safety and operation of the interstate highway by removing local traffic from the main travel lanes. Commission approval will authorize the department to enter into any agreements necessary to construct the project and authorize only the two public access points I mentioned. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: We have one person signed up to speak on this matter, Mayor April Sikes, the mayor of Corsicana.

Welcome, Mayor.

MAYOR SIKES: Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Nice to have you back again.

MAYOR SIKES: It's so good to see you again.

I hate to speak for fear of messing something up. I love the wording "approve." How can I follow that? But I will just say that I am April Sikes, Mayor of Corsicana. Chairman Johnson, good morning. So good to see you again. I'll have you know I did enjoy after our TEA 21 speech about our grant money. Your City of Houston went to TML.

I can also vouch for your, Chairman Williamson, that Weatherford does not have 75-mile-an-hour speed limits. Went through there this weekend to our City of Abilene.

And, Commissioner Nichols, good morning. We love Commissioner Nichols in Corsicana.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR SIKES: I'm going to introduce before I hurt some feelings the people who are with me today from the city. I have our city manager, Truitt Gilbreath. They're not as bashful as I am. They may stand up. Our economic development director, John Bennett, from the county our county judge, Alan Bristol; our county commissioner from Precinct 2, Billy McManus; County Commissioner from Precinct 3, William Baldwin; from our chamber of commerce, our executive director, Daryl Schliem; and from our newspaper, our editor Raymond Linex. Depending on what happens today we'll decide whether we take him back with us or not.

With that said, I am from Corsicana as you know, south of Weatherford, north of Houston, and just a little bit west of Jacksonville. I will have you know, Commissioner Nichols, that our Corsicana Tigers are no longer in the football playoffs, as obviously they should not be after the Jacksonville fiasco.

When I wanted to gather my thoughts as to what I would say to you today I first thought I would go over the history of the entire program, all the details about bonds and TIFS and reinvestment zones and schematic designs and development projects, and I quickly disregarded that plan because after I spoke with you on November 15 you already have that information. And as I said, Commissioner Nichols was gracious enough to come to Corsicana, listen to me again, and frankly, I'm afraid if I say the details any more I'm going to wear out my welcome, and I like to come to Austin, and I don't want to do that.

My second approach was to use some subliminal messages, and when I discussed the tremendous impact --vote yes -- that this frontage road would have -- vote yes -- on our community, then I thought that wouldn't be very professional -- vote yes -- for the mayor to appear before you and -- vote yes -- do that, so I will not stoop -- vote yes -- to that approach.

And lastly, my third thought was simply to say thank you for considering our project, for placing us on this agenda. I thought I would say that 45,124 times, which is the number of people whose lives you will affect if we can approve this project.

Instead of doing that -- which you know if you say a word over and over enough it loses its meaning, and I certainly don't want that to happen -- I will simply say a very genuine thank you. Thank you to the commission for the opportunity to have been heard now several times in the last month. Thank you for placing this project on this agenda. Thank you to Commissioner Nichols for being gracious enough to come to Corsicana, for caring about and understanding our project, to our local TxDOT engineer, Darwin Myers, and his assistant, Ray Nance, and Jay Nelson, our district engineer, and his staff, who for the last almost now three years have worked on this project.

Everything this commission has done to help Corsicana and Navarro County is very much appreciated, and if you choose to approve this frontage road project, as Commissioner Williamson said, you will be part of a successful project. No failure associated with this.

This is the chance of a lifetime for our community. We humbly request that you help us in making this become a reality. You will forever change the lives of the citizens of Corsicana and of Navarro County, and for that we will be forever grateful for you having done so. And we are all here and willing to answer any questions if there are any left.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

MAYOR SIKES: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have one question, Mr. Chairman, of probably Mr. Bohuslav.

Do you think there's any chance that if we pass this, Mr. McCarley will go back to North Texas and assure every community in North Texas that yes, we are reasonable people and we understand when frontage roads and ramps are necessary --

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: I think there's a good possibility.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So that senators might not be bothering us quite as much about things that we know we can fix.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: I don't think I can guarantee that.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: The dialogue about this particular project has been ongoing for some time.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: That's correct.

MR. JOHNSON: In your mind this conforms not only to the policy that was in place when that dialogue started, but also with the intent of a new policy -- frontage road policy that will be under consideration from this point forward.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: Yes. That's correct.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 5(b). John Campbell will present this access rights --

MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning again. I'm John Campbell, director of the Right of Way Division. I'd like to present for your consideration item 5(b).

Item 5(b) proposes the sale and release of access control for a single 100-foot location at the IH-10 and North side frontage road at Fry Road. This is in Harris County. This is for the discretionary sale of access rights to an adjacent private property owner. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: John, one of the issues here was -- this is a driveway for all intents and purposes, and one of the issues was whether the adjacent tracts, which are undeveloped I believe, would have access to this driveway, and I was assured by the people that Sam's Club had -- bringing this issue forward that there would be no access to either the western or northern tracts which are undeveloped, and this would be exclusive to the Sam's tract.

Are we satisfied that, one, that will be the case? There will be no other developable tracts that will have access to this drive, and where I'm coming from is there might be more traffic getting onto and off of the frontage road from this point than we believed in the original petition.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. In fact, we have a specific provision in this minute order that states that this will be an exclusive right of access only to the occupants of the Sam's tract.

Now of course, the ability for us to enforce that provision -- we can provide no guarantees to that end, but --

MR. JOHNSON: What would be our ability to enforce or what would be -- what could we do if a developer to the west sought, got access, permission to build a street or two into this --

MR. CAMPBELL: Into the --

MR. JOHNSON: -- street and therefore there was more traffic into and off of the frontage road?

MR. CAMPBELL: Our remedies would be I suppose repeal of this right. This is a property right which we're allowing for sale. We certainly have the statutory authority to go back and control access, so if we required a remedy down the road because we saw that this provision had been violated, our options would be to go back and purchase back the access.

We've also -- in light of your comment with regard to the concern for traffic that's imposed upon the frontage road, the adjacent property owner in this situation has prepared and provided a traffic impact analysis, which has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable at the Houston district.

MR. JOHNSON: The property owner of the Sam's tract?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: All right.

Any other questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I just think this is one more instance that Mr. McCarley can take back to North Texas --

MR. JOHNSON: And this is another one that we've commenced prior to any thought of changing any of the frontage road or access road -- access to the frontage road rules?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. Or at least the actions taken by the adjacent property owner were far in advance of our consideration of the frontage road rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Adjacent property owner. Who --

MR. CAMPBELL: The Sam's tract.

MR. JOHNSON: All right.

MR. CAMPBELL: In terms of their development plans.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: In the proposed rules -- I'm trying to tie this to the proposed rules -- the -- this type of approval -- under the proposed rules, one of the considerations that we can take -- because we know when we change a rule, draw a line in the sand, there are a number of projects that have had significant or made significant commitments based on the old rules.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: This is one of those situations.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

John, thank you very much.

MR. BEHRENS: Go to Item 6, and Jim Randall will take you through Item 6(a) through 6(d).

MR. RANDALL: Again, I'm Jim Randall, Director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

Item 6(a), the proposed Bolivar Bridge project, is of significant importance to mobility in the Houston-Galveston area. Currently direct access from the island to the peninsula is via ferry.

The proposed facility, commonly referred to as the Bolivar Bridge, would actually include constructing two bridges and widening the existing two-lane roadway, locally known as Sea Wolf Parkway, to four lanes.

Harris County and Galveston County have proposed, if feasible, an innovative funding plan that will provide leveraged dollars for expeditious funding and construction of the Bolivar Bridge.

Various state laws provide potential alternatives by which the bridge could be developed as a toll bridge in an expeditious manner and with the involvement of the Harris County Toll Road Authority.

Due to the agencies involved and the size and complexity of the proposal, it is necessary for the department, Harris County, Galveston County, and the Federal Highway Administration to discuss the various alternatives and possibly develop an agreement which will outline each agency's participation in the project.

The minute order before you authorizes the executive director to enter into discussions with Harris County, Galveston County, and the Federal Highway Administration that may lead to, for the commission's future consideration, a proposal for the development of a toll facility from Galveston Island to the Bolivar Peninsula. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. I want a couple, if you don't mind.

So -- and I'm not anticipating what the executive director might negotiate; I'm just trying to establish in my mind the goal here.

Maybe one way this would turn out is the Harris County Toll Authority would become sort of the project manager, and they would build a toll bridge, and maybe we'd put some toll equity money into it. Is that kind of where this is headed?

MR. RANDALL: That's a possibility, and there's also the possibility of an RMA being formed down in that area between Galveston County and Harris County to address the project also.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you have reason to believe -- is Judge Eckels and the Galveston County officials beginning to consider that concept?

MR. RANDALL: No, sir. I can't comment on that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Because I know I spent the last couple of days in the counties south of Houston and west of Houston, and I get the distinct impression that we're fixing to see an RMA proposal come from that area for a lot of different projects, so I'm just kind of curious if this one --

MR. RANDALL: No, sir. I haven't gotten any feedback in that area.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If the executive director ended up negotiating a scheme where Harris County sort of managed the project, do they have the ability to do right of way negotiations for projects like this?

MR. RANDALL: Harris County or the Toll Road --

MR. WILLIAMSON: The Toll Authority.

MR. RANDALL: I believe the Toll Authority has that ability.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's all my questions.

MR. JOHNSON: This is probably out in left field, but does the Harris County Toll Road Authority have the ability to change its charter to maybe absorb Galveston County or Montgomery County or a county that might be interested in working on a toll road, as opposed to forming an RMA, or are these charters immutable?

MR. RANDALL: I'm going to have to defer to Mr. Monroe on that one.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, and he probably doesn't know the answer. I'm just --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know. Richard is usually right on top of that stuff.

MR. JOHNSON: Right.

MR. MONROE: I'm not so sure it would be a matter of charter. They are proscribed and prescribed by statute what they can do.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know. Somebody out in the audience might know, but I have the impression that they are limited to Harris County, whereas NTTA is -- has a certain number of counties --

MR. JOHNSON: There are four counties in NTTA, and there's just one in the Harris County Toll Road Authority, and that's what --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. McCarley knows that. He's an expert on that stuff.

MR. MONROE: It is possible for the Harris County Toll Authority to extend its operations, under certain conditions, into adjoining counties.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, because it's a department of Harris County -- that was the point I was trying to -- I think they're -- aren't they kind of different animals? The Harris County Toll Authority is almost a department of county government, as opposed to NTTA's an entity all on its own.

MR. MONROE: They are very different animals. Once again, different statutes have a lot to do with that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Of course, now maybe what you're suggesting, chairman, is we need to just let Harris County annex Montgomery County and make it one big county.

(General laughter.)

VOICE: I was just going to say that the Harris Toll Road Authority, which is working with the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority to extend the west part of the toll road -- they have some kind of interim agreement, and I don't the Harris County one can operate without that permission.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Looks like a good idea to me.

MR. JOHNSON: Entertain the motion.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you.

MR. RANDALL: Item 6(b): This minute order tenders a proposal to the City of San Marcos for a future project to extend RM 3407 on new location from RM 2439 west and north to RM 12, a distance of approximately three miles.

Due to increased growth, the city passed a resolution on October 8, 2001, expressing their interest in extending RM 3407. Constructing the proposed facility will alleviate congestion while improving traffic flow and safety.

The minute order we bring before you today will preserve this transportation corridor for potential future construction. Under the terms of this proposal, the city will be responsible for providing preliminary engineering, including a schematic and right of way maps.

The city will also complete the environmental process, including mitigation and remediation, provide all right of way, utility relocation, and assistance, at no cost to the state, and access will be permitted only at the locations approved by the state.

Once the extension is completed, the city will accept maintenance and operation of RM 2439 from RM 12 to RM 3407, which is a distance of approximately 1.6 miles, and the operation and maintenance of RM 12 from RM 3407 to Loop 82, a distance of approximately three miles.

The department will review and process applicable environmental documents. Also, once the commission approves a subsequent minute order authorizing construction of the project, the department will complete the extension project and add it to the state highway system as RM 3407.

The department will also remove from the state system the portions of RM 12 and RM 2439 described earlier. This action does not constitute approval of construction and is for the purpose of advance planning for acquisition of right of way.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: We have the city manager from San Marcos, who would like to speak to the meeting: Larry Gilley.

Welcome.

MR. GILLEY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I am Larry Gilley, city manager of San Marcos, and I'm here representing the City of San Marcos this morning to tell you that we certainly support this project and would encourage the commission to approve this minute order.

This project is very important to our community, and it has received broad-based community support. That support has been demonstrated in a variety of ways, including recommendation for approval by our transportation advisory board. As was indicated previously, our city council has adopted a resolution supporting this minute order, and perhaps most importantly, our community has voted to approve general obligation bonds for the right of way acquisition for this project, so it's very important to us, and we appreciate the efforts that have been made on the department's staff to assist us in developing a plan that will benefit, we believe, both the Department of Transportation and the City of San Marcos.

So thank you. We do encourage your adoption of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Question?

MR. NICHOLS: A couple of comments, not so much questions. First of all, I was going to compliment the City of San Marcos, the county and the district for the approach they took on this project. Also, you all have -- I paid particular attention to an area with access permitted only at those locations approved by the state, that this is not really being developed as a full controlled-access project, although it's very important to move a lot of traffic.

You all have approached this project to have a few -- I guess you'd call it a restricted access: limited, restricted access, which I think is an outstanding approach by a community on a project like this, and it also falls very much in the direction that we think we need to go as a state on trying to preserve these -- some of these projects for the movement of actual traffic.

So my hat's off to you. Please send our regards back to the council. That's all I had to say.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: Second.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. Item 6(c): This minute order tenders a proposal to the North Central Texas Council of Governments and Denton and Tarrant counties for a project to extend FM 1938, an urban road, from State Highway 114 in Westlake to FM 1709 in Southlake, a distance of approximately 3.6 miles.

The proposed roadway consists of a four-lane divided highway with a wide median to allow future expansion to six lanes without any external disturbance. This route is part of the North Central Texas Council of Government's regional plan as an arterial route and has also been included in two previous regional plans.

Under the terms of this proposal, the North Central Texas Council of Governments will be responsible for placing the project in Priority 2, Category 4(c), STP Metropolitan Mobility.

In Priority 2, a substantial portion of the project's construction plans, including geometric, structural, hydraulic, and pavement design approval, should be completed and a substantial amount of the required right of way should be purchased.

Denton and Tarrant counties will be required to provide 100 percent of the right of way and eligible utility adjustments. It is also expected that the town of Westlake and the cities of Southlake and Keller will fund the engineering cost.

The department will place the roadway on the state highway system upon completion of Priority 2 activities. The commission will then consider the project for future funding, using all available funding options.

With the approval of this minute order, the executive director is authorized to enter into any necessary agreements and to proceed in the most feasible and economic manner with approved project development activities.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: Comment.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: As in the previous project in San Marcos, when we looked at the schematics on this and visited with some of the leadership from those communities, this project was proposed with a -- not as a full controlled-access, but with a very restricted access, also, with just a few city connections and things of that nature.

I did not see it in the minute order as I did in the San Marcos minute order; it's spelled out differently, but it appeared to me to be very similar --

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: -- in that it had restricted access, and I just, for the record, want to state that that's my understanding of how that project's being developed, even though it's not in there. Is that --

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I would like to endorse those remarks, also. That was the only thing I noticed that gave me pause.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: One thing before you second, Ric: The -- in the minute order addresses the funding options, or at least illustrates that there are several funding options, and, you know, my observation, the one thing I want to point out -- and certainly the Council of Governments understands this -- is that we need to work together to get this funded, and just depending upon maybe Strategic Priority Funds, as much demand as there is for those, might not be the appropriate place to look for funding.

And so I'm pleased to see in the minute order that the funding sources -- or the diversity of funding sources are mentioned.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. There's two or three sources that this project could be eventually funded from.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a second?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Item 6(d): This minute order amends Exhibit L, Category 12, Strategic Priority of the 2002 Unified Transportation Program to include a project in the Austin District on US Highway 183 from north of Loyola Lane to north of FM 969, at a total estimated cost of $10,550,000.

The project will include the construction of main lanes and frontage roads, including a grade separation at Loyola. Minute Order 108653, dated September 27, 2001, approved the 2002 UTP. Upon approval, this project will be added to Exhibit L of the 2002 UTP.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Question, comment.

MR. NICHOLS: Comment. I had requested a couple of meetings ago this be held back for time to study, and it was -- since it was my request, basically I've decided -- I'm satisfied that we should now approve that.

I would also like to say that one of the things that makes it difficult, in helping a community on some of their transportation needs is when that community, by resolution or appropriate mechanism, approves projects and then, as you develop those projects or try to develop those projects, those resolutions start then changing. It's a very disruptive process.

And as we can all accomplish so much more working shoulder to shoulder in the same direction, I want to throw that in. With that, I submit it.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, I've had the same feelings that Robert has. You know, as a proponent of local responsibility and local decision making, it's -- I would like to see the department -- and I know the governor feels this way -- that we should, as much as possible, extend responsibility to act and responsibility for one's actions to local government.

But it's very disruptive -- it's hard to be a good partner and it's hard to focus on success when you're dealing with local communities which seem to want to change the direction and the rules at random.

And it's just a difficult thing. If Robert feels like we need to move on with this, well, that's fine; I just -- I have some concerns about it also.

MR. JOHNSON: Did you make the motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Jim.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 6(e) will be presented by Richard Monroe.

MR. MONROE: Once again, for the record, my name's Richard Monroe. I'm general counsel for the department.

Earlier in the meeting the commission approved our border colonia rules. Now we get to the process of funding those projects.

If you approve the minute order before you, as I would urge you to do, you will be sending a request that the Texas Public Finance Authority commence action to sell bonds which will pay for these colonia roads. If you have any further questions, I'll try to answer them, but that's the gist of it, and I would urge you to approve the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 7(a), the minute order that will address environmental speed limits in Houston and in Parker County.

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

The minute order before you establishes environmental speed limits in the Houston-Galveston area. This minute order also cancels an existing environmental speed limit in the Fort Worth district.

The environmental speed limits in this minute order have been proposed by TNRCC as part of the Houston-Galveston area's overall air quality plan. Existing 70-, 65-, and 60-mile-per-hour speed limits on selected highways will be lowered to 55 miles per hour.

These reduced speed limits would be implemented on 112 state highways covering eight counties within this region. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, this minute order affects a piece of highway that touches land I own, and I respectfully will need to abstain from this vote.

MR. JOHNSON: So this is one minute order. Correct?

MR. LOPEZ: That's correct. All right. So the record should show that Commissioner Williamson has abstained.

Is there a motion to approve this minute order?

MR. NICHOLS: I also moved, but I did have a question.

MR. JOHNSON: Sure.

MR. NICHOLS: And I apologize for not asking -- I usually try to send them to you all, so I hate to kind of surprise you with a question like this, but sometimes it's kind of fun when I do.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: In this there's 1678 miles of roadway that's going to be affected by these speed limit changes, so my question has to do with -- that's a lot of road -- that's a lot of signs.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: How much expense is this, and over what period of time will it take the district to change all these signs?

MR. LOPEZ: We got to have the signs in place by May 1, 2002, and we're going to spend about a million dollars in the eight-county area.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. LOPEZ: Most of these signs are on existing supports, so we just got to change the sign blank itself. That's why it's not as high as it would have normally been if we'd had to put new supports.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

I did move.

MR. JOHNSON: All right. I would like to say for the record I own some real property that have frontage on highways in the state system in the Houston District, but I will second the motion.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. NICHOLS: I can't approve it by myself.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I appreciate your doing that. I know we're both more comfortable abstaining from things that touch our own property, and just for the record, I appreciate your doing that for me.

MR. LOPEZ: The next minute order amends Minute Order 108347, which authorized the use of $2,436,000 in federal funds for a project in the Value Pricing Pilot Program and authorized the use of TxDOT's and METRO's in-kind services for the required 20 percent match.

The original minute order outlined that METRO would provide the required 20 percent match and take the lead on this project. Since then, METRO has determined that they will not be able to provide the cash match.

Existing state and federal laws allow the establishment of value pricing programs under which vehicle drivers with two people are allowed to pay a fee to use an HOV lane during peak travel hours.

The I-10 HOV lane has had such a program since 1997, and the US 290 HOV lane has had a program since the fall of 2000.

This project will, among other things, analyze markets and evaluate the effectiveness of marketing efforts and pricing and install and evaluate advance toll collection and enforcement technologies.

METRO will continue to fund the management and marketing of the HOV lanes at no cost to TxDOT. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Question.

MR. WILLIAMSON: As I stated previously, Carlos, I spent most of this week down in the Houston District, and although most of my work was focused south and west, I did spend some time in Houston.

And I noticed during two different days during peak afternoon traffic there was virtually no one on that HOV lane. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm for the I-10 project, and full speed ahead, but I found it curious that if we have such a congestion problem, why is it no one uses those HOV lanes, or was I just there at a weird time?

MR. LOPEZ: Which one was it, and what time was it?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Interstate 10 going west.

MR. LOPEZ: Going west in the afternoon? Was it before four o'clock?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Four o'clock one day and about 5:30 the second day.

MR. LOPEZ: They reverse those lanes around two to three o'clock in the afternoon, to head in the outbound direction. Usually the peak starts around 4:00, 4:30-ish and doesn't end till about 7:00. I think on I-10 I think the value pricing is in effect both a.m. and in p.m. peak periods.

But what happened in those cases is we were getting too many vehicles during the peak hour that had two people in it and starting to cause congestion within the HOV lane.

So in order to keep that lane flowing smoothly and moving folks to where they need to go, we changed the occupancy requirements to three people.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, that might explain why the number of cars, then, was down. Okay.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, those lanes were funded not with Federal Highway dollars but with Federal Transit dollars, and they're much more onerous in their restrictions, and that's the reason they're barricaded.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh.

MR. JOHNSON: The question I have is what has METRO -- this is a noncash item, I understand, but why has METRO determined that they are unable to provide the match?

MR. LOPEZ: When they were running their calculations of what their in-kind services were going to need to be, it didn't quite come to the 20 percent amount, and they were not willing to provide cash to make up the remainder of that match.

TxDOT's involvement in this project will add up -- or make up the difference of that 20 percent, also in kind, so that way there's no cash outlay to either of the agencies, so they asked us to help them out.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Out of curiosity, why doesn't the toll authority run these lanes?

MR. JOHNSON: I think for the reason that they were built with Federal Transit dollars.

MR. LOPEZ: These lanes were originally built in the '80s; many of these were built in the middle to late '80s, in cooperation with TxDOT and METRO. At that time there was just a certain amount of right of way we had, and the best solution was to put them in the middle and reverse them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, the toll authority has a lot of cash on hand, I'm told. Maybe we ought to sell those HOV lanes to the toll authority, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Can we call the General Land Office and ask them if they want to do it?

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I move.

MR. NICHOLS: I'll second, with the comment that this is a pilot program; what you're trying to do is try different things so that you can utilize those lanes more.

MR. LOPEZ: We're trying to sell that excess capacity.

MR. NICHOLS: That's why it's a pilot.

MR. LOPEZ: Exactly right.

MR. NICHOLS: So I did second it.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. LOPEZ: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Carlos.

MR. BEHRENS: James Bass will present two State Infrastructure Bank loans, one for the City of Baytown, and one for the City of Winnsboro.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Jim, how's the cash?

MR. BASS: The cash? I can get into that if you'd like. This morning it looks very good, at around 115 million.

MR. WILLIAMSON: All right.

MR. BASS: Yet by the end of the month, we'll be closer to 56 million.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, that's okay. It's better than it has been.

MR. BASS: Right. For comparisons, at the end of September it was 9 million, so we've increased dramatically since then.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good job, TxDOT.

MR. BASS: We think -- I'll add a couple of caveats to that. We think by February and March it will increase, and by the end of February will be at around 77 million, but then again, once we get into the summer months and we experience increased activity in the highway construction industry, we think by the end of August, the end of this fiscal year, we'll again be close to 35 to 40 million, so we're on our way up, but once we start getting into the heavy-activity summer months, that balance will again decrease and get to a concerning area.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's have some good spring rains.

MR. BASS: Yes. The Finance Division employees have been traveling throughout the state and doing rain dances, and they appear to have been successful this past month.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Be careful what you wish for.

MR. BASS: We have not visited Houston, though.

Item 8(a) seeks preliminary approval of a loan to the City of Baytown in the amount of $2-1/2 million to fund improvements to Spur 330 from Interstate 10 to State Highway 146.

The City has requested a term of ten years, but if you approve, we will negotiate for a shorter term, closer to seven years. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions, comments?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BASS: Item 8(b) seeks final approval of a loan to the City of Winnsboro in the amount of $331,700 to relocate a water line in conjunction with the widening of Farm-to-Market 515. Interest would accrue from the date the funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4.7 percent, with payments being made over a period of ten years.

Staff recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Before Mr. Bass leaves, Mr. Johnson -- Mr. Chairman, could I ask him a question about the SIB program?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Other staff told me that it was -- it's our preference that Congress allow us to capitalize our SIB, and I, as I'm sure the chairman did also, spoke with Transportation Chairman Young about that earlier in the week when he was in Houston. But I must confess that I didn't have as much depth background about why we needed to do that as I would have liked.

Just real quickly, I mean quickly, could you explain to the commission why we would want to capitalize the SIB?

MR. BASS: One of the reasons is because, as of today, the balances of the SIB appear to be sufficient. I believe we have around 165 million with around 25 to 30 million of additional loans in the process, so that appears to be a significant -- enough, sufficient funding for a short-term period.

However, with some of the larger projects going on throughout the state, we have received some initial inquiries from entities that were interested in perhaps looking for assistance in the neighborhood of 40 to $50 million, and as you can imagine, if we were to receive one or two of those requests and it were deemed to be favorable by the commission, that balance would decrease rather rapidly.

And so it would give us a -- if we are allowed to do it, it would give us another option, another tool, to capitalize that. We would not be required to do it, but we would have that option available to us.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, how much strength would that option give us, dollarwise?

MR. BASS: I think it's 10 percent of certain federal categories, and so it would be in the neighborhood of another 180 to 200 million, would be my guess. I can double-check that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It would be significant.

MR. BASS: Significant, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for allowing me to ask the question.

MR. JOHNSON: We have a chart of receipts so we program in the next several fiscal years the receipt of principal plus interest payments so we know how much the SIB is being replenished --

MR. BASS: Correct.

MR. JOHNSON:  -- at any time, but we still run the risk of running short of funds, and this is a wonderful facility for cities, counties, et cetera, to be able to partner with us on their portion of the expenditures on significant projects.

MR. BASS: Correct. And another option that's available to the SIB -- if and when the balance is reduced significantly, the SIB does have the authority to issue revenue bonds, which would then subsequently be paid off on -- by payments of the outstanding loans as they came back in. That's something that we always are aware of, but, again, with the current balance, we don't feel that it's appropriate at this time.

MR. JOHNSON: Would the capitalization right pass through to the next reauthorization, or would it have to be specifically spelled out in the reauthorization bill?

MR. BASS: I think it would have to be spelled out in the reauthorization bill.

MR. JOHNSON: So this is, in essence, a short window if we're able to secure the ability to recapitalize.

MR. BASS: The funds that are currently in the SIB would be considered -- in the Texas SIB are ISTEA funds.

MR. JOHNSON: Right.

MR. BASS: Under TEA-21 there were only four states that were allowed to continue, and Texas was not one of them. And so in the subsequent transportation bill we would hope to be included as one of the states.

MR. JOHNSON: I know Senator Hutchison has been very instrumental in trying to bring this issue forward for us, and so far we haven't gotten the ball across the goal line, but hopefully we will.

Thank you, James.

MR. BEHRENS: Moving on to Item 9, we have two minute orders that will be presented by Phil Russell.

MR. RUSSELL: Let me make my Thomas Bohuslav adjustment here and get back into a range that I feel more comfortable operating within.

For the record, I am Phillip Russell, the director of the Turnpike Division. As we discussed earlier, the minute order which you all approved this morning deleted a portion of the TTA rules that outline the signature authority of the TTA director and the TTA board.

Again, TTA staff has been working closely with the administration and the Office of General Counsel to merge the TTA rules, procedures, and signature authority, as appropriate, with those of the department.

A minute order is pending before you to clarify the signature authority and oversight responsibilities of the commission, the executive director, and the TTA director. These duties are generally in line with those of the other -- of other TxDOT contracts.

The minute order outlines the following procedure: The commission will award all contracts to construct, improve, repair, and maintain a turnpike project in excess of $300,000. For a contract less than $300,000, the TTA director would have the ability to award that.

The TTA director would have the ability to execute any other contract, contract supplement, or contract change order less than a million dollars, but for those sorts of contracts above a million dollars, the director would first have to have the approval of the executive director, who would inform the commission.

Lastly, the TTA director would also have the authority to issue a work authorization for an amount less than or within the approved amount of those previously approved contracts; that makes sense.

And the staff would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RUSSELL: Agenda Item 9(b): An unsolicited proposal was received by the TTA in June of 2000 from the Transportation Corridor Constructors to provide right of way design and to construct an approximately ten-mile-long turnpike project.

The project that's proposed would extend from FM 1626 to US 183 in Travis and Hays counties. The consortium of Transportation Corridor Constructors is composed of the H.B. Zachry Corporation, Strategic Land Management Consultants, and the HNTB Corporation.

State Highway 45 South project will provide safety and mobility benefits for the region. The connection to US 183 from proposed State Highway 130 will provide more direct access to Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.

The financial proposal for the project specifies a fixed lump-sum project cost of $120 million, which includes TxDOT participation not to exceed 17 million. All project right of way will be furnished by the consortium.

The unsolicited proposal has been processed in accordance with TTA exclusive-development agreement rules. A preliminary traffic and revenue report has been compiled by the URS Corporation which indicates that the project is potentially feasible.

An investment-grade traffic and revenue study will, of course, have to be -- will be required before we go to the bond market.

The minute order before you would authorize the department to enter into and execute an exclusive development agreement with the Transportation Corridor Constructors for the development of State Highway 45 South from FM 1626 to US 183 as a turnpike project.

Specifically the agreement would authorize the department to expend no more than $17 million to pay for ramps, bridges, interchange and other improvements. These expenditures are contingent upon obtaining environmental clearance and the receipt of an investment-grade traffic and revenue study which forecasts that revenues will be sufficient to support the issuance of bonds.

Also it's worth noting that the department has been requested to advance up to $7 million for preliminary engineering costs to help defray some of the consortium's up-front engineering expenditures. Those funds would be paid through the bond issuance.

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

MR. JOHNSON: Before we get into that, Phil, there are two people who have asked to speak on this issue. They are Colin Clark, with the Save Our Springs Alliance --

Mr. Clark.

MR. CLARK: Good day to you, commissioners. My name is Colin Clark. I'm with the Save Our Springs Alliance.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let the record reflect, Mr. Chairman, that Colin's much better dressed this time than he was the last time that he came before us on such short notice.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Commissioner Williamson.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I noticed that. You got drafted off your bicycle out of the rain, as I recall.

MR. CLARK: Something like that.

The Save Our Springs Alliance respectfully requests that the commission not authorize TxDOT to enter into an exclusive development agreement with Transportation Corridor Constructors for the development of SH 45 South from FM 1626 to US 183 as a turnpike project and that the commission not approve funding for the project.

The City of Austin removed SH 45 South from its transportation plan for a reason: MoPac should never be a western bypass for IH 35. Authorizing this project is a move toward making MoPac the western bypass.

MoPac was not designed to accommodate interregional traffic; in fact, when MoPac was initially constructed, neighborhoods were promised that MoPac would not cross the Colorado River.

Neighborhoods were also promised that MoPac would not extend further south into the Barton Springs recharge zone. Now neighborhoods are being told that MoPac must become an interregional bypass for IH 35, a bypass which will be four miles shorter than the proposed eastern bypass, SH 130.

While the section of SH 45 South up for your consideration today is east of the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer, Mr. Bradley admitted at the November 19 CAMPO meeting that full build-out of SH 45 South as the proposed toll road will require additional construction of two lanes from MoPac to 1626 directly over the Barton Springs recharge zone.

TxDOT's environmental impact analysis reveals that SH 45 South will add 55,000 vehicle-trips per day on to MoPac. Such additional traffic will necessitate the very expensive construction of bridges at the interchanges along La Crosse, Slaughter, and Davis, where money for this construction will come from remains unseen.

The additional 55,000 vehicle-trips per day on MoPac will serve to encourage further development in southwest Austin over the Barton Springs recharge zone, and the air and groundwater pollution that accompanies development.

The Transportation Commission should not authorize projects or allocate funds for projects for the benefit of speculative sprawl and the detriment of our air and water.

I'm going to hand you these written comments and also a copy of an article written -- an editorial written by Rob Baxter that was published in the Austin Business Journal, the title of which is, "Hays County Fights SH 45."

Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Question.

MR. JOHNSON: Colin, I believe Commissioner Williamson has a question.

MR. CLARK: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I lived in Austin from 1970 to 1976. It could be that I just missed it, and I really want to know about this. I've heard several people say in the last month and a half of promises made and things said, I guess in the '60s and early '70s, leading up to MoPac about it never going across the river. But I don't remember that, and I would just like somebody somewhere to show me where that was part of the record when the state sort of, out of the goodness of its heart, offered to take that project off of the City of Austin and Travis County's shoulders, because if that's not the truth, I'm sure you don't want to be guilty of saying something that's not the truth.

I mean, if the truth is --

MR. CLARK: I'll dig those up for you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If this is just an argument about the city's developed in a way that no one could have ever imagined, then that's what we ought to focus on, but I just -- I don't recall that those types of promises or guarantees were part of the process, and if I'm wrong, I want to know.

MR. CLARK: Okay. I'll try to dig up those documents.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I appreciate it.

MR. NICHOLS: I had a question. At our last meeting, November, Save Our Springs made a presentation, and I had asked several times -- y'all's position at that time was that you wanted us to defer State 45 South until after 130 was completed; then I think also something about Interstate 35.

And I had asked several times at that meeting, does that mean y'all support South 45 after these other things are done, or did you just oppose South 45, and I never was --

MR. CLARK: Right. At that time you questioned me, and I was unclear as if we were opposed to the timing or the project in its whole, and we are opposed to SH 45 South, the western part, the side west of I-35. On the eastern side, connecting I-35 to 130, we don't have a problem with.

MR. NICHOLS: So y'all's issue isn't so much about the timing of the construction going from 35 west -- in a westerly direction; y'all just don't want it.

MR. CLARK: Correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. That's what I wanted to clarify from last meeting. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: The other speaker is Rob Baxter, president of the Friendship Alliance.

Mr. Baxter.

MR. BAXTER: Good morning. My name is Rob Baxter; I'm president of the Friendship Alliance, which is an alliance of neighborhood associations in northern Hays County which is along 1826 from about the Hays County line about eight miles down toward Salt Lick Barbecue; I don't know if you all are familiar with that, but most people know that as a landmark.

I'm also the president of the Goldenwood Property Owners Association, which is a subdivision located along that road.

We have a concern about the amount of traffic that will occur on South MoPac once this connection is made. We earnestly believe that doing it prematurely -- and I think this agenda item is premature right now -- will result in the bypass being created that we all fear and that consultants who have been hired have suggested you'd better wait till 130 is done.

We're concerned about the water as well. We are on wells ourselves. I personally am in the Barton Springs recharge zone; that's where I get my water. It's incredibly good water. The LCRA is providing a pipeline out there now that will -- you know, basically it's a bit of a double whammy. I know the LCRA pipeline doesn't have really anything to do with you, but this is a large general and regional issue, that these pipelines and highways do need to be tied together into the same concept.

The LCRA just did an EIS, an environmental impact study, for this pipeline for the area. The firm out of Salt Lake, who I've had discussions with as well, Biowest, Inc., they were very firm in their opinion that a regional plan needs to be in place before these various infrastructures get laid out.

I'm not against entirely this highway. I don't think it's critical to the people that live there right now; it is certainly critical to certain developers that want to put in shopping malls along 35 and have access to MoPac.

But as a representative, my constituents, which is only, you know, about 4- or 500 homeowners through this group of homeowners associations we represent -- but it's most of the people on 1826 right now. We will be fairly devastated by the amount of traffic that MoPac will see from this if it is done before SH 130.

And we're equally concerned about the effect and the impact these highways will have going over the recharge zone without a regional plan in place.

Again, I'm not going to sit here and say I'm against the highways, even though inherently I wish all that area would become park land. It's not going to happen; we understand that.

But we very much want you to understand how fragile that aquifer is, and unless there's a regional plan in place that is -- everybody is saying we need a regional plan; this is not a -- I'm not -- this is not a pipe dream here. But we need that regional plan in place to establish the criteria that will keep the area from degrading too much.

I just ask you to please, please put the horse in front of the cart on this one and make it all better and much more liveable for the people who are there now, as opposed to exacerbating the situation by creating more traffic and potential water problems.

Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Question?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Robert, I have a question.

MR. NICHOLS: I've got a long list of comments.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Want me to go ahead; I've just got a couple of questions.

Last month in public hearing I suggested that Travis County might want to begin to think about a regional mobility authority for Travis County and perhaps the counties around it.

One of our fine district employees, Mr. Garbade, again raised that matter at CAMPO a week or so ago, and I thanked him for doing that.

Is it possible that yourself and Colin and all of the collection of interested parties who have legitimate viewpoints about the environment and roads and development of real estate -- people who own real estate do have a right to develop their real estate --

MR. BAXTER: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is it possible that it's time for maybe all of you all to try to sit in a room with the commissioners court and figure out how you might want to take some of this transportation grid off the state's hands and form a mobility authority and begin to generate revenue from your own tax dollars to perhaps pay for bicycle lanes and light rail and things that you collectively view as important that perhaps we at the commission think we don't have enough expertise to force on Travis County? Is that possible that you all could begin to think about that?

MR. BAXTER: I believe it's possible and probable. I mean, I wish we had someone who felt like you do who is in a position of local government authority to create that.

We're dying for the leadership, frankly. I'm not here to stymie development; I'm just here to have it happen in a commonsense approach that will not destroy the area.

This is about schools as well; I mean, how we have to fund them when all the roads and pipelines show up that support, you know, more development. Well, we haven't fleshed out -- the plan doesn't include schools, doesn't include shopping areas; there is no plan.

Yes, I think it's possible. We are long overdue. I am trying, as the president of the Friendship Alliance, to press this agenda, to push for a regional plan. I'm talking to the Hays County commissioners; I'm talking to Dripping Springs. I go to their meetings; I keep pushing this.

And my group -- I happen to be here representing a number of other homeowners presidents who has asked me, you know, Go forward; keep it up, Rob. Fortunately my work allows me time to do this.

So I'm not just speaking for myself here, and, yes, it's possible, and it's long overdue. And if you have any suggestions as to who should take the lead in this and take this burden off your backs, it would be -- you know, I'm all for it; I'm there.

MR. NICHOLS: When you say there's no plan, do you ever go to the MPO meetings; it's a metropolitan planning organization: counties, cities, and all that. And they do have plans: long-range, short-term --

MR. BAXTER: That is not an organization that I've attended yet. I've been to the CAMPO meetings; I've been to city council, city -- you know, county commissioners meetings. Now, MPO, honestly I'm not familiar with that, and I -- it hasn't been brought to -- it's not on our radar screen.

MR. NICHOLS: They do have long-term plans and short-term plans for transportation in multicounty, multicity areas.

MR. BAXTER: That's transportation; that's not a comprehensive plan in that -- I guess --

MR. NICHOLS: Well, I thought you were referring to transportation.

MR. BAXTER: I'm referring to the overall picture, and -- which involves transportation, water, wastewater -- it's all tied together, because one doesn't happen without the other.

MR. NICHOLS: Now I know what you're talking -- okay.

MR. BAXTER: Right. And --

MR. NICHOLS: I understand.

MR. BAXTER:  -- that is what the LCRA's study that they just had -- and it's a substantial study; it's a 300-page half-a-million-dollar, year-long study from a company out of Salt Lake City, that said, before you people move forward with this stuff, you need a regional plan.

And then there was another study Austin had brought in that said, before you move ahead with MoPac connecting to 45, you got to get 130 hooked up; it's just common sense.

And that's all I ask for, is common sense here. I'm not looking for, you know, keeping things from happening; we just want it to happen in the proper and, you know, progressive order that makes sense.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, hopefully we are dealing with these issues from a commonsense perspective, but also there is a significant dose of reality involved, and I think if one were to look -- as I understand the request is, it's a timing request, and you're presenting the proposition that we should finish 130 first.

I've heard another proposition being presented that we also expand I-35. I think if you look at the history, first of all, of 130 and the, let's call them, doglegs or delays in routing, funding, right of way, and the other tangential issues that come forth with getting a project done, it's been delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed, and we still don't have all the answers.

So what we're faced with is if we were to assume the position that this was going to be a post-130 -- and especially one thing as from I-35 to I-35 -- that's a significant amount of money; it's a significant amount of time, and meanwhile east-west connectivity, which is already hampered by the presence of the river and the lake, is not improved.

So, you know, it's a frustration from our standpoint, just as it is a frustration from your standpoint. I mean, we would love to be able to sequentially put these things in an order that consensus would have us do that, but there's these tangential issues which keep arising and delaying 130 and delaying 130 and delaying 130 that we've lost actual control in when that project is going to get done.

And so to adopt that position I don't think is in the best interest of the state or actually this area.

MR. BAXTER: Well, I'd beg to differ. I mean, I don't know what is going on right now with 130 as far as the delays that you speak of; I don't doubt there's, you know, acquisition issues and other politics involved in getting the route laid out and everything.

But in the case of 45 -- and as a resident who lives in that southwest area -- the need for east-west connectivity that you speak of is not really there. I mean, 290 -- once that cloverleaf gets done at 290 and I-35 and 290 East is continued on, we'll have good east-west connectivity in the southern part of the area.

The connectivity that you propose with 45 prior to 130 will basically exacerbate the problems that are on MoPac right now. MoPac is disastrous as it is, and my constituents drive MoPac every day. And as soon as that connector is opened up -- and basically it will open up a lot of free and empty land to development and it will open up the ability of putting large, you know, malls or AMD or whoever along I-35 and giving them access to homeowners in the southwest region -- that doesn't exist right now, and we don't have that traffic problem because it doesn't exist right now.

And as soon as that is in, we -- I can't describe it. I mean, I don't know if you're from here or not, but MoPac is bad news right now, and --

MR. JOHNSON: I've been on MoPac; I know how --

MR. BAXTER: Well, I assure you it's going to be a lot worse if this connection goes in before 130, and that is our concern as well as the water.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, collectively we are looking at the entire area, and MoPac is a part of the solution, just like 130 is a part of the solution, just like, in our opinion -- or at least one person's opinion -- this State Highway 45 is a part of the solution. MR. BAXTER: Right.

MR. JOHNSON: We would love to be able to say -- rub our fingers together and say, Poof, they're all done --

MR. BAXTER: Right.

MR. JOHNSON:  -- and everything is up, and it connects, and it's been well thought out and planned. But we don't have that ability. There's a lot of time involved, and on the 130 aspect of it, there's been a lot of frustration in the amount of time that's been involved, and so now we're asking to defer something until 130 is finished from I-35 to I-35, and that's -- or at least 183 to I-35, and that's another issue.

MR. BAXTER: Right. Well, I -- obviously you know my position on it. I don't need to -- you know --

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. BAXTER: I just want to say, though, that the City of Austin has come out, you know, to delay 45, and we, as northern Hays County residents who are there right now support that position.

And I really -- I cannot stress, as a user of those roads, how obvious it is to me that that will become -- you will not be solving a great problem here by making this connection; you will be increasing the problem that exists right now.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my chairman, and I think what this Commission has tried to do, particularly with regard to these Central Texas issues -- we've tried to consistently say to the community, you know, We're not interested in harming your quality of life individually.

MR. BAXTER: Right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But, damn it, somebody's got to say it: The indecision, the confusion, the change of direction, the constant permutations of Central Texas politics as regards state transportation issues has just become untenable.

I mean, we have a responsibility for solving safety, congestion, and mobility matters on our state system. And like it or not, the MoPac is part of the state system.

MR. BAXTER: Right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's not West Austin Boulevard; just like Interstate 35 is part of the state system; it's not Congress East.

And sooner or later, all of you, Colin and all of the cast from the county commissioners court to Mr. Bradley to you, y'all have all got to sit down and figure out how you might want to address this, because we're reaching a point where we have to make these decisions because it's our responsibility to do so --

MR. BAXTER: Sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  -- not because some developers want to develop land. I don't think any of us particularly know about that land down there. Our agenda's not that; our agenda is the mobility and congestion problems in the state.

MR. BAXTER: I'm in complete agreement with you. I just wish we had that regional plan in place; I mean, it's just a wish. And we need it in place to take this off your backs.

It goes right down the line: The City of Dripping Springs needs commissions to take their issues off the council's back; same with county commissioners. This is a local government issue that has to frustrate you all to no end. I understand it, and we are frustrated by it as well.

And all I can say is I'll keep doing my best to push that, you know, agenda and get the folks to sit down at a table together to come up with a plan that you all can buy into. So thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Travis County and Central Texas needs a hero.

MR. BAXTER: Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Any other comments or --

MR. NICHOLS: I got a bunch.

MR. JOHNSON: All right, Robert.

MR. NICHOLS: Well, first of all, to the gentleman with the video camera, if you would like, we video-record this entire proceeding, so everything that you see on the screen over here is video-recorded, and you certainly can have a copy of that if yours doesn't come out good. But the other one will say about the same thing, but we'll make one available to you, so whoever makes those copies, please do that.

I had some comments related, first, to the project, and then I had some comments related to the minute order, and I don't so much know that initially there's going to be some questions, but when I get in the minute order, there will be questions.

We had a lot of testimony, I guess you might say, last month in this room related to this project, and we had some more this morning. But I had -- some people said that there's going to be an additional 55,000 cars going that way, and I've had somebody else say today that there's not a need for cars to go that way.

And if a road is built that 55,000 cars go on, there certainly is a need for those cars to go that way. But inside those cars are people, people who are trying to get to work, get to school, to go home, to go to the grocery store; that's where our concern is, the people in the area who have a very serious problem: They can't get home or to work or to school.

Our mission overall as a department is to move people and goods safely, effectively, and efficiently. Now, in that realm we try to work with the local communities the best we can. On the books the area -- CAMPO has approved this project in the long-range plan; it currently is still on the books approved in the long-range plan, and for over a year in this room we have had hearings and meetings, beginning, what, about September a year ago --

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. A little further back, in July of last year.

MR. NICHOLS: July, over a year ago, began testimony inside this room about the moving forward of this project. We've had posted meetings; we've had other comments. We've had advertisings going out related to this, and over the -- and I was in most of those meetings.

And until just a few weeks ago, I did not see anybody -- any community, any agency, any group, organization -- come to any of these hearings and say, Hey, we're opposed to this, or, We would like you to defer it, until just within a few weeks ago. This is kind of when this all started.

We have had an unusual opportunity to advance a project that is greatly needed in the area. We now know that only -- in some of these comments there's now an additional stipulation that's being throw out to delay -- the word "delay" again -- this project until 130 is completed.

Now, I don't know if that's going to be a formal position by CAMPO or not, but as of today, it is not a formal stipulation that I'm aware of.

So as of today, on the books, this is an approved long-term project greatly needed by the area and the citizens of this area who need to get on.

I can't address the people who don't want a project at all built, but the ones who are considering the possibility of delaying until 130 is built, let me also say that we are moving as quickly as we can to advance 130 also from the north end of the area back to 35 at least down to the south end of the Austin area.

And we have been working on that for a long time. We went out for advertising on the proposals for 130, what, two months ago?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. A little further back than that.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. Two or three months ago, and those proposals are supposed to be in by --

MR. RUSSELL: February 4.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- February 4. So during the month of February recommendations, decision -- somewhere in the March, April -- somewhere in that period of time my guess is that process will begin in earnest on whether or not the construction actually begins, which part and so on.

MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: So we are trying -- for those who are concerned about the timing of those two, let me just say, on monster projects like these, it is so difficult to get the stars in line so the timing is perfect, to wait to everybody's satisfaction.

But we are moving forward on the 130 project to get it done also. I cannot assure anybody what the timing of that is.

I would encourage the local communities to try to support us in our movement of South 45 and not try to disrupt or put stipulations on that are currently not there.

To the minute order -- I support the minute order. In the minute order is a mention of an early advance of $7 million --

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- to be expended on preliminary costs incurred and stuff like that but to be refunded as the project moves forward and the bonds are issued.

I expressed concern I think to you and to our counselor yesterday related to that, that if we need to advance some money early, still looking at an authorization not to exceed 17 million here, if we need to advance some of it early to help the cash flow and move the thing along with assurances it's going to be paid back or become part of the 17, I'm all for that.

This whole thing is contingent on a satisfactory agreement being put together at the staff level and then approved by the executive director. I will tell you, as a commissioner, I want to make sure that there are protections to the state on that advanced money; that if, for some reason, the money is advanced and the project eventually is not built and completed, that we, as a state, either receive our $7 million back or something of significant hard value worth $7 million.

To me, work in progress, design plans, things like that would not qualify for that, you know. So take that for what's it's worth.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I think we need to have assurances in that that the state is protected.

MR. RUSSELL: It obviously isn't covered in the minute order, but it will be covered in the agreement, and we'll make sure that it's in there.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. And with that, I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

At this time we will take a recess so the commission can meet in executive session, pursuant to notices given in the meeting agenda filed with the Office of the Secretary of State, to discuss legal issues with our counsel.

Please note for the record the time is 11:50. We will reconvene as soon as the executive session is adjourned.

(Whereupon, the meeting was recessed for meeting in executive session.)

(Meeting reconvenes at 12:20 p.m.)

MR. JOHNSON: The meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is reconvened. The commission has concluded its executive session with no action being taken on any matter.

We will now proceed back to our regularly scheduled program.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to Item 10, Contracts, and Thomas Bohuslav will present them for us.

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

Item 10(a)(1) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on December 4 and 5, 2001, whose estimated costs are $300,000 or more. We had 16 projects. We have one project we recommend for rejection; it's Project Number 4004 in Brazoria County. We had five bidders on the project; it was for some asphalt pavement repair.

There was a clarification sent to some of the contractors on the depth of scarification repair that was required. The apparent low bidder did not receive that clarification, and it did affect their bidding, and therefore we recommend rejection of all bids on that project.

The staff recommends award of all projects with the exception noted.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: Item 10(a)(2) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on December 4 and 5, 2001. We had 58 projects. We have one project we'd recommend for rejection.

The project is in Blanco County; it's Project Number 3014. On this project we had four bidders, and we'd like to go back and rescope the work on this project.

The staff recommends award with the exception noted.

MR. JOHNSON: We had one gentleman who would like to speak on this issue.

Mr. Ploch, did you want to address the commission?

(Pause.)

MR. JOHNSON: For the record, would you identify yourself.

MR. PLOCH: Yes. My name is Fred Ploch; I'm with F.N. Ploch Construction Company.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you F.N.?

MR. PLOCH: No, sir. I'm Fred A. My father was F.N. Ploch.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I see.

MR. PLOCH: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

MR. PLOCH: The job that they were recommending for rejection is the job that we were low on, and we would appreciate it if they would -- if you would reject the bid.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, sir.

MR. PLOCH: Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: There's been a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to Item 10(b), Contract Claims, presented by Amadeo Saenz.

MR. SAENZ: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Amadeo Saenz, for the record. Item (1) is a minute order before you to approve a claim settlement for a contract with Brown & Root, Incorporated, on Project C 3547-1-4 in Denton County.

On October 3 the TxDOT Claims Committee considered the claim and made a recommendation for settlement to the contractor. The contractor has subsequently accepted. The committee considers this to be a fair and reasonable settlement of the claim and recommends your approval.

Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're making it too easy on Amadeo.

MR. SAENZ: Item number (2) is the second minute order before you, approve a claim settlement for a contract by PageSoutherlandPage on Project BC-29-223-2441 in Williamson County. I guess no relation --

MR. WILLIAMSON: No relation.

MR. SAENZ: On November 13 the Claims Committee considered the claim and made a recommendation for settlement to the contractor. The contractor subsequently accepted our recommendation. We feel that it is a fair and equitable settlement and recommend approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: We go to Item 11, Routine Minute Orders. Where we usually maybe take these in -- grouped together, I think we need to go separately, because under speed zones I think, like in the previous minute orders, Commissioner Williamson will need to abstain.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's correct.

Mr. Chairman, I need to abstain from voting on this matter in that some of these speed zones affect highways that are adjacent to property that I own.

MR. BEHRENS: We would recommend that the Commission adopt that minute order, recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll so move.

MR. NICHOLS: I'll second it.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Please note for the record that Commissioner Williamson abstained.

MR. BEHRENS: I think for the remainder of them, and under (b), Load Zones; under (c), Right of Way Disposition, Purchase and Lease; and under (d), we have approval of donations -- we can handle that in one motion.

I would make you aware that for the donation, under -- in Tarrant County and the other in various counties, where we're talking about rubber tires and scrap tires, that we do have people from our recycling office that could answer any questions or elaborate on those two donations.

Other than that, I would recommend that we -- that those minute orders be approved.

MR. JOHNSON: On 11(d)(2), I wanted to make sure that we have the right to cease taking the crumb rubber, because there perhaps might be a day that we might have so much crumb rubber that we wouldn't know what to do with it and they continue to deliver it and then it becomes a problem as opposed to a resource.

Do we have that right? I don't think it's mentioned in the minute order, but in the agreement it certainly needs to be specified.

MR. BEHRENS: And I would agree with that recommendation.

MR. ZATOPEK: Larry Zatopek, director of General Services Division. And you're absolutely right; it will be covered in the agreement, and TxDOT will be in control of the whole project; we will decide which projects we want to use the rubber on -- crumb rubber on. We will be the ones that dictate, really, how much and where and when we use it. And that will be fully within our control.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. My comments: I appreciated the meeting yesterday; I thought it was very informative going over some of that stuff. I was just going to try to almost echo what the chairman was saying, in that when we're talking about accepting the donation, it's with the contingent, really, on making sure we have a satisfactory agreement which is not going to force -- y'all don't feel pressured to take an agreement that you don't feel comfortable with.

MR. ZATOPEK: Correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Because it could become -- a gift could become a liability if not handled properly.

MR. ZATOPEK: And we don't want that.

MR. NICHOLS: That's the only question I had on that. And I think we're making -- if we can ever work down that mountain of tires -- 87 million tires -- it appears that most of the consumption now, with the exception of 2 million a year --

MR. ZATOPEK: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- looks like it -- which is a long step, big progress in four years, from where we were there. Of course, we've had an unusual number of tires being disposed of recently.

(General laughter.)

MR. ZATOPEK: This minute order will help that.

MR. JOHNSON: Larry, both of these donations in 11(d)(1) and (2) you view as being very favorable.

MR. ZATOPEK: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Good.

MR. NICHOLS: Mike, I had really a question on 11(b). I thought Mary Lou'd be here, but I don't see her. Is anybody from Bridge here? Maybe it doesn't matter.

On these -- this has to do with posting load restrictions on bridges. When we got into that -- conversations about all that bridge program that got reworked and been so -- that's worked pretty good, I remember sitting in a meeting -- in several meetings where we were told that there was approximately 6,000 off-system bridges that the actual posted signs weren't up. That's why I'm bringing it up.

Do you remember something like that?

MR. BEHRENS: I don't remember the exact figure, but we have the two-year inspection cycles; in other words, when -- every two years each off-system bridge is inspected. And then, of course, our people compile -- if there is load-zone changes due to the condition of the structure, and of course, we send those lists and meet with the counties and say, Okay, you need to change the load-zoning on there.

We actually furnish the signs for them, but sometimes it's difficult to get them to put it up.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. The reason I'm bringing that up; it just -- this minute order really reminded me of that, because we have finally, beginning last month or the month before, completed that whole cycle where the final rules were in the place and when we posted. That is basically the law unless -- it's the only way to get in there, and then the next step gets into the problem of the signs themselves.

Physically we don't put them up, and we can't make them put them up, but we make the signs and give it to them. But I recall it was thousands of bridges that had no signs.

So if you were trying in all good faith to cross a bridge and not with a heavy load and not violate that law or whatever, then you wouldn't even know by looking at the bridge.

MR. BEHRENS: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Somebody -- it may be somebody in the Bridge -- would you get somebody in Bridge to -- I don't need a perfect number; I'm just trying to get a feel for it again, and we may want to try to do some kind of enforcement or -- I don't know what we can do -- encouragement.

MR. BEHRENS: I think we do as much encouragement as we can. Of course, enforcement's a little more difficult. But we let them know that that's hanging over their head.

MR. NICHOLS: I just thought somebody would be able to answer that question, and I just --

MR. BEHRENS: Of course, they're at the liability if they don't have the proper sign up, and we give it to them by letter so that we've passed it on to them, to let them know it's in their hands.

MR. NICHOLS: That's all I have.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, we'll entertain a motion to approve Items 11(b), Load Zones; 11(c), Right of Way Disposition; and 11(d), Approval of Donations.

MR. BEHRENS: And also (e), Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: And (e), the Eminent Domain Proceedings.

MR. NICHOLS: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, (a) has already been voted on.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I would like, chairman, to ask one question of the appropriate staff person; it might be Mike; it might be John Campbell, if he's still here. I'm just curious about something with regard to giving away our right of ways or selling our right of ways or donating our right of ways.

Do we ever consider using that surface to negotiate with the host of environmental groups out there to convert that land we own and pay for to some environmental purpose that would buy us quicker cooperation on some of our new projects?

MR. CAMPBELL: I understand what you're recommending. We have not had, in the past, a practice of using surplus properties to offset environmental types of mitigations or in order to -- I guess you're recommending that we would use those kinds of properties to maybe negotiate deals with --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think we just ought to go to the known plaintiffs in various -- I mean, recurring -- Sierra Club, whoever -- it would be interesting to go to them and just sit down and talk about, you know, what would happen if the department decided to become proactive and start working ahead of time on resolutions to, for example, I-69, other big projects that we know are out there that, sooner or later, we're going to have to deal with from an -- uh-oh, I see the lawyer coming. When he stands up, I quit talking.

MR. MONROE: Richard Monroe, for the record.

I'm not saying that couldn't be done; however, there are some very definite statutes about what we need to go through when we sell highway property, and that statute might very well need to be changed before we could do what you suggest.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, is there any way we can look at the practicality of whether it can be done --

MR. MONROE: Sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  -- before we go through the agony of lobbying -- not lobbying -- excuse me -- talking to legislators about our position?

MR. MONROE: Presenting information.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Presenting information.

MR. MONROE: Yes. We can check into that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I just think it's worth -- if you could talk to the environmental side, John, I think it would be worth us at least -- you know, check with Monroe and do it in a way that's legal and comfortable, but it seems to me it would be worth at least looking into.

I mean, I would like for us, as a department, to begin to anticipate these things and, you know, see how we could be aggressive. We can be green and build highways, too. I know people don't think that's possible, but we can.

Thank you.

MR. CAMPBELL: We'll note your recommendation, and we'll get to you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: I think that concludes; we don't have anyone who wants to speak in the open comment period.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there any other business that needs to come before the commission?

MR. NICHOLS: I move we adjourn.

MR. JOHNSON: There's a motion to adjourn --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

MR. JOHNSON:  -- and a second.

Please note for the record that it's 12:35, and this meeting stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: December 13, 2001

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 143, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Sunny Peer before the Texas Department of Transportation.

                      12/17/01
(Transcriber) (Date)

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