Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, September 26, 2002

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

STAFF:

MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director
RICHARD MONROE, General Counsel
CHERYL WILLIAMS, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director
DEE HERNANDEZ, Chief Minute Clerk
 

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:06 a.m. and this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is called to order. Welcome to our September meeting. It is indeed a pleasure to have you here this morning.
Please note for the record that public notice of this meeting, containing all items of the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 11:51 a.m. on September 18.
Before we begin, it's our custom for me to ask my esteemed colleagues it says here; I'm not certain that that's accurate if they have any comments that they would like to make. Robert?
(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I'll just keep mine short. I just wanted to welcome everyone here; realize you came a long ways to be here; took time out of your day and your work to talk about the needs of the area; we appreciate it. Hope you feel comfortable, and you certainly are welcome. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I also, it's good to see a full house. Glad you're here.

MR. JOHNSON: Before we begin three potential agenda notices, item 6(a) which will deal with Transportation Planning and Programming will be moved up to the front of the meeting; item 9(a)(2) also will be moved up which deals with environmental speed limits when we get into our housekeeping items. And I would also like to warn everyone that at the end of the meeting we will go into executive session to visit with counsel on some legal matters, so I alert you to that.
Also, the good people from Fort Bend have been wonderful to be flexible as to their place in the order. Last night I made the decision that perhaps they ought to go third because of item 6(a) and they've said that would be fine, but I failed to notify our good friends from San Antonio that they had been moved to second and they might not be here in time to bat second, so our friends from Fort Bend might have to come back to the second position, and I appreciate their willingness to do that and their flexibility.

GULF COAST REGIONAL MOBILITY PARTNERS

(Jim Royer, Rep. Peggy Hamric, Senator Jon Lindsay, Judge Robert Eckels, Al Haines, Judge Alan Sadler)

MR. JOHNSON: We do have three delegations, as I mentioned. We will begin with the first delegation which is the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners which represents the Houston-Galveston area, and Jim Royer, I believe, will be the lead spokesperson. Jim, welcome.
I would like to mention, in the interest of full disclosure, that I have been invited to be a part of your group and on the committee, and I am excited about doing so, but I think it needs to be stated that when there arises the potential conflict between my position on this commission and my position as a committee member, that I need to serve all parts of the state.
So having said that, again welcome and we look forward to hearing the presentation.

MR. ROYER: We appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and just for the record, he has exercised that discretion very carefully in the past and we expect he'll continue to do that in the future.
Our delegation today is led by Representative Peggy Hamric who is the chairman of the Harris County Delegation, and Senator Jon Lindsay, known to you all, and they'll introduce the organization.

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome.

MS. HAMRIC: Mr. Chairman, and Commissioners Nichols and Williamson, and Mr. Behrens. This looks like a familiar group that I see quite often during the legislative session, and normally when I come before you, it's about some particular project in District 126 that I represent in north Harris County, and I'm not even here, Chairman Johnson, to talk about my seven-lane farm to market road today which you give me such a hard time about.
(General laughter.)

MS. HAMRIC: I always have to remind my colleagues from the rural areas that I have farm to market roads in my district also.
But today, it is a real pleasure for me to be here to come before you representing a coalition of transportation interest groups including local governments and businesses throughout the Houston-Galveston region, the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners. The following counties are represented within the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners: Harris, Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller. So as you can see, it is a very large area that has come together for a single purpose.
The executive committee of the Mobility Partners is composed of regional leaders designated by the eight-county region, and includes: Chairman Jim Royer; Fort Bend County Judge Jim Adolphus; community business leader Tom Bellows; Houston Mayor Lee P. Brown; Congressman Tom DeLay; Harris County Judge Robert Eckels; Port of Houston Authority Chairman Jim Edmonds; former Highway Commissioner and former Houston Mayor Bob Lanier; Montgomery County Judge Alan Sadler; Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority Chairman, Ambassador Arthur Schechter; community and business leader, Michael Stevens; and Brazoria County Judge John Willy.
And Commissioner Williamson, I'm sure you recognize a lot of the names of former colleagues of yours and mine in the Texas House.
The steering committee of the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners consists of a diverse group of public and private organizations with one goal in mind, and that is to advocate increased state and federal transportation funding for our region.
Perhaps the single greatest challenge for continued opportunity and prosperity for the Houston region is to find effective, affordable and timely solutions to our transportation needs. The failure to enact a unified mobility and transit solution will strangle the economic vitality, and therefore, the future prospects for the region. We must address this crucial need as a community, quickly and forcefully. This is the mission of the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners.
As an indication of the depth of commitment and support for this mission, there's a large group of individuals who have come to Austin today for this presentation, and if I could at this time just have them stand behind me so you can see all the folks that have come with the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners quite an impressive group,
In closing, I know that each of you are aware of the wide range of transportation issues that are facing our Gulf Coast region. I appreciate your attention to this presentation this morning and for listening to all the speakers that you will be hearing from the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners, and I want you to know that we do want to work with you as we seek solutions for our transportation problems.
And at this time, Senator Lindsay will address you. Thank you.

SENATOR LINDSAY: Thank you, Peggy. And thank you, members.
It's my job to kind of give you a little bit of history of the relationship between TxDOT and the Harris County Toll Road Authority and to thank you, really thank you and your predecessors for everything you've done for developing what I think is the coming solution if there's indeed a solution to our transportation problems, and of course, that's a combination TxDOT/toll road development system.
In Harris County, of course, back in 1983 we passed a $900 million bond issue that has never been used, by the way, a general obligation bond issue that's never been really used as far as using ad valorem monies to pay debt service for because the toll road system itself has paid for everything with the tolls generated but it was the first in the state and hopefully will be used as a model by you and others across the state to solve statewide problems in transit issues that we have.
Needless to say, you have been a major partner, continue to be a major partner. At the very beginning, we couldn't have done it without TxDOT's involvement. We built the main lanes, we built most of the interchanges, but you all built the interchanges at the end of our roads which made it so people could get on our toll roads, period, and I'm sure you continue to do that.
Now, what does that mean? In Harris County, of course, we built two, and since I left as county judge they're building others and have others on the board, but really what does that mean? What has that meant to Harris County and the surrounding areas? Well, it's meant that we have some mobility that we didn't have before. When I was going to the west side of Harris County and I live in the north, it used to take me 45 minutes to an hour to get there; with the system we have now, I can get there in 15 to 20 minutes. Now, it's getting longer, the toll road is kind of jamming up a little bit from time to time, but that's the way it's been for everybody in that part of the county.
And of course, the development along the west and now on the south and southeast where you and us have finished those projects the development has occurred, is occurring, access is better, business development is occurring along there, the state is benefitting from all the businesses that are there, the citizens can now get to their homes in relatively cheaper land where they can commute from work to the home, has led to Harris County and the surrounding areas still having some of the lowest prices for homes of anyplace in the country, and I think it's due to the fact that we have the means of transportation of getting there on those facilities.
People still like to live a little bit farther out, and they're going to continue to do that. The better schools are out there, there's better parks, the county still has parks; those facilities are not available in the inner city. So if you've got kiddos, you want to live out there, and you can't get there without roads and means to get there.
So the toll roads and the combination between what you do and what we do is essential, and I'm just urging that we continue those programs. I know that looking at the map of future projects that Harris County would like to have which involve state highways, almost every one of them involves toll road participation, and I anticipate, of course, that that will continue in the future.
So I urge this department to continue along those lines. I don't see anything in the next legislature that's going to provide really big funding changes for the department, maybe some little things, and hopefully we'll work on those things I'll see you in Finance, I hope and we'll get there to some extent. But we're delighted that things are happening that way; I hope you're delighted and will continue the effort.
So with that, I know we have a long presentation and I'm going to turn it over to Jim Royer.

MR. ROYER: Thank you, Senator; thank you, Representative Hamric.
I drew the short straw to come up and try and identify what the issues are that are facing the metropolitan area along the Gulf Coast, and the easiest way to describe it is that if you take a look at recent polls in the metropolitan area, the number one issue responded to by 60 percent of the population is congestion and increased mobility; it is the top three issues of 100 percent of the population. It is, by all definitions, reaching a crisis proportion in the Houston metropolitan area. It is affecting our ability to grow economically and it is going to sooner or later affect our ability to be the engine we've been for the state of Texas.
The Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners came together to attack the problem or attempt to bring more investment to the issues on three levels: the federal government and that's why Tom DeLay agreed to be part of our executive committee which was a very important aspect of our program to make sure that we had somebody at the highest levels of government who understood how important this was and I believe you're going to receive not only our presentation today but the one from Fort Bend County that's going to address a specific issue that's near and dear to Congressman DeLay's heart; we also looked to the local governments to make their appropriate investments in our transportation systems and we've been very successful in that, and that is why our delegation includes elected leadership from around the entire region.
Fort Bend County has now formed a toll road authority, as Senator Lindsay explained the value of the Harris County Toll Road Authority; Judge Alan Sadler from Montgomery County, Judge Willy from Brazoria County are all part of this organization because this is such an important issue to our metropolitan area.
We come here today to seek your investment in our dilemmas and help us resolve this so we can continue to be the economic growth engine that we have been to the state of Texas, along with the other urban areas.
But to put some of it in perspective, to show you some of the statistics that cause us concern, Houston has 21.4 percent of the registered vehicles in the state of Texas; we have 4.8 million people which is 22.4 percent of the state's population.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That live in Houston?

MR. ROYER: This is the Houston statistical area, the entire metropolitan area as represented by the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How big is that?

MR. ROYER: It's the county areas we described to you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Harris County?

MR. ROYER: Harris County and the surrounding counties around it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How many counties is that?

MR. ROYER: Eight counties.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And those registered vehicles also come from those counties?

MR. ROYER: I believe so.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you know?

MR. ROYER: I'm going to get to the next slide and it will show you what's in the Houston District of TxDOT, if that's where you're going, Commissioner, but I believe those are the registered vehicles

MR. WILLIAMSON: You've got some information up here and I want to be sure I understand it.

MR. ROYER: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You say "Registered Vehicles, Houston Data, 3.7 million."

MR. ROYER: This is in the eight-county area.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So that's from the eight-county area from also which the 22 percent of the population figure comes from.

MR. ROYER: Correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So same vehicles from same area, same people from same area.

MR. ROYER: These are all the same geographic statistics on this slide.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. ROYER: Another important statistic is out of that section of the state, that region of the state is 29.1 percent of the gross state product. And we think those are pretty impressive statistics. It is that last statistic which is the economic engine I'm referring to. Dallas can present similar statistics. It is the urban areas of our state which generate all the revenues for the state. If we stifle economic development in our urban areas, we're eating our seed corn.
We all understand and have been forecasted the dilemmas the legislature is going to face when the gavel comes down in January. There's all types of healthcare problems, indigent healthcare problems, trauma care healthcare problems, there's school financing issues, there are higher education financing issues, there's a drought in the Valley; there are all sorts of things that this state has to deal with.
If the state does not continue to grow economically, it will not have the resources to take care of those other problems. If we do not solve our transportation problems in our urban areas in general, and Houston specifically, we will not have the economic resources to deal with those problems. We are eating our seed corn. We know this from our economic development activities, from the ability or lack of ability to attract additional corporations, to attract additional employment, and to expand existing employers in our metropolitan area.
If we put it in terms of TxDOT, here is where the Houston District ranks in the state of Texas: it's number one in population, it's number one in registered vehicles, it's number one in daily vehicle miles traveled, it's 22nd in TxDOT's spending on an annual basis per daily vehicles miles traveled, and it's 25th in lane miles per population. That seems to be quite a dichotomy, and it is one of the issues that we hope we can get TxDOT to recognize how severe the issue has become in the metropolitan area.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Would you bring that slide back, please? TxDOT spending.

MR. ROYER: That's out of the DISCO books.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sir?

MR. ROYER: That's out of your data books.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, but I'm trying to articulate. That's the amount of money we spend

MR. WILLIAMSON: Annually per daily vehicle miles traveled. We have 70 daily VMTs, and if you take the TxDOT expenditures in the Houston District as I understand for both maintenance, capital investment, and reconstruction, and divide it by 70 million, you'll get $8.23 a year per daily vehicle mile traveled.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And is that statistic offered up as you meant that we're not spending enough money in Houston?

MR. ROYER: Well, we're first in population, we're first in registered vehicles, we're first in vehicle miles traveled. If we're 22nd in spending, that would indicate to us a dichotomy.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Where does this same area rank in population density per square mile?

MR. ROYER: I think the Houston District is about the same size as the Dallas District, is about the same size as the San Antonio District. I think the urban districts are all about the same size.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Population density per square mile, is it not the case that the Houston area is more densely compacted population-wise?

MR. ROYER: I would expect it's similar to the other urban areas, if that's what you mean. Yes, we're denser than Yoakum.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, are you denser than Dallas?

MR. ROYER: I think we're about the same.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does anybody know?
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: We'll get that information.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think that I just heard Mr. Lanier just three months ago point out that you were much denser than Dallas; all your population is in a small area.

MR. ROYER: The city is probably denser.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm just trying to understand what spending per daily vehicle mile means. Does that mean that we're not spending enough in the Houston area, or does that mean that there are a lot more people using the same roads as compared to the other 25 districts?

MR. ROYER: It means there are a lot more people using the same roads; it means the roads take a bigger beating, wear out faster; it means that there's more congestion; it means that we're in a more difficult traffic situation than most any other area in the state.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But is the comparison of first in population, registered vehicles and daily vehicle miles traveled to TxDOT spending per daily vehicle mile to illustrate why you're not receiving enough money, is that a proper or valid comparison? That's the point I'm trying to get to.

MR. ROYER: I think I'd rather put it this way, Commissioner: we aren't here to argue that we need to be different from the rest of the state, what we're here to present to you is we have a real problem in Houston and we need greater investment from TxDOT to help us solve our problem.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But your problem is no different from Dallas and San Antonio and Houston and El Paso.
MR. ROYER: No, our problem is more severe. When you look at the statistics, we are the most congested city in the state of Texas. That's a Texas Transportation Institute statistic.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that related to your population density?

MR. ROYER: It's related to all sorts of things: it's related to population; it's related to a lack of roads; it's related to a lack of investment in transportation facilities; it's related to the amount of vehicles that travel our roads; it's related to the amount of gross state product we have where all trucks that come to the Port of Houston come from all over the state, come into our district, and that takes an investment. If it's coming out of Laredo and ends up at the Port of Houston, it comes through the Houston District. We have Intercontinental Airport which is one of the two international gateways the state has, a lot of people come from all over the state into the Houston District. We have the most congested freeway system in the state of Texas and one of the most congested in the United States of America, and that's a fact.
Now, we can put up all sorts of different statistics that prove that or highlight that or look at that from different perspectives, but that's a fact. And you can check it at the Texas Transportation Institute, you can check it with the Federal Highway Administration, you can check it with the Metropolitan Transit Authority, you can check it with anybody you want to check it with, but that's a fact.
Now, there are some other statistics that are important too. If we go back to where we rank in the state as a percentage of different things this is the metropolitan statistical area right now it is receiving 13.3 percent of TxDOT's capital investment; if you look at it over the last decade, you see the trend: in the early part of the decade we were receiving 25 percent and that has now diminished down to 13 percent. To look at it graphically, we continue to decline. Back in the mid early 1990s we had climbed out of the congestion that we had developed in the 1980s as Houston grew so fast in the early '80s and we slid back into the congestion confusion of the mid 1980s, and at that time TxDOT responded valiantly and helped us with a great many programs.
Judge Lindsay mentioned the Harris County Toll Road System. We've invested $2 billion of Houstonians' money in the Harris County Toll Road System. Al Haines, representing Mayor Lanier, will come up and we have the largest transportation bond issue in the history of the City of Houston; Fort Bend County has formed a toll road authority; Montgomery County is advancing its bond issue; Brazoria County is putting together its regional mobility plan. There is a great deal of investment going on in Houston with our local monies.
It was back in the mid 1990s when the State of Texas was indignant that we only got 75 cents on the dollar from the federal government, and we got Senator Gramm and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Tom DeLay and a wide variety of political interests in the State of Texas. We actually had Congressman DeLay and Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee agree completely on this which is a rare event.

(General laughter.)

MR. ROYER: But Texas was indignant with the fact that we only got 75 cents on every dollar that we sent to Washington, and we changed that; we get 91 cents now. We get 91 cents, as I understand it, from the federal government; for every dollar that we send to Washington and transportation taxes, we get 91 cents of that back which is a vast improvement over the 75 cents. Commissioner Nichols, I believe, was on the commission at the time when that debate was going on and that effort was made.
What we're asking, Commissioner Williamson, is that Houston needs the re-commitment of TxDOT to integrate with our transportation programs and help us build our way out of that part of the problem that can be built out. We are also looking at every other technique known to western man to relieve our traffic congestion: intelligent transportation systems, different incident management, different event management. All sorts of things have been developed in studies done in the Houston area of 1 percent solutions, things we can do to attack this problem. It is not just TxDOT we're looking to to help us with this, we're attacking it locally, we're attacking it federally, and we're doing a lot of things differently, but we need to reverse this trend, and that's the message of the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners.
We have a long list of projects that cover that entire metropolitan area and it's from those within the city, those out in the suburban counties; it covers the Grand Parkway which circumnavigates the metropolitan area so traffic that is coming up 59 that doesn't need to go through downtown Houston can move around the city without going on the Loop or without going on Beltway 8; we have projects in Brazoria County, we have projects throughout the metropolitan area. And when you get to the total, we have $3.6 billion worth of projects that would go a long way, not completely relieve, but go a long way towards relieving our congestion. This, in concert with the other programs that are being taken on by local county governments and city governments, will help us get back to where we can economically compete in the nation and continue to be the engine we've been.
We are doing this on a regional basis that's why the representation on the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners is as widespread as it is; we're improving communications at all levels between city officials, county officials, planners, developers, things of that nature; and we're also here to tell you that with the 44 members of the Regional Mobility Partners legislative delegation, that if we can come to some program that would seek to get more investment, more capital placed in TxDOT's hands, we're here to support that.
I know there's a lot of conversation about whether or not the DPS bleeds too much money off Fund 6. You know, Commissioner Nichols, the work you did two sessions ago, we'd be ready to fall in behind that again.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. ROYER: To change the point of taxation from where we tax our gasoline tax from the rack back to the rack as opposed to at the pump, and we understand that can have some significant impact on TxDOT funds. Whether or not there are other opportunities to get TxDOT more money, we're here to encourage our 44-member legislative delegation to support that.
And with that, what I'd like to do now is turn it over to some of our other members of the executive committee to express to you their concerns and their approach to this, and the first is Judge Robert Eckels, who is chairman of the Transportation Policy Council of the Houston-Galveston Area and sits at the apex of this issue, and Judge Eckels has been active both as leading Harris County to deal with the problem and then also leading the whole metropolitan area in how to approach it. Judge Eckels, please.

JUDGE ECKELS: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, I'm pleased to be here with you today. I am here in multiple hats. I do have with us Alan Clark who will be able to answer any real technical questions about what we're doing at the MPO, but primarily to emphasize that we are taking a regional approach and that it will take, as we have discussed in the past, more than TxDOT dollars; we're here to be your partner in regional planning through the MPO and then bringing the local jurisdictions together.
We are the primary agency responsible for the coordination of the regional plans on transportation; we have that currently in our 2022 Plan; we have taken this responsibility in our 2025 Plan which is in current process to look at not just coordinating all the projects of the various jurisdictions but also looking at the requirements to meet 100 percent of our transportation mobility needs and where those holes are in the system. We work, again, with all the local governments in our region. Several other folks who are a part of that are here today are part of this Mobility Partners as well.
One of our key projects and I think you can see the kind of partnership we're developing in the region is the Katy Project which has Gary Trietsch is here with us, as well, today has taken on kind of to me the model of what future projects will be like where you blend the state, the HGAC through our Transportation Policy Council, with the federal funds that we pass through into that project, the Harris County Toll Road Authority building a partnership with TxDOT that will also serve Metro and their transit needs, and in the end we build a better facility for the people who are using that freeway every day in their single-occupancy vehicles, we build a better transit facility and we do more than any of us could have done on our own.
We're working on the same kind of partnerships with the 290 corridor and the 288 corridor, we're looking at those around the region. We have also included the West Park corridor as another project with the Harris County Toll Road Authority and the Transit Authority.
What we're asking today is that we want to be better partners with you. We can do it, we can bring a lot of resources to the table, but we can't do it on our own, it's going to take the commitment from TxDOT, and together we can address the needs of our community and can leverage the dollars of TxDOT, the Toll Road Authority, the Transit Authority, the city and county and other regional entities to provide more than any of us can do on our own. But we are here today primarily to say that we need a little bigger boost from TxDOT to make that happen.
I'll be happy to answer any questions. I would be remiss if I did not mention, in case the time is not appropriate as we get through this process and we have to leave before Fort Bend finishes, is that we are all also here on the 59 Forward project which is item 6(a) on your agenda today. While that is not a Harris County project, it is one that is important for Harris County and for the entire region. That is one of the bottlenecks and that affects our entire area.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is 59 how fast you want to drive down there?

JUDGE ECKELS: Well, we'd love to be able to drive 59 most of the time.

MR. WILLIAMSON: 59 is the one we're going to name the Tom DeLay Freeway.

JUDGE ECKELS: I think it's already the Senator Bentsen Freeway or Lloyd Bentsen Freeway.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The new part of it we're going to divide it up.

JUDGE ECKELS: It will be the Tom DeLay lanes on the Lloyd Bentsen Freeway.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So then if you're delayed, then you can say you're in the DeLay lane. Right?

(General laughter.)

JUDGE ECKELS: That's right. Hopefully we're going to be at least 59 miles an hour on those roads, Commissioner.
So that is the gist of what we have and if we have to answer any questions. Again, you see the support and we'll continue our discussions and work with each member of the commission.
And from here, Al Haines from the City of Houston, representing Mayor Brown.

MR. HAINES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I just want to simply make a comment on two points. I think we've learned as a city and continue to learn, perhaps somewhat painfully, and that's we're not the only game in town anymore. There's clearly value added as we look at this entire region and support, in a collaborative way, what we're trying to accomplish as it relates to a number and a variety of issues and initiatives that are underway, not the least of which is mobility relief and congestion relief.
We have adopted a capital improvement program as a result of the largest voter authorization in the history of the city this past November. Included in that program, that five-year program, we have identified about $700 million in the form of highway construction, street improvements, everything related to improving mobility on city streets and related feeder and other arterials. Of that $700 million, $195 million of that has been identified by funding sources through TxDOT, and we are very, very grateful and recognize the value of leveraging between the city funds, Harris County and other counties that are participants, Metro and TxDOT.
We think there's value in regionalism and collaboration and that's a difficult term that at least at the city level we have come to realize really adds value to our efforts, and we're certainly hopeful that as we go forward with the commitment that the city is prepared to make on behalf of its taxpayers, it's revenue stream, that we can continue to support and see encouragement from TxDOT as well as the other local funding sources.
We also have recognized that economic development is a vital component not just to the political subdivision of the City of Houston but the entire region. We've made investments and continue to do that. As you know, one of the two major economic drivers in growth in this state is in the Houston airport system. We are currently under the largest spending program of $3 billion in the entire country of expanding those airports in Houston, Texas. I mention that in the context of this presentation just simply to point out that as we look at economic development, as we look at, if you will, the narrow issue of transportation and congestion issues, I like to think of contexting that in the broader scheme and the broader vision, if you will, of where we're trying to head in terms of building the economic vitality of the state of Texas as we participate in our regional initiatives. We think certainly that airport system, because it's a city airport, deserves all the attention that it can get on its own to building the economic vitality of this area.
So we look forward to continued support and a continued working relationship with you. We're grateful and appreciate the opportunities we've had in the past to work with you on the variety of issues that we have.
I'd like to call on Judge Alan Sadler from Montgomery County now to make a short comment.

JUDGE SADLER: Thank you, commissioners. This is my second time to appear before this board. I believe Commissioner Nichols was here and I think Commissioner Johnson had just arrived as a member.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I remember you from the alternative fuels meeting.
JUDGE SADLER: I remember that too. Anyway, at that meeting I asked for one thing, that was to move I-45 from long-term priority to Priority 1; you all did that. You're making great progress on I-45 from Houston through Conroe and I appreciate that, and believe me, the Montgomery County people appreciate that. Thank you very much for that.
But today we have rural people here, we have urban, we have cities, we have counties, we have a broad spectrum of people here that are requesting more dollars. And I'm kind of a black-white person; let me get down to some very hard facts that have maybe been talked about but let me talk about them again.
We represent 23 percent of the population of the state of Texas in these eight counties and what it all boils down to is we received in 2001 exactly one-half of the dollars spent ten years ago as a percent of the money spent. We got 26 percent ten years ago; we're getting 13 percent now. That's a staggering number.
We understand the reason for diversion occasionally for projects in other parts of the state that don't really justify the population or have the tax base, we understand that, but the graph you've seen earlier shows this is a consistent pattern downward, the money we're getting for this Gulf Coast region.
Back in Montgomery County, I have told my voters that if we pass bond issues we will get federal and state matching dollars for these major projects, and Montgomery County, Fort Bend County and other counties have passed major bond projects. We passed $16 million in Montgomery County a year ago; people are now saying, okay, where is the federal part, where is the state part. So we're having a problem, a credibility problem of not being able to perform with the money we have. We feel we're doing our part; today we're asking the state to please do your part and help fund our money back that we've already paid in in gas dollars.
That's really all I have. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Based on your statement, if '02's amount was up to 16 percent, would that be a reversal of the trend you are concerned about?
JUDGE SADLER: It would be.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And if '03 was up to 19 percent, could you go home and say this is a smashing victory for Houston?
JUDGE SADLER: I'd be a happy camper. Nineteen percent would be sure better than 13, absolutely. We'll take 22, by the way.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have no doubt you'd take 100.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: One of the questions I wanted to ask Jim, but I'll ask you, out of curiosity during all those years when the Harris County district was receiving 21, 22, 25 percent, what assets were being purchased with that, do we know?
JUDGE SADLER: What assets were being purchased?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Was it highways?
MR. ROYER: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Concrete highways?
MR. ROYER: Yes. I think there were two years back there where we were up in the mid 20s.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And we were purchasing highways?
MR. ROYER: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mostly concrete highways?
MR. ROYER: Yes, they were investments in support of the toll road system that Senator Lindsay referred to where the local governments were investing over $1.7 billion.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What's the useful life of most of those assets?
MR. ROYER: Well, in Houston, it's a lot shorter than the rest of the state because of the vehicles per lane mile that we put on them.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But it's more than six years, is it not? I'm told it's 40 years by your profession.
MR. ROYER: No, I don't think you'll find a freeway in Houston lasting 40 years. Maybe Mr. Behrens could comment on that, but I don't think there's been a freeway in Houston without major reconstruction that's lasted more than 20 years. If we want to go look at what needs to happen to the 610 Loop and what's happening to the Katy Freeway.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm told the useful life when you build a concrete road is 40 years if you have normal maintenance on that road. Let's say it's 20, Jim.
MR. ROYER: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So if a lot of money was spent in Houston in the early '90s to build concrete highways, isn't it logical that the state would then shift to San Antonio for a while and Laredo for a while and Dallas for a while to build those same long-lived assets and then make their way back to Houston as the assets wore out?
MR. ROYER: I think, Commissioner, that's exactly what we're hoping happens, and if next year goes to 16 percent, one year doesn't make a trend, two years doesn't make a trend. We have a ten-year trend where we've gone from an appropriate amount of investment and again, it depends, is the appropriate investment based on population, vehicles, gross state product, economic engine, franchise taxes collected. You can pick 30 different yardsticks by which you say is the most appropriate investment to make.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I know, but I'm particularly sensitive about this because I've sat on the other side with Senator Williams, soon to be, with Representative Noriega and had to listen to people in my district come to Austin and complain about not getting something, and I know what's fixing to come from me, and I'm particularly sensitive about it when I think that and it's not just Houston, Dallas can take their fair share of this also everybody seems to want to come here now and say we're not getting our fair share, as if you didn't get your fair share eight years ago when we built some long-term assets, as if to imply that TxDOT is somehow being unfair to east Houston and north Houston and Brazoria County, and the truth is you know that we allocate these funds based on life of asset and need. We move around the state doing this stuff.
MR. ROYER: But Commissioner, you've never heard us use the word "unfair"; you've never heard us even use the term "fair share".
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have noted that, I appreciate that.
MR. ROYER: I think what we're looking for is investment in a very, very valuable part of the economy of the state of Texas, and failing us, all of us, whether it's the counties, whether it's Montgomery County, whether it's Fort Bend County, Harris County Metropolitan Transit Authority is investing hundreds of millions of dollars if we don't get on top of this then the state legislature need not meet about child healthcare; it need not meet about expanding investment in education because there isn't going to be any money to do that. If we don't get more economically competitive in this economy in the United States of America and that doesn't just go for Houston, this is an issue of all the urban areas, this is an issue in Dallas, you know that if we don't figure out how to get you more money and you invest more money in our urban areas, the legislature is just going to throw up their hands and say, you know, we're Mississippi no offense intended.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm not sure it's that bad and I'm not sure there's a member out there that's willing to say they're going to throw their hands up and admit that we're Mississippi. But the inference in your presentation, in the presentation of some of the other urban areas of late is that something is somehow wrong with the way you guys treat us, and that's what these members see, and then we've got to deal with that in just 90 days, and I just cannot let that go undiscussed.
This is a big state, we have to invest in the long-term assets as they wear out or are needed. Houston had a tremendous amount of investment from the late '80s through the mid '90s; Dallas well, actually, the lower South Texas border has had a tremendous amount of investment from the mid '90s to now; Dallas's cycle is starting. The governor has hammered on us unmercifully about urban mobility and about Houston in particular, and we're doing everything we can, and then to come in and see a presentation that leaves in Senator Williams' mind and Senator Lindsay's mind the suggestion that we've got you at 13 and taking you down, when Michael Stevens knows that we already increased the following year and we're scheduled to increase the year after that even more, it's a little bit hard for this guy to take. I don't speak for Mr. Johnson and Mr. Nichols. I don't like the kind of fuzziness in public discourse.
JUDGE SADLER: Just one last statement I'd like to make and then I'll sit down. In this area, Fort Bend County and Montgomery County, as you probably know, are two of the top four growth counties in the state of Texas. I think Williamson is number one as a percent of growth, Collin is two, Montgomery County is three, Fort Bend County is four. We are suffering greatly with our population increase and horrendous traffic problems in those two counties.
Thank you very much for having me.
MR. ROYER: Again, Commissioner, we aren't here again, the idea was that we aren't here saying that you've disparaged us, you've insulted us, we're going to go do something violent about this, what we're here to do is request that as you consider changing that trend around that the needs are overwhelming at the current time, that huge investments are being made by the local community. Al Haines mentioned the $3 billion going into one of the two international gateways in the state, all funded by Houston; we're putting over a billion dollars into the Port of Houston and it is the main port, it is the state's port to the rest of the world. There is a tremendous amount of investment going on in Houston and we just look forward to TxDOT becoming an increasingly more important part of us solving our transportation problems, that's the message
We're here to tell you that we need it, we think we contribute a lot to the state. I don't think we've said the word "fair share." We just said we need more investment in our transportation systems from all fronts: federal, state, local, anywhere we can get it, toll roads, and we're doing it, and we look forward to reversing the trend and getting the investments we need to solve the problems.
And we also want to say this: Gary Trietsch is one of the finest district engineers TxDot has ever had, we're pleased to have him, he's doing a wonderful job, and we applaud Gary Trietsch.
(Applause.)
MR. ROYER: And I know we've exceeded our time and I'm not sure we haven't exceeded our welcome too.
(General laughter.)
MR. ROYER: You're going to hear from another group from the Regional Mobility talking about the 59 project, a project that's near and dear to all of our hearts and one of our prominent members, Tom DeLay, and we're also here to support them in that specific request. Thank you very much.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, just be aware not a week goes by that Mr. Perry doesn't personally impress upon me the importance of investing in Harris County.
MR. ROYER: I appreciate that, and let the governor know there's not a day, a morning or an afternoon that goes by that there isn't a lot of road rage in Houston over the fact that it's the most congested city in the state.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I suspect there must be somebody calling him and reminding him to do that. I think the commission has some strong feelings about wanting to address the urban mobility issues.
MR. ROYER: We appreciate that, we appreciate your service. We know if it wasn't for the big paycheck, you guys wouldn't do this. We do appreciate your service and we understand that it's one of the toughest jobs in the state to deal with the limited resources you have and the overwhelming problems this state is addressing in the whole area of transportation. We appreciate your service and your dedication to working on those problems.
MR. JOHNSON: Robert, we've been discovered; we're in it for the money.
(General laughter.)
MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have any observations or questions?
MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I had a few observations and comments, it's not so much questions. First of all, you have not worn your welcome out, you're always welcome, the group. I think it's great that you're here and having a very frank dialogue related to some of this. Some of these conversations we've had in smaller groups also, but it's good to have a good size group here going through this.
I think everyone on the commission up here recognizes there are huge needs in the Houston area, as well as there are huge needs in Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio and the other metropolitan areas everyone, I think, agrees with that. The fact that Houston is one of the greatest economic engines in the state I think everyone in the far areas of even the most rural of Texas learned, if there was any doubt in their minds, in the '80s when Houston shut down, it shut the whole state down, and no one wants to see that happen again.
I was a little concerned, as Commissioner Williamson was, in some of the ways that some of these numbers or percentile rankings are. I think everyone recognizes you can pick certain statistics and always find anomalies. Using one or the other to try to show this is number one and this is number 23 doesn't really give a full good picture, it shows a distortion in one category. Houston does get a lot of money, it needs more money, no question about it, but if for instance you ran that chart back a little further, there was a huge ramp-up in the Houston area and then it's come down. But during that ramp-up period, the other areas of the state, funds were in effect diverted from them; the San Antonios, the Houstons, the Dallases, the border stuff, they were deferred, their projects were held off. That's what it appeared to me, all the other charts they had the big dip.
MR. ROYER: We're aware of that and we agree with you.
MR. NICHOLS: So they've all been sitting thinking it's our turn, it's our turn.
As far as the percentile, whether it's population or economic percentages, we can get many of the same type of charts that show the same things occurring in the Dallas-Fort Worth area there isn't nearly enough, San Antonio, I mean, on and on. No question about it, we have an overall state problem and one of the problems is that the system and I think it's important for those of you who came here today who are not aware of how some of these data are put together that as a system statewide is aging I know you're aware of this the percent of the state funding to preserve the system everywhere continues to increase as a percentage of our budget. We're up to almost 55 percent now just to preserve the system. If I took that dollars per vehicle miles traveled and tried to see who got the money using that statistic, it's a little district that most of you have probably not heard of called Childress. It's the vast stretch of land between Wichita Falls and Amarillo, a bunch of counties, a huge amount of geography, not many people live there, and they haven't gotten an expansion project in 40 years. I don't think they really expect it; they would love a few, but they do expect, particularly for the people who drive through there and the trucks that leave Houston going to Colorado or the northwestern part of the state expect a road to be there, and any maintenance dollars, cash, that goes into the Childress District using vehicle dollars per vehicle miles traveled is a huge distortion. I'm sure they're number one in the state. That doesn't mean we're pouring money in there; it means that statewide the preservation is going up.
And the only place in the state that has the money to preserve the system statewide is the urbanized and metropolitan areas. Absolutely every one of those is not spending so much to expand those systems as to preserve them, and I think there's no one in the state that wants to see the state system just go apart, we've got to preserve the system. In our transportation plan and in many other things, we have said first of all we have got to preserve what we have. We have got to, as a state, figure out a way to get Houston what it needs for transportation, as well as San Antonio and Dallas and Fort Worth. And yes, we are accused many times of not being fair with it but the very same kind of distortions we get from those areas also as far as a percent of their economy and things like that.
Houston, I think, has done a fabulous job on the toll roads. I know Senator Lindsay has been a pioneer in that area and pushed for it for many years. The state, we see that also as great growth. We are intending to put lots of money, lots of support, we have always done that with Houston and Harris County and Fort Bend, and we're going to see a lot of growth in that area.
In our process of distribution of funds to metros and urban areas and statewide corridors if you want to call it that we're going to rework. Houston has asked us and Dallas has asked us and San Antonio, all the areas of the state, the legislative body, the comptroller have asked us to take the process that we have used over the years, simplify it, get a lot more local input into how those funds are spent, and we are doing that. We are going from 30-something categories to 12; we have task forces the Houston area is represented in a task force, as well as Dallas and Fort Worth and all those others, in trying to make a recommendation, as we spend money in the metropolitan areas, how should it be spent, how do you prioritize. And I think you are coming up with some great stuff and I think what we're hearing at least what I've been hearing from some of the early stuff is rather than using a formula of segmentized construction, we are definitely committed to building major projects in the most efficient manner, but if we possibly somehow or other proportioned those funds and gave a commitment of dollars over a period of ten years or 15 years in the metropolitan areas in a balanced fashion, that might be a better way to do it, and I think we're going to be seriously looking at some of that.
MR. ROYER: I think at a recent symposium in Houston, Commissioner Williamson brought up a very good point, too that we look forward to supporting you on that TxDOT is restricted, as I understand it, in your federal funds as to how well you can apply those into traffic management programs, and in the re-authorization of TEA-21/T-3, we need to get some flexibility in that so TxDOT can participate in some of these intelligent transportation system installations that I know the urban area around the state are
MR. WILLIAMSON: The greatest favor Mr. DeLay could do for us talk to him through you would be to achieve a great degree of flexibility in our reimbursements from Mr. Reagan.
MR. ROYER: That message has already been delivered, Mr. Commissioner.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You can't imagine how much we could help every area of the state if we weren't constricted. The reason I ask you about your 91 percent figure, we think by the time everything gets backed up and we get all of our reimbursements, we think we're back down in the mid 80s again.
MR. ROYER: Then we've got to get indignant and go up there and get our fair share. Right?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait, I'm not on that program.
(General laughter.)
MR. NICHOLS: On that point where we used to get 75 percent and then we thought we were going to get 90 and we're finding out we're getting probably about 86, and there was a lot of discussions to try to ensure that we get 90, maybe even 95, that same federal funding we're looking at very possibly in the RABA a lot of people are not going to understand what that is possibly getting cut $200 million a year. That's still being danced around.
But regardless of all that, we're still getting 86 percent at the federal level but at the state level of the fuel tax that you pay, we get a lot higher return from the federal than we do from at the state level; we only get 72 percent of your fuel tax money goes to transportation in the state, we're at 72 percent here in Texas.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We were thinking about asking the legislature to not only let us keep the DPS money but go ahead and send us the DPS traffic monitors and we'll take care of that, we'll put the officers on the street to keep the speed limits down, you just send us the responsibility and the people back and we'll take care of it.
MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, it's going to take a tremendous amount shifting this pie around that everybody is concerned about, that is not the full solution here. The real solution to the transportation problem in Texas is going to be some of these new tools, some of these turnpikes, some of these new opportunities for participating with some of these new transportation things, but it's going to take money I mean, you can't build bricks without straw.
MR. ROYER: We're here to get on the same page with you, because you're right, Commissioner Nichols
MR. NICHOLS: That's the real solution to the problem.
MR. ROYER: that it's new ways to finance, new ways to invest in these projects and then new systems. The intelligent transportation systems where you can get 5 percent more capacity out of your existing facilities and getting TxDOT the flexibility to participate in those programs. We have to attack it on all fronts, and I know we can torture statistics, if we torture them long enough, they'll say anything we want. What we came here to show you, we're asking, we need as much attention as you can give us and we need as much investment as you can give us because we need to get on top of this problem.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we knew that this would be a golden opportunity to have some pretty frank dialogue; we've been anticipating this for about three weeks.
MR. ROYER: I've never had anything other than a frank dialogue with you, Ric.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: We also knew that there would be a lot of members present who would have the opportunity to perhaps view the dialogue from a different perspective, and it's one of my roles to not let my former colleagues be misled.
Mr. Nichols made a good point that we're up to 55 percent on maintenance, but that's not the whole point. By the time you back out and we're not complaining; like I said, I'm not on the fair share program, I don't like that argument but by the time you back out DPS, safety items are important to House and Senate members, air quality issues that don't directly affect transportation, this next year, Mr. Noriega, we might spend 18 percent of our cash flow on new construction 18 percent.
MR. ROYER: On new capacity.
MR. WILLIAMSON: If you go in and break out all of the requests of the urban leadership of the state, we talk about we can only serve one-third of our need when it goes to new capacity, it's like one-twentieth of our requests. So we're not up here saying pass a tax bill and give us more money, but we just think the facts need to be said over and over again: on a cash flow basis, we can only allocate about 18 to 20 percent on new capacity. It is what it is; it makes everybody mad but it is what it is, no more, no less.
MR. ROYER: We take no exception to that analysis; that's right. You're correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I wish we were spending more money on rail and light rail and helping Houston build their light rail.
MR. ROYER: We're also doing that.
MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have anything additionally?
MR. NICHOLS: No. I think you have done a great job in working together in all the areas of that region and coming up with some ideas and pooling and creative opportunities to leverage some of that stuff, I think it's great, and appreciate everybody coming.
MR. ROYER: We look forward to working with you as continued partners. Again, thank you very much for your attention.
MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything else?
MR. WILLIAMSON: No. I've said enough.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, I have two observations. One is the numbers that you have reported come from DISCOs which are actually cash dollars spent in a given fiscal year. I think it's important to note that in the current Unified Transportation Plan of 2002, which we are operating under, that the Houston area is in for a sizable increase, and those are planned and programmed dollars as opposed to actual dollars spent, but that number approaches 20 percent over a four-year period. So I think the facts will show, once those numbers correlate into DISCOs, that the trend is reversing.
And the second observation I have is and this is a personal observation, although I'm confident that my colleagues agree that congestion/mobility is the largest challenge that we have as a commission and as a department. It is also by far the most expensive challenge that we have as a commission and as a department. But as I think you clearly understand and know far too well, we deal with a limited pool of money and I'm heartened by, one, the broad spectrum of people that are represented here today that hopefully will understand the challenges that we have a little better, and the offer for help that we can all be lifted by a rising tide, and that rising tide would be increased funding for this department and what it faces in the future.
I want to thank each and every one of you, and in particular, Jim, for your presentation. It's been very informative and it's been an excellent dialogue, I believe.
MR. ROYER: I agree, and we look forward to partnering up as we have in the past and getting on about taking care of the problem. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Terrific. We will take a very brief recess and the operative word is brief so the Houston people can get back and get that state domestic product up a little higher.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

SAN ANTONIO MOBILITY COALITION
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO/BEXAR COUNTY

(Mayor Ed Garza, Sen. Jeff Wentworth, Sen. Frank Madla, Rep. Robert Puente, Rep. Frank Corte, Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, Rep. Elizabeth Ames Jones, Rep. Jose Menendez, Sam Dawson, Judge Nelson Wolff, Lyle Larson, Marty Wender)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission. I'd like to welcome our new arrivals from San Antonio. I've made an executive change in the agenda order and moved San Antonio to the second delegation. Our friends from Fort Bend County have been gracious enough to not get too mad at me for doing that, and we appreciate their flexibility.
It's great to see the San Antonio delegation here and I understand that Mayor Ed Garza will lead the delegation. We're delighted that you're here and welcome. Hopefully no gridlock on I-35 this morning.
(General laughter.)
MAYOR GARZA: I actually had the opportunity to fly to Houston, so I avoided that, but our delegation got here on time, so we're very appreciative for your time and attention and adjusting your agenda. Commissioner Johnson, it's always good to see you, commission members Williamson, Nichols, and Mr. Behrens.
I am pleased to be here this morning to lead the San Antonio and Bexar County delegation in presenting our priority projects. And first, let me thank each and every one of you for the job that you're doing really establishing a vision for transportation in our great state of Texas. I think it's been several years since we've had an opportunity to make a formal presentation, and so it's good to be back and it's good to talk about the many great things that are happening in the San Antonio and Bexar County areas.
We'd like to focus on really our concerns and most importantly our commitment towards transportation, our commitment in building a superior transportation network in San Antonio and Bexar County, but one that interconnects with the rest of the state. I think as we think about our priority projects, these are projects that benefit the entire state of Texas.
We will be highlighting three of our local projects, priority projects at different stages, but most importantly, and I'd like to stress that we're also in strong support of a state project that many of you are aware of, the interest by Toyota in the state of Texas. We have been a supporter of Toyota coming to Texas. We're very pleased, obviously, that they are looking at San Antonio and south Bexar County. But I think we want to communicate to this commission that by bringing Toyota and by welcoming Toyota would be a great opportunity for the entire state of Texas, our economy and certainly the future.
So we will talk about these projects in greater detail, the Toyota project is an evolving one but one that will require an investment by the State of Texas. We are working with our public works department and the officials at Toyota to come up with cost estimates and because of the sensitivity of the issue, I don't want to get into great detail, but let you know that we're ready to work with this commission to make sure that the state of Texas benefits and brings Toyota to this part of the country. It would be a first for Toyota to invest in the state of Texas and I think a very strong commitment and certainly one that will focus on transportation.
And I might also note that the officials that we've been talking to are talking about the same type of vision that we are in terms of building a sustainable community, integrating land use into their design, and because of that it gives me a great amount of enthusiasm to stand here and to ask for your support.
Talking about transportation systems, certainly this commission has taken a big step forward. It's taken a position on the access road issue and one that I've supported. I just want to stand here today and applaud you for that and also for listening to the rest of the state of Texas. I think that demonstrated your sincere willingness to make sure that the decisions you make will benefit the entire state of Texas, and more importantly, look to building a transportation network for the future.
In San Antonio, Bexar County we're focusing on the very same things. We're talking about integrating our transportation system with land use planning so that as we continue to grow we will see economic development but economic development that is sustainable. We know that the growth needs of this state are tremendous. San Antonio, being the second fastest growing city of cities over one million, we too know that the challenge must be to plan for the future.
We've also listened, we've listened very carefully to the message that you have sent to our delegation in years past about leveraging dollars, about bringing dollars to the table. Later today you will hear from one of our speakers, our county commissioner, on what we're bringing to the table this year. And so we're here today to thank you for your leadership, we're here to ask for your support as we stand here ready to invest in our community and to promote sustainable growth throughout our community.
You see many of the delegation standing behind me, many are wearing this SAMCO sticker here. This is a new partnership, and again, this was from the message that we heard from this commission to get organized, to work as a community, and to come with a plan. The San Antonio Mobility Coalition is a public-private partnership and we are exploring ways to extend those boundaries to a regional mobility authority. We're also working with other communities across the state, and I have the opportunity to co-chair the re-authorization efforts that the state of Texas has developed through TX-21 in making sure that the state of Texas receives its share of dollars from our federal government, and we know that's going to be a difficult task but we will do all that we can to leverage those dollars as well.
I'd like to introduce, before we begin our presentation we're going to have several individuals talk about the priority projects in greater detail but it gives me great pleasure to introduce our Bexar County legislative delegation who is here, and after I introduce these members, Sam Dawson, who is the chairman of the San Antonio Mobility Coalition, will begin our presentation.
I'd like to ask our delegation to please stand: Senator Jeff Wentworth; Senator Frank Madla; Representative Robert Puente; Representative Frank Corte; Representative Ruth Jones McClendon; Representative Elizabeth Ames Jones; and Representative Jose Menendez; and I believe we also have a representative from John Shields' office. I want to thank our Bexar County delegation. We're very proud of the job that they do each and every day and we're looking forward to a very productive legislative session beginning in January.
With that, I'd like to turn it over to our chair of SAMCO, Sam Dawson.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mayor, just a second. I need the record to reflect that Senator Van de Putte called me and said, I'm tied up on something I have to do; if I don't get there on time, I'm thinking about it. And certainly Senator Van de Putte is a strong supporter of transportation and someone that's very comfortable for this commission to deal with.
MAYOR GARZA: I'm glad you mentioned that because Senator Van de Putte is my state senator, so if you didn't mention it, I would hear from her later. She's been also a supporter and our entire delegation has been supportive.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You know what's unique about the Bexar County delegation?
MAYOR GARZA: It's headed by an Aggie.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's the only urban delegation in Texas represented by senators with whom I served in the House, each senator. In fact, my first office mate was Frank Madla and he took his time to point out where I was missing the Ps and Qs as a freshman House member. I'll never forget.
Tell us about Toyota for a minute, Mayor. We want desperately, the governor has made it clear to us that TxDOT will do everything it can to help Toyota be a reality. We need just for you and the leaders of the community to say this is what we need, and we'll be frank with you and tell you what we can't do or can do, but we will go the extra mile to bring that important economic investment to our state.
I was thinking about my Houston friends a while ago because I knew you would be speaking about this later, and I wonder how much more of the gross state product will be allocated to Houston by the cars that get shipped out of San Antonio and taken to the Port of Houston. It just demonstrates the point we're one state: whatever happens in Houston affects San Antonio, whatever happens in Dallas affects Houston, whatever might happen in San Antonio in the next 90 days will have a great impact on the rest of us.

MR. JOHNSON: On the entire state.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You tell us and we will be here to be your partner.

MAYOR GARZA: Well, I appreciate that, and fortunate for San Antonio, and Toyota, you have to understand, is a very thorough due diligence process, and we didn't even know Toyota was looking at San Antonio until just a short time ago, but once we discovered that, they have been very clear that this is a substantial investment in our state. And all along we've been supportive to get Toyota in Texas I think they were looking at two areas within our state when they've narrowed it down now to the San Antonio, Bexar County area, we've been supportive. They were actually, I think, even looking outside of our county and we've been supportive.
And so we're here to let you know that our city and county are working with those officials. Again, not going into a whole lot of information because I believe the media is here but we are putting together a package that not only addresses their investment in our community but one that builds an economic catalyst for south Bexar County, for the region, and for the state of Texas. The transportation areas that they have focused on primarily deal with the access issues to the sites that they've been looking at, there would be some highway interchange improvements that would be required, improvements and an addition to a spur off one of the main rail lines is also a must, and access over that and over some of the drainage issues.
And so we've been working very hard to (a) get down to very specific cost estimates for a site so that we can come to you and present that information and seek your support, but it would be probably not good on my part to give any specific numbers at this point but to say that we're going to do whatever we can to make this happen and we would certainly ask for your support and your partnership with the state, with the county, and with the city of San Antonio.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, please rest assured that we're very anxious to assist you in any way that we can. We are aware, keenly, not only of how important this is to your region of the state but also, as Ric pointed out, it affects the entire state, and it's very important to the department, and we as the commission will assist you in every way we can.

MAYOR GARZA: We appreciate that. And I introduced our delegation. We also have Councilman Carol Schubert who is here from the city council also an Aggie, by the way; and of course, you'll hear from our county judge and our county commissioner Lyle Larson, an Aggie as well. I can't say that for our county judge but we're working on that. Now I'd like to turn it over to Sam Dawson.
SENATOR WENTWORTH: Actually, I'm not Sam Dawson.
MR. JOHNSON: Could have fooled us.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR WENTWORTH: No. Sam is younger and better looking and not an Aggie.
Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, Mr. Behrens. We really appreciate your patience and forbearing as you go through the process of listening to all these delegations come before you with the same plea which is for more money. I had an opportunity to listen to part of the previous delegation and some of the chairman's remarks about hoping that the rising tide of revenue that you all need to provide the things that we're asking you for takes place next spring.
And I would just respectfully recall that a year and a half ago I was speaking publicly about the need for a nickel a gallon or a dime a gallon gasoline tax increase. I've taken a lot of heat in campaigns since that time for those remarks, but I believe I genuinely reflected the views of my constituents who want more road improvements and they want less pressure on their local property taxes, and because the gasoline tax is split as you know three-quarters for roads and one-quarter for schools, that would have been helpful.
It wasn't well received by House leaders at the time. They indicated to the reporter that the chances of that passing were slim to none, and the executive branch indicated probably a bill like that would be vetoed, but hopefully through the last year and a half or two years, I think more and more people are coming to the conclusion that we do need that. So I'm with you.
I've got to tell you this delegation traveled here this morning on a bus, most of them, from San Antonio and I-35, and I told my son last night he asked me what I was doing today, and I told him I was going to go to Austin and talk to them about Loop 1604. Carla and I have two sons: One is 14 who fortunately is not yet driving, and another who is 20 who USAA wishes were not driving
(General laughter.)
SENATOR WENTWORTH: but when he found out that I was going to talk to you about 1604, he said, Oh, you mean the death loop. I mean, that is what people call Loop 1604. So my role in this presentation is to try to bring some facts to you about growing congestion problems that we face in Bexar County.
According to a 2002 study on urban mobility by the Texas Transportation Institute at some university the mayor was talking about, Texas A&M University, of the 75 urban areas in the country, San Antonio has the fastest growing congestion rate from the years 1996 to 2000. This congestion results in 25-1/2 million hours of delay at an annual cost of $420 million, it amounts to 42 million gallons of fuel being wasted each year at a cost of $55 million. The study estimated that between 1996 and 2000 the number of miles San Antonians traveled in peak hour bottleneck traffic increased by 25 percent. Citizens of San Antonio spent about 43 hours idling on the ever increasing congested roadways.
The previous Texas Transportation Institute urban mobility report in the year 2001 ranked San Antonio number three behind only Atlanta and Minneapolis-St. Paul. One of the solutions to this problem is to add capacity to the Loop 1604 corridor as is being proposed today by our delegation.
Thank you very much for your attention.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Welcome, Senator.

SENATOR MADLA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission.
I'm going to be brief. I know what it is to be sitting up there and someone going on and on forever, but I have to tell you that I'm real glad that Ric is up on top because I remember when he was down in the hole. He was referred to as one of the pit bulls, and I can tell you it was no fun coming before that group of individuals, Ric.
I'm going to visit with you with reference to just one of the items because I think members are going to be covering several things, and basically it's the one that impacts the southern sector of Bexar County, and there's a request to move the Kelly Parkway project from PLAN status to DEVELOP status, and let me tell you why I think it's important.
I think, first of all, as the NAFTA traffic increases in the state of Texas, it's going to be coming in from the southern sector. As you know, Kelly Air Force Base was closed some years ago but there are a great number of jobs that have been created that are there already in place I think there's about 12,000 jobs that have been created. I might point out to you that Kelly USA has limited access simply because it was a military installation. I think if Kelly USA is going to reach its full potential, we're going to need your help to improve the entrances from the southern sector and from the northern sector.
And let me just say this and then I'll be quiet and sit down. There is also at this time a group out of Dallas, Texas, that is working very hard at having Kelly USA designated as a port of entry. If that happens, I can tell you that the traffic coming in both by rail and by highways is going to increase substantially. I would hope that you would grant us this request so that when all this takes place, hopefully we won't be playing catch-up.
With that, that's all I have to say.
MR. PUENTE: Good morning, commissioners, Chairman Johnson. My name is Robert Puente, I'm the state representative for District 119 in San Antonio, and I'm glad to see you here, Commissioner Williamson, as a former House member or as Speaker Lewis used to say, an extinguished House member. Like your Senate colleagues, we're very proud of Commissioner Williamson who is also housebroken, so you know what it's like.

(General laughter.)

MR. PUENTE: I would like to specifically talk about in a little bit more detail about the south part of Bexar County and the Kelly Parkway, the one that Senator Madla kind of referred to.
Our coalition is requesting that the project be moved from the PLAN status to the DEVELOP status in your strategic priorities. This will allow needed right of way acquisition and the development of a detailed construction plan. The proposed Kelly Parkway would improve not only mobility in south San Antonio but all of south Bexar County and south and central Texas.
The redevelopment of the former Kelly Air Force Base into Kelly USA Business Park has been touted by the Defense Department as a poster child for successful base closures. Presently there are over 60 companies at Kelly USA with a total of 12,000 employees. Corporate giants such as Boeing, Lockheed, General Electric call USA Kelly home. There are plans to further develop USA Kelly's air, rail and truck capabilities in order to attract even more employers.
Working in conjunction with Kelly USA's land development plans, the Kelly Parkway can significantly support and improve Kelly USA's growth while ensuring safe and convenient transportation to local residents. Your approval of the request to change the status to the DEVELOP category will permit the Kelly Parkway project to proceed and be successful and get up to the level of Kelly Air Force Base at its peak.
Kelly USA's success and economic impact is not limited to San Antonio or even the southwest region. You've heard from other speakers that what's good for San Antonio is good for Dallas, it's good for Houston, what's good for the border is good for the entire state. So this change in this status I think will help not only San Antonio but our entire area.
Commissioners, while I sit on Appropriations, you come before us and we know what difficulties you face of having to allocate different funds when not only TxDOT comes before us but education, criminal justice, all those other issues, and before you today Houston, Dallas, San Antonio. So you have a hard job, we know what it's like, and we appreciate the time that you spend on these issues, and we look forward to a good conclusion. Thank you.
And by the way, I did not mention anything about what school I came from because when you're ranked number three in the nation, you don't have to do that.
(General laughter.)

MR. CORTE: Hard act to follow. I'm Representative Frank Corte.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Another thumb.

MR. CORTE: I'm from that school that Mayor Garza is from also, and proud of it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I don't know what school Mr. Puente is from.

MR. CORTE: I'm Representative Corte and I'm also one of the representatives in the Bexar County delegation, and I want to thank Commissioners Johnson and Nichols and Williamson for allowing us to be here, and I know that you'll hear all day about how important transportation is to our community. What I'd like to focus on is really safety.
You heard a little while ago from Senator Wentworth about 1604 and that corridor. Actually, my current district is I-10/1604 and is pretty much kind of almost the center of it; with the new district that I will take on in January, I will have the 281/1604 interchange. I know you are very familiar with the congestion and what we're doing in San Antonio to deal with the growth that's going on out there and how much growth is going on out there, but I'd like to talk a little bit about safety and specifically with some numbers.
The accident rate for Loop 1604 which we are seeking your financial assistance is significantly higher than in the statewide average. In fact, the range is 20 percent higher in the area around IH 10 interchange to 70 percent higher in the area around US Highway 281. In fact, the segment north of 1604 on 281, actually right there is even staggering in the percentage, it's actually 400 percent higher. So we have a lot of accidents occurring. I know Commissioner Larson is going to talk maybe more specific about the types of accidents and how important it is.
We have a great responsibility, obviously, to meet the needs of our state, our community when it comes to transportation. But as you know, in hearing a lot of the testimony and dealing with the issues that you deal with, safety is also another issue. So I would like to present to you that while we are concerned about putting San Antonio in the right place for the great things that might happen in the future, such as the continuing growth of Kelly USA and Toyota, we need to also make sure that we're addressing those safety issues.
I dealt with some of these issues when I was on the MPO. I think there are some other folks within the delegation here today, whether the commissioners or representatives, have been on there and we've been talking about this for quite some time. So Bexar County has been working really hard to address the growth problems; however, we need your help from TxDOT to be able to continue to address these concerns, and so at this time, I'd request your favorable consideration for these items. Thank you very much.

MS. McCLENDON: Good morning. Chairman Johnson and commissioners, I am Ruth Jones McClendon, state representative for the downtown area of San Antonio and Bexar County. I also serve on the MPO representing the Bexar County delegation along with my colleague Senator Jeff Wentworth.
We are very concerned about the safety and accident problems on Interstate 10 that runs from downtown east through the middle of my district. Traffic safety is of great concern to us and to Bexar County and to the state as a whole. Safety is an even greater concern where there is a high concentration of truck traffic, and there is a very high concentration of truck traffic in this area. Approximately 22 percent of the traffic along IH 10 East is made up of commercial trucks. These trucks are 18-wheelers sharing limited capacity roads with school buses, private automobiles and emergency vehicles.
This part of I-10 is lined by businesses that support the commercial trucking industry. Truck traffic in San Antonio has grown by 250 percent since 1994 and it's projected to continue to grow as a result of NAFTA. The accident rate for this area of I-10 East is 50 percent higher than the statewide average.
The project funding request before you today would help solve these safety problems by constructing operational improvements to include ramp revisions, auxiliary lanes, and converting frontage roads from two-way to one-way roads. At a total of a mere $10 million, the return in added safety to the citizens passing through my district and Bexar County is well worth the investment.
And I want to thank you also for your recent approval for the allocation to Hayes Street Bridge. It's coming along very well and we thank you so much for your support. Thank you.
MS. JONES: Gentlemen, Chairman Johnson. Good morning and thank you all for giving us the opportunity to come together as a team to lobby you. I appreciate the fact that I am on this side for a change and doing the lobbying for a better San Antonio and South Texas region.
I'm here to talk to you a little bit about air quality. After many years in the near non-attainment category for air quality, this summer San Antonio exceeded the three-year average EPA eight-hour ozone standard. The most recent day that we exceeded that eight-hour standard was September 13 of this year.
In an attempt to avoid being designated a non-attainment metropolitan area for clean air standard and resulting sanctions that would come with that, San Antonio, with the support of the TCEQ and EPA is making a concerted effort to enter into an early action compact which will result in a clean air plan and avoid our metropolitan area being designated non-attainment.
This voluntary clean air proposal will permit the continued development efforts of San Antonio without compromising the construction of needed highway improvements, and once that clean air plan agreement is reached by the local governments in our MSA which includes the four counties of Bexar, Comal, Wilson and Guadalupe the area will develop time lines to implement the control strategies and solutions.
We are working very hard on this together and are committed to ensuring that this is followed through and that we provide our citizens and all of our constituents with a great healthy environment in which to live and work. Our Bexar County Commissioners Court, under the leadership of Nelson Wolff, has passed a resolution in support of developing a clean air plan.
Our voluntary clean air action is critical, we realize, to the future economic development of San Antonio. The 1604 corridor, in particular, the improvement of that corridor will greatly enhance our local efforts, and our request which also include the IH 10 East corridor which Representative McClendon spoke about, and our Kelly Parkway status change will permit us to solve some of our air quality problems both current and in the future in San Antonio.
I'd like to thank you for your consideration of all of our initiatives which will benefit not only San Antonio but the border region which is experiencing this great problem and that's why we're here in front of you all today. It's a problem that I think everybody would like to have and that is that we're having a lot of growth because it is a great place to come to, to live and work and raise your families, and so this is the kind of problem I think we're delighted to have and we can deal with it in ways that I think will be satisfactory to all the citizens of Texas across the state.
Thank you all for your time and your consideration. Hook 'em Horns.
(General laughter.)
MR. JOHNSON: I would like to offer one observation about the date of September 13 and exceeding the eight-hour standard, and I think there's a justifiable reason, is my first grandchild was born on that day and a lot of the bad air from Houston was visiting San Antonio, so I'm sure the EPA will understand.
(General laughter.)
MR. MENENDEZ: Thank you, Chairman Johnson. We will put that in our defense. Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, Mr. Behrens. My name is Jose Menendez and I have the honor and privilege of representing the city of San Antonio in House District 124; I also had the privilege of representing my city on the city council prior to this service.
I want to first of all thank you and let you know that the TxDOT district in San Antonio led by John Kelly is doing a tremendous job. Back in the '80s the city of San Antonio had many developers come together in a partnership with the city and TxDOT to give a lot of their right of way to build a highway known as 151 or Stotzer Freeway. The reality of this vision that this commission funded, that part of Bexar County, the western part, is one of the fastest growing parts of the nation. We have the privilege to have one of the few Sony microchip facilities outside of Silicon Valley and Japan; we have a Phillips chip manufacturing facility; Sea World is there; the Hyatt Hill Country is there. It is a beautiful atmosphere in which you have manufacturing, you have recreational and you have many housing communities, some of the highest in value along the western part of our county.
So my point is that the projects that we bring before you today, in my opinion, can have the same impact, if not greater. I believe greatly that your support of many of these initiatives, in particular the Kelly Parkway, will send a huge message not just to the great big fish that we're trying to land but to every single company looking at Texas and looking at South Texas and South Central Texas in particular. I believe that with the folks that are looking at creating an inland port at Kelly Air Force Base, we're able to change that from a PLAN stage to DEVELOP, I think they'll see that there is a momentum there and I think that will help greatly in those initiatives, and with that connection of Kelly Parkway should just make it very convenient for any company looking to bring in parts or manufactured goods from Mexico through our city.
So I think there's a lot here to offer and we humbly request this before you. We know that you have many requests before you. We just want to let you know that we will do everything on our part, like we did back in the '80s when the developers came forth and said here's some of the right of way. Anything we can do to help you, count on the city of San Antonio and Bexar County to be there to be your partners to help not just San Antonio and Bexar County but the state of Texas. Thank you.
MR. DAWSON: Good morning, Commissioner Johnson, members of the commission, Nichols and Williamson, Mr. Behrens. Nice to see you. My name is Sam Dawson. I am chairman of the San Antonio Mobility Coalition.
When I arrived here I thought we were going to be asking for money but I think we're here to defend our alma maters. I will say one brief comment about that because I know our time is limited. We were going to start today's presentation with an Aggie quarterback but apparently no one could find one. So I will make today's opening comments.

(General laughter.)

MR. DAWSON: As Mayor Garza stated in his opening comments, our community has become increasingly aware of the importance the transportation system plays in economic development and our quality of life as we know it in San Antonio.
San Antonians are very concerned about transportation planning and the necessary funding for transportation projects, as demonstrated by our presence here today. At this time I'm going to ask those who are part of our delegation to rise so you can see the effort that we made to be here today. Thank you.
San Antonians do recognize the importance of adopting a pro-active approach with regards to its transportation planning and financing. As a result, our community has created the San Antonio Mobility Coalition, Inc., acronym SAMCO, an organization that is dedicated to raising the community's awareness of transportation issues and striving to identify and support opportunities for increased transportation funding by exploring all available means.
SAMCO is a public-private partnership, it's financed by membership dues paid by the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, VIA Metropolitan Transit, and then members from the private sector including the chambers of commerce, the business community, the development community, the transportation industry.
SAMCO has hired as its first executive director Mr. Tom Griebel, who I believe is no stranger to this commission and is a former assistant executive director with the Texas Department of Transportation.
The San Antonio Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization voted to set aside 25 percent of its STP-MM funds each year to develop a revenue stream which may be used to leverage additional state and federal funds. Our community is exploring the possibility of establishing a regional mobility authority that could provide additional sources of funds to develop added needed transportation improvements. We had previously requested TxDOT's assistance in funding a toll road feasibility study.
As a result of SAMCO's and the MPO's actions, and the Texas Transportation Commission's advice, San Antonio is pro-actively considering new and innovative funding mechanisms for its transportation system for the first time in many years. The funding and status change requests that we will present to you are essential over the long term in solving the safety, congestion and air quality problems that we are experiencing in San Antonio. You will also see that our requests today have components that are critical to NAFTA truck traffic and the overall economic development for not only our community, our region, but also the state as a whole.
As Mayor Garza indicated, we have with us today a distinguished group of community leaders to present to you San Antonio's priority funding request. Today you will hear from Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, former state senator and former mayor of the City of San Antonio, and he will be speaking on Kelly Parkway and on the IH 10 East corridor improvements; Bexar County Commissioner and MPO Chairman Lyle Larson and he will be speaking on the Loop 1604 corridor improvements; and then the chairman of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, Marty Wender, will be providing an economic development perspective on our request.
So at this time I will turn it over to our County Judge Nelson WoLff.
JUDGE WOLFF: Chairman Johnson and commissioner Williamson and Commissioner Nichols and Executive Director Mike Behrens, thank you very much for listening to our presentation today. And let me deeply thank you for your speaking out on the Toyota plant. It's the most important economic development initiative that the city has ever undertaken, it's a transforming industry for our community, and will be a positive benefit to the state. Governor Perry, Lieutenant Governor Ratliff, Speaker of the House Pete Laney, all the leadership in our delegation providing the lead has just been absolutely marvelous in all the talks that they've had with you, so we thank you very, very much for that initiative.
One of the hazards of speaking in the latter part of the agenda is striking through your prepared remarks so you won't be saying the same thing that everybody else said. There may be a little redundancy here but I'll try to hold it to a minimum.
With respect to Senator Madla and Representative Puente's issues on the Kelly Parkway, we do ask that to be from the PLAN status to the DEVELOP status in Category 12 of the strategic priority in order to continue the development of the project. As you can see from the conceptual drawings, the proposed Kelly Parkway, a new four-lane divided arterial, will begin at US 90 and extend to SH 16; the parkway will include major connections to Loop 410 and IH 35, providing greater commercial truck access to Kelly USA, South Texas, and the increased NAFTA-related traffic. NAFTA-related truck traffic flowing through San Antonio is estimated to be 3.7 million annually, or over 10,000 a day.
Kelly USA Business Park is a significant project that is critical to the economic development of San Antonio, the region and the state. Your approval of this request will permit the Kelly Parkway project to begin purchasing the right of way. The elevation of this project status is critical to allowing San Antonio to take certain advantage of situations. Specifically, the Union Pacific Railroad has indicated its willingness to sell the right of way needed for the Kelly Parkway.
I now would like to highlight the first of our two funding assistance requests that we are presenting today. You've heard from Representative Ruth Jones McClendon regarding the IH 10 which is a major east-west commercial route for the nation, Texas and San Antonio, it is the dominant truck route for international trade between Mexico and the Port of Houston. The proposed improvements will convert the two-way frontage roads from IH 410 and Foster Road in eastern Bexar County to one-way operations in order to improve the safety of the highway. The project is approximately two miles in length; the cost to convert the frontage roads to one-way operations, including the reconfiguration of the entrance and exit ramps and the addition of auxiliary lanes is estimated to be $10 million.
We thank you very much for your time and your favorable consideration regarding these two projects, and now our next speaker is Bexar County Commissioner and MPO Chairman Lyle Larson who will address our second funding request.
MR. LARSON: Good morning. We appreciate all the things TxDOT has done over the past years in regards to San Antonio, and as you can see, by our prior speakers, we've gone through a fundamental reorientation on transportation.
We sat down with Mr. Behrens a couple of years ago and we asked the question about why San Antonio was not getting the same level of funding some of the other communities were getting, and he laid out a blueprint for us and we're following that blueprint. We agree that partnering with TxDOT is better than coming up here and just asking for projects without having some local match, and we're determined to get some of that done.
We've got a project out on the north side of our community out on 1604. I think one or two of you came to the design workshop with TxDOT, and if you came down 1604 you saw the level of traffic that we're experiencing during rush hour. We've seen congestion grow 47 percent over the past six years and this is the number one concern that I hear from constituents all over the community is dealing with the 1604 corridor.
This project specifically on the roadway is an additional lane in each direction on IH 10 West to US 281, two direct connector ramps at US 281 and one direct connector ramp at IH 10 West. Loop 1604 between IH 10 East and IH 10 West could function as an alternative route from San Antonio for IH 10 from El Paso to Houston provided that it has adequate capacity. The traffic ranges have grown from 83,000 to 104,000 vehicles a day on this roadway, and as you can see on the illustration, this is the one we're talking about.
The proposal is to add capacity in the median by constructing an additional lane in each direction to the existing four-lane controlled access highway. The project has already been approved environmentally and the right of way is already available.
The population out in this part of town has grown 72 percent over the last six years and will continue to grow in the next ten years at the same level. We've seen 500 new subdivision plats approved, 16,000 new housing starts in this area. If you live out in this area, you've seen explosive growth, and we're probably 12 to 15 years behind our growth projections out in this area. I don't think anybody, TxDOT, the City of San Antonio, or Bexar County could anticipate the growth that we've realized, so we're just trying to catch up. The project on the additional lanes is $38.4 million and we would ask for your consideration just for those two additional lanes.
The big issue that I hear more so than any other transportation project we've got in the community is dealing with the interchange at 281 and 1604. We've had seven fatalities over the course of the last five years there, we've had 123 accidents, and I've been on the scene with a couple of accidents. And because of the high speed that people are coming off of 281 and coming into that interchange, we just can't handle the volume that is coming through there on a daily basis. We've got a lot of residential growth that I alluded to earlier, but also we've got a lot of corporate folks that are located in that area: Clear Channel Communications has just built a facility there; we've got Valero out in that vicinity building facility out there. So we're going to see more and more traffic.
I can tell you anybody that travels through that interchange in the morning and the afternoon, you're going to spend 30 to 45 minutes negotiating through that interchange, through the signals, and that's if you don't have any accidents. If you have an accident, it's going to compound that by 15-20 minutes easily. So this is a big issue that we've got in the community. We're requesting $45 million to construct direct connectors from northbound US 281 to westbound Loop 1604, and from eastbound 1604 to southbound US 281.
Finally, I'd like to talk to you about the IH 10 West and Loop 1604 connector ramps. Again, because of the population growth out there, and we also have Six Flags Fiesta Texas theme park, we've got Sea World that impacts that, and a number of other resort and residential communities that are developing out there. On top of that, we've got 25,000 students at UTSA that sits on the corner of 1604 and I-10 and you only have 2,100 students that are actually on the campus. The balance of the student body commutes into the school, so it really creates a problem. USAA sits within a couple of miles of that interchange; you've got 16,000 employees that are coming in and out of that intersection as well. We've got to address that issue.
The accident rate is 70 percent higher than the statewide average in this interchange as well. We would appreciate consideration for that connector ramp; the cost of that connector ramp is about $20 million is what we've estimated.
Again, we appreciate all of the good planning that TxDOT has done in San Antonio. I think you see San Antonio as sort of the model for urban design from TxDOT's perspective, the reason being you've got two loops that have been developed there and over the course of the last 40 years we've been in better shape than the other communities, Houston and Dallas and Austin because of your good planning. Now we're dealing with capacity issues and our congestion models are starting to reflect that we're starting to experience a lot of the same problems as other communities are experiencing.
So we're asking for consideration of these projects to help us stay ahead of that curve, and I think that that's the whole emphasis behind this whole delegation is that we don't get into the same issues and that we don't experience the same level of problems. We are and these particular projects hopefully will alleviate some of that.
Now I'd like to introduce Marty Wender. He's a developer and he's the chair of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, and he'll underscore the role that transportation plays in economic development. Marty is a UT guy and I think I'll get him in a headlock before we start this deal, sort of get away from that A&M deal. That was an uncalled for remark from Sam Dawson and he will have some grief to deal with on the way back to San Antonio
MR. WENDER: Thank you, and may the eyes of Texas be upon you. (Laughter.) First of all, before I start I want to let you know that the business community of San Antonio and I bet the entire state of Texas realizes the importance of increased funding for highways of Texas. We will be there and support that, even if it means making tough decisions, but great states invest in themselves, Texas is the greatest state, and we know as business people that we have to invest in our future and building highways in Texas is an investment in our future.
Every day people make decisions on where companies are going to locate. Toyota is the best example. Transportation getting to and from the Toyota plant will be key in their decision, and the part that you'll play in that will be major in making San Antonio the home for Toyota.
In 2000 we experienced 25.5 million hours of congestion delay in San Antonio, wasted 42 million gallons of fuel, costing approximately $475 million, or $810 per San Antonio driver. That's almost half a billion dollars drained from the economy of San Antonio with this congestion problem.
San Antonio is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States. In 1990 San Antonio saw an increase of more than 200,000 jobs, a 36 percent increase compared to 32 in 1980. The projects we bring before you today will be more efficient to help San Antonio grow its economy, specifically Loop 1604. Due to San Antonio's growth pattern, Loop 1604 is playing an increasingly important role in San Antonio's overall development of the economy.
As we said, medicine is our number one industry in San Antonio. The medical center is the heart of that. The medical center has eleven hospitals, 80 clinics, a combined budget of over $2.3 billion, and there are 25,000 people that work in the medical center, 10,000 volunteers who go to the medical center, 3.3 million visitors and patients go to the medical center. We need to support our medical industry to get people in and out of that and the highway system is critical to that.
Tourism is our second biggest industry in San Antonio, $4 billion a year. We have two of the big draws, Fiesta Texas and Sea World, that are both along 1604. It is vital for the almost 4 million visitors a year that go there that they can get to and from those parks. Loop 1604 needs to be expanded in order to provide connectivity for the people of San Antonio, for the employees, students, commuters, patients and tourists. We beg for your help on this.
The I-10 East corridor, there are 50 companies with truck-related businesses along that corridor. The trucks are going to come from Mexico through San Antonio, they're going to come, we need to help them get through the city.
And Kelly USA, when they decided to close Kelly, we decided to try to make it an asset; we have done that. Kelly USA will create 21,000 jobs, $400 million in investment in Kelly USA but we've got to get people in and out of there. It is vital to the economy of San Antonio and the state of Texas.
I appreciate, as a businessman, what you do. We realize tough decisions, having to allocate assets; we want to work with you and help you; we appreciate everything.
Now I'd like to turn it back to Sam Dawson.
MR. DAWSON: Mr. Chairman and commission members, this does conclude our presentation but I would like to briefly summarize what we have presented to you today.
First, we have identified approximately $10 million in local STP-MM funds to commit to our priority projects in San Antonio. We ask that you consider allocating state funds for: the Loop 1604 corridor, specifically, add one lane in each direction between IH 10 West and US 281, estimated cost $38.4 million; provide additional capacity for at least one of the two requested interchanges, either the Loop 1604/US 281 interchange, estimated cost $45 million, or the Loop 1604 IH 10 West interchange, estimated cost $20 million.
We also asked your consideration for the IH 10 East project as discussed by Judge Wolff. These operational improvements from IH 410 to Foster Road will convert the frontage roads from two-way to one-way, estimated cost of these improvements $10 million. Finally, we request your approval to move Kelly Parkway from PLAN status to DEVELOP status in Category 12 to authorize right of way acquisition.
In closing, we hope that our presentation shows that we have been listening in San Antonio. We have brought local money to match state funds for the first time; it is our commitment to the transportation partnership with TxDOT. We have become more organized and innovative in our approach, and each project in our request today has not only a local significance but real statewide impact on safety, economic development and traffic congestion. We have been listening.
Before I close, I would like to end our presentation by complimenting John Kelly and the TxDOT staff that we have in San Antonio. We in San Antonio are well represented by your representatives, Mr. Kelly and his staff.
It's my understanding that our mayor does want to make one closing comment, so at this point I will turn it back over to him. Thank you.
MAYOR GARZA: Thank you, Sam. Again, on behalf of our entire delegation we want to thank you for the time. San Antonio loves to make presentations so we're very passionate about our community and we're very proud to be part of the State of Texas. And just to, I think, summarize our priorities this year, I think you could put it best saying we're catching up and planning for the future at the same time. The projects that we believe are catching up are the areas around 1604 where we've seen tremendous growth, and this will allow us to preserve the quality of life, our air quality that makes San Antonio such a special place to live.
But at the same time we're here to talk about the future and again I refer to this commission taking a bold step, talking about access issues on highways, thinking about the highway system of the future. I don't think a lot of people saw that but what we're here today is to tell you that we're planning for the future as well, and next week we will have at least a dozen individuals from the Urban Land Institute come to San Antonio to look at how we can promote balanced growth. The areas to the south side of our community have the capacity on our highway system that you have given us, and we have to find ways and establish policy to create a market-driven balanced growth initiative in the southern sector of our city.
Senator Madla had to leave but I'll never forget the first time that I had an opportunity to visit with him before I was a council member, and he said, You know what, I'm just pushing for lights on the south side of Loop 410. And that planted a seed in my mind that we really weren't utilizing the infrastructure that we had already and that we had to find ways to do a better job of promoting balanced growth.
So next week we have the Urban Land Institute in town talking about a transportation network in the southern part of our city for the next 20 years. And as you know, from the heavens Toyota came, and they're looking at south Bexar County and south San Antonio, and so now that puts a spotlight on this initiative and certainly on our efforts to promote balanced growth, to utilize the resources that you have given us, but also to catch up in those areas where we've seen the growth and that we have to address immediately in order to preserve the quality of life of our community.
So again, thank you for your time today and we look forward to continuing to develop a partnership with the State. Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have questions or comments?
MR. NICHOLS: Well, not so much questions as it was comments. First comment is congratulations on a great presentation; I think it was excellent and you put all the pieces together. I also want to compliment all of you for coming together as a coalition. The SAMCO that you've put together puts all of the entities, your city, your county, your chambers, your businesses, and those who have been on city councils and county commissioners understand how difficult it is to work through a process to try to figure out which project are we going to do that we can all agree on and it's certainly very tough for us, and we recognize very tough for you in a local, but you have put that together in the region, all interests, and laid the priorities out and stepped up to the plate. So you put all the pieces together and I wanted to compliment you on that.
Number two, I think as you work through the Toyota situation I know you can't talk a lot about it I think you're going to find a lot of support from the Department of Transportation on that. I think you're in the early stages of consideration of forming a regional mobility authority. I would like to say that I would strongly encourage you to work in that direction. I think we are very excited about it, we've seen a lot of the other possible things that can work out of that, but it is, I think, going to be amazing as time moves on what that can do and the long-term benefits for your region and ultimately, we see, for the whole state, and we're going to be working with you, seed corn, guidance, whatever we need to do to help work your way through the process as you decide how it works best for you in your area and the projects and things like that. So I wanted to make sure I made that point.
I couldn't help but notice some of your early comments were related to access management. I would like to almost take that, tape it and play it all around the state. You have been applying access management in your area for really a number of years now, and your comment related to not only does it work with economic development but the word sustainable economic development, and I think you recognize that and I think we have recognized that and some other states have recognized that. And it works, it does work. We have certain areas of the state who have great fear or concern about it and we're working our way through that and we're going to work with those areas of the state, but I appreciate you making those comments because that's kind of an important issue right now also.
With that, I didn't go to either one of those colleges.
(General laughter.)
MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?
MR. WILLIAMSON: It was a great presentation, and a united delegation is always easier to support. And I repeat again, Toyota is important to the governor, it's important to this commission, whatever we need to do we need to know that.
MR. JOHNSON: I would like to add my thanks and also state that very impressive presentation. We recognize an area like San Antonio has huge needs and it's impressive that you're able to assemble the community as a team to push these issues forward in a manner that's united, and that makes all the difference in the world
One observation I have, the Kelly development has the potential to be a huge economic engine for your area and also for the state. Kelly Parkway I think is a vital ingredient in that. It is also what I call a pig in the python, it is a very expensive surface transportation project, and for that reason I think it emphasizes how much we need to be partners because we need your help because to fund something of that magnitude for a single project at a single moment is a very difficult and challenging proposition. So we look forward to working with you on that and 1604 and 410 and 10 and every other project that you mentioned.
Once again, thank you for being here and we will take a brief recess so that you can head back to commerce and industry, and for the record, when we return out of recess, Robert Nichols will chair the meeting. Thank you.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

59 FORWARD ALLIANCE

(Mayor Dave Wallace, Rep. Charlie Howard, James Patterson)

MR. NICHOLS: Our next presentation is the 59 Forward Alliance, also from the Houston area, and I think Mayor Wallace will be first at bat. Welcome.
MAYOR WALLACE: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good morning. Dave Wallace with the City of Sugar Land. We'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be here to talk this morning.
As Jim Royer indicated, we are a member of the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners and firmly believe in the regional approach to mobility. We're also taking a leadership role in the 59 Forward Alliance which is comprised of a number of local agencies and leaders, as State Representative Charlie Howard will speak about in a moment.
With the City of Sugar Land today we have our city engineer Dale Rudick, our city manager Alan Bogard; we have a quorum from our city council that are with us today: Council Members Daniel Wong, Jimmy Thompson, and Brian Gaston, and Mayor Pro Tem Don Smithers. I'm saying that just from the standpoint to let you know that the City of Sugar Land is here in full force and are asking for your support today.
First and foremost, on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people in Fort Bend County, I would like to thank you for your historical support in connection with the 59 expansion from US 90A to State Highway 6. That's continuing to move forward, and I know there was a positive comment made earlier regarding TxDOT and Gary Trietsch, and I'd like to again compliment him on all his efforts as well. Again, we'd like to ask for your continued support on the agenda item 6(a), the minute order to amend the 2002 UTP for the funding of US 59 between State Highway 6 and State Highway 99.
We've previously provided a package of information and included in there was a chronological summary of certain activities that have taken place. I'd like to touch on three or four of those points.
The first one, we are very proud of the relationship and the city-state partnership that has been created, and back in 1997 city council approved just under $4 million to further those efforts in connection with the city-state partnership. We want to continue to provide that type of financial support. We've been working with the county, as Commissioner Patterson will say in a moment, to urge the support of bond referendums to support the next segment of 59. Council recently approved the city's acceptance of ownership and maintenance of Spurs 41 and 58, and the city is also spending significant dollars to create what we consider to be a signature freeway with 59 because of the aesthetic features and design of that, and that will continue on future expansion segments of 59, US 90A and State Highway 6.
I'd also like to point out in connection with access management, a point that was raised earlier today, Sugar Land has implemented a strong policy in connection with access management and we feel that we've taken a leadership role and have partnered quite successfully with TxDOT and the TxDOT district office in maximizing separation distances for driveways on state facilities, forcing shared use driveways on state facilities, providing right of way and construction deceleration lanes, and then also along with other mitigation measures as dictated by TIA requirements. And we're very proud of this role that we have taken.
There's an adage that says "A picture is worth a thousand words" and rather than me standing up here and giving you a thousand words, what I'd like to do is show you a six-minute video that I think articulates some of the message that we're trying to have today.
(Whereupon, the video was shown.)
MAYOR WALLACE: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, hopefully you'll agree that that was better than my thousand words.
At this point in time, what I'd like to do is introduce a gentleman who has been very supportive of the City of Sugar Land, very supportive of all of Fort Bend County, and very supportive of the 59 Forward Alliance, State Representative Charlie Howard.
MR. HOWARD: Thank you, Mayor. Good morning, commissioners. I know it's been a long day, but first of all, I want to thank you for all your help in preventing further delay in the Tom DeLay Freeway, and I can assure you that Christine and Tom will appreciate all your help too, and one of the things I'm going to do this morning is present to you the original letters of support and resolutions that I brought with us in support of our endeavor.
But I want to assure you that we would be remiss of anyone that gets up here today from our area that doesn't also give accolades to Gary Trietsch and his staff. They have been there, they see the problems, they come out there after hours; Gary Trietsch has been in my front yard watching the traffic not go anywhere many times, understanding our concerns. And I know all you commissioners have been down in our district, and Ric, you were down there recently and we appreciate that and I just want to thank you for that.
I do want to read one little paragraph from a letter of support from Congressman DeLay, and it says: "I can assure you that as a senior member of Congress that during next year's transportation authorization process, one of my top priorities will be to work to guarantee that the state receives a more reasonable share of transportation funds distributed to the states. I continue to believe that Texas should receive a return of no less than 95 percent on all federal highway funds distributed. My other goals during re-authorization include streamlining the environmental review process and giving state and local officials in Texas more discretion over federal funds."
We are proud to have Tom and Christine residents of Sugar Land, and I can assure you they are working not only for Sugar Land and Fort Bend County but for the State of Texas, and Tom is working very hard to get the additional funds to us.
I just wanted to recognize a few of our elected dignitaries in the audience that haven't been recognized already: State Representative Dora Olivo; State Representative Bill Callegari; we have representatives from our chamber of commerce, the Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Committee; David Gornet with the Grand Parkway Association; we have Jim Gonzales, a Richmond commissioner; and in a moment I'll introduce our county commissioner who is going to go over some other facts with you.
Rather than bore you with additional comments, I was going to read off the people who presented letters of support, and I will give the originals to you and then the resolutions of support. Our letters of support, first of all, from: U.S. Congressman Tom DeLay; the Texas Transportation Policy Council; Judge Robert Eckels; myself; State Representative Dora Olivo; County Judge Jim Adolphus; Commissioner James Patterson; mayor of Missouri City, Allen Owen; mayor of Rosenberg, Joe Gurecky; Fort Bend Economic Development Committee, Herb Apple; Grand Parkway Association, David Gornet.
And then we have resolutions from: Fort Bend County, the City of Sugar Land, Fort Bend Chamber of Commerce, the City of Rosenberg, Fort Bend Economic Development Committee, and the Richmond-Rosenberg Area Chamber of Commerce.
We are very excited about what you're doing. I think you've already heard that we believe in partnerships; our county and our city are putting their money where their mouth is to make our dollars go further; we appreciate very much what you're doing. And now I'd like to introduce James Patterson who is our Transportation Policy Council vice-chairman, and he'll tell you a little bit more about that. Thank you very much.
MR. PATTERSON: Thank you, Charlie. I only had about two minutes worth of stuff and then Chairman Johnson asked me to move it up to an hour-and-a-half worth since he was leaving.
(General laughter.)
MR. PATTERSON: As vice-chairman of the Transportation Policy Council for HGAC, I'm fully aware of the need for cooperative efforts between different entities. Fort Bend County really pushes that issue. We passed 18 months ago a bond issue of $86 million for mobility bonds and $144 million in backing for toll roads. We realize that we should use that money by using developer money, cities, county and state funds in cooperative arrangements.
In so doing, we placed $6 million in the bond to allocate from Highway 6 to the Grand Parkway; when we get to the Grand Parkway, we have some $8 million, a little over $8 million in there for Grand Parkway, including overpasses over 90A and over 1093, plus $7 million to expand the Grand Parkway down toward Brazoria County where it's a major hurricane evacuation route. We were all pleased that this latest one took a right turn because we needed a little bit of help and a little bit of length of time to get where we can get out of there. Plus, we have another million dollars in that bond issue to improve Highway 90A and State Highway 6; those two are major factors.
So if you add those up in our $86 million bond issue, we've got over $15 million that are allocated directly toward supporting and partnering with you guys because you told us up front. We're trying to work toward getting a regional mobility authority established; we think that's important. We haven't figured out how to get through all the rules yet but we'll get there with Mike's help.
Also, we are involved in a rail study I know that's important to you two gentlemen we're involved in a rail study from
MR. WILLIAMSON: The question is have we convinced Mr. DeLay that it's important.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, Mr. Williamson, we think we'll get there.
We've got a rail study that's been commissioned through you guys out to Richmond-Rosenberg which when you asked the question of Mr. Royer earlier and I'm sure glad I wasn't him
(General laughter.)
MR. PATTERSON: the CMSA does include a major part of Fort Bend County.
Gentlemen, thank you for your time; we'll turn it back over to the mayor.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Good to see you again.
MR. PATTERSON: Thank you, sir.
MAYOR WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'd just like to reiterate our thanks for all of the support that you've provided to the City of Sugar Land and to Fort Bend County over the years, and once again, we'd like to request your approval of item 6(a) on today's agenda.
And just a point of clarification, Commissioner, you talked about the DeLay Freeway. The only other name that I think has been kicked around was the Williamson Freeway, but in any event, I'm sure they'll make a good decision on that.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hey, let me ask you something. The current land commissioner bought some land from us inside Sugar Land here recently. We had some other plans for it but the land commissioner felt like he had some even better plans, and my question is has anything been done with it since he bought it.
MAYOR WALLACE: It sure has.
MR. WILLIAMSON: He's got it divided in two pieces?
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: He has two parcels out for bid.
MR. WILLIAMSON: None is taken yet?
MAYOR WALLACE: Tracts 4 and 5 which is just about 1,900 acres, 350 on the south side of 59, 1,650 on the north side.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But he's moving ahead with trying to get it off
MAYOR WALLACE: The bids are to be we've had a pre-bid conference, the bids are to be opened in October, and the City of Sugar Land will be working with the winning bidder at that point in time in connection with land use plans and developer agreements.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Are any of the units of government bidding on it, or are you just leaving it to the private sector to develop it?
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: Private.
MAYOR WALLACE: Thank you once again for your time. I think we took 21 minutes. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I was just curious about our land that they have now.
MR. NICHOLS: I was going to thank you for your presentation, and also on your turnpike, you have your own toll road authority, and compliment you on doing that. I think that was a great job and I'm glad that we were able to help you in that process.
I think there's a meeting of the different turnpike or toll road agencies, or whatever you want to call them all, I think toward the end of October and one of the issues is inner-operability, the technology making sure it's compatible in all areas of the state as we move forward, and I think that everybody seems to agree that it would be very beneficial to the state, particularly as the state does projects, that our citizens at some point be able to get one toll tag and go anywhere in the state and hit those toll roads and then the appropriate agency gets the money for it and all that kind of stuff.
The problem is most of the turnpike authorities have already established that have technology want everybody else to use theirs, and somehow or other we're going to have to work our way through that, but I think we recognize that every five or six or eight years the technology moves through the system, and everybody will have to upgrade. So I would encourage you to work in that direction and also encourage you to move forward with your studying the RMA and all those rules our abbreviated version. You should have seen it before we simplified it.

P R O C E E D I N G S (Resumed)
MR. NICHOLS: With that, I think we're going to go ahead and close out the delegation portion of this. I don't see any reason to have a recess, so we'll just skip that and we'll just go ahead with our regular agenda, and I have to make a few announcements. One is if anybody wants to comment on an agenda item, something that's on here, then they're supposed to fill out a yellow card, and if there's somebody who would like to comment during the open comment period on any issue, then we have a blue card.
I think we'll just go ahead and begin, and those of you wondering about parliamentary procedure, today we follow Robert's Rules of Order.
(General laughter.)
MR. NICHOLS: So the first item is the approval of minutes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
Mike, our executive director, take it away.
MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Commissioner. We're going to take two agenda items out of order, the first one being agenda item 6(a), and I'll ask Jim Randall from our TP&P section to present that to the commissioners.
MR. RANDALL: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Jim Randall, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.
Item 6(a), this minute order amends the 2002 Unified Transportation Program to authorize a project in the City of Sugar Land to reconstruct and widen US 59 South from SH 6 to FM 2759 at State Highway 99 to Priority 1, Category 3-A, NHS Mobility, at a total estimated cost of $53,120,000. There are currently two phases of the US 59 project. This includes the construction of two three-lane frontage roads and the reconstruction and widening of US 59 to eight main lanes with two-way HOV lanes.
The frontage road portion of Phase 1 is currently authorized for $27,300,000 in Priority 1, Category 12, Strategic Priority of the 2002 UTP. The main lanes expansion portion are Phase 2, has a total estimated construction cost of $63,900,000 and is partially funded with Category 5-C funds of $4,750,000. Additionally, the city and Fort Bend County have committed $6 million in local participation toward Phase 2. Upon approval, the remaining $53,120,000 of the Phase 2 portion of the project will be advanced to Priority 1, Category 3-A, NHS Mobility of the 2002 UTP.
Staff recommends approval of this minute order.
MR. NICHOLS: Did anybody sign up to comment for or against or anything like that?
MR. BEHRENS: No.
MR. NICHOLS: I think we already know where you stand.
(General laughter.)
MR. NICHOLS: Is there a motion?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know, I think we're kind of short of money. I guess I so move.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries unanimous. That's it.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're still short of money.
(General laughter.)
MR. NICHOLS: You might want to wait, we have one other thing you may want to hear.
MR. WILLIAMSON: This also might be of interest to you, Jim.
MR. BEHRENS: Taking out of our normal order of our agenda, we're going to go to agenda item 9(a)(2) which was an item that was placed on the agenda that was to consider the cancellation and establishment of environmental speed limits in the Houston-Galveston area. This is currently under review by EPA and I recommend to the commissioners that we defer at this time until it is further along and we look at it again, possibly for next month's agenda.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's my understanding that Texas whatever TCEQ stands for now
MR. BEHRENS: Texas Commission for Environmental Quality.
MR. WILLIAMSON: has recommended that based in large part upon our emulsified diesel program that we instituted in Harris County which, by the way, we are hoping various subdivisions of local government will adopt as soon as possible has allowed TCEQ to certify to the EPA that that strategy is actually going to have more air quality impact than the 55 mile an hour speed limit, even if fully enforced. Is that your understanding?
MR. BEHRENS: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So TCEQ has recommended that we consider, as part of our transportation conformity plan and as our contribution to clean air, returning speed limits to 65 miles an hour, sort of like Dallas, until the mid-course correction in 2005, if I understand correctly, but they have to have assurance from the EPA and the Federal Highway Administration that neither the State Implementation Plan nor the State Transportation Conformity Plan will be affected if we accept their recommendation and move forward with raising the speed limits back up. Is that correct?
MR. BEHRENS: That's right. TCEQ has corresponded with EPA and has put that proposal in front of them and that's what's currently being evaluated by both FHWA and EPA at this time.
MR. WILLIAMSON: While I have reason to believe that EPA and Federal Highway are both very comfortable with the aggressive measures the governor had us take with regard to clean air, it really wouldn't be appropriate in terms of protecting the Houston area's transportation investment, to move faster than the EPA and the Federal Highway Administration is prepared to absorb the change, and I think it's appropriate.
All of us would like to raise the speed limits as a behavioral matter, all of us are aware of the governor's focus on that, but I think that all of us recognize that the worst thing we could do is put the federal government in a position of thinking that we don't intend to comply with the different air quality measures. So if everyone can just be a little patient and allow the EPA and the Federal Highway Administration to carefully consider what we're doing, I think we will all benefit from that. I believe that your recommendation to defer is a good recommendation.
MR. NICHOLS: Also, the EPA probably won't even take an action on this until toward the end of October.
MR. BEHRENS: That's right. They have it out right now for public comment.
MR. NICHOLS: And so it would be moot till they take action anyway, also.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me ask you something, Mike and maybe you're not the right person and if you're not, I can call somebody else up but with regard to clean air and if in fact EPA and Federal Highway allows us to make this adjustment, is a factor in whether or not we can maintain it after 2005, will that be influenced by the level at which the state government does or does not fully fund the TERP for Dallas and Houston?
MR. BEHRENS: That will definitely be a factor.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So in terms of transportation conformity and in terms of the difficulties we face in changing speed limit signs up and down and trying to help with enforcement, not only is it important for clean air in the Harris-Galveston district, it's also important on this mileage business that we fully fund TERP some way.
MR. BEHRENS: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Or we most certainly will have to return the speed limits back to 55.
MR. BEHRENS: And possibly do other corrective measures.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Limited construction time, limited construction projects, things of that nature.
MR. BEHRENS: Exactly.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So it's in the state's best interest to get about funding TERP.
MR. BEHRENS: That definitely needs to happen.
MR. NICHOLS: So this item 6(a) is deferred with no action being taken this month. What did I say?
MR. BEHRENS: You said 6(a).
MR. NICHOLS: Excuse me. We already approved that one. I wondered why everybody jumped up in their seats.
(General laughter.)
MR. NICHOLS: So it's the environmental speed limit, on your recommendation, will be deferred, and the other one is already passed.
Mike, before you go to the next agenda item, I think it might also be kind of appropriate to make some comments regarding the 2003 UTP. I know for the last several months people have been kind of watching and waiting to see when we were going to approve the UTP, when is it going to be on the agenda, what type of action, what projects, and all this kind of stuff, and it's still not here and it may not be there next month either.
There is a possibility that there will not be a 2003 UTP. If you go back historically and look, the department has been pretty regimented on schedule for the last seven or eight or nine years generating a UTP because we think that's been very important, but it's not unprecedented to not have a UTP in one particular year. The department used to do them on four-year or five-year increments, they skipped a number of years, used to not even have one.
We're in the process, I think we're starting to see, at least some of the stuff I've been seeing is that we're going through a two-year transition I think some of you who were here earlier this morning heard me say something about it where we're trying to go from 30-something categories to 12, we're trying to simplify the process. I think a lot of the frustration from the public in the process that we've had in the past is if you can't understand it, how are you going to trust it and how do you arrive at these decisions.
So our intent, the governor's request, the legislature's request, the public's request has been to simplify it and we're making a very serious effort to do that, and in that process is a selection process, how do we prioritize the metropolitan, urban and all those kind of things, and those task forces which your area is certainly and every area of the state is represented, are coming up with some pretty good stuff. They're not through. My gut guess is I don't know if they'll be through next month, but it may be in the next two or three months I think we'll see the conclusions of some of those recommendations, and it almost doesn't make much sense to lock in an extra year because it's way down on the tail-end anyway, that preempts those recommendations because I think they're going to be pretty good.
I think that's kind of what we're seeing. It's not that we can't make decisions, I think it's probably a wiser decision for that and some other reasons.
Did you want to make any comments with regard to that?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think that one of the things I learned in the legislature is change does take longer than all of us want it to. The governor and legislative leaders have consistently said without being negative towards staff, it is necessary to simplify the financial reporting documents and the processes that we use to communicate to the public how we make our decisions. And we've heard the governor and we've heard legislative leaders, and we have been for the last year and a half although little noticed by anyone outside our family, I think RADD might have noticed it from time to time but we've made some pretty significant changes in how we schedule and look at the world and how we make plans.
You know, for example, the legislature passed and the governor signed and the voters approved some really significant changes in funding: toll equity, regional mobility authorities, the ability to execute exclusive development agreements on a larger basis. Those things all have to be considered and cranked into the planning process as we get people responding to those changes in the law. We know that Williamson County and Travis County formed their RMA. What does that mean to us? Bexar County is well on its way; we understand Nueces County and El Paso County and perhaps others are considering it. I just think sometimes you have so many good efficient, effective disruptions that it doesn't hurt to stop, take a breath, collect your thoughts, and be sure your planning document is appropriate. And I think it makes a lot of sense for us to continue to consider doing this at least through the month.
MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, I know a number of people, particularly those who follow these type things on a very regular basis year to year, have been wondering which month, and I know I'm getting phone calls and some others are too. But we did say when we began this process of redoing that it was going to be a two-year transition.
Also, the projects that are currently booked what used to be Priority 1 that's now a CONSTRUCT category, is still all locked in, everything is working its way through that. We have a lot of projects in the secondary category, the DEVELOP we've got plenty booked, maybe even overbooked some, so there's not going to be any disruption of items that were already in the 2002 UTP; we will just continue using that until we develop the 2004. So I thought that would be appropriate to make comments for that.
Other than that.
MR. BEHRENS: I think before we go on Commissioner Williamson is going to make a presentation.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I've been thinking about where best to do this from. Here, I guess.
You know, Mr. Nichols, I didn't get much advance notice that I would be appointed to this position, and when Mr. Perry asked me to do this, he made Mr. Heald aware of that and Mr. Heald called me and said, Congratulations, we need to get you staff, we have some good people selected for you to look at. Now, I knew Wes in his Fort Worth District days, but I had 13 years of experience in state bureaucracy and the first thing I told Wes was: No, thank you, I'll find my own help. And it got real quiet, and he said, Well, that's a little unusual. I said, You just post in the Texas Register and line up the resumes and I'll take care of finding my own help, I don't care for you to assign me who I'm going to have running my office.
So that went on for about two weeks and I finally came down and started hanging around the office preparatory to the legislative session, and I was introduced to outgoing Chairman Laney's administrative assistant, and she was kind of packing the place up. And I asked her if she applied for the job and she said, Well, no, she understood that I wanted somebody new. I said, Well, I mean, I might want somebody new but you need to apply for the job if you're interested; if you don't want to stay, that's fine, but if you want to stay, at least apply. And I'm not being charitable, she pleasantly told me she thought she would just move on.
And I went down and I asked Mr. Heald, I said, Tell me about this person; does she know what she's doing. And the guy said, Yes, that's who we were going to get you to hire; she knows what she's doing. And I said, Well, why didn't she apply. And he said, Well, I think you didn't want anybody from around here.
Anyway, to make a long story short, God and good sense intervened and Mary Anne was talked into applying, and I looked at the other resumes and applications and went through the process and decided that I needed to keep her, and as it turns out, we are celebrating her ten years of service to the State of Texas, and so Mary Anne, if you would come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a manila folder of work and some other things that I haven't been able to get to you in the last couple of weeks, and along with that, a certificate of service. So this is Mary Anne Griss; she is a fine employee of the State of Texas. And the certificate of service says: In recognition and appreciation of ten years 15 months with Ric; my God meritorious service with the Texas Department of Transportation, the Commission presents this certificate to Mary Anne Griss and extends its congratulations and best wishes for a long and happy continuation of service until you reach at least full investment. And also we have a pin and a pen.
MS. GRISS: Thank you.
(Applause and pause for photographs.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. Congratulations.
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: Chairman Robert, would it be disrespectful if we left now?
MR. NICHOLS: Fine, it would be a good time. I mean, you are welcome to stay, it's a free show.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You all head back home and as soon as you're out the door, we'll rescind the previous motion.
(General laughter.)
MR. BEHRENS: Moving on in the agenda, we go to item 3, Aviation. Bill Fuller will present our first two minute orders under that topic, first on 3(a) funding improvements for airports at the various locations, and then the other for the RAMP program.
MR. FULLER: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Bill Fuller, I'm director of Engineering and Project Management for the Aviation Division.
Item 3(a) is a minute order containing the request for grant funding approval of six airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost, as shown in Exhibit A, is $544,500, of which $339,750 is federal, $153,000 is state, and $54,450 local. A public hearing was held on September 11, 2002; no comments were received. We recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved withdraw.
MR. NICHOLS: We have two people who have signed up to speak; the first one is Amanda Tackett. You can come on up to the podium, and for the record, put your name in the record.
MS. TACKETT: My name is Amanda Tackett and that is spelled T, as in Tom A-C-K-E-T-T, and I'm a resident of Collin County. I wanted to thank each of you for allowing me to speak today; this is extremely important.
I live in a community called Fairview, Texas, and our community sits just south of the McKinney Municipal Airport, Airport Code TKI. I live under a constant curtain of noise and disruption because of aircraft flying too low. Now, I am not a pilot and I'm not an aviation expert, but I will tell you that when I can make eye contact with a pilot or an occupant of a plane, they're well below 500 feet over my home.
What this has done physically to my home, it shakes pictures off the walls, mirrors, it rattles my windows, it breaks the seals of some very large windows that I have that are six feet by eight feet, and I've had to at my own cost replace those. But the thing that bothers me more is the impact that this facility has had on my 6-1/2-year-old daughter.
I want each of you to understand that I'm a stay-at-home mother they used to call us housewives
MR. WILLIAMSON: Those days are over.
MS. TACKETT: Yes, it is; everybody has a title. And I help my husband in his business, and in order to be here today, I had to get up at 3:30 this morning, I had to have someone else cover car pool, someone else drive my daughter to her activities. I mean, she is the focus of my life. The aircraft in and out of the McKinney Airport fly so low that my child is afraid to use our swimming pool; my child is afraid to ride her bike out on our driveway.
And what bothers me even more and this is the time of the year when it starts when the sun goes down early the aircraft fly so low that through the large windows that I described earlier, the lights appear as though they're coming into our house. Prior to September of last year, I was able to talk to my daughter and reassure her that planes don't crash into buildings, but obviously that theory was blown. It is very frightening and so I've had to rearrange my furniture in the room to put the couch that she likes to sit on to back up to the window so that she does not have to see the lights.
The other issue that happened is she can no longer sleep on the top bunk of her bunk beds because of the lights and the noise from the planes going over. And this is a 24-hour thing. Once the tower is unmanned, those pilots become wild men off the reservation. I mean, they fly so low, and the jets that are up to the size of a Super 80, and it frightens my daughter to death.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Where is this airport?
MS. TACKETT: This is in McKinney, Texas in Collin County. It's a 7,001-foot runway.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What's it called?
MS. TACKETT: McKinney Municipal Airport.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And of course, we're pleased to hear any citizen at any time, but are we fixing to do something at McKinney?
MS. TACKETT: Yes, sir. You're currently funding a number of projects, and the person who has additionally signed up to speak is going to go into some more detail about that. I wanted to let you know the human impact of it. I mean, my child can't sleep in her room, I can't enjoy my home, and I'm asking for your help because I've attended public meetings for the airport, the airport board, I have complained to the city, I've complained to law enforcement, I've complained to my county commissioners, I've complained to the Federal Aviation Administration, and I have complained to the Aviation Division of the Texas Department of Transportation.
MR. NICHOLS: Could I ask you a question?
MS. TACKETT: Yes, sir.
MR. NICHOLS: It sounds like you're I'm a pilot myself
MR. WILLIAMSON: He's probably one of the guys buzzing your house.
(General laughter.)
MR. NICHOLS: I haven't landed up there in a while, it wasn't me. It sounds like you're in the flight path, either for landings or takeoffs.
MS. TACKETT: I'm not supposed to be in the flight path. There was an agreement made between the mayor of McKinney and the mayor of Fairview a number of years ago to divert planes to the east which would have removed my house and the majority of my town from the flight path.
MR. NICHOLS: That's a flight route. I'm saying when a plane is landing at an airport or taking off, there's a certain pattern that you follow. Was the airport there when you bought your house six years ago?
MS. TACKETT: What the issue was actually, my town was incorporated in 1954 and my lot became occupied, and the house that was originally on the lot burned down in the mid '90s and then another house was built. Those people could no longer afford to maintain the acreage and we came in and bought the house.
Now, for the record, I want to tell you that prior to purchasing the house I did contact the then airport manager and spoke to him in detail about what the regulations were. I went out and looked at the facility, I looked at a couple of other regional airports around so I could get a good idea, and I was told by the airport manager: Oh, no, we absolutely are never below 1,500 feet over your home; we want to be a good neighbor; we want to help you; we want to help grow this community. And it's all turned out to be kind of a lie. I mean, what I have gotten, if I do get a response ever to anyone that I've complained to, I get sort of a demoralizing rolled eyes at board meetings and sighs. I get letters back that are sarcastic in tone and insulting.
I'm just trying to raise my child, help my husband with his business, and enjoy my life. That facility, the security measures, everything that they do, they do kind of halfway. I even witnessed an incident where an employee of the airport took kitty litter soaked jet fuel which is basically kerosene put it in the back of his pickup truck without a manifest, drove it into my town to his mother's house, and used that kerosene-soaked kitty litter to fill the cracks in his mother's driveway. I called law enforcement; they didn't ticket him. I contacted the TNRCC; there's nothing they could do, and in fact, within months they were then expanding their fuel farm, yet another ongoing project there at the McKinney Airport. And I just don't understand why they're not held to the same environmental standards that you want to hold I mean, for example, the people that were here from Houston and cars, and we know that the small jets fly in planes that have leaded fuel.
So I'm simply asking for you to hold that airport expansion, hold it to the letter of the law and to consider everyone. You know, my husband and I, we're business people
MR. NICHOLS: You have three minutes.
MS. TACKETT: Yes, sir we're business people and we understand supporting business, but we have to have some type of control, some type of consideration for people's lives.
MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.
MS. TACKETT: Thank you. We have Cynthia Kaminsky.
MS. KAMINSKY: It was my understanding that McKinney would be up for about $2 million in grant funding at this meeting. If that's not true, would you like me to speak later or do you want me to go ahead right now?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's hear it now.
MR. NICHOLS: We'll go ahead and hear it right now, you've come all this way. Please state your name for the record.
MS. KAMINSKY: My name is Cynthia Kaminsky. As a citizen of Fairview, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak with you. My comments today center on the request that an independent third party perform a full environmental impact statement for the McKinney Municipal Airport before funding is approved. My reasons for this are as follows:
One, a master plan work scope is attached to your copy of the McKinney City Council agenda item approving a resolution to accept TxDOT funding for a new master plan. In Historical Activity on page 2, it states, quote: "Data and text from the previous master plan will be incorporated without change into the update." Page 6 states: "No field analysis or modeling will be conducted as part of the analysis." In short, old data is to be used which has been criticized as flawed.
No modeling and no site visit means that no analysis of important factors affecting the airport environs will be had and that this plan will be created blindly with old data and assumptions. Shouldn't data integrity be an important part of a study costing over $300,000?
Two, in the current economy the airline industry is suffering and money is tight at all levels of government. Economically, wouldn't it make more sense to spend federal dollars to bolster existing airports that already provide a positive economic impact to the economy but that are currently hard-hit, such as DFW, the home to monetarily-strapped American Airlines, or Grayson County Airport which already has replaced two major runways, a full complement of hangars, infrastructure, and is along the primary NAFTA corridor through the state of Texas? Does it not make sense in today's economy to show the highest return on taxpayer investment?
My third and final reason is that Collin County is a non-attainment county according to the EPA. The newer jets which McKinney is courting supposedly emit higher levels of EOCs. According to the airport consultants, 75 percent of all traffic at the McKinney Airport neither originates or terminates at that airport, it is instead student traffic originated in Madison, crossing Collin County, and using McKinney for its touch-and-go activity. Additionally, Collin County has been non-attainment in atmospheric lead. The fuel used by small planes is leaded; additional small plane traffic will increase the amount of atmospheric lead.
My understanding is that the State of Texas receives over $5 billion in federal funding that is at risk if air quality is not brought into compliance. This commission must ask if a small municipal airport is worth over $5 billion per year to the State of Texas.
The Environmental section on page 5 states, quote: "This analysis will not be completed to federal environmental assessment standards. The FAA stated in DC Circuit Court in March of 2002 that all activity for the McKinney Airport would follow NEPA law." Yet here attached to the resolution coming to you what I assumed was today for funding approval as the agent of the federal government, it states clearly that McKinney has no intention of following those standards. Would approval of this item by the commission be in violation of the promise the federal government made in court regarding this airport?
In conclusion, a master plan and Part 150 study are outlines of expansion area activity and contained the FAA-approved airport layout plan that gives all future projects implied approval, even if small studies are later asked for. I request that this commission require an independent third party to perform a full environmental impact statement on the McKinney Municipal Airport before any master plans, Part 150s or taxiway funding is approved, in fact, before any funding, construction projects, or any activity is approved. Over $5 billion in federal funding is at risk. Isn't an EIS worth over $5 billion in federal funding to the State of Texas. Thank you.
MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Why did you think we were on the agenda today with McKinney? Was that posted someplace?
MS. KAMINSKY: That was what was stated to us in the McKinney Airport Board meeting last month, that this would be the date for that approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you have access to internet?
MS. KAMINSKY: I do but when I look on there I can't get the list for the airports that are up for approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Really?
MS. KAMINSKY: Right.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is there a reason why that's the case?
MR. FULLER: I'm not aware of a reason why. I presume that it sits on our website but I don't know. All of them are, of course, posted for public hearing, and I presume they're publicly available, Commissioner.
MR. NICHOLS: What you may be thinking about or what they may have mentioned was that I think somewhere in here we'll be adopting or receiving from the Aviation Department a statewide master plan.
MR. FULLER: The system plan.
MR. NICHOLS: The system plan which is not just McKinney, we're talking about airports all over the state.
MS. KAMINSKY: They actually talked about specific grants and they said that they would be up today, so somewhere I missed a date or something changed.
MR. NICHOLS: Tell you what, I will make a suggestion here it's more appropriate to our executive director that when we do end up with a grant being posted or scheduled for an agenda item, that you make sure that these two ladies you're talking about the same airport?
MS. KAMINSKY: Yes.
MR. NICHOLS: they you receive notice.
MS. KAMINSKY: Thank you, I appreciate that.
MR. NICHOLS: We can do that, can't we?
MR. WILLIAMSON: So don't perceive that as us necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with you.
MS. KAMINSKY: I understand. That notice would be fantastic.
MR. NICHOLS: We think being part of the process is real important, and appreciate you taking the time to be here.
MS. KAMINSKY: Thank you.
MR. NICHOLS: Did we actually finish our presentation?
MR. BEHRENS: Yes.
MR. NICHOLS: I don't have any other people signed up to talk, so did you have any comments on this agenda item 3(a)?
MR. WILLIAMSON: No. So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: We go to agenda item 3(b) which will be the RAMP program.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm just going to say we're not spending any airport money in Houston. What's the problem?
MR. NICHOLS: Actually, we do.
MR. FULLER: Commissioners, this minute order is for the purpose of re-authorizing the routine airport maintenance program RAMP. If approved, the program will provide up to $30,000 in matching funds at a 50 percent state, 50 percent local basis for airport maintenance and small capital improvement work items for each airport included in Attachment A of this minute order. We recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. NICHOLS: Any comments?
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 3(c) will be presented by Linda Howard of the Aviation Division, and this will be to approve the Texas Airport System Plan update.
MS. HOWARD: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm the director of Planning and Programming in the Aviation Division and I'm here today to request approval of the 2002 Texas Airport System Plan update.
Briefly, the Texas Airport System Plan update is a culmination of the division's ongoing aviation planning efforts, including at least 20 regional airport planning meetings annually which involve about 100 airports; it takes us at least three years to conduct these meetings all over the state. About every four to five years the Aviation Division publishes an updated document which discusses the goals of the system, what airports are included, what roles they play, forecasted activity levels, and the cost of development. The plan also identifies the airports that are considered vital to meeting the goal of providing adequate statewide air transportation access.
This update includes 300 airports and three heliports of which 27 are commercial service airports, 23 are reliever general aviation airports, 250 are non-reliever general aviation airports, and again, the three heliports.
With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the system plan.
MR. NICHOLS: Did you have any questions or comments?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I yield to you.
MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. Just because we have some people in the audience who have particular interest in this, let me ask a question. This document, the plan, doesn't itemize who gets a grant or there's no specific grants to anybody identified or listed in this.
MS. HOWARD: No, this is not a funding document, this is more the general framework out of which the capital improvement program comes which is included in the UTP.
MR. NICHOLS: It's a framework to work in a direction of uniformity in the development of airports.
MS. HOWARD: Yes, exactly, and then we come to you specifically for funding for specific airports.
MR. NICHOLS: The motion is just to adopt the plan.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Can I have my time back?
MR. NICHOLS: Sure.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I always yield to Mr. Nichols on matters of air because he's more familiar with it than I am, but I do have one question regarding how airports, even small private airports or large airports in McKinney relate to the highways ground transportation system, road and rail, and that is as we continue to develop these different planning documents, and as we continue to involve more and more stakeholders in this process, I would just urge our Aviation Division I understand soon to be renamed our Spaceport and Aviation Division to engage local officials and our own district directors in dialogues about how we can begin to think about these airports linking to road and rail because what is clearly coming in this state is a system of high-speed toll roads and light and commuter rail. It well serves us to think about how that relates to how we distribute our funds to our small airports.
MS. HOWARD: Okay. Also, I'll mention we've been working closely with the consultants that are working on the Transportation Plan.
MR. WILLIAMSON: People can't see it now but it's not that far away. There will be a day when DART will look around and say, well, maybe we need to be passing by the McKinney Airport, maybe we need to be passing by wherever, and need to be anticipating that.
MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Did you have a motion?
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: I second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MS. HOWARD: Thank you very much.
MR. BEHRENS: We'll move on to agenda item 4, Public Transportation, Margot Massey will present those.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait a minute, let me get a straight stack for Margot.
MS. MASSEY: You really didn't have to do that. Good afternoon.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: You've laughed more in the last year than you've laughed in the last 20 years; you've had a good time with us.
MS. MASSEY: Oh, yes. It's always an adventure.
Item 4(a) is the monthly toll credit minute order. We ask your approval of toll credits for two projects. One would be to purchase vehicles for the transit system in Killeen which is relatively new and has found a very ready audience; they cannot put enough vehicles on the street, and those will, of course, be alternatively fueled vehicles. Also, Hunt County Committee on Aging and I believe Sally Chavarria is here from Hunt County today has received a federal earmark for a facility project in her area and is asking for toll credits to match that federal discretionary grant. We would recommend your approval on both.
MR. NICHOLS: We did have one commenter, Sally Chavarria. Thank you, appreciate your being here today.
MS. CHAVARRIA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Sally Ann Chavarria with the Hunt County Committee on Aging. We provide services under the Connection Rural Public Transit District and toll credits are being considered for our facility project. At the present time we're in a facility that has environmental issues that's to put it with a minor tone there's a lot of issues concerning our current facility, plus the growth in our area has also caused us to increase our fleet, thus increasing service, so on and so forth.
We were able, as Margot mentioned, to secure a federal earmark to initiate a facility project that will serve Hunt and Rockwall Counties both, and I'm just here to persuade you to approve that. Carol Warlick also would like to ditto my appreciation to you for considering the award on behalf of Hill Country Transit District. She had a governing board meeting this morning.
MR. NICHOLS: Could I ask you a question?
MS. CHAVARRIA: Sure.
MR. NICHOLS: These are new buses for expanded service?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, for Killeen, that's true.
MR. NICHOLS: Do they have operating funds for this new expanded service?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that the federal earmark?
MS. MASSEY: No, sir. Killeen receives their federal fund directly from the Federal Transit Administration and they will have ample funds to operate.
MR. NICHOLS: Okay. And it doesn't take away from any of the other transit operators to increase the funding for that operator?
MS. MASSEY: That is correct.
MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a bunch of questions, Margot. Do you want me to ask them now or wait till we're kind of through?
MS. MASSEY: Do you have them relating to the toll credits?
MR. WILLIAMSON: No.
MS. MASSEY: If you would humor me and approve toll credits so I'll get at least one.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 4(b)(c) and (d) are interrelated and Margot asked that she present those as a group.
MS. MASSEY: Yes, and I've even got a green light that says "Talk" oh, she turned it off.
It is important that these three items be considered together because you don't want try to do (b) and not do (c) and (d), and also, you don't want try and do (c) and (d) without doing (b). What we are proposing is a remedy to a situation that we have talked to you about over a period of months. You will recall at the Abilene meeting in April we talked about the fact that our $1 million appropriation in oil overcharge funds did not come through, it's going to be less than a third of what was estimated. This deals with the even larger issue of the state appropriations for public transportation were reduced by 12 percent for this fiscal biennium, and this has caused various problems for particularly the rural and small urbanized transit operators in Texas as they received the state funds to match their federal grants.
What I bring to you today is a package with a number of players represented of taking available dollars that we have in our pocket today that we could go to contract on today to address this issue of a reduction in state funding. Regrettably, we only have federal funds to address the state funding problem and that creates another issue, but those are the only resources we have available today.
The first piece of this is related to the intercity bus program which is a 15 percent set-aside of the larger rural program comes off the top, according to federal law it's called the 5311(f) piece they go for intercity bus projects unless the governor, or in this case, his designee which is the commission, certifies that the intercity bus needs are being adequately met and that some of the money can be released back to the main 5311 Rural Transit Program. And that is what we propose to do.
We have talked with the members of the Texas Bus Association, Greyhound, Kerrville, Concho Coaches, Valley Transit, and they have approximately $2.3 million in that fund now and they would agree to your transferring $1 million back to the rural program, recognizing that there is a shortfall in the public transit sectors.
The next piece of this which would be item 4(c) would be to take a portion of those funds I need to back up just a minute. We have approximately just under $900,000 available in this 5311 fund under a discretionary pot. It's the strategic priorities piece of that program. So we would take the $1 million transfer from the intercity bus program and combine that with the almost $900,000 and have roughly $1.9 million.
Of that in the item 4(c), we would propose to transfer $624,000 of that which is roughly 33-34 percent of the total to the small urbanized systems. Those transfers between federal programs are allowable under federal law and historically we have transferred sizable sums in the other direction. Historically we've transferred $6 million a year over a course of three or four years from the 5307 program to the rural program. And again, I think the industry is in support of using whatever funds are available to help both sectors, and that is the percentage of the funding shortfall, it's roughly 34.66, thereabouts.
The final piece and those funds excuse me one more time on 4(c) Federal Transit Administration awards those funds which is why there is not a pro rata distribution shown here. We would advise the Federal Transit Administration of our desires in that regard but they actually make the awards.
The final item 4(d) is to award the remaining $1.2 million on a pro rata basis to all the rural transit systems. We do administer those federal funds and so it is required for the commission to actually allocate those funds for contracting purposes.
And that's the whole package. As I say, we need to do probably all or nothing because they are definitely interrelated. And I will be happy to attempt to address your questions.
MR. NICHOLS: I was going to kind of hold mine up; we have someone who wanted to comment.
MS. MASSEY: Yes.
MR. NICHOLS: Do you want to hear them first?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll wait.
MR. NICHOLS: John Wilson, representing Citibus and Texas Transit Association.
MR. WILSON: Good afternoon, commissioners. I am John Wilson, general manager of Citibus, Lubbock's public transportation system, and an officer of the Texas Transit Association. I'm here today to provide comment on the minute order on the agenda, 4(c) and 4(d).
Item (c) transfers federal rural funds to urbanized areas and item (d) awards funding to the rural systems. Those two items, along with item (b), the minute order regarding intercity bus funding, comprise the vision proposal to partially address a cut to small cities and to rural transit throughout the state. The Transit Association and the division are not in total agreement on how to fix this loss of funding. The division's approach is to use still available and as yet undistributed federal rural funds, along with part of the available rural federal intercity bus funds. This is a partial solution of the funding shortfall.
The division proposal totals $1.9 million, yet the total shortfall is $7.4 million. This addresses only 25 percent of the shortfall in funding. The association's approach would address 100 percent of the shortfall. Let me point out first we support the minute order affecting the intercity bus operators, that minute order (b); the intercity carriers need the funding now and not later.
Now, how do we accomplish eliminating the current deficit? We recommend drawing down federal rural 2003 fiscal year funds and distributing whatever amount is needed for both rural and small cities at the earliest available instead of waiting until September 1 of 2003 as is the present practice.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And when would that be?
MR. WILSON: September 1.
MR. WILLIAMSON: When would you recommend we pull them down?
MR. WILSON: As soon as the funds become available, probably right after the first of the year in other words, nine months before that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Normally we would wait and distribute those in September?
MR. WILSON: Yes, sir, but they'll be available as soon as the president signs the bill.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Since we normally wait till September, what happens in September now?
MR. WILSON: Well, you would distribute those funds that's available at that point and then wait again and distribute the rest of the funds. In other words, no one would be short of funds during this period of time.
MR. WILLIAMSON: When do we get our money to distribute to you?
MR. WILSON: You're talking about the additional 75 percent?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
MR. WILSON: You would get that well, with the Transportation Appropriations bill going before Congress right now, we're looking at probably because there's always delay because of election year but I fully suspect that we will probably have it in January.
MR. WILLIAMSON: January of the following year?
MR. WILSON: January of 2003 which is nine months before you normally would distribute those funds.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think either I'm not asking the question right or you're not answering me directly, so I'm going to start all over again. Normally we would distribute that money in September of '03. Correct?'
MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: To help you finance the following months. The answer to that question better be yes or we're going to have the auditors start looking at that.
MR. WILSON: Yes. I guess what I'm saying right now you have funding for 2002 that you just got I mean, you got last September of 2002 and you only used one month of that in the past year. The other eleven months is still sitting there, and they're going to be distributed here pretty quick. Right, Margot? No, they've already been allocated, 2002?
MS. MASSEY: Yes.
MR. WILSON: Okay. Under contract they have been, but they've been sitting there since last since they've been approved by the federal government.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And that's because we're almost always delayed in getting our allocation of these funds.
MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So we always, up until now, or up until January of this next year, under your proposal, they've always delayed the distribution of those funds.
MR. WILSON: Yes, sir, they just sit in the bank.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So back to my question, if we do what you suggest, if we distribute in January or February instead of September, what happens when everybody needs money in September?
MR. WILSON: Well, we're not asking to distribute all the funds, we're just asking you to distribute those funds that's for the shortfall that we have today. And the small city agencies have agreed let me say this we have agreed to repay the rural federal transit funds totaling $2.7 million of the $7.4 million on a loan basis; we'll be paying those funds back over two years in 2004 and 2005 because funds with the re-authorization will go up and we will have additional funds to pay those back. Should some cities not desire to take advantage of this offer, then that would be their individual choice.
Like any that is losing regular customers and generally speaking, the large majority would want this choice rather than taking cuts in service and routes and losing customers, as now we're doing. Like in any business, losing a regular customer and then trying to get them back is always an iffy proposition. We need stability and predictability in what we do, and the association's approach provides that stability. If there are other funding issues somewhere in the future, then those problems lie in the future and we'll address them then.
In order to reduce the need to draw down those federal rural funds, the commission could take that part of the vision proposal, transfer the intercity bus funds of $1 million, agenda item (b), plus the available $891,000 in rural funds contained in commission agenda item (d) and apply those funds against the needed fiscal year '03 federal rural funds.
We appreciate what the commission can do for us now even if it's the 25 percent what is needed. We also understand the fiscal year 2003 federal funds might be delayed due to the action of Congress which I've already kind of addressed. Nevertheless, we ask the commission to commit to the drawing down of those 2003 rural funds by making a policy decision in October to program the funds subject to the funds available in other words, when the funds become available, take those that we lack to make us whole.
The division can move this progress forward and get this money into transit agencies quickly by getting everything in order now for that later date so that when the FDA authorizes the funds are available, the division can submit the FDA application the very next day. If this can be done, it's common practice that urban federal transit funds are available to transit districts within 30 days of presidential signature each year.
If the commission gives their intent on this matter, cities and rural areas of the state know that the additional funds are coming after the first of the year and then many of them can maintain stability in their current service levels and not reduce service and lay off employees now.
Thank you for your time. I'll be glad to answer any additional questions you might have.
MR. NICHOLS: I've got a couple of questions. Part of what you were saying is really comments related to these agenda items, but part of it that you were saying, let's say the second half, related to some suggestions or your recommendations or what you would like to see us consider in a future meeting for funding.
MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. NICHOLS: I'm not sure about one thing related to that; and that is, the legislature does our appropriations I know we have federal funds but our legislature lays out a two-year appropriation, and part of that is the anticipation of the revenues and how they expect us to appropriate them.
MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. NICHOLS: So I'm not sure if I'm asking Margot or you, but if, in effect, we are advancing if you considered that you're advancing forward six months, nine months of funds that normally would be in the next two-year cycle, is that outside of the parameters for which we have been appropriated?
MR. WILSON: You have the authority to do this. Is that what you're asking me, if you have the authority to advance those funds?
MR. NICHOLS: Wait a minute. I've got our finance director. For the record, our finance director is shaking his head yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But what's he shaking his head yes to?
MR. BASS: For the record, I'm James Bass, director of Finance at TxDOT. There are provisions in the General Appropriations Act that allow agencies, if they receive additional federal funds above and beyond those estimated in the bill, there are provisions that allow the agency to increase their appropriation by the amount of the additional federal funds received.
MR. NICHOLS: But these would not be additional appropriations from the federal government above and beyond what was anticipated, these would be federal funds that are on schedule that we're talking about drawing down six months to nine months early.
MR. BASS: Right. So within that two-year window, from a state perspective, we would receive more in federal reimbursement than had been anticipated when the bill was originally passed.
MR. NICHOLS: So we're drawing down from the next year.
MR. BASS: Correct.
MR. NICHOLS: So that's not inside the anticipated window.
MR. BASS: I'm not sure I'm following your question exactly.
MR. NICHOLS: I know the feds give us one schedule, our state tries to work our appropriation out so we have state funds, and then they appropriate to us, even though the federal government allocates, but we have an anticipation of a certain amount of federal funds coming in each year, and the state knew that those would be like, let's say, fiscal year 2004 funds, and so they have accounted for that or one approach might be to say they've accounted for that when they appropriated us. If they had known we might could draw that down, they may not have even appropriated what they did. See what I'm saying? So if the federal government allocates more inside there, we have the authority to use it, but they're not necessarily allocating us more, we're just drawing it down earlier than our state appropriators had anticipated. I may be saying it wrong.
MR. BASS: Rather than rolling forward eleven months worth of federal funding, it might be reduced to a five- or six-month amount of federal funding.
MR. NICHOLS: Okay, you answered my question. So let me get into the other part of it, and this is a conversation I had with Margot; I've spent a lot of time with administration on it and I've talked to some local providers kind of in our area. I want to first say that the service that is provided, I think we all recognize, is a great need. There are some people out there that need some help. I think we want to do our job to try to help them the best we can within the fiscal restraints that we are required to follow, but I keep wanting to say two years ago last session when the appropriations were made and the transit came up because I was in some of those committee meetings or at least in the audience they went through a lot of these conversations about how much you have, how much they've got available, how much they think they should put in, those kind of things, and when that was all said and done and over, in that two-year appropriations cycle, there was like a 12 percent cut or something like that for transit.
MR. BASS: Yes, sir.
MR. NICHOLS: So all the transit operators who do this I mean, this is their business knew up front 18 months ago that to operate they were either going to have to come up with outside source local support from the cities or counties, something like that, or figure out a way to cut their expenses which already most of them are running awful tight anyway or reduce the service by 12 percent. They knew that.
MR. BASS: That's a fair assessment.
MR. NICHOLS: Now, some of them did that, a great number figured out ways to handle all that, and some did not. Some have continued operating at the same level and this is what I have seen and some actually expanded service because of the great need and they're running out of money sooner. So now as we begin hitting the tail-end of this two-year cycle, we've got some that are just in dire straits, are going to have to shut down operation or lay off bus drivers because they're out.
And when we start transferring between accounts, in effect we're I'll just kind of give you my perspective we are penalizing the ones who did, let's say, the "right" thing, and we're rewarding, in effect, the ones who didn't plan ahead and who didn't do fiscally what they were aware they should have done. Is that somewhat of a fair assessment?
MR. WILSON: I think there's a number of factors have hurt us this particular year; the Medicaid funding has really hurt.
MR. NICHOLS: I understand that.
MR. WILSON: I mean above normal things: the fact that a lot of our cities are in pretty bad shape right now; the fact that we have added quite a few small cities there's four new small cities coming on board, that has hurt too. I mean, you're having to divide the cuts of those pies are getting a lot smaller.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, let's talk about that a minute.
MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: How is that pie divided?
MR. WILSON: How is it divided? It's divided based on well, it's a complicated formula.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's a formula? It's a mathematical computation?
MR. WILSON: No, sir. I guess it's based on history. The fact of the matter is that you have that would probably be the best way to describe it: it's based on history, and then it depends on how that system does in that particular biennium as to how much money you get the next biennium.
MR. WILLIAMSON: When you say it's based on history, Margot can you share some can you elucidate me where I can keep from asking some questions?
MS. MASSEY: In large part it depends on which pot of money you're talking about. The federal funds for rural operators are pegged at the percentage they were receiving at a specific point in time, and I apologize, I can't even remember what the base year is.
MR. WILLIAMSON: A specific point in time this year?
MS. MASSEY: No, sir. It was sometime in the past.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It was when?
MS. MASSEY: '89? No, it's not that far back 90-something, '94. The relative percentage they were receiving of federal 5311 fund, that is what they continue to receive, that same percentage.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait. Now, is that adjusted for population increase or decrease?
MS. MASSEY: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that adjusted for ridership?
MS. MASSEY: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is it adjusted for anything?
MS. MASSEY: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't represent Parker County anymore, I represent the State of Texas, but you know I used to represent Parker County.
MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So one of the counties I used to represent has doubled in population in the last eight years. Are you saying that their allocation is the same?
MS. MASSEY: Their percentage of the whole.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Their percentage is the same?
MS. MASSEY: Yes. The allocations have gone up so their allocation
MR. WILLIAMSON: The percentages of the pie is the same?
MS. MASSEY: Is the same.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's nuts. Who defines that?
MS. MASSEY: It's in the Administrative Code and has been since 1994.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So who sets that allocation?
MS. MASSEY: That would be it comes through the administrative rule-making process.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Who is that?
MS. MASSEY: That's us. That would be the division recommending to the commission.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, you mean the administrative rule process of the department?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean we define that formula?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And we've left it intact?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Why have we done that?
MS. MASSEY: It was
MR. WILLIAMSON: Didn't want to upset somebody, probably?
MS. MASSEY: I think the transit industry has appreciated that process.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What the hell did she just say? That we wouldn't upset anybody by doing it that way?
MR. BEHRENS: I think that the transit agency had probably agreed with that distribution.
MS. MASSEY: They recommended that sometime ago and that was the impetus behind those rule changes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: The transit agencies, are they also the recipients of the formula?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So in theory, Parker County agreed to it, or was it a majority vote?
MS. MASSEY: It was the majority.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm almost through, and I need to go outside and ponder that answer, but I would appreciate your recommendation about how quickly we can redo that formula.
MS. MASSEY: We've had conversations about that, a number of operators have asked us about redoing those formulas for much the reason you're stating.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think that probably would be a good first step towards bringing a little bit of clarity. I only have one more question and I'm only going to yield for a minute, I'm not going to stop. Does the legislature in the current Appropriations Act appropriate any general revenue to any of these pots of money you're speaking of, funds?
MS. MASSEY: Yes. A portion of the state appropriations to public transportation is general revenue funds.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's not non-constitutionally dedicated highway funds, but it is general revenue money.
MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And that's about how much current cycle?
MR. BASS: $17-1/2 million.
MR. WILLIAMSON: $17-1/2 million, is that what you said, James Bass of the finance Division, that's for two years?
MR. BASS: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And how much do they take out of the Highway Fund the legislature I'm speaking of here, my good friends which they attempt to define as being non-constitutionally dedicated and put into these pots, anything?
MR. BASS: I believe for this current biennium it's about $36 million.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And which of the two amounts of money got whacked 12 percent: the general revenue $17 million or the constitutionally dedicated $36 million that they say is unconstitutionally dedicated? This would again be James Bass of the Finance Division.
MR. NICHOLS: We have extra seats up here close to the front.
(General laughter.)
MR. BASS: Maybe I'll start with a song. I believe the reference to the cut would be from the State Highway Fund. If we go back to 2000-2001 biennium, there were some funds that were trapped in some accounts that the department had utilized previously.
MR. WILLIAMSON: How do funds get trapped?
MR. BASS: Fund 451 which was a Public Transportation account and a fund 029 which was Traffic Safety, between those two accounts
MR. WILLIAMSON: Did Kirby Pickett just go and turn a lock and trap it or what?
MR. BASS: Through the funds consolidation effort of the legislature, that money was not appropriated out of those accounts and the money was unable to be transferred out of those accounts without specific authority, and it was in there for two to four years I'm not sure exactly how long it was in there but it was around $7 million, and during the biennium for 2000-2001 we received a rider in our appropriations bill that directed us to take that roughly $7 million out of those accounts and transfer it to the State Highway Fund, and then in turn that $7 million was added to the traditional appropriation out of State Highway Fund 6 for public transportation.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So what got whacked the 12 percent, the Highway Fund part?
MR. BASS: I believe that is what is being referred to, yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But not the general revenue part.
MR. BASS: No. The general revenue part has been fairly consistently $17.65 million, and in addition to that there's another funding source that's fluctuated over time being the oil overcharge funds that are directed for public transportation services.
MR. NICHOLS: Which are about gone now.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is the magic the $17 million generates a certain amount of federal match, or is the magic is this politically what we can defend or what somebody could defend?
MS. MASSEY: I think you would probably have to ask your former colleagues across the street.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Who is a big defender of public transit assistance? We should know that.
MR. WILSON: Well, probably the Speaker has been one of our help. We also in the past had help from the Senate Finance Committee.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Ellis and Mr. Ratliff before him?
MR. WILSON: We've had several people on that committee come forth and help us. Of course, probably Representative Junell, but he is going off, so he won't be there.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Representative who?
MR. WILSON: Junell.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I was just kidding.
(General laughter.)
MR. NICHOLS: I may end up repeating a little bit of what he said when I stepped out. Going back to the formula, we obviously need to be working together real closely and develop a strategy, at least what our recommendations or requests are talking about our agency and the transit authority and the bus people all at the same time during that session, and I would encourage us to do that because I know you and I have not really sat down and spoke. How long have you been head of the Transit Association?
MR. WILSON: I'm vice president for small ops right now but I've been on the Transit Association since 1986 in a leadership role.
MR. NICHOLS: I think one of the things that Ric was talking about has to do with the method of distribution, particularly, I guess, in the rural, it's kind of the grandfathered historical -- wherever you happen to be, that's kind of it. If you were starting from scratch which you never have an option to do I think most people would look and say if we're going to lay out a program, you have geographic areas, service areas, you have needs inside those service areas, and needs may be how many elderly, how many handicapped or just overall population which it may be distributed based on that, and then start working a program up that way.
Obviously because of the shortage and the historical grandfathering, you have some areas that cranked up earlier that could provide a greater service inside your geographic area get a lot of money where somebody who may be another operator servicing a geographic area that has the same needs can't ever get to that point because they can't get the money because of the historic formula which isn't really fair to those areas either.
MR. WILSON: That's right.
MR. NICHOLS: And the area that's providing the service that's grandfathered, from everything I can tell, they're kind of running nip and tuck also, talking about operating costs, so we've got a real problem. I think we recognize we can't just yank the formula around and leave some of these agencies or services high and dry because that just wouldn't be the right thing to do, but we need to somehow start working in a direction that's a fairness toward some of these areas that have a need that can't get funding. I'm not quite sure how to do that, and I think it probably would be much more appropriate those entities working together through you and through our division and start working on a plan.
I know over the last several years I've kind of waved a yellow flag up here talking about that. I don't know if you were in the audience when I've made comments.
MR. WILSON: Yes, I was.
MR. NICHOLS: But we keep talking about trying to come up with incentive programs, we're not rewarding efficiency or effectiveness or any of those kind of things which are the kind of things you want to create incentives for, and I feel like we can do something like that.
MR. WILSON: I think so too. I think the problem that you have in the state is that like Lubbock is probably we just went over 200,000, we had our own problems going over 200,000, and Laredo has big problems, but then you've got the smallest of the small, they have a different type of problem. And so I think to be fair to the department, it's difficult to come up with a formula for the largest of the small cities versus the smallest, and that has been the problem. I mean, you talk about efficiencies, Lubbock and Laredo would probably be the most efficient because we carry lots of people, but then on the other hand, that's not fair to a city just getting started like Killeen just two years ago just got started, and that's tough on them.
So we did come up with the federal formula giving them what was in the Federal Register for three years, and now I think we've gone back and distributed based on the Federal Register now.
MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I could move but I can't second, I can't move and second, but counsel won't let me get away with that. So we're going to have to wait to take action here for just a second, and I want to ask is there anyone representing the intercity bus services, Greyhound or any of those guys? No one? I thought some of them may be here.
But we, to transfer which is item (b) in effect have a declaration that our intercity bus service is adequate. We're going to take a million dollars away from it to put it over in these transfers. Is that correct?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. NICHOLS: Is it adequate?
MS. MASSEY: I'm sorry?
MR. NICHOLS: Is it adequate?
MS. MASSEY: I think they would agree, based on the previous why they do not challenge the transfer is we have been a state that has really supported the intercity bus program, made a lot of investments; whereas, other states have consistently decertified the entire 15 percent year after year and not spent anything on intercity bus projects. We've taken a very active collegial approach in working with the intercity bus folks, and I think they recognize that, that while they're not pleased by this development, they understand as part of the overall industry.
MR. NICHOLS: And they were aware that this action was going to occur today?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You might have asked this question, and if so, I apologize, but I have just a few more. A little over a year ago I had the great pleasure of being with the Transit Association and I've spoken privately with different transit operators and even met with another group of yours recently. I have a different view about public transportation than most Republicans, I view it as a sound investment to address congestion-mobility issues throughout the state. I'm not an opponent, I'm a proponent of public transit, but I'm also a proponent of clear and concise and accurate.
When I addressed the association a year ago, the hot topic was this reduction in funds, so everyone that participates in withdrawing from these different pools were aware that the amount of available cash from the state was going to be diminished. Did all of those persons who draw from those different pots adjust downward accordingly? The answer must be no because we've already heard testimony that there's been some expansion. If they didn't all adjust down to prepare for the shortage in cash flow, what reasons have they offered as to why they expanded?
MS. MASSEY: Well, I don't think the expansion issue is quite accurate. Where we have expansions, we've not had any expansions on the rural side in the last three or four years. The expansions that we have on the small urbanized side have been carefully programmed and everybody has known that was coming and has agreed all of the cities knew that was going to happen. So those expansions have not happened willy-nilly, they've been carefully programmed.
MR. WILLIAMSON: In light of this reduced availability of cash?
MS. MASSEY: Yes. The recognition has been that Texas receives federal funds for the Midland-Odessas of this world that for the first 30 years of the federal program didn't have a system, and so Lubbock was getting some of those funds, had been for 30 years. Well, when Midland-Odessa says yes, the time is right for us to start a service, John Wilson is one of the first to say you're absolutely right, it's your money, you should have your money, and the same holds true for state funding on that side, so it's a different equation.
I think some of the rural systems, some of the small urban systems have reduced expenditures, some have not. As to their reasons, I can only speculate in part that some of it is the optimism that is necessary to do the work that they do.
MR. NICHOLS: Can I have a motion?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I'm pondering that answer. Can I have one more question? Apparently this loss of this Medicaid contract affected lots of the services.
MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Was it one contract granted statewide to one vendor or was it a series of contracts localized?
MS. MASSEY: It was the first time that the entire state had gone out for contracts, but it was done generally by region, and actually one vendor could make a proposal for the entire state of Texas, and at one time actually TxDOT was talking about making that proposal and we elected not to. So in some cases you have one contractor receive the funds for several TDH regions which are much larger than our districts; in other cases you may have three or four different contractors within a single TDH region. So it was a significant change in the way Medicaid transportation does business, and there was a lot of disruption in the contracting flow.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we have dialogue with TDH such that we're aware of whether or not that's been a successful venture for them?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, and I know there's been a lot of questions posed to them by the legislature, a lot of concerns about whether this was a success. I think in some cases yes, it's been very successful; in other regions it has been less successful.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And what would be necessary for TxDOT in the next legislative session to become the manager of that contract: statute or is that an appropriations move?
MS. MASSEY: It would require probably some of each. A statutory change, we could as we considered in the last go-round, we considered bidding for it and we were an eligible bidder for it, but there are certain recommendations that you would rather go with a statutory remedy on that rather than possibly run afoul of federal procurement regulations and some of those things.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike, do we have the capacity with all of our monitoring and information gathering and analysis, do we have the capacity to identify which parts of the state may currently be dually served now by these Medicaid transporters versus public transit?
MR. BEHRENS: Well, I see Margot shaking her head, but I think yes, with current technology we could certainly do that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Maybe we're 90-120 days out from session; I know Mr. Nichols has been sort of frustrated with this whole approach for a few years, I know I'm increasingly so. Maybe we need to be more aggressive and see what we can do to bring some what I perceive sanity to what must be a fairly hard process right now.
MS. MASSEY: Yes, and in fact, one of my ever astute bosses, Steve Simmons, had asked for that kind of information and we're pulling it together right now on various programs, not just medical transportation but other human service programs that are similar to the medical transportation program.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And Margot, for whomever it gives heartburn and I'm assuming that I have concurrence with my colleague we don't need to be distributing anything on formulas that are driven from 1994, winner/loser, it doesn't matter, that's just not good.
MS. MASSEY: I understand.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So I"m ready for a different approach and if it's within our power to adopt it, I'm ready to adopt it.
Need a motion?
MR. NICHOLS: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Should I move? I don't want to be by myself.
MR. NICHOLS: I'll second if you'll move it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I move.
MR. NICHOLS: I second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Delayed aye.
MR. NICHOLS: I was trying to count the votes.
(General laughter.)
MR. NICHOLS: That was on all three items.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Uh-oh, Monroe is coming. I guess we did something wrong.
MR. BEHRENS: I guess to make the record clear, that was a motion and approval for agenda items 4(b)(c) and (d).
MR. NICHOLS: Yes.
MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to agenda item 5, Proposed Rules for Adoption, Carlos Lopez and the MUTCB.
MR. LOPEZ: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Carlos Lopez, I'm director of the Traffic Operations Division.
The minute order before you revises Section 25.1 regarding the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. State law requires the department to adopt a manual for the installation and maintenance of traffic control devices on public roadways in Texas. This manual is also required to be in substantial compliance with the manual published by the Federal Highway Administration.
Recently, the FHWA produced a complete rewrite of their national manual for the first time since 1980. This proposed rule action will adopt a Texas manual on uniform Traffic Control Devices which the FHWA has approved. We recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is this going to affect Solar LED, or whatever the name of that company is, at all?
MR. LOPEZ: No. It will affect where the signals are that they can put their product in.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But this isn't going to affect the ongoing discussions we're having with those guys.
MR. LOPEZ: No, not at all.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're not doing some kind of back door whacking them some way, are we? You're not pulling a fast one on me, are you, Carlos?
MR. LOPEZ: No, wouldn't do that.
MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any questions.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I move.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(a)(2), proposed rules on our environmental policy.
MS. IRWIN: Good afternoon, commissioners, Mr. Behrens. For the record, I'm Ann Irwin, deputy division director of the Environmental Affairs Division of TxDOT.
Agenda item 5(a)(2) concerns proposed revisions to rules to address the consolidation of the Texas Turnpike Authority with TxDOT concerning environmental review and public involvement. Senate Bill 342 of the 77th Legislature abolished the board of directors of the Texas Turnpike Authority. The board was responsible for promulgating rules governing the operations of the Texas Turnpike Authority, including the environmental review and public involvement of Texas Turnpike Authority projects.
Sections 52.1 through 52.8 describe the environmental review of and public involvement in the Texas Turnpike Authority projects. Transportation Code 201.604 provides that the Transportation Commission shall prescribe the rules providing for the environmental review of transportation projects that are not governed by the National Environmental Policy Act. The commission has, therefore, previously adopted Sections 2.40 through 2.51 to specify the process for environmental review of transportation projects.
With the abolition of the board of the Texas Turnpike Authority, those rules are no longer needed. Sections 52.1 through 52.8 are proposed to be repealed and Sections 2.40, 2.41 and 2.43 are proposed to be amended so that this sub-chapter will apply to the environmental review and public involvement of TTA projects.
I will now summarize the proposed revisions. Section 2.40 is amended to update the commission's authority to prescribe rules for tolled highway improvements. Section 2.41(11) is amended to add TTA to the definition of a district. Section 2.41(17) is amended to update the commission's general authority to undertake highway construction projects for tolled highways. And Section 2.43(c)(3) is amended to add to the list of actions that are considered to be eligible as categorical exclusions.
Staff respectfully recommends repeal of Sections 5.21 through 5.28 and the adoption of the proposed amendments to Section 2.40, 2.41(11), 2.41(17), and 2.43(c)(3). Are there any questions?
MR. NICHOLS: I don't have any questions.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MS. IRWIN: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(a)(3), this will be proposed rules in our rules for engineering and surveying and architectural services.
MR. SAENZ: Good afternoon, commissioners, Mr. Behrens. For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive director, Engineering Operations.
The minute order before you for item 5(a)(3) proposes the adoption of the repeal of 53.2 through 53.3 and amendments to 9.30, 9.31, 9.33, 9.34, 9.37 through 9.39, 9.41 and 9.43 concerning architectural, engineering and surveying services. Senate Bill 342 of the 77th Legislature abolished the board of directors of the Turnpike Authority. The board was responsible for promulgating rules governing the operations of the Texas Turnpike Authority, including contracting for architectural and engineering services. Sections 53.2 and 53.3 describe the policies and procedures governing these services.
The department currently has rules found in Chapter 9, Sections 9.30 through 9.43, Sub-chapter (c) that govern contracting for architectural, engineering, and surveying services. The Chapter 9 rules and the Chapter 53 rules are almost similar in most respects.
With the abolition of the board of the Texas Turnpike Authority, rules are no longer needed. Sections 53.2 through 52.3 are proposed to be repealed and Sections 9.30, 9.31, 9.33, 9.34, 9.37 through 9.39, 9.41 and 9.43 of Sub-chapter (c) are proposed to be amended so that the sub-chapter will apply to the architectural, engineering and surveying services that apply to Texas Turnpike projects as well as non-tolled state highway projects.
In summary, the changes include change number 1 to Sections 9.33 through 9.38 and 9.41 changing the chair, Consultant Review Committee to read the director of the Design Division this is a clarification item. Proposed change number 2 under the Section 9.33 notice and letter of interest allows for prime contractors to change their project manager during the selection process as long as it's approved by the Design Division director.
Change number 3 pertaining to Section 9.37 allows for additional time to conduct negotiations due to complexity and uniqueness of a project. The time extension may be granted by the executive director or his designee not below the level of assistant executive director. And the fourth change is to Section 9.43 under Qualifications/Requirements by a Work Group, item E, Category 15.5.1 state land surveying proposes to change "Registered Professional" to "Licensed State Land Surveyor" and this is required to comply with the Professional Land Surveying Practices Act. Comments will be accepted until 5:00 p.m., November 12, 2002.
Staff recommends repeal of Sections 53.2 through 53.3 and adoption of the proposed amendments to Sections 9.30, 9.31, 9.33, 9.34, 9.37 through 9.39, 9.41 and 9.43.
MR. NICHOLS: What was that about November 12?
MR. SAENZ: Comments on the proposed rules, November 12 by 5:00 p.m.
MR. NICHOLS: Okay, got it. You've already addressed all my questions I had; we did that yesterday. Did you have any questions or comments?
MR. WILLIAMSON: No.
MR. NICHOLS: Is there a motion?
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: We have a motion and I second it. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BEHRENS: We now have three rules for final adoption, agenda item 5(b)(1) will be final adoption of amendments to the Border Colonia Access Program.
MR. RANDALL: Good afternoon, commissioners. Jim Randall, Transportation Planning and Programming Division.
This minute order adopts amendments to Sections 15.103 through 15.105 to be codified under Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Part 1 concerning Border Colonia Access Program. Senate Bill 1296 requires the Texas Public Finance Authority to issue general obligation bonds and notes in an aggregate amount not to exceed $175 million, and as directed by the department, distribute the proceeds to counties as financial assistance for Colonia access roadway projects. Senate Bill 1296 requires the commission to establish a program to administer the use of proceeds of the bonds and notes.
Rider 52 to the department's appropriations for fiscal years 2002-2003 requires the department to establish a transportation program to improve access to Colonias. The commission previously adopted Sections 15.100 to 15.106 to set forth procedures by which an eligible county may apply for assistance and to establish criteria for selecting projects. The first program call was issued for county funding applications and the commission approved $50 million in funding.
This experience resulted in the need to amend the program's application procedures, the criteria considered by the commission in selecting projects, and the distribution and use of program funds. The amendments were proposed by Minute Order 108931, dated June 27, 2002. Two public hearings were held on July 23, 2002 and August 1, 2002. Comments were received and are addressed in the attached Exhibit A.
Amending the existing program rules will make the application process and funding approval process more efficient and will ensure that projects approved for funding serve the greatest number of Colonia residents possible. This will also ensure that at least a minimum amount of funding is provided for necessary projects in each eligible county.
Staff recommends approval of this minute order.
MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any questions. Did you?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Just generically, any House or Senate member indicate any concern about this?
MR. RANDALL: No, sir, I don't believe so. We had eight commenters, essentially four at each public meeting; three supported it, two were against some of the rules, and we had three general comments. I'd have to check the list here real quick.
MR. WILLIAMSON: My concern is this program was primarily driven by the governor and the legislature. We understand the public benefits from it or some of the public does. I just would want some assurance that we have no reason to believe the governor's office or the House or Senate leadership has any concerns about the changes.
MR. RANDALL: No, sir, we haven't received that. The Governor's Office is in support of the rule changes. I looked through the list real quick and there were no representatives attending those meetings.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I so move.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, Amadeo has worked very closely with the folks involved in the border areas where the Colonias are and I know they've been well kept to date on what's going on.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Good.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(b)(2), we have some final adoption rules for salvage vehicle dealers and agent licenses. Jerry.
MR. DIKE: Thank you. Commissioners, my name is Jerry Dike, director of Vehicle Titles and Registration Division, and this minute order adopts amendments to 17.61 and .62 concerning record-keeping requirements for salvage vehicle dealers which will assist law enforcement.
The commission proposed these amendments by minute order in June, and no comments have been received. We recommend your approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Does any of this address the question I raised a couple of months ago?
MR. DIKE: No, sir. That was on salvage titles and original blue titles.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Are we going to be able to do anything on that?
MR. DIKE: Yes, sir. We've provided a lot of information to your office and the administration and there's some things that we could do by administrative rule.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Just waiting on us to say go ahead?
MR. DIKE: Yes, sir. We are ready to move.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll make sure Mr. Nichols and Mr. Johnson are brought up to speed.
MR. DIKE: Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(b)(3), final adoption of rules for Motor Carriers.
MR. SMITH: Commissioners, Mr. Behrens, good afternoon. For the record, my name is Lawrance Smith, director of the Motor Carrier Division, and I'm not here to pull a fast one on you.
(General laughter.)
MR. SMITH: The minute order before you is for final adoption of amendments to Title 43, Chapter 18, Sub-chapters (a),(b),(f) and (g). As you're aware, the amendments were proposed at the June 27 commission meeting and rules were subsequently published for comment in the July 12 edition of the Texas Register. The department received one written comment which has been addressed in the adoption preamble.
At this time we are submitting the final adoption minute order for your consideration and we recommend its approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You sure did a good job.
MR. BEHRENS: We've covered 6(a); we'll go to item 6(b), Jim Randall, this is an agreement with LCRA to do some work on our right of way.
MR. RANDALL: Jim Randall, Transportation Planning and Programming Division.
Section 15.52 of the Texas Administrative Code authorizes certain local governments, including cities, to contract for the design and construction of an improvement to the state highway system other than a project to improve freeway main lanes on the state highway system. Pursuant to that authority, a locally performed and managed state highway improvement project must be authorized by the commission in the current Unified Transportation Program or by a specific minute order.
The Lower Colorado River Authority has requested approval to construct rock rubble riprap and guard fence protection on the US 183 embankment in the vicinity of the Lometa Reservoir 1.25 miles northwest of Lometa on Salt Creek. The LCRA has also agreed to maintain the riprap and repair any disturbances to the area during the construction which includes the establishment of a vegetative cover that will stabilize the disturbed area.
The minute order presented for your consideration authorizes this project in accordance with 43 TAC Section 15.52(8)(b). With the approval of this minute order, the department will review the plans, specifications, estimates and change orders and perform construction inspection and materials testing oversight. This project will be constructed in accordance with all department standards, specifications and policies.
We recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 7(a), Jennifer will have some donations that have been made to the department.
MS. SOLDANO: For the record, I'm Jennifer Soldano, director of Contract Services Office. This item authorizes the department to accept the following donations for travel from the Precast Concrete Manufacturers Association of Texas, the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, and the Cement and Concrete Promotion Council to reimburse the department for travel expenses for four department employees to attend the first Annual Concrete Bridge Conference in Nashville, Tennessee. One department employee will also be attending a joint meeting of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Technical Committee on concrete design and the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute Committee on Bridges which is held in conjunction with this conference. In addition, the sponsors have waived the registration fee for the three department employees who will be speaking at the conference.
This minute order also authorizes the department to accept a donation of travel from the Precast Concrete Manufacturers Association of California to reimburse the department from the travel expenses of an employee to attend and speak at their annual meeting in Sacramento, California.
Staff recommends approval of this minute order.
MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any questions for you but I might to Mike related to this. Every time we get a donation for $500, $600, $700, $800, and some of them are very large, they're handled as special minute orders as opposed to routine minute orders.
MR. BEHRENS: We're going to make a change to that policy.
MR. NICHOLS: I mean, if we put them in routine, it still gives us adequate opportunity to work through.
MR. BEHRENS: We will evaluate the donations and if we feel that they're significant enough to be a separate minute order outside of routine, then we're going to list them separately.
MR. NICHOLS: Other than that, I had nothing.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What happened to Ford?
MS. SOLDANO: What happened to Fort Worth?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Ford. Why couldn't we make the crumb rubber deal?
MS. SOLDANO: They wanted us to be able, basically, to indemnify them which we can't constitutionally do.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Indemnify them for what?
MS. SOLDANO: For their rubber. If the rubber should come up short on meeting anything.
MR. BEHRENS: If it would cause an accident or something and somebody would track it back to Ford that they wouldn't be able to be involved in a lawsuit.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So where are the tires now?
MR. BEHRENS: In a pile.
MS. SOLDANO: I have no idea.
MR. NICHOLS: A big pile.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Are they liable now for what happens to those tires?
MS. SOLDANO: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Interesting. We need to sic one of the wild bunch in this department and get that deal done. So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 7(b). I think that needs to be presented by our Travel Division. We also have a donation for some people to go on a study tour. Milton.
MR. MEHARG: Good afternoon. Milton Meharg with the Travel Services Section of the Travel Division.
This is the standard minute order that we've used each year for continuing travel education of the travel counselors that work in the Texas Travel Information Centers, and it's a list here of the sponsors of that tour. And I might add this tour has been going on for about 23 years.
MR. NICHOLS: I had one question. In the study tour, so they're actually going to be taking a tour.
MR. MEHARG: Yes, sir, it's a six-day tour of the northeast section of the state. Each year they pick a different region of the state so that the counselors can see a different part of the state.
MR. NICHOLS: It says "North and East regions of the state" and I just wanted to make sure that they're invited as they go through East Texas to stop at Jacksonville and take a picture of the world famous tomato boat. Other than that, I had no comment. We don't get many tourists.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Milton, congratulations on your retirement. Milton is going to be leaving us soon; started out as a maintenance technician and worked his way up to head all our travel bureaus around the state.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Where are you going?
MR. BEHRENS: Traveling.
(General laughter.)
MR. BEHRENS: Moving on to agenda item 8, Thomas, our contracts.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav, I'm director of the Construction Division.
Item 8(1) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on the 5th and 6th of September whose engineers' estimated cost are $300,000 or more. We had four projects, 15 bidders. Staff recommends award of all projects.
MR. NICHOLS: Any questions? I had no questions.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.
MR. BOHUSLAV; Item 8(2) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on September 5 and 6, 2002. We had 86 contracts; 5.41 bidders per contract; came in about 10 percent under. There are four projects listed in the agenda for the meeting. Those are CBC projects that are in Cass, Fort Bend, Jefferson and Williamson Counties. Those projects were inadvertently placed on the agenda; they're not to be awarded today, they're not even let yet. Staff recommends award of all projects listed.
MR. NICHOLS: Did you have any comments or questions? A comment, first of all, really is related to I see we're still at 5.41 bidders per contract which is amazing, and almost 10 percent. We're talking about a quarter of a billion dollars worth of projects, we're almost 10 percent below estimate. And that's been occurring progressively over the past year that the bids have been coming in below estimate, and I know the estimates are based on an index that we track of unit costs of concrete and rebar and things like that, so is our index starting to fall a little bit for which we're making these estimates, or were the estimates made prior to the fall?
MR. BOHUSLAV: I don't have a highway cost index value for this month, we had some problems with our computer program, but in the previous months we had seen a trend downward, our cost per projects were going downward, and that trend has been over the past year really.
MR. NICHOLS: So we've got a down trend in our estimates of construction costs as opposed to flat, and we're still coming down below, so this is indicative.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Contractors tell me that a lot of their costs are related to what's going on outside of TxDOT as well, so if you see a boom in economy, their costs will kind of ride that direction as well.
MR. NICHOLS: And dollar-wise what percent of these had incentives?
MR. BOHUSLAV: There should be in your attachment a listing. I believe we're hitting about 40 percent of the projects and about 70 percent of the dollars normally.
MR. NICHOLS: That's the only question I have.
MR. BOHUSLAV: About 40 and 70, right at this month.
MR. NICHOLS: Did you move?
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Item 9 is our Routine Minute Orders. As you remember, we are deferring agenda item 9(a)(2), so I would recommend that you approve the remainder of those minute orders. They're listed as posted in the agenda, and if you want to specifically go over any one, I would be glad to do that, otherwise, I recommend approval.
MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any questions on any. Did you have any questions?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Same question every month, to your knowledge, is there anything in these routine agenda items or this part of the minute order that would affect any of the three commissioners personally?
MR. BEHRENS: Not that we're aware of.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries for the minute orders.
Do we have any items that we need to go over in executive session?
MR. BEHRENS: We had requested that we have an executive session in order to give the commissioners an opportunity to talk with legal counsel about our Laredo situation.
MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Then at this time the meeting will be recessed for the commission to meet in executive session pursuant to a notice as given in the meeting agenda filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. Time is 1:46.
(Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the meeting was recessed, to reconvene following executive session.)
MR. NICHOLS: The executive session was closed. No further action to be taken by the commission. Motion to adjourn?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I so move.
MR. NICHOLS: I second. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
(Whereupon, the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: September 26, 2002

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 190 inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum before the Texas Transportation Commission of Texas.



______________10/04/02
(Transcriber) (Date)
On the Record Reporting, Inc.
3307 Northland, Suite 315
Austin, Texas 78731