Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

Rose Garden Center
Rose Park Drive
Tyler, Texas 75702
(903) 531-1213

Thursday, January 30, 2003

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

CHAIRMAN JOHN W. JOHNSON
COMMISSIONER ROBERT L. NICHOLS
COMMISSIONER RIC WILLIAMSON
 

STAFF:

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

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:08 a.m., and I would like to call this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order.

Welcome to our first meeting of the new year. It is a pleasure to be in Tyler. And as we noticed, the real rose of Texas, and we're also delighted to have you join us today.

I would 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 9:09 a.m. on January the 22nd.

As some of you may know, it is our practice to hold some of our monthly meetings outside of Austin at different locations around the state, and although the Commission has met three other times in our Tyler District, if our records are correct, I believe that this is the first time we've met in the City of Tyler.

We certainly benefit from the meetings outside of Austin. It reacquaints us with the interests, challenges, and people of the various regions of the state.

And I'm sure that by the time our visit is over, we will be better informed about the area. And, hopefully, our meeting will give you the sense of how we conduct business, at least on the transportation end of state government.

This meeting also gives us the opportunity to hear from you, and if anyone would like to address the committee -- commission, we would ask that you fill out a card at the registration desk in the lobby.

And if you would like to comment on an agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a yellow card, and should it be a nonagenda item, we would ask that you fill out a blue card, and we will take those comments at the end of the meeting at our open comment period.

We would also request that in this day of advanced communications that anyone with a cell phone or a pager, that we put those on the mute or the silent or the off mode so that we will not disrupt the proceedings.

We will hear from some local officials this morning, but it's a traditional part of our business of the day, that my fellow commissioners be provided an opportunity to make a statement or a comment.

And traditionally, I'd ask Robert Nichols first, but since this is a home game for Robert, I'm going to ask Commissioner Williamson if he has any comments or observations.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you to Tyler and the greater Tyler area for your hospitality, for inviting us into your home and allowing us to learn a little bit more about Tyler.

I got up this morning, Mr. Chairman, and went down and checked out the infamous Frankston Highway, and I can tell you that we made the right decision to expand that highway because it is dangerous.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: I can also tell you that as one of the few graduates of the University of Texas, before I leave, I fully expect someone to show me where Earl Campbell was born.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Robert Nichols.

MR. NICHOLS: I'd like to thank everybody for being here. We had a great day yesterday, a meeting with the district employees, a nice dinner last night, and a chance to meet a lot of elected officials and stuff.

I think it's great to have an opportunity to show East Texas to people from Austin and the rest of the state, and I want to thank Tyler, Cherokee County, and the East Texas area for making everyone feel so welcome here.

I did not get the mileage award for this trip since it is in my backyard, and it's good to be here.

MR. JOHNSON: Cherokee County. I thought it was Cherokee (pronouncing) County.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Cherokee County.

MR. JOHNSON: I would also like to introduce the members of our administration. With us today, of course, is our executive director, Mike Behrens, but also here are our deputy executive director, Steve Simmons, who I'm sure is familiar to y'all, he's in the back of the room to your right; and assistant executive director for engineering operations, Amadeo Saenz, who is back there also.

They do a wonderful job representing you at the state level, and it's a terrific group of people that the Commission has the opportunity to work with.

We will hear from quite a few people this morning, but to get us started, it said here that we're going to listen to TxDOT's rose, but she's a real jewel, and we all have a high regard for the district engineer here, Mary Owen.

So Mary, if you will come forward. Welcome to Tyler. Welcome to the commission meeting. Thank you for the arrangements that you've made. It's been sensational.

MS. OWEN: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here and taking us up on our invitation, and we do hope, sincerely, that you've enjoyed the hospitality.

It is my pleasure to again welcome you to Tyler, Chairman Johnson, Commissioners Nichols, Williamson, and Executive Director Behrens.

On behalf of our communities of Northeast Texas, we are honored that you did accept our invitation, and we do hope that you have enjoyed the hospitality.

Before I get started, I have been graced with the presence of a lot of support, and I would like to take the opportunity to introduce these folks because we don't get this opportunity very often.

I'd like to take the opportunity to first bring to your attention the attendance of our road hands. The road hands from the district presentation, I would like to officially introduce them and honor them because they are continually involved in our transportation concerns.

These are still active members who have been appointed the award of road hand, and they are still actively involved in their communities in supporting our projects.

As I say your name -- and I hope that I haven't forgotten anybody -- if you'd please just raise your hand and get some recognition, I'd appreciate it.

This is a dubious award that takes many, many years to accomplish. Most of these individuals have worked 20, 30 years for Transportation in the region, and as I said, are continuing to support our endeavors.

First I'd like to introduce Mr. Don Wall from Paris. Thank you. Mr. Bob Gould from Athens, Athens Loop advocate. Mr. Landon Alford from Henderson, Alford Loop advocate. Mr. Randy Brogoitti, who will speak to you later, from Kilgore.

And last, but not least, the newest member, Judge Mickey Smith. Oh, yes. And, of course, Mayor Abernathy. Now, he is the dean of the road hands, is he not?

(Applause.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did he bring us some sausage?

(General laughter.)

MAYOR ABERNATHY: I wanted to bring it especially for you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, okay.

MS. OWEN: I'm very pleased to say that I have a few of my peers in the audience who have shown up to grace us at this meeting, and I'd like to just recognize them for the audience.

Mr. Jim Freeman, district engineer from Atlanta. Gary Trietsch, district engineer in Houston. Bob Ratcliff, district engineer in Atlanta, and one of our own that was blown over to West Texas, but we like to have him back as much as possible, Randy Hopmann, who's now in Lubbock.

(Applause.)

MS. OWEN: And certainly last, but not least of all, I'd like to give an opportunity to recognize my predecessor who established the traditions that we so have the pleasure to fulfill, D.E. "James" Evans.

(Applause.)

MS. OWEN: It is now my honor and privilege to introduce two of Smith County's most outstanding citizens and leaders for a few opening regards.

Smith County Judge Becky Dempsey has recently assumed her new role as county judge just earlier this month.

Following Judge Dempsey will be Mayor Seeber. Mayor Seeber is dedicated to working closely with the Department in resolution of all of our mutual transportation concerns.

Joey has taken a real interest in the charge that was set upon us last year as we went down to the delegation to look at the feasibility of toll roads for our transportation/mobility issues, as well as organizing our regional mobility authorities.

I do believe he'll speak very briefly about his initiatives and those efforts. I'd like to welcome them to the podium at this point. Judge Dempsey, Mayor Seeber.

JUDGE DEMPSEY: We'll come together, but I'm going to defer to the Mayor first.

MAYOR SEEBER: Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols and Williamson, Executive Director Behrens. We welcome you to Tyler.

I am Joey Seeber, mayor of the City of Tyler. Welcome to our beautiful city. Thank you for coming.

We appreciate having the commissioners and staff from the Texas Department of Transportation in Tyler for one of their two annual out-of-town meetings.

We've certainly enjoyed the opportunity to visit with you informally, both yesterday evening and this morning, and we appreciate your willingness to do that.

We know you do a tremendous job maintaining and expanding our state's highway system. We're also aware that you are only able to fund about 30 percent of all eligible projects that you review.

Selecting a project for funding is difficult, and it's a challenging process, and we appreciate your dedication to address the most critical needs and to be sure that every part of Texas benefits.

We've been working closely with Tyler District Engineer Mary Owen and her staff on a variety of projects that will improve our region's highway system.

Our top priority, as you know, for the past ten years has been the outer loop or Loop 49 project. We are very pleased that this project will finally begin construction, or so we're told, this summer.

(General laughter.)

I'll believe it when I see them turning dirt, but I believe that's going to happen.

We are very pleased that this project, again, will begin construction this summer. When it's completed, it will help more traffic through and around our rapidly growing metro area.

We thank you for providing funds for the loop project and for all you've done to support our region's highway system for these projects that will improve our ground transportation network.

We also heard loud and clear your comments both last spring when we appeared before you in Austin and last evening regarding a regional approach to our transportation needs.

We understand the importance that you now place upon regional cooperation, specifically through the vehicle of the Regional Mobility Authority. For this reason, since returning from Austin last spring, we've been consulting with District Engineer Mary Owen as to the best and the most efficient way to implement this concept in the Tyler area and in East Texas.

Also, beginning last fall, Smith County Judge Elect, at the time, Becky Dempsey -- that would be you, and I left your name out just to test myself -- and Gregg County Judge Elect, at the time, Bill Stoudt, Longview Mayor Earl Roberts and I began informal meetings to discuss ways in which we can work together on a regional basis on a number of issues, probably the biggest of which is our transportation needs.

This builds upon the regional approach that our East Texas communities pioneered over the past few years with the leadership of Mickey Smith and folks in Gregg County and Longview, as we participate in the Northeast Texas Air Care Coalitions' efforts to be proactive in the area of air quality.

The culmination of these efforts was the signing of an early action compact blessed by both the TCEQ and the EPA, and this compact, only the third of its kind in the State of Texas, requires that certain air quality standards be met by certain dates in our area. In exchange, the EPA has agreed we'll not be designated as a nonattainment area.

We believe that this kind of regional cooperation that you -- is the kind of regional cooperation that you've been seeking, and we want you to know that we've been working hard for a long time to make this happen.

We intend to continue these efforts. We believe that as a result, we will have cleaner air in the expansion of our transportation infrastructure, and we also believe that an East Texas RMA will be appearing before you in Austin in the not too distant future.

Again, thank you for your work, for your support for projects in East Texas, for coming to Tyler, and just don't wait another 40 years to do it again.

Now I would like to introduce Becky Dempsey, Smith County Judge. Thank you.

(Applause.)

JUDGE DEMPSEY: Thank you very much, Mayor. I'd like to add my welcome again to the commissioners, Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, and Mr. Behrens.

It's a pleasure to have you here in our city, and I hope you have enjoyed your stay and will continue to enjoy your stay. Hopefully, Commissioner Williamson, someone will show you where, in fact, Earl Campbell was born. I think there are plenty of folks in the room that know that.

Our city and county, as you are probably well aware, have been experiencing tremendous economic growth over the past 15 years. We have a lot of folks in this room to thank for that.

Despite a national economic slowdown over the last few years, we continue to show strong growth in population, construction, and retail sales. We are the regional growth center for medical services, education, and retail.

We appreciate the efforts of the Texas Department of Transportation to upgrade the Texas Trunk System and to rank Highway 31 and U.S. Highway 69, which intersect in downtown Tyler.

And I understand, Chairman Johnson, you -- in fact, I believe you made a comment last night at dinner about the merging of all the number of highways in our community, and we find that, ourselves, to be very interesting. They are top priorities for funding in that system upgrade.

We also want to thank you for providing funds that will allow us to begin construction, as Mayor Seeber said, on the Loop 49 project. That outer loop has been a project for a long time.

And I'm not a native East Texan; I'm actually from Fort Worth, which is west, of course, the beginning of the west, but I got to East Texas as quickly as I could, and I'm very excited that Loop 49 is going to get me to I-20 a lot faster.

We will continue to work with Mary Owen and her fine staff to complete these projects, and to that end, we certainly pledge our support. Thank you again for all you do for East Texas, for our region, and again welcome to Smith County. Thank you.

(Applause.)

MS. OWEN: Thank you for your comments.

In an intent not to break with tradition, we've invited Mr. Randy Brogoitti, road hand, to present a few words of welcome and appreciation on behalf of the Commission -- to the Commission on behalf of the East Texas Gulf Highway Association.

Randy.

MR. BROGOITTI: Thank you, Mary.

Y'all have done well in selecting Mary Owen as a district engineer for Tyler, and we certainly appreciate you allowing us to be a part of your presentation.

Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Commissioners Nichols and Williamson, Executive Director Behrens. I'm proud to welcome you to East Texas. I'm especially honored to have the opportunity to represent my own city of Kilgore and its sister members of the East Texas Gulf Highway Association.

I want to point out to you that this association is a premiere example of regionalism and regional cooperation that was started long ago. We thank you for the years of support for our mutual goals.

On behalf of the Association, I would like to recognize the membership in attendance today to show you the support that we garner from our sister communities.

Would those of you from the East Texas Gulf Highway Association please stand and be recognized.

(Applause.)

MR. BROGOITTI: Thank you very much.

Organized in 1965, this association is making its 38th appearance in support of the mutual goals shared by the nine counties and sixteen communities along this memorial route.

Charter members, David Abernathy, Mayor of Pittsburg, and Landon Alford of Henderson, Texas, are in attendance today. Would you two gentlemen please stand? We would be derelict if we didn't recognize them.

(Applause.)

MR. BROGOITTI: They deserve our public thanks for their dedication not only to this association but to the highways and the driving public of the State of Texas.

Now, I want to point out to you that one of Mayor Dave's goals in life is to drive this route from end to end upon its completion. Gentlemen, as you can see, the clock is running.

(Laughter.)

MAYOR ABERNATHY: 90 and a half.

MR. BROGOITTI: And it's running fast, let me tell you. You didn't get to go fishing but 91 times this year is what he told me. He's slowing down.

During the life of this project, we have met with 19 different legislators, we have worked with more than 10 district engineers from this region alone, we helped train three district engineers for our regions, and we'd appreciate you keeping your clammy hands off the one we've got right now.

(Laughter.)

MR. BROGOITTI: We have been acquainted with seven executive directors, one of which we helped train when he was in Paris. Thank you, Alford. We have had -- Mary is a tough lady. She makes me follow a script. That's not what we normally do.

We've had to re-educate ourselves as we have endured three department name changes and had to learn numerous funding categories in order to know what to ask for and where to get it. We discovered environmental issues that we didn't even know existed at the time this project started, and now we face -- guess what -- another funding crisis.

Gentlemen, we are experienced to the point that this is the longest standing unfinished recognized project in the State of Texas. But we are encouraged. I, like Commissioner Nichols, am viewed as an eternal optimist, and my cup runneth half full.

We are encouraged by the progress made during nearly 40 years of organized support for this route and its improvements. I'd like to draw your attention to the map delineating some of our past accomplishments and our remaining concerns.

As you can see from this map, this longstanding project is full of accomplishment. The system now lacks only 54 and a half miles of improvement to accomplish our long recognized goal; a four-lane system from the Houston Gulf Coast region through the Texas/Louisiana border region of East Texas and beyond to the states in the Midwest and Canada.

The State Highway 135 portion of our project stretches from Interstate 20 north of Kilgore to U.S. Highway 271 in Gladewater. This roadway currently experiences an accident rate that is 100 percent higher than the statewide average.

To translate that for us East Texans, that means this road has twice as many wrecks as it shouldn't. The traffic count along this section would be significantly higher except for one major fact; local citizens avoid this roadway when possible due to the hazards.

We appreciate the Tyler District for its current commitment of district funds to enhance State Highway 135 and this particular section of this roadway. We appreciate all the support and directions that all the districts have given us as we work to improve the entire route.

We appreciate also the magnitude of the decisions that you gentlemen are called to make. It's not an easy job, and you represent the citizens of Texas well, and we appreciate you.

Again, we thank you for the understanding we've received through the years and the dedicated effort to improve East Texas regional transportation, and we trust it will continue.

Thank you very much. And thank you, Mary, for letting us be a part of your presentation.

(Applause.)

MS. OWEN: Thank you, Randy, Mayor Seeber, and Judge Dempsey for your comments this morning. We appreciate your time.

Now it's my time to work into our presentation from the district. I would like to take this opportunity to present the Tyler District's contributions towards the shared vision for Texas transportation.

Tyler is focused on the vision and is contributing by improving our mobility in East Texas by reducing the fatality rates on both rural and urban roadways. And for your information, unfortunately, Smith County has consistently ranked amongst the top three Texas counties for fatalities on rural roadways. It's a dubious honor and quite a challenge.

Number three, we're preserving the system in good or better condition. We do have our challenges and will continue to meet those, providing design excellence in our service, trying to provide better service to our customers, and lastly, continuing to work with our East Texas partners to work on economic vitality for the region, focusing in on the specific goals, mobility.

I'd like to take the first part of the presentation just to introduce you to the district and the counties that we serve, starting with Wood County in the north, one of our smallest counties, but home to Lake Fork and the largest bass on record.

Van Zandt County just to the west, bordering our Dallas district friends, known for the shoppers paradise of Canton First Mondays. That special generator, some months, brings in as many as 200,000 visitors. Quite a challenge for our transportation.

Moving to Smith County, home of the Rose Capital of Texas and Tyler, the first certified retirement center in Texas. Come on. Make your reservations.

(General laughter.)

MS. OWEN: And Gregg County, home of Longview, Kilgore, and the East Texas Oil Field. I would like to point out that both Smith and Gregg County do have the dubious honor of being on the near nonattainment air quality list, and we've been working together concertedly as a region to try and identify opportunities to -- like was addressed last night, Commissioner Johnson, what we can do to avoid being put on that attainment list.

Moving to Henderson County, home to Cedar Creek Lake, another retirement center, it also serves as a bedroom community to the Dallas area and Athens Black-eyed Pea Festival.

Down south to Anderson County, home of U.S. 79, one of our major trunk system routes, and Palestine's Dogwood Festival.

And Cherokee, home of our illustrious Commissioner Nichols, the Jacksonville Tomato Bowl and the Fighting Indians.

And last, but not least, we have Rusk County, home of Henderson and the Henderson Syrup Festival.

As you can tell, most of those counties have reasonably good populations. Together we have about 700,000 in population and a significant amount of vehicle miles travelled throughout the region. We have a challenge, and it's diverse.

Moving into the focus of the backbone of the infrastructure that we're responsible for, just to highlight for you, we currently service 83 miles of Interstate 20. We have 180 miles of Phase I Texas Trunk System, which includes 175 there highlighted for you and 69 highlighted for you.

We also service 45 miles of the strategic highway network on 259. And finally, there's about a hundred miles remaining on U.S. 79 and S.H. 31 that are on the Texas Trunk System but have not been identified for funding for widening.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support for the construction of our most regionally significant strategic mobility project, Loop 49.

We are happy to report that after a long 18 months of deliberations with the Corps of Engineers, that the $14 million dedicated through the Commission's strategic priority funds and the $1.6 million dedicated through local revenues for the first phase construction of Loop 49, and that would be between the roadways of U.S. 69 and S.H. 155 in the south, is "fixin'" to be going to construction in April of this year. We hope to be breaking ground this summer.

The second phase, in which you so generously gave us $6.9 million -- excuse me -- $8.6 million of strategic priority money, and we have 500,000 local money matched, will be going to construction in 2004, pending the receipt of the Corps permit.

I would also like to take the opportunity to mention 155 in which Commissioner Williamson mentioned earlier. We thank you very much for completing that section of four-lane highway with the 15-million-dollar commitment that will connect Palestine to Tyler with a complete four-lane divided freeway. We hope to go into construction on that project in 2005. Thank you.

In addition, the folks of Kilgore are celebrating the construction of a long-awaited 35-year-plus Kilgore relief route. With the Commission's blessing of $25 million, the district was able to advance this project to construction through a fast-track plan development process that lasted only nine months. We hope to be celebrating the ribbon cutting early next year.

Moving on to Athens, the integrity and ingenuity of the City of Athens in Henderson County need to be applauded as we will celebrate the letting of the last section of the Athens loop next year. Their pledge of support for 100 percent right of way has made this long-term mobility project connecting two trunk system projects and routes a reality.

As you can see, we're trying to capture some of the identity of the regions and the locals by working with our bridges and making them personalized.

Just to balance the scales a bit, I'd like to show you some more -- construction that's more than just loops and that we do more than just loops.

We are working actively with our growing communities to identify opportunities for partnerships in the construction and mobility solutions just like the Green Carpet Route.

This example is adjacent to the special generator called Canton First Mondays.

Moving into the goal of safety, I'd like to highlight just a few examples of our safety challenges. This F.M. 2475 is on the fringe of our urban area here in Tyler.

The facility was not designed to carry the traffic, the heavy truckloads, and certainly not the access issues that you see that are becoming more of a critical concern and becoming a problem for management.

This roadway has recently been rehabilitated just to add the two two-foot additional shoulders on each side to maintain it. The core is basically maxed out in its current condition. It carries about 8,000 cars a day.

Another example down south in the City of Whitehouse, this project built way back in the '40s has basically seen its life, and because of the 8,000 cars a day that we see on this facility, it's currently under development for widening. And, again, you see the consistent driveway access issues, limited rights-of-way, and now we're talking about signalizations.

And finally, U.S. 79 south of Palestine, heading towards the Trinity River. We've been graced with the wonderful opportunity to have the Wal-Mart Distribution Center right adjacent to this facility.

This rural section of 79 was not prepared to handle the roads that came with that wonderful distribution center, as well as the support facilities that are growing around it.

We scrambled to add left turn lanes and shoulders to just protect the pavement. We hope -- this is a priority one project that we hope to get to construction by 2008.

Focusing in on a long-term objective to prioritize the construction of shoulders for all of our U.S. and S.H. highways, we have a significant number of U.S. highways that are still without shoulders of any size.

This map gives you an indication of the magnitude of that problem. But there is hope. The construction of the Phase I Trunk System will assist in the elimination of at least two of these red lines.

A growing area of concern for our rural suburban areas is the promulgation of rural traffic controlled intersections. This is the intersection on the trunk system of U.S. 69 and F.M. 346.

Unfortunately, traffic signal devices do not completely eliminate the conflicts. The addition of advanced warning and caution lights have proven somewhat effective.

Of course, the ultimate solution is the construction of a grade separation, particularly along the trunk system routes, and we are working to prioritize the intersections with hazard elimination monies and, hopefully, that will provide us some hope for the elimination of these critical situations in the future. We didn't get down quite close enough so you can see all the skid marks.

This is a great opportunity, working with our local cities, in this case, Tyler. We have been successful at implementing access management techniques like raised medians.

These are designed to restore the original capacities of our corridors and reduce the driver conflict zones that have been increasing our overall safety concerns on our urban arterial and primary routes.

Though not very popular, these have become very effective. These medians are currently under construction and were funded with our hazard elimination monies.

One of our biggest areas of concern, maintenance preservation, that tends to be about 80 percent of what our district is responsible for. Using the tools that were given to us through the PMIS, Pavement Management Information System, we are trying to rectify the goal on a 10-year, 90 percent roadways that are better or good.

In that evaluation, we've been able to determine that about 7100, 7200 lane miles of our roadways are, in fact, in good and better condition on the conditions we're rating. That leaves about a thousand lane miles that need some work.

Over the next ten years, we hope to improve our condition scores on more than 425 lanes that are currently not rated in the good and better condition.

I would like to explain this chart very briefly. This chart represents the percent of the roadway types that have an overall condition score of 70, which means they are in good or better condition.

For example, in 2002, 83 percent of our F.M. roadways were rated in good or better condition. By 2001, first year of 100 percent data collection and F.Y. 2002, first year of the frontage road, the frontage roads were added into our interstate system, which dropped our score significantly.

We feel that the interstate pavement scores are the range of the high 80s to 90s. With the addition of the frontage road conditions, which are not maintained at the same levels as on the interstate, that's the reason you've seen the bar go down to about 82 percent on our interstate.

What we wanted to bring to your attention with this is we are making some improvements on our U.S. highways, which tend to be our primary concerns. We will continue to have problems trying to maintain and improve our existing system on F.M.'s, and we hope to maintain our I.H.'s pavements in the 80s and 90s once we get all the data stabilized.

The biggest challenge we have is to improve the overall condition to that 475 miles that we know are rated in poor condition, without losing or adding any more mileage to that list.

How are we going to do it? We have several programs that we've used through the years that we're trying to enhance. The biggest one we use is our district-wide seal coat program through maintenance and through construction.

We use a mill and inlay program with specialized crew that works in special areas to help us manage our pavements, seeking innovation in pavement design, getting smarter about the decisions that we're making.

We're going to archive the history that we collect through that design program, and we're going to support innovation in our maintenance processes. And most recently, we decided to rededicate source funding to maintaining an overlay program to keep our surface pavements in the best condition possible.

Our district seal coat maintenance and contract operations average about 2 million square yards a year, or 425 center line lanes, approximately 12 percent of our roadway lane miles per year.

Our district mill and inlay operations cover about 85 miles per year. The productivity from this special crew has increased significantly with the improved equipment designed specifically to handle their milling operations in the urban areas.

We are exploring opportunities to turn our waste products into new pavement. We have worked with our equipment vendors, in this case, Wirtgen, to test processes for recycling our wrap into new surface mix.

This is an example or a picture of their mobile batch plant where you basically cycle through, stockpile your old wrap, recycled material, inject it with cement and oil to produce a mix that can be laid down in the field.

We've had two projects where we've used it as surface mix, and so far the results seem to be very favorable. We'd like to have more experience with this before we make it -- and find out -- get the cost of the equipment down before we make it a full-time issue for us.

Getting smarter in our pavement design through forensic investigation. The age of our infrastructure has presented us with challenges of ground water, degradation of grade -- subgrades and bases, as well as premature deterioration of our surfaces.

We see it absolutely necessary that we go down deep whenever we're looking to resurface or reconstruct a facility and then capture that information for the future so that whatever solutions we put in place can be justified to the new generations once they see similar problems starting to erupt.

This is a new data archiving system that we have in place to maintain a record of all the coring samples that we do in our roadways. Absolutely essential to remember where you've been so that you won't go back there again.

Looking for opportunities in developing new tools to help us address some of our more challenging problems and maintenance. And in this case, you're seeing a couple of tools that we use to take care of our edges and develop shoulders in areas that have critical concerns for wide loads where the deterioration of our edges become a predominant concern for preservation of the pavement.

And then we're testing a new product for this district, and that's concrete. Haven't used a significant amount of concrete. Due to its cost, it's pretty much limited us. But we are experimenting with long-term benefits of concrete pavement versus perpetual pavements on a section of rural I.H. 20.

The volumes on this section of 20 are exceeding 40,000 cars a day, with an 18 percent truck volume, which, obviously, is giving our dense grade of hot mix a workout. We're hoping to capitalize on a long-term return on this capital investment in concrete.

And we're excited. We've got an excellent ride on this project, had a great contractor come in from Oklahoma, and he's moved out very quickly, and hopefully, we'll see good results.

Moving into service delivery, we are happy to say we can celebrate success through the commitment of our service delivery and design. It's evident through receipt of four years of design excellence awards.

We are continuing to focus on the quality of our plans and development and delivery of time, on time and without errors. Last year we were able to exceed our estimated lettings about $10 million, having projects ready to go at a time when others didn't. And we hope this year we will certify and let 118 million, which is an all-time record for the district.

Another accomplishment is our work in the bridges. Bridges continue to be a focus for the district with over 1700 bridges on our system. We are striving to manage and replace these bridges with a program designed to work with our partners, the counties.

Last year we received recognition for this effort with the receipt of the On-System Urban Project Development Award.

Living in a diverse ecological environment has presented us with environmental challenges we have turned into successes. This effort recognized a cooperative achievement with Texas Parks and Wildlife and the Corps of Engineers in the establishment of a wetland park as a result of the construction of the Athens loop, F.M. 317.

We continue to receive awards and recognitions through our partners in the field in the design and laying of Texas hot mix.

Working with our partners in the Texas railroad and local cities, we have been successful in enhancing transportation in communities for many generations to enjoy.

Building a foundation for the community to rally behind in the re-establishment of a regional resource, we pledged our support through the rest area renovation and enhancement monies to re-establish Love's Lookout rest area. The new facility will service the community as a visitor center, rest area, and a park. Working with our local historical communities to develop archeological resources dating back to the Civil War era.

Economic vitality. Education is a vital tool and compliment to our success as a transportation agency for all of East Texas. We take very seriously our role in that regard, visiting the state fair every year and attending many local festivals to provide information and answer questions to the local public.

We take our role very seriously and responsibly as a coordinator of transportation services. We are taking an active role in the consolidation of rural transportation services to support our diversified customer base.

We have recently had the pleasure of participating in the startup of new services in the City of Longview.

Helping our counties and our cities improve general aviation, a very important economic tool, through the maintenance of their facilities and construction of their facilities. We currently service eight general aviation airports.

Quite a unique opportunity has been presented to us in Rusk County. Through the Texas Utility Mining Operations, we are working to recapitalize and redevelop the community and the facilities that support it. It's quite a massive operation.

Focusing in on the area that will potentially be affected by this mining operation, this highlights the roadway infrastructure that has or will be reconstructed, relocated, or eliminated to support the area's redevelopment of the reclaimed lands.

We will be working very closely with Henderson, the developments in the county and T.U. Mining, to see what opportunities we would have to not replace some of these facilities, maybe do some rerouting and redevelop this whole area. It's quite a significant parcel of land.

And finally, we continue to work with our local industry to provide adequate transportation to support growth and development without deterring away from our existing infrastructure.

We identify the fact that our industries are longstanding and are continuing to grow. We support the welfare of our community with safe and comfortable transportation to and from our regional medical facilities.

The new challenges that pop up every day with the relocations of regional warehouses, Target on I-20 and U.S. 69, north of Tyler, and the Wal-Mart Distribution Center at U.S. 79, south of Palestine. They will continue to stretch our resources but help us develop our infrastructure.

And in closing, we will continue to work with our local partners to address East Texas' transportation needs in hopes of celebrating all of our future successes. Together we are all making a difference for East Texas.

We thank you for your time and your attention. We hope you have enjoyed your visit to Tyler, and we certainly have enjoyed having you.

Thank you.

(General applause.)

MR. JOHNSON: Ric or Robert, do you have any questions or comments relative to the presentation?

MR. BEHRENS: Thanks for a great presentation. You did an excellent job.

I had one question. On the core samples --

MS. OWEN: Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

MR. BEHRENS: -- the -- your method of photographing and, you know, putting that on C.D.'s and storing it for the future, is that something new and unique?

MS. OWEN: That's something we've developed at the district.

MR. BEHRENS: Hats off. I think that's a great idea.

MS. OWEN: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Excellent presentation.

MS. OWEN: Appreciate that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That was an excellent presentation, and I don't want to put you on the spot by asking, requesting an answer, but at some point in the next month or so, I would like to explore the decision to test concrete on the interstate, primarily in terms of how it impacts the cash flow -- let me think how to phrase the question.

If you're faced with -- you've got this project, and you've got to decide between something other than concrete at lesser cost --

MS. OWEN: Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Or concrete at a greater cost this year, but a life cycle perhaps being maybe less, how does that influence the other projects in your district?

Because it occurs to me, if the Commission continues to move towards more and more concrete across the state, we've got to figure out a way to tell the districts, "It's okay to make that decision, and your other projects in your district won't be penalized because you've made the decision to invest more in concrete now in order to spend less on the road 20 years from now."

Am I making sense or not?

MS. OWEN: Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

MR. WILLIAMSON: I would like your viewpoint at some point in the next month or so about, as a district engineer, how you would suggest the Commission deal with that.

MS. OWEN: If I could briefly address that now, we'll get back with more detail for you, but if it hadn't been for the overall -- our facilities on the interstate were in good shape overall, and we have worked very hard to maintain the hot mix in its current condition.

And you can see that we had 92 percent in good or better, and we had some of the best ratings on our interstate pavements, on our 83 miles.

And because of that confidence and that whole endeavor to get to that point, we felt like it was time on our next projects that instead of investing on an eight-year term, if we're getting eight years on our hot mix -- and that's a dense grade of mix, versus perpetual, and we haven't really had much experience with the new design, but we -- it will be as good a measure to go ahead and take smaller pieces and pull the concrete knowing that we could maintain that good surface that we had already placed down on the interstate for a little bit longer.

We had to buy some time so that we wouldn't be, you know, doing fewer projects further spread out because of the investment of the concrete was our concern, but we're confident that we've got good mix down that will allow us that flexibility to pull those concrete pieces in.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I know that -- and I'm not an engineer. In fact, I think I'm the only member of the Commission that's not an engineer, and I know that there's still some disagreement in your profession about, you know, what's best, the hot mix, cheaper up front and maintain it over a period of time, or concrete, far more expensive up front, but less maintenance cost.

And I'm intrigued by the ability to inform the public that one of the reasons we can't build new roads as fast as we'd like to is because we have to allocate so much of our cash flow, more and more every day, to maintaining the good roads we have.

But perhaps it's time for us to recognize -- and if we kind of stop and spend a whole lot more over the next ten years replacing the short-cycle product with the long-cycle product, that maybe 20 years from now, we will have enough cash flow to build new roads because we're not having to go back and redo them.

So I noticed, when I was driving in, that project, and I stopped and looked at it, and I would like your viewpoint, perhaps privately, in a month or so, about how it impacts the District's decision.

MS. OWEN: Another benefit, though most of the public that drives it wouldn't have seen it, we've been able to get in and out quicker in trying to reconstruct that facility with the concrete this time, which was a definite benefit.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Just because the guy was from Oklahoma?

MS. OWEN: He was so good.

(General laughter.)

MS. OWEN: We're really getting on with that, and we have let our second, so we're looking forward to that. And I appreciate your comments, and I will get back with you. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Mary, one moment. Thank you so much. A very enlightening report. I want to congratulate you on the sequence, the categories that you went over.

I noticed -- Mary, if you were not aware, served on a -- as a very vital and important member of a committee that I charged with addressing the goals that TxDOT should have and making them meaningful and measurable to the people who use our system.

And the five categories that the committee came up with were mobility, safety, maintenance of the system, project delivery, and economic vitality, and that was the sequence in her report, and I think it was extremely well done, and it's a -- you know, an outline of the way we can do things.

We can communicate with the people who use the system, what we are doing to advance to the goals that we believe -- these are not slam-dunk goals. They are challenges. And they are challenges which are going to require a lot of work. They're also going to require a lot of funding. But we can get there, and I believe the people who use our system want us to get there.

So thank you so much for utilizing that format. I think that's terrific.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I noticed she also used the action words that we've encouraged Mike to use in all of our communications with the public, words like "plan it" and "build it," words that normal people can understand.

(General laughter.)

MS. OWEN: Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thanks again.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You knew that was coming, didn't you?

MR. BEHRENS: I did.

MR. JOHNSON: We will take a brief recess, so -- I know many of you -- we're delighted you're here, and it's great to be in a meeting where they have to add chairs.

I think that's a tremendous sign of the involvement and interest of this community and the surrounding area and what goes on.

But I know a number of you probably have to get back to commerce and industry, so we're going to take a very brief recess to allow you to excuse yourselves, and we will reconvene in just a few short minutes and go about the regular agenda. So we'll stand...

(Here followed a short recess from 10:00 a.m. until 10:19 a.m.)

MR. JOHNSON: This meeting of the Transportation Committee is reconvened. We will begin with the approval of our minutes from our December meeting.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Aye. Motion carries.

Mike, I'll turn the meeting over to you for the rest of the agenda items.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll go to Agenda Item No. 2, "Public Transportation" Award Section 5311(f) grant program funding for intercity buses.

MS. MASSEY: For the record, my name is Margot Massey. I believe I have the right folder this morning. We have discussed a number of options about this item in the last few days, and I particularly want to thank Commissioner Nichols for his insight and input into this process.

What we are proposing to you today is an award of operating assistance to five intercity bus companies to address their situation in terms of declining revenues and increasing deficits. And the awards that we're proposing are based on a calculation of 35 cents per route mile.

One point I do want to clarify is, the methodology for calculating contract awards is one thing, and these numbers that are before you are to assign a contract value and an award.

Once we execute the agreement, and we are actually being billed by the companies, receiving reimbursement requests, the methodology that we have to follow on that is based on deficits.

We pay 50 percent of the net deficit, and that is from deficits incurred from the time the contract is executed. Any deficits that have been incurred previously are not on the table here. So I wanted to make that point as clear as I could.

That's the item. We ask for your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: May I ask you a question about what you just said? Are we limited in each case by the amount of funds that is in the minute order? Is that the maximum number that could go to each of the individual route servers?

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir. That's a limiting amount per contract.

MR. JOHNSON: So it's 50 percent of the deficit, equating to --

MS. MASSEY: Not to exceed --

MR. JOHNSON: Not to exceed 35 cents --

MS. MASSEY: No. It's not to exceed --

MR. JOHNSON: Not to exceed the amount --

MS. MASSEY: Of the contract, yes, sir.

And ordinarily, we would say that -- you know, the expectation is these are 12-month contracts. It depends on the actual deficit incurred, that some could expend the contract amount if deficits incurred, reach that amount within seven months.

Others might -- it might actually wind up being 14 or 15 months, so -- and that's -- this is a cap on the contract amount, the amount they can request reimbursement for.

MR. JOHNSON: Since these are federal funds that we are disbursing --

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: -- I am assuming that the methodology that you are saying that we will follow, the procedure that we will follow is one that's prescribed -- is prescribed by -- the way the federal government prescribes it, we conduct these distributions. Is that a fair assessment?

MS. MASSEY: We have flexibility on how we allocate funds for contracts. That's not stipulated, other than it needs to be fair and equitable.

And I think this criteria that is before you this morning is -- meets the test of fair and equitable. The reimbursement requirements, how we actually pay them money, on what basis, is stipulated by the federal government, and we have no --

MR. JOHNSON: And that's where the -- we're reimbursing at 50 percent?

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: All right. Any other -- any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think so, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: All right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I know Mr. Nichols has been the lead on this, so if you'll allow me to ask mine first, and then Robert can wrap up.

I have a couple of questions and some dialogue I wish to have with you and Mike about buses, about public transit.

Mike, is it correct that the Department is steadily researching where different types of public transit might overlap with the view of perhaps making some recommendations to the legislature on where efficiencies might be gained?

MR. BEHRENS: Yes. We're asking Margot's staff to take a look at existing routes and overlay them and look at duplications, look at maybe even other types of transportation, such as -- I think, Margot, you might help me on this.

But I think there was one provider that told me last week they're using like church vans during the week when they don't -- when the church doesn't use them, that will supplement their program.

I think they have -- I don't know all the details on that, but I know when we were at the transit luncheon the other day, one of them said they are looking at that to supplement their program.

So just looking at a lot of things to get the biggest bang for the buck and provide the services that are needed.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And that would include not only transit operators with whom we directly interact, such as what we're describing today, but it would also include instances where we know there are transit operations that are not directly communicating with us; for example, Mental Health/Mental Retardation transit, perhaps Department of Human Services transit operations. In other words, we're taking a more global view.

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir. And I would point out -- you know, Mary Owen, in her presentation, touched on this briefly, but the Tyler District is an excellent example.

When we award the -- or we're planning the program of projects for the 5310 elderly and disabled program that we administer, that the District offices reach out to all of those stakeholders, whether they do business with TxDOT or not.

And the way they make decisions on programming the 5310 funds takes into consideration all the other resources that are available in the community and what the full gamut of needs are as well.

And it touches on things that Mike was describing as well, that if you have other vehicles that can be available during certain parts of the week, that you incorporate those into your regional transit planning.

And, again, I would salute the Tyler District. I think they're one who's really embraced this concept that we had in mind and that you passed in the administrative rules last year. They've really taken it, as have other districts, and run with it, to look at the big picture.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, what I'm trying to focus on, Margot, the state's cash flow crisis, not just in transportation, but in the general revenue account as well has now been well publicized and is, we would hope, the topic of discussion among the citizens of the state on a regular basis.

And it appears to me that if there were ever a time for an agency to direct the legislature and the Governor's attention towards the opportunity to save money and improve services, it would be in the area of public transit, not only as it relates to the types of transit we deal with, but as it relates to other transit opportunities or activities in other state agencies, including and not limited to our school districts, our, you know, metro operations that are supposedly self-sustaining with some kind of capture tax.

I mean, if there was ever an opportunity to direct attention to the need to take a more team approach to transiting the state, this is it, and I think the legislature looks to us to direct their attention that way, whether they choose a path or not.

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir. And we have, in that regard, been working and should have ready to pass up the line a package of recommendations that deal exactly with those kinds of issues within the next week.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And is it my understanding, Robert, that you have some particular interest in giving some direction to the staff on how we're going to handle this in the future?

In that case, I thank you for allowing me to ask the questions and pass the baton.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Baton call. First of all, I want to ask, are there any representatives from the intercity --

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: -- buses here today?

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir. There are a number of them.

MR. NICHOLS: Would they hold up their hands? Did y'all sign up to talk? Would you like to sign up to talk?

Well, I mean, I don't mean that in a negative way. I mean, we're voting on something that's very important to you and to the state, and y'all are representatives to the people we're going to be voting on, and I mean, I would certainly like to offer you the opportunity.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We'll be happy to respond to any questions. We're comfortable with the proposal.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Several comments.

One, the -- in the past, in this particular category of intercity bus funding, we normally have spent the money, I believe, on capitol improvements --

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: -- stations, things like that. And we recognize, since 9-11 and the economy dropping down, that this element of our transit is -- which is extremely important to the state, has been hurt also, and we do not want to see any of y'all quit operating because we think you're a very valuable asset to the state.

We've also been asked and encouraged by the federal government to help y'all out with your operating costs in this category, which they provide, and that's what we've been working real hard on.

One of the things that I have talked about, and I think some of the other commissioners have talked about in the past, is that -- and this would relate to all the other categories of transit -- is that we would like to see formulas -- if that's what we're going to be using in the future -- that somehow or another address strategic needs, reward efficiencies, you know, maybe a factor in there for providing service in some economically disadvantaged areas where they may not -- you know, may have a dip in their local economy for some reason and things of that, whereas the original proposal was to just fund based on 50 percent of whatever the loss was.

That's not an incentive. That's almost a disincentive. The greater the loss, the greater the money you get. I know that some people can operate a little more efficiently than others, but the originally proposed system, in effect, rewarded those who lost the most. It's almost like an incentive for inefficiency, which is contrary to the way I always ran my business.

We're restrained at the federal level, here locally in our distribution, not to exceed 50 percent of the net operating expenses, which is operating expenses after you subtract the revenue, but I want to make sure that the way we are defining it, as I understand it, is net operating expenses after the passenger revenue is subtracted. Is that -- not including freight revenue, just passenger revenue.

MS. MASSEY: That is generally the way we approach that, yes. I mean, we do have some flexibility in the area of intercity because they have a -- they have different revenue streams from the other carriers that we deal with.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. But as far as the federal government, that is an acceptable method --

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: -- to take the passenger revenue, strike the operating expenses to come up to this?

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: We do not have to add these other categories of revenue?

MS. MASSEY: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. And the latest proposal I'm looking at -- I think we're all looking at up here, in effect, is more money to be distributed to the intercity carriers than what was originally proposed --

MS. MASSEY: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: -- which I think is great, to try to kind of flatten out the curve a little bit between those that have different operating costs but directly reward more toward those who are putting in more miles in a consistent manner.

As I understand it, we're talking about 35 cents a mile, not to exceed 50 percent of the deficit, only including passenger revenues.

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Which means that if they can do better and get more profitable by picking up some of these other revenues, we're not going to penalize them for that.

MS. MASSEY: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: We're actually, in effect, going to reward them for coming up with the other -- is that correct?

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I would encourage us to work toward -- and working with y'all and us together to try to come up with something that meets some of these other definitions, strategies, strategic areas, strategic routes, things of that nature, and some type of incentive program, which we would like to work with y'all on.

With those comments, I'll -- somebody else?

MS. MASSEY: If I might, Mr. Chairman, I hear what you're saying, and we are certainly intending to put this into administrative rules.

My best guess today is that we will have proposed rules for you about April or thereabouts where we talk about -- I know my acronym is not going to fly -- the Strategic Intercity Network. I like -- we can talk about SIN for a change, huh?

(General laughter.)

MS. MASSEY: But we want to establish what that critical network is, and that will guide us in terms of both operating assistance, as well as capital improvements.

We still have a need for intermodal facilities, and we want to establish the criteria to declare that network and also to address the points that Commissioner Nichols just raised, is to find a method of making contract awards that hit on the points that he's identified.

So we fully expect to have something before you around April.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: The motion carries.

Margot, thank you very much.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda Item 3 is our administrative rules for final adoption. We have two before you. The first 3(a) for final adoption is the rules on international bridges.

MR. SAENZ: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Williamson, Commissioner Nichols, Mr. Behrens. For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, Jr., Assistant Executive Director for Engineering Operations.

The minute order before you adopts amendments to Section 15.73 to be codified under Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Part 1, relating to international bridges.

Transportation Code 201.612 provides that the Texas Transportation Commission may adopt rules providing for the approval of proposed bridges over the Rio Grande.

The Commission previously adopted 15.70 through 15.76 to specify the process for approval of the proposed international bridges.

Experience with the administration of the rule has shown in practice the existing provisions can impose duplicative requirements that are not necessary for Commission review.

Section 15.73, Subsection (3)(A) is amended to eliminate the requirement that the applicants follow the exact procedures applicable to the Department in conducting environmental reviews and ensuring public involvement. Rather, the applicants will be required to comply with federal law.

This section is also amended to eliminate the requirement that the Department approve any decision that an environmental impact statement is unnecessary. This change eliminates a duplicate approval that would be required from the federal government.

Under Section 15.73(3)(B), it is amended to eliminate the requirement that applicants follow the exact procedures applicable to the department in ensuring public involvement.

Formal public hearings will not be required, but the applicant must hold public meetings which may take place at any point during the application process.

These amendments will provide a more flexible system that will significantly reduce the burdens placed on the applicants.

The amendments were proposed by Minute Order 109056 on October 31st, 2002, and were published in the November 15, 2002 issue of the Texas Register for purpose of receiving comments. Four written comments were received and are addressed in Exhibit A to this minute order.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions? Comments?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. JOHNSON: Second? All in favor?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. SAENZ: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda Item 3(a)(2) is another rule for final adoption, and it concerns amendments to our disabled specialty, and exempt license plates, and Jerry will present those.

MR. DIKE: Commissioner, members, my name is Jerry Dike, Division Director of Vehicle Titles and Registration Division.

And this minute order concerns the final adoption of amendments to Administrative Rules 17.20, -.24, -.28, and -.50 concerning motor vehicle registration.

The Texas Department of Transportation, as well as the counties, issue disabled license plates and placards, specialty license plates, and exempt plates. These rules permit all motorists to obtain as many services as is possible from one location, their local county tax assessor-collector.

This will allow applications for personalized license plates, most specialty plates, and exempt license plates to move to the county tax office and allow special plates customers to pay one consolidated bill rather than two different bills, as well as other efficiencies.

We did receive two comments from county tax assessor-collectors. They're addressed in Exhibit A, and staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

Jerry, the two comments that you received --

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: -- basically, did you respond to those comments?

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir, we did respond to the comments. One of them was that they wanted us to notify their county commissioners of the fact that they would be receiving some additional work. And the compensation, they're compensated $1.90 for each registration receipt that they will be issuing. And a couple other comments, like verification of military evidence before they issue military plates. But they're responded to in the exhibits.

MR. JOHNSON: Did they seem to be satisfied with your responses?

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. They're reasonably satisfied. And really, we expected many more than two comments. These are from small counties.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have one question that wasn't quite related to this, but it has to do with plates.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you sell -- on the specialty plates, my question is, do you sell more U.T. plates or more A&M plates?

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Tell the truth, Jerry.

MR. DIKE: Commissioner Williamson, I'm sorry to tell you this, but the largest plate seller in the State of Texas is your counterpart to your left, Texas A&M University.

(General laughter.)

MR. DIKE: Texas is third place behind Texas Tech, and that's our university.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We can't win everyone.

(General laughter.)

MR. DIKE: That's right. That's right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How many do they sell of Lamar?

MR. DIKE: Sir?

MR. WILLIAMSON: How many do they sell of Lamar?

MR. NICHOLS: They don't have one for Lamar.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we have one for Vanderbilt?

MR. DIKE: We do have one for Lamar.

MR. NICHOLS: We do have one for Lamar?

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We do? And Nichols hasn't bought one?

MR. DIKE: I'll take your check this morning.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Looks to me like there's a lot of market out there that is going untapped.

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir, sitting on the board.

MR. JOHNSON: Especially that sort of has an orange tinge to it.

MR. DIKE: We tried to sell one this morning to Arnold Oliver. After he retired, he had TxDOT-X as a personalized license plate for several years, and for some reason, the last couple of years, he had stopped having that one.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Anyway, somebody --

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Jerry, thank you.

MR. DIKE: Thank you, Commissioners.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for being so honest.

(General laughter.)

MR. BEHRENS: Under Item Number 4, we have three minute orders. These pertain to what we call turnpike projects or toll projects, and Phil will present the first one, Item 4(a).

MR. RUSSELL: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Behrens. For the record, my name is Phillip Russell, Director of the Texas Turnpike Authority Division.

Under Agenda Item 4(a), we bring to you this morning our first quarterly construction report for the Central Texas Turnpike Project. As you know, the Commission entered into an indenture of trust for the August 2002 bond financing for the Central Texas Turnpike Project.

The indenture requires the Commission to disclose certain information on a quarterly basis. This progress report is prepared by the project general engineering consulting firm of Post, Botley, Shue & Jernigan for distribution to the trustee, the bondholders, and the public in general. The report will be prepared on a quarterly basis until construction is complete.

I might also note that this report covers up to November 30th. We were dealing with a little bit of a short month in December, and so we went ahead and deferred it to this month. Our second quarterly report will be completed at the end of February, and we anticipate bringing it up to the Commission in March.

This report, of course, provides project specific information detailing the progress on right of way acquisition, utility relocation, environmental issues, design, construction startups, construction completion dates, and, of course, these numbers will be changing and will be updated on that quarterly basis.

It does include our first traditional project that was let and approved in October, and I'm pleased to say that the trend the Department has been experiencing over the last year or so, and that being the construction process coming in significantly under our engineer's estimate, follows through with these turnpike projects.

That project, of course, came in almost $30 million under the engineer's estimate, so that is a good thing.

I'd be happy to address any comments or questions you might have, and we would suggest acceptance of this report.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: No. This is a formal report to the -- that goes to our trustee?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Other than that, that's all my questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

My question was, we're a little bit askew of the calendar quarters. The idea is to get on the calendar quarters as soon as you make up for the short month of December that --

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: So we'll have a report through December.

MR. RUSSELL: That's right.

MR. JOHNSON: Then the next one will be through March.

MR. RUSSELL: Well, no, sir. This one, of course, September, October, November. The next one will be picking up in December, then January, February.

MR. JOHNSON: So it will be every three months?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: And it's not the calendar form.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. Every three months.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you.

MR. RUSSELL: But we will try to bring it up on that next commission date.

MR. JOHNSON: Certainly.

MR. BEHRENS: Fiscal year quarters?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. Fiscal year quarters. I'm sorry.

MR. JOHNSON: Very good.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Okay. Amadeo will present Item 4(b) and (c) under this agenda item.

MR. SAENZ: Yes. This is a -- I usually have to follow Thomas, and I have to lower the podium. This is the first time I get to follow -- I was going to have to raise it but didn't have to raise it but can't win for losing.

(General laughter.)

MR. SAENZ: Item 4(b) -- Commissioners, I'm Amadeo Saenz, Assistant Executive Director for Engineering Operations. Good morning again.

Item 4(b) is that transportation funding limitations have affected the ability of the Department of Transportation to develop needed highway projects in a timely manner.

Proposition 15, approved by the voters in November of 2001, along with previously adopted legislation provides the Commission with innovative methods of developing these needed projects, including the use of tolls, toll equity, and Regional Mobility Authorities.

Minute Order No. 109122, dated December 19, 2002, authorized the Department to expand up to $10 million to perform feasibility studies on selected projects for the purpose of evaluating the viability of developing these projects as toll -- as turnpikes, as well as assessing where these projects would be most efficiently developed by the Department or a Regional Mobility Authority.

This minute order we bring before you accomplishes three objectives. It cancels the minute order that was passed on December 19th, Minute Order No. 109122.

It reauthorizes the Department to expend up to $10 million to perform the feasibility studies on projects selected by our executive director for the purpose of evaluating the viability of developing these projects as turnpikes.

But it also authorizes feasibility studies that can be used by toll authorities to develop needed highway projects as turnpike projects also.

Having the option to use these various methods will provide a more efficient, effective way of maximizing the use of our limited resources.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Amadeo, this is a little bit off the subject, but I'm going to bring it up anyway. There is always great anticipation about the U.T.P., and we're in a transformational period where we're changing methodology, we're changing categories, reducing the number of categories, et cetera.

I wanted to ask the question as to how we stand on the development of the 2004 U.T.P. and the methodology of project selection.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. The 2004 U.T.P., if you recall, in December, we had the public hearing on the allocation of funds for the 2004 U.T.P., and we're receiving comments now.

In addition, we have the five working groups that were put in place that -- as part of the restructuring of the U.T.P. that were supposed to give us reports on recommending funding allocations or funding criteria to be developed for the rehabilitation of the maintenance program, the discretionary program.

Those two groups have submitted the recommended reports, and we're reviewing them at this time. We also have three other groups that are looking at our mobility category -- our corridor mobility categories, one in the metropolitan areas, one in the urbanized areas and, of course, the statewide productivity group.

That group that's doing the metropolitan -- the metropolitan area group has almost completed their work. They're scheduled to meet the first part of February to take final action on their recommendation and submit their report to the Department.

The other two groups are still working. They're a little bit behind. We met with them. They met twice in the month of January since our last meeting, and we offered them some direction that y'all had given us as part of that meeting, and they're moving forward to accomplishing the goal of giving us this recommendation.

They're a little bit further behind, but we will be moving them as quickly as possible to get them to complete that so that the goal is to them, after that, is to have a public hearing on their recommendations that will allow us to set the stage of how projects are going to be selected in the future based on the streamlining of the U.T.P. processes.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, do you have anything to ask?

MR. NICHOLS: Yeah.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, go ahead, Robert.

MR. NICHOLS: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I yield.

MR. NICHOLS: With regards to what Chairman Johnson was talking about, you know, we did, last month -- I believe it was December --

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: -- encourage those task groups to work more often or, you know, to try to come up with a consensus because we don't want the entire state process to sit and wait for lack of a decision or for something we haven't done. And I'd just like to, first of all, thank those people who are working on that.

I know most communities, regardless of whether they're a metropolitan area or an urbanized area, like Tyler and Longview or communities that are interested in corridors of connectivity, the methodology we use to pick projects is extremely important.

And we told everyone -- and I think we still feel that this two-year transition is adequate time to address those things, and that time period, at the end of the two-year cycle for which we need all that, is rapidly approaching and that I would encourage the remaining groups to try to shoot at least a target for about April, early April to have that process completed.

I understand some of them work with our staff, but a lot of them are volunteer individuals around the state that have a -- it's a pretty big burden on their plate, but it's also -- they have a great opportunity to make a contribution that will be long lasting.

So I would encourage them, if they need to, let's -- I think we're certainly willing to let them meet for days at a time like a jury, lock them in and let them come back out or whatever, but encourage them really in the next couple of months to have that thing wrapped up.

MR. SAENZ: Well, we passed on the words of encouragement that we received in December. In fact, we showed them the video portion of our bit -- at a little faster rate. We will pass this word on and --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm shocked.

MR. SAENZ: -- and establish this deadline so that we can meet the deadline and move forward, having the needed public hearings for the selection of the future projects that will become the projects in the 2005 U.T.P. if we get to add these new projects on to the existing program.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have any observations?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I -- most of what I wanted to ask or -- I would direct my comments to what Robert covered. I just -- for the benefit of our Tyler area attendees and for the repeat benefit of our friends who are helping us do this, I just want to clarify in my mind what we've done and where we're going with regard to this discussion.

We recognize at the Commission level that probably far too many proposed projects have been allowed to work their way into our planning document as if we had the money to build those projects or pay for those projects. And the truth is we don't.

And what we have asked the various public citizens to do is, in their area -- their geographic area or in their area of expertise, look at all of the alternatives and rank in order of importance which ones that we should plan and know we're going to fund, which is essentially what this department has done for all these years and then had to listen to people complain about it being a 46-year project.

And so now we've asked these folks to exercise local control and accept local responsibility and tell us what's most important to Dallas/Fort Worth, to Houston/Beaumont, to San Antonio, to Austin, to Brownsville, and I suppose to Tyler, and we've been doing this how long?

MR. SAENZ: We've been working on this for about six months.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And we're not to resolution yet?

MR. SAENZ: Some groups are working faster than others, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it must be difficult to make choices about these things.

MR. SAENZ: From experience, it is. From our experience, it is, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So I guess -- I suppose, Mr. Chairman, the question that ought to be asked is, if our friends in the vast expanse of Texas, whom we've asked to advise us about these things, just simply can't bring themselves to making a decision, there's got to be a point in time when we have to make that decision for them.

And I suppose there will be less complaining this time around since they've all had a personal experience with the challenge of making these difficult decisions. Probably not.

At what point will we pull the string and say, we can't wait for you to exercise local control any longer, or the real question is, we can't wait for you to exercise local responsibility any longer; we have to move on? When do we do that?

MR. SAENZ: What I would say is let's look at our schedule. We need to make sure that we have a document that keeps on and carries us forward so that we do not have any delays to the projects that are being developed now and that will be developed in the future, and then with that, we can set a time line and say this is the drop-dead date. If it's not here, then we have to move in a different direction so that we can make sure that the program continues.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So pretty soon?

MR. SAENZ: So I think we can use -- April would be a good date to use.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I would think April would be real good.

MR. JOHNSON: What part of April? April -- early in the year?

MR. SAENZ: I would say the beginning of April so that we can bring something to you-all at the

MR. JOHNSON: You know, I dare say that the U.T.P. is probably the most anticipated document that we produce, and due to this transition, the people who are so interested in it have been very patient with us because we, in essence, have been operating under the same U.T.P., the 2002 U.T.P.

So I think it becomes incumbent upon us to be -- deliver a 2004 U.T.P. in a timely fashion, and I hope that the work group members will recognize that and not require others to make the decisions which we think they should make, and, hopefully, they can do that in -- so we will not miss a beat.

MR. SAENZ: We will pass that word on to them and set a schedule and time line and then --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is this the -- is the time delay on this matter partially responsible for the recent discomfort along Interstate 35?

MR. SAENZ: Part of it is. Part of it is the amount of money that we're projecting that we have between the time period of 2014 -- between 2004 and 2014 and that the amount of projects that we currently have in the U.T.P. and the available monies are almost equal.

So for the 2004 U.T.P., we have no mechanism to add any additional projects from the outside. But it would be very important for people to know that in the future, how are projects going to be -- how is money going to be allocated to the area so they can start planning for those out years after 2014.

We can develop the 2004 U.T.P. because the projects are already in there, but we need to develop and identify the priorities that are in the future because that entails -- may also allow some change in the projects that are in the current U.T.P. in the off years and add new projects and costs and changes.

So we need to have both of them so that the general public, they know what direction we're going to be going.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But when you say "plan," what you mean is really plan.

MR. SAENZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I mean, we know this money will be available at this moment in time to proceed, and so --

MR. SAENZ: Our goal is to have a financially constrained 2004 U.T.P., and in 2005, with the available monies and the allocation formulas that are going to be recommended and approved by the Commission, we will continue to add projects based on that money, but it will always be financially constrained.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So, in theory, a few years from now, no one will ever honestly come to us and say, "This project has been -- this has been a project for 46 years. We've been waiting for 46 years. We've been told for 46 years that this road was going to be built."

MR. SAENZ: And a lot of those priorities are going to be set by the locals, and if that project is that important for that area, that project can -- then they can move that project within their funding allocation to whatever level they need to put it in to be able to expedite it if they want to expedite it.

(Discussion had off the record.)

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I just have another observation. Ric referred to the heartburn that has been felt in the I-35 corridor, and I think it's very important that we communicate to the elected representatives and senators along that corridor of expressed interest and the local officials that -- you know, precisely where we are and what we're doing because, hopefully, the interpretation they've made is a lot more adverse than the situation is, at least the way I interpret it.

But, you know, sometimes people have a way of interpreting the same words in different fashions, so I think we need to do a job of getting with Representative Delisi and Senator Fraser and Senator Avery and others along that corridor and explain to them the reasons what has happened, but the bottom line of how it's going to affect them and, hopefully, put their minds at rest, that the priority one projects that are in priority one, they're going to be done in a timely fashion as they previously were scheduled --

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's funny.

MR. JOHNSON: -- and where we're constrained due to the funding issues, that we're not able to move priority two projects into priority one; is that fair?

MR. SAENZ: Right. The priority one projects that are currently in the plan are proceeding as they were planned and will be constructed as per schedule. The projects that are -- that are priority two that did not have construct authority, we're looking and working with the district to identify the key projects that need to be moved forward and expedited, that will get priority one authority as we look at the overall picture.

So we have been meeting with Senator Delisi and Senator Fraser, and we will go back and make sure that our message is presented and that it was understood.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, with regard to the minute order -- and this conversation is impacted by R.M.A.s, but with regard to the minute order itself, I have just a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.

I notice we have included principally North Texas Toll Authority and Harris County Toll Authority as potential recipients of these study grants.

MR. SAENZ: Yes. We now can do -- really, the minute order gives us the flexibility to do feasibility studies to determine toll projects anywhere in the state, whether they're a potential R.M.A., a project that will be developed by the Department or within one of the toll turnpike authorities.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I'm assuming we've added those because those groups asked us to at least put them -- make it possible for them to come apply.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So by inference, then, N.T.T.A. and Hector must feel like they're on the same footing as any R.M.A. that we created or we're going to create, shouldn't be treated any differently or specially in any way.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Because if they want the same grants, they must be wanting to be treated exactly the same, right?

MR. SAENZ: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Or that's at least what you'll convey to them --

MR. SAENZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- for us.

And the 10 million is not for construction; it's to use --

MR. SAENZ: The 10 million is to study.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- to study whether or not a project makes sense.

MR. SAENZ: That is correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And it can't all be used at once. It's not 10 million in a whack; it's a total of $10 million to be allocated to El Paso --

MR. SAENZ: Right. We have 10 million --

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- Austin --

MR. SAENZ: -- and we are currently doing several studies.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- and Tyler if they get a --

MR. SAENZ: In Tyler. We're doing a study in Tyler. We've met with San Antonio last week with the -- Judge Wolfe and some of their folks to identify some potential projects in the San Antonio area that -- or have a good chance of being toll projects, and Phil and his staff will start working on those projects. We've been working -- we have a request from the Rio Grande Valley. We have some requests from El Paso.

So -- but all of these -- this money that is set aside is money that is used to determine if a project is feasible to be developed as a toll project, and then we can go back to the potential R.M.A. or go to Harris County or go to N.T.T.A. and say, look, we have this project that is a potential toll project, and you can form an R.M.A., or you can develop it as a turnpike authority project, or we can have the -- also have the flexibility of developing it as a Texas T.T.A. turnpike.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And so, as I always ask each month and will ask from now on until we have something more flexible, does this mean that the Department is full bore towards encouraging a second look at Highway 114 in North Texas, Grand Parkway in Southeast Texas --

MR. SAENZ: We --

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- 1640 in San Antonio? We are aggressively identifying toll projects in this state?

MR. SAENZ: Yes. We are looking at 114 -- we are looking at -- for example, in the Dallas District, we were looking at Interstate 635, L.B.J.; we are looking -- in the Fort Worth District, we're looking at State Highway 114.

We're looking at two projects. At 114, an alternate that's kind of a new location, and then we're also looking at 114 -- we should be able to have some reports on 114 for the February meeting.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Because if we're going to be honest with people in our planning -- and I think we should. I think this is a great move the Department's made. I commend you -- and tell people that, you know, "It's 37 years before we get to your project unless you're interested in an R.M.A. and a partnership with the state and build a toll road, in which case it's six years."

I think we need to be saying that to people because my perception, moving around the state and listening to legislative leaders, is that people are willing to pay for solutions to transportation problems now as opposed to waiting in line for 37 years and hope that the money's there when their time comes.

So let's be aggressive, Phillip. Let's mark it. Let's go find toll roads.

MR. SAENZ: In fact, in the Tyler District, Loop 49 that was talked about early this morning, we are probably within 30 days of having the initial feasibility study to look at the potential toll project for that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for your patience and letting me ask those questions.

MR. JOHNSON: There is a motion to this, or is there?

MR. NICHOLS: I made some comments, yeah.

MR. JOHNSON: There is a motion made?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: The motion carries.

Thank you, Amadeo.

MR. SAENZ: Thank you.

Continuing with Item 4(c), the minute order before you for Item 4(c) authorizes the Department to enter into a funding agreement with the Federal Highway Administration in Harris County to participate in a toll facility value pricing project to reconstruct Interstate Highway 10 from the City of Katy to just west of Washington Avenue in the City of Houston.

The Department has approved the project -- has approved a project to reconstruct the I.H. 10 from the City of Katy to just west of Washington Avenue in the City of Houston.

On April 26, 2001, the Commission authorized the executive director to develop an agreement with the county and Federal Highway Administration for innovative financing of the project in a future -- and to present this at a future meeting -- present this funding proposal at a future meeting.

Working with Harris County and the Federal Highway Administration, we have a proposal on an innovative funding plan for the expeditious funding and construction of the project. The plan would include county funding for a county-owned four-lane toll facility to be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained and monitored as a value pricing lanes within the limits of Interstate 10 from west of State Highway 6 to Interstate 610, a distance of about 12 miles.

The value pricing lanes will be considered a county toll road, subject to all federal regulations for interstate highways. As part of the cooperative agreement, the Commission would license Interstate 10 right of way to the county for the county toll facility.

The county has agreed to expend $250 million of county -- for the county-owned facility to be repaid with the toll revenues and to provide up to $250 million for providing services for the nontoll section of the project.

The Department would reimburse the county up to $250 million for providing the services on the nontoll. It's just to give us the flexibility that the county can help us as we develop the project should we need their assistance, and then we would reimburse them for that work, but they are responsible for the actual building of the toll facility.

The county toll facility would become part of a segment of Interstate 10 under the jurisdiction of the Department after the county's $250 million for the toll facility is repaid from the revenues that are generated.

At that point, a Commission in the future can determine whether that project can continue as a toll project or should they want to change it to something else.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. I want to ask a question, Mr. Chairman, about that.

The way I read the minute order on there is the county toll facility will become toll-free, part of I.H. 10, under the jurisdiction of the Department after the county's 250 million repaid.

I don't want there to be any confusion because I can't imagine that the Commission will ever allow that to become a toll-free facility.

MR. SAENZ: The minute order that I've got, it says the county toll facility would become a segment of Interstate 10 under the jurisdiction of the Department after the county's $250 million for a toll facility is repaid.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Am I missing an insert? Perhaps I am.

MR. SAENZ: It says we're leaving it open, and then a future commission would determine whether the project continues as --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think Robert Nichols is playing a joke on me.

MR. NICHOLS: Yeah. What we first saw --

MR. SAENZ: The first -- one of the early drafts talked about that, and that was one of the amendments that we made.

MR. NICHOLS: Yeah. The early draft I saw, I know in one place in the book, it said it would be turned over toll-free. In another part of the book, it said, you know, we would have that option.

MR. SAENZ: Yes. The agreement --

MR. NICHOLS: And I think we all want to make absolutely sure that there's nothing that dismantles automatically in this agreement the tolling but leaves the option open for future commissions or the state, that if we want to keep continue tolling it, we have that option and so on; is that correct?

MR. WILLIAMSON: My -- my --

MR. SAENZ: The way we have the minute order --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, my crack administrative assistant has just hand-signed me that I have an insert elsewhere in my book that clarifies this, so...

MR. SAENZ: Okay. The minute order we have gives us that flexibility.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But it's a good -- I betcha ol' Amadeo is down there saying, "Well, that guy does read all this stuff."

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Chairman?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: There's probably not very many people from Houston here.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, their district engineer is.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Perhaps we ought to tell Gary to carry the word back that -- to John Culberson and Tom Delay and to our staff in Houston and Robert Nichols -- Robert Eckels and to this Commission, hats off to all of us for being so focused on this and knocking heads and working hard and hammering something out that's in the best interest.

This is a true partnership. And we do owe Culberson and Delay a big hats off for their work, and they owe us big hats off for our cooperation.

Good job, Gary.

MR. JOHNSON: Gary, correct me. My understanding, this is a first of its kind.

MR. TRIETSCH: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: And it's a unique -- as Ric mentioned, it's a partnership amongst many parties. In fact, the document that we're going to execute will be executed by Federal Highway, Harris County, and ourselves.

So it shows that there are many parts that are playing a significant role in this success, and I want to salute you and your district for what you have done. I think the county and Robert Eckels have led the way.

And, of course, John Culberson started working on this project when he was in the State House of Representatives and now he's a United States Congressman. He continues to be keenly interested and, of course, Majority Leader Delay has carried the water and been very interested in this project.

And I just -- it exemplifies to me that, you know, if we work together, we can move mountains, and if we work individually, we probably will get a few little mole hill moves.

And so congratulations to you and everybody involved, and I'm going to reinforce and echo and shout what Ric has observed in terms of who should be congratulated.

Robert, did you have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Great job, Gary.

MR. TRIETSCH: My only comment is that this is a simple version that you've got, that this is also an H.O.V. lane that in the operating agreement with Metro, they had 65 buses per hour, 24 hours a day that won't be charged, metro lift vans, possibility of even putting rail down there some day.

Well, they're going to pay $5 million for add-ons to make that provision. So whether all this will ever happen -- but, you know, it's -- I say "we" -- kind of -- the engineers all agreed about a year ago what this was going to be. It's taken a year to get all of the legal and everybody to review and sign off on this thing.

And, you know, I have had very little to do with it other than stand over people and look down and where is it and -- but Gabe Johnson and Delvin Dennis and the consultants that have been involved -- you know, we have approximately -- I know we have 11 contracts, but with all the subs and everything, virtually, the plans -- well, as a matter of fact, Tuesday the first plans will arrive in Austin on this project for letting, and within the next 12 months, we'll have all of the plans wrapped up.

I appreciate your kind comments, but Amadeo and Mike and the Federal Highway Administration has been -- done an outstanding job of working us through the federal part of this to get this.

This wasn't really going to be a value price project, but that's the only way we could get through this federal maze. And they, here locally in Texas, have done an outstanding job.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think for our district engineers across the state, Mike, and for our 14,000 plus hard-working employees and for local officials who might read these remarks, this, in our view -- this is a perfect example of entrepreneurial thinking, of risk-taking, of not being afraid to take a risk, to negotiate hard but to try to think outside the box and find a solution that will work for a peculiar part of the state that has a peculiar problem that isn't duplicated anywhere else, considering all the political subdivisions.

And I'm just real happy about it. I can't tell you. I would like to see much more of this kind of aggressive kind of problem-solving occur. I know we're aggressive, but from other partners that we have. It's real important if we're going to solve some of our transportation dilemmas.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. SAENZ: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Amadeo.

MR. BEHRENS: Okay. We'll go to Agenda Item 5 under "Finance," which James will present the Quarterly Investment Report.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Fast Bass.

MR. BASS: Good morning. For the record, I'm James Bass, Director of the Finance Division of TxDOT. And Item 5 presents the investment report in accordance with the Public Funds Investment Act and the Commission's investment policy.

This report is for the first fiscal quarter of F.Y. 2003, and it covers the period of September 1 through November 30th, 2002, reports on the investment status of bond proceeds and local contributions associated with the Central Texas Turnpike Project.

Unfortunately, Phil mentioned that -- and I think he's going to be able to accelerate the general engineering quarterly construction report. I'm uncertain that we'll be able to accelerate delivery of the quarterly reports in the future. We're dependent upon some information that we receive from some security providers, so we may always be in a situation that this quarterly report is a couple of months behind the end of the quarter.

A few brief highlights in the Quarterly Investment Report; the book value of our investments actually increased this first quarter of F.Y. 2003 roughly $16 million and ended up with a value of around $2.331 billion.

This is a little unusual that the investments increased. It's the beginning of the project, and we would expect, in the future, that, obviously, as the proceeds are spent on the project, they will decrease.

But in this first quarter, in addition to the expenditures being made, we received an additional 28 million from the local governments, and those were invested in money market funds, and we received accrued interest of over 13 and a half million that led to that increase in the book value.

At the end of the quarter, we had an unrealized gain of $1.664 million, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have, and staff would recommend your acceptance of the report.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: This is a required report also for the bonding thing?

MR. BASS: Correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. And it's done as it's required and I -- any questions I have, I'll just get with you individually. I don't want to muddy up the water for the trustee of this.

So I would just -- anybody have any questions?

MR. JOHNSON: I have one. Ric, did you have one?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Isn't this the one that Mr. Monroe told us not to say much about?

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: He has not jumped up, so...

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have no questions.

MR. JOHNSON: James, what is the weighted average yield, earning on our assets?

MR. BASS: On all the investments, I believe it is around 3 percent. I can get you an actual number on that. We have, of course, a variety of investments with different maturities and different --

MR. JOHNSON: But the weighted average yield is 3 percent --

MR. BASS: I believe so.

MR. JOHNSON: -- roughly?

And the cost of our liabilities, weighted average price?

MR. BASS: It's slightly in excess of 5. I'm not sure of that exact number.

MR. JOHNSON: That's my question.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BASS: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Zane Webb will present Item No. 6, referring to GASB 34.

MR. WEBB: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Behrens. For the record, my name is Zane Webb, Director of the Maintenance Division.

In June 1999, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board established new financial reporting standards that will fundamentally change the way state and local governments report their financial results.

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 requires that assets have to be depreciated or the Department can use a modified approach that allows for the measurement of the level of services of the asset.

TxDOT is using the Texas Maintenance Assessment Program to measure that level of service. Tx-MAP is a system where the Maintenance Division rates the interstate and noninterstate highways across the state.

The minimum Tx-MAP score of 80 percent on the interstate system and 75 percent on the noninterstate system has an acceptable roadway condition standard and were previously adopted by the Commission in September of '01.

This minute order establishes the funding needs to maintain and preserve the interstate/noninterstate system for F.Y.O. 3 at or above the condition levels required by GASB 34.

Recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had questions back and forth, but I think I did get most of mine answered, but one kind of popped up after Mary made hers. I was kind of surprised that when the -- where did Mary go?

Anyway, the -- at one time, some of the frontage roads were not included on the inventory, and then they were included.

MR. WEBB: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: And we had a rating in the Tyler District at one level, and when they included the frontage roads, that level dropped down immediately.

MR. WEBB: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Because the primary focus was on the interstate -- I guess you call them main lanes.

MR. WEBB: Right.

MR. NICHOLS: The requirement on that level in here, is that main lanes, or does that include frontage roads?

MR. WEBB: These include the entire system.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. WEBB: The ones that Mary was showing on the presentation earlier, Commissioner, were actually P.M.I.S. scores, not Tx-MAP scores.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Educate me a little bit. I'm sure James has told me this, but I've forgotten. Why do we select Tx-MAP over depreciating our assets?

MR. WEBB: Primarily because it's easier for us to do, Commissioner. If we have to go out and inventory our assets, which we'd have to do if we depreciate them, we put a substantial amount of resources out there in the field, counting every sign and every piece of guard rail, and it's actually easier to go out and do an assessment of our system rather than to keep up an inventory of our system.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, certainly, according to that film we watched last week, it's more fun for you. You got to see the state.

MR. WEBB: Well, yes, sir, that's true.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did we lose any -- it looked to me like you were having fun. Did we lose anything by choosing Tx-MAP over depreciation?

MR. WEBB: We did a lot of discussing when we -- before we made that decision to go that direction, we discussed it a lot, and quite frankly, we didn't see the benefit of putting the kind of resources we're talking about into doing a depreciation type of model.

And, no, sir, to answer the question, we think we're getting just as good a result out of using an asset assessment rather than doing depreciation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions? Any other comments? Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, Zane.

MR. WEBB: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item No. 7 on the agenda will be presented by Thomas Bohuslav.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Behrens. My name is Thomas Bohuslav. I'm Director of the Construction Division.

Item 7(a)(1) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on January 7th and 8th, 2003, whose engineers estimate the cost at $300,000 or more. We had nine projects at about 5.4 bidders per project, and staff recommends award of all projects.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Magnificent.

MR. NICHOLS: What did he say?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Magnificent. It's far below our estimates.

MR. NICHOLS: I don't have any questions, so I'll move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 7(a)(2) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway construction and building contracts let on January 7th and 8th, 2003. We had eight projects. We have 5.5 bidders per project.

We have one bidder we would recommend for rejection, and that's in Jefferson County, and that's Project No. 3230. That bidder submitted -- the apparent low bidder submitted a bid with an error in it, about a $200,000 error in their bid and met the five rule requirements that we have in our rules now, and we recommend rejection of all bids and then go back and rebid the project.

Staff recommends award with the exception noted.

MR. NICHOLS: Does that -- you know, we did some modification of our rules on bidder errors. Does this fit in that category?

MR. BOHUSLAV: This is the meeting that the rules that we changed to address contractor bid errors, yes.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is this another example, Thomas, of how a more enlightened approach to contract management kept a good taxpayer in Texas from having to lose money on a mistake that he couldn't have anticipated?

MR. BOHUSLAV: We look at it -- on these projects from the standpoint of is there any loss to the Department if we go back and rebid this project? Was there any harm to the public? And there was not in this case. We would have just -- it had undue harm on a contractor in this case, and therefore, we recommend the rejection.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So once again, the enlightened approach of the Commission has produced some results intended.

MR. BOHUSLAV: That's right.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thomas, thank you.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda Item No. 8 is a contested case that has come before the Department concerning a salvage motor vehicle's license, and Richard will present that.

MR. MONROE: Thank you, Mr. Behrens.

For the record, my name is Richard Monroe. I'm general counsel for the Texas Department of Transportation.

Among some of the lesser known duties of the Department, imposed on it by statute, is a certain amount of regulation as to salvage yards. This dovetails into the Department's duties as far as registration and licensing of cars and also the regulation of automobile dealers.

In the interest of that, salvage dealers are required to keep certain records. These are primarily of use to law enforcement officers when they're trying to trace things like stolen cars, investigate chop shops, that sort of thing.

This particular individual, Roger Chambers, dba Roger's, did not keep any of the records he was required to keep. Twice in the year 2002, the Beaumont Police Department paid him a visit, even sitting down with him and instructing him how to keep these records.

He still refused; therefore, the case went before SOAH. The SOAH judge agreed with the position taken by the state, that his license should indeed be yanked. That was the finding of the SOAH judge.

I would urge you, by order of the Commission, to affirm that judgment on the part of the SOAH A.L.J.

MR. JOHNSON: Question? Ric, did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. MONROE: Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. BEHRENS: I'd like to go to Agenda Item 9, our routine minute orders and would like to take one of those first, which would be Item 9(c)(1), which would be the sale of a surplus maintenance site that we had in Archer City adjacent to State Highway 79 and pass this part on to you, Mr. Chairman, to recognize a speaker.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This is the guy that owns "The Last Picture Show."

MR. JOHNSON: Signed up to speak, Gary Beesinger --

MR. BEESINGER: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: -- councilman for the City of Archer City. Now, I also have a name of L.B. Boren?

MR. BEESINGER: Junior, city secretary.

MR. JOHNSON: Would both of you like to speak?

MR. BEESINGER: He'll answer any questions. I'm going to speak for the City.

MR. JOHNSON: All right. Councilman, thank you for being here and good morning to you.

MR. BEESINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Commission, a good morning to you. We'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing us to comment today. I'll be as brief as possible.

As you're aware, we are considering Item 9, Section (c)(1) of the agenda, which concerns the sale of the state's surplus maintenance site north of the city to a private business who won the property in a public sealed bid on December 3rd, 2002.

Hope and believe that you do have in your possession a copy of the certified letter from our city and our mayor which was addressed to you, Mr. Johnson, in which we were notifying you that we were filing a protest with the Commission asking that the sale of this site be -- excuse me -- that the sale of this site to the private business be overturned.

I do have a U.S. Postal Service certified mail receipt dated 1-10-02 showing that the letter was received by the Commission.

Our reason for filing this protest goes back to mid 2000 when Mr. Robert Fenoglio, engineer with the Wichita Falls TxDOT office, first contacted the City of Archer City, as well as the two other political subdivisions in Archer City, the County of Archer and the Archer City I.S.D., to notify us of the state's intent to make this property available to one of the subdivisions if an agreement could be reached.

It was at this meeting that we were asked to submit a letter stating our interest in the property. I do have in my possession today a copy of that letter dated June 14th, 2000, which was submitted to Mr. Fenoglio as requested.

At the time of the open house held for the state's new maintenance site facility in Archer City, sometime around late 2001, early 2002, 18 months or more later, we again advised both Mr. Fenoglio and Mr. Joe H. Nelson, district engineer for the Wichita Falls office, of our interest in the property, and we were not made aware at that time of any interest expressed by the other two entities nor that they had responded as was asked to do so.

We again stated that both of those entities had made known to us that they were not interested in that property. We were confident at that time that the City of Archer City would be awarded the property for the appraised price of $65,000.

We continued to wait out this process until the fall of 2002, waiting for the state to act when we were suddenly notified by Wichita Falls engineer, Jeff Warren, in October of 2002 that the property would now be available only through public sealed bid due to the sudden and unexpected interest of the property by the Archer City I.S.D.

This was indeed quite puzzling and perplexing. As we pointed out in the certified letter, we believe that this was the result of a dispute that subsequently arose between the city and the I.S.D. over a water leak on school property, which the city failed to rule in favor of the I.S.D., causing them a significant amount of money.

It is our city's belief it was then that the I.S.D. took steps to advise the state of their interest in the property. We obviously believe that this was done to interfere with the city's legitimate interest in the property since the superintendent of the I.S.D., Mr. Randall Beaver, had previously told the city that they were not interested and would not pursue the property and had not notified the state until this event had occurred.

Again, I would point out that neither the TxDOT office in Wichita Falls, Mr. Fenoglio, nor Mr. Nelson nor Mr. Warren had not received a letter from them until October 2002, when all entities were asked to do so in mid 2000, if they were interested.

This substantiates our belief that the City of Archer City was the only public entity to truly and legitimately express the interest in the property as requested to do so.

What further complicates this matter is that one of the owners of the business, which was awarded the property in the sealed bid, was previously a board member of the I.S.D., in fact, president of the board. He is no longer a member of that board.

This was done at the time that the three entities were originally contacted by the state. It's a well-known fact in our community that this business was interested in the property and knew that their only chance to obtain it would be if there was public bid.

Our investigation into this matter has led us to believe that there was collusion, possible manipulation by several parties to make this possible.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Be real careful what you say on the record.

MR. BEESINGER: Yes, sir.

Since the I.S.D. has previously expressed no interest, was not upset with the city over the matter previously alluded to, we believe that they decided to get involved and that they could not win -- that they knew that the city could not win in this bid process due to our lack of limited funds.

I believe that the winning bid placed by the private business was in the vicinity of 125,000, which was the more than 55 -- which was more -- excuse me -- which the city's bid was 55,000.

I will leave this to you to draw to your own conclusions but would ask you to consider the information presented here.

With the recent news of our state's financial woes and budget cutbacks, we hope the Commission can understand why this course of action would be in the best interest of a whole community and its city officials who are elected and appointed to serve the municipality the most effective way with limited funds and resources, not a single business which does not serve the city.

Awarding the property to anyone other than the City of Archer City would only hurt the city and its citizens in the long run.

An additional $60,000 off the sale of the property is a lot of money. I do agree with that. But, ultimately, does it justify hurting the entire citizenship of the municipality who are also citizens of the state which you serve.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that I also have recently been elected as president of the Chamber of Commerce in Archer City, so I do wear a dual hat here. I represent a conglomerate of business owners who have an interest in how this turns out.

As one of the gentlemen referred to, we are beginning to see a fair amount of visitors and tourists to our fair city due to Mr. Larry McMurtry, who is a world-renowned, Pulitzer Prize winning author, who owns and operates Booked Up, which is one of the world's largest book stores in Archer City.

It's also home to the Royal Theater, which is a national icon, made famous by the movie, "The Last Picture Show," Oscar-winning movie.

And the courthouse there in Archer City, which is, again, the county seat, has recently been awarded -- I believe it was with last year's budget -- one of the courthouse renovation grants, which are rare and hard to come by in these days.

We believe that with all of these facts considered, Archer City, has an attractive draw to it. We feel that the city being able to own this property would only add to the beauty of the city and allow the city to be represented in a fair and decent way, with our current facilities not doing so.

In closing, gentlemen, I'd like to read the next to last paragraph of our certified letter to reiterate our basis and request for this protest.

(Reading) "The city does not wish to deprive any rightful owner to the property but believes that they should be the rightful and legitimate owner based on statements made to them by state officials, that having the property will allow the city to serve its citizens more effectively, allow the city to operate sufficiently through the coming years without having to utilize city funds and tax dollars to offset not having the property.

"Thus, the city is requesting that the sale of the property to the high bidder be overturned, the property be awarded to the city for the opening bid price of 65,000, which is the appraised value that was set by TxDOT on the property, as a sign of good faith and cooperation between the city and TxDOT."

Gentlemen, I want to thank you for your time. Mr. Boren and myself will be glad to answer any questions. If not, thank you for your consideration in this matter.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Boren, did you have anything that you wanted to add?

MR. BOREN, JR.: No. I'm just here to answer questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Clarification?

MR. BOREN, JR.: Not necessarily. He pretty well covered it.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have any questions or --

MR. NICHOLS: I actually have several related to this. Before I ask the councilman a question, I think I'd like to ask my counselor a question.

As I recall, statutorily, when we have a property that becomes available -- I'm asking our attorney -- we are required first to go to other state agencies on surplus property, state agencies, such as D.P.S. Is that a statutory?

MR. MONROE: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Not other state agencies?

MR. MONROE: Right.

MR. NICHOLS: I thought it was, but I knew -- I always -- it was my understanding that when we get into surplus property, it has been a policy, as a courtesy from the Department, to then go to the community and work with the school or the city or the county, because many times, the communities can put these things to work.

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir, that is true.

MR. NICHOLS: But in our policy, that if the community can agree which entity or -- in other words, we have one entity that comes to us, then we would sell it at the appraised value. But if we have an expressed interest from several entities, then we'll go to public bid.

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir, that's a fair statement.

MR. NICHOLS: That's all my questions to you.

In my folder, I've got a copy of a letter dated October from the Independent School District with a declaration of interest in purchasing this. And then in the bid opening December 3rd, just a little over 30 days ago, the Independent School District actually bid on it.

So as late as 30 days -- a little over 30 days ago, they had enough interest that they actually bid on this item.

MR. BEESINGER: I would like to address that, Mr. Nichols.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. And -- so at the time the bid went out, obviously, it is apparent to me that they had enough interest that we had two different entities in the community that were interested in this, so we went to public bid, and the actual private entity that bid on it was almost twice as much as the appraised value.

Okay. What's the population of Archer?

MR. BEESINGER: Approximately 2,000, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. How long have you been on the city council?

MR. BEESINGER: Almost eight years.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I spent, I think, about nine years doing city council work in a small community. It was about 12,000. It's a lot bigger than Archer, but in our community, most of the city council people knew most of the board members of the school.

MR. BEESINGER: That's right.

MR. NICHOLS: And we also knew all the county commissioners.

So usually, we -- I know that I've heard our commissioners preach around the state that when communities can pull together and be in support of things and work as a unit, it is so much easier to get things accomplished.

But in a community, when you have entities pulling in opposite directions, it's really tough to get something done. And in a town of 2,000, as late as a little over 30 days ago, you had the school going one way, and you had the -- it appears to me, the city council going the other way.

MR. BEESINGER: That's correct, Mr. Nichols.

And what I would address to that matter is that, again, I state that I have a letter in my possession dated June of 2000, after we were notified by TxDOT to write a letter of our interest to that property.

Neither one of those other entities ever did so until October of 2002, and it was only the I.S.D. that did so, only after the dispute between the city and the I.S.D.

MR. NICHOLS: But we are not -- I mean, there are so many different disputes and -- I know in our small town, we have disputes on the rare occasion, but we have a stated policy of, if you have different entities in a community that are interested in a surplus property, then we do go out for public bid.

So, in other words, if at that point in time up to the point of the sale, as long as you have different entities, we're going to go to public bid.

So we did pretty much what our stated policy was. And we do have bids, and neither one of those entities that had expressed an interest, school or city, was the high bidder.

MR. BEESINGER: My question that I'd like for you to consider is, if TxDOT did notify us in June of 2002 to express our interest, and, again, the city was the only one that did so at that time, why, in October of 2002, did that request again suddenly go out?

And I've made a point, which, again, the Chairman was kind enough to ask me to be very careful about making any accusations, but I believe the facts, as we believe them, are that there are some other circumstances at work here.

MR. NICHOLS: All right.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have any questions or observations?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. A pretty confusing situation to me, but I have really just one. This property is inside the city limits of Archer City?

MR. BEESINGER: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And what's the tax rate, Archer City tax rate?

MR. BOREN, JR.: .5233 per 100.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So what will this -- what will this add to the city's tax collections?

MR. BOREN, JR.: It's on the tax roll at 66,500.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's on the tax roll?

MR. BEESINGER: I believe that's what he means, its appraised value.

MR. BOREN, JR.: Appraised value.

MR. BEESINGER: He's asking what would it add to us in taxes.

MR. NICHOLS: Don't we still own it, Amadeo?

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: So it's not on the tax roll.

MR. BOREN, JR.: But it's been appraised by our chief -- county chief appraiser at sixty-six five.

MR. NICHOLS: And if U.S.A. Rock Bit -- whoever they are --

MR. BEESINGER: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: -- buys it, it will then go on the tax roll at a hundred and --

MR. BOREN, JR.: 125,000.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So what will that be in tax collections to the city?

MR. BOREN, JR.: Be somewhat over -- 100,000 would be $500 per year.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But if the city bought it, it wouldn't go on the tax rolls, obviously, or if the school district bought it, it wouldn't go on the tax rolls.

MR. BOREN, JR.: Right.

MR. BEESINGER: One of the things that we're considering, Mr. Chairman, is that --

MR. WILLIAMSON: No. The Chairman is here.

MR. BEESINGER: Excuse me. One of the things that we're considering there is that, in the long run, the city will be out much more money to update needed facilities, which we don't really have at this time, more than that tax value will benefit us. That was why we were interested in the property in the first place.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. BEESINGER: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: You know, my observations are, one, I appreciate your coming; two, it's difficult for me, and I would suggest also my colleagues on the Commission, to know the intentions of the parties involved in any dispute or any competition, be it a bid or a negotiation.

And so to try to interject or infuse ourselves in that is something we just can't do. I mean, people do things because they think that's in their best interest to do.

So the intention of the Independent School District to involve themselves in this tract might be, as you contend, that it was a matter of spite, disagreement with a decision that the city council made in Archer City.

And my second point is, is that in spite of everything that's happened, the city still had an opportunity to purchase along with everyone else who elected to bid on the property.

And just as we bid almost all of our work, both maintenance and construction, we have an obligation to have as transparent and as sanitized and secure a bid process. When you go back and you start overturning, you know, the legitimacy of your bid process, it sends out a red flag.

And so, you know, I'm very cognizant of our obligation to protect the bid process, and not knowing the intentions of any of the parties here, and we went through a process, we've come to a conclusion, and my sense is or my vote will be to ratify the conclusion.

I understand perfectly where you're coming from, and it's just an unfortunate situation in my mind that these things happen. I think Robert's alluded to things, when we work together, we accomplish a great more than if we -- when we have differing minds and differing agendas.

MR. BEESINGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do believe that we came down here with the understanding that that would be the action of the Commission, but as Oral Roberts says, you must believe in miracles.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, you're -- you might be omniscient or something.

Any other questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: No more questions. I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Chairman, now that we've acted on that, might I also direct comments to the gentleman?

Is that okay, Mr. Monroe?

MR. MONROE: Certainly.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The chairman said something that was very important, and I just hope you consider it later on.

I suspect all three of us are confused about this, but the single most important thing to the way this department handles the god-awful amount of money it handles is to have procedures in place that are transparent, that are unimpeachable, that everybody understands and believes in, and I went out of my way to compliment ourselves on a previous contract matter in anticipation of your presentation.

It is terribly important to us that we have a system and we follow it in order that no one can accuse us of manipulating the system to the benefit of one or the other.

And in every case, there's -- almost every case, there's a happy person and an unhappy person, or in the case of highway contracts these days, there's one happy person and fifteen unhappy persons.

But everybody walks away knowing that it is unimpeachable. And we hope that you'll take that into consideration as you ponder the decision.

MR. BEESINGER: Thank you, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Anything else?

MR. NICHOLS: Since he made a comment -- are you through?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sure.

MR. NICHOLS: Can I go ahead and make one?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm going to repeat something somebody else said, and that is, we do thank you for coming here.

And I will assure you that I have seen situations where additional information brought by someone at a podium just like that in front of this group has changed the action we were going to take from what was recommended based on input.

So don't think that just because you make a presentation on something that's in a recommendation, that we don't change, because I have seen it quite a bit.

It's unfortunate that in your community, that something that probably would have been beneficial either for the school or for the city is going to end up not beneficial for either because of apparent bickering or disagreements among yourself and your community.

MR. BEESINGER: That's true.

MR. NICHOLS: And it's a perfect example of when you work together, you can do so much more.

MR. BEESINGER: That's very true, and we'll push forward to do so.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you.

MR. BEESINGER: Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, you have the remaining routine minute order listed, and they were all posted, of course, on our agenda as required. If you'd like any of those discussed individually, we'd be glad to do that; otherwise, I'd recommend we approve the remainder of the routine minute orders.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike, has someone checked to be sure that nothing affected in here is anywhere close to what -- where any of the three commissioners might have any assets?

MR. BEHRENS: Yes, sir. And we have seen no conflict.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I didn't see any when I read through it.

What's this about the Robert Nichols Freeway I see here?

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: My only question was on the speed limits that we're changing.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

MR. NICHOLS: I wanted to know if we have any particular spots where we're raising them to 75 so I can mark them on my map.

(Laughter.)

MR. BEHRENS: We have none this month that we're raising to 75.

MR. JOHNSON: I think we're going to 85 in Carter County.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, you boys. Y'all are just not as old as me. When you get a few more years on you, you'll want to slow down.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions about the routine minute orders? Is there a motion to accept and approve?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

I believe we'll have the open comment part of the meeting now, and then as per our agenda that's posted, we will recess for an executive session.

Signed up to speak at the open comment --

(Discussion had off the record.)

MR. JOHNSON: Well, for the record, Carolyn Hyman, I believe, has -- did sign up to speak on traffic repairs on South Broadway and the speed limit, and we're sorry that she was unable to stay.

Chris Chandler from Tyler signed up to speak on the placement of state signs on highways.

Chris, are you here?

Please note for the record that that person also has left.

We will, at this time, recess the meeting for the Commission to meet in executive session pursuant to notice as given in the meeting agenda filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. (Time 11:50 a.m.)

(Executive session held in chambers.) (Time 12:36 p.m.)

MR. JOHNSON: This meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is reconvened.

We have one of our speakers here from the open comment session. The name of Chris Chandler, at least to me, is a famous one. It's the name of a quarterback who played professional football. But even more so, as a TV star newscaster from the Houston area for many, many years, and we have that Mr. Chandler here.

Mr. Chandler, we're glad that you're here. It says you're going to speak on the placement of state signs on highways. The podium is yours.

MR. CHANDLER: Thank you, sir.

My name is Chris Chandler. I'm a lifelong Texan. I was born and raised in Dallas, but I moved to Houston in 1960.

I spent 18 years there in television and radio, and in that time, through a personal interest in highway systems and transportation systems and general subjects, I have thought of a lot of ideas that might be helpful.

But one has always stuck with me in recent years, and I'd like to give it to you gentlemen to see if it goes into the right place.

Essentially, I have found through my experience and experience with talking to groups and other individuals that one of the major problems of Texas highways is the distance of directive signs before, say, exits. There's a lot of arguments pro and con on where they should be placed.

But my feeling has generally been that since the speed limits have changed from 55 and 60 up to 70 miles an hour, at the same time the traffic is increasing in numbers, more lanes, more cars, more trucks, it makes it more and more difficult for people to move from the inside lanes to the outside lanes for exits.

And I think that if you gentlemen could perhaps pass that thought on to the state chief engineer or someone who's actually in charge of placement, that my recommendation would be that all signs of this type be moved to double the distance from those places.

For instance, an exit sign 500 feet from the exit should go to a thousand feet because we find and you, I'm sure, have seen many cases, many near accidents, where people in the middle lanes will suddenly say, "Hey, there's the exit" and dart over to get into the exit, and a huge number of near misses and I'm sure a few accidents caused by it.

I'd like to see all the signs, when possible -- I wouldn't think it would be practical to spend the money to go around and move every sign, but whenever highways are changed or any are built, I would recommend to the chief engineer that he put all exit signs or direction changes double the distance they now have on their book.

They're operating on a book that's nearly 25 years old, as far as where the -- judging the footage back from those places where the signs are.

The other comment that I had was on a similar thing and that was the fact that I feel, from talking to so many thousands of people over a period of years, that the term "exit only" is confusing.

It means to an engineer "get in this lane if you only want to exit," but I think that people are confused by it, and I think it would be helpful to change the designation from "exit only" to "lane ends" or "lane ends at exit," whichever is practical.

I realize that space and things of that sort play a part, but I think it would be hugely helpful to say "lane ends," and everybody will pretty well get on to that. But "lane exit" is confusing.

That's all I have at this time, and I appreciate you gentlemen coming to Tyler to listen to the comments.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, thank you so much for staying around and your patience to make those comments.

One thing that I want to emphasize to you, and for the record, I think, to this Commission and to our departments, safety is one of our watch words. It's a beacon in what we try to accomplish. And so I think your observations are ones that we ought to take into serious context.

Mike, I would just ask you, if you could enlighten us and perhaps Mr. Chandler on what we do in terms of distances and where signs are located on existing facilities, and I think that one of his observations or requests are that on new facilities, we consider lengthening the distance.

But if you could briefly touch on that, and then we'll probably adjourn, unless my colleagues have a comment or question.

MR. BEHRENS: And I think there are two distinctions. There is the existing, what we have in place now, and then what we are building new in the future.

And also, you know, you speak of the manual and our guidances is old. You know, that is being updated, and I know particularly on some of our intersections, we have new guidance on how we place our signs.

But normally, on the existing ones, you know, we try to give guidance, you know, several miles back. The example being if a person is in the inside lane of a freeway, letting him know that maybe two miles down the road is where the exit -- you know, try to give him that name and progressively try to move him over to that exit.

But I appreciate your comments. I think that, you know, especially when you said "exit only," it sort of makes you think, you know, if that is the proper term, and we will definitely take your comments into consideration.

MR. CHANDLER: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Would you accomplish the same thing if you said "exit, dead end"?

Would you accomplish the same thing if you said "exit" and then underneath that "dead end"?

MR. CHANDLER: I'm still not getting you, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You probably wouldn't.

MR. CHANDLER: My hearing is not good.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's okay. My speaking sometimes isn't very good. "Dead end" is not a good term?

MR. BEHRENS: I don't think so.

Robert, did you have any --

MR. WILLIAMSON: How about "exiting this road is not big enough for all the traffic"?

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: One thing I omitted to say is that during the executive session, there was no business that was transacted, and the executive session was concluded with no action being taken on any matter.

Is there any other business that needs to come before the Commission this day?

MR. NICHOLS: Move to adjourn.

MR. JOHNSON: There is a motion.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

MR. JOHNSON: Second to adjourn the meeting.

For the record, please note that it is 12:43 p.m. Meeting stands adjourned, if we'll vote on the motion. So all those in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Great to be in Tyler.

Mary, thank you for all you've done.

(Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission

LOCATION: Tyler, Texas

DATE: January 30, 2003

I, JANET JASPER SIMMONS, CSR, court reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 138 inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcription prepared by computerized stenotype machine and Reporter's Record produced by computer-aided transcription before the Texas Transportation Commission of Texas.

_________________________ JANET JASPER SIMMONS CSR, RPR STATE OF TEXAS Certificate No. 5279 Expires: 12-31-04 RPR No. 816183 Expires: 12-31-03 REPORTING SERVICE, INC. Tyler, Texas 75711 1-800-593-3213