TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, October 29, 1998

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

DAVID M. LANEY, Chairman
ANNE S. WYNNE
ROBERT L. NICHOLS

DEPARTMENT STAFF:

CHARLES W. HEALD, Executive Director
KIRBY W. PICKETT, Deputy Executive Director
MIKE BEHRENS, Assistant Executive Director
for Engineering Operations

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. LANEY: Good morning. The meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is called to order, and I'll 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 3:28 p.m. on October 21, 1998.

Welcome to the October 29, 1998, meeting of the Commission. This is our annual Halloween meeting. We give awards today in the form of project grants for the best costumes, but it doesn't look like anybody is dressed, so we don't have to do any of that business today.

We do have a very full agenda today and a public hearing on the front end of our meeting this morning, followed by two delegations, in addition to the regular business agenda. We'll be hearing from quite a number of people, so we'll need to get started to be able to get through the agenda.

First, however, I'd like to defer to Commissioners Wynne and Nichols to see if they have any comments, but to begin that, I'm going to start with Commissioner Nichols because he has the presentation of a 30-year award to make to Ms. Sallie Burk, I believe. Neither Sallie nor Robert knew that she'd been here that long.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: This is a certificate of service to Sallie Burk for 30 years of service. Sallie began with the Department 30 years ago in the area office in Belton doing gravel tickets, weight tickets, things of that nature; raising a family, things of that nature; went to night school, learned drafting; designed roads, actually did the blueprinting and designing; later went to the district office in Austin and later came to the administration here; and she's been working for me as my assistant. I'm very appreciative of her work.

I do know now how old she is, and according to what she has told me, she came to work for the Department when she was about ten years old.

(Applause; photographs taken.)

MR. LANEY: I would like, also, to spend a moment making a special presentation of my own, and I think on behalf of the Commission, particularly Anne, who had a chance to work with him longer than I did, as well as those who had a chance to work with him during his tenure at TxDOT in his various capacities, and who I'd like to recognize -- and I'd like to ask him to come forward -- is Russell Harding.

Russell, I think you're back there. Russell? I think you're back there. There you go.

I'm going to go ahead while he's walking up, but Russell Harding, until very recently, was Director of Staff Services at the Texas Department of Transportation. He oversaw Management Services, the Office of the General Counsel, Public Information, and Legislative Affairs, and prior to that he had served 17 years as the Executive Director of the Texas Motor Vehicle Commission. That's a long stint, Russell, and an enormous contribution to this organization and to the State.

The most important role, I think, that Russell played of all his roles -- and he began with great training under Jack Brooks in Washington, D.C., so he was toughened up, probably, to deal with the Commission in ways that nobody else was. In any case, the most important role is probably his most unsung role and unrecognized role.

There has been so much fanfare about the progress that Texas has made and the step we've taken forward in connection with TEA-21 and the additional funds coming to Texas because of that, but it all began a good three or four years before that with Russell and Russell's initiative on behalf of the Commission and the Department called Step 21. It is not at all accidental that there is a 21 in the TEA-21 name, followed and derived directly from Step 21, which was really an effort, a very, very difficult and trying effort, led by Russell, to organize a majority of the donor states, if not all of the donor states, and move forward with an initiative that would ultimately emerge at the end of ISTEA as a redefinition or renovation of the formulas by which Federal Transportation funds were distributed to the states.

This was a trying process that absolutely would not have been done, could not have been done, and TEA-21 would not have emerged in its current form without the enormous efforts and untold patience of Russell Harding. He is truly, I think, the hero of Texas on this TEA-21 exercise. And really, Russell, we cannot thank you enough for what you did, and again, so much of it goes unrecognized, but those of us who are watching day in and day out for the three years before the first round of reauthorization of ISTEA -- which was postponed, as you know -- and then the second round of the reauthorization of ISTEA, ultimately picked up by Senator Gramm and taken finally across the goal line. But that ball wouldn't have been there for him to pick up without your efforts, so my compliments to you, and again, our deepest gratitude for all that you've done.

And we have an award for you commemorating all your activities.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Applause.)

MR. HARDING: I think you may have overstated, a little bit, my role, but I was involved in the initial effort the Department made, and if I contributed somewhat to that, I'm very pleased to have done that.

And I would just say, as you well know, that having passed a very favorable piece of legislation is not the end, and we really need to keep vigilant -- and I'm sure you will, through your legislative efforts -- to ensure that some administrative ruling or regulation doesn't undo all of the hard work that we all did, including the work that you Commissioners did, which was invaluable.

But thank you very much. I appreciate your kind words.

MR. LANEY: Don't go anywhere. We've got this, and we need to take a picture or two.

(Photographs taken.)

MR. LANEY: It's just like Russell to say that we overstated his role. I don't think we overstated it at all; he did that terrific a job.

He does mention something that I don't want to leave without appropriate elaboration. There are continuing challenges. One of the challenges, despite the fact that we had an enormous victory in Washington with respect to TEA-21 and it added very significantly to the level of funding, it also adds to the level of our required state match, to the tune of about $180- to $200 million a year, on average, over the next six or seven years.

That means we have to come up with that much money. And the choices are really very simple and very few. We either take it out of existing programs -- which is very likely to be our State Construction Program and Maintenance Program, although we think our Maintenance Program is about as sacrosanct as the federal dollars, so it's likely to be our State Construction Program, which includes farm-to-market rehab, hurricane evacuation routes, our NAFTA discretionary funds, and a number of other things. We don't want to see that contracted.

So we will need your help as we move into the next session in working with the legislature and with DPS to try to develop a solution that allows DPS to be funded by sources other than the Highway Fund. And I'll leave it at that, but it is an enormous challenge facing us, and we need some resolution soon.

Does either Commissioner have anything to offer before we head into business?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: We'll now proceed with the public hearing, but before we start with the public hearing, we have two elected officials with us this morning that would like the opportunity to speak with us before we begin the public hearing, and I'll begin with Senator Buster Brown. Senator Brown, welcome.

SENATOR BROWN: I was hoping there was going to be a public hearing between that budget request and my appearance, but I guess I'll go right into it.

Were I the chair of Finance, I'd give you an answer right now, but since I'm only a member, I'll have to wait till I hear all the evidence.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning in regard to the Grand Parkway Association, the Grand Parkway Segment C item that's on your agenda. And I'm here just to tell you that I represent Harris, Fort Bend, and Brazoria County.

The significant contribution that the Grand Parkway has made to this point and the Segment C, which runs from Highway 59 in Fort Bend County to Highway 288 in Brazoria County, is a significant contribution to that area, mobility-wise.

As you look at the population, Brazoria County has had a very significant growth rate from '90 to '97 of 17 percent growth. Fort Bend, by comparison, has had enormous growth, a 42 percent growth rate during that same period of time. So the population of both counties is just beginning to really expand.

The economic benefit for that area is significant. The 20 miles in Fort Bend County that have been added, the property along the Grand Parkway went from a value of $144 million to a value of $544 million during the construction and completion of that Grand Parkway segment, so a $400 million increase in value on the tax rolls to that county.

A very significant contribution, both in mobility and in economic development, not to mention the reminder we constantly get from Mitch, the hurricane that's out somewhere now, and the evacuation benefits that these new arteries provide for the coastal regions as they develop significantly.

This is an example, I believe, of the kind of cooperation between state and local government, nonprofit associations, the local chambers, and the private industry that are working together to help bring about this significant improvement for our part of the state.

The Texas Department of Transportation and you all have been very kind and very generous to our part of the state, and I appreciate that and hear that response from my constituents. We feel good about what you're doing in my district. I want to thank you for that, and I also want to tell you I'm going to work with you during this upcoming session to try to find the $180- to $200 million that you need, because I think you're doing a good job in providing what we have asked you to do for the people of this state.

So thank you for allowing me to be with you this morning.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Senator. Appreciate you coming.

SENATOR BROWN: You bet.

MR. LANEY: Also, Representative Dennis Bonnen would like to appear before the public hearing.

Representative Bonnen, welcome.

REP. BONNEN: Thank you. I'd also like to thank y'all very much for allowing me to appear before the hearing, but one thing you learn as a freshman representative, when you have a senior senator like Senator Brown, is that there's very, very little usually to add once he finishes. So I'm here to show my support for the same project, the Grand Parkway Project.

I also would like you to know that Representative Uher was not able to be here this morning, but he asked Senator Brown and I to relay to you his comments and his feelings of support for the same project and that he regrets not being able to be here.

But the main point I would like to express to y'all is what Senator Brown touched on, is the fact that we do need this from the standpoint of an evacuation route and an economic development standpoint. The county is growing in Brazoria County, and it's growing more than people, I think, realize. In Fort Bend County, everyone's aware of the growth that's going on in Fort Bend County, so it's very much a necessary project.

And most importantly, what y'all need to know and what we appreciate on your end, is how many comments I hear from the folks who've worked with your Department on this project. It's been incredibly favorable. Y'all have been very supportive and very helpful. And that means a lot to Senator Brown and to myself and Representative Uher, because they don't have to come to us and say: How do you get those guys to work with us?

Y'all have been very easy to work with and very easy to deal with, so we appreciate that. And we'd appreciate your support, and we thank you for everything that you do.

And as Senator Brown said, I'm not on the Appropriations Committee either, but I look forward to working with you in helping you get the funding you need. Thank you for allowing me to speak this morning.

MR. LANEY: Thanks.

We'll now proceed with the public hearing.

(Whereupon, at 9:29 a.m., the meeting was recessed to convene public hearing.)

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

10:01 a.m.

MR. LANEY: We will now move into the delegation presentation portion of our Commission meeting. And I would like to remind the delegations to use all of your effort available to try to hold your presentations within the 20-minute time limitation, and that applies to all the delegations.

HOOD COUNTY

(Cliff Moody, Rep. Jim Keffer, David Southern, Sen. David Sibley)

MR. LANEY: The first delegation this morning is the Transportation Committee of Hood County to discuss improvements of State Highway 144 south of Granbury and construction of the northwest quadrant of Loop 567. I'll call on Mr. Cliff Moody to lead off this presentation.

Mr. Moody.

MR. MOODY: Chairman Laney and members of the Commission, the Hood County Delegation has appointed a spokesperson to represent us and introduce the entire program. We feel that that will be very productive and limit it to one person to make the presentation and do an adequate job, and I think you will appreciate that approach.

MR. LANEY: Thank you. Appreciate it.

MR. MOODY: Thank you very much.

REP. KEFFER: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for letting us be here. Commissioner [sic] Heald, I'm sorry that you and I didn't get in the group pictures when they were doing all this here; if we would have worn costumes, we could have been in there. Maybe we could've done that, but Happy Halloween.

And I'll tell you, 30 years of commitment and loyalty to any institution in this day and time certainly is commendable, and congratulations.

I want to thank you again for letting us be here -- and by the way, my name is Representative Jim Keffer from District 60 -- excuse me -- for allowing Mayor of Granbury, David Southern, and Senator David Sibley and myself the opportunity to emphasize the need to expedite the construction of the Northwest Loop or Loop 567.

Hood County and the City of Granbury are very unique within the district I represent. Unlike most of the House District 60, Hood County, and in particular the City of Granbury, are experiencing rapid population growth. In fact, Hood County is of the top 10 percent growing counties throughout our nation. As a result of this population growth, an increase in traffic congestion has ensued.

While I've been an elected official only a short time, I've already learned the necessity of tackling problems before they become too large to alleviate, and that it's better to be proactive than, of course, reactive. In regard to the construction of the loop, we would not only save money by acting now, but would also ensure the health and safety of the citizens of Hood County.

A year and a half ago, county commissioners and city leaders unified to determine a proactive plan that would alleviate these foreseen traffic problems. The result of their extensive research has convinced me -- and what you will see in a short time -- that the Northwest Loop is the best solution to this problem.

It is my firm belief that we can no longer neglect this issue, and on behalf of Hood County and the City of Granbury, I encourage you to expedite the construction of Loop 567.

With this said, please let me turn this presentation over to the Granbury mayor, the Honorable David Southern.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Thank you. I'd like to thank the Commission for hearing us today. I'd like to take just a minute to introduce some people in the audience.

We have all four of our county commissioners here -- if you would please stand. Bob Anderson, Ron Cullers, Kenneth Umphress, and Cliff Moody. We have also have city councilmen, our Mayor Pro Tem Cissy Wilson; Council Person Lisa Johnson; we also have Councilman Scott Lancaster. Is that everyone that's here? Yes. And if everyone else would please stand. Everyone from Granbury.

We just wanted to show the Commission how seriously we support this project and how much it is needed. The Granbury North Loop and 144 widening project is the discussion, and we'll go ahead with a Power Point presentation at this time.

As you can see on your monitor, this is our square area, and this is an area where a number of highways come together: Highway 51 and 4 to the north; Highways 377 Business also comes into this square; and 144 to the south feeds into this square down the business portion of 377.

This is brought to you by the Granbury/Hood County Intergovernmental Coalition, the Transportation Committee. This group is made up of all governmental bodies in Hood County.

I'll tell you a little bit about our county. Of course, Mr. Heald -- Commissioner Heald knows about our county; he drove through there all the time on his way to Fort Worth when he was in Brownwood. And our county seat is Granbury. Comanche Peak is not only a plateau that is there, but also a nuclear power plant that's in our community, and that nuclear power plant has, we believe, inadequate evacuation possibilities.

Our historic square was the first in Texas to be on the National Register and was the model under Governor Clements for the Texas Main Street Program. Tourism is our leading industry, and that was really begun with Lake Granbury that was built almost 30 years ago. That has resulted in a lot of rapid population growth. Growth in the retired sector has been part of the issue for the rapid population growth. We have a recognized school system that's bringing lots of new young families into our community. The Metroplex is expanding, as you know.

The raise in the 70-miles-an-hour speed limit to 70 miles an hour really caused a lot more people to feel they could commute to jobs in the Metroplex from Granbury, so that's increasing our population.

People staying at home and working through the Internet but staying on the streets in our community is also, we think, a factor in the future. And, of course, most moved to Granbury for the quality of life that we have there, the recreational opportunities.

You can see our population has grown dramatically. In 1970 we were a county of only 6,000 people; we nearly tripled in the '70s to 1980; we were the fastest-growing county in the 1970s in the nation in percentage growth. We grew another 60-some-odd percent in the '80s. We believe our growth has accelerated again and that we will double our population in the '90s. And then beyond that, we are horrified by the prospect of how many people will actually be living in our community, but we realize that they are coming and that we must provide an infrastructure adequate to manage them.

MR. LANEY: We can control that population if we just shut down the roads into Granbury.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: That's right. Well, actually, it has been discussed putting up signs on the road to detour traffic out of the community, but hopefully that won't happen.

Increased population is a big factor in the traffic increases. Our growing tourism traffic is another factor. Our healthy state and area economy is another factor; it's increasing the commercial vehicles dramatically. NAFTA rerouting has started on 377, because of the crowding of the interstates. And because 377 integrated with 67 does end up at the border, we are seeing a lot of NAFTA trucking in our community.

We are having a lot of increased commuters. When I first moved to Granbury in 1980, most people who lived there worked there. Now the majority of the working population works in the Metroplex and commutes. The Metroplex is expanding at a tremendous rate, and that is increasing our area. We are part of the Fort Worth SMA.

The transportation priorities that we've set as the Transportation Committee are the North Loop, both the west section and the east section. The west section has been funded, but has been delayed. It was originally started about 13 years ago; it's been delayed several times.

We really started this presentation when we were notified by our area office that we would probably be looking at another year delay. It is scheduled currently for June of '99 to begin construction, and when we found out that there was a possibility that it would be delayed till 2000 is when we began preparing this demonstration.

The east section is also proposed, but has not been funded. That section actually will carry more traffic, perhaps not as much truck traffic, although that's probably close. But it will carry the bulk of the traffic.

The 144 widening project is our other major priority, the Phase 2. Phase 1 has been funded and construction's scheduled to begin next August, I believe. But from Contrary Creek Road to County Road 2425 has not been funded, and that's our other priority.

As you can see from the map, Granbury was a small, sleepy town for a long time, and we only have two major highways: US 377 with the business route on the top going through the square, and then 144 to the south. The red dotted line in the loop fashion is up on your upper left-hand side; that is the northwest portion which is funded. The northeast portion on your right-hand side has not been funded.

You may ask why it goes in so narrowly into 377, and that is to utilize the Pearl Street Bridge on Business US 377. Without utilizing that bridge, a new bridge would double the cost of this construction to go across the lake.

That's also why there is not a southeast portion to our loop; it would necessitate a very long, high bridge across the lake, so we're looking at other alternatives for that. But the southwest portion, we'll be back at a later time to ask you for that route.

There are lots of reasons for the North Loop. The safety is our biggest concern. The traffic that comes through there, many commercial vehicles, many dairy trucks go very close to the buildings on the square. That's another reason: our historic preservation of those buildings. We've read of a community in Vermont where the continual heavy truck traffic has destroyed their downtown square area by the vibration that has caused the buildings to deteriorate more rapidly.

Congestion is becoming a major problem, and dramatic traffic growth, as I'll show you in just a minute, as well as economic stability. We depend on tourism in our community. That tourism is mostly located around our lake and on our square. If our square is so congested that tourists cannot get there, then mostly, those businesses will be just watching the traffic go by.

As you can see, our 377 Business traffic growth has been dramatic. Just the '96 estimates that you all have provided the traffic counts was at 10,500. Your preliminary '97 studies show it at about 12,500. We did our own count this year and found that it was at 13,500. By 2001, it will be close to 18,000 cars per day on just going through one particular route that comes through the square.

Also, 51 and 4 North also go through the square. You can see there's a similar pattern of traffic growth on that street, as well.

The North Loop, as I showed you -- this is a close-up of that loop structure. The northwest portion on your left has been funded. We would like for that to continue on its current path for June of next year. The northeast portion we would like to get funded as soon as we can.

The reason for the other project that we're here to discuss, the 144 South expansion, Phase 2, is dramatic increases in traffic there as well. I'll show you in just a minute. There is really high-speed traffic since the 70-mile-an-hour speed limit that has really complicated this road for us a great deal, because there are very poor passing corridors on it and people are traveling at a high rate of speed.

There is continued projected rapid population and traffic growth, particularly on that side of the county. Pecan Plantation, which is our largest residential development, is also the largest homeowners' association in the state now -- all predominantly use this road to access into the City of Granbury.

It's also a nuclear disaster evacuation route. We have a nuclear power plant located just down the road. It's only ten miles from the center of Granbury and only a couple of miles from Pecan Plantation. And we believe, with the increased population, we really do not have the capability to evacuate in case of a nuclear disaster.

The traffic growth -- I'll show you here -- has been tremendous on that roadway as well, and is approaching the 25,000-car point in just three years' time. We're right now at over 18,000 cars per day.

This is the portion of the road -- from the dotted line on down to the south to the number 16,000 is the portion of the road that we're talking about in the second phase. That southwest loop we will need at a later date to assure that we can evacuate all the people out 377 to Stephenville, which is the evacuation route for that area.

I wanted to also show you the traffic growth on our main artery, 377. We are already up to about 35,000 cars a day. Your '97 preliminary data showed 33,000 cars a day. We believe we've grown that other 2,000 cars a day since that time. By the year 2000, you can see that we'll be approaching 40,000 cars a day on that. That's more cars than travel I-20 between Weatherford and Abilene.

A review of our needs: The first thing is to keep the June '99 start for the western portion of the North Loop; funding for the eastern portion of the North Loop as soon as possible -- that cost will be almost $5 million -- 4.9 million; funding Phase 2 of the 144 widening project which will be an $8.7 million cost.

Our future depends on you. This roadway was built just in the mid-'80s. It was the second bridge for the 377 through our community. You may notice there's only one car on that bridge right now, because this picture was made shortly after that time. Today, 29,000 cars cross that bridge every day, cars and trucks, many of them commercial vehicles, and the future of Granbury is really in your hands.

We're going to do a video presentation now, followed by Senator Sibley.

(Whereupon, a videotape was shown.)

SEN. SIBLEY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is David Sibley, State Senator from District 22. I'm not really a truck driver, but I play one on television.

Let me say I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to advocate for this position. I think you earlier said that we could shut down the growth of Hood County by shutting down the highways. I think Austin showed that that doesn't work. In the '70s and '80s, they tried that tack, and I think they're still paying for it. And as you know, it's easier to stay out of trouble than get out of trouble; and, unfortunately, I believe that Granbury and Hood County is already in trouble.

Let me just conclude the presentation by making an appeal for safety considerations, congestion considerations and because of the dramatic growth, not to mention the Granbury Opry on that beautiful square, that if you would give attention to this, it would be appreciated. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Senator Sibley.

Does that conclude the presentation?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Yes. That concludes it.

MR. LANEY: We appreciate the time and effort put into the presentation. I think it really helps us focus on something that, quite honestly, I was not aware of until we saw the briefing materials and had a chance to see all of the trucks that drive through there.

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: It was effective, even if it was voluminous.

But let me call on the other two members of the Commission to see if they have any comments or questions. Mr. Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: I was also going to compliment you on a good presentation. And I'd also like to thank all of you who went to the trouble to come to Austin from your community. It shows a real support by the community, and I know it's a great effort to leave your work and your jobs and things like that, take a day to come down here to be with us for a short period of time, and I want y'all to know we appreciate that.

Also, the Granbury stone that is used in your courthouse is the same stone I had my house built with. I see that stone quite often.

I have two questions. One was the -- so many times when we get into loops or bypasses for communities, communities sometimes indicate that they want it, and then when it comes to city resolutions, they get into squabbles in a community. Have y'all gone through local public hearings?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: We have. We have done resolutions that we're going to present you now with a notebook that has all the resolutions that both the school board, the city council, and the County Commissioners Court have passed, involving these loops. I think the lack of opposition is apparent that there really isn't any opposition to this project. We have publicized it a great deal in the paper and had a lot of people come in and talk about it at our resolution hearings, and have had nobody being opposed to the North Loop.

MR. NICHOLS: I think that's real important. The other thing I was going to ask is, I think most everyone is aware -- we certainly have been trying to make everybody aware that on our transportation funds we are quite short and not able to fund all the projects that really are needed. We have a lot of very good projects. And it's a very easy thing to ask for money, if it's someone else's money. When you get into a vested interest yourself, that shows another step, a level of commitment from a community.

The legislature has asked us to try to find ways to stretch our money, to leverage our money, things of that nature, and we have on many projects that are good, where communities are trying to get a step up, they offer to participate at a higher level in a project than is required under our rules. Have y'all given consideration to that?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Yes. In fact, a few years ago, the County committed to 50 percent of the right-of-way acquisition and the utility movement for the Northwest Loop in order to expedite the project, and they're still committed to that. We also, the County and City, are committed to doing the same thing on the northeastern section of the loop in order to get it funded.

So we are willing to go beyond -- that's a total contribution on the northeast loop of about, I believe, around $800,000 -- I'm not sure on that figure. But we are making a local contribution. If we need to make a larger one, we can certainly look at that and try to do that.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have an economic development sales tax in your community?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: No, we do not. We're not allowed to do that, because we have a half-cent to lower property. Now, the County could add and the unincorporated City outside of Granbury could pass an economic tax. We are limited in the City, because we're at the maximum tax rate at 8-1/4 cents.

MR. NICHOLS: Well, I would recommend that y'all might want to consider what you could participate in at a higher level, which I think would be received in a very positive manner.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Okay. We'll certainly look at that, and we'll ask the county commissioners to try and do the economic tax to help with that.

MR. NICHOLS: That's all that I have.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Anne, do you have any comments?

MS. WYNNE: No.

MR. LANEY: What are the reasons for such a lengthy delay in the project?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Well, there have been delays on both sides. Originally, the former county judge delayed the project because the routing was an issue. We have had extensive public hearings, I think last year, over the routing, and it has been concluded that the route is adequate. That was part of the reason for the delay.

The other is we've been told that the area offices lack the personnel to actually, you know, get everything ready. They don't have enough personnel, I think, in that office, or this has not been a priority for them to get the plans and acquire the rights-of-way and that sort of thing for this particular project.

Some of the other projects that we really didn't want as badly as this have been funded and begun, and I think it's just a matter of making sure the local community's involved and what's the priority for the local community. But it's been on both sides, the delays.

MR. LANEY: Thank you very much.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Just as a matter of information, if you all have not been through this process before, we don't make decisions with respect to these projects immediately upon hearing presentations from delegations, but we will absolutely take this under real close attention and scrutiny. And I think it's something that we should try to move forward on if we can, one way or the other.

But I would also reiterate what Mr. Nichols just said about local contribution being a significant measure of the level of commitment and interest. And right-of-way is a great start, and that may be all it takes, but I think we should make sure that we're in touch with you all, and vice versa, with respect to figuring out a way to move this from here to reality.

So thanks very much.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: We will take a five-minute recess and allow the Hood County Delegation to move out and Port Arthur to move in. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

GREATER PORT ARTHUR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

(Bob Bowers, Judge Carl R. Griffith, Waymon Hallmark, Mayor Oscar Ortiz)

MR. LANEY: We call the meeting back to order.

Our second delegation this morning is the Greater Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce to discuss construction of State Highway 87 in Jefferson County. I'll call on Mr. Bob Bowers to lead off the presentation.

Mr. Bowers, welcome.

MR. BOWERS: Good morning, and thank you, Commissioner Laney and Member Wynne and Mr. Nichols, and also to the new engineer/director. We used to call him the chief engineer or state highway engineer. Mr. Heald, we're glad to see you on board here.

We have a good presentation today and we have a good team here from Southeast Texas, and if you'd allow me to have them to stand and let me tell you who each one of them is -- they're very important, they're very energized about highway and transportation issues in Southeast Texas. Would the delegation please get up.

Our County judge, who will speak later, Carl R. Griffith; Mayor of Port Arthur, Oscar Ortiz, and his wife is Carol -- she's so short, hold up your hand, please -- Ms. Ortiz; Jefferson County Commissioner Waymon Hallmark; the County Engineer, John Cannatella; the City Manager of Port Arthur, Mr. Steve Fitzgibbons; and we have a little dynamo back here, you can't hardly see her, Verna Rutherford, she's the president of the Chamber of Commerce and a real asset to Southeast Texas.

This is our group, and several of them are going to speak in the program today. We're also going to try to speed up the process. We don't have trucks that can go around our courthouse, so I hope we can make this interesting to you.

We have three parts to the presentation today. The first part will have to do with Highway 87, the Beach Highway, and it is the most important today. We're going to touch on two other issues that are important to us and that will come back from time to time.

The second item is Highway 69. There's a corridor study underway by the Department from about Lumberton north of Beaumont to the next highway district in Lufkin, and we want to talk about that and encourage you to finish that.

And then we have some projects that are underway that Commissioner Hallmark is going to give you a status on and show our appreciation for.

So let me start off by introducing County Judge Carl R. Griffith, and he's going to talk about Highway 87, which is the project we want to emphasize today.

JUDGE GRIFFITH: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'd first like to present y'all with a letter to enter into the record from Congressman Lampson. He's tied up in session and couldn't be here, but he's been very, very active in working with us on this. If it's all right for me to approach?

MR. LANEY: Please. Thank you.

JUDGE GRIFFITH: I have to give you a little history to understand why 87 has been important to me and to the citizens of Port Arthur and all of Jefferson County. For eight years, I served as the Sheriff of Jefferson County, and prior to that I was an employee of the Sheriff's office as a deputy. I had been in law enforcement for about 20 years prior to becoming County Judge two years ago.

The weakest link for our citizens as far as safety in our community and all of Jefferson County was Highway 87, because of the fact that there's about 2,000 people in Sabine Pass at any given time. There's only one road out of that city, one road that goes over a high bridge on the Intracoastal Canal and goes through two refineries that at times -- several times, have closed off that road and made access impossible to the City of Sabine Pass or for the people of the Sabine Pass to leave.

We've had barge traffic that has damaged the bridge that has shut down the highway for some period of time, for like 24 to 36 hours. And just this past storm that went in over in New Orleans brought the surge up high enough on 87, the northbound side, which is rather low coming out of Sabine Pass, and closed that highway for some two to three days.

So it's a substantial problem, and so when I came in as County Judge, I asked our County Engineer why was Highway 87 not rebuilt, since that highway has been in that community since the 1860s -- as far back as the 1860s they showed it on maps. And what I found out was the county had a number of projects going on at the time, and the agreement that they had made with TxDOT -- actually, as I went into it, I assumed that the money was still available -- but the agreement that they had made with TxDOT was that TxDOT said, If you go get a 404 permit and pay, I believe, 10 percent of the right-of-way acquisition, then we'll build the highway to the tune of about $20 million.

And so I immediately called the congressman, and that was about January of 1997, and said, We need your help; we want to see what we can do and see if we can get also some federal help, because we're going through some federal refuges, and we'd like to rebuild that road. And he took it and ran with it, actually, because he's called meetings every single month since January, just about -- we may have missed one or two -- with all the federal agencies involved, the Corps of Engineers, everyone has been there, including TxDOT, and tried to work through one, an EA.

Ultimately, we just found that we would have to do an EIS, and the County has put aside a million dollars to work on this. And also, Congressman Lampson was able to secure out of this past highway bill another million dollars to help make sure that we were able to make this project work.

And so what I ask of you -- a minute order was entered, I believe in 1989 or 1990 -- I'm just asking you to reactivate that, if that's the procedure that you take, or however it takes to get Mr. Crook, our engineer, the money back in place for us to build that highway, because we are moving forward with that and attempting to secure that 404 permit, and are expending substantial amounts of money -- the County is already -- trying to make this thing happen.

And for the safety of those folks, the economy of that community -- Sabine Pass has basically died since that highway closed -- a state park that's down there, their tourism, the population that has gone through there since it has closed has dropped over 50 percent.

There's many, many things that have occurred there, and a lot of money is being spent in that area. One of those plants that sits right on this highway is about to spend $750 million. And to tell you how vital it is to our infrastructure there, our community was written up in the Wall Street Journal last April. And because our community has worked together in the last year, since August of '97, we kind of formed a coalition between the cities and the counties and Partnership of Southeast Texas, and has seen an investment total in a little over one year of $3.4 billion in Jefferson County alone.

And so with all the new traffic that's there, with the problems that the people face in Sabine Pass every single day of their lives, not knowing whether something is going to hit that bridge, and it's a disaster waiting to happen. And I encourage you to do whatever you can do to help us solve this problem by considering to reactivate this order. And I appreciate it.

Do you have any questions of me?

MR. LANEY: I don't think so. Questions, Anne? Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I was in Beaumont. We met on this last summer, just a little over a year ago. On the east end of 87, as it goes into Port Arthur or somewhere in there, there's a huge refinery?

JUDGE GRIFFITH: Correct. There's two of them that are joined together on that road.

MR. NICHOLS: And that road -- basically, if anything happens right in there, as I understood it, that road is shut down on that end.

JUDGE GRIFFITH: And it has been.

MR. NICHOLS: And there literally is no other access off 87; anything in there is trapped. Is that correct?

JUDGE GRIFFITH: That's absolutely correct. And then you've got the Intracoastal Canal Bridge right before that that has shut down, along with those plants -- have shut that road down for several lengthy periods of time.

And also, to tell you, Chambers County and Galveston Counties, I think you should have in your packets resolutions from both those counties, because it has impacted them negatively in the last nine years that it's been shut down.

MR. NICHOLS: The next question has to do with on the environmental process, because that roadway was built so close to the beach in the first place, every time the beach goes, the road goes. I know the district engineer was hoping to move further inland.

JUDGE GRIFFITH: That was the agreement. We will move it in to have at least a 20-year life span at the current erosion rate, which is approximately eight to ten feet a year, so roughly 200 to 300 feet inland.

MR. NICHOLS: But at the time, I remember in the discussions, you -- there was some concern in the environmental assessment, because it went through a dunes and pretty sensitive environmental area, whether or not at the end of the environmental thing you would be able to move it back that far. Have you determined whether you can move back that far?

JUDGE GRIFFITH: We're approaching it that that's what we need to do. That's the way we're completely going at it with our EIS is to move it in, and I've given them an alternative from Fish & Wildlife is that either we can move it in 300 feet or we can move it in 200 feet from the date -- from the time the permit is issued, and basically it may be the same number of feet. I don't believe exactly but just considering the erosion rate, I expect it could be two years before we complete this process. And so just to be on the safe side, we want to make sure it's a 20-year life span.

MR. NICHOLS: That's all the questions I have.

MR. LANEY: Thanks.

JUDGE GRIFFITH: Thank you very much. Appreciate your time.

MR. BOWERS: Thank you, Judge.

The next item that we'd like to talk to you about is the corridor study that you have underway on Highway 69 that goes up to the Lufkin District from Beaumont, and the district engineer has provided public meetings at three locations along the corridor so that the public would have an opportunity to be informed about the study and what the possibilities are.

There have been a series of three public meetings held in three locations. The Lufkin District, I believe, has the last five or ten miles, and so it's not a major problem there. But in addition to the public meetings, there's been a corridor study office opened in the middle of the area which is about Kountze.

There's been an engineer designated with the responsibility of answering questions, responding to the cities and the counties and the public. So it's been a very good process.

I've attended most of the meetings, and I know that the quality of information that's presented and the form that it's presented -- I'm an engineer by trade, but I know that this information is very easy to understand. There are aerial photographs and maps, colored maps, and a verbal description. So I know the public has been well informed.

The problems with the county and the problems with the city have carried over from the public meetings, and the district engineer and his staff have met with those people. And there's one area there that there's hardly any acceptable solution, but they've worked very carefully with all the counties and cities to resolve the problems, and I think they have got them resolved.

So our plea here is that you continue with that study, that you finish it, and then that you go into the natural programming and funding process that will take a number of years. We're prepared to come and support it for years and years, and it will be a long-term project, but we'd like to get the planning done so that the decision is made to go ahead and do it.

I'd be happy to try to answer any questions about Highway 69, the corridor study, if you'd be interested. It serves Jefferson County and Southeast Texas as a hurricane evacuation route. It serves our three ports in Beaumont, Orange, and Port Arthur as connections to the NAFTA trade that's going on Highway 59 in Lufkin now.

And Highway 59, as you know, is the imaginary I-69 route through East Texas, so it's a NAFTA connection for our ports, if you will.

And then if you drive in East Texas at all, you'll know that there's a deficiency there in East Texas of having a good north-south access road for just ordinary people, and so it will provide a four-lane access road north and south. It will get us from Interstate 10 up to 20 and 30 up in the Dallas area. So it's very important to Southeast Texas.

Our last report is a status report and the thank you report. It's going to be done by Commissioner Waymon Hallmark, and he's going to tell you about some work that you've considered in the past and where it is now and how we appreciate the work the Department is doing.

Mr. Hallmark.

MR. HALLMARK: Good morning. Waymon Hallmark, and it's good to see you again from our meeting in Beaumont a couple of years ago.

Anyway, I want to talk to you a little bit about the Highway 73 project that is now underway. It's moving along on schedule. What it's going to mean to Port Arthur and our community there to have a safe four-lane highway coming in and out of south county -- we have probably the largest two-berth port in the nation in amount of tonnage that we do there.

So we have passed a bond issue to increase this to a five-berth port and the amount of goods, commerce coming in and leaving the port now will have a safe divided four-lane facility to come in and out on safely.

We also have the offshore industry picking up there, that about 3,000 people are working on these projects right now that a lot of them are commuting in and out on these offshore rigs. We also have two plant expansions that have been announced that's going to represent about $2 billion to our economy in south county. They will need over 4,000 workers on these facilities at peak times. We cannot support that many workers. A lot will have to be commuting in and out of this facility, so all of this is going to mean so much to having this four-lane completed.

Also, a hazardous waste incinerator is out on Highway 73 that they burn every kind of hazardous waste known to man. The latest is some napalm that they're getting in from the Navy and burning it in this facility, and it's coming in on a two-lane road.

What it could mean for the safety of people traveling that highway with these goods coming in, also Lamar University, Port Arthur, and the kids that are coming in and commuting there. We just thank you so much for your seeing fit to have this facility done and what it's going to mean to our area.

Another one I'd like to talk about is the Spur 93 project that goes from Highway 73 north to Beaumont to Cardinal Drive or Highway 69. This was a narrow two-lane road, no paved shoulders, deep ditches on either side, probably one of the most dangerous roads that we had in the county. It is since being made into a four-lane.

It's going to service not only the workers coming south to Port Arthur to work, but also we have five prisons located off of this highway, four state, one federal. The federal prison will be the largest federal facility in the country. And it will mean so much now that these workers, vendors, visitors going there can go in and out safely and what it will mean to our economy to have this facility opened up.

The next is the Highway 365 expansion into Port Neches. There also will be a grade separation project, an overpass started on this facility in the very near future. My hat's off to Walter Crook and his staff and Robert Connors for having to deal with three different mayors to come up with a plan that would fit and make everyone happy. And they did a great job of doing this.

And we're looking forward to seeing this completed and looking forward to working with you on other projects as they come forth, but we're just simply here to thank you for seeing fit to fund these programs. And Chairman Laney, for you funding the third phase of the Spur 93 project while you were down in Beaumont at that day. And we thank you so much.

MR. LANEY: Thanks; appreciate it.

MR. BOWERS: Thank you, Commissioner Hallmark.

Mr. Laney, we have the mayor of Port Arthur, my boss, who is elected, and I'd like to get him in under the rules of the Commission, if I can, or I can't go back home.

(General laughter.)

MR. BOWERS: Mayor Ortiz.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Thank you.

Commissioner Laney, Commissioner Wynne, Commissioner Nichols. I want to thank you so very much for allowing me to come up here. Some of the remarks that I'm going to make are very quick and short, hopefully to the point, and I have these put down on paper. I'd like to hand them to you that you can have them.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

MAYOR ORTIZ: The State's largest department, Transportation, provides counties, cities and the public the opportunity to make requests, present transportation needs, and to participate in transportation matters at the highest level. Open, accessible members of the Commission and Transportation staff are present to be informed and responsive. This is a very fair and valuable public process.

Today is the fourth year that the Southeast Texas Task Force has appeared before the Commission to support the Southeast Texas Intermodal Transportation Plan. This plan contains United States Highway 69 which is so important for hurricane evacuation and north-south ingress and egress to Southeast Texas.

The City of Port Arthur strongly supports adequate funding at the national and state level for our transportation system and will work against the practice of diversion of transportation-generated revenues to other uses at the national and state level.

And I would just remind you what Commissioner Hallmark said, and what Judge Griffith said, in the City of Port Arthur, of that $3 billion that is going to be done in Jefferson County, $2 billion of it is going to be done in the city of Port Arthur which translates to about 4,000 workers that we're going to have working in the city of Port Arthur, coming in, more than likely the majority of them, on Highway 69 at our north end.

So we hope that you continue the funding for the study for Highway 69 so we can complete that, because we feel in the next three to five years we're going to have a tremendous load on that highway coming in.

So in conclusion, the welfare and the safety of our people in and around Jefferson County lie in your hands. I believe in my heart that this Commission will be receptive to our requests and to our needs. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Mayor.

MR. BOWERS: Thank you, Mayor Ortiz.

Mr. Commissioner, can I approach?

MR. LANEY: Please.

MR. BOWERS: I have a document here from the Civil War records, and what the document shows is that in 1864 there was a road from Galveston to Sabine Pass -- that far back there was a road. And we feel like that the early explorers in that area traveled along the beach, so we're committed to get the Beach Highway rebuilt; we're not going to give up on it.

Let me ask the team here now if I've forgotten anything. Does anybody --

I'm going to conclude real quickly. Four years ago we presented the intermodal plan; Highway 69 is a part of that. You have it in your records. We will be back next year for our annual meeting, and when we go home we're going to talk about building support to invite the Commission back down to the Jefferson County in the year 2000. We had a Commission meeting there last year, and we certainly had a lot of interest raised by that. And we're going to get a united effort to invite you back in the year 2000. We know that you're booked up for 1999, and we have confidence that we'll make it past that January 1, 2000.

Do you have any questions?

MR. LANEY: Do you have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I just had a comment, really. On the 69 corridor that you're talking about, divided four-lane going up north several counties, under the Texas Trunk System Phase 1 Corridor Program, which was adopted by the Commission this past year, there was a commitment to fund the development over a period of ten years and lettings for that entire corridor. I don't know if you're aware of that, but I think Walter Crook in the Beaumont District has that schedule.

MR. BOWERS: Yes, sir. Walter, the district engineer, is back here. He doesn't know whether he is with us today or whether he's with the Department, so he's kind of distanced himself.

(General laughter.)

MR. BOWERS: But he and the public information officer, Marc Shepherd, are back there. But yes, we do know that, but we're going to come back and just remind you every year, you know, so that you won't forget us and put all that money around the courthouse in Granbury.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. BOWERS: Thank you so much for having us up here today, and we'll see you next year.

MR. LANEY: Thanks for coming; appreciate the presentation very much. And Walter can't get any farther away from you than he is right now. Let me just say I appreciate the --

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Anne, do you have any questions?

MS. WYNNE: No.

MR. LANEY: This coastal Highway 87 has been an issue for a year and a half or so, at least, as presented to me. Before we ever got down there, some people from the General Land Office were pushing it very hard. And the biggest concern I had at the time, aside from the environmental difficulties, was how close it was and how short-lived our investment would be.

So I'm delighted to hear you're looking at some route that at least 300 feet or so farther inland. It will make all the difference in terms of the feasibility. Otherwise, it makes no sense for us to pile $20 million into a rehab or rebuild of that road only to have it disappear. So we appreciate that very much.

MR. BOWERS: We agree.

MR. LANEY: Thank you very much. We're going to recess for five more minutes and allow you all to move out.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

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

11:15 a.m.

MR. LANEY: The delegation portion of the meeting has now been concluded, and we'll proceed with the regular business of the meeting.

The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the regular Commission meeting held on September 24, 1998, and the special meeting held on October 13, 1998. Any comments or questions about either sets of minutes?

MR. NICHOLS: I move we adopt.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion to adopt. Can we have a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: We have a second. All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Wes, if you will take that one item out of order and proceed, please. Thanks.

MR. HEALD: In moving on with our business meeting, we're going to go to Item 10(c)(1) Highway Designation, El Paso County. Representative Joe Pickett is going to be the speaker.

REP. PICKETT: This will be short. I don't need the three minutes, but I do want to clarify something that Chairman Laney brought to my attention. Kirby is not my uncle. It's an inside joke, but some could construe it wrong. Wes Heald is not my godfather, and Commissioner Wynne is not my younger sister.

MS. WYNNE: He didn't say his mother; he's very well prepared.

REP. PICKETT: Although I would be very glad to claim that.

(General laughter.)

REP. PICKETT: This is an item that's been around for many, many years as an FM and this is one of the things that I alluded to earlier about the relationship with Austin TxDOT, TxDOT El Paso and trying to work through a problem for us.

This particular community -- this is the only transportation project they've got going in the town of Anthony, Texas. And this redesignation to a state highway -- I believe it's going to be a state highway spur -- state highway spur, I believe, is the actual -- I'm just here to let you know that Mayor Franco asked me to be here.

He showed up a couple of months ago; he's at the TML meeting and just wants to send his appreciation for the consideration of it and what it means to them. as far as the match funds. Before you next month, I believe, if this is approved affirmatively, will be a request for a SIB loan next week for the remaining balance.

MR. LANEY: All right. We have before us a proposal to adopt a minute order that removes the designation of FM 3500 from the State Highway System and designates a state highway spur on the State Highway System from State Highway 20 through -- well, .446 miles south of Farm to Market Road 1905 eastward, and northward to Farm to Market Road 1905, approximately .06 miles west of Interstate 10, a distance of approximately 1.3 miles.

Any questions? Otherwise, can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: The second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

REP. PICKETT: Thank you. Appreciate it.

MR. LANEY: Wes.

MR. HEALD: The Agenda Item 4, a report on the Grand Parkway Association, and I believe Al Luedecke is going to make the introductions.

MR. LUEDECKE: The Department rules pertaining to transportation corporations require that a corporation make an annual report to the Commission on the status of its projects and activities and its current status. Ms. Diane Schenke, director of the association, is here today to give you this report, and I'll ask her to come on up.

But I would add, from a staff standpoint, that Diane and the district have really been making things happen down there. We're real pleased with the relationship they have with the district and with the headquarters office.

MS. SCHENKE: I appreciate those gracious words.

This is now my third appearance before this body. The first one was two weeks after I'd started work, and I must say the last two reports have been full of grand hopes and high expectations. And I'm delighted to report to you this year that some of those have come to pass.

Of course, none of that would have happened without the support of TxDOT, the indefatigable interest of Commissioner Nichols, the creativity of Mr. Luedecke in coming up with ways to move our problems forward, and the interest that Gary Trietsch has in coming up with new and innovative and creative solutions on how to make transportation dollars stretch further in the city of Houston.

The major two activities that were accomplished over this last year were to complete the environmental process and the preliminary engineering process for the portion of the highway that extends from the Fred Hartman Bridge, skirts around the outside of Baytown, and joins up with

I-10 East.

That had been a project that had been ongoing for ten years. We had some shallow rocks to sail over and did that with the able assistance of Commissioner Nichols. So I'm very aware that we got to the end of that with a great deal of help and assistance from the Department.

The other exciting new piece that has started is a brand new segment, that is the subject of a separate newsletter there in front of you, that extends from US 59 on the southwest side of Houston and connects up with State Highway 288. We began the public hearings on that in March. We've got the involvement of two counties, and you're going to hear a little bit more from those county representatives this morning.

But at this point we have formally started the regulatory process and anticipate in the upcoming year that we'll have a defined corridor that will protect the area that is growing so rapidly and we're seeing quickly disappear on us if we don't keep our attention focused.

The other exciting work that's underway now -- that I hope to talk with you more about over the year -- is working with the Harris Toll Road Authority and the Houston District on the northwest quadrant, which also is under a great deal of development pressure. And we've got a limited window to move forward, secure the corridor, and carry out our plans.

I think that the Grand Parkway, in response to a letter I received recently from Commissioner Nichols, is a great example and idea for how to stretch funding dollars. And it's not just the assistance that we get from TxDOT, but it's the assistance from the local counties; it is the assistance from our local MPO.

We get just more interest and support than I can possibly enumerate. We get landowners who are willing to make donations of their property for the right of way. We get the support from the Federal Highway Administration, so I think the key for the Grand Parkway has been identification of priorities and support from a very broad range of interests that are present there in Houston, and I anticipate another exciting year. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Diane.

MS. SCHENKE: Any questions? I'm sorry.

MR. LANEY: That's all right. Does anybody have any questions? I don't think so. We're so current from information from Mr. Nichols on this Grand Parkway stuff.

MS. SCHENKE: Yes, sir.

MR. HEALD: Okay. At this time, I'd like to deviate a little bit from the agenda, and Diana Isabel, would you come to the front, please. I'd like to introduce the Commissioners to our newest director.

Diana is just fixing to take over as Director of the Human Resources Division, and she's been with TxDOT for a little over 22 years in the Traffic Operations Division. She's currently the division administrative manager overseeing human resource management, and I won't name everything, but she does a whole lot of things. And we're very pleased and very proud for Diana and look forward to working with her.

MR. LANEY: Welcome. Congratulations. You do a whole lot of things, and you're about to do a whole lot more.

(General laughter.)

MS. ISABEL: That's what I keep hearing. I'm really looking forward to the opportunity. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Great.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Diana.

We're going to start off with some deferrals. Item 5(a), Environmental Policy, these are rules for proposed adoption. We're going to defer that item. The next one, 5(a)(2), we're going to defer it also. It may surprise Robert Wilson but it will be deferred. I don't know whether you got advanced warning here or not.

Agenda Item 5(a)(3) having to do with amendments to certain rules, and so, Robert --

MR. WILSON: Yes. I did get the word that the other ones were deferred, but I have the privilege of having the next item also.

Good morning. I am Robert Wilson. I'm the Director of the Design Division. This morning I'm bringing to you a minute order for proposed rules to amend Chapter 11, Sections 1.200 through 11.205 of the Texas Administrative Code pertaining to the Transportation Enhancements Program.

These amendments incorporate some changes that are as a result of the passage of TEA-21 by Congress, and they also clarify and streamline some processes for project nomination in the selection process. These are proposed rules amendments at this time. If you approve this minute order, these rules are to be published in the Texas Register, and it is our intent to hold a public meeting to receive any comments. If we receive any comments, we'll address those and bring back rules for you as final, possibly as early as January.

And staff would recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Robert.

Do you have any questions, Anne?

MS. WYNNE: No.

MR. LANEY: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Just a comment. I think you have done an outstanding job in reviewing these rules, and I know you've taken a lot of input from a lot of areas, so I compliment you, and I look forward to seeing what public response we have.

MR. WILSON: Thank you, and thank you for your input and help as well.

MR. LANEY: Just a comment as well. A lot of the focus has been in these rules -- has been in the revision of the rules -- has been on transportation projects, and just for the record, I think there is much greater concentration on the direct connection between transportation and enhancement projects going forward so that nobody is surprised.

And we have proposed rules. Can I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Robert.

The next agenda item is 5(a)(4), more rules for proposed adoption, making some changes to Chapter 18, Lawrance Smith.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Wes.

Chairman Laney, Commissioners, good morning.

The minute order before you proposes the repeal of various sections of Chapter 18 and the subsequent adoption of new sections, as well as amendments to various other sections within Chapter 18. These proposed rules are focused at clarifying, modernizing and streamlining household goods carrier administration within the state of Texas.

They are a direct result of considering the recommendations from the Statutory Household Goods Carrier Advisory Committee that was established under House Bill 1418 of the 75th Legislature, as well as other changes developed by Department staff.

The proposed changes are also focused at protecting consumers or customers of household goods movers from deceptive or unfair practices and unreasonably hazardous activities on the part of the mover.

Between November 5, 1997 and September 23, 1998, this last month, the Household Goods Carrier Advisory Committee met ten times. At their September 23, 1998, meeting, the committee signed a resolution providing their final recommendations to the Department.

At this time I would like to recognize two members of the committee that are here today, if I could. One is Mr. Joe Bernard, who was the Department's representative on the committee and works for the Motor Carrier Division.

The other is the chairman of the committee, Mr. Harry Snyder, who is a member from the general public. I might say that Mr. Snyder is from Kentucky, but I think he knows more about household goods moving in Texas now than anyone.

(General laughter.)

MR. SMITH: I'd like to personally thank those members, as well as all the other members of the committee that did such great work.

Commissioners, staff is submitting the minute order for your consideration, and we do recommend approval.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Lawrance.

Let me also say to both of those members, and for you to carry to the other members of the task force, we very much appreciate the time and effort you spent on what is detailed and laborious. But I tell you, it is very, very valuable for us and for anybody who is the beneficiary of the protections you've got plugged in there. So much obliged, and I'm sure it's a balanced approach.

Does anyone have any questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: No comment other than to thank you, also. I move we'd go out with it.

MR. LANEY: Okay. We have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Lawrance.

Agenda Item 5(a)(5), Zane Webb will present this, amendments to Utility Accommodations. I think it's just transferring from one division to another.

MR. WEBB: Good morning. I'm Zane Webb with the Maintenance Division. I'm here today to propose for your consideration changes to Section 21.35(c), Utility Accommodation Exceptions to the Right of Way Accommodation Policy.

Presently, the district engineer or the director of Transportation Planning and Development in the districts recommend approval, and this is sent to the Right of Way Division for final approval of any exceptions to the Utility Accommodation Policy. Under the new rules, the district engineer or his designee would send these recommendations for approval to the Maintenance Division for final approval.

MR. LANEY: Does anyone have any questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: I move.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion.

Can I have a second, Anne?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 5(b), these are rules for final adoption, starting with 5(b)(1), and this one will be deferred.

We'll go to 5(b)(2), and Eloise will present this having to do with public information.

MS. LUNDGREN: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Eloise Lundgren with the Public Information office.

This item pertains to final adoption of rules governing the Department's Complaint Resolution Program. The public comment period ended Monday, September 14, 1998. No comments were received.

Staff recommends approval of this item.

MR. LANEY: Any questions or comments?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: And a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Eloise.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 5(b)(3), Employment Practices, having to do with our Sick Leave Pool, and Carol LeFevre from the Human Resources Division will present this.

MS. LeFEVRE: Good morning, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Wynne. It's a pleasure to talk to you today about this subject. Excuse me. I'm getting over a cold, so if you'll forgive my hoarse voice.

As you recall, at your August 26 meeting, you approved the proposed amendments to the Sick Leave Pool Program rules. At that same meeting, Cathy Williams discussed with you the two main reasons why we would like to make these changes.

The first reason is that we are experiencing an incredibly large balance of hours in the pool. During the last fiscal year, we ran an average of 83,000 hours. As a result, we'd like to loosen the criteria so that more employees can qualify and therefore receive hours from the pool.

A second reason we would like to make these changes is that we would like to implement additional measures to control abuse of pool hours once they are given.

Since August when you approved the proposed amendments, we conducted an open comment period that ended October 12. We also held a public hearing on September 29. We distributed these rules to each district engineer, division director, office director, and administration, and encouraged them to make them available to all employees. Although no one came to the hearing, we did receive comments from one employee, and we provided a summary of those comments as well as our responses in your briefing books.

On behalf of the employees of the Department who are unfortunate enough to have catastrophic illnesses, and on behalf of employees of the Department who contribute to the pool, we would very much like to make these changes, and we greatly appreciate your consideration of the final adoption of these final rules.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

MR. LANEY: Anne, do you have any questions?

MS. WYNNE: No.

MR. LANEY: Robert, any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

MR. LANEY: These are final adoption of the amendments. Can I have a motion, Anne?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 5(b)(4), this is repeal of some rules. And I know it's going to shock you, Commissioners, but it says repeal because these rules are obsolete, out of context and no assistance to the public. Maybe we can start a trend here, and I believe Larry Zatopek is going to present this.

MR. ZATOPEK: Thank you. I am Larry Zatopek, Director of the General Services Division.

And this is for the final adoption of the repeal of Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 concerning equipment leases, wrecked equipment, and equipment construction. And as Wes has pointed out, these are obsolete and have no value to the public.

There is a portion in the equipment leases that is still valid, but that's now covered by state statute. We received no comments on the repeal of these rules and would recommend your adoption of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: I read these, and I had to read them again because I wasn't sure that you were doing this.

MR. ZATOPEK: Yes. We mean repeal and not replace.

MR. LANEY: Terrific. On issues like this, we don't need a motion and a second, they're just automatically adopted, I think. No, I'm kidding.

Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Anne, a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 5(b)(5), another minute order for your consideration on rules for final adoption, and Robert Wilson will present this.

MR. WILSON: Good morning, again. I'm Robert Wilson,

Director of the Design Division.

This time I'm bringing to you a minute order for final adoption of some rules that are basically just moving some rules from one chapter to another.

These are now proposed in Chapter 15 of the Texas Administrative Code in Sections 15.51, 15.52 and 15.54; they were in Chapter 7, and that was a Bridge Division section. That division no longer exists, and they're being moved to Chapter 15.

These rules were proposed to you at your July meeting, and since that time, they were published for open comment period. No comments were received, and we are now here recommending your approval by this minute order of final adoption of these rules.

MR. LANEY: Any comments or questions on proposed final adoption of the rules?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: And a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Wes, I'd like to take a couple of things out of order, if we may. Mr. Nichols has just alerted me that we have some folks waiting, I think, for us to get to a couple of issues. Can we move forward to 7(a) and (b) and take the Brazoria County and Brazoria and Fort Bend County issues?

MR. LUEDECKE: Al Luedecke, Director of Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

One of the projects that the Grand Parkway Association has undertaken is the development of Segment C of State Highway 99, the Grand Parkway, from US 59 to State Highway 288 in Fort Bend and Brazoria Counties. Due to financial constraints, the association is unable to fund a portion of the development costs at this time, in spite of the commitments it has received.

These costs cover the major investment in environmental studies, preliminary engineering and final design for the portion of the project in C-3 in Brazoria County. Brazoria County has agreed to contribute a portion of the cost of the segment known as C-3 from the Brazos River to State Highway 288, contingent upon the development of this segment as a non-toll facility.

Brazos [sic] County's contribution will not exceed $2.5 million and excludes the cost of the portion of this segment that lies in the boundary of the Darrington Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice property. These costs will accrue to the Department. If the segment is developed as a non-toll road, Brazoria County will have no obligation to pay the Department for any of these costs.

However, since the decision to toll the segment will be made at some time in the future, and there is a need to proceed with the development of the project, we propose that the Department fund the cost of these studies and final design for the Segment of C-3.

The Department's cost for these studies outside of the Darrington Unit will be limited to $2.5 million. When the tolling decision is made, and if that decision is to not toll this segment, Brazoria County will begin incremental payments toward the construction costs, providing that the last payment is made no more than seven years after the decision is made.

The tender minute order you have for consideration defines these responsibilities for both the county and the Department. If you concur and the county accepts the tender offer, the executive director is directed to develop the necessary agreements and proceed with the development of Segment C-3.

We recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Let me just, for clarification, highlight the provision in the minute order that gives us the flexibility that we need on this, and that is: "All Department participation in this project is contingent upon the Association's consideration in its preliminary studies of the alternative of developing Segment C as a toll road."

That is an option that needs to remain intact as an option. It's not necessarily the way we're going, but it's certainly an option that gives us the flexibility that we need. With that in place, I'm comfortable with the minute order.

Does anyone have any questions?

(No response.)

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LUEDECKE: Item 7(b), this minute order outlines responsibilities for the development of the entire Segment C of the Grand Parkway, State Highway 99. As discussed earlier, the Grand Parkway Association has received commitments for right of way donations, scenic easements and funding for preliminary engineering and design and is now ready to proceed with the development of Segment C of State Highway 99 from US 59 around to State Highway 288, approximately 26 miles.

The Association is responsible for conducting the major investment and environmental impact studies, the preliminary engineering and plans -- and provide at least 75 percent of the right of way for final design. Fort Bend County will provide the funding for the studies and engineering on Segments C-1 and C-2, and Brazoria County's obligation for funding construction costs have been covered in the previous minute order.

If this segment is built as a toll road, the Department will provide the funds for the major investment, environmental studies through the final design for the Segment C-3. We will provide all right of way not provided by the Association not to exceed 25 percent, including the portion of the Darrington Unit, replace fencing, and assume all costs of utility adjustments and relocation assistance.

We recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Questions? Otherwise, can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: Clarification. The two things that we were going to do contingent upon it being considered as a toll road, your one line where it says "contingent upon" ends, and then the second line says the Department will accept responsibility for providing right of way and those things. I'm assuming that second line is also contingent upon how things turn out.

MR. LUEDECKE: Contingent, yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: That's the only question. It's just clarification. Thank you. That's all I had.

MR. LANEY: Hold the motion for a second, if you were about to make one. I'm sorry, I overlooked folks who had signed up to speak for these, and we shouldn't be taking action on them before we hear from them. I hope we took action on the first item in line with what they want to talk about, but --

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Mr. Mike Rozell, County Judge of Fort Bend County. Judge Rozell, welcome.

JUDGE ROZELL: Well, it's a pleasure to be here again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.

With the action that I just heard, I'm almost at a loss for words, but we do sincerely feel that there is an urgency for this project and it's been in the makings. We've had a lot of meetings over the last few months, and meeting with Commissioner Nichols -- and good to see you again, Commissioner. We agree with the minute order, and especially the aspect of the toll road provision that is in there.

And I'd just like to say thank you, hopefully, in advance of the approval. But thank you for your diligence and your consideration, not only on this project, but for your past projects that you've given us and approved for Fort Bend County.

We in Fort Bend County -- we do realize how fortunate we've been when we've appeared before this Committee, and even though we're bursting at the seams, we've heard other counties this morning that seem to have similar problems. But we want to thank you for all the consideration you've given to us. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Judge Rozell.

Judge John Willy, County Judge of Brazoria County. Welcome, Judge.

JUDGE WILLY: Yes, sir. It's a little bit after the fact, but Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, we'd like to also thank you for your consideration here this morning.

Brazoria County is just a growing, growing place. From the 1990 census to this one, we will have grown about 20 percent, and by the year 2050 we'll be a quarter of a million people in Brazoria County. Our back door is the city limits of Houston and the front door, I guess -- or vice versa, is the 27 miles of the Gulf of Mexico which we'll be back to talk to you about the Blue Water Highway again one day, I'm sure.

But with this infrastructured mobility route, we will have two very good routes, that being the Highway 35 demonstration project which we have underway, and also the east-west route that this will create in the Grand Parkway. This will not only benefit Brazoria County but will also benefit the infrastructure of Harris County and their growth into Brazoria County.

Again, I'd just like to thank you, and at the same time, I would like to introduce Commissioner Clawson and Commissioner Patterson who are here with me today from the court, and thank you very, very much for your consideration of all of the efforts that you've made in Brazoria County.

And Commissioner Nichols, thank you very much for your consideration and input into the toll road aspect of this, because this is something that I suggested at the very first, and I'm glad that somebody agrees with me. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Judge.

Representative Tom Uher won't be here, as we heard earlier, but wanted to be recognized as being in support of the Grand Parkway minute orders.

So we have before us this second minute order with respect to the Grand Parkway. Any comments or questions?

MS. WYNNE: I have one question of Al. When Senator Brown was here before, he made reference to a section of the Grand Parkway that had a tax base of, I think he said, $140 million that had grown to $540 million. I'm sure you were paying rapt attention, close attention. I didn't catch which segment that was.

MR. LUEDECKE: I have the sense that it is this segment in the Sugar Land area.

MS. WYNNE: Or maybe Diane.

MR. LUEDECKE: Oh, Diane will get me straight.

MS. SCHENKE: That tax increase is in the portion that's already constructed, going from US 59 North to I-10 West, and that increase was just over the period of the construction. I don't have recent numbers on the continued growth, but it certainly has continued to increase in value which is the reason for Fort Bend County's ardent support of this Segment C, because they've had some experience and know what the Grand Parkway results to as --

MS. WYNNE: I think it's Segment D-1 and D-2 --

MS. SCHENKE: Yes, ma'am.

MS. WYNNE: -- on your map, and I just wanted to point that out, that -- and this has been the case in Collin County north of Dallas where the Dallas North Tollway has gone in. Nothing but good comes from this kind of major infrastructure investment, whether it be a toll road or a tax road, since there's no such thing as a free road. People think that those tax roads are free but they are not.

I'm very happy that we're going to look at this as a toll road, and I just hope that everybody involved will keep in mind those numbers that come from D-1 and not be penny wise and pound foolish about trying to get this thing pushed ahead, because the more dollars that the counties can put in or that your association can put in, the quicker this thing will happen.

And right to your north you've got a track record that shows that if you do push and you do put your own dollars in and you do get the landowners to give the right of way, only good things are going to happen.

MS. SCHENKE: I have sent the additional data and backup support to Frank Smith. He had been interested in that, so he's got the information that Senator Brown referred to. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Diane, Al. Any other questions, Anne or Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MR. LANEY: Okay. Motion, please.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: We have a motion. Can I have a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Back to rules for final adoption, Agenda Item 5(b)(6), Bob Kovar.

MR. KOVAR: My name is Bob Kovar. I'm the Deputy Director of the Design Division.

This minute order is for final adoption of amendments to Section 15.6 of the rules concerning state park roads. The proposed amendments are necessary to comply with legislation that gave the Department the responsibility for roads in and adjacent to fish hatcheries and wildlife management areas, in addition to those in state parks for which the Department already has responsibility.

The proposed amendments were approved at the June Commission meeting, and were advertised for comment; no comments were received. Staff therefore recommends your approval of the minute order for final adoption.

MR. LANEY: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Bob.

5(b)(7), Tom Newbern, additional rules for final adoption, a minute order for your consideration.

MR. NEWBERN: Good morning. My name is Tom Newbern, Traffic Operations Division Director.

Agenda Item 5(b)(7) pertains to the final adoption of amendments to Sections 25.421, 25.422, and 25.424 concerning the City Pride Sign Program. These amendments will allow several existing signs to remain in place. The proposed amendments were considered by the Commission in July; no comments have been received on the proposed amendments.

We recommend approval.

MR. LANEY: Comments or questions? Otherwise, this is final adoption of the rules relating to the City Pride signs. Anne, can I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Tom.

Agenda Item 5(c), Rule Review, Eloise Lundgren.

MS. LUNDGREN: Thank you. Hello again.

The Appropriations Bill requires us to consider the re-adoption of our rules every four years. This month we consider the Complaint Resolution rules. This minute order authorizes us to begin the process by publishing a notice of intention to review these rules.

We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: Anybody have any comments or questions? Anne, it looks like you do.

MS. WYNNE: Are these the ones that we just --

MS. LUNDGREN: Yes, ma'am.

MS. WYNNE: We just approved them, and now we've got to go out and say: Hey, we just approved them, but do you like them?

MS. LUNDGREN: Actually, what we did was we approved some amendments to them based on legislation passed in '97; that's what we just did. Now we're going to go out and review those.

MS. WYNNE: I would like for somebody to tell me -- and I'm going to say that we should do this, but I would just be curious about what it costs us to do this, so we would know so that if we ever want to go to the legislature and say, We don't need to go through this exercise that we have been -- I mean, there's labor costs; there's paper costs; there's time costs; there's silly costs.

MR. LANEY: The silly costs are the most expensive.

MS. WYNNE: They are, absolutely. There's irritation costs --

(General laughter.)

MS. WYNNE: -- but, I mean, I don't think they want us to be doing busywork, and this strikes me as busywork. And with that, I'll say if we're supposed to do it, I move that we do it.

MR. LANEY: We have an objection and a motion.

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Can I have a second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Item Number 6, Aviation, Dave Fulton.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Wes.

Commissioners, I have two minute orders today. One, Item (a), is for cancellation of a project at Arledge Field in Stamford. Back in August Commission meeting, the Commission approved a grant for engineering design of a future project at Stamford, and almost immediately thereafter they sent us a letter asking for postponement for three years of that project.

That's fairly rare for that to happen, but since it takes two to three years to develop these projects, when we have to ask for the money, sometimes challenges come up locally and they do have to ask them to be postponed.

So this minute order would cancel that grant so that we could reallocate the money to other projects, and we would move them forward for three years in our Capital Improvement Program.

The second minute order is a request for grant funding for construction projects at Hondo, Grayson County, Weslaco, Gladewater and Perryton. A couple of years ago we started separating the design and construction approval of our projects so we could get better costs for construction before we came to the Commission. You approved engineering design for these projects in August of '97, and if you approve this minute order, it would also approve grants for the construction funding.

The Perryton project is a little different. We did a paving project there three or four years ago. Recently we observed on the aircraft parking apron, asphalt bubbling up on the ramp so that it's rendered it unusable. And so we're going to have to do something to try to address that, and this project would address that problem.

The final project request is at Sulphur Springs. Recently, a group of business people have taken on the airport as an economic development tool for the community and asked for our assistance in planning future development to make sure it develops accordingly, and so that project would be to fund an airport master plan for Sulphur Springs.

There's additional detail in the minute order, and I'll be glad to address any questions you might have.

We would recommend approval of all these projects and the cancellation.

MR. LANEY: We have two minute orders, one canceling a project and these additional four projects. Let's take both minute orders at once, if we can, and I assume we're going to -- let's take them separately.

The first minute order canceling the project. Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: Moved.

MR. LANEY: A second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Second minute order, these four new projects. May I have a motion again?

MR. NICHOLS: I move on it.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Dave, there has been some discussion at length of the continuing construction of the Jacksonville Airport.

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: And just so you'll know, there is great pressure at the Commission level to complete that construction, but I have received, surreptitiously, great pressure from around the state through all our districts to keep it torn up.

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: People seem to be enjoying having Mr. Nichols in Jacksonville.

MR. FULTON: I won't address the second part of your comment, but the first, I do feel kind of like the boy who is crying wolf. I think we have gotten to a point. I kept giving target dates that we had to bypass, but I think we can see the goal line now.

I talked to Mr. Nichols about that earlier, and I think the critical thing is we've got a good construction project, so I think within a week we will be through. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thanks.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Dave.

Agenda Item 7, The Commissioners have already acted on (a) and (b), so -- and Item (c) has been deferred, dissolution of the Fort Bend Parkway Association. We're going to defer that one.

Agenda Item 8, SIB, Frank Smith.

MR. SMITH: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. I'm Frank Smith, Director of Finance. This item is timed pretty well, coming close on the heels of the aviation request. We have another Jacksonville request before us.

(General laughter.)

MR. SMITH: This is a request for preliminary approval of an application from the City of Jacksonville to borrow $350,000 from the SIB for the purposes of purchasing right of way for US 175. Your approval of this preliminary step in the process will give the staff the approval to go forward to the city and negotiate the terms of the loan.

Staff does recommend approval.

MR. LANEY: This Jacksonville Airport, having been torn up, cuts both ways: the longer he hangs around Jacksonville, the more ideas he gives them about how to take advantage of the opportunities we offer --

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: -- so if Dave Randolph [sic] is still in the audience, please finish the construction.

Anyway, this is a preliminary approval, as I recall, and yet there is still quite a bit of environmental work to be done. Is that correct? Am I clear on that?

MR. SMITH: There's approximately four months left, we understand, before the final environmental clearance is done.

MR. LANEY: Since it's preliminary, I think we're in good shape, but I think we need to make it clear that -- whether it was Jacksonville or any other place -- that preliminary does not commit the funds until the final environmental is there. And the environmental, as everybody knows, could string it out much longer and these funds could drift away from this kind of preliminary approval.

I just want to make sure that we still have that flexibility in here after the preliminary approval and after some indefinite or undefined period of time.

MR. SMITH: Yes. The Commission does have that latitude.

MR. LANEY: Great.

Minute order for preliminary approval of a SIB loan to Jacksonville.

Since Robert has a conflict of interest, Anne?

MS. WYNNE: I would be happy to move approval.

MR. LANEY: I second. All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Moving to Item 9, and Thomas Bohuslav will do Contracts.

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

Item 9(a)(1) is for the consideration of award or rejection of a building construction contract let on October 1, 1998, as shown on Exhibit A. This project is the construction of the addition and renovation of the district administrative building in Pharr in Hidalgo County. We had three bidders on the project; the total low bid amount was $1,253,000, or a $277,000 underrun, or 18 percent underrun.

Staff recommends award of the project.

MR. LANEY: Any questions? Can I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 9(a)(2) is for the consideration of award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on October 7 and 8, 1998, whose engineers' estimated costs are $300,000 or more as shown on Exhibit A. We had five projects let, 22 bidders, for an average of 4.4 bids per project; total low bid amount was $1,631,052.05 for a total underrun amount of $272,536.04, or 14.31 percent underrun.

Staff recommends award of all maintenance projects listed in Exhibit A.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 9(a)(3) is for the consideration of award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on October 7 and 8 of 1998 as shown on Exhibit A. We had a total of 64 projects let, we received 253 bids for an average of 3.95 bids per project; the total low bid amount was $222,395,612.83, for a total amount overrun of $20,685,867.75, for a 10 percent overrun.

We have three projects we recommend for rejection, the first project being in Ellis County. It's on page 4, next to last listing. It's project number 3023. We received one bid, the low bid being from APAC Texas, Inc., in the amount of $292,438.86, or an 80 percent overrun.

This is an off-system bridge project in Midlothian and there is a city participation in the project. The district feels that there was not adequate competition on the project and they're proposing for a future letting. The city concurs with those comments, and we concur with the district's comments as well.

An additional project recommended for rejection is in Jim Wells County. It's on the bottom of page 8, project number 3055. We received two bids, the low bid being from TMES, L.L.C., in the amount of $258,838.09, for a $92,915 overrun, or 56 percent over. This is another off-system project.

In this case, the district identified a change that they could make to the project that could reduce the cost, primarily the elimination of a detour. The district would like to redesign and resubmit for a future letting.

The last project I have recommended for rejection is in Schleicher County. We received one bid, the low bid being from Tejas International Group, Inc., in the amount of $87,846.50, or $38,681.95 overrun, or 78.68 percent overrun.

This is a landscape project in the city of El Dorado, and funding includes $30,000 of the Governor's Achievement Award Program. Because we only received one bid on this project and the amount is excessive, the district would like to reevaluate and re-let at a future date.

Do you have any questions?

MR. LANEY: Any questions? Anne?

MS. WYNNE: I have one question, Tom, because I always kind of like to follow up. The project that we did not award last month, was that in this month's letting?

MR. BOHUSLAV: The project that we did not award? Which one, when the gentleman was here last month?

MS. WYNNE: Yes. I can't even remember where it was.

MR. BOHUSLAV: I don't believe it would make this letting; it would probably be the next month's letting. If it is in this month, I would go back and I'd have to let you know later.

MS. WYNNE: I'd just kind of like to see what happens the second time we let it.

MR. BOHUSLAV: It was in the Bryan District, I believe, yes.

MS. WYNNE: When it comes the next time, let us know, would you?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Okay.

MR. LANEY: Any other questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I don't have a question, but I had a comment, really more for the record and for the public. When we made our report to the Senate Interim Committee on Transportation, one of the items that we commented on that eroded our funds was the erosion related to inflation.

The Department had averaged, throughout the state, about a 5 percent per year erosion due to inflation on our industry costs, which is a way of having the dollars on the books but being able to build less.

We anticipated that with TEA-21 and a 40 percent increase nationwide in that same industry that the percents would dramatically go up, or would have a greater likelihood of going up from 5 than down. In this particular letting, out of $22 million, we had a $20 million overrun. That's basically a 10 percent overrun from what we had originally anticipated, so this is the kind of things we're talking about when this happens.

Our engineers estimate based on materials and costs and like things at the time, but the pressure is on the contractors; the rates and costs of materials are just going up. So that's $20 million that is not going to build something else, I guess is what I'm trying to say. I'm just trying to bring an awareness to it when I see it. That's all.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

How about cement prices? Have they settled down at all?

MR. BOHUSLAV: There seems to be a sufficient supply of cement now. Most of the suppliers are saying that they're able to stockpile again, but whether prices have come back down to level, I can't tell you right now.

MR. LANEY: Okay. Can I have a motion for the adoption of all of these --

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: -- approval of these subject to the three rejections. We have a motion. Anne, can I have a second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 9(b)(1) and (2), Mike Behrens, Contract Claims.

MR. BEHRENS: We have two claim settlements that we're recommending for you this month. The first is with Roadway Construction on a Harris County project, MANH 95(63)I. They filed a claim for $95,465. The Claims Committee met and offered a settlement of $25,000 for that particular project and was accepted by the contractor.

The other was a project in Smith County; Reynolds & Kay was the contractor, STP 95(331)UM. Reynolds & Kay filed a claim of $263,157.44. The Claims Committee met and offered a settlement of $60,000, and that was accepted by Reynolds & Kay, pending your action.

We recommend that both of these claim settlements be approved.

MR. LANEY: Any questions about either? If not, can I have a motion?

MS. WYNNE: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Item Number 10, Routine Minute Orders.

Starting with Speed Zones, establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state.

And we'll can -- I'll continue. Stop me if you'd like. Load Restrictions, various counties, revision of load restrictions on various roads and bridges on the State Highway System.

Item (c) you've already acted upon -- (c)(1) you've already acted on; (c)(2) Highway Designations, designate a state highway spur on the State Highway System; 10(c)(3) Kaufman County, Farm to Market 548, designate extension on the State Highway System; 10(c)(4) Wharton County, State Highway Loop 183. Redesignate on the State Highway system as Business US Highway 59R.

Item (d), Approval of Donations to the Department: Williamson County, RM 1431, acceptance of partial land donation. Item 10(d)(2), Various Counties, approval to accept the donation of the Texas Travel Industry Association of various items to the Department during a study tour of the West Texas Region to educate the Department's travel counselors on Texas' western region.

10(3), Eminent Domain, Various Counties, request for eminent domain proceedings on non-controlled and controlled access highways.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that's it.

MR. LANEY: Any questions about any of those proposed actions? If not, if I can have a mega motion.

MR. NICHOLS: Mega motion moves.

MR. LANEY: One motion. Can I have a second?

MS. WYNNE: Mega second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. HEALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we have any need for an executive session.

We have open comments speaker here.

MR. LANEY: Let's move into the open comment period. We have one person signed up, Mr. Paul Hayes, Vice President of Hearthstone Homeowners Association.

MR. HAYES: I have a written statement that I'd be happy to submit if that would be helpful at all.

MR. LANEY: When you finish you might leave it with us. Thank you.

MR. HAYES: Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Paul Hayes. I am the Vice President of the Hearthstone Homeowners Association. Hearthstone is a community of about 1,300 homes in northwest Harris County that lies immediately adjacent to FM 529. FM 529 is being expanded from its current two-lane configuration to a six-lane highway, and I think all of us who traverse 529 on a daily basis welcome the change, and we look forward to the increased marketability that it will bring as our area grows and expands.

The reason we're submitting this report and request is to address a center median issue treatment that has been incorporated into the design of the roadway. The western portion of the project incorporates a raised center median with appropriate turning base.

However, the eastern portion of the project will incorporate a flush median design with a continuous two-way, left-turn lane. The portion of the project aligned immediately adjacent to Hearthstone incorporates the latter.

The original plans by TxDOT called for the entire project to include a raised center median. However, in October of '95, the design for the eastern portion of the project was changed. The reason cited for the change was the greater concentration of commercial properties versus residential. And indeed, that is the case for the area lying east of Hearthstone.

And if the continuous two-way, left-turn design is more appropriate for that area, then certainly we have no objection. However, with the exception of a small corner development such as a gas station and convenience store, our area is 100 percent residential on both sides of FM 529, and upon learning of the project design change, we immediately voiced our concern about the wisdom of incorporated a continuous two-way, left-turn lane in a residential area.

We met several times with the district engineer and his staff and expressed our concern over the impact that such a change has on the safety for our residents and guests. While TxDOT officials graciously listened to our reasoning, in the end they chose not to respond by altering the design plans, nor propose an alternative to address our safety concerns.

We researched the issue further and presented documented evidence to TxDOT's district office based upon studies by known experts in the field that clearly indicate that there is a dramatic difference in safety between the raised center median and the continuous two-way, left-turn lane design for areas such as ours.

We presented this evidence to the district engineer, and we also solicited the expert opinion of Dr. Don Woods from Bryan who is a known expert in the area of traffic engineering and roadway design. Dr. Woods was gracious enough to come to Houston; he examined the specific area in question and gave us his opinion.

He strongly concurred with the findings of the other studies and specifically stated that a continuous two-way, left-turn lane was inappropriate for this portion of the project. He went further to state that the incorporation of a continuous two-way, left-turn lane would have a significant and detrimental impact on the safety of our residents entering into and exiting from 529, on the smooth flow of traffic through the area, and on the pedestrian traffic.

Hearthstone is on the north side of FM 529 and our junior high is on the south side, so both vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety is of concern to us, as children will be crossing seven lanes of traffic that's going 50-plus miles per hour.

The change that we're requesting from TxDOT represents no extra cost, and in fact, may represent a small cost savings to TxDOT and the taxpayers of Texas. In addition, our homeowners association has offered to maintain the median adjacent to our subdivision.

The small businesses that are located in the immediate vicinity are located at intersections, and studies conducted under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program indicate that increased traffic flow, safer ingress and egress and improved aesthetics may very well increase their business.

Our organization has tried on multiple occasions to get on the agenda for this Commission so that we could more thoroughly present justification for a raised center median, but we've been denied each time at the district level.

We understand that the Commission implements and administers policy on behalf of the state's Transportation Department, and as such, we feel certain that policies that give utmost consideration to safety and liability issues, while considering costs and other adverse impacts, is naturally incorporated into the Commission's decision-making process.

All we're seeking from TxDOT, at this time, is a revision to the current plans that would incorporate a raised center median through this residential area. We believe that the dramatically improved safety aspects of such a design at no cost and literally no negative impact otherwise would make for a very quick and easy decision.

However, as an alternative, if the Commission would like a more in-depth look at the specifics of the project and the safety issues involved, our association would ask to be placed on the agenda for an upcoming Commission meeting.

We'd be happy to expound on the issue, and Dr. Woods has also graciously agreed to participate in such a presentation if we're afforded such an opportunity. We appreciate the opportunity to convey our concerns to the Commission and for your consideration, and look forward to a response, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

MR. LANEY: Appreciate the presentation.

Anne or Robert, any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Has your association worked with the area engineer or project engineer on this project?

MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. We've basically been deferred to the district engineer, Mr. Trietsch.

MR. NICHOLS: Have you visited with Mr. Trietsch?

MR. HAYES: On numerous occasions, both via written correspondence and in direct meetings with him and his staff. And for the most part, they've been very cooperative in meeting with us. That has not been a problem at all.

MR. LANEY: Anne?

MS. WYNNE: My experience with Mr. Trietsch is that safety is a major concern of his, and I can't imagine that there isn't another side to this tale, so I'm sure that our staff will bring that to us. And we appreciate your raising the safety concern, even if you had to come to this level, and we'll certainly look into it.

MR. HAYES: Certainly, and I understand that there is always two sides and safety is -- I don't doubt Mr. Trietsch's concern for safety.

MR. LANEY: If you'd leave your copy of your testimony, that would be terrific. We'll assume that it's a request, as well, for a delegation or someone to appear before the Commission more formally, and we will get back to you.

MR. HAYES: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you very much.

If anyone else is intending to speak during the public comment period, we don't have any more cards, so you're out of luck as of right now.

MS. WYNNE: Even in costume?

MR. LANEY: Even in costume.

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: If there is no further business before the Commission, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Can I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second?

MS. WYNNE: Second.

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: The meeting is adjourned, and to everyone, have a very happy and a safe Halloween. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: October 29, 1998

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers
1 through 103, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and
complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording
made by electronic recording by Sunny L. Peer, before the
Texas Department of Transportation.

11/12/98

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