Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

Thursday, October 31, 2002

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

STAFF:

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

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:12 a.m. and I would like to call the October meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. Happy Halloween to one and all and may you get a lot more treats today than tricks. Welcome. It is a pleasure to have you here this morning.

I will 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 2:10 p.m. on October 23, 2002.

Before we begin, I would like to ask my fellow commissioners if they have any comments that they would like to make. Robert Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: I'd just like to welcome all of you here, recognize that many of you have taken a day off, traveled a long way to express the concerns and the visions of your communities. We look forward to those presentations, hope you feel at home here, and be careful when you go back. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Ric Williamson?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I associate myself with Mr. Nichols' remarks and thank you all for coming. I would incite you to go back home and for whomever you're going to vote, be sure and go vote, support your local, county and state candidates. It's important to elect people who will represent your viewpoint in transportation matters as well as other matters that face the state, and understand the Transportation Commission is doing everything they can for every community in the state; there are just not enough resources for all of us to do what we want to do right now, but we'll get to you eventually.

NORTHEAST TEXAS REGIONAL MOBILITY COUNCIL

(Danny Duncan, Chip Harper, Senator David Cain, Representative Mark Homer, Dr. Keith McFarland)

MR. JOHNSON: Our first delegation is the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Council, affectionately known as NETMOB, I believe. They are here from Hunt, Hopkins, Delta and Lamar Counties, and I understand Danny Duncan will get us started. Is that correct? Danny, welcome. We're delighted that you're here.

MR. DUNCAN: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, my name is Danny Duncan and I'm from Commerce, Texas in Hunt County. I, along with others here today, have appeared before this commission seven times over two decades to ask for funding for State Highway 24, and we thank the commission for their past support. We'd also like to thank your schedulers because this is the first time that we've ever been first on the program.

(General laughter.)

MR. DUNCAN: At this time I would like to recognize our delegation. Would the delegation from NETMOB please stand?

(Pause.)

MR. DUNCAN: As you can see, we have a large contingency from our area, we have county commissioners, we have city commission people, we have business people, we have people from all walks of life here today. Thank you so much.

Now I would like to introduce Chip Harper -- Mr. Harper of NETMOB. His presentation will explain how we have evolved from Highway 24 Association into NETMOB, and where we have been, where we are today, and to present our petition.

MR. HARPER: Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. I think I'm more of the MOB than the NET side of it, but I am a member of NETMOB and we are the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Council, and what we're working for is to improve all transportation systems in Northeast Texas.

Now, we started with four counties, Delta, Hopkins, Lamar and Hunt, and our members come from city and county governments, chambers of commerce, the highway associations, and all of those of us who are interested in a better future for Texas. NETMOB is made up of five standing committees: Airport, Railroad, Highway, Technology, and Membership. And our top priority and why we are here today is to request from you $21,250,000 to help us close the gap on State Highway 24 through Delta County. This is the most important project for Northeast Texas, for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, and for the entire State of Texas. Closing the gap will accomplish three things: congestion relief, air quality, and economic development.

This slide represents the current NAFTA traffic that flows through Texas. These arrows show between 60 and 80 percent of all truck traffic flow up I-35 and I-45 through the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. The route that this NAFTA traffic takes, it currently travels up 35 and 45, and in Dallas picks up US 75 which is North Central Expressway. It travels north up to US 69, across Oklahoma, crossing the Indian Nation Turnpike, and joining Interstate 44 traveling to the northeast. Just north of Dallas on US 75 traffic flows through Collin County. This is the third fastest growing county in the United States.

By closing this gap from State Highway 24 through Delta County, this traffic has an alternate four-lane route that moves around the Metroplex. The traffic will still travel up I-35, as it does now, but it will skirt around the Metroplex on 635 and I-30 traveling east, and then travel to Exit 101 which is State Highway 24, leaving Texas to travel the Indian Nation Turnpike.

This is interstate 30 and traffic will travel up to Exit 101 which is State Highway 24. As you can see, State Highway 24 -- this is south of Commerce -- is a good four-lane divided highway for 15.2 miles; that's from I-30 to the Delta County line. But once it enters Delta County, it becomes a two-lane highway. State Highway 24 is a two-lane gap in Delta County for 16.6 miles, but in the middle of this gap is a 1.6-mile loop that goes around the City of Cooper. That loop was completed in 1967. Now, when State Highway 24 merges with State Highway 19, again it becomes a good four-lane divided highway all the way to the Red River and the Indian Nation Turnpike.

s you can see, this is the Indian Nation Turnpike and it is begging for truck traffic.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That wins the award for the best marketing tool that we've seen all year.

(General laughter.)

MR. HARPER: State Highway 24 is on the Texas Trunk System and almost two-thirds of it have been completed and upgraded to four-lane. TxDOT has been converting this route from two to four lanes since 1967, and completing this 16.6-mile section will remove another gap from the Texas Trunk System.

Now let's recap. Closing this gap accomplishes three things: giving us an alternate four-lane route will relieve congestion, it will improve air quality control. As you know the Metroplex is in a non-attainment area, and although the traffic will enter this non-attainment area, this provides a faster way out, it will reduce vehicle emission exposure rates and help improve the air quality problems that are facing Dallas and Fort Worth. The efficient moving of traffic across our state will help Texas and all Texans.

Now, there are 114 cities in the State of Texas with a population over 20,000 people; there are only three cities in the State of Texas over 20,000 people that are not on a four-lane or have access to an interstate by four-lane. And I want to repeat that. There are 114 cities in the State of Texas over 20,000 people; there are only three in the state that are not on an interstate or have four-lane access to an interstate. One of these cities is Paris, Texas.

Now, we've had excellent help on this project. Congressman Max Sandlin on this corridor, we have received over approximately $5 million in federal funding in the past. And what we're asking the Transportation Commission today for is to close the gap on State Highway 24 by upgrading our top priority as follows, and we've broken this in two parts to be sensitive to our budget constraints.

The first section is from Cooper to State Highway 19. We're asking you to upgrade this section to CONSTRUCT Authority, to fund the right of way acquisitions and utility adjustments, and to fund the actual construction cost. This is a total of $17,900,000, and we're requesting you to begin this as soon as possible. The Paris District is ready to do this and the preliminary plan work has been completed.

Part two of our request is from the Hunt County line to Cooper. We're asking you to upgrade this section to DEVELOP Authority, fund the right of way acquisitions and the utility adjustments costs in FY 2004. This is a total of $3,293,100. That brings our total request to close this gap to $21,252,693.

I want to thank each of you for all that you do for Texas and for Texans.

MR. DUNCAN: Thank you, Chip. State Senator David Cain has been a key supporter of our project even before he represented us in the Senate and now even more so since redistricting because he has picked up Delta and Hopkins Counties. Senator Cain.

SENATOR CAIN: Danny, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my part of NETMOB, we'd like to wish you a happy Halloween, and as well to Commissioner Williamson, Commissioner Nichols, and Mr. Behrens.

I can't really improve upon the presentation that Chip has made and I will not try to do that. I would just simply tell you that an expression of the support that I have for this project -- this being the fourth time since I've been in the Senate that this group has been here to express its support, and to the best of my knowledge, I've been with them every time -- I wouldn't take time from my campaigning at this time if I did not think this was one of the highest priority projects in my district. And I can tell you as well that our Lieutenant Governor Bill Ratliff, with whom I share this region, is fully in support of this and extends his regrets as well.

We need to close the gap on this vital roadway in our area, and I think Chip has made an eloquent presentation for that. All of us -- and you've seen the MOB -- all of us support this worthwhile project and I would just simply say that in addition to how important this is for us in our region and to mobility as a state, I want to thank you for providing critically needed funds for the state's rural transportation program and I must emphasize that these funds are critical to the residents of my district as well. I believe that the proposed funding formulas -- which I hope you'll approve today -- will provide equity and better service to our entire state, and I, along with the rest of our delegation, applaud you for your leadership in difficult times. It's going to be a tough session next time; I hope to be working with you as we have in the past in this next session. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. We appreciate that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, before the Senator exits the podium, it's been my habit, as a former member of the legislature, to always take the time to recognize somebody worthy of recognition, and I have chosen not to recognize those who are not, and I wish to say to the citizens who are represented by Senator Cain or will be in the future, this commission has no greater friend, transportation has no greater friend than David Cain and has been for his entire legislative career. He was my first chairman when I was a freshman in the House on transportation, has been involved in transportation matters for 20 years, and we're deeply appreciative of the contribution you make to transportation solutions.

SENATOR CAIN: Thank you.

MR. DUNCAN: Representative Mark Homer hit the ground running on this project and has come on board to join us in getting this project completed. Representative Homer.

MR. HOMER: Thank you, Danny. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, thank you for having me here today. You've heard the presentation, you've seen the facts, and as Senator Cain said, there's not much that I can really add to that other than my full support for this project. I have been here before in support of this project, and I kind of liken this issue that we have to close this gap as kind of like a partially clogged artery in a human. Sometimes you've just got to fix the problem and go in there and a little angioplasty makes the whole body feel better, and that's what we're trying to convince you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Look at them when you say that.

(General laughter.)

MR. HARPER: I think you saw where closing this gap will lead to relieving some pressure from 35 and 45, and would be beneficial to the whole state. Yes, it's going to be very beneficial to our area but it will complement our other highways within this state and help alleviate some of the problems.

And again, I understand the funding constraints that we're under but we fully, fully support this and hope that you can give it all of your consideration. Thank you.

MR. DUNCAN: Dr. Keith McFarland, president, Texas A&M Commerce, and this is the second time he has appeared before this commission. Dr. McFarland.

DR. McFARLAND: Commissioner Johnson, Members Nichols and Williamson. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Keith McFarland, I'm president of Texas A&M University-Commerce, and my purpose in coming here today is to testify in support of the Highway 24 project, especially closing the gap.

Highway 24 is the major artery in and out of Commerce, and it's a little deceiving. You look at the map and you see a town of about 8,000, but we have a university of 8,500 and it's growing. More than half of our students commute to campus during the week; as do over a thousand, roughly, in staff, more than half come in each day. In addition to that, people come to campus all the time for continuing education or workshops. And things don't slow down in the evening. We have eleven varsity sports. There's always activity there -- we have concerts, plays, cultural and entertainment events, so people come throughout Northeast Texas and they come in and leave on Highway 24.

In addition to that, we just opened a new children's museum in Commerce which will be bringing many more people to our area, many of those schoolchildren on buses, and two years from now we'll be opening our new science center on the campus which will have one of the largest and finest planetariums in the southwest and that will certainly enhance the activity in Commerce.

So things don't slow down; students and visitors start flowing into Commerce early in the morning and they're departing late at night, including many schoolchildren. And we would like that to be the safest highway possible, and so we certainly urge you, and I urge you on behalf of Texas A&M University-Commerce, to support this close the gap initiative. Thank you very much for your time and support in the past.

MR. DUNCAN: Again, we would like to thank the commission and everyone in the Texas Department of Transportation for their past support. Do the commissioners have any questions of our delegation?

MR. JOHNSON: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: No. I guess the one comment may be to our district engineer.

MR. JOHNSON: Is Jim Freeman here?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. I saw him earlier.

MR. JOHNSON: Jim, could you come up?

MR. NICHOLS: The main section of this, the current status is Long Range Plan?

MR. FREEMAN: That's correct, yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Normally we move projects from Long Range Plan to what we call DEVELOP and then move them to CONSTRUCT.

MR. FREEMAN: Yes, that's correct. There has been some money dedicated by Max Sandlin for right of way, and to benefit from this money, we wanted to try to go ahead and move it into the CONSTRUCT mode.

MR. NICHOLS: The environmental process of adding the extra lanes, is there any additional right of way that will have to be acquired?

MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. On the north end the right of way will be fairly simple, we think, to buy; the south end there may be a little bit of a problem with some mitigated property from Lake Cooper, but we think we can handle that problem.

MR. NICHOLS: To get a record of decision, we go through the environmental process and get a record of decision so we can move forward. How much time do you think that would take?

MR. FREEMAN: I would estimate probably 12 months.

MR. NICHOLS: All right, thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Probably one or two questions and a comment. The first question is when we acquire the additional right of way -- should the commission be able to find a way to do this -- can we be real aggressive on acquiring more than we anticipate we need right now in the event that DART might one day want to bring its commuter rail system out 24?

MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir, there would be no reason we couldn't do that and improve the utility corridor also through there.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And the second that maybe is more of a comment than a question, Chair -- and I would not want you or your constituency, and certainly the Senator, to take this wrong -- but everybody that is coming forward now, I just pose the question: have you thought about a regional authority; have you thought about a toll authority for Northeast Texas; does this project fit long term into that scheme. Bearing in mind that we're going to ask the legislature for some tools in '03 to perhaps exempt your own residences from tolls that you might set up for your toll authority, I mean, was that conversation ever had?

MR. FREEMAN: I think the conversation has been discussed, talking about the Trans Texas Corridor and a number of things, and as far as any kind of decision, no decision has been made.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Just as long as we're at least talking about it in the area.

MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Obviously if the legislature wants to move forward on transportation, the legislature and the governor, whoever he may be, is going to have to make a decision about taxes versus some other method of finance, and if taxes is uncomfortable -- which it always is for an elected person, as it should be -- then tolls may be the alternative for the cash flow of the future. And I just encourage you and the citizens from the area to never let that stray far from your mind as an alternative.

MR. FREEMAN: It has been discussed and thought about, certainly.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Jim, the request this morning, does it completely close the gap? It looks like there are two components.

MR. FREEMAN: There are two components.

MR. JOHNSON: One to do the northern construction; I assume the loop around Cooper.

MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir, there are two components. The north portion there is approximately $21 million and the south portion is also approximately a little over $20 million.

MR. JOHNSON: So in automobile dealer's terminology of a drive-out price, we're looking at $40 million plus.

MR. FREEMAN: That's correct, yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Have we considered in any of the design utilizing the existing two lanes and building two adjacent lanes as opposed to going in and building a divided new four-lane?

MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. The existing lanes would definitely be utilized; we do have some narrow bridges that would need to be widened and I think the money actually included replacement of these bridges. Right now we do have a 40-foot roadway out there, the narrow bridges are 30, I believe it is, and our thought was rather than just to widen that bridge, they would probably need to be improved hydraulically and replaced also.

MR. JOHNSON: I had a couple of random thoughts, and these are they. Within the past year I've gotten, and I assume my fellow commissioners have gotten a copy of the same letter from an elderly gentleman in Paris and he pointed out that when he used to and continues to go to Dallas that this is the only two-lane part that he has to travel.

MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir, Mr. Castleberry.

MR. JOHNSON: He travels a safe, nice highway, and it was obviously a significant letter to me because I remember it and whoever that gentleman was, I thank you for the letter and pointing that out. I think it's probably typical of the people of Northeast Texas and how they would like to see this bottleneck de-bottlenecked.

My personal philosophy is that we need to finish what we start and in that vein hopefully we can get this consistent four-lane divided throughout. As my good friend and fellow commissioner Mr. Williamson said, we allocate our resources and we don't have the resources to do everything that we'd like to be doing, but an extremely interesting delegation proposal and I think it's something that's very important to the area of the state and the state as a whole, and hopefully we'll get enough resources to close the gap.

MR. FREEMAN: Thank you, sir. I think the fellow's name is Mr. Castleberry and he is a very interesting man.

MR. JOHNSON: Have you been reading my mail, Jim?

(General laughter.)

MR. FREEMAN: Well, no. He sends me a copy of it too. He calls me about once a month and discusses it; he's an interesting fellow.

We have another fellow from Honey Grove that when we talk about the Trans Texas Corridor, about a year ago he called and said, You know, wouldn't it make sense to build some kind of a loop around the Dallas area that would tie to 35 and go south. And I said, You know, I think you've been reading some minds also, it's being thought of.

MR. JOHNSON: You've got a lot of sages and seers up there.

MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir, we do. It's a very good area.

MR. JOHNSON: It is an extremely good area. Any other thoughts or questions? Okay, Robert.

MR. NICHOLS: Not so much a question to you but really talking to the people who came today. One of the things that the chairman mentioned a while ago is over the last number of years we've changed some of the way we're doing business and planning our projects to go away from segmentized pieces to completing projects and not leaving gaps. That is the direction that we've been heading over the last several years, and in our new planning document for how we lay out programs for transportation in the future, and it will incorporate a lot of that, committing to whole projects. So this certainly filling in a gap on a long project falls right in line with that.

And also, I think it's important for all of you who came here today to know that it is important to us to know that from a regional perspective that you have come together to select this as the most important project because we so often in areas of the state get into situations where one county wants to do this and the city wants to do that and there's conflicting views in your area for what is really needed and what is most important for the area, and so the fact that you have come together, multi- county, multi-cities and things like that, in support of filling this gap I think is very important to us. My hat's off to you, very good presentation.

MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely.

One question for Senator Cain. When Ric Williamson was a freshman legislator, did he have to wear a beanie?

(General laughter.)

SENATOR CAIN: No, he didn't. As a matter of fact, I'll brag on Ric. He was one of the best members that I ever had and I chaired that committee for 12 years; he was right on top of every issue just as it appears he is here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. You were a good chairman to work for.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for your presentation. We'll take a brief recess so our good friends from Hunt, Hopkins, Delta and Lamar Counties can return to their needed destinations. Drive safely; we're grateful you're here. And the group, I believe, from San Angelo and Tom Green County will be on deck.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

CITY OF SAN ANGELO/TOM GREEN COUNTY

(Dick Funk, Representative Rob Junell, Senator Jeff Wentworth, Senator Robert Duncan)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting. Our second delegation this morning is from the San Angelo area. This group brings folks from that great city and also Tom Green County, and we're delighted that they're here. I understand that Dick Funk of the San Angelo Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee will speak first. I hope I've been informed correctly in that regard.

Greetings. We're glad that you're here, Dick, and I know that you are also a recipient of a Road Hand award and I hope you noticed the plaque out in the corridor and found your name prominently displayed.

MAYOR FUNK: Well, I appreciate that very much, and Chairman Johnson and members of the commission, we are honored to be here. My first thought was to say thanks for all the projects that have been completed and that are now under way. They're very needed and we appreciate them. And I know Commissioner Nichols will recall a meeting in Lubbock where we highlighted this concept and supported your very restrictive access to these high speed highways and we still do that today and intend to impose that to the extent we can on what we're going to be talking about today.

We do have people that represent us that will not be speaking and I would like them to stand: Judge Mike Brown, our county judge, supports it; Tom Adams, our city manager; Bob Diebitsch, the vice president of our chamber of commerce; Kevin Evans who is a representative of the Ports-to-Plains people; and Walter McCullough and his staff also agree with us, and we want you to know we appreciate them and what they do in our community.

The presentation will be made by Robert Junell, and at this time I present Robert Junell. Thank you.

MR. JUNELL: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Nichols and Commissioner Williamson. We have no acronym, but this is a way to connect San Angelo to the Indian Nation Turnpike, wherever it may be located; we would like to go there as well.

(General laughter.)

MR. JUNELL: This is part of a plan that we think whereas it benefits certainly San Angelo and Tom Green County, it is part of a bigger plan that I think the commission has already looked at adopting: one is the Texas Trunk System and the Ports-to-Plains and the relief route.

If my lovely assistant, John DeWitt right here, who works for you, would go to the next slide. If you look at the Trunk System and Ports-to-Plains connections that we have -- and John, let's go up to the top on 87 North -- that is already completed as part of the Ports-to-Plains and as Phase 1 of the Trunk System, that's four lanes coming into San Angelo. If you go through the City of San Angelo -- which is where it goes at the present time -- there are 13 stop lights going through the City of San Angelo on that route, and this is the major US highway from Denver, Colorado through Amarillo to Lubbock, Big Spring, San Angelo and then on south.

Then as you go south on 277, which connects you with Eldorado, Sonora and then probably most importantly from the concept of the State of Texas, Del Rio -- which Del Rio and its sister city Ciudad Acuna, we've been trying to develop as an alternative crossing location from Laredo, because Laredo can't get any more than it's getting right now. Now, 277 is part of the Ports-to-Plains corridor and Trunk System corridor, it is two-lane at the present time. Now, there's been quite a bit of work on the two-lane part of it between Sonora and Del Rio, but it is still two-lane all the way to Del Rio.

Coming on Highway 67 from the northeast is four-lane from San Angelo to Ballinger, and then Highway 87 as it leaves San Angelo going to the southeast as it goes on and eventually connects whether you go to Brady and hit Austin or you come on to US 83 at Eden and go on down and hit interstate 10, that portion is four-lane right now almost all the way into Eden.

All of these would be on the Trunk System already completed, and what we're talking about is what we call Loop 306, which is the red portion around the town that would connect all of these highways and not only relieve traffic coming through the City of San Angelo but also expedite traffic on the Ports-to-Plains connections.

Here is a concept right now that we have and that the district and Walter McCullough -- and let me tell you, if you ever move Walter McCullough from San Angelo, there's going to be a riot in town; we'll come up with an acronym at that time, Mike, for that. But Highway 87, as you see, it comes in from the north and the dotted line is an area which is a proposed purchase of right of way. Now, the first portion of that from 87 to what is State Highway 208 goes through what is known as Llano County School Line, and Commissioner Williamson will recall that the Republic donated lands to county school districts at one time. Llano County and Washington County had land within Tom Green County and Llano County still owns its land. And so we think the highest and best use to assist the taxpayers of Llano County would be to purchase our right of way as it went through there. There's no neighborhoods or anything else, it is just purely mesquite pasture at the present time.

From 208 to 277 is basically farmland as you go across there to connect with Highway 277. We think this is an excellent corridor that you would not have to have any access roads coming off of it except as it crossed 208 and then, of course, as it entered 277. There's no other roadways going through that area at the present time and there's no developments on either side, businesses or anything, so this would be an excellent candidate for the no access highways.

As we hit 277, the State of Texas presently owns all of the land from 277 going south all the way down to 87, and including the right of way for all of that. The state has owned that right of way since, I've been told, back in the 1960s. What's important about this area where the big 67 is on the right on the east side, that is our industrial park that the city and county are developing right there and we already have a business going in right there.

A little bit further down on Loop 306 and you'll see just to the west of that is Goodfellow Air Force Base. Goodfellow Air Force Base is the intelligence training base for all four of the major services; it's run by the Air Force but it does the intelligence training for the Army, Marines, Navy and the Air Force, and is also the fire fighting school and may be included as the school for weapons of mass destruction for how they would disarm those and deal with those for all four forces. It was moved from Chinook Air Force Base in the last base realignment. So it is a very important part of our community and this would give them access coming in and out of San Angelo. Their major base that they have to deal with is the training command in San Antonio. And the two blue dots indicate places where we need overpasses located coming in and out of both sides of Goodfellow Air Force Base.

Some background is this would provide connection for the Texas Trunk System and Ports-to-Plains corridors. The preliminary alignment study identified this corridor as being the most appropriate. We had two public meetings, and I hate to say anything was unanimous, but this was by far the route that was favored by everybody in our town. TxDOT has granted -- whatever it means -- UTP status, we have it, and we're in Category 4, which I hope that's good.

This fulfills mobility objectives of the Texas Trunk System and the Ports-to-Plains programs. Bryant Boulevard, which is 87 going through town, currently carries 39,000 vehicles per day at Service Level E. Now, if you have rage on the road in Tom Green County, this is where it happens right there, and as I said this morning, there are 13 stop lights that are timed to catch you at every intersection as you go through town. Hazardous cargo at the present time has to take this route, and we were lucky the other day. We had a turnover out on 277 at the edge of town before it actually got into town, and that part of the highway was closed for several hours as it had to be evacuated to clean up that spill.

I think one of the most important things to the commission, and certainly being cognizant of cost concerns that you have, this incorporates existing highway facilities and right of way. Probably two-thirds of the right of way is already owned by the commission. It minimizes cost and by going north across Llano School land, minimizes any adverse impacts to neighborhoods or businesses that are in existence because they're simply not there.

Again, our alignment study represents the best alternative, it's the best balance between pending access management policy. Again, we think that particularly in the northern area where it comes across north of the city, the no access road and whatever the magic term of art is for that would be something that would be well utilized there. And it also maximizes economic development potential for San Angelo and West Texas, and I really think for the State of Texas as we can take some of the traffic, particularly out of going on 35 South to Mexico.

So what is our request when we get to the big thing? Well, we would like to have $500,000 a year for three years to expedite the continued development of this corridor for the preliminary planning and design processes. So that's $500,000 a year for three years. And then we would like to fund the construction of the interchanges at the two current at-grade intersections on existing Loop 306 -- and why don't you go to that one, John -- that's the two blue.

Now, Commissioner Johnson and Mr. Behrens were with us back in May, I think, and we went along this loop. This is the same loop that we want. The commission has already authorized the building of an interchange, and I believe it's scheduled for '04, and you see where it says Loop 306, Pulliam and Loop 306, and the commission has already authorized the building of an interchange there and I think it's on basis for '04.

It is my pleasure for me to introduce to you -- which really needs no introduction -- one of our two state senators, at least until the new legislature is sworn in, and we've really been blessed to have two state senators. I don't think it's a disadvantage to be represented by two people in the State Senate by any means, and we've been very blessed for the last ten years to have Jeff Wentworth, who is a great personal friend of mine and Commissioner Williamson and all of you, and so at this time, Senator Jeff Wentworth, would like to come forward.

SENATOR WENTWORTH: Thank you very much, Rob. Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Mr. Williamson, Mr. Behrens. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you again. As you all know, I have three areas that regularly come before you: San Antonio on whose MPO I currently serve, Austin on whose MPO I just finished serving eight years, and the only reason I'm not on the MPO in San Angelo is they don't allow members of the legislature to be on their MPO, which is actually a policy I've recommended to San Antonio and Austin.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR WENTWORTH: As Rob said, I've represented most of San Angelo and Tom Green County since 1995. I've lived in Pampa, Amarillo, went to law school for three years in Lubbock. I really regret that I'm going to lose Tom Green County in January, but I'm very pleased that my good friend Bob Duncan is going to take over all of Tom Green County along with only, I think, 42 other counties -- and I'm not kidding.

Anyway, I'm here today to tell you that San Angelo needs this relief route. Mayor Funk and Chairman Junell have already provided you with many of the details of the project, so I'd like to just follow up with some additional information.

The proposed relief route was identified in the San Angelo preliminary route study and uses many of the existing facilities on Loop 306, US 277, US 67 and US 87. It provides connections with Texas Trunk System routes. Using existing facilities will minimize cost by reducing the need to acquire new right of way and relocate utilities, and it will mean fewer environmental concerns. Most of the north-south movement of traffic through San Angelo is on the US 87 corridor. The main objective of this project is to divert through traffic, truck traffic and hazardous cargo onto the relief route.

This project enjoys broad community support. The individuals who voiced their support during the public involvement process, along with the City of San Angelo, Tom Green County, and the San Angelo Chamber of Commerce all recognize the need for this project and they fully support it. I personally urge your favorable consideration of our request to fund and construct the relief route and the necessary interchanges.

With that, I want to tell you I've got an 11:30 appointment in Bexar County and I'm going to ask to be excused so that I can get on I-35 to drive south to that appointment. And I'd like to close by reminding you that I am one member of the legislature who recommended, nearly two years ago now, that we provide this commission with the necessary resources in terms of increasing the motor vehicle fuel tax in this state, and I intend to continue pressing that next session, along with changing the collection of the tax at the rack, and anything else you all want to suggest to me, as a matter of fact, in that area. I heard a great speech by Chairman Johnson in San Antonio about a month ago where he didn't advocate any of these positions but he laid out options for us to consider, and they all made good sense to me.

Transportation is extremely important to the people of Texas. The motor vehicle tax increase is the only tax that people in the 17 counties that I currently represent have let me know they would like to see increased. They don't want an income tax, they don't want increased property tax, they don't really want expansion or increase of the sales tax generally, but the gasoline tax is okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think most people are beginning to understand the dilemma that we face. We don't want to ask you guys and gals to vote for something that's uncomfortable for you, that's not our job, but the reality is as our system gets older every year, we have to spend more of the tax collections on maintaining that system, and that means we have less to spend on new constructions. It's not Republican, it's not Democrat, and it's not conservative or liberal, it's just the way it is.

SENATOR WENTWORTH: It's a common sense Texas answer to the problem, it seems to me.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If your house is 40 years old, you're going to spend more money fixing your house. You know, you've got 16 kids now and need to build another house, and if you haven't got the money to do it, everybody just keeps cramming into the same house.

And Chairman, as with Senator Cain beforehand, we are blessed today to have three of our most supportive senators in the room at once, and even though the San Angelo area will be losing Senator Wentworth, the State of Texas benefits from your assistance to this department and we appreciate it very much.

SENATOR WENTWORTH: Thank you and I'm going to remain on the MPO in San Antonio, and I've been told since Hays County has been added to my Senate district beginning in January, I'm going to probably go back on the Austin MPO, so I'll be back.

And with that, it is my privilege to introduce my good friend Bob Duncan who, among my colleagues, is among the hardest working, most principled members of the Senate that I've ever had the pleasure to serve with.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR DUNCAN: I think there's a route you can go through San Angelo to get to San Antonio that might be a little faster.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Take a detour.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you for allowing me to be here today and to speak on behalf of San Angelo which is currently in my district. Montford gave me all the Democrats in San Angelo and I think now I do have the opportunity to represent the entire community, and I really wanted that to happen because I like the things they do in San Angelo; I like the way they work. They have the West Texas spirit, they have the spirit of trying to solve their own problems and deal with problems with common sense solutions, so I'm real excited.

I'm real excited about what you did about a year and a half ago in approving the Ports-to-Plains corridor for Texas because, as I think you're probably aware, President Bush signed into law the final leg of that going all the way from Denver to Laredo, so now we have Congressional designation of the entire route and that's thanks to your vision, to your willingness to take a different approach and look at some things that we need for Texas. So I want to say thanks for that.

As you'll recall, when we were talking about Ports-to-Plains over the years, we were talking about the fact that the beauty part of that particular corridor is the fact that much of it is already on the Trunk System, much of it is already done. The bigger issues are going to be dealing with the reliever routes in order to make it an efficient corridor.

As you know, Big Spring has gotten some assistance in planning for that for their reliever route. This will be another reliever route that will be critical to the Ports-to-Plains. So I applaud the city for all the work that they've done to develop the most logical and feasible route and the incremental approach to developing that that they're asking for today: the study for three years to get all of the paperwork out of the way and to do the necessary environmental issues and things that have to happen, and then these two overpasses which will immediately relieve congestion will be needed in the future.

So I think their request is very modest, it is well thought through, and we hope that you can give it favorable consideration. It is a regional type of a concept, and I always try to push that part of it because it doesn't just affect San Angelo. I go through San Angelo a lot of times to go to Austin and the first time I went through there I said, Surely there's got to be a route that I can get around. And there's not, and there are 13 stop lights and they all turn red about the time I'm in a hurry.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR DUNCAN: But thank you for your consideration and thank you for all that you do for the folks out in West Texas, especially in San Angelo.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. JUNELL: Well, that's our program, and we'd be glad or Walter will be glad to answer any of the technical questions that you may have. And again, I want to thank you for this commission and past commissions, and Mike and your predecessors. West Texas and San Angelo have been treated very fairly by this commission, and one of the things that I learned from Commissioner Williamson is it is not good to put politics into roads, and so when my colleagues have asked to come and say I want to put a rider in the Appropriations Act to build a highway, and I said, Well, you know, I'm not putting one in there for mine so I'm not real sure that's a good idea. I hope I've learned my lesson well in that regard, and we need to keep it out of politics into people who have a big-picture view of the State of Texas.

MR. JOHNSON: We appreciate that. Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any questions but I want to thank you for all the things you've done over the years. I really appreciate the help and support.

I had a couple of comments. On the Ports-to-Plains and the Trunk System, the Phase 1 corridor, I know that as we had hearings and meetings with people around the state on that -- in other words, we're in the mode to fill in those gaps -- one of the next most important elements, as I recall, was what are we going to do about the towns with all the stop lights that are on those corridors, and it was proposed and when we go around on this next set of hearings on it, I think one of the things we'll see is that there will be a priority, whether by relief routes or loops or whatever, but these sections of the corridors that are plugged up with stop lights, to build relief routes or loops to move the traffic and truly make them flow instead of having the bottlenecks and stuff like that, and that certainly fits exactly in with what I had seen and heard all around the state, not just in West Texas but everywhere.

Secondly, you made a couple of comments -- and I know Mr. Funk did -- like on that north leg in the presentation on the point it said access management but in the comments it was like no access zone.

MR. JUNELL: Well, there's nothing up there right now, there is nothing between 87 and 208.

MR. NICHOLS: But there could be once it's built.

MR. JUNELL: Well, but if you say there's not going to be any roads, I mean, if there's not going to be any access -- that land is still going to belong to Llano County. They've owned it since 1870, something like that, 1876 whenever we became -- after reconstruction.

MR. NICHOLS: I was just going to try to bring you up to date a little bit in that it's not a no access, it's an access management policy, and we believe, as other states have seen, that if you can manage those access points with public roads and things like that, you can still have good flow of traffic and make it all coordinate together and open some new areas up for development and opportunities and make it all work together. The Design Division has been holding public hearings and meetings in all areas of the state on that manual and what they're doing is they're going to be revising the proposed manual here in the next few months, based on all the comments they've had, particularly with cities that have actually passed it and put it into practical application; whereas, our proposed rules end up next month -- that's kind of like the due date I think by state laws -- I'm going to guess that probably the logical thing would be that we would defer or hold back or whatever until after the manual has a chance to have the revisions and go back around the state again to make sure we do it right the first time.

But it's not a no access; it's a managed access. And I think that's real important for the community and the county and all that to understand.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I think we're deeply appreciative -- I think -- of all the communities, such as the San Angelo area and the Lubbock area, there have been a lot of communities come forward and help us promote this notion to the rest of the state that it's not a bad thing to have some rational access management, and we are very -- I can tell you, we have taken note of those who have said these guys know what they're doing, be patient, they'll get there. And I think what I hear Mr. Nichols saying is we continue to be patient, we continue to adjust our proposed rules or look at our proposed rules, we continue to look at the manual and take into account the comments from San Angelo to San Diego, to Texarkana, and the small cities of Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and San Antonio and between.

We want everyone to understand this commission doesn't stand against development. We have limited resources. Every time a ramp is made it costs a lot of money, every time a frontage road is built it costs a lot of money, and every time a curb cut is made to the frontage road it stacks up traffic which costs a lot of money. And we have to, unfortunately, do these things to parcel out the resources where main lane, environmental and safety issues can be addressed as well as possible, and we appreciate those who have stood by us very much.

MR. JUNELL: Well, it would seem to me like when the pharmaceutical companies put out a new drug, they do a testing of it, new aircraft there's a testing. We would love to be your testing grounds for the limited access; we would volunteer to get started tomorrow --

MR. WILLIAMSON: You're so good.

MR. JUNELL: -- to assist you to work out these problems in a laboratory actually on the ground.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: We appreciate that. I had one question or observation. On the southeast side or east side, there are the two grade changes that were circled in blue.

MR. JUNELL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Did I understand that there's a third one that is going to start construction?

MR. JUNELL: Remember to the north where the arrow is located right now, Mr. Chairman, right there that is to be started in '04, and that's already been approved. It kind of goes four-lane to that intersection and then it stops and goes two-lane. If you take the road -- and I know you're familiar with that road because it goes to Paint Rock from right there -- lot of traffic from Paint Rock into San Angelo.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm familiar with that road. Chairman Junell might be the wrong person to direct this to, but the question is almost some advice to other communities to come before us. Governor Perry, the person for whom I work, has made it clear to me his concern for getting hazardous materials outside of cities, whether it's Dallas or San Angelo, it doesn't matter to him, he wants alternative routes. And truthfully, one of the best arguments for this commissioner is that argument, and when people come in and say help us do this -- and I guess, Walter, I'm saying this to you, the more information you can give me, and I suspect my colleagues, about the number of trucks, the type or the character of the material they carry that would be diverted around San Angelo, the easier it is to try to figure out where those scarce resources might be.

In that context -- if Carlos is here -- maybe not; he wasn't on the agenda today -- does anybody know, I know for the larger cities it's optional to have a mandatory hazardous material route?

MR. JOHNSON: There's a population limit that exceeding, is it, 250,000 people you have to have one.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So we may need to ask Senator Duncan -- who incidentally is the third road warrior that's appeared today and we appreciate all that you do, Mr. Duncan -- maybe we could ask him and it may be time to suggest to the cities that they have that authority no matter how big or small they are. I mean, I can't imagine, I grew up in Abilene, Texas just up the road from Rob's hometown, and I can't imagine people in Abilene or San Angelo liking polychlorine coming through downtown any more than people in San Antonio.

MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely not.

MR. JUNELL: Well, the problem is if you have an incident occur, it locks down our town. I mean, this goes right through the middle of town, so even if no one is hurt, to cordon off and to evacuate and then to clean up, it would -- (knocked on wood podium) we've missed it so far but that time will occur.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for all your years of service to the State of Texas, Chairman Junell.

MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good luck on the federal bench.

SENATOR DUNCAN: It occurred to me, as we were standing up here, that this is probably the last time Rob Junell will be appearing at this podium, at least as an elected official, and you think that was a good presentation, think how good it would have been if he'd have had his grease board with him. That's for those of you who have been through a finance session.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR DUNCAN: I want to say, I think on behalf of the people of San Angelo and I'm sure you share this, that we've appreciated the leadership that he's provided to the State of Texas to keep our budget balanced and also to keep us in a situation to where we can move this state forward. So thanks for all you've done, Rob.

MR. JOHNSON: Senator, I think that's extremely well said. Rob, you've been a friend to me personally and this commission and what you've contributed in terms of time and talent and resource to the state is appreciated by all who have come in contact with you. We're going to miss you across the street but we know where to find you.

MR. JUNELL: I hope you don't have to come out there.

MR. JOHNSON: Not in a business context, at least.

Anything else on San Angelo's presentation? We're grateful for everyone who made the effort to be here. We'll take a brief recess so our West Texas friends can return home safely.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

BRAZORIA COUNTY PARTNERSHIP INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

(Representative Tom Uher, Senator Mike Jackson, Judge John Willy, Representative Kyle Janek)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene our meeting. The final delegation this morning is the Brazoria County Partnership Infrastructure Committee, and Representative Tom Uher will lead the group. Greetings, Representative Uher. We're glad that you're here.

MR. UHER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the members of the commission. Being the dean of the House, I've seen many commission members come and go and I want you to know it has been a delight to see you and watch you work and what you do outside the commission hearing area because what you do on the outside is really important as we look at the transportation system within the state. You're on top of it. I think you're the commission that has worked the hardest of all the commissions that I've seen in times past, you're delightful to work with, you're very personable. I think you bring that essence of Texas to your role as commissioners before this body, and for that I am very grateful and I know all people in Texas are grateful to you.

It's my pleasure this morning, as we get started, to introduce the delegation officials that we have here this morning from Brazoria County. There is a slide, Mr. Chairman, that's in front of you and I won't go through it because you can see very quickly that we have our legislative delegation here, including former Senator Buster Brown; and we have our county commissioners here, along with our judge of the commissioners court, Judge John Willy who is an old friend of mine, sat behind me in the House for many years, is a delightful person to work with. We also have, though -- and I'd like for these folks to stand -- we have a number of commissioners from our port, from our city council members, our mayors and all others who are elected officials, if they will just please stand for a minute.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, we also have a number of groups here with us as part of this delegation this morning that represent our chambers of commerce, our economic development groups. We're a large county, and I'd like for all of them to stand. And if I've left anybody out, I hope you'll stand, and if you're not from Brazoria County, you can stand and look good.

(General laughter.)

MR. UHER: Mr. Chairman, we'll have four speakers; I'm the lead speaker this morning, and the final speaker will be Representative Kyle Janek who I believe will be Senator Janek in just a matter of days.

I'd like to tell you a little bit about the Brazoria County delegation. When we look at our various groups, we're a diverse county; we're a large county geographically. We have a western region, we have an eastern region, we have a central region, we have a southern region and northern region, but we've come together. There are 15 incorporated cities within Brazoria County, and we range in size from a few thousand to nearly 40,000 at Pearland. We have a number of chambers of commerce that represent the communities, and there's seven of those. And then we have other groups, as you can see: we have the Brazoria County Partnership, we have the SGAC Regional MPO group, the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners, and the Port of Freeport. All these economic groups come together and work together.

Among our cities we have an organization that meets once a month and we come and have dinner together and we have programs, but we look at ways to make our area an even better place to be and to live and work and do business.

The speakers today will be Senator Mike Jackson, County Judge John Willy, and of course, Senator-to-be Kyle Janek.

When we look at where we are in this county, it's a large county and you see some of the activities we have, but none of our road activities or transportation facilities would be possible without Gary Trietsch -- as you all know, he's our district engineer -- and then of course, Larry Heckathorn. They really work well with our local communities; we're extremely proud of them. And of course, my good friend up here, Mr. Mike Behrens, who was my district engineer before he came up to Austin. I think it's the quality of the people we have within the department that makes our department so good in trying to deliver to people means of moving goods and people, whether it's to work or to businesses, what-have-you, and it gets back to the quality of the folks, and we're extremely proud of Mr. Trietsch and Mr. Heckathorn.

As you can see, we have a number of projects ongoing. State Highway 6, that will connect Fort Bend County. If you go to the northern part of Brazoria County and you look at the western portion of Galveston County, you have this corridor in there that is rapidly growing and increasing both in residences and businesses and various other economic activities all being linked together, and these roads, 6 will be one of those key roads. It's an evacuation route in the event of a hurricane that hits the Galveston area, the Galveston island area.

State Highway 36 is another major road that services the west side of Brazoria County and ties into Fort Bend County just south of the Rosenberg area. And finally, State Highway 99 which is going to be very essential for the future growth in the southern portion of the county, and that's the Grand Parkway area. That is going to have a huge impact, both for businesses but as Brazoria County continues to grow in population.

I meant to say this to you. When I first got elected 35 years ago, Brazoria County was about 100,000 folks less, and so to increase to the size we have today is a phenomenal growth rate. The potential growth rate and what we believe the growth rate will be over the next decade, including the years that we're in now, will be phenomenal and I think we can easily get to another 100,000 folks in Brazoria County. Some of it will be concentrated, some of it will be dispersed, but it will be a tremendous amount of growth over the next ten years, and that growth just won't stop ten years from now; it's just going to continue to expand.

Major impact studies are slated to begin and will be excellent tools for planning the future of the covered areas and one will be State Highway 35, and as you all know, part of State Highway 35 is a demonstration project that involves Matagorda and Brazoria Counties; part of it has been constructed and I think there's some letting that you will be looking at in the near future for the Brazoria County side. It will increase the population growth, I believe, from Angleton back to the south and the west.

Then we have State Highway 288 from the Port of Freeport to the Houston central business district. We probably can better serve the central Gulf Coast than any other county in the entire Gulf Coast region, and that's simply because we have the available land, we have quick access. When you're in Pearland, you can see the skyline of Houston; you're about ten to twelve miles from the business district in Houston. It just makes a huge difference. A lot of those folks that work in Houston come and reside in our communities and they're adding to our communities and it's certainly putting a tremendous amount of population increase.

When you stop and think of Brazoria County, a lot of people think of the old days of ranches and farms and a rural life. That is still true; you can go into portions of Brazoria County and it's like any other rural county in Texas. On the other hand, when you go back and look at the history of this county, we have been a county that has been involved with manufacturing or with the economic development ever since the original 300 came to Texas under Stephen F. Austin. In fact, Stephen F. Austin was buried in Jones Creek and his remains were removed and transferred here to Austin back in the 1920s. But we are still rural and we still move agricultural products along our transportation system.

If you're not familiar where Brazoria County is, it's pretty easy to find; we're just south of Galveston, we're just to the east of Harris County. The access from Brazoria County back into the Houston district is very easy with the roads that we do have. The county is ranked in the top 20 counties of manufacturing locations in the United States and we have about 1,400 square miles of land mass.

The next slide will show you the various roads that we have, and while that looks like a lot of roads, it really is not enough roads to meet the growing needs that we will be looking at over the next 10 to 20 years. If the Spaceport project should come to Brazoria County, it will accelerate again development and growth much like it has in the Clear Lake and the Friendswood area. It's going to be an exploding population. And if you look just to your left of where it says State Highway 36 and go to the top of our exhibit, that would be Fort Bend County. Fort Bend County, just to give you an idea of how their growth has been, when I was elected, Commissioner Williamson, there was about 40,000 people in Fort Bend County; it was primarily an agricultural community. Over the last 35 years that's changed and today there are about 370,000 people and growing every day.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Have you been in 35 years?

MR. UHER: Yes, sir, and when I started, I didn't have any idea that I'd serve more than one term. I just kept on running, it's like that pink rabbit.

(General laughter.)

MR. UHER: Commissioner Williamson and I had a chance to serve together and work together, we had many good times together.

So what you see when you look at those roads there, you'll see that Brazoria County is on the verge of becoming a very large populated area despite the fact that we're still rural in many areas, and the needs for our road system will increase dramatically over the next 20 years. And of course, you can look at some of these pictures, and particularly in some of the communities at early morning hours or late in the evening when the first workday is complete, we're bumper to bumper and we're like any suburban area in Texas or maybe anywhere else. That's bumper to bumper, hard to get onto some of these roads; some of the roads are just two lanes when they need to be four lanes. There is a tremendous need in some of these communities to expand the number of lanes on some of these roads, and there's a number of those projects that are underway.

When you look at who our employers are, the chart will tell you who all that are there, but we have some of the largest companies not only in the United States but some of these companies reflect businesses that are worldwide as well, Dow Chemical for instance. Wal-Mart stores is now both in America and it's also found in Europe and I think there's some indication that the management of Wal-Mart is looking at going into China, so when you look at who some of these companies are that are there, you'll find that they're major companies. Phillips Petroleum now is Conoco Phillips and it is also a worldwide type company.

So when you look at all the type of employers that we have, that we have an area that is economically very strong and that continues to attract people to come and live there, finding jobs in the community, but you also find that we're a great place for people who want to work in Houston and come down 288 or 36 and live in our area.

We have a very first class airport there at the Brazoria County Airport. You'll find that major airplanes can come in and land here and it's certainly having a huge impact upon attracting new industry for our area.

Finally, I want to talk to you a little bit about the Port of Freeport. The Port of Freeport has been around long before 1889, but in 1889 is when we got our first jetty. If you go back to the founding fathers, the Port of Freeport and Velasco which is now part of Freeport, was a major port and we brought people in, brought goods in. This port is led by a very qualified manager and people who work within the port system; they have a great board of commissioners who look toward the expansion of this port. You'll find that we now have 45 feet of depth, we have 7,500 acres of land that can be developed, 1,400 acres involved with mitigation so we don't have any mitigation issues. We're the largest green fruit port in Texas. We're the closest port, I believe, to deep water on the Gulf of Mexico, and we're very much involved in the foreign trade zone with our sister countries that we deal with being not only on this continent but also in the Middle East. You'll find that we're the second largest container port on the Texas Gulf Coast, and we have other facilities such as bulk cargo and petroleum terminal services.

Nearby are ports like the Texas City Port, the Port of Houston, and the Port of Galveston. We have other airports such as Houston Hobby, Ellington Field and we're close to the George Bush Intercontinental Airport, within easy driving range. Again, those facilities and the land that we have make us an attractive place for people to locate new businesses.

We're served by the Burlington Northern and the Santa Fe railroad systems. Both have tracks throughout the county and move a lot of cargo. We have 2,300 miles of roadways, 1,107 miles of county roads, 1,180 miles of state roads; we have over 500 bridges, and you're all familiar with the problem when you look at our bridge structures, not only in Brazoria County but in Texas, of a real need to address some of these bridges as time has taken its toll.

It is my pleasure at this point to introduce to you Senator Jackson who also represents Brazoria County.

SENATOR JACKSON: Thank you, Representative Uher. Members of the commission, Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to be here today in support of Brazoria County. It's one of the three counties I represent portions of: Brazoria, Galveston and Harris County.

I'll just cover a few things on what's been happening there which I think we need to know to do planning that this group is obviously working on now for the future growth of the county. If you look at population increase from 1980 to 2000, 30 percent, projected to grow another 27 to 30 percent by the year 2020. We have a whole lot of people taking flight out of Harris County and moving down into the suburban counties, and Highway 288 is becoming kind of like the Gulf Freeway. Now, when you drive over and get off of Beltway 8 and head south on 288, you just wish you could drive the 55 mile an hour speed limit but usually you have to go slower than that as you go south.

Brazoria County has three major hospitals, eight school districts, and three community college campuses, many recreational facilities. We have a lot of traffic coming out of Harris County metropolitan area coming down for the beaches, fishing, outdoor activities and things like that.

NASA is also in my legislative district, Ellington Field. All of these tie together for utilization by the community of many of the facilities and the infrastructure that is there.

We've got 20 miles of public beaches there and everybody loves to go to the beach. The Brazos River, the San Bernard River, lots of great fishing, lots of boat ramps, and lots of traffic generated from those natural resources that are there in Brazoria County.

The northern portion of the county, as was talked about a moment ago, has grown up extremely quickly. Pearland is one of the highest growth areas, I think, around the entire southeast part of Texas. We have that growth to deal with and the economic development, residential development, huge subdivisions going in there. The southern end of the county, you go down and there is major industrial facilities, as was named a few moments ago with Dow Freeport, BASF, Phillips and several other chemical facilities, so we see a high use of the roadway by heavy trucks containing some of those chemicals that you were talking about just a while ago that you would like to have on a separate route.

Along with that you have that traffic that I think we're all finding out that maintenance of the roads is a bigger issue when you have heavy truck traffic as opposed to just more commuter traffic. We have 102,000 rail cars shipped every year and that does good for our highways because that keeps that many trucks off, but we do move a whole lot of transport of chemicals by the railways there as well. Again, the heavy truck traffic goes with the petrochemical industry, hard demands on the infrastructure.

Hurricane evacuation, probably one of the most important issues. You don't realize how important that is until you look at the panic that goes on with trying to move 2- or 3 million people out of an area when a big storm comes. We have been blessed since 1983, really, of Alicia of not having a storm, but if you notice, we have 288, 35, 36, all north-south evacuation routes that go pretty well, but the thing that scares me the most is if you look all of those are generally going toward the Houston area and that's not really where you need to be going because you're going to have so much traffic there anyway, so anything that would divert you out further to the west side, such as 36, to get around that bottleneck at Houston I think would be very important.

There's also a County Road 257 that leads west from Galveston Island, comes over San Luis Pass and feeds in over there that I think would be very, very beneficial to make sure that that road would be a good route for people that are in Galveston to be able to get out because coming up out of the causeway and heading north on 45 just totally blocks down Highway 146 and all that area just becomes a huge catastrophe there in the event of a storm evacuation.

And now to discuss some of the future needs for the county and the county's role in this partnership, we've got County Judge John Willy. Thank you for your time.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait a minute. Are you leaving?

SENATOR JACKSON: No, I'm not leaving.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you going to come back up to the microphone?

SENATOR JACKSON: No, unless you have a question.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't have a question, but like I said, we're blessed with having a lot of great senatorial support today, and the department appreciates your continued support for us all through the years.

SENATOR JACKSON: You guys have a tough job.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's not often we have so many of our friends come through on the same day: Senator Duncan and Senator Cain.

MR. JOHNSON: A few more and we'd have a quorum.

MR. WILLIAMSON: No kidding. Yourself and my soon-to-be former colleague and your soon-to-be senatorial colleague, some of the best friends we've had through the years. Tom Uher has been a good friend to the department through the years.

SENATOR JACKSON: That part of the state, we have all worked together in one form or another in different arenas and I think we've got a pretty effective delegation that can get some things done for our area, but I appreciate the job you do. You're probably looking at, in a little bit worse manner than we will be facing, the shortfall in the budget when we get in. When you have more requests than you have dollars to apply, and I guess the trick becomes in making those decisions to fund the ones that are going to do the most, and I'm proud to have you guys up there making those decisions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

JUDGE WILLY: Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And yet another former colleague.

JUDGE WILLY: Yes, sir, another former colleague and glad to be here to see you again today, Ric.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good to see you, John.

JUDGE WILLY: Gentlemen. As was mentioned, there's been several of the items mentioned previously that I'm going to talk about a little bit more specifically.

We talked briefly about the Spaceport which is an exciting item, it's kind of futuristic thinking, it's thinking out of the box, and it's something that we are proud to say that we try to do in Brazoria County. We have the Brazoria Meadows Super Speedway which is a NASCAR-capable speedway coming to Brazoria County; we have the Port of Freeport and its expansion; the planned residential developments; the airport expansion which has been touched on briefly; the new de-sal plant that the governor, I believe, cut the ribbon with the memorandum of understanding between the Brazos River Authority and the de-sal unit in partnership with the Dow Chemical; and we have the Grand Parkway corridor.

Let me talk briefly about the Spaceport. Brazoria County is one of the three sites that are being considered in Texas of the 33 sites overall in the United States and elsewhere that are being considered for a Spaceport for launching and expendable and reusable launch vehicles. We're into our second phase of the first phase of the study on that, and we're at a point where basically we can, now FAA may we. It's at that point now. We've basically cleared the critical flaw issue and are moving on from there, and in fact, we'll be meeting with the Spaceport Commission this afternoon to further that endeavor.

The Gulf Coast Spaceport Authority is a partnership between Brazoria County, Harris County, Fort Bend County and Galveston County, and basically is made up of the five economic development functions within those counties. We'll be moving on with that, and the nice thing about the location of this, we don't have to transfer the technology if we're selected as a Spaceport site, if we're allowed to have a Spaceport site because we can simply transfer the technology across the creek from NASA. And we'll be looking at different customers for this site. We also are fortunate to have the best east apogee and south apogee of any of the sites that have been considered to this point, which gives us a leg up on that project.

Like I mentioned, the Phase 1 study has been completed. We can launch up to 11,000 pounds of medium payload into low and medium polar and international orbit via expendable launch vehicles and sounding rockets and launches are planned for the fall of 2002 or early 2003. The Phase 2 follow-up is ongoing. The Spaceport users group has to be identified and the Spaceport site and locations all evaluated, and all this will culminate in FAA regulations that have to be approved.

Another exciting thing that we're looking at is Brazoria Meadows Super Speedway, and incidentally, Tom Floyd and Steve Martin are in our audience today, the two principals behind this unit. The 2,700-acre tract has been closed and title has been transferred. It's at 1462 and the South Freeway coming out of Houston; that's just north of Angleton. Seating capacity initially will be about 75,000 people to start and then it will move to 150,000 in the future; it will be a 900-acre super speedway, it will be over $100 million facility by the time they get through with it. The design is in progress now and the projected completion date is fall of 2004. It will accommodate additional commercial, residential and retail development around the multi-use entertainment complex.

This will kind of give you some indication of some of the future needs that if we have the type of facility which will be an economic benefit not only to Brazoria County but to the State of Texas. There are some adjustments that would have to be made on the ramps on the 288 freeway, the overpass, the U-turns and four on and four off ramps that would be able to accommodate that number of people, and then on 1462, there's going to have to be an enlargement of that area to allow people to come in and out.

The county is also looking at extending County Road 51, which is where it says Conference Center at the arrow going north on your map there or your plat. The county would be looking at the possibility of extending County Road 51 over to Highway 35 which hopefully Highway 35 between Angleton and Alvin and on to the 45 freeway will come into the radar screen at some time in the future and we'll be able to move forward with that.

The residential developments in Brazoria County, we have grown from 190,000 in 1990 to just a little short of 250,000 this year -- in fact, I suspect we're pushing 250,000 now. We have over 3,000 subdivisions in the county, including 60 new platted subdivisions representing over 15,000 new homes that will be built in Brazoria County in the next five years. Only yesterday I met with a group that has purchased another 1,100 acres just south of Highway 6 which will equate to another 4- to 5,000 homes. So the projected growth that we've looked at will probably be exceeded.

Basically what you're seeing is a disintermediation of population, not from Brazoria County but to Brazoria County from the Harris County area trying to get out of the congestion that they have up there. So we will continue to grow, and surprisingly, with the layout of the cities in Brazoria County, you'll probably find that the City of Manvel will ultimately be one of the largest cities in Brazoria County; it's not constricted by other cities as much as Pearland, perhaps.

Over 2,400 new homes were permitted in 2001 and that's basically from a 15 percent growth per year since 1993. Just Pearland, to give you an example of the growth we've experienced, in 1990 they had 19,000 people; in the year 2000 they were at 39,000 people, and today they're over 47,000 people. That's how fast it's growing in Brazoria County.

Based on the total population comparison -- and when you take this comparison, you have to put it in perspective -- Las Vegas produces about 22,000 homes a year, Houston produces about 22,000 homes a year. On a per capita basis Brazoria County produces more homes per year than do those cities if you put it on a per capita basis.

The initiatives that we're working on now, we have made our first step into a county road inventory and condition with hopefully the tail on the end of that will be the beginning of a mobility plan which will be a countywide mobility plan. This has already begun in the Pearland area with their mobility bond program of about $92 million going toward addressing the needs that they have in Pearland which is growing so rapidly they have to, and they're doing it themselves, mostly it's not state money that's in that $92 million.

The county is looking at the toll road possibilities. As you well know, on 99 which is the Grand Parkway, the route has been determined for the first portion coming through the west side of Brazoria County to the freeway, the location of the second part going from the 288 freeway on over to Alvin, and then connecting on to Galveston are under consideration now. Hopefully the studies will prove that this is a viable program for a toll road.

Secondly, when I look at Brazoria County, I see the west side of Harris County with I-10, 59 and the Westpark improvement that was made through their bonding issues and their leverage of funds, obviously, and I look at swinging that around to Brazoria County and figuring out the solution for the relief of 59 and 45, using the 288 freeway as a major corridor, and then looking at the possible toll situation that we could have to relieve the central part of the county which in turn would relieve 45 and 59 using the Grand Parkway as a major artery to accomplish that.

As mentioned by our legislative officials, thanks to Gary Trietsch and Larry Heckathorn in our districts, we have had a wonderful group of people to deal with. We get our questions answered, we get our problems solved, and we work together, and I think that's so important.

The Grand Parkway right of way, I mentioned that just a moment ago, we're working on the right of way issue, I think we have the right of way issue practically resolved as to the west side. The east side, the major item is determining the route and then figuring the right of way cost and moving into the project. County Road 403 we're working on, which will give an east-west route to relieve some of the Pearland area, the Pearland Parkway project which you are familiar with. We have State Highway at 1495, the elevated exchange that we're going to be dealing with, and we have the bridge replacement projects.

We're working also on a regional basis; we're no longer a county or a city that can stand on its own. We must regionalize, and that's what we're doing. I'm a member of the Gulf Coast Mobility Group which includes one of your former commissioners, Bob Lanier, who is a hoot to deal with, but we're going to be addressing not only Harris County, Fort Bend, Galveston --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you say hoot?

JUDGE WILLY: Beg your pardon?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you say hoot?

JUDGE WILLY: He's a hoot. I worked for him for 20 years, I can say that of him.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE WILLY: This overall regional mobility plan that will be created from this group will begin addressing problems on a regional basis rather than we're just going to worry about I-10 and its congestion or we're just going to worry about 45 North or South, it's going to address the entire region. I think by doing that we can capsulate within a region the needs of the entire region and start addressing them on the basis of dealing with the necessary funding, the necessary infrastructure that's going to be needed, how we reach that goal and how we deal with the congestion issues.

We're going to include in our mobility studies the toll facilities that can be produced in connection with the Harris County Toll Road Authority. They've indicated a strong desire to work with all the area, Brazoria County as part of the region, through the Gulf Coast Mobility Partnership, to address the future needs that we're going to have.

I haven't discussed exact amounts because I think that in order to discuss exact amounts that we're gong to be talking about on funding needs, you have to properly identify the problems first. The main thing we wanted to get with you today on is that we are moving into a proper forward planning stage and will be addressing the specific issues and bringing you specific issues.

One other thing, just a housekeeping thing, is that we submitted our resolutions to you previously, but Manvel asked me to hand you their resolution which came in a little bit late because of the timing of their meeting, and I would do so at this time.

Now I would like to turn the program over to Kyle Janek who will talk to you a little bit more about Brazoria County and our needs. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

JUDGE WILLY: And we'll be happy to answer any questions at the conclusion.

MR. JANEK: Thank you, Judge. Mr. Chairman and members, thank you so much for having us here today. In my eight years in the House, I've tried to make these visits with you infrequent -- in fact, I think I've only appeared before the panel once before, something of which I'm a little bit proud; I try not to bother you until I think it is very important.

The speakers before me have laid out a pretty good argument for the growth and needs of Brazoria County for the immediate future and for the mid to distant future, so if you'll allow me a couple of minutes, I'd like to recap some of those things.

In the first instance, you see a slide that shows the need for improved transportation in the north-south corridor. I think it is not too far a stretch to say that Brazoria County is almost laid out in layers, with the bedroom communities to the north followed by some subdivisions and residential areas at mid-county, the proposed racetrack for entertainment at mid-county, heading on down through more industrial areas as well as the cities of Angleton, Lake Jackson and Freeport.

When you get back down to the south of the county, you've got the Port of Freeport, and let me say a word or two about that because I think this was one of the most dramatic things that I had seen when I first started touring the county. The Port of Freeport was smart, in that it did cut out a niche for itself. It recognized it could not supplant or hope to compete with what takes place in the Port of Houston. Instead what they've done is sold themselves as a quick-in/quick-out deep water port, and when you're moving bananas, I have come to find out, being able to get in and load or offload in a matter of a couple of hours -- at least getting in one hour and back out in another hour of travel time -- certainly makes a big difference when you're looking at 12 or 14 hours to get up into the Houston Ship Channel and another 12 to 14 hours to get back out of there.

So they've cut out a niche for themselves that I think is very important. Obviously, also we've got the beaches and the tourism that they can attract in the southern end of Brazoria County.

We talked also about the widening and safety improvements. Certainly those will help not just with transportation but obviously the safety considerations as people in Brazoria County traverse the roads down there. I think a very important part of this is the increase in truck traffic. Obviously we've got a lot of rail traffic but a significant amount of truck traffic for goods that are going to be moved from the port and from the refineries in the south up to Houston and points beyond.

Growing up on Galveston Island, I was always worried about hurricanes. As a young boy, I always thought they were kind of fun but only later in life did I realize how bad they can be for an economy of the area and certainly a danger to the people who need to be able to get off of Galveston Island and away from the beach at Surfside and other points. You'll see depicted up here the hurricane evacuation routes that we'd like to make the most use of. That thin line running from Surfside up along the water, it's a different shade of blue than the water itself, that's County Road 257 which can be a crucial escape route for the people on the western end of Galveston Island. This is a matter strictly of public safety, whether you're talking about a hurricane or some other need for people to evacuate Galveston Island and southern Brazoria County, we think that this is an important part of the mobility needs.

It's not the sexiest thing on anybody's agenda, probably the only people who get excited about things like rail and roadway grade separations would be your tried and true diehard engineers like Gary Trietsch, but this is an important part and I'm very proud that the county leaders have looked at the railway and roadway grade separations because they're an important part of mobility.

Let me also go back to the Port of Freeport. Certainly the Port of Houston has been identified as an important spur from the I-69 roadway and I think that the Port of Freeport can make a pretty good argument too that we could use a spur that runs from the proposed I-69 corridor down to the Port of Freeport.

At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman and members, I think that the county leaders have laid out a clear goal as well as the need for transportation mobility improvements in Brazoria County. The thing I've learned most about Brazoria County -- and this speaks not just to roadways but to other areas as well -- the thing I've learned that's most important about this area in the past year is that they will accept help from a neighbor but they never, ever will take a flat handout, and I'm pleased that the county leaders have seen fit to do their portion. We appreciate very much what the commission and the department are currently doing in Brazoria County and we'd like you to consider the needs that we've laid out as priority items for your consideration.

Again, nice to see you all again; I appreciate the infrequent visits with you. I don't envy your task, I sit on Appropriations, I know it's not much fun at times, but what you do is extremely important, and behalf of Brazoria County and the people of Texas, I thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait. There's an important question. Now, we have a raging debate in the department, we have this family --

MR. JANEK: Aggies by 12 -- well, never mind.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The Aggies will be lucky to score 12 points the rest of the year.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: The raging debate that occurs in the department is we have this family that supplies us a lot of great employees and we can't figure out if it's Boslov or Bohuslav.

Now, I've known you all these years as Janek, and we all want to know is it Yanek or Janek.

MR. JANEK: Historically it should be considered Yanek. As my father moved to Galveston Island and had to simplify things for the folks on the island, he got tired of correcting people -- I hope there are no Galveston Islanders -- got tired of correcting people, so we went with Janek.

It was only after I got sworn into the legislature that my friend, Speaker Representative Uhur reminded me of my true roots and that it should in fact be Yanek, so I came to Austin to be corrected.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, can you answer the other question, then is it Boslav or Bohuslav?

MR. JANEK: Boslav. There's no doubt about it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now we know. Thanks for helping us, you're a friend of the department.

MR. JANEK: Thank you all. Aggies by 20.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have any observations, questions, et cetera?

MR. NICHOLS: A couple of observations. First of all, thank you for the presentation, good job and a big showing here. I know there's an awful lot of local elected officials so you've got a great cross-section of the county.

In the population growth, I know the Judge said you believe that those numbers were too low. I agree with you. I think your growth is going to be much higher than what is projected here; I think you're going to get run over with population, and what you are doing to try to prepare for that is certainly going to be helpful.

We had a great dinner last night, very much appreciate that; it was a good opportunity to visit with some of you. I know that you are giving consideration to tolling and setting up a toll authority or something like that, and at our table last night and then later in the evening, we had the opportunity to talk about the consideration of a regional mobility authority in the area, something I think that would be very beneficial and meet the type objectives that you're working toward. I know there's a lot of unanswered questions that people in your area may have; I would just encourage you as an area/county before you make a decision on a turnpike authority to take a look at the regional mobility authority. I think you're going to see a lot of flexibility and a lot of direction by this department in support of the locals having a lot of input in control of the projects, and this is a vehicle I think you'll see a lot of activity on during this next session, clarifying some of the technicals of the intent and that kind of stuff.

One of your big projects I heard you talking about is Grand Parkway, which is certainly going to open up that area, and I know that in our minute orders we had with you, and from some of the county resolutions, the money that you've put forward to help advance either on right of way or engineering, it was carefully worded that if we convert that to a toll road -- whether it be by whatever means, as a regional mobility authority or as a state agency operated toll road, or as who knows -- that in there that money is to be returned back to the county or something like that.

JUDGE WILLY: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: If it was a regional mobility authority for which you were the operating entity, then you're dealing with yourself. Anyway, I would just encourage you. I think we're going to get real serious about the consideration of that as a toll road, much more serious than I think has been taken before, because I believe we can build more of it faster by doing the bonds and also carry the long-term maintenance, all that kind of stuff.

JUDGE WILLY: Yes, sir, and I think that's the route and the trend that we're going to have to go in the future, judging from the shortfall that we're going to have in road funds on a direct payment basis. I think that the regional mobility partnership that's been created with our group down there, we're going to be making decisions to what route we're going to be going in the future and make recommendations to the various counties.

I think that the Harris County Toll Road Authority, they've agreed to be of any assistance they can to work with Brazoria County or with Fort Bend County or other counties involved in the partnership to determine what and when and where we should have. In talking to them, they've taken a look at the Grand Parkway and there is the belief that the amount of traffic is going to be there to warrant a tollway situation, and that's the big key issue that we're looking at.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, Mr. Nichols, correct me if I'm wrong. I came on 16 months ago and one of the first topics for my first meeting was the Grand Parkway and there was a discussion about tax road or toll road, and I could have sworn we gave clear direction to the people involved, and have consistently done that, that that's to be a toll road.

JUDGE WILLY: Yes, sir, that is correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Whether we own it or whether it ends up becoming part of an RMA or part of Harris County Toll Authority or whatever, and frankly, I'm a little bit surprised to have found out in the last couple of weeks that we're not going down that path. I don't see how we can't go down that path.

JUDGE WILLY: The message that I got when we were up here before, Commissioner, was that the trend would be going toward a toll road type facility.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And it's not like we're trying to punish anybody, we're doing this all over the state.

JUDGE WILLY: Sure, I understand.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The facts are if you've got 100 bucks and you've got to spend 55 on maintenance and there's only 45 left for all new construction, we've just got to do something.

JUDGE WILLY: I understand the economics, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Was that a question?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, it was a question, and are you going to answer me?

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I'm actually going to try to answer that, but I don't think it was intended as a question. We indicated a direction but we did not take formal action, which is the point which we need to get to so that we as a commission takes formal action, and as part of that action, I'm not so sure at that point we have to determine whether it's a state toll road or a regional toll road or part of your regional mobility authority if you so choose to go that way -- which I would encourage you to do. I think some formal action probably will be in the wind before long.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I hope so. Good.

MR. JOHNSON: Do you have anything else, Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No. John was a good member.

MR. JOHNSON: One thing, to follow up on what Robert and Ric have planted, my recollection is -- and this might not be 100 percent accurate -- but for Harris County Toll Road to have a facility in any of the outlying counties that are contiguous, that toll road needs to connect to a toll road in Harris County, and we have had a similar discussion on the possibility of doing something at Bolivar, for example, and to get Harris County Toll Road to build a tolled causeway to Bolivar that's in Galveston County clearly is outside, I believe, what the statute provides. So I just bring that up for your edification and knowledge which to me even emphasizes more the flexibility that you would have having an RMA, having your own facility to be able to do projects, tolled in nature.

And the debate here, to me, on one like the Grand Parkway is do we want that facility in 20 or 25 years or do we want it in five years or less, and here again, the answer is very clear. Time is something we all have a limited amount of and the quicker we can do things, the better we're served, and that's why I think it becomes almost incumbent upon this commission but also all the influence we have to do more tolled features and certainly to get 99 moving as a toll project.

I want to congratulate the group and the presentation. The thinking forward mobility needs, the partnership that we as an agency, the State needs partners in every domain that we visit and work in, and I know you offer partnership with Brazoria County and have set in motion the wheels to: one, partner, and two, develop mobility improvement plan, and we look forward to working with you in that regard.

JUDGE WILLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We look very much forward to working with you.

One person who was not recognized earlier, a person who you've dealt with before, Alan Clark is here with HGAC, and he's been a tremendous help.

Thank you very much for letting us be here today and anything that we can give you as far as answers to your questions you might have in the future, we'll be happy to do so.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is Jack Harris not going to present? Yet another former colleague, good House member.

JUDGE WILLY: Jack Harris, former member and one of our colleagues. Dennis Bonnen is here too. Where is Dennis? There he is.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, are they here supporting you or have they got their own agenda?

(General laughter.)

JUDGE WILLY: Any time you're on a commissioners court, there's generally several agendas going at one time, but we're on the same page, I think, with our court. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. We will take a brief recess so the good folks from Brazoria County can return safely to their homes and businesses, and this will be a short recess so we can conduct the normal affairs and agenda of the meeting. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

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

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that would like to address the commission that you need to fill out a card at the registration table in the lobby, and we would ask that if you would like to comment on an agenda item that you fill out a yellow card, and if it is not an agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a blue card and we will take your comments at the open comment period at the end of the meeting. Regardless of the color of the card, we would limit the time of each speaker to three minutes and please be mindful of your time.

We would also, since we're going through the regular business portion of the agenda, ask you that you turn off your cell phones and pagers or at least put them in the silent mode in consideration to all present.

Having said that, we will begin with the approval of the minutes of our September commission meeting. Is there a motion to approve?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Mike, I will turn over to you the normal agenda items.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our first agenda item this morning will be agenda item number 3, the authorization of a Regional Mobility Authority for Travis and Williamson Counties.

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

On September 3 of this year, the department received a petition from Travis and Williamson Counties requesting the commission to authorize the formation of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority. The petition identifies the US 183A project as the initial project for development by the RMA. On September 10 of this year, the department notified the commissioners that the petition did meet all the requirements of the RMA rules.

The department held public hearings in Travis County on October 8 and in Williamson County on October 9 for the purpose of receiving additional input on the creation of the RMA. Comments received at those public hearings, as well as subsequent written comments submitted by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, various political subdivisions and other individuals indicate overwhelming support for the creation of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority.

The initial board of directors will be comprised of seven members, three appointed by the Williamson County Commissioners Court, three appointed by the Travis County Commissioners Court, and a presiding officer appointed by the governor.

The initial project for development by the Central Texas RMA, US 183A is in the Cedar Park-Leander area and is consistent with the approved Texas Transportation Plan and is included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, the approved CAMPO Transportation Plan, Williamson County Multi-Corridor Plan, as well as other plans in the area.

By approving this minute order, the commission would authorize the creation of the RMA. I want to also point out that this minute order, although it would designate 183A as the initial turnpike project, it would not constitute final commission approval of the project itself. The commission will get that opportunity as the project develops at a later date.

I'll be happy to address any questions you might have. I believe there are several other folks in the audience that are interested in commenting as well.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You'll return to the podium?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: We do have four individuals who have requested to speak on this item, the first Colin Clark. Colin, are you here? Colin is the communications director for Save Our Springs Alliance. Colin, welcome.

MR. CLARK: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Colin Clark from Save Our Springs Alliance, and I wanted to give you some of our concerns with the proposed Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority.

We are concerned that Central Texas RMA might construct Highway 45 South from FM 1626 east to I-35. We brought this up when the 45 South toll road project was being proposed. Specifically, the concern here is that if we connect South MoPac to I-35, make Mo-Pac a western bypass for traffic on I-35, that would add thousands of vehicle trips over the Barton Springs Recharge Zone and drastically increase pollution of Barton Springs.

Another concern is that the RMA could circumvent the NEPA process in making such a connection. In a letter the Federal Highway Department sent to Congressman Lloyd Doggett, they wrote that the Austin District was concerned that their project west of I-35 pertaining to the 45 South toll road would be federalized, requiring a new EIS if the limits of the developer's roadway extend west of I-35. So what we're talking about is if there's a loop here and state money is used to connect MoPac to I-35, that segmentation could avoid looking at what would be a 45 South loop all the way from proposed 130 over MoPac.

The way an RMA could do this, we have concerns with, in the state's rules for the RMA, there's some ambiguity as to which projects the RMA can finance and build. The RMAs have been touted as a way to give more local control to transportation projects; however, the counties and their appointed boards are not required by the rules to conform with all municipal transportation plans. So we would request that the commission make explicit that all Central Texas RMA projects do conform with all municipal transportation plans as well as to MPO plans.

As far as the structure of the RMA board, we have some concerns that I would just like to voice publicly. It seems kind of like having the Senate without the House as far as the lack of proportional representation between the counties and the governor-appointed member. Further, there is a clause that says that individuals who receive money for right of way for an RMA road are allowed to serve on the board and that seems like very high potential for a conflict of interest there, and we'd like to see that board members of the RMA do not receive money for right of way acquisition. Time's up.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions? Colin, thank you for being here. We'll note your concerns. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a question and a comment. On the comment side, some of your concerns about what an RMA can do or can't do or things like that, this next legislative session there's going to be a lot of activity related to cleaning up authority related to RMAs, and as the legislature takes on those actions and has committee meetings and input from the public, that's a great opportunity to express your concerns and solution. It's always good to have an idea of what should be done as opposed to just a concern about things.

On the second thing, on the 45 South connector west of I-35, when we were looking at those actions some months ago related to the Texas Turnpike Authority, your organization and several representatives from your organization came to us right here and asked us to wait to build that until after we constructed the 130 and the 45 connector to the east side of 35.

MR. CLARK: At a minimum, however --

MR. NICHOLS: No, not at a minimum, it's on tape, it's in transcripts, you asked us to delay building 45 on the west side until after we built 130 because I asked specifically.

MR. CLARK: You did, and I was fairly harried and confused and I think I apologized for that at the next hearing.

MR. NICHOLS: Are you here today saying under no circumstances do you ever want that built?

MR. CLARK: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay, that's clear. Thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you ever in favor of building anything? I'm just curious.

MR. CLARK: Bike lanes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And that's about it?

MR. CLARK: Well, pertinent to the Barton Springs Watershed, the science has indicated that building new roads leads to more pollution, so therefore, it becomes pretty difficult for us to support a road project over the Barton Springs Watershed.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Colin, to follow up on something that Commissioner Nichols said -- and I'm sure that you'll do this -- I also think that you need to make your feelings known to the RMA board as it gets up and running. Obviously there will be a lot of opportunities for the concerns of all types to be heard, and I know that you'll avail yourselves of that opportunity, but they will have a considerable amount of influence in terms of the direction and the projects that the RMA actually does.

MR. CLARK: Yes, and we will take that opportunity. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Next speaker is Ron Davis, commissioner from Travis County. Commissioner, welcome. My recollection is your son, Ron Davis, Jr. was executive assistant to my predecessor Anne Wynne, and he's a fine young man, and we're delighted that you're here.

MR. DAVIS: Well, thank you. You are definitely correct; he is an exciting young man, and I really am continuing to push for him as he goes toward his goals in life, support him as much as I possibly can.

I'm going to try and be as brief as possible, but I would like to let you know that I'm really here in support of item number 3; however, I would like to just give you a little brief history of where we have been coming from dealing with the traffic congestion here within Travis and Williamson Counties in this particular region, and I think it's very important that you hear just a little inkling of this history as far as where we are now.

In the early part of 2001, around January of 2001, we were -- we were meaning that the Travis County Commissioners Court -- looking at an RTA; however, working with our county attorney at that time, looking at the statutes and reviewing it, during the course of that period, the RMA had become of proposed legislation to be basically on the agenda in 2001 of November, but not knowing this at the time, we continued to proceed in looking at the RTA aspect of looking at traffic congestion, how we can relieve it here within this particular region.

Later, in July of that year, we had several persons, elected officials that came before the Travis County Commissioners Court -- and this was in 2001, July. And of course we had folks -- down from Guadalupe County was Judge Sagebiel; Caldwell County was Judge Wright; we had a representative from Bexar County. We had representatives from just about all over, as far as that was concerned, to look and see how SH 130 would impact this particular region, what can we do as far as an RTA is concerned. However, later we did get information from the RMA where we would actually make the comparison with apples and oranges here; we were saying RTA versus RMA. Of course, we looked at that and made some comparisons and we saw, looking at the rules later that were provided to us and we made comments to the rules to take some of the things that we thought wouldn't be advantageous to this particular region as we looked at transportation congestion situations, how we would relieve that.

So as an end result, another meeting was held in San Marcos with several elected officials and many representatives -- and this was in September of 2001. Of course, we still hadn't gotten there yet. However, after November of 2001 the legislature -- well, the voters decided to give us the position where we could end up creating an RMA. So we have been going, thus far in this process, looking for a way to relieve congestion.

However, I would like to just point out a couple of things to you as far as the minute order is concerned, and I guess we can revisit this as we go through the process. And thank goodness that we have found a partner within Williamson County to work with Travis County and go forward.

One item I'd like to pick out is within the minute order itself it does not relate to any start-up funds for an RMA, and in visiting with the other toll road authorities, it is really an expensive process just to even get started. Of course, we do not have any indication of monies set aside here in this particular minute order. I don't know if that's going to have to be revisited, but I'm just bringing that to your attention.

Number two, the SH 45 Southeast connector to SH 130 which will, of course, I think bring the aspects and the design and the segments of SH 130 to a more completeness as far as what we're trying to do, so those particular projects are not mentioned in the minute order at this point.

And again, I would like to thank you for listening to us because really this is, from what I understand, the first regional mobility authority that may be created in the entire state of Texas, so it is something that I think other persons or other regions within the State of Texas are going to look at and say: Look, this is how Travis and Williamson Counties did it for the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, and we can go from there. And I heard you mention comments earlier with the Brazoria County folks that they may need to look at an RMA, so it's something we're on the fine edge of a lot of things here but I think it must be done right, it must be funded right.

This past Tuesday in commissioners court we looked at the criteria as far as solicitation to get board members to the RMA, so again, we're moving forward; however, we're going to need you strong support in these kinds of concerns. And I do know that the legislature during its next convening session still has to address the bonding initiatives and they also have to address the condemnation aspects. However, those are things that haven't happened yet, but here today I want you to consider these things that I mentioned as far as the minute order as we go forward with the authorization of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority. Thank you very much for listening to me.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Any questions, Ric or Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Comment. I did have the pleasure of working with your son; he's a fine young man, both while he was working with the State and then when he went into private industry, I had a chance to work with him some then, so I can see why you're proud of him. He was real proud of you too.

MR. DAVIS: Well, thank you. And I have to abstain many times in commissioners court because he's working for a company and when that company, First Southwest Company, comes up on the dais, I have to be very, very vigilant to abstain.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just comment that I appreciate the manner in which you've laid out your concerns and given us the charge, and as we will tell some others here in a bit, we're going to be real good partners. We might not always agree on some things, but we're going to be real good partners in getting this started, it's important to the State.

MR. DAVIS: Well, I appreciate that because we just attended a major conference down in San Antonio with the North Texas Tollway Authority folks, with Jerry and his bunch, along with the Harris County Tollway folks, and there was a lot of dos and don'ts and what pitfalls you can avoid if you do things in a proper manner. So of course, we don't want to follow the mistakes that have been made in the past, and so we're looking to move furious and fast in this process, but I think we must do it right from the start.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think it may be our hope, and hopefully the hope will pass on to commissioners behind us that 10 or 15 years from now the Central Texas Authority will be generating enough cash flow that Colin can come forward with environmental concerns and there will be cash flow to address those concerns and those matters will be resolved at the local level where they should be resolved and not become part of the dialogue of the State which needs to concentrate on State problems. We're going to be there to help you be successful.

MR. DAVIS: From my understanding, the SH 45 Southeast which will be a connector to SH 130, along with the 183A project up in Williamson County, they are a part of the CAMPO plan, that's my understanding, so it's nothing we have to revisit as far as the other plan that you will be recognizing which is the CAMPO plan. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: I think many of the concerns that you brought forward are indeed that, they're very real. I feel like I'm speaking for my colleagues and this is a template for future RMAs, and in that regard, it is extremely important to the commission, it is extremely important, as you say, let's get it right the first time as best we can.

MR. DAVIS: Exactly.

MR. JOHNSON: And I salute your willingness and also the willingness of NTTA and HCTRA to provide insight to give you benefit of their experience because repeating mistakes is probably the biggest mistake that anyone can make. So I think we're off to a good start. It's very difficult to do it exactly the way it should be done when you look back 20 years from now, but we're going to make every effort that this template of the Central Texas RMA be one that is an example for others around the state to duplicate.

MR. DAVIS: And if you can concur that as far as some of the start-up funds that I think would help us a lot. There's about a $10 million planning money that TxDOT has, some of those funds can be diverted to start-up costs because, of course, Travis and Williamson Counties has put up about $500,000, $250,000 each, just to go through the process of where we're going now. However, for those type of projects to happen and get the best engineers, those state of the art things, the cream of the crop, it's going to take money to get those folks. So start-up operations are very important costs.

MR. JOHNSON: It's important to get our arms around what these start-up costs are and then we'll have a dialogue.

MR. DAVIS: Okay, that will be fine. Thank you very much for your attention and your time. You have a good day.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: I know that Senator Barrientos was here earlier and because of having three delegations, we ran a little over timewise, and he had to leave, so on his behalf Mike Aulick I believe is here to speak. Mike, we're glad you're here; we're sorry the senator wasn't able to be here because we were getting close to having that senatorial quorum today.

MR. AULICK: Yes, sir. He apologized that he had to leave but he had another commitment. I'm Mike Aulick, I'm the director of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization here in Austin and Senator Barrientos is our chair, and he asked me to read his brief statement into the record, and we've also delivered to you the resolution that our board passed on September 9 strongly supporting the formation of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority.

The senator's statement is: "Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Commissioners Nichols and Williamson. I know you have a full agenda today, so I will be brief. I'm here today to urge your approval of agenda item number 3 authorizing Travis and Williamson Counties to create the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority. I know the RMA statute is not perfect. Representative Krusee and I, God willing and the creek won't rise, have already agreed to carry the legislation needed to fix the statute and make RMAs truly viable.

"I also know that the City of Austin has some reservations about the RMA's ability and authority to build roads within the city limits; nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to again congratulate the Travis and Williamson Counties commissioners courts for working together to embrace this new tool for improving mobility and also to assure you that we in Central Texas are excited about the RMA's potential to improve mobility in a variety of ways.

"Thank you for your consideration."

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for being here and reading that into the record.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Can you please share with the senator, as we always say, once again, he's a friend to the department and we appreciate his help?

MR. AULICK: Yes, sir, I will do that. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: The last speaker that I have is Representative Mike Krusee.

MR. KRUSEE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members. Usually I come up here asking you for this or that, but today I really am here just to thank you and to express my gratitude for the job that you've done, especially on this because I went back in the spring telling everybody in the Central Texas community that 130 was going to get built when nobody believed it, that we were going to do an RMA when no one believed it, and not only did we do it but we did it exactly when we said we were going to do it.

I remember we were here about a month or two ago with that big check, $2 billion for 130, and with the governor here too, and I said, We're going to be back in a month with a request for an RMA and we want you to approve it in October. And here you are, you have done everything that we have asked you to do. Thank you. Of course, we couldn't have done it without the support of our commissioners, people like Karen Sonleitner, Margaret Moore, who was here earlier, and the Williamson County commissioners.

I don't think the people of Central Texas are really fully cognizant of what the consequences of your actions are going to be. We're used to watching -- Commissioner, I was talking to you yesterday -- Ben White and I-35 take six years to build one intersection, and over at my house watching 183 expansion creep along year after year after year, but this is going to be different, and people don't understand that yet. And I was out at Hutto the other day; Hutto has got about 2,000 people right now. When this is finished, 130 and 45 and 183A, all that stuff, less than five years from now, Hutto is going to have over 25,000 people -- they've already got 5,000 building permits issued, those houses are going to be on the ground -- but those people are going to be able to get on the road at Hutto, go 60 miles an hour, never stop and go over to Cedar park and go to that hockey game over at the new hockey arena and the new amphitheater.

And then the people in Leander are going to be able to do the same thing, get on that road and in 20 minutes go 60 miles an hour without stopping and go over to the Dell Diamond. And the people up in Georgetown can get on that road and go down to Bergstrom and be down there in 20 minutes, never going below 70 miles an hour. It's going to change our way of life here in Central Texas, and thank you for the job that you and your staff have done.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, I think that our thanks go to you, and we recognize that a whole host of local elected officials -- Karen has done a great job of balancing the legitimate concerns of her constituency against the need for the state and the county to be partners, both commissioners courts swallowing a little bit every month, coming to the middle, figuring out how to listen to Austin and Round Rock and Cedar Park and their concerns. This is, in my view, the reason I ran for the legislature in 1984 was to be part of Texans learning how to work together as Texans, whether they were left/right, whatever. I still want Colin to be active in this and ask for his share of the toll money to clean up the springs. I mean, that's the whole point of doing all this is to give tools to regional communities, not cities, not counties, but regional communities that are growing in our state that both force and entice us to work together and plan together.

While there have been a lot of people active in this, I think everybody knows that this has been your deal for six months and we appreciate it, and it couldn't have been done without your leadership and you're to be congratulated for all the time and effort you've put into this -- I might add an un-Republican thing, actually, for someone to have done, and I think we all appreciate it.

MR. KRUSEE: I think you can just stop right there. You've said enough.

(General laughter.)

MR. KRUSEE: Thank you. That was very gracious. I notice a lot of concerns on behalf of the City of Austin and others, but I think the truth is that what they're going to see when this process is completed is that your actions have actually allowed them, the City of Austin and others and the City of Austin, the citizens here in Central Texas to have more say than we've ever had before on our roads, where they go and what they look like, and whether we do them or not. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Mr. Russell.

MR. RUSSELL: Commissioners, let me offer one bit of clarification.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me ask a question so you can do that because I like old Colin and I think he's well intended, and I started to say something when he said it and I thought I better wait, but my question for the record is can a person who owns land that becomes a part of an RMA project serve on the board of an RMA and sell that land or any right of way across that land?

MR. RUSSELL: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And in fact, is it not true, Mr. Russell, that this department in agonizing fashion wrote the strictest conflict of interest rules that exist in the State of Texas?

MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: There are none stricter. They are so strict that most members of the legislature, most county commissioners and most county judges and most mayors and city council persons could not run for office and live under the conflict of interest that we wrote for RMA boards. Is that correct?

MR. RUSSELL: That is, I would think, very correct. That may be a little bit out of my area, but yes, sir, they're very, very tight.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So Colin, I don't know who gave you that information, buddy, but I don't think it's accurate, and let me assure you if you can get the rest of the political world in Texas to adopt that conflict of interest statute, you'd be hitting a home run for open government.

MR. JOHNSON: It might certainly reduce some of the things our newspapers report on and put a little more space on other articles.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, the governor was very clear about the conflict of interest and we wrote it exactly as he laid it out. It is not possible for a board member of an RMA to have a conflict. Colin, you'll get a shot here in a second.

Phillip, we have some more toll road discussion later on?

MR. BEHRENS: Next item.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll reserve my other questions and yield to my two colleagues.

MR. NICHOLS: Are you ready for a motion?

MR. JOHNSON: We have on the agenda an item to authorize Travis and Williamson Counties to create Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, yes.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good job, Mike.

(Applause.)

MR. BEHRENS: Going to agenda item number 4, titled Toll Projects, and Phil will lead this and Amadeo will be available also to discuss with you some work that we're doing on some potential toll projects.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mike.

We were asked to put together a list of projects that had been discussed in some form or fashion, either formally or informally, with either the Turnpike Division, the affected districts, or the administration, and hopefully you all have a copy of this. Many of these projects have been around for a number of years; some of them have come up just very recently. For instance, some of the San Antonio projects, those guys that are contemplating an RMA have really jumped out there and started looking at some potential projects that they might be looking at.

So we put the list together, I'd be happy to try to address any questions you might have on any of these projects.

MR. NICHOLS: I have a question.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: On this list, are these projects that are currently on the books as TxDOT projects, all of these?

MR. RUSSELL: I wouldn't say all of these, Commissioner Nichols.

MR. NICHOLS: Which ones are not?

MR. RUSSELL: For instance, I'm not sure that all the San Antonio projects are. Again, some of these have come up very quickly, Wurzbach Parkway -- I don't think John is here today -- but some of those projects, I am not sure that they're on the schedule.

MR. JOHNSON: Laredo Bridge 5 is not a TxDOT project.

MR. RUSSELL: There are several of the bridge projects that I guess may or may not be.

MR. SAENZ: For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive director, Engineering Operations. The Laredo Bridge 5 project is not a project that's on there, you've had discussions in the past; the McAllen Mission Anzalduas project, those people were working with the TTA board prior about the possibility of that being a potential project. We've been working across the state and talking to identify what potential toll projects we have across the state that we can start looking and doing some feasibility studies to see how we can improve or increase our planning efforts and get those projects underway.

MR. NICHOLS: From my point of view -- and the other commissioners may have different points of view -- the ones I have particular interest in are those that are on our books that are being advanced as projects that we in effect are committing money to build, whether it be the old Priority 2 or the DEVELOP mode, and if we're going to build them and if from an engineering standpoint they could be tolled, I think we need to be -- like the Grand Parkway, heard some comments on that earlier, I've been saying since 1997 that thing ought to be tolled, yet internally it continues to advance step by step as a non-tolled, even though the locals would support it.

And somehow or other we need to identify which ones are in the Advance mode, which ones technically could be, and then we need to do an analysis of what practicality it might be from a toll road, because if we're willing to pay for 100 percent of it and it's toll viable, you can sell some bonds, put up toll booths, pay for the long-term maintenance and use that for advancement of other projects, whether it's done at the state level or by a regional mobility authority or whatever. But we need to take whatever formal action from our commission to advance them as such, and we need you, I guess as the turnpike or the administration, to be coming to us letting us know what actions we need to take. We did not have the authority under the law to advance equity into these type projects before last November but we do now.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Phil and Amadeo, let me --without breaking a rule, Mr. Monroe -- associate myself completely with those remarks and expand upon them. I think because of our history of a strong tax-supported highway and transportation construction system, we've all been a little bit reluctant to embrace with flags waving the toll concept, but is it not the case that in a few months you are in all likelihood going to recommend to us that at a minimum 55 percent of our cash flow is now necessary to maintain our existing system?

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And 55 is up from what four years ago?

MR. SAENZ: About 48, 49, 50.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And is it not the case that as the system gets older and older, that 55 is going to go to 58, and to 60, and to 62, and for as long as the legislature and the governor are not comfortable increasing the fuel tax --

MR. SAENZ: We've got to be able to maintain the system.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So let me just completely associate myself with Mr. Nichols' remarks and go one step further and say we have projects all across this state that we can't afford to build that people want built, and I suspect are fully prepared to pay tolls to have them built now as opposed to 20 years from now if we'll just take the tools we've got and lead the way. And I think the Grand Parkway is no better example, and there are some in my part of the world that I would have to pay tolls on, and I want you to go build those roads. I want to pay my tolls to go 65 miles an hour uninterrupted to north Dallas where I'm never two hours late for a meeting again, I'm happy to pay for it.

There's a free alternative. If Gordon doesn't want to take it and take the free alternative, he's welcome to do that, but we've got toll authority, we've got bond authority, we've got equity authority, we've got new leadership, we've got an aggressive and supportive governor and legislature, all the tools are in place for us to be aggressive and go solve some people's transportation problems, and I, like Mr. Nichols, want that done. I hope Mr. Johnson shares our viewpoint because if he doesn't, we're all going to be embarrassed. If you turn around and tell them to forget all that and go home, we're in trouble.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Me more than you. Absolutely. Specifically when the Brazoria County delegation was here and we talked about State Highway 99 and the Grand Parkway, and I think that the department needs to take the lead and say this needs to be developed as a toll project or it's going to take 25 years, and to me then the decision becomes very simple that we need to move this along as quickly as possible, and that's as a toll project. And I'm uncertain as to the exact steps that need to be taken, but I recognize that many on this list we need to sort of move forward in a positive manner that we are considering these as toll projects and we're going to advance them as toll projects. We want to partner with the local tolling authority, whether it's an RMA or HCTRA or NTTA, because to me there's no pride of authorship or ownership here. Our business is to score touchdowns, not worry about who makes the touchdowns, so if HCTRA or NTTA wants a project, RMA want's a project, I think that's excellent, but we need to make sure they get done and done in as timely a fashion as possible.

And of course, since '99 the Grand Parkway is one I'm most familiar with and I think it becomes even more incumbent for my mind that we advance the ball there.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And Chairman, if HCTRA or NTTA or an RMA doesn't want to advance it, then let's advance it. We have that authority.

MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. We have the ability.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I know that NTTA is doing some major significant things in south Tarrant County now to help that area out, but if they don't want to loop around the west side of Fort Worth, I know of about a million people that can't wait to pay their toll to avoid downtown Fort Worth-Arlington-Dallas traffic. If they don't want to do it, that's fine, we understand; let's do it, let's go, let's quit waiting.

MR. SAENZ: What we'll do is we'll continue, and like I say, we're working with the district engineers and identify the projects that we have in our planning process that have good potential to be toll roads, then we can look at it and prioritize it and come back to you all with kind of what I would call a toll road program, and then we move forward from there. And then of course, with the money that you've set aside, we'll be working with the local entities like San Antonio to determine for RMA feasibility and they could probably -- we have identified projects in San Antonio, they may pick those projects as potential toll road projects that could be developed as an RMA or we could develop them through TTA through the department, and we'll look all across the state and come up with a program and then we'll have that program prioritized for you.

MR. NICHOLS: In my mind, the ones that are the most critical to review are the ones that are already in our DEVELOP mode, that we are advancing money and moving forward because the quicker we can identify and determine in working with the locals, yes, it will be tolled or no, it won't, then we don't want to get so far in our design that we've eliminated the option.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, we'll do that.

MR. JOHNSON: To borrow one of my good friend Robert Nichols' little mosquitos, Phil -- and I've talked to you about this often but I want to go on the record -- make sure that when we are working with NTTA and HCTRA and the RMAs and our own TTA that we have compatibility of hardware or certainly software where one toll tag issued by one RMA or one tolling authority works universally throughout the state as best we can control that because we need to be able to work together in that regard because people stopping at toll booths who have a toll tag issued by NTTA and I think that's counterproductive. And it shows that couldn't sit down and work together and sort through that issue, and I think we can, especially if we begin now. And I know you've had a lot of dialogue and discussion along those lines, I just wanted to emphasize it.

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, we've made that very abundantly clear, I think, to all the turnpike folks in the state. We also have something called Team Texas which the NTTA guys are really teeing up for us, and that's bringing in a lot of the new forming RMAs that will be forming in the next year or so, and that's always a very hot topic, so I think everybody is pulling and pushing in the same direction.

MR. JOHNSON: Right. Anything else on this agenda item?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Were we clear enough?

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. I think it's a very important issue.

MR. BEHRENS: Moving on then to item 5, Public Transportation, and we have a minute order dealing with intercity bus projects.

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

MR. WILLIAMSON: Got those new formulas yet?

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: What is your name?

MS. MASSEY: Margot Massey.

MR. JOHNSON: Have we seen you before?

MS. MASSEY: Search back in your memory.

MR. JOHNSON: Three or four months in a row.

MS. MASSEY: I think so. I will avoid the obvious Halloween jokes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Everybody was leaving when you said that; I caught that. Go ahead.

(General laughter.)

MS. MASSEY: Unless something has changed in the last few minutes, the minute order I am presenting to you today is to award some federal funds that are available for intercity bus projects, specifically to make an award to Sunset Stages out of Abilene. We've had a number of requests from other companies and I believe the consensus opinion is we need a little bit more time to talk about a methodology and to structure that properly, and we anticipate coming back to you with that in a couple of months.

But there is no question, I believe, that Sunset Stages out of Abilene is in a somewhat difficult predicament right now. All of the carriers have suffered because of the events of September 11, and we expect the industry to recover, but Sunset is in a difficult position and we're recommending an award of $153,000-plus to them. In the audience today, I believe, is Jerry Prestridge, the president of the Texas Bus Association, as well as Pat Murphy, the owner of Sunset Stages of Abilene.

We recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions or comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have some.

MR. NICHOLS: Go ahead, I don't have any.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Margot, I've got a couple of questions and then I've got to take some public position of a kind with your two guests present so that we can all be clear about things.

On the one hand, as I made abundantly clear, I believe, in public transit and I think public transit is something more than the city buses in Austin, Texas. I think, as Mr. Nichols has voiced in the past, it's taxicabs in small cities; it's subsidized transit for the sick and elderly through MHMR and Department of Health and Human Services; it's the whole range of something that could be called subsidized in any manner directly, vehicles, planes and trains that move, and I believe that public transit is important, and I don't shirk from subsidizing, I think there are times when you have to subsidize certain things in order to achieve a higher good.

And I suspect I'm real comfortable with what you're recommending as long as Sunset lines in the world of public or semi-public/semi-private transit understands that we can't perpetuate the situation we're in. We're going to have to develop a methodology that will deliver public transit opportunity to the citizens of our state under some method that the legislature will support funding for and this commission can feel comfortable approving, and I think I've suggested to you that I like a per-rider subsidy. I have caught a little flak from the community because I'm not the miles of service and all the other things that we use necessarily; I don't know how Mr. Nichols and Mr. Johnson feel.

I think this recommendation is a good solution to help a company that is, as I understand it, the only provider of public transit from is it Abilene to Austin?

MS. MASSEY: And Abilene to San Angelo.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And Abilene to San Angelo, and that's important to the economy of the state. It may be a small part but it's the economy of the state, those people pay taxes, those people are Texans, we're one state, we're one people, these are things that we do to reinforce that.

At the same time, I would just like to see a different way of doing it so that we can say with a clear eye to Mr. Murphy or Mr. Gonzales or Mr. Smith or whoever it is: This is how we subsidize public transit and it is linked to the people who use your service, and if you can't survive, either your costs are too high or your market is too small, and we can't be all things to all people. We can do the best we can for the most number of people. And that's what I would like to see come out of the funding patterns of the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging me on that.

MR. JOHNSON: Margot, a question. This has been an interesting process and I know to those affected parties one that has probably gone on too long and will continue to linger because we've grappled, as Ric has said, to figure out what the appropriate methodology is, and there needs to be some objectivity -- I think we're all in unanimity there -- the question is what is the appropriate objectivity.

My question back to one of our original approaches was the R over E ratio, revenue over expense ratio. When we developed that concept and subsequently the actual numbers, were those the figures that were submitted by the lines, the carriers, or were those ones that you were able to generate? What was the source of those?

MS. MASSEY: The carriers had requested a specific amount and we applied the revenue-expense ratio and actually started from the bottom in making the awards. those that had the biggest deficit, in effect, would receive the largest award, with a very strong expectation of improvement or questions about the long-term viability, but none were proposed to receive 100 percent of what they had requested. I think the lowest one on the scale was 89 percent of the request, and then for those who were doing better on the revenue-expense side, it was a smaller stipend, a smaller percentage of what they had requested. It might have actually been a larger amount of money but it was a smaller percentage.

MR. JOHNSON: Let's visit for a moment about expectation for improvement. Do we have every expectation that these affected routes and the operators that they will improve, that these particular routes will maybe not become profitable but will become less of a burden and that they will be able to continue to operate once we develop some rationale, some objective approach to this distribution of the 5311 funds?

MS. MASSEY: Well, again, I think that goes back to the larger question and it's something that's unknown. I think there are certain national industry trends that there's been a general falloff in ridership after last September's events that has affected the entire industry. We've already seen some recovery from that but it still hasn't come back nearly to the level that it was in terms of ridership.

I think there's also some questions that we would want to discuss individually with operators about scheduling, you know, is the timeline scheduling, the fleet that's being used, are we approaching this in the most cost-effective manner, just to be sure that the operator has explored every possible option on their side to make these more financially sound, and then also to face the possibility that on some of these routes there may be other alternatives available that people have moved to or the demand for those services has dropped beyond the point of making financial sense for the State of Texas.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, we have clearly wrestled with this for several months now and the revenue-expense ratio; we've looked at it from a miles served ratio; I think Ric is interested in trying to project ridership and come up with some objective way; and we're going to wrestle a little bit longer with it. But I do think my feeling from what I've heard today is this is a very real concern to the commission and we're going to come up with something, we're just uncertain as to what that is. We recognize the immediate needs of one carrier and the two routes that they serve, and so that's why this minute order is before us.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, the healthcare industry has for a long time recognized that one of the best tools to control behavior is co-pay and co-pay on a percentage and sliding basis, and it seems to me that that is not inappropriate to be considered for all forms of public transit that we directly affect. You know, if you have a rider, we will draw down our funds and reimburse you so many dollars per rider per mile trip or whatever if you charge that rider so many dollars per mile trip.

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir, and I apologize, I realize I did not ever address your initial question about a funding formula, and we will have a formula for you next month.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, are you also doing a study about overlapping service across the state?

MS. MASSEY: We have currently no overlapping service issues; we've worked very hard in the past to avoid having service overlaps. We're looking more at efficiencies of costs, economies of scale in terms of system size, and making sure that we're getting to the proper level critical mass.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike, do we have another division or another part of our organization that can consider these matters, whether or not bus and transit service generally might duplicate?

MR. BEHRENS: No. That would be public transportation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What's in the back of my mind -- if this gets in the newspaper, we'll get some phone calls about this -- I just wonder, I think about Mr. Murphy has a bus that goes a cross route and I wonder how often he goes past a distant school child's home that has to be served by a school district and no one else is served along a nine-mile stretch going out 277 south out of Abilene to the southern limit of the Wylie Independent School District, and I just wonder if maybe at some point we ought not to begin to ask those questions and to be prepared to make some recommendations to the legislature about ways to give better public transit opportunities to our citizens and assist the small businesses that do that and eliminate some duplication of effort.

MS. MASSEY: Yes, and I apologize. I misunderstood your question. We are certainly working in that direction. We also have some studies underway to make sure the technological link is made between systems so that we have better connections using the technology that's available so that we don't have duplication and where we're getting the most for our investment, the State of Texas as a whole, wherever that investment, however it comes out from the Treasury

MR. JOHNSON: We'll consider a motion on the minute order before us.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm through, Mr. Nichols.

MR. NICHOLS: I was waiting for you to move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MS. MASSEY: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Margot.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to agenda item 6 Aviation, we have two minute orders that Dave will present.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Mike. For the record, my name is David Fulton, director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.

The first item is a minute order containing a request for grant funding approval for 12 airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all projects, as shown on Exhibit A, is approximately $9.3 million, $6.8 federal, approximately $1.5 state, and approximately $1.1 local funding. A public hearing was held on October 7 of this year; no comments were received. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. FULTON: Item 6(b) is a minute order for the purpose of adopting the TxDOT Aviation Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 2003 through 2005. The draft CIP was mailed to all airport sponsors in Texas for review and comment. The Texas Aviation Advisory Committee reviewed the CIP and recommended approval at their August 16, 2002 meeting. We would recommend approval of this minute order as well and would be prepared to attempt to answer any questions you might have.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is this the one where we're going to spend $50 million expanding the McKinney Airport 9,000 feet in six different directions?

MR. FULTON: I don't believe that's in there, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I just wanted to know.

MR. NICHOLS: This was a good plan. I thought you took a very methodical broad approach on it, and I let my local operator kind of go over it too from a different perspective, and they thought it was great.

MR. FULTON: Well, thank you, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 7 will be our Proposed Rules for Adoption; item 7(a) will be rule changes for international bridge submittals.

MR. RANDALL: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Jim Randall, Transportation Planning and Programming Division director.

The minute order we bring before you today proposes the adoption of amendments to Section 15.73 to be codified under Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Part 1, relating to international bridges. Transportation Code Section 201.612 provides that the Texas Transportation Commission may adopt rules providing for the approval of proposed bridges over the Rio Grande. The commission previously adopted Section 15.70 to 15.76 to specify the process for approval of proposed international bridges.

Experience with the administration of the rule has shown in practice the existing provisions can impose duplicative requirements that are not necessary for commission review. The proposed amendments to Section 15.73 will eliminate duplicative environmental reviews by the commission and by the federal government.

Section 15.73(a)(1) is amended to eliminate the requirement that the applicant follow the exact procedures applicable to the department in conducting environmental reviews and ensuring public involvement.

Section 15.73(a)(2) is amended to eliminate the requirement that the department approve any decision that an environmental impact statement is unnecessary. This change eliminates a level of approval that unnecessarily duplicates an approval that would be required from the federal government.

Section 15.73(b) is amended to eliminate the requirement that applicants follow the exact procedures applicable to the department in ensuring public involvement. Formal public hearings will not be required, but the applicant must still hold public meetings which may take at any point during the application process.

The minute order presented for your authorization authorizes publication of the proposed rules for adoption in the Texas Register for the purpose of receiving public comments. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, comments?

MR. NICHOLS: I always think it's great when you try to simplify things and eliminate duplication. I'll so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 7(a)(2) Proposed Rules for disabled, specialty and exempt license plates.

MR. DIKE: Thank you, Mike. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, my name is Jerry Dike, division director of Vehicle Titles and Registration Division.

This minute order proposes adoption of amendments to Rules 17.20, .24, .28 and .50 concerning motor vehicle registration. As required by Transportation Code, Chapter 502, the department issues disabled plates and placards, specialty license plates and exempt license plates. The department is planning to permit motorists to obtain as many services as is practical at one location: their local county tax assessor-collector. This single customer service location will provide more efficient customer service, enhance present customer services and implement some recommendations from the 2001 performance review.

The issuance of most personalized license plates, most special license plates and exempt plates would be moved to the county tax assessor-collectors. The amendments also adjust special plate fees to take into account several recent legislative enactments that allow for registration periods of more or less than 12 months, and this will allow the expiration dates for the 700,000 special plate customers to be the same as their registration renewal notice, thus, we can go to one renewal notice that goes to the customer once per year rather than the present system. The present system right now, they typically pay a $30 special plate fee to TxDOT and at some other time during the year pay their generally $60.30 fee to the county tax collector. This will allow us to go an integrated renewal notice where they'll one time pay $90.30 to the county.

These amendments also make improvements in the handling of disabled placards that have been seized by law enforcement and a number of other improvements in special plate handling.

We recommend adoption of this proposed set of rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a comment and a two-part question. On the comment, you do an excellent job, your division does. You touch more people in Texas than probably any other division on a very routine basis, and you would expect that we would get, just the sheer proportion, a lot of comments or complaints, but your people really do a good job working with the public.

MR. DIKE: Thank you very much, Commissioner.

MR. NICHOLS: I think this is going to improve your service.

The two-part question. The first part is are those license plates on your tie, and if so, are they Texas plates?

MR. DIKE: I had to do that. I have six or seven different license plate ties, mostly bought by my daughter, but I had to wear one today when I'm talking about special plates.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Are they Texas tags?

MR. DIKE: The Texas tag is on here, along with all the other states.

MR. NICHOLS: That was it, that was the two-part question: were they plates and were they Texas plates.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No. Robert hit a trip light on one try.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Jerry, we visited this morning about this item, and in your opinion, this is a benefit to the customers, the people that we serve in terms of simplifying the process, making it easier for them, more convenient for them, and it's quasi, if not entirely, cost neutral and revenue neutral, et cetera, it's just to benefit the people that we serve.

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir, and it will also allow, ultimately, for those people to order special plates over the internet as well as that next year pay the $90 over the internet one time rather than the two checks they do now.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I think we need to conduct our affairs with the minds of those that we serve uppermost, and I'm glad to see we're doing that and I appreciate it.

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: I was going to make a comment about that tie but somebody beat me to it.

We have an item before us for a motion. Is there such a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. DIKE: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: We have our rules for final adoption, starting off with item 7(b)(1) rules concerning donations to the department.

MS. SOLDANO: Good afternoon. I'm Jennifer Soldano, director of the Contract Services Office. This minute order adopts amendments to 1.503 and 1.504 concerning donations. Transportation Code Section 201.206 authorizes the department to accept donations including realty, personalty, money and materials or services. Government Code Section 575.003 provides that the board of a state agency must acknowledge a donation of $500 or more in an open meeting.

The amendments to Section 1.503 clarify the acceptance of a donation for the travel of an employee who will be speaking at a conference. Since the Texas Transportation Commission meets once a month and sometimes this travel is requested on short notice, the amendments provide that the commission may acknowledge the donation not later than the 60th day after the date of the travel has been accepted by the executive director.

The amendments to 1.504 change the threshold for when a donation agreement is needed from more than $250 to more than $1,500. The commission proposed these rules in August and the rules were published in the Texas Register; no comments were received. We recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, observations?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 7(b)(2) we have final rules for our Substance Abuse Program.

MS. ISABEL: Good afternoon. I'm Diana Isabel, the director of the Human Resources Division, and I'm here today to ask your approval of a minute order which adopts the final adoption for the repeal of Section 4.30 through 4.40, and then subsequently has a new Section 4.30 through 4.46, and this updates the department's Substance Abuse Program which makes it clearer, shorter and more concise in format.

The proposed rules were submitted to you in July for proposed adoption. We then sent out an administrative announcement to all the district engineers, division directors and office directors to distribute to all employees so they would have an opportunity to comment on the changes in the rules, and the comments were received and the period ended September 9, 2002. We did receive written comments from eight persons during this period and those were addressed in Exhibit A to the minute order.

Most of the comments referred to provisions that were already in the rules with the department's established substance abuse programs, so therefore, no changes were made to the rules. So today we respectfully request your approval and final adoption of the rules as submitted. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Diana.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 7(b)(3) final rules for more transportation planning issues.

MR. RANDALL: Again, Jim Randall, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

This minute order adopts amendments to Section 15.2, 15.3, 15.7 and 15.8 to be codified under Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Part 1 relating to transportation planning. The transportation planning rules were amended to comply with the provisions of federal law and the Governor's Delegation.

The federal transportation laws in Title 23 and 49 United States Code grant state governors certain powers and responsibilities relating to transportation planning, including the responsibility to designate metropolitan planning organizations, to determine the boundaries of metropolitan planning areas, and to approve statewide and metropolitan transportation improvement programs and any amendments. Previous governors have delegated these responsibilities and powers to the commission or the executive director.

In a letter dated June 13, 2002 to Chairman Johnson, Governor Perry retained the power and the responsibility to designate or re-designate MPOs, to determine the boundaries of the metropolitan planning areas, and to request the designation of additional transportation management areas. The authority to approve statewide and metropolitan transportation improvement programs and any amendments was delegated to the commission or its designee.

Amendments to these rules define "governor" to mean the governor of the State of Texas or his or her designee. In the event that future governors may decide to delegate or retain powers and responsibilities in a different manner, this amendment will permit that change without having to amend the planning rules. The other amendments to these rules deleted certain terms used in ISTEA that are no longer used in TEA-21 or federal law.

These amendments were proposed by minute order 108965 dated July 25, 2002 and were published in the August 9 issue of the Texas Register for the purpose of receiving public comments. A public hearing was held on August 26, 2002. Two people provided oral comments at the hearing and the department also received four written comments. These comments are addressed in Exhibit A.

Section 15.2, 15.3, 15.7 and 15.8 of the transportation planning rules need to be amended to comply with the provisions of federal law and the governor's delegation. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Jim.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to item 7(b)(4) where Jerry will have two minute orders under VTR-1 for the Electronic Lien Title Program and the other is the registration of fleet vehicles. Where did Jerry go?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think he's out there getting his specialty license plate changed.

MR. BEHRENS: We will then go to item 8 and hold off on those and bring Jim back up here for three additional minute orders under the Transportation Planning item.

MR. RANDALL: Again, Jim Randall, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

Item 8(a), this minute order amends the 2002 Unified Transportation Program to advance projects to Priority 1 (CONSTRUCT) and Priority 2 (DEVELOP) authorizations. Minute Order 108653, dated September 27, 2001, approved the 2002 Unified Transportation Program. The department is currently working towards streamlining the UTP development process. Development of the 2003 UTP has been suspended and further action has been deferred until next year's update of the restructured program.

In order to prevent interruption of the fiscal year 2003 letting schedule, it is necessary to advance the projects in Exhibit A to Priority 1 (CONSTRUCT); the remaining projects in Exhibit A will be advanced to Priority 2 (DEVELOP) programming authority to allow for the development of critically deficient bridges. The 2002 UTP will be amended to include advancing a total of $204,824,203 to Priority 1 (CONSTRUCT) authority and $36,474,495 to Priority 2 (DEVELOP) programming authority, as shown on Exhibit A.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: A few.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now let me ask you, Jim, if a fellow was sort of uninformed out there in the wilderness and heard what you just said, would he be correct in interpreting that we're really not going to have a formal 2003 UTP?

MR. RANDALL: Correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And if that fellow lived in Fort Worth or Dallas and had a bunch of projects out there on the edge, would he interpret that as being my projects have been removed?

MR. RANDALL: Not removed. We're still working off the 2002 UTP that covered years 2003, 2004 and 2005,

MR. WILLIAMSON: So really the only projects that this moved towards clarity and focus might affect are projects in 2006 and out years possibly.

MR. RANDALL: Possibly.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And might even not affect them.

MR. RANDALL: Correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And we still retain, as a commission, the right to reach forward and pull ahead projects that we deem in the State's economic interests or in the State's safety interests or whatever reason we decide to advance projects, we would just maybe use that like through the Strategic Priority process?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir, you have that authority.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So really, the big change here to be discussed is the fact that the department is trying to streamline and simplify the UTP process where everybody in the state can understand it and we just couldn't get it done fast enough to do 2003.

MR. RANDALL: Correct. We still have some working groups that we need to have their reports developed, and so until we get those, we can still work off the 2003 UTP.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And Mr. Chairman, I was looking at some of the projects and we are by this minute order advancing some projects. Is that correct?

MR. BEHRENS: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And it appears that one of the projects might be the really unsafe stretch of road, was it 155 in the Frankston area that we've heard so much about?

MR. RANDALL: That will be covered in item 8(c).

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. This is the bridges that we're looking at now?

MR. JOHNSON: Bridges is 8(b).

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, so we're doing them one at a time. Then I'm going to ask my question in a moment about it. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions on 8(a)?

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any questions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Item 8(b), this minute order amends the 2002 Unified Transportation Program to advance four preventive maintenance bridge projects in the Beaumont, Dallas, Houston and Pharr districts to Priority 1 (CONSTRUCT), Category 6A On-State System Replacement/Rehab Program at an estimated cost of $5,125,000.

Minute Order 108653, dated September 27, 2001, approved the 2002 UTP. United States Code, Title 23, Section 116(d) provides that a preventive maintenance activity shall be eligible for federal assistance under this title if the state demonstrates to the satisfaction of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation that the activity is a cost-effective means of extending the useful life of a federal aid highway. The FHWA has provided information that Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehab Program funds may be obligated on existing federal aid highway bridges for preventive maintenance. It is necessary to advance these four projects in order to perform needed preventive maintenance bridge work, providing increased safety for the traveling public.

Upon approval of this minute order, the projects identified in Exhibit A will be added to Exhibit I of the 2002 UTP. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sorry I got ahead, and so this particular minute order addresses unsafe bridges. Will this be the one where we will for the first time take money that was restricted to construction and now advance it to maintenance on a federal bridge?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir, this is the one in which we'll be using bridge rehab money for preventive maintenance of four bridges.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Item 8(c), this minute order amends Exhibit L, Category 12, Strategic Priority of the 2002 Unified Transportation Program to include two projects in the Lufkin and Tyler Districts totaling $23,500,000. Minute Order 108653, dated September 27, 2001, approved the 2002 UTP. Upon approval, the projects identified in Exhibit A of this minute order will be added to Exhibit L of the 2002 UTP. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, observations?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thin this is the one that I had some interest in

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, Frankston bottleneck.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This is the one that's the unsafe bottleneck in Anderson County, or in that area, 155?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir, there's about a nine-mile stretch we're talking about.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, the last time that we talked about this, let's see, I guess this group made a formal presentation to us some time ago and then some business person in that area came to see individual commission members -- I know he came to see me, I don't know if he saw Mr. Johnson or not, Byron Cook, I think is his name. He came and talked about the importance of this from a safety perspective, made an impact on me, but I look at the money and it's more than the first step and it's less than the final step. Will this get us a completed divided four-lane road?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. It's my understanding by utilizing the existing road and constructing a new two-lane beside it, we'll have a four-lane divided facility along that entire nine-mile length of this.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So different than what Mary brought to us, the delegation brought to us six months ago, it's a little bit different engineering approach but it still solves the problem Mr. Cook was concerned about which was the safety of the road.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: All right, this is wonderful.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, the only thing, before we get a second on that, the way we've gone about our thinking here is we've taken an existing road and expanded it and made it divided four-lane by building two more lanes which are divided, and I hope that staff will, where we are utilizing the Trunk System efforts and any other expansion efforts that we go to four-lane divided, that be a consideration. Because of right of way and construction concerns, it is going to save us a considerable amount of money. As Ric pointed out, we had several pieces of the project and if you added them all up it was in excess or approaching $24 million and now we think we can do it for in the neighborhood of $15 million and it was by utilizing that concept, and I think we need to extrapolate that to others like it, and hopefully we'll find that we can do more for the amount of money that we anticipated spending.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. Mr. Saenz was the architect of this proposal and I think he'll spread the word.

MR. JOHNSON: I think that's because of that maroon sweatshirt that he got last Tuesday -- that's what somebody told me at least.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you very much, Jim.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's good work, Amadeo, on finding an alternative.

MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If you get a chance to convey to Mr. Cook, the guy that was down here speaking about that, I'd appreciate it because it accomplishes an important safety goal. I like this.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll move to agenda item 9, and under Traffic Operations will be considering the cancellation and establishment of environmental speed limits in the Houston-Galveston area.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, isn't it weird, 350 people have talked about projects they can't get. We've just done away with the 2003 UTP, we've just advanced three safety projects, and we're fixing to, I think, do something about speed limits in Houston, and we've got 46 dedicated employees -- wait a minute, one reporter. Change the world and nobody wants to watch. Go, Carlos. Oh, wait a minute, there's somebody back there who is not an employee.

MR. NICHOLS: San Antonio.

(General laughter.)

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

The minute order before you modifies existing environmental speed limits in the Houston-Galveston air quality non-attainment area. Earlier this year, maximum speed limits of 70, 65 and 60 miles per hour throughout these eight counties were reduced to 55 miles per hour at the request of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. These speed limit reductions were designed to bring Texas into compliance with federal air quality standards.

The TCEQ has submitted a request to the EPA to modify the existing air quality plan for the Houston-Galveston area to raise these speed limits. This revision will eliminate the existing 55 mile per hour environmental speed limits for the region impacting 1,660 miles on 110 state highways. TCEQ will request, upon EPA approval, that the new environmental speed limits be five miles per hour under the previous regulatory speed limits of 70 and 65 miles per hour. In other words, highways that were 70 before will be 65, highways that were 65 before will go to 60, all those that were 60 and 55 will stay as they are.

In four of the six counties of the Houston District and two western counties of the Beaumont District 633 miles of 65 miles per hour and 573 miles of 60 miles per hour environmental speed limits would be established for a total of about 1,200 miles on 83 state highways.

Approval of this minute order directs the executive director to implement the new environmental speed limits and cancel the existing environmental speed limits when both EPA approval and TCEQ's request is received. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And can that come by telephonic notification?

MR. LOPEZ: We would prefer written type of notification, fax would be fine.

MR. WILLIAMSON: May I ask questions, Chair?

MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me ask you something, Carlos. Is it our view that written EPA approval is necessary or is it our view that we just prefer that but the truth is we're a self-regulating state and if we choose to do this after this board acts, we can? What's our view?

MR. LOPEZ: Our preference obviously is written. The way our procedures are written is that EPA approval is given.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But in reality, once we took the steps we took earlier in the year to adopt other strategies and tactics to clean the air up, we are, as far as technically defined, we are in a portion of our conformity plan and our SIP for that area that we are self-regulating so we choose to do these things we choose to do it, eyes wide open at our own risk but on our own motion.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes, correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, because there are writers present and will be, for the record, we would want to point out that the reason TxDOT lowered the speed limits in the first place was cooperatively with TNRCC at that time and the legislature to implement strategies and tactics that would reduce air pollution in the State of Texas.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes, working with TNRCC, that is correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So when the inevitable wise guy says they spent a million and a half painting signs and now all that money is wasted and couldn't these bozos have done this in the first place, we're going to quickly point out to them that these bozos were working with other state agencies, the legislature and the federal government to improve air quality in the Houston-Galveston area.

MR. LOPEZ: That is correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And we are now, if we pass this, placing Houston-Galveston in the same relative position with speed limits as we placed the Fort Worth-Dallas area.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Those are my questions.

MR. JOHNSON: One minor point, I think that we will always have use for 55, 60, 65 and 70 mile per hours signs, so it's not as though we created something that will never be used. If we're out of something, it's the time use of that money which obviously has value but it's not what the original cost of the signs. Now, we are out the labor and installation expense, but that's just a minor observation.

Robert, did you have anything on this issue? Carlos, my understanding is that EPA will notify us or notify TCEQ?

MR. LOPEZ: TCEQ is my understanding.

MR. JOHNSON: And then TCEQ will make the request of us.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: And when those steps are taken, then we are authorizing the executive director to proceed.

MR. LOPEZ: That's right, we do not have to wait for another commission meeting to act.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is Gary going to take a bunch of those 65 mile an hour signs back to Houston with him, or is he going to paint them down there?

MR. BEHRENS: Carlos, you might describe we're going to be using the decals.

MR. LOPEZ: Right. What we will be doing is putting a decal over the existing signs to change the digits. We will be putting some new truck speed limit signs up where we had to take them down before, but it will largely be a decal type of effort.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Can you start on the north end of Houston where Robert will get the benefit first because he likes to travel a little bit faster than the rest of us.

MR. LOPEZ: I think Gary was thinking of maybe starting on the Katy Freeway.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert has ignored the 55 mile per hour speed limit, I don't know why he's going to suddenly --

MR. NICHOLS: I use it twice on every trip.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you looking for a motion, Chairman?

MR. JOHNSON: Before the sonic boom and after the sonic boom.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: A motion, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 10, we have a request from the City of Weatherford for a State Infrastructure Bank loan.

MR. BASS: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm James Bass, director of Finance at TxDOT.

Item 10 seeks your final approval of a loan to the City of Weatherford in the amount of $240,000 to relocate utilities associated with the new building of two bridges on US 180. Interest would accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 3.8 percent with payments being made over a period of ten years. Staff would recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't own land adjacent to this but I think I own land near. I wish to read that into the record, Mr. Monroe, and I will abstain from voting on this action.

MR. NICHOLS: Interest rate is fair market value, terms are reasonable and it's guaranteed.

MR. BASS: Correct. They've secured the loan with utility revenues.

MR. NICHOLS: So it's a good solid loan for the state. Mr. Chairman, I so move.

MR. JOHNSON: And I'll second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Please note for the record that Commissioner Williamson abstained.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But the land is not that near, not that close.

MR. BASS: Agenda item 11 requests your acceptance of the quarterly investment report and your approval of two revisions to the investment policy and investment strategy. The quarterly investment report covers the period of June 1 through August 31 of 2002 and reports on the investment status of both bond proceeds and local right of way participation funds associated with the Central Texas Turnpike project.

Just a few brief highlights. The quarterly investment report is Exhibit A to this minute order. Of course, the beginning market value of the investments during this time period were zero but at the end it was slightly over $2.3 billion as we received the bond proceeds and the local right of way participation. The book value of $2.315 billion was made up of approximately $186.6 million of local right of way contribution and the remainder was all from bond proceeds. As of August 31 we had an unrealized gain of $1.8 million.

Moving on to Exhibit B -- and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have on the investment report -- in Exhibit B we are recommending that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation be added to the list of qualified financial institutions. This would allow this particular institution to be eligible to submit bids when it is decided that we would go to the market for the purchase of securities. We have been informed that this particular institution has a history of submitting competitive bids and we would recommend their inclusion in the list.

In Exhibit C we are recommending a change to the description of the various fund types to add capitalized interest fund to the description of the Type 3 funds. Previously Type 3 funds included only the construction funds. And we also recommend that the maximum maturity for Type 3 funds be changed from no more than five years to not exceeding the final draw date for capitalized interest payments or estimated construction draws, whichever is longer.

The easiest way to describe this, in preparing this quarterly investment report, it was discovered that we had a security that was going to mature in 2009, seven years from the inception, and that was going to the capitalized interest fund which did not cause any problems, but in the interim on a semi-annual basis, the security was throwing off or generating interest income that was assigned to the construction fund which technically could have been in violation of the investment policy saying the construction fund should have no securities that had a maturity greater than five years. This has one of seven years, it's getting the interest during that interim period, and so by altering the maximum maturity on the Type 3 funds, we believe that it addresses that problem, and we believe that this is the appropriate way to address that situation.

And having said that, staff recommends your approval and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have on the quarterly investment report or any of the other matters.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I already had all my questions answered.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have any?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I yield to you and Robert on this one.

MR. JOHNSON: I had two observations that lead to questions. One is on the addition of another potential bidder as a trustee, has our financial advisor made certain or do they make certain of the soundness of the institution or the enterprise that is making that request, all the bidders?

MR. BASS: Yes. At the time of the bid, there will be requirements for them, and the thinking in this particular institution would be not that they would hold any securities for us but about six weeks ago we went to the market with $225 million of cash that we wanted to go out and buy securities, and in response to that bid, the institutions replied how much of a par value they would deliver to us for that $225 million. So we had a relationship with that institution for only a few minutes. We purchased and then received the securities and the securities are then held by our trustee Bank One. And so the requirements for institutions in that type of transaction are far different from ones who would actually be holding securities for us.

MR. JOHNSON: The other is an observation. We waived the requirement to have an audit this year and the reason for that is it would have been an audit covering three days, and what we are going to do is the charge to the auditor will be to commence the audit for fiscal year '03 on the inception date which is August 29.

MR. BASS: Correct.

MR. JOHNSON: And run that audit from August 29, 2002 through August 31, 2003. So it seemed to us to be a needless expense to have an audit covering a three-day period.

MR. BASS: Correct.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, James.

MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, I'd like to go back to item 7(4)(a) and (b). I think Jerry has made it back and can present those minute orders. I think he was in a rush to go back and tell his employees about the compliments you gave them.

(General laughter.)

MR. DIKE; Yes, sir. My name is Jerry Dike and I'm division director of Vehicle Titles and Registration Division, and I want to profusely apologize to the commission. The final rules were in my notebook, but I have been so concerned about the first set of rules, the special plates rules -- as you know, they were scheduled to go before the commission in prior months and we pulled them because there are so many different statutes and so many complexities involved in special plates, so I was concerned about those, and thank you very much.

And Mike, I did want to pass those comments on. We do have all of our regional managers in for their semi-annual meeting out at Camp Hubbard for a meeting and we're visiting with them this afternoon, but I apologize for leaving the commission meeting.

MR. JOHNSON: You didn't leave to change ties?

(General laughter.)

MR. DIKE: No, sir. This first 17.49, this is final adoption concerning registration of fleet vehicles, and this minute order will adopt a new 17.49 to implement a system for registering fleets which was required by the past legislative session. We did receive one comment that asked us to reduce the fleet size from 25 to five vehicles, and we do concur. We'll have some fleets that will be applicable to use this and it will be a little bit more efficient for the counties to register smaller fleet size, so we recommend your adoption of this minute order for these rules.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: You had no questions? I'll second. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. DIKE: Thank you, sir. And before I leave again and forget another set of rules, this minute order is final adoption of 17.11 concerning an Electronic Lien Title Program and this will adopt new rule 17.11 concerning electronic lien on title which will provide more efficiencies for those large lien holders that have thousands of vehicles in lien where they will no longer need to keep the original paper title. They can electronically transmit information to us and then automatically release the lien after the lien is paid off.

We did receive several sets of public comments. We answered those questions, both back to the people -- and these were large lien holders that asked these questions on how the procedures would work, but they didn't affect the rules themselves so the rules have not changed from the proposed. We recommend adoption of this minute order also.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Who are the largest lien holders?

MR. DIKE: GMAC, for example, and then some of the very large lending institutions in Dallas and Houston have literally several thousand liens. I think there's one lien holder that has as many as 15,000 liens on vehicles -- it may be GMAC.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Who asked for these changes in the rules?

MR. DIKE: The legislature asked us to adopt this electronic lien -- they didn't ask for changes in rules, they just asked for clarifications on how it would work and how it was applicable to them. Actually, the people that asked the questions were some of the very small banks and credit unions and it really won't apply very much to them because it's not cost-effective for them to make programming changes just for a few dozen or maybe even a few hundred vehicles. This mainly will apply to those large institutions because they've got to make programming changes to communicate electronically with us.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. DIKE: Thank you, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 12, Contracts, and Thomas will present those contracts.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The saga continues.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 12(a)(1) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on October 9 and 10, 2002 whose engineers' estimated costs are $300,000 or more. We had eight projects, we had four bidders per project.

One project we recommend for rejection in Travis County, it's 6087-15-001. On this project the bid was high and we only had one bidder and the district did contact other possible bidders in the area and they said that they just didn't have time to put their bids together for this project, so we'd like to go back and re-let it and give the other bidders an opportunity to bid the project and see if we can save some funds.

Staff recommends award with the exception noted.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is this a safety matter, the one recommended for rejection?

MR. BOHUSLAV: A safety matter?

MR. WILLIAMSON: In other words, if we reject and delay this another 60 days, could someone legitimately opine that?

MR. BOHUSLAV: The project is for the upgrade and repair of a melamine guard fence, and I believe the district would have taken that into account as to whether or not it would significantly affect the safety of the public.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 12(a)(2) is for consideration or award or rejection of a building contract let on September 6, 2002 and highway construction and building contracts let on October 9 and 10 2002. We had 67 projects, average number of bidders of 5.5 per project.

We have three projects we recommend for rejection. The first project is in Dallas County, it's sequence number 3003; this is for the Frontier Flight Museum. There were eight bidders for the estimated $6.8 million project. This project requires an AIA document and all the bidders had some discrepancies is their submission of the bid, primarily with the submission of the AIA document. One of the statements required in the contract, in addition, was that they certify that they're going to provide the materials that they proposed in their contract; none of the contractors made that statement in their proposals.

We also discussed this with the board of the Flight Museum and they are in concurrence with the rejection of all bids and going back; they'd like to re-scope the project when they go back and re-let it. We recommend rejection of that project.

We have an additional project in Knox County; it's sequence number 3218. This is a landscaping project. The apparent low bidder is Altex Landscape Construction, Incorporated, and this is a recommended rejection based on an error by the contractor. Recently you established rules for rejecting bids due to contractor bid errors and you established five criteria: first off, they have to give us written notification within five days, and they have done that; the error must be a material item of work and the error that we see that they've presented to us is about 18 percent of what their intended bid would have been; in addition, the error must be a significant portion of the total bid, and the error, again, is about 18 percent of the total bid.

We asked the question, too, did they exercise ordinary care. This error was administrative in nature, in that they scratched out a 19 and a thousand and intended to only scratch out the 19 and replace that in their bid -- actually they scratched out a nine and replaced it with a 19; they left off the thousand portion of their bid.

In addition, we asked the question will the delay in this project affect the safety and the cost to the public, and it will not, it's a landscape project. We recommend rejection on this project.

The last project I have recommended for rejection is in Tom Green County. It's project number 3032, it's for the cleaning and resealing of bridge joints, and we had ten bidders on this project. The requirements for joint seal in this project were not included in the project. We have two bridge joint seal suppliers out there that have been approved by the Bridge Division; their system has been approved through performance testing in the field. The details for the types of systems that we would allow were not included in the plans, so the bidders came in, some were aware of that and some were not, so some of the bidders were not aware that they had to utilize these systems.

In addition, there was a quantity error in the linear feet of the joint sealant in this project, so we need to use those joint seal systems, they are critical to the performance of the joint seal, and we'd like to reject this project and go back and re-let it.

Staff recommends award with the exceptions noted.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Five and a half bidder average.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes. It's moving up, yes.

MR. NICHOLS: It continues to move up.

MR. BOHUSLAV: In addition, the highway cost index that we look at, we're about nine points below where we were last year.

MR. NICHOLS: So even though the index has come down which lowers the estimates, the actual bids are coming in still less than that?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes. The index is independent of what the bids based on percentage. The index looks at dirt by itself and considers what are prices are for dirt versus what they were a while back.

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, very competitive prices.

MR. BOHUSLAV: The prices are still competitive.

MR. NICHOLS: I move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry, Robert, I had one question. On the fellow that we rejected because of an error in the bid, I know we agonized over this approach and we had wise counsel from Mr. Monroe about being careful about how we did it. In your judgment in this case, is this how it was designed to work, clearly a mistake? This commission doesn't want to put a small business guy in a bad spot because it was a mistake.

MR. BOHUSLAV: A quick answer is that I think we're being fair and it is a very obvious administrative error that they made when they marked out their price, and I think based on previous counsel that the history of the courts on this is that if there's a significant error in there, they'd say we need to give the check back and go back and rebid the job.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think this is the first time this has happened since we adopted these rules, and not to break my arm patting us on the back, but this is exactly what I think we were trying to get to, and I'm glad to see that it worked and it worked the way it was supposed to.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We don't analyze it based on the size of the contractor but this is a small contractor.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 12(b) and (c) will be handled by Amadeo.

MR. SAENZ: Thank you, Mr. Behrens. I liked it better when I was with Phil, I didn't have to adjust anything. I think I was a little bit taller than he was; we're going to check the video tomorrow.

(General laughter.)

MR. SAENZ: For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive director, Engineering Operations, also chair of the Contract Claims Committee.

Item 12(b)(1), the minute order before you approves a claim settlement for a contract by Taylor Exhibits & Displays, Incorporated, on Project RMC 605355001 in Hamilton County in the Waco District. On September 19, the TxDOT Contract Claims Committee considered this claim and made a recommendation for settlement to the contractor and the contractor has accepted. The committee considers this to be a fair and reasonable settlement of the claim and recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. SAENZ: Item 12(b)(2) is also a contract claim. This minute order before you also approves a claim settlement for a contract by Norman Highway Constructors, Incorporated, on Project STP99(303)R in Tyler County in the Beaumont District. Also on September 19 the Contract Claims Committee considered the claim, made a recommendation for settlement to the contractor; the contractor failed to notify the department within the prescribed 20 days of his acceptance or rejection of our proposed settlement amount. Based on our rules, the committee's recommendation is considered final and all further appeal is barred. The contractor has contacted us advising us that he did miss the deadline but he wanted to ensure that the process included that he would get paid, so he accepts the process. The committee recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. SAENZ: Item 12(c), this minute order before you approves the department to enter into four contracts with Halff Associates, Incorporated, which employs a former department executive director. Under Government Code 669.003 there's a requirement that in order to enter into a contract with a company that employs an agency's former executive director for the first four years after the executive director has served in that position, the commission must approve the contract in an open meeting.

Mr. Charles W. Heald, the department's former executive director, is now an employee of Halff Associates, Incorporated. Halff was pre-certified with the department for these types of work and responded to requests for proposals on all of these four contracts before Mr. Heald became an employee of Halff Associates, Incorporated. Halff was awarded four contracts in accordance with the competitive selection procedures that are set forth in the Professional Services Procurement Act and both the Government Administrative Codes. The contracts are for architectural services, right of way acquisition services, hydraulic and hydrology study services, and sub-surface utility engineering services.

Staff recommends your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought he retired.

MR. SAENZ: He did, but because he was executive director, for the first four years after he leaves the department and he works for a company, any contract that that company --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, then if he's working for a company, he didn't retire.

MR. SAENZ: That's true. He's semi-retired.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, is he here to explain all these contracts?

MR. SAENZ: No. We couldn't catch him.

MR. JOHNSON: Probably a good thing.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, is there anybody here that can explain all these contracts?

MR. SAENZ: I've got some more information.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know; I'm going to think about it. I'm sure Robert has got some questions.

MR. NICHOLS: Two questions. Number one, the firm was fairly selected?

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And number two, the negotiated price on the contracts is fair value for the State?

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Then I so move.

MR. JOHNSON: Is it normal that you would have four for consideration at one time, or is this out of the normal?

MR. SAENZ: These four are in four different areas: we have one in the Maintenance Division, one in the Houston district, one in the Fort Worth District, and one for our Right of Way Division, so since we're very diverse and we have a lot of things going on, just so happened that we wound up with four.

MR. JOHNSON: My observation, in reading this information and also your commentary, is we have a very stringent policy and I think it's appropriate. Wes Heald is the only former ED that this currently applies to. Is that correct?

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Because everybody else has been retired more than the four years.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I just think it would be fun to drag him up here and make him answer all these questions. Don't you think it would be fun?

MR. JOHNSON: I think it would be interesting to see how he responds on the other side.

MR. WILLIAMSON: See how he is on the other side.

MR. JOHNSON: He knows how to adjust the height of the podium there.

MR. SAENZ: I think he and I could probably use it the same height.

MR. JOHNSON: No, we'd put him on after Thomas, whatever his last name is.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, if Mr. Nichols moves, I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 13 are the Routine Minute Orders. They're listed as appeared on the posted agenda. if you would like us to discuss any of those individually, we can do so; otherwise, I would recommend approval of the Routine Minute Orders.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Is there any other business? We have one person who has requested to speak at the open comment session, Scott Johnson from Austin.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And after this comment, I can ask Mr. Saenz something.

MR. JOHNSON: Scott, welcome.

MR. SCOTT JOHNSON: Thank you. Good afternoon, commission members. My name is Scott Johnson and I live here in Austin and I'm a golf professional; I work out at the Ben White Golf Range at Ben White and I-35.

As you well know, there's a construction project that's going on there, it's been going on there for quite a long period of time, well over one year. During that time there's been an economic impact on the golf range, as well on my livelihood, and as I go through I'd like to ask a few questions and perhaps if those could be addressed at the time that I ask them, I would greatly appreciate that.

Does this project have a time line in terms of when you know when the project is going to be completed?

MR. BEHRENS: Yes, we do. I can't give you that date but we can surely furnish you that information.

MR. JOHNSON: You're talking about the complete interchange at I-35 and Ben White?

MR. SCOTT JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, we'll get you the information. It's sometime in 2005, I believe.

MR. BEHRENS: That's probably right.

MR. JOHNSON: At least that's what our sign says.

MR. SCOTT JOHNSON: Fair enough. I spoke with someone earlier today in trying to find out more about this and apparently the Department of Transportation, the state does not have a policy really where they help individual businesses in perhaps any tangible way other than keeping open the main entrance to the sites there. As you may or may not know, there is not access for this golf range now from the main lanes on Ben White, it's simply by the access road; therefore, it's very difficult for people to access it because they're used to coming off of Ben White heading westbound and just coming into our driveway. So these economic conditions are ones that happen to a lot of small businesses, and I hope that you're aware of that as you move forward and make these important decisions that affect businesses here in Austin and throughout the state as well.

Furthermore, the construction activity that goes on is listed, at least in the emissions inventory here in the Austin area, as a very significant source of air pollution, particularly ozone forming pollution; nitrogen oxides are formed in great quantities by construction equipment. There's a construction site right next to the golf center; in fact, Abrams has a site there, they're idling their own vehicles, there's gravel haulers that are lined up to haul gravel away from the site on I-35, they're lined up sometimes four, five and six in a row, all of them idling. Diesel exhaust is considered a known carcinogen; at least that's the perspective that California has, and more and more reports support that measure. That means it's a known cancer-causing agent, and again, I hope as you move forward you look at opportunities to reduce air pollution.

I'm somewhat familiar with what's going on with regard to cleaner burning fuels and ultra-low sulphur diesel. I was at the kickoff in June when Commissioner Williamson came on with Commissioner Houston to talk about this effort, so I applaud you becoming interested in this. But obviously it has to go more than the step of just wanting to do it and planning to do it to actually implementing and retrofitting the vehicles and finding opportunities to use the TERP finding, the Senate Bill 5 finding to upgrade some of these older and poorly maintained pieces of construction equipment, because at least here in Austin the contribution from construction equipment, both road and land construction equipment, is approximately 20 percent of the emissions inventory for nitrogen oxides which is the key ozone forming pollutant that we're trying to control locally.

As you know, we've violated the eight-hour ozone standard now for our fifth year in a row, so we're in a very difficult situation now and we need your help and we need your leadership in this particular issue. Low sulphur diesel by itself won't necessarily address these challenges. We also know now from the science that it will take anywhere between a 7 to 20 percent reduction in pollution for us to meet the health-based eight-hour ozone standard, and because of this we will have to have reductions in this sector, this construction sector that has to do with building roadways. And if we can't, then we have to rely more on the on-road mobile source sector which are people's cars and trucks and we have to rely on other sectors to where sometimes it's very difficult to get those reductions for people because we're asking them to make lifestyle changes and we're asking them to spend more money.

So I hope you will keep this in mind that there are certainly economic ramifications from building and widening roads as well as there's significant air quality and health-related effects from this same type of operations.

Be happy to answer any questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Any observations, Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No questions, but I thank you for a civilized, organized and rational layout of what's affecting your business and the community at large, and we will look into and respond back. This is the proper way to get our attention.

MR. SCOTT JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Scott, first of all, we're not related, are we, other than the fact that I aspire to be a golf professional.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: I appreciate your coming and the consistent, rational approach that you've taken. It embellishes to me two things. One is that when we are doing projects, and especially ones of major consideration -- and I-35-Ben White is one -- you've brought in the economic impact that it has on businesses nearby, and we need to be cognizant and be driven by the fact that time is precious and whether it's time that somebody has to battle congestion at that intersection, that's extremely important to those people, but also to the merchants and the people who make their living, that's something that's ancillary, sort of over on the side of the screen, but we need to be cognizant of that.

Something that I repeat and I'll repeat until my time is up, and that is we all have a limited amount of time and it's how we utilize that time that we're sort of measured by, and I think this department hopefully is moving in the direction of thinking in those terms, that time is a precious ingredient. It's very difficult to put an exact price or an exact cost on time, but it needs to be very high in our thinking.

Secondly, in dealing with environmental issues, we are taking a leadership position, we feel, in terms of working with TNRCC -- now TCEQ -- on ways to deal with the issues of the environment, clean air, and you've hit on two very important ones, whether they be the exhaust emissions from construction equipment or whether they be mobile sources which are sort of in our bailiwick. We emphasize to our contractors that they need to be thinking ahead, that there will be a day, whether it's part of the SIP or not, where we'll need budget savings in order to be back into attainment from non-attainment or conformity lapses.

So we need to spread the word and I think your point is maybe we ought to be more forceful. The challenge we have is when we deal with a sector like that, when we've dealt with some of the airlines at the airports and the conversion of their equipment and also the shutting down of idling capacity of their equipment and construction equipment, the attitude that sometimes comes back to us is that it's somebody else's challenge and they ought to be contributing more than us. And yet we should recognize that this is something that we all need to face, we all need to deal with and we all need to do what we can do, and if we take that attitude, we'll get the job done.

Personal opinion, not reflective of the commission.

MR. SCOTT JOHNSON: Businesses here seem to embrace clean are perhaps a little more pro-actively than in some other cities in Texas -- I don't want to use that as a criticism against them, but as a compliment to this area more so, and therefore, yes, we've had some discussions with AGC about this issue now spanning over about a five-year time frame and back at that time engine idling was something that was a little bit foreign to them and they weren't sure that they were going to be able to do anything. Now we've moved so far beyond that issue about SIPs and conformity lapses that engine idling seems like it's very attractive to them now if that will get to this to where we need to get together, and so I hope that can be something that could be put into contract specifications, some five-minute rule or some adherence. Even if it's not the contractor that's driving that vehicle, it's a subcontractor or the second subcontractor or the third one, there definitely has to be some way where we can start to address that issue, if it's not already being addressed now, and based on my contact with staff, particularly with Bill Jordan who is new to the position from TNRCC, it has not been addressed yet.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, we've initiated a Driving Across Texas campaign. I think the message there was we want people to be commonsensical and run their trips with cleaner burning fuel, cleaner burning engines, to do what they can do. When we had the rollout of that, some demonstrators came chanting "Puff the Magic Diesel" and yet this department has more alternatively powered and uses more alternative fuels than any department in the state, both on a percentage basis and a volume basis. We get national awards for our leadership in this area.

Are we perfect, have we done as much as we can do? The answer is probably no, but we continue to press that issue of doing everything that we possibly can. We welcome input, we welcome suggestions. Not everything brilliant was invented here, I can assure you.

Thank you for your time.

MR. SCOTT JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Anybody else? Is there any other business?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I just want to comment to Amadeo. I know yesterday we had a chance to visit during staff briefing about the El Paso bridge and you assured me that we were moving as fast as we could. I just want to reinforce that, Amadeo, I thought about it last night. Mayor Caballero, the commissioners court and the county judge have been very good partners with us the last few years. After a little dust up of ten years ago, we've healed those wounds, we're partners, they're trying to do what they can for us. Anything we can do at the commission level to help speed that particular bridge application along, let us know. We want to help them all we can.

MR. SAENZ: I checked yesterday afternoon. We have finished reviewing their environmental document and it was in substantial compliance, and we've submitted that to them and they're moving forward with the public hearing process. We've been meeting with them and kind of giving them some advance review of the application so that we're trying to get everything moving and get it done as quickly as possible.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I appreciate you doing that, and I want to say to Mike that I appreciate Amadeo taking personal interest in it. I think it's important for the commission to show that kind of partnership to communities that try to go the extra mile.

MR. SAENZ: Just kind of as an off note, since I'm already up here, we had the first groundbreaking on the Border Colonia Project down in South Texas this past Monday in Hidalgo County. That program is up and running.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How did it go?

MR. SAENZ: Went fine. We had about 60 people there, the chairman was there, we had representatives from the Texas A&M people, from the Governor's Office. It went well, very, very well received. The only thing we couldn't do is get the chairman to speak Spanish but we'll work on it for the next one.

MR. JOHNSON: Probably a good thing.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Any other business to come before the commission? If there is none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: Before I second, Mike, there are a lot of insects up here and I don't know whether they're living or dead, so we ought to have the exterminator at least investigate.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Second the motion, and we'll stand adjourned. It is 1:54 p.m. on October 31, 2002.

(Whereupon, at 1:54 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

CERTIFICATE

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: October 31, 2002

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 178 inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum before the Texas Transportation Commission of Texas.

_____________11/04/02
(Transcriber) (Date)

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