Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

Dewitt C. Greer Building
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas

9:00 a.m. Thursday, October 30, 2003

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

STAFF:

MIKE W. BEHRENS, Executive Director
RICHARD MONROE, General Counsel
TAMMY STONE, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director
DEE HERNANDEZ, Minute Order Clerk

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:10 a.m., and I would like to call this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. Welcome to our October meeting; it's a pleasure to have you here this morning. Please note for the record that public notice of this meeting, containing all items on the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 2:46 p.m. on October 22, 2003.

Just a bit about the schedule for today. We have one delegation from Grayson County, and we're delighted that they're here. I'm going to have Representative Berman be our lead-off hitter because he needs to get back to Tyler for a luncheon function, and then we'll have the housekeeping part of our meeting, and we will go into executive session before the open comment period at the end of the meeting in order to visit with general counsel about some pending legal matters.

So having laid out our schedule, we usually start the meeting by asking my fellow colleagues, Commissioners Nichols and Williamson if they have any comments. So Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I just welcome everyone here; appreciate the distance some of you have traveled. During the Halloween period, drive careful, there's going to be a lot of kids on the streets.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Were we supposed to wear costumes?

MR. JOHNSON: You mean that's not a costume you have on?

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: And aren't you glad I set you up for that. And I echo the same remarks as Commissioner Nichols. Thanks for being here.

MR. JOHNSON: It is great to have you here. Representative Leo Berman from Tyler, Texas.

MR. BERMAN: Mr. Chairman, following an almost 9-1/2 month session, I didn't expect to be back in Austin so soon, but it's very important because we're intent on building in Smith County. I want to thank you and the Grayson County delegation for allowing me to go first, and I want to also point out that for anybody intent on building in the state of Texas, they ought to get this publication; it's outstanding; it's an excellent piece of work done by the Department of Transportation, and I thank you for it.

Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, Executive Director Behrens, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address this important transportation project for the Northeast Texas region, Loop 49 in Smith County. First I'd like to thank you and commend you for the ongoing support for the construction of Loop 49, and due to your receptiveness of our local leveraging proposals, we celebrated the groundbreaking of the first section, Segment 1, in August. And gentlemen, you have in front of you a map; Segment 1 is in green on that map. We hope to continue our celebration next year on Segment 2 which is the small yellow segment just to the right of Segment 1. Funding is available for this segment, we're going to groundbreaking and the segment is scheduled to let in September of 2004.

Our community has recognized and acted on the importance of our partnership with TxDOT for several years now. Smith County, the City of Tyler and the City of Whitehouse have dedicated funding to support not only their traditional funding requirements -- which was $1.3 million for right of way and utility relocations -- but they also provided an additional $2.6 million for the consultant studies and construction. We understand our responsibility to assist the Texas Department of Transportation in the delivery of transportation infrastructure to Northeast Texas, and House Bill 3588 -- which we passed this session -- provides us with many new tools to increase our participation with TxDOT.

Identifying the new opportunities provided with the passage of House Bill 3588, our communities have once again responded with unanimous support for TxDOT and the Texas Turnpike Authority to investigate the feasibility of converting our Loop 49 to a toll road. Understanding the facility currently under construction may not be completely toll viable, we remain encouraged the revenues collected will indeed provide some mechanism to support bonding for the completion of this facility in the near future.

It is paramount to this region that we do everything within our authority to achieve the desired results. We stand ready to organize, as directed by TxDOT, to continue the evaluation of toll alternatives to support the completion of this corridor from State Highway 155 to US 69 North in Lindale which is Segments 3 and 4 on the map. That's the orange and blue segments all the way up to Lindale.

It is my understanding TxDOT's current estimate to complete these segments is just under $100 million. If funding and toll alternatives are not viable at this time to complete Segments 3 and 4, we would be interested in supporting continued construction with any means possible.

For instance, to complete Loop 49 from State Highway 155 to State Highway 64 -- and that is the first half of the orange segment -- would cost approximately $40 million. Completion of this portion of Segment 3 would allow direct access from the most developed section of Tyler, which is in south Tyler, to the newly expanded airport and ultimately to Interstate Highway 20 West. Segment 3 received a Record of Decision in November 2001. TxDOT informs us that right of way acquisition needs to be initiated on any portion of this corridor by November 2004 to ensure our current environmental clearance is not jeopardized. Completion of this segment of Loop 49 will provide uninterrupted access from arterials and local collectors feeding Loop 49 from the southern and western Tyler and Smith County regions to the major national east-west mobility corridor of Interstate 20.

Based on current toll feasibility studies, the Interstate Highway 20 and US 69 North section of Loop 49 which is Segment 4 -- that's the blue segment -- may prove to be the most toll viable section in our corridor. With this additional section of the Loop 49 toll road, motorists could enjoy an average 20- to 30-minute travel time savings, avoiding 26 signalized intersections over the current 24-mile trip from south Tyler to north Lindale on US 69.

Our ultimate vision is one day to see the completion of the eastern section of Loop 49, and I added Segment 5 to that, Segment 5 and Segment 6. This route has not been tied down at this time. Continued project planning for the eastern leg will help to ensure preservation of the corridor until such time that funding is viable.

Your support for continued funding of this regionally significant urban toll-supported facility is appreciated and has been appreciated. We stand ready to cooperate locally in any way possible, financially or with toll roads. In fact, one of our local transportation leaders, Mr. Jeff Austin, III -- who is here with me today -- is currently serving as a member of your rural rewrite committee for the regional mobility authorities, the RMAs, and he'll be testifying before you later on in this session, and he is keeping us informed on the applicability of this type of organization to our own local needs.

Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. We appreciate all that you do for our community, for the State of Texas. And I also have with me in the back of the room the best district engineer in the state, Mary Owen. Thank you so much, gentlemen, and I'll be glad to answer any questions that you might have.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I have a question.

MR. BERMAN: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm not sure that you can answer it, but Mary might be able to -- or the TTA is here -- and the question relates to, in the tolling consideration one of the first things we try to get is a traffic and revenue study or at least a preliminary traffic and revenue study to get some idea of what the bonding capability is.

Mary, do you know if we have begun that, or do we have that, or has it been requested?

MS. OWEN: Commission, Executive Director, we've done the preliminary studies and they're refining those numbers. And in fact, we've asked the TTA to come down and address our local electeds next month on the results that they have for the final numbers.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. So we will have some traffic and revenue estimates?

MS. OWEN: That's my understanding. We've been refining our cost estimates for the construction in order to go along with those estimates. I have not seen the results myself of the final. We did the Phase 1 feasibility analysis and they decided to go into the second level, and that's what we're waiting for. Ed Pensock is here and he's the one who's been coordinating with us. Is there any more data?

MR. NICHOLS: So we think within a month?

MR. PENSOCK: Good morning, commissioners. We right now have completed preliminary feasibility studies for the projects and it could range as high as approximately 20 to 30 percent toll viable which is a good number if you're trying to generate revenue. We don't, and right now the decision on whether we'll do an investment grade traffic and revenue study hasn't been made; it will be determined if we plan to sell revenue bonds. If we don't plan to sell revenue bonds, we won't go to the expense and time of an investment grade report; the decision hasn't been made yet, though.

MR. JOHNSON: For the record, can you identify yourself?

MR. PENSOCK: I'm sorry. For the record, my name is Ed Pensock. I'm director of planning for the turnpike division of TxDOT.

MR. JOHNSON: Right. The study that you've done incorporates which segment or segments?

MR. PENSOCK: We've done studies for the southern seven-mile segment, or the five miles that are under construction now and the two miles that will be under construction next summer, and for the northern 22 miles, including the Lindale bypass. The heaviest traffic is around the I-20/US 69 North area.

MR. JOHNSON: Did you have anything else?

MR. NICHOLS: No. I appreciate that, and I want to say, Representative Berman, we very much appreciate your help in the legislature this past session. I remember when you were a freshman and you first began, you had a real interest in transportation and we had an opportunity early on to spend about half a day.

MR. BERMAN: We were freshmen together.

MR. NICHOLS: We were.

MR. BERMAN: The year you were appointed was the year I was elected, and we did get together initially.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I echo Robert's remarks about you were a good voice for transportation for the program that we advocated, and we appreciate that very much.

MR. BERMAN: 3588 was desperately needed and I'm glad we have it, and gentlemen, I want to tell you all thank you for what you do for Texas and for the time you give.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, having been in your position, I understand how difficult it is to go home -- and I've addressed these remarks to my buddy Larry as well -- how difficult it is to go home and explain to people why they're going to continue to pay gasoline taxes but in order to get the roads they want, they may have to pay a toll. I understand that. It is critically important to the success of this state that every elected official at least know the facts, and are so moved to advocate the facts, and it's equally important that locally elected officials and local business leaders also know the facts, and if they're so moved, to advocate the facts. And the facts are the gasoline tax provides just enough for maintenance and a low level of expansion of the system; it does not provide enough revenue for a massive expansion of the system.

And so our choices in Tyler, in Weatherford, in Houston -- maybe not Jacksonville yet -- but our choices are status quo and maybe in your lifetime one of these projects will get started, or a new paradigm, and get these projects moving, understanding that we either increase our gas tax or pay tolls, it's one of the two, and the philosophy of this state, of the citizens we all represent, seems to be we prefer to pay the tolls over the general tax.

So it's a difficult thing; it's hard to explain. Day in and day out we all catch an awful lot of criticism, and I sympathize with that criticism, but if we're just candid with our taxpayers, Texans are pretty tough men and women and they understand the facts if they're laid out. And the facts are it's either more gas tax and still wait, or no increase in gas tax and tolls and move fast and, it's our judgment that we have no choice but the latter, and that's tolls and move fast.

MR. BERMAN: Thank you for your comments. And my final comment is I'd like to drive Loop 49 sometime in my lifetime before I leave here. Gentlemen, thank you so much for allowing me to speak this morning.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much for being here.

GRAYSON COUNTY DELEGATION

MR. JOHNSON: Our delegation today is from Grayson County, and I understand that Representative Larry Phillips will lead the delegation. Representative, it's great to have you here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Good morning. It is a pleasure to be before the commission, and I thank you for the opportunity to be here and to present what we think is an important project not only for our local area but for the community, and that's the Highway 289 extension.

I want to just also thank you and echo the remarks that Representative Berman said: what a tremendous job that occurred this last session in this area. I want to thank each of you and I want to thank Mike Behrens for his leadership and his forbearance with us sometimes, and the same for each of you, your forbearance for the many questions that we had. With four freshmen on that committee there was a lot of steep learning, and maybe that was good that we were there, but each of you took the time to invest in us -- and I appreciate that personally -- to think about these paradigm changes and think about what an engine we have with our transportation system in Texas, what an economic engine and what a quality of life engine, and that's what we're here about today.

I want to thank you for your getting out and pushing Proposition 14, and that passed, that was tremendous. Continue to see new things happening in Texas and each of you are a big part of that, tirelessly working for our state, and I appreciate that.

And Mike, I also want to thank you for your staff this session in many different areas, explaining and going over again, directing or saying why this won't work or maybe it will work, and their patience was very appreciated. You have a very good staff throughout the department, because we touched on many different areas of TxDOT this session, and I appreciate that very much.

I want to introduce the delegation, if that's okay. I'm just going to ask them to stand because I'm real proud of them being here. If I turn around you might not be able to hear me. We've got: County Judge Tim McGraw; County Commissioner and Chairman of the Sherman-Denison MPO Gene Short; Denison Mayor Bill Lindsay; Sherman Mayor Julie Starr; we have Southmayd City Councilman Victor Popplewell; Gunter Mayor Mark Miller; we have the Pottsboro City Manager Manual Leal; Denison Chamber of Commerce President and General Manager of the Greater Texoma Utility Authority Jerry Chapman; we have the Grayson County airport board members, Chairman Ellis Ohmstead, Jeff Cristie, Joe Rushing; we have airport manager Mike Shahan with us -- and this is the Grayson County Airport and we'll talk a little bit about that; Sherman Economic Development Corporation President John Boswell; Denison Development Alliance Assistant Executive Director Scott Smathers.

We have, from our local newspaper The Herald Democrat, Jerrie Whitely sitting over in the press section -- glad she was able to come with us today. And of course, our award-winning area engineer, Bobby Littlefield, and we're proud of him for that award and that distinction that he received, and then we're also appreciative of the Acting District Engineer Steve Ekstrom. And from Senator Estes' staff Barbara Erickson, and she's going to have, I think, a comment from Senator Estes after I get through, if that's okay. And we also have the Texoma Area Paratransit Executive Director Ven Hammonds.

The reason I introduced them, as you see, we have the community's support for this project, and the Sherman-Denison MPO has focused this State Highway 289 extension as one of the top priorities or the top priority for our area, and I'm going to go through a presentation, go through an overview of the area, go through what the request is, and talk about what we're asking and what our commitment is locally.

As you know, the population of Texas, 21 million citizens within the 254 counties, and it's amazing but in the 12 counties in and around the Metroplex the percentage of that population is about 25 percent. If you look at areas like Plano and Frisco, you can see the population is rapidly growing northward. I know it's growing westward as well, Commissioner Williamson, but it's growing northward at an amazing pace.

In fact, we're looking at a little of the facts that Frisco -- which is located on Highway 289 -- is the second fastest growing city in the United States. In 1999 the population of Frisco was 6,141; by the next census it had grown to 33,714 with about a 448 percent growth; in 2001 the population grew another 206 percent; it's just continuing to grow exponentially. Allen -- which is on Highway 75 to the east -- is projected to exceed 70,000 residents by 2010 and it's just unbelievable to think about the growth. Allen will become the fastest growing city in North Texas in 15 years with more pressure on Highway 75.

In all of our cities and county, the building starts continue to increase, even with some of the economic downturns -- which I'm going to talk about -- continue to increase and continue to build.

So this slide just shows the regional view of the area. The purple line is current 289 -- it doesn't look that purple, but the faded line under Sherman is 289, and that's the current 289 running from Frisco, going up to Highway 56. If you go east, to the right there, you would run into Sherman; and if you go west, left there, you would run into the city of Whitesboro. And 82 is just right above Highway 56 and the plane right there is the Grayson County Airport, so that's the regional view and you can see that that area is just growing up -- it's kind of like the PacMan getting up there going faster.

The proposed State Highway 289 construction, zooming in on that area, the recently rehabilitated existing Highway 289 is in red, and this was over a five-year project from the state, and the total cost of that rehab from State Highway 121 in Collin County to State Highway 56 in Sherman was over $30 million.

In green you can see the proposed extension of State Highway 289 running from Highway 56 in Sherman, past Grayson County Airport, up to Farm to Market 120 in Pottsboro, leading right to Lake Texoma. The total cost of the construction of this project to TxDOT, the request is $22 million -- which I'll talk about in a moment.

This is more of a zoomed-in view just so we can see a little better picture of that. Again, the red line on 289 is recently completed or refurbished 289, and we're asking for development of our 289 to continue on the green dots there.

One of the big advantages to this extension is that it would provide relief for Highway 75 and the congestion there. As we all know, it's an extremely busy artery running out of the Metroplex. As you can see, Highway 75 has a traffic count at the state line of 30,000 vehicles a day, while NAFTA corridor Interstate 35 sees about 24,000 in a day. Early next year we expect Highway 82 to be completed between Bells and Sherman -- you can see the green line that was just placed down -- making that road, we believe, considerably more traveled because -- we believe the northern part of the Metroplex, especially the trucks, will take advantage of the route going up 75 and having a straight shot east, especially during construction times on 20 and 30 where a lot of that major transportation goes, and we're looking forward to that and that's going to increase traffic, we believe, considerably along 82.

Further, we have many people who travel between Grayson County and the Metroplex and using 289 and will use 289 extremely more with it being easier to get to from the north side. Right now on State Highway 56 you have to go through lights, and although it's been rehabilitated and we've had some good work there that travel is not quick and often has types of traffic that slow that down, and there's no really direct way from 82 to 56. You have to either go over to 75 to get to it if you're going to take 56. There's a few other arteries that go down there, but they're not that efficient. And I'm going to comment more about the recent number of job losses and the continued transportation of our citizens going into the Metroplex to work and why this road would be very helpful.

And of course, we have a major attraction in Lake Texoma, one of the most beautiful parts of the state, which sees between 6 and 10 million visitors each year, and that particular corridor we're talking about will relieve the 75 traffic to the lake but will also open that lake up and open up the opportunities for North Texas to enjoy the lake even more.

Now, the next map is the map that should be in your package, and I just want to quickly show this. It shows what the reliever to US Highway 75 would be, and the main thing I want to point out there is it shows that the current traffic counts, the current counts with the extension, and the counts in 20 years, and it's estimated with the extension itself, it would immediately jump up to 4,000 more vehicles per day which is really what I wanted to show with this slide, the jump there, and that's in the packets that were provided by your staff.

And of course, one of the most important benefits for our area for this extension is it opens up Grayson County Airport in ways that to this point have not been open because of the configuration of the geography there. Of course, this is the former Perrin Field Air Force Base, and I think each of you, I believe, has been there.

Commissioner Nichols, I believe you've flown in there, and it's something that when you flew in there you noticed a few main characteristics about it and that's the tremendous runway that the airport boasts. It's a 9,000 foot runway, making it the third longest in North Texas -- and that's the dark line that you see there. There's a runway up at the top that's not used and then the middle runway is the dark runway and that's the one that's in current use, 9,000 feet. 289 would be at the top of this picture.

This runway is capable of landing a Boeing 747 up to 600,000 pounds, and it's conveniently located 22 nautical miles outside the DFW Class B airspace, so we're not within that airspace or those restrictions. We are a Class C airspace, making it very convenient for those future opportunities that we have there.

Let me back up a second and talk about the airport. TxDOT Aviation is aware of the value and potential of this airport, having invested more than $4 million in the airport in the last four years. Preliminary improvement plans for the airport include more than $13 million in airport improvement projects over the next four years from TxDOT Aviation, so there's been quite an investment by the state, locally and nationally in this airport.

The next slide is going to show you a development plan, and I know you can't read the wording there.

MR. JOHNSON: Larry, can we go back to the previous slide? I've got to ask this question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure.

MR. JOHNSON: Is that a golf course that I see on the lower part?

MR. PHILLIPS: That is a golf course.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean you haven't played it?

MR. JOHNSON: I just missed it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought you played every golf course in the state.

MR. NICHOLS: We're assuming the airport improvement money wasn't spent on the golf course.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. With that being an Air Force base, that's where that golf course came from.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You can pick John up in Houston and fly him right in, he can jump into a cart, he can do 18 in two hours and be back in.

MR. NICHOLS: When we have five members I can.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry, I had to do that.

MR. PHILLIPS: That golf course, the Grayson County Junior College has that golf course and is in charge of that now.

Let's go on to the next slide. This kind of shows our recommended development of the airport, and I know you can't read the wording but it's mainly the picture I wanted you to see. The short-term improvements include overlaying and strengthening the runway which is the bottom yellow runway, the center runway there, and then you can see on this map the picture shows State Highway extension 289 at the bottom. Long-term improvements include reconstruction of the second runway which is the long orange strip which with those two runways of that size being created over time will make it really a formidable place for development. In all, nearly $56 million in improvements are planned, really, as they say, polishing what's been referred to as a jewel in the rough, which is what we think that airport is.

Here's just two slides showing the rapid growth just in the last four years to that airport without this reliever or this extension. We've doubled the number of aircraft in four years that are stationed, and we've well over doubled -- the next slide -- the fuel sales at the airport. We really think this is just the tip of the iceberg.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I can't remember. Do we collect tax on aircraft fuel?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sorry.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I couldn't remember.

MR. PHILLIPS: This next map shows north looking south. You can see the 289 proposed extension on the right there. The extension of Highway 289 would provide a unique opportunity to establish a true intermodal hub, providing access to air, rail and road. The area around the airport is prime for development. The county owns about 200 acres on the west side of the runways, adjacent to the proposed 289 extension, as you can see boxed in the red in the photo. On the other side of the extension there are thousands of acres of property that are available to be developed. We've got an activated foreign trade zone in the location which we've recently contracted with North Texas Industrial Free Port Management Partners to market and develop the infrastructure there.

This next view is a bird's-eye view of the intermodal hub area. As you can see in blue is a Union Pacific rail line which is north of the airport in Pottsboro; green is the airport-owned rail spur that connects to the UP and it's currently being rebuilt; the yellow shows where the 289 extension would be; and the red shows a couple of areas that are ready to develop which I mentioned earlier -- those are a couple of those that are ready without the thousands of other acres that are sitting there available off to the west.

We come with an amazing amount of support from communities. You've got resolutions and letters of support in your packets from communities and chambers of commerce throughout Grayson County. We also have some further updates which we will be supplementing to the record. And it's really something that the communities as a whole are saying we know that this is going to happen eventually but we believe that it's something that's important to our area. We also have the support of Grayson, Collin and Fannin counties, as well as other agencies interested in the development of the area, and I mentioned the Sherman-Denison MPO has put this as a priority.

You also will find in your packet letters of support from Senator Estes, Representatives Fred Hill, Jerry Madden, who also appeared on behalf of this project two years ago but couldn't make it today; Representatives Mary Denny, Brian McCall, Ken Paxton and Jodie Laubenberg. And of course, Ken Paxton and Jodie Laubenberg are directly south of my district, just south of Grayson County along the 289 corridor.

Let's kind of step back and talk about -- I mentioned economic losses. I want to point out in the three-county area -- and that's the Cooke, Grayson and Fannin county areas -- we've had some really economic hits in a lot of our major industries. As you can see, the slide shows the estimated direct and indirect losses, and this is just since January of 2001. In that time period, companies in large primary industries in the Texoma area have closed or laid off workers or announced closing. In total, 14 primary companies have closed and another eleven have laid off workers. As a result, almost 4,000 direct jobs have been lost with an estimated annual payroll of $98 million. You can see that the area suffered lost direct and indirect wages of nearly $210 million, lost taxable sales of nearly $88 million, and reduction in business and commercial property and local tax rolls of almost $192 million.

This next slide shows, without going over the numbers, the type of companies that we've lost, these major manufacturers. And this is just in the last three years alone of losing Pillsbury, AGP Refineries, Pilkington, Libby Owens Ford, and then it shows J&J Medical layoff -- that's going to be a closure as of the first of the year -- and many other layoffs. This doesn't include basically in the last eight to ten years other manufacturers that we've lost, including Oscar Mayer and Kraft. And these are core, good-paying jobs that although our population has not decreased -- because actually our population continues to increase because of the growth from the south -- and we have jobs that have come in and replaced these jobs but they're jobs in retail areas and so the type of jobs that we've had come in there are lower wage jobs, and we're working as a community up there to deal with those changes.

And so I paint an economic picture of that's why it's so important for us for this development to help the airport development and that whole area grow. We believe it will increase the importance of 82 and certainly we believe it will increase the traffic from the south and people looking northward. Plus, those economic benefits of opening and expanding Lake Texoma is really at times uncountable the impact that it makes to our local economies.

We talk about some of these negative economic indicators but housing starts continue to increase and they're pretty consistent and they have been these last several years -- we're growing. There's over 60 to 70 new starts every month for the county, so outside of the cities. Both of the cities continue to have buildings being started. So homes are being purchased, land is being bought, and people are moving into those areas.

We also have a brand new area on 82 and 75, including a major retail development bringing a Home Depot, Target and a major movie theater and many restaurants, and that's not including other restaurants and other retail that have come along that corridor. So there's continued growth in that area, even though we've had this job loss, but we've had a huge economic hit with these major plant closings, and there's many reasons for those closings and we're working to address those the best we can. A lot of it has to do with what we do here in Austin.

Let's go to the next slide and we want to talk about the local commitment here, and I've got a slide to go through and then I want to step back and talk a little bit about local commitment. Grayson County is showing its willingness and ability to be a contributing partner in this project, having already committed a tremendous amount of capital to the project: preliminary engineering and historical documents of $762,000 expected total, with $722,000 of that paid to date by Grayson County; right of way map, title search, deeds, survey, contract property acquisition estimated costs of $288,000; right of way costs and displacement estimate costs -- and you see it's ultimate four lanes and I'm going to talk about that in just a second -- of $2 million; and then utility adjustments estimated costs of $1 million, for a total local commitment of over $4 million to this project. And that's what we're saying we have and we're bringing to you.

Now, you're saying: Phillips, you just sat through the session, you just passed 3588; is this the commitment from your local area, is this the new way of thinking, is this a paradigm shift? I think it is. One, it's the local money, but I want to talk about why in our area we think that this project will be helpful as a primer. We believe that this project is a primer to the pump to accomplish some of those things we're talking about.

And I want to come over and put this map up here, and I apologize that I don't have it in electronic format, and this is for discussion purposes only, as we all know, and all this is subject to changes and iterations down the road, but this is a proposed north tollway running along the 289 area right here, and this is the area right here that we're talking about today from 56 up. And I mentioned four lanes, the right of way cost and displacement, and that's this area up here is we're looking to develop that to ultimately have the four lanes to work with, a tollway authority to bring the tollway.

And there are different versions of where it could possibly go, depending on what happens in the different negotiations, but they all end up right in this area, and so we anticipate that with the increased traffic counts and the increased developments up here, the transportation that will be drawn up here, this will come sooner if we can get this project and the toll working with us sooner so that we can get up here, and this would be converted, and depending on which way it goes, these issues will come about where that tolling and the new way of thinking about it, the new way we've been talking about trying to finance will come. But we believe this is a key to get that continued development up there and we believe that with opening this area up here, it's just a natural fit for that, but we believe that until this happens that it's going to be stagnating. I don't know if I'm making sense with that.

That's why we're saying that, you know, if we say can we toll this little portion, for us we think this is a component of a much larger picture of possible development and bringing these communities together and reaching the goal of helping fund itself because at the state level we don't have those dollars. But we believe this is just a real important component kind of to prime the pump to get this development up here to justify and to bring this up.

Do you have any questions about this? And these are just possible scenarios but they all end right through this section and that's why this is a four-lane proposal.

And it's good that your comments are heard by this group of people. This is a community here in our region, we're having to step back and say what part is Grayson County and then expanding that to the counties surrounding, what part are we going to play in the transportation needs of our community? Where are we going to fit in? And some of that is we're going to have to wait and see what those counties south of us do. We're trying to plug into the project where we can and the decisions they're making, but we have to decide are we going to need a Fannin-Grayson-Cooke RMA.

Obviously we heard Representative Berman. They're a little bit further along than us on certain ways of thinking and certain ways of doing things because of just the way they've structured and their population size. We're going to have to figure out and it's some decisions we're going to have to make. We've told them that and the community leaders. We're going to have to decide how are we going to be involved; are we going to try to develop the Red River RMA or are we going to try to say: Okay, Dallas County and the rest of the counties south of us, we want to join in, we want to be a part of that; or we want to have our RMA work with your RMA. Those are things that we're going to have to do, and so that's the point where we're going so we can think about the new paradigm shift, the change in how we're doing that. And we're going to have to do that quickly, but we believe that this will help us as a component to do that and will have us something to offer as we continue to be a part of that.

What our request is to TxDOT is a total cost to TxDOT for the project is $22 million for the construction covering two lanes, grade separations at Highway 56, Highway 82 and the UP rail line, develop plans, specification and estimates, and we are requesting funding for construction in 2006. This will relieve congestion along the 75 corridor. I know I had the guys from McKinney pin me down the other day about being two lanes at 75 and those are things that that corridor, we're having many people go down there to add to their concerns and their congestion. This will provide some relief to that 75. It will also provide safety because of relief of that congestion and also provide opportunities for economic development which we need so much, and just increase transportation mobility throughout that area.

I thank you so much for your commitment to the State of Texas and for hearing this project through. I have got these three guys here if you have specific questions: Bobby Littlefield, of course; Gene Short who is chairman of our MPO; and Mike Shahan who is with the airport board.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But we want to ask you the questions.

MR. PHILLIPS: I know it. Turnabout is fair play, isn't it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a few, Chairman, but perhaps we could hear from the senator's aide first.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is Barbara Erickson.

MS. ERICKSON: Mr. Chairman, commissioners and Mr. Behrens. Senator Estes regrets he is unable to come here personally before the commission to personally voice his support for the request for strategic priority funding for the extension of State Highway 289. He has asked that I convey his comments on this project. This is a quote.

"The Senate District 30 counties of Collin, Denton and Grayson will be positively affected by this project; therefore, I have a great interest in the improvement and extension of Highway 289. The growth in these counties, along with the heavy commuter and recreation traffic, has created a need to improve 289 as well as extend the highway to Farm to Market 120 in Pottsboro. Priority funding for the improvements and extension of Highway 289 to Pottsboro would be a unique opportunity to open access to an industrial airport in Grayson County which would greatly benefit the aviation and economic interests of those north and west of Dallas.

"I want to encourage your support and affirmative consideration for the funding of this project." Signed "Craig Estes."

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: First of all, Mr. Phillips, I want to publicly, in front of your constituents, thank you. We had a lot of help during the legislative session but help comes in degrees, and your constituents should know that you were one of the most important persons in the formation of the transportation policy for the next century, and I really appreciate all your work.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: As a newcomer, you're a very impressive guy.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Everybody says around here you'll be one to watch, and we know that personally here because we've seen you already.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Without indicating my particular viewpoint of your request, it seems to me, if I understand this project correctly, that this is exactly the situation that the governor wished to address with regard to the following dilemma: you have a limited amount of money to spend, you have this level of congestion in north Dallas right now, and you know that you're going to have that level of congestion at Pottsboro ten years from now, you know you're going to have to build this ten years from now but you know that you have got to add lanes and capacity to 635 right now. In a limited funding environment, how do you address today and tomorrow?

It seems to me that House Bill 3588, with your leadership, provides a solution to that problem if the local community is willing to think differently. This strikes me as a perfect project for a comprehensive development agreement in the shadow toll-financing tool. I can't imagine this commission doing anything but being at least positive about a proposal originating in the local community, with our spec oversight of course, but basically saying we've found the engineer, we've found the construction company, our local banks are going to put the money up, we're going to pull the trigger and do this right now, and all we need for you guys is a contract to reimburse us on the traffic count so that we know that we will ultimately get all of our money back. We've made arrangements to borrow the money, the counties have decided to take on the debt, we don't care how they do it, that's not our business, what is our business is reimbursing them fully for their investment over time so that the asset can be built right now and used right now, and the cost of it can be spread out to us over the next 10 or 15 years. This is the perfect example of that process.

And again, without indicating my particular view, I have no idea of my colleagues' view of the strategic priority request, this seems to me that this thing would go pretty quick if somebody walked in and said we want to be part of the new world and we don't want to wait, we want to start now.

I have one other comment in that regard. We are communicating to Mr. Behrens and at every opportunity to our district leadership: with regard to right of way, think bigger, not smaller. We don't ever want again, if we can avoid it, be in the situation we're in now where we're having to literally tear down big buildings to expand footprints.

MR. PHILLIPS: Exactly.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And the Trans-Texas Corridor set the pace; it's like whatever you think you need, you need twice that because this state is not going to shrink over the next 100 years population-wise, we're going to continue to be a magnet for entrepreneurial risk-taking, hardworking human beings from all over the world, and we're only going to grow, we're not going to get smaller, so if you think you need 100 feet, go get 300 feet and plan for it.

But this strikes me as being the perfect locally generated, financed, built shadow toll project that the State, I think, would just jump on the opportunity to help make happen.

MR. PHILLIPS: I thought we weren't going to call it shadow toll.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry. Pass-through tolling. I keep forgetting.

MR. PHILLIPS: Pass-through tolling. I like shadow tolling.

MR. NICHOLS: Shadow sounds kind of sneaky, doesn't it.

MR. PHILLIPS: It does.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Those are just my thoughts.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate those comments. And something that Barbara Erickson talked about are the recreational consumers that we have coming there. A lot of people that use those roads are not from there, and that is something that plays in the part of trying to get some of that long-term support to do something like that, and part of it, quite frankly, because of our economic condition as a county and as the cities, we've just had some big hits. And I know others have but we've had those economic hits from these plants, and that's one of the reasons why we put those in there.

But I certainly appreciate those comments.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We spend a lot of time talking to debt people and we find that the big debt houses, what they're telling me is so you've got a county that's going to issue bonds against this property value and then you're going to pledge the State's gas tax based on per-vehicle use, that can't be anything but the best debt instrument to own because you've got the county standing behind it and you've got the State standing behind you also. I mean, I think this one is an easy one, I really do. It's perfect. And you can build what you want as opposed to kind of just what you think you need right now.

MR. NICHOLS: I also want to echo something that Ric said. Your leadership on the Transportation Committee was really appreciated. Being a freshman, you did not take anything for granted; you guys flipped a lot of rocks that haven't been lifted in a long time and asked a lot of very good questions of us and what came out of that and through the whole legislature was truly some transportation packages that are monumental, and that was really a great job and we appreciate it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I want to first talk about the project itself and then kind of get into some of these other things. On the airport you listed the number of planes there, the amount of fuel increases. I was going to ask the question are there any commercial flights at all, whether they be freight -- are there any freight operators, charter operators?

MR. PHILLIPS: We've got Mike Shahan from the airport.

MR. SHAHAN: Yes, sir, we've got one charter operator right now; we've got one company that has fractional ownership of about 14 jets operating in and out of there, and we've got one cargo operator that's in the process of getting the paperwork together.

MR. NICHOLS: So you do have a cargo operator that's going to begin, or it looks like.

MS. SHAHAN: We hope so.

MR. NICHOLS: Working towards it.

MR. SHAHAN: They're working towards it.

MR. NICHOLS: Because I remember when I was up there, that airport to me it's another Alliance Airport in its infancy. A lot of airports alone but not many of them are built for that type of heavy traffic, and I was impressed that that one was. Obviously, it was a B-52 SAC base or something?

MR. SHAHAN: Advanced fighter training.

MR. NICHOLS: So the potential for freight carriers in and out of there, combined with that rail and the available land, is just incredible. And that whole north end, I call it north-of-Dallas area, like Collin County obviously recognized the importance of that airport to Collin County even though it's not in Collin County, because once it's up and going, it's so much closer and convenient than to get into DFW or over to Alliance. It has very good merit and is obviously strongly supported in the area.

What category are we in on this project: are we in PLAN, are we in DEVELOP? It used to be Priority 1, 2, 3. What are we in?

MR. PHILLIPS: Bobby Littlefield.

MR. NICHOLS: Award-winning.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right, our award-winning Bobby Littlefield.

MR. NICHOLS: Congratulations again, by the way.

MR. LITTLEFIELD: Thank you. We're in the PLAN stage. The county has contracted with a consultant engineer; they've finished their schematic drawings, they've finished their environmental document, and that's been submitted to TxDOT; it's in the review process right now, and we expect to get that finished up within the next month or two and go to the next phase, offer a public hearing, get that past us, and the county can start purchasing the right of way.

MR. NICHOLS: So we do not have it in the DEVELOP stage.

MR. LITTLEFIELD: Well, it's been selected by the MPO in Category 3 in Year 2014 planning.

MR. NICHOLS: Along the line of what Commissioner Williamson was talking about, using some of these new tools, where we're talking about four-lane divided, was there enough right of way in between those lanes to build many years in the future a freeway type?

MR. LITTLEFIELD: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: How wide a right of way are we talking about?

MR. LITTLEFIELD: I believe we're looking at about 400-, 450 feet, the section between State Highway 56 and US 82 primarily.

MR. NICHOLS: Since we were up there -- I forgot when I was up there -- and we sat and visited with a lot of you that are here today, the 3588 and some of the different directions have changed. It's interesting to me that on the southern end, if you head back toward Dallas, we have a direct toll road, I mean, it's just pointing that way, and I know that you mentioned the possibility of forming or may be in the infancy of forming a regional mobility authority. Have you had any talks at the county level about that or city levels? Not yet?

It's something that I would encourage you to at least officially sit down or in workshops start looking at it, and the district can help educate you on the merit of that because there are a lot of benefits for planning and having some opportunities that you may not be aware of, but once you're aware of all those things then you may choose to go that way or you may not choose to go that way, but I would advise you to at least consider it. And there are, it looks to me like, some reasonable opportunities for possibly tolling or an extension of that toll road on up. It might work, it might not work, but it certainly ought to be evaluated because it would truly generate additional revenues.

MR. PHILLIPS: What the judge is talking about is that the tollway from Dallas is planning -- that's in the future -- is planning to come up. And I think what you guys are saying is exactly right, and that's what we're going to have to do is step back and we're going to have to become the masters of our own destiny in relation to transportation in our area, and we've got to figure out what part we're going to play, how we're going to plug into that, and that's something that we've got work to do over the next 12 months to figure that out. We just feel like this is a component that at this point if we could get this done now, this would help us become masters of our destiny, this will help us find ways to develop some of those other alternatives in the future.

MR. WILLIAMSON: On the north end when it intersects with Farm to Market Road 120, is FM 120 two lane, just a regular farm to market road or anything special about it?

MR. LITTLEFIELD: It is a two-lane farm to market but it's currently carrying about over 7,000 vehicles a day.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is part of your proposal to expand it also?

MR. LITTLEFIELD: That's in a separate proposal. That's been selected by the district as a DEVELOP project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Why don't you just in your public hearing talk about expanding 120 all the way over to 75?

MR. PHILLIPS: Isn't it four lanes now?

MR. LITTLEFIELD: Between Denison and Pottsboro it's four lanes.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's already been developed four lanes there and we've got two new bridges there, so that development is there. You're not going to get any transportation the other way to use 120 going west unless this is developed. Where this would come into 120 is about where it's four lanes all the way to Denison.

MR. JOHNSON: What type of facility is 289 from Frisco to Sherman: four-lane divided?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's just two lane.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I drove it three weeks ago and I can tell you it's an overloaded facility.

MR. PHILLIPS: And we just spent $30 million to refurbish that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Too many people trying to avoid 75.

MR. NICHOLS: I think you have a good project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Me too.

MR. NICHOLS: And I think you've done an excellent job in working throughout the region to educate and obviously get official support -- that's real important -- not only from this massive stack of resolutions that are in this booklet but also from the diversity of the communities that are here today. So I think it's a great project from a transportation standpoint and for future economic development for that whole area.

MR. JOHNSON: My impression is that the Grayson County Airport is an economic engine which is going to bring a lot of activity to the area, especially when these jobs and employers, whatever type they are, start coming back to the area. And we're starting to see signs, statistical signs in the national averages that the economy is set for quite a good period to come and job growth, et cetera, and I think that should be a very bullish sign.

You mentioned being a master of your own destiny transportation-wise, and my sense is that the creation of an RMA, if it fits -- now, it's not going to fit every county or group of counties -- is a very significant step along that way.

MR. PHILLIPS: And that's part of thinking about how do we fit into the overall scheme is we are a 100,000-plus county, the counties east and west of us are 35- to 40,000, so it's a big difference in those, and then south of us is 500,000 counties and a million, and so it's figuring out how we fit into that and how we can develop something that makes sense, economy of scale, is what we're going to have to work on.

MR. JOHNSON: One last question. The North Texas toll road, the Dallas North Tollway gets how close in just miles now? Is it well into Collin County?

MR. PHILLIPS: Right about here is where it comes into Collin County and then here's Frisco right here, and so it comes right at 121, which is not pictured here. And basically, it's planned to where it's divided out and here's the part, depending on the different forces, because you've got Denton County over here and of course Collin County that would like to see that growth, and they're going to have to be a part of that, and we see that continuing up.

MR. JOHNSON: Any final thoughts, Ric, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Excellent presentation, very thorough, and I think the trio of us concur that it's an excellent project and we just need to figure out, along with you, how to get it done.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much for your consideration today.

MR. JOHNSON: We will take a very brief recess so that our good friends from Grayson County can get back to commerce and industry.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

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

(10:30 a.m.)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting.

Before we begin with the business portion of our meeting, let me remind everyone that if you wish to address the commission, please fill out a registration card at the registration table in the lobby. To comment on an agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a yellow card and please identify the agenda item; if it is not an agenda item, we will take your comments at the open comment period at the end of the meeting, and for that we would ask that you fill out a blue card. Regardless of the color of the card, we would limit each speaker to three minutes, and please be mindful of that.

We would also ask, out of consideration for others here, that you place your cell phones and pagers in the silent mode.

We will begin with the approval of the minutes of our commission meeting held in September. Is there a motion to that effect?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Mike, I will turn the rest of the meeting to you.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We'll go to agenda item number 3, Aviation. Dave Fulton will bring you the airport improvement projects for October. Did you play that golf course at the Grayson County Airport?

MR. FULTON: I have not; I'd like to, though. Thank you, Mike, commissioners. For the record, my name is David Fulton, director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.

This minute order contains a request for funding approval for 13 airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all requests, as shown in Exhibit A, is approximately $6 1/2 million: $2.8- federal, $2.9- state, and approximately $700,000 in local funding.

A public hearing was held on October 13 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: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: David, thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 4 is our proposed rules for adoption. Agenda item 4(a)(1)(A) we're going to defer that and do some more work on it, so we'll go to 4(a)(1)(B). Jim?

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

Item 4(a)(1)(B), this minute order proposes the adoption of amendments to Sections 15.100, 15.101 and 15.105 to be codified under Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Part 1, concerning the Border Colonia Access Program. The proposed amendments are necessary in order to implement legislative changes made by House Bill 3420, 78th Legislature, Regular Session.

Section 15.100 is amended to reflect the codification of legislation creating the program in Government Code and the termination of an appropriations rider from the previous biennium that imposed conditions on the department's implementation of the program.

Section 15.101 is amended to change the definition of "eligible cost" and define "rural border county." The definition of "eligible cost" now includes the purchase of materials or the leasing of any equipment reasonably necessary to accomplish the goal of the project. The definition of a "rural border county" is an eligible county with a population less than 55,000, as determined by the latest census, and is adjacent to an international border.

Section 15.105 is amended to provide for a 10 percent set-aside of funding available during each program call to be distributed to the rural border counties. The set-aside is in addition to the $100,000 distributed to each eligible county under paragraph (1) of this section.

The minute order presented for your consideration authorizes the publication of the proposed amendments to Sections 15.100, 15.101 and 15.105 in the Texas Register for the purpose of receiving public comments. Staff recommends 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. BEHRENS: Agenda item 4(a)(2)(A) and (B) will be proposed rules for Vehicle Titles and Registration, the first one dealing with salvage vehicles, and the next one with specialty license plates. Jerry.

MR. DIKE: Thank you, Mike. My name is Jerry Dike, director of Vehicle Titles and Registration Division.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll bet he's played that golf course up in Grayson County.

MR. DIKE: No, sir, I haven't; I'd like to, though.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll have a TxDOT outing; one more and we'll have a foursome.

(General laughter.)

MR. DIKE: Commissioners, item 4(a)(2)(A), this minute order proposes the adoption of amendments to 17.2 concerning Subchapter A, Motor Vehicle Certificates of Title. It repeals 17.8 concerning Certificates of Title for Salvage Vehicles, and it repeals Subchapter D concerning Salvage Vehicle Dealers, and it creates a new Subchapter D concerning Nonrepairable and Salvage Motor Vehicles, and a new Subchapter E concerning Salvage Vehicle Dealers.

House Bill 2813 in this legislative session re-codified provisions of Texas Civil Statutes relating to salvage vehicle dealers. The provisions are now located in Occupation Code, Chapter 2302. House Bill 3588 and Article 17 of this section also amended provisions of Transportation Code 501, Subchapter E relating to nonrepairable and salvage motor vehicles, and Occupational Code Chapter 302.

We've met with industry, formulated these rules, and these rules reflect the changes made by House Bill 2813 and House Bill 3588. In order to inform the public and industry and other persons required to comply with these statutes, it's necessary to revise Chapter 17. Comments will be received until December 15 and we do plan a public hearing on December 9, 2003, and we recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir. Commissioners, item 4(a)(2)(B), the next minute order proposes the adoption of amendments to 17.28 concerning Specialty License Plates, Symbols, Tabs, and Other Devices.

House Bill 2971, and its nickname "The Omnibus Specialty License Plate Bill" in this regular legislative session did seven major things: one, it re-codified all provisions relating to special license plates into a new Subchapter 504 in the Transportation Code; second, it added new provisions allowing TxDOT to prorate specialty license plate fees for less than a year; three, it allowed TxDOT the authority to issue specialty plates for all vehicle classifications; four, it gave us the authority to sell souvenir license plates; five, it gave TxDOT the authority to issue new specialty license plates; six, it gave us the authority to contract with a private vendor to market special license plates; and seven, House Bill 2971 also created 38 new special license plates.

These amendments incorporate House Bill 2971 into our department rules. Of these 38 new license plates, there's actually 40 because one of them was for military academies so there's three different military academies. And for your information, in the small hearing room behind this room, we have a license plate display and it incorporates several things into that. Out of these 40 plates that were approved by the legislature, ten plates have already been designed and the design approved, and those are on that license plate display. Those include: the Alamo; the Native Texan plate; the Fight Terrorism plate that was unveiled on September 11; and two of them are the God Bless America and God Bless Texas plates where the proceeds go to TxDOT for --

MR. JOHNSON: Safe Routes to Schools.

MR. DIKE: Thank you very much, Commissioner, thank you very much. Yes, sir, you have read your notebook.

But after those passed through the legislative session and TxDOT, of course the TxDOT Take Your Child to Work Day, we had 40 of our schoolchildren in VTR a couple of months ago design their own God Bless Texas and God Bless America plates, and those are displayed prominently back here on this display. We also have the top four sellers in Texas, so those plates are back there on that display. And we will receive written comments until December 15, and we'll also have a public hearing on this "Omnibus Bill" on December 9, and we would recommend adoption of the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: With the addition of the new 40, how many total plates are we up to now?

MR. DIKE: We have about 90 different plate categories, but about 150 different plates, if you count collegiate as one or 40, so there's really about 150 different license plates. And a poster will be coming to your office that displays all those that we have at the current time.

MR. NICHOLS: Does it look something like your tie?

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir, actually it does look something like my tie.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have anything else. So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. BEHRENS: We'll move to agenda item 4(a)(3) from our Motor Carrier Division, some new rules there, and Carol Davis will present those. This will be the first time Carol is presenting to you, commissioners.

MS. DAVIS: Thank you. So be nice to me; I've heard a lot of horror stories.

MR. WILLIAMSON: A new target.

(General laughter.)

MS. DAVIS: I think they were just kidding, though.

Good morning. I'm Carol Davis, TxDOT's Motor Carrier Division director, and I'm here concerning agenda item 4(a)(3). The minute order we're proposing amends and adds new sections to Chapter 18 relating to Motor Carriers. The proposed amended and new sections implement the provisions of Senate Bills 1184, 1063, 1904 and House Bill 849, all of which were passed during the regular session of the 78th Texas Legislature.

The amended and new sections implement new drug-testing certification requirements, new vehicle fees for tow truck operators, requirements for submitting and posting towing fee schedules, cargo insurance requirements for tow truck operators, law enforcement notification requirements regarding carriers whose certificates are revoked due to lack of insurance, and clarification and addition of definitions. And we are recommending approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I'm not sure if it's going to be a question or a comment; it's probably a little bit of both. On the non-consent towing, the statutes now require that everybody that does this have a certain type of insurance, $50,000 or something?

MS. DAVIS: Yes. It already required liability insurance; it now requires cargo insurance, $50,000 per vehicle.

MR. NICHOLS: Per vehicle. And I know I started receiving phone calls where I live from people that tow on this, and it probably will be revisited, I assume, during the next session. We can't change it because it's statute, but I'm just kind of throwing out that in urbanized areas where there's a high volume of non-consent towing, people can amortize out the cost of that insurance. In some of these rural areas where it doesn't occur very often, it's very expensive for a tower to have to buy that insurance each year just for an occasional type of tow. And it may end up with some situations where if there's a wreck on the side of the highway, DPS calls in for a wrecker to come get it and if none of the wreckers have bought that insurance, what actually happens with the vehicle, who ends up picking it up?

MS. DAVIS: Well, I'm not sure, but if they don't have that insurance, they shouldn't be operating because they're not registered.

MR. NICHOLS: I understand, but who would pick it up?

MS. DAVIS: I really don't know, I'm sorry.

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, I think that we're going to see that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I expect you're right. Say, tell me, do trucks that are required to get a U.S. DOT number or Texas DOT number, commercial trucks, do they have to have their numbers painted anywhere on the truck or just on the doors?

MS. DAVIS: Just on the doors.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Why is that, why can't they be painted anywhere where they could be seen?

MS. DAVIS: Because that's what the federal requirements say and we've adopted the federal requirements.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me think of another one; she was too ready for me.

Welcome aboard. I'll get you next time.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Carol, one question. The definitions now define a bus as one that carries greater than 15 passengers. What would we call something that carries less than 15 passengers?

MS. DAVIS: Something that's not required to register with us.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought you had her. That was kind of a nonresponsive question. Maybe we ought to work this a little bit more. Is this the person we should ask about this Houston bus thing, these kids, or is that somebody else we should direct these questions to?

MS. DAVIS: It's me.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that you? This then comes in a little more serious vein. What's your view of all that nonsense? Do you have any recommendations for us?

MR. JOHNSON: We have a gentleman here sprinting forward.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Uh-oh. You've been saved.

MR. MONROE: Richard Monroe, general counsel for the department. I would remind the commission that we have been sued on that matter. Now, we were nonsuited for procedural reasons; however, litigation on that issue I think could reasonably be anticipated, so I would appreciate it if the questions and remarks were circumspect.

MR. JOHNSON: So noted.

MS. DAVIS: Any more questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Nice to see you.

MR. JOHNSON: I think it's a conspiracy.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Mr. Chairman, I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Carol.

MS. DAVIS: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, the next three proposed rules, 4(a)(4), 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6) will be presented by Phil Russell. 4(a)(4) pertains to the Trans-Texas Corridor; 4(a)(5) Regional Mobility Authorities; and 4(a)(6) Toll Projects. Phil.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mike, commissioners. For the record, I'm Phillip Russell, director of the Texas Turnpike Authority Division.

Agenda item 4(a)(4) relates to the environmental review process that we'll use for the Trans-Texas Corridor. As you know, House Bill 3588 amended new Chapter 227 to the Transportation Code that allows the department to plan and construct a new set of intermodal transportation facilities that will be known as the Trans-Texas Corridor and that will integrate highway, rail and utility components. Together these rules implementing this authority will be part of Chapter 24.

Section 227.027 of the Code provides that the department shall conduct or approve each environmental evaluation or study required for an activity associated with the Trans-Texas Corridor and that the department is entitled to review and to give final approval regarding the sufficiency of any environmental evaluation conducted for a facility on the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Section 227.03 provides that all laws governing the design, construction and maintenance or operation of a highway shall apply to the Trans-Texas Corridor unless those laws are in conflict with Chapter 227, and these rules, of course, are necessary to comply with House Bill 3588 and the environmental laws applicable to development of facilities on the Trans-Texas Corridor.

In effect, commissioners, what this is all about is it will require that the department follow the same rules, the same environmental review and the same public involvement rules on the Trans-Texas Corridor that we currently follow on all other TxDOT state highway system projects.

This minute order, if you approve it, would authorize the publication of these proposed rules in the Texas Register and comments will be taken until December 15 at 5:00 p.m., and we would recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have one.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Phillip, if the federal government alters either the statute or authorizes the highway administration to alter their rules to provide for a different type of environmental review, to what extent will adoption of these rules impede the implementation of the new federal rules? For example, if the federal government decides to either grant specific exemptions for specific corridors or generally decides to grant exemptions or redefine how the process is to be done for multimodal corridors, obviously we can change our rules, but is that what we would have to do: change our rules and go through the process again?

MR. RUSSELL: I think we would be okay but let me defer to Richard Monroe to look at state and federal preemption issues. Right, Richard?

MR. JOHNSON: Richard, you need to sit a little closer to the front.

MR. MONROE: I don't seek that kind of notoriety.

Obviously, federal law would preempt anything we did in our rules, so there could be nothing in our rules that would prevent what you have in mind. If the federal government says exempt this, we would certainly exempt it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions? Robert, did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RUSSELL: Item 4(a)(5) relates to the Regional Mobility Authorities. This minute order proposes the repeal of Chapter 26 regarding Regional Mobility Authorities, and simultaneously would propose the adoption of new Chapter 26. House Bill 3588 repealed Transportation Code, Section 361.003 which authorized the commission to approve the creation of an RMA for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and operating a turnpike project.

To replace this legislation, 3588 enacted a comprehensive Regional Mobility Authority Statute, Chapter 370, which expands the powers of the regional mobility authorities and includes other modes of transportation in addition to turnpikes. Chapter 370 requires the commission to adopt rules to implement this chapter and includes rules governing the creation of an RMA, certain design and construction standards, and required commission approvals.

Chapter 370 further requires the commission to appoint a rules advisory committee to give advice to the department on the development of these initial rules. The committee was appointed, met three times, and provided review and comments on the draft rules. The department incorporated various changes to the draft rules in response to the committee comments.

And I might mention here that although I'm the one up here giving these rules, really Amadeo did the heavy lifting on this. He got the committee together, worked very, very closely with them, made sure that all the input was worked out, and so he's really "The Man" when it comes to the heavy lifting on this.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So you really want to shift all the blame to him.

(General laughter.)

MR. RUSSELL: I would love to, but not yet. The proposed repeal of Chapter 26 and the adoption of new Chapter 26 are needed to implement House Bill 3588. And the last thing I might mention, commissioners, I think there probably is some misunderstanding about what we are requesting today. As you know, these are merely the proposed rules. By your approval today, you would be authorizing really the public involvement phase. We're going to be going out, not only advertisement in the Texas Register, with those comments due December 15, we're also going to be having a public hearing here on November 25, and so really, this is not the final approval and we won't come back for final approval of these rules until we move through the public involvement phase and receive that public comment.

And with that, I believe we have Jeff Austin from the advisory committee here as well.

MR. AUSTIN: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome.

MR. AUSTIN: Good morning.

MR. JOHNSON: I notice that you're from Jacksonville, Texas.

MR. AUSTIN: I roost there every once in a while, yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Our very distinguished panelist also roosts there.

(General laughter.)

MR. AUSTIN: Yes, sir. I do see him every once in a while; we get to wave.

Good morning. For the record, I'm Jeff Austin, III, a member of the Regional Mobility Authority Rules Advisory Committee, agenda item 4(a)(5).

The commission appointed a seven-member committee to advise the department on the development of RMA rules. The committee was composed of members representing diverse regions across the state, and if I may, I know we have three members here today that I'd like to recognize: Tom Griebel, Bill Summers, and Mark Watson -- they're here as well.

The committee met with the department's staff three times. At the first meeting, the committee presented some conceptual suggestions. At the second meeting the committee reviewed the staff's first draft in great detail -- and I stress great detail. The committee ultimately made numerous specific suggestions to the staff; at a third meeting the committee was presented a new draft that incorporated all the committee's suggestions. The committee again went through the rules in detail and made some more suggestions that are also incorporated in the draft before you today. We ultimately voted unanimously to recommend that the commission propose the rules that were reviewed by the committee on October 17.

The committee appreciates the opportunity to work closely with the department staff on the development of the rules that we hope will play a critical role in allowing regions of the state to use the powers recently granted by the legislature to solve our transportation problems. We feel that these rules will allow RMAs the necessary autonomy and local control while preserving sufficient department oversight to protect the State's interests. The committee recommends approval of this minute order.

I'd like to add a couple of other comments that did come out of the committee. We wanted to make sure that these tools could be used locally throughout the state, and last week -- if I may use a local example -- in Tyler, the Tyler region held a public officials workshop, and I believe this was commented on earlier, this pamphlet that really goes through all the tools was outstanding and we want to use something similar to this -- I believe the staff is working on -- for RMAs a how-to guide because we've begun to field some questions on what do we need to do and how do we want to do it and really how to make it simple. We feel this would be very helpful. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions of Jeff?

MR. NICHOLS: I want to thank you and the other members that were on the advisory committee for the work that you did. That's extremely helpful to us to have outside business people and citizens to look at these things from a totally different perspective than the department might look at them. It is very helpful and I just want to say thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: We appreciate everything that you do for us. You've been very active the last couple of years in a positive way.

MR. AUSTIN: There's a lot of great things happening with transportation here. Just go to one of the other states and you'll realize how lucky we've got it. Thank you for what you do.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for being here, and Mark and Bill and Tom, for your collaboration on these rules, we're most grateful. As Robert mentioned, getting outside eyes and people who use the system is invaluable in terms of our ability to come up with, hopefully, the right answers.

MR. NICHOLS: One of the things that Jeff mentioned concerning RMAs, once we get through the final rules and all the public comments, do we have plans to put together some type of little booklet or pamphlet on things the communities might consider in putting together an RMA? It seems like it was a good suggestion.

MR. BEHRENS: I think that we will include that.

MR. NICHOLS: That was included?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I would support that.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions of Phil Russell?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Phillip, you attempted in your layout to address or to head off the inevitable continuing questions about our rule process. I can't help but take this opportunity to ask you to help me reinforce how we approach these things because I'm still not sure a lot of people outside the world we live in understand. What we're doing today is submitting to the public for comment the best efforts of hundreds of people to figure out where to start as opposed to where to end up. Correct?

MR. RUSSELL: Correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And all of these efforts over the past few months have changed directions; philosophies have been altered by arguments -- I mean, this is almost a conversation that transportation people have about where to start to lay out to the public for their input and their comment and their suggestions about how our rules should be changed.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. There have been countless iterations and permutations within that committee of how those rules originally began to be drafted are quite different from what we're proposing today.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So in most cases, and particularly with respect to major legislation such as the regional mobility authorities generally and specifically toll conversion -- which is a matter on people's minds right now -- we actually did reach out to the public. We went and found people who were going to have to live this system and formed a committee and went through the processes that would involve the public to help us understand just where the beginning point should be.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, that's correct. We got that input early on just in drafting and now we'll have an additional opportunity for the public to dialogue with us.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So there was no attempt to hide the ball because there really wasn't any ball to be hid.

MR. RUSSELL: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This is the ball.

MR. RUSSELL: This is it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Motion to approve?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RUSSELL: Agenda item 4(a)(6)(A) relates to the transfer of department turnpike projects and conversion of non-tolled state highways. This minute order proposes the repeal of Subchapter B, Chapter 27, Sections 27.11 through 27.20 concerning the Texas Turnpike Authority, and simultaneously proposes new Subchapter B, Chapter 27 concerning the transfer of department turnpike projects and the conversion of non-tolled state highways

House Bill 3588 amended Chapters 361 and 362 to clarify the powers of the commission and the department regarding toll roads and to delete obsolete and duplicative sections that are no longer needed. 3588 also amended provisions of the Transportation Code concerning the transfer of department turnpike projects to certain governmental entities and the conversion of non-tolled segments of the state highway system to department turnpike projects. And of course these rules, 27.11 through 27.20 and the repeal of the former Subchapter B, Chapter 27 are proposed to implement these legislative mandates.

This proposed minute order would authorize the posting in the Texas Register, comments will be taken until 5:00 p.m. on December 15, and the staff would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any. Do we have anybody signed up to talk about it?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I defer to my colleague.

MR. NICHOLS: Go ahead. I didn't have anything.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Again, a matter of interest to many across the state and in particular to citizens of Travis and Williamson counties as some conversions are being discussed now, and I suppose in Bexar County as well for the same reason. Just for the record, Phil, and so that those who are watching us today clearly understand the governor's and the legislature's and the commission's intent, there are multiple local levels of approval that have to occur before a tax road -- is the word "free" actually in the statute?

MR. RUSSELL: No, I don't think so.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's a tax road because there is no free road.

MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: There are roads that are paid for by taxes and there are roads that are paid for by user fees called tolls, but there are no free roads. The conversion has multiple levels of local control before that occurs and it would not occur unless there was revenue resulting from that conversion produced a new locally important transportation project, as I understand it. I mean, the whole process is designed to let people who are using overburdened infrastructure pay for new infrastructure themselves as they continue to use the overburdened infrastructure. Is that how you understand it?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And we're not contemplating nor would it be possible for us in one commission meeting to say we're going to convert 183 or MoPac or Interstate 35 from a tax road to a toll road.

MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. Even if we went through this process, we ultimately come back for final approval of these rules; all these rules do are merely provide the opportunity to make that conversion, and at that point -- you're exactly right -- we would have public hearings, we'll have support from the local counties depending on the entity, and so there will be multiple layers of approval before we ever entered into that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. I was just going to make a comment just for the record, and that is -- because there has been a lot of public conversations and e-mails and things of that nature going on -- when it comes to the evaluation by the public or the local elected officials or us on a conversion, that conversion could be all of those lanes, it could be some of the lanes converted when we're expanding the capacity, but when people are looking at that, they shouldn't just look at that one piece of transportation because two things happen in that evaluation process. One is by doing that, we're able to build it sooner and thereby relieve congestion at an earlier date, but a second benefit that most people are not considering is that we have gone and particularly in urbanized metropolitan areas to an allocation basis on expansion funds, so each area, as we move forward in the future, will know what funds it has available as opposed to individual projects, and any funds that that region can not spend by utilizing tolling or conversion can be used to relieve congestion in other areas of their region.

So just the decision that would be evaluated on a conversion isn't just that project, it should always be looked at by comparing the additional benefit you get in some other area in that region.

MR. RUSSELL: For the entire system within that region.

MR. NICHOLS: Correct, in that area, not some other area in the state. You may do this here but you're going to get this benefit here. And I don't think in any of the correspondence or comments or articles that I've seen, that evaluation or consideration is going on. So I just wanted to throw that out.

MR. JOHNSON: A question as far as the dissemination of these proposed rules where the public can gain access to them so that they can understand the safeguards that are there and the issues that Commissioner Williamson and Commissioner Nichols have brought up, they will be published in the Texas Register. Is that correct?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Will they be on our website?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. They're required to be not only in the Texas Register but in a newspaper of local circulation  -- which we will certainly do -- but above and beyond that, they will be on our website, and I would anticipate we'll probably have copies of them available after this, assuming that it's approved.

MR. JOHNSON: And these are proposed.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: And we will take comments until December 15.

MR. RUSSELL: And then at some point, depending on those comments, I may be returning for final adoption, dependent upon those comments.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other 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, Phil.

MR. RUSSELL: The last agenda topic that I have, 4(a)(6)(B), and it's a similar type topic but it relates to the county toll roads, Section 284 toll roads. Again, House Bill 3588 added to the Transportation Code, Section 284.009 which provides that the commission may convey a non-tolled state highway or segment of a non-tolled state highway to a county for operation and maintenance as a toll road. There are several conditions that have to be met. Among those, the commissioners court of each county in which a highway is located has to approve it; the commission will determine, among other things, that the conveyance will improve the overall mobility in the region or is the most feasible and economic means of accomplishing necessary improvements to the highway, and there is a litany list of other issues that you all would be considering.

This section would further require the commission to adopt rules necessary for implementation. Under Section 362.051 of the Code, it provides that certain governmental or private entities must obtain the commission's approval before beginning construction of a toll road or toll bridge or turnpike that will be part of the state highway system. These proposed rules are necessary to implement new and existing legislation for county toll road authorities, essentially Section 284 authorities.

This minute order, if approved, would authorize the publication, again in the Texas Register, and those comments would be due December 15 at 5:00 p.m. We would recommend approval of this minute order as well.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: None. So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, commissioners.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to item 4(b), our rules for final adoption, first dealing with Vehicle Titles and Registration, and Jerry will present those two items.

MR. DIKE: Thank you, Mr. Behrens. Commissioners, this minute order adopts amendments to Rule 17.10 concerning motor vehicle restitution liens which specified a $13 title application fee. The 78th Legislature enacted House Bill 1365 which amended our code by increasing title application fees from $13 to $33 in the affected counties as defined by the Health and Safety Code, and to $28 in all other counties. At present, 41 counties are classified as affected counties and 213 are not affected.

The commission, by minute order dated July 31, proposed these amendments; no comments were received. Existing rules need to be revised. We already instructed the 254 counties to collect these fees as House Bill 1365 was immediately effective upon the governor's signature in order to establish and fund the Texas Environmental Reduction Plan, called the TERP Fund, and last month about $6 million was collected in addition to the normal title fees and sent to the comptroller.

We would recommend your adoption of this minute order, the final rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. DIKE: Mike and commissioners, I forgot one item in the previous thing, the copies of the new plates.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are these new plates for us?

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir. Those are two that I mentioned a few minutes ago.

MR. WILLIAMSON: They're just paper; Jerry, you're just playing with us.

MR. DIKE: You'll have to pay $40 to get the new plate, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll do it happily for this one.

MR. DIKE: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Jerry.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did we move?

MR. NICHOLS: Well, we passed the first one but we haven't done the second one.

MR. BEHRENS: Jerry.

MR. DIKE: Excuse me.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Jerry's just rattled because some of our former compatriots who moved to the dark side are back there in the third row harassing him where we can't hear them.

MR. DIKE: Yes, sir, that's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Big Al is back there; he's over on the dark side now.

MR. DIKE: And they're looking at the performance of division directors that are following them.

(General laughter.)

MR. DIKE: This next item, the minute order proposes the amendments to 17.52 concerning the Vehicle Emissions Enforcement Program. The 78th Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1159 to provide "early action compact" counties the option of participating in this motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program and we were required to define this definition in our 17.52 rules. The actual definition is in the Health and Safety Code.

No comments were received and we recommend adoption 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. DIKE: Thank you, commissioners.

MR. BEHRENS: You can sit down now, Jerry.

4(b)(2) is the final adoption of rules on the Logo Program. Carlos.

MR. LOPEZ: Just since Phil was here, I'm going to raise it up a little bit.

MR. NICHOLS: That's bad.

(General laughter.)

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

The minute order before you implements a portion of House Bill 3330, as passed by the 78th Legislature. The legislation modifies the existing definition of "eligible highway" for the Texas Logo Sign Program. Under the proposed rule change, a business located on or near a controlled access highway in an urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or more will now be eligible to request a logo sign without going through the variance process.

The amendment was published in the September 12 edition of the Texas Register and no comments were received. We'd recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So does this let my radio station put their radio announcement numbers out there now?

MR. LOPEZ: No.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh. Are you working on that, Carlos, or were you just stringing me along last month?

MR. LOPEZ: On advice of counsel, I think that's against federal law, Commissioner.

MR. NICHOLS: I had a question. I think during the session there was some talk about there's so many convenience stores now going to multiple franchisees. You may have a Taco Bell, KFC, Subway Sandwich in effect at the same spot.

MR. LOPEZ: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: But the logo signs only allow one of those and some of the industry was trying to combine those inside that space, and you were going to do a pilot test or something?

MR. LOPEZ: That's correct. Representative Harper Brown's bill that was passed -- I think it was 1831 -- and the Federal Highway Administration has allowed us to do an experimentation on that to see if folks could actually see a dual logo, because we already have six up on one sign. In theory, if you did a dual logo on all six, you'd have 12, and going on a highway, can you really see them all? So we're going to test that. If it's shown that it can be done, then we can implement that statute; if it's shown that it can't be done, then we don't have to implement that statute.

MR. NICHOLS: Are those signs up?

MR. LOPEZ: No. We're going to start doing the rule process on that later in December, I think.

MR. NICHOLS: We're going to have to go through a rule process?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Even though it's just a pilot run?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. When do you anticipate that we'll have something like that up?

MR. LOPEZ: We'll probably have something to experiment with at the early part of next year.

MR. NICHOLS: A couple of months?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other 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. LOPEZ: Thank you, commissioners.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(b)(3), final adoption of aviation rules concerning obstructions to air navigation.

MR. FULTON: This minute order is to repeal rules requiring permitting of towers. In 1984 the 68th Legislature enacted statutes regarding a permitting process for towers which could pose a hazard to air navigation. Communication towers comprising the vast majority of towers subject to the Act were exempted, leaving the statute without a useful means to control air navigation hazards. As a result, the 78th Legislature repealed the statute. This minute order will bring our rules into conformity with state law.

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. Thanks, David.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(c), Richard will describe our rule review process and seek approval.

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

The Government Code now requires each agency in the executive branch of Texas Government to review all of its rules at least once every four years. The rule review plan is required to be published in the Texas Register as notice to the public as to which rules will be under review. If you approve this minute order, you will give us permission to publish the rule review schedule as it is set out in your books. I would recommend approval of the 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. BEHRENS: Item number 5, our Transportation Planning and Programming agenda item, Jim will present two minute orders, one for the 2004 UTP and the other for Safety Rest Area funding.

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

Item 5(a), this minute order approves the 2004 Statewide Mobility Program for the 2004 Unified Transportation Program, or UTP. The UTP is a basic transportation planning document that guides and controls project development for the department. In order to align the UTP with the simplified budget strategies outlined in the 2003 through 2007 Strategic Plan, the department has divided the UTP into two documents: the Statewide Preservation Program, known as the SPP, and the Statewide Mobility Program, or SMP.

The Statewide Preservation Program is part of the MAINTAIN IT budget strategy that was approved by Minute Order 109335, dated July 31, 2003. The Statewide Mobility Program is part of the BUILD IT budget strategy and contains all the department's categories which enhance the transportation system. Additionally, the 2004 through 2006 Aviation Capital Improvement Program, as recommended by the Aviation Advisory Committee at the September 12 meeting, is being simultaneously approved with the 2004 SMP.

A 45-day comment period regarding the draft 2004 SMP ended October 1, 2003, with 23 comments received. Staff has reviewed these comments and provided copies to the commission and the administration. Based on these comments, staff recommends no revisions. With the approval of this minute order, the department may continue project planning and development for Fiscal Year 2004 and beyond. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had none. So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Thank you. Item 5(b), this minute order authorizes the 2004 through 2009 Safety Rest Area Program. Pursuant to Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Section 11.2, the Texas Transportation Commission may allocate funds to the department for use on the state highway system for transportation enhancement activities to provide safe, effective and efficient movement of people and goods.

An inspection of the state's safety rest areas indicates a need for preservation of the existing facilities and construction of new facilities. The Safety Rest Area Program also includes funding for related safety and education activities, acquisition of scenic right of way, landscaping, scenic beautification and development of local historic highway preservation information.

Upon approval, the 2004 through 2009 Safety Rest Area Program would be funded at $15 million each year for a total of $90 million. Funding for this program is contingent on the availability of Surface Transportation Program enhancement funds following the passage of the next surface transportation reauthorization legislation. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a question -- a comment and a question. The comment is I think this has been a great program. It has really been beneficial to those areas and I'm glad we were able to use that.

On the question -- and I'm not sure if you can answer it and I don't see Zane -- but the question is regarding our rest areas, several years back we did a total reevaluation of the rest areas all over the state and we categorized them and laid out a plan of which ones should be improved to which levels, which ones should be shut down, and so on. We've been funding the major work on this with this program and obviously will for the next four years, so how many years will it take to complete the plan?

MR. RANDALL: I do not have that answer for you, sir. I'm sorry. And I don't see Zane here.

MR. NICHOLS: You can just e-mail it to me or get it to Helen or something. I'm kind of curious. I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item number 6 under Finance, James will present two minute orders.

MR. WILLIAMSON: To what do we owe this honor?

MR. BASS: I couldn't find a vacation spot anywhere so I decided to show up.

(General laughter.)

MR. BASS: Good morning. For the record, I'm James Bass, director of the Finance Division.

Item 6(a) presents the quarterly investment report associated with the bond proceeds of the 2002 project of the Central Texas Turnpike System and proposes a change in the designation of one of the two investment officers. Exhibit B of this minute order reflects the change and the designation of one of the investment officers to the deputy director of the Finance Division. This had previously been the director of Finance and Administration in the TTA Division.

Exhibit A is the quarterly investment report for the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2003, covering the period of June 1 through August 31. A couple of brief highlights from the report. The book value of our investments during this fourth quarter declined by slightly more than $103 million; this decline is simply the net of the deposits which would be the interest earnings plus additional local contributions versus the outflow which is the payments to contractors. As we would expect, every quarter as we move through the life of the projects, it will continue to decline as construction progresses. One last item I'll point out from the report is that on August 31 we were showing an unrealized loss of just slightly over $4 million. Again, this simply means that the market value of our securities was $4 million less than the book value. We do not see that as any concern or problem as we intend to hold all of our securities until maturity so we will have actually no loss on those.

And having said all of that, I would recommend your acceptance of the report and approval of the change of one of the investment officers.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had none.

MR. JOHNSON: James, what's the weighted average yield?

MR. BASS: We're about 3.2 percent on the investments. That will fluctuate a little bit since some of the proceeds are in money market mutual funds which varies every day.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BASS: Thank you. Item 6(b), it is my understanding, requires no action on your part, it is simply a report on the Public Funds Investment Act, and there are a couple of items from the report that I would just like to bring to your attention briefly. The first item is just to simply state that the department and investment officers, as well as all members of the commission, are in compliance with the training requirements of the Act.

Secondly, the legislature made a couple of changes to the Public Funds Investment Act that we'd like to make you aware of. Probably most importantly, to the list of eligible securities there was a Securities Lending Program added to the eligible investments, and if you'd like, I would do my best to explain that to you.

Unless you have questions, I would just point out the other changes made during the recent legislative session really fall upon the State Auditor’s Office and requires them to work with the Legislative Audit Committee and perform risk assessments on the portfolio of different state agency investments and also to work with the Legislative Audit Committee in performing risk assessments associated with the expansion of eligible investments.

Any questions on the report?

MR. JOHNSON: You sure you don't want to get Carol Davis to explain that?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to know how much weight James has lost.

MR. BASS: I appreciate the public pressure you continue to put on me to do that, but I'm sad to report it's not as much, I think it's just the lighting in here that they've changed, sir. And I have started to buy bigger clothes and it gives the appearance.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, it's good to see you back. We were worried about you.

MR. BASS: Thank you. Glad to be back.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 7, our Contracts for October. Thomas will present our maintenance and highway and building construction contracts.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Chairman, I'm just curious. Was Mr. Bass here to ask us to pass something or just a report?

MR. JOHNSON: Just one thing. I think the second part was a report.

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

Item 7(a)(1) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on October 8 and 9, 2003 whose engineers' estimated costs are $300,000 or more. We had ten projects; staff recommends award of all projects.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: None. So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 7(a)(2) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway construction and building contracts let on October 8 and 9, 2003. We had 68 projects. We have one project we recommend for rejection in Hidalgo County; it's project number 3216; it was 81 percent over; it's for landscape development and irrigation system placement. There were some matching funds from the City of Mission for this project as well, and they cannot participate to that extent, and we'd like to go back and redesign the project and relet it.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a question. I notice again that our bids are coming in, this month 6 1/2 percent less than we had estimated, and that's great and there's a lot of bidders on each one too. When you calculate your cost index that you use for estimating, that's based on -- and I realize that's a running thing -- you base that on the actual costs that we get in on bids, and over a period of time it runs up or it runs down, and for the last two years the bids have been coming in lower than our estimated costs, and that's been occurring for several years. Have our estimated costs been going down also based on the index? Is that a 12-month running index? He's shaking his head yes.

MR. BOHUSLAV: First off, we report a 12-month running average; we keep up with that, we keep up with a one-month average of value, we keep up with three-month value as well. We do not use the Highway Cost Index to determine our estimates for the projects, that's just a number and index that we keep up with but the districts don't use it when they develop their costs out there. There are occasions when we see the Highway Cost Index start to ramp up and we may see a lot of overruns on projects, overall overruns, and we may advise the districts: Hey, you need to catch up with your estimates and move away from your historical values that they normally use where we have average bid prices that they look at for their districts and start to look at increasing those because their costs are going up because material prices are going up. So the Highway Cost Index does not drive those estimates per se.

We do monitor that value and I can give you a report of that of where we're at on the Highway Cost Index. It rose about three years ago or so, I guess, now and it has come down since then, the Highway Cost Index has. At that time when it rose we were seeing cost overruns based on our estimates on projects that were unrelated to Highway Cost Index but we were seeing that, and since that time it has come down and stayed down pretty well.

MR. NICHOLS: So you're saying that if our Highway Cost Index goes up to the point that we are underestimating jobs routinely, then we go out and change the estimators' numbers, but if it's going the other way down, we don't?

MR. BOHUSLAV: No. There have been occasions where we saw that prices were jumping up real fast because there was a demand on materials. Mainly the other industries out there, residential construction and so on, there was a big pull on materials and prices were really going up. So there was an impact districts were not realizing because they were using historical bid prices, and so we advised them that they might want to raise them some.

We're back to about what we normally do. We normally look at an underrun on most all of our lettings. There's a few cases where we have a month that might jump over. We may have one month that's an overrun because we have one project that's $260 million and it's over by some amount and that tends to make the overall amount over.

MR. NICHOLS: I thought I had a real good handle on that at one time and I'm realizing that I may not. At some point I'd like to get us a little white paper or something on how our field people update the estimates based on the cost index.

MR. BOHUSLAV: How they determine estimates?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We can do that.

MR. NICHOLS: Not so much how they determine the estimate but how do we move up and down concrete prices, the information that the estimators are using, how do we constantly adjust that.

MR. SAENZ: For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive director for engineering.

(General talking and laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I don't really need a full explanation now because that's unnecessary but sometime I want to make sure I've got it.

MR. SAENZ: We provide the districts reports that give them their 12-month letting average and their average bid prices over a 12-month period and that's normally what they use setting their prices. Sometimes when we do run into problems with, say, material shortages over a short period of time, they have to make some adjustments in it; they don't catch it because they're looking at the whole 12 months. But I will send you something to explain all of that.

MR. NICHOLS: Because I thought we were moving it up and down based on that index. I thought they tied in and it appears they don't automatically tie in. Anyway, that's the question.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have one.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thomas, what would happen if we rejected one of these that you recommended for approval?

MR. BOHUSLAV: One of the other projects? We would reject it if you would decide that would be the case.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And then what would the presumed winning proposer do -- the presumed winning bidder, what would he do or she do?

MR. BOHUSLAV: We've had comments that once you've made your decision, the decision is made. We don't have an appeal for an award. Once you've made that decision here, that's it, we go back and rebid it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We've got a process we follow and we get to a certain point and the staff recommends an approval of a $2,538,000 contract to the Houston District to Contractor's Technology, Inc., and you bring this minute order to us or the staff does and the motion is to approve, and for whatever reason we don't like one of them and we say we don't want to approve that, we want to reject it, does that mean it's over?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Then we go back and rebid it, yes, sir. And there have been cases where we have recommended approval and through our discussions in here you wanted to reject, we ended up rejecting a project. So that can happen.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does the commission have to have a reason for rejection?

MR. BOHUSLAV: The regulations say it's just based on the award of the commission.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thomas, it's been exactly one year since I grilled you at all and I just felt like I'd sharpen you back up.

MR. BOHUSLAV: I'm trying to remember exactly what the rules and regulations say on that.

MR. BEHRENS: I think Richard verifies that the statutes says the commission needs no reason to reject.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Okay. Any more questions -- as Carol said.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: We've got a great staff.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Amadeo will present agenda item 7(b) on a contract claim.

MR. SAENZ: For the record, I've got to lower it (microphone) because I'm following Thomas, but it is set higher than it was set up for Phil and for Carlos.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have little tape marks like high-water marks back there?

MR. SAENZ: In fact, we can tell from right here. In fact, I think Carlos was even using a stool so he would be under Phil.

(General laughter.)

MR. SAENZ: Good morning, commissioners. Item 7(b). For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, Jr., assistant executive director for engineering and also the chairman of the Contract Claim Committee.

The minute order before you approves a claim settlement for a contract by South Texas Powerwash & Striping, Inc., for Project RMC 609062001 in various counties of the Austin District. On September 11 the TxDOT Contract Claim Committee considered this claim, 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. 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. SAENZ: Thank you.

Item 7(c), the minute order before you approves a contract between the Texas Department of Transportation and Halff Associates, Inc. Halff Associates, Inc. employs Charles W. Heald, a former executive director of the Texas Department of Transportation. Government Code 669.003 requires that in order to enter into a contract with a company that employs a former executive director -- in this case, Mr. Heald -- within the first four years after he has served in that position, the Texas Transportation Commission must also approve this contract. The department advertised for the survey services and Halff Associates, Inc. was chosen to be the provider in accordance with the competitive selection and negotiation procedures set forth in the Government and Administrative Codes. The contract is a standard $750,000 contract for surveying services to be performed in the counties of Bell, Bosque, Coryell, Falls, Hamilton, Hill, Limestone and McLennan. Staff recommends 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. SAENZ: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 8 is our Routine Minute Orders. We're going to defer item 8(c)(2) which pertains to a farm road location in Winkler County; we'll bring that back to you next month.

Otherwise, those minute orders were duly posted on our agenda. If you have any specific ones you want to address, we'll be glad to do that; otherwise, I recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions on the Routine Minute Orders?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike, do any of these minute orders affect any of the commissioners personally?

MR. BEHRENS: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

At this time we will recess in order to go into executive session, pursuant to 551.071 of the Texas Government Code, to confer with the department's legal counsel as to pending or imminent litigation. I will note for the record that it is 11:38 a.m.

(Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the meeting was recessed, to reconvene following the executive session.)

MR. JOHNSON: We are back in regular session. I will note for the record that it is 12:20 p.m. We have returned from an executive session during which no votes were taken or decisions made by the commission. We'll now go into the open comment period of the meeting, and I have two who have requested to speak. Robin Stallings from Austin, executive director of the Texas Bicycle Coalition on "Share the Road" license plates. Robin, we're glad you're here.

MR. STALLINGS: Chairman, thank you very much. Since you all had something about license plates on the agenda, I thought this was a good time to come by, Chairman and commissioners, and thank you all and thank TxDOT for making this possible. These are the six finalist designs, by the way. We contracted with five professional graphics designers that were Texans, bicycle riders and professional graphics designers, and they came up with about 30 designs and it was agonizing to narrow it down to these six. We had a selection committee from around the state, and now we have posters like this in bike shops around the state and we've been going to all manner of events and getting people to vote with a dollar. We've got ballot boxes all over the place and we're raising our money to pay for the plates, at the same time generating a little bit of awareness -- with a few good tips from some of the TxDOT license plate marketing people, I might add. We are pretty excited about this.

And I just wanted to mention some people by name, beginning with Jerry Dike and Steven Polunsky, Scott Renouard, Jeff Kirk, Alan Goulsby, and Brad Beatty who have just been unbelievable. They've been giving us advice, they've been extremely helpful, and they're genuinely excited about their job, and so that's pretty neat for us because we're so excited about our plates. And we are looking forward to $22 of every $30 going to cyclists and motorists safety education, and so our goal is to be one of the top plates out there. There's some pretty stiff competition, and I think the stiffest is going to be the "God Bless Texas" and "God Bless America" plates, but if we're going to get beat, those are the plates we want to get beat by because we know that money is going for Safe Routes to School.

And that's all I have to say. I just wanted to thank you all very much for all the hard work you are doing.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you for the work you've done. This is fun, it's exciting.

MR. STALLINGS: Thanks. I'm going to leave you all one of these posters, and if you let us know, we're happy to make some more of these available.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought he wanted us to pick the ones we like.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, for a dollar you can vote.

MR. STALLINGS: Well, we like to say that there's a tradition: vote early, vote often, and dollars can decide elections. Even at the Lance Armstrong Foundation Ride for the Roses, we had a lot of people from out of state and we said it's okay for out-of-staters to influence this election, just put your money in the ballot.

(General laughter.)

MR. STALLINGS: Which one? Do you have a preference here?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I like the "Ya'll"; whichever one you pick, I think putting "Ya'll" on the end of it is a nice touch. "Share the Road, Ya'll" -- I like that.

MR. STALLINGS: Chairman?

MR. JOHNSON: I'm drawn to them all; I like the second one; it sort of looks like Lance Armstrong with a Texas flag which I'm partial to.

MR. STALLINGS: Commissioner Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: Actually, I was going to say number 2 also.

MR. STALLINGS: Number 2.

MR. NICHOLS: And not just because the chairman said it -- however, it didn't hurt.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It is the one that your eyes are drawn to; it's the one you notice first when you look up there. They all look good to me as long as they have "Ya'll" on the end of them; I think that's a good idea.

MR. STALLINGS: Thank you very much for your feedback.

MR. JOHNSON: The yellow jersey.

MR. STALLINGS: Well, I tell you, it's something that I hope we never forget, that it may never happen again in another hundred years, that somebody has accomplished what Lance Armstrong has accomplished, and on top of that, the hope that he's given so many people, and I'm pretty proud of him. Whether he ends up on the license plate or not, I think we have a lot to be proud of in Texas, and this will become the premier state in the country for bicycling. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for being here, Robin.

Scott Johnson. Scott, are you still swinging golf clubs?

MR. SCOTT JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, you're the foursome they're looking for to go to Grayson County.

MR. JOHNSON: He's going to Grayson County with us.

MR. SCOTT JOHNSON: My name is Scott Johnson and I'm from Austin.

I've followed air quality issues for a period of time, working in partnership with a group called the Clean Air Force of Central Texas of which TxDOT is a member. Central Texas has violated the eight-hour ozone standard now for the last six years and it's become a significant issue in our region, and the regional emissions really, when you quantify them, they come largely from mobile sources even though we're influenced heavily by power plants in the Northeast, the Gulf Coast emissions, et cetera.

I was very happy to see that you have put together a Clean Air Plan, and I'm referencing your May-June 2003 Transportation News magazine, and looking at that some of these measures I think can be very effective if they're implemented. One of my concerns with the plan is that the near nonattainment areas such as Austin and San Antonio are only required to take on six goals and some of the goals have to do more with education and minor emission reductions rather than the ones such as asking contractors to apply for TERP funding, using ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel for half of the fleet's needs.

What I would suggest to the commission and to TxDOT is to take the strategies by the emission reduction potential and put them into tiers, a Tier 1, a Tier 2, and a Tier 3, and then ask the district offices to say you have to choose X number from Tier 1 for this type of county, X number from Tier 2, et cetera, because I could pick six of these that have to do with education or retiring diesel-powered signal boards, and although that would help, it wouldn't get us to the point that we need to get which is a tremendous amount of reductions in nitrogen oxides which come largely from mobile sources in our region.

I hope that you all will, as an adjunct to that, reach out more assertively to the Associated General Contractors and work with them. Aside from saying these TERP grants, these Texas Emission Reduction Plan grants are available now, there's over $100 million that's available, and the way to get them is to become less cumbersome to say you guys really need to look at this issue more closely and assertively reach out to clean up your fleets, buy new equipment, retire that equipment that's dirty. That would be extremely helpful.

One study that was done, national study that I think is valuable, that information talks about the amount of nitrogen oxide forming smog emissions that come from Texas, and it's a very, very substantial number, and 29 percent of the mobile source pollution comes from this non-road or off-road construction equipment in our state. And on the soot side, the particulate matter side, it's even higher, it's 48 percent of the tens of thousands of tons that we pollute from off-road equipment, the type of equipment that does roadway building comes from off-road equipment, 48 percent of the particulate matter which has been known and linked to health issues even more than ozone-forming pollution is.

Finally, we did get a presentation through the Clean Air Force about a month ago from the Texas Transportation Institute. Dr. Joe Zietsman has done a lot of research on the issue of roadway speeds, roadway design and air quality, and he presented an interesting report that had to do with lowering vehicle miles traveled as a way to reduce pollution, and one of the things that they indicated would be helpful is to limit the amount of what they call high-speed peripheral routes -- these loops or semi-loops that go around cities because that raises the average speed, and when you raise the average speed, the speed produces more nitrogen oxide emissions and that actually, commissioners, has more of a bearing on ozone formation in Austin than does the idling that goes on, that everyone complains about. Please keep that in mind as you make decisions regarding road building here in this region and statewide. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: No questions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, but it's a good presentation; you're always straight and to the point.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for being here.

MR. SCOTT JOHNSON: All right. You're welcome.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there any other business to come before the commission? There being none, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Please note for the record that it is 12:29 p.m., and we stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: October 30, 2003

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 116, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Ben Bynum before the Texas Department of Transportation.

                          11/03/03
(Transcriber) (Date)

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