Texas Department of Transportation

1 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2 3 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 6 Dewitt Greer Building 7 125 East 11th Street 8 Austin, Texas 9 10 9:00 a.m. 11 Thursday, 12 November 15, 2001 13 14 15 COMMISSION MEMBERS: 16 17 ROBERT L. NICHOLS, Presiding Member 18 RIC WILLIAMSON 19 20 STAFF: 21 22 MIKE BEHRENS, Executive Director 23 RICHARD MONROE, General Counsel 24 HELEN HAVELKA, Executive Assistant to the 25 Deputy Executive Director 26

3 4 ON THE RECORD REPORTING NOVEMBER 15, 2001 5 (512) 450-0342 1 2 2

1 I N D E X 2AGENDA ITEM: PAGE: 3 4CONVENE MEETING...... 7 5 61. PUBLIC HEARING 7 SPEAKER 8 Senator Robert Duncan, District 28...... 25 9 Stephen Raines, for Representative John Shields....31 10 Kevin Evans, President, Ports-to-Plains Trade 11 Corridor Coalition...... 38 12 Larry Hertel, City Engineer, City of Lubbock...... 39 13 Bob Anderson, County Commissioner, Hood County.....40 14 Tommy Eden, Austin...... 41 15 162. DELEGATIONS: 17 a. BIG SPRING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 18 Request funding for a US 87 relief route 19 west of Big Spring...... 45 20 b. CITY OF WICHITA FALLS 21 Request funding to construct an interchange 22 at US 287 and US 82/277 and complete the 23 freeway section on US 82/277 between FM 24 369 and the BNSF Railroad in Wichita 25 Falls...... 65 26 273. Approval of Minutes of the October 25, 2001, 28 regular meeting of the Texas Transportation 29 Commission...... 82 30 314. Resolution 32 Resolution recognizing the retirement of Kirby 33 W. Pickett, deputy executive director, for his 34 40+ years of service with the Texas Department 35 of Transportation...... 82 36 375. Report 38 Grand Parkway Association - Pursuant to 43 TAC 39 §15.90(b), provide annual report on the status 40 of projects and activities undertaken during 41 the preceding 12 months...... 85 42 436. Aviation 44 a. Various Counties - Approve the Routine

1 Airport Maintenance Program through 2 FY 2002 (MO)...... 100 3 b. Various Counties - Various Sponsors - 4 Approve funding for airport improvement 5 projects at various locations across the 6 state (MO)...... 100 77. Public Transportation 8 a. Various Counties - Award Federal Section 9 5313 funds to the Texas Transit Association 10 to plan and present the 2002 transit 11 conference (MO)...... 139 12 b. Victoria County - Approve the use of toll 13 credits for the City of Victoria for the 14 purchase of transit vehicles (MO)...... 142 15 168. Promulgation of Administrative Rules Under Title 17 43, Texas Administrative Code, Pursuant to the 18 Administrative Procedure Act, the Government 19 Code, Chapter 2001: 20 a. Proposed Adoption 21 (1) Chapter 21 - Right of Way (MO) 22 Repeal of §§21.111-21.117, and New 23 §§21.111-21.117, Relocation 24 Assistance and Benefits...... deferred 25 26 (2) Chapter 50 - Management and Chapter 27 53 - Contracting and Procurement 28 Procedures (Texas Turnpike Authority) 29 (MO) 30 Repeal of Chapter 50, Management, 31 §§53.60-53.71, Disadvantaged Business 32 Enterprise/Historically Underutilized 33 Business Program, and §§53.90-53.94, 34 Contract Workforce...... deferred 35 36 b. Final Adoption 37 (1) Chapter 5 - Finance (MO) 38 New §5.11, Charges for Dishonored 39 Checks (Collection of Debts)...... 143 40 41 (2) Chapter 9 - Contract Management (MO) 42 New §9.9, Interlocal Contracts...... 144 43 44 (3) Chapter 17 - Vehicle Titles and

1 Registration (MO) 2 Amendments to §17.24 and §17.28, 3 Disabled Person License Plates and 4 Identification Placards and Special 5 Category License Plates, Symbols, Tabs, 6 and Other Devices (Motor Vehicle 7 Registration)...... 144 8 9 (4) Chapter 25 - Traffic Operations 10 a. New §25.2, Load Limits on County 11 Roads and Bridges (MO)...... 145 12 138. Promulgation of Administrative Rules 14 b. Final Adoption 15 (4) Chapter 25 - Traffic Operations (Cont’d) 16 b. New §§25.500-25.503, Safe Routes 17 to School Program (MO)...... 147 18 19 (5) Chapter 28 - Oversize and Overweight 20 Vehicles and Loads (MO) 21 Amendments to §§28.11, 28.13, and 22 28.14, General Permits and §28.30, 23 Permits for Over Axle and Over Gross 24 Weight Tolerances...... 149 25 269. Transportation Planning 27 a. Various Counties - Approve adjustments to 28 participation ratios for projects located in 29 economically disadvantaged counties 30 (MO)...... 150 31 b. Collin and Hunt Counties - Authorize the 32 department to enter into a grant funding 33 agreement with Northeast Texas (NETEX) 34 Rural Rail District to acquire an abandoned 35 railroad right of way (MO)...... 151 36 3710. State Infrastructure Bank 38 Williamson County - City of Leander - In 39 accordance with 43 TAC 6.32(c), consider 40 preliminary approval of an application from 41 the City of Leander to borrow $7,900,000 from 42 the State Infrastructure Bank to pay for the 43 purchase of right of way, relocation of 44 utilities, and engineering and construction of 45 a new FM 2243 extending from the Travis County

1 line to just east of Parmer Lane in Leander 2 (MO)...... 152 3 411. Texas Turnpike Authority 5 a. Establish contract approval and 6 administration procedures for the Texas 7 Turnpike Authority Division (MO)...... deferred 8 b. Travis and Hays Counties - Authorize the 9 department to negotiate an exclusive 10 development agreement with Transportation 11 Corridor Constructors for the development 12 of SH 45 South from FM 1626 to US 183 as 13 a turnpike project (MO)...... 103 14

112. Contracts 2 a. Award or rejection of highway improvement 3 contracts: 4 (1) Maintenance (MO)...... 155 5 (2) Highway and Building Construction 6 (MO)...... 156 7 b. Contract Claim 8 Upshur County - Project RMC 603351001 - 9 Claim by Taylor Mowing Service for 10 additional compensation (MO)...... 157 11 1213. Routine Minute Orders...... 158 13 a. Speed Zones 14 Various Counties - Establish or alter 15 regulatory and construction speed zones on 16 various sections of highways in the state 17 (MO) 18 19 b. Load Zones 20 Various Counties - Revise load restrictions 21 on various roads and bridges on the state 22 highway system (MO) 23 24 c. Right of Way Disposition, Purchase and 25 Lease 26 (1) Harris County - US 59 at Penn Street 27 in Houston - Consider the sale of 28 surplus right of way (MO) 29 (2) Kaufman County - FM 148 at County Road 30 305 west of Terrell - Consider the 31 sale of surplus right of way (MO) 32 (3) Tarrant County - FM 1709 at Country 33 Brook Drive in Keller - Consider the 34 future exchange of drainage easements 35 (MO) 36 (4) Upshur County - US 271 at Monroe 37 Street in Gilmer - Consider the sale 38 of a surplus maintenance site (MO) 39 40 d. Approval of Donations 41 (1) Travis County - Spirit of Texas Drive 42 and SH 71 in Austin - Approve a 43 donation from Austin-Bergstrom Airport 44 Center, Ltd., to fund relocation and 45 upgrades of traffic signals (MO) 46 (2) Wise County - SH 114 and Shale Creek 47 Drive near Rhome - Approve a donation 48 from L.N.W. Real Estate Ltd., to fund 49 the installation of a traffic signal 50 (MO)

113. Routine Minute Orders (Cont’d) 2 e. Traffic Operations 3 Uvalde County - Construct an at-grade 4 railroad crossing on FM 1022 to be 100 5 percent funded by the Martin-Marietta 6 Materials Southwest, Ltd. (MO) 7 8 f. Eminent Domain Proceedings 9 Various Counties - Request for eminent 10 domain proceedings on noncontrolled and 11 controlled access highways (MO) 12 1314. Executive Session Pursuant to Government Code, 14 Chapter 551...... 159 15 16OPEN COMMENT PERIOD...... 159 17 18 ADJOURN ...... 159

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 MR. NICHOLS: We'll declare this meeting of the

3Texas Transportation Commission open, in accordance with

4the Texas Open Meetings Law. Today's date is November

515. Time is 9:12. Let the record show that a public

6notice of this and all items on the agenda was filed with

7the Office of the Secretary of State at 2:47, November 2.

8 Do you have comments you'd like to make?

9 MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir.

10 MR. NICHOLS: I apologize for the little bit of

11a late start. We had a -- I think a little bit of a

12transportation problem getting Commissioner Williamson

13here. He did not get here by state transportation,

14state-supplied. He arrived by state-approved

15transportation.

16 Before we get started, I'd also like to say --

17remind everybody that today is Texas Recycle Day,

18November 15, to try to create awareness around the state

19of every opportunity to recycle goods. It's good for the

20environment; it's good for the economy. The Texas

21Department of Transportation makes a great effort to

1recycle goods itself, and is one of the higher ranking

2agencies in the state with that regard.

3 Before we get started, I'd also remind anyone

4who would like to address the commission to be sure to

5fill out a card that's on the counter out there. If it's

6an item that's on the agenda, it will be a yellow card.

7If it's an item that's not on the agenda, it will be a

8blue card. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak.

9We'll have to limit those comments to three minutes, with

10the exception of state elected officials. They can speak

11as long as they would like.

12 And we begin this morning with Item Number 1, a

13public hearing regarding our highway project selection

14process. Call on Jim Randall.

15 MR. RANDALL: Thank you, Commissioners. My

16name is Jim Randall, director of the Transportation

17Planning and Programming Division for the Texas

18Department of Transportation.

19 The notice for this public hearing was filed

20with the Secretary of State on October 3, 2001, and

21published in the Texas Register on October 12, 2001. And

1I am pleased to make this presentation on behalf of the

2commission.

3 This public hearing is conducted annually in

4accordance with the Texas Transportation Code, Sections

5201.602 and 222.034. Section 201.602 prescribes that the

6Texas Transportation Commission is to hold annual

7hearings concerning its project selection process and the

8relative importance of the various criteria on which the

9commission bases its project selection decisions. The

10commission will receive data, comments, views, and/or

11testimony from any person, organization, or group, and

12their representatives.

13 Section 222.034 states that the federal aid for

14transportation purposes administered by the commission

15shall be distributed to the various parts of the state

16for a funding cycle through the selection of highway

17projects in the state in a manner that is consistent with

18federal formulas that determine the amount of federal aid

19for transportation purposes received by the state. The

20distribution under this section of the Texas

21Transportation Code does not include deductions made for

22the state infrastructure banks or other federal funds

1reallocated by the federal government. The commission

2may vary from the distribution procedure provided it

3issues a ruling or minute order identifying the variance

4and providing particular justification for the variance.

5 The commission will consider comments made at

6this hearing and written comments following this hearing

7until January 29, 2002. You can send written comments to

8the address or email shown. A minute order describing

9the commission's decisions relating to the project

10selection process and the distribution of federal aid

11will be made at a subsequent public commission meeting.

12I will show these addresses again at the end of the

13presentation.

14 You can refer to a public hearing document that

15was made available to those who requested it and follow

16along during my presentation. If any of the folks in the

17audience did not get a copy, they're available in the

18foyer.

19 TxDOT is multimodal and relies on the following

20modes of transportation to address the needs of the

21public, including: transit programs, aviation programs,

22highway programs, rail and water transportation. I'd

1like to point out here the programs will be developed for

2rail and water transportation in the future, as TxDOT

3becomes more involved with these modes. But now I'd like

4to further discuss transit, aviation, and highway

5programs, and I'll start with transit.

6 TxDOT does not now own or operate transit

7services in Texas. It does, however, have a financial

8interest in the most public systems through the

9allocation of federal and state funds. Funds are

10allocated to urbanized areas: those areas of 50,000 or

11greater population not served by a transit authority;

12non-urbanized and rural areas; and for elderly and

13disabled transportation.

14 For urbanized areas, these agencies apply

15directly to Federal Transit Administration for federal

16funds. State funds support capital, administrative, and

17operating expenses. Ninety percent of the state funds

18are distributed as directed by statute or the Texas -- or

19by the Transportation Code, while 10 percent are

20distributed at the commission's discretion.

21 For non-urbanized and rural areas, funds

22support capital, administrative, and operating expenses

1with federal and state funds flowing through TxDOT.

2Ninety percent of the federal and state funds are

3distributed by statute or the Transportation Code, while

410 percent are distributed at the commission's discretion.

5 Elderly and disabled transportation funds

6support capital purchases, purchases of service and

7preventative maintenance. Federal funds flow through

8TxDOT and are allocated to the districts and metropolitan

9planning organizations as directed by Title 43, Texas

10Administrative Code. Projects are selected by TxDOT in

11consultation or cooperation with the metropolitan

12planning organizations and local officials, and no state

13funds are provided.

14 TxDOT is not involved in the federal grant

15process for metropolitan transit authorities, or MTAs, in

16Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth,

17Houston, and San Antonio. The authorities are not

18eligible to receive state funds and must rely on local

19sales tax to support their activities.

20 TxDOT addresses the needs of general aviation

21through the Aviation Facilities Development Program.

22This program provides assistance to public entities for

1the purpose of establishing, constructing,

2reconstructing, enlarging, or repairing airports,

3airstrips, or navigation facilities.

4 The planning process, which is documented in

5the Texas Airport Systems Plan, or TASP, identifies those

6airports and projects which will best support the

7attainment of the airport system plan objectives. The

8primary objective of TASP is to develop a statewide

9system of airports that meets the goals of providing

10adequate access to the population and economic centers of

11Texas.

12 Adequate access expressed in terms of driving

13time between activity centers and appropriate airport

14facilities: Scheduled air carrier service should be

15within a 60-minute drive for virtually all Texas

16residents. Business jet aircraft access should be within

17a 30-minute drive of significant population centers or

18mineral resource centers. Light piston-engine aircraft

19access should be within a 30-minute drive of agricultural

20centers.

21 MR. NICHOLS: I guess so.

1 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm just curious, Jim. What

2is a mineral resource center?

3 MR. RANDALL: I would assume that that would be

4a -- one of our -- not knowing the airport -- the

5aviation program, I would assume that would be one of our

6maybe refineries or something like that?

7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. So a processing plant,

8as opposed to --

9 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

10 MR. WILLIAMSON: -- the wells or the mines

11themselves.

13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. That makes sense.

14 MR. RANDALL: I don't know -- if Dave Fulton

15was here, he might be able to enlighten us on that.

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, that would make sense,

17if that's what a mineral resource center is. If it's

18where the minerals are actually mined, it would be kind

19of hard for us to achieve that.

21 Criteria for project selection is based on the

22identified need related to the TASP objectives, the

1amount of sponsored commitment, the system priorities

2that are identified in the TASP, and the availability of

3state and federal funds.

4 Highway programs make up the majority of

5transportation programs TxDOT develops. These are the

6programs most familiar to the citizens of Texas. The

7projects in these programs are financed through federal

8aid and state funds. Both these revenue sources are

9sponsored, in large, by the motor fuel tax. The federal

10portion of the taxes collected in Texas go back to the

11state with restrictions on its spending.

12 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

13Century, or TEA-21, is the current federal transportation

14bill that authorizes the development and construction of

15federal aid projects. TEA-21 was passed by Congress and

16signed into law by the president on June 9, 1998. This

17bill spells out the current restrictions on federal aid

18funds.

19 Several major programs are allocated to Texas

20based on the quantifiable data which compares Texas to

21other states and commonwealths within the United States.

22Those major federal aid highway funding categories

1allocated to individual states include: the Interstate

2Maintenance Program, the National Highway System Program,

3Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation/Air

4Quality Improvement Program, and the Highway Bridge

5Program.

6 In the past, TxDOT created separate funding

7categories for each of these programs in order to assure

8that the construction spending was within the federal

9limitations. Setting up categories in this way has the

10benefit of assuring projects qualify for federal funds

11from the project's inception forward, but this process

12also has the following disadvantages: The same system

13was used to grade state-funded programs; therefore, 34

14categories were created in all, with some of the federal

15and state categories overlapping in their strategies to

16improve the transportation system. This also made the

17programs and the project selection process confusing.

18 Recently, TxDOT staff requested the Texas

19Transportation Institute to perform a survey of TxDOT

20district planning and metropolitan planning organization

21personnel, as well as county judges. The survey focused

1on the perceived limitations in TxDOT's project selection

2and funds distribution process and suggested improvements.

3 The report results in specific recommendations

4that TxDOT will use to improve highway construction,

5project programming, and the general understanding and

6acceptance of TxDOT's procedures.

7 In addition, Governor Rick Perry has requested

8the Texas Transportation Commission to simplify the

9project planning process and deliver highway improvements

10in continuous and complete corridors, thereby increasing

11efficiency and decreasing inconvenience to the motorists.

12 TxDOT is now proposing to change the project

13selection process based on these recommendations. All

14the pertinent changes are included in the public hearing

15document.

16 The primary focus for these changes include:

17Simplifying the process by reducing the number of highway

18funding categories from 34 to 12, using less confusing

19terminology regarding project authority levels, and

20providing better education and training on the new

21categories and their guidelines.

1 The proposed changes will be incorporated into

2the 2003 Unified Transportation Program. In order to

3simplify the process, TxDOT now proposes to consolidate

4eight existing maintenance and rehabilitation categories

5into one, Category 1 - Preventative Maintenance and

6Rehabilitation.

7 In addition, we propose to collapse 12

8statewide mobility categories into the following three:

9Category 2, Metropolitan Area Transportation Management

10Areas, or TMA, Corridor Projects; Category 3, Urban Area

11Non-TMA Corridor Projects; and Category 4, Statewide

12Connectivity Corridor Projects.

13 Category 5, Congestion Mitigation and Air

14Quality Improvement, or CMAQ, will remain. This is true

15for other categories, including Category 7, Surface

16Transportation Program, or STP, Metropolitan Mobility and

17Rehabilitation; Category 8, STP Safety; Category 9, STP

18Transportation Enhancements; and Category 12, Strategic

19Priority.

20 TxDOT proposes to combine three bridge

21replacement and rehabilitation categories into one,

22Category 6, Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation.

1 Category 10, Miscellaneous, will combine our

2existing Miscellaneous category with the State Park Roads

3Program.

4 And finally, TxDOT proposes to combine four

5mobility categories into Category 11, District

6Discretionary. These three major mobility categories

7will focus on providing continuous and complete corridor

8improvements throughout the state, although a corridor

9project selection process has not been formulated at this

10time. The exact process or formula will be determined by

11collaborative effort between TxDOT staff and our

12transportation partners, including the metropolitan

13planning organizations.

14 We invite the public to comment on the

15selection criteria for these three categories through

16written correspondence regarding this hearing.

17 The remaining portion of this presentation is

18intended to fulfill the requirements of Section 201.602

19and 222.034 of the Texas Transportation Code and describe

20how the previously mentioned federal aid funds will be

21incorporated into the new categories.

1 The Interstate Maintenance Program funds will

2be incorporated into the new Category 1, Preventive

3Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program. The Interstate

4Maintenance Program funds are allocated to the state

5based on the following weighted percentages: 33-1/3

6percent based on the lane miles of interstate system

7within the state, 33-1/3 percent based on the vehicle

8miles traveled on interstate system within the state, and

933-1/3 percent based on the state's contributions to the

10Highway Trust Fund due to commercial vehicles.

11 TxDOT proposes to allocate its Interstate

12Maintenance Program funds to the TxDOT districts based on

13the following criteria: 45 percent based on the

14equivalent single-axle loads per interstate highway

15section -- this criteria is an indicator of the amount of

16commercial truck traffic operating on the interstate

17highways within a district; 10 percent based on the

18interstate highway lane miles within a district; and 45

19percent based on the interstate lane miles within a

20district with substandard stress scores.

21 The reasons for the variance from the federal

22funds -- federal formula are: individual TxDOT district

1or regional contributions to the Highway Trust Fund

2cannot be quantified; the federal formula does not

3account for pavement distress; the federal formula does

4not account for the volume of commercial truck traffic;

5and the federal formula does not account for the region's

6need to build new interstate or add capacity to the

7existing system.

8 National Highway System Program, or NHS funds,

9are allocated to Texas based on the following: 25

10percent based on lane miles of principal arterial routes

11within the state; 35 percent based on the vehicle miles

12traveled on these principal arterials; 30 percent based

13on the amount of diesel fuel used with the state; and 10

14percent on the quotient obtained by dividing the total

15lane miles on the principal arterial highways by the

16population.

17 TxDOT proposes to use its NHS program funds to

18fund the following three specific categories: Category

192, Metropolitan Area (TMA) Corridor Projects; Category 3,

20Urban Area Non-TMA Corridor Projects; and Category 4,

21Statewide Connectivity Corridor Projects.

1 The reason for the variance from the federal

2NHS program formula are: individual TxDOT district or

3regional usage of commercial diesel fuel cannot be

4quantified; the federal formula does not account for

5pavement distress; the federal formula does not address

6TxDOT strategy of system development and preservation;

7the federal formula does not address specific TxDOT

8district or regional needs, such as congestion relief,

9improved operations, and pavement rehabilitation needs.

10 The Surface Transportation Program, or STP,

11funds are allocated to Texas based on the following

12criteria: 25 percent based on the total miles of

13highways within the state that qualify for federal aid

14funds; 40 percent based on the vehicle miles traveled on

15highways within the state that qualify for federal aid

16funds; 35 percent based on tax payments from within the

17state into the Highway Trust Fund.

18 TxDOT proposes to use its STP funding in the

19following four categories: Category 7, STP Metropolitan

20Mobility and Rehabilitation; Category 8, STP Safety;

21Category 9, STP Transportation Enhancements; Category 11,

1District Discretionary. Categories 7, 8, and 9 are

2required sub-allocations of the STP program funds.

3 The reason for the variance from the federal

4formula are: TEA-21 requires TxDOT to suballocate the

5funds in a manner that differs from the federal

6distribution formula.

7 And finally, the Highway Bridge Program. The

8Highway Bridge Program funds are allocated to Texas based

9on the relative share of the total cost of deficient

10bridges as compared to the totals of other states.

11 TxDOT proposes to use the Highway Bridge

12Program funds on projects in Category 6, Structures

13Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The ranking and

14selection criteria for this category can be found on page

1510 of the public hearing document.

16 The reasons for the variance are: the federal

17allocation formula does not address the selection of the

18most functionally obsolete and structurally deficient

19bridges, and the federal formula does not assure required

20minimum funding levels for off-system bridges are

21achieved.

1 An important factor in the project selection

2process is the amount of funds available to build

3projects. In order for TxDOT's project development

4process to maintain its efficiency, projects must be

5selected several years in advance of their actual

6funding. TxDOT uses funding forecasts to predict future

7revenues from federal and state sources, and the programs

8or selects projects corresponding to the anticipated

9funds. When the dollars become available, the program

10projects are then funded and constructed. In other

11words, programming is a commitment to construct the

12project when the forecasted funds become available.

13 TxDOT's proposed programming levels for fiscal

14year 2006 can be found on page 13 of the public hearing

15document. These are programming levels for highway

16programs only. The values are subject to change as the

17funding forecasts are further refined.

18 Once again, I would like to call your attention

19to the public hearing document that was made available in

20the foyer. This document contains the information

21regarding each proposed category including the TxDOT

22category name and number, the entity responsible for

1project selection, whether the program is treated as a

2bank-balance program or is authorized as individual

3projects, the allocation and ranking formula that is

4involved, and a brief summary of the type of work the

5program addresses.

6 As promised, here are the addresses to send

7written comments. Again, the deadline is January 29,

82002. On behalf of the commission, I'd like to thank you

9for listening to this important information, and this

10concludes my presentation.

11 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Jim.

12 Do you have any comments or questions before we

13get into the public comments?

14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Only that I'm real proud at

15what they've done so far, and I'm real pleased with it.

16 MR. NICHOLS: Couple of questions I had before

17we get into the public comments. The -- okay. After

18today's hearing, the public will have how many days to

19send in written comments?

20 MR. RANDALL: They'll have 75 days. They'll

21have until January 29, 2002.

1 MR. NICHOLS: And the formal approval of this

2after all that is --

3 MR. RANDALL: Will be in February 2002 at that

4commission meeting.

5 MR. NICHOLS: I'd also like to compliment your

6group and administration for the rework of this very

7complicated and important process.

8 For the public, an awful lot of what was said

9today is very significant in the fact that we're trying

10to take a process that has evolved very logically but had

11become very complicated for the public to understand,

12even professionals out in the field. We're taking 32 of

13our funding categories and bringing them down to 12.

14 We're trying to put more authority, as well as

15responsibility, at the district level, closer to the

16projects, so that we can tackle entire projects, whether

17it be a metropolitan, urban, or rural connectivity

18project.

19 So -- and rather than telling that district

20which segment you will do first, we're going to commit to

21the entire project and then let that district determine

1which is the best way to put it together and which funds,

2and so on, in their area.

3 It's very significant. I think it's going to

4be a great -- but -- so, with that --

5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chair, do I understand

6that by January 2003 or thereabouts when we journey

7across the street to explain our program that our friends

8in the House and Senate will hear us using common words

9like "plan," "develop," "construct"?

10 MR. NICHOLS: (Laughs.)

11 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. That -- once y'all

12approve what we've presented here at the public hearing,

13we'll draft the 2003 UTP, and in that draft that goes out

14to public comment, that's when the folks will see our new

15terminology to try to make it more understandable to

16everybody.

17 MR. WILLIAMSON: I say that not -- I mean,

18laughingly, but seriously, Senator Duncan, that one of

19the complaints that Mr. Nichols and Mr. Johnson and I

20heard during this last session is, you know, You guys

21bring us papers, and it's written in a language we can't

22possibly understand. And so I think what we're going to

1bring you in January of '03 is something that we can all

2understand. Your project's either in the development

3stage or the planning stage or the construction stage,

4period.

5 MR. NICHOLS: I think also -- you may not have

6touched on it, but I think we're going to be working to

7put all of this in a very simplified booklet --

8hopefully, it will available sometime in the spring or

9early summer -- that will explain all this in terms and

10pictures and kind of do a statewide, regionalized

11approach, so that somebody can look into a region and see

12what we're doing not only currently but with some of the

13plans in the future.

14 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm particularly excited,

15Chairman, that this approach apparently offers a

16possibility of less disruption to the traveling public on

17a corridor basis. I think that's wonderful.

18 MR. NICHOLS: So we'll get into our public --

19yes, sir. Okay. First card I've got is Senator Robert

20Duncan.

21 Senator, we certainly do appreciate the work

22you've done in support of transportation over the years.

1 SEN. DUNCAN: Well, thank you. We appreciate

2the work y'all have done to allocate transportation needs

3across the state. We know it's a tough job.

4 But, you know, I'm excited about today -- as I

5was perusing my Texas Register and I saw a notice of this

6hearing -- you know, they need pictures in that book.

7 (General laughter.)

8 SEN. DUNCAN: No. I really became excited at this

9concept, because I do believe that, Commissioner

10Williamson, you're exactly right: The complexity of

11highway funding, I think, even confuses legislators,

12believe it or not.

13 And I do believe that the goal here is

14appropriate. I'm excited about it. I have been briefed

15on it, and I commend the commission for taking this bold

16step, and the staff for the hard work that they've done

17here.

18 The new district that I have -- and I'm

19particularly interested. I just wanted everybody to note

20that the proposed new district that I have has 18 percent

21of the state's land mass in it. So that -- I think 18

22percent of the state's highway funds then probably ought

1to be going there. I'm not sure if that's how this new

2plan works, but --

4 MR. WILLIAMSON: So using the -- some of the

5urban complaints recently, we should allocate based on

6road miles.

7 SEN. DUNCAN: Yes, well, or land mass. Land

8area would be a -- I think, with all seriousness, I do

9think that this plan would work well, will work well.

10There were a few questions that I had that I just raised,

11rhetorically, or at least at this time, that perhaps

12should be addressed.

13 First of all, I want to say that it looks like

14this plan, for projects like the East-West Freeway that

15you have been supporting and working on in Lubbock, I

16think that for that type of a project this plan works

17very well. I think it would give us the ability to tell

18our constituents in the Lubbock and in the West Texas

19region that that highway has -- it will be completed at

20some date in time and not -- we're not having to go

21piecemeal to construct that, which means efficiency not

22only in your highway-dollar allocation decisions that you

1make, but it also means efficiency in our communities,

2because of the decreased congestion.

3 And when you speed those things up, it just --

4highway construction costs a lot of dollars that we don't

5see, economic development dollars or just retail dollars.

6So we see speeding these projects up and being able to

7put them on some predictability with regard to completion

8is a good idea.

9 The concerns I do have is -- and I look --

10referring back to the East-West Freeway issue -- Lubbock

11would be a region that would basically be kind of like a

12UIL realignment issue. When you have these -- when you

13transition from urban to metropolitan, Lubbock is right

14on that cusp. And the question I would have is is what

15if you have your funding -- if you gain your funding

16while you're in an urban category but then you transition

17to a metropolitan category, do those funds transfer, do

18you maintain your status quo, or do you lose when you get

19elevated up?

20 MR. NICHOLS: We've got -- Jim Randall could

21probably answer that, but as I understand it, once a

1commitment is made on a project, then that project --

2it's project-specific.

3 SEN. DUNCAN: So the project's grandfathered

4in --

5 MR. NICHOLS: Yes.

6 SEN. DUNCAN: -- regardless of the transition.

7 MR. NICHOLS: If there is a commitment on a

8project, it is grandfathered in.

9 He's shaking his head yes.

10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. Senator, traditionally

11on almost all the changes that we've made, and certainly

12all of the remarkable changes we've made in the last six

13months, we're attempting to hold to the standard that if

14we gave our word, we keep it.

15 SEN. DUNCAN: Well, I assumed that was the

16case, and I just -- but I wanted to at least raise that --

17 MR. NICHOLS: Point on the record?

18 SEN. DUNCAN: Well -- exactly.

20 SEN. DUNCAN: And you've been there; you know.

21You know exactly what I'm talking about.

1 The other thing is is that how is the money

2going to be allocated between the three categories.

3Population seems to be a driver. You know, with more

4corridors than money, it will tempting also to do things

5like perhaps fund a percentage of a corridor as opposed

6to -- like 70 percent or 80 percent as opposed to 100

7percent. And I would encourage you to do the best you

8can to fund 100 percent of these corridors so that we

9don't get back into the same mode of, Well, how -- when

10are we going to get the rest of it done.

11 The whole advantage of this, it seems like to

12me, is to put a beginning and an end to a project, which

13I think all of us would like to see, and would make

14these -- make our constituents, I think, feel more

15confident in what we're doing. So I encourage that, as

16well.

17 But I really want to put -- I want to go on

18record as supporting this concept wholeheartedly. We

19really believe in what you're doing here, and I think it

20will be best not only for rural Texas but all Texas. So

21thank you for your work. And if you have any questions

22of me, I'll be happy to address them.

1 MR. NICHOLS: On your question or concern about

2how is the funding going to change, over the next --

3first year of this change, going from 34 categories to

412, they are going to take the same allocation formulas

5and just squeeze them into those so that each area is

6basically getting pretty much the same as it was.

7 SEN. DUNCAN: Same as it is.

8 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. And then as we go into the

9second year using this, we're going to develop -- and he

10covered it -- a few of those categories, we're going to

11try to develop a means in which everybody can participate

12on how we arrive at some of those. So it's going to be a

13one-year study on that, hoping [phonetic] -- input and so

15 SEN. DUNCAN: So that will be something --

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: We recognize, Senator, that

17the worst thing that can happen to us, in effect, the

18largest central state agency distributing state tax

19dollars, is to pit Houston against Lubbock and Dallas

20against Rio Grande City. We know that's not good for us;

21it's not good for the state.

1 In fact, we work very hard every day to try to

2say to people who complain, This is one state, one

3people, sometimes my district gets more, sometimes it

4gets less, but we need to focus on the state's needs and

5not divide ourselves. So we hear clearly what you're

6saying. We're not going to let that happen.

7 SEN. DUNCAN: All right.

8 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

9 SEN. DUNCAN: Thank you. I appreciate it.

10 MR. NICHOLS: Next is Representative John

11Shields.

12 MR. RAINES: I'm not Rep. John Shields, as you

13can tell. I'm one of his staffers. My name is Stephen

14Raines. And actually, and I'm going to submit comments

15on his behalf, if that's all right with you.

16 MR. NICHOLS: That's fine.

17 MR. RAINES: I'm just going to read them into

18the record, and then we'll submit the written ones later,

19if that's all right.

20 MR. NICHOLS: That's fine.

21 MR. RAINES: Thanks.

1 First of all, thank you for the opportunity to

2provide comments on the Transportation Institute's final

3report on TxDOT's project selection funds distribution

4process.

5 First of all, I want to thank you for all your

6help in providing the state discretionary funding for San

7Antonio and Bexar County area. Your most recent

8distribution of $144 million in strategic priority

9funding was helpful in a number of projects, and your

10assistance with Loop 410 and the Kelly Parkway is also

11appreciated.

12 In 2000, the San Antonio District had almost

131.5 million vehicles driving 35 million miles per day,

14representing 12 percent of the state's total vehicle

15miles traveled daily. However, we also have 10,366 on-

16system lane miles or 18 percent of the state's total lane

17mileage. That mileage is mostly attributable to the

18transportable planning and successful construction

19efforts of former TxDOT district engineers.

20 That extra mileage may also help explain why

21San Antonio was ranked 22nd best in mobility of the 70

22major cities across the United States. Even so,

1according to some of the San Antonio Metropolitan

2Planning Organization information we've received, San

3Antonions suffer from 26 million hours of delay annually

4and lose 38 million gallons of fuel are wasted idling in

5congestion. And our annual congestion costs are

6estimated at about $395 million, or $435 per driver.

7 To make matters worse, our metropolitan

8transportation plan projects that by 2025, San Antonio's

9population will increase 34 percent, from 1.5 to 2

10million. Vehicle miles traveled daily will increase by

1160 percent, from 35 million to 56 million miles per day.

12Traffic congestion levels will increase by 60 percent in

13spite of $9.6 billion in transportation investment, which

14would include 5.6 billion for roadways and $4 billion for

15transit.

16 San Antonio fully supports the recommendations

17that you have today and the idea to overhaul the project

18selection funds distribution process. The categories of

19the plan, develop, and construct that you were talking

20about earlier will not significantly be different from

21the long-range,Priority 2 and Priority 1 plan and be more

1plainspoken in their functions for citizens and leaders,

2as Commissioner Williamson said earlier.

3 I want to applaud the idea of collapsing the 34

4separate funding categories into 12 and giving the local

5TxDOT districts extra flexibility to pursue mobility

6projects in accordance with the desires of the local

7citizens. I especially like the idea of abandoning a

8cost-effectiveness index that has prevented San Antonio

9from bringing corridors and projects critical to

10maintaining area levels of mobility forward from our

11long-range plan category to Priority 2.

12 Competition at the state level through the CEI

13process has seriously impeded regional efforts to try and

14keep pace with growing congestion. The transportation

15plan suggested by TTI to involve MPOs and the development

16of a new corridor selection process for the 2004 Unified

17Transportation Plan also will improve the process.

18 Please recognize that San Antonio's Priority 2

19corridors and projects have been handicapped and that

20they were originally selected through the cost-

21effectiveness index process. This resulted in funding

1only small pieces of various critical corridors

2throughout the San Antonio area.

3 At expected of levels of funding, it will take

4San Antonio to at least 2013 to complete current Priority

52 projects. Accordingly, some catch-up mechanism should

6be considered for assisting these projects and the entire

7corridor to sooner completion.

8 There also needs to be a fair share on return

9of investment, which you talked about earlier,

10Commissioner. Metropolitan areas should be guaranteed a

11minimum return --

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Not a term I like to hear.

13 MR. RAINES: Okay. I'll keep that in mind.

14 MR. WILLIAMSON: I made it pretty plain that

15fair share can't be defined.

16 MR. RAINES: Absolutely. That's why we just

17want to make sure we understand we'd like a fair share

18and it's your idea to determine that.

20 MR. RAINES: We just like to make

21recommendations.

1 According to the San Antonio Metropolitan

2Planning Organization estimates, the metropolitan area

3slice of the TxDOT Priority 1 funding has dwindled from

4'98 to 2001 from 92 percent to 81 percent.

5 MR. WILLIAMSON: In fact, let me just say right

6now, because John's a friend of mine, and I know you'll

7go back and report to him, and I hope he's a state

8senator someday, as apparently he wishes to be.

9 Here's the dilemma. Your testimony, first of

10all, you offer facts and figures, and I guess you're

11going to provide us a source for that at some point so

12we'll know -- unlike recent articles in the Houston

13paper, we'll know what your source is.

14 MR. RAINES: The source for the information in

15these comments we got from the metropolitan planning

16organization.

17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ah.

18 MR. RAINES: And their formulas for determining

19that, I think, they can probably provide to you, and

20someone will see to that --

21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh. So you're reading into

22the record as factual actually what someone else has

1provided to you, but you don't know what the source of

2that is --

3 MR. RAINES: Yes, sir.

4 MR. WILLIAMSON: -- other than -- you know, the

5newspapers do that a lot now. The problem with defining

6fair share is, you've just told us that you liked

7changing it to a corridor approach because the bits and

8pieces, the piecemeal process, drags things out. And yet

9the reason we find ourselves in the piecemeal bind is

10because every year, apparently, all of the constituent

11groups of the state want their fair share.

12 MR. RAINES: Absolutely.

13 MR. WILLIAMSON: So we have this dilemma.

14You've got Houston, San Antonio -- although not Dallas

15anymore, interestingly enough -- coming to the commission

16and raising Cain about fair share.

17 MR. RAINES: Sure.

18 MR. WILLIAMSON: So we do things piecemeal so

19it is kind of fair share, and then people start raising

20Cain about piecemeal and never get anything finished.

21 MR. RAINES: You're exactly right.

1 MR. WILLIAMSON: So you might pass along to

2John, we're trying to get to a point where it's fair

3share for the state and not for one piece of the state.

4 MR. RAINES: And I think that's what the

5comments he was wanting to make are. I think you've made

6a very good improvement in that process. We just want to

7make sure that our fair share is definitely our biggest

8interest here.

9 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think I'm going to win.

11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Fair share. Hm.

12 MR. RAINES: The only other comments I had was

13with the passage of Proposition 15, hope there'll be more

14funding available in years ahead. And thank you again

15for the opportunity to provide comments. If you want any

16future comments or information on these, please contact

17him at the office or myself. I can help you.

18 MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you very much.

19 MR. RAINES: Thank you.

20 MR. NICHOLS: I appreciate it.

21 Next card up is Representative Gary Walker. I

22call him Chairman Walker.

1 Now, as I understand it, you did not want to

2speak, but you wanted to be shown as -- on record as in

3favor of this. Thank you very much. And, sir, we really

4do appreciate the help you've given us, particularly last

5session. I know a couple times they got in a pretty good

6pinch, you came in and raised up the flag, you helped,

7and I really appreciate that.

8 Individuals, as a reminder, as I go through

9these names and you come to the podium, state your name

10officially for the record to the mike. And also, there's

11a three-minute timer that's green. When there's one

12minute left, it turns yellow, and when the three minutes

13is up it turns red. Try to be fair to everybody. If we

14ask questions, then we extend the time on that.

15 Kevin Evans, from Lubbock.

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Hey, Kevin.

17 MR. EVANS: How are you today? Thank you for

18allowing me to speak. My name is Kevin Evans, president

19of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor Coalition,

20representing them here today on this matter. Bring you

21greetings and regrets from our chairman, Randy

22Neugebauer. He is not able to be here. He's trying to

1make a living, and I keep chastising him as my volunteer

2chairman for trying to make a living, but he keeps

3telling me he doesn't care and that that's what they

4hired me for. So I'm happy about that.

5 I'd simply like to say, Ditto. As usual,

6Senator Duncan makes my job extremely easy. We certainly

7would echo everything that he has said.

8 Want to congratulate the commission, the staff,

9for doing an excellent job in taking what the senator

10described as a very bold step, and it is, in the right

11direction. Certainly we're excited about the continuous

12and complete corridors aspect, being a trade corridor

13that goes from Laredo to Denver.

14 Just finished up another summit conference in

15Lubbock. It very successful, very well attended. Know

16that many of you couldn't be here, but would like to tell

17you that your staff that participated in that did an

18absolutely wonderful job, very informative. And

19hopefully you'll make the next one.

20 Simply say thank you for making this effort.

21We will be submitting written comments, and we're very

22excited about the change in this process.

2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

3 MR. NICHOLS: Larry Hertel, Lubbock.

4 MR. HERTEL: Yes. I'm Larry Hertel, city

5engineer with the City of Lubbock.

6 In a joint meeting of the Transportation Policy

7and Advisory Committees of the Lubbock MPO, there was a

8unanimous vote to support the proposed changes to TxDOT's

9project selection process. These changes to simplify the

10process and deliver highway improvements in a continuous

11and complete corridors are concepts that we certainly

12favor and support, and I'm just here to indicate the

13support of the Lubbock MPO and the City of Lubbock.

14 Thank you very much.

15 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, thank you.

17 MR. NICHOLS: Bob Anderson, county

18commissioner, Hood County.

19 MR. WILLIAMSON: My part of the world.

20 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you for allowing me to

21speak to you this morning.

1 I'm from Hood County. County seat is Granbury,

2Texas, that lies just southwest of the Fort Worth-Dallas

3area. We have experienced a 40 percent growth in our

4population over this last decade, and it doesn't appear

5that it's slowing.

6 And as I sat and listened to the larger

7metropolitan areas and their growth and their challenges

8that they have, I just want to hold up the smaller areas

9that lie contingent with the Tarrant counties and the

10Dallas counties, that we are under great stress under a

11situation that is causing us a lot of problems.

12 We're experiencing 38,000 cars a day, plus --

13at a business bypass split in Hood County. The bypass --

14it was built in the mid-'70s -- is greatly congested.

15 Hood County recently developed a master

16transportation plan, and I appreciate the changes that

17have been made in the process. I think it'll be

18beneficial to us to complete -- help us complete this

19master transportation plan with the assistance of the

20state.

21 So I am in favor of this and hope to be coming

22before you very soon for proposals and assistance to

1develop this master transportation plan for our

2community. Thank you.

3 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Commissioner.

4 Tommy Eden, Austin.

5 MR. EDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and

6commission members. My name is Tommy Eden. I am

7concerned about the need -- if you're dealing with

8federal programs, the need for bicycle and pedestrian

9infrastructure whenever you do new construction. And I

10want to provide you with copies of the Federal Highway

11Administration's Design Guidance.

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you ride your bicycle

13today?

14 MR. EDEN: Yes, sir.

15 I would like to point out to you on page 4, at

16the bottom of page 4, the policy statement, which

17generally states that bicycle and pedestrian facilities

18will be included in any new construction and

19reconstruction projects except where either bicyclists

20and pedestrians are prohibited by law or where the cost

21of establishing these facilities would be excessively

22disproportionate to the need or probable use or where

1sparsity of population or other factors indicate an

2absence of need.

3 TxDOT's policy does not conform with this

4policy. According to TxDOT, the department provides for

5sidewalk construction on designated state highway system

6when replacing an existing sidewalk where highway

7construction severs an existing sidewalk system making

8connections within a highway right of way to restore

9sidewalk system continuity or where pedestrian traffic is

10causing or is expected to cause a safety conflict.

11 I would ask that any policies that you make

12conform with the Federal Highway Administration's

13requirements. Thank you.

14 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, sir. And I'm not

15going to try to respond to your concern at this moment,

16because I'm not that aware of this particular issue, but

17I am going to request to our executive director, Mike

18Behrens, that he have someone in the department check

19into this and respond officially back to you. So we have

20your address? This is your -- okay. This is your proper

21mailing address. And we will do that.

22 MR. EDEN: Thank you.

2 I'm showing -- now, I had a card for Sam

3Dawson, but as I understand it, you did not want to

4speak, but is that correct? Okay.

5 Now, I have no other cards from the public or

6this audience with regards to the public hearing. Is

7there anyone in here who wanted to speak who did not fill

8out a card? Please raise your hand.

9 (No response.)

10 MR. NICHOLS: If not, do you have any

11additional comments or closing?

13 MR. NICHOLS: Then I declare the public hearing

14closed. And we're going to take a short break to allow

15our next delegation to come in. So we're going to take

16about a three-minute break, three-minute recess.

17 (Off the record.)

18 MR. NICHOLS: We are reconvened. We very much

19appreciate the long distance you all have traveled to be

20here today. And I'm somewhat familiar with Big Spring.

21I used to buy a lot of polystyrene from up there.

1 MR. CROOKER: Oh, that's great. We were

2blessed with a five-inch rain yesterday, I understand.

3It's our first rain in so long I can't remember when it

4happened. It doubled our rainfall, I think.

5 MR. NICHOLS: You're Bill Crooker?

6 MR. CROOKER: Crooker. Yes, sir.

7 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Go ahead and start, sir.

1 BIG SPRING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2 3(Bill Crooker, Senator Robert Duncan, Kevin Evans, Mayor 4Russ McEwen) 5

6 MR. CROOKER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm

7Bill Crooker, county commissioner of Howard County. Our

8purpose this morning is to present to you the need for a

9truck reliever route for US 87, the main north-south

10highway through Big Spring.

11 Big Spring is located at the crossroads of US

1287 North-South and Interstate 20 East-West. 2000 census

13report shows 33,627 people in the county with 25,233 of

14these living in the city. This is a small increase over

151990.

16 Our first speaker this morning is our state

17senator, Robert Duncan.

18 SEN. DUNCAN: Thank you. It's a pleasure, once

19again, to be -- this is a dual appearance day for me, but

20I always enjoy being here again.

21 Big Spring is kind of right in the heart of the

22current Senate District 28, and something happened along

23the way in redistricting and it got -- I don't know what

24happened, but it got removed. We're trying to get it

1back. But I think this crossroads issue is very

2important for us to look at, especially when we're

3talking about east-west corridors and north-south

4corridors.

5 One of the primary -- and I think -- I always

6try to pick -- on transportation projects, I think y'all

7have noticed, I've tried to pick a few. I don't try to

8go for the whole bunch of them and be strong advocate

9for. This is one that I am a strong advocate for,

10because if you've been to Big Spring, if you're going

11north-south and you see -- if you go through the

12community there, you'll see that a truck has to go

13through -- if it's going north-south, going from Lubbock

14to San Angelo under the current configuration, or

15Amarillo, down that highway, which is a major corridor,

16and will be more of a major corridor with Port-to-Plains,

17it'll have to go through 52 intersections, eight signal

18lights, and two school crossings in order to get through

19the city of Big Spring.

20 That obviously is a safety issue that we have.

21It's also an environmental issue. It's also, as well, an

22efficiency issue for trucks that will be going that way.

1We know that this is one of the key, and probably one of

2the first projects, that ought to occur on the Port-to-

3Plains bypass, when we look at these bypasses.

4 The committee -- or the community is 100

5percent committed to this. We don't even have to call it

6a reliever route. We can call it a bypass. The

7community has committed significant local funds to obtain

8right of way, and this is a high -- this is the highest

9priority in transportation in Howard County and Big

10Spring. And they have been strong supporters and

11participants in the Port-to-Plains concept that you

12recently approved with regard to the designation of that

13corridor.

14 So I'm here to ask that you -- specifically, I

15believe, the prayer should read -- select that this

16corridor or that this route be selected for phase 1 of

17the trunk system when the corridor -- when the commission

18prioritizes your Priority 2 corridors. So we would

19appreciate your consideration.

20 If there is any questions I can answer for you,

21I'll be happy to do so at this time.

1 SEN. DUNCAN: Thank you very much.

2 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Senator.

3 MR. CROOKER: Thank you, Senator.

4 State Representative David Counts could not be

5with us today. He has written a letter to each

6commissioner in support of the project, and I have given

7these letters to Helen.

8 Our speakers this morning are myself, Bill

9Crooker, county commissioner of Howard County; Kevin

10Evans, president of Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor; and

11Russ McEwen, our mayor.

12 The project began with a Lubbock to Interstate

1310 Amarillo North Route Study Phase 2, by HDR

14Engineering, published in September of 1997. This study

15presented ten improvements possible for the Big Spring

16area. One of the ten, a truck reliever route to the west

17of Big Spring, received 123 votes from 300 people

18attending this public meeting in May of 1997.

19 A task group was formed in December 1999 to

20study and determine the most suitable route. The members

21were composed of city and county officials, chamber of

22commerce members, citizens, and representatives of

1TxDOT's Abilene District. After two public meetings in

2April 2001, a feasibility report outlining the proposed

3project was written and distributed to interested parties

4in May of 2001.

5 The proposed project includes phased

6construction. Phase 1 would be a four-lane divided

7highway with three intersections. There would be no

8frontage roads now or planned in the future. This would

9be in compliance with TxDOT's new frontage road policy.

10 Phase 1, the south section which you see on the

11screen, the reliever route is the pink line starting at

12US 87 on the south side of Big Spring, proceeding

13westerly, then turning north, going past the

14McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark, where it meets Interstate 20 on

15the west side of Big Spring. This is approximately six

16miles.

17 The blue line shown is the existing Interstate

1820 and US 87 North. Conceivably, a truck can enter the

19reliever route at US 87 South, take the new highway to

20Interstate 20, then take Interstate 20 East to US 87, and

21then continue on to the north. Thereby, using two

1existing roads, Interstate 20 and US 87 North, the truck

2can bypass Big Spring.

3 Phase 2, the north section, would follow the

4blue line beginning at Interstate 20, going in a north,

5then a east direction, connecting West 87 north of Big

6Spring. This would approximately be seven miles.

7 Howard County, by resolution, is willing to pay

8for the right of way and utility adjustments in Phase 1,

9estimated at $300,000. I have a copy of the resolution,

10and it has been given to Helen.

11 Incidentally, in our last project of widening

12US 87 back about 12 years ago, we committed to TxDOT

13about $750,000, and we're glad to do this. We understand

14the reasoning.

15 The 1999 ADT for US 87 through the city was

16between 11- and 13,000 vehicles per day. There are four

17factors, however, that will significantly impact the

18future traffic. They are US 87 is a high-priority

19corridor in the National Highway System; US 87 is a

20Priority 1 Texas Trunk System route; US 87 is designated

21as part of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor by TxDOT;

1and US 87 is the primary route for the Texas Agricultural

2Corridor.

3 Route selection rationale is the east route,

4Farm Road 700 to Interstate 20, has become a main artery

5for local traffic, and many businesses have been located

6along this route, including a Wal-Mart Supercenter and a

7shopping mall. Current speed limit is 45 to 50 miles per

8hour. Overpasses would need to be constructed at seven

9intersections in order to move through traffic at 60

10miles an hour.

11 However, the west route has the lower overall

12cost, has even terrain, passes within one-half mile of

13the McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark, and would need no overpasses.

14 Our recommendations include the following:

15that TxDOT construct a truck reliever route west of Big

16Spring. We are seeking project-specific funding, and

17funding level will be $15 million.

18 The advantages are there's a strong public

19support for this project, as evidenced by the May 1997,

20September 2000, April 12 and April 24, 2001, public

21meetings attended by over 300 persons.

1 The preferred route has a minimal amount of

2right of way to obtain, while using the maximum amount of

3existing roadway. It frees the main north-south corridor

4through the community to local traffic. It will reduce

5traffic accidents and provide a hazardous cargo route

6around the city, which I think is very important.

7 A reliever route west of Big Spring would

8encourage industrial development at our McMahon/Wrinkle

9Airpark, help fulfill Ports-to-Plains and Texas Trunk

10System objectives, has the potential of giving some

11relief to the heavy traffic on Interstate 35 corridor.

12 And now we will hear from Kevin Evans,

13president of Ports-to-Plains Corridor.

14 MR. EVANS: Thank you, Bill.

15 Gentlemen, on the map that you have there

16before you, you see a lot of green stars. Those

17represent reliever routes that are working at some stage

18or another in those communities along the route. And as

19Randy Neugebauer pointed out yesterday in a meeting I was

20at, some of those are in the matchbook stage, where

21they're still drawing pictures on the back of a

22matchbook, talking about it in the coffee shop. Some of

1them are in construction. Some of them in line to be

2funded. And then at the heart of our route in Texas, you

3have Big Spring. As you can see, they're fairly far

4along on their planning process.

5 We feel like we have a transportation crisis

6here in Texas. Proposition 15 -- and by the way,

7congratulation on all of your work on that -- is going to

8go a long way to help that and begin the process, we

9hope. But still, you can see the statistics there I get

10from Bill Webb, president of TMTA here in Texas: 31

11million by 2025; 50 percent increase in the overall

12state; 50 percent of that will be in the DFW/Houston

13areas. They're going to need more alternative routes,

14more relief of some type. We hope to be that relief.

15 Truck crossings up, commercial mileage up --

16all those things you're aware of. Trade traffic

17increasing. I like to use this slide because I got the

18information from Ed Wueste here at TxDOT, going from, I

19believe, around '99-2000 of $200 billion a year trade

20with Mexico to 800 billion by the year 2010 was the

21estimate we had at that time; current annual rate of

22increase about 15 percent.

1 There's going to be an increase in trade

2traffic in Texas. We don't -- we know we're not going to

3get the lion's share of that increase, but obviously, we

4are going to benefit and be responsible for a big part of

5that up the Ports-to-Plains Corridor.

6 TEA-21, Ports-to-Plains, and Big Spring share

7some common goals. Promoting safety for the route is a

8very obvious need. If you've ever been down Gregg

9Street, it is an amazingly long journey, and it is, even

10with the great improvements that have been made in recent

11past, still very dangerous and very tedious for trade

12traffic.

13 We will improve access along the route. The

14interconnection with I-20 will be greatly improved.

15Construction of the reliever routes utilize less

16congested border crossings. We're promoting that very

17heavily in Acuña-Del Rio and Piedras Negras-Eagle Pass --

18alternative routes, economic development, and balanced

19growth.

20 Big Spring is at the heart of the Ports-to-

21Plains route in Texas, and they need a reliever route

22sooner than later. And you'll notice -- you may not have

1known that Michael Behrens was a doctor, but there he is

2performing a bypass operation for Big Spring.

3 Thank you.

4 Yes, sir.

5 MR. NICHOLS: Go ahead.

6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me wait for the

7appropriate time to raise this question.

8 MR. EVANS: I didn't say "fair share."

9 MR. WILLIAMSON: I know. And we appreciate

10that.

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: And I know that you never made

13that argument. Even in Ports-to-Plains you never made

14that argument. You made the argument that it was in the

15state's best interest.

16 MR. EVANS: Yes, sir.

17 MR. WILLIAMSON: I personally appreciate that.

18I want to know if it's possible to bring the slide back

19up that had all the green stars on it. Can that be done?

20 MR. EVANS: May take him a second to run

21through them.

1 MR. WILLIAMSON: And I want to ask you, as a

2person who's identified -- among many, but you're

3prominently identified with the Ports-to-Plains concept --

4has anyone involved in Ports-to-Plains started to discuss

5the possibility of a Regional Mobility Authority to

6expedite or to entrepreneurially plan to bring Ports-to-

7Plains to fruition much faster than we all realize is

8possible in the current funding scenario?

9 MR. EVANS: The board has not discussed it

10openly. Randy Neugebauer and I and, of course, Tommy

11Gonzalez, my predecessor, and one other board member

12locally have had that discussion just recently.

13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, the reason I ask the

14question is one of the persons involved in it -- there's

15no reason to bring his name into it -- opined to me

16recently that if you took the tax base from Stratford to

17Del Rio -- not down to Laredo yet, but just from

18Stratford to Del Rio -- if you looked at the tax base of

19those counties and communities that would benefit

20directly from Ports-to-Plains, you could make a

21reasonable argument that a combination local government-

22state government-private sector partnership might could

1well pull off a transportation corridor that included

2concrete and rail that would result in tremendous

3economic benefits to those tax bases to the extent that

4those tax bases could afford to make some financial

5commitments to the whole project.

6 And I just want to encourage you to explore

7that. I mean, I think there's -- if Lubbock, Senator

8Duncan would argue that a completed Ports-to-Plains would

9provide X amount of economic growth; if Del Rio could

10argue that a completed Ports-to-Plains, at least at their

11border crossing, would result in X amount of

12international trade; if Stratford could argue that Ports-

13to-Plains would result in finished cotton crops or milo

14crops or whatever being processed and sent to market

15sooner, and then the argument is we will all benefit

16economically if we will invest, is it possible to figure

17out a local government-state government-private sector

18partnership that can make this thing happen a lot faster?

19 And I just would encourage you to do that.

20 MR. EVANS: We would love to explore it, and I

21will be visiting with you more about it in the future and

22get some more of your ideas.

1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Proposition 15 gives us at the

2commission tools to do things that we haven't had in the

3past. And we are open for business, and we're thinking

4outside the box.

5 MR. EVANS: Appreciate it very much.

6 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Kevin.

7 MR. EVANS: Thank you. And now I introduce

8Mayor Russ McEwen.

9 MR. NICHOLS: Welcome, Mayor.

10 MAYOR McEWEN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate the

11chance to be here. And, Commissioner Williamson, it's an

12intriguing idea that you have, one that I have not heard

13about up till now, but certainly does have great merit as

14I think about what we're trying to do in Big Spring,

15obviously, and then looking at what we want to do up and

16down the corridor. I think --

17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, Mayor, and I have to

18give credit where credit's due.

19 MAYOR McEWEN: Yes, sir.

20 MR. WILLIAMSON: The man that appointed me to

21this position told me a year ago he had a vision for

22transportation in this state, and he intends his vision

1to be brought to fruition. And Proposition 15 is a large

2part of the governor's plan to rebuild the infrastructure

3of the state. And he was deadly serious when he told me

4that, and he's deadly serious now. He wants to get Texas

5moving.

6 MAYOR McEWEN: Well, obviously, you are too,

7and I commend you for that, sir.

8 We do have safety issues in Big Spring that are

9significant, as Senator Duncan alluded to earlier, as to

10the number of places that US 87 has crossings in our

11community. US 87 uses an existing city street that

12passes through the main business district in Big Spring.

13 And if you're familiar with Big Spring at all,

14you know that there are significant grade changes on this

15street that create hazardous intersections at FM 700,

1610th Street, 4th Street, and Sgt. Paredez Street. At

17each of these intersections, trucks must contend with

18stoplights after traveling significant distances on

19fairly severe down slopes.

20 Approximately 1,750 trucks pass through Big

21Spring via US 87 on a daily basis. These statistics are

1provided by TxDOT, and they've indicated an approximate 5

2percent increase in truck traffic on an annual basis.

3 It is our belief that there will be even a

4greater increase when US 277 between Del Rio and Sonora

5is finished and the extensive rebuild of US 87 at Tahoka

6is completed.

7 From an economic standpoint, this reliever

8route will come within a half mile of McMahon/Wrinkle

9Airpark with an exit running directly into the west side

10of this facility. With the Ports-to-Plains Corridor

11becoming a major trade route, the accessibility of an

12airpark, combined with the fact that Interstate 20 runs

13directly north of McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark, gives Big

14Spring two major opportunities for economic growth.

15 NAFTA will bring goods up this corridor that

16will need to be shipped north, east, and west. This

17suits Big Spring's location perfectly. We are in an

18ideal position to become a major warehousing and

19distribution location, because we will be at the

20crossroads of IH-20 and Ports-to-Plains.

21 Secondly, intermodal transportation makes

22abundant sense at our airpark. Using proposed and

1existing facilities -- these including a modern airpark

2with a brand-new terminal, a railhead that could be

3expanded, and the proposed truck reliever route -- it

4will give us an opportunity for intermodal transportation

5that has become very important in today's economy.

6 I want to thank you for the opportunity to

7address you today and would entertain any questions you

8might have.

9 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Mayor. Is that the

10end of the presentation?

11 MAYOR McEWEN: No, sir.

12 MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

13 MAYOR McEWEN: Mr. Crooker has a short summary.

14 MR. NICHOLS: Any questions at this point?

15I'll reserve my questions to the end. Thank you.

16 MAYOR McEWEN: Thank you, sir.

17 MR. CROOKER: Thank you, Mayor.

18 At this time, I would like very much to have

19the Big Springers and -- the contingent from Big Spring

20and Ports-to-Plains persons present, please, stand up.

21Thank you.

22 MR. NICHOLS: Did y'all drive in or fly in?

1 MR. CROOKER: I think they did both. I think

2the mayor said he came by boat.

3 MR. NICHOLS: By boat?

5 MR. CROOKER: At this time, I would like to

6extend my thanks and compliments to Bill Hale, Abilene

7District Engineer, and his staff, in particular Art

8Barrow, our Big Spring area engineer. They've been most

9helpful and supportive in this project. In this summary,

10I'd like to say my sincere thanks to each commissioner

11for your time and interest.

12 In closing, I would like to say this reliever

13route is a safety issue, an economic issue, and a trade

14issue. We urge you to do everything possible to bring

15this project to fruition in a realistic time frame. And

16I thank you very much.

17 And now we would like to entertain any

18questions you might have.

19 MR. NICHOLS: Did you have any questions? I

20had a few. The original estimate on this was about -- it

21may be that Bill Hale, which we're very proud of, by the

22way, as a district engineer -- was about $49 million.

1Now, that's for an entire four-lane divided for that

2entire --

3 MR. CROOKER: Correct.

4 MR. HALE: [inaudible]

5 MR. NICHOLS: Into the mike. We can't hear

6you. I can hear you, but --

7 MR. HALE: Okay. The department -- that's for

8the entire phase or entire project from north to south of

9Big Spring.

10 MR. NICHOLS: On the west side.

11 MR. HALE: Right. And that first phase going

12up to 20, then over to 87, and on up out of Big Spring

13is --

14 MR. NICHOLS: It was proposed to be -- in that

15first phase, to be a four-lane divided?

16 MR. HALE: Yes.

17 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. As opposed to if we

18acquired enough right of way for a four-lane divided and

19got a two-lane in there to start with, that would at

20least begin the process so we can maybe take this thing

21in smaller -- okay. That's what I was trying to

22understand.

1 MR. HALE: That's correct.

2 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Now, that -- as I

3understand it, this route is on Phase 1 Corridor, Texas

4Trunk System?

5 MR. HALE: Yes, it is. We're asking for it to

6be on Phase 1 Corridor System.

7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible]

8 MR. HALE: Okay. It is.

9 MR. NICHOLS: It's on the Texas Trunk System?

10 MR. HALE: Yes, it is.

11 MR. NICHOLS: Jim? Where's Jim? Is it on the

12Phase 1 Corridors of the Texas Trunk System?

13 MR. HALE: Yes.

14 MR. NICHOLS: I think it is.

15 MR. HALE: Yes, it is.

16 MR. NICHOLS: I'm pretty sure it is. We have --

17and I think this is important for y'all to kind of

18recognize this. When we established the Phase 1

19Corridors of the Texas Trunk System, it was to try to

20take logical alignments with geographical distribution

21around the state that would work for the entire state,

22and then line up some of these gaps and fill them in.

1 And when we established that several years ago,

2the idea was to have the whole thing, all those gaps

3closed in inside of ten years. And I think there's about

4seven years left of hammering those gaps. I drive around

5through there; I'm seeing some of them get closed now.

6 Now, we also recognized at that point that we

7did not address the reliever route issue on those

8corridors, that we knew that as we got into the Phase 2,

9for lack of a better word, that we needed to address

10those. We knew that reliever routes, the arguments of,

11you know, what happens to our retail, and all that kinds

12of stuff, would be more lengthy, that it would be a

13little more expensive. We could get the long stretches

14quicker, more dramatic, and start moving vehicles.

15 But Phase 2 hearings and what that money is to

16be spent for is approximately scheduled to be next

17summer, probably at the end of the summer, somewhere in

18there. I'm not sure. And we had thought -- and we

19almost did it last time -- and I'm pretty sure that one

20of the big issues will be to take that funding source --

21not a new funding source, but that existing funding

22source -- and take a percentage of that to apply to the

1reliever routes on the Phase 1 Corridors. The great bulk

2of the Ports-to-Plains issue is -- route is on that.

3 So we know we can't create a corridor and shove

4all that traffic through the middle of the cities that

5aren't prepared for it. But -- so that funding source --

6that's a perfect place for a project like this. And if

7you believe in that and you want to have input into the

8criteria supporting that, you -- everybody in the state

9will receive notifications of those hearings that will

10begin sometime next summer. So that would be a good

11opportunity to get in for that also.

12 Secondly, I compliment you for a very good

13presentation. I used to -- as I said before, I did -- I

14used to buy a lot of polystyrene out in Big Spring, and I

15had forgotten all about that airport. But I lost an

16engine on my plane once and landed there, and I will

17never forget that airport. They treated me real nice

18there, so I appreciate it.

19 No other comments?

20 (No response.)

21 MR. NICHOLS: We thank you very much, and

22everyone who has driven so far, flown, or come by boat.

1We recognize that you come -- communities don't happen;

2they're built by people who are concerned. Y'all

3obviously are very concerned about the future of your

4community and have taken that extra step away from your

5daily lives and work to present your needs and dreams for

6your community, and we very much appreciate that. And

7have a safe trip back, and thank you.

8 We're going to take a three-minute recess, give

9them an opportunity to leave.

10 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

1 CITY OF WICHITA FALLS 2 3(Judge Woodrow "Woody" Gossom, Representative David 4Farabee, Brooke Boddy) 5 6 MR. NICHOLS: Next delegation, City of Wichita

7Falls. Welcome. Judge Gossom.

8 JUDGE GOSSOM: Thank you, sir. Good to see

9you, Commissioner.

10 MR. NICHOLS: Good to see you again.

11 JUDGE GOSSOM: We enjoyed having you in Wichita

12Falls, and I hope you were able to travel back 281 safely.

13 I did want to tell Commissioner Williamson, the

14last time we were down here to talk about 281, he did ask

15if we could get right of way donated. Now, we've done

16that to the Wichita County line, sir. I wanted to let

17you know. We even got the road built all the way there

18too.

19 It does give us pleasure to come down and be

20able to visit with you all today. We hope we can drag

21some of this rain back home with us, just in case you get

22too much down here.

23 Mr. Behrens, it's good to see you. We haven't

24had a chance to talk with you since you got your new

25position, but congratulations.

1 I do have one small thing. I want to be sure

2you realize something. Everybody else got one of these

3ties last time. We want you to consider that tie

4[inaudible] necktie [inaudible] Wichita Falls in the

5center of that, we'd like you to proudly wear it.

6 At this time I would like to ask Representative

7David Farabee from Wichita County to come forward to

8speak. He'll be followed by Brooke Boddy representing

9Representative Hardcastle's office.

10 REP. FARABEE: Thank you, Judge Gossom. Thank

11you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner. And, Mr. Behrens,

12welcome. Good to have you aboard.

13 It's neat to have this opportunity today.

14Yesterday as I was driving in, I thought I could beat

15traffic through Fort Worth, so, Commissioner Williamson,

16I took 180 over at Mineral Wells and hit 171, and it took

17me about 45 minutes longer. So anyway, I got a taste of

18Weatherford, had an opportunity to go through your

19beautiful community and see your courthouse again. It's

20always a neat experience.

21 MR. WILLIAMSON: We hope you left a few dollars.

1 REP. FARABEE: Oh, yes, I did. Yes. I had to,

2at least -- yes, because there were just a few stoplights

3on that route.

4 As you will hear from our distinguished county

5judge and you will also see by the attendance of the

6numerous local officials in our region, these projects

7are important for our area. And I join Representative

8Hardcastle and his staff member today in affording my

9strongest support.

10 As you'll hear, the interchange at US 287 and

11US 82 and 277 is structurally ready to go. We had the

12dedication of that facility, our overhead, just this

13week, and it was a neat experience.

14 My hat's off to John Barton and Joe Nelson who

15do a wonderful job. Anytime I have a concern from one of

16my constituents on a transportation issue, I call them,

17and then within hours, within hours, I hear back from the

18constituent saying, They were the most pleasant people in

19the world to deal with. And so it says a lot for them.

20 But it was a proud moment for us to dedicate

21the overhead just this week. But that is our number one

22project, and you'll hear of some other projects as well

1that are important to us, such as the extension of US

282/277, which we commonly know as Kell Freeway, which is

3in progress.

4 But we need to continue the progress on that

5piece of transportation infrastructure, because of the

6new industries and businesses that are locating. We

7recently had one of the wireless companies that has

8located a 450-employee operation on that piece of highway

9and adds to the transportation needs. That -- in front

10of that is in progress, the construction, but as we move

11further west into Archer County, I think it's important

12that we also keep that project in mind, and that would be

13US 82/277.

14 But again, if I were to come before you today

15and tell you what I feel is our strongest need -- and I

16think you'll hear this again from Judge Gossom and other

17members of our group making presentations or that you'll

18visit with -- is the interchange of 82/287, now that

19we've got the overhead completed through the city.

20 So I want to say thank you to Commissioner

21Nichols for coming to Wichita Falls. Obviously the

22overwhelming support of Proposition 15 was buoyed by your

1attendance at that meeting. And also to Commissioner

2Williamson, thank you for making Weatherford a wonderful

3place to be last night as I traveled this way.

4 So are there any questions?

5 MR. NICHOLS: I'll probably save most of my

6questions till the end after we hear all the comments and

7the presentation.

8 REP. FARABEE: Well, thank you for your hard

9work.

10 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you for everything you do.

11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Will this be the only time

12you'll be at the podium?

13 REP. FARABEE: Today. I just wanted to get my

14fair share of time in today.

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: On a personal matter, Mr.

17Chairman, I have three children, and I'm painfully aware

18that the road I travel through life will affect my

19children. And I want to take this moment to tell you --

20I don't know you personally -- but I served on four

21intense and difficult conference committees with Ray

22Farabee, and I shared some acreage with him for a time.

1And I want to tell you that Ray Farabee paved the way for

2good thoughts about his family.

3 He was -- is, was one of the most dedicated and

4best public servants I observed in my years in the

5legislature.

6 REP. FARABEE: Thank you. And rest assured

7that he and I talked before I assumed my position. I

8asked him, you know, who are some of the shining stars

9you've seen come through the process, and he commented on

10your ability to take the budget and really work each

11agency to be responsible for their resources. And your

12name came up in that conversation, so he thinks highly of

13you as well.

14 MR. WILLIAMSON: I appreciate that.

17 MS. BODDY: My name is Brooke Boddy, and I'm

18here today for Representative Rick Hardcastle. And I

19first want to thank you for allowing me to come and speak

20and for you to hear my comments. He isn't here today due

21to a family illness that is keeping him in Vernon, but he

22did want me to share with you and that he is very adamant

1of his -- he has such a strong support for this project

2and that it does affect his district as well as Mr.

3Farabee's, in that House District 68 surrounds Wichita

4Falls on every side excluding Oklahoma.

5 But -- and all of the local highways feed into

6this area, and it is a safety issue as well as an

7economic issue to have this corridor fixed.

8 Actually, that's -- I just wanted to show his

9support today of this -- both of the priority of grades

10[phonetic] and to encourage your consideration. And I

11will pass it on to the experts over here that have a lot

12more information than I probably ever will.

13 But do you have any questions for me that I can

14answer on his behalf?

15 MR. NICHOLS: I don't.

16 Do you? No.

17 MS. BODDY: Thank you.

19 JUDGE GOSSOM: I do want to thank

20Representative Farabee and Brooke for coming representing

21Representative Hardcastle. They are -- you know, in the

22redistricting process, one of the things we will hate to

1lose, we have right now -- we're very fortunate to have

2dual representation of two good state representatives

3there.

4 We do have a good delegation for the City of

5Wichita Falls, and I'd like to recognize a few of those

6people. First of all, we have City Councilwoman Linda

7Ammons. Also from our MPO, Staff Director Steve Seese is

8here. We have a committee that's a city-county committee

9called Transportation Needs Committee, and from that

10committee today we have Ms. Donna Adams, Mr. Paul Foley,

11Mr. J.W. Martin. And citizens we have Jon Moller, one of

12the people that's been a vital public support to this.

13 Also a couple of people that we have with us

14that we couldn't do without is our district engineer, Joe

15Nelson, has come. And from my days as a county

16commissioner to my days as a county judge, Joe has

17brought in and assembled a staff -- John Barton's here,

18Andy Petter. When you go out there, it's not how we

19can't do something; it's how can we do something. And

20that is a welcome attitude, and that has got to be --

21come from the top down to get out to the field, and we

22appreciate it.

1 MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean he asked, Why not,

2instead of, Why?

3 JUDGE GOSSOM: Really, why not get it done

4today instead of tomorrow.

5 MR. WILLIAMSON: I like that.

6 JUDGE GOSSOM: I like that. I like that.

7 At this time, I would like to -- we're going to

8show you a video. This is not going to follow the other

9information that you were sent by the delegation, so if I

10could ask you all -- I assume that's the screen you all

11use, and we'll follow through there and give you an idea

12of some of the highlights of our petition.

13 If you look at this, this is a slide showing

14the regional concept of what you have done for us already

15from Abilene to Wichita Falls in the designation of

16277/82. If you look here, one of the things, thinking of

17the NAFTA concept, that right now to go from El Paso to

18Oklahoma City, one route's 819 miles, while another one's

19799. The short route through Wichita Falls is 752.

20 As you fly here with me, you will see now a

21slide coming in from the north of the new overhead

22project. As you look at that, it gives you an idea of

1the expanse across the Wichita River and what happens

2there.

3 We now swing around, if you'd look -- this is

4the beginning of US 277/82, and if you look here and

5here, those are two very important ramps. And if you

6look up to the north, that's where we're going to be

7coming in from.

8 Right now, as you look at this slide, if you

9were coming north, you have to get off and take the lower

10route and come through here. You can't take this exit

11here. You can't come back this way. You're going to

12stay the lower route. These ramps are going to be very

13important as we come in for people to exit to US 82/277

14going west or coming in from the west to be able to go

15north or south is important.

16 The last one will be the highest to come in.

17The view we're giving you here at this time shows you

18that when people have to go to the lower area that

19they're going to go through eleven traffic-controlled

20intersections. They're going to come here and have to

21make this turn and look up and see, Gee, I could've come

22straight through if that overhead would have let me get

1off -- we'll be there in a second -- somebody needs to

2push the accelerator just a little bit.

3 Now, if you'll look right there, there's a ramp

4to nowhere. It will come and land and come down and

5allow you to come in. The significance here of this

6slide shows you that you have an intersection here --

7that's the interchange -- comes out here to Barnett Road

8and to Allendale Road. Both of these are level service

9of E or below, all -- and including this one -- for what

10happens -- then we come out here to Farm-to-Market Road

11369.

12 This is what you're doing for us today. This

13is the beginning of the project that's going to take you

14out to those other two intersections I pointed out coming

15from the interchange.

16 If you note, those overpasses come in to cover

17those heavy traffic areas. In that area, current

18construction of the four-lane from Kemp to Fairway, we

19have seen the growth in this area -- you see the Lowe's

20sign there till Wal-Mart that's just out of your picture

21to the south. Across the way is a 200-unit assisted

1living center, a brand-new car dealership, a new strip

2mall.

3 Representative Farabee mentioned the Cingular

4Wireless with 450 employees in it. There's another 200-

5unit assisted living center there, and behind it a 400-

6unit apartment complex. As we pan back, you're seeing

7the addition to a subdivision that had been there for

8years that now is doubled, and back in the area you see a

9new school.

10 This area is growing significantly as we look

11at it. Those intersections -- we show you again -- if

12those are brought in to the program as the extension

13beyond Fairway, we will take away what is becoming the

14two most dangerous intersections in Wichita County.

15 I want to bring you back and talk to you just

16in a summary. What you see here, we can't get up to that

17brand-new highway you have built us there. That's the

18beginning of US 82/277, which will tie in to three other

19major highways there.

20 Once again, I'd like to point out those ramps

21to the right side and to the left are very important to

22have the safe traffic flow through Wichita Falls. With

1those put in, we will gain mobility and safety and

2actually economy for those people in the professional

3transportation industry.

4 MR. NICHOLS: I kept reaching for my seat belt

5every time I'd think it was --

6 JUDGE GOSSOM: Well, we had Les Finnell, former

7State Representative Charles Finnell's brother, fly that

8for us. We really should have had his wife. She's

9really a better pilot. But we couldn't say that; it was

10a free ride.

11 Let's tie together some things about this. You

12have much of this information already to you. Funding.

13Wichita Falls began this project with the purchase of the

14right of way in 1967. Since that time, we have developed

15an MPO group and it's come together with the City of

16Wichita Falls, and working with the endorsement of our

17district TxDOT office, there's a commitment of $5 million

18in future 4-D funds to the interchange. There's a

19commitment of $4 million for the final section of the

20main lanes.

21 Early completion of the overhead project, which

22without rain has gone very well -- I'm not sure the

1tradeoff's as good, but it's been great -- that project,

2with the overheads finishing early, will leave

3approximately $1 million in that fund, and we would like

4to see that put into that interchange project.

5 The interchange ramps and the new overpasses

6will improve transportation and efficiency for this very

7significant transportation corridor from the west of El

8Paso to the Northeast. It makes an excellent tie-in.

9 While we're doing this, we're going to replace

10the service lanes that were built in 1988 with the four-

11lane divided area. Those roads have decreased and their

12deterioration has been 68 percent in the measurements

13since 1993 to 2000. We're using service roads for main

14thoroughfares.

15 We have regional support in this. You have

16letters in the packet. We did talk to Representative

17Counts, and he unfortunately couldn't be here for Big

18Spring's presentation either. He sees both projects as

19vital to his district.

20 We want you to raise the priority of the second

21half of this. We want to see it go into Phase 1 and be a

22high priority to open that corridor from the interchange

1of the overhead highway of I-44 that brings together a

2tremendous hub of highways. You have I-44, US 82/277, US

3281, and US 287 that would come into that area.

4 If you can do this for us, the effort that you

5gave to Abilene and to Wichita Falls when you approved

6the four-laning of 277 to Wichita Falls, we won't get

7them there and then bring them to a bottleneck. We could

8bring them to a safe way to pass through Wichita Falls on

9the commercial route they have picked that is the

10shortest from that direction going to Oklahoma City and

11the Northeast.

12 Thank you very much. We'd be glad to take

13questions.

14 MR. NICHOLS: Do you have any comments or

15questions? I had a couple.

16 JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir.

17 MR. NICHOLS: So in summary, because of all the

18new construction on the freeway and the corridor, what

19the problem is is we need more construction.

21 MR. NICHOLS: I'm teasing with you, but I think

22y'all have done a very good job in putting together your

1projects and working with the district and showing the

2needs and stuff and participating. And you've done it

3with a united front from the Wichita Falls area.

5 MR. NICHOLS: And most everything that you're

6pointing out is of a regional significance. I have

7driven across this route three times in the last three

8weeks myself, and I remember before the flyover was

9constructed, I don't remember how many stoplights there

10were, but I swear --

11 JUDGE GOSSOM: Eleven.

12 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I was going to guess 12 or

1313. But I'm sure you know. Between the two of these,

14the interchange and the Kell Freeway, if you -- have

15y'all, as an area, tried to prioritize one or the other,

16if we could only do one of those two? I don't want to

17put you on the spot --

18 JUDGE GOSSOM: We have not formally done so.

19We knew you would likely ask that, and I tried to avoid

20that in my presentation.

21 MR. NICHOLS: I understand.

1 JUDGE GOSSOM: But the honest realization is

2the ramps are the most important. That's the significant

3congestion. But as you just pointed out, Commissioner,

4the success of the ramps has even made the other traffic

5problems. When we do this and you still have the

6crossings at Allendale and Barnett, which both have farm-

7to-market road designations -- those are the two most

8unsafe crossings -- it's going to become readily apparent

9that we need to get to the west of Farm-to-Market Road

10369.

11 MR. NICHOLS: And as the missing gaps on that

12corridor are completed, you're going to have increased

13truck traffic coming the other way.

14 So I may have a question to our district

15engineer. On the missing gap or the two-lane gap that's

16going to four-lane between Abilene and up, what is the

17status on that as far as the construction estimated

18completion? Or is that -- oh. That's in the other

19district, isn't it, part of it?

20 MR. NELSON: Well, part of it --

21 MR. NICHOLS: Oh. Y'all work together.

1 MR. NELSON: In our district, we are still

2awaiting letting the first project and hope to be able to

3do that in 2003. And we are trying to accelerate the

4plans so that we will be able to let them in a little

5more rapid succession. I think our last project was to

6have been let in 2008.

7 MR. NICHOLS: The last of them?

8 MR. NELSON: Yes, sir.

9 MR. NICHOLS: So within a -- there'll be

10significant construction between three years from now --

11two years from now and five years from now --

13 MR. NICHOLS: -- with an estimated completion

14of about seven years.

16 MR. NICHOLS: And when that's completed, that's

17when you're going to start seeing more trucks divert up

18to that area, I guess.

19 MR. NELSON: We're seeing our truck traffic

20increase. I think everybody around the state is. But we

21have seen some pretty significant increases. Yes, sir.

22 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Anything else?

2 MR. NICHOLS: All right. We very much

3appreciate y'all taking the time to be here, and

4appreciate what y'all have done. And there's -- did you

5have something else? I see --

6 JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir. I do want to give you

7a resolution from Abilene supporting this. The other

8thing, I'd like to just pull back in and kind of remind:

9I know we've been blessed by you all's attention to the

10area. But in the original investment put in by the City

11of Wichita Falls to buy the right of way in today's

12dollars now is a $20 million commitment for a project

13that started in -- as Arnold Oliver says, I was brand-new

14to the department, I went through, I retired, and eight

15years later it still isn't complete, but it sure is a

16heck of a lot farther along. We appreciate it.

17 Let me give you this resolution, and we're

18finished.

19 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, sir.

20 JUDGE GOSSOM: Thank you.

22 MR. NICHOLS: That's it? Complete?

2 MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you very much

3for the trip. I assume most of y'all -- drive safely.

4The street's wet; be careful. And I look forward to

5being back up in the Wichita Falls area. Y'all's

6hospitality is always very nice.

7 We're going to declare a three- to five-minute

8recess so y'all can have a chance to get up and go.

9Thank you very much.

10 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

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

2 MR. NICHOLS: We'll reconvene. Item Number 3,

3approval of the minutes from the October 25 meeting.

4 MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

5 MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor?

6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

7 MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

8 And now we have a resolution. Great pleasure.

9Kirby Pickett. Where's Kirby? What? There he is.

10Kirby, come up to the front. We have something kind of

11special for you up here.

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman.

13I went out and bought a pair of brown pants for you.

14 MR. PICKETT: Very good. I appreciate that,

15Commissioner.

16 MR. NICHOLS: Now, we've got -- we know how

17much you like informal -- things to be informal and

18casual and things of that nature. So today's we're going

19to do it in a very formal manner. A resolution, framed,

20sealed, signed. Stand up and read it:

21 Whereas, the Texas Transportation Commission

22takes great pride in recognizing Kirby Pickett, an

1outstanding, dedicated transportation engineer, who has

2served the Department of Transportation for four decades,

3most recently as deputy executive director;

4 Whereas, Mr. Pickett earned a civil engineering

5degree, 1961, University of Texas and received his

6license professional engineer in 1965 and license in

7professional land surveyor -- I didn't realize that -- in

81980; devoted 40 years -- 40 years -- of his life to

9public service by holding various positions including

10engineering assistant, Mount Vernon; area engineer,

11Sulphur Springs; district design engineer and assistant

12district engineer of Paris, Texas; became district

13engineer in Waco District in 1986; performed

14exceptionally in fulfilling his responsibilities for all

15transportation projects and programs in the eight-county

16district;

17 Whereas, he was recognized by his peers as the

18Dean -- you have to be kind of old, as I understand, on

19that one -- Dean of the District Engineers, 1995; and

20championed the department's research program by pursuing

21his commitment to deliver quality transportation products

22and services, keen interest in and deep appreciation for

1the rich history of the department prompted his oversight

2in the opening of the department's historical exhibit in

3the Dewitt Greer Building;

4 Whereas, Mr. Pickett is an exemplary and

5distinguished gentleman, highly regarded by his wife

6Gerry and his son John as a committed and devoted husband

7and father; and

8 Whereas, Mr. Pickett will now retire --

9although I understand you have to stay till the end of

10the month --

11 MR. PICKETT: Yes.

12 MR. NICHOLS: -- although he will now retire

13from public service to pursue a life of private

14endeavors, the department and the Transportation

15Commission hereby recognizes and thanks Kirby Pickett for

16his professional career achievements and loyal service on

17behalf of the State of Texas. Signed by the entire

18commission.

19 So, congratulations.

20 (Applause.)

21 MR. PICKETT: Well, thank you very much. It's

22been interesting. In some ways, it seems like a very

1short time ago that I started. I think there are a lot

2of factors in deciding when to retire, and until August

3when Wes retired -- we have eight pictures on the back

4wall of previous state highway engineers. Until Wes

5retired, before they put his picture up, I had not worked

6for all of them. Gib Gilcrest left the department the

7year I was born is the reason that happened.

8 But once they moved his over to the side wall

9and put Wes' up, I now have worked for all eight of the

10folks on the back wall, including, since September, Mike.

11So I think that was a good clue for me.

12 But anyhow, do appreciate the resolution. And

13I'm going to miss seeing what in the world y'all do next.

14 (General laughter; applause.)

15 MR. NICHOLS: Gerry, you want to come up here

16too?

17 (Pause for photographs.)

18 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Mike, I'm going to go

19ahead and turn it over to you to go through the rest of

20the items.

21 MR. BEHRENS: Okay. We'll start with Item

22Number 5, which is a report from the Grand Parkway

1Association, and Jim will introduce the folks from Grand

2Parkway.

3 MR. RANDALL: Jim Randall, Transportation

4Planning and Programming Division. Department rules

5pertaining to transportation corporations require that a

6corporation make an annual report to the commission on

7its current condition, status of projects, and activities

8undertaken during the preceding 12 months. Mr. David

9Gornet, director of the association, is here today to

10give you this report.

11 MR. GORNET: Good morning, Commissioners. I

12appreciate the chance to come and visit with you all and

13give a presentation on the status of the Grand Parkway

14Association and our project.

15 First, I'd like to take the opportunity to

16introduce myself. Commissioner Nichols and I have met

17previously. Commissioner Williamson, I don't know if

18I've had the honor. I have 20 years' experience in

19transportation planning, have spent the past two-and-a-

20half years with the association. Previously, you all

21have heard from Ms. Diane Schenke as the past executive

22director of the association. She resigned this past

1spring to join the Nature Conservancy of Texas to go work

2on the green side and try to develop habitat, and she's

3looking forward to working closely with the association

4so that she can do mitigation projects and such to help

5preserve habitat while we can move forward with our

6transportation needs.

7 And to assist me, I have recently hired Ms.

8Robin Sterry, who -- formerly of TxDOT, she has 16-plus

9years' experience with TxDOT and most recently was the

10Houston District environmental coordinator. And when I

11was looking for someone to help assist me, I wanted

12someone that knew the project, knew the people, and knew

13the process that was involved, and she fulfilled all of

14that to a T, and so I welcome her assistance in us trying

15to push this project forward.

16 We'll go through a report on the status of the

17project. If y'all have any questions, please feel free

18to interrupt me at any point in time. Robin, first slide.

19 The Grand Parkway Project was first proposed in

201961 by the City of Houston as part of its master

21planning efforts. In 1968, it was formally included on

1the general study plan for the city of Houston for the

21990, their 20-year horizon plan.

3 In 1984, the Grand Parkway Association was

4established as a state transportation corporation. It's

5my understanding we are the last of the remaining state

6transportation corporations. And the entire loop of the

7Grand Parkway since 1984 has been designated as State

8Highway 99. We currently have open, from I-10 to US 59,

9about 19 miles of that.

10 Next slide. The purpose of the Association of

11State Transportation Corporations was to facilitate

12public-private partnerships between TxDOT, who had

13limited resources, and local counties, cities,

14authorities in the Houston region, such as the

15Metropolitan Transportation Authority or the Harris

16County Tollroad Authority, and private landowners. The

17association works as a go-between between all these

18organizations to help move the project forward as quickly

19as possible.

20 Besides working that partnership, the Grand

21Parkway Association -- or the Grand Parkway Project

22enhances regional mobility; we address the existing and

1projected congestion; we look to minimize overall impacts

2to both the human and natural environments, work on

3hurricane evacuation needs for the southern area of the

4metropolitan region of Houston, and we try to exemplify

5responsible planning.

6 For years the Grand Parkway has been identified

7as a project necessary for the metropolitan area of

8Houston. It's been continued in the Houston-Galveston

9area councils' master planning efforts for 2020 and now

10in 2025. We work to preserve the corridor, provide for

11limited access highway, and ultimately we hope to reduce

12the time and cost of project implementation through our

13partnerships.

14 What we're trying to provide is not this, which

15is a picture of FM 1960, which is oftentimes what happens

16when we have a good road, but growth occurs so rapidly

17that we can't respond to those changes in a timely

18fashion. You end up with a lot of congestion in an

19unsightly fashion.

20 We're trying to develop a highway without

21billboards. We use scenic easements, when we can get

22those from the adjacent landowners, that's limited access

1with no driveways on and off, that meets the needs of our

2transportation system; that is, to provide mobility.

3 We're also trying to develop it with a minimum

4amount of frontage roads in accordance with you all's

5June action. This has been in place since 1984 for the

6Grand Parkway to try to minimize the amount of frontage

7roads so that we can, again, address mobility and not the

8access to the local properties.

9 What we have is a highway that has ramps on and

10off, but the major thoroughfares and ultimately the

11development will occur along the thoroughfare network,

12and the highway will continue to serve its mobility

13functions.

14 This is an overall map. Segments have been

15labeled, obviously, going clockwise, A through I-2. I'll

16go into details on each of the segments. That's the

17general map. We have segments A and B, which are in

18the -- A goes from 146 to I-45 in the League City and

19Dickinson area of Galveston County. As yet, we have no

20studies underway in that area, and we're not expecting to

21start a study in that area in the near future.

1 Segment B, the commission has recently acted on

2a partnership with Brazoria County. Galveston County is

3funding this out of its bond issue that it did last

4November, for us to initiate a study. We're now

5negotiating those contracts with a consultant and with

6the Houston District to get those approved.

7 Segment C, you all probably received some

8comments in years past on the actions that we're taking

9there and looking at alternate alignments that were close

10to Brazos Bend State Park, and those have received a lot

11of opposition. The blue line we're proposing there is a

12mile and a half north of the state park. It's out of the

13watersheds of the streams that feed into the state park

14and will minimize impacts in there. It still traverses a

15large part of the Brazos River flood plain, but

16unavoidably, we're going to cross the Brazos River down

17in there somewhere.

18 The remaining activities we have on C, we've

19already had the draft environmental impact statement, the

20public hearing. We're looking forward to publishing the

21final environmental impact statement this spring and

1getting a record of decision as soon as possible so we

2can move that forward.

3 Fort Bend County, last November, passed a bond

4issue that included $7.3 million of design money, and

5they're looking forward to participating and partnering

6with TxDOT to move into construction as quickly as

7possible.

8 Segment D is the segment open 19 miles from US

959 to I-10. That's had a tremendous amount of traffic

10growth over the past few years, 40 percent from '97 to

11'99. We do not have 2001 numbers yet.

12 The next segments we're looking as a package,

13Segment E, F-1, F-2, and G, that go from I-10 to US 290

14to State Highway 249 to Interstate 45 North to US 59

15North around the west and northern sides from the

16metropolitan Houston area. That study started in July of

171999. We're anticipating four environmental documents

18for that. It's possible that it could become a tollroad.

19The Harris County Tollroad Authority and TxDOT are

20participating in the funding of the route environmental

21studies for this.

1 There's also some interest in designating that

2as I-69. U.S. Representative Kevin Brady is very

3supportive of that being I-69, although that does raise

4some concerns with local citizens, particularly in the F-

52 area, over the increased truck traffic.

6 The progress we've had on that -- we started in

7July of '99. We held meetings in August '99, February

8and June of 2000, and we looked at going from a wide

9study area, narrowing that down to corridors and then to

10specific alignments for consideration. Those alternative

11alignments through that whole area we presented in

12October, and we've been taking comments on that and

13refining that.

14 And in specific segments, on E we go from the

15orange alignments that were recommended ones to the

16purple one that is the preferred route that we're going

17to be documenting our draft environmental impact

18statements.

19 On Segment F-1, again, we had numerous

20alternatives and a preferred route that we intend to

21recommend.

1 Segment F-2 -- this is an area where we had a

2lot of concern, and you all probably got letters from --

3and the laser pointer's not working very well up there --

4south of where it says Spring Creek, west of the town of

5Old Town Spring, we have -- you can see with the greater

6number of alternatives, we were trying to find a solution

7that worked to avoid impacts to the businesses, to the

8homes in the area, as well as to minimize impacts to the

9developments that are oncoming.

10 That's a very rapidly growing area, and I've

11had statements made by the local citizenry, Why would you

12want to put a new road in the fastest growing part of

13Harris County. And I think they've answered the question

14for themselves, is because we need to look at

15transportation as an infrastructure, just like water

16supply or drainage, that they need to -- we need to plan

17for so that as the area grows, we can make those

18improvements.

19 Segment G from I-45 to US 59, again, the

20alternate routes and the route that we look to recommend

21as the preferred. The schedule of activities remaining

22is to publish the draft environmental impact statements

1for all four segments. They will be done sequentially,

2starting with E and then F-1, F-2, and G.

3 When I talked about those recommended preferred

4alternatives early, those have all been coordinated

5through continuous meetings with the resource agencies,

6have been as cooperative as you might expect on a new

7location highway project, as well as with the TxDOT

8district personnel, personnel in Austin, and Federal

9Highways. And we've come to consensus on what to

10recommend based on minimizing impacts to the human and

11the natural environment.

12 Again, we're going to publish the draft

13environmental impact statements, hold our public

14hearings, do the final environmental impact statements,

15and hope to have records of decisions on those segments

16in 2003.

17 Again, Harris County Tollroad Authority, the

18Harris County government, is very interested in moving

19this as fast as possible and would like to partner with

20TxDOT. And the passing of Proposition 15 will help

21facilitate that, and so that could move it into

22construction in as early as 2004, if the resources

1available are available with TxDOT as well as with the

2Harris County Tollroad Authority.

3 One segment we don't have any studies on, or

4two segments, are H and I-1. When we met yesterday

5morning with the Montgomery county judge who has part of

6segment H, he says, We need to do this whole thing. And

7I said, Well, Judge, when you talk to Gary Trietsch there

8in the Houston District, or if you have a chance to visit

9with any of our commissioners, tell them that, and we'll

10see how we can move to build the partnership to get that

11planned and move forward so that we can have the corridor

12preserved and be ready to address the needs of that area

13as it grows.

14 Segment I-2 is ready for construction. We're

15signing the donation deeds on that segment. It's

16currently -- it's programmed for April of 2003, and we

17sure hope to hit that target date -- for the northern

18segment in -- April 2002 for the northern segment, 2003

19for the southern. And that will match with the

20agreements that Commissioner Nichols negotiated with the

21U.S. Steel Corporation two or three years ago, so that we

22can continue to get their funding and their donations.

1 That's the end of our presentation. I'd be

2glad to answer any questions.

3 MR. NICHOLS: Do you have any questions?

4 MR. WILLIAMSON: You do work for this

5association.

6 MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

7 MR. WILLIAMSON: You also do work for the

8Greater Houston Partnership?

9 MR. GORNET: No, sir, I do not.

11 MR. NICHOLS: That's it?

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's it.

13 MR. NICHOLS: I had several questions.

14 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm just looking for the guy

15that does.

16 MR. NICHOLS: The -- I'll bet you find him now.

18 MR. NICHOLS: Now I lost my train of thought.

19 Okay. On the -- first of all, very good

20report. And the greater -- the Parkway's a great

21project. It's certainly going to be well -- it's greatly

1needed as time develops. I think it's about 170 miles

2around or something to that nature?

3 MR. GORNET: Yes, sir. 177 miles.

4 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Now, I went to y'all's

5board meeting a couple years ago, and as we talked to the

6board and the different members, since this was being

7developed as a very restricted access -- I think was the

8term you used -- it looked like a perfect opportunity for

9it to be developed as a tollroad. But we also recognized

10at the time that as it's developed in segments, which is

11all that could be afforded, that each segment with the

12beginning traffic probably would not support it as a

13tollroad.

14 But the whole world began changing, I think,

15November 6, because now the citizens of the state have

16agreed that the Department of Transportation can

17participate with highway funds on toll projects, and I

18think we're going to be very anxious to take any project

19and develop it as such, particularly on new locations

20like this. So I hope that as y'all develop and move

21forward, that as you have your public hearings that we

22make sure that we're leaving that option open.

1 MR. GORNET: We are, sir. And very

2specifically in the E, F-1, F-2, and G areas in western

3and northern Harris County, we have been working keeping

4the Harris County Tollroad up to date on what's going on.

5They were anticipating the passage of Proposition 15 on

6November 6, and they are interested, as I stated, in

7making this a tollroad. And we have developed it so that

8we've already talked about, Well, if you do it as a

9tollroad, where do you have your ramps on and off; where

10can you put your plazas.

11 So we're thinking ahead and to that fashion,

12because that will be a very obvious opportunity to do a

13toll facility, and the synergistic effects of each of

14these segments building upon one another will help grow

15that traffic so that it is a viable toll project.

16 MR. NICHOLS: And the issue of whether that

17falls into the Harris County Tollway Authority

18jurisdiction or regional mobility or whatever, those

19issues we're going to work out along the way --

1 MR. NICHOLS: -- as long as in that process

2you're developing it as -- at least the option of a

3tollroad in there.

5 MR. NICHOLS: The section that goes to the U.S.

6Steel property, we had told them that that could be

7developed as a tollroad. Is that being currently laid

8out? I think it's being laid out as a non-tollroad.

9 MR. GORNET: It is being laid out as a non-toll

10facility at this point in time.

11 MR. NICHOLS: Now, I know there's -- I'm going

12to ask our executive director, since Gary's not here.

13With the new authority that we should have when the

14canvassing is complete, I know when he laid that thing

15out, that was one of the ideas. It was developed as a

16non-tollroad, but it was very limited access and stuff.

17 Is there still a possibility that before that

18thing is completed it might be a tollroad? Could we -- I

19mean, have we gone so far that we can't do it that way?

20Because we told U.S. Steel, who was the bulk of the

21property owner, in that agreement that it might be a

22tollroad. I don't think they had a problem with it.

1 MR. GORNET: I believe they could still be --

2they're just starting the design on that southern segment

3from 565 down around to 1405 -- that we could implement

6 MR. BEHRENS: I think the biggest impact would

7be probably, as -- you know, we look at it now, and see

8if there's areas that we can pinpoint for toll booths and

9things like that. That's the major change in the design,

10would be location of toll booths.

11 MR. NICHOLS: Would you get whoever to dig into

12that and --

13 MR. BEHRENS: Sure.

14 MR. NICHOLS: -- let's get back on it? It

15might be Phil. I'll direct my comments to Mike, since

16you're over there. You weren't prepared for that.

17 What else?

18 MR. GORNET: That was it, sir.

19 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Very nice to meet you. I

20look forward to getting back down to one of your

21meetings, possibly this coming year.

1 MR. GORNET: We will make sure we keep you all

2apprised of when our board meetings are. Well, they're

3always the second Thursday of the month, typically at

48:30 in the morning. And we'll make sure you all get the

5notices of them.

6 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

7 MR. GORNET: Thank you, gentlemen.

9 Did you have a question?

10 MR. WILLIAMSON: No.

11 MR. NICHOLS: Excuse me a second.

12 (Pause.)

13 MR. BEHRENS: Okay. Before we get to Item 6,

14we will cover Item 6, and then we're going to move to

15Item 11, which will consider the agreement with

16Transportation Corridor Constructors. So those of you

17that are going to be involved in that minute order and

18those of you that are going to be commenting when that

19item comes up, I just wanted to give you some warning.

20 So now we'll take Item 6, and then we'll go to

21Item 11. And Dave Fulton with the Aviation Division will

22present Item 6.

1 MR. FULTON: Thank you, Mike. My name is, for

2the record, David Fulton. I'm the director of the TxDOT

3Aviation Division.

4 Item 6(a) is a minute order containing a

5request for reauthorization of the Routine Airport

6Maintenance Program for fiscal year 2002. This program

7provides 50-50 matching funds to assist communities in

8the maintenance and preservation of their airports, not

9to exceed $30,000 per airport during the year.

10 Item 6(b) is a minute order that contains a

11request for grant funding for eight airport improvement

12projects. The total estimated cost of all requests as

13shown on the Exhibit A is approximately $8.8 million, 5.2

14federal, 2.5 state, and 1.1 local. A public hearing was

15held on October 29 of this year. No comments were

16received.

17 I'd be happy to attempt to answer any

18questions, and we would recommend approval.

19 MR. NICHOLS: Do you have any questions?

21 MR. NICHOLS: We've got a motion, a second.

22I've got a couple questions --

1 MR. FULTON: Yes, sir.

2 MR. NICHOLS: -- or comments. First of all, on

3the state dollars -- most of this is federal funds, but

4on the state portion, as I understand it, the money comes

5out of the nondedicated portion of the Highway Fund?

6 MR. FULTON: That's correct. Yes, sir. We do

7not get any general revenue funds for our program. The

8department -- the commission has committed approximately

916- or $16-1/2 million a year for a state grant program

10from the nondedicated portion of the Highway Fund.

11 MR. NICHOLS: Nondedicated portion.

12 Second question, which I had asked, and I want

13to make comment on, which you had answered previously,

14has to do with one -- most of these airports we work with

15are publicly owned, city owned, county owned, things of

16that nature. Occasionally -- that's why I flagged this

17one -- it is a privately owned airport. Clover

18Acquisition Corporation, Clover Field? Correct?

19 MR. FULTON: That's correct. Yes, sir.

20 MR. NICHOLS: When I asked the question, What

21is going on, you -- would you explain that situation?

1 MR. FULTON: I will. Yes, sir. First of all,

2state funds are statutorily prohibited for use on

3private-use facilities. So no state funds are ever

4allocated to airports that belong to private individuals.

5 The federal government, the FAA, does have a

6program that airports that have been designated as

7reliever airports, relieving congestion at major urban

8air carrier airports, are eligible for funding, even if

9they are privately owned. It's the only category of

10airport that is privately owned that is eligible for

11federal funding.

12 There are 21 relievers in Texas, and there are,

13I believe, two that are privately owned -- three that are

14privately owned. So they are eligible for federal

15funding.

16 MR. NICHOLS: And there is an agreement in

17writing that they cannot pull the public status away next

18year or the year after.

19 MR. FULTON: That's correct. The federal

20regulations require a minimum of ten years. We

21negotiated 20 years. And their obligation is to ensure

22they will operate that airport.

1 MR. NICHOLS: So there is an obligated 20-year

2commitment --

3 MR. FULTON: Contractual obligation that they

4operate it for a minimum of 20 years. Yes, sir.

5 MR. NICHOLS: All right. I seconded that

6motion. All in favor, say aye.

8 MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

9 Thank you.

10 MR. FULTON: Thank you.

11 MR. BEHRENS: Okay. Now we -- as we stated,

12we'll go to Item 11, and 11(a) will be deferred, so we'll

13move to Item 11(b), and Phil Russell will make that

14presentation.

15 MR. RUSSELL: Thanks, Mike. Good morning,

16Commissioners. For the record, my name is Phillip

17Russell, and I am the director of the Texas Turnpike

18Authority Division.

19 In June of 2000, the TTA received an

20unsolicited proposal from the Transportation Corridor

21Constructors. This consortium is composed of the Zachry

1Construction Corporation, Strategic Land Management

2Consultants, and the HNTB Corporation.

3 The proposal provides for the construction of a

4ten-mile turnpike extending from FM 1626 on the west to

5US 183 on the east side in Travis and Hays counties. The

6proposal includes for right of way acquisition, design,

7and construction services.

8 The proposed State Highway 45 South project

9will provide safety and mobility benefits for the regions

10while providing a critically needed east-west arterial

11for northern Hays and southern Travis counties. The

12connection to US 183 and proposed State Highway 130 will

13provide a more direct access to Austin Bergstrom

14International Airport.

15 The proposal specifies a fixed sum project cost

16of $120 million dollars, which includes TxDOT

17participation of 17 million and the issuance of

18approximately 100- to $103 million in bonds.

19Interchanges, bridges, ramps, and other improvements

20identified by the department would be included in the $17

21million. All project right of way would be provided by

22the consortium.

1 The unsolicited proposal has been processed in

2accordance with the TTA Exclusive Development Agreement

3rules, which require a posting period to allow for

4competing proposals and the acceptance of a financial

5feasibility certificate. No competing proposals were

6received, and the financial feasibility certificate was

7received and approved.

8 A preliminary traffic and revenue report has

9been compiled by the URS Corporation, which indicates

10that the project is potentially feasible. Of course, an

11investment-grade traffic and revenue report will be

12required prior to any bond issuance.

13 The minute order pending before you would

14authorize the department to negotiate in a development

15agreement with the Transportation Corridor Constructors.

16And, of course, we would bring the negotiated agreement

17back to the commission at a later date for your approval.

18 Staff recommends approval of this minute order,

19and I'll be happy to address any questions you might have.

20 MR. NICHOLS: There probably will be some

21questions. We've got a number of people who have signed

22up to speak, and we'll go to those and then stay handy.

1 First speaker is Mike Aulick, executive

2director, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

3 MR. AULICK: Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael Aulick.

4Representative Krusee is also in the audience on this

5item. I don't know if --

6 MR. NICHOLS: I think he had requested to speak

7later.

8 MR. AULICK: Okay. Thank you. Maureen is

9handing out a letter that we sent to Phillip Russell.

10 I'm Michael Aulick. I'm here from CAMPO, and

11I'm here to help. That's supposed to be a joke.

13 MR. AULICK: Thank you. Sometimes CAMPO has --

14our reputation precedes us. But what I wanted to do is

15come forth and talk about what CAMPO has been doing

16related to this project. And personally, I endorse the

17action of the minute order. My board hasn't taken an

18action on it, but I personally endorse that.

19 What our board has been dealing with is the

20timing of State Highway 45 South. We've been dealing

21with Loop 1 project with the Austin District, trying to

22move it from the major investment study process into the

1NEPA process, and we've had a special committee and

2technical teams reviewing that. And one of the things

3that came out of that process was to endorse the

4completion of Loop 1 to the north, the tollroad

5extension, release that right of way funding for Capital

6Metro through the city of Austin. And that was done.

7 And then the board on -- they did this on

8October 8. They said we should proceed on Loop 1 North.

9And then on 45 South, the language that's there in the

10letter, it said, "State Highway 45 South should not be

11completed between FM 1626 and I-35 South until SH

12130/State Highway 45 South is completed from I-35 North

13to I-35 South so as not to turn Loop 1 into a bypass."

14 And the basic issue is what is the first

15bypass. And my board was indicating they would like the

16bypass to be on the east first; that is, 45 and 130.

17 MR. NICHOLS: You're talking about the entire

18CAMPO?

19 MR. AULICK: Beg your pardon?

20 MR. NICHOLS: When you say the board, are you

21talking about the entire CAMPO.

1 MR. AULICK: Yes. The entire CAMPO board on

2October 8 --

3 MR. NICHOLS: Voted on that?

4 MR. AULICK: Yes. They did that on October 8

5by motion.

6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, wait a minute now. Is

7there a difference between the Policy Advisory Committee

8and the CAMPO board?

9 MR. AULICK: No. I'm sorry. The official name

10is Policy Advisory Committee. I --

11 MR. NICHOLS: That is not the full --

12 MR. AULICK: Twenty-one member --

13 MR. NICHOLS: That is the 21-member CAMPO?

14 MR. AULICK: -- Policy Advisory Board.

15 MR. WILLIAMSON: So the Policy Advisory

16Committee is made up of one and the same people as all

17the members of CAMPO.

18 MR. AULICK: That's correct.

19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

20 MR. AULICK: It's chaired by Senator Barrientos.

1 MR. AULICK: So on October 8, they adopted

2those two -- that motion with the language shown there.

3And then they also set a hearing for this coming Monday,

4the 19th, to consider that as an amendment to our long-

5range plan. We meet November 19 with a hearing, and then

6we would vote on December 10 on that amendment to our

7plan.

8 So I wanted to come and tell you where we are

9in the process. It's an issue of timing. And again, the

10motivation was to try to have a bypass on the east opened

11before there's, quote, a bypass on the west.

12 And really, what I'm asking -- I just want to

13inform you of that, and then essentially just ask for

14discussion and coordination on the issue of timing --

16 MR. AULICK: -- of the road, as we go on. As I

17said, my board hasn't taken a position on the exclusive

18development agreement. Personally, I think that's

19something that I would endorse being done, and our issue

20is just timing. And we would just like to --

21 MR. NICHOLS: So you're not opposed to the

22project --

1 MR. AULICK: No.

2 MR. NICHOLS: -- as a group. You just --

3 MR. AULICK: It's in our -- the project is in

4our plan.

5 MR. NICHOLS: Did you have any questions for --

6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Why was I under the impression

7that CAMPO had previously indicated some kind of support

8for this?

9 MR. AULICK: It's in our plan.

10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Was I misinformed?

11 MR. AULICK: The road is in our plan, which we

12adopted in June of 2000, State Highway 45 South.

13 MR. WILLIAMSON: And was it in your plan in

14June of 2000 with these exceptions?

15 MR. AULICK: No.

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. So it's not been

17misrepresented to me, then. Because it's been

18represented to me that this was part of your approved

19plan for the area without these exceptions you're now

20making us aware of.

1 MR. AULICK: That is correct. These exceptions

2were adopted on October 8 and will be formally considered

3in a hearing this coming Monday and a vote on December 10.

4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Don't misunderstand me, Mr.

5Chairman. I don't want to be misunderstood by our own

6department. Senator Barrientos is a personal friend of

7mine. I have deep respect for him. Don't want to be in

8a position of being on the other side of the table from

9him. But how does your organization expect us and

10private sector participants in the transportation world

11to plan if you adopt plans and then at kind of the last

12minute come tell us that you want to put provisos on

13them? How can we be logical and prudent and visionary

14under those circumstances?

15 MR. AULICK: Well, I don't know if I can

16completely answer that question, but this issue came up

17because we were talking about Loop 1 and what should

18happen to it. And that discussion --

19 MR. WILLIAMSON: But this proposal, as I

20understand it, doesn't connect to Loop 1, does it?

21 MR. AULICK: It would allow eventually the

22connection of Loop 1 on the south to I-35.

1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I thought there was some

2physical gap between the start and the stop of this

3proposal and the south end of Loop 1.

4 MR. AULICK: There's a project from the south

5end of Loop 1 to 1626 that's funded and I think expected

6to go to contract this year, which would be a two-lane

7road built with, I believe, state funds, to connect from

8Loop 1 to 1626. And this project would take up from

9there and continue over to I-35 and then to 183.

10 MR. WILLIAMSON: So are you saying that this

11proposal that Mr. Russell's brought to us is contingent

12on this other thing? Are you leading me down that path?

13 MR. AULICK: No. I'm saying the action that's

14before you today, CAMPO does not oppose that. All we're

15talking about is in the future, when we talk about the

16timing of the projects, we'd just like to -- my board

17would like to have discussions with TxDOT in

18considerations of the timing.

19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, then wouldn't it be more

20logical for you to be talking to us about the piece that

21connects this project with Loop 1? I mean, what -- I

22don't understand.

1 MR. AULICK: Yes. Well, that one was approved

2to bypass traffic that's coming out of Hays County trying

3to get to Loop 1 that was otherwise coming up Brody Lane

4through Shady Hollow. And so the connection from 1626 to

5Loop 1 was put in there to prevent the traffic from going

6through that neighborhood and be able to go directly to

7Loop 1. That decision was made several years ago, and

8then the commission decided to fund that.

9 So, I mean, that part, there's a rationale for

10that part, and now we're talking about moving east

11towards I-35. And, I mean, we don't -- I just wanted to

12make it clear what CAMPO has done and what we're

13considering doing formally and make sure there's no --

14some people have said CAMPO's opposed to the road at all,

15and that's not true, because it is in our plan.

16 MR. NICHOLS: Let me ask a couple questions.

17And don't leave the podium, but I need to ask Phil a

18question.

19 On the -- when this proposal for the exclusive

20development was brought to the TTA board, it was an

21unsolicited proposal.

22 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

1 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. But it was a project that

2was on the books as approved by CAMPO at the time. About

3when was the first action or posting of an action that

4ever occurred by TTA or discussed in an open meeting by

5TTA? Do you happen to recall --

6 MR. RUSSELL: On this proposal?

7 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Was it six months ago or --

8 MR. RUSSELL: I think it was brought to us

9originally in the July 2000 board meeting. And if memory

10serves me, it was posted somewhere probably in the

11September time frame of that same year, September --

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: 2000 or 2001?

13 MR. RUSSELL: 2000.

14 MR. NICHOLS: 2000.

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Over a year ago?

17 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. We had -- I remember some

18of the initial conceptual on that. But CAMPO approved

19the list of projects in 2000, June of 2000. I think

20shortly after that -- and the official action that was

21posted for the entire public to see and participate began

22in about September.

2 MR. NICHOLS: It was just a little over a year

3ago. And the TTA board, which normally meets here in

4this room, which met approximately once a month or every

5other month or something like that, there were a number

6of actions scattered over the year with regards to that.

7Some were the concept of the board -- I'm on that board --

8and whether or not that board wanted to move forward. I

9think they chose that they did. They advertised for

10other proposals.

11 MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. 45-day

12advertising period.

13 MR. NICHOLS: And there were time periods. And

14then as that closed out, it was posted again and

15advertised. The board had more discussions, and they've

16had updates.

17 The commission later took action. I think

18there were some resolutions from the Transportation

19Commission, so they were -- I mean, it's not as if this

20was something that was slipped in under the tent, is my

21point. In all good faith -- and I think in all good

22faith of CAMPO in approving a list of projects, we have

1been trying to proceed forward in an open, forthright

2manner with the projects, knowing that CAMPO had asked us

3to do this. And I was not aware of any requests or

4restrictions of timing of other projects at that time.

5 But the -- there have been numerous actions and

6public notices and discussions, most of which have been

7in this room in front of the whole world. I don't know

8how many meetings we've had on that thing in this room,

9but probably at least six or eight or nine over

10approximately a one-year period of time. So I was trying

11to get the timing from you.

13 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Did you -- were you --

14Michael, were you aware of any of those meetings?

15 MR. AULICK: Yes, sir. And I attended at least

16one of them and, you know, just to say it was in our plan

17and we'd just like to be involved in the discussions of

18what was going forward.

19 The thing I'm bringing to you today came out of

20the deliberations that my board has been ongoing since

21June on Loop 1 HOV and looking at the entire corridor.

22And that's where this came from. That's the reason I'm

1bringing it to you now. It was first adopted October 8,

2and then as I say, it's currently being considered for

3formal adoption in the plan. But --

4 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Well, I was in receipt of

5the letter that you sent, but it's dated October 29, so I

6got it -- well, they usually stamp them when I received

7them. But really, I only got mine just less than a week

9 MR. AULICK: Yes, sir.

10 MR. NICHOLS: So that's the first time I've

11really gotten any kind of notice from anybody

12representing CAMPO that there is a timing mechanism in

13there.

14 Do you have anything further to add?

15 MR. AULICK: Well, I just want to make it clear

16that personally I support the recommended action, 11(b),

17and all I'm bringing to you is what the board is doing

18relative to timing.

19 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you very much.

20 Next speaker is Bill Bundy? -- I can read; I

21just have a hard time reading the writing -- with Save

22Our Springs? I have a card from Bill Bundy. It could be

1Bunch -- it's just hard to read the writing -- the

2executive director of Save Our Springs Alliance. Is he

3in the room or out in the hallway?

4 MR. WILLIAMSON: They're checking. He's maybe

5out in the hallway.

6 MR. NICHOLS: He's checking. He may be in the

7hallway. He's officially showing he's opposed to the

8project. I'm going to hold this card, since he's not

9here.

10 We have Representative Mike Krusee.

11 REP. KRUSEE: Good morning, Commissioners.

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning.

13 REP. KRUSEE: I'm shown as being on this item,

14but I want to make clear that I'm not against the item at

15all. I really am in support of it and think you should

16take action today on it.

17 The reason that I'm -- Gary Bradley has been a

18very valuable member of this community, and this is

19another example of his valuable contributions to this

20entire region.

21 But this is really my first opportunity to

22address you since Proposition 15 passed. And I wanted to

1let you know that we are very excited here in Central

2Texas about the opportunity to take advantage of the

3Regional Mobility Authorities.

4 We are working together as a region, the -- all

5the different various political jurisdictions -- the

6counties, the cities -- exploring whether this can be a

7valuable tool. Right now it looks like it can be. We

8are very interested, eager, and we're going to be

9aggressive in trying to work with you in setting up a

10Regional Mobility Authority, at least for Williamson and

11Travis and perhaps also with Hays County.

12 And the only thing I'd say is as you are

13considering any -- whether it's this item or any other

14item here in Central Texas, please bear that in mind and

15don't take any action -- and I don't believe this action

16today would preempt an RMA for this region -- but as you

17consider those items, please don't take any action that

18would preempt the work that we would like to do on 183-A,

19on SH 45, on the MoPac extension, and SH 130.

20 We're very excited about the new tools that

21have been given to us by the voters of Texas to build

22more roads and to build them quicker and more efficiently.

1 Also wanted to add a personal note, and that is

2there's two people in particular I wanted to note. Phil

3Russell and Bob Daigh over at the Turnpike Authority have

4just been excellent. They have been -- I can't name

5another state agency in Texas where they have been more

6responsive to our needs in getting these things done. I

7mean, late at night, going to town hall meetings,

8whatever it takes, they will interrupt their day, come up

9with the information we need, show up to the meeting

10where we need them, and do an excellent, professional job

11of representing themselves, sometimes against hostile

12crowds or crowds that aren't really quite sure what's

13going to happen. They've just been excellent.

14 The other point that I wanted to make is that I

15know in the past the Central Texas region hasn't always

16agreed on what they want to do and the direction they

17want to go. But during the last year, and especially

18during the last, you know, six months or so, I've seen

19this region come together like it never has before. A

20lot of that has been due to leadership on the part of

21people like Mayor Watson of Austin and Lee Walker with

22the Capital Metro Authority. But also at Travis County --

1and you've seen how the voters overwhelmingly approved

2the bond so we could go forward with the right of way.

3 I really do think that we have turned the

4corner in Central Texas, and we are all working together

5in unprecedented way to move forward on these projects.

7 Do you have any --

8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I just, for one, want to

9thank you for taking the time to come up and express

10interest in the -- something that's important to me, the

11Regional Mobility Authority. And I also want to thank

12you for -- anytime leaders stand up and say, Give us a

13chance to work together; give us a chance to solve our

14own problems; give us a chance to take advantage of the

15tools, that is an exciting thing. And I personally thank

16you for those words and thank you for coming and making

17us aware of your interest.

18 REP. KRUSEE: Thank you.

19 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you for your time today.

20 I'm going to give one more opportunity for --

21it's either Bill Bunch or Bill Bundy? -- I'm sorry; I

22can't read the writing -- Save Our Springs.

1 MR. CLARK: Hello. My name is Colin Clark, and

2I work for Save Our Springs Alliance. Bill was here

3earlier, and I stepped outside because --

4 MR. NICHOLS: Bill Clark?

5 MR. CLARK: Colin Clark.

6 MR. NICHOLS: Colin.

7 MR. CLARK: I believe we were on Item 5, and I

8stepped out, came back, and somehow got to 11(b). So

9will Bill not be able to speak?

11 MR. CLARK: Okay. I'll speak on behalf of him

12for the Save Our Springs Alliance. We have an objection

13to Item 11(b). We feel that authorization to construct

14State Highway 45 South from 126 [sic] to 183 will create

15an interregional loop, a bypass of I-35. And the

16technical team of CAMPO recommended that they not start

17on Highway 45 South until State Highway 130 has been

18completed to prevent that problem.

19 But also there are plans to bury I-35 through

20Central Austin, and we feel that if Highway 45 is

21completed before I-35 is rebuilt that we'll also create a

22western loop, an interregional bypass. And what this

1will do is create tremendous development pressure in that

2part of Austin, and that region has had a lot of growth.

3And the city of Austin and surrounding regions have been

4trying to protect the Barton Springs segment of the

5Edwards Aquifer. And we feel that this loop, if created,

6will put pressure on more residential/commercial, more

7infrastructure development over the region that TNRCC has

8found to be the most sensitive aquifer in the state of

9Texas to pollution.

10 So we request that you deny this until both

11Highway 130 is completed and I-35 through Central Austin

12has been redone and completed. Thank you.

13 MR. NICHOLS: Did you have any questions you

14wanted to ask him?

15 MR. WILLIAMSON: You want me to go first?

16 MR. NICHOLS: Sure.

17 MR. WILLIAMSON: It's a comfortable

18relationship.

20 MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to be sure I understand

21your objection or the objection of your organization. If

22we move forward with this proposal and then 45 or 60 or

1however many days from now approve it, we've in effect,

2in your view, laid the groundwork for a western bypass,

3when at some point down the road if there's ever enough

4money there will be an eastern bypass. And having an

5eastern bypass is more complementary to your viewpoint of

6environmental protection than the western bypass.

7 MR. CLARK: Correct.

9 MR. NICHOLS: The -- I had received y'all's

10letter, which I think spelled out pretty much most of

11what you had said, but I appreciate you taking the time

12to be here today and get this on the record. But in the

13letter, I don't believe it ever said y'all were opposed

14to the project. But as CAMPO executive director was

15saying earlier, it was more of a matter of timing,

16wanting it to be completed after the 130 project.

17 And it referred to a lowering of I-35?

18 MR. CLARK: Correct.

19 MR. NICHOLS: I was not even aware that we were

20considering taking I-35 and lowering it. Is that

21something you're aware of? I've never heard of it. I've

1been on the commission four-and-a-half years. I know

2there's a lot of projects I've never heard of.

3 MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean you haven't heard of

4Garbade's Gully?

6 MR. NICHOLS: Are you aware of that project?

7 MR. BEHRENS: They have a study going on I-35,

8and there's various schemes that are being looked at, and

9I myself haven't seen anything that lowers it, but there

10is a look at a rebuild one day.

11 MR. NICHOLS: I wasn't aware of that.

12 MR. CLARK: Okay. Well, our concern would be

13that even if we had the eastern bypass, that should I-35

14have serious construction which would basically block

15traffic through it, if we also have a western bypass,

16then, you know, we're still going to see tremendous

17traffic --

18 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. In that letter, as I

19recall, it never said you opposed the project, but just

20the timing of the project. So, I mean, if you're -- this

21is about as official record as you can get today. So if

22you're opposed to the project at all being built, now is

1the time to say it, but if you're not opposed to the

2project but just opposed to the timing of the project,

3that's more appropriate -- either appropriate --

4whatever -- I'd just like you to clarify.

5 MR. CLARK: Okay. Well, I'll state that at

6this time we request that the project not be approved

7until Highway 130 is built out and any reconstruction on

8I-35 which would push traffic onto a western bypass.

9 MR. NICHOLS: So that it's a matter of timing.

10You are not opposed to the project, just the timing of

11the project.

12 MR. CLARK: At this time, yes.

13 MR. NICHOLS: Does that mean at a later time

14you may be opposed to the project?

15 MR. CLARK: Perhaps.

17 MR. CLARK: I'm speaking on behalf --

18 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. I'm not trying to put words

19in your mouth. I'm trying to understand.

20 MR. CLARK: Okay. I mean --

21 MR. NICHOLS: I mean, so often we have projects

22where people --

1 MR. CLARK: -- projects change, and this --

2maybe 130 --

3 MR. NICHOLS: -- things --

4 MR. CLARK: -- never happens, you know. At

5this time we request that you don't buy into this project.

6 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. You did a good job. I

7appreciate you taking the time to be here.

8 Did you have any more questions?

9 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm pretty impressed. Did a

10pretty good job.

11 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So thank you very much.

12 MR. CLARK: Thank you.

13 MR. NICHOLS: Is there anyone else here who

14wanted to speak on this issue who did not fill out a card?

15 Yes, sir. Would you like to fill out a card?

16 You want to try to give him a card? I want to

17make sure everybody has an opportunity to speak on this

18issue, that no one's denied an opportunity. So she's

19getting you a card, so while she fills it out, would you

20just state your name for the record?

21 MR. COVINGTON: My name is Sid Covington, and I

22was one of the members of the CAMPO special committee on

1the Loop 1 project, and I just wanted to clarify some of

2the things that Mr. Aulick had said and that

3Representative Krusee said about this.

4 That, you know, I think the -- this whole issue

5of the 45 North and the 45 South came to the forefront

6during this special committee that was formed in, what,

7August, I believe. And as part of that committee, we had

8a set of experts that we hired and brought in from around

9the country.

10 One of the recommendations they made was to

11delay the completion of the southern portion of MoPac

12where it ties into 35, go ahead and complete the northern

13part, what's called the Big T, but not create an east --

14or a westbound loop around 35 until State Highway 130 was

15done. So that was really a recommendation that's come up

16fairly recently by this set of experts that we had

17brought in to study this.

18 MR. NICHOLS: How long did that group of

19experts study this?

20 MR. COVINGTON: They were actually involved in

21the process -- and I'm not exactly sure. Mike Aulick

22could give you a better answer than that. He had sent

1them a lot of information that they studied in advance.

2Then they actually were here in town for a week and met

3with stakeholders for a week. But they had an awful lot

4of information prior to that that they looked at before

5they made their recommendations.

6 Essentially, following their recommendations,

7then the motion was brought up at the CAMPO meeting. As

8Representative Krusee said, the CAMPO Policy Advisory

9Committee did pass the motion. That's what they are

10going -- you know, planning now to implement into the

112025 plan, so the 2025 plan is modified to reflect that

12motion.

13 This motion and this recommendation was also

14very heavily referenced, and I spoke and clarified it, to

15the City of Austin city council meeting on October 25, I

16believe, when the city council voted to release Capital

17Metro funds to acquire right of way for the northern

18portion of the Big T, the northern extension of MoPac and

19State Highway 45 on the north.

20 So there's some concern -- and I talked to one

21of the council members yesterday -- there's some concern

22that if this --

1 MR. NICHOLS: You talking about the city

2council or --

3 MR. COVINGTON: The city council.

4 MR. NICHOLS: -- or CAMPO members?

5 MR. COVINGTON: The city council.

7 MR. COVINGTON: There's some concern by the

8city council now that if this agreement isn't upheld,

9since that's what was used as an argument for releasing

10that money to acquire that right of way, that could put

11that right of way acquisition in jeopardy.

12 I did speak -- I did meet with Chairman Johnson

13on October 17 and have kind of reviewed this with him and

14have been trying to meet with Commissioner Williamson,

15and we haven't been able to work out schedules together.

16But we haven't -- this is not something that just kind of

17changed for the sake of change. It's a very reasoned

18thought. It makes sense to a lot of people, and it

19represents, I think, you know, a very good solution to

20this.

21 Again, I'm not opposed to this at all, and

22particularly since this looks like, you know, the

1beginning to negotiate a development agreement. I think

2that should move ahead with the caveat that we do want to

3pay -- or make sure that they pay attention to the timing

4issue.

5 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. You have any?

7 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much. I

8appreciate the clarification.

9 I've got another card that was filled out, and

10before I get into that speaker, if there anyone else who

11wants to fill out a card, now is the time.

12 Gary Bradley?

13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Who?

14 MR. BRADLEY: Thank you, Commissioners. I just

15wanted to clear up a couple of things that previous

16speakers had talked about. The first speaker that was

17representing the Save Our Springs Alliance, that

18organization also opposes Loop 130 or the 130 project.

19So if we follow their train of logic, we would never get

20to build this segment, because the others would never get

21built either.

1 In terms of the last speaker and this study

2group that was put together by CAMPO and the City of

3Austin, when he says it involved the stakeholders, I beg

4to differ. That study was styled as U.S. 183/Loop 1

5Study. SH 45 was not even on the heading. And not one

6of the communities or Hays County or Southeast Travis

7County -- none of the people that would be impacted by

8the project that's before you today were invited to

9participate in that one-week study. And so I just want

10to clear up those two things.

11 In summary, though, I would really like to

12compliment the people that we've had an opportunity to

13work with in your organization: Phillip Russell, Bob

14Daigh, Jim Griffin. Been exemplary. There have been two

15occasions where we've had a semi-crisis in terms of

16trying to meet deadlines in moving our project forward,

17and they've always been willing to step up and give us

18the time that we needed to accomplish our mission.

19 And I want to thank you for your consideration,

20and I certainly want to thank the staff for their help.

21Thank you.

22 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, sir.

1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Monroe, are you on

2standby? Stop me if I wander into territory into which I

3should not wander.

4 I appreciated Representative Krusee coming

5before the commission a few minutes ago and expressing

6his interest in helping lead collective community-based,

7regional thinking about solving regional problems. As I

8consider my position on this proposal, I am extremely

9concerned that we not do any damage to the potential of a

10Regional Mobility Authority involving at least Williamson

11and Travis county and perhaps Hays and perhaps counties

12to the west and east.

13 And since you are one of the parties with whom

14my department employees will be negotiating, I want to

15know -- if I can ask this question, Mr. Monroe -- and if

16I can, what your response is.

17 Would you at any time have any intention of

18being an impediment to the formation of a Regional

19Mobility Authority which might require this road, if it

20were to be built, to be handed over the Authority --

21without any monetary loss for anyone -- do you intend to

22be an impediment to that?

1 MR. BRADLEY: I wouldn't want to speak for my

2partners, Zachry Corporation or HNTB, but I wouldn't see

3any objections to that, Commissioner. Our goal here was

4to simply get this road built, as you know.

5 And I wouldn't think that -- part of the

6problem that we've had when you talk about regional

7mobility, it's an educational process, you know, because

8not all the members of this region are aware of all the

9regional problems. So we have a learning curve.

10 MR. WILLIAMSON: But if that learning curve is

11met, Mr. Bradley, and if the good citizens of these

12counties decide that they want to collectively and

13cooperatively and regionally begin to solve some of their

14regional transportation problems --

15 MR. BRADLEY: Absolutely. If --

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: -- then you don't intend this

17project to be an impediment to that.

18 MR. BRADLEY: No, sir. It should be in support

19of that, because if you're going to reduce congestion,

20and we now have the classification of being the most

21congested city of our size in the United States, then I

22think building roads is -- has to be a major part of that

1answer. And so that's what we're for: building roads

2and building them in this region and doing that as

3economically as we can for the taxpayer.

4 So, no, I'm all for regional cooperation. It's

5just that we need a very balanced representation in that

6regional planning, because there are limited resources.

7Everyone recognizes that. And for those resources to be

8used in a -- distributed in a fair and equal manner, then

9you have to have a fair representation of stakeholders at

10the table to do that.

11 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think our rules will require

12fair representation of everyone. That's --

13 MR. BRADLEY: That's all we ask.

14 MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you.

15 MR. BRADLEY: Thank you.

16 MR. NICHOLS: I'm going to give Bill Bunch

17another opportunity. You are here, as I understand it.

18 MR. BUNCH: Yes.

19 MR. NICHOLS: Sorry you were not here a little

20earlier, but we will make sure that you have that

21opportunity.

22 MR. BUNCH: Thank you. I have a letter also.

1 I'm Bill Bunch with the Save Our Springs

2Alliance, also a member of a recently created larger

3umbrella group looking at the MoPac corridor called the

4MoPac Boulevard Alliance. And I provided you a letter

5from them.

6 We recently carried out a fairly in-depth

7public information request to the Turnpike Authority to

8try to get better information about this project, which

9we do oppose. And we hope that you will slow down and

10take a closer look at this.

11 Part of the reasons for that concern are both

12the threats to the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer, which

13the state has recognized as more vulnerable to pollution

14than any other aquifer in Texas.

15 The other concern is converting MoPac from what

16is basically a local commuter highway into a major

17interregional bypass for I-35. And we don't think that

18goes away just by slowing down and waiting for 130 to be

19built, because there are other proposals to improve I-35

20through downtown. That'll be a huge, very extended

21construction project. And if you have a very quick

22bypass over to MoPac open up during that time, I think

1you have very serious impacts on neighborhoods and

2commuters in the whole MoPac-183 corridor.

3 The toll projections, the revenue projections

4that have been made so far, heavily dependent on very

5intensive growth over the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer.

6And we've seen that actually the reverse has been

7happening, where developers are selling out for preserver

8lands so that these projections are really being scaled

9back.

10 Also, an important historic point here. Mr.

11Bradley came to this commission, previous version of this

12commission, for the MoPac South extension, and just as

13here, promised to donate all the right of way. That

14right of way was not donated, and in fact, Travis County

15and the taxpayers had to step in and deliver right of way

16that had been promised to the state and to the local

17community. So there's a track record here where it's

18very important to pay attention to what promises are

19being made for revenue streams and for right of way on

20the financial side.

21 You probably know that the City of Austin did

22vote to remove this piece of -- or at least a part of the

1project from 1626 to 35 from the local transportation

2plan. And that was a unanimous vote, so there's a very

3strong community opposition to this project.

4 And with that, I appreciate your time and

5allowing me to come up and speak after my turn.

7 Do you have any more comments before we get

8into our questions for Phil?

9 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have some questions for Phil.

10 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Now will be a good time.

11 MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know Mr. Bradley very

12well. I'm -- I happen to believe that all men and women

13are men and women of their words when they give it, be in

14Mr. Bunch or Mr. Bradley or Mr. Russell. All that being

15said, you're going to begin to negotiate, I assume, if we

16pass this.

18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Watch me, please, Mr. Monroe.

19 It is this commissioner's wish that its agency

20employees at no time allow anyone to lay an impediment or

21a roadblock to the formation of a Regional Mobility

22Authority. Please bear that in mind when you are

1visiting, if you're allowed to visit -- and we don't

2[indiscernible] -- because it's my belief, and I say this

3with -- I don't know Mr. Covington either, but I say this

4with respect, sir, and with respect to you and your

5position on clean water.

6 The reality is the state has wrestled for years

7with how to properly support the Travis County/Central

8Texas growth in an environmentally sensitive and

9commercially logical way. I must say that despite our

10best efforts, we probably have not been part of a

11successful story and that success will only occur when

12the region develops its own governing body and has to

13face itself on how to solve these problems and leave us

14pretty much out of it to rely on how to get people from

15Austin to San Antonio or from Austin to Houston.

16 And accordingly, I don't want us to do anything

17that interrupts the ability for men and women to be

18responsible for solving their own regional problems.

19Please bear that in mind.

20 That's all I have to say.

21 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I had a comment or a

22question. Okay. A number from the CAMPO concern of the

1timing of 130 and from the original letter from Save Our

2Springs on the timing for like the 35 and the 130, this --

3the MoPac Boulevard I just got today -- but as I

4understand it, on the 130 project and the north T, we

5have gone out officially requesting proposals?

6 MR. RUSSELL: On the 130 project, we have gone

7out for proposals. We expect those back in first part of

8next year.

9 MR. NICHOLS: We have received our record of

10decision and all those kind of things?

11 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, on 130.

12 MR. NICHOLS: And on 130, which is a timing

13issue for CAMPO. That, as I understand it, has been

14developing quite rapidly as far as a project.

16 MR. NICHOLS: And that the tie-ins on the north

17end -- in other words, the revenue studies, as I

18understand it, have been underway for a number of --

19period of time.

21 MR. NICHOLS: A lot of people have spent a lot

22of money, both the department and some of these entities,

1in the development of that thing and probably

2anticipation of letting something actually go out early

3next year?

5 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. And then on this project,

6if we wait until -- so we're moving forward on 130 as

7rapidly as we know how.

8 MR. RUSSELL: That is correct.

9 MR. NICHOLS: I don't know of any way to go any

10faster. And there's a pretty strong commitment, I

11believe, from the previous TTA board, as well as the

12commission, that if the numbers all fit and the volumes

13fit and the environmental fits, that we were going to try

14to move forward on that thing as rapidly as we can.

15 This project also becomes a critical link. If

16we wait until the 130 is complete before we even begin

17this process, that we will have years of delay of this

18process, plus lose the revenue studies, the environmental

19studies all have to be updated again. Is that correct?

20 MR. RUSSELL: That is correct. And on the 45

21proposed project, the eastern side of that will have to

22go through fairly arduous environmental studies.

1 MR. NICHOLS: Which we've already done.

2 MR. RUSSELL: No, sir. On 45 South, the

3proposed project, on the piece between 35 and 183,

4there'll have to be significant environmental studies on

5that piece.

6 MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean it's not something --

7that part hasn't already been done by the private sector

8entity or us already?

9 MR. RUSSELL: No, sir. There is no

10environmental clearance on --

11 MR. WILLIAMSON: So how long would that take?

12 MR. RUSSELL: It should take a while. There'll

13be a lot of coordination activities --

14 MR. WILLIAMSON: A month, six months, a year?

15 MR. RUSSELL: Probably more than a year.

16 MR. NICHOLS: So even though we approve the

17development of an agreement, we could not actually start

18construction until that environmental study is complete.

19 MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, well, that -- that's a lot

22of time.

1 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Yes. So the timing of the

2completion of these things is kind of what my point is.

3We're -- we are moving rapidly and as fast as I know to

4move on 130. It is a reality.

5 MR. RUSSELL: We're moving as quickly as we can

6on 130, and if we're given the go-ahead to move forward

7on this project, it would allow us to sit down and start

8talking with various environmental issues that are out

9there on 45 South. This would give us the ability to

10start that.

11 MR. NICHOLS: If there's a timing, it's -- it

12may not be too far different.

13 MR. RUSSELL: No, sir.

14 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you very much.

15 Do I hear a motion?

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: I move we accept or approve

17Item 11(b).

18 MR. NICHOLS: I second. All in favor, say aye?

21 MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.

1 Thank all of you for being here.

2 MR. BEHRENS: We'll move back to Item 7, Public

3Transportation, and we have two items. Margot Massey

4will present these, please.

5 MS. MASSEY: Now for something completely

6different, Item 7(a). We had asked you in August of this

7year to approve $30,000 to do the 2002 Public

8Transportation Conference. And we erred in that by not

9consulting as closely as we should have with our industry

10partners, namely the Texas Transit Association, and we're

11probably mistaken in thinking that because it was in

12Lubbock it was somehow -- we would get that West Texas

13rate. And that's not the case.

14 The conference costs what it costs,

15irregardless of the location. So we are coming back to

16you today somewhat hat in hand and asking that you

17approve an additional 20,000 to up the contribution to a

18reasonable level. The conference costs approximately

19$150,000 a year to put on. It is a rather large

20undertaking, and I recommend this as the appropriate

21level for TxDOT participation.

22 MR. NICHOLS: Comments?

1 MR. WILLIAMSON: What good comes of it to us?

2 MS. MASSEY: It gives us an opportunity to

3discuss a lot of important issues, for example,

4anticipating maybe one of your other questions, sir,

5there will be an entire track in the conference

6discussing alternative fuels.

7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh.

8 MS. MASSEY: Funding and technology and --

9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Perhaps you can amend that to

10include also how transit interrelates with Regional

11Mobility Authorities.

12 MS. MASSEY: Yes. Yes. I'm sure that will

13find its way onto the agenda.

14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you seek a motion?

15 MR. NICHOLS: Oh. Do you have anything else?

16If you would like --

17 MR. WILLIAMSON: I so move.

18 MR. NICHOLS: All right. I'm going to second

19that, but I would like to make a comment before we vote.

20The -- at one time, we -- and it's not the conference;

21it's the expenditure related to the conference. At one

22time, we did all this work internally.

1 MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir. We did that for 25

2years.

3 MR. NICHOLS: And then the Transit Authority,

4as I understand, the association wanted to do it.

5 MS. MASSEY: Actually, sir, to be technically

6correct on that, that recommendation came from your

7public transportation advisory committee, which we

8recognized as --

9 MR. NICHOLS: And then so we began -- as

10opposed to doing the work of reservations and passing out

11badges and calling speakers, we began paying a consultant

12or somebody --

13 MS. MASSEY: Right.

14 MR. NICHOLS: -- to represent the association

15to do that work for us.

16 MS. MASSEY: That's correct.

17 MR. NICHOLS: And that number, dollar figure,

18just continues to climb. So we had approved 30,000, and

19now we're requesting an additional 20,000.

20 MS. MASSEY: Actually, sir, we -- you had

21approved 50,000 in the two prior years, and this amount

22is certainly comparable to what the department spent. I

1have a staff person who spent most of her time doing

2these kinds of conference planning and arranging things,

3and it is staggering, the amount of work. Plus we had

4the mail costs, which are now being absorbed by another

5entity, but we incurred the same amount of costs when we

6did the conference ourselves.

7 MR. NICHOLS: I -- we have a motion and a

8second. Is that correct?

9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes.

10 MR. NICHOLS: I'm just -- would like to say

11that it -- surely, between the association and all those

12people out there, we could ask, request that some of

13those association members divide up some of this work and

14possibly save the state of Texas some of that money and

15then put it back into transit as opposed to paying

16somebody to conduct a hearing.

17 There's a lot of people that do a lot of work

18in these associations, if we just ask and then coordinate

19it. So that's my only comment.

20 So a motion and second. All in favor, say aye.

22 MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

1 Thank you very much.

2 MS. MASSEY: Thank you.

3 The second item is asking for the award of

4$39,500 in toll credits to be used as match for the City

5of Victoria through Golden Crescent Regional Planning

6Commission. Yes, these will be alternatively fueled

7vehicles.

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: And a tip of the hat to the

13City of Victoria.

14 MR. BEHRENS: Go to Item 8, our Administrative

15Rules, both the rules under proposed adoption will be

16deferred, so we'll go to the rules under Item 8(b).

17Number (1) is Finance. And these are rules for final

18adoption. Thomas Doebner.

19 MR. DOEBNER: Good morning. My name is Thomas

20Doebner. It's good afternoon. I'm sorry. My name is

21Thomas Doebner with the department's Finance Division.

1 This minute order is for the final adoption of

2rules to allow the department to collect $25 for the

3processing of a return or a dishonored check. And

4these -- we did not receive any public comments during

5the open comment period; and, therefore, we recommend

6adoption.

7 MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to know if you have

8anything to report to us on changes in the TxDOT family?

9 MR. DOEBNER: There was a baby girl born last --

10yesterday afternoon about five o'clock.

11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Did they name her Jimmette?

12 MR. DOEBNER: I have not heard the name yet.

13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Or Jamette?

14 So move.

15 MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

18 MR. BEHRENS: Item 8(b)(2), rules on Chapter 9,

19Contract Management.

20 MS. SOLDANO: Good afternoon. I'm Jennifer

21Soldano, director of the Contract Services Office.

1 This minute order adopts new Section 9.9

2concerning interlocal contracts. House Bill 1831 added

3new Section 201.209 to the Transportation Code, which was

4effective September 1. This statute authorizes the

5department to enter into interlocal contracts with one or

6more local governments.

7 These rules were proposed in August and

8published in the Texas Register on September 14. No

9comments were received, and we recommend adoption.

14 MS. SOLDANO: Thank you.

15 MR. BEHRENS: Item 8(b)(3), VTR rules on

16Chapter 17.

17 MR. DIKE: Commission members, I'm Jerry Dike,

18director of Vehicle Titles and Registration Division.

19 We have a minute order here adopting the

20amendments to Rules 17.24 and 17.28 concerning disabled

21person license plates. It also sets a $30 fee for the

22YMCA plate, and it allows podiatrists to sign disabled

1applications for foot disorders. These rules support

2three bills from the past legislative session, House Bill

315, 1831, and Senate Bill 777.

4 The commission passed these to be published in

5the Texas Register August 30. They were proposed, and no

6public comments were received. We recommend adoption.

11 MR. DIKE: Thank you.

13 MR. BEHRENS: Item 8(b)(4) under Chapter 25,

14Traffic Operation. Mary Lou.

15 MS. RALLS: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm

16Mary Lou Ralls, director of the Bridge Division.

17 The minute order before you is for final

18adoption of rules pertaining to Transportation Code

19621.301 regarding the policies and procedures governing

20department concurrence with a county's proposed load

21limit for a county road or bridge. Department

1concurrence will help ensure uniform load limits for all

2public roads and bridges.

3 These rules were posted as required in the

4Texas Register. We received no comments. Staff

5recommends your approval.

6 MR. NICHOLS: As I understand it, this will be

7the final step in the trucks that are too heavy for a

8bridge is now -- it will now be illegal for them to drive

9on it -- is that correct? -- unless there's no other way

10to get there.

11 MS. RALLS: That's correct.

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: And if there's no other way,

13they have to get a permit?

14 MR. NICHOLS: No.

15 MS. RALLS: No. 2060.

16 MR. NICHOLS: But it covers 99-point-something

17percent of all the situations. This is pretty close.

18 MR. WILLIAMSON: This was your baby, wasn't it?

19 MR. NICHOLS: It was all of their baby. I

20think it was the whole department's baby. I think I'm

21the one that is shoved up there in front of them.

22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, then I so move.

3 MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

4 MS. RALLS: Thank you.

5 MR. BEHRENS: Item 8(b)(4)(b), Safe Routes to

6School.

7 MR. LOPEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My

8name is Carlos Lopez. I'm director of the Traffic

9Operations Division.

10 The minute order before you addresses final

11adoption of the initial set of rules to establish the

12Safe Routes to School Program as required by House Bill

132204 of the last legislative session. The goal of this

14program is to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety

15around school areas.

16 House Bill 2204 also makes Safe Routes projects

17eligible for Federal Hazard Elimination Program

18construction funds, although the bill does not dedicate

19any specific funding amount for these projects.

20 We received public comment from five

21individuals during the development of this phase of the

1program rules. We have responded to each issue raised by

2the commenters and accommodated them whenever possible.

3 The department is developing rules in two steps

4for this bill. The first step, as contained in this

5minute order, describes eligible product types and the

6applications to the middle process.

7 The second round of rulemaking will focus on

8the factors the department will use to evaluate Safe

9Routes to Schools projects applications. We recommend

10approval of this minute order.

11 MR. NICHOLS: I had a -- did you have a

12question?

14 MR. NICHOLS: I had a question. One is a

15comment, and one is a question. On the comment side,

16congratulations. I think it's going to be a good thing.

17As I understand it, a lot of these projects probably will

18qualify, as we get into the transportation enhancement.

19 MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

20 MR. NICHOLS: So that's going to be great. So

21the kids can get to school on their bicycles in a more

22safe manner. So I think that's outstanding.

1 Number two, the people who sent in their

2comments or had comments in public hearings for which you

3have addressed -- and I've read all the responses -- do

4we automatically send a copy of that response to the

5people who made the comment?

6 MR. LOPEZ: Yes. In fact, we sent a copy of

7the draft minute order to them earlier this week to let

8them know how we were going to respond.

9 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So each one of those

10commenters does get a response back.

11 MR. LOPEZ: Yes. That's right.

12 MR. NICHOLS: That answers my question.

13 Motion?

18 MR. BEHRENS: Item 8(b)(5), Amendments to

19Oversize and Overweight Vehicle and Loads rules.

20 MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Commissioners, for the

21record, my name is Monty Chamberlain, and I'm the

22business services manager for the Motor Carrier Division.

1 The minute order before you is for final

2adoption of amendments to Title 43, Texas Administrative

3Code, Chapter 28, subchapters (b) and (c) concerning

4permits for oversize/overweight vehicles and loads. As

5you're aware, the amendments were proposed at the August

630 commission meeting, and the rules were subsequently

7published in the September 14 issue of the Texas Register.

8 The department did receive four written

9comments, and a public hearing was held on October 23 of

10this year, in which the department received four verbal

11comments. All the comments received have been addressed

12in the adoption preamble. Any changes made to the final

13rules are also explained in the preamble, which will be

14published in the Texas Register upon your final adoption.

15 At this time, we're submitting the final

16adoption minute order for your consideration and

17recommend its approval.

18 MR. NICHOLS: Question or motion?

22 MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Thank you.

1 MR. BEHRENS: Item 9, Transportation Planning.

2There's two sections to that. Jim Randall will handle it.

3 MR. RANDALL: Jim Randall, Transportation

4Planning and Programming Division.

5 Item 9(a), we bring you the first quarter

6program for disadvantaged counties to adjust matching

7fund requirements. In your books is Exhibit A that lists

8the projects, and staff's recommended adjustments for

9each of them.

10 The adjustments are based on the equations

11approved in earlier proposals. There are seven projects

12in three counties. The reduction in participation for

13these projects is $187,014. We recommend approval of

14this minute order.

15 MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

19 MR. RANDALL: Item 9(b). This minute order

20authorizes the executive director or designee to enter

21into a funding agreement with the Northeast Texas Rural

22Transportation District to provide no more than $300,000

1in state funds for the acquisition of approximately 25

2miles of railroad right of way in Collin and Hunt

3counties.

4 Rider 62 to the department's appropriations for

5fiscal years 2002-2003 requires the department to

6allocate 300,000 for the purchase of abandoned railroad

7right of way within and joining NETEX. NETEX intends to

8enter into an agreement to purchase the right of way from

9the current owner and is seeking the appropriated funds

10to facilitate the purchase of the railroad corridor.

11This minute order provides that as a condition of

12receiving these funds, NETEX shall agree to convey to

13the department a 300,000 security interest in the right

14of way including a first right of refusal to purchase the

15property for $300,000.

16 The proposed acquisition of the abandoned rail

17corridor could help preserve the right of way for future

18rail-freight shipments and for future light-rail

19transportation from Greenville into the urban areas of

20Dallas and Fort Worth, thus providing an economic,

21environmental, and transportation benefit to the people

22of Texas. We recommend approval of this minute order.

2 Questions?

3 MR. WILLIAMSON: No questions.

4 MR. NICHOLS: Motion?

8 MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Thank you.

9 MR. BEHRENS: Item 10, the State Infrastructure

10Bank loan, Thomas Doebner.

11 MR. DOEBNER: Again, my name is Thomas Doebner

12with the department's Finance Division. This minute

13order is for preliminary approval of a request from the

14City of Leander to borrow $7.9 million from the State

15Infrastructure Bank.

16 They have not requested any specific terms at

17this time. Our rule of thumb would show about a 12-year

18term. They have a BBB bond rating, and yesterday their

19market rate would have been about 4.83 percent if they

20were going to sell bonds on the market. They are not

21part of an economically disadvantaged county, and they're

22not part of a border district high-priority trade route,

1so our negotiations with them will be close to market

2rate. We recommend approval.

3 MR. NICHOLS: I have a question.

4 Do you have a question?

5 Question: It's not on this application. I

6support the application, but the question is, when we set

7up the SIB rules in the first place, the process,

8originally we had a one-step process, I believe, or was

9it a two-step process?

10 MR. DOEBNER: There's a two-step process if

11it's over a certain amount, and I believe it's 250,000.

12 MR. NICHOLS: Two-step process on everything,

13and then later we came back and said if it's under

14300,000, so we could make it into a one-step process.

15 MR. DOEBNER: That's correct.

16 MR. NICHOLS: So it was a two-step to start

17with, and a one-step on smaller ones.

18 MR. DOEBNER: I'm not sure that it was ever

19two-step for the small ones, but I am not positive of

20that.

1 MR. NICHOLS: It was either two-step for both

2or one-step for both. We made a correction along the

3way. I do recall that.

4 MR. DOEBNER: Then it must have been a two-step

5for both then.

6 MR. NICHOLS: This is not law; this is internal

7procedures. Now that we've used this for a while, you

8know, I'm anxious, just like everybody else, to, when we

9know we've got a good project, try to minimize and shave

10time off.

11 Do you still feel like we need a two-step

12process on those figures above 300,000?

13 MR. DOEBNER: In some cases, yes. The entity

14that is borrowing the money wants an indication -- before

15they go out and change tax rates or before they get their

16counsel to take some action that would cost them money,

17they want an indication from us that y'all are probably

18going to approve it. And that's what they get from

19preliminary approval.

20 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So y'all don't feel like

21that we're delaying any projects or holding up because of

22the two-step process?

1 MR. DOEBNER: No.

2 MR. NICHOLS: If we start seeing situations

3like that, let us know, because that is an internal

4process; it could be sped up.

5 All right. Motion?

10 MR. BEHRENS: We have covered Item 11. We go

11to Item 12, Contracts. Thomas.

12 MR. BOHUSLAV: Good afternoon, Commissioners.

13My name is Thomas Bohuslav. I'm director of the

14Construction Division.

15 Item 12(a)(1) is for consideration of the award

16or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on

17November 6 and 7, 2001, whose engineer's estimated costs

18are $300,000 or more. We had 13 projects we let.

19 We have one project we recommend for rejection

20in Tom Green County. It's project number 4007. We had

21four bidders. It was a crack sealing contract. On this

22project, we had advertised it, and the proposal required

1that the contractors be prequalified, that they submit an

2audited financial statement to be able to bid the job.

3 After release of the proposal and after

4advertising, we changed the system to allow contractors

5who were not prequalified, that were basically bidders --

6questionnaire contractors, to submit bids to solicit bids

7for the job.

8 We'd like to recommend that we reject this

9project because there may be other bidders out there that

10would have bid if they saw that it was not a

11[indiscernible] project. And we'd like to solicit more

12bids, and we felt there could be some harm to the

13contractors that did submit bids that were prequalified

14to fill out acceptance of all projects here.

15 Staff recommends approval, with the exception

16noted.

17 MR. NICHOLS: Question.

18 MR. WILLIAMSON: None from me.

19 MR. NICHOLS: Motion?

20 MR. WILLIAMSON: I move.

21 MR. NICHOLS: I second. All in favor, say aye.

2 MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 12(a)(2) is for

3consideration of award or rejection of highway

4construction contracts let on November 6 and 7, 2001. We

5had 31 projects, and we have one project we recommend for

6rejection. The project is in Bowie County.

7 It's project number 3022. We had one bidder;

8it was 26 percent over. We had a problem with a base

9item on the project. We identified the wrong type of

10description code for it, and we'd like to go back and

11make that correction and also solicit more bids so we

12have more competition on the project.

13 Staff recommends approval with the exception

14noted -- award of all projects with the exception noted.

15 Any questions?

16 MR. NICHOLS: Motion or questions?

21 MR. BEHRENS: Item 12(b), which is Contract

22Claim, Amadeo Saenz.

1 MR. SAENZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For

2the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive

3director Engineering Operations and also chair of the

4TxDOT Claims Committee.

5 The minute order before you basically approves

6a claim settlement for a contract by Taylor Mowing

7Service, project RMC 603351-001, Upshur County. On

8October 3, the Contract Claim Committee -- the TxDOT

9Claim Committee considered this claim and made a

10recommendation for settlement to the contractor. The

11contractor did not respond to the committee's offer

12within the specified 20-day time period; therefore, the

13committee's recommendation is considered final, and the

14contractor is barred from any future appeal.

15 The committee considers this to be a fair and

16reasonable settlement offer and recommends your approval.

17 MR. NICHOLS: Question?

18 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm comfortable about these

19things. So move.

20 MR. NICHOLS: I got a motion. I'll second it.

21Before we vote, I want to say it's good to see you at the

22podium in your new position.

1 MR. SAENZ: Thank you.

2 MR. NICHOLS: That's the first time -- I

3believe it's the first time you've been up to the podium

4in your new position. Is that correct?

5 MR. SAENZ: It is, today.

6 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. And Mike had given me some

7trick questions to ask you.

9 MR. NICHOLS: And I was looking around for them

10here, so I couldn't really find them. So I'm going to

11use them the next time. So be prepared the next time.

12 MR. SAENZ: Okay.

13 MR. NICHOLS: With that, all in favor, say aye.

15 MR. NICHOLS: Aye.

16 MR. SAENZ: Thank you.

17 MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

18 MR. BEHRENS: Okay. Item 13, Routine Minute

19Orders. Those are listed as posted in the agenda. We

20would recommend approval of those minute orders. If you

21have any one that you would like to have discussed, we

1can do that; otherwise, we would recommend approval of

2the routine minute orders.

3 MR. NICHOLS: Do we have any commenters on it

4or any other -- okay.

5 Do you have any question on any of these?

6 MR. WILLIAMSON: No questions, and I so move.

7 MR. NICHOLS: I'll second. All in favor, say

11 MR. BEHRENS: I don't think there's any need

12for an executive session. And we have two people signed

13up for open comment.

14 MR. NICHOLS: Open comment. One's yellow, and

15one's blue. I thought the yellow was on the agenda.

16Okay. Open comment. Winifred Kelsey, executive

17director, Scenic Austin. Welcome.

18 MS. KELSEY: Thank you. Good afternoon,

19Commissioners. My name is Winifred Kelsey, and I'm here

20today representing Scenic Texas. I'd like to speak to

21you about the interim study to reevaluate Texas becoming

1the 49th state to participate in the National Scenic

2Byways Program.

3 The last evaluation took place in the early

41990s during the ISTEA era. As you know, some of the

5rules changed when, in its next life, ISTEA became TEA-

621. One significant modification for assessing whether

7Texas should participate in the Byways Program has to do

8with donor states. In the original version, it didn't

9make sense for a donor state to participate. However,

10with the advent of TEA-21, that is no longer the case.

11 Texas and Montana are now the only states that

12have not elected to be eligible for federal funding that

13is available to implement corridor management plans.

14Granted, the allotted funds to do not represent a

15substantial amount of money, but the awards can provide

16rural communities in which we so often find our most

17scenic roads and vistas with enhancement tools otherwise

18unavailable to them.

19 Another concern expressed in the original study

20was that the federal government would compromise or even

21withhold a state's entire transportation package if a

22corridor management plan was not implemented correctly.

1In the history of the program this has never happened.

2Those administering the National Scenic Byways Program

3have assured me that TEA-21's funds linked to the program

4are unrelated to the general transportation budget.

5 There's been a misconception perpetrated that a

6corridor management plan is irrevocably thrust onto a

7community without local consideration. This is simply

8not the case. Corridor management plans are developed

9and implemented on the local level. The Scenic Byways

10Program is voluntary, and nothing happens unless a local

11community wants to seek Byway status. The only input

12that the federal government has is when a locally

13developed plan is submitted for federal review and is

14either approved or denied.

15 Because these guidelines are clearly delineated

16and projects size are small, departments of

17transportation have not been burdened by this program.

18Indeed, the rest of the country has discovered the wisdom

19of participation. Rural communities, almost without

20exception, are looking for economic development tools.

21The tourism generated by appearing on the National Scenic

1Byways map can be a measurable boon not only to the

2community but also to the state.

3 Tourists must travel to their destinations, and

4very often they do so by car. No doubt about it, in

5Texas that can mean a long way on our impressive highway

6system.

7 You may be asking yourself, Well, what's the

8problem here? And I have to tell you, I'm stumped by our

9elective. The only stipulation for becoming a National

10Scenic Byway is that once a Byway is designated, you

11can't build any new billboards on that strip of road.

12Not a single billboard comes down.

13 In a recent scientific study conducted by

14social scientist Dr. Stephen Klineburg [phonetic], 80

15percent of Texans indicated that when it comes to

16billboards, Texas has enough, and we don't need any more.

17 The second charge that the TxDOT committee

18appointed by the legislature is to evaluate Texas

19landscaping laws. In the same survey, Texans revealed

20that they want their roads better landscaped. There are

21those who would like to clear-cut vegetation that

22obscures the visibility of billboards from any angle.

1 Our major metropolitan areas across the state

2are demanding that the view from the roadway be visually

3improved. These cities are implementing comprehensive,

4low-maintenance landscaping plans such as Houston's Green

5Ribbon Project. And these changes that have been put

6forward by the outdoor advertising groups would

7eviscerate these beautification efforts.

8 Texas is a magnificent place, and part of our

9responsibility is to leave it in better shape than we

10found it. While that obligates us to growth and

11development, we must be ever mindful that preserving and

12enhancing Texas' natural beauty must be an essential part

13of this mission. Scenic Texas is ready and willing to

14assist TxDOT in its assessment of Scenic Byways in our

15state's landscaping practices.

16 Thank you for this opportunity to address you.

18 MR. WILLIAMSON: I do have a question for you.

19 MS. KELSEY: Okay.

20 MR. WILLIAMSON: You said that if that

21happened, we couldn't put any more billboards up on our

22route that had been recognized as such?

1 MS. KELSEY: Yes. On a road that's been

2designated as a Scenic Byway, the only stipulation is

3that no new billboards can be erected. They don't take

4any down, but --

5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. How would that affect

6flowers planted on the right of way that advertise the

7logos of companies?

8 MS. KELSEY: Flowers planted? Do flowers

9advertise --

10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, let's say that, for

11example, Nike came to us and said, We'll pay Fund 6, the

12concrete fund, $100,000 a month if you'll let us plant

13flowers along this bank in Houston that's our swoosh

14sign, and we'll maintain it; we'll water it. It'd be a

15white background and a red check.

16 MS. KELSEY: From the pictures I've seen from

17other states where they have gotten private donations to

18help with these initiatives, part of it goes into actual

19signage, and so it's -- and some of that is like an Adopt

20a Highway sign, and all those can be included into this

21program.

1 MR. WILLIAMSON: But you don't know

2specifically if that would prohibit us from letting

3somebody plant flowers to advertise their logo.

4 MS. KELSEY: I know specifically in other

5states they've been able to do it, and so I --

6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

7 MS. KELSEY: -- but I don't know exactly, but

8I've seen it in other states, so I assume it would be --

9 MR. WILLIAMSON: We're not going to action on

10this, are we?

11 MR. NICHOLS: Cannot take action.

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Nice to see you.

13 MS. KELSEY: Thank you.

15 We have one additional card for the mayor of

16Corsicana, April Sikes, but I think I see the whole

17Corsicana delegation back there. I'd encourage y'all all

18to --

19 MAYOR SIKES: I don't know whether that's to

20protect me or y'all.

21 MR. NICHOLS: Greetings. I live down the

22street from y'all in East Texas.

1 MAYOR SIKES: Great.

2 MR. NICHOLS: Jacksonville. Yes. We play

3y'all in football, basketball, and everything else.

4 MAYOR SIKES: I think I should say before I

5start that I'm all for the RMAs and alternative fuels.

8 MAYOR SIKES: All right. Let me say good

9afternoon. I am April Sikes. I'm the mayor of

10Corsicana, and I want to introduce a few people who are

11with me today. We have Truitt Gilbreath, who is our city

12manager; Connie Standridge, our engineer; and Daryl

13Schliem, who is the director of our chamber of commerce;

14and Billy McManus, who is our Navarro County commissioner

15for Precinct 2.

16 With that said, I am the proud mayor of

17Corsicana, which is located, as you know, about 60 miles

18south of Dallas. I'm certainly proud to be here, and I'm

19certainly not too proud to beg, plead, and make promises

20with regards to our frontage road project. I have,

21however, promised the others in the group who know that

1I'm also not to proud to cry that I would not do that

2while I beg, plead, and promise.

3 It is an overwhelming responsibility to me to

4stand before you and ask for your help on behalf of the

5citizens of Corsicana and the citizens in Navarro County.

6You are familiar, I know, with our frontage road project,

7and in your packets, there's a letter that I have

8submitted that outlines the history of that project.

9 We have been told that now our package is in

10your hands, and the ultimate decision about that frontage

11road will be yours. So my real purpose today in visiting

12with you is to express our concern for the future of our

13project.

14 The city, county, school, our whole community,

15in fact, began a process about three years ago to enhance

16the quality of life for our citizens, and our

17correspondence to you will reflect a written request to

18TxDOT in July of 1999 for construction of frontage roads.

19 From this request, we were told that frontage

20roads could be built using our local funds. The

21community group then identified an underutilized tract of

22land which is along I-45 and 287 intersection. That land

1showed the greatest economic potential that we had in our

2county.

3 This property was purchased for the development

4of a business park using favorable provisions of our

5economic development laws obviously designed to promote

6business in Texas. A bond issue was then passed to fund

7construction. A tax increment financing district was

8formed. A reinvestment zone and an enterprise zone were

9established. And for those of you on the commission, you

10know how hard that is to get those things done, and with

11unanimous votes, I'd like to add.

12 Then our project plan was developed with

13potential investors, and in May of 2001 an agreement was

14signed for a $20 million development with the

15expectations that over $100 million would be invested by

16these developers within the next ten years.

17 Having lived in Corsicana all my life, I can

18assure you that $100 million deals don't come often. In

19fact, this is our first one, and it's obviously, to us,

20an opportunity of a lifetime.

21 When these developers first surfaced, I didn't

22believe they were real people who were coming and willing

1to spend this kind of money in our community, but they

2are. And in your packet, you'll find a letter from one

3of those men, by the name of Thomas Schrody [phonetic].

4 Our agreement with these developers required

5that the city would facilitate the construction of the

6frontage road, and we believed in good faith that the

7frontage road would be constructed when we made that

8agreement. We now have until December 18 to fulfill our

9obligations under this agreement, and frankly, our time

10is running out.

11 I will do anything you ask of me to assure that

12this road is built. Regardless of what the others think,

13I'll start bawling if I have to, because this development

14is like none other that Corsicana has ever seen, and we

15have the money to build the road. We have the developers

16who are ready to start the project tomorrow. The only

17thing left to secure this future which is extremely

18promising to our town and to our county -- the only thing

19left is for you to allow us to build this road.

20 I wondered how many times I could say "please"

21in three minutes, but I would just say, please, say yes.

22I urge you all to search your hearts and to find a way to

1allow this to happen. It will forever change the lives

2of the citizens of Corsicana and all of the citizens of

3Navarro County. And in exchange, I can assure you that

4all of us will be forever grateful to you for having done

5that.

6 And with that said, I'm going to thank you for

7the opportunity to speak to you.

8 MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you very much.

9Obviously, we're in the process of changing frontage

10roads policies, and the access rights on -- particularly

11on the interstate eventually end up being approved by the

12commission, and those had not been approved at this point.

13 I was not aware until you spoke that you had a

14December 18 deadline.

15 MAYOR SIKES: And we just fairly recently were

16basically presented with that deadline. I think our

17developers had heard --

18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Who presented that to you?

19 MR. SCHLIEM: The deadline --

20 MR. WILLIAMSON: The developer?

1 MR. SCHLIEM: Yes. The developer -- when we

2had them in, we've had ongoing negotiations with them,

3and I think you'll see the master plan that is in --

4 MR. NICHOLS: Well, I mean, when you get a

5package, you don't have a time to have a conversation,

6listen, and read at the same time. But we will go

7through this.

8 MAYOR SIKES: Sure. And you'll see in there,

9but the bottom line is, we've said to these men, Just

10trust us and bear with us, and they have done that. But

11now they're kind of getting tired, and they want some

12sort of answer as far as the road goes.

13 MR. NICHOLS: I think you've made a very good

14awareness of the problem and the situation and the

15importance of it and the timing element. I appreciate

16you coming up today. Very important. We cannot take

17action today, as you know, because it was not posted on

18the agenda for action.

19 MAYOR SIKES: Yes, sir.

20 MR. NICHOLS: But I'm going to be in Corsicana

21in about four hours.

1 MR. NICHOLS: But I've got my daughter's

2basketball game I've got to go to. I think that's -- but

3I will come back to Corsicana in a few days.

4 MR. WILLIAMSON: You're admitting that?

5 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. I have a 15-year-old

6daughter.

7 MR. WILLIAMSON: No. You're admitting you're

8going to Corsicana?

9 MAYOR SIKES: We would have never believed it.

10 MR. NICHOLS: You would never believe I had a

1115-year-old daughter?

12 MAYOR SIKES: Never. Never.

13 MR. NICHOLS: I've got them about 30 years old

14all the way down to 15. Same wife, too, you know. Yes.

15We were in Corsicana playing basketball not too long ago.

16The -- but I would like to come back to Corsicana early

17next week. Who would you like me to meet with?

18 MAYOR SIKES: We will have anyone present that

19you would like to speak with.

20 MR. NICHOLS: Who do I need to contact? Do I

21need to contact you?

22 MAYOR SIKES: If you will contact our --

1 MR. NICHOLS: Our assistant, Sallie Burk, back

2there at the black -- the -- would you give her the phone

3number of whoever, and I'll try to set up something so I

4can at least come over there and --

5 MAYOR SIKES: That will be great.

6 MR. NICHOLS: -- get into it.

7 MAYOR SIKES: We really would appreciate the

8opportunity to show you what is on line for that project.

9It's really unbelievable.

10 MR. NICHOLS: We cannot take action.

11 Do you have any questions?

12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. My colleague is going to

13take the lead on this, and I'm sure he'll make the right

14decision. I want to ask you a couple questions about

15this developer.

16 MAYOR SIKES: Certainly.

17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Did the city have to give any

18tax abatements to this guy? Did the county or the school

19district have to give any tax abatements?

20 MAYOR SIKES: We have not. What we have done

21is we developed the TIF, the tax increment financing

22district, which is also -- when you talked about the

1RMAs, that's -- we're trying to get a more regional

2attitude even within -- with our developers. We've

3basically had people working against each other, and now

4we're all together.

5 And so the city, the college, and the county

6taxes will be deferred to pay back the TIF.

7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. And did you have to put

8any cash into the deal?

9 MAYOR SIKES: We --

10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Like did he require you to go

11buy the property from someone?

12 MAYOR SIKES: We did purchase that tract of

13land. Yes.

14 MR. WILLIAMSON: That he's going to use.

15 MAYOR SIKES: Yes.

16 MR. WILLIAMSON: And has someone gone to

17Minnesota and made sure they're really doing something?

19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Physically.

21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Not digital cameras.

1 MR. SCHLIEM: Yes. As a matter of fact, when --

2Mr. Nichols, when you attend, I do have probably 20 sets

3of film on the digital cameras, and my wife and I had to

4go on up along with one of our councilman. Jay Waterman

5also was up there and stayed overnight at the hotel and

6went through their whole thing.

7 They have nine of these operations, two in

8Nebraska, one in Owatonna, Minnesota, is what we are

9designating.

10 MR. WILLIAMSON: What's their target market?

11 MR. SCHLIEM: Tourists. It's a tourist

12destination with a water park and with a -- and the

13region -- we're in such a designated area. Corsicana is

14located -- it has about a million more people to draw

15from in a 350-mile radius than the rest of the

16communities we were against in Texas. And they are a

17large hunting, fishing, and retail store for gentlemen,

18and the other part is for the ladies that hunt, they will

19also have shopping for -- a retail center similar to what

20Hillsboro has, along with a 190-room hotel, a one-acre

21indoor water park, and a six-acre outdoor water park.

1 And it's more of destination center is what

2they will make --

3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, let me just say, you

4couldn't have a better guy looking into your deal than

5Mr. Nichols.

6 MAYOR SIKES: Well, we appreciate that. And

7like I say, we were, ourselves, frankly leery. And

8that's why people have actually gone, just as you

9suggested, to see it for themselves.

10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we're catching a lot of

11grief now about our position on frontage roads and ramps,

12and we're willing to take that grief.

13 MR. NICHOLS: One of the main things we hope to

14accomplish -- of course, this is something that's going

15to come out as rule, then be debated, and all that kind

16of stuff --

17 MAYOR SIKES: Yes, sir.

18 MR. NICHOLS: -- is that wouldn't it be nice to

19know that you had those access rights at the beginning

20before you did all those steps?

1 MR. NICHOLS: Rather than doing all those steps

2and hoping --

3 MAYOR SIKES: And hoping.

4 MR. NICHOLS: -- they're approved?

5 MAYOR SIKES: Yes, sir, it would.

6 MR. NICHOLS: I think that is -- I know from

7what I had seen -- would eliminate a lot of grief in the

8process.

9 MR. SCHLIEM: And we are requiring a $1-1/2

10million bond if they default of any building for this.

11And we only have about $800,000 into the land. So if

12they do not come through with their $20 million minimum

13development, the $1-1/2 million bond or letter or credit

14will be called to pay the city back for their --

15 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. We'll try to set up

16something either next week, whoever you want me to get

17with or whatever.

19 MR. NICHOLS: I will have read the packet by

20then, and try to get with Sallie back there.

21 Sallie, would you hold your hand up? Do they

22know who -- okay.

1 MAYOR SIKES: Thank you very much.

2 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, everybody.

3 MAYOR SIKES: We appreciate it. Thank you.

4 MR. NICHOLS: Any further business?

6 MR. NICHOLS: No need for an executive

7committee?

9 MR. NICHOLS: Do I hear a motion to adjourn?

10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Is there anybody from the

11Houston Chronicle present?

12 (No response.)

13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I have some facts and

14figures I was going to read into the record, Mr.

15Chairman, but I suppose the Houston Chronicle is really

16not interested in seeing what goes on at the Texas

17Department of Transportation, so I'll move we adjourn.

20 (Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the meeting was

21concluded.)

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

3MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission

4LOCATION: Austin, Texas

5DATE: November 15, 2001

6 I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages,

7numbers 1 through 203, inclusive, are the true, accurate,

8and complete transcript prepared from the verbal

9recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum

10before the Texas Department of Transportation. 11 12 13 14 15 16 11/18/01 17 (Transcriber) (Date) 18 19 On the Record Reporting, Inc. 20 3307 Northland, Suite 315 21 Austin, Texas 78731 22 23

3 4 ON THE RECORD REPORTING NOVEMBER 15, 2001 5 (512) 450-0342