DOCSLIB.ORG

MAKING TOLLING TRANSPARENT: ANALYZING PROCESSES USED to ALLOCATE & DISTRIBUTE TOLL HIGHWAY REVENUE in MULTIPLE STATES David Weinreich, Ph.D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MAKING TOLLING TRANSPARENT: ANALYZING PROCESSES USED to ALLOCATE & DISTRIBUTE TOLL HIGHWAY REVENUE in MULTIPLE STATES David Weinreich, Ph.D MAKING TOLLING TRANSPARENT: ANALYZING PROCESSES USED TO ALLOCATE & DISTRIBUTE TOLL HIGHWAY REVENUE IN MULTIPLE STATES David Weinreich, Ph.D. 1 MAKING TOLLING TRANSPARENT: ANALYZING PROCESSES USED TO ALLOCATE & DISTRIBUTE TOLL HIGHWAY REVENUE IN MULTIPLE STATES FINAL PROJECT REPORT By: Principal Investigator David Weinreich, Ph.D. Thomas Scott S. Matthew Reeves Shima Hamidi, Ph.D. University of Texas at Arlington Sponsorship (CTEDD) Center for Transportation, Equity, Decisions and Dollars (CTEDD) USDOT University Transportation Center The University of Texas at Arlington 601 W. Nedderman Dr. Suite 103 Arlington TX 76019-0108 United States Phone: 817-272-5138 | Email: [email protected] In cooperation with US Department of Transportation-Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 2 Acknowledgment This work was supported by a grant from the Center for Transportation Equity, Decisions and Dollars (CTEDD) funded by U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration (OST‐R) and housed at The University of Texas at Arlington. We would like to thank CDM Smith, Inc. for use of their historic toll rate data, and Ron Davis for guidance in conducting our case selection. 3 Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The Center for Transportation, Equity, Decisions and Dollars (CTEDD), the U.S. Government and matching sponsor assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. Interviews were conducted with the consent of the interviewee, and are cited only when interviewees agreed to be on the record. Interviewees were given the option to speak off the record. 4 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Making Tolling Transparent: Analyzing Processes Used to Allocate & Distribute 8-31-2019 Toll Highway Revenue in Multiple States 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) David Weinreich, Thomas Scott, S. Matthew Reeves, Shima 8. Performing Organization Report No. Hamidi 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation, Equity, Decisions and Dollars (CTEDD) USDOT University Transportation Center 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Texas at Arlington CTEDD 018-01 601 W. Nedderman Dr. Suite 103 Arlington TX 76019-0108 United States 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered United States of America Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Research and Innovative Technology Administration 15. Supplementary Notes Report uploaded at www.ctedd.uta.edu 16. Abstract Transportation finance has become increasingly unreliable in recent years, due to the declining revenue available from the motor fuel tax, increasing auto efficiency, and political reluctance to raise taxes. Some states have relied on toll revenue and other user fees to overcome these revenue challenges. However toll roads are often unpopular, due to poor transparency stemming from uncertainty over whether tolls will be used to support the facility and the drivers who use it, or support other uses generally deemed to be socially equitable. Despite growing interest in toll finance, there is little understanding in the transportation literature of how independent local tolling agencies decide to raise and spend money. This study hypothesizes that different toll road governance models provide varying incentives to raise tolls and spend them on various purposes. This study catalogues toll roads from across the US, using state enabling legislation to classify toll roads by governance type (e.g. private, public-private-partnership, public corporation, independent regional/local special agency, independent state agency, state-managed, though there may be others). This study selects a representative sample of 60 toll roads across 20 US states, chosen based on their governance type, centerline miles, and rate of toll increase since 2007. This study examines meeting minutes, comprehensive annual financial reports and other primary sources to identify whether/how much tolls were increased/decreased, and for what purpose, identifying incentives for toll roads to spend money differently based on motivations like public or private status, geographic scope and level of government, among other motivating factors. This study also interviews staff members and elected officials from five toll road agencies, providing further details on why they made decisions to raise or lower tolls, how they intended to use the money, and their relationship to other state and local governments. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Toll, Managed Lane, Management, Governance No restrictions. 19. Security Classification (of this 20. Security Classification (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price report) page) Unclassified. Unclassified. 167 N/A 5 SECTION 1: ABSTRACT Transportation finance has become increasingly unreliable in recent years, due to the declining revenue available from the motor fuel tax, increasing auto efficiency, and political reluctance to raise taxes. Some states have relied on toll revenue and other user fees to overcome these revenue challenges. However toll roads are often unpopular, due to poor transparency stemming from uncertainty over whether tolls will be used to support the facility and the drivers who use it, or support other uses generally deemed to be socially equitable. Despite growing interest in toll finance, there is little understanding in the transportation literature of how independent local tolling agencies decide to raise and spend money. This study hypothesizes that different toll road governance models provide varying incentives to raise tolls and spend them on various purposes. This study catalogues toll roads from across the US, using state enabling legislation to classify toll roads by governance type (e.g. private, public-private-partnership, public corporation, independent regional/local special agency, independent state agency, state-managed, though there may be others). This study selects a representative sample of 60 toll roads across 20 US states, chosen based on their governance type, centerline miles, and rate of toll increase since 2007. This study examines meeting minutes, comprehensive annual financial reports and other primary sources to identify whether/how much tolls were increased/decreased, and for what purpose, identifying incentives for toll roads to spend money differently based on motivations like public or private status, geographic scope and level of government, among other motivating factors. This study also interviews staff members and elected officials from five toll road agencies, providing further details on why they made decisions to raise or lower tolls, how they intended to use the money, and their relationship to other state and local governments. SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION Highway finance has become increasingly unpredictable, with declining gas tax proceeds due to inflation and fuel efficiency. As many regions and states move towards greater use of tolls and public-private partnerships for their funding, toll road governance and its impact on funding decisions needs to be better understood. This report examines how the decision process over revenue distribution is related to the road ownership model itself. It examines whether there are incentives built into legislation and the system of ownership that might incentivize use of funds toward continual road construction, road maintenance, or more socially redistributive uses like support for public transit. This is a particularly pressing question because of the large amounts of money involved, the growing use of tolls, and the sometimes-limited access to toll revenue streams by non-tolling transportation providers like MPOs and transportation agencies. In particular, toll roads are known to create social inequities simply by denying use to people with inadequate income to pay the tolls. However, this could be rectified by using tolls to offer transit services. This study theorizes that some governance models may incentivize use of revenues for non-tolling purposes that promote equity, while other models may not. This report builds upon an existing literature on toll road finance, which has not previously examined the process for using funds in great detail, though tens of billions of dollars are at stake, and tolls are an increasingly important source of revenue as motor fuel tax revenues 6 stagnate due to inflation. Pitfalls for poorly managed toll roads can be costly, as seen from SR 91 in California, which cost public agencies hundreds of millions of dollars (the exact cost is unclear) to correct. This report provides insights that will help academics and practitioners better understand the connection between governance method and revenue allocation decisions. The results will help design toll road institutions that support intended policy goals and ensure transparent decisions over use of the money. SECTION 3: BACKGROUND LITERATURE Toll finance has continued to grow in importance as a revenue source for roads in the United States, as gas tax revenues have gradually declined due to increasing fuel efficiency, and inflation. Many states have turned to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Urging the United States Government to 2 Designate a Portion of the Edward T
    UNOFFICIAL COPY 17 RS BR 1556 1 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the United States government to 2 designate a portion of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway as Interstate 169. 3 WHEREAS, the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway opened as a toll road on 4 Kentucky's Parkway system in 1969, providing a fast and efficient connection between 5 the cities of Henderson and Hopkinsville; and 6 WHEREAS, in 2006, the section of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway 7 from Henderson to the Western Kentucky Parkway was designated as a portion of 8 Interstate 69, and in 2015, legislation directed that the route be signed as Interstate 69; 9 and 10 WHEREAS, designating the remainder of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile 11 Parkway as an interstate spur would provide increased connectivity between Interstate 69 12 and Interstate 24; and 13 WHEREAS, designation of the remainder of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile 14 Parkway as an interstate spur could save the federal government and the Commonwealth 15 nearly $200 million and maximize investments already made, like the $100 million 16 invested in the road in the 1990s to achieve this ultimate goal ; and 17 WHEREAS, designation of the remainder of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile 18 Parkway as an interstate spur will enhance the region by helping to bring in much needed 19 economic and tourism dollars, especially since so many businesses emphasize connection 20 to the interstate highway system when researching site selection; and 21 WHEREAS, designation of the remainder of the Edward T. Breathitt
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 180 1
    CHAPTER 180 1 CHAPTER 180 ( HCR 90 ) A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the United States government to designate a portion of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway as Interstate 169. WHEREAS, the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway opened as a toll road on Kentucky's Parkway system in 1969, providing a fast and efficient connection between the cities of Henderson and Hopkinsville; and WHEREAS, in 2006, the section of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway from Henderson to the Western Kentucky Parkway was designated as a portion of Interstate 69, and in 2015, legislation directed that the route be signed as Interstate 69; and WHEREAS, designating the remainder of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway as an interstate spur would provide increased connectivity between Interstate 69 and Interstate 24; and WHEREAS, designation of the remainder of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway as an interstate spur could save the federal government and the Commonwealth nearly $200 million and maximize investments already made, like the $100 million invested in the road in the 1990s to achieve this ultimate goal ; and WHEREAS, designation of the remainder of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway as an interstate spur will enhance the region by helping to bring in much needed economic and tourism dollars, especially since so many businesses emphasize connection to the interstate highway system when researching site selection; and WHEREAS, designation of the remainder of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway as an interstate spur would continue to improve the vital role that the interstate highway system plays in our national defense logistics system especially as it pertains to Fort Campbell; and WHEREAS, current projects in Kentucky's Six Year Road Plan address intersection issues that pose potential obstacles to an interstate designation; and WHEREAS, legislation has passed the United States Senate that would designate the remainder of the Edward T.
    [Show full text]
  • About the Author
    About the Author as a college student in 1987, working as an intern at Texas InstrumentsA native of Houston, in Dallas. Oscar After Slotboom receiving first a BSME moved from to TexasNorth A&MTexas and MSME from the University of Texas at Austin, he held a to Houston in 1991 to work as a project engineer in the energy industry.position at In MCI 1998 (now he began Verizon) working in Richardson in web and before software returning devel - opment, and he continues to work in the information technol- ogy industry as a software developer in 2014. Oscar’s efforts to document the history of Texas highways be- gan in 2000 when he launched the web site TexasFreeway.com. In 2003 he published Houston Freeways, a Historical and Visual Journey covering the history of Houston’s freeways. Oscar moved back to North Texas in 2004 and began efforts to docu- ment the history of North Texas freeways. In 2006 he launched in 2012 released the digital book Dallas-Fort Worth Freeways, Texas-Sizedthe web site Ambition DFWFreeways.info. (now DFWFreeways.com) and Interstate 35E at SH 121, January 2012 533 Bandwagon 357 Bush, Laura 147 Index Barker photo (reenactment of John F. Bush Turnpike 60, 61, 65, 68, 69, 202, Kennedy assassination) 175 215, 232, 235, 261–276, 521 baseball, teams at Burnett Field 281 ground breaking 15 A Bass, Anne T. 496, 497 ACT (Association Concerned about Bass, Robert 67, 461, 496, 497 C Tomorrow) 69, 269 Beckley Avenue 277 C-119 188 Addison 230, 240 Belknap Freeway 511 Cabell, Earl, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • National Inventory of Specialty Lanes and Highways: Technical Report February 2021 6
    Publication No. FHWA-HOP-20-043 February 2021 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high- quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. The FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Non-Binding Contents The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. Cover Image Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HOP-20-043 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date National Inventory of Specialty Lanes and Highways: Technical Report February 2021 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Nick Wood, Vivek Gupta, James P. Cardenas, Jinuk Hwang, Deepak Report No. Raghunathan 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • April 16, 2015 Mr. Greg Nadeau Deputy Administrator Federal
    April 16, 2015 Mr. Greg Nadeau Deputy Administrator Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Nadeau: AASHTO is in receipt of the following member department interstate applications Member DOT Request Kentucky Interstate 69 – Establish along Pennyrile Parkway Kentucky Interstate 69 – Establish at Purchase Parkway Mississippi Interstate 22 – Establish North Carolina Interstate 485 – Extension Texas Interstate 169 - Establish The member departments submitted the above applications to AASHTO for official approval and we have enclosed them for your consideration and approval. The AASHTO Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering is presently reviewing and voting on these applications. Please let us know your decision as soon as your time permits. AASHTO will make a final decision at the Standing Committee on Highways meeting on May 14, 2015 in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Thank you for your time and attention to these Interstate Route applications. Please contact Marty Vitale at [email protected], if more information is necessary. Thank you. Sincerely, Bud Wright Executive Director Enclosures Cc: Kevin Adderly – HEPI-20 Special Committee on USRN O hio R iv I-69 Designation er Henderson HENDERSON 60 Zion 01 136 ST Owensboro UV425 µ 0160 )"AU Anthoston 24 Interstate Highway r EB e v ¨¦§ )" i R DAVIESS I-69 - Designate I-69 Julian M. Carroll 0141A OP56 reen OP56 over Julian M. Carroll )"JC Purchase Parkway Morganfield Robards G Purchase Parkway 81 Wendell H. Ford 0160 OP 56 56 WK Western Kentucky Parkway OP OP Control Point 1 - UNION Sebree )" ST109 ST136 1 Fulton 41 «¬ Sturgis ST132 01 KY 166 Interchange )"AU Audubon Parkway Control Point 2 - WEBSTER Edward T.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Interstate Highway Progress Report
    2016 Interstate Highway Progress Report 30 I-69 Now A Reality in Nine Counties TEXARKANA 369 • The Texas Interstate 69 System is being developed as a series of incremental upgrades to existing highways - US 59, FORT DALLAS 30 ATLANTA WORTH LINDEN US 77, US 281, SH 44 and US 84. US 83 is now Interstate 2, JEFFERSON 49 providing a 46.8-mile connector between I-69E and I-69W 20 MARSHALL 20 Tyler Longview Shreveport in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. CARTHAGE 207 miles of the Interstate 69 system in Texas have now TENAHA U.S. • GARRISON 84 been designated and signed with interstate shields. NACOGDOCHES CENTER U.S. Approximately 400 additional miles are in active route 59 studies, environmental clearance steps, design or right-of- 35 45 LUFKIN DIBOLL CORRIGAN way acquisition. The following segments have been added MOSCOW LIVINGSTON to the nation’s Interstate Highway System: SHEPHERD 75.3 Miles (US 59/I-69) - Harris, Montgomery, Fort Bend AUSTIN CLEVELAND • HUMBLE Counties 69 • 7.8 Miles (US 77/I-69E) - Nueces County 10 RICHMOND 3.5 Miles (US 59/I-369) - Texarkana south from I-30 SAN ROSENBERG • ANTONIO SUGAR WHARTON LAND HOUSTON • 53.3 Miles (US 77/I-69E) - Raymondville to Rio Grande GALVESTON U.S. EL CAMPO • 1.5 Miles (SH 550/ I-169 Connector) - Cameron County 35 59 GANADA FREEPORT 37 EDNA GOLIAD • 18 Miles (US 281/I-69C) - Edinburg to Pharr, Hidalgo County VICTORIA BEEVILLE • 1.4 Miles (US 59/I-69W) - Laredo, Webb County U.S. GEORGE REFUGIO WEST 46.8 Miles (US 83/Interstate 2 System Connector) - Harlingen 69W 77 WOODSBORO I-69 System • FREER SINTON to Palmview U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Interstate Highway Progress Report
    2015 Interstate Highway Progress Report TEXARKANA I-69 Now A Reality in Nine Counties 369 • Interstate 69 in Texas is being developed as a series of incremental ATLANTA FORT DALLAS 30 WORTH LINDEN upgrades to existing highways - US 59, US 77, US 281 and US 84. Efforts JEFFERSON Shreveport are underway to make SH 44 a system connector in South Texas. 20 MARSHALL 20 Tyler Longview CARTHAGE • 205 miles of the Interstate 69 system route in Texas have now been TENAHA U.S. designated as part of the national Interstate Highway System and GARRISON 84 NACOGDOCHES CENTER signed with red, white and blue interstate shields. The following U.S. 59 segments have been designated: 35 45 LUFKIN DIBOLL CORRIGAN MOSCOW 11 Miles (US 59/I-69) - Houston inside Loop 610 LIVINGSTON • SHEPHERD • 35 Miles (US 59/I-69) - Harris and Montgomery Counties AUSTIN CLEVELAND • 28 Miles (US 59/I-69) - Harris and Fort Bend Counties 69 HUMBLE • 7.8 Miles (US 77/I-69E) - Nueces County (1.6 miles awaiting final 10 RICHMOND FHWA approval) SAN ROSENBERG ANTONIO SUGAR WHARTON LAND HOUSTON • 3.5 Miles (US 59/I-369) - Texarkana south from I-30 GALVESTON U.S. EL CAMPO • 53.3 Miles (US 77/I-69E) - Raymondville to Rio Grande 35 59 GANADA FREEPORT 37 EDNA GOLIAD • 46.8 Miles (US 83/I-2 connector) - Harlingen to Palmview VICTORIA BEEVILLE 18 Miles (US 281/I-69C) - Edinburg to Pharr, Hidalgo County (4.5 U.S. • GEORGE REFUGIO WEST 69W 77 WOODSBORO miles awaiting final FHWA approval) FREER ODEM SINTON U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • MAKING TOLLING TRANSPARENT: ANALYZING PROCESSES USED to ALLOCATE & DISTRIBUTE TOLL HIGHWAY REVENUE in MULTIPLE STATES David Weinreich, Ph.D
    MAKING TOLLING TRANSPARENT: ANALYZING PROCESSES USED TO ALLOCATE & DISTRIBUTE TOLL HIGHWAY REVENUE IN MULTIPLE STATES David Weinreich, Ph.D. 1 MAKING TOLLING TRANSPARENT: ANALYZING PROCESSES USED TO ALLOCATE & DISTRIBUTE TOLL HIGHWAY REVENUE IN MULTIPLE STATES FINAL PROJECT REPORT By: Principal Investigator David Weinreich, Ph.D. Thomas Scott S. Matthew Reeves Shima Hamidi, Ph.D. University of Texas at Arlington Sponsorship (CTEDD) Center for Transportation, Equity, Decisions and Dollars (CTEDD) USDOT University Transportation Center The University of Texas at Arlington 601 W. Nedderman Dr. Suite 103 Arlington TX 76019-0108 United States Phone: 817-272-5138 | Email: [email protected] In cooperation with US Department of Transportation-Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 2 Acknowledgment This work was supported by a grant from the Center for Transportation Equity, Decisions and Dollars (CTEDD) funded by U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration (OST‐R) and housed at The University of Texas at Arlington. We would like to thank CDM Smith, Inc. for use of their historic toll rate data, and Ron Davis for guidance in conducting our case selection. 3 Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The Center for Transportation, Equity, Decisions and Dollars (CTEDD), the U.S. Government and matching sponsor assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. Interviews were conducted with the consent of the interviewee, and are cited only when interviewees agreed to be on the record.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Trade Advisory Committee Meeting Of
    TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BORDER TRADE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OPEN MEETING VIA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL PURSUANT TO GOVERNOR'S MARCH 16, 2020 TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN OPEN MEETING PROVISIONS Thursday, September 10, 2020 8:00 a.m. COMMITTEE MEMBERS: RUTH R. HUGHS, Chair RAFAEL M. ALDRETE JULIAN ALVAREZ III JON BARELA LUIS ALFREDO BAZÁN (absent) EDUARDO CALVO EDUARDO A. CAMPIRANO (absent) ANDREW CANON SERGIO CONTRERAS DAVID A. CORONADO WARREN ERDMAN JOHN ESPARZA JUAN ANTONIO FLORES (absent) DANTE GALEAZZI (absent) JOSUE GARCIA, JR. (absent) CYNTHIA GARZA-REYES (absent) JAKE GIESBRECHT JAYNE HARKINS (absent) IVAN JAIME LISA LOFTUS-OTWAY MARGA LOPEZ (absent) BRUNO LOZANO STAN MEADOR (absent) JUAN OLAGUIBEL (absent) VINCENT PEREZ JESUS REYNA (absent) PETE SAENZ GERARDO "GERRY" SCHWEBEL MEGAN SHEA TOMMY TAYLOR (absent) SAM VALE CAMERON WALKER ON THE RECORD REPORTING (512) 450-0342 2 I N D E X AGENDA ITEM PAGE Welcome and Introductions - Roll Call 3 Adoption of August 6, 2020, meeting minutes 20 Texas-Mexico Border Transportation Master Plan 21 - Recap from Previous Meeting and Comments on Chapters 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 Texas-Mexico Border Transportation Master Plan 52 - Review and Discussion of Draft Chapter 9 - Stakeholder Public Engagement Chapter 8 - Identification and Evaluation of Strategies to Address Current and Future Needs Discussion of Regional Priorities 80 - El Paso - Laredo - Rio Grande Valley Texas-Mexico Border Transportation Master Plan 154 - Review and Discussion of Draft Chapter 10 - Recommendations Chapter 11 - Implementation Open Discussion 176 - Future Meetings and Topics Adjourn 179 ON THE RECORD REPORTING (512) 450-0342 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 SECRETARY HUGHS: Well then, let me go ahead 3 and get this started.
    [Show full text]