TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, November 17, 2005 Commission Room Dewitt Greer Building 125 East 11th Street Austin, Texas 78701-2483
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Ric Williamson, Chairman Hope Andrade Ted Houghton, Jr.
STAFF:
Michael W. Behrens, P.E., Executive Director Steve Simmons, Deputy Executive Director Richard Monroe, General Counsel Roger Polson, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director Dee Hernandez, Chief Minute Clerk
I N D E X
AGENDA ITEM PAGE
9:00 A.M.CONVENE MEETING 8
1. Public Hearing 11 Project Selection Process - Pursuant to Transportation Code, '201.602, this public hearing is to receive data, comments, views and/or testimony concerning the commission's highway project selection process and the relative importance of the various criteria on which the commission bases its project selection decisions relating to the 2007 Unified Transportation Program.
2. Approval of Minutes of the October 27, 2005, 12 regular meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission
3. Aviation 12 Approve funding for airport improvement projects at various locations (MO)
4. Public Transportation 14 Award Federal '5311 commission discretionary funds to nonurbanized transit districts to assist with increased fuel costs (MO)
5. Discussion Item 22 Development of new project evaluation indexes
6. Delegations (Delegation requests will be considered and action taken as may be appropriate) a. South Central Texas County Mobility 48 Alliance Discuss regional planning process and transportation priorities
b. Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners 79 Discussion on highest priority regional mobility projects in the Houston- Galveston area
7. Reports a. Grand Parkway Association - Annual 113 report on the current status of projects and activities undertaken during the preceding 12 months
b. Brazoria County - Hurricane Rita evacuation 121
3
8. Promulgation of Administrative Rules a. Proposed Adoption Under Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, and the Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code, Chapter 2001: (to be published in the Texas Register for public comment) (1) Chapter 18 - Motor Carriers (MO) 159 Amendments to '18.2, Definitions (General Provisions), '18.13, Application for Motor Carrier Registration, '18.14, Expiration and Renewal of Commercial Motor Vehicle Registration, '18.16, Insurance Requirements, '18.17, Single State Registration System, and Repeal of '18.18, Temporary Registration of International Motor Carriers, (Motor Carrier Registration), Amendments to '18.32, Motor Carrier Records (Records and Inspections, '18.51, Household Goods Agents, '18.58, Moving Services Contract- Options for Carrier Limitation of Liability, ''18.63-18.65, (Consumer Protection), '18.82, Definitions, ''18.87-18.93, '18.96, Disposal of Certain Vehicles, (Vehicle Storage Facility)
(2) Chapter 25 - Traffic Operations 161 a. Amendments to '25.1, Uniform Traffic Control Devices (General) (MO)
b. Amendments to '25.21, 162 Introduction '25.53, Speed Zone Studies, and '25.25, Application of Advisory Speeds (Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones) (MO)
c. Amendments to '25.41, 165 Definitions (Congestion Mitigation Facilities) (MO)
b. Final Adoption Under Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, and the Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code, Chapter 2001: (1) Chapter 1 - Management a. Amendments to '1.1, Texas 168 Transportation Commission, and '1.2 Texas Department of Transportation (Organization and Responsibilities) and '1.5, Public Hearings (Public Meetings and Hearings) (MO)
b. Amendments to '1.82, Statutory 169 Advisory Committee Operations and Procedures, '1.84, Statutory Advisory Committees, and '1.85, 4
Department Advisory Committees (Advisory Committees) (MO)
(2) Chapter 9 - Contract Management (MO) 170 Amendments to '9.1, Claims for Purchase Contracts (General)
(3) Chapter 9- Contract Management (MO) 172 Amendments to '9.15, Acceptance, Rejection, and Reading of Proposals, '9.17, Award of Contract, and '9.18, After Contract Award (Highway Improvement Contracts), and '9.106, Sanctions (Contractor Sanctions)
c. Final Adoption Under Title 1, Texas Administrative Code, and the Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code, Chapter 2001:
Title 1, Part 9, State Aircraft Pooling 174 Board, Chapter 181 - General Provisions and Chapter 183 - Rulemaking Procedure (MO) Repeal of ''181.1-181.9, ''181.11-181.13, and '181.15; and Repeal of ''183.1-183.4
9. Transportation Planning 177 Approve adjustments to participation ratios for projects located in economically disadvantaged counties (MO)
10. Discussion Item 178 Discuss the development of a lease and operating agreement for a state-owned rail facility in Fannin and Lamar counties
11. Toll Projects a. Bexar County - Designate tolled mainlanes 151 on US 281 from Evans Road to the Bexar/Comal county line as a toll project on the state highway system, and as a controlled-access facility for the purpose of development, maintenance and operation (MO)
b. Dallas County - Designate tolled mainlanes 152 on extension of SH 190 from SH 78 to I-30 as a toll project, on the state highway system, and as a controlled-access facility for the purpose of development, maintenance and operation (MO)
c. Tarrant County - Designate tolled 154 mainlanes on extension of SH 121 from I-30 to FM 1187, as a toll project, on the state highway system, and as a controlled-access facility for the purpose of development, maintenance and operation (MO) 5
12. Right of Wa y a. Dallas County - US 67 near Mt. Lebanon Road 135 Consider the donation of land for a new area engineer and maintenance facility (MO)
b. Various Counties 188 Authorize the negotiation of options to purchase for advance acquisition of right of way for SH 114, SH 121 and FM 720 (MO)
13. Regional Mobility Authorities a. Bexar County - Consider final approval of 139 a request for financing from the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority to pay for certain costs for development preliminary feasibility, environmental, public involvement, schematics and preliminary financial plans for managed or tolled lanes on I-35 from the Bexar/Guadalupe County line to the San Antonio Central Business District, managed or tolled lanes on SH 16 west from Interstate Loop 410 to Loop 1604 northwest, and the tolled interchange at US 281 and Wurzbach Parkway (MO)
b. Hidalgo County - Authorize Hidalgo County 190 to create a regional mobility authority (MO)
c. Smith and Gregg Counties - Consider 145 preliminary approval for financing to the Northwest Regional Mobility Authority for development activities on Loop 49 (MO)
14. State Infrastructure Bank 264 Smith County - Duck Creek Water Supply Corporation - Consider granting final approval of an application from the Duck Creek Water Supply Corp. to borrow $583,000 from the State Infrastructure Bank to pay for utility relocation made necessary by the expansion of US 69 from the Sabine River to north of FM 1804 (MO)
15. Contracts a. Award or Reject Highway Improvement Contracts (1) Maintenance 266 (see attached itemized list) (MO)
(2) Highway and Building Construction 267 (see attached itemized list) (MO)
b. Contract Claims (1) Bee County - Project TWP-2004-2005 - 269 Approve a claim settlement with Dynamic Technical Services, L.P. for additional compensation (MO) 6
(2) Falls County -Project TWP-2004-2005 - 270 Approve a claim settlement with Dynamic Technical Services, L.P. for additional compensation (MO)
16. Contributions to K.A.R.E. 271 Acknowledge a contribution in the amount of $10,000 from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to the Katrina Assistance Relief Effort (KARE), a fund that was established and is managed by TxDOT employees to assist fellow DOT employees affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas (MO
17. Routine Minute Orders 275 a. Donations to the Department (1) Bridge Division and Houston District - Consider donations from the University of Nebraska to pay for travel expenses for three department employees to attend the 2005 Accelerated Bridge Construction Conference to be held in San Diego, California from December 15-16, 2005 (MO)
(2) Texas Turnpike Authority Division - Consider a donation from the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships for a department employee's travel expenses to participate in the National Conference from November 28-29, 2005 in Toronto, Canada (MO)
(3) Texas Turnpike Authority Division - Acknowledge a donation from the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships (NCPPP) for a department employee's travel expenses to participate in NCPPP's annual meeting which was held on September 29, 2005 in St. Louis, Missouri (MO)
b. Eminent Domain Proceedings Various Counties - noncontrolled and controlled access highways (see attached itemized list) (MO)
c. Highway Designation Archer and Wichita Counties - Redesignate US 82/277 along a new location in and around the city of Holliday and redesignate the former location of US 82/277 as US 82/277 Business (MO)
7
D. Load Zones and Postings Various Counties - Revise load restrictions on various bridges on the state highway system (MO)
e. Right of Way Disposition and Donations (1) Bexar County - Loop 13 at Spur 122 - Consider the sale of surplus right of way (MO)
(2) Bexar County - I-35 at Hutchins Place in San Antonio - Consider the sale of a surplus drainage easement (MO)
(3) Comal County - Fm 306, old alignment in New Braunfels - Consider the transfer of title of surplus right of way to the city of New Braunfels (MO)
(4) Johnson County - I-35W at Ellison Street in Burleson - Consider the sale of surplus right of way (MO)
(5) Lubbock County - US 62/82 near Idalou - Consider the release of a highway reservation (MO)
(6) Walker County - SH 150 east of New Waverly - Consider the sale of surplus right of way (MO)
f. Speed Zones Various Counties - Establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state (MO)
18. Briefing with Utah Transportation Commission 277 regarding transportation issues
19. Executive Session (none required) 275
ADJOURN 340 8
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning.
3 AUDIENCE: Good morning.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: It is 9:09 a.m., and I call
5 the November 2005 meeting of the Texas Transportation
6 Commission to order. It's a pleasure to have each of you
7 here this morning.
8 Please note for the record that the public
9 notice of this meeting, containing all items on the
10 agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of
11 State on November 9, 2005 at 3:49 p.m.
12 Before we begin today's meeting, as we always
13 do, would you please take a moment to locate your pager,
14 your cell phone, your Dewberry, your iPod, and whatever
15 else you carry, and please open it and put it on the
16 silent or vibrate mode so we won't be disrupted during the
17 morning. I'm going to join you in doing that at this
18 time. Thank you very much.
19 We will open the meeting with comments from
20 each of the commission members. I would note that
21 Chairman Johnson had some family business and will not be
22 with us today, but he sends his best regards and tells us
23 to send as much money to the Houston District as possible.
24 (General laughter.)
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: And we will begin with 9
1 Commissioner Houghton.
2 MR. HOUGHTON: I think we already did that, Mr.
3 Chairman. Is the billion-dollar man out there in the
4 audience somewhere?
5 Welcome and good morning, and in advance, Happy
6 Thanksgiving. And to our friends from the Houston and
7 South Central areas and the Gulf Coast, welcome and look
8 forward to hearing the presentation.
9 MS. ANDRADE: Good morning. Welcome to all.
10 Sorry that I missed last night's reception. I'm looking
11 forward to hearing the presentations from our delegations.
12 Mr. Chairman, we've got a busy agenda, so I'm looking
13 forward to keep moving Texas forward. And as Ted said,
14 we're approaching the holiday season, and I wish you all
15 safe travels.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Hope and Ted. And
17 I associate myself with the remarks from Commissioner
18 Houghton and Commissioner Andrade.
19 I need to remind everyone present that if you
20 wish to address the commission during the day's meeting, I
21 need you to complete a speaker's card. You can find it
22 out in the lobby. If you're commenting on an agenda item,
23 we need for you to fill out a yellow card, as the one in
24 my left hand, and please identify the agenda item. If
25 you're commenting in the open comment period, I need for 10
1 you to fill out a blue card.
2 As Commissioner Andrade said, we have a long
3 and perhaps busy day today, and we understand we may have
4 some visitors later on who wish to express their support
5 for our transportation plan in South Texas. We ask that
6 regardless of the color of card you complete or where you
7 testify, that you attempt to limit your testimony to three
8 minutes, just so we can finish by sometime next Saturday,
9 and that applies to all but a sitting member of the
10 legislature, and as my former colleagues know, they are
11 permitted to speak for as long and about whatever topic
12 they choose, because in the end, this commission and this
13 department cannot do its job without the support and
14 partnership of Governor Perry and the members of the House
15 and Senate.
16 So Mr. Kuempel, Ms. Hamric, Ms. Casteel, Mr.
17 Lindsay, my old buddy Mr. Wentworth -- I think I saw him
18 out there someplace, and who did I miss -- you take as
19 long as you want and say whatever you want, it's okay with
20 us. 11
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Our first item of business
4 today, item number 1 on our agenda, is a public hearing we
5 need to hold right quick concerning our project selection
6 process. I would like to ask Jim Randall to come forward,
7 and at this time also, Mr. Behrens, I would ask you to
8 help us keep the meeting in line.
9 MR. BEHRENS: Jim?
10 MR. RANDALL: Good morning, commissioners. For
11 the record, my name is Jim Randall, director of the
12 Transportation Planning and Programming Division.
13 The notice for this public hearing was filed
14 with the Secretary of State on October 24, 2005, and
15 published in the Texas Register on November 4, 2005. This
16 presentation and hearing is held annually to fulfill the
17 requirements of the Texas Transportation Code, Section
18 201.602.
19 The highway project selection process will be
20 used for selections in the 2007 Statewide Preservation
21 Program and Statewide Mobility Program. At this point we
22 have a 14-minute video presentation. After the video, I
23 will return to provide additional information and answer
24 any questions. Thank you.
25 (Whereupon, the video was shown.) 12
1 (Fire alarm interrupted video presentation,
2 audio recording.)
3
4 P R O C E E D I N G S (RESUMED)
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: ... approval of minutes.
6 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
7 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
9 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
10 aye.
11 (A chorus of ayes.)
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
13 (No response.)
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
15 Dave, are you around?
16 MR. BEHRENS: I think we have Bill Fuller here
17 today with the Aviation Division. Bill, if you'd come up
18 and present agenda item number 3.
19 MR. FULLER: Good morning. I am Bill Fuller
20 with the Aviation Division.
21 This item contains request for approval of
22 grant funding for 15 airport improvement projects. The
23 total of funds requested for all projects are $9,026,670.
24 $8,217,767 are federally supported and $908,903 are local
25 funds; there are no state funds allocated for these 13
1 projects.
2 A public hearing to solicit comments was held
3 on October 20, 2005. No comments were received. We
4 recommend approval of this minute order.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
6 explanation. Do you have questions, comments?
7 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
8 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
10 All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
11 (A chorus of ayes.)
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
13 (No response.)
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
15 Bill, be sure and tell all of your folks that
16 the day is coming that the questions that are asked of
17 highways will be asked of airports, and that is, how does
18 this money either reduce congestion, improve safety,
19 expand economic opportunity, improve the air quality, or
20 improve the value of the assets of our system. I don't
21 want anybody to get caught off guard, but we're going to
22 be pretty focused on that in these public meetings. We
23 want the public to understand our money, whether it's
24 federal, local or state, is being applied to reaching
25 those five goals. 14
1 Thank you very much. Mike?
2 MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to agenda item number 4
3 and this will be under Public Transportation where we'll
4 have a minute order presented which will be recommending
5 the awarding of funds to help offset some increased fuel
6 costs for our transportation providers. Eric?
7 MR. GLEASON: Good morning, members of the
8 commission, Mr. Chair, Mr. Behrens. For the record, my
9 name is Eric Gleason. I'm the director of the Public
10 Transportation Division.
11 The minute order before you awards $1,914,845
12 in Section 5311 nonurbanized funds to rural public
13 transportation operators to assist with the burden caused
14 by the recent increases in fuel costs due to the effects
15 of hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the unexpected increase
16 in the worldwide demand for fuel.
17 This minute order responds to direction from
18 Governor Perry received on September 29 of this year to
19 develop a method for allocating a portion of the
20 nonurbanized area discretionary fund to address this
21 issue.
22 For the past year or more, public
23 transportation providers throughout the state have been
24 confronted with the problem of higher than anticipated
25 fuel prices. This was further exacerbated by the 15
1 shortages due to the two hurricanes.
2 This minute order will assist rural providers
3 throughout the state and help avoid difficult decisions to
4 reduce service or service quality as a result of these
5 additional expenses.
6 The amount of the award is an estimate of the
7 overall statewide impact of fuel price increases on rural
8 public transportation providers. It was calculated by
9 combining the impact of an average increase for the period
10 between October 2004 and October 2005, with an additional
11 increment incurred due to the hurricanes between mid
12 August and the end of October 2005.
13 The award is allocated among the 39 rural
14 public transportation providers on a pro rata basis using
15 revenue miles. Revenue miles was chosen because it is a
16 direct indicator of fuel consumption and expense, and
17 because we have a relatively high degree of confidence in
18 the data.
19 We recommend your approval of this.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, we have one witness.
21 What is your pleasure: hear the witness or vote?
22 MR. HOUGHTON: The witness.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. If you'll give us a
24 second. Eric, I call to the podium our newest partner in
25 transportation, Ben Herr. 16
1 MR. HERR: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, good
2 morning. My name is Ben Herr. I'm the new executive
3 director of the Texas Transit Association.
4 The TTA membership includes about 75 of the
5 transit providers in the state. That includes the large
6 metros, the small urban 5307s, and the rural 5311
7 providers. In addition we have numerous associate members
8 who are vendors and consultants that support our transit
9 operators.
10 Prior to coming to TTA, I was a member of
11 TxDOT; I was employed by the Public Transportation
12 Division.
13 I'd like to comment on the Public
14 Transportation minute order that Eric just read. The
15 Texas Transit Association recommends approval of this
16 minute order. We believe this is the right thing to do at
17 the right time.
18 We appreciate the hard work of Eric Gleason,
19 Kelly Kirkland, and the PT staff in putting this minute
20 order together in such a short time. We know there was a
21 considerable amount of effort in researching the data,
22 crunching the numbers, and establishing an equitable
23 distribution of funds for the rural providers.
24 These funds are greatly needed and very much
25 appreciated by the rural providers. You can expect that 17
1 these funds will be wisely used by each of the 39 rural
2 providers.
3 Finally, TTA wants to thank the commission for
4 your positive action and urgency in making these funds so
5 quickly available to the 5311 providers. Thank you.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, do you have questions
7 or comments directed towards this witness?
8 MR. HOUGHTON: Ben, what are the providers
9 going to do to insulate themselves in the future from
10 events like this?
11 MR. HERR: Insulate them, sir?
12 MR. HOUGHTON: Try.
13 MR. HERR: Try? They are right now looking at
14 how to become more efficient in what they're doing, and
15 certainly some of the regional coordination efforts that
16 are being conducted right now leads to that. But they are
17 looking at how they can basically stretch their dollars as
18 far as possible, and all of them are looking at both
19 internal to their individual operations, and then
20 external, they're talking amongst themselves, and TTA is
21 part of that as far as keeping the discussions going on
22 how they can become more efficient and stretch these
23 dollars.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions or comments,
25 members? 18
1 (No response.)
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ben, we appreciate your kind
3 words, and certainly to the staff for their hard work, we
4 appreciate that. And while we accept your kind words to
5 us, we are, all three of us, appointees of Governor Perry,
6 and when he sends us a letter and tells us to do
7 something, we do it immediately. So if you get a chance,
8 tell him thanks also.
9 MR. HERR: Thank you, sir.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any other witnesses?
11 MR. BEHRENS: No, sir.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Eric, close? Anything else?
13 MR. GLEASON: No further comments, sir.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
15 staff's explanation. Do we have questions or comments?
16 MS. ANDRADE: So moved.
17 MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
19 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
20 aye.
21 (A chorus of ayes.)
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
23 (No response.)
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
25 And Eric, same comments. Public transit in our 19
1 world is no longer different from highway construction.
2 MR. GLEASON: Absolutely.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: We need to be prepared to
4 answer to the public how our expenditure of monies either
5 reduces congestion, improves air quality, improves safety,
6 expands economic opportunity, or preserves the value of
7 our system. And we do consider public transit an integral
8 part of the transportation system of this state.
9 MR. GLEASON: And I look forward to that.
10 Thank you, sir. 20
1 PUBLIC HEARING (RESUMED)
2 MR. BEHRENS: Jim, I think we're ready to go
3 back to you if you're ready. Continue your video.
4 (Whereupon, the video was resumed.)
5 MR. RANDALL: In order to complete our
6 presentation, I'd like to point out that copies of the
7 project selection process brochure, along with a summary
8 of categories, can be found in the foyer. The brochure
9 will recap the information provided in the video and the
10 summary of categories provides more details on the ranking
11 index and allocation formulas used in the selection
12 process.
13 A copy of the presentation, without the
14 intermission, in DVD and CD format, can be found in the
15 foyer as well for those who want to take the public
16 hearing home to share with others who could not attend.
17 We're requesting written comments regarding the
18 highway project selection process be mailed to the address
19 shown earlier. The deadline for comments is December 19,
20 2005 at 5:00 p.m.
21 That concludes our presentation and I'll return
22 it back to you, Mr. Williamson.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: We have no witnesses at a
24 public hearing.
25 Members, you've heard the staff's presentation 21
1 and recommendation. Do you have questions or comments at
2 this time?
3 MR. HOUGHTON: No.
4 MS. ANDRADE: No.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Monroe, do we require
6 action on this matter?
7 MR. MONROE: No.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Jim, we want to thank you and
9 we want to thank our audience for permitting us to put
10 this at the beginning of the meeting. This particular
11 public hearing needed to be done really before we took any
12 other action today. So we thank you for your patience.
13 And Jim, that was a good video.
14 MR. RANDALL: That's my staff.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: That accurately captures the
16 laser focus of this department for the next 20 years.
17 MR. RANDALL: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
19 (Whereupon, the public hearing was concluded.) 22
1 P R O C E E D I N G S (RESUMED)
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike?
3 MR. BEHRENS: We'll now go to agenda item
4 number 5 which is a discussion item which will be led by
5 Amadeo, and we'll be talking about some of the project
6 evaluation indices. Some of those were pointed out in the
7 video. Amadeo?
8 MR. SAENZ: Good morning, commissioners, Mr.
9 Behrens. For the record, Amadeo Saenz, assistant
10 executive director for Engineering Operations.
11 Item 5 is a discussion item on the development
12 of new project evaluation indices, and on our October 27
13 commission meeting, you directed staff to gather
14 information and develop these indexes for all projects
15 that will be brought before the commission. Such
16 information and indexes would be used to assist the
17 commission in making decisions on the funding and
18 development of projects.
19 Through the direction that was given during the
20 presentation of the proposed pass-through toll financing
21 projects, staff was instructed to prepare and discuss such
22 information, not only for pass-through toll projects but
23 for all projects.
24 So for the project, the commission asked staff
25 to know the answers to the following questions: 23
1 Does the proposed project produce long-term,
2 mid-term, or short-term solution?
3 Is the proposed project on a state road, a
4 regional road or a local road?
5 And how does the proposed project address the
6 goals of the department which are to reduce congestion,
7 improve safety, expand economic opportunity, improve air
8 quality, and increase the value of the state's asset?
9 I put in place a work group, asking the
10 Transportation Planning and Programming Division to be the
11 lead, to develop the criteria and the indexes that we want
12 to use as we move forward to evaluate the projects that
13 we'll be working.
14 This information will also be passed on so that
15 the metropolitan planning organizations, as they put
16 together their long-range plans, will also use these same
17 indexes because this will be a way that we can measure the
18 success that they're trying to realize and accomplish as
19 they put together their work programs.
20 The work group is composed of members from the
21 GBE Division, Finance Division, Environmental Affairs
22 Division, and the Traffic Operations Division.
23 The group has met once and is in the early
24 stages of developing criteria and indexes to evaluate the
25 proposed projects. The work group is proposing to develop 24
1 qualitative measures of success based on availability of
2 quantitative information. Since TxDOT works with many
3 local and regional partners in developing and funding of
4 projects, such as the MPOs, regional mobility authorities,
5 counties, et cetera, we plan to obtain information from
6 them in cases where we don't have the data in-house.
7 We'll take some of the information that they collect and
8 have as part of their planning process and then use that
9 to develop and implement into the indexes that we're going
10 to put in place.
11 In the area of determining the short-term, the
12 mid-term and the long-term solutions, the group is
13 currently focusing on the facility's volume-to-capacity
14 ratio. Each facility, whether it's an existing or new
15 highway, railroad or transit, has an optimal capacity for
16 use. The number of users of a given facility lead to a
17 calculated quantified level of service. Once the level of
18 service is reached, the facility begins to degrade. For
19 highways the resulting degradation results in congestion.
20 The group proposes to calculate the number of
21 years a proposed mobility project can operate at or below
22 the predetermined level of service. Based on that number
23 of years, a determination of whether it's a short-term,
24 mid-term or long-term solution can be rendered.
25 For example, if we have a four-lane, divided 25
1 highway, and we go out there and make some improvements at
2 an intersection, that's really a short-term solution
3 because you're not really impacting the overall volume-
4 over-capacity of the road. You're, in essence, addressing
5 a short segment of the road so it's a short-term solution.
6 By the same token, if you apply a different
7 solution to that project where you expand it and add
8 lanes, you're now doing a mid-term or long-term solution
9 based on the number of lanes that you would build on that
10 particular project.
11 In the area of identifying whether the road is
12 a local road, a regional road or a state road, the work
13 group is still reviewing the criteria to make such a
14 determination. Originally they were focused on the
15 classification and the designation based on the state
16 highway system, however, the same road many times is used
17 by the traveling public in different ways.
18 For example, Interstate 35 in Austin is used by
19 many drivers who live in Austin, so you could say it's a
20 local road for Austin, but really it's also used by
21 drivers in the whole area so it's a regional road, and of
22 course it's part of the interstate so it's a state road.
23 So we are looking at how to be able to determine how to
24 define that road.
25 This is one of the areas that maybe we would 26
1 like to get some additional feedback from the commission
2 as we move forward, and I'll be asking the committee to
3 come to you individually and get some feedback to kind of
4 redefine the definitions.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Amadeo, I suspect you're going
6 to get a little bit of feedback this morning, but why
7 don't you go ahead and go through your presentation and
8 then commission members will ask you some questions or
9 give you that feedback that I know is on our minds.
10 MR. SAENZ: Okay, yes, sir.
11 With respect to the indices, we're trying to
12 develop some indices, ways to be able to measure the
13 success of what we're doing in the area of project
14 development and project selection. We want to be able to
15 reduce congestion. The work group is looking at proposing
16 an evaluation of the facilities, again, the volume-to-
17 capacity ratio. This is a measure of a mobility solution
18 value.
19 The opening day volume-over-capacity ratio
20 proposed for the facility will be compared to the volume-
21 over-capacity ratio of the existing facility to determine
22 the percent improvement: how much improvement do you get
23 in this project by simply building or applying the
24 solution that you identified.
25 Predetermined ratios could be used to measure 27
1 whether it's a high, moderate or limited, could also be
2 used to differentiate between short-term, mid-term and
3 long-term solution.
4 In the area of safety, the work group is
5 considering the Safety Improvement Index. It's the SII.
6 We use that to determine the cost-effectiveness of any
7 given project as it relates to safety, and we use it in
8 the selection of our safety projects right now. However,
9 these projects that are mobility projects are high-dollar
10 projects, so we would be getting very low SII index
11 calculations because the projects are high in cost.
12 So another thing we're looking at is what does
13 this project do with respect to the reduction of the
14 accident rates or improvements to the accident rates. So
15 that's another measure that the committee is looking at to
16 identify the indices for safety.
17 In the area of economic opportunity, if a
18 project is being promoted to enhance economic opportunity,
19 the work group proposes that the economic opportunity be
20 measured by the number of new jobs it creates in Texas.
21 Such data would be provided by local entities or pass-
22 through financing applicants. Predetermined ranges will
23 be established to document high, moderate, or limited
24 economic improvement opportunities.
25 In addition, the work group will discuss topics 28
1 related to proposed freight-only facilities, for example,
2 rail and truck, and what impact they would have on the
3 movement of goods.
4 For the area of air quality, this is one that
5 is proving to be the most challenging one of all of the
6 indices so far, and of course, in the non-attainment areas
7 we work and we have a non-attainment model and we
8 determine conformity for the region as a whole. We don't
9 have a mechanism to identify it project by project, but we
10 are looking at a way to be able to do that.
11 So one of the other things that we're also
12 looking at is looking at basically volume-over-capacity,
13 the reduction of congestion will allow for traffic to move
14 faster. That will also result in reductions in some of
15 the NOX and such, so we would get an improvement to air
16 quality based on the volume-over-capacity, and then it can
17 also be checked against is this project already identified
18 in the plan for the region of the non-attainment areas,
19 and if it is, what improvement does that whole plan have
20 as a whole.
21 The final indices is the increase in asset
22 value. The work group has discussed focusing on local
23 entities really needs to provide up-front capital for the
24 development and construction of a facility. The work
25 group also considered the local desire for TxDOT to limit 29
1 pass-through financing reimbursement as a measure for
2 local governments' desire to invest in our assets.
3 However, a more rigorous review of the revenues
4 generated by a facility through gas tax receipts as
5 compared to the cost TxDOT incurs on its continued
6 maintenance and rehabilitation would probably be more
7 realistic.
8 So we have been working with TP&P and the GBE
9 on identifying a cost-revenue index for several months
10 now, and we're getting to the point that we can identify
11 how much revenue every road in the state of Texas
12 generates.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Tax revenue.
14 MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, how much revenue every
15 road in the state of Texas generates with respect from
16 gasoline tax. And then we can apply and we can also
17 calculate the amount of maintenance that it takes to
18 maintain that road. In essence, we know what that asset
19 brings in and we know what that asset costs us, so we have
20 the value of the asset.
21 So we can now look at making improvements to
22 that particular facility and then be able to determine
23 what impact it will have on the asset value, and that's
24 one of the indices that we're also generating.
25 The group has just started, and as you can see, 30
1 we're in the beginning phases and have identified a couple
2 of strategies to move forward on, but we would be more
3 than happy to get some feedback from the commission so
4 that we can move forward and put these indices in place as
5 soon as possible so that they then can be used, as you
6 said, Mr. Chairman, to select projects to make sure that
7 we're basically trying to develop the system that
8 addresses the goals that the commission has set.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Amadeo, are there other staff
10 members that will make a presentation on this discussion
11 item?
12 MR. SAENZ: Not today, sir.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Members, I will have a
14 couple of questions and some direction for Amadeo. As
15 always, I prefer to yield to each of you, so the floor is
16 open. Questions, comments, dialogue?
17 MR. HOUGHTON: What categories does this apply
18 to?
19 MR. SAENZ: It can apply to all categories. We
20 can apply it to every single category.
21 MR. HOUGHTON: Rehab?
22 MR. SAENZ: I can apply to rehab. As we see
23 it, we'll probably have different indices for the
24 different types of projects. You have set limits on the
25 amount of rehab dollars that we have, then those indices, 31
1 as long as you're applying it to projects in the same
2 category, you're basically comparing apples to apples.
3 But we can apply it to every type of project.
4 MR. HOUGHTON: Of the working group, is this a
5 completely internal working group, or do we have outside
6 resources.
7 MR. SAENZ: We have the working group internal,
8 and that's something that I think we need to move forward.
9 The working group is internal. We're soliciting some
10 input from our partners, the MPOs and the counties and
11 cities and such, but I agree that I think it would be good
12 to take it out after we have kind of a stick man or a work
13 product and try to validate to make sure that we are going
14 in the right direction.
15 MR. HOUGHTON: From a third-party validation on
16 these indices that we're generating?
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Amadeo, haven't you already
18 contacted TTI about independently developing some indices?
19 MR. SAENZ: Yes, TTI is working with us. Of
20 course, we've been working with TTI on some of our
21 congestion indexes, so we would use TTI as a resource to
22 help us validate some of the information.
23 MR. HOUGHTON: And rail relocation would have
24 the same indices as to evaluate the cost benefit analysis?
25 MR. SAENZ: I think when you look at the rail 32
1 relocation, you would look at the different indices. Not
2 every project will have a high impact on every one of our
3 indices or every one of our goals, but some of them will
4 have a much higher impact, for example, on safety, and of
5 course, congestion.
6 So we'll be able to measure the project. For
7 example, if we go out there and we are able to relocate
8 rail out of an urbanized area, we not only have the safety
9 index that we're improving, improving the safety of the
10 area, but we also have the capability of having a
11 tremendous impact based on what strategies are used to use
12 the corridors where the railroad vacated.
13 Now, are we going to use those corridors as
14 light rail, and what impact will that have on the overall
15 system. If you go out there and model, you go in there
16 and apply a commuter rail or a light rail system in that
17 corridor, what impact will that have on the entire system
18 with respect to reduction in congestion. How many people
19 do we get off the highway and put them on this commuter
20 rail that didn't exist before by simply moving the other
21 project. So it really is a reiteration of one project and
22 what that project will lead to.
23 MR. HOUGHTON: At the end of the day, the work
24 product, you're going to hand this to the MPOs. Right?
25 MR. SAENZ: At the end of the day, the work 33
1 product, we will use it ourselves in the project selection
2 for the projects that the department is doing, and also
3 hand it over to the MPOs so they can use it as a tool, and
4 then we will also use this tool to see the work product or
5 the plans that are put together by the MPOs so that we can
6 measure the effectiveness of what they're doing.
7 So it will be used by them to put their program
8 in place but it will also be used by us to evaluate the
9 effectiveness of their program, or to validate their
10 program.
11 MR. HOUGHTON: And how do we get to an
12 evaluation of the value of a trade corridor: build a
13 trade corridor, not to build a trade corridor?
14 We do things in segments, we look at the
15 urbanized areas, but we've got those connectivity issues.
16 MR. SAENZ: As we look at those, I guess the
17 first thing we'll identify is, is this a local, regional
18 or statewide project. In a corridor, we need to look at
19 the corridor as a statewide project, and that statewide
20 project may have some elements inside an urbanized area.
21 For example, something leaving El Paso, there will be some
22 projects within the El Paso MPO that will be built and
23 will be promoted and selected by the MPO, but there's no
24 reason why TxDOT, if this is a statewide corridor or trade
25 corridor of statewide importance, we cannot go in there 34
1 and supplement and partner with the MPO and get that
2 project built as part of a whole and not just let each one
3 of them build their own.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: The index I think would make
5 the most sense on a trade corridor would be economic
6 opportunity, straight out.
7 MR. SAENZ: Right.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: In other words, if we have a
9 statewide project that, say, starts on the northwest side
10 of El Paso, moves through or around El Paso, for a moment
11 it's local road improvement or regional road improvement,
12 but the long-term it's state road improvement, so I would
13 imagine the indices for the local and regional would be
14 focused on reducing congestion and safety, but for us as a
15 statewide matter, we would be saying how many jobs, what
16 economic opportunity, what expansion of the tax base is
17 going to occur in the state as a result of this
18 investment. That would just be my instinct.
19 MS. ANDRADE: Amadeo, I concur with
20 Commissioner Houghton that we do need to bring our outside
21 partners to buy into it and to validate. My concern is
22 that we not sacrifice our safety. Some of the things that
23 we do for safety are short-term, and so I just want to
24 make sure that we don't put aside those safety projects
25 because they're short-term. So I'm not sure how we're 35
1 going to establish that criteria.
2 MR. SAENZ: Well, that in itself, we do have
3 categories that are specific to safety and those are
4 addressed in those.
5 MS. ANDRADE: Like the Safety Bond Program that
6 we just did.
7 MR. SAENZ: The Safety Bond Program that we
8 just did, the additional funding that came in through
9 SAFETEA-LU in the area of safety with those additional
10 three programs, and those programs will continue to exist.
11 I think right now for safety we simply use the safety
12 index as our only criteria for selecting projects.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: It's the only criteria
14 necessary.
15 MR. SAENZ: And so that's the only thing.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: If it reduces accidents or
17 reduces deaths, that's improving safety.
18 MR. SAENZ: So those will continue to be in
19 effect.
20 MS. ANDRADE: And then as you noticed, our
21 chairman, when we talked about public transportation and
22 aviation, he also wants to apply the same criteria, so are
23 you going to be working on that also?
24 MR. SAENZ: Yes, ma'am, and we're going to have
25 to expand a little bit and look at how we can make sure 36
1 that the indices that we identify also can be used in the
2 public transportation area and also in the aviation area.
3 And again, you're looking at the asset that we're
4 bringing in. If we're going out there and expanding
5 something in public transportation, what impact will that
6 have on the amount of vehicles. Are we reducing the
7 number of cars in an area by expanding public
8 transportation, that gives you congestion relief, it will
9 also probably give you some air quality relief. So
10 there's ways to be able to measure the impact.
11 MR. SAENZ: And you'll make sure that you use
12 our public transportation partners in that.
13 MR. SAENZ: Yes, ma'am.
14 MS. ANDRADE: Okay, thank you.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted, did you have other?
16 MR. HOUGHTON: No.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, Amadeo, I need to speak
18 to the larger audience for a moment.
19 We can't be successful without a well-informed
20 and willing legislature and set of local community
21 leaders, such as former members John Willy and Jack
22 Harris. The commission adopted the notion of this thing
23 called "discussion item" a couple of years ago to permit
24 us as commissioners to talk legally and in public about
25 items that we may some day have to make a decision about, 37
1 and also to provide a framework for those of you who
2 attend our meetings for specific purposes.
3 I am frequently popped a little bit by my
4 former colleagues for putting these discussion items ahead
5 of delegation meetings, and I understand we're all busy
6 and we try to move as fast as we can. But we do this,
7 John and Jack, so that you guys have a sense of where
8 we're trying to take the state so that when you go back
9 and someone in your community or someone in Senator
10 Wentworth's senatorial district says why are they suddenly
11 asking about how many accidents does this really
12 eliminate, you can say because they are determined that
13 the tax money they control is going to be focused and
14 measured in a way that people can understand.
15 We want to some day be able to walk the streets
16 of Texas and honestly say the transportation decisions in
17 this state are based on clearly understood goals and
18 measured by clearly understood criteria, that not one
19 dollar is spent with an unknown outcome. It's either
20 spent to reduce congestion or bring jobs out to Lajitas,
21 Texas -- or whatever the name of that city is -- or
22 improve safety in Montgomery County, or whatever.
23 And so the purpose of this discussion item, and
24 what you've just heard and a few more minutes of what I
25 ask you to hear, is that you guys and gals have spent 38
1 three sessions and five tough years completely
2 transforming the legislative aspect of transportation, and
3 a lot of you caught a lot of flack about it.
4 I can tell you've made excellent decisions
5 because I don't think we're going to see the gasoline tax
6 go up 55 cents a gallon and I don't think we're going to
7 increase motor vehicle registration fees to $1,000 a car a
8 year, and that's what it will take for this state to catch
9 up and get ahead of the population growth that's going to
10 occur, and you've given the tools to the commission, to
11 your local governments and regional compacts to get there.
12 It's going to take us 25 years, but in 25 years we'll be
13 there.
14 And now your taxpayers deserve to know that
15 there are clearly set goals with clear measurements that
16 are applied to these decisions so that roads are not built
17 to nowhere, railroads are not relocated just because UP
18 has a good lobbyist -- we heard a lot of that the last
19 month -- that toll roads are not built just because some
20 private company needs to make money, they're built to take
21 15 percent of the traffic off of Interstate 35 which will
22 make congestion on Interstate 35 less, benefitting those
23 who choose not to pay the tolls and stay on the tax road.
24 There are concrete, hard-headed, good business
25 sense reasons of everything we've asked of you in the last 39
1 three sessions and for everything we're going to do over
2 the next 15 years -- 25 years -- excuse me.
3 So with your indulgence, I have just a few
4 questions I need to ask Mr. Saenz.
5 Amadeo, we want to be sure -- and I saw this in
6 Hope's question -- we want to be sure people understand
7 that there's not anything necessarily wrong with a short-
8 term solution when we're developing this.
9 MR. SAENZ: No, sir.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: That there are some instances
11 where a short-term solution is perfectly acceptable. What
12 we want to try to avoid, particularly is as these hundreds
13 of millions and billions of dollars of private sector
14 investment occur, we don't want short-term solutions
15 applied to long-term problems unless that short-term
16 solution is building on a long-term solution.
17 We want to get away from that because one of
18 the criticisms I know I heard as a member, and I suspect
19 these existing members here is: Well, TxDOT, why did you
20 spend $5 million just doing that one little piece, why
21 didn't you go ahead and spend $20 million and get it done?
22 We want to try to get away from that. If $20 million was
23 the correct thing, we now have the tools somewhere to go
24 get that $20 million and do the long-term solution.
25 MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. 40
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: So your focus on that
2 shouldn't be in the sense that short-term and mid-term are
3 bad, it just should be in the sense that we want to match
4 the time line of the solution up with the goal that's
5 appropriate.
6 On your local, regional and state road, we
7 don't want to ever give Carter Casteel the idea that we
8 think her piece of Interstate 35 is a local problem and
9 she needs to go take care of it.
10 MR. SAENZ: That's a statewide problem.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: But it is important to
12 differentiate between -- and the discussion that's going
13 on in North Texas about State Highway 121 is a perfect
14 example of this -- it's important to differentiate between
15 state-owned, mostly locally used, state-owned, mostly
16 regionally used, and state-owned, all state used
17 transportation modes.
18 As we've learned, as we've watched the 121
19 discussion and as we've done our own research, we've found
20 that that particular stretch of state-owned highway is
21 actually way more regional in nature than was first
22 assumed. What were the numbers: 44 percent don't live in
23 the counties?
24 MR. SAENZ: I think 42 was the number.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: It is, without a doubt, a 41
1 regional road, and we need to be able to base our
2 decisions upon is this a long-term solution for a locally-
3 owned road. Well, then maybe the financing option here is
4 the pass-through toll. Maybe it's entirely appropriate to
5 ask John Willy to fund the money initially at his level
6 and let us reimburse him because it's a locally-used state
7 road. In other words, we want to match the revenue
8 sources available to us with the use of the road.
9 Is that the guidance that you were kind of
10 looking for initially?
11 MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: It is very important to not
13 confuse economic development, which is making the road in
14 front of the existing Wal-Mart better, with economic
15 opportunity, which is building a road that incents Wal-
16 Mart to build a warehouse where they would not otherwise
17 build. And we need to be sure staff and whoever we use as
18 a third party to validate our work understand we're not
19 interested in confusing helping an existing taxpayer make
20 life easier -- we may do that, but that's not our focus --
21 our focus is what can we do with this railroad line that
22 will incent UP to double the size of their Wilmer-Hutchins
23 facility, not just make life easier there. Because we
24 don't want to be accused of just helping those who are
25 already here, we want to attract new jobs to the state. 42
1 On the improved air quality, I think we could
2 do nothing greater if we didn't do anything else but get
3 to an objective measurement of how a dollar spent in
4 Dallas either improves or degrades the air quality of the
5 North Texas airshed. One of the greatest mysteries in the
6 public mind is how do you know for a fact that buying
7 these 20 LPG buses really improve the air quality in the
8 airshed, how do you know for a fact that reducing
9 congestion on US 59 through Sugar Land really improved the
10 airshed in Houston-Galveston.
11 So I encourage you to give a lot of focus to a
12 criteria that would be easily understood by the normal
13 Texan, not the abnormal Texan, but the normal Texan.
14 MR. SAENZ: And some of it may be quite simple
15 and you can determine. For example, in the buses, if you
16 buy regular buses, they produce so much, we can get that
17 through research, and if you go with buses that are
18 compressed natural gas or alternate fuel, their emissions
19 are much less so you can see the difference because you
20 replace one with the other.
21 It's a little bit harder as to tying I build
22 this particular road and this particular road in and of
23 itself gives me this, but we're working on getting
24 something where we can quantitatively come up with
25 something. 43
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: On increasing asset value and
2 the tax index -- that's, as you know, of particular
3 interest to me -- the whole point here is to be able to
4 say we need to give Edwin Kuempel the tools he needs to go
5 to Seguin and say, Look, whether you like it or not, the
6 taxes derived from this road only pay for 21 percent of
7 the road, so if we're going to get this road, it's got to
8 be a toll road; otherwise, the state can't afford to go
9 out and spend $100 million and then another $300 million
10 over the next 40 years when the use of that road is only
11 going to generate 21 percent of that revenue. We've got
12 to give these guys and these gals these tools.
13 Jack Harris needs that same tool in his
14 hometown. Robert Eckels needs that same tool in Houston.
15 You've got to give people a rationale as to why buying
16 the UP on the west side of Houston and moving them out
17 improves the use of their tax investment in their existing
18 roads, otherwise, the public over time just rejects the
19 ideas.
20 So focus real hard on that tax index, motor
21 vehicle registration and federal gas tax as well state gas
22 tax, because those Texas consumers pay all three of those
23 taxes. They need to know which roads pay for themselves
24 on a tax basis and which roads don't and what that gap is,
25 they need to understand that. 44
1 MR. SAENZ: That's the indices that we've been
2 working on the most and we are down to the point that we
3 can calculate the numbers for every road.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Finally, just let me say it's
5 very important for this stuff to be understood by our
6 partners and used out in the regions. We do not want to
7 ever be the multi-billion dollar agency that distributes
8 money on the basis of what we're often accused of. We
9 know it's not true but we want to be able to look anyone
10 in the eye and say: Cintra won that contract because they
11 made the best proposal for the state of Texas, not because
12 they were or were not an American-based firm, not because
13 they were or were not friends of Linda Stahl, but because
14 they offered the best proposal for the taxpayers of the
15 state of Texas based on these five analyses.
16 MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: If we can do that, we
18 ultimately win the argument. Civilized, logical arguments
19 ultimately win, it just sometimes takes a while.
20 MR. SAENZ: We will continue to work. We'll
21 take your information and continue to work and give you
22 some progress reports during the month, and Wayne Dennis
23 is the chair of the committee and I'll get with him and at
24 the same time provide you a memo with a time line of how
25 fast we can get these out. 45
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Any other questions of Mr.
2 Saenz?
3 MR. HOUGHTON: Yes, to reiterate one thing, the
4 rail relocation will have its own indices to evaluate the
5 cost benefit analysis of relocating a specific rail line,
6 rail yard, that kind of thing. Correct?
7 MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
8 MR. HOUGHTON: Okay.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's a such a specialized
10 deal, it would have to have its own index, I would think.
11 MR. HOUGHTON: Yes, it's going to have to.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
13 MS. ANDRADE: Nothing.
14 MR. SAENZ: Thank you.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait. Mike?
16 MR. BEHRENS: Some of those indexes may be
17 similar, though, for rail.
18 MR. SAENZ: They may be similar. Like I said,
19 for rail relocation, it all depends. The rail relocation,
20 in and of itself, is going to free up some things and
21 that's going to have some impact.
22 MR. HOUGHTON: Well, like the Houston area,
23 they don't have any problem with at-grade crossings down
24 there, so rail relocation is no big deal.
25 (General laughter.) 46
1 MR. SAENZ: Moving the railroad out of the
2 metropolitan areas, just like we did in Brownsville -- I
3 think we eliminated over 100 crossings -- safety, that was
4 in and of itself. But then the opportunity that you have
5 for the reuse of those corridors has an increase in
6 improvement in congestion and a whole bunch of other
7 things. So you really need to look at what's the first
8 phase of the project and what benefits do you get there,
9 but then what are the other projects that can come from
10 that and what additional benefits do you get.
11 MR. HOUGHTON: What's the rail line that they
12 abandoned or bought from UP, the Westport Tollway?
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Westpark.
14 MR. BEHRENS: That was an old Southern Pacific
15 line.
16 MR. HOUGHTON: That's a good example.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: I used it the other day.
18 Okay, you've heard all the comments, Amadeo,
19 from commission members and you've received some guidance.
20 Just one other thing, this closes the door, not closes
21 the door, but this is the last chapter of this particular
22 book in Governor Perry's vision, all the tools are in
23 place for state, regional and local financing. I know for
24 a fact that he personally wants to be sure that this stuff
25 can be measured correctly, so let's don't waste any time, 47
1 let's be professional but let's don't drag our feet, let's
2 get these indices in place.
3 MR. SAENZ: We will go full speed and get this
4 to you all and bring it back to you all as quickly as
5 possible.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Amadeo. 48
1 SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNTY MOBILITY ALLIANCE 2 3 (David Casteel, Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative 4 Carter Casteel, Edmund Kuempel, Judge Richard Evans, 5 Jennifer Moczygemba, Judge Carlos Garcia) 6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike?
7 MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to agenda item number 6
8 which is our Delegations. We have two delegations today.
9 The first one is our South Central Texas County Mobility
10 Alliance; this is the group's first appearance before the
11 commission.
12 And David Casteel, I think you're going to lead
13 off and introduce this delegation.
14 MR. CASTEEL: Yes, Mr. Behrens. And Mr.
15 Chairman, Commissioner Houghton and Commissioner Andrade,
16 thank you for allowing us to be here.
17 It's my pleasure to introduce a few county
18 judges who have been working with us on our regional
19 planning efforts. The group was formed a little over a
20 year ago and has been led by Judge Evans from Bandera
21 County. Along with Judge Evans is Judge Garcia from Frio
22 County, Judge Quinney and his wife from Wilson County,
23 Judge Scheel and his engineer from Comal County, and Judge
24 Vogt from Kendall County are here today.
25 And I would like to sit down and invite Senator
26 Wentworth, Representative Casteel and Representative
27 Kuempel to come up and make a few comments.
28 MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, is it true you're Member 49
1 Casteel's little brother?
2 MR. CASTEEL: She is my taller, better-looking
3 cousin, yes, sir.
4 SENATOR WENTWORTH: Chairman Williamson,
5 Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Houghton, Mr. Behrens.
6 As David said, this is the first appearance of this
7 group. It's comprised of eleven counties in the San
8 Antonio District region, three of which are in my senate
9 district. Comal, Guadalupe and Kendall are in my
10 district.
11 The whole point is to work together to solve
12 regional mobility challenges. We want to preserve the
13 value of the system and to keep up with the growing levels
14 of congestion. In those counties, growth is continuing to
15 really continue at a very fast pace. It presents
16 challenges for transportation all over that region.
17 The Alliance's goal, this South Central Texas
18 County Mobility Alliance, is to help identify, evaluate,
19 prioritize, and seek funding for the delivery of projects
20 to provide the best safety and mobility improvements to
21 the state and regional system. These are important not
22 only to the county but also to the overall mobility and
23 safety of the state and the region.
24 It's the intent of this request to improve
25 mobility in this region through a network of projects and 50
1 not through stand-alone projects. Local funding is in the
2 form of funds allocated to purchase needed right of way.
3 We think it will have a positive impact on mobility in our
4 region.
5 And Mr. Chairman, with that, in spite of your
6 generous offer to allow us to speak ad nauseam, I'm going
7 to give you back some time, and I promise my fellow
8 elected officials are going to do the same thing,
9 especially since we're obviously running through the lunch
10 hour since it's nearly one o'clock.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, any discussion or
12 comments with Senator Wentworth?
13 MR. HOUGHTON: Just thank you for your support
14 for transportation initiatives.
15 SENATOR WENTWORTH: You bet. It helps that my
16 father was a Class of 1939 graduate from Texas A&M with a
17 degree in civil engineering and his very first job was
18 working for the Texas Highway Department.
19 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Senator. We
21 appreciate you being here.
22 MS. CASTEEL: Mr. Chairman, commission, Mike.
23 I asked Edmund, since he's older and much more senior than
24 I, if he was going to speak, he said not.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, no, we're going to have 51
1 Edmund up, he just doesn't know it yet.
2 (General laughter.)
3 MS. CASTEEL: He just doesn't know it yet. My
4 middle name is Flack. That's okay. I'm a big girl, and I
5 want to tell you that the TxDOT staff here, with Mike and
6 David Casteel, have been great in my county helping us to
7 educate people about the transportation system, so I
8 personally thank them. We've had two or three meetings,
9 it's been helpful.
10 Just a couple of comments. As a member of the
11 Transportation Committee, it's my pleasure to work closely
12 with TxDOT, and I've tried to do that as best that I can,
13 and as a former county judge, I had that same pleasurable
14 experience working with TxDOT for my county, Comal County.
15 This young alliance that we're here today to
16 support is a great way to work together to serve, Mr.
17 Chairman, as you said, overall transportation problems and
18 plans for safety and mobility and improvements.
19 Our counties have funding for right of way, and
20 I'm proud that when I was county judge in Comal County, we
21 did it then as well. We always had our money ready when
22 the projects came forward.
23 They need your help in the form of traditional
24 funding as well as the new tools of funding, including
25 what you refer to as pass-through tolls -- and I got them 52
1 to try to say pass-through financing because some of my
2 folks in my district would fall on their sword when you
3 use the word "toll". It's all the same thing, but that's
4 a great tool, as well as the traditional way and tolling
5 itself.
6 Comal County, my home county, did look at
7 joining an RMA or creating one, but as you know and as
8 they've discussed with you, the cost for them got to be so
9 prohibitive and it looked like it was going to double our
10 tax rate, so we began to look at the other tools that you
11 provided, and that I helped while I was in the House pass,
12 and that was the pass-through financing.
13 Comal County and Kendall County and Bandera
14 County continue to work closely with it's either my cousin
15 or my younger brother or whatever, David Casteel and his
16 great staff, and your good staff up here that I've already
17 mentioned, to provide for our transportation needs for the
18 future.
19 Thank you for your consideration of their needs
20 and projects that will relieve congestion, promote safety
21 and have a positive impact on the mobility of our economy.
22 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members?
24 MR. HOUGHTON: Thank you.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: Excuse me, Ms. Casteel. First 53
1 of all, I want to publicly and pointedly thank you for
2 introducing legislation -- and I hope you'll stay with it;
3 it sometimes takes several sessions to do these things --
4 to permit counties to plan for their transportation
5 corridors.
6 I know that it's a difficult battle. Real
7 estate interests, large landholders are understandably
8 suspicious of government regulation; we are a state of low
9 regulation, low taxes and low services. But your effort
10 was very much appreciated.
11 We believe that ultimately if you empower
12 counties to plan their transportation corridors, they will
13 individually make good decisions about reserving those
14 corridors and reducing the cost of roads and rail in the
15 out years for all taxpayers.
16 MS. CASTEEL: Thank you. And my commitment has
17 always been to work with TxDOT. When they call, I listen,
18 and I try to work with them to do that.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: We appreciated that very much.
20 MS. CASTEEL: And the other thing is that --
21 and they really have helped me in my district -- education
22 of the public is the greatest thing going, and so we can
23 talk about things, for example, tolling, but we have to
24 explain how it benefits. For example, in the rural area,
25 I think, as they see the tolls get successful in the urban 54
1 areas and as we're able to take care of our, as we say,
2 local needs maybe with some traditional funding or the
3 pass-through financing, those people, as we grow
4 ourselves, will then begin to utilize that other tool
5 that's in the toolbox.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we know you caught a lot
7 of --
8 MS. CASTEEL: Flack.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: -- flack.
10 MS. CASTEEL: That's okay.
11 (General laughter.)
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: We know you caught a lot of
13 flack over tolls, as have all the members.
14 MS. CASTEEL: Listen, my momma told me a long
15 time ago I was going to catch flack if I stood up, so I'm
16 standing up and that's okay.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we appreciate it very
18 much.
19 MS. CASTEEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, ma'am.
21 Edmund, come on up, Edmund. We just can't wait
22 to hear your words of wisdom. I'm going to speak about
23 you. Either you're going to come up here and testify, or
24 I'm going to testify for you. This is one of my closest
25 friends. I don't mind saying that. You might mind me 55
1 saying it.
2 MR. KUEMPEL: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
3 Chairman, commissioners, I apologize for my inappropriate
4 dress, but I was not going to speak this morning and the
5 executive director had already bought all my 48-Long
6 suits, so I did not get one that I normally go wherever
7 you get them the second time around, or something of that
8 nature.
9 (General laughter.)
10 MR. KUEMPEL: I would just reiterate what
11 Senator Wentworth and Representative Casteel said. I
12 think we are at a pivotal time in this great state, with
13 tremendous growth that we have facing us, to look forward
14 at least 25 years. I think that these are projections and
15 they will probably change tremendously in that length of
16 time. But in working with the counties -- sometimes we've
17 had a problem between state agencies and counties, no
18 matter what it might be -- but with the groundwork that is
19 being laid at the present time, to look and to understand
20 and to realize what's happening and the problems we have
21 at the local level, and your willingness to step up to the
22 plate and say all right, let's see what we can do and
23 let's see what we can do together, that is going to be the
24 basis for what we do in the future, and that will come to
25 fruition. I think it will bear great fruit, there's no 56
1 question about that.
2 And I would certainly like to thank Carter's
3 younger brother or older brother or some brother, and Greg
4 Melodic. I am blessed in my district to have two people
5 that I don't even know how they raise their families.
6 I've got plenty of places to go to, but in the last two or
7 three weeks I've seen them three or four times at meetings
8 to explain what's happening. And that's what people want
9 is explanation. If they're comfortable with what you're
10 doing, they will be comfortable in walking hand-in-hand
11 with you to make it come to fruition.
12 But as always, a good politician stands to be
13 seen and speaks to be heard and sits to be appreciated.
14 (General laughter.)
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, did you have anything
16 you wanted to say to Mr. Kuempel?
17 MR. KUEMPEL: And Judge Quinney, he's well-
18 versed in this deal too.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: It's good to see you, Mr.
20 Kuempel.
21 MR. KUEMPEL: Thank you.
22 MR. CASTEEL: Mr. Chairman, making our
23 technical presentation today are two of our county judges.
24 First of all will be Judge Evans and he'll be joined by
25 Judge Garcia. Judge Evans is the judge in Bandera County; 57
1 his daddy worked for the Highway Department for many years
2 and actually passed away while still on the job. And
3 Judge Garcia is one of our senior county elected officials
4 in Frio County. So Judge Evans?
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Judge, good to have you here.
6 JUDGE EVANS: Good morning. I'm a little
7 concerned about his comment about the technical
8 presentation. This is a political presentation; the
9 technician is sitting right behind me here.
10 (General laughter.)
11 JUDGE EVANS: My name is Richard Evans, I am
12 the Bandera County judge, and I am the chairman of the
13 South Central Texas County Mobility Alliance, or the
14 Alliance, for short.
15 We're very excited about the formation of our
16 alliance, we're proud of it, and we think it has provided
17 a new approach to address the rural transportation issues.
18 We have taken this regional approach to plan where the
19 input is achieved first at the county level, and then is
20 interwoven with the regional and statewide priorities.
21 As you have heard, this is our first
22 appearance, we're a work in progress, we're new, but we
23 think we have a good thing going and we hope we can come
24 back with bigger and better plans for the future.
25 This alliance was formed last May. It was 58
1 formed to collaborate with the TxDOT San Antonio District
2 staff to develop a comprehensive regional mobility plan
3 which could build from the statewide connectivity
4 corridors to address the mobility and the safety needs of
5 the member counties, as well as the needs of the region
6 and the state. The Alliance desired input in identifying,
7 evaluating and prioritizing these projects that would be
8 included, hopefully, in the TxDOT 25- and 10-year plans.
9 Through the continued encouragement of the San
10 Antonio District staff, the Alliance was able to develop a
11 regional mobility plan and to request this first
12 delegation appearance.
13 I personally want to thank David Casteel and
14 the rest of the staff for the nourishment they furnished
15 to us, the commitment, the staff time. I've been judge
16 three terms. This is the best feeling I've ever had with
17 TxDOT in my life. I feel like we're partners, I feel like
18 that if I need something, I can call, I have a friend that
19 will listen to me in the staff and the leadership, so I
20 personally appreciate that.
21 I would like to introduce the Alliance that is
22 here today. We have Atascosa County that is represented
23 by Judge Diana Bautista; Bandera County, of course I
24 represent; Comal County is represented by Judge Danny
25 Scheel; Frio County is represented by Judge Carlos Garcia; 59
1 Guadalupe County is represented by Judge Donald Schraub;
2 Kendall County is represented by Judge Eddie Vogt; Kerr
3 County is represented by Judge Pat Tinley; Medina County
4 is represented by Judge Jim Barden; McMullen County is
5 represented by Judge Linda Lee Henry; Uvalde County is
6 represented by Judge William Mitchell; and Wilson County
7 is represented by Judge Marvin Quinney. So that gives you
8 who you're dealing with.
9 As you look at the map surrounding Bexar
10 County, it's very interesting to note the anticipated
11 growth of the counties. In the next 25 years Comal County
12 is anticipated to grow 66,000 or 85 percent; Wilson County
13 will grow 27,000 or 85 percent. Following these we have
14 Kendall County which we anticipate to grow 17,000 or 73
15 percent; Guadalupe will grow 68,000 or 65 percent; Bandera
16 will grow 11,000 or 64 percent; Medina County will grow
17 23,000 or 59 percent; Atascosa we anticipate to grow
18 21,000 or 54 percent. All these are more than 50 percent
19 growth.
20 Others will be Frio County which will grow
21 5,000 which is a 33 percent growth; Uvalde is anticipated
22 to grow 8,000 which is 30 percent; Kerr will grow, we
23 think, 5,000 which is 10 percent; and McMullen County will
24 grow 67 people but that is 8 percent of their population.
25 As you look at the slide up there, you can see 60
1 that the red counties, where the most growth is, those are
2 the counties that border Bexar County.
3 The next slide shows the 2000 census. If you
4 look at this, you can see that Texas counties experienced
5 tremendous growth. In our 11-county region, six counties
6 were in the top 25 fastest growing counties in the state,
7 and two counties were in the top five, that being my
8 county, Bandera County, and Kendall County. So we really
9 appreciate the growth and the challenge we have ahead of
10 us.
11 In recent years counties have faced increasing
12 financial demands, so has TxDOT, so has everyone else, so
13 this is not anything unique to counties. But we been
14 given the task of providing indigent healthcare benefits,
15 providing attorneys for indigent defense counsel in the
16 court system, have seen costs soar as county jail
17 populations increase. As the state has trimmed its
18 budget, counties have been required to fund many state-
19 mandated programs from local ad valorem taxes.
20 The threat of a rollback on local property
21 taxes, coupled with the ever-increasing revenue demands
22 placed on county government, creates a financial dilemma
23 for the counties. The only other option to raise revenue
24 for the county is to issue bonds, bonds subject to voter
25 approval and bonds limited by the capacity of the county 61
1 to retire the debt from ad valorem taxes.
2 But finally, we have new legislation. This
3 legislation gives us hope that the ability to meet the
4 financial needs of our counties will improve.
5 The goal of the Alliance is to develop a
6 comprehensive plan to address the mobility and safety
7 needs in the rural areas of the San Antonio District.
8 With the help of TxDOT, the county judges hosted
9 individual county workshops that included local planners,
10 citizens groups, chambers of commerce and schools. The
11 first task was to start developing a list of needs for the
12 counties and set some initial priorities for these
13 projects.
14 The Alliance then got back together to discuss
15 how each of their high-priority projects will fit into the
16 overall mobility and safety needs of the region. Then the
17 needs were evaluated to see how they fit with the
18 statewide plan. Together the Alliance identified the
19 needs which were in line with the local, regional and
20 state mobility and safety goals.
21 Obviously when we came back to meet we had pet
22 projects, a lot of these didn't make the cut. We truly
23 tried to work as an alliance to bring forward projects
24 that truly benefit the regional and state plan.
25 How did we prioritize these projects? The 62
1 Alliance first identified the corridors which are
2 significant for statewide and regional mobility, existing
3 and expected quality of traffic flow were considered to
4 then identify specific areas of the corridor which would
5 be of higher priority.
6 We then selected projects from those areas
7 which served to enhance the mobility and safety of those
8 corridors, either with added capacity, improved
9 connectivity, or new relief routes of urban areas located
10 along those corridors.
11 The projects selected will increase mobility in
12 the region which in turn will reduce congestion and
13 improve air quality. These projects will help provide
14 economic growth by interconnecting urban areas through
15 more efficient transportation corridors, and improving
16 mobility to and from the San Antonio metropolitan area.
17 The Alliance's plan considered the plan of the
18 San Antonio Bexar County MPO when we developed our plan.
19 We tried to truly make it a regional plan. These projects
20 build upon established priority corridor concepts which
21 will increase the value of those corridors statewide and
22 regional mobility.
23 TxDOT assisted us by providing a perspective on
24 the issues of statewide importance and how they relate to
25 our regional priorities. 63
1 Mr. Chairman, I believe that the San Antonio
2 staff understands your direction that you've been giving
3 and I think they have used that in helping us present a
4 plan that is in concert with the commission's desire.
5 Right now I would like to introduce Jennifer
6 Moczygemba with the San Antonio District office who
7 actually is the technical person in the presentation.
8 Thank you.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions of this witness?
10 MR. HOUGHTON: What's the population? Go back
11 to that slide of all the counties that surround Bexar. It
12 looks like a ring around Bexar County -- well, it is a
13 ring around Bexar County.
14 JUDGE EVANS: Yes, sir. We call Bexar County
15 the donut hole and we're the donut.
16 MR. HOUGHTON: I won't say anything.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: And I didn't even think
18 anything.
19 (General laughter.)
20 MR. HOUGHTON: What's the population of all
21 those counties?
22 JUDGE EVANS: I do not have the total
23 population. The cumulative total?
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir.
25 MR. HOUGHTON: Roughly. I don't need an exact 64
1 number.
2 JUDGE EVANS: About a million people.
3 MR. HOUGHTON: About a million people?
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait a second. On those six
5 counties it's like 270-.
6 JUDGE EVANS: Let me confer with Carter
7 Casteel's brother here.
8 MR. CASTEEL: Between three-quarters and a
9 million.
10 MR. HOUGHTON: Three-quarters of a million
11 right now?
12 MR. CASTEEL: Yes, sir.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait. Three-quarters of a
14 million people?
15 MR. CASTEEL: I ran those numbers in my head.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Unless I'm missing something,
17 I only count 280,000.
18 MR. CASTEEL: We've got Comal county 80,000,
19 Guadalupe County is 80,000, that's 160-; Medina gets us to
20 200,000; Wilson gets us to 250-; Bandera and Kendall get
21 us up to 300,000; and then Uvalde puts us close to 350-,
22 400,000.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, 350,000, I think.
24 MR. HOUGHTON: With growth anticipated over
25 time. 65
1 JUDGE EVANS: As you know, the Toyota plant is
2 beginning to develop and tremendous growth, we have a lot
3 of job shops that are going to be located in the
4 surrounding area, so we don't know exactly what's going to
5 happen. These are estimates.
6 MR. HOUGHTON: Have you completely dismissed an
7 RMA?
8 JUDGE EVANS: From my county, yes, sir.
9 MR. HOUGHTON: For what reason?
10 JUDGE EVANS: Financial reasons.
11 MR. HOUGHTON: I mean, a multi-county RMA, all
12 those counties; not your county, all the counties.
13 JUDGE EVANS: It's not feasible for my neck of
14 the woods, I believe, with Kendall, Kerr, Bandera. And as
15 Jennifer presents the technical part, I think she's going
16 to review the process we went through and the numbers, and
17 I believe in your handout you do have a summary there of
18 how we arrived at that.
19 MR. HOUGHTON: I'd like to visit privately with
20 you about that. We won't take up time today.
21 JUDGE EVANS: I'd be happy to.
22 MR. HOUGHTON: I think there's some
23 opportunities here, but we could talk about that later.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
25 MS. ANDRADE: Judge, I just want to thank you 66
1 for taking the leadership on this alliance. I'm excited
2 about all of you working together and trying to develop a
3 regional plan, and I think it's great.
4 And Ted, to answer your question, I think
5 there's still opportunity for an RMA. They've been trying
6 to organize.
7 And David, I have to compliment you on this,
8 because this was a vision you had of getting all the rural
9 counties to work together, so thank you very much.
10 JUDGE EVANS: Can I say one thing, and I truly
11 mean this. When Mr. Casteel became the district engineer,
12 he came to every county to visit every judge to say what
13 are your issues, and I have a tendency to be candid and
14 say things, and he listened, and from that conversation
15 began this process of forming this organization.
16 I think it's a good plan for statewide, because
17 you have rural counties in every office, and I think that
18 way we can become partners and understand, when we go to a
19 TIP meeting, why we can't get a project. We can be an
20 advocate for the state and a partner with the state rather
21 than being in there raising cain with the engineer because
22 we can't get what we want.
23 I just think it's a great thing and I think
24 it's beginning, we have rough edges, I'm not a good
25 presenter. 67
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think you're very good,
2 actually.
3 JUDGE EVANS: But we do have people we have to
4 take care of, and that's what we're elected to do.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: This department kind of values
6 plain talk.
7 JUDGE EVANS: Well, I appreciate that. I'll
8 sit down. Thank you.
9 MS. ANDRADE: Judge, you did do a great job.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. HOUGHTON: Thank you, Judge, very much.
12 MS. MOCZYGEMBA: My name is Jennifer Moczygemba
13 with the San Antonio District with TxDOT.
14 In considering which projects would be a
15 priority for the region, the Alliance considered the
16 existing and projected quality of flow for the roadways.
17 This quality of flow is based on a given traffic volume
18 for that type of roadway.
19 For example, a two-lane roadway with an average
20 daily traffic flow of more than 6,100 vehicles is
21 considered to be a level of service E.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait. Did David Casteel come
23 up with those descriptions?
24 MR. CASTEEL: No, sir. That's TP&P, sir.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's great: Good, 68
1 Tolerable, and Undesirable. That's tolerable. Okay, go
2 ahead.
3 MR. CASTEEL: We had Good Enough, but we took
4 it off.
5 (General laughter.)
6 MS. MOCZYGEMBA: So those Undesirables would be
7 those corridors here shown in red.
8 As you can see from this map, the quality of
9 traffic flow on many of the existing corridors is less
10 than Good. In addition, most of the Undesirable corridors
11 exist in the northern and eastern parts of the region.
12 Some of the corridors are radial from San Antonio -- for
13 example, US 281 -- and carry much of the commuter traffic.
14 Other corridors are part of what has been termed the
15 Outer Loop of San Antonio which is essentially State
16 Highway 46 along the north side, State Highway 173 along
17 the west and south sides, State Highway 97 south and east,
18 and then State Highway 123 on the east side.
19 By 2022, the number of corridors in the region
20 reaching an Undesirable level is expected to increase
21 significantly. More of the radial corridors will become
22 Undesirable and more of the corridors in and around the
23 city, such as New Braunfels, Seguin, Hondo, Bandera, the
24 Kerville-Ingram area and Boerne, will become more
25 congested. Almost the entirety of what we've termed the 69
1 Outer Loop will be at levels other than Good.
2 In evaluating corridors to include in the plan,
3 the Alliance considered how their plan would support the
4 statewide connectivity corridors as identified by TxDOT.
5 These include Interstates 35, 10 and 37, US 281, US 90 and
6 US 87, and State Highway 123. These are shown in blue
7 here.
8 As you can see, many of these corridors are
9 projected to be at Undesirable levels through most of the
10 Alliance's counties by 2022. As congestion on these
11 corridors could affect the economic vitality of the
12 region, it was important to the Alliance to include
13 improvements to these corridors as part of their plan.
14 In addition to the statewide connectivity
15 corridors, the Alliance also considered connectivity to
16 the locally preferred alignment for TTC-35 as supported by
17 resolutions from the City of San Antonio, Bexar County,
18 San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, and the San Antonio
19 Mobility Coalition.
20 The Alliance also considered for inclusion in
21 their plan corridors which were considered to be
22 regionally significant, such as the Outer Loop. This
23 Outer Loop provides mobility within the region between the
24 cities surrounding San Antonio and provides connectivity
25 to the statewide corridors. 70
1 In addition, some of these corridors carry
2 significant amounts of truck traffic and serve as
3 alternate routes to Laredo and to the Valley. For
4 example, US 57 carries over 11 percent trucks and State
5 Highway 16 down through McMullen County carries 30 percent
6 trucks.
7 Development of the Alliance's regional mobility
8 plan considered statewide connectivity corridors,
9 regionally significant corridors, and expected population
10 and traffic growth. The results of this process
11 identified the needs shown here in black. Note how the
12 majority of these projects fall within statewide and
13 regionally significant corridors or provide connectivity
14 to these corridors.
15 In general, the project types for these
16 corridors that we're looking at are Super-Two roadways,
17 upgrading to four-lane sections in urban areas with either
18 medians or continuous left-turn lanes, or providing relief
19 routes along those corridors.
20 The problem in the Alliance's region in terms
21 of transportation needs is similar to that of the state.
22 Significant population growth in the region in recent
23 years and over the next 25 years will have adverse
24 consequences on the functionality of its statewide and
25 regional corridors. The Alliance has identified the needs 71
1 for the region to address this problem.
2 The estimated funding needed to address the
3 problem is approximately $1.8 billion. If you consider
4 the cost of just some of the purely local needs, then that
5 cost would increase to more than $3 billion.
6 In the short term, between fiscal years '07 and
7 '12, the total amount of traditional funds which can be
8 dedicated to this effort is approximately $120 million,
9 leaving a funding gap for regional mobility of almost $1.7
10 billion. Obviously traditional funds will not suffice.
11 The Alliance then discussed the use of the new tools
12 available to try and bridge the gap.
13 And that concludes my part of the presentation,
14 and I will now turn the presentation over to discuss the
15 funding options that we evaluated, introduce Carlos
16 Garcia, the Frio County judge.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait. Members, questions?
18 MR. HOUGHTON: So de facto, Jennifer, this is
19 the MPO in the area, this Alliance. Correct?
20 MS. MOCZYGEMBA: Yes. It's like a rural MPO.
21 MR. HOUGHTON: Like a rural MPO.
22 MS. MOCZYGEMBA: An RPO.
23 MR. HOUGHTON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to let
24 you know this is Jennifer's first time before the
25 commission. 72
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: I know, but if we weren't
2 running so short of time, we could give her a good going-
3 over. She gets the running-short-of-time exemption. But
4 we'll get her next time through.
5 (General laughter.)
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: You did good.
7 MS. ANDRADE: Good job, Jennifer.
8 MR. HOUGHTON: Good job, Jennifer.
9 MS. MOCZYGEMBA: Judge?
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Welcome, Judge.
11 JUDGE GARCIA: Thank you very much. And good
12 morning, everyone.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: You're senior?
14 JUDGE GARCIA: I'm sorry?
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: You look awful young to be the
16 most senior member of the judge delegation.
17 JUDGE GARCIA: Well, thank you. I am
18 approximately or close to 60 years.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: I should look so good when I
20 get 60. All right, go ahead.
21 JUDGE GARCIA: Thank you, Commissioner.
22 My name is Carlos Garcia and I am county judge
23 in Frio County and also a member of the South Central
24 Texas County Mobility Alliance.
25 And with nearly a $1.7 billion gap in 73
1 traditional funding available versus the needs, the
2 Alliance was eager to evaluate the possibility of using
3 some of the new tools provided by House Bill 3588 and
4 House Bill 2702.
5 Each of the corridors were evaluated for
6 traditional tolling feasibility, and due to the generally
7 lower volume of traffic versus the metro areas of the
8 state, none of the projects were feasible in terms of
9 traditional tolling. The projects were then each
10 evaluated for pass-through financing feasibility, and only
11 a few corridors in Comal County were found to be feasible.
12 Several corridors identified in our plan follow
13 statewide connectivity corridors and have been identified
14 to be placed in PLAN authority to develop a four-lane,
15 divided roadway. These roadways include US 281 from
16 Spring Branch to Comal County line, also US 87 from east
17 of San Antonio to Stockdale, and State Highway 123 from
18 Seguin through Wilson County.
19 Additional Category 4 funds are also being
20 placed on US 90 west of San Antonio and State Highway 46
21 west from New Braunfels. These additional funds will be
22 very helpful towards meeting some of our goals.
23 In addition, the district had dedicated bank
24 balance funds which are Category 1 and 11 to the priority
25 projects to leverage additional dollars. The local 74
1 participation is through right of way costs and additional
2 partnerships in the future may allow for additional
3 funding to be available.
4 The best projects with the greatest need for
5 pass-through financing were located in Comal County and
6 have been brought before the commission at the September
7 meeting. The pass-through proposal includes work on US
8 281 which is of statewide significance. State Highway 46
9 is also included and it's of regional significance and a
10 key part of the Outer Loop, and provides for the
11 connectivity between IH-10 West in Boerne to IH-10 East in
12 Seguin, and also provides connectivity to US 281 and IH-
13 35. And the proposal is currently under negotiations on
14 this.
15 The projects shown here are those which were
16 submitted for pass-through financing. In summary, out of
17 $1.8 billion in needs, the Alliance identified those
18 projects which are priority for the short term and which
19 would reasonably fit feasibly within a five- to six-year
20 plan. And these are the priority projects.
21 If you will note, these projects are located
22 either along statewide connectivity corridors, regionally
23 significant corridors or provide connectivity to these
24 corridors, including to the TTC-35 locally preferred
25 alignment, or provide relief routes around urban areas. 75
1 And to discuss the funding available for this
2 project, I would like at this time to reintroduce our
3 chairman, Judge Evans.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Judge. Wait a
5 second. Members?
6 (No response.)
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Judge, for being
8 here.
9 MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE EVANS: Judges aren't used to being
11 interrogated, so you'll have to excuse us.
12 (General laughter.)
13 JUDGE EVANS: This table summarizes the current
14 funding situation. The total cost of the priority
15 projects is $137.8 million over six years. The district
16 has dedicated $43.36 million in bank balance funds as
17 local leverage for these projects.
18 The Alliance appears before you today not to
19 ask for a blank check but to show you that we're working
20 on a plan to solve our problem. This is our first attempt
21 and we welcome any input from the commission to help us
22 accelerate projects, to help us utilize new tools, to sit
23 down and discuss an RMA, to be sure we have exhausted all
24 possibilities. We want to be a partner with the San
25 Antonio District and we want to be a partner with the 76
1 state, and we feel like we have a beginning, we need to
2 build on this, and we welcome any input and any guidance
3 that you might offer us.
4 I do appreciate the leadership of this
5 commission. I think that this is a great time to be doing
6 roads in Texas. I think we have a focus; I think we're
7 going to make business decisions which is a very good
8 thing. Cost-benefit analysis, less political and more
9 business is always a good thing.
10 I do thank you for your leadership and for your
11 time. Thank you very much.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for your kind words.
13 Ted?
14 MR. HOUGHTON: What's the local leverage, in
15 what form?
16 JUDGE EVANS: Right of way, purchase of right
17 of way, principally, and the district funds.
18 MR. HOUGHTON: District funds?
19 JUDGE EVANS: Yes, sir.
20 MR. HOUGHTON: Same as tax dollars?
21 JUDGE EVANS: It's all tax dollars, yes.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
23 MS. ANDRADE: Thank you, Judge.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Judge, thank you
25 very much. 77
1 JUDGE EVANS: Thank you.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: David, are you going to close?
3 MR. CASTEEL: Well, I just wanted to tell Judge
4 Evans and the other judges thank you very much for working
5 with us for this last year. We've got a long way to go
6 but we're at least talking to each other and learning
7 things together, and it's been a good experience for all
8 of us.
9 And Jennifer has been the technical person
10 assisting the county judges; she's been their staff, I
11 guess she's their RPO director, and she's been doing a
12 good job. And if you have any questions for staff, we'd
13 be glad to help you out, sir.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: You've done a good job of
15 regionalizing this part of your district, and as you know,
16 the commission's drive is towards local execution and
17 regional planning, so it comports with where the governor
18 has us pointed and we appreciate your work, David.
19 We appreciate all of you who came and sat, and
20 particularly Senator and House Member and House Member,
21 the time you took.
22 And we're also grateful to Senator Lindsay and
23 House Member Hamric for being patient while we work
24 through this part of the program. Peggy, if you don't
25 mind, we might take five minutes and let everybody kind of 78
1 reshuffle and then start all over.
2 We're going to take five minutes to let
3 everybody kind of reshuffle the chairs, but only five, not
4 the traditional 15, just five.
5 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 79
1 GULF COAST REGIONAL MOBILITY PARTNERS 2 3 (Walter A. Mischer, Jr., Bill King, Gary Trietsch, Senator 4 Jon Lindsay, Representative Peggy Hamric) 5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, we'll come back to
6 order. Mike?
7 MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, our next
8 delegation is the Gulf Coast Mobility Partners. They're
9 here to discuss some high-priority projects in the Houston
10 and Galveston area. The chairman of their organization is
11 Walt Mischer, Jr., and he will lead off their
12 presentation. Mr. Mischer?
13 MR. MISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Behrens.
14 Good morning, commissioners. I'm pleased to be
15 here today before you.
16 As was indicated, my name is Walt Mischer. I'm
17 the recently appointed chair of Gulf Coast Regional
18 Mobility Partners.
19 With us today are two elected officials
20 representing our region: State Senator Jon Lindsay and
21 Representative Hamric. And Judge Wiley from Brazoria
22 County. Also in our delegation is George DeMontrond, who
23 is a director of the Metropolitan Transit Authority in
24 Houston, and Maureen Coker representing the City of
25 Houston. And at this time I'd like our delegation to
26 stand.
27 (Pause.) 80
1 MR. MISCHER: Be seated, please.
2 The mission of Gulf Coast Regional Mobility
3 Partners is multi-fold, but its principal two objectives
4 are to rationalize the transportation project needs of the
5 Gulf Coast area and to seek their funding through all
6 levels, local, state and federal levels, as well as use
7 innovative financing techniques such as toll roads.
8 As an example of innovative techniques that
9 you're very familiar with, the techniques that were used
10 to enhance and accelerate the Interstate 10 improvements,
11 and those had contributions of toll functions as well as
12 county fund contributions.
13 Additionally, as an example that we take a
14 responsible approach to any type of transportation
15 spending, a number of years ago, the Metropolitan Transit
16 Authority put forward a transportation spending plan in
17 the neighborhood of $5-1/2 to $6 billion. Many of us
18 thought that was excessive and over a number of years,
19 through referendums as well as negotiation, reduced that
20 to a much more cost-efficient project with a total
21 expenditure of approximately $1.5 billion and dramatically
22 enhanced the multimodal functions of it.
23 We are supportive of your initiative to develop
24 evaluation criteria; we believe in cost-benefit analysis;
25 and we are prepared to measure up to that criteria. 81
1 Before I get into the heart of this, I want you
2 to know that I have served for the last four years as
3 chairman of the Greater Houston Partnerships
4 Transportation Infrastructure Committee, I was a ten-year
5 appointee on the Texas Turnpike Authority, and I spent
6 five years on the Grand Parkway Association's initial
7 board.
8 The reason I mention that is to tell you I
9 understand that we have very limited resources at all
10 levels, including your funds. We're not here today to ask
11 you for nothing but funding, we're here to demonstrate to
12 you that we have a rational process, a regional approach
13 that values your resources on a same level of any other
14 dollars that are being put into the projects.
15 Who we represent and who participate in Gulf
16 Coast Regional Mobility Partners are elected officials
17 from the eight-county region, city and county officials,
18 TxDOT participants, Port of Houston, Metropolitan Transit
19 Authority, Houston-Galveston Area Council, and many
20 others.
21 We have a significant legislative delegation:
22 we've got ten state senators, we've got 34 state
23 representatives in the eight-county area. And the reason
24 I mention that is that we believe in supporting TxDOT's
25 funding structure and we are prepared and have in the past 82
1 attempted to influence our legislators to enhance your
2 funding, and as you look forward for broader public policy
3 approaches, we will be there to support your initiatives.
4 This presents a map of the eight-county region
5 represented here, a 5.2 million in area population, 2.3
6 million in employment, and almost 8,800 square miles of
7 area.
8 We've got a significant national economic
9 impact, and this is no accident. The region has had a
10 tradition of leadership, forward planning and vision and
11 innovation. Houston and the Texas Transportation
12 Commission have uniformly, over the decades, participated
13 and cooperated and appreciated each other's positions.
14 We're grateful for the help, and this list of
15 infrastructure on this slide was created by initiatives in
16 Houston and its creation was supported by the Texas
17 Transportation Commission when these assets were created
18 but also today.
19 We've got the sixth largest port in the world;
20 it leads the U.S. in foreign tonnage. We've got 40
21 percent of the petrochemical refining capacity, 13 percent
22 of the gasoline refining capacity, the world's largest
23 medical center.
24 Additionally, we have three toll road
25 authorities, being Harris, Fort Bend, and Montgomery, and 83
1 the Metropolitan Transit Authority which is now
2 implementing light rail as a commuter rail initiative, as
3 well as bus rapid transit and local bus transit, and is
4 spending approximately $100 million a year on general
5 mobility initiatives which are supporting roadway
6 improvements.
7 Additionally, we have 1,600 miles of railroad
8 lines crisscrossing this eight-county region, 1,200 grade
9 crossings, and a regional freight district. We've got
10 three major airports. Those airports carry 42 million
11 passengers annually.
12 We, like all of Texas, are experiencing
13 significant growth. We sit at about 5 million in
14 population; forecasting 2025 is plus 3 million,
15 approaching 8 million. The area contributes 30 percent of
16 the state's gross national product and 23 percent of
17 retail sales.
18 The following slide are some further emphasis
19 on the regional metrics: we represent 23 percent of the
20 state's population; 24 percent of the employment, being
21 2.3 million jobs; 125 million vehicles miles traveled,
22 representing 21 percent of the state's total; we've got
23 10,500 lane miles which represent roughly 6 percent of the
24 state total; we have 83 lane miles of tollways and that
25 represents 53 percent of the state's total. 84
1 I'd now like to introduce Bill King who is the
2 former mayor of Kemah, serves as chairman of the Houston-
3 Galveston Area Council's Evacuation Task Force, and is on
4 the Governor's Evacuation Task Force. He'll talk to you
5 about the hurricane evacuation recent events and try and
6 illustrate our needs related to that, and then I will
7 summarize following him.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Houghton? Ms. Andrade?
9 (No response.)
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you.
11 MR. MISCHER: Bill?
12 MR. KING: Good morning. There were a lot of
13 us before Hurricane Rita that wondered what a mass
14 evacuation of Houston would look like. We now know in
15 real time what it looks like, and it was not a very pretty
16 picture.
17 The Houston Chronicle has documented 123 deaths
18 that occurred from the evacuation, and these are people
19 that were overcome by carbon monoxide asphyxiation, had
20 heart attacks, heat prostration, during the 36-hour
21 massive traffic jam that we had.
22 Probably more significant is that the survey
23 data indicates that about 10 percent of the people that
24 live in the surge zone areas either tried to evacuate,
25 gave up and went home, or looked at the traffic jam on the 85
1 freeway and did not even try to evacuate. So that means
2 that if Hurricane Rita had plowed up the west side of
3 Houston, as it had originally been projected, something
4 like 100,000 people would have been in very grave danger
5 during this storm, and we might have a much uglier picture
6 than we had.
7 The map that you're looking at now is the
8 Division of Emergency Management's flood zone or surge
9 zone map, and it's color-coded. The green area close to
10 the coast is what has to be evacuated in a Category 1 or 2
11 storm, the yellow is a Category 3, and the sort of purple
12 color is what has to be evacuated in a Category 4 or 5
13 hurricane.
14 And just to orient you -- this map is a little
15 hard to see -- if you go all the way up to the 4 or 5,
16 that's 100 percent of Galveston County, a little more than
17 half of Brazoria County, and a little less than a quarter
18 of Harris County down in the southeast quadrant, and you
19 can see that that surge then goes all the way in to Loop
20 610 and actually inside of that just a little bit. There
21 are currently about a million people that live in those
22 colored areas that you're looking at.
23 In addition to that, we have to evacuate folks
24 that live in structures that can't stand up to the wind in
25 the wind cone area, people that live in low-lying areas 86
1 outside this are going to be flooded by upland rainfall,
2 and then what we found out in Rita, there's a bunch of
3 people that are going to evacuate just because they don't
4 want to be in Houston, Texas in September or August
5 without air conditioning. Realistically, we're looking at
6 probably having to plan for about 2 million people having
7 to evacuate in a Category 4 or 5 storm.
8 There's a lot of work being done right now to
9 improve the situation. The governor has appointed his
10 task force which I'm currently serving on, with Jack
11 Little, chairman. And then also, the HGAC area has formed
12 a task force to look at our particular area. And there's
13 a lot of operational issues that need to be addressed, but
14 also, frankly, part of the solution has to be an
15 improvement of the infrastructure, the roadways along the
16 coastline.
17 The Governor's Task Force is actually creating
18 an inventory of what they consider to be critical choke
19 points and projects that need to be addressed relatively
20 rapidly, and that will be included in our final report and
21 will be, I'm sure, forwarded on to you in due course.
22 But in the Houston area, what Rita really
23 taught us is that it's the exits out of Houston that are
24 the weakest link in the system. We got people to Houston
25 pretty well. What happened was afer they got to Houston, 87
1 they couldn't get out. That's where all the huge traffic
2 jams were.
3 So that suggests sort of two things to me on
4 the infrastructure improvement. One is we need to try to
5 do the basic infrastructure to improve Highway 45, North
6 290, I-10. And I thought it's kind of ironic, you'll
7 notice on this map that I-10 is not even designated as an
8 evacuation route. This was obviously pre-Rita; we now
9 understand that it is an evacuation route.
10 But the other thing that it suggests is that we
11 need to find ways to evacuate people around Houston
12 instead of through Houston, because any time you go
13 through that metropolitan area, it greatly exacerbates the
14 complexity of the evacuation. So that suggests projects,
15 in my mind, like State Highway 146 up around the east
16 side, the Grand Parkway going around town, and State
17 Highway 36 as roadways whose improvement needs to be
18 prioritized to improve the hurricane evacuation situation.
19 There are a lot of operational issues that need
20 to be addressed and we're in the process of doing, and
21 we're in the process of doing those. Those are short-term
22 and have to be done, but the reality is as we continue to
23 add population to this area -- the projected population of
24 this vicinity is supposed to be 1.5 million people in the
25 next 20 years -- we're simply going to have to have better 88
1 roadways out of that area to get people safely away from
2 the coast in the event of a hurricane.
3 I'd be happy to take any questions.
4 MR. HOUGHTON: I have a question. How many
5 people were evacuated that hit the roadways in Houston?
6 MR. KING: Well, that's a really interesting
7 question. The press reports have reported up to 2-1/2
8 million people, and we're currently studying that. I
9 personally don't think it was nearly that many people; I
10 think it was probably something in the million-and-a-
11 quarter to a million-and-a-half. If you sort of run the
12 metrics on the roadways and how fast the cars were moving
13 and do the multiplication, it kind of suggests like a
14 million-and-a-half people.
15 MR. HOUGHTON: People or cars?
16 MR. KING: I'm sorry. People.
17 MR. HOUGHTON: Now, if you had a Cat 5, God
18 forbid, go through there and you wanted to evacuate, what
19 would your footprint have to look like to move 3 million
20 people, safely, efficiently?
21 MR. KING: In terms of the area that would need
22 to be evacuated?
23 MR. HOUGHTON: No. The footprint of the
24 transportation assets.
25 MR. KING: Well, there's two parts to this 89
1 problem: there's the operational problems which is how
2 effective use do you make of the roadways that you've got,
3 and frankly, we didn't make a very effective use of the
4 roadways that we have. What happened on the Thursday
5 before the storm is that sort of everybody panic-evacuated
6 at the same time, and it was like yelling fire in a
7 theater and everybody hit the door at the same time.
8 That's really what happened Thursday afternoon and
9 Thursday night.
10 So if we have a really good plan, everyone can
11 be evacuated. It's a question of how long, and with the
12 existing roadway system, probably 72 hours is when you
13 need to start that evacuation. Unfortunately, you don't
14 always have 72 hours, or you have to call a bunch of
15 evacuations as false alarms when they're really not going
16 to hit which is, of course, exactly what happened to us in
17 Rita.
18 So it's not this is the footprint that works,
19 just that the better the road system is, the more we'll be
20 able to compress that time and the fewer false alarms
21 we're going to have to call.
22 MR. HOUGHTON: I'll ask the question a
23 different way. If you had all of that in place, what kind
24 of operational and what kind of new mobility would have to
25 be built to accommodate it? 90
1 MR. KING: Well, I think you've got to do
2 something about 36; the Grand Parkway would be a great
3 asset to move people around; 146 to me is a critical
4 one -- of course, I'm a little prejudiced being from
5 Kemah; that runs right through the middle of my town --
6 but to be able to get people up into East Texas without
7 going through Houston I think is important.
8 And there are several critical bottlenecks,
9 choke points along I-10, 45 and 59 North that could be
10 addressed relatively easily. You know, 45, I guess, is
11 the worst where you go across the bridge up there just
12 inside Montgomery County and it drops down to two lanes.
13 That was probably the worst place.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
15 MS. ANDRADE: I just have one question. On the
16 return, did it work when you designated days for certain
17 sectors of Houston to come back?
18 MR. KING: I'm not sure how much attention
19 anybody paid to when they were supposed to come back, but
20 I think people just took their time coming back, and I
21 think also demonstrates that if everybody doesn't try to
22 go through the door at exactly the same time. It was a
23 long weekend so people came back over the weekend. There
24 was some traffic coming back but there wasn't the
25 nightmare that really occurred on Thursday afternoon late 91
1 and Thursday night.
2 MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much.
4 MR. KING: Thank you.
5 MR. MISCHER: This slide that I've got put up
6 represents the projected spending for the next three
7 years, '06, '07, '08, for highway and transit improvements
8 in the Transportation Improvement Program.
9 It represents roughly $3.4 billion.
10 Illustrated below are the sources of funds, being federal,
11 state and local contributions. You can see everyone is
12 making a significant contribution toward those dollars.
13 That said, this is a list of the eleven major
14 transportation highway improvement projects for the
15 region. Over what period of time, yet to be defined. The
16 principal thing that we would like to do with this slide
17 is illustrate that of roughly $7.6 billion in budget --
18 and these are TxDOT's budget; Gary Trietsch and his staff,
19 I was told, reviewed this document -- of the $7.6- we've
20 got roughly a billion 50 million in authorized
21 construction funding, and we're grateful for every dollar
22 of it.
23 But to accept the projection of 3 million more
24 people into this region, we're going to need to construct
25 every conceivable way to leverage everybody's dollars to 92
1 implement this transportation plan.
2 And what we would like as of today to ask you
3 to do is to allow us to continue to engage Gary
4 Trietsch -- who is a fabulous district engineer and who is
5 a frequent participant in all these public policy
6 forums -- to work with us to come up with an innovative
7 financing plan over a sustained period of time, multi-year
8 period of time -- we know that's what it's going to
9 take -- and allow us to construct a funding matrix with
10 both federal, local and state funds.
11 I've got slides behind this which further
12 describe each of these projects. We don't need to burden
13 your compressed time with that, and I can stop here, and
14 either I or other parties in our delegation can answer
15 whatever questions that you may have. And we thank you
16 for your time.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: And we probably have some
18 questions. I didn't notice, did Gary make the trip this
19 time?
20 MR. MISCHER: He is here.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Hey, Gary, of the $7 billion
22 that's on the sheet behind me, how much, if any of that,
23 is attributable to preparing US 59 to become I-69?
24 MR. TRIETSCH: Most what we've got up there
25 primarily on 59 are the projects that would connect to I- 93
1 69 when it swings around Houston. So we've got projects
2 both north and south, but the route right now of I-69
3 which would kind of swing through Walker County and Waller
4 County, would kind of connect back up with 59 south of
5 Rosenberg. Most of I-69, at least in the Houston
6 District, does not follow 59, but we have to make
7 connections, obviously, to the port, and those connections
8 to the port would primarily be through Grand Parkway on
9 the east side and Grand Parkway on the south side.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, the reason I asked, I
11 was recently made aware of a comment one of our county
12 judges made in a publication indicating that he thought
13 that building I-69 as it was originally envisioned by, I
14 guess, Congressional delegation, was still his preferred
15 goal.
16 And so I'm going to be asking everyone that
17 comes from the I-69 family over the next few months: If
18 you say to me you have $6 billion in unmet needs, how much
19 of that is for I-69? Because if we have a county judge
20 out there that thinks we have the money to build it
21 traditionally on the original planned route, then I want
22 to know where that money is because I'm not aware of any
23 money that we have available for that.
24 So I'll be asking you and I'll be asking your
25 colleagues to the west and southwest, when they appear, 94
1 where is that money. If that money isn't there, then I
2 just want to establish for the record one more time there
3 is no money for I-69, but if there is some money for I-69,
4 well, then I want somebody to show it to me because we
5 need to find it.
6 MR. TRIETSCH: Well, in the Houston District
7 there is no money allocated for I-69.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm shocked. Thank you, Gary.
9 Members, questions of this most professional
10 witness? You did a very professional job.
11 MR. MISCHER: Thank you. Let me append Gary's
12 remarks on I-69 for just a moment. The Greater Houston
13 Partnership sponsored what is known as the I-69 Alliance
14 which is a multi-state coalition along the entire
15 structure all the way to the Great Lakes. The Greater
16 Houston Partnership manages that initiative on behalf of
17 everyone, and we have participated. It is on our federal
18 legislative initiatives list.
19 Jeff Mosley, who I also forgot to introduce,
20 who is the recently appointed president of the Greater
21 Houston Partnership, will now have the task of marshaling
22 resources. Anything that we can coordinate and help with
23 that, we certainly want to participate, so if you will
24 communicate directly with me, Jeff, we will try and
25 coordinate the policy initiatives with you. 95
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: I guess the reason I asked
2 Gary to comment -- I thought I knew the answer but I like
3 to hear it from somebody else -- as I know you know, the
4 way we build transportation assets in this state and every
5 other state in the nation is we focus off of the federal
6 apportionment on a five- or six-year basis that reimburses
7 you and me from our federal gas taxes that we pay, for our
8 state gas tax and state vehicle registration fees that we
9 spend. So if we raise and spend $3-1/2 billion or $4
10 billion in gas taxes and motor vehicle registration fees
11 this year, and we spend $2-1/2 billion of that on
12 apportionable items, and if our apportionment permits us
13 to be reimbursed as much as $2-1/2 billion, that's our
14 budget.
15 And I am constantly amazed, as we attempt to
16 advance the notion that we have to build statewide and
17 national corridors differently than we originally thought
18 because we don't have the money, I read quotes from what I
19 consider to be informed and intelligent public officials
20 that imply to the public that the Road Fairy is out there
21 with a bag of money, if we'll just wait long enough,
22 somebody will give us the money to build I-69.
23 And then I look at this layout and I see, if
24 I'm reading this correctly, just these mobility projects
25 on this piece of paper represent a $6-1/2 billion funding 96
1 gap for just the next few years.
2 MR. MISCHER: That's correct.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: And I wonder where the money
4 to pay for I-69, as it was originally proposed, or I-35
5 NAFTA expansion, as it was originally proposed, I wonder
6 where that money comes from.
7 MR. MISCHER: So do I.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: I mean, these are otherwise
9 logical, informed, educated, experienced political
10 leaders. John, do you know where it comes from? Jack? I
11 mean, you are colleagues so I feel like I can call on you.
12 Peggy, where does that money come from?
13 MS. HAMRIC: The Road Fairy.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: The Road Fairy.
15 (General laughter.)
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: And I don't mean to make humor
17 with the intention, Hope, of embarrassing anyone, just as
18 a pretty logical, straightforward guy, I don't comprehend
19 it.
20 MR. MISCHER: Well, the Road Fairy has not
21 shown up in our district and sprinkled any dust either, so
22 we're still in the dark.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: I do have a significant
24 answerable question for you, I think. You know,
25 apportionment that I spoke of, the federal government 97
1 generally doesn't tie our hands too much but they do tie
2 our hands, I guess, in three areas, one of which we don't
3 mind at all, the CMAQ funds. But our hands are tied with
4 respect to congressional earmarks, we understand that. We
5 officially oppose that, we don't think that's the right
6 way to do things, but we understand it.
7 But the third area that we're really handcuffed
8 is with regard to enhancement money. We get our
9 apportionment, whatever it is, let's say it's $2-1/2
10 billion a year, $7 billion over a five-year period,
11 whatever, but then a portion of that apportionment is set
12 aside and we're told you can only spend that money on
13 county courthouses and roadside parks and museums and
14 things of that nature.
15 And we wonder if, in light of the hurricane
16 experience, if we might not, Gulf states might not be
17 permitted to spend their enhancement money on hurricane
18 relief routes as well as museums. All of us love museums
19 and we like the roadside parks we're doing, but we might
20 want to improve Highway 36 even more. And I guess we
21 would wonder what the Greater Houston Partnership and the
22 Gulf Coast Mobility Partners would think about assisting
23 us in communicating to Mr. Culberson, Ms. Hutchison, Mr.
24 Cornyn -- Mr. DeLay already knows our opinion of this --
25 that maybe we ought to, for a while at least, use that 98
1 enhancement money to do something besides -- not eliminate
2 it but just give us the option.
3 MR. MISCHER: I understand.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: And I don't ask you to agree
5 publicly, I'm asking if you could just think about that.
6 MR. MISCHER: I think we're on the same page on
7 that as you are. The partnership and Gulf Coast are on
8 record, have been on record many times for both at a state
9 and federal level to stop the diversion of transportation
10 funding resources. We're big on that initiative. We
11 would be delighted in any way possible to assist you in
12 changing that public policy and at least freezing the
13 diversions. I don't think anybody is hallucinating about
14 a rollback of diversion, but I do hallucinate about a go-
15 forward plan that at least eliminates that.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for that.
17 MR. MISCHER: Okay.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Anything else, members?
19 MR. HOUGHTON: Yes. I'm surprised, Mr.
20 Chairman, that the press and across the country we haven't
21 picked up on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce report on the
22 Highway Trust Fund and its recommendation and its profound
23 statement that the trust fund will be broke by 2008.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Negative cash flow in three
25 years. 99
1 MR. HOUGHTON: Negative cash flow in 2008. And
2 that hasn't been reported yet, and then what their
3 solutions are, which somewhat mirror the solutions that we
4 have at a state level but they go beyond that.
5 With that said, I would think it's incumbent
6 that the transportation community start looking at that
7 report and getting it out and having people think what
8 changes need to be made at the federal level.
9 My question to you, Walt, though, after that
10 editorialization, is what is the rail relocation fix -- or
11 Gary, do you know -- in the greater Houston area, the rail
12 relocation number that's been floating out there all these
13 years?
14 MR. MISCHER: Is George DeMontrond still here?
15 Well, George DeMontrond chairs the Freight Rail Task
16 Force for the Greater Houston Partnership -- he was
17 here -- but he's also Metropolitan Transit Authority board
18 member and had to leave to get back for a board meeting.
19 Gary? The number that's been thrown around,
20 and I can't itemize for you in any way where it comes
21 from, is a $4.5 billion figure, and that includes
22 everything from grade crossings to rerouting into, I
23 think, two major rail corridors, one looping to the north
24 of Houston, one looping to the south over to the port.
25 It's a very big number, and really I'm unprepared to go 100
1 any further.
2 MR. HOUGHTON: No, that's fine. And then
3 what's the cost of TTC-69 in the state of Texas? Anybody
4 have that number?
5 MR. BEHRENS: Eleven billion or so, maybe more.
6 MR. HOUGHTON: So with that said, Walt, I keep
7 harkening back to this RMA multi-county in the Bexar
8 County area. I said to you last night -- and thanks for
9 the reception, it was a lot of fun -- you know, we've got
10 to get out of the boat and start doing some different
11 things, and the multi-county RMAs and coming together with
12 solutions instead of our little pieces, but I think multi-
13 county RMAs are going to be part of the solution here and
14 putting those transportation assets in the multi-county
15 RMA and leveraging up those dollars to meet that need, the
16 $4.5 billion rail need, and the contribution by the area
17 to TTC-69.
18 That's just my humble opinion.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
20 MS. ANDRADE: Thank you. Great presentation.
21 I agree with the chairman, I think that if you can help us
22 support on that flexibility with those enhancement funds,
23 we need to find money wherever.
24 But I have a question for Gary. Gary, if money
25 is ever found, are we going to make those evacuation 101
1 routes a priority?
2 MR. TRIETSCH: Well, I am. I will tell you --
3 and Walt or Bill mentioned that 45 ends down to two lanes
4 in southern Montgomery County -- much to my chagrin, and I
5 will tell you I generally don't look beyond the boundaries
6 of my district, those few counties are enough for me, but
7 after the evacuation I find out that the expansion of I-45
8 north is not even in our plan, and now I've got a lot
9 bigger interest in it.
10 Mike and I were talking this morning, you know,
11 even if we get one lane just northbound, I don't care if
12 they come back or not -- they'll get back eventually.
13 (General laughter.)
14 MR. TRIETSCH: But I think as a general rule,
15 just as was mentioned I-10 is not an evacuation route, it
16 was proven quite dramatically that all routes are
17 evacuation routes along the coast. That's something we
18 got to take recognition of. We do have bottlenecks, some
19 are short-, mid-, long-term things, and that's one of the
20 things we're looking at.
21 I'm looking at things in Brenham that affected
22 us. As was mentioned, when I got the call at 2:30 in the
23 morning about contra-flowing I-45, I'm still groggy
24 thinking all we'd ever talked about was from Galveston to
25 Houston which can't be done because of the bottleneck. We 102
1 found out we're talking about north, and 45 south on
2 Wednesday really wasn't a problem. I mean, we've got the
3 data to prove -- I mean, it got congested.
4 So my whole outlook on planning, to answer your
5 question, Commissioner, is greatly different, and my
6 priorities. Bill King here has been preaching this
7 message for several years, and I don't think any of us
8 paid that much attention. We dodged the bullet, we've got
9 a second chance, so we've got to take advantage of this
10 because it will happen again. I just hope I don't have to
11 use my experience again.
12 MS. ANDRADE: Well, my concern is we may not
13 have enough time before it happens again so we have to
14 work on it.
15 MR. TRIETSCH: Yes.
16 MR. TRIETSCH: Thank you.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, in my view, though,
18 you're exactly right. We had more than we planned for
19 because of all this population growth, and that same
20 observation can be made of the entire road system, the
21 entire highway system.
22 Linking back to my question about this
23 particular county judge who is quoted in a publication as
24 saying we want to build I-69 the way it was originally
25 envisioned, I think most of the time those comments and 103
1 that line of reasoning and that argument asserted by some
2 assumes Texas today is like it was 25 years ago, and
3 that's just not the facts. The facts or the truth is that
4 there are going to be 8 million people in the Harris
5 County area very soon; there's 4-1/2-, 5 million now.
6 Same could be said of my part of the state in
7 North Texas. I really wish that Weatherford, Texas was
8 still the 14,000 people and Parker County the 27,000
9 people it was when I moved there, but it's not, it's
10 140,000 people. And the roads we're driving were planned
11 for that 50,000.
12 So we all have to change our thinking and we
13 all have to change how we propose these problems, if we
14 intend to solve them.
15 Other dialogue with this witness?
16 MR. HOUGHTON: Thank you, Walt, very much.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to tell you how much I
18 appreciate you. I was pretty entranced with you. You
19 were straightforward, you hit the facts, you didn't
20 equivocate, and I really appreciate the way you laid that
21 out very much.
22 MR. MISCHER: Well, good. We aim to please.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Very businesslike. I like
24 that.
25 MR. MISCHER: Thank you. We appreciate your 104
1 time.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike, I don't really want to
3 take a break, I want to keep going.
4 MR. BEHRENS: Do you want to ask Representative
5 Hamric or Senator Lindsay if they want to say anything?
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm assuming that they can
7 come up here and talk any time they want to. When do you
8 wish to speak, Ms. Hamric and Mr. Lindsay? We've got the
9 Parkway and then we've got John's part of the world.
10 SENATOR LINDSAY: Mr. Chairman, I did not come
11 to speak today, but after listening to everything that's
12 been said, I will reflect back on 31 years of pretty close
13 association with transportation issues, both at the county
14 level and now at the state level, and reflect on a little
15 bit of what I think has happened.
16 Back in those days when I first became county
17 judge, it was easy, it was really easy to do major big
18 projects. It's not that way anymore, I don't have to tell
19 you that. It's gotten much more difficult for a lot of
20 reasons.
21 But the one thing that bothers me more than
22 anything -- well, there's a lot of things that bother me,
23 the environmental issues you've got to do that you didn't
24 have to do then, and the flood issues, all this other
25 stuff -- but the thing that worries me as much as anything 105
1 is the direction that we at the state have taken when we
2 start diverting funds to other things, and we're doing
3 that, of course, we're balancing a tough budget.
4 The General Fund, now 96 percent of it goes to
5 three issues, and you're not taking any money away from
6 those three issues. So when you start worrying about
7 budgeting for the other 4 percent, you start looking for
8 alternative funding. Well, a lot of it comes,
9 unfortunately, out of Highway 6 funds.
10 But what I'm worried about is maybe that's
11 happening now too at the local level and coming on down to
12 our area and seeing the possibility of indeed
13 transportation funds that have been traditional
14 transportation funds, in bond funding and in our area in
15 toll roads, maybe some of those funds being diverted to
16 other issues and taken away from transportation, and I
17 think that's something that we as a group need to be
18 careful of. When they start talking about selling the
19 toll roads, where is that money going, is it going to stay
20 in transportation or is it going to stay a tax cut or
21 whatever. There's all kinds of alternatives, of course,
22 you can talk about.
23 And I think that's something I'm going to be
24 concerned about, and I will not be an elected official in
25 420 days, but I will be a participant, I still will be an 106
1 active member of the North Houston Association which is
2 Montgomery County and North Harris County, and I hope to
3 have a little bit of influence on what happens in that
4 area. I'm going to leave the real voting issues to people
5 like Peggy.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Before you leave, Judge, we've
7 said it before from this podium and hopefully we'll have a
8 chance to say it one more time, but if we don't, the state
9 owes you a great debt. You've been a true senator of
10 transportation for your years here, and you were active, I
11 know, at home before you came to the Senate. But what
12 this department thinks about are those who represent a
13 balanced view of transportation over in the pink building,
14 and you have been a transportation senator -- not always
15 let us do what we want to do, but that's okay, you've been
16 a transportation senator, and we really appreciate your
17 contributions.
18 SENATOR LINDSAY: Well, my background certainly
19 is in that area.
20 (Applause.)
21 MS. HAMRIC: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
22 commissioners and Mr. Behrens.
23 I just really wanted to say I'm just here to
24 support the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners because
25 that's really what we are, we're mobility partners. And I 107
1 know Senator Lindsay really didn't want to say anything
2 but I wanted him to, because I know, Mr. Chairman, when
3 you were in the Texas House and now on the commission,
4 you've always thought outside the box on a lot of issues,
5 and I think that's what Senator Lindsay did certainly in
6 Houston with our toll road system.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: No question.
8 MS. HAMRIC: Thank goodness that he did that,
9 or we'd be in a worse mess than we are now. And he's
10 absolutely right and what you said a while ago was just
11 profound in that everybody wants to think things are like
12 they used to be. We don't want to think that Houston is
13 going to have 2 million more people, because 2 million
14 cars on the road, people on the road is a huge problem,
15 and even more so as we grow.
16 But that's the reason we're here today because
17 we know that we do have to have long-range planning, and I
18 think the partnership that we have formed here with our
19 eight regional counties is very, very important to look
20 into the future of transportation in our area. It's not
21 going to get smaller, it's going to get larger, much
22 larger.
23 As the world looked on and we faced the
24 hurricanes -- two hurricanes, really, because we got so
25 many evacuees from the first one and then had to do our 108
1 evacuation on the second one -- it gives a whole new
2 perspective. But one thing that I think it did -- I've
3 talked to so many chambers and Rotary Clubs, et cetera --
4 I think people really started thinking about why
5 infrastructure is so important, and now they know why we
6 really need some of these things. Because many times we
7 hear people say, Oh, we don't need all those roads, it's
8 too much trouble, tears up things, people are moving here.
9 But I think the long-range planning, I know you
10 and I were at a meeting early on -- you were there much
11 earlier than I -- on the Trans-Texas Corridor when we were
12 talking about right of way and why it's important for
13 long-range planning, because certainly in metropolitan
14 areas it even becomes more difficult and much more
15 expensive to get that right of way.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: And I appreciate your saying
17 that, and this is not your district but this same article
18 is going to appear in your district soon. This is an
19 article in the American-Statesman this morning about a
20 particular freshwater zone north and east of here that is
21 very prolific and recharges very easily and can provide
22 probably all the fresh water that all of the growth east
23 of Austin is going to require in the next 25 years.
24 This article, Peg, is about -- I can call you
25 Peg because we're buddies -- this article is about the 109
1 fact that these guys now see a way to get this water 57
2 miles to market. Now, guess where they're going to come
3 to lay their water line? Right in the edge of the first
4 piece of what will become the Trans-Texas Corridor 35.
5 Precisely what the governor said four years ago
6 is exactly what is occurring: people are realizing that
7 you can't build roads, you can't move freight rail out of
8 urban Houston, you can't lay water lines, and you can't
9 lay new electricity to a state of 35-, 40-, 50 million
10 people on the existing right of way. It cannot be done.
11 Somebody has to take the initiative and go out to the edge
12 and line that right of way up and get ready for all those
13 people.
14 And then, as we just got a chance to visit with
15 Mr. Mischer and the Judge, if there is money out there for
16 the state to do that, I do not know where it is. If
17 there's not money out there for the state to do it and if
18 we value entrepreneurship and profit in this state, then
19 why are we bothered by anyone, whether it's Haliburton or
20 Cintra or Fluor or BankOne, why do we care if it's the
21 best value for the state to go out and build those assets
22 and let us pay for them as we use them. I'm just baffled
23 by all that, I'm just baffled.
24 And perhaps you're right, perhaps the
25 hurricanes have made people realize. 110
1 MS. HAMRIC: Well, I think at least more aware.
2 And I like the focus that you've put on air quality,
3 safety, congestion, economic development because, quite
4 frankly, in the Houston region, in the eight-county
5 region, if we don't have a way to move people around or
6 good mobility, we aren't going to bring in new companies,
7 it's just not going to happen. And the fact that we have
8 the largest medical center in the world and the sixth
9 largest port and all of those assets, if we can't move
10 people around, we can't get them around.
11 And I'm pleased that our mobility partners are
12 also looking at other modes of transportation besides just
13 the roads. We're looking at certainly our general
14 aviation airports and rail.
15 And I visited briefly one day with Congressman
16 Culberson, our former colleague, about our local freight
17 rail district in the Houston area. Senator Lindsay and I
18 carried that legislation and we had been told that this
19 might be part of the reauthorization of TX-21 to get some
20 money to fund that, and there seems to be some mystery now
21 as to whether those monies are there. Mr. Culberson seems
22 to think they are.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, maybe TxDOT can find
24 some money for that.
25 MS. HAMRIC: Well, probably. But I am pleased 111
1 that we're looking at all options. And again, the
2 hurricane and the scare and everything, everybody is like
3 if we'd had rail or if we'd had this or if we'd had that.
4 So now they know it's moving people, it's not frivolous,
5 it's something that has to be done. We have no choice, we
6 have no choice on long-range planning, we have to do it.
7 It's like Trans-Texas Corridor, it has to be
8 long-range and we have to be flexible, there will be
9 changes as we go along, as we know.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: No question.
11 MS. HAMRIC: On conversion of toll roads we had
12 to make a few changes on some of those things.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: And we can change.
14 MS. HAMRIC: And we can change.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: We're prepared to do those
16 things.
17 MS. HAMRIC: Right. And the public will let us
18 know, I think, when we need to make these changes.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, for Ms. Hamric?
20 MS. HAMRIC: Again, just thank you. I'm going
21 to be brief, and like I said, the Senator and I weren't
22 really going to say anything but we really wanted to back
23 up our folks because so many of them came and they're very
24 sincere about it, and it's such an important issue.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you have, on the House 112
1 side, been a strong and staunch supporter of
2 transportation, Representative Hamric.
3 MS. HAMRIC: Well, you've been very helpful to
4 me on many occasions. We've worked together as a member
5 of the Transportation Committee and also Appropriations,
6 CBO, so I've gotten to work on your budget. So it's been
7 a pleasure and thank you.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Best of luck to you.
9 MS. HAMRIC: Thank you, appreciate it.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 113
1 P R O C E E D I N G S (RESUMED)
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike?
3 MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to agenda item number
4 7(a) which is our Annual Report from the Grand Parkway
5 Association, and David Gornet is here to present that.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: My buddy David.
7 MR. GORNET: Good morning, members of the
8 commission. Thank you for having me come and speak today.
9 I look forward to answering any of your questions.
10 It would appear that some of the previous
11 delegations have already addressed some of the subjects
12 that I will be covering on my presentation, so I hope that
13 we're all in the same boat, we're saying the same thing
14 about how important it is for transportation and our
15 infrastructure to address the safety needs of our
16 community here.
17 Grand Parkway, you've seen these maps before,
18 the loop, the project status, when the various segments
19 got started. We continue to move forward on each and
20 every segment with the exception of Segment A. That does
21 not have any contracts underway for that.
22 Earlier this year in April, you all allowed us
23 to get funding for Segments H and I-1 on the northeast
24 side of town. We have been working over this past year to
25 start the contracting for that, and we have a consultant 114
1 selected, we're negotiating a contract with them right
2 now. We had meetings on Monday with Ms. Noble in the
3 Environmental Division to discuss and make sure that our
4 proposed scope is appropriate for what we're trying to do
5 there to preserve the right of way corridor. And so we
6 look forward to getting that started January of this year.
7 We have 108 miles under study of the 182 total
8 project. We'll add 36 more miles of study to that later
9 this year in January, and just a reminder again that this
10 182 miles is similar to the challenge of building a new
11 road from Houston to San Antonio, all the issues that we
12 have with right of way acquisition, with parks, with
13 farms, with new subdivisions, new growth that's going on,
14 and all that that presents.
15 Recent events that we've had. We obviously had
16 a lot of influx of Hurricane Katrina evacuees into the
17 Houston region, we have the issue of folks evacuating from
18 the island, early on in Rita you had congestion in the
19 metropolitan area and then further outside of town we had
20 issues on I-45 and I-10 that everyone has already
21 discussed, and then we had issues on the return.
22 You are well aware that we have 4-1/2 million
23 people in the metropolitan region, they're looking at a
24 number of 7-1/2 by year 2025, approximately 3 million more
25 individuals coming to the region, and of that, a large 115
1 portion of them will be down in potentially impacted
2 hazard zones that Mr. King was already talking about that
3 we have to evacuate a million-plus people will probably go
4 up to 2 million people down in those hazard zones by 2025.
5 You've seen the map already that the Greater
6 Houston Partnership had for hurricane evacuation.
7 Currently State Highway 36, State Highway 288, State
8 Highway 6, I-45 and 146 are the designated routes. How
9 the Grand Parkway fits into this -- and I appreciate
10 everyone's comments on how important this is -- Segment D
11 on the west side of town is already open.
12 The important segments getting in to serve the
13 south side of the Houston metropolitan region, Segments A,
14 B and C and E that allow better access around, bypassing
15 the metro region, get that traffic that's coming out of
16 Brazoria County and Galveston County over to I-10 and to
17 US 290 so that they can evacuate more effectively without
18 the direct impact within the metropolitan area.
19 And then likewise Mayor King mentioned 146 and
20 the need to improve that. Segment I-2 parallels the 146
21 corridor on the east side of town and then the segments
22 that we're starting study on on H and I-1 likewise
23 parallel that, bring traffic up to US 59, and Segment G
24 completes that connection over to I-45.
25 The balance of the Grand Parkway, Segments F-1 116
1 and F-2, allow for access to 249 as 249 is improved and to
2 get traffic up to their designated evacuation areas in
3 either College Station, Bryan, 45 gets you up toward
4 Huntsville and further to the north, 59 up into the Lufkin
5 region.
6 A summary of activities that we've had over the
7 past year. TxDOT completed the construction of two
8 overpasses just south of I-10 on Segment D. We have
9 construction that's continuing on Segment I-2. You have
10 the E and F-1 final environmental impact statements have
11 been submitted for review to Federal Highways. Wetlands
12 reports were approved by Corps of Engineers on those
13 projects.
14 We have new toll traffic numbers for Segment C
15 that have to be incorporated into the final environmental
16 impact statement for that project. We have a revised
17 environmental impact statement that's being prepared for
18 Segment F-2 which is the Spring area.
19 If you'll remember, last year Representative
20 Riddle was here with us, also discussed that. I thought
21 she might show up today to continue that discussion.
22 We're trying to work to find a resolution there, and we
23 have that document. We met yesterday with Federal
24 Highways to try to close that out so we can have a public
25 hearing in January. 117
1 Segments G and B have draft environmental
2 impact statements have been prepared and were submitted
3 for review. We're looking forward to public hearings on
4 those early next year. And then as we've already
5 mentioned, Segment H and I-1, to start the studies out
6 there on the northeast side of town.
7 Segment A, continuing discussions. Nothing
8 going on, real fast, with that. Segment D, for 2006,
9 Segment D and I-2, we will complete the toll studies or we
10 look forward to TxDOT completing those. Those are a
11 function that's being carried on by TTA right now.
12 C, E and F-1, to have those final environmental
13 impact statements approved, public meetings held, move
14 those projects forward more quickly. The F-2, I already
15 mentioned. G and B, hold public hearings there, and
16 again, starting the study on H and I-1.
17 With that, I've tried to make my presentation
18 as brief as possible, I realize you have a very busy
19 calendar today, and I'd open it up for any questions.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted?
21 MR. HOUGHTON: No.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
23 MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Looks to me like everything is
25 moving along as it should. Would there be anything you'd 118
1 want to add?
2 MR. GORNET: I would like for it to move
3 faster, but unfortunately, it's moving along at the pace.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: It is the way it is.
5 MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Gary, are you still out there?
7 MR. TRIETSCH: Yes.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Anything you need to add to?
9 Do we need to have any kind of discussion? I got a late-
10 night call from my close buddy who said he'd been jumped
11 pretty good about our attempt to take over the Grand
12 Parkway and take it away from somebody, and I confessed I
13 didn't know what he was talking about but I thought I
14 might ought to ask you about it.
15 MR. TRIETSCH: Well, there are two issues.
16 One, we've scheduled a work meeting with elected
17 officials, congressional folks, state representatives,
18 state senators and county commissioners -- December 6?
19 MR. GORNET: December 6, yes, sir.
20 MR. TRIETSCH: To kind of go over the F-2
21 segment, the one in Spring that is probably the most
22 controversial. We've spent a year and a half re-looking
23 at different routes. And then as David said, we'll have
24 our public hearings in January on that, but we wanted to
25 give everybody kind of a heads-up. It's still going to be 119
1 controversial, it did not change greatly.
2 The other issue is not only with Grand Parkway
3 but all of our toll projects, we continue to work with the
4 Harris County Toll Road Authority to come up with a
5 financing scheme, kind of a blanket, or at least a
6 concept, and we're actually, I think, a lot of people -- I
7 keep getting questions we're mad at each other. We're
8 still talking to HCTRA and I still have breakfast once a
9 month with Art Story. This is a difficult thing, this is
10 a change.
11 You know, we're not giving it away anymore and
12 we're just trying to come up with something equitable that
13 the Harris County Commissioners Court -- who is the board
14 of directors for Harris County Toll Road Authority -- will
15 approve and something that you will approve.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: So you're just going through
17 the same process, in effect, that Bill Hale and Maribel
18 Chavez are having to go through up in North Texas.
19 MR. TRIETSCH: Yes.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Working it out.
21 MR. TRIETSCH: Harris County Toll Road
22 Authority did jump out and did some work on Grand
23 Parkway/290, and told them all along we don't have an
24 agreement. And I think they've spent enough money that
25 they'd like to have an agreement in place -- which I don't 120
1 blame them one iota -- and hopefully in the next few
2 months we'll be bringing something forward to you, again,
3 as a general concept that then we'd work on each
4 individual project and tweak it probably differently, but
5 how we would approach these projects in working with
6 Harris County Toll Road Authority or Fort Bend Toll Road
7 Authority or Brazoria County Toll Road Authority.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
9 MR. HOUGHTON: We're leveraging our dollars is
10 what you're saying.
11 MR. TRIETSCH: Yes, and like the Grand Parkway,
12 our preliminary numbers show it as a whole about on
13 breakeven basis, but there are segments that are very
14 profitable -- if I might use that word -- there's also
15 segments that are money-losers, and they're not all in the
16 same county. So we have to move the money from the
17 profitable to the non-profitable ones, and TxDOT can do
18 that. I'm not sure an individual county toll road
19 authority can, just politically.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Gary.
21 Any other questions for David?
22 (No response.)
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much.
24 Let's go ahead and get all of our out-of-town
25 guests taken care of, Mike. 121
1 MR. BEHRENS: Our next agenda item is 7(b) and
2 we have with us today the county judge of Brazoria County,
3 Judge Willy, here to report on Hurricane Rita evacuation
4 in the Brazoria County area. Judge?
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Who is not the county judge
6 who apparently believes in the Road Fairy, I might add.
7 JUDGE WILLY: Thank you very much, Mr.
8 Chairman, commissioners, and Mr. Behrens.
9 I want to thank you for allowing me to revisit
10 you today. And if I may move this up -- when you get old,
11 you can't see too well anymore.
12 I'm truly impressed with the enthusiasm and the
13 drive that the Gulf Coast Mobility Partnership is making.
14 We're a part of that and we want to be a regional
15 partner, and I think we can be effective in that and I
16 think that we can accomplish great things in the future.
17 We can't do it by ourselves anymore. We as a
18 county would fall on our face if we tried to do it by
19 ourselves; we've got to have a cooperation with our
20 partners, our communities, the rest of the state, and with
21 TxDOT and the other agencies we have to deal with.
22 And I would say, too, Mr. Chairman, you asked
23 me about the Road Fairy. There is no Road Fairy, and I
24 understand that we're going to think totally out of the
25 boat, like we have to do, Mr. Houghton. And I have no 122
1 pride of ownership in transportation, my interest in
2 transportation is moving people, I don't care who owns it,
3 if it's Cintra or whoever it is. I'm big on privatization
4 anyway, because I think there's basically nothing more
5 inefficient than government, and as long as I feel that
6 way, I would totally support any outside sources of
7 creating a transportation system in Texas that moves our
8 people.
9 Having said that, you remember in March we came
10 before you with all of our representatives from Brazoria
11 County with 68.7 percent vote on a $50 million bond issue,
12 and we had the contribution of another $50 million from
13 the cities. We've tried to begin our process on that.
14 With lack of availability of funds with TxDOT, only two of
15 our small projects is costing us $18 million just to get
16 those started. I hope that we can look to the state for
17 at least some help on that.
18 And we asked the commission last time to
19 consider Highway 36 and the problems that we were having
20 with 36. TxDOT is moving forward from the Fort Bend
21 County Highway 59 down through West Columbia. The West
22 Columbia south to the Port of Freeport is the completion
23 of that route, and of course, we're asking that we get
24 some state help on that.
25 As you recall, too, that's not the first time 123
1 that we've been before you on Highway 36. In fact, it's
2 been over the last ten years that we've tried to get that
3 project moved from 1997, 1996, and then it was moved out
4 14 years, and we have tried to move that back to the
5 current.
6 I would say that the need for it was really
7 projected in the last event that we had, and I don't need
8 to remind you what happened in Hurricane Rita, but we
9 really think what could have happened. Suppose that all
10 of the people from the Beaumont-Port Arthur area came to
11 our area to escape what was predicted to be a hit over
12 there, and then think of what would happen if that hit
13 actually moved to the Brazoria County/Galveston County
14 area. And I think if you just close your eyes, you can
15 think about what a mess we would have, and with little or
16 no warning and little ability to move people out with the
17 infrastructure that we currently have.
18 And I say this because if you looked at your
19 maps earlier, the people from Galveston are in worse shape
20 than the people of Brazoria County. Your people from the
21 east side of Galveston had to come out through Brazoria
22 County. There were over 20,000 automobiles coming through
23 Brazoria County from Galveston, according to the DPS, and
24 not only that, the people out of south Houston were coming
25 south to go west because they couldn't get through 124
1 Houston. So it just exacerbated the problem that we had
2 with Highway 36.
3 Governor Perry recognized the problem that we
4 have when he did the study on what would happen if the
5 perfect storm hit, and he created a plan and that plan was
6 a good plan for the state of Texas. It failed really for
7 lack of resources and fear, fear from Hurricane Katrina.
8 I think had it not been for Katrina, we would have had a
9 much more orderly evacuation.
10 I think we need to go back and just remind
11 you -- and I'll skim through it real quickly -- what it
12 would do to Brazoria County and it would do likewise with
13 other coastal areas, what it would do with just the storm
14 that we would have in that perfect storm that was used as
15 the demonstration product.
16 First of all, let me state that Brazoria County
17 has Highway 36 to get us out and 288 and we have a problem
18 on both of them. The design storm was the Hurricane Carla
19 storm of 1961, and you can see what the effect of that
20 was, and the perfect storm that was created on the
21 computers did not even include the rainfall and the
22 flooding, but just the effects of the storm coming
23 through.
24 This is a map of the coastline, as I've
25 depicted to you before. You can see the strategic 125
1 petroleum reserves between the San Bernard and the Brazos
2 rivers; you have your industrial area of Brazosport which
3 is Dow Chemical, et cetera; then you have your Chocolate
4 Bayou plant which is another large part of the
5 petrochemical industry in Brazoria County.
6 You can see what just a Category 1 storm would
7 do and you start beginning to see the coastal areas begin
8 to flood. Your strategic petroleum reserves are already
9 beginning to go under water. In a Cat 2 you're at 9.9
10 feet, and were it not for a 22-foot levee around the
11 Freeport area encompassing the Dow Chemical plant and the
12 other plants in the area, it would be under water. As you
13 can see Chocolate Bayou plants are already being
14 threatened.
15 Then we go to a Cat 3 with 15.3-foot surge and
16 you see already the cities of Freeport, Lake Jackson,
17 Clute, and Richwood are under water. We're already moving
18 into a population of over 50,000 people.
19 Then you have your Cat 4 with 18.8 feet. Your
20 petroleum reserve is under water, the Freeport
21 petrochemical industry is threatened, and the Chocolate
22 Bayou petrochemical industry is under water.
23 Then we move to the Cat 5 -- which was what was
24 projected for this area. Here you have 22.4 feet and the
25 Freeport petrochemical industry is under water because the 126
1 levee has been breached at that point.
2 We all know that if we started building 36
3 today, it would take seven years to complete the project,
4 and you know that each season the likelihood of a storm
5 hitting similar to what was Rita or Katrina could happen
6 during that time. So knowing this, we've gone through the
7 Rita fire drill, we see what's out there and we see what
8 we need more closely now than we've ever been able to see
9 before because we've never had the opportunity to
10 experience an evacuation like we had at this point.
11 So I know we don't have dedicated funds for
12 hurricane evacuation routes anymore, those funds are
13 immersed in your other funds now, but consider the coastal
14 zone of Texas and the needs of moving people out of harm's
15 way, not only in Brazoria county but in the other coastal
16 areas where we're going to need to eventually move people
17 out.
18 The 276,000 lives that are at risk here, that's
19 only Brazoria County and only then a part of Brazoria
20 County, but you've got Galveston County and you've got
21 the other counties. We can't evacuate to the north.
22 We're going to have to move to the west and work with
23 TxDOT on getting numbers on the capacities of the roads to
24 our west and the ability to move the people out of
25 Galveston that can't go north. 127
1 If you've driven Highway 146, I can't imagine
2 you ever thinking of that as an evacuation route. It's
3 just not an evacuation route.
4 In wrapping up, we want to be a regional
5 partner, we want to work with and be a partner with TxDOT,
6 and we realize that now, and there will probably always be
7 a shortage of funding to address the transportation
8 infrastructure. We're willing to do our part. If you
9 can't fund 36 from West Columbia to the Port of Freeport,
10 then help me cut the red tape, let us do it and let's do
11 it on a pass-through financing package. We're willing to
12 do that and we're willing to do it a lot sooner than a lot
13 later.
14 And the same with the Highway 288 project where
15 we need to move people out to the north on Highway 288
16 which, of course, Grand Parkway which has been mentioned
17 before is going to be a great asset to that, along with
18 the other infrastructure that's being planned in the
19 region.
20 But with 288, again we're willing to take the
21 risk, but we want to be a full partner, not just share in
22 the revenue that's been asked of us, but let's share in
23 the profit and the risk if you want to do that, and we'll
24 build the tollway in the Brazoria County portion, we're
25 ready. But it's a matter of getting through the red tape, 128
1 and with your help, we can do that.
2 And let me give you an example of what we're
3 faced with. We've seen the projections in Houston and
4 Harris County for 2030, 2025 to 2030. You're going to
5 have, as you stated earlier, 8.7 million people total in
6 that area. But in Brazoria County where we're at roughly
7 280,000 people, as we speak, we're going to be at 600,000
8 people in Brazoria County on roads in the original colony
9 that were built for wagons. All 1,100 miles of road we're
10 going to have to address ourselves on county roads.
11 We're going to be at 600,000 and that estimate
12 of the needs just in Brazoria County by 2030 will cause
13 the expenditure of somewhere between $3- and $3.2 billion.
14 No, there's not a Road Fairy and I realize that
15 we're going to have to do it ourselves. In my years of
16 banking we've figured out innovative ways to do things.
17 We can figure out ways of doing innovative things with the
18 state, as you have already started doing, and you are
19 stepping out of the box and I appreciate that. I think
20 the citizens of the state of Texas will ultimately give
21 you great more appreciation for the direction that you're
22 trying to go.
23 But in addition to Hurricane Rita and the lives
24 at risk, I want to remind the commission of the following
25 economic situation in Brazoria County. You have the Port 129
1 of Freeport that we heard about the Port of Houston and
2 its importance, sixth largest in the nation, you've got
3 the twelfth largest in the nation right there in Brazoria
4 County. We have, I believe it was 40 percent that was
5 stated of the nation's petrochemical complex in our
6 region. A full one-third of that is in Brazoria County,
7 and that constitutes one of your largest exports in the
8 United States. Believe me, this helps pay the tab for the
9 state of Texas, so we have an important situation.
10 We have a great regional airport in Brazoria
11 County that probably few know about. We have the biotech
12 corridor that's moving down the freeway. We have over
13 22,000 lots either on the ground, on the drawing board, or
14 they're building houses on them right now in Brazoria
15 County.
16 We're one of the fastest growing counties in
17 the nation and it's right down that 288 corridor, and the
18 needs are going to increases for being able to have
19 transportation infrastructure that can move people. We
20 have the Gulf Coast Regional Space Port which is still
21 moving along, and I think it will see fruition one day.
22 The growth that we're experiencing, we have to
23 work as a region and we have to work as regional partners.
24 We're willing to do so, and with your help, we can
25 accomplish great things in Brazoria County and our region. 130
1 Mr. Chairman, that's all I had. If you have
2 any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted?
4 MR. HOUGHTON: Judge, thank you for your
5 passion for transportation, and I look forward to working
6 with you. I know there are some opportunities here.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE WILLY: Well, we look forward to having
9 you visit us very soon, and I think that it will be very
10 enlightening when you see what we have down there.
11 MS. ANDRADE: Judge, thank you. Thank you for
12 being visionary, thank you for being willing to work with
13 us, and I believe that together we can make it happen.
14 JUDGE WILLY: I look forward to just seeing
15 that come to fruition.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: John, it's always good to see
17 you here; you're always welcome here.
18 JUDGE WILLY: Thank you. And of course, I'd
19 like to recognize our county commissioner of Precinct 4,
20 Larry Stanley; and of course everybody knows Jack Harris,
21 he's been a fixture around here a long time; our county
22 engineer, Gerald Roberts, and again, thank you for letting
23 us be here.
24 I didn't ask about the Blue Water Highway this
25 time. Gary will appreciate that. 131
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Say, Gary, enlighten me a
2 little bit about 36. When the judge says we really need
3 to move on 36, does he mean from West Columbia north all
4 the way to Rosenberg, from West Columbia south to the
5 port, all points in between?
6 MR. TRIETSCH: We have most of the funding in
7 place from West Columbia up to southwest of Rosenberg, but
8 we have no funding from West Columbia down to Freeport.
9 That's about a $120 million.
10 MR. HOUGHTON: Is that all our money, Gary, is
11 that tax money, or is that their contribution rolled in
12 there somewhere?
13 MR. TRIETSCH: $11 point something, the county
14 and the port have agreed to contribute towards this
15 project.
16 MR. HOUGHTON: Which project?
17 MR. TRIETSCH: The West Columbia side.
18 MR. HOUGHTON: The West Columbia south. Okay.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: To be fully effective as a
20 hurricane evacuation route, fully effective -- partially
21 effective if we get this done -- would we have to do some
22 improvements on 36 all the way up to 10?
23 MR. TRIETSCH: Obviously that would help, but
24 probably the best route in my mind -- and I haven't done
25 any kind of study, but just stay on 36 until you come into 132
1 Sealy instead of going to 10.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: So just keep angling out to
3 the west?
4 MR. TRIETSCH: Yes.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: He doesn't make a big deal
6 about it because everyone knows he's focused on it, but
7 the governor has spoken to me about this matter and
8 clearly it's on his mind. I think it wouldn't be
9 inappropriate to maybe have a special report prepared
10 about this particular corridor and what the updated cost
11 estimates are and how quick we can move, and maybe discuss
12 a little bit about a combination pass-through state
13 partnership. I think it's probably time for us to do
14 that.
15 MR. TRIETSCH: Well, I will tell you that 36
16 was on my priority list, but again, after Rita, I will
17 echo what the judge says, both for the sake of Brazoria
18 County and the sake of Houston, these folks don't need to
19 be going through Houston, they need to be going around,
20 and until we have the Grand Parkway, this is really the
21 only viable route. We need it just from a pure traffic
22 standpoint, it's growing out there, but again, from a
23 hurricane evacuation route, it's needed, and in the grand
24 scheme of things, it's a relatively cheap project
25 compared. I can do all of 36 cheaper or about at the same 133
1 price that I can do one mile of the Katy Freeway.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you know, the governor
3 has some experience in these matters and he's keenly aware
4 that if you open the door, everyone will use the argument
5 that this is hurricane evacuation or homeland defense or
6 whatever, so come build my road, and so he's reluctant to
7 engage in that. But he's been particularly concerned
8 about 36 and how we figure out a way to keep people from
9 getting into Houston while people in Houston are trying to
10 get out, and 36 obviously is probably one of our best
11 bangs for our bucks. So I think it's probably time for us
12 to take a pretty serious look at it.
13 MR. TRIETSCH: And I will echo the idea of the
14 enhancement funds, if there's anything, just a small piece
15 of them, to help any of these things along.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think Mr. Culberson
17 and Ms. Hutchison and Mr. Cornyn have to hear, and as I
18 say, Mr. DeLay already knows, but I think the others need
19 to hear that. They can hear it from us but it's much more
20 important to hear it from their constituents, I think.
21 Yes, sir?
22 MR. MISCHER: Since you brought up the federal
23 officials, the Wednesday and Thursday before Rita hit
24 landfall, the Greater Houston Partnership was in
25 Washington meeting with the congressional delegation to 134
1 emphasize hurricane evacuation, as well as flood control
2 projects to supplement transportation improvements --
3 because it won't do any good to put the roads in if they
4 just flood.
5 So we met with Senators Hutchison, Cornyn,
6 Culberson, DeLay and we have made those officials aware of
7 the need for federal support for hurricane evacuation.
8 That takes a long time to get through that process. The
9 one thing good about 36 is you've got right of way, you've
10 got road infrastructure, you can timely implement that
11 project. So on behalf of Gulf Coast, we would support
12 that, and I think Bill King would echo the same thing for
13 146, as things we can do something about now instead of
14 having to wait on the Grand Parkway.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much for
16 letting us know that.
17 Anything else, Ted or Hope?
18 (No response.)
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: What I want to do, Mike, I
20 know we have some other matters on the agenda that affect
21 out-of-town guests, we're going to have to take a lunch
22 break today but we're going to do that after we've
23 addressed all of our out-of-town guests.
24 MR. BEHRENS: We're through with all of our
25 out-of-town delegations. 135
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: I see somebody from San
2 Antonio. They may want to go home. Or do we no longer
3 consider San Antonio out of town? Has Travis County
4 annexed Bexar County?
5 (General laughter.)
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Mischer. Thank
7 you, John. Thank you, Jack. It's good to see you all.
8 (Pause.)
9 MR. BEHRENS: We're going to move to agenda
10 item number 12(a) which is a right of way minute order
11 concerning some donation of some land to the department
12 for a new area engineer's office and a new maintenance
13 facility.
14 John Campbell, if you would come forward and
15 present that minute order.
16 MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning. For the record,
17 my name is John Campbell, director of the Right of Way
18 Division.
19 I'd like to present for your consideration the
20 minute order under agenda item 12(a) to authorize the
21 acceptance of 18.8 acres of land from the Cedar Hill
22 Economic Development Corporation. The acreage is the
23 prospective site for a new area engineer and maintenance
24 facility near US 67 and Mt. Lebanon Road in Dallas County.
25 Staff recommends your approval of the minute 136
1 order.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, we have a witness on
3 this matter, and unless you object, I'm going to ask the
4 witness to come forward before we quiz John about this
5 transaction.
6 This witness, his first name is David, and
7 David is the director of economic development for the city
8 of Cedar Hill, and I want you to think about director of
9 economic development, the guy that goes out and tries to
10 attract business into a community, and he's in there
11 applying for this job with I guess the Cedar Hill Chamber
12 of Commerce or the Cedar Hill City Council, or whoever
13 hires you, and what do you think David's last name might
14 be?
15 How do you pronounce your last name, sir?
16 MR. MIRACLE: Miracle.
17 (General laughter.)
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: I love it. David Miracle,
19 economic development. Go ahead, David.
20 MR. MIRACLE: Good afternoon. Thank you for
21 giving me just a moment.
22 I am David Miracle, I'm the ED director for the
23 City of Cedar Hill. I serve the economic development
24 corporation which owns this park who is donating this land
25 for your facility. 137
1 I want to give you greetings from our mayor,
2 Mayor Rob Franke, and from our city manager, Allen Sims,
3 and from our board president, Michael Mitchell. They'd
4 all love to be here today. Senator West has got a town
5 hall meeting today, this afternoon that they're attending,
6 plus the mayor is giving a state of the city address to
7 our chamber of commerce. And so they all wish they could
8 be here and say hello.
9 And I also personally want to thank the Dallas
10 District office, Bill Hale and Mike Bostick which are here
11 today, and plus Travis Henderson and Tim Powers from that
12 office, and working with those gentlemen on this donation.
13 I look forward to a long-term partnership with TxDOT
14 being in Cedar Hill.
15 I've been up here twice before, other cities
16 I've worked with in which you have funded some road
17 projects. You've been very nice to me over the years, and
18 so now this is a little payback, so I'm giving Santa Claus
19 some milk and cookies and giving you some money back for
20 all the money you've given me over the years.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: You're kind with your words,
22 but I think we owe you as big a thank you for helping make
23 this happen. It doesn't escape notice when a city or a
24 county or a region goes out of their way to try to help us
25 accomplish some goals, and we're very appreciative of the 138
1 City of Cedar Hill, very appreciative. To the business
2 community and the chamber community, we thank you for
3 working with us to make this happen. Didn't have to do
4 it, and we appreciate it.
5 MR. HOUGHTON: Thanks, David. We've got Santa
6 Claus now, Road Fairy and Santa Claus.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Santa Claus may be the next
8 witness. Do we have another witness on this one? Thanks,
9 David.
10 MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, John. Any further
12 remarks?
13 MR. CAMPBELL: No further remarks. Any
14 questions I can answer?
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
16 staff's explanation and recommendation.
17 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
18 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
20 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
21 aye.
22 (A chorus of ayes.)
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
24 (No response.)
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. And once 139
1 again, thank you, sir.
2 MR. BEHRENS: Now we're going to go to agenda
3 item 13(a) under Regional Mobility Authorities.
4 (Pause.)
5 MR. BEHRENS: Let's go ahead with 13(a), Phil,
6 because we do have a speaker for that item.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Monroe, I hope you're
8 watching us as we move around.
9 MR. MONROE: Yes, sir. My eyes are glued on
10 you.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: If we make the wrong move,
12 please stand up.
13 MR. RUSSELL: Thanks, Mike, and good afternoon,
14 commissioners. For the record, I'm Phillip Russell and
15 I'm the director of the Turnpike Division.
16 Item 13(a) relates to a request for toll equity
17 financing. As you all know, on September 28 of this year,
18 we received a request from the Alamo RMA for a $7-1/2
19 million toll equity assistance agreement for the
20 continuing development of several projects there in the
21 San Antonio area, namely I-35 from the Guadalupe County
22 line down to I-37, from 410 out to 1604 and the tolled
23 interchange there at 281 and Wurzbach Parkway.
24 You all approved the preliminary request last
25 month, and since that time we've worked very closely with 140
1 the group there at the Alamo RMA. We've hammered out a lot
2 of the critical terms, and so we bring this minute order
3 back to you which would be the final approval and which
4 would allow the executive director to enter into this
5 agreement.
6 I'd be happy to answer any questions you have,
7 I guess, after your speaker.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: We have a witness, members.
9 Can we listen to the witness?
10 MR. HOUGHTON: Sure.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thanks. Take a seat for a
12 second, if you would, Phil. Jim Reed.
13 MR. REED: I am chairman of the planning
14 committee for the Alamo RMA, and I bring greetings from
15 Chairman Thornton who is visiting his daughter in New
16 York.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean he took Manhattan?
18 MR. REED: He will take Manhattan; it won't be
19 the same.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Only guys you and our age
21 would understand that. Coby doesn't know what we're
22 talking about, he's too young.
23 MR. REED: Well, I would say I was pinch-
24 hitting for him, but that would get back to him and he'd
25 think I was batting better than he, so I'm a substitute 141
1 for Chairman Thornton.
2 You know, you were, as a commission,
3 instrumental in forming us in December of 2003 and a lot
4 has happened since then, and we appreciate the support not
5 only from your statewide staff who have been very
6 supportive, but David Casteel and his staff have just
7 really, really helped us in growing and getting our legs
8 and continuing to learn and hopefully move forward.
9 We continue to operate off two loans, one from
10 the City of San Antonio for $500,000 annually, and the
11 other from Bexar County at $500,000 annually, and that has
12 been approved even for next year's budget, so we work
13 toward that.
14 It's important that we transfer these projects
15 and do it on a basis that we don't lose the speed and the
16 momentum that's been built on that. We've already met
17 with the local folks to talk about where we stand on the
18 three projects, how can we move forward, how can we do the
19 public meetings, the environmental and all those things
20 and not miss a beat and not have it take two steps
21 backwards. So we're on beat on that and understand that.
22 We also appreciate the million dollars that you
23 allocated and loaned us last meeting where we'll give
24 oversight to the two CDA proposals that we have going
25 forward and that's moving on a fast track schedule, and 142
1 timely but not missing a beat. So we appreciate being
2 included in that and not just being observers but being
3 requested to participate, and we really do appreciate
4 that, and it helps us with this local issue that keeps
5 bouncing back and forth in all the cities. So we
6 appreciate that very much.
7 I'd be glad to answer any questions you might
8 have. We just appreciate everything that you have done in
9 getting us going. We are moving to an office finally.
10 We've had two computers and three employees in one office
11 that is like 15 by 15, so we've been operating pretty
12 tightly.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Sounds like a TxDOT office.
14 (General laughter.)
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members?
16 MS. ANDRADE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like
17 to thank Jim for everything that he does. And this is
18 great. I understand you're starting to get very busy.
19 MR. REED: We are getting very, very busy.
20 MS. ANDRADE: That's good news.
21 MR. REED: And we're getting the chambers of
22 commerce and SAMCO and other interested parties together
23 to be a pro voice for our toll lanes in Bexar County. And
24 we're a little late getting there but there's a meeting
25 this Friday of that group to get our missions all 143
1 straightened out and know what we're going to say and
2 who's going to say what, and I think that's a very
3 important step.
4 MS. ANDRADE: Thank you. You may also want to
5 update us, I understand that Mr. Griebel is leaving?
6 MR. REED: Yes. Tom has served two years
7 commuting back and forth for SAMCO, and then we hired him
8 roughly two years ago, and the commuting over four years
9 has taken its toll, and so he's going to reside in Austin,
10 and we're very, very sorry to lose Tom.
11 But we have hired Terry Brachtel who is city
12 manager of the City of San Antonio, and prior to that she
13 was the finance director and the assistant finance
14 director, so her background is very heavy in finance which
15 we feel brings a real asset to us for this position.
16 She's well thought of in the business community and
17 throughout the community, so we feel very good about it,
18 and she's anxious. She won't be able to come onboard
19 because of some contracts that she has with a suburban
20 city until January 1, but she's still coming to some
21 meetings, going to meet some people and doing some things,
22 but she'll be coming on full-time January 1. And Tom is
23 staying on until January 1.
24 MS. ANDRADE: Thank you, Jim.
25 MR. REED: Thank you for your support. 144
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Great. I remember Terry.
2 Well, it looks like things are starting to
3 roll. I watched Ted's interplay with Judge Evans, I
4 believe it was, the judge from one of the ring counties.
5 Evans, was that his name? Nice guy. And I thought where
6 Ted was trying to take the conversation was Judge, isn't
7 there a point in time where you need to sit down and be a
8 part of San Antonio because like it or not, you're going
9 to be a part of San Antonio some day.
10 Is that where you were headed with that? And
11 we just didn't get a chance to develop it because we have
12 a lot of guests today. It's my personal hope that we can
13 blink our eyes and 20 years from now the ten great urban
14 regions of our state are all, as far as transportation
15 matters, of one mind and together and operating their road
16 and transit and transportation systems at least in a
17 coordinated manner, if not from one efficient location.
18 And I think a successful Bexar County RMA is a
19 good beginning anchor for the other counties in that area.
20 And we're totally committed to your success.
21 MR. REED: Thank you, and that shows. And I
22 think it's important that we work together. I recall
23 years ago there was a toll road that comes out of Oklahoma
24 and goes into Kansas and the two couldn't agree where they
25 should meet, and it was going to be one of those 145
1 situations where you had to go across if you weren't
2 careful, and we don't want that kind of situation around
3 Bexar County.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, thank you very much.
5 thank you for being here.
6 MR. REED: Thank you.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Is there another witness on
8 this matter? Phil, do you want to close it out for us?
9 Anything that you want to add?
10 MR. RUSSELL: No, sir. Staff would recommend
11 approval of this minute order.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
13 staff's recommendation and their explanation of the
14 recommendation.
15 MS. ANDRADE: So moved.
16 MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
18 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
19 aye.
20 (A chorus of ayes.)
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
22 (No response.)
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
24 MR. BEHRENS: Now, Phil, we're going to go to
25 13(c), the minute order for preliminary approval in Smith 146
1 and Gregg counties.
2 MR. RUSSELL: Thanks, Mr. Behrens.
3 Commissioners, back in October of this year we received an
4 application from the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility
5 Authority, the NET RMA, on a similar type request for
6 financial assistance. This particular request is in the
7 amount of $12.25 million and it would be utilized by the
8 RMA to help develop the Loop 49 project.
9 As you all are aware, Mary Owen and her staff
10 are currently developing a piece on the southern leg of 49
11 currently under construction, and so this would help the
12 RMA evaluate the rest of that corridor, Loop 49 all the
13 way up to I-20.
14 This is, of course, the first step in that
15 application process. We currently anticipate that that
16 would be in the form of a loan. So once again, we would
17 request your approval of this minute order.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, we have a witness.
19 Would you care to hear from the witness?
20 MR. HOUGHTON: Sure.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Linda Butter Thomas, otherwise
22 known as LB. Welcome.
23 MS. THOMAS: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr.
24 Chairman and commissioners, Mr. Behrens. It's a privilege
25 for me to be here today representing the NET RMA. 147
1 Our chair is also in New York City. I don't
2 know exactly what's happening up there right now but
3 somebody is having a good time. But he's there with his
4 daughter who is looking at schools, so he couldn't be here
5 today and he's sorry and sends his regards and apologies,
6 but he will definitely be here next month.
7 Briefly, I wanted to thank you for your
8 consideration of the NET RMA's toll equity application,
9 and on behalf of the board, ask that you approve this
10 first step in the process of getting us some much needed
11 funding.
12 As you know, the financial assistance we are
13 seeking will facilitate our ability to expedite
14 development of the Loop 49 project in Tyler. We have a
15 great partner in that project, the Tyler District of
16 TxDOT, and I cannot say enough about the help and the
17 support we've received from Mary Owen and Randy Redmond.
18 What we've done in a very few months is we have been on go
19 and had our track shoes on and we have been running as
20 fast as we can to set up a very strong organization to be
21 able to do these projects.
22 Not only will this grant get us moving more
23 quickly on the Loop 49 project, it will also send an
24 important message to the region that the RMA, working with
25 TxDOT, will be able to deliver on the commitments that we 148
1 have made to expedite project delivery.
2 Folks in East Texas are ready for congestion
3 relief and they realize the economic development
4 opportunities and quality of life improvements that an
5 improved transportation infrastructure system can provide.
6 We are ready to deliver the projects that will create
7 these opportunities, and with your help and support, we
8 can do so.
9 Once again, I want to thank Mary Owen and Randy
10 Redmond for their help in this process and also your staff
11 here in Austin, including Amadeo Saenz, Phil Russell, and
12 Doug Woodall, and also our little family of RMAs, we are
13 beginning to help each other. Central Texas and Alamo
14 have been invaluable in helping us develop policies and
15 procedures in administration.
16 Once again, I thank you for your consideration
17 and we look forward to moving toward the next phase of the
18 process. Thank you very much.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for your kind words.
20 Ted?
21 MR. HOUGHTON: Congratulations. I think this
22 is a great step for that part of the world.
23 MS. THOMAS: Thank you very much. We're really
24 excited about what's happening in East Texas.
25 MR. HOUGHTON: You should be. 149
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
2 MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Tell Jeff I've been reading
4 carefully every semi-weekly the letters to the editor and
5 all the comments that have been coming in. It's been
6 great watching the give-and-take dialogue. A little bit
7 of it has been kind of harsh but really not much of it.
8 It's been a pretty good back-and-forth, this is what I
9 believe in, this is wrong, this is right. You know, you
10 look at it and you kind of wish that you could see that
11 kind of dialogue between citizens in Austin and San
12 Antonio and in the state about some of the other toll
13 projects that are going on, because I'm a firm believer
14 good decisions are made when one has civilized discourse
15 and discussion.
16 MS. THOMAS: We had a great meeting with the
17 Tyler newspaper yesterday, as a matter of fact, and
18 they're waiting for my call on our meeting down here. And
19 then of course, for Smith and Gregg counties to do
20 anything together, it is definitely historical. I'm from
21 Gregg County. Well, it's more than Dallas and Fort Worth
22 ever thought it would be as far as trying to get together.
23 But thank you once again.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
25 Do you want to close? 150
1 MR. RUSSELL: Again, Chairman, staff would
2 recommend approval of this preliminary step.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
4 staff's recommendation and explanation of the
5 recommendation. Do I have a motion?
6 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
7 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
9 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
10 aye.
11 (A chorus of ayes.)
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
13 (No response.)
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
15 MR. BEHRENS: Phil, let's go to agenda item
16 number 11 under Toll Projects. We have three minute
17 orders that pertain to Bexar County, Dallas County and
18 Tarrant County, and go through those three minute orders.
19 MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Behrens.
20 Commissioners, all three of these upcoming
21 minute orders are all designation type minute orders.
22 They essentially will do two important functions: number
23 one, they will designate a stretch of the state highway
24 system as a controlled access facility, and they will also
25 designate it as a toll road, assuming you all approve 151
1 those individual minute orders, and I'll go through those
2 piece by piece.
3 The first one is agenda item 11(a) and it
4 relates to US 281 in San Antonio in Bexar County from
5 Evans Road up to the Bexar/Comal county line. As you're
6 probably familiar, the existing facility is a four-lane,
7 divided highway. It's anticipated that the road would be
8 developed as three tolled mainlanes in each direction and
9 also two non-tolled frontage roads in each direction. It
10 is part of the overall San Antonio starter toll road
11 system.
12 Another important milestone, the district has
13 achieved, on November 8 of this year, that the project was
14 environmentally cleared as a toll road.
15 So with your approval of this minute order,
16 again, you would provide two important approvals: number
17 one as a controlled access facility, and number two, as a
18 toll road.
19 Staff would recommend approval of this minute
20 order.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we have witnesses?
22 MR. BEHRENS: No.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
24 staff's recommendation and explanation. Do you have
25 questions or comments? Do I have a motion? 152
1 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
2 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
4 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
5 aye.
6 (A chorus of ayes.)
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
8 (No response.)
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
10 MR. RUSSELL: The next agenda item, 11(b),
11 again is a similar designation type minute order. It
12 relates to State Highway 190, the extension of 190 in
13 Dallas County between State Highway 78 and I-30. Again,
14 as you all are probably familiar, this is a project that's
15 been worked on jointly between the North Texas Tollway
16 Authority and our Dallas District there.
17 The project is planned as a six-lane, divided
18 toll road facility, as well as probably two to three lanes
19 of frontage roads that are built to maintain access in
20 that area. The district achieved environmental approval
21 as a toll road on January 24 of this year.
22 And so once again, staff would recommend
23 approval of this minute order.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, is this the one that
25 we're amending to go ahead and take ownership of all the 153
1 George Bush Tollway?
2 MR. RUSSELL: I don't think so, Chairman. That
3 might be another minute order that I'm not familiar with.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, members, you've heard
5 the staff's recommendation and explanation. Do you have
6 questions or comments?
7 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
8 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
10 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
11 aye.
12 (A chorus of ayes.)
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
14 (No response.)
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
16 Is this the one, is the rest of George Bush
17 coming?
18 MR. RUSSELL: No. It's close, but no.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: I've got Allan Rutter on the
20 edge of his seat back there; I want to keep him on the
21 edge of his seat.
22 MR. HOUGHTON: It's in the area. Right?
23 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, it is in the general
24 area.
25 The third designation minute order is in the 154
1 area, it relates to State Highway 121 over in the Fort
2 Worth District, and the limits are from I-30 there in Fort
3 Worth all the way down to 1187.
4 The project, as proposed, would be a controlled
5 access facility and it would vary from three tolled
6 mainlanes in each direction between I-30 and Alta Mesa and
7 then two tolled mainlanes between Alta Mesa all the way
8 down to 1187, and once again, sections of frontage roads
9 as needed for local circulation would be built as well.
10 The Fort Worth District achieved environmental
11 clearance as a toll road on June 13 of this year, and once
12 again, staff would recommend approval of this designation
13 minute order.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
15 staff's recommendation and explanation. Do you have
16 questions or comments?
17 MR. HOUGHTON: I do. To finish out this
18 segment and something we did on the Grand Parkway
19 Association, Mr. Chairman -- and Amadeo, this probably
20 involves you -- have we sent the message that we're not
21 going to give assets away any longer, we will participate
22 in these toll projects as an equity partner? Would that
23 be a fair statement, Amadeo, or am I getting ahead of
24 myself, or ahead of the chairman, or ahead of the
25 commission, or ahead of you? 155
1 MR. SAENZ: For the record, Amadeo Saenz. What
2 this does, this basically tells the world that we've gone
3 through the process and we've designated them as toll
4 roads. We are working with our tolling organizational
5 partners, like NTTA and HCTRA, as Gary talked earlier,
6 that as you want to develop these facilities that are part
7 of the state highway system, we want to be partners and
8 not necessarily --
9 MR. HOUGHTON: -- give our assets away.
10 MR. SAENZ: Right. And that's where we will
11 sit down and put together advance funding agreements and
12 project development agreements to identify roads.
13 MR. HOUGHTON: Where we participate in the
14 revenue.
15 MR. SAENZ: Yes, the revenue as well as
16 participate in the development of the project.
17 MR. HOUGHTON: Thank you.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think it's
19 instructive, Amadeo, to take some guidance from the
20 commission. We understand that when we say we, we mean we
21 the state of Texas, not we the bureaucracy, we the
22 commission, we of political philosophy.
23 MR. SAENZ: We the state of Texas. We work
24 very closely with the MPOs, we've put in place some
25 systems with the MPOs, so that's the we I'm talking about. 156
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: We operate in Texas on the
2 common pool of capital approach. We all pay our taxes
3 every day into a common pool and then we distribute that
4 common pool to individual areas of the state for
5 individual projects. And we are well convinced that the
6 governor and the legislature realizes the funding dilemma
7 of transportation in the out years, and we are signaling
8 to our partners that you may want us to put $20 million to
9 a deal for an interchange and we're saying we want to put
10 in $80 million, it's just we want to own part of the out
11 year collections. So that needs to be the case with all
12 these projects.
13 MR. SAENZ: That's exactly right. And really,
14 if we go back in history, because before we had toll
15 equity, we could not participate, so the only way we could
16 participate in the development of some of these toll
17 projects in the area was we could only work on the parts
18 that connected to other parts of the state highway system.
19 So we would say okay, we'll build this interchange or
20 build that interchange or we'll build that connection, and
21 that's what we contributed to make that whole project.
22 What we're saying now with toll equity we can
23 contribute and we can a look at becoming a full partner in
24 the development of that corridor, and through these
25 agreements we'll decide who is going to build what and how 157
1 are we going to share in the revenues and how are we going
2 to share in the cost.
3 MR. HOUGHTON: In all these types of projects?
4 MR. SAENZ: Yes.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Amadeo.
6 Anything further?
7 Staff has given us their proposal and their
8 explanation of the proposal and we've heard testimony. Do
9 you have any questions or comments? Do I have a motion?
10 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
11 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
13 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
14 aye.
15 (A chorus of ayes.)
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
17 (No response.)
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
19 MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Chairman.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Would that tend to take care
21 of all of the minute orders that identifiable out-of-town
22 guests would be interested in?
23 MR. BEHRENS: Yes. And we do have some out-of-
24 town guests coming for 13(b).
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: All of you in this room and 158
1 the anteroom in the back, you are more than welcome to
2 stay, you're more than welcome to attend the rest of our
3 commission meeting. We are going to take a no shorter
4 than 20- and no longer than 30 minute lunch break to
5 permit commission members to kind of collect their
6 thoughts, permit you in the audience to get a bite, and
7 permit some out-of-town guests from the Lower Rio Grande
8 Valley to get settled in.
9 When we come back in, we're probably not going
10 to take up the matter that the Hidalgo County visitors
11 have come to visit about right off the bat, we're probably
12 going to do some administrative things first to give that
13 group of Texans an opportunity to see how we function and
14 to let them kind of get used to the flow of the commission
15 so that they'll be better prepared to testify in a manner
16 that represents their viewpoint. But we will not make
17 them wait till the end either, we will move pretty
18 quickly.
19 With that being said, it is 12:56. We need to
20 be back here no sooner than 1:20, no later than 1:30
21 (Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the meeting was
22 recessed, to reconvene this same day, Thursday, November
23 17, 2005, following a lunch break.) 159
1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't need to bang the
3 gavel. We're returning from our recess, and Michael,
4 let's pick back up where we departed from on our agenda,
5 please.
6 MR. BEHRENS: We're going to agenda item number
7 8 which is our Proposed Rules for this month. Our first
8 will be agenda item 8(a)(1) which will be rules concerning
9 the motor carrier operation. Carol?
10 MS. DAVIS: Thank you. Good afternoon.
11 In the minute order you have before you we're
12 presenting proposed amendments to motor carrier and
13 vehicle storage facility rules. These rules implement
14 provisions of several rules that were passed during the
15 past session.
16 Some of the highlights of the amendments:
17 clarify when vehicle storage facilities will be required
18 to release vehicles from those facilities; provide for
19 modified liability insurance levels for certain commercial
20 school buses; prohibit vehicle storage facilities from
21 charging additional fees above those set out in statute;
22 eliminate alternative motor carrier registration
23 requirements for household goods carrier based on vehicle
24 weight; and require vehicle storage facilities to accept
25 other forms of payment in addition to cash. 160
1 In addition to the amendments related to
2 legislation, we've also updated statutory references and
3 we're clarifying existing requirements.
4 And we are recommending approval of the
5 proposed amendments.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, members, you have heard
7 the staff's recommendation and explanation. Do you have
8 questions or comments?
9 MR. HOUGHTON: These are a result of
10 legislation?
11 MS. DAVIS: Yes, sir.
12 MR. HOUGHTON: Move to approve.
13 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
15 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
16 aye.
17 (A chorus of ayes.)
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
19 (No response.)
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
21 MS. DAVIS: Thank you.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's it?
23 MS. DAVIS: Yes, sir.
24 MR. HOUGHTON: You're lucky.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you coming back up? 161
1 MS. DAVIS: Not today. Thank you.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
3 MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to agenda item 8(a)(2),
4 rules concerning Traffic Operations, proposed rules for
5 MUTCD.
6 MR. LOPEZ: Good afternoon, Mike,
7 commissioners. My name is Carlos Lopez, I'm director of
8 the Traffic Operations Division.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Otherwise known as Safety
10 Barrier Carlos.
11 MR. LOPEZ: Among other names, yes.
12 The minute order before you revises Section
13 25.1 regarding the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
14 Devices. State law requires the department to adopt a
15 manual for the installation and maintenance of traffic
16 control devices on all public roadways in Texas. This
17 manual is also required to be in substantial compliance
18 with the manual published by the Federal Highway
19 Administration.
20 Recently, the FHWA produced a revision of their
21 national manual. This proposed rule action will adopt a
22 Texas manual which the FHWA has approved. Additionally,
23 we have incorporated findings and recommendations
24 developed as part of our research program, included
25 guidance for the signing of toll road interchanges, and 162
1 incorporated city and county input.
2 We recommend approval of this minute order.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Carlos, you're going to be up
4 here for several?
5 MR. LOPEZ: Yes, sir.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: How many total, three, four?
7 MR. BEHRENS: He'll have the next one after
8 this.
9 MR. LOPEZ: I've got three.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Because I'm going to tell a
11 story about you but I'm going to wait till the end.
12 Members, you've heard the staff's
13 recommendation and explanation. Do you have questions or
14 comments?
15 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
16 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
18 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
19 aye.
20 (A chorus of ayes.)
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
22 (No response.)
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you,
24 Carlos.
25 MR. BEHRENS: We have agenda item 8(a)(2)(b) 163
1 and (2)(c) which are also under Traffic Operations.
2 MR. LOPEZ: Commissioners, the rules before you
3 make changes in the department's procedures for
4 establishing speed limits and also bring the rules into
5 compliance with House Bill 2257.
6 The proposed amendments expand the list of
7 counties that may have a maximum 75 mile per hour speed
8 limit when such a speed limit is found to be safe and
9 reasonable by the commission, allows a maximum 80 mile per
10 hour daytime speed limit in ten counties on Interstates 10
11 and 20 when such a speed limit is found to be safe and
12 reasonable by the commission, and make several technical
13 changes relating to speed study observation periods,
14 school zone speed limits, and equipment used during a
15 speed study.
16 We recommend approval of this minute order.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Carlos, is this law the
18 subject of the inquiry from Representative Gallego, or was
19 his inquiry rooted in legislation in the past, or do you
20 know?
21 MR. LOPEZ: His inquiry was related to the
22 legislation he passed which these rules are implementing.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: So we couldn't really have
24 given him a positive or a negative response until we
25 adopted the rules. 164
1 MR. LOPEZ: In discussing that with Richard,
2 because of the way our rules are laid out, we could move
3 on them prior to doing this rule action.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: But it would be unusual.
5 MR. LOPEZ: It would be unusual, that's
6 correct.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Because I don't want Pete to
8 ever think we don't pay attention to him. We do, he's a
9 friend of ours. I felt uncomfortable, and I wanted to
10 establish that for the record until we took this action,
11 and if we take this action in a positive manner -- I don't
12 know if we will, but if we do, I guess I would ask you to
13 get hold of Representative Gallego's office and tell him
14 we now need to sit down and talk about what it is he
15 desires for his district.
16 MR. LOPEZ: Sure.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
18 staff recommendation and explanation. Do you have
19 questions or comments?
20 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
21 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
23 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
24 aye.
25 (A chorus of ayes.) 165
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
2 (No response.)
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you,
4 Carlos.
5 MR. LOPEZ: The next minute order implements
6 House Bill 1986 of the 79th Legislature. This legislation
7 allows the department to contract with a coordinated
8 county transportation authority for the design, operation,
9 construction and maintenance of high-occupancy vehicle
10 lanes.
11 The department proposes an amendment to
12 existing 25.41 to incorporate this change into our
13 existing congestion mitigation rules. We recommend your
14 approval.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
16 staff recommendation and explanation. Do you have
17 questions or comments?
18 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
19 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
21 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
22 aye.
23 (A chorus of ayes.)
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
25 (No response.) 166
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
2 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: For those in the audience who
4 are with us seldom, this commission enjoys a remarkably
5 close relationship with its employees. All of us feel
6 comfortable calling them, asking them questions directly;
7 all of our employees, we think, feel comfortable arguing
8 with us and telling us when we're wrong.
9 And I call Carlos frequently. I had just spent
10 my couple of days arguing with him about a particular
11 data-gathering contract that I had concerns about, and he
12 had been gently telling me for days that I was wrong. And
13 then I had a call from an old constituent who, to put it
14 mildly, just kind of chewed me up one side and down the
15 other about some safety barriers we recently erected in my
16 former legislative district.
17 So I call Carlos and I say, What is this; we're
18 supposed to consult with local officials before we do
19 these things. We did. Well, you couldn't have; this
20 local official is calling me raising cain; he can't get
21 through the barrier to give people traffic tickets going
22 on the other side.
23 So Carlos, in his typical professional manner,
24 says, Well, let me check into it. So he checks into it,
25 and he calls me back, and he says, No, we talked to 167
1 everybody. And I said, Well, Carlos, I think we need to
2 put some openings in the safety barriers. And he said,
3 No, we can't do that, it makes them more unsafe.
4 So we go back and forth, and he's telling me
5 about the lives he's saving, and the good and the bad, and
6 the good of this deal outweighs the bad, and I'm getting
7 angrier and angrier, and the angrier I get, the calmer he
8 gets. And I will kiss your cheek if the next morning in
9 the Weatherford Democrat he didn't plant an article on the
10 front page about the three different accidents that night
11 that kept people from going across and having head-on
12 accidents. Now, I know you did that.
13 MR. LOPEZ: No, I didn't.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: I pick up my local newspaper
15 and it's on the front page. So who did you talk to at my
16 local newspaper to pull that off?
17 MR. LOPEZ: I don't know anybody in Weatherford
18 besides you, and don't care to know them.
19 (General laughter.)
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: So from now on, you're Safety
21 Barrier Carlos.
22 MR. LOPEZ: Thanks, Commissioner. I appreciate
23 that.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Carlos.
25 MR. BEHRENS: Moving on to agenda item 8(b), 168
1 these are our rules for Final Adoption. Agenda item
2 8(b)(1)(a) is under Management -- actually, we have two
3 under Management, 8(b)(1)(a) and (b)(1)(b). Richard?
4 MR. MONROE: Yes, sir. For the record, my name
5 is Richard Monroe, I'm general counsel for the department.
6 If you approve this minute order, you will
7 approve in final form certain rules having to do with the
8 management of the commission itself. These rules also
9 were necessitated by a change in the legislation. As we
10 all know, the Motor Vehicle Board has gone away; the
11 commission has assumed certain of its responsibilities.
12 And also, while we were in there, we made some other
13 changes to do a little cleanup regarding the public
14 hearing process.
15 These rules were published in the Texas
16 Register, as is required by law. They were out there for
17 the legally required amount of time. No comments were
18 received, so my recommendation would be that you pass the
19 minute order which approves these rules in their final
20 form.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard Mr.
22 Monroe's proposal and explanation. Do you have questions
23 or comments?
24 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
25 MS. ANDRADE: Second. 169
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
2 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
3 aye.
4 (A chorus of ayes.)
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
6 (No response.)
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
8 MR. MONROE: Thank you, commissioners.
9 The next item for your consideration concerns
10 rules having to do with our advisory committees. Once
11 again, in the last legislative session certain changes
12 were made regarding our advisory committees.
13 Some of the highlights were that a Border Trade
14 Advisory Committee was created by the legislature. Also,
15 the commission, under its authority, has decided to create
16 a Bicycle Advisory Committee and a Project Committee. I
17 believe that it was stated by some members of the
18 commission, at least, that given the fact that we are
19 moving into bigger and different kinds of projects, that
20 these project-specific advisory committees could be
21 helpful, so the rules were changed accordingly.
22 Also, in the past we have not been able to pay
23 expenses of our advisory committee members, and that was
24 by statute, not by our choice. In the latest legislature
25 there were provisions made that the expenditures could be 170
1 paid if we jump through a couple of hoops, and the rules
2 now so provide.
3 The rules were published according to the law,
4 and they were kept out there for the required amount of
5 time. No comments were received, so my recommendation
6 would be that you approve the minute order which will
7 approve the rules in their current form.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
9 staff recommendation and explanation. Do you have
10 questions or comments?
11 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
12 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
14 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
15 aye.
16 (A chorus of ayes.)
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
18 (No response.)
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
20 MR. MONROE: Thank you, commissioners.
21 And the final item here is once again the
22 legislature changed the law and provided for a specific
23 amount of time when claims under the General Services
24 Act -- and of course, we do have numerous contracts that
25 are concluded under that act as opposed to our Maintenance 171
1 and Construction contracts; these are the sort of office
2 supply contracts and such -- but it provided a specific
3 time during which negotiations must be commenced. We
4 changed our law to incorporate that. Actually, we have
5 been a little more liberal than the legislature chose to
6 be; they tightened up the time line on us a little bit.
7 No comments were received. Even if they had
8 been, I'm not sure what we could have done about it since
9 this is pure law. And my recommendation, once again,
10 would be that you approve the minute order which would
11 incorporate the legislative-demanded changes into our
12 rules concerning Contract Claims.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
14 staff recommendation and explanation. Do you have
15 questions or comments?
16 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
17 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
19 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
20 aye.
21 (A chorus of ayes.)
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
23 (No response.)
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
25 MR. MONROE: Thank you, commissioners. 172
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Richard.
2 MR. BEHRENS: We'll move to another minute
3 order for final adoption, agenda item 8(b)(3), also under
4 Contract Management. Thomas?
5 MR. BOHUSLAV: Good afternoon, commissioners.
6 My name is Thomas Bohuslav, I'm the director of the
7 Construction Division.
8 Item 8(b)(3) is a minute order for final
9 adoption that amends Sections 9.15 through 9.18 concerning
10 Highway Improvement Contracts. Four changes were made,
11 two of which were the result of the 79th Session, these
12 are statutory changes.
13 The first change is Section 9.15(b)(1)(h) is
14 revised to make it clear that the HUB plan must be fully
15 completed to consider a bid to be responsive.
16 The next change is Section 9.17(d) is revised
17 to increase the maximum amount for award to a second
18 bidder when the lowest bidder fails to execute, from
19 $100,000 now to $300,000, another statutory change in the
20 last session.
21 The third change, Section 9.18(c) is revised to
22 add payment bonds to the special allowance for performance
23 bonds to be set in the amount either one equal to the
24 greatest annual amount to be paid for a period of one year
25 after resumption of work, or equal to the amount to be 173
1 paid for the entire contract for the term of two years,
2 renewable annually.
3 These bond requirements may be used for
4 contracts where contractors assumed responsibility for
5 maintenance of a portion of a highway for a set period of
6 time. This is also a statutory change.
7 And the fourth change we have is Section 9.106
8 for sanction of a contractor. We wanted to clarify that a
9 contractor is subject to sanction when they fail to
10 execute a contract and they fail to honor a bid guarantee.
11 Staff recommends approval. Any questions?
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
13 staff recommendation and explanation. Do you have
14 questions or comments?
15 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
16 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
18 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
19 aye.
20 (A chorus of ayes.)
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
22 (No response.)
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
24 And Coby, may I speak to you a moment, please,
25 on this minute order? I know that Senator West and 174
1 Senator Hinojosa and Senator Barrientos have been
2 particularly interested in our HUB plans. I would
3 appreciate it if you would be sure their offices were
4 notified that we adopted these rules, pursuant to the
5 interest they had in this aspect of our business, just so
6 they know.
7 I had told them every time that we make changes
8 that I know are important to them that we'd let them know,
9 and if you would do that, I would appreciate it.
10 MR. CHASE: For the record, I am Coby Chase.
11 And yes, sir, we'll do that right now.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much. Michael?
13 MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 8(c) is another rule
14 for final adoption. This one concerns the State Aircraft
15 Pooling Board which will become known as the TxDOT Flight
16 Services. Bill, if you would, please?
17 MR. FULLER: I am Bill Fuller with the Aviation
18 Division.
19 This minute order repeals Title 1 of the Texas
20 Administrative Code, Part 9, Chapters 181 and 183,
21 relating to the State Aircraft Pooling Board. The 79th
22 Legislature Regular Session abolished the State Aircraft
23 Pooling Board and transferred their duties and
24 responsibilities to the Texas Department of
25 Transportation. 175
1 We recommend approval of this minute order.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: And before we ask questions or
3 comments on the minute order, part of the legislation,
4 Mike, required us to go through and look at all the assets
5 and identify the assets that were surplus. Is that
6 correct?
7 MR. BEHRENS: That's correct.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: I understand we're doing that
9 right now.
10 MR. BEHRENS: That's correct.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: And we're doing that in an
12 expeditious but professional manner so that we know
13 exactly what is and what is not surplus.
14 MR. BEHRENS: That's right. We're looking at
15 the aircraft that we have. We're also going to be
16 outsourcing with some folks to also come in and look at
17 that, to look and see the current aircraft, what we need,
18 what's surplus. If at sometime it may be more efficient
19 to look at other aircraft, we're also going to look at
20 that.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: But we're not going to look at
22 that jet that Ted wanted to buy.
23 MR. HOUGHTON: You like that jet?
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: I like that memo I got from
25 Steve Simmons. 176
1 MR. BEHRENS: We're probably going to look at a
2 newer one than that one.
3 (General laughter.)
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm sitting here and I'm
5 fixing to get chewed on by some well-meaning and really
6 focused citizens from the southern part of the state and
7 we're up here talking about buying jets. We're not really
8 going to buy a jet, we're just poking him.
9 But anyway, we need to, Mike, not forget that
10 the legislation had several important policies and one was
11 on surplus.
12 MR. BEHRENS: And we also are going to be
13 looking at the overall operations of the Pooling Board and
14 see if it's been operated efficiently and effectively.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
16 staff recommendation and explanation. Do you have
17 questions or comments?
18 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
19 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
21 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
22 aye.
23 (A chorus of ayes.)
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
25 (No response.) 177
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
2 MR. FULLER: Thank you.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
4 MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 9 under
5 Transportation Planning, this will be a minute order
6 recommending you to make adjustments in participation
7 ratios for projects located in economically disadvantaged
8 counties. Jim?
9 MR. RANDALL: Good afternoon, commissioners.
10 For the record, I'm Jim Randall, director of the
11 Transportation Planning and Programming Division.
12 Item 9, this minute order approves the Fiscal
13 Year 2005 adjustments to the local matching funds
14 requirement for this quarter for projects located in
15 economically disadvantaged counties.
16 In your books is Exhibit A that lists the
17 projects and staff's recommended adjustments for each of
18 them. The adjustments are based on the equations approved
19 in earlier proposals. There are nine projects in five
20 counties; the total reduction for participation in these
21 projects is $719,268.
22 We recommend approval of this minute order.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Looks like Commissioner
24 Houghton's area got some adjustments.
25 MR. HOUGHTON: Absolutely. 178
1 MR. RANDALL: This will probably be the last
2 time we bring this type of minute order to the commission
3 because of change in legislation. We have rules out there
4 right now in which the commission will certify the
5 counties and the investments and then allow the executive
6 director have the district engineers work directly with
7 the locals on developing these projects.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Good. We can get a much
9 better product that way, I think.
10 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
12 staff recommendation and explanation. Do you have
13 questions or comments?
14 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
15 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
17 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
18 aye.
19 (A chorus of ayes.)
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
21 (No response.)
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
23 MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 10 is a
24 discussion item, and this is to discuss the development of
25 a lease and operating agreement for a state-owned rail 179
1 facility in Fannin and Lamar counties. Jim?
2 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir, item 10. This
3 afternoon I'd like to discuss the development of a lease
4 and operating agreement for the Bonham Subdivision Rail
5 Line. The rail line is a 33-1/2 mile state-owned rail
6 corridor between the cities of Paris and Bonham in Lamar
7 and Fannin counties, and there's a map in your briefing
8 books illustrating the line.
9 The Union Pacific, the owner of the line and
10 the right of way, and the Texas Northeastern Railroad, the
11 operator, filed an abandonment request with the Surface
12 Transportation Board on May 23, 2003. Following the
13 filing, the Fannin Rural Rail Transportation District
14 approached TxDOT for assistance in preserving the line.
15 Past freight movements have been limited to
16 local agricultural businesses in the region, such as
17 fertilizer, peanuts, and seasonal grain movements.
18 The department evaluated the viability of the
19 line for its continued rail transportation use and
20 recommended its acquisition. Acquisition was authorized
21 on February 26, 2004 by Minute Order 109588. The purchase
22 price was $601,995. On September 21, 2005, TxDOT and UP
23 closed the sale.
24 The Transportation Planning and Programming
25 Division is currently discussing the terms of the lease 180
1 and operating agreement with the rail district. The rail
2 district plans to obtain a rail operator to provide rail
3 service for the line. However, the line will need
4 considerable rehabilitation prior to the opening of the
5 line for service. Based on staff's review of the existing
6 infrastructure, we believe an initial investment of
7 approximately $2 million will be required.
8 Currently the rail district is seeking funding
9 for the rehabilitation of the infrastructure from various
10 entities. They have been in contact with federal agencies
11 about possible grants to assist with the rehabilitation.
12 A lease agreement for the facility will be necessary for
13 the rail district to secure funding through grants or
14 loans. And right now they're talking with USDA as a
15 possible grant source and also in SAFETEA-LU there was a
16 rail safety provision that that might qualify for federal
17 funding also.
18 We're seeking guidance on the development of
19 the lease agreement. We're particularly interested in
20 discussing the terms of the lease, lease payments, and the
21 rights and obligations of both the rail district and
22 TxDOT. I'll present these one by one, but please feel
23 free to comment as I discuss each item.
24 In regard to lease terms, staff is proposing a
25 40-year lease period with five options to renew the lease 181
1 for 10-year extensions, totaling 90 years. This would
2 demonstrate to lenders that the rail district has secured
3 a long-term commitment from TxDOT.
4 We also intend to include a clause calling for
5 automatic termination of the lease if the rail district
6 has not restored service to the line within 15 years. We
7 believe this would encourage the rail district to make
8 progress in restoring service to the corridor. In
9 addition, we may want to consider a shorter term or have
10 interim improvement requirements.
11 Would you like to discuss those two items now,
12 or do you want me to continue on?
13 MR. HOUGHTON: I have some questions. How many
14 trains go across this line a day?
15 MR. RANDALL: It's been out of service since
16 2002.
17 MR. HOUGHTON: I mean, how many do they
18 propose?
19 MR. RANDALL: I can't tell you how many trains,
20 but they're looking at about 1,400 carloads a year.
21 MR. HOUGHTON: 1,400 a year?
22 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Three cars a day. It would be
24 the locomotive, the boxcar and the caboose.
25 MR. RANDALL: Now, to kind of put it in 182
1 perspective, if we're looking at 3-1/2 trucks per rail
2 car, this would shift about 5,000 loaded trucks off our
3 highway system just on that little amount of rail line.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, so you're getting ready to
5 answer one of the questions: How does this reduce
6 congestion?
7 MR. RANDALL: That's one of them, yes, sir.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: So it reduces congestion by
9 5,000 trucks a year.
10 MR. HOUGHTON: They're coming to us for funds
11 to rehab the line. Correct?
12 MR. RANDALL: No, sir.
13 MR. HOUGHTON: No, they're not coming to us.
14 MR. RANDALL: No, sir. All we're asking right
15 now is to enter into a lease agreement. They will be
16 looking for an operator, and then from that point they'll
17 also be looking for other types of grants to improve the
18 line and rehabilitate the line.
19 MR. HOUGHTON: Have we thought about charging
20 for the commodities in the car going across the line per
21 car?
22 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. What we thought is
23 they would reach a certain threshold on carloads before
24 we'd start putting a surcharge like that on it. Our
25 intent really is to activate the rail line. 183
1 MR. HOUGHTON: Pass it on to the shipper
2 instead?
3 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir, eventually. But we
4 think we need to cultivate the service back on the line.
5 Like I say, it's been out since 2002. And then from
6 there, as it becomes more profitable or more active, then
7 consider that. Right now we're talking about maybe
8 looking at an annual lease payment of $500 to $1,000,
9 something like that for right now.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: What does the acronym TNER
11 stand for?
12 MR. RANDALL: That's the term for the Texas
13 Northeastern Railroad. It was the prior operator of the
14 line.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: And does the Texas
16 Northeastern Railroad exist only on these blue lines or
17 are they on other lines?
18 MR. RANDALL: As far as I know, it's only on
19 the blue lines on the map right there, sir. I could be
20 mistaken, though.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: And they're the ones that are
22 going to operate our line?
23 MR. RANDALL: No, sir. They gave it up for
24 abandonment. If we enter this agreement with the rail
25 district, then it's up to them to find an operator. 184
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Is it likely going to be TNER?
2 MR. RANDALL: It could be a possibility. Like
3 NETEX, another line in that area. Blackland is the
4 operator for their line.
5 One thing about this, in the lease agreement we
6 would have the final approval of the operator for the
7 line.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: And do we retain the right to
9 use the track for commuter rail?
10 MR. RANDALL: I'd have to check on that, but
11 since we own the rail and the right of way, I'm sure we
12 can put any kind of provision like that in the lease
13 agreement.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: I guess we're helping Fannin
15 County grain and agricultural interests in doing this.
16 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. Right now, if we were
17 going to develop the line, from Bonham over to Honey
18 Grove, that's where the shippers would be right now, so
19 we'd concentrate on at least rehabbing that part of the
20 line initially or encouraging the rail district to do
21 that.
22 MR. HOUGHTON: What's the cost of the rehab?
23 MR. RANDALL: $2 million. That would get it
24 somewhere between 10 to 25 mile per hour operating speed.
25 Right now they have 85-pound track on the line, but 185
1 there's a lot of issues with vegetation and stuff like
2 that, and probably there's a lot of tie work to do as well
3 as restoring the ballast.
4 MS. ANDRADE: Jim, is our the only exit if they
5 don't restore this line?
6 MR. RANDALL: No, ma'am.
7 MS. ANDRADE: Do we have other exits?
8 MR. RANDALL: Yes, ma'am, there will be other
9 provisions in the lease. We were trying to get a feel
10 from the commission is 40 years/90 years, is that too
11 long, not long enough?
12 MR. HOUGHTON: Financing opportunities that
13 they may have and commensurate with the lease.
14 MR. RANDALL: And I didn't get into the annual
15 lease payment where we were talking about maybe $500 to
16 $1,000 a year, is that too little, too much. We really
17 don't want to burden them too much in the very beginning,
18 but as they become more --
19 MS. ANDRADE: Operational?
20 MR. RANDALL: Yes, ma'am.
21 MR. HOUGHTON: What's it worth to the
22 agricultural community?
23 MR. RANDALL: I don't think I have that one for
24 you; I can find out for you.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: Jim, each commissioner has his 186
1 or her own interests that you'll have to take into
2 account. My perspective is this, the day is not too far
3 in the future, I think, where DART is coming up from the
4 Dallas area into Sherman. The day may not be too far in
5 the future where we can negotiate a deal with TNER and
6 bring commuter rail from Paris all the way across to
7 Sherman and down into the Dallas area.
8 So we would want to, again from my perspective,
9 retain the authority to operate or to lease out to DART
10 the operation of commuter rail, and working back and forth
11 from Paris and points north and east, and I guess south.
12 We'd want to retain that right. That would be one thing I
13 would be concerned about.
14 MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think a second thing I would
16 be concerned about is that we don't get into a situation
17 as we're sort of in with the South Orient where whoever
18 leases the track keeps it till the last second, then
19 spends some small amount of money and keeps it again, and
20 keeps it again, and opportunities come along and we can't
21 take advantage of them.
22 In other words, we're negotiating a buyout
23 clause with Cintra now on Corridor 35 and there ought to
24 be some sort of buyout provision for this asset. Who
25 knows, somebody comes along and makes a proposal to us we 187
1 can't say no to, we can't turn around and take out our
2 lessees for a reasonable price and take advantage of that
3 opportunity. We'd want to negotiate that.
4 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
5 Just a second, Commissioner Houghton, I just
6 had a flashback. I think it's a savings of 10 cents a
7 bushel on the movement of grain on that.
8 MR. HOUGHTON: Savings, but there would be just
9 in time getting it to the market.
10 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
11 MR. HOUGHTON: What's that value worth to the
12 agricultural community?
13 MR. RANDALL: Let's see, the Fannin County
14 judge stated the difference in shipping costs for these
15 commodities, truck versus restored rail, was $10 to $15 a
16 ton for fertilizer and 10 to 15 cents per bushel for
17 grain. Shipping cost savings for the restored rail would
18 be about $1.125 million per year for these businesses.
19 That was in the original minute order from which we got
20 permission to acquire.
21 MR. HOUGHTON: We need to leave our options
22 open, obviously, for revenue.
23 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: And you may not know the
25 answer to this, Jim, but according to the most recently 188
1 approved legislation, if we chose to help on improving the
2 track under certain conditions, could we financially?
3 MR. RANDALL: I believe we could.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Be a Mobility Fund project of
5 some kind.
6 MR. RANDALL: It would have to be a passenger
7 rail operation.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, any other guidance?
9 The staff seeks guidance, they seek instruction.
10 MR. HOUGHTON: They got some guidance.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Well, take those
12 comments into account, if you would.
13 MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. What we'll do is work
14 with the OGC to develop a lease and then we'll enter into
15 negotiation with the district, and then before it's
16 executed by Mr. Behrens, we'll come back to the commission
17 with a minute order approving the signing of the
18 agreement. Thank you.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thanks, Jim.
20 MR. BEHRENS: We have one more minute order
21 under agenda item 12(b) under Right of Way, and this will
22 be recommendations to allow the purchase of options on
23 some right of way on some various highways. John?
24 MR. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon. Again for the
25 record, my name is John Campbell, director of the Right of 189
1 Way Division.
2 I'd like to present for your consideration the
3 minute order under agenda item 12(b) to authorize the use
4 of option contracts for the potential future purchase of
5 property required along proposed routes for State Highway
6 114, State Highway 121, and FM 720 in Denton and Tarrant
7 counties.
8 This is the sixth project in TxDOT's pilot
9 program for the use of implementing options to purchase.
10 Approval of this minute order will provide the authority
11 for the Dallas District engineer to negotiate the
12 execution of option contracts and to expend funds for
13 option fees and related expenses.
14 Timely execution of option contracts to
15 effectively purchase development rights during the interim
16 prior to scheduled right of way acquisition provides a
17 strategic opportunity to realize lower acquisition costs,
18 less complicated negotiations, and thereby, a more
19 efficient acquisition process.
20 Staff recommends your approval of the minute
21 order.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
23 staff recommendation and explanation. Do you have
24 questions or comments?
25 MR. HOUGHTON: Is this our first one? 190
1 MR. CAMPBELL: This is actually our sixth
2 option contract approval.
3 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
4 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
6 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
7 aye.
8 (A chorus of ayes.)
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
10 (No response.)
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
12 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, John.
14 MR. BEHRENS: We'll move to agenda item number
15 13(b) under Regional Mobility Authorities, and this is a
16 recommendation to create a regional mobility authority in
17 Hidalgo County. Phil?
18 MR. RUSSELL: Thanks, Mr. Behrens, and again
19 for the record, I'm Phillip Russell, director of the
20 Turnpike Division.
21 Commissioners, back on April 25 of this year,
22 we received a petition from Hidalgo County to form a
23 regional mobility authority. Just to refresh your memory,
24 the county at that time identified the initial project as
25 the Hidalgo County Loop. It also listed several other 191
1 projects: a connector route between 281 and 83, as well
2 as a southeast loop between 281 and 83.
3 As structured, Hidalgo County would nominate
4 six members, and of course, as always, the governor would
5 appoint the chair. As is required, the department held a
6 public hearing on July 13, 2005. The notice for the
7 public hearing was published in the Texas Register and a
8 newspaper of general circulation in Hidalgo County.
9 Just to give you a flavor for some of the
10 comments we received at the time, at the public hearing we
11 had five elected officials and five individuals who spoke
12 in favor of the creation of an RMA, we had an elected
13 official and seven individuals who spoke in opposition to
14 the creation of an RMA, and there were 13 individuals that
15 spoke in opposition to a specific project, and I think for
16 the most part that was in relation to a project the county
17 was developing, the 281-83 connector route.
18 After the public meeting we also received three
19 written comments. One of those was in favor of the
20 creation of an RMA, and then two of those again opposed
21 the development of that specific toll road.
22 So I know you have a number of people that have
23 probably requested to speak, Chairman. I would just, I
24 guess my perspective on this, obviously federal law will
25 stipulate and sets the format for how we clear these 192
1 projects environmentally, any of these, regardless of
2 which one of these projects it is, and it will dictate
3 whether we do or don't build the project.
4 In the case of this proposed RMA, they have a
5 multitude of projects that they would be looking at, and I
6 think there's probably still some confusion about that
7 public meeting down there, was it for the building of that
8 project or was it for the formation of the RMA. Obviously
9 what we're talking about here is just forming the RMA.
10 I'd be happy to address any questions you might
11 have. I know Mario Jorge is here, along with a strong
12 delegation from South Texas.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
14 staff recommendation and explanation. Do you wish to quiz
15 staff more, or do you wish to hear from witnesses from
16 first?
17 MS. ANDRADE: Hear from witnesses.
18 MR. HOUGHTON: I'd like to ask, the governance
19 on the RMA has all been worked out in the county?
20 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: I know there were some issues.
22 Is it five and two?
23 MR. RUSSELL: It's going to be six, and the
24 governor would appoint the chair, of course.
25 MR. HOUGHTON: And that was approved at the 193
1 county level?
2 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
3 MR. HOUGHTON: Is there opposition to the RMA,
4 Mr. Chair?
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think it's safe to say that
6 witnesses will have to clarify whether they're opposed to
7 the RMA or opposed to a project, but I have heard
8 unofficially, through their House and Senate members, that
9 many of them consider it one and the same: to oppose the
10 RMA is to oppose a specific project. And that's, of
11 course, a viewpoint that a Texan is permitted to have.
12 Commissioner Andrade prefers to hear the
13 witnesses. I have no questions. Do you have any more,
14 Ted?
15 MR. HOUGHTON: No.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: I assume most of you here
17 arrived after the opening of our meeting. I want to
18 choose my words carefully because I don't want you to be
19 insulted. We tell everyone at the beginning of every
20 meeting you're more than welcome to testify and express
21 your opinion about an agenda item or in the open comment
22 period. We ask you, just as a matter of respect, to try
23 to limit your comments to three minutes per each person.
24 I have what could be as many as eight witnesses
25 on this card, or Jorge Arcante could be speaking for all 194
1 eight, I don't know which it is.
2 MR. ARCANTE: All eight will speak, if you'll
3 allow them.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: We'll hear everybody, we just
5 ask that everybody try to keep it as focused as possible
6 because there is a record of it and we are listening and
7 we will pay attention, as we always do.
8 So Jorge, are you a commissioner?
9 MR. ARCANTE: I am the city manager.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: City of San Juan.
11 MR. ARCANTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
12 commissioners and Mr. Behrens for allowing us to speak to
13 the RMA. As you were mentioning, one of the perspectives
14 from the city is that the two are tied together and you
15 will hear a lot of comments about the proposed toll road.
16 It has been in all the literature and all the
17 notices listed as the lead project, the toll road in San
18 Juan, and we were here three months ago with a smaller
19 delegation. We have a couple of elected officials and
20 some staffers and some citizens that want to speak to you
21 today with respect to that.
22 I got to you, I hope, some handouts to give you
23 a flavor of the kind of city that San Juan is. More than
24 doubled in size in the last few years and we're struggling
25 with all those issues of growth that most cities in Texas 195
1 are experiencing.
2 For us, the toll road is a very critical
3 project because its effect is proportionately bigger than
4 most cities. I think what we want to get across to you
5 today is that the explanation about the RMA and how it's
6 going to work has, again, a proportionately bigger impact
7 for us. You have a community that is deeply concerned,
8 and I would even characterize it as worried about this
9 project.
10 And with those comments being made, I will just
11 turn over the rest of the time to the speakers that are
12 going to come before you. I will let each of them
13 introduce themselves.
14 MR. HOUGHTON: Well, I'd sure like to have this
15 debate up front and dispel some of the myths about RMAs.
16 I think there are some myths.
17 I was down in your part of the country a week
18 or so ago. And what an RMA is and what an RMA isn't --
19 and I think I did speak to the mayor -- that an RMA does
20 not decide what gets built, the MPO decides what gets
21 built in your region. And the RMA is a facilitator to
22 enact these projects approved by the MPO, way to finance a
23 project or multiple projects. But the real approval comes
24 for the locals in the area, not from us.
25 So with that said, I want to set the stage, and 196
1 then I think we can move forward. Because I did set that
2 stage last week a little bit with the folks down there.
3 MR. ARCANTE: I understand that, Commissioner.
4 MR. HOUGHTON: Okay.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Commissioner Luis Ramos? I'm
6 just reading off the list; you can go in any order you
7 wish.
8 MR. AYALA: For the record, my name is Greg
9 Ayala. I'm the executive director of the San Juan
10 Economic Development Corporation.
11 I would like to thank you, and it's unfortunate
12 that we have to be here under these circumstances. I
13 think that I would have loved to come up here as an
14 economic development director and talk about projects that
15 are positive. This specific one regarding the RMA is not
16 positive for our city, and subsequently, we're here.
17 Some of the points that I would like to address
18 is one of the things about an RMA is no voter approval is
19 required for the creation of the RMA. In view of that, we
20 have to come here to defend or talk about why we don't
21 want an RMA.
22 I would like to thank the commissioner for
23 coming down to South Texas. You talk about a wonderful
24 speaker. I walked out of there on a positive note in
25 terms of what he said, and his main emphasis was let's 197
1 think outside the box. And I agree with him. We're going
2 through a lot of difficult times; South Texas particularly
3 has gone through a lot of difficult times because of the
4 poverty rates that we have.
5 In view of that, at this particular venture, I
6 think approving an RMA will not only divide city against
7 city, it will divide neighboring cities type of
8 relationships and will cause a lot more damage.
9 What I'm asking of the commission at this
10 particular point in time is let the locals come back and
11 let's try to resolve those issues. Maybe this is not the
12 time to form the RMA, until we, as the citizens of Hidalgo
13 County, are able to address those issues and we come here
14 in front of the commission on a positive note and work on
15 positive things, then we can come up and discuss the
16 formation of the RMA.
17 I don't want to be negative. And again,
18 Commissioner, with all due respect, I really liked your
19 speech, I think that you motivated a lot of people. I
20 work for San Juan but I'm a resident of the city of
21 McAllen. The gentleman was discussing the points of how
22 many people were opposed. We couldn't use commissioners
23 court for the amount of people that were there to oppose
24 the RMA.
25 I'm saying let's delay the process, let the 198
1 locals resolve these issues so we can move forward. I
2 don't want anyone to ever think that San Juan is negative.
3 We're very positive, we're very optimistic about the
4 future and our city. And when we talk about Hidalgo
5 County, I want this commission to think positive things.
6 But this is a local issue and we need to resolve it on a
7 local basis, and I want to be able to come back here
8 positively and say positive things.
9 By approving the RMA at this particular point
10 in time, it will be a negative thing because now we're
11 going to have cities fighting against cities, we're going
12 to have political issues that we're going to have to deal
13 with, and I want to be positive, I really do want to be
14 positive. But this is not the time.
15 And I'm preaching to the choir. One of the
16 things is in order for an approval of an RMA, there should
17 be sufficient public support for the RMA. I have yet to
18 see the support at the local level.
19 With all respect to the commission, I'm
20 requesting that at this time the RMA's application be
21 denied. Thank you.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Hang on a second. I didn't
23 have your name.
24 MR. AYALA: Yes, sir. The name is Greg Ayala.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir. I need for you to 199
1 fill out a card.
2 MR. AYALA: Okay, I'll go ahead and do that.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Now I'd like to ask you a
4 question, if you don't mind.
5 MR. HOUGHTON: You're not going to get away
6 that easy, Greg.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: You say you work for the city
8 of San Juan?
9 MR. AYALA: Yes, sir, and I'm a resident of the
10 city of McAllen.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: What's the population of the
12 city of San Juan?
13 MR. AYALA: It's about 33,000 people, according
14 to our 2004 numbers.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: And the population of the
16 county now? About, it doesn't have to be exact.
17 MR. AYALA: Probably about a half million, more
18 or less.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: And the hearing that you spoke
20 of where you had to find space, was that on the project or
21 on the formation of the RMA itself?
22 MR. AYALA: Formation of the RMA, sir. And I
23 know that the commission has concerns, are we really
24 fighting a project or are we fighting the RMA and how it's
25 become synonymous to one specific issue, and again, all 200
1 I'm asking for is for the locals to be able to resolve the
2 issue, throw it back to us so we can deal with the issue.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: I would like to think that Ted
4 emphasized this when he was with you last week -- I think
5 he did -- but I wouldn't want there to be any doubt in
6 your mind, we don't want to be in the business of telling
7 that RMA or you as a citizen what project is good or bad
8 at all, we want to stay completely away from that. The
9 whole concept behind the creation of regional mobility
10 authorities is for local leaders to make hard decisions.
11 Now, I understand what you're saying, we hear
12 this concern a lot in our business: delay a decision and
13 let the locals decide it. But you know, I had a close
14 relative one time who reminded me there's some questions
15 for which there are no answers, there's some riddles that
16 will never be solved, there's some decisions that have to
17 be made today for which you'll never know if it was right
18 or wrong.
19 We don't have the luxury of waiting for
20 everyone at every local level to get in 100 percent
21 unanimous agreement about something because sometimes you
22 never get to unanimous agreement.
23 I do have one question about a non-RMA
24 transportation matter. Had the commissioners court ever
25 discussed building a transportation corridor along this 201
1 footprint prior to the discussion of the RMA?
2 MR. AYALA: It's been really much the
3 forefront. We're going to do an RMA specifically to do
4 projects and our two lead projects are the ones that are
5 affecting us.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: But I want to ask again, prior
7 to the concept of RMA ever being invented, had
8 commissioners court or transportation leaders in Hidalgo
9 County discussed building a corridor in about this same
10 place? Had it already been discussed?
11 MR. AYALA: I really can't answer that
12 question, sir. I've been on the job for, give or take,
13 nine months, and things happening prior, it is possible.
14 And one of the things that I would like to also
15 say is Mario Jorge has been there to talk to us, and I
16 think we're making progress. For the first time, I think
17 we are making progress forward, so it's not that we're at
18 a stalemate, and that's why I ask the commission, with all
19 due respect, give us some time. I know we can work this
20 out and hopefully we can come back and things be on a more
21 positive note.
22 We've discussed several things in terms of the
23 project that's affecting our community. The commissioners
24 talked about looking at things outside the box. I know
25 other counties have even not done RMAs and have not done 202
1 toll roads and have exercised other types of revenue
2 sources, creative revenue sources. And I think basically
3 what TxDOT is trying to do is how can we generate more
4 funds, and I think give us some time.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Actually what we're concerned
6 about is how can we solve the transportation crisis. If
7 that means generating more funds, that's what has to
8 happen.
9 MR. AYALA: Right, and I think we can come to
10 that.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope, did you have questions
12 of this witness?
13 MS. ANDRADE: No. I'm going to wait till I
14 hear all of them.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted?
16 MR. HOUGHTON: Well, Greg, that's exactly my
17 message last time is that your RMAs have that authority to
18 think outside the box, they look for other revenue
19 sources. It doesn't have to be a toll road. It's going
20 to be put into the mix, it needs to be put into the mix,
21 but I'll go back to what I said earlier, that it's the RMA
22 that chooses the project, it's the MPO that chooses the
23 project.
24 MR. AYALA: I think, Commissioner, one of the
25 things that bothered us also is this process of the 203
1 development of the RMA. There was no representation from
2 San Juan on that board and we've never been included in
3 that process, and those are issues that are already biting
4 at us and the RMA has not even been developed. And I know
5 it is part of the commissioners court to do so. We tried
6 to speak to commissioners court in reference to the
7 representation on there, and every time we move forward in
8 this RMA process, we lose representation. We lose our
9 ability, our voice becomes less and less, it doesn't
10 become heard at all.
11 So that's the concerns we have. Right now
12 there's ability for us to communicate and the ability for
13 us to negotiate something that is positive for South
14 Texas, and I want to be positive for South Texas, every
15 person here wants to be positive for South Texas, just
16 give us that opportunity.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to thank you for your
18 professional presentation.
19 MR. AYALA: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, how do you want me to do
21 it? Do you want me to call in the order of this card or
22 are there other people outside this card? Call in the
23 order of this card. Okay. I need Commissioner Luis
24 Ramos. Welcome, Commissioner.
25 MR. RAMOS: Good afternoon, commissioners. 204
1 Thank you so much for the opportunity to present our views
2 before you. For the record, my name is Luis Ramos and I'm
3 a city commissioner for the city of San Juan.
4 I was thinking about this morning, getting up
5 at 4:30 in the morning, along with about 100 other
6 citizens from San Juan, trying to catch a bus at 6:00
7 a.m., travel over 300 miles to a meeting here in Austin:
8 Why are we here? Why are we so concerned? Two reasons:
9 the RMA and the toll road that is proposed through San
10 Juan. This concerns us.
11 I have four reasons why to oppose the RMA and
12 the toll road. Number one, demographics. I know some of
13 you have gone through the city of San Juan but maybe some
14 of you have not. It's a little over 33,000 people and
15 growing every day. It's a bedroom community, more homes,
16 more residents than businesses. I would say maybe 80
17 percent homes and about 20 percent businesses.
18 The largest employers in the city is the school
19 district, the city and H.E.B. that opened a year and a
20 half ago, and Spirit of San Juan Truck Lines. Those are
21 the four largest employers. All the rest are local
22 restaurants, mom-and-pop stores.
23 The city of San Juan is about two miles wide
24 and about ten miles long. It's a long corridor. This
25 toll road is proposing to take 300 linear feet from the 205
1 southern boundary all the way through the northern
2 boundary, and it will have a dramatic impact on our
3 economy.
4 The average income for the resident of San Juan
5 is about $15,000; the average home value is about $45,000.
6 Demographics.
7 Number two, the impact on our economy. A toll
8 road that could be created through an RMA where you have
9 cities voting whether to have a toll road or not, and
10 these are neighboring cities. I've been already to maybe
11 one or two meetings and I can already see alignment. Some
12 cities may be in support of the city of San Juan's
13 position, and others against it.
14 But what does this do to the city of San Juan?
15 There are two phases that TxDOT talked about: the first
16 phase was from the Pharr bridge to Expressway 83; the
17 second phase from Expressway 83 to north of Edinburg where
18 San Manuel is. Two phases.
19 A loss of tax property is very dramatic to our
20 city. You know, we're barely meeting the needs of our
21 budget, the needs of our citizens, and taking away taxable
22 property forever is not good, it's not good for anyone.
23 It would not be good for any city in the Valley.
24 Number two, the loss of expressway frontage,
25 about 1,000 linear feet of expressway frontage. This is 206
1 prime commercial property. This would be a dramatic
2 effect on our city.
3 What has this publicity done for the city of
4 San Juan? Well, our local newspaper has publicized this
5 toll road, it has already scared away a big retailer that
6 we had been recruiting for a long time. Now it doesn't
7 want to come to San Juan because it doesn't know if the
8 toll road is going to go through their property where
9 their business was going to be located.
10 Number two, it also is delaying our industrial
11 park. We had big plans for an industrial park and this
12 toll road has delayed our plans.
13 The toll road is no benefit to the city. We
14 have more of a loss and very little to gain.
15 Number three, the decrease of the quality of
16 life. Through this toll road, it was originally talked to
17 us as an expressway but later, because TxDOT didn't have
18 the funding, it got changed to a toll road. Well, what
19 does this do? Well, homeowners will be displaced, this
20 toll road would be very close to an elementary school and
21 a junior high school, and this will affect about 2,200
22 students. We're talking about noise pollution, air
23 pollution, traffic congestion, safety concerns are in
24 mind, different bus routes will have to take place. These
25 will all affect the quality of life for the citizens of 207
1 San Juan.
2 Communication, a lack of communication and a
3 lack of city involvement in the toll road project. This
4 toll road project was talked about maybe three years ago;
5 I learned about it maybe close to a year ago. When I
6 learned about it, the blueprints were already drawn. Here
7 are the blueprints; it's going through your city. I said,
8 Now, wait a minute.
9 I think that if you're going to have a road
10 through your city, you need to get involved, you need to
11 have city involvement, city participation in this. You
12 ask are there any questions, do you have any concerns, are
13 there any obstacles to this. No. It was asked after the
14 fact.
15 So a lot of money has been spent on this
16 project but a lack of communication, a lack of city
17 involvement has led to distrust.
18 So what is our answer? Our answer is we oppose
19 the RMA, we oppose a toll road through the city of San
20 Juan.
21 I want to thank you for giving us the
22 opportunity to present our views. We're very proud to be
23 citizens of San Juan and we're proud to be Texans, and we
24 hope that you consider our presentation. Thank you.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: Could I ask you the same 208
1 question I asked the previous witness, and that is was a
2 road planned here before the RMA was discussed?
3 MR. RAMOS: I've been a commissioner for four
4 years. I learned about the toll road about a year ago.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: But what a free road, tax
6 road?
7 MR. RAMOS: About the expressway? That's when
8 I learned about it, about a year ago, about an expressway.
9 About six months ago I was at a TxDOT meeting and they
10 had what they call a value engineering meeting, and TxDOT
11 presented how much money they had, how much money the
12 project was going to be. So they had to cut a lot of
13 corners, they said they couldn't do an expressway, it
14 would have to be a toll road, a toll road from the bridge
15 to the expressway so that tractor-trailers could be there
16 in six minutes.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm asking the question wrong,
18 commissioner. I need to try to rephrase it.
19 MR. RAMOS: Okay, I'm sorry.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Is there already a bridge
21 across the Rio Grande where they propose to build a toll
22 road from to 83? Is there already a bridge there?
23 MR. RAMOS: There's a bridge, yes.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Prior to the commissioners
25 court of Hidalgo County proposing the RMA a year ago, had 209
1 there been plans to build a highway from that bridge to 83
2 through the city of San Juan?
3 MR. RAMOS: I was not aware of that, sir.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. That was the answer to
5 my question.
6 Ted?
7 MR. HOUGHTON: How do trucks get there now? Do
8 they go through San Juan?
9 MR. RAMOS: I'm a retired superintendent and I
10 worked in a school district called Valley View ISD and
11 it's right where the Pharr Bridge is. I remember having a
12 meeting about four or five years ago, with TxDOT again,
13 and this had to do with the city of Pharr, city of
14 McAllen, and our school district because our school
15 district was affected.
16 The city of Pharr did not want this truck
17 traffic route to go through 281; the city of McAllen did
18 not want it to go through Jackson Road. What happened was
19 a compromise. Decker Road was expanded from Jackson Road
20 all the way up to the Military Highway.
21 MR. HOUGHTON: Which is 83. Right.
22 MR. RAMOS: Well, that goes west and basically
23 all the truck traffic is going to the industrial parks in
24 McAllen and the Sugar Land Industrial Park. That's most
25 of the truck traffic, I'd say 80 percent of the truck 210
1 traffic was going that way. And then from there they went
2 out of the Valley through 23rd Street in McAllen. That
3 was what was decided at that particular meeting. I was
4 there.
5 MR. HOUGHTON: Today, how do the trucks get
6 over the bridge to Highway 80?
7 MR. RAMOS: 281.
8 MR. HOUGHTON: That's the route that they take?
9 MR. RAMOS: Yes, sir.
10 MR. HOUGHTON: They don't go down your streets
11 at all in San Juan?
12 MR. RAMOS: No, sir.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Does 281 go through San Juan?
14 MR. RAMOS: It goes through Pharr.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
16 Okay, Commissioner, thank you very much.
17 MR. RAMOS: Thank you so much.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have next on my card, Jeff
19 Underwood.
20 MR. UNDERWOOD: Good afternoon. Chairman,
21 commissioners, thank you for your time. For the record,
22 my name is Jeff Underwood, I'm the planning director for
23 the city of San Juan.
24 First, I'd like to say, one, that TxDOT and the
25 county and probably soon to be RMA have made my life very 211
1 difficult. I think Commissioner Ramos hit on a lot of
2 those points. I spent about half an hour writing things
3 down, but he stole most of my thunder. But because I got
4 up at 4:30, shaved and put on a tie, I decided I'd have to
5 come up here anyway to say hi, if nothing else.
6 I am going to keep it brief. I just wanted to
7 fill in a couple of the gaps where Commissioner Ramos had
8 hit some points.
9 He talked about economic impact and what we
10 stand to lose. We looked at this in a very conservative
11 manner; I think we want to be fair to everyone about this.
12 We didn't want to say we were going to lose millions and
13 millions of dollars a year.
14 What we looked at was fairly sparse growth,
15 residential growth for the most part, and we looked at
16 losing $600,000 a year in tax revenue -- that's just
17 residential, and then we looked at another $400,000 in
18 commercial revenue. Now, I want you to remember that San
19 Juan's annual tax revenue is $3.4 million, so losing a
20 million dollars or the potential for a million dollars is
21 huge.
22 Commissioner Ramos hit on the fact that we were
23 looking at an expressway change of about a half mile wide.
24 We're only about 2-1/2 miles wide as it is, so again, the
25 potential for sales tax loss there is something I don't 212
1 think any of us can actually put a pencil to, but I think
2 we can all agree that it's there and it's something that
3 should be dealt with.
4 I think the reason that we come to you and talk
5 about this toll road so much is that once the RMA is
6 approved, we have absolutely no say in what happens.
7 We've talked about the representation, we've talked about
8 the MPO selects these projects, but the people that are
9 going to select the people to sit on the RMA are the same
10 ones that have control of the MPO and decide what projects
11 are going to be done.
12 You heard Commissioner Ramos mention that lines
13 are being drawn, allegiances, if you want to use a word.
14 That's happening and that's what's going to happen when it
15 comes to this RMA, and that's why we're here telling you
16 no to the RMA, and therefore, no to the toll road.
17 A couple of other things I just wanted to hit
18 real quick, things that, again, the county hasn't
19 considered, hasn't discussed with us are the fact that the
20 city, once construction starts on this, will have to
21 immediately hire more emergency personnel. You're looking
22 at this being a hazardous cargo route which no one has
23 discussed. Right now we're not prepared to handle that,
24 so you're looking at more training, more personnel, more
25 equipment. Again, the burden falls on San Juan, no one 213
1 else is looking to take on that burden.
2 One of the questions asked was where is the
3 bridge that trucks from Mexico are coming and going to.
4 It's in Pharr; Pharr is the one that enjoys the revenue
5 from that bridge; again, San Juan takes the burden here,
6 not any of the benefit.
7 So those are the reasons that we come to you
8 today and ask you to consider those things when you look
9 at this RMA.
10 Again, the commissioner stole most of my
11 thunder. I just want to thank you for your time. I ask
12 that you respectfully consider the items that we brought
13 to you today. We certainly welcome any of you to San
14 Juan. I know, Commissioner Andrade, you've been down
15 there a number of times to our beautiful basilica. We ask
16 that you come back, let us know when you're down, we'll be
17 happy to show you around. And I think we have a lot to
18 offer. One thing we certainly don't want to be able to
19 offer is a toll road.
20 Thank you very much for your time.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions of this witness,
22 members?
23 (No response.)
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Jeff.
25 Isabel Villescas. Did I pronounce that 214
1 correctly?
2 MS. VILLESCAS: Good afternoon. Greetings,
3 commissioners. My name is Isabel Villescas, was born and
4 raised in San Juan, and I come to represent my family on
5 this proposed tollway. And I'll give you a little bit of
6 history of my family.
7 My father and his brother migrated from Mexico
8 at a very early age with their parents. My dad was only
9 ten and my uncle was seven. They settled in San Juan.
10 They grew, they married. My parents had a family of eight
11 children. My dad loved farming, and his first tractor was
12 one with metal tires -- that will tell you how long ago
13 that was.
14 So little by little, as years went by, he
15 acquired land and he worked from sunup to sundown, weather
16 permitting. Then as my brothers grew older, they toiled
17 the land together with my dad, depending on the farming
18 for income, to shelter and feed his family. And some
19 years were good but then we had some years that were bad.
20 All of us grew and we got married, but my dad
21 was very persistent, he kept at it, alongside with one of
22 my brothers which was a bachelor, but he passed away at a
23 very early age. So from that point on, he struggled
24 because he aged, but it was too much for him. So he
25 worked some but then he had to get really rid of his farm 215
1 equipment. And I can still see my dad with the tears in
2 his eyes as he had to give all of that up.
3 But each one of us built our home on the land
4 that he had acquired and then we inherited this land, but
5 it is still being farmed. We could have sold it, we could
6 have subdivided, but we decided no, we'll keep farming it.
7 And then one of my daughters built a home right
8 next door to this proposed tollway, and then one of my
9 nieces also built a home, and guess where that toll way is
10 passing, right above their homes.
11 So you see the property has a lot of
12 sentimental value to us. Any purchase would not
13 compensate the true value of that property to the family.
14 You might say that's progress, but to whose expense.
15 My daughter was not able to come but she sent a
16 little statement. Her husband had surgery yesterday, she
17 was not able to come. And she says:
18 "The tollway you propose to build would be
19 right next door to my home. My concern is the traffic,
20 the pollution, the noise, not to mention the safety of my
21 children which are nine and six. We built our home after
22 seven years of renting with the intention to build this
23 one and only home, and now you want to ruin it for us?
24 "If we have to sell, we would not get all that
25 we have invested in this house, with all of the 216
1 landscaping, the fence, and whatever. Nobody would pay
2 what it's worth because of the tollway. If this was you,
3 what would your concern be? Would you want your family
4 raised right next door to a tollway?"
5 That's it. Thank you.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions of this witness?
7 MR. HOUGHTON: Thank you very much.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, madam.
9 MS. VILLESCAS: Thank you very much, sir.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ignacio Almaguer. Close?
11 MR. ALMAGUER: Kind of. Good afternoon,
12 commissioners. My name is Ignacio Almaguer.
13 I have been a resident of the city of San Juan
14 for 27 years. My parents decided to raise my brother and
15 my sister and I in this beautiful city shortly after
16 immigrating from Mexico. I decided to continue living the
17 American dream by purchasing a home and starting my
18 business in the city that helped me become a contributing
19 member of society.
20 Now, as a taxpayer and the father of two
21 beautiful children, I have been informed that a rogue
22 elephant has plans to destroy the lives and dreams of the
23 citizens of San Juan.
24 Who is this rogue elephant? The rogue elephant
25 I'm speaking of is the Texas Department of Transportation 217
1 and their proposed regional mobility authority. Some
2 might say that the rogue elephant description might be a
3 bit harsh, but consider what is being proposed.
4 The citizens of San Juan have been informed
5 that TxDOT has plans of building a toll road whether an
6 RMA is formed or not. TxDOT has said that they are not in
7 the business of building roads where people don't want
8 them. Well, commissioners, the citizens of San Juan don't
9 want a toll road.
10 The city of San Juan is currently in a
11 budgetary crisis. The elected officials of our city are
12 having enough problems trying to work with the shoestring
13 budget. One million dollars in tax revenue and 400 acres
14 will be pillaged from San Juan if the toll road is built.
15 The city of San Juan has been unable to finish a much-
16 needed library and our streets are deplorable compared to
17 our neighboring cities.
18 The city of San Juan is also the site of La
19 Union de Pueblo Entero, the United Farm Workers
20 Organization, the Texas Civil Rights Project, and Projecto
21 Azteca. These organizations were established or inspired
22 by civil rights leader Mr. Cesar Chavez.
23 Mr. Chavez, who has been compared to Dr. Martin
24 Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Mother Teresa, started
25 his movement in California and decided to spread the 218
1 movement to Texas and the city of San Juan. The proposed
2 toll road would displace the organization from its current
3 location that was established in 1974. The State of Texas
4 recognizes Mr. Chavez's birthday as an optional state
5 holiday, and building a road through the UFWO grounds
6 would be like desecrating the Alamo and the San Jacinto
7 Monument.
8 The citizens of San Juan are proud of the
9 United Farm Workers Organization and the organizations
10 that have been established under its umbrella. The land
11 where the United Farm Workers building sits is considered
12 sacred ground for the 8,000 members of the United Farm
13 Workers who have also come with us here on this trip.
14 Commissioners, the UFW members and the citizens
15 of San Juan want to ask you one question: Do you want to
16 be known as the individuals that destroyed the dreams of a
17 civil rights leader? Please consider your options wisely,
18 ask yourself what kind of impact your decisions will have
19 on the community of San Juan for the past, present and
20 future citizens of San Juan.
21 I want to thank you for your time.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted?
23 MR. HOUGHTON: Thank you.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Ignacio.
25 Daniella Almaguer. 219
1 MS. ALMAGUER: Good afternoon, commissioners.
2 My name is Daniella Almaguer. I'm 12 years old, I'm in
3 the 7th grade and currently attending Austin Middle
4 School.
5 I traveled here to voice my opinion about the
6 toll road that some people want built in San Juan. This
7 affects many things in our community.
8 If you do choose to build the toll road in my
9 city, you will have some people in San Juan move out of
10 their homes and relocate. Families that were able to save
11 money for a home of their own, all that waiting and all
12 that saving will have gone to waste. People who barely
13 moved into their new homes will have to leave. Some
14 people will get all their money back but others won't.
15 They will have to start from scratch. Some people might
16 not even get to have their home or will have to live with
17 their relatives.
18 Other people who own businesses near the toll
19 road will have to shut down and relocate. Those people
20 have pride in what they have built, and to just strip them
21 of that pride is just wrong.
22 Kids like us will have to go to a different
23 school. We will leave all our friends and start all over.
24 We would have to make new friends and lose all our old
25 friends as well as our best friends. 220
1 The location proposed to build the toll road is
2 dangerous for my best friend Carina Farrias's little
3 brother and all the children who attend Cove Elementary.
4 If an 18-wheeler truck carrying toxic waste were to pass
5 by Cove Elementary and there was a spill, the children
6 going to Cove Elementary during the time the spill had
7 occurred would be in danger. They could suffocate or
8 maybe even die.
9 If the toll road is built there, the deaths
10 that would occur would be the fault of the people who
11 supported the toll road. You will be risking the lives of
12 students attending that school.
13 I believe that our education is more important
14 than a toll road. We should concentrate on building the
15 San Juan library, a fully functioning library since we
16 have to drive to a neighboring city to use a fully
17 functioning library. Help us finish constructing the
18 library instead of working against us.
19 After listening to the effects that this toll
20 road will have on the people of San Juan, I hope those of
21 you who want to build this toll road will reconsider your
22 decision. Put yourselves in my position, the children's
23 position. Would you want these things happening to your
24 children or your community?
25 I appreciate everyone who came here to hear 221
1 what I have to say and I hope you reconsider your decision
2 to build the toll road. Thank you.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: You're good.
4 MR. HOUGHTON: Thank you very much.
5 (Applause.)
6 MS. ANDRADE: Chairman, we're probably looking
7 at a future leader of San Juan. She did a great job.
8 MAYOR SANCHEZ: San Juanita Sanchez. For the
9 record, I am the mayor of the city of San Juan.
10 With great anticipation I come before you,
11 because two months ago I was right outside your stairs and
12 I fell -- actually, not your stairs but I was getting down
13 from the Suburban, so I never got in to talk to you, and I
14 broke my foot in three different places. Every day I
15 remember you all.
16 (General laughter.)
17 MAYOR SANCHEZ: I'm still limping, and believe
18 me, I'm not confused. I know my issues, we know our
19 issues. We're not confused about the RMA. I'm going to
20 tell you why.
21 According to a lot of what's been said here and
22 what I've come to understand, in talking to the officials
23 and the leaders in our community about an RMA, this is
24 what's being said to us. You don't get an RMA, we don't
25 get money. It's being rammed down our throats. You want 222
1 a road in San Juan, you want to make sure we get more
2 transportation flow and get better in the Valley, you need
3 an RMA, that's the only way it's going to happen.
4 I'm glad you're back in the room because I'm
5 going to talk about you now. As was mentioned before,
6 think outside the box, other options. Well, you know, if
7 there were options, why didn't we talk about those before
8 we got here? Why didn't we talk about the options of
9 raising the monies before we got here and start talking
10 about an RMA?
11 We're not confused, gentlemen and Ms. Andrade,
12 we're not confused. We don't want it. Our community
13 leaders in our county are not listening, they're telling
14 us this is the only way, this is what TxDOT, this is what
15 Austin is saying.
16 And now is it synonymous with a toll road? You
17 bet. Because when we started hearing about the toll road,
18 it did maybe become at some point a changed character.
19 Now you're telling me that it needs to be done at the
20 local level. Local level isn't listening. The gentleman
21 sitting right behind, Mr. Mario Jorge, wonderful guy, but
22 he did state in the last meeting we had whether an RMA
23 gets approved or not, we're going to go through with that,
24 we're going to build that toll road.
25 You know, this RMA situation and the monies, if 223
1 we're having public hearings -- and you commented about
2 public hearings and other projects -- it's part of the
3 democratic system, listening to us. Now we're telling you
4 in record numbers we've come to oppose it. The RMA has
5 been presented to us as synonymous, I don't see a
6 distinction.
7 With the things that have changed in the past,
8 who are we to trust? If we say go ahead, approve the RMA,
9 then if our voices haven't been heard right now when we
10 have the ability of public hearings, what's going to
11 happen when you have six people deciding what happens in
12 our community and we are not being given any guarantee
13 that we have a representative from San Juan. And we will
14 be the ones affected.
15 Now, I've got here 1,500 signatures and there's
16 more to be had. These are the faces of the people that
17 have come from San Juan, and you get to see, like when I
18 sit at a commissioners meeting, I see the packages
19 prepared by our staff but I don't see the applicants for
20 some of the permits, I don't see the applicants of some of
21 the subdivisions or the people they're wanting to live
22 there, so I look at the numbers, and I know that's what's
23 important when you're looking at these. But you know
24 what, we came here so you could see a little bit beyond
25 that, so you could see the humanistic part of it. 224
1 At the last meeting where we were being
2 explained how we got to select, if we get the RMA, you are
3 the lead project, and this is how we selected you, we
4 looked at all these different corridors. And we got this
5 nifty little handout that gave us some explanations, and
6 this is how this evaluation went.
7 It says some of the constraints for residents
8 affected: six homes will be affected. You've heard
9 people talk here about, you know, maybe six homes will be
10 demolished but what about the other ones that are along
11 the way, what about the people that live within those
12 homes.
13 They say here on this summary: no farming,
14 there's no farming land or oil and gas facilities. We
15 heard Ms. Villescas say her family is still farming, they
16 still generate income and depend upon it.
17 It says in this study no adverse impact to
18 minority or low-income community. You heard us say we
19 rely on three point something plus for property taxes to
20 run our city; we're losing a million. We're talking about
21 a union that gets displaced that services 8,000 low
22 income. Who are we talking to?
23 Then it says minor disruption. We're talking
24 about people leaving their areas, we're talking about a
25 road near a school. How minor is that? 225
1 We talk about no apparent hazardous material.
2 There was a handout from TxDOT at one of the meetings, and
3 you know, this first project for the RMA has changed
4 names, I can't keep up with it, but one of them was HAZMAT
5 route, but it's not official. Think about what your young
6 lady here said about a school close to one.
7 We talk about noise levels and it's very
8 peaceful in San Juan. We're not going to keep that.
9 We've been saying this over and over. And no, we're not
10 confused, we know exactly what is going to happen the way
11 it's been shown to us.
12 Be it said, being here, I've been entrusted
13 with the care of my community, I'm entrusted with the
14 care, and the commissioner, to take care of the needs of
15 my community. You, who sit on this commission, have been
16 entrusted with the care of our monies and to listen to us.
17 I'm here because I listen to my community, I'm
18 here before you as your constituents to tell you we don't
19 want the RMA in Hidalgo County. We need to be heard and
20 we're here because we have gone level by level and it
21 really, really does scare me when I hear someone say to me
22 RMA or no RMA, that road is going up.
23 I want to believe that the democratic system
24 that we have and public hearings really is valid, it's not
25 just lip service. We're really here because we're 226
1 expecting you to listen. If there's something else that
2 we can do, we should have talked about those remedies
3 before coming to the RMA. I want to explore it. I am
4 telling you as a representative of my community, we're
5 saying no to the RMA in Hidalgo County.
6 Thank you.
7 (Applause.)
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, we have two more
9 witnesses. Do you wish to dialogue with this witness or
10 hear the last two?
11 MS. ANDRADE: I'll wait.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted?
13 MR. HOUGHTON: I'll wait.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mayor, thank you. And we're
15 very sorry about your foot.
16 MAYOR SANCHEZ: Well, it's getting better. I
17 don't think about you every single minute now.
18 (General laughter.)
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Godfrey Garza.
20 MR. GARZA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
21 commissioners. My name is Godfrey Garza. I serve as
22 special projects coordinator for Hidalgo County on the
23 loop and other transportation projects within Hidalgo
24 County.
25 I'd like to bring some information from the 227
1 commissioners court for consideration. Hidalgo County
2 itself is the third fastest growing county, population
3 officially is about a little over 700,000, unofficially on
4 the census, probably close to 800-, maybe 900,000.
5 Officially we're anticipated to grow to close to a million
6 by the year 2010.
7 Hidalgo County right now has four international
8 crossings with two more crossings coming: the Donna-
9 Mercedes Bridge and the Anzalduas Bridge.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: How far away from this
11 proposed road are those two bridges?
12 MR. GARZA: The Pharr International Bridge is
13 in direct alignment where the proposed corridor identifies
14 this project to take off that the citizens are talking
15 about. The McAllen International Bridge is maybe about
16 three miles to the west; there will be another
17 international bridge probably another two miles further
18 west from there, the Anzalduas Bridge. Then we have the
19 Donna-Mercedes Bridge that is scheduled to be maybe ten
20 miles east of the Pharr Bridge; and then we have the
21 Progreso Bridge which is on the east boundary line of our
22 county.
23 Hidalgo County has been very fortunate in
24 having a very proactive court in the past two years. The
25 county itself has gone forward and developed what we call 228
1 a corridor study for the potential loop of Hidalgo County.
2 That study itself was begun close to four years ago with
3 monies through certificates of obligation that Hidalgo
4 County Commissioners Court brought to pass.
5 That corridor analyzed an approximately 1,000-
6 foot corridor completely around Hidalgo County and a
7 segment coming up from the Pharr International Bridge to
8 Business 83 or Expressway 83, and continuing a window of
9 study to keep going north to tie in to US 281 on the north
10 side of the city of Edinburg. We have anywhere between 16
11 or 18 communities that exist in Hidalgo County itself.
12 The commissioners have spent millions of
13 dollars in studies and we've spent millions and millions
14 of dollars leveraging our local tax dollars to work with
15 TxDOT, either in drainage, in right of way, in percentage
16 of projects. We've been very active in going up to the
17 federal side of it to bring earmarks, additional monies to
18 TxDOT to assist in the growth.
19 We're behind the eight ball in Hidalgo county.
20 There's a lot of citizens that have come forward: Well,
21 we've been forgotten, we've been forgotten. Well, it's
22 different times that we live in now than what they were in
23 the past. This country has a lot of issues going on.
24 Hidalgo County needs to start looking and assisting in
25 taking care of itself. 229
1 We are a gateway. NAFTA/CAFTA has put us on
2 the map. It may be good, it may be bad, but our community
3 is growing in leaps and bounds. We are going from a rural
4 community to an urban community. It's a very hard shakeup
5 for people to understand that our major industry of
6 agriculture slowly is moving to the maquiladora industry,
7 to high-dollar manufacturers coming down, to
8 transportation issues, to be in a corridor for the South
9 American countries coming into this great country we live
10 in. And through that we have heartaches.
11 And we've been sitting through the meeting
12 since 10:00 this morning, and some of the issues have been
13 great to listen to, and those issues tell what this state
14 needs. We need to start taking care of ourselves. Our
15 legislators are giving us the ability and the tools to
16 work with. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad,
17 but we need to keep moving forward.
18 I'm here to speak in favor of the creation of
19 an RMA. I think it is a beginning, it is a tool for us to
20 utilize, and I think as people understand that the RMA is
21 being appointed by the commissioners court, but those are
22 citizens from Hidalgo County that are being appointed to
23 that board. They might not be from San Juan, they might
24 not be from San Carlos, but more than likely they probably
25 have family members or residents that live in the 230
1 different communities, and I'm sure they will hear. In
2 South Texas, we're very outspoken people, and they will
3 hear what they feel is right and what is not right.
4 And I just feel that the RMA is an item that's
5 been long in coming to Hidalgo County. We were looking at
6 an RMA when the Central toll authority was being formed,
7 central RMA, and over 2-1/2 years that we began traveling
8 to the first meetings, to the hearings, to understand how
9 an RMA was being created and what it was being created
10 for, and to us, it fits into what the needs of our county
11 are.
12 We need to maintain the lower tax base, we need
13 to build roads that are being paid by the users. They're
14 not for everybody; if you want to use it, you pay for it.
15 But people need to understand that the excess revenues
16 that come through from the RMA can be and probably will be
17 used for additional roads.
18 This RMA issue has gone before the Hidalgo
19 County mobility board and they have voted on it, and there
20 are members there from the different communities. We've
21 worked closely with the TxDOT division down in our area,
22 we have followed the NEPA process in the issues regarding
23 the loop itself that was studied. So I think we're
24 following the guidelines that we feel were put out there
25 for our community or for our elected officials to say do 231
1 this and do it the right way.
2 I have nothing more to say besides that,
3 commissioners.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, this is the only
5 witness for, we have one more against. Do you wish to
6 talk with this member or do you want to wait?
7 MR. HOUGHTON: We may call him back.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: If you'd hang around then, Mr.
9 Garza.
10 MR. GARZA: Thank you very much.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, sir.
12 Our last witness is Linda Curtis who is from
13 Bastrop, Texas. Must have relatives down in San Juan.
14 MS. CURTIS: Actually, I have a lot of friends
15 in Hidalgo County, as well as around the state. Again, my
16 name is Linda Curtis, and I am the chair of Independent
17 Texans which some people think is a redundant name, but we
18 are not a political party, we're an organization that is
19 bringing together people across the state who might vote
20 in the Democratic primary, the Republican primary, they
21 don't vote in the primary, these are split-ticket voters
22 who want to see government reformed.
23 And I am here to say some things that may be
24 taken as maybe a little crass, rude, overtly political,
25 but I think, nevertheless, these things need to be said, 232
1 and I beg your indulgence.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: They need to be said on the
3 agenda item or I need for you to fill out a blue card and
4 do it in the open comment period.
5 MS. CURTIS: I am against the RMA in Hidalgo
6 County.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
8 MS. CURTIS: And I'm here representing people
9 all over the state who I've been working with in the anti-
10 toll movement, the anti-corridor movement who are fighting
11 RMAs all over the state.
12 I think it's important that the people who are
13 here know a couple of things, and bear with me if this is
14 already known, but last March the comptroller filed a
15 report, an 85-page report on the Central Texas Regional
16 Mobility Authority.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Would that be Texas
18 Comptroller Strayhorn?
19 MS. CURTIS: Yes, Carol Strayhorn. And she
20 said that the CTRMA was at that time rife with double
21 taxation, loose management practices, conflicts of
22 interest, as unelected board members gave contracts
23 without bids to their friends and their own companies.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. And what has that got
25 to do with the agenda item? 233
1 MS. CURTIS: I'll get to it.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: But you're going to have to do
3 it pretty quick because it would be unfair --
4 MS. CURTIS: If you would give me like
5 literally 1-1/2 more minutes, I would be out of here.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: -- it would be unfair of me to
7 the thousands of other witnesses who have come before me
8 over the last two years to permit you to testify open
9 comment period material on an agenda item. We'll sit and
10 listen to whatever you've got to say.
11 MS. CURTIS: This is like really quick. I
12 wanted to very much agree with what the mayor said about
13 people in Hidalgo County not being confused. I think the
14 people of the state of Texas are also not confused, when
15 last week they voted down Proposition 9, the governor's
16 plan to give RMAs across the state the unelected board
17 members six-year terms rather than two-year terms.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ma'am, you're going to have to
19 make this testimony related to the agenda item or I've got
20 to ask you to wait for the end of the meeting.
21 MS. CURTIS: Well, sir, you raised the
22 metropolitan planning organizations in response to people
23 raising issues about the RMAs being unaccountable, and I
24 did want to make sure that people understood that there is
25 a legal action right now against Bexar County, the Bexar 234
1 County MPO and the Travis County, this area's MPO.
2 There's a major lawsuit right now taken by a former Texas
3 Supreme Court justice.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: And again, what does that have
5 to do with this agenda item?
6 MS. CURTIS: Well, you raised the MPOs, and I'm
7 agreeing that the RMAs are a problem, they will be a
8 problem in Hidalgo County, they are set up as unelected
9 and unaccountable bodies. You raised the issue of the
10 MPOs. Well, the MPOs are really making the decision.
11 Well, sir, there is a court action going on right now, one
12 of the former Texas Supreme Court justices for free --
13 he's doing this because he believes in it -- is now suing
14 two MPOs for what he believe is abrogation of the Texas
15 Constitution's separation of powers.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: A former supreme court
17 justice?
18 MS. CURTIS: Yes. Steve Smith.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Steve Smith?
20 MS. CURTIS: Steve Smith. Texas Supreme Court.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: When was he on the court?
22 MS. CURTIS: He just left the court in the last
23 term.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Was he elected?
25 MS. CURTIS: He was elected, of course. 235
1 They're all elected.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: They could be appointed. Was
3 he elected or appointed?
4 MS. CURTIS: He was elected.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you remember who he ran
6 against?
7 MS. CURTIS: I don't remember.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Does anybody remember?
9 MS. CURTIS: But what does this have to do with
10 it?
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm trying to place him. Who
12 did he run against?
13 MS. CURTIS: He's an independent-leaning
14 Republican.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Who did he defeat?
16 MS. CURTIS: I don't remember.
17 All I have to say, just to wrap up, sir, is
18 that I wanted to make plain to the people who are here
19 that there are people all over the state who are using
20 sticks and stones to take this Goliath down, we will
21 prevail, next March, next November, however long it takes.
22 There is growing opposition to the RMAs, these tolling
23 policies that never honestly went before the people of
24 this state for a real vote of the people.
25 So thank you for your indulgence. I'm out of 236
1 here. Okay?
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. And like I said,
3 if you want to come back and repeat the stuff in the open
4 comment, I'm happy to listen to you at the appropriate
5 time.
6 MS. CURTIS: I'm done. Thank you.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have to keep it somewhat
8 controlled.
9 MS. CURTIS: I understand.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's what agendas are for.
11 MS. CURTIS: Yes, sir.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's see, I thought we were
14 through with witnesses, I overlooked a card. Bobby
15 Villareal.
16 Do you happen to know who Steve Smith defeated
17 for supreme court?
18 MR. VILLAREAL: No. I don't know if I was of
19 voting age at the time.
20 I represent the County Judge Ramon Garcia, and
21 just wanted to say on his behalf that he is in favor of
22 the creation of the regional mobility authority. And just
23 like Commissioner Houghton said and what we've seen all
24 morning long, there is a big transportation problem and we
25 need innovative ways to finance that. 237
1 By the same token, he doesn't believe and he
2 supports the city of San Juan's position that they were
3 left in the dark, and if a city believes that this would
4 be adverse to their community, then he supports them in
5 their right not to have that project go through their
6 town. But again, he does think that the two are separate,
7 so he will be their advocate locally.
8 Thank you.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions for this witness?
10 MR. HOUGHTON: Thank you.
11 MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, sir. And please
13 hang around, we may need to call you back.
14 How do you want to approach this. I have some
15 questions I want to ask Mario first.
16 MR. HOUGHTON: I think Mario, yes. Do you want
17 to go first?
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: If you don't mind.
19 MR. HOUGHTON: This is the first time you've
20 gone first.
21 MR. JAVIER SAENZ: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
22 Could I speak for a moment?
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: I need a card.
24 MR. JAVIER SAENZ: I'll fill one out. Can I
25 come forward? 238
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir.
2 MR. JAVIER SAENZ: Thank you, Chairman,
3 commission. I'm not a fancy speaker and I'm not a
4 politician.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: But you've got a great smile.
6 You ought to run for office.
7 (General laughter.)
8 MR. JAVIER SAENZ: Well, that's what happens
9 when you wake up at 4:00 in the morning.
10 I just wanted to share my story. My name is
11 Javier Saenz. Everyone calls me JJ, for the record.
12 I found out about this proposed toll highway at
13 a social function. I was at a place with the county
14 engineers, and I asked them a question, I said, You mailed
15 me this letter that if I would give you permission to run
16 all over my property, and actually I'm a landowner in the
17 city of San Juan. My wife and I, we purchased some land
18 back about 12 years ago in the community of San Juan
19 there. And he says, Well, all you've got to do is just
20 sign the paper and we're going to trek all over your
21 property and put these Xs for an aerial survey of it. I
22 said, Well, good.
23 And then he started telling me, and actually
24 County Commissioner Palacios was there also, and he said,
25 Well, this is a toll highway that's going to go right 239
1 close by your property there or it may be on it or within
2 the proximity. I said, Well, okay, this is the first time
3 I ever heard about it.
4 So then I went on and we talked to the mayor,
5 and the mayor said, Well, I don't know anything about it.
6 And the city commissioners, and with all due respect to
7 them, some of them were from the previous administration
8 that was in office, they were not aware about it.
9 And all I simply want to say is I don't believe
10 that's how TxDOT does business and I don't believe that's
11 the right way to go about it. I do not believe that the
12 city of San Juan was informed about this tollway going
13 right through San Juan. And I'm not here to say that a
14 toll road is not needed and I'm not here to say that there
15 is not traffic congestion in Hidalgo county, I'm not here
16 to say that it is not needed, I'm simply saying that the
17 city of San Juan and the community members were not
18 informed about this road.
19 And I really do believe that they went about
20 it -- Commissioner Palacios went about it in the wrong
21 way. I feel that they left everyone out of the loop. I
22 don't know if they have some kind of agenda, because I
23 have been doing some research and do I understand that
24 toll highways is kind of the thing that everyone is
25 looking at right now. Well, if that's the case, fine, but 240
1 I do not believe that that is the proper way to do
2 business. I believe that if you are going to put a road
3 through a community, the community should be informed and
4 it would probably go over a little easier if the community
5 is informed and work cooperatively to resolve that dilemma
6 or transportation issue.
7 And one last thing I will say, Mr. Godfrey
8 Garza was talking about the Hidalgo County, we do have
9 this transportation and maquiladoras and this and that --
10 and by the way, I am in agriculture, but if McAllen or if
11 Pharr or if Mercedes or if Edinburg, if they want all this
12 business, they can have it, but they can also have the
13 traffic that comes along with it.
14 Thank you.
15 (Applause.)
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions of this witness?
17 You do have a great smile, you ought to run for office. I
18 do need you to fill out a card, though, or I get in
19 trouble if you don't.
20 MR. JAVIER SAENZ: I'll be glad to, no problem.
21 Thank you very much.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
23 This would be Gregorio Trevino?
24 MR. TREVINO: Greg Trevino; I'm Gregorio
25 Trevino by birth. 241
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir.
2 MR. TREVINO: I'm a neighbor of Mr. Saenz, I
3 live down the road on Moore Road, very close to the
4 proximity of the proposed toll road.
5 There was a mention regarding the difference
6 between an RMA and the need for an RMA and a project that
7 may be proposed by the RMA to be constructed. The problem
8 that we have with this proposed toll road is that there's
9 a sketch of it already proposed that slices right through
10 San Juan. It slices about a mile, mile and a quarter from
11 my home as well. I'm concerned for the safety of my
12 children, I'm concerned for the residents of the city.
13 You also mentioned at the beginning of this
14 meeting, at the beginning of our presentation about local
15 officials being informed of projects. Well, in this case
16 our local officials were not informed that there is a
17 proposed toll road to be constructed through San Juan,
18 Texas.
19 The commissioner in Precinct 2 decided on his
20 very own initiative that he would disregard the county
21 commissioners court, that he would disregard our city
22 commissioners and our city mayor.
23 My concern with that is that as a concerned
24 citizen I strongly object to this toll road simply because
25 one commissioner in the county commissioners court decided 242
1 that he would take matters into his own hands, spend
2 taxpayer money that has been diligently worked for by the
3 residents of the county and other state residents on a
4 project that nobody wants.
5 Now, we've been redundant, we've spoken about
6 nobody wants this project, slices through our city, it's
7 going to damage the infrastructure, the ecosystem, it's
8 going to damage -- it might even create a health hazard.
9 The 12-year-old child here mentioned that. There are two
10 schools very close to that toll road.
11 Now, there are other areas within the county,
12 not necessarily in Precinct 2, but there are other areas
13 within the county that would be more feasible for the
14 creation of this particular toll road. There are other
15 bridges that connect Mexico to the United States that are
16 dead center between the interchanges in Harlingen, Texas
17 and the interchange in Pharr, Texas, dead center.
18 Now, if we propose to reroute traffic coming in
19 from Mexico or United States to other parts of the county,
20 San Juan is not the dead center location. You want to
21 send people up to 77, you want to send people up to 281,
22 you've got to choose a location. There are locations east
23 of this particular proposed location that would be more
24 beneficial for the creation of a toll road.
25 Why? Because there are less homes in the area, 243
1 there are less homes in an area between down in Weslaco or
2 even Mercedes that are agriculture in nature, that no one
3 would object, not even the owners, because after all, you
4 are going to be taking property from the county, you are
5 going to be taking tax base from the county.
6 So if you are going to propose the creation of
7 an RMA, I would agree with Ms. Curtis out there, it is not
8 necessary, it is baseless. However, if there is going to
9 be creation of one, the RMA should be carefully
10 structuring where this proposed road is going to be.
11 Now, the objection of the citizens is one: it
12 goes through our city, it damages our city. That's the
13 objection, that it's going to damage our city. We are a
14 residential city, I agree with Commissioner Ramos. We are
15 residential city, we are close-knit community. We don't
16 object to living in a free society, we object to the
17 construction of an item that will affect our local
18 community.
19 I disagree strongly with Commissioner Palacios
20 in Precinct 2 having taken matters into his own hands and
21 just dis-obligating himself with this proposed toll road
22 and the responsibilities that it requires. Creation of an
23 issues requires responsibility.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think that we understand
25 that, Mr. Trevino. 244
1 MR. TREVINO: I apologize for taking so much of
2 your time, but I was listening to you and I've been
3 listening to the commission, wonderful individuals who
4 dedicate time on issues that affect the citizens of the
5 state and residents of the state as well. Now, I
6 understand that.
7 What I've spoken about, my concern is twofold:
8 I live in the city and I have children.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: I hear you, buddy.
10 MR. TREVINO: And I would hope that in creating
11 and in passing this RMA that you would take into
12 consideration that the individuals that are going to be on
13 that RMA don't necessarily live in the area, and as such,
14 they may not decide in the best interests of the city of
15 San Juan, and that's what we have to look at.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes.
17 MR. TREVINO: Thank you, sir.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
19 MR. JORGE: Mario, I need to ask a couple of
20 clear-cut questions. The bridge that this proposed road,
21 this project -- which is not the subject of this public
22 hearing but has become the subject of this public
23 hearing -- it currently feeds traffic into another city?
24 MR. JORGE: Yes, commissioner. My name is
25 Mario Jorge, for the record. 245
1 The Pharr International Bridge which lies
2 directly on US 281 if you go south, currently has a
3 straight shot through downtown Pharr. The majority of the
4 trucks veer to the west and go over to the McAllen foreign
5 trade zone through three or four different roadways to get
6 there, so that's essentially where the international
7 bridge is located right now.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Are one of these roads that
9 they go through to the McAllen foreign trade zone through
10 the city of San Juan?
11 MR. JORGE: No, sir.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: So these trucks right now
13 don't go through.
14 MR. JORGE: That's right, the majority of the
15 trucks go west, the vast majority.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Is there a road planned to go
17 through the city of San Juan prior to the RMA ever being
18 formed?
19 MR. JORGE: And I know you asked that question
20 earlier. This project really was started back in 2000.
21 TxDOT began the study of a route selection, again, to take
22 the traffic from the Pharr International Bridge and 281,
23 Military Highway, north to US 83. About a year and a half
24 or two, back in 2002, the county then picked up that
25 particular work that we had done and went ahead and took 246
1 the lead with the work that they were doing on the outer
2 loop, so they tacked this on as part of that loop project.
3 The answer is yes, this road project actually
4 began back in 2000, well before any talk of any RMA.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: But not this particular
6 footprint. I need to understand this clearly. We started
7 studying the flow of traffic coming in to see where
8 traffic went and where it might could be routed to, and
9 that study was leading us towards a footprint through San
10 Juan?
11 MR. JORGE: Yes, sir. When we did the initial
12 study, we went through an evaluation and it leaned the
13 project towards San Juan which at that time, and still is,
14 somewhat less populated than some of the other areas.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, the mayor says she's
16 never heard of this, and I believe her. Would the person
17 that she succeeded have been aware of this?
18 MR. JORGE: Yes, sir. The previous mayor, as a
19 matter of fact, was the chairman of the MPO, so he was
20 very well aware of the project.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: We've heard from at least
22 seven citizens who have said -- well, actually seven
23 citizens and I think somebody from Bastrop who said no one
24 knew this was coming.
25 Now, did people in San Juan know that a road 247
1 was going to be built before the RMA was ever discussed?
2 MR. JORGE: Well, there has never been a
3 project-specific public meeting. There was a public
4 meeting that was held by the county in which they had the
5 entire loop identified and also this connector identified.
6 Like I have mentioned before to the mayor in some of the
7 stakeholders meetings that we've had, we still have to go
8 through the pubic involvement process on this project, and
9 we've asked the county to take a step back to do that,
10 through the route selection process.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: And then based upon -- I mean,
12 you've been through some environmental NEPA processes --
13 based upon what you heard today, do you think that there
14 might be some problems getting this road approved?
15 MR. JORGE: I believe so, and I've stated that
16 to the mayor.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you mind if I ask him to
18 step back for a second?
19 Amadeo, you got us into this.
20 MR. SAENZ: I was there before Mario.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, I want to use you, one of
22 the most highly placed employees in the department, as a
23 sounding board. I have heard repeatedly from the county
24 commissioners of Hidalgo County that the community is
25 prepared to do what is necessary to acquire additional 248
1 state aid, not their allocation which they're going to get
2 anyway -- and we need to be clear about that. If anyone
3 has ever represented to you that the only way you get
4 state transportation money is from an RMA, that is not
5 true, and I would be surprised if anyone ever represented
6 that to you. It is true that every community across the
7 state, whether it's Dallas or Houston or Weatherford,
8 where I live, or Hidalgo County, in order to get more than
9 their normal allocation has to think outside the box.
10 That's the whole point of these programs is to
11 say: if you like the way things are now, that's fine; if
12 you want more than what you're able to do right now for
13 whatever reason, you've got to do it a different way.
14 So my question to you is there are a lot of
15 people in the audience who believe that this road is a
16 direct outgrowth of the RMA and is a dream of a certain
17 commissioner and has been sprung upon them recently. Does
18 the public record indicate that we've been studying a
19 route through San Juan for more than two years?
20 MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. For the record, Amadeo
21 Saenz, assistant executive director for Engineering
22 Operations and previous Pharr District engineer since 1993
23 to 2001.
24 This project was first identified back in the
25 mid '90s as part of the border plan, as part of the 249
1 impacts of NAFTA, around '95-96, and we identified that we
2 needed a corridor to bring traffic from the Pharr Bridge
3 to connect it to US 281 instead of it having to go through
4 city streets, and that's how the project really began.
5 We did some very preliminary route studies
6 where we looked at different options that looked all the
7 way from Jackson Road on the west, up 281, up I Road even
8 further to the east, and identified that based on the
9 time, because it was less populated, the most open area
10 was out in the east of 281, east of I Road, somewhere in
11 that area. We never did identify the exact location.
12 That's done through the NEPA process, that's done through
13 the environmental process.
14 The project has never gone through the full
15 environmental process where you go out there and you
16 identify all the corridors, identify all the constraints
17 within the corridors, and then you present them to the
18 public and then eventually you'll whittle it down to come
19 up this is the best route, and then you get a FONSI
20 clearance on it. That hasn't been done, that would have
21 to still be done.
22 And so this project was identified, it's been
23 in the MPO plans since the mid '90s, and we can go back to
24 the record and be able to show you in all the UTPs and in
25 the MPO plans where this project has shown up. 250
1 The county took it over in 2000 because they
2 were doing the loop study and they identified that this
3 corridor was also a part of their loop study -- it's kind
4 of an inner loop or a connection -- and they were the ones
5 that were taking the lead as part of the loop study.
6 But what would have to happen on this project
7 for it to go is that we have to do a full environmental
8 study on this project. And that's why when the mayor said
9 that the project will go on, well, the project was
10 identified by the MPO, the MPO is the body that's
11 responsible for transportation planning for the area, it's
12 made up of elected officials, the city of San Juan has a
13 board member on the MPO, maybe two now, the county has
14 board members. I think there's about 15 or 16 members,
15 all elected officials plus TxDOT that are on the MPO for
16 Hidalgo County.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll ask you the same question
18 I asked Mario. Based on your years of experience with the
19 NEPA process, is there any doubt in your mind, based upon
20 what you've heard today, that whoever wished to build a
21 toll road or tax road there was going to have a very
22 difficult time?
23 MR. SAENZ: I would think so. Just in
24 listening today, there was no public support for building
25 any kind of road. 251
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: In fact, if Daniella shows up
2 and testifies, they're probably going to say no, aren't
3 they.
4 MR. SAENZ: Yes. If there's no public support
5 to build a facility there.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: You throw in that guy with the
7 good smile, I guarantee you they're going to say no.
8 (General laughter.)
9 MR. SAENZ: And that's part of the NEPA
10 process. You go through and will have public involvement,
11 and the people will say we don't want the road for this
12 reason or that reason or the other reason, and if we can
13 go back and show how those reasons that they've addressed
14 or they've brought up can be mitigated or can be
15 addressed, then maybe that road will be built, but if not,
16 that road won't be built there.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ms. Andrade, I must go take
18 care of some personal business, and you are the next
19 senior member, so would you please take the chair and take
20 this wherever you wish, and I shall return.
21 MS. ANDRADE: Be glad to. Can I sit here so I
22 can feel powerful?
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Whatever you want to do.
24 (General laughter.)
25 MS. ANDRADE: Amadeo, I also have a question. 252
1 Ted, did you have any questions?
2 MR. HOUGHTON: Yes.
3 MS. ANDRADE: Go ahead.
4 MR. HOUGHTON: It was said that the former
5 mayor was the chairman of the MPO. Mario, what was the
6 vote of the MPO on looking at this as an opportunity?
7 MR. JORGE: The idea of the toll road came into
8 being when we started discussing the use of the Texas
9 Mobility Fund. At that time, the MPO voted, and I believe
10 it was unanimous, I don't recall if there was anyone that
11 voted against it. But the MPO voted to assign the Texas
12 Mobility Fund dollars that they received which was $66
13 million towards the construction of this toll road, and
14 that was done probably two or three years ago.
15 MR. HOUGHTON: Are there any other projects
16 identified in the formation of the RMA?
17 MR. JORGE: Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, the
18 original idea of the RMA really was for the entire county
19 loop, that's where really the idea came about. We've also
20 identified a project that's a relief route around La Joya.
21 We've held already four public meetings on that project,
22 we have presented it as a toll road, and it has been
23 accepted and we've gone through public involvement. So
24 that's another project that this RMA can pick up. And
25 there's a few other ones that could involve connections to 253
1 the various international bridges that we have.
2 MR. HOUGHTON: I just want to wrap up to the
3 group -- because, Mayor, I spoke to you -- and I'll
4 reiterate once again that the decisions are not made here,
5 they're made locally. There are several, obviously -- how
6 would I say -- safeguards put into place that allow public
7 input in the environmental process, as you heard from our
8 assistant executive director and your district engineer
9 have said, that the public involvement -- you haven't
10 gotten there yet -- will be very difficult if the
11 community is united against this asset. And I firmly
12 believe, like I said when I was down in Weslaco, that the
13 decisions are made there, not here.
14 There's two separate issues here: the RMA is
15 to move mobility projects that are funded in the out
16 years, 10, 15, 20 years from now, and bringing them
17 forward to make quality of life issues in your community
18 better, not to build toll roads where you don't want them.
19 And I think that's the incumbent upon the group in this
20 room and the community leaders to get with the MPO as well
21 during the environmental process to let them know your
22 feelings.
23 But the RMA is not the issue, the RMA is to
24 move projects forward that will allow you a better quality
25 of life. If you don't want the toll road, during the 254
1 environmental process I think this group plus more needs
2 to show up during that process and at your MPO which your
3 former mayor was chairman of. So I think there are many
4 safeguards in place that allow you to be heard and I think
5 eventually come out with what you'd like.
6 And Madame Chair, that's my thoughts.
7 MS. ANDRADE: Mayor, first of all, I would like
8 to thank you and all the residents of San Juan that woke
9 up at four o'clock this morning to get dressed to travel
10 to Austin. I want you to know that I believe that San
11 Juan is lucky to have you live in San Juan. Thank you so
12 much for doing that.
13 I also visited with you. As I told you, I was
14 visiting your area when I picked up the newspaper that
15 Sunday and read the article of how dissatisfied you were
16 with what was going on, and immediately called Mario and
17 said, Let's go meet with the mayor.
18 But as I shared with you, and I feel the same
19 way, is that this is a local issue and that I realize that
20 at the time you'd been recently -- I think you've been in
21 office now six months?
22 MAYOR SANCHEZ: That is correct.
23 MS. ANDRADE: And I congratulate you because
24 you are doing a great job, but this was done before your
25 term and the mayor was chair of the MPO, and those were 255
1 questions that I asked, and we don't get involved in local
2 issues. I mean, this is what we're promoting is we're
3 promoting for local decisions.
4 And I want to ask Mario. Mario, when I visited
5 with the mayor, we have alternate routes also to connect
6 to the Pharr Bridge. Right? This isn't the only route
7 that we're looking at. Is that correct?
8 MR. JORGE: Yes, that's correct. Really, the
9 south segment of the loop, the Hidalgo County Loop, would
10 essentially connect all of the international bridges.
11 Through the route selection process, we have
12 looked at several alternative routes, like Mr. Saenz
13 mentioned. This was the one that looked like the
14 preferred route because of the least number of existing
15 relocations and existing infrastructure. But there are
16 other routes that can be looked at. Like I mentioned to
17 the mayor, we've taken a step back, we've asked the county
18 to take a step back and look at what routes are available.
19 MS. ANDRADE: But during my visits, we've heard
20 from other communities that are interested in those routes
21 that is right now being proposed. Is that correct?
22 MR. JORGE: That is correct.
23 MS. ANDRADE: So we do have other communities
24 that are interested?
25 MR. JORGE: Absolutely, yes, ma'am. We had a 256
1 workshop maybe about three weeks ago or so and there were
2 several communities there involved, some of which
3 alternative routes would go through their communities and
4 they basically said that they wouldn't have a problem
5 going through them. We just have to go through that
6 process of public involvement because there are impacts
7 also on those routes, we're going to relocate other
8 people.
9 MS. ANDRADE: So nothing is set in stone at
10 this time as to where the route is going to be.
11 MR. JORGE: That is correct.
12 MS. ANDRADE: And I believe that I first
13 visited your area in 2004 when it was the Citrus Festival,
14 and this was a project that was brought to my attention at
15 that time, so I know that this project has been going on
16 for a while now.
17 Do you feel that with what you're hearing now
18 that we're going to continue those discussions with the
19 other communities about this proposed route?
20 MR. JORGE: Yes, absolutely. What I mentioned
21 the workshop we had is that we have a responsibility to
22 address the transportation needs of the county and the
23 route selection process is one that we utilize on every
24 project. Like we've said already, through the public
25 involvement process, if a particular route is not desired 257
1 by that community, we have to look elsewhere, we have no
2 other choice, so we will definitely do that.
3 MS. ANDRADE: Okay, thank you.
4 MR. ARCANTE: Mr. Chairman, could I answer one
5 question about the prior administration, and their
6 signatures are on those resolutions I presented in the
7 packet. Up until the end of calendar 2004, beginning of
8 calendar 2005, the impression of the city of San Juan was
9 that this was going to be a full-blown expressway with
10 access points and frontage roads which would lead to some
11 commercial development in the future that would offset
12 these losses that we're talking about today.
13 The former mayor has signed those resolutions,
14 and I think the basis of his opposition is just that: the
15 form of the project changed. I'm not ready to say that it
16 was because of some deception. I think there was a lack
17 of money and this was a way to try to get the project
18 going, but again, if we get a full expressway that is like
19 Expressway 83 that's got potential for commercial
20 development, that's something that the city was receptive
21 to when we first heard about this in the mid '90s. The
22 form of this changed at the end of last year and at the
23 beginning of this year.
24 MR. HOUGHTON: Well, that begs the question
25 then. Then there has been a road planned, and there has 258
1 been a road planned to put truck traffic on it.
2 MR. ARCANTE: Yes. To use the phrase footprint
3 is right, that's right.
4 MR. HOUGHTON: Well, that's a question that
5 we've been asking all along: Has there been a road
6 planned to put truck traffic right through the middle of
7 San Juan?
8 MR. ARCANTE: Well, I think there's been an
9 intention. This was identified as one of the corridors
10 and when it was selected as one of three finalists.
11 MR. HOUGHTON: No matter if it's an expressway,
12 you're willing to put up with all the trucks that come
13 right through the middle of San Juan if it's an
14 expressway.
15 MR. ARCANTE: Well, no, that's a little bit
16 different too. When you start talking about HAZMAT
17 routes -- and again, the name of this corridor has changed
18 in the last few months four or five times, as the mayor
19 mentioned, and this is what's very outputting to our
20 citizens. We do not know exactly what the intentions of
21 the county officials are. That is the problem.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, the reason why we're
23 having all of this dialogue, I think it was the mayor or
24 perhaps one of the witnesses before that said we have said
25 we don't want to put a road where people don't want it to 259
1 be, where communities don't want it to be.
2 You know, you live your life, all of us,
3 whether it's San Juan or Weatherford, according to certain
4 general presumptions, and every day you make exceptions
5 for your presumptions based on the facts laid in front of
6 you, all of us do that every day. The guy that farms his
7 land does that, the mayor does that in her legal practice,
8 the commissioner did that when he was running the school.
9 That's the way life is for all of us.
10 But we're not too interested in facing a
11 community that is united and says no and saying yes
12 anyway. On the other hand, we are very interested in
13 addressing the transportation challenges of every part of
14 this state, whether it's Dallas or Hidalgo County. So
15 it's important for us to listen to testimony that's really
16 not about what's on our agenda -- and a lot of what we
17 heard today really isn't about what is on our agenda -- to
18 get a sense of what's right and what's wrong.
19 And my suspicion is at the end of this
20 afternoon your citizens are going to know clearly that
21 this commission controls where roads are built and we
22 don't see a reason to build this particular road, but
23 that's different from the county commissioners' decision
24 to form an RMA which we think is a good decision,
25 generally. 260
1 So we want to be sure we understand the facts
2 before we make a vote because we don't talk before we
3 vote.
4 MR. ARCANTE: And I only mention it, Mr.
5 Chairman, because I think you might have other counties
6 that are going to form RMAs that are going to bring this
7 exact same set of fact circumstances, and to know that a
8 community's expectations are one thing and then when it
9 turns out to be something else or is presented in a
10 different format, you get the kind of reaction that you
11 got from the city of San Juan.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: And I have to tell you, too --
13 and I'm sure in your capacity you run into this -- we
14 spend 90 percent of our time responding to and attempting
15 to level lies, distortions and untruths. We tolerate them
16 because we're public servants, like you are -- we have
17 to -- but we very seldom let a lie or a distortion or an
18 untruth lay, we always make sure people understand.
19 MR. ARCANTE: We have to.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: You can say what you want to
21 say but if we don't think it's the truth, we're going to
22 say it's not the truth.
23 You know, we heard a witness today offer some
24 opinions of a former supreme court justice about the
25 legality of an RMA. That would be the same supreme court 261
1 justice that ran, some would say, racist campaign against
2 Xavier Rodriguez to unseat the first Republican Latino
3 supreme court justice in the state's history. That would
4 be the same former supreme court justice that represented
5 those who wished to keep minorities out of colleges and
6 universities in the Hopwood case.
7 But that's okay. We listened to that person's
8 testimony and let that person offer that former supreme
9 court justice's name because we wanted her to be on the
10 record that she, and presumably you, approve of being
11 represented by people who are not interested in leveling
12 the playing field in this state, as our governor is, and
13 who aren't interested in giving opportunities to every
14 part of this state, as this governor is.
15 We like for that kind of stuff to get on the record where
16 we can bat it down.
17 MR. ARCANTE: You're doing your duty as the
18 chairman of this commission and I think we're doing our
19 duty as citizens to give you the full set of facts.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: And just as a populist, I'm
21 not too cool about building a road right next to some
22 young lady's best friend's house anyway, but I've still
23 got to think about the bigger picture of the county,
24 that's our responsibility.
25 MR. ARCANTE: Oh, yes, we understand that too. 262
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted? Hope?
2 MS. ANDRADE: I'm done.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: We're going to vote in a
4 second, Mario. It's been this way for years, three years
5 we've been taking this, and we want each of you to know
6 that however the vote turns out, your time you spent here
7 will be rewarded. In the end we think you will be happy
8 with the outcome.
9 We've also got to tell you we believe in the
10 RMA process. We think it's a good framework for counties
11 to take control of their own future and receive the
12 financial benefits that the state is prepared to extend
13 counties which are prepared to do things differently.
14 So should it be the case that we approve this
15 RMA, don't think that we are approving the state investing
16 money in a project that doesn't make sense, that would
17 disrupt lives. It is our hope that the community, through
18 the mayor, will negotiate, if the RMA is created, with the
19 RMA board, for either a transaction that is profitable for
20 the community or for a route that doesn't include the
21 community at all, and we will be watching closely based
22 upon the testimony that you've offered.
23 Do you want to close? Just don't be building
24 roads where people are too angry.
25 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, Chairman. 263
1 I would simply close by saying that the staff
2 would recommend approval of this minute order which would
3 create this regional mobility authority.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: But would not approve that
5 particular project.
6 MR. RUSSELL: That is correct.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
8 staff recommendation and explanation, you've heard
9 testimony both for and against, and you've heard parallel
10 testimony from other members of the staff. Do you have
11 any other questions or comments?
12 MS. ANDRADE: So moved.
13 MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
15 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
16 aye.
17 (A chorus of ayes.)
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
19 (No response.)
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you,
21 Phil.
22 MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to take a moment to
24 say, Mayor, I am sincere, we really do listen when people
25 come up here, and our staff listens, and this staff knows 264
1 that we are creatures of a governor who is very interested
2 in building for people and not against people.
3 We implore you to negotiate tough, and
4 Commissioner Andrade tells me she thinks you're capable of
5 negotiating tough.
6 MAYOR SANCHEZ: Oh, yes.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Negotiate tough with your
8 commissioners or their appointees or help them find
9 another place to put it. We want to help this
10 commissioners court. Despite your disagreement, we think
11 these commissioners are trying to do the best thing for
12 the region and for the county, and we'll help them go
13 someplace else if that's what's necessary, or we'll help
14 them make it better for your city if that's what's
15 necessary too. We will be your partners; you'll be proud
16 of this when it's over with.
17 MAYOR SANCHEZ: Thank you for listening to us.
18 MS. ANDRADE: Thank you, Mayor, and be safe.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike?
20 MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to agenda item number
21 14, our State Infrastructure Bank for this month. It
22 deals with Smith County for recommending final approval
23 for a SIB application for the Duck Creek Water Supply
24 Corporation. As soon as Mr. Bass gets up here, we'll
25 start. 265
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Fast Jimmy Bass. We noticed
2 you ducked out during all of that.
3 MR. BASS: Is there any correlation to Duck
4 Creek?
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Quack.
6 (General laughter.)
7 MR. BASS: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm
8 director of Finance at TxDOT.
9 Agenda item 14 seeks your final approval of a
10 loan in the amount of $583,000 to the Duck Creek Water
11 Supply Corporation to pay for utility relocation made
12 necessary by the expansion of US 69. Interest would
13 accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at
14 a rate of 4-1/2 percent, with payments being made over a
15 period of 15 years.
16 Staff would recommend your approval.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
18 staff's recommendation and explanation. Do you have
19 questions or comments?
20 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
21 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
23 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
24 aye.
25 (A chorus of ayes.) 266
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
2 (No response.)
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
4 MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 15 is our
5 contracts for the month of November, this would be both
6 our maintenance contracts and our highway and our building
7 construction contracts. Thomas?
8 MR. BOHUSLAV: Good afternoon again,
9 commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav, director of
10 the Construction Division.
11 Item 15(a)(1) is for consideration of award or
12 rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on November
13 2 and 3 of 2005, with an engineer's estimated cost of
14 $300,000 or more. We had 15 projects we let, average
15 almost 3-1/2 bidders per project.
16 We have one project we recommend for rejection
17 and that is in Bexar County, it's project number 4012. We
18 had three bidders; this project is 47 percent over. This
19 is a very large proposed contract, performance-based
20 striping contract and button contract for the district.
21 It's the first time we've done this type of contract, and
22 we'd like to go back and see if we can either start
23 smaller or make some changes to the contract to see if we
24 can get it at a better price.
25 Staff recommends award with the exception 267
1 noted.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
3 staff's recommendation and explanation. Do you have
4 questions or comments?
5 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
6 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
8 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
9 aye.
10 (A chorus of ayes.)
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
12 (No response.)
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
14 MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 15(a)(2) is for
15 consideration of award or rejection of highway and
16 building construction contracts let on November 2 and 3 of
17 2005. We had 58 projects let; had an average of 3.8
18 bidders per project, almost.
19 We have three projects we recommend for
20 rejection. The first project is in Gregg County, project
21 number 3004. We had two bidders, 58 percent over; the bid
22 was about $3.7 million. This is an enhancement project
23 with the City of Gladewater consisting of streetscape
24 improvements. The city would have to pay for the overruns
25 on this project so they're requesting that we do a 268
1 resdesign, try to save some costs on the overruns.
2 The next project recommended for rejection is
3 project number 3016 in Potter County. There were three
4 bidders; it was 44 percent over. The bid was about
5 $342,000. This a crack-pouring contract. These prices
6 are not in line with what we've recently been receiving
7 for crack-pouring work; we'd like to go back and rebid it
8 and see if we can get better prices for the work.
9 The last project recommended for rejection is
10 in Runnels County. We had two bidders for this project;
11 it's 58 percent under. A contractor submitted a bid with
12 a mathematical bid error in it; basically they put a price
13 of $2.10 and that price is normal price for a gallon but
14 this unit was by the ton, so it's about 240 factor off,
15 so their error was almost half of the total bid of what
16 they intended to bid. They meet the criteria for bid
17 error and we do recommend rejection based on the bid error
18 submitted by the contractor.
19 Staff recommends award of all projects with the
20 exceptions noted.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
22 staff recommendation and explanation. Do you have
23 questions or comments?
24 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
25 MS. ANDRADE: Second. 269
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
2 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
3 aye.
4 (A chorus of ayes.)
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
6 (No response.)
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
8 MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 15(b)(1) and (b)(2)
9 will be presented by Amadeo concerning contract claims.
10 MR. SAENZ: Good afternoon, commissioners.
11 Again for the record, Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive
12 director for engineering operations.
13 Item 15(b)(1) is a minute order before you that
14 approves a claim settlement for a contract by Dynamic
15 Technical Services, L.P., for project TWP-2004-2005 in Bee
16 County in the Corpus Christi District.
17 On October 5, the TxDOT Contract Claims
18 Committee considered the claim and made a recommendation
19 for settlement to the contractor, and the contractor has
20 accepted. The committee considers this to be a fair and
21 reasonable settlement of the claim and recommends your
22 approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
24 recommendation and explanation. Do you have questions or
25 comments? 270
1 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
2 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
4 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
5 aye.
6 (A chorus of ayes.)
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
8 (No response.)
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
10 MR. SAENZ: Thank you. Item 15(b)(2) is
11 another claim that we had, also with the same contractor,
12 Dynamic Technical Services, L.P., for a project also TWP-
13 2004-2005, this time in Falls County in the Waco District.
14 Again, on October 5 the Contract Claims
15 Committee considered the claim, made a recommendation of
16 settlement to the contractor, and the contractor accepted.
17 The committee considers this to be a fair and reasonable
18 settlement of the claim and recommends your approval.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
20 staff recommendation and explanation. Do you have
21 questions or comments?
22 MR. HOUGHTON: Move to approve.
23 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
25 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying 271
1 aye.
2 (A chorus of ayes.)
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
4 (No response.)
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
6 MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 16 is to
7 acknowledge a contribution to the Katrina Assistance
8 Relief Effort, and that will be presented by Ed.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, how is it that on his
10 maiden voyage, wherein we would have done our best to
11 embarrass him -- even though he's been before me before --
12 we wait till the last when everybody is gone and everybody
13 is tired. Mike, what did he pay you?
14 MR. BEHRENS: Lots. I got a cookie.
15 (General laughter.)
16 MR. SERNA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
17 commissioners, Mr. Behrens.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you remember how it was?
19 MR. SERNA: Yes, sir, I do. Having been born
20 down in the Valley, I think that just kind of maybe the
21 luck of the draw that they wore the commissioners out,
22 just kind of that natural luck.
23 This minute order is to acknowledge a
24 contribution of $10,000 from the American Association of
25 State Highway and Transportation Officials to fund the 272
1 Katrina Assistance and Relief Effort that was created by
2 TxDOT employees and is actually managed by TxDOT employees
3 outside of TxDOT.
4 The fund was originally created to assist
5 Louisiana and Mississippi DOT employees that were affected
6 by Hurricane Katrina. Afer Hurricane Rita struck the
7 Texas-Louisiana coast, we expanded it to include relief
8 for TxDOT employees.
9 There's currently approximately $75,000 in the
10 fund. It's our intent to distribute the funds next week.
11 About $42,000 have been designated by the employees that
12 have contributed as well as AASHTO to go to the TxDOT
13 employees that have been affected, and the remaining
14 balance, $33,000, to go to the Mississippi and Louisiana
15 employees.
16 We'll distribute the funds to Louisiana and
17 Mississippi to one designation point and they'll
18 distribute it to their employees. We have our district
19 engineers in Lufkin and Beaumont where we have affected
20 employees that have determined an objective method for
21 delivering the funds to the affected employees there.
22 I do move passage.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think it is a wonderful
24 thing that we have done. It makes me ever more prouder to
25 be part of the family. 273
1 MR. HOUGHTON: Absolutely, that goes without
2 saying. I'm glad you said it. We're not going to give
3 these funds to the mayor of New Orleans, are we, to
4 distribute?
5 MR. SERNA: No, sir, we are not. They are only
6 for department of transportation employees.
7 MR. HOUGHTON: I was going to hope that you'd
8 say that.
9 MR. SERNA: Yes, sir. One thing I would add,
10 aside from this $10,000 contribution, the majority of the
11 funds that have been raised have come in the form of $5,
12 $10 and $20 checks, bake sales, barbecues, chili cook-
13 offs, et cetera, in our district offices statewide and
14 then here in the divisions in Austin.
15 MR. HOUGHTON: Do we acknowledge that in some
16 formal sense like in the newsletter? Did I see that in
17 the newsletter?
18 MR. BEHRENS: Well, we're down to the time now
19 that we're going to end it and start distributing, and we
20 can definitely give back feedback to the whole TxDOT
21 family.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: And how proud the
23 commissioners are.
24 MR. HOUGHTON: Yes, we are very proud of them.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: And how grateful we are to 274
1 AASHTO for participating.
2 MR. SERNA: Yes, sir.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the
4 recommendation and explanation.
5 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
6 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
8 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
9 aye.
10 (A chorus of ayes.)
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
12 (No response.)
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
14 MR. SERNA: Thank you, sir.
15 MR. SERNA: Ed, we're going to wait and
16 schedule you for when we've got a roomful. This is too
17 easy.
18 MR. SERNA: I'll come back. Last time I was
19 actually asking for money for the USAS project, a pretty
20 big chunk of money, $30 million, as I recall, so it's a
21 lot easier when I'm asking for approval to receive money.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Actually, that was a while
23 ago.
24 MR. SERNA: Yes, sir, that was back in, I want
25 to say, '89. Long time ago. 275
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: We've come a long way but I've
2 got a pot gut and look older and you look the same.
3 MR. SERNA: No, I don't. Thank you, though,
4 but I don't think I do.
5 (General laughter.)
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Ed.
7 MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 17 is our
8 routine minute orders. They're all duly listed in front
9 of you; they've also been posted as required. I've looked
10 them all over; I don't know of any of them that would
11 affect any of you personally, so we recommend approval.
12 MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
13 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second.
15 All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying
16 aye.
17 (A chorus of ayes.)
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
19 (No response.)
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
21 MR. HOUGHTON: And especially the one that
22 says: Yippee, we can go 75 on Highway 90 now. That's an
23 editorial remark.
24 MR. BEHRENS: I'd like to just go to agenda
25 item 19. We have no need for an executive session, we 276
1 have no one signed up for open comment, and then we can go
2 back to 18.
3 MR. HOUGHTON: The chairman's friend didn't
4 sign up for open comment?
5 MR. BEHRENS: He withdrew.
6 Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we would recess
7 briefly enough to go into the delegation room to meet with
8 our friends and colleagues from Utah.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Then we'll come back out and
10 entertain a motion after that.
11 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 277
1 BRIEFING WITH UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: We are going to be back in
3 order. We didn't adjourn, we recessed for a moment to
4 change locations, and now we're back in order, and we
5 would like for our guests to tell us exactly what it is
6 they want to talk about because we're happy to have you
7 here. You choose what you want to talk about.
8 MR. NJORD: Well, just by way of introduction,
9 John Njord, I'm the executive director in Utah. And it's
10 a pleasure for us to be here and I appreciate you hosting
11 us here.
12 We've been watching from afar what's going on
13 in your state and have been astonished by it and want to
14 learn. Appreciate the previous trip that we had here with
15 you, and we learned a great deal. Together with us today
16 is most of our transportation commission. Commissioner
17 Brown is our chairman, and Commissioner Bodily is our
18 vice-chairman, and then we have Commissioner Warnick over
19 here, Commissioner Wells over here, and Commissioner
20 Wilson down here. Two of our commissioners were unable to
21 be with us today.
22 MR. HOUGHTON: How many commissioners do you
23 have?
24 MR. NJORD: Seven. About the same time you
25 went from three to five, we went from five to seven, so 278
1 that's the next transition for you.
2 MS. ANDRADE: Ric is not laughing. He had
3 trouble with the two new ones.
4 (General laughter.)
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: It's not so much the number,
6 from my perspective, as if you can find the kind of
7 people. And maybe in your state that's easy to do, in our
8 state this is a fairly demanding job.
9 Mr. Johnson is not with us right now, but we're
10 all independent business people and we have to work for a
11 living, and it's a full-time job, so it's hard to find a
12 quality person who's independent enough financially to
13 stay independent of the interest groups but not so
14 dependent on their own profession that they can't spend
15 the time.
16 So it's not that the number would bother me so
17 much, it's just trying to find someone that can carry the
18 load, that's really hard to do.
19 MR. HOUGHTON: What is the size of your system
20 in Utah?
21 MR. NJORD: About 6,000 miles of state highway.
22 MR. HOUGHTON: So you have authority over the
23 state highway system?
24 MR. NJORD: Yes.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: You don't supervise the county 279
1 roads and city roads?
2 MR. NJORD: We provide funding to them. About
3 25 percent of what we collect in state fuel taxes,
4 registration fees goes to the local governments for
5 their -- we call them Class B and C roads. Class A are
6 the state highways and Class B roads are county roads and
7 C roads are city streets.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't think we provide that
9 high a percentage, do we? Probably 5 or 6 percent, maybe
10 7.
11 MR. BRACERAS: Is that 80,000 miles on the
12 state system?
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Whatever it is, it's not
14 enough.
15 MR. NJORD: Well, one of the things that we
16 were hoping to talk about today was you all have decided
17 that toll roads is an answer for the future of Texas, and
18 we'd like to understand how you came to that decision, why
19 toll roads are so important to the future of this great
20 state, and what we can learn from that experience that you
21 have had here.
22 MR. BRACERAS: With the last year's
23 legislation, the commission has the authority to establish
24 toll roads on new capacity and to set the fees for that,
25 and we have a facility that may be a feasible route for a 280
1 toll road.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you permitted to use your
3 tax collections as equity for toll roads?
4 MR. BRACERAS: We can.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: See, that was a challenge for
6 us. Our state didn't permit that until 2001, then we
7 fully funded the Mobility Fund in '03. So for us, the
8 constitutional restriction on our gasoline tax and our
9 motor vehicle registration fee and our federal
10 reimbursements were so restrictive that we couldn't put
11 any of the state's tax money into a toll road until 2001.
12 Every commissioner has their own perspective
13 about things. I'll answer your question from three angles
14 and then step back a minute and Ted and Hope will have
15 different angles.
16 I think Governor Perry decided to go down the
17 toll road path -- which is, by the way, politically risky,
18 it's not a guaranteed politically successful venture, and
19 he knew that going into it -- first, because he determined
20 that in our state it's going to be a long time before the
21 legislature and any governor, Democrat or Republican, is
22 willing to increase general tax rates. He just made a
23 rational decision that for a lot of cultural reasons that
24 exist west of the Mississippi River, it's very hard to
25 raise tax rates, it's not impossible, but it's very hard. 281
1 Second, I think he assessed that we were
2 uniquely situated to build toll roads because we already
3 had a comprehensive tax road and it was just full. In
4 other words, there's no urban place in Texas growing to
5 which there's not already a tax road. We don't have any
6 new communities like the Sun City or the Park City or the
7 areas in the northern part of your state. We don't have
8 that. All of our suburban growth is just an extension of
9 our existing urban centers and right next to them, so it
10 became pretty easy to parallel those roads with toll
11 roads, or he opined that it would be easy to parallel
12 those roads, and legitimately say to the consumer: Look,
13 if you don't want to pay the toll, we haven't raised your
14 taxes, stay on the congested tax road, that's okay with
15 me.
16 And then I think, third, he was part of the
17 high-speed rail effort back in the late '80s in our state,
18 something a lot of people don't realize and even fewer
19 remember it, but it was an interesting battle. We passed
20 legislation to authorize high-speed consumer rail in the
21 state, kind of in the dark of night without a whole lot of
22 discussion, not on intention, just kind of the way it
23 happens in Texas, and he got a chance to see firsthand who
24 the real opponents of alternative transportation and
25 alternative to roads really were, and he learned a lot 282
1 from that sort of painful experience. Because I was part
2 of it too and we got our brains beat out. After we passed
3 the legislation, we got our brains beat out.
4 And it never left his mind that toll roads
5 probably would be the only way we would ever sell high-
6 speed rail in our state, the only way we would ever sell
7 high-speed rail would be to say we're going to build this
8 parallel toll road to 35 that you can pay to get onto if
9 you want to, and oh, by the way, since we're building that
10 road, we might as well build a railroad bed for high-speed
11 rail, won't cost us a whole lot more, and then if somebody
12 wants to put the tracks on it and run a train, we can
13 afford it.
14 MR. BRACERAS: So you had a common corridor
15 then for the rail and the road.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: That is the whole notion
17 behind our Trans-Texas Corridor program is that we would
18 buy large enough right of way for our car roads, our truck
19 roads, or utility lines, and our rail lines across state,
20 and that's his view of how we can get high-speed rail in
21 our state, which he thinks we'll need sometime in the next
22 10 to 12 years, economically we'll need it.
23 He, like I, is in the oil and gas business and
24 we have a view of what trade is going to cost in the next
25 few years, and it's not a pretty picture at all. We think 283
1 you can throw out all the hot air, oil and gas is really
2 short, it really is. The Arabs are not sitting on
3 billions of excess barrels, they're pumping every barrel
4 they can get out of the ground, and we're still just
5 barely at supply-and-demand equilibrium. We think the
6 cost of gas is going to be really high. I don't know if
7 the rest of the commission shares that viewpoint or not;
8 that's my take on the toll roads.
9 MS. ANDRADE: Well, I think we've got a state
10 that's growing and yet we can't meet our needs. So I came
11 on the commission after we'd gotten these tools, so for me
12 it was easy to come in and start selling the tools to the
13 communities.
14 And I asked the previous commissioners, you
15 know, what was the message that we took out because we
16 didn't have any money, we couldn't do anything. So here
17 it's about choices. The challenges that we face are
18 educating the communities that they've got this choice,
19 that they've got this option.
20 And so as commissioners we represent the whole
21 state of Texas. I live in San Antonio which is about 77
22 miles from here. And Ted and I were appointed at the same
23 time, we've been on about 22-23 months, and I've spent
24 most of my time in South Texas which has your smaller
25 border communities that feel that they haven't gotten 284
1 enough as it is, so for us to now go in there and say if
2 you want improvements, we're going to have to toll, it's
3 not very favorable.
4 But if we educate them, and what you heard a
5 little while ago was a small community and they don't want
6 a toll road. Well, we're not going to force it, but at the
7 same time, it's our responsibility to educate them that
8 you have to prepare, the growth is coming whether you like
9 it or not. And so we feel that it's our responsibility to
10 educate the communities on the choices they have.
11 MR. HOUGHTON: I think all we have to do is
12 spend some time in Southern California to figure out
13 that's what we don't want to be. Because now we're seeing
14 an exodus out of California into Utah, into Arizona, into
15 Nevada, and into Texas, industry and people. In El Paso
16 we're seeing people selling their homes for $2 million, a
17 million and a half for the same footprint. They get to
18 replicate that home in El Paso plus have investment money
19 to live off of, and the choices they made 20 to 25 years
20 ago out there are the crossroads that we were at and still
21 are -- well, I think we've moved beyond that, we've made
22 the choice, in our community we've established an RMA.
23 But I use the phrase you can't pave your way to
24 prosperity, it's not going to work. There's a prime
25 example. 285
1 What's the road we were on out there? In L.A.,
2 it was going into downtown L.A., it was eleven lanes each
3 way, and it was jammed. But they made those choices years
4 ago not to leverage, not to buy up the corridors, not to
5 do the commuter rail. They have to share rail with the UP
6 and the BNSF. You've all seen it, we've all seen it. But
7 they made a horrible choice.
8 I think that's part of why we determined we're
9 going this way and we have to educate the communities, and
10 most of them are pretty darn good. It's painful, but
11 you've got a choice.
12 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: Is the final approval
13 for a toll road yours, the commission's?
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, it depends on who is
15 going to own the road. If it's a state-owned toll road,
16 yes. If it's one of our regional compacts we set up, it's
17 their final approval.
18 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: So it's delegated.
19 It's an RMA like the discussion you were having?
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: We have to approve their
21 projects because we're going to end up financing part of
22 them, and in some cases almost all of them, and we're okay
23 with that, we don't mind that. I think if they walk
24 through the door, for example, in Austin ten years from
25 now and they're fully self-funding, other than to be sure 286
1 we're okay with the design and the construction and the
2 connectivity to our state system, they're not going to be
3 asking our permission to build their toll roads, they're
4 going to be off and doing it themselves.
5 MR. HOUGHTON: Plus other projects, not just
6 toll roads.
7 MS. ANDRADE: But it's still our asset.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: And we must admit that even
9 though we're far down the road and proud of where we are,
10 we're still all learning too, we're still feeling our way
11 through this, we're adjusting all the time.
12 And I don't say it because he's over there, but
13 we've got one of the best transportation legal staffs, we
14 think, in the nation. Did you catch my comment when I was
15 bantering with my employee about the relationship we have
16 with our employees? We're unusually comfortable with our
17 employees, and so we all talk to them, we call the
18 lawyers, we call the engineers. We don't feel like we
19 have to be formal and write letters to our executive
20 director.
21 If we've got a sense that something is going
22 wrong, each of us calls the financial group or the legal
23 group or the engineering group and say what do you think
24 about this. And our employees are pretty comfortable in
25 telling us if an idea is a bad idea or a good idea, if 287
1 it's legal or not, if it will work or not.
2 But we're still feeling our way through quite a
3 bit of this stuff: how far do you empower a region; how
4 much authority do you really give them? Our guy believes
5 in local and regional control, and unlike a lot of
6 Republicans, he does believe it, he doesn't just say it.
7 He thinks that if you're going to give people the power
8 regionally to raise money and create debt, that you ought
9 to give them an awful lot of authority to be responsible
10 for their actions and not try to keep your hand around
11 their necks.
12 But again, we're feeling through that because
13 the constitution charges the four of us with the
14 responsibility of managing the state's highway system, and
15 we can't just abrogate our responsibility just because we
16 want to, we can't just give it to counties or regions just
17 because we want to, we still have responsibilities.
18 MS. ANDRADE: And our RMAs, the board consists
19 of local but the chair is appointed by the governor. And
20 I think we work very closely. I know the RMA we have in
21 San Antonio, we work very closely, and I tend to be a
22 little more cautious than just letting them go completely,
23 so I kind of watch over them.
24 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: How many RMAs do you
25 have now? 288
1 MS. ANDRADE: We've got five -- six as of
2 today.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: And I guess three or four that
4 we know of that are real close to application, maybe five.
5 We expect that there will be maybe 25 or 30 before the
6 next couple of years is out as people kind of get used to
7 the idea.
8 The one trend we see that I think frightens all
9 of us is we really wish we weren't seeing so many
10 individual county RMAs, we wish there were more multiple-
11 county RMAs applying, but so far we just have the one
12 that's got two counties. Now, North Texas counties are
13 talking about it.
14 MS. ANDRADE: But you know, Mr. Chairman, what
15 I see is that that will happen. I think that they have to
16 also learn to trust each other, and if multiple counties
17 come in together and the weight isn't the same, then
18 there's a mistrust. So I think by them forming their
19 individual counties, I think that they will merge. You
20 hear discussions about it but I think they're all just
21 being cautious. It's new, it's a new thing.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: One of the challenges we have
23 that I'm not sure is in Utah or is in Utah yet, in Texas
24 we have to begin to start worrying a little bit about our
25 inner-city accord in Dallas and Houston, and to a lesser 289
1 extent San Antonio. We absolutely do not want our great
2 cities to go through the same death spiral that Detroit
3 and Philadelphia and perhaps Akron and some of the
4 Midwestern states went through when their suburbs and ex-
5 burbs became their enemies. We don't want that to happen
6 in our state.
7 You know, the political reality is inner-city
8 Texas is for the most part Democrat, suburban Texas is for
9 the most part Republican, an ex-urban Texas is Independent
10 to maybe Conservative Democrat, and as the inner-city
11 depopulates, most leaders in Texas, Republicans and
12 Democrat, don't want to see it just implode. So we're
13 having to kind of work the political minefield of figuring
14 out ways to make suburban leaders feel responsible for
15 inner-city Dallas while they're sitting there listening to
16 inner-city Dallas mayors calling them idiots. It's a hard
17 dynamic to work. But that's important to our governor, in
18 fact, it's very important to him.
19 MR. BRACERAS: That's an interesting position
20 to be in in that a lot of the charges of adding new
21 capacity to the suburbs has been the inducing of the
22 sprawl, and it's going to get on the environmentalists'
23 claim that we shouldn't be adding that new capacity.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm just speaking for myself
25 here, I may not be speaking for Hope and Ted on this one. 290
1 My view is that -- and even my administrative assistant
2 gets on me some about this -- I don't necessarily think
3 that sprawl is bad as long as you're leaving behind a
4 vibrant central city. I do think it's bad for suburban
5 Texas to abandon downtown Houston. I can't think of a
6 worse thing for us than to go through that, and we're not
7 going to if we can help it. But I'm not sure that I think
8 sprawl is a bad thing.
9 I grew up in the country, Hope grew up in the
10 country or in a small city. We kind of think the best
11 thing for everybody is to grow up in small cities. So
12 Mary Ann grew up in New York City and she thinks we're
13 nuts.
14 MS. ANDRADE: But we still like her.
15 (General laughter.)
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you have a different
17 viewpoint about it?
18 MR. HOUGHTON: Well, that's where I think the
19 RMA concept, multi-county -- and we talked about -- I
20 don't know if you heard it today -- Bexar County being San
21 Antonio in the middle and then all these little counties
22 around talking about projects they'd like to have. I
23 believe the coalesce is you've got to have that multi-
24 county RMA where everyone is in the boat, they're all
25 going in the same direction, and they sit around the table 291
1 together in confab, whether it's Houston multi-county
2 RMA -- which we're trying to get done. The chairman is
3 working feverishly up in Dallas-Fort Worth. If he gets
4 that done, we're going to erect a statue up on the front
5 porch here.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: Unless I have my second heart
7 attack and go to my reward.
8 MR. HOUGHTON: Those two communities, Fort
9 Worth always feels disenfranchised from Dallas, but if
10 that could ever come together, I think that's the solution
11 to what he's talking about is you've got everybody
12 understanding what is good for the whole and the parts
13 issue, it all works.
14 But these individual county RMAs, I'm not for
15 them.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: It's a little bit
17 disconcerting. I mean, we're not stopping them because
18 our governor believes in regionalism, local control, but
19 we really wish there would be more multi-county or more
20 metroplex oriented and not county line oriented.
21 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: But you've got Dallas-
22 Fort Worth, how does the MPO fit into that? I mean, is
23 that more the planning?
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: In our state there's one MPO
25 for Dallas-Fort Worth, and is there six counties? 292
1 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: And do you not have a
2 duplication then if you have an RMA and an MPO?
3 MR. BRACERAS: The RMAs and MPOs are separate
4 entities.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Only because the federal
6 government requires the MPO to be by itself and state law
7 requires an RMA board to be set up separately. But in
8 reality, the RMA can't build a project the MPO doesn't
9 approve, so they end up working in partners.
10 And the fiscal reality is the RMA and the MPO
11 can't do a project TxDOT doesn't approve, so it ends up
12 being a partnership at the regional level where our
13 district engineer, the MPO and the head of the RMA are
14 working together to develop the regional plan. That's how
15 we see it evolving and that's how it's worked so far.
16 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: I had a question
17 that's been partially answered, how you piece together, if
18 most of your RMAs are on a single-county basis, doesn't it
19 leave you with a lack of continuity between cities? How
20 are you dealing with the main corridor, say, between
21 Dallas and Houston or Houston and San Antonio and that
22 sort of thing.
23 MR. HOUGHTON: I think you heard that today
24 from our district engineer in Houston. Until the
25 hurricane blew through, he didn't take really much notice 293
1 on what happened outside his boundary. And I think our
2 challenge is to get people thinking beyond the boundaries
3 all over on how it affects your cities leading in.
4 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: But can you initiate
5 some progress in that direction if you don't get an RMA
6 started in those areas?
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, right now the state is
8 standing by and fills in the gap. Right now the state is
9 sitting there and when Comal County and Guadalupe County
10 and Bexar County don't talk about a project, we step in
11 and force the conversation or we might even take over the
12 two smaller counties' role in the project and carry their
13 load.
14 But you make a good point which is what we hope
15 the end result of the RMA process is, is those counties
16 will recognize that it's in their best interest to
17 compact together and plan together.
18 MR. HOUGHTON: And finance together.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: And finance together. And we
20 think that will happen over time. There are a lot of
21 leaders in the state working towards that.
22 MR. SAENZ: And TxDOT also has the authority to
23 build and develop toll roads, so we can and we do work
24 with counties to kind of connect between the dots, you
25 might say. 294
1 MR. BRACERAS: So is there three different ways
2 that toll roads happen in Texas: through the RMAs,
3 through the toll division as a TxDOT toll road, and you
4 also have the public-private initiative, and how does that
5 fit into that?
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: I guess there's four ways,
7 there's county toll authorities. Right?
8 MR. HOUGHTON: Harris County has a toll
9 authority.
10 MR. SAENZ: You have a regional toll authority,
11 a little bit different than an RMA.
12 MR. BRACERAS: So why is there an advantage to
13 go one way or another?
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: As a practical matter, McLain
15 Trucking might see an economic advantage to proposing a
16 toll road from Laredo to the Port of Corpus Christi that
17 the counties themselves wouldn't see, or the state
18 wouldn't see, or an individual county within them wouldn't
19 see. That's one example.
20 Another example is, to just reverse it, Nueces
21 County might see a deepwater port advantage for them if
22 they had a heavy-duty truck lane directly to Laredo, so
23 they might propose to build that toll road as a one-, or
24 two- or five-county RMA to do nothing more than make their
25 deepwater port a reality. 295
1 Contrast that to, I think, the Central Texas
2 RMA which is proposing to build its toll road not so much
3 to relieve congestion -- although they argue that -- what
4 they're really trying to do is build a cash flow base 20
5 years from now for when they really need the cash in this
6 part of the state for transportation.
7 The truth is -- I wouldn't dare say this --
8 well, I guess I'm on the record -- I wouldn't dare go out
9 and beat the drum about it because they're all friends of
10 mine, but the truth is congestion in Austin is really not
11 that bad. Congestion in Houston and Dallas is bad. In
12 Austin it's just uncomfortable, but we have urban problems
13 in Dallas and Houston.
14 Their toll road plan really isn't necessary for
15 today's congestion but it will be very necessary for the
16 cash flow necessary for congestion 20 years from now. And
17 I think they know that, I think those leaders believe that
18 and they're acting on.
19 Those are the examples I can think of. It just
20 depends on what the situations are.
21 We're going to build a toll road with the
22 private sector called the Trans-Texas Corridor because,
23 frankly, we want to attract jobs away from other states
24 and from Mexico and Canada. We think the way to do that
25 is to give manufacturers the opportunity to go 90 miles an 296
1 hour, truck or train, and get all the water and
2 electricity they need at a central common point close to
3 affordable labor, and we think if we provide that
4 backbone, we'll attract a lot of jobs to our state.
5 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: Will you contribute
6 financially to that?
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: If it's necessary. We're
8 thinking right now it's not going to be necessary. We're
9 thinking that the naturally attractive cash flow corridors
10 are being built on time and by the time the next one is
11 ready, the tolls themselves will pay most of the freight
12 of building the road.
13 It may come a day when we have to contribute
14 some, and we'll catch a lot of scrutiny from the public
15 when we do that and we'll need to be able to defend our
16 decision to do it. But for right now, it doesn't appear
17 so, it appears the private sector is going to pay for most
18 of it.
19 MR. HOUGHTON: Trade routes are shifting this
20 way.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, we're giving up those
22 tolls for the next 50 years or the biggest chunk of them,
23 so in a sense that's tradeoff. If you thought you were
24 going to get a piece of those tolls for a major corridor
25 like this, you're probably not going to get a lot. But 297
1 our philosophical approach is if we can shift 15 percent
2 of the congestion from Interstate 35 to this toll road,
3 and if we can attract manufacturing corporations to build
4 plants that employ 500 to 1000 people all up and down that
5 corridor, then that's plenty enough benefit to the state
6 of Texas.
7 We don't care if Cintra or Fluor make money off
8 of it, the benefit we're getting is right there and it's
9 obvious and it's in front of us.
10 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: And you've transferred
11 the risk too, haven't you?
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Something I keep reminding all
13 those who complained about, we're also transferring the
14 risk of the unknown. If Mr. Perry is right about the
15 price of oil and gas, it might be the case that gas tax
16 collections and use of the roads are not going to be as
17 bad as we think.
18 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: Who owns that road?
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: We own the road.
20 MR. HOUGHTON: It's a concession.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: The private sector company
22 operates it, we own it.
23 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: Have you got numerous
24 people coming to you to do just that? I mean is that
25 happening here? 298
1 MR. HOUGHTON: We've got six CDAs?
2 MR. SAENZ: Six CDAs.
3 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: What's a CDA?
4 MR. SAENZ: Comprehensive development
5 agreement. It's the mechanism we use.
6 MR. HOUGHTON: Six and we're negotiating one
7 right now that have applied that are in the hopper, in
8 Dallas, San Antonio.
9 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: What length of road
10 are you talking here?
11 MR. HOUGHTON: The Trans-Texas Corridor is --
12 well, the one we're negotiating today is 45 miles. We're
13 building another segment that's another 41 miles.
14 What's SH-121, how long?
15 MR. SAENZ: 121 is 12 miles?
16 MR. HOUGHTON: 1604 in San Antonio?
17 MR. SAENZ: 1604 in San Antonio is close to 50
18 miles.
19 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: So each of those are
20 being built under one of these?
21 MR. SAENZ: Comprehensive development
22 agreement.
23 MR. HOUGHTON: Which we've transferred the
24 risk. The private sector is bringing the capital.
25 MR. SAENZ: I think we are getting some firms 299
1 from abroad, from Europe, from Australia that are bringing
2 in those types of models where they will build and
3 operate.
4 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: Is 50 years a normal
5 time?
6 MR. HOUGHTON: Fifty years on CDA for Trans-
7 Texas Corridor -- I'm sorry -- 70 years.
8 TxDOT STAFF MEMBER: Fifty for Trans-Texas
9 Corridor, 70 for toll roads.
10 MR. NJORD: You're financing this through
11 Cintra which is a Spanish company. Any concerns about
12 bringing in European money or Asian money? How are people
13 reacting?
14 MR. HOUGHTON: Well, in Texas you've got that
15 foreigner attitude, but when the chairman talks about
16 transferring that risk and you're not going to be paying
17 tax dollars, if you have a choice to use that road, we
18 start breaking down those barriers, and that's the
19 education process, bringing new capital to the table.
20 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: I think the people
21 look at it that the money is going to leave Texas and go
22 to Spain, but the money from Spain is coming to Texas
23 first to build it.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Saying what somebody else has
25 already said, but one of the things that we expressed to 300
1 your legislative delegation when they were down here was
2 to pull any kind of variation of this off to Utah version
3 of this, we have some suggestions for you.
4 One is to always say to people focus on what
5 you need, not on what the other guy is getting. Of
6 course, I suspect your culture probably lets that happen,
7 but you've got to say that to people because people start
8 down these rabbit trails. You know, the Spanish are
9 getting all your money. Well, you know what, if we get a
10 road that we need, if we bring jobs to the state, if we
11 relieve congestion from our north-south backbone, what do
12 we care if some Spaniards make some money. What do we
13 care?
14 And what we need is the road, we don't need to
15 worry about anything else, and as long as you, a middle-
16 class working Texan, have the option of driving that less
17 congested tax road or paying and driving that high-speed
18 toll road, then that's what we stand for, those consumer
19 choices. So don't worry about what the other guy is
20 getting, worry about what we need, what we need is a road.
21 We also suggested to your delegation that you
22 remind people that companies that make profits pay taxes.
23 Taxes go in the common pool and get redistributed to
24 those who need it the most: kids, social services, et
25 cetera. A lot of times people in government forget to 301
1 remind their citizens of that: profits generate jobs,
2 generate taxes, and that flows back to the common pool.
3 MS. ANDRADE: And if I can add one thing,
4 they're forming teams with local businesses, so that gives
5 opportunity, and the people that they hire are local
6 people, so it creates great jobs.
7 MR. NJORD: Well, Zachry is part of that team.
8 MS. ANDRADE: Yes, from my hometown. I mean,
9 some of the money does go back to Spain, but a lot of it
10 stays in the community here in Texas. And like the
11 chairman said, if there's a mother on the road and she's
12 late to pick up her child, I'll bet she's not questioning
13 where the money is going to, she's just going to have a
14 choice.
15 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: How do Texans feel
16 about toll roads?
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, we work for a guy
18 that I would suggest is probably the best politician
19 that's ever worked this state, and one of the ways he is
20 the best is he is from very humble economic origins and he
21 thinks about things that other politicians normally don't
22 think about, and he polls that question a lot, polled it a
23 lot before he went off down this road.
24 If you just lined 100 middle-class Texans and
25 said do you want toll roads, 60 percent would say no, 40 302
1 percent would say maybe, yes, somewhere in between. But
2 if you ask them do you want a 10 cent gasoline tax or do
3 you want an optional toll road, 80 percent will say
4 optional toll road. If you say do you want to be stuck in
5 traffic 30 minutes and no toll road or stuck in traffic
6 ten minutes and pay a toll, 70 percent will say pay the
7 toll.
8 So he's got a pretty good sense that if the
9 argument is just about do I like tolls, the answer is two-
10 thirds no, but if the argument is about higher gas taxes
11 or congestion versus tolls, the numbers exactly reverse
12 themselves.
13 So you want to plan your program on your most
14 congested thoroughfares and you want your commissioners
15 and your legislative partners and your local leaders to
16 constantly beat that drum: we have choices, we can choose
17 congestion, we can choose higher taxes, or we can consumer
18 choice toll roads.
19 So what will happen is there will never be a
20 thousand people in front of that pink building
21 demonstrating for toll roads, that's never going to
22 happen. There may be a thousand people out there some day
23 raising cain about them. But the thousand that are
24 raising cain about them are not the totality of the people
25 who vote in the state, the totality of the people who vote 303
1 in the state are the people who are for the most part
2 using that transportation system. He's pretty good at
3 understanding the difference.
4 The governor has never been concerned about
5 getting 100 percent of the vote, the governor has only
6 always been focused on about 50-plus-one, he understands
7 that concept.
8 So I would say the honest answer is nobody
9 wants tolls, but even more people don't want congestion
10 and they don't want to pay higher gasoline taxes.
11 And I don't know what your situation is in
12 Utah, but in Texas we're a low-tax, low-service, low-
13 regulation state.
14 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: What is your gas tax?
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Twenty cents.
16 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: What is ours? 24.5.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: And a quarter of that right
18 off the top goes to our schools, we get 15 cents of the
19 20.
20 MR. BRACERAS: When we got into the legislative
21 session, the folks that are working for the schools are
22 always giving us the evil eye.
23 (General talking and laughter; some Utah
24 delegation members leaving.)
25 MR. BRACERAS: One of the most powerful things 304
1 I've seen here is the connection that's been made between
2 economic growth and transportation.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: And we speak of it all the
4 time. The commission, the administration and our
5 legislative partners speak of it constantly. We remind
6 people that if you go all the way back to the first
7 footpath over the Appalachians, the first canal in the
8 northeast, economic success in our country has revolved
9 around trade routes and the ability to get goods and
10 services back and forth between two points, and it's never
11 more true than it is today.
12 And particularly with our long common border
13 with the Republic of Mexico. Where traditionally the
14 country looks at Mexico as a source of cheap labor for the
15 United States, our guy looks at Mexico as a source of
16 consumer dollars. He believes that very shortly we're
17 going to be building and sending things into Mexico and
18 selling them and he wants us to be prepared to do that, he
19 wants us to be prepared to make money off the Republic of
20 Mexico. So we have to think that way.
21 MR. NJORD: Your plan is not to take tolls off
22 when these facilities are paid for.
23 MR. HOUGHTON: No.
24 MR. NJORD: Tell us why you came to that
25 conclusion. 305
1 MR. HOUGHTON: Well, that's easy. The state is
2 going to continue to grow and the demand for
3 transportation assets, whether they be concrete or whether
4 they be rail -- and rail will come, and these RMAs have
5 the opportunity to finance rail projects and rubber-tire
6 projects, so it's just a matter of function of continuing
7 that perpetual wave hitting the shore in the form of
8 revenue because we're just going to have to have it.
9 I don't know if you were around when Houston
10 was talking about the growth in the state versus Houston.
11 You're talking 8 million people in year 2025 in Houston,
12 and their demands today include the roads is $7 billion
13 and then include rail relocation on top of that which is
14 $6 billion, that's today, and what's funded is about a
15 billion and a half. So that's why we're not going to take
16 these tolls off.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: From a political perspective,
18 I think this governor is no different from the previous
19 one and the next one, the worst mistake you can make is
20 promise taxpayers something that you don't intend to keep
21 your promise. It doesn't really matter whether you're
22 Republican or Democrat or Liberal or Conservative or
23 Libertarian, you ought not break your word, so if you
24 think you might have to break your word, don't give your
25 word. Don't tell people you're going to take the tolls 306
1 off this road if you think maybe the next guy behind you
2 is not going to do that.
3 In fact, just turn it around and say, look, it
4 might be that tolls are the better way to pay for roads
5 than gasoline tax, it might be that we ought to be
6 thinking about that at 30 years from now as being the way
7 that we build our transportation infrastructure because we
8 can't predict what the fuel efficiency of Ford Explorer is
9 going to be in 20 years, we can't predict if our children
10 are really going to like driving cars as much as we do.
11 I have three daughters that were educated in
12 urban America and they all three are now accustomed to the
13 subway and the commuter rail, and they'd just as soon buy
14 a cup of coffee and plug their laptop in and sit and work
15 while somebody else takes them from Boston to Rhode Island
16 or Connecticut to their job. They don't have the same
17 connection to a car I do. Now, they drive, but I'm just
18 saying you can't predict, nobody can predict what the next
19 generation's internal or external environmentals are going
20 to be, so don't make that promise. It could be that tolls
21 are the best way to pay for transportation.
22 That's the language we use. You know, we're a
23 growing state and we don't know what gasoline tax and
24 motor vehicle registration is going to be in 20 years. So
25 this is a toll road. 307
1 MR. BRACERAS: What are the limitations on how
2 you can use that toll revenue after you've paid off your
3 obligations? Is it unique to each toll facility?
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think I'll let Bob Jackson,
5 our lawyer, answer that question.
6 MR. BRACERAS: What are the restrictions around
7 the use of the toll revenues after you've already paid off
8 your obligations? Is it regional in nature, is it
9 corridor-specific?
10 MR. JACKSON: I would take the rest of the
11 evening on that one so I'll try to simplify it somewhat.
12 On the Trans-Texas Corridor, we can spend it on the
13 corridor or statewide. On a TxDOT toll road the law was
14 just recently broadened. It used to be it had to go right
15 back into a toll road in the region, now it can go into
16 any mode, just about anything.
17 MR. BRACERAS: In that region?
18 MR. JACKSON: Yes.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: And if it's an RMA, it's got
20 to be within that RMA's boundaries.
21 MR. JACKSON: And also in any mode.
22 MS. ANDRADE: But in that region. And that's
23 what I sell communities on is that with the uncertainty of
24 the gas tax, this is your way of controlling your future,
25 you dictate what you want to spend it on so that you don't 308
1 have to come to us and wait for us to make it happen.
2 We had a delegation a couple of months ago that
3 at the end of the meeting the chairman asked them, because
4 they had sat through the whole meeting, and we asked them
5 what they were here for, and they said they were here, we
6 had just funded a project for them. And the chairman
7 asked them how long they had been waiting. Eighteen
8 years. And then they looked like they had been waiting 18
9 years. Did I say that on record? I'm sorry.
10 (General laughter.)
11 MS. ANDRADE: But Ted and I use that, with this
12 you don't have to wait, you truly are in control of your
13 future.
14 MR. HOUGHTON: And then I got a nice thank you
15 note back from them, which really made you feel bad.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Eighteen years and they said
17 thanks.
18 MR. HOUGHTON: They said thank you.
19 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: Does the commission
20 have the approval on these private-public partnerships?
21 Is it your approval to enter into these agreements?
22 MR. BRACERAS: The legislature doesn't look at
23 those individual proposals?
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: No. Now, we should rush to
25 say before we make ourselves sound too good, it is likely 309
1 that attempts will be made to change that in the next few
2 years because the legislature probably didn't realize that
3 we would go after $7 billion contracts. On the other
4 hand, it should also be said that this governor -- who I
5 suspect will be reelected -- will not permit that to
6 happen. Now, when he leaves, the next governor may look
7 at it differently. But this governor believes in
8 executive administration, he thinks that people are
9 elected and appointed to do jobs, the legislature is
10 elected to develop policy. He's served in both places and
11 he has a pretty clear view of that.
12 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: That serves to de-
13 politicize that process from the business's perspective.
14 Is that a good thing?
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think some business
16 guys wish we were more political in our selection process,
17 actually, but we're not. We have a long tradition in our
18 state of decoupling politics and relationships from
19 administration. And I don't know of a commissioner
20 ever -- and there's certainly none now -- that want to
21 blow those lines.
22 Now, do we expect our executive director to not
23 understand politics. Of course we don't expect that. We
24 trust that our executive administration reads the
25 newspaper and understands where the state's leaders want 310
1 to go. Do we expect him to make decisions based on who is
2 the governor's best friend? Absolutely not. We've got
3 walls erected to permit that, we have lawyers that sit in
4 on our meetings, we bring in other state agencies and the
5 federal government to monitor our negotiations. And Rick
6 wouldn't want it any other way.
7 When you're a Republican, you get accused of
8 that enough. It's just part of being a Republican office-
9 holder. You get accused of having rich friends that have
10 contracts all the time. So doesn't play a role in our
11 business at all. That's the best way.
12 MR. BRACERAS: To jump a little bit here, but
13 there doesn't appear to me to be any standard point in the
14 project development process upon which counties will come
15 to the commission requesting for the formation of an RMA.
16 I saw that today that they still have to go through the
17 NEPA process, Amadeo, and determine whether or not there
18 was going to be a road there or not.
19 Does the commission look for a certain process
20 to have been gone through before you're going to consider
21 an RMA?
22 MS. ANDRADE: There's a process that they have
23 to go through.
24 MR. SAENZ: I think it varies. This RMA that
25 we were talking about today that was approved today, 311
1 they've identified several projects. The one that kind of
2 got mixed up in the formation of the RMA was one that's
3 still in the very early stages. Most of them try to get
4 the project to the point where maybe NEPA has already been
5 identified and cleared so you have the route so now you're
6 only dealing with the design issues, the right of way
7 acquisition issues, and construction issues, so you can
8 have a good success story.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: We do have a process. The
10 commissioners court has to hold hearings and pass a
11 commissioners court minute order. In our counties,
12 commissioners take action through minute orders kind of
13 like we do, so we require a county that's going to set up
14 an RMA has to pass, by commissioners court approval, a
15 minute order authorizing the creation of that.
16 And I think that we participate informally with
17 them. I'll give you an example. We have several one-city
18 counties -- El Paso would be a good example -- of course
19 now we changed our law to permit the city of El Paso to
20 form an RMA, but originally we would have never dreamed of
21 letting Webb County form an RMA that didn't include many
22 representatives from the city of Laredo because it's the
23 only city in the county. That would be ludicrous to let
24 that happen. But we conveyed that informally.
25 Our executive administration and our district 312
1 engineers and our area engineers, that pyramid we have,
2 leads right to each county judge, and in Texas our
3 constitution is written kind of presuming the county
4 government is the government most often used by the
5 citizens, so we have lines of communication with county
6 government on a minute-by-minute basis.
7 MR. BRACERAS: So there's no toll feasibility
8 study that's done prior to?
9 MR. SAENZ: Yes.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Not prior to forming an RMA,
11 prior to the project.
12 MR. BRACERAS: So there may not be a feasible
13 project.
14 MR. SAENZ: Most of the time we, TxDOT, have
15 been working, and of course the counties and through the
16 MPOs in putting together the plans, and we do do the
17 feasibility studies, so really the project was already
18 identified in the MPO's long-range plan as a potential
19 toll project or as a toll project.
20 So this project hasn't gone through the NEPA
21 process but the MPO identified it back in the '90s first
22 as a project and then when you have to come up with a
23 financially constrained plan, they looked at it as a good
24 potential toll project. So we did some early feasibility
25 studies. You have a, I guess, back-of-the-envelope 313
1 process where you look at the project to determine very
2 early feasibility.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: But in almost every case, an
4 RMA is going to come to us and say we want to form and we
5 think this is going to be our first project and we'll
6 confirm it later, and we know that they're going to ask us
7 for state equity in that project. There's virtually no
8 toll road out there in our state that an RMA can take and
9 get 100 percent financed. We know we're going to be
10 putting some state equity into every one of them. But
11 we're okay with that.
12 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: How do you decide
13 that, though? Isn't there a chance that this RMA is going
14 to come in with this proposed road and it may not be one
15 of your highest priorities, and you've got all these other
16 priorities?
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: We let executive
18 administration negotiate that.
19 MR. HOUGHTON: We have the process, though, at
20 the local level, the MPO and district engineer and then up
21 through the pyramid that Ric talked about.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Our executive administration
23 backs-stops it and says wait a minute, you're telling me
24 that you ranked 27 projects in your county and you picked
25 the worst ranked one, why don't you pick the highest 314
1 ranked one. That's the process the executive
2 administration would follow, because we don't want roads
3 to nowhere unless we're sure they're going to be a road to
4 somewhere someday.
5 And that's a little bit different for this
6 department than before Mr. Perry came along, and I think
7 uncomfortably so for my staff, and I understand why, but
8 we try to say to the staff don't quite be afraid of the
9 road to nowhere, stop and ask yourself are you building a
10 road that's going to be somewhere someday, because we
11 would kind of like to relieve some congestion before it
12 ever starts if we can accurately predict where that's
13 going to be, and we think our district engineers can do
14 that.
15 MR. NJORD: If I understand the way you operate
16 here, if you're going to fund a project in an RMA, the
17 district engineer is going to be involved with that
18 discussion with the local officials and he or she is going
19 to say: Look, I've got a budget of a billion dollars a
20 year, you're looking for a $10 billion project, there's
21 just no way we're going to build this thing.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Or more logically he might say
23 you're going to need $10 billion from the state because
24 I'm not going to let you get into my budget, I've already
25 got plans for my budget, and the state is not going to 315
1 give you $10 billion for this project, so you need to go
2 pick this project, and you might be able to persuade them
3 to do that.
4 What we're trying to instill in our districts
5 is here is our projected ten-year cash flow stream, here
6 Dallas District is your share. Now you plan the next ten
7 years knowing that we're going to allocate your share of
8 money every year for the next ten years, you go choose
9 your roads.
10 Then maybe the Dallas MPO comes up with a toll
11 project through the county toll authority up there and
12 says TxDOT, we need for you to put in another $200
13 million. The first thing Amadeo is going to do is pick
14 the phone up and call the district engineer and say do you
15 have that $200 million in your allocation and is it
16 important enough for you to take $200 million out of your
17 allocation and put it into this project. And the district
18 engineer is going to say yes or no, probably going to say
19 no.
20 Then Amadeo is going to go to TTA, our
21 financial people, our legal people, and eventually his
22 boss and say I'd like to work this project through the
23 commission. And it's going to find its way to us, and
24 then we're going to decide if we're going to take $100
25 million out of what's left of the unallocated pie and put 316
1 it into that project in the Dallas District or this
2 project in the San Antonio District -- which is what we
3 do.
4 And then we're going to ask rational questions
5 like are you reducing congestion, are you improving
6 safety, are you improving air quality and so on and so
7 forth, what's the economic opportunity in San Antonio if
8 we contribute to this RMA. If it's that important, why
9 didn't the Bexar County MPO recommend it as her first
10 project. Well, it's not the most important to her, but it
11 could be the most important to the region, that might be
12 the answer.
13 MR. BRACERAS: So the fact that a local is
14 willing to form an RMA, willing to leverage state
15 resources, the commission could in a sense be allowing a
16 project to leap-frog what would have been your priority
17 order if there was not that opportunity.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. And what would be the
19 rationale for that? The rationale is almost always going
20 to be a toll road. We figure if that local and regional
21 government is taking the flack for that local and regional
22 toll road, it's probably defensible, it's probably needed,
23 and it probably justifies our leap-frogging the MPO
24 process.
25 Although I want to emphasize, the first thing 317
1 Amadeo does is go to the district engineer and he attempts
2 to negotiate with him or her sucking that cash out of
3 their ten-year allocation. But if it can't be done and
4 Amadeo still feels strong enough to take it to our
5 Turnpike Division, our financial people, our lawyers and
6 his boss, he'll do that, and then if Mike comes to us and
7 says we think this deal in El Paso is worth it, we're
8 going to listen to it.
9 And I don't know how the rest of the DOTs are.
10 We have a unique relationship with our staff.
11 MR. SAENZ: One of the things that the
12 commission has done through the years is said okay, this
13 allocation that we give to the districts, here's your
14 allocation for the next 30 years really, and you can count
15 on this, that you'll be getting this amount of allocation
16 for the next 30 years, put together your plan.
17 MR. BRACERAS: And then the programming of
18 those projects is a district decision?
19 MR. SAENZ: The programming of those projects
20 is a district and an MPO decision.
21 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: But even though they
22 may be doing a project that's not near as important as a
23 project in Houston.
24 MR. SAENZ: Right, but we have already gone
25 through before and have said based on the common pool of 318
1 funds that the department has, we have allocated and said
2 Houston gets 25 percent, based on certain criteria that
3 was put in place, Dallas-Fort Worth gets 30 percent.
4 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: What are those
5 criteria?
6 MR. SAENZ: There is about 15 criteria, and
7 we'll be happy to share that, vehicle miles traveled,
8 percent trucks, conditions of the system.
9 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: Not necessarily
10 specific project-oriented then.
11 MR. SAENZ: No. We used to be project-
12 oriented, we used to select all projects here in Austin.
13 But now, by giving them an allocation and asking them you
14 go out there and you plan and you start from a needs-based
15 plan and then you apply the resources that you have and
16 you apply the new tools, tolling being one of your new
17 tools, any money that saves by bringing in a toll road
18 stays in your region. So you're leveraging the dollars
19 that we have provided you.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: And we should explain to you,
21 that was one of the maybe 15 significant things that we've
22 done since Governor Perry assumed office, and the reason
23 we moved in that direction was there was always this
24 Dallas versus Houston versus the rest of the state. Was
25 the governor from Dallas this four years, was he from San 319
1 Antonio, was he from Houston? And then there was always
2 this was the commissioner from El Paso or San Antonio or
3 Houston and who's cheating who. And what that was doing
4 was that was driving wedges in between the communities of
5 our state, and it spooked Rick.
6 And so we've done a lot of things since he's
7 assumed office to eliminate that crap. For example, our
8 favorite saying is One Texas, One People. We're all in
9 this pot together, so now everybody has got their share of
10 the pot, you know what it is, plan accordingly.
11 And you asked a question that's the weak spot
12 in our approach. There is no doubt that there are some
13 mobility problems in Houston that are worse than the money
14 we're sending to El Paso, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin,
15 Corpus Christi and Brownsville, but the political reality
16 is for the first time in a long time our state is not
17 divided over transportation, our state is united.
18 (General talking and laughter.)
19 MR. SAENZ: As we've given them the allocations
20 and they've put together their plans, then we're going to
21 see how good they're doing on improving congestion and
22 improving safety. We hold them accountable. We have the
23 measures to be able to say you're doing this good.
24 And I guess the way I see, and hopefully we'll
25 get it approved, in the future we will be able to use 320
1 maybe those measurements about what you're doing as a
2 mechanism to even allocate future dollars. If you're not
3 doing very good, we're not going to keep on giving you
4 money to go do the bad projects.
5 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: Is this all projects,
6 not most capacity improvements?
7 MR. SAENZ: This is mostly mobility projects.
8 We still provide the districts allocations for their
9 maintenance and their rehab, and I call it like a block
10 grant, they get an allocation, a bank balance, and they
11 select their projects.
12 But we then look at what the districts are
13 doing with respect to their payment, we have goals in our
14 payment areas. We want to make sure that in the next ten
15 years 90 percent of our roads are going to be good or
16 better. We look at what they do and then we evaluate the
17 payment to make sure we're going in the right direction.
18 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: We could spend a
19 couple of days here.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: If you're going to get the
21 private sector involved, if you're going to go to a toll
22 system, particularly a parallel toll system, if you're
23 going to go to regionalization, again, I'm not familiar
24 enough with your state to know if that makes sense or not.
25 MR. HOUGHTON: Your growth is on the 15 321
1 corridor.
2 MR. BRACERAS: It's along the I-15 corridor,
3 yes.
4 MR. HOUGHTON: And then 80 crosses, because I
5 go to Park City and go skiing.
6 MR. BRACERAS: Really, the public-private idea,
7 the tolling for us, we have one corridor that would be
8 parallel to I-15 in the west part of the valley where
9 we're just seeing tremendous growth right now. The west
10 part of Salt Lake County and goes into northern Utah
11 County where we're just seeing unbelievable growth.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think it's going to get
13 worse for you, or better, according to your perspective.
14 MR. HOUGHTON: The exodus from California,
15 you're seeing that too.
16 MR. BRACERAS: Well, 70 percent of our growth
17 is internal.
18 MR. HOUGHTON: Is that right?
19 MR. BRACERAS: Yes, and our economy is very
20 strong right now.
21 MR. NJORD: We have huge families in Utah.
22 (General laughter.)
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll tell you something, we
24 have a lot of friends that we deal with through Perry's
25 office in the northeast and the east and they're always 322
1 asking -- we're a poor state still -- but what's the
2 secret to Texas. The secret to Texas is the secret of the
3 west, and that is there is still a work ethic in about 15
4 states in the west and people are attracted to work ethic.
5 If you raise your kids to go to work, go to church, go to
6 work, get married, have kids, that's just what happens.
7 And companies are attracted to that.
8 A lot of our friends on the East Coast hate it
9 when we say that, but it's just the damn truth. If you
10 live life right and have kids and raise them to work, they
11 work. Follow the rules, play clean.
12 MR. HOUGHTON: You're talking about opportunity
13 is parallel to 15?
14 MR. NJORD: Yes, we have really one corridor
15 that seems to make sense. Because of the way the Salt Lake
16 Valley is structured, we have mountains to the west,
17 mountains to the east, and we have that valley.
18 MR. HOUGHTON: I've skied many of the those
19 mountains, I've looked down in those valleys.
20 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: You've got 2-1/2
21 million living in a 100-mile distance there.
22 MR. NJORD: And it's very linear, it's north
23 and south.
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't think we have a
25 corridor that's skinny like that. 323
1 MR. BRACERAS: Well, we've jealously looked at
2 your ability and we said how do you locate this, we'll
3 just go farther out here, well, that's over a mountain
4 range.
5 (General talking and laughter.)
6 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: You mentioned focusing
7 in on manufacturing and trying to bring in new industry
8 into your state. Are you monitoring truck traffic in and
9 out of your state?
10 MR. HOUGHTON: Yes, all the time.
11 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: Is that on a steady
12 increase?
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: It took a dip in the months
14 following 9/11, I think, but within a year we recovered.
15 MR. HOUGHTON: In '04 we crossed northbound
16 trucks over the international bridges, 3,035,000 trucks.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: When they closed the border
18 down immediately following 9/11, it hurt our state
19 tremendously. We didn't complain, we understood why, but
20 truck traffic for '01 and '02 actually fell, and then it's
21 getting back up where it was.
22 MR. HOUGHTON: Thirteen international bridges.
23 UTAH DELEGATION MEMBER: And do you do a lot of
24 exporting out of the Gulf, and trucks bringing in
25 commodities to export and imports? 324
1 MR. HOUGHTON: Well, we consider ourselves,
2 just by geography, the trade corridor.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: I suspect we probably take in
4 more imports than we do exports because we're a staging
5 area for the Oklahoma City, Kansas markets, to a lesser
6 extent the St. Louis, Memphis, Nashville, and maybe
7 Cincinnati markets, and to a way lesser extent, deep
8 south, Atlanta, and up eastern seaboard. I don't think we
9 send hardly anything at all out west.
10 MR. BEHRENS: There's a lot of agriculture
11 stuff going out of the Port of Houston, grains.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: But we're focused on
13 manufacturing jobs but not specific manufacturing jobs.
14 We think we can't predict who the next Dell or whoever is.
15 What we think we can say is that with our limited
16 capacity to understand the world, they're going to need a
17 fast way to get their raw product or their finished
18 product to and from international ports, they're going to
19 need almost unlimited water no matter what they're willing
20 to pay, they're going to need electricity, and they're
21 probably going to wish they had some sort of rail system
22 where they could import or export in bulk if they had to.
23 We know that, we think that's the basis for
24 manufacturing.
25 So we'll provide that, and then however the 325
1 economy evolves, we'll have the tools there for those
2 manufacturing companies to move into rural Texas and plop
3 a factory down and start building.
4 MR. BRACERAS: It sounds like you're being more
5 proactive than even though we are. We kind of look at the
6 freight rail Class 1 railroads as a private business and
7 we really don't get involved in that very much. Does
8 Texas DOT, the commission, are you actively looking at
9 ways and opportunities to improve the Class 1 railroads?
10 MR. HOUGHTON: Yes, all the time. There is
11 initiatives that are going on where we're now addressing
12 how are we going to fund a rail relocation, and we've got
13 some ideas on how we do that.
14 MR. BRACERAS: To better that operation of that
15 railroad?
16 MR. HOUGHTON: Are you familiar with the Union
17 Pacific's inertia project? On their system from Seattle
18 down to Houston, from Omaha out to L.A., their system
19 average MPH is 17 miles an hour. They increase it by one,
20 they throw 100 million to the bottom line. So we
21 understand that and they understand that, and that's what
22 the rail relocation.
23 There's a lot of issues that go in there, but
24 their incentives are just in time, and we believe if we're
25 going to be a trade corridor, we have to participate in 326
1 the just in time.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: And we haven't hidden much,
3 we've been telling our citizens for a while quit
4 complaining about UP, they own that right of way through
5 the middle of Houston, they're not going to move unless we
6 give them a reason to move. The question is do we in
7 Texas want them to move out of downtown Austin, do we in
8 Texas want them out of downtown San Antonio and out of
9 downtown El Paso, and oh by the way, in getting them out,
10 can we make them more competitive which will bring jobs to
11 our state.
12 So the first issue is back to that don't worry
13 about how much Cintra is making on the toll road, the
14 question is what do we need, do we need a road. Focus on
15 that. Do we want them out of our cities? If the answer
16 to that question is yes, then let us map a plan to get
17 them out of downtown El Paso, and if we can make them
18 stronger economically and bring jobs to Texas at the same
19 time, it's great.
20 But even if we can't, even if the goal is just
21 to get them out of our cities, to make our cities' air
22 cleaner, our streets safer, to keep us from having to
23 build all these grade separations and maybe convert that
24 to commuter rail, that's worthy enough of us taking your
25 tax money and moving that railroad. 327
1 MR. BRACERAS: So you have the authority to
2 spend state gas tax money?
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Not state gas tax money.
4 MR. HOUGHTON: We just had a referendum, a
5 constitutional election and rail relocation was on the
6 ballot and it passed, the citizens said yes, create the
7 fund.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Now we have to figure out
9 where the money is going to come from.
10 MR. SAENZ: We now have the ability that the
11 legislature creates this fund to do railroad relocations,
12 and we've got memorandums of understanding with Union
13 Pacific and with Burlington Northern where we will
14 identify potential projects. We will then look at those
15 projects and determine what is the public benefit, what is
16 the private benefit and we maybe look at those projects as
17 partners.
18 We are right now doing some studies across the
19 state identifying what some of those potential projects
20 are. We're also at the same time looking at what are
21 potential funding sources that can be identified through
22 grade movements that can go into capitalize this new
23 mobility fund so that now we have the funding source that
24 we can cover the public portion of the project.
25 So it's something that's just beginning but 328
1 it's moving in the right direction, but it's basically
2 creating a partnership where both of us will go out there
3 and get a project that's win-win. And a project that
4 moves rail out of San Antonio gives me the opportunity to
5 take advantage of all those corridors within San Antonio
6 for either commuter rail or additional transportation
7 corridor or something else.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: And perhaps I spoke a little
9 too quickly. There's a scenario where we could use some
10 of our gas tax but the end result would have to be a road,
11 an actual vehicle road, and even then, our legal staff
12 would be watching every move we make to make sure we
13 didn't do too much. There's a scenario by which we could
14 do a swap, we can't lie to the taxpayers, it's got to end
15 up producing a road on the state's highway system. But we
16 think there may be some opportunity for that.
17 MR. BEHRENS: We did that in Lubbock.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, perhaps a better example
19 that you'll see or have seen is the big staging yard in
20 Fort Worth called Tower 55, and there must be 1,000 acres
21 in downtown Fort Worth that's just old rail yards. It
22 exists only because we've not been able to figure out a
23 way to get BNSF and UP out of Fort Worth. We can see the
24 day when we can cut a deal with a real estate developer to
25 build us a road, we build a railroad for BNSF, and we swap 329
1 our road that the real estate developer built for their
2 railroad and they swap their railroad to us for the land,
3 and we end up with a road, the developer ends up with the
4 land, and BNSF gets moved 15 miles outside of town where
5 they can go 90 miles an hour. We can see that scenario
6 occurring real easily.
7 MR. BRACERAS: That's a pretty valuable area.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Because that rail yard is only
9 valuable to us, them or a developer who is willing to put
10 a billion into a thousand acres in downtown Fort Worth,
11 and not that any people have that kind of money.
12 (General talking and laughter.)
13 MR. BRACERAS: If you were in our commission's
14 position here where we're completing a NEPA document right
15 now in this Mountain View Corridor and we're doing
16 feasibility studies and we're going to need to make a
17 decision here soon whether to toll or not to toll, we
18 still have lot of work to do educating the public and even
19 a lot of our elected officials, any advice you could give
20 us?
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: The very first thing is
22 identify the amount of state money you're going to spend
23 on it and then identify -- this is just me, say what you
24 want to say Hope and Ted, this is what I'd do -- I'd take
25 that money and I'd identify specific projects in every 330
1 House and Senate member's district and say here's the
2 choices: we can spend this money on Mountain View and
3 it's a nice tax road, or we can spend it on your farm to
4 market road; if we spend it on your farm to market road,
5 we've got to toll this puppy; so what do you want to do,
6 Johnny; do you want us to not toll this puppy or do you
7 want that road?
8 That's what I'd do, as a former House member.
9 What would you do?
10 MR. HOUGHTON: If you want to move your people
11 around the community, if you want a lot of economic
12 development opportunities, and then don't be afraid to say
13 now let's go out and look for investors in this road,
14 let's let somebody else put it down. Go put it on
15 somebody else's back.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: First you sell them on doing
17 it with your own debt.
18 MR. HOUGHTON: Right. There's finite money,
19 there's a pool of money.
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: And then you bring in the
21 private sector to make it even better.
22 What would you do, Hope? How would you sell it
23 to them?
24 MS. ANDRADE: I'd share the vision with as many
25 people as I could because they've got to get buy-in. 331
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: I just know as a former member
2 it was always hard for me if a guy came to me from a state
3 agency and said this fee ought to be raised a nickel, you
4 can either raise this fee a nickel and I can do X amount
5 of more things for the people in your district.
6 MR. BRACERAS: And you're saying be as specific
7 as you can?
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Absolutely. Don't ballpark
9 it, don't ask them to believe in nothing, tell them here
10 are our choices: I can either take $800 million of our
11 gas tax money and build this road, or I can take $200
12 million and put it with $600 million in debt and I can
13 take the other $600 million and this is the project in
14 your area I can build; I think this is what I'd like to do
15 but I need your help over here.
16 Then come along, like Ted says, and find a
17 partner for the other $200 million and go back to the
18 state senator and say, hey, guess what, not only are we
19 going to be able to do that road over in reservation, but
20 now we're going to be able to do this road as well. And
21 that's the same thing as the buy-in Hope is talking about.
22 MS. ANDRADE: And be inclusive, and if they
23 want to get the credit for dreaming that, let them. You
24 want to get it done.
25 MR. BRACERAS: Always. 332
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that particular road going
2 to be used by a lot of people like me, tourists?
3 MR. BRACERAS: It's probably going to have some
4 pass-through but not a lot.
5 MR. NJORD: Mostly it's going to be residents
6 that live out there. That's where our large growth is.
7 MR. BRACERAS: We're looking at 90,000 vehicles
8 a day by 2010.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: And maybe the other way you do
10 that particular one is like our guys have done in North
11 Texas. You go to those citizens that are going to be
12 paying that toll and say look, we can do it this way or we
13 can do it this way, and this is what we can do for your
14 local road or your local connection.
15 MR. HOUGHTON: What's the cost of the project?
16 MR. BRACERAS: Probably $2 billion.
17 (General talking and laughter.)
18 MR. SAENZ: These are tools that our people in
19 North Texas, our district engineers and the MPO directors
20 use, they call it the near-time, near-neighbor policy
21 where they say we can build this road, we've got so much
22 money to build this road, it's tollable, it's feasible, I
23 can bring in so much debt, it's going to free up this
24 much, and if we can agree to toll it, I can now take this
25 money and use it on these other projects that are needed 333
1 to make connections here within your area. And that's how
2 they've been able to get a lot of buy-in.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: And you're going to have
4 critics that are going to jump up and say well, hell,
5 you're just borrowing money and making your kids pay for
6 the road. Yes, that is the answer to that question,
7 that's what we're doing. We're borrowing money and we're
8 letting future Utahans pay for it.
9 MR. HOUGHTON: But there's a flip side to this,
10 another piece to this is that it goes off the system from
11 maintenance standpoint, you're no longer using gas tax to
12 maintain that road if you build it with traditional
13 funding. So now that one dollar that you save gets put
14 back into the rest of the valley, and that is the other
15 prong to that that is just as important when you run your
16 numbers out on your maintenance that you're putting it on
17 that asset.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: And you can see that pretty
19 easily. Your constituents maybe can't but you can see it,
20 your staff can see it.
21 MR. HOUGHTON: What is your maintenance now on
22 your system?
23 MR. BRACERAS: It's taking over a greater and
24 greater proportion of our capital budget.
25 MR. HOUGHTON: I think that's part of your 334
1 selling, especially in this project. It's got to be part
2 of the public outreach, the marketing, that folks, you're
3 not going to maintain this road either, this road is not
4 going to be maintained by the gas tax revenue, it's going
5 to be maintained by the users of the road.
6 MR. NJORD: You all use a term here, toll roads
7 versus tax roads, which I think is incredibly clever.
8 MR. HOUGHTON: That's a chairman-coined. He
9 says there's no such thing as a freeway.
10 MR. NJORD: That's the challenge that we've got
11 in our state is we've got folks that are saying, well,
12 wait a minute, all the rest of these roads are free and
13 this road is going to be tolled.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: We're going to change all the
15 signs on our roads out there: this is the tax-way, not
16 the freeway.
17 MS. ANDRADE: Have you heard you have three
18 choices? It's either a slow road, a no road, or a toll
19 road. And after that, we have to go out to the
20 communities and talk. I will tell you you've got to be
21 strong and you've got to believe in your message.
22 MR. HOUGHTON: Were you here all day?
23 MR. BRACERAS: No.
24 MR. HOUGHTON: We used to have a Road Fairy
25 around this state. 335
1 MR. BRACERAS: A road fairy?
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's another one of his
3 little pets. He talks about people, there is no such
4 thing as a Road Fairy.
5 I was down in the Valley last week and I said
6 the Road Fairy is dead, there is no such thing.
7 (General talking and laughter.)
8 MR. HOUGHTON: And it's so true, it's gotten
9 coined all over the state about the Road Fairy, there's no
10 Road Fairy. I'll tell you who killed the Road Fairy, it
11 was the big dig in Boston, $15 billion and counting.
12 That's our biennium budget. $15 billion in a road that's
13 ten miles, submerging it.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: We have of late gone to
15 reminding people that there's always the easy way out
16 crowd, the Road Fairy crowd. Any city you're in, any
17 county, any state you're in, there's always the easy way
18 out crowd, they're looking for the easiest way out, and
19 there's always the Road Fairy crowd, just hang on and the
20 federal government will send you the money. And there's
21 always the just say no group, it doesn't matter, they're
22 against it. There's always there, accept that, forget
23 them, move on, because they're always going to be there,
24 they're not ever going to change their mind.
25 In Texas, we listen to everybody, as you saw 336
1 today. We believe Texans have the right to complain,
2 express their opinion, but Texans don't have the right to
3 their own set of facts and their own set of truths. The
4 truth is the truth, facts are facts. And there's always
5 going to be a group, it doesn't matter what the truth is,
6 it doesn't matter what the facts are, they're going to say
7 no. We just accept that and don't worry a lot about it.
8 MS. ANDRADE: The other thing is we're very
9 supportive of each other, we're very together.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: All for one, one for all.
11 MS. ANDRADE: And they all know that, everybody
12 knows that. Like when I get a call, I support Ted. I say
13 that we support each other, and so people know that.
14 (General talking and laughter.)
15 MR. HOUGHTON: It was the I-69 issue. You
16 know, these poor communities that have been told wait for
17 the federal government, they're coming, they've been told
18 year after year after year, and then they didn't get it
19 this last authorization. $50 million for ten states. So
20 I had a guy in the audience, he's an engineer, and I said,
21 Gary, how far will $50 million go. And he said five
22 miles. And I said, What's the allocation in Texas as a
23 cost of this Interstate 69? $7 billion.
24 I said, Folks, it's dead, let's move on. But
25 you've got to tell them the truth. 337
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll get back to what I talked
2 about earlier, don't make promises you can't keep, don't
3 give your word if you can't keep it, speak the truth or
4 don't speak. And these congress men and women from South
5 Texas to I guess Indiana have been promising this new
6 intestate corridor for a long time, and it's the Road
7 Fairy, it's just not going to happen.
8 Now, the one guy made the observation: Well,
9 it could happen if you guys were willing to take $500
10 million out of your regular program every year and start
11 building it. But you know what, that would create a
12 revolution in our state. If we went around to every
13 community in the state and took their share of $500
14 million and started building I-69, it would be really bad.
15 So the practical implications is they're not
16 going to send us any additional apportionment for I-69,
17 it's not ever going to happen. Those politicians that
18 promised that ought to admit it and quit promising people
19 things they can't deliver. There's a way we can build I-
20 69 using our approach, but it means tolling and it means
21 freight rail, it means utility lines, it means water
22 lines, it means doing things that some people don't want
23 to do down there right now. That's how you get I-69.
24 MR. HOUGHTON: Well, Indiana's Mitch Daniels
25 just said today that I-69 isn't going to happen so they're 338
1 moving on with tolling I-69. Evansville to Indianapolis
2 as a toll road. So the governor of Indiana just said the
3 Road Fairy is dead too, so I feel vindicated.
4 (General laughter.)
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: You guys are always welcome to
6 ask us questions and you flatter us by coming down here.
7 MR. HOUGHTON: I go skiing up there in the
8 winter so I'd be glad to come by if you'd like me to.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: We haven't solved all the
10 world's problems, we're down here experimenting, we're
11 trying to do some different things. We have the good
12 fortune to work for a guy who's serious about leaving
13 transportation as his mark on the state, and have the good
14 fortune of having had a tremendous staff out ahead of us.
15 And Hope is right, we stick together. There's four of us
16 now. One of our blood brothers went off to run for the
17 state senate, only God knows why.
18 MR. HOUGHTON: Speaking of the Road Fairy, how
19 much was the allocation for all of that Olympic road, the
20 15, the interchange, the 80?
21 MR. BRACERAS: Well, that wasn't done because
22 of the Olympics and there wasn't a big federal allocation.
23 Very little of that project was paid for by federal
24 dollars, it as mostly state dollars paid for that.
25 MR. NJORD: It was about 15 percent federally 339
1 funded.
2 MR. BRACERAS: It was $1.58 billion.
3 MR. NJORD: We paid for it with state funds.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, it's odd because in
5 the legislature we're always being asked to support
6 resolutions, and I can't think of one time a Texas
7 legislature has ever said no to a resolution that said
8 federal government, for example, send New Orleans $3
9 billion for World Fair or send Utah $5 billion for the
10 Olympics. We never vote against that stuff, we're always
11 for that. It's bizarre that an international event
12 wouldn't be funded by all of us. We would all expect to
13 pay for that.
14 MR. NJORD: Well, we received some federal
15 resources for some interchanges, a couple of small roads.
16 MR. BRACERAS: Up at the Park City area.
17 MR. NJORD: But in reality, most of what we did
18 in preparation for the Olympics was done on the backs of
19 the citizens of our state, and we really thought that over
20 time we would get some reimbursement, but the Road Fairy
21 doesn't live in Utah either.
22 (General talking and laughter.)
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Anything else you wish to
24 discuss?
25 MR. NJORD: Thank you for spending time with 340
1 us.
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: The most privileged motion is
3 in order.
4 MR. HOUGHTON: Move to adjourn.
5 MS. ANDRADE: Second.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion to adjourn and
7 I have a second. All those in favor of the motion will
8 signify by saying aye.
9 (A chorus of ayes.)
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
11 (No response.)
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. We're
13 adjourned at 5:28 p.m.
14 (Whereupon, at 5:28 p.m., the meeting was
15 concluded.) 341
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3 MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
4 LOCATION: Austin, Texas
5 DATE: November 17, 2005
6 I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages,
7 numbers 1 through 341 inclusive, are the true, accurate,
8 and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording
9 made by electronic recording by Carol Oppenheimer before
10 the Texas Department of Transportation. 11 12 13 14 15 16 11/22/05 17 (Transcriber) (Date) 18 19 On the Record Reporting, Inc. 20 3307 Northland, Suite 315 21 Austin, Texas 78731
22