APR97TRN.doc



TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

MEETING

Thursday, April 25, 1996

Four Points Sheraton Hotel

100 Central Freeway

Wichita Falls, Texas 76305

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

DAVID M. LANEY, Chairman

DAVID E. BERNSEN

STAFF:

William G. Burnett, Executive Director

I N D E X

AGENDA ITEM PAGE Convene Meeting 03

Approval of Minutes of 3/28/96 Regular Meeting 82

Open Comment Period 83

Awards/Recognition/Resolutions 89

Promulgation of Rules and Regulations 90

Contracts 93

Subscription Rate for Texas Highways magazine 96

Routine Minute Orders 102

Contested Case 105

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. LANEY: Good morning. I'd like to call the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. We're awfully pleased to be here in Wichita Falls today, one of the meetings we hold around Texas to help us better understand the needs of the communities around Texas. We want to make sure as best we can that we're in touch with the citizens of Texas and the needs of Texas, and we've had a couple of days of doing that up here. It's been as hospitable and generous and spirited as we have ever encountered in the state and we appreciate the hospitality.

I want to recognize a couple of people who have gone out of their way to spend some time with Commission staff and with members of the -- representatives of our district office who we'll probably here from later, and that is Representative Charles Finnell and Senator Tom Haywood. They have taken a big chunk out of their schedule the last couple days, as have others who I think we'll hear from later, but we appreciate their effort on that account.

Also Wichita Falls is uniquely blessed in a way, I guess, from most standpoints except perhaps from David Peeple's standpoints, our district engineer, in that we have three former district engineers living in Wichita Falls and overlooking every breath that David Peeple's takes.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: I don't think they're here today, at least all of them, but if you are here, Mr. L. B. Dean, Jim Stack and Bob Schleider,

we appreciate your continued oversight of our operations in Wichita Falls.

Also I think we'll hear from the former Executive Director later during the morning and we also appreciate the continued involvement in highway matters and interest of highway matters of Mr. Arnold Oliver. We spent most of yesterday here in Wichita Falls and I wanted to say on behalf of one of our Commissioners, Anne Wynne, she would like to be here, she would have liked to have been here yesterday. Many of you know, but some of you don't know, that she has a niece who was in a very, very terrible boating accident over the weekend, and so she is there taking care of her niece. So she was unable to attend and she conveyed to Mr. Bernsen and I to ask you to say she's sorry she can't be here, she'd like to be here and wishes she were able to be.

We had an opportunity to meet with many of the local officials yesterday, many businesses and community leaders, local citizens, and I think last but certainly not least from our standpoint with a number of our Wichita Falls district employees and shared a lot of enjoyment and camaraderie last night with a fish fry in a local park, the name of which I don't know, but it sure was pretty. We also had a chance to see some of the projects I think we'll hear in more detail about and we're looking forward to that this morning.

So I think in total this has been to date a very, very productive trip and a great orientation for part of the state that's a lot newer to me than I think it is to Mr. Bernsen or Ms. Wynne or to the rest of our district, so I appreciate it. And again, we appreciate the hospitality.

To start off this morning we'll hear from Wichita Falls City/County Transportation Commission. And I'd like to recognize Commission Chairman Clarence Muehlberger, who I got a chance to meet and visit with some extent yesterday, I look forward to hearing from you more this morning. Mr. Muehlberger will introduce the presentation. Thank you.

MR. MUEHLBERGER: Thank you, Commissioner. We sure appreciate you folks being here, Commissioners, we really do. And, Bill, we're glad you're here. I didn't know until last night that it's an unusual occurrence when you folks come out and meet with people individually. Most of your Commission meetings in Austin are not in front of groups like ours and we appreciate that opportunity and are humbly proud.

We've been up here and have been very mindful of the importance of transportation for all these years. I personally got interested in it about 15 years ago when I realized all of a sudden that we didn't, in Wichita Falls, have a lot of opportunities for growth in our areas, and that was pretty evident because we've gone through 35 years of no growth in this town. But now we know, and I have known for the long time, that one of the avenues for growth is the development of the highway situation, and we have a situation here where our highways that all come through Wichita all collage right in one central point in about seven blocks, and with that, that's where our problem is.

Before I get started on that let me just -- and I appreciate y'all being here again, thank you a lot. Please express our regrets to Ms. Wynne, we hope her niece gets along fine and we really would like to have her here to know her and like for us to know her and her to know us.

We've got a lot of people out here and I can't introduce all of them, but I do need to introduce some people that have been very influential in having this thing come to a culmination. I've got State Senator Tom Haywood, 30th District. Tom, please rise. State Representative Finnell, I understand, is not -- Charles Finnell right here. I'm sorry, didn't see you come in Charles. Thank you for being here. Mayor Lamb of Wichita Falls. The Mayor has served us, this is his third time and he'll be going out in May. He's not running again and he made us a very fine Mayor and we're proud of him and it's been a joy to work with him. Our County Judge Nick Gipson. And do I have the County Commissioners here with me? I forgot to introduce our -- or recognize the rest of the City Council for Wichita Falls. Please rise. Thank y'all for being here. Bo Stahler, who is the president of BCI, and that's our local Chamber of Commerce. Bo spoke to us yesterday and did a fine job. And the board members from the BCI.

And then our committee is made up of a city and county commission that we have a long name, Commission On Highway Transportation Needs. Now, I don't know exactly how we came up with that kind of a title, but would our group please rise. Thank you. Thank you.

When we first received knowledge that you folks were coming to Wichita Falls that -- I mentioned that we recognize the importance of highways, but it really made a difference in all of our coffee talk around town and it -- all of the surveys that had been made in recent years, because it's been 30 years since we've had any real changes in this town, and it hasn't been that we've been asleep that time, we've done the necessary surveys and done the studies and know our needs pretty well and they've been growing as they do across the state at 2 or 3 or 4 percent. Even though our population growth hasn't been that much, well, we've had automobile growth for sure. But it's an important thing for us and -- let's see here. Get this thing going here.

(Whereupon, A Slide Show Commenced.)

MR. MUEHLBERGER: To start off, this is an overview of Wichita Falls. Our downtown is to the left -- to the right there. This is the overhead area that -- the Broad and Holliday area that we're going to be discussing today, eight lights there that create the bottleneck in our town. Sheppard Air Force, to the base -- to the top -- to the north of us. Highway 44, Interstate Highway 44, that comes from Lawton comes into Wichita Falls and dead ends at our Holliday and Broad intersections right here. 287 goes to Amarillo, comes through Wichita Falls and actually goes to the Metroplex to the east. 277 that goes to Abilene, and 82 that goes to Lubbock comes through Wichita Falls, and as you know, 82 starts over in Texarkana.

But in our presentation this morning we're just going to -- we'll cover the primary factors that I think you folks are interested in too, and that's safety and traffic congestion and economical activity in our area, minimize the disruption of the business as we go through on the construction, and naturally the way it will turn out when it's finally finished.

This is our town the way it is. When we moved our Holliday and Broad highway in 1960 we moved it away from downtown for the reason most towns do, we kept it close to town but far enough away where it would serve it. It served us very well over these 30 years. And the traffic wasn't that heavy at that time, naturally, and it worked very well for all these years. Of course over the period of time, why, it has began to develop to a point where that -- where that carry began to be just a little more congested all the time.

This is a very interesting survey here, it shows accident history comparison. The bottom one is the 369, which is a highway that goes around to the south of Wichita Falls. I can't read that middle and I didn't do no -- it's -- but the top one is 287. I'm sorry for my delay and composure at this point. This is the number of wrecks on these comparative highways. You can see on the controlled 444 -- 44 coming into Wichita Falls what the traffic accident rate is down here. This is 369 and you can see where it is not a controlled area so you have an increase in traffic accidents. This is the top line which does indicate that seven-block area that we're referring to in Holliday and Broad and the number of traffic accidents that you have in that seven-block area.

The lower one shows the injury rate. Again, 44, controlled, minimum of accidents. 369, it is, again, very busy area, goes go around the south of our town, has some accidents. You can see, then, the top line, this Holliday and Broad, the accident incidents on that and how it has climbed this last few years. I may add that when we started out here and we ended up with heavy traffic accidents here, our city did a good job in being able to control traffic a little bit better but published in the newspaper and news media and try to get people to be more mindful of the critical area that they were looking at at that point. So as a consequence, when people began to move away from Holliday and Broad and for that reason that we were able to show some improvement in the amount of accidents that happened there. But as you see now, we're back to a point where it is getting back to be a critical area again.

This shot shows the north bound coming out of Wichita Falls on Holliday and Broad. These -- you can see the -- close to Holliday and Broad you have the police station right here, you've got your three hospitals that put them in a critical area for heavy -- if trucks would have carried a heavy load of inflammable or dangerous materials would be a very critical wreck at that point. Coming out north and going north you can see as you come off of the eight -- of the lights on Holliday and Broad the "S" curve that comes out and it's a declining serve. It's my observation on this in the recent weeks, and I've been watching it real close, that as the trucks come out of here they try to reach -- they gain their speed as they come through town on those lights and they gain speed and they come to that last light, they made that last light and they think they've got it made. And those that are not familiar with that highway, they come into an "S" curve there and that "S" curve is what really fools them, they're full speed at this point in time. If they have got heavy traffic around them, they've got a problem, load shifts and you've got -- and before they know it, they've got a wreck. The other going north, coming in from the north and going south has about the same, it has an "S" curve going into Holliday Street, has stoplight at the top. It's an incline going in, so the wreck incident there has not been so bad, but it is still an "S" curve going into a congested area, which is not good as you know.

Here is an example of what happens on that "S" curve going north that I said -- showed you, it's I-44, just as you come out of downtown. The load shifts on those 18-wheelers and with that they're just in trouble in a hurry. Here's another shot of the same situation, another truck. And then a third shot that goes -- it shows a little bit to the north there where you see where this has happened, but it is very bad and it is -- it does create a problem.

This shows the average daily traffic from '65 to '95 and you can see the consistent growth. It has been with a degree of consistency and that's one of the things that really puts us in a position where we know that the growth is in the future, it's been there in the past and statistically you know that when that condition happens, usually you've got a continuation of the past history that will continue on to the future. And of course this -- the lower one just shows the average truck traffic and it has increased to the same extent as the total traffic itself.

This shows the congested area going into town. This is coming from the south and going to the north, northbound 287. Again, traffic coming northbound 287 but heavy mix. Trucks that you see and that's not unusual, that heavy mix, that goes consistently through the town with no regularity. Here it is coming -- the heavy traffic coming northbound again on that "S" curve just a little bit further out of the light section, but again, you can see the backup of traffic.

We've got one unusual situation in Wichita Falls and it existed when we made the decision to use Holliday and Broad. This -- I'm sorry this is one slide back, but this slide shows the northbound coming into the light situation. That's the first light as you come into town and you can see the "S" curve there over on this side here as trucks have to slow down, not that much of a problem there and they can control their speed. That is an incline coming into that particular corner there.

The one thing that is unusual when we made Holliday and Broad as a possibility -- one of things I didn't get was a number on those slides. This, again, shows that heavy congestion and the -- right at this corner this is southbound and we're reaching an area -- you don't see it, right in this area here is a McDonald's. That turns to the 277 highway and 82 and you can see with people that are on this side of the -- in these lanes need to get over to this outside lane, have not traveled that much, you can see how they've got a blinded situation as you try to make your righthand turn to get in the right lane to make the highway that you need to be on. That has been a consistent bad area and with heavy traffic and the in and out from McDonald's makes a real difference too.

Again, southbound Holliday and Broad, that same corner that we looked at on the other way how that traffic divides, and when you get these heavy traffic trucks like this you can't see around them, it's hard to change lanes and you've got your problems getting out of town.

One of the things that I -- that's where I thought we would be ten minutes ago. One of the things that happened when we decided on Holliday and Broad was we had two funeral homes there in that area and they're still there, they're still very prosperous. They do 80 percent of the funerals in Wichita Falls. And their monthly average on funerals is 23 -- a little over 23 funerals a month, and each one of those funerals takes them anywhere from 12 to 15 minutes. So you can imagine that's once a day pretty well during the week that you've got a traffic -- you've got a funeral coming in and out and what happens is you've got -- this is where the officer's directing traffic come off here. You can imagine the buildup and the backup after you've held those people there for ten or 12 minutes how many people are backed up on that highway. Here it is showing it on the other -- I'm sorry. I had two slides on that one and dropped one of them. But it is on both sides and it happens with a degree of regularity.

This is Highway 44 coming in from the north as we've talked about here, this is south this way. The green line, the lines that you see there, are the permanent -- the existing highway now. The red lines are the proposed overhead. The I-44 coming in is an eight-lane facility. The transition of four freeway lanes to two freeway lanes would result in a bottleneck, and I say that just in passing. As you come into Wichita Falls this is a four lane here and as you go into the overhead as is now proposed in Phase 1, we will end up with two overhead lanes, both ways, with only one off ramp here. The other three ramps, two on the south side and one on the north side and one lane each way, will be in Phase 2. We feel like that that will be a real problem in the future just looking at what we've got -- like started out with the four highways coming into town and four highways coming into town from this direction and you're reducing it to two lanes as you get into city traffic, you're adding traffic, and yet you've got a reduction of lanes to 50 percent, it's going to be a problem. And it concerns us. One of the things -- of course this off ramp here will serve the downtown area. We have no ramp that will help us early on. This type -- if we go into Phase 1 early -- or only, that we've got a problem on not having access to the overhead. If you go through town, there are a lot of people that live to the south part of town and as you saw live -- and report into the air force base in the mornings and as a consequence they need that overhead to get through town, but it is congested. The three lanes on the overhead is essential to alleviate the traffic congestion we feel. Three lanes are needed for the overheads to provide direct ramp access. An off ramp on 6th Street southbound and an onramp on 5th Street would also be required for three lanes. And honestly, in looking at this, Commissioners, the Phase 1 would not serve Wichita Falls -- the City of Wichita Falls very well, it really wouldn't. Now, we'e not negative at all, we're realistic on what our needs are and we've got to express our needs to you to make it right really.

We have been -- some of the things that we've come up with looking at this over a long period of time that we found these in summary: The present percentage increase in traffic along 287 and Holliday and Broad during the past years is 23 percent. Doesn't sound like much one year, but over a period of years it does make a difference. That's on page 4, if you will. The percentage increase in truck traffic on 287 the past ten years has been 30 percent. Recommended maximum average daily traffic for four-lane urban freeway is 64,000. We're rapidly approaching that. If you take a 2 percent growth each year, which as you know for state traffic growth, that 2 percent is on the low side. We'll be there by the year 2001, and at that time we will -- if we proceed as we're now hopeful of planning, that the first phase would be built by about 2001. And we, at that point, will need 2002 -- need the two ramps or the four ramps because we're rapidly approaching what we feel like's going to be a critical time. The truck-related accidents along 287 and in the last ten years have been 126, that's 14 percent of our accidents really.

I wanted to show you this. This is westbound coming in on 82 and those folks may make a turn to the left there to get on Holliday and Broad. And without the -- without their -- this ramp right here, they'll not be able to get on the overhead, they'll have to use the lower lanes to -- if they had this ramp earlier on in the first phase or consistent with what we need, that that lane needs to be -- needs to be so that it gets on the overhead so it does relieve this traffic backup that -- I'm sorry traffic backup that -- as you see it right here. This is a normal backup. Of course these shots are all not -- they're probably taken where there is a little bit of excess, the way it truly is on a day-to-day basis, but on the -- being truthful, that does happen with some regularity, and with that, well, we're confronted with that as a problem.

Over the period of years we have, and I've said this, that we have been a consistent support of TxDOT over the long period of years. The folks that we know here and have worked here they're -- some of them are from here and close friends. We sincerely watch the traffic and we're supportive of you and we appreciate your offer in saying, well, we can do Phase 1, but honestly, Commissioners, we actually need Phase 1 and 2 at one time. We don't think that we're asking for something that's out of the ordinary, it's a real sincere need.

We've been in a long period of time with no growth in our town and we have just now in this last year in the presentation and long work yesterday that BCI gave us a little bit of an indication of how Wichita Falls is beginning to come out of the doors. It's been a fight. As I know as a merchant in this town, I know that it's so hard to grow if you've got a stagnant town as far as no growth. And we worked at that for a long, long time. I was a survivor. I was one of the last men to leave the downtown area. I didn't feel proud about that because I didn't want it that way really, but that's kind of the way it happens. But we've lost a good percentage of our locally owned businesses as a consequence. So it's a real concern to me personally and to our group that we need to keep the growth that we have going right at this time, we need to keep it growing.

We not only serve Wichita Falls, but we serve this whole area. It used to be that we covered a 13 to 15-county area as far as our trade territory and that did not include some of the people that came down from Oklahoma. But this has been a long period, long dry spell for Wichita Falls and we're real proud, the very timing from our standpoint the way we feel that you folks came up here and gave us an opportunity to hear our story.

We've -- over the period of years we've lost some funding. We lost the funding on Kell Freeway, which is our freeway which was to be build through town, it's this area here. We lost that funding, it was an environmental problem at the time and money got critical and our money went, which is all right, we didn't holler and scream and cry about that, it's just one of those facts of life that's out there. We lost -- we had funding for the overhead at one time, we lost that. But we're not complaining about it a bit, but we're wanting to be mindful that it has happened in the past and we need your support now. The right of the way, incidentally, that we bought here was -- at that time was a 50/50 purchase from the city's standpoint and the state's standpoint. So we have 50 percent interest in that right of way that was made and it was made back in the 60's, so we've had that invested for over 30 years.

Did I confuse you enough or are there any questions at all? One of the -- if there aren't any questions I'd like to go ahead one more step further and just bring up one thing that we have looked at. This McCray report, have you seen that? No doubt you've seen that over a period of time. This gives the truck traffic that comes out of Laredo. See that -- the heavy red line is so strong it comes up 35 there and of course we know that those folks are going to need some relief at one point in time and we may be able the serve in that part. But the part that we were looking at at this time is the amount of traffic that's coming out of El Paso, comes across from the west coast, comes in from Mexico at El Paso and then comes to -- on an easterly direction coming this way.

We think as they come up this highway, 10 to 20, we feel like that we may be able to be of a service if they -- if we had 277 developed coming into Wichita Falls. This line here shows three different routes that you're able to come in. Ordinarily the way the truckers go out El Paso, they go north to Albuquerque, come across over into Oklahoma to Oklahoma City or they can come across on 10 to 20 over to the Metroplex and then come north. If they had -- if we had 277 developed here and come -- coming across here up through Abilene up to Wichita Falls, then we have an interstate all the way into Oklahoma City. That's saving them about 60 miles by comparison. That shows on your map there too that distance savings.

We can use whatever traffic we can gain. We can be a service there and it would be an improvement. I know that using that northern highway from Albuquerque coming this way in the wintertime, that's five months out of the year really, that thing can really get snowed in and is really a detriment. And you don't tell truckers where to go, they kind of have to find out the easiest way and they'll find out if we had this 277 developed it would be an easy way for them to save 60 miles and stay out of some of the bad weather too.

As far as the subjects of our overhead, we've talked to Dr. Green, and Dr. Green's been up here twice to show us his intentions, his hopes, his desires. And that's one -- another reason that he can do us a real fine job. And it seemed to us he had a personal interest to make this a good looking overpass situation, and if we did it and one swoop and one phase, why, it would be a really -- I think that we'd have a thing that everybody would be proud of and it would be very important to the future.

I've got some other folks here that want to make a statement or two and I will give them a little bit of time. I'd like to ask first for Mayor Lamb to come up here.

MAYOR LAMB: Thank you. Again, welcome, Commissioners, to Wichita Falls. You've seen the town now, you've seen our presentation. You know that we have a project that's badly needed in this community. I want to emphasize three things that we're very serious about and we're very concerned that they happen. The first is that this project be completed in one phase for many reasons, economical reasons, business disruption reasons. We think the State of Texas will be miles and years ahead if this project is completed in one phase.

Second is we very badly need the connection at Kell Boulevard. We -- as Mr. Muehlberger has said, we've spent 30 years with a freeway that is basically dead ended into our main highway. We need those connections as a part of this phase. And then we need the downtown connection. We need getting in and out of downtown Wichita Falls and into our new Multipurpose Events Center. You will eat lunch today at the center, it's something we're very proud of. So far this community privately and governmentally have invested somewhere around $25 million into this project. The ultimate finish of the project will be probably somewhere around $30 million. So it's a big part of Wichita Falls, it's a big part of our plan to bring downtown back as we struggle like many other cities do. So these are -- these are the things that we hope you will give serious consideration to, they're the things that are needed for this project and we have -- we know the story, we know that money is tight and so forth, and we wouldn't be here today with -- emphasizing this if we didn't think it were seriously needed.

And lastly I want to -- I think you've been handed out a project support book that lists from our neighbors all around as far as Lawton, Abilene, Amarillo, all the cities in between, their support in this project. I think that lends credence to the fact that this is a regional project, a North Texas project, not just a Wichita Falls project, which will go a long way in bringing North Texas better transportation.

Again, thank you for being here and we've really enjoyed the visit. Thank you, sir.

MR. MUEHLBERGER: Judge Nick Gipson from Wichita County

JUDGE GIPSON: Chairman Laney, Commissioner Bernsen, thank you for coming to Wichita Falls. As County Judge I can tell you it's a great deal of pride in welcoming you to our county. We're proud of our cities and our county and we feel like we have a great deal to offer this state and the North Texas region and we're certainly gratified you all came here and we're glad to have hosted this meeting and that you've had an opportunity to see Wichita Falls -- parts of Wichita Falls and our county.

Our project, the US Highway 287, Broad/Holliday overhead freeway is an attempt to complete a system begun several decades ago and thereby make it a full freeway system. I like in this project the bow on a present. This project will tie our freeway system into one nice functional package. It will tie US 82, the Kell extension which you've seen, and US 277 with US 287 and Interstate 44. It will allow traffic to go nonstop through Wichita Falls and allow that traffic to go safely on its way north to Oklahoma City, west to Amarillo and Lubbock, south to Abilene and to the Metroplex, and west -- east to Texarkana.

I'm not sure what criteria the Commission uses to determine what projects to fund, but if those criteria include increased safety, decreasing traffic congestion and promote economic development in a region, this project meets those criteria. A $42 million, six-lane freeway over Holliday and Broad spanning some eight city blocks in downtown Wichita Falls with the necessary on and off ramps and the connection with US 82/277 is what we're asking the Commission to fund. All of this may seem insignificant in the overall scheme of the Texas Highway System, perhaps it is, but I would venture to guess that there is not a man, woman or child in Wichita County that -- probably this region of Texas, that has not been affected by these eight city blocks in Wichita Falls, and who will continue to be impacted by them in the future.

Now, I won't go so far as to tell you this is a hub, these eight city blocks are the hub of Wichita Falls or Wichita County as a region, but I'll tell you that Holliday and Broad and US 287 has a significant impact on all who live in North Texas. Now, we have supported in every way possible the Texas Department of Transportation in this region, and they have supported us. We have an outstanding working relationship with the men and women of TxDOT. They support this project as do we.

And what it finally comes down to is this: We have a need and the Commissioners can help fulfill that need. What we ask for is your consideration and your support, and with that I thank you for being here today. Thank you.

MR. MUEHLBERGER: Bo Stahler, who is president of our BCI, which is our Chamber of Commerce.

MR. STAHLER: Commissioners, let me just simply state that the Board of Commerce and Industry wholeheartedly supports this project. Needless to say, though, that during the construction phase of this project it's going to have a severe detriment to the businesses along that route and we are extremely concerned about their long-term viability if this project goes in two phases where you get one project completed and shortly thereafter another project comes along. Those businesses are less likely to be able to survive that trauma, so we would certainly encourage your strong consideration to this project under one phase. And although there will be some adverse effects on those businesses along that route, the economic development that will come from getting two complete highway systems through the city will more than offset that. But we would support this as a single-phase project. Thank you.

MR. MUEHLBERGER: We have Judge Lee Hamilton from Abilene.

JUDGE HAMILTON: Thank you very much. Good morning, gentlemen, I'm Lee Hamilton, County Judge of Taylor County, Abilene. I'm also a chairman of the Abilene Metropolitan Planning Organization. It's my pleasure to be here along with our Chamber of Commerce, Charlie Dromgoole, the Chairman of our Chamber of Transportation Committee, Mr. Bill Senter, and also Mr. Robert Allen, one of our transportation planners.

We are here today to enthusiastically support the request that Wichita Falls receive funding to connect 277, 287, 44, the major highways that come into Wichita Falls. We in Abilene can -- are personally familiar with the dramatic improvements a connecting highway can have on transportation from a safety standpoint and a travel standpoint. The Waldrop Interchange, completed in Abilene a couple years ago now, was the most significant transportation improvement in our city in over two decades. A $15 million project, safety has been enhanced. Prior to the construction of the interchange we had many deaths occurring at a dreadful intersection in our town. From a travel standpoint, tourists can enter southern Abilene and travel through our city on up towards Wichita Falls to head to their destinations with ease.

Truckers call our Chamber of Commerce and compliment the interchange. They are thrilled with the new ease of travel through the City of Abilene. We hope that some of those truckers will exit off the freeway and stay in our motels, but we know how important commercial travel is, especially with the effects of NAFTA now being felt.

So I encourage the Commission to consider both phases of the planned improvement to the freeway connection system here in Wichita Falls. At this time let me present the Commission with copies of resolutions of support from the Abilene Chamber of Commerce and also from the Metropolitan Planning Organization. I'll remind the Commission that the MPO is made up of representatives of local governments, interested citizens and even staffers of the Texas Department of Transportation. This quasi professional planning organization believes that in the interest of travel and transportation the connection of these highways is important not only to this region but to the entire central corridor of the United States.

Finally, with regard to the railroad right of way, this -- the abandonment of this railroad right of way is an excellent opportunity to acquire right of way at a cheap cost to at least preserve the opportunity to widen, to improve and to maintain Highway 277, a major travel route not only through this part of Texas, but again, the central parts of the United States.

In closing, our entire delegation encourages the Commission to approve both phases of the Wichita Falls request and we'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you very much.

MR. MUEHLBERGER: I have now Representative Finnell from Wichita Falls, State Representative.

REPRESENTATIVE FINNELL: Good morning gentlemen. I'm Charles Finnell from Holliday and I'm delighted that y'all chose to come to the very center of my district to have this very important hearing. I'll be talking with you about three other equally important projects on the part of my district today. It just so happens that the good people of Wichita County were first on your program and for that reason I'm speaking up a word for the overhead expressway which has been described very articulately.

I think that this will benefit not only the people that live here, the people that -- the travelling public through our area, but also the constituents in my district who serve -- who consist of 13 counties, or 12 and a half, and they will be coming through this city quite often. From the east end of my district out in the Quanah, Vernon area going to Bowie, Texas, in that end as well as traffic from Montague County heading to Quanah and out to Paducah. So it's very important to those who travel through this city and who work -- might live in my district and work in this city to have these arteries and have them opened.

Those of you that travelled here today I know you came through my district unless you came through Oklahoma, that's the only way to get here without coming through the 68th House District. It's a meritorious proposal and I urge your consideration and I look forward to visiting you on the other three projects in my district shortly. Thank you. Any questions I'd be happy to answer? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MUEHLBERGER: And we have our Senator Tom Haywood.

SENATOR HAYWOOD: My name is Tom Haywood, I'm the Senator from the 30th Senatorial District and I do have some comments that I would like to make on this project. Construction of the $42 million overhead structure in Wichita Falls will have at least three impacts. Those are that we will address safety concerns, we will enhance the growth and development of the entire state, and thirdly we will showcase transportation needs outside the traditional metropolitan area.

I've been on the other side of this mic in many a long state hearing. I can emphasize with you folks, so I will attempt to be brief. I want everyone to know of my unalterable support for the proposed overhead structure. Charts, graphs, pictures and statistics aside, as a long-time, long-standing resident, and I did move here in 1971, I would like to tell you why this is important to me. Holliday and Broad Streets have had almost 2,000 accidents in ten years. This nearly doubles the highest accident count among any six-lane street in all of Texas. The statistic is due a dangerous mixture of traffic.

There are two kinds of traffic which are difficult to separate. The first would be local traffic, which would include mothers driving, car pools, students running errands, families grocery shopping and going to church. These are folks who live here, work here and importantly pay taxes to the State of Texas here. These roads are for them to use with the feeling of safety and security.

The second type of traffic would be described as business traffic. Wichita Falls has the distinct privilege of being in a high transit thoroughfare smack between Oklahoma City, the Metroplex, Amarillo and Colorado. And Colorado is where many Texans go, as we all know. This is an asset, it keeps our town humming with business. But when you mix Mac trucks and 18-wheelers with moms in minivans, it reminds me of one of the old nuances of driving and alcohol, they just do not mix. Therein lie the statistics and the accidents. These are unacceptable and they should not be allowed to continue. We cannot do away with mothers, students, daily transportation needs. We cannot do away with business and trans-state traffic. We are very proud to endorse this plan developed by TxDOT, which we believe was the only reasonable alternative and that is a -- the overhead.

So let me say as others have said, welcome to our town on this your first annual visit to Wichita.

(Laughter.)

SENATOR HAYWOOD: I'll be glad to take any questions that you might have. No questions? Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Senator, we appreciate the invitation for the years to come.

(Laughter.)

MR. MUEHLBERGER: So it is for safety traffic concerns, reasonable economic activity and minimum disruption of business and aesthetic conditions. We've exposed you a little bit to what we know to be true and we'd like for you to give it just consideration and we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. And if you have any questions, well, please let us know right now.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Muehlberger, and all those who helped in the presentation. Mr. Bernsen, any questions?

MR. BERNSEN: I would like to commend everyone for the presentation and also the participation and attendance here today. I want to apologize for not being here last night, but -- so I could accept the hospitality and the warmth of greetings that I know -- that having talked with staff today that everyone received as well as Chairman Laney, but unfortunately I had business in other parts of the state that I -- that would not allow me to be here.

I want to encourage all of y'all to continue to work together in this regional concept and work towards transportation projects. It's very impressive when you see other -- Judge, I refer to you, when you have other judges and other delegation from other parts of the state, even though you're neighbors, to come and support that project. I think that's very, very important as we go into the next century as building corridors throughout the state, and that highway projects, even though they may be built in your county, obviously have an impact on other counties and other regions and other areas, especially in light of NAFTA, whereas we're trying to move products and services from one part of the country -- or actually from another nation to other parts of the country and in Texas. But I do want to encourage y'all to continue this very, very important project. The presentation, not just today, but the documents that we've been provided show it's very critical to this part of the state and -- well, not just to this part of the state, but to the state in general.

And I thank you for having us down here and showing us the hospitality of North Texas and also for having Arnold Oliver up here as well. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

MR. LANEY: Great presentation, we appreciate it. We've got -- at the end of presentation we give the opportunity for others to speak on the same subject and we have three who have signed up to speak, at least three who have signed up to speak, and the first of the speakers is Arnold Oliver. Welcome, Arnold, good to see you again.

MR. OLIVER: Thank you, Chairman Laney, Mr. Bernsen, Director Burnett. I apologize for taking additional time, but I felt like I might give a little historical aspect that will point out an item of irony about this particular project that you may or may not be aware of.

Forty-one years ago in 1955 as a summer student at the University of Texas, I began working for the Department and this district and this project was on the drawing boards at that time, so it's been around for a long time. Having sat in Mr. Burnett's seat, I know the gut-wrenching feeling that you have to make when you divvy up a pot of money which is inadequate to meet the needs around the state.

The issue here is whether or not we phase this project. You have graciously provided the methods and the funding to do Phase 1, but the issue is whether we do Phase 1 or do it all together. I've served as Executive Director, I've served as District Engineer in Dallas on Wellburst with the issues involved with overhead construction of cities in Texas, it's been very, very controversial. Austin hates the overhead in regional. Dallas, when I was there, said no, but hell no to an overhead an Central Expressway. A project that initially would have cost $300 -- $300 million and carried the capacity of the design here, the solution accepted was a $500 million solution which would be at capacity when it's completed and severely hampered your efforts because this project was funded solely with 100 percent State dollars because it could not meet the federal requirements for design.

A few years ago a former commissioner of this Commission aided, abetted and financed a lawsuit to prevent the widening of the overhead on Interstate 30 in downtown Fort Worth primarily because of the aesthetic complex of that. We've been ten years in Dallas studying solutions to LBJ, one of which was a terrific objection to overhead express lanes on LBJ. There's terrific opposition right now in Houston to support overhead HOV lanes.

So overheads are not popular and I know that decisions made by previous administrations and previous Commissions cannot bind subsequent Commissions, but let me just say that the $200 million additional cost on Central would fund Phase 2 of this project ten times over. The people of Dallas did not consider and make a decision based on the cost effectiveness of that project. The same thing holds true with other overhead projects which have been modified and changed by previous Commissions.

What you have here is you have a community that has looked at the overhead, they've looked at the aesthetics and they said, this is going to be detrimental to our businesses, but if you build it to where it looks like what you've shown us, it will suffice and we're agreed to go ahead and accept it in its condition. If you phase it, the aesthetics, which are such a big selling point on the overhead, will not be fully manifested to the people until you finally finish Phase 2. And I know it is difficult to come up with an additional $20 million to do the whole project at once, but we made decisions in years gone by that have been much more costly than this and much less cost effective than this particular project will be.

So I would just ask that when you begin to sit down and throw darts at the wall to select these strategic priority projects of the Commission, that you consider Wichita Falls and their needs. They have been supportive of all of the fund raising efforts that the Commission has done in years gone by. I anticipate they will be supportive in the efforts that you may mount in the future. Wichita Falls has not had a member on the Highway Commission since Mr. Harry Hines several decades ago. Our law requires that we have a rural Commissioner, which I suppose is Mr. Bernsen, which is seated on the Commission at this time. So, Mr. Bernsen, we certainly hope you will come to our aid when y'all begin to divvy up the money.

(Laughter.)

MR. OLIVER: And I thank you for your time, but do consider the fact that these people here have cooperated, willing to accept the -- all the negatives of an ever overhead or the benefit of the transportation system of the region, that we would beg your indulgence in consideration of those requests. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Arnold. It's good see you again. Next speaker is Mr. Harold Hawkins.

MR. HAWKINS: I'd like to pass. After speaking to Arnold, I can't --

MR. LANEY: I don't blame you. Mr. John Christoff. Mr. Christoff?

Arnold, let me respond a little bit. First of all, if it's any consolation, Dallas is no more polite these days than it was when you were in.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: And you weren't supposed to give away the method by which we select projects.

(Laughter.)

MR. OLIVER: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to remind you a courtesy of our elected representatives. I don't believe either of them reminded you which committees they serve on and the legislature in which they serve.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Fortunately, we don't need to be reminded. We do a little homework once in a while. Very strong presentations, we appreciate it, very allottable projects. You know the limitation on our resources, most of you do. And issues with respect to preservation, protection, enhancement of economic opportunity, particularly for communities like this, is very high on our scale of high priorities and there is no question that this merits very close attention.

And the phasing issue is one that's been brought to our attention in a concentrated way in the last two days and we'll pay very close attention to that. I was interested -- this is the first time I've seen the impact on congestion of funeral processions and how that impacts it. And sitting there I was thinking that it's likely that we've got at least two funeral homes in this city that will probably stand up in opposition to improving the situation because it might be bad for business.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: Let's hope we don't go that far in protecting economic opportunity. Not to take it lightly, safety is a very important issue and it's one that we saw firsthand yesterday as we went across the "S" curve, so it's an important issue.

But we appreciate very much the presentation, and I'll tell you, we take back to Austin now I think a much clearer read on the impact of a project or projects like these than we would have a week ago. So thank you very much.

Is there anything else in Wichita Falls?

MR. LANEY: Next representative, City of Vernon, we have Mr. Bob Henry. I'll delighted to see Mr. Henry again. Welcome, Bob.

MR. HENRY: Thank you very much. I wasn't sure if this was going to be the same Mr. Laney that I had crossed paths with many years ago, glad it is, glad to see you here today. Mr. Bernsen, Mr. Burnett, glad to make this presentation to you also.

Like the other communities, I would like to give our support to our -- City of Wichita Falls. We are very supportive of this community. Any time I'm in this area shopping I've always noticed that we have a good ten to 15 percent of the shoppers seem to be from Vernon because I've polled it many times. Likewise, we're hoping to have Wichita Falls' support of our project as I go through it today.

Vernon is a town of 12,000, it's on Highway 287 also, it's 50 miles west of here. It is also on US Highway 183, 283 and US Highway 70. Vernon is a predominantly rural area, it however, is a strong private industry community. But our largest employers are also the government. It is the home of the W. T. Waggoner Estate, which is the largest ranch under one fence, 510,000-acre ranch. West Texas Utilities has a coal fire generating plant that was put into service approximately ten years ago. They have enough room to add two more facilities next to it.

The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation has the state forensic unit in Vernon, Texas. It employs 1,100 people. The Wright Brands Foods processes lots of pork, lots of bacon, employs approximately 500 people. Rhone-Poulenc is a chemical company owned by a French company; formerly it was owned by Selanez. They are processing chemicals that are used anywhere from the oil industry to the food industry. We're soon to have 300 more new jobs. The Texas Youth Commission is going to put in a boot camp at the Center South. The Mental Health and Mental Retardation Department has elected to concentrate its facilities at the Center North campus and they have given the Center South campus to the Texas Youth Commission and they plan to put in a boot camp there.

In addition, we are international in the sense that the People's Republic of China has located a helicopter plant in Vernon, Texas. We also are enjoying a large enrollment in our Vernon Regional Junior College, which is also one of our large employers, from the students that are coming from the People's Republic of China and attending our junior college.

All of this is meant to point out to you that like our counterpart, Wichita Falls, we also have a growth factor, we are pushing for growth, and we have likewise had an economy that's been stagnant, if not declining, but we have started seeing a change and started seeing some growth and growth opportunities. We feel that the 300 new jobs will certainly enhance that.

This project that I'm bringing to you today has been, I guess -- every project gets a name. This project in our community has been identified as a loop road. I'm not sure if it's really a loop. It is not a freeway, it is not a four-lane road, it is more in the order of a farm to market road. It is also what I would refer to as an access road. I would like to identify that we -- and in the interest of time, we have presented this concept to the Boards of the Industrial Foundation of Vernon, the Business Development Corporation, the Jaycees, Chamber of Commerce, the City of Vernon, the County Commissioners of Wilbarger County and nearly all of our civic folks. I have yet to receive a dissenting vote.

Now, I am a banker and I did have at one of these organizations a man came up to me and he said, well, I like the idea, I like the project, but I'm still against you. So if that guy's here, don't listen to him.

(Laughter.)

MR. HENRY: The project has many features besides just being another road, and the reason it has strong support is because we are trying to tie this in with quality of life, ease of traffic and also we're trying to identify an area of growth for our community because we're anticipating the growth that's forthcoming.

One of things that was identified in your Wichita Falls presentation was the problems that occurred, the cause of the congestion and they're having to go to an overhead. This road is an idea that probably the time has come that if it is not done, it will create problems in the future because of the lack of foresight. This right of way and this road will enhance the development.

From Business 287, which is through the center of Vernon, south, it's a distance of over three miles before there's another east-west road. If somebody will be help me. I'm not sure how to work this.

(Whereupon, A Slide Show Commenced.)

MR. HENRY: I want to just go to the map. This is Highway 287 that comes through Wichita Falls. This is the Pease River and this is Highway 70 going to Crowell. This is the highway coming from Seymour and going on to Altus to the north. Business 287 comes through town and then connects back with 287 going across the bridge on to Amarillo. Vernon is located 50 miles west of Wichita Falls, 165 miles from Amarillo, 165 miles from Oklahoma City, a little over 100 miles from Abilene, 165 miles from Fort Worth, 180 miles from Dallas. So transportation is very important to us because we have to travel quite a bit.

The town is growing to the southwest. Most of the new development is occurring in this area. The roads -- this is a farm to market road coming off of Highway 70. The development that has occurred that is -- we're seeing a leapfrog or a spiderweb type development is starting to occur along this farm to market road. The project had additional support as of last year. This area in here is somewhat flat, to say the least. The natural drain of the water is to the northeast through the town. The Center North campus of the Department of Mental Health and Retardation is here, Center South is south on this road here.

What is happening is because of the water problems, because of the development of this area, we are needing to have a way to get the water out of our area. We've got -- now we've got a development that is causing this water to be impounded and it can't get through because we've built up roads. Vernon's soil is sandy, and as a result when roads are built, the roads are just laid on top of the ground and there is not a street cut, so to speak, that is done. Because its sandy soil, this is normally not a problem. Last year we had 56 inches of rain in three different rains over a couple day periods each. We had 15 inches in each of those. We had severe flooding in this part of the town, we had flooding in this part of the town. We had cars floating in the parking lot of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation facility.

The concept is that this will help for a more orderly development of our community. We can tie on to the city streets to this where it is appropriate. There will be a probably a tie on here and tie on here and a couple tie-ons over here. I'll show you a slide presentation where the route will go later.

We plan to use this right of way. We plan to acquire an additional wide space approximately 100 feet to make a grass flat waterway. We have what I call the Continental Divide running through here. From this point the water runs to the north of the Pease River. From about right here the water runs south to Paradise Creek. Paradise Creek ends up into the Pease River over here. We don't feel like that this will speed up the water flow, but what we're having is we're having impoundment when development has been made and streets put across so the water is not allowed to normally flow into these channels.

The rodeo grounds that we feel that are -- we're famous for our Palomino Club, it's being very well supported by the Palomino Club, and we feel like that this in addition to being a grassy waterway we would plan to make a riding trail along this road. The 4-H arena is to the east end of town and the rodeo ground is to the south end of town. We plan to have a riding trail along this road if we can get the design approved.

The distance to the -- this is a distance of approximately three and a half miles. This street here is already completed. This is fairly congested. The economic area here is somewhat less. The higher economic area is to the southwest. So we feel like the road will enhance both areas. In other words, we're not just putting our money into the part of town where the growth is, we're trying to bring the town back into a cohesive unit. Most of our recent development has been over in the west end of town and there seems to be an abandonment of these parts.

I will now go into the slides to show you the right of way so that you'll be able to see that it's -- this is looking back to the north. This is 287 and there's no traffic on this road and this is -- seems to be a change. Next slide.

This is the other -- I'm looking back to the south of where I took the picture. You can see how wide this road is. Next slide. The reason being, this road dead ends right here and this is -- that is a motel. We will need to go through the property. And this I did -- it was financed out of the FDIC about a year or so ago at a very nominal cost, so I don't know if we could acquire it at anything similar to the price it was financed at, but it would be very favorable to our project if we could. Next slide.

This is immediately behind the motel facility, I'm showing you the open space. This is on a road that will be widened that's right behind the motel. Next slide.

Continuing down the road this -- I was taking a picture to the west of the open lot. We have -- we're probably taking in from this street and then widen it to the west here going through these two facilities. This house is on the other side of those two motels, approximately two blocks. This house is vacant and it is -- it's adjacent to a very large open area to the west of it.

We're continuing -- I'm showing how that probably we would need to acquire this structure to maintain a straight roadway. This is on the other -- this is looking back to the north towards that house and I think that house is right in here is where that house is looking back. So you can see we're still into open area.

This is looking back to the west going in the other direction, so we're still in open area. This shows that the property is available. This is a church. This road right of way where we were looking at taking the picture across before was in this area right here. We will be crossing this street here.

This is looking back to the west again -- next slide -- and further along the route. The reason I'm showing you this is because this land is all open, we're not going to be taking, for the most part, people's homes. We're not going to be taking houses and businesses. This is looking to the west along the proposed route.

This is looking back from the other direction to that lane that I was just showing you. Sometimes you get your bearings by this tower. It usually shows up and gets our bearings. We're going to the east and then we're also going to go around to tie back into 287.

This is looking back from Business Highway 183, this is on the south edge of town. The development of the town is to the north of this. This is Highway 183/283 on the south end of town. This happens to be an open lot, kind of identifies why we're coming this way because this area was already open.

This is that same building that I was taking from two blocks away. This is a metal structure. I've talked to this individual, I haven't talked to this individual. Next slide.

From that picture that I just took, this is a mile. This is all open area. This is a park owned by the city. This is a -- the -- an event purpose building. We're proposing to put the road on the south end of this hopefully with a turn-in lane here to go into the events building.

Turning around now and looking back to the west, this would be going back towards the farm to market road. And this would be the next to the last leg of this route. This house will have to be acquired and we hope to use this to help pave this and make this wide expanse. And this is looking back from the farm to market road going back to the east.

The purpose of showing you the slides is to show you that the land is available and accessible. Go to the next slide. The reason also we're proposing that we build this access road or farm to market road is the farm equipment is getting larger and larger and even though this is a four-lane road going through Vernon, this is at the courthouse square, it does cause a severe traffic congestion. We didn't take this picture at the peak hours, we took it just at a normal time and you can see what it causes.

Going south, the road to Seymour, is a two-lane road and has double yellow stripes, and a tractor of this size has a maximum speed of 18 miles an hour. The distance out of town to the edge of town before you can get off of a double yellow line is approximately a mile. So if you get behind one of those tractors, you're driving a mile at 18 miles an hour. Next slide.

I have just made inquiries of people along the route. This individual that owns this land has indicated he would donate the land. Obviously, he said it would enhance the value of his land if this was -- if this project went forward. I talked to this individual. He said he would donate his land. I've talked to the individual over here. And other people which I've talked to have been mostly cooperative. There are always a couple of people that have some reservations that would like to get a lot of money out of it, but I think that can be worked out.

The summary of this is we're hoping that this is a project whose idea -- whose time has come. The first time this was brought up in -- it was approximately 50 years ago. The distance, as I was saying, where there's an east and west artery going across Vernon from here to down here is three miles. Without this right of way being acquired, and eventually we'd like to see this going ahead and being tied into US 70. US 70 has also been proposed as a candidate for part of the corridor development. In this instance it would be from Wichita Falls to Lubbock and it would also tie in with, you know, some of the Oklahoma projects.

Last week your counterpart, Herschal Crow, the Chairman of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, was in Vernon visiting with us. He advised us that Governor Keating had made inquiry of Governor Bush and had advised them that they were building a four-lane road from Elk City to Altus. Altus is 35 miles north of Vernon. We're 19 miles from the river, they're 16 miles from the river. They have indicated that they would like to be on a road rather than at the end of the road and they're hopeful that something can be done to tie Vernon and Altus together with better transportation services. They have already planned to upgrade their two-lane road south out of Altus to the Red River. I'm hopeful, too, that we will likewise respond if -- you know, if and when they have done that, completed that project.

Our highest priority in Vernon, however, is this loop road. We don't have any designation, it is not something that's on the planning books. We spoke to your highway department back in February when we found out that you were going to be here today and we asked if we could be in attendance to give you our needs and identify how we feel that Vernon would like to be considered in the scheme of things. We feel like that tying in with the other projects that Oklahoma has planned would also be appropriate to be considered as well.

I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. I thank you for your consideration. Any merit that you can give to our project, we would very much appreciate. Likewise, I have a delegation from Vernon here, but in the interest of time I'm going to hesitate -- going to stall here. I do want to indicate that we have talked to Representative Finnell, we've also talked to Representative Haywood. They have indicated to us that they feel like this is a project that is worthy of merit and so forth.

I have a note here from Representative Finnell that he would be willing to speak for this project.

REPRESENTATIVE FINNELL: Thank you Mr. Chairman. And that note was written before that very eloquent presentation. I think that Mr. Henry has covered a great deal of what needs to be said. Let me just say that Vernon is the largest city in my district and is a city of 12,001 population, but as you can see from the slide, it's a relatively compact city. It is a truly urban city in the midst of the great rolling plains of Texas. And let me remind you that our State of Texas has a great investment in Vernon and it would save the State money because of the state vehicles that are constantly coming in and out of Vernon to have the ability to get there without the bottlenecks and the jams.

The State of Texas, as is mentioned, is the largest employer in Wilbarger County and we need our state vehicles to be able to circulate and to be able to get on to the next chore. So I commend this project to your consideration. It is very well thought out and so much planning has gone into this. It's the best prepared in many years. So let's give it our thoughts and let you know that it has the -- has my support and has been stated also the support of Senator Haywood. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Representative Finnell and Mr. Henry. We appreciate your presentation.

I am going to back up a little bit to someone who wanted to speak on the Wichita Falls projects who happened to be outside the room when I called his name. Mr. John Christoff.

MR. CHRISTOFF: Thank you, Mr. Laney, and we want to welcome all y'all to Wichita Falls. I'm John Christoff from Union Square Federal Credit Union down here at 1401 Holliday. We're a financial institution that serves the immediate area. We have 28,000 members, and we are long-time property owners in this corridor that's under discussion.

We bought the property or started buying up the property in 1974 for a long-range project that's come to fruition back in 1985. And we knew back in 1974 of the long-range plans to build the overhead or the potential of the overhead. So it would be ludicrous for us to come in now and say, gee, we don't want that to happen because we think, as Mr. Muehlberger has stated, that it's good for Wichita Falls, it's good for the State of Texas. However, as with the Kell project, that was a great idea, but it kind of stopped and started and stopped and started and it really doesn't go anywhere.

What we feel is we don't want Phase 1, Phase 2 or Phase 3. We want the Kell -- the overhead project to tie into Kell and to do your ingress-egress in one completion. If you don't have the money, escrow what our portion is until you collect the money. If you can't do it right, let's don't go it at all until you have the money to do it. We don't want it to be -- this thing dragging out into the next century and not be building built in my child's lifetime.

So our position is let's do it, let's do it right, there's a need for it, but let's don't block it up with one, two and three. Let's do it all or nothing. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Mr. Christoff. Back to the Vernon project proposal. Mr. Bernsen, you have any questions?

MR. BERNSEN: No. Huh-uh.

MR. LANEY: Again, thank you Representative Finnell and Mr. Henry, great to see you.

MR. LANEY: Now, with respect to Montague County, I'd like to recognize County Judge Cleve Steed and Mr. J. C. Duncan.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Mr. Chairman, Jamie Reed will be our spokesman.

MR. LANEY: Thank you. Mr. Reed.

MR. REED: We appreciate this opportunity to express our grievance. If you will note this with me, please, I've given you a petition for dust control, the Precinct 4, Montague County Road 275. And this is a weight scale ticket given by the -- given to the truck drivers that come in and pick up this material. The dust in Montague County has a serious health problem for humans as well as animals and the following warning is taken from the backside of this scale ticket for the material that's being put on our road, which declares that this is -- it's not a cause of this, it's a direct warning. And it states that it causes irritation, it's harmful if inhaled; warning to avoid contact with eyes, skin and clothing; causes irritation to the eyes, skin or nasal passages may occur; wash thoroughly after handling; breathing dust may result in lung disease; can cause inflammation of the cornea; may result in the development of pulmonary diseases including pneumoconiosis and silicosis.

For the first four miles out of Bowie, out of town, first four miles to the cross road, there's 33 homes, which at this particular time three of them is unoccupied. And I have another issue here. I gave you -- if you would, look with me, please, concerning the Citizens for Improvement to the Upper Montague Road. It's a petition of the concerned citizens who are asking for emergency assistance needed to facilitate the paving of the Upper Montague Road from Bowie, Texas to Farm to Market 455 out of Montague, Texas, or at the intersection of the Lone Star Road and State Highway 59 between Bowie and Montague. And we have some reasons submitted. Number one on the item is the health hazard. Now, there have been many complaints of breathing problems of children, with lung problems and other people who are consumed within the cloud of heavy dust caused by traffic. One of the heights of my youth was to -- in the afternoons to be with my grand daddy, he would pluck an old black-diamond watermelon and we'd get out there in the cool of the evening under a shade tree and enjoy that watermelon. I would love to do the same thing with my grandchildren, but it's almost impossible for the dust. And I have the oak tree, but I also have the dust.

I love horses, I raise horses. As a matter of fact, I may want to come, Mr. Henry, and join the Palomino Club. But it's a hazard to horses. The horses develop distemper from the dust, can cause colic. I don't know if you've ever or -- experienced with horses. I used to work for the 6666 Ranch and been around horses all my life. It's a heartening -- very sad and disheartening to see a horse die with the colic, which is -- they receive from the dust and sand.

Second thing is it's a school bus and mail route. When this road is wet and muddy there are many places where a car cannot pass without slipping into the ditch. These ditches are excessively deep in areas and it's very hazardous. And also causes erosion to the property adjoining the farm road and there have been accidents, some fatal, due to these conditions. We had a problem not long when ago a lady ran off into this ditch, it was very cold, she couldn't get out of the ditch, she proceeded to walk. She walked about a mile, developed hypothermia, fell in the ditch, it snowed and we didn't find her until after the snow melted because of that fatality -- because she got stuck.

Item number three, it's a detour route. Due to a wreck on Highway 59 the Upper Montague Road had to be used as a detour because it was the only route available in emergency passage. At a later date, which was just a couple months ago, due to fire, traffic was routed through the Upper Montague Road off of Montague Highway 59. Again, because of heavy traffic, which consists of 18-wheelers, tank trucks, milk and oil trucks, pipe trucks, heavy-duty equipment trucks causes a terrible dust problem and some of the residents had to evacuate their homes twice in two weeks.

Fourthly, it's next to the elementary school. The condition of this unpaved road is an eyesore, it's hazardous to school children of the Bowie Elementary School. At this time there's 540 students. With teachers and aids that increases the number to approximately 600 people where dust from this road settles on the school ground, and erosion along with the road causes it to be unsightly and also dangerous.

Fifth thing is it's the most travelled unpaved road in the county. This road's been passed over for paving many times in the past due to political pressures from Commissioners. The county precincts are situated where most of the voters are not represented properly, thereby, allowing this dangerous condition to exist within remedy by voters. Last year the Court selected and voted the Upper Montague Road the number one priority for state consideration for paving.

Maintenance is inadequate due to the small tax revenue received for maintenance of the Montague County Road. Funds are limited. We would appreciate it very much if assistance could be furnished by the Texas Department of Transportation for upgrading of the Upper Montague Road.

It's almost impossible for children to play out in the yards or if you're going to have an outing or cookout or whatever, it's just impossible to enjoy to have people to come, and we would deeply appreciate your concern. We respectfully request that the Highway Commission consider the above reasons for allowing to be designated this farm to market road to be improved accordingly. And I would like at this time, please, if Senator Charles Finley would come please -- I'm sorry, Representative Finnell and speak in behalf of this project.

REPRESENTATIVE FINNELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Montague County is the county I guess I've represented the longest of any of the counties I've served here today. Montague County is the eastern most part of my legislative district and therefore it's the most proximate to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan area. If I may say so, that's where I see all my colleagues from the Dallas-Fort Worth area on the weekends, they're all in Montague County. I mean it is a pleasant drive up to Montague County, but you -- coming out of the Dallas-Fort Worth area. You're going to find more and more population coming there for recreation, tourism and I think it serves the interest of the State to give thought to what the Montague County Commissioners Court has in mind today. There are three proposals actually. You've heard about the Upper Montague Road. You're going to hear about the need for a four-lane divided highway from Nocona, Texas on over to Wichita Falls, Texas in a few minutes. So I equally support the three proposals from Montague County and I think we should recognize their unique rural capacity and rural community in the county, but quickly becoming impacted by the Metropolitan area both in terms of visitors and in terms of the people in Montague County who live in Montague County and work in the larger cities to the east. Thank you.

MR. BERNSEN: My understanding is this is a county road right now, unpaved, it's undescribable on paper?

MR. REED: Now, we have some film we didn't bring, but could be presented. Just almost impossible to describe in words the conditions that exist because of the dust.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Reed, let me mention there was a Rider attached to our appropriation bill in the last session that in effect gives counties like Montague County the ability to apply for materials for the department that we have made available. I've forgotten the dollar amount, $6 million in materials available to -- for use in connection with servicing county roads and working with county roads. Is Montague County familiar with this?

MR. REED: I'm not sure as far as myself how much or I'll see -- we would be glad having that information.

MR. LANEY: Well, it might serve your purposes in connection with this Upper Montague Road precisely. Ordinarily our resources with respect to county road work are very, very limited. On the other hand, we're very -- we're concerned about your problem, but the most direct route to us and our ability to help you might be Rider 42 and probably contact between Montague County and our staff with respect to available materials for your county, particularly this road. It may be the solution you need. I would think that may be the first stage on it, but it sounds awful. And if we can help, we'd be delighted to help. That's the first step.

MR. REED: Our Commissioner would probably know about that.

MR. LANEY: And if he doesn't know about it, have him contact the Texas Department -- David Peeples here in Wichita Falls.

MR. REED: Thank you, sir.

MR. LANEY: Representative of the City of Nocona we have Mr. Joe Gamble, Nocona City Manager.

MR. GAMBLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner. It's my pleasure to represent the City of Nocona and the Nocona Chamber of Commerce. We were told to limit our presentation to under five minutes and we will honor that request. We appreciate you taking the time to come to Wichita Falls being away from your family and allowing us the convenience of making our request here in Wichita Falls.

I'm here to ask for your support and approval to expand State Highway 82 between Nocona and Henrietta from the present two-lane highway to a four-lane highway. It's my understanding that in the past it has been on some year plan and has been removed and at the present time is not listed on any plan at all. Also for the last 25 years the county has had money set aside for the acquisition of the right of way for this expansion. The Texas Department of Transportation has always been a model of success for the development of probably the best highway system in the United States. This success certainly has been spurred by the need for economic development and safety as you've heard many other speakers say today. We believe that Highway 82 is another prime example of meeting both of those challenges, spurring economic development and safety.

Presently Highway 82 running from Texarkana to Lubbock is basically the only major route to the north along the Red River that you can traverse this part of the state with, overwise you have to go through the Metroplex, and most of us who live to the north would rather stay away from those areas.

Additionally, from our region and from Nocona, we have Oklahoma City to the north, Gainesville, Sherman to the east, of course Wichita Falls to the west and the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex to the south, all of which are serviced by Highway 82 from north Montague County.

Additionally, north Montague County and Montague County is the home of the Red River crossing of the Chisholm Trail, the home of Spanish Fort that I believe will eventually become part of the Texas Parks and Recreation System, one of the early battle grounds of the Native American and the New Pioneers of Texas. And of course we are the home -- Nocona is the home of Nocona Boots and Nocona Athletic Goods, so two of our major manufacturers and employers in Montague County. But our efforts haven't stopped with those things. We have the Nocona Economic Development Corporation, the Montague County Regional Development Council. We have just created a Farmer's Market. We have the North Montague Historical Society and Museum that's planning a new museum along Highway 82. We have the Nocona General Hospital that in several years has had tremendous growth, and these are all fine examples of the efforts in north Montague County to develop economically and keep our jobs, our employment and our quality of life. The common thread that links all of these things together is Highway 82.

In April of 1995 the City of Nocona lost a valued employee, good citizen, along with his wife and his granddaughter in a terrible tragic accident on 82. I could show you slides of two-lane highways, and I suspect that you've seen more than your fair share and don't need to go through those things again. I could certainly address the benefits of two lane to four lane and you've heard all of those items, and no need of going through that again. And certainly with our economic development effort the probability of a decrease of accidents along 82 is not likely to occur.

I believe what you will find, however, is a dedication of the citizens of Montague County to work towards the expansion of Highway 82. The staff has been provided with a series of petitions that you have been made aware of signed by the residents of Montague County supporting this effort. We don't have the population of Dallas or San Antonio, Fort Worth, Wichita Falls for that matter. We don't have the resources to hire the consultants to do the presentation, support the numbers and give you these details. We rest our hopes upon this Commission that you have the ability to analyze these needs, to appoint your staff to research these issues and understand that though we are a small county, a rural county without the financial abilities of someone of the other presenters, our needs are still no less important and no less urgent. And we hope that with your guidance and assistance that we will have the expansion of Highway 82 on some plan for which we can work with the Department to insure that in the very near future that we will be able to utilize those revenues that we have had in the bank for 25 years to acquire the right of way and move forward with the expansion. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you. We have a speaker on this issue, Mr. Joe Pence, city manager -- City Administrator from Henrietta.

MR. PENCE: Thank you very much. We're glad you're here in this north Texas area to look at our concern. I want to speak specifically about Highway 82. Although I would like to say that we in Henrietta, the City Council, and I speak on their behalf, do support the overpass for the Holliday and Broad Streets here in Wichita Falls. We'd like to get those cars coming through Wichita Falls a lot faster and get them over to Henrietta a lot sooner actually.

So back in 1972 -- '70 or '72, Highway 287 was constructed around Henrietta and we think that that has affected the economic prospects for Henrietta and has since that time. Highway 82 comes through Henrietta from Nocona. Henrietta is the only city of any size between Nocona and Wichita Falls and we support, wholeheartedly support, the widening of Highway 82 from Henrietta to Nocona. But we do not support the idea that -- and we've heard over the years, at least I have, that the -- if they do widen Highway 82, they will -- they will divert traffic around Henrietta and somehow or another get onto 287. We support the widening of Highway 82, we think that it's essential to our economic growth and development. And Henrietta over the last half decade from, say, '88 to now has made great strides in upgrading our businesses in the downtown area and throughout Henrietta. So we've got tourism going now, we've renovated and revitalized all the buildings in the downtown area. Heck, we've even got a new Sonic coming in. I know Gary Bean from Burkburnett was laughing at me the other day when I said we got a new Sonic, and I said don't laugh at the Sonic, I mean that's the biggest thing that's happened to Henrietta in the last quarter of a century, you know, we need that Sonic. So we want people to come to that Sonic, we don't want them diverted around if we do widen 82 over to 287.

So basically those are my comments and I hope you would take that into consideration if you decide to widen 82 from Henrietta to Nocona, which we're in support of. Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, Mr. Pence.

Representing the Nocona Hills Residence Committee we have Mr. Francis Godwin.

MR. GODWIN: Thank you for the opportunity to attend the meeting today to present our problem that we have. This is another problem in Montague County. We have submitted a petition to the county for 723 signatures not only representing our people, but signatures from 17 other cities and the surrounding area that use this particular stretch of road that we're going to talk about. It is a four and two-tenths stretch of gravel road connecting Farm to Market 3301 to Farm to Market 2953 which ties into the new Oklahoma river bridge.

Our important points of getting this paved is, first off, we have four subdivisions of people living off of this stretch of gravel road. It is a highly travelled gravel road for this part of the county. The latest count that we had was from 350 to 400 cars in one day. It has two school bus routes that travels this four and two-tenths miles, Nocona school bus route and also Prairie Valley. It is a U.S. Mail route. It also has heavily travelled farm and ranch traffic over this road which makes it very hazardous because it is dusty, it's narrow, it's graveled. And it -- the mail route and bus route in the wintertime, it's muddy. We feel that not only just for the people that live here, but it would be an economic boost to Montague County and also tie into the new river bridge road going to Oklahoma.

We have -- in these four subdivisions we have a lot of people that live out in that area that drive this road every day to and from work. So we are submitting this request to the State to take into serious consideration of getting this four and two-tenths mile of gravel road paved. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you Mr. Godwin. Just a quick remark on your proposal. To the extent you're interested in this being included in the state system, the county commissioners should make a formal request to the Department. We would rank them statewide and includes which ones are of the greatest benefit to the State, that's the order of approach.

A second consideration is that you might just approach our District Engineer, David Peeples, in Wichita Falls and see if there is some fit from materials standpoint from resurfacing -- or surfacing the road. But we hear your concern, we hear your traffic volumes. It looks like they're rising. Ordinarily, just to be candid with you, they would need to rise to levels that are higher than this for us to seriously consider them in the state system. So probably the best approach would be to contact Mr. Peeples and see if there is anything that we can do out of this district to help with the surface of the road. Mr. Bernsen, any comments?

MR. BERNSEN: No.

MR. LANEY: Any other speakers that I have that I haven't recognized that you're aware of? We appreciate your presentations for all the projects. Yes, Representative Finnell. I'll get the pronunciation straight sooner or later.

REPRESENTATIVE FINNEL: Before you do Upper Montague County, let me just say that the correspondence on paving FM 3301 has been the heaviest of all. We've had a great many letters and petitions. I also want to address the gap, if you will, between Henrietta and Nocona. As you well know, and both of you former -- Chairman and former Chairman of the Commission, realize that 82 is not only a part of our Trunk System, but it's also a part of our National Highway System. So it has that dual designation although it's not on the blackboard behind you, so to speak. I recall that it is on both the National Highway System and the Trunk System. And visualize yourself at Nocona you can go east four lane, beautiful highway. In Henrietta you can go west equally four lane, beautiful highway, but you just have that short gap between Henrietta and Nocona that's truly not safe and needs to be considered in the light of the scheme of Highway 82's designation. I think that concludes my presentations for Montague County. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you Representative Finnell. David, do you have anything?

MR. BERNSEN: I want to say that Highway 82 is important and I see from the information that I've received -- that we've all received that it's not on the radar yet. I think that we ought to see what we can do to just get it on the scoreboard and start working toward completion, but we'll get with staff and see what the constraints of our financial situation is.

MR. LANEY: A lot of efforts go into these kinds of presentations, from anyone who assumes the dawning responsibility on behalf of their community or who delegates to make the presentations and we appreciate it, it's very helpful to us. It has been instructed this morning, we will take that information back. And in all cases, we'll be back to you in as short an order as we can get back to you on. So we appreciate the effort. We benefited from it and we hope you will.

MR. LANEY: We would like to hear next, after which we will take a brief break and probably move into an Executive Session, but before we do anymore business we'd like to hear from David Peeples, the District Engineer of this district, just in terms of an overall view of what's going on in this district. Mr. Peeples.

MR. PEEPLES: Good morning, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Bernsen, Mr. Burnett. I am David Peeples, the District Engineer of the Wichita Falls District. It is a great pleasure that we welcome you to our district. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity that you have afforded us to visit with you and show you a small portion of our district. The Wichita Falls district is composed of nine counties in North Central Texas and shares 175 miles of border with Oklahoma along with six other department districts. The population in the district is growing. Right now we have a population of approximately 228,000 people. We have five area engineering offices, 12 maintenance offices, two travel information centers and one vehicle titles and registration office in the district. Our district has been activity involved in area planning since 1964. The City of Wichita Falls is designated MPO for the urban area. We work not only with the MPO but also with Wichita County and NorTex Regional Planning Commission and study the transportation needs of the area. We promote public transportation systems in the area.

We have made significant gains in achieving ethnic diversity. Overall our district has 170 percent of parity for blacks, 318 percent of parity for Hispanics and 76 percent of parity for females. District employees have been actively involved in TAME since its inception. Thirty Wichita Falls district engineers participate in three high schools, three junior high schools and two elementary schools in the district. Among the activities the most popular is the TAME Expo Center in which 2,100 students participated in.

During this fiscal year our human resources staff has made 2,500 recruiting contacts. They have processed 13 new employees and 13 transfers within the department of the district. There's only been one retirement in the district this fiscal year. We have also had 859 training opportunities for employees, with a total of 7,800 hours of employee training.

The staff and level of the district has varied over the years with an average of 325 employees for the past five years. We are currently allocated 316 employees. We have 304 full-time employees, three temporary employees and ten open job vacancy notices. There are 15 licensed engineers in the district with about equal distribution between 10 and 20 years of service and 20-plus years of service. The 49 engineering technicians in the district are not so evenly divided. Over 53 percent of them have less than ten years of experience, 27 percent have 10 to 20 years of experience and 20 percent have over 20 years of experience. We have 184 maintenance technicians, 53 percent with less than ten years of experience, 22 percent have from 10 to 20 years of experience and 24 percent have over 20 years of experience. 207 maintenance employees maintain 6,300 lane miles and 1,052 bridges.

The maintenance budget has varied between ten and $12 million over the past five years. This year our maintenance budget is $11.66 million. Our district has 110 Adopt-A-Highway groups. They cover over 220 center-line miles, approximately 80 percent of our system. There are five Set Aside litter agreements in Wichita Falls, Bowie, Nocona, Gainesville, Vernon and Graham. Over 20,000 acres of litter were picked up on the Set Aside program at the cost of approximately $200,000. The Adopt-A-Highway program picks up an estimated 1,360 acres of litter saving approximately $13,000 per year. We participate in right of way beautification and encourage local communities to help out. We've had five past Keep Texas Beautiful winners in the district.

State forces also do preventive maintenance work. Last year state forces accomplished two million square yards of sealco. They also did 100,000 pounds of crack sealing and 73,000 square yards of road mill. Currently we have ten approved enhancement projects estimated at $3.6 million.

The construction letting volume in the district has varied greatly over the past five years from a high of $33 million in '92 to a low of about $15 million in '91. Our current letting volume is $25 million. With the varying letting volume, the construction amount dollars under contract has also varied. Over the past five years the dollars under contract has varied from a high of 43 million in 1995 to a low of 17 million in 1991. The current trend has a graduate increase under the dollars under contract. In April '96 the Department had 34 projects totally $25 million under contract. In September of '94 Wichita Falls construction engineering costs were 7.8 percent. That improved over the last year as an average of 7.1 percent. This reduction of .7 percent in construction engineering costs represented a savings of approximately $175,000 over the life of the projects.

We let 16 QCQA projects during the fiscal year for an amount of $6.25 million and an estimated 130,000 tons of mix. Five projects included 100,000 tons of CMHD at a cost of about $4.6 million. The Wichita Falls district has been authorized approximately $5 million for seal coats and thin overlays. This will provide for a seal coat of thin overlay at an approximate eleven-year interval. The desirable frequency for a seal coats and overlays is seven years. That would cost approximately $7.75 million. The seven-year frequency is generally predicated on a sound roadway, when in fact the Wichita Falls district system is wearing out, and seal coats and thin overlays will not be sufficient to maintain a desirable system. Over 60 percent of the system is 30 years old and 80 percent is 20 years old. This is an indication that maintenance dollars will have to be increased as the roadways wear out and that reconstruction of the system will be increasingly important. We have 56 on system and 195 off system deficient previous. This represents $35.8 million in needs. For fiscal year '96 through '98 the Wichita Falls district averages $2 million per year in bridge projects.

In addition, we have 97 beam or steel or truss on system bridges that require a $4.8 million paint system. The request for upgrading the area roads to FM status total $6.8 million. $17.6 million in existing FM rehab needs have been identified above the program projects. $19.6 million in needs on U.S. and state highways above the program projects have been identified.

One of major needs in the district is US 82, or Kell Boulevard. This project was approved in 1967. Right-of-way acquisition was completed nearly 20 years ago. Twelve major contracts to replace the B.M. Railroad and to clear to right of way have been completed. To complete the freeway within the city two phases would be required: A 2.1 mile stretch that is estimated at $14.3 million and another 2.4 mile stretch that is estimated at $14 million.

The highest priority needs of the district is a 287 elevated section along Broad and Holliday. This section, a significant gap in an otherwise complete four lane -- or four-lane freeway system with frontage roads. IH-44 begins at one end of the gap and US 82 intercepts with 287 at the other end. This gap is the only signal between Fort Worth and the Childress district. The estimate for completion of this project is 42.4 million.

However, in order to down scale the project so it may be possible to proceed with the project, it has been divided into phases. The first phase would provide for two through lanes and an exit to the central business district. This would cost approximately $20 million. To add the additional lane to the overhead session would be about $7 million and the other connections to the central business district and US 82 are about $19 million. This would total approximately $46 million if we have to do the work in phases. The project is currently in priority 2 and plans are pointing to 25 to 30 percent developed. There are still 14 right-of-way parcels to be acquired for Phase 1 and seven right-of-way parcels that additionally would be required for the completion of the project. We need this project to be upgraded to priority 1 status. With that status, we could go to construction in 1998.

Public support for this project was indicated in an editorial in September of 1987. This report was again demonstrated in an editorial last month. However, the recent editorial called for a complete project without any phasing. The above identified needs amount to $155 million or approximately seven years at our current fund level of funding.

In conclusion, the Wichita Falls District Lab won the first District Lab of the Year Award that was presented by the Materials and Test Division. Our district is also at this time obtaining all of its safety goals for the year, and vehicle accidents, injuries and lost time injuries. This is due largely to the efforts of our safety coordinator, our area engineers, our maintenance supervisors and the district Safety Committee.

This has been a rather large project for us to host this Commission meeting and I have some thank you's that I'd like to give out. I'd like all our district employees to stand up, the ones that are here. Each one of them helped somewhat.

(Applause.)

MR. PEEPLES: I would especially like Carole Mayo to stand up. She handled the liaison between us and Austin and I think she did a terrific job. I hope y'all enjoy your stay here. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thanks, David, you all have done a great job, and Carole is a great lobbyist for Henrietta.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: We now proceed with ordinary business. I need to note for the record that public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 11 a.m. on April 17, 1996. And the first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes of the Commission dated March 28, '96.

MR. BERNSEN: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded. All in favor?

(A Chorus Of Ayes.)

MR. LANEY: At this time the meeting will be recessed for about 15 minutes for the Commission to meet in the Executive Session pursuant to notice given -- as given in the meeting agenda filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. We are now in recess for 15 minutes.

(Off The Record.)

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

MR. LANEY: The meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is reconvened. The Commission has concluded its Executive Session with no action being taken on any matter.

Ordinarily we have -- we wait until the end of our normal business to have an open comment period, but we have a couple of folks signed up, one, to talk about the Wichita Falls project, and then someone has just signed up just for open comments. We're going to move into that area first.

First of all, Representative John Hirschi, I understand, is here and we'll be glad to have him, wherever he is. Representative Hirschi, if you want to come on up, we'd be delighted to hear from you.

REPRESENTATIVE HIRSCHI: First my apologies for being late, but I did find out a good lesson in good transportation in that my plane got cancelled out of Austin last night. So I decided a good road is probably even more important than I thought they were.

(Laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE HIRSCHI: I do want to say that I'm pleased to have you all meeting in Wichita Falls today and that -- and specifically in regard to the Wichita Falls project. I am a property owner that will be affected by it, but I want to tell you that I do support it 100 percent, although I realize there is going to be some difficulty for property owners up and down the elevated expressway while it's been being built. But it is extremely necessary to the future of our community and for that project to move along. Considering the high traffic accident rate along there, I think it's by far the most humane thing we can do is try to eliminate that bottleneck. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you Representative Hirschi. Can we quote with your comment on transportation come January?

(Laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE HIRSCHI: Yes.

MR. LANEY: Next we have Mr. Brian Duncan set to speak in the open comment period from Graham, Texas. Sorry, is that Graham?

MR. DUNCAN: Graham, Texas.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

MR. DUNCAN: Thank you all for giving me the opportunity the speak today. As you said, my name is Brian Duncan, I'm a resident from Graham, Texas, which is in Young County. And I'm here today to ask the Commission to seriously consider the construction of a north/south loop around the City of Graham. This is not a new idea. Graham city officials and residents proposed this community project to the Texas Highway Commission over 17 years ago. I think it was on a different part of town, but -- although you may not have heard from us, this is still a very important and needed project not only for the residents of Graham, but for traffic from Wichita Falls and the surrounding cities coming through and going to Possum Kingdom Lake and other points south. Especially the trucks hauling from Burkett Limestone Pit ten miles south of Graham to most points north to North Texas and Oklahoma.

The need for this north/south loop exists for several reasons. One, there is a potential danger of large trucks passing through a residential area, which is the main street in Graham right now, a residential area with nine stoplights, a school zone where children play and cross the street frequently. Second, there is a potential hazard for waste to be spilled, truck traffic or downtown shoppers to be injured or killed while crossing the street, especially during periods of festival activities on the square. Three, there is no -- there is currently an alternative P.K. truck route, but no route for trucks hauling hazardous materials north and south. And four, the excessive wear on the roads especially in the northbound traffic due to loaded trucks having to stop at nine stoplights within a mile and a half.

The opportunity currently exists for land on the west side of Graham to be used for such a development. Presently the Brazos River Authority is acquiring the land by means to combat flooding of Salt Creek. After acquired, this land will be turned over to the City of Graham and this land will consist of approximately one mile, the mile and a half right of way that is estimated to be needed for this proposed road development.

It is very important that something from the Texas Highway Commission be on the planning docket now so that this land will not be dedicated to some other use, thus making it more difficult to construct this much needed and supported north/south loop. This is a small project relative to most highway developments, probably less than $5 million, I'm not sure. However, when considering the most impact for the dollars spent, this project will have a significant positive effect to the City of Graham, its neighboring communities and all traffic travelling north and south through Graham.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present that and that you will consider it in the next five to ten years.

MR. LANEY: Thanks for the presentation, appreciate you pointing that out. We will make a note of it and we will dig in once we get back. Representative Finnell.

REPRESENTATIVE FINNELL: In regards to the Graham project, Graham, of course is Young County, the largest county in my district. And let me say that Young County -- Graham is a destination for many people both in Wichita Falls, Fort Worth and Abilene. It's almost equidistant to all three of those places. It's not really on the way to anywhere, you have to want to go to Graham to get to Graham, and it's worth the trip.

In addition to this safety factor which was outlined with the north/south, there's another factor there in regard to their square. The Graham -- Young County has the largest public square in the continental United States, north and south hemisphere. We are talking about the largest public square. It's a mile around the square. It's a beautiful area, it's been designated by the Legislature as the largest public square in the -- basically the free world, and it is an asset for tourism. So you really need to consider not only the safety aspect but the aesthetics of that beautiful square when you're finding a way to get those hazardous materials around the community without going through the square. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Representative Finnell. Now I know there is a reason to go to Graham.

(Laughter.)

MR. LANEY: I want to see that square. I've never heard anything like that.

Yes, we've now covered our minutes and our Executive Session. Let's move on in the regular agenda. We may take a few items out of order.

MR. BURNETT: Chairman, Item 2 on your agenda is Awards, Resolutions and Recognitions. As you remember at the last time of the meeting we deferred to this item. We bring to you for your consideration two resolutions: One, adopting support of the Alliance for I-69 of Texas a high priority order of the TEA Bill, and also for your consideration a resolution supporting IH-35 border -- high priority border which is included in the National Highway System Bill. We ask for your consideration of these resolutions.

MR. LANEY: Two resolutions, one for 35 and one for 69?

MR. BURNETT: Two separate resolutions, yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Bernsen, any questions?

MR. BERNSEN: Are they the same?

MR. BURNETT: Other than one whereas. One whereas says we like I-69, another whereas says we like I-35.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion?

MR. BERNSEN: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded. All in favor?

(A Chorus of Ayes.)

MR. BURNETT: Commissioners, under Item 3, Promulgation of Rules and Regulations, we bring you two rules for proposed adoption. If it pleases the Commission, we'll accept -- pass both these in one motion. Chapter 1 Management. This -- these rules are proposed to be in accordance with Senate Bill 971 of the 74th Legislature of nineteen ninety -- Legislature 1995 which recodified the statutes regarding transportation. What this rule does is in the transportation code requires the Commission to develop and implement policies that clearly defines with respect to the responsibilities of the Commission and the Staff of the Department. And in Section 802 requires the Commission to develop and implement policies that provides the public with a reasonable opportunity to appear before the Commission and speak in any issue under the jurisdiction of the Commission. And I think Mr. Templeton will review Chapter 11 --

MR. LANEY: I have one question.

MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Templeton may be the one to answer it. My recollection is vague. Obviously, correct me if I'm wrong, in Section 1 there's a reference to county with population more than 2.4 million people and then later 2.1. I thought that was 1.9 million or 1.4 million.

MR. TEMPLETON: I don't know.

MR. LANEY: You might want to check. My recollection is it's not that.

MR. TEMPLETON: We'll look into that.

MR. LANEY: Subject to that possible correction.

MR. BURNETT: Bobby, in Chapter 11 -- this is Bobby Templeton, the District Executive Director of Field Operations.

MR. TEMPLETON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, Mr. Burnett. We have a proposed rule before you today that would modify Chapter 11. We're adding new Section 11.50 and amendments to Sections 11.5, 11.52 and 11.53. What we have is a change in the rules in this particular area that will -- for noncommercial driveways it now reads the Department may assist as the workload permits and the installation of those driveways. Under this policy we have a variety of activities by districts, some doing nothing and some doing all of the installation work. Due to constrained funding and personnel and to provide a more uniformed policy throughout the state, the Department will no longer assist in the installation and maintenance of private driveways and it is necessary to correct these rules to that feature and we would recommend your approval to proceed with the posting of these rules.

MR. BURNETT: If the Commissioner has no questions about Chapter 11, can we have a motion to adopt proposal of these rules. They'll both go through the public comment period.

MR. LANEY: Let me just ask a question, Bill.

MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: The elimination of this driveway policy, what kind of consternation is that going to cause in districts?

MR. BURNETT: We have met with all the district engineers and the district engineers wholeheartedly support this. We have visited with several members of the legislature to inform them of this and I think they understand like in the Atlanta district where we had spent $150,000 in one year installing driveways, the sentiment is they prefer for us to be up on the roadways with our money and not doing that. So I think it's a very comfortable policy with the 25 district engineers overwhelmingly popular with them.

MR. LANEY: Projected savings are roughly what, any idea?

MR. BURNETT: Be in excess of a million and a half.

MR. TEMPLETON: Statewide.

MR. LANEY: Statewide?

MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: Motion.

MR. BERNSEN: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded. All in favor?

(A Chorus of Ayes.)

MR. BURNETT: Four on your agenda, Commissioners, is Contracts. Bobby Templeton, we bring those to you?

MR. TEMPLETON: I have Tab 4-1, 4.a.1, we have the State Let Maintenance Contracts. We let four of those projects on the April letting. We had a total of 70 bids or an average of five bids per project. These low bids totals $2.625 million and that was an underrun of approximately $900,000 of the total estimated cost. That's about a 25.8 percent underrun. We would recommend that all of these be awarded.

MR. BERNSEN: Are we going to do them all in a group?

MR. TEMPLETON: We can pass them all in a group if that pleases the Commissioners.

MR. BERNSEN: Do them all under

group.

MR. TEMPLETON: Behind Tab 2 we have the building projects. There was only one building project in this month's letting. We had good competition on that project. There was four bids and it's $224,000 over the estimated cost, or 16 percent, but because of the good competition, we believe that it's a fair bid and we'd recommend that one be awarded as well.

Behind Tab 3 are the construction projects. There were 63 of those projects in the April letting and we averaged 5.49 bids per project, which is very good competition. The total of all of the bids came to $111.8 million and that was $7.1 million less than our total estimated cost, or an underrun of just a little over 6 percent.

We have one project that we wish to recommend rejection on, it's on page 1. It's the Bowie County project at the bottom of the page. It is 15 percent over the estimate. There's only one bid and the district feels like the competition is not there; that their estimate was accurate, but they would like to that project back to the drawing board and redesign it for deficiencies and economists and relet it. So with the exception of the Bowie County project, we would recommend that all of the construction contracts -- all the construction bids be awarded a contract.

MR. BERNSEN: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded. All in favor?

(A Chorus of Ayes.)

MR. BURNETT: I have a B item, Delegation of Authority.

MR. LANEY: Let me make a note at this point. Just for the record, it's worth pointing out, I think that in connection with the driveway policy, Mr. Chambers, it says here, is determined that for each year of the first five years of this change, changes in effect, the State will save approximately 75 percent of its yearly expenditures in driveway installation maintenance costs, or approximately $9 million annually. That's worth saving.

MR. BERNSEN: Substantially.

MR. LANEY: Very good.

MR. TEMPLETON: Behind Tab 4b is a request for the Commission to authorize the executive director to act for the Commission in concurring or not concurring to award contracts for the construction of all system projects let by others. On occasion we have projects that fit this category and they come at a time that's not in concert with the meeting of the Commission, and it's recommended that for expediency and improved efficiency and processing those contracts, that the authority concur in the reward or reject the reward be delegated to engineer, director or his designee.

MR. LANEY: Motion?

MR. BERNSEN: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded. All in Favor?

(A Chorus of Ayes.)

MR. BURNETT: It if pleases the Commission, we'd like to jump to Item 6, Subscription Rate for Texas Highways magazine, and Ms. Cassie Carlson Reed is Deputy Executive Director, Administrative Services.

MS. REED: Good morning, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Bernsen, Mr. Burnett. This minute would authorize an increase in subscription rates and single copy retail price for the Texas Highways magazine. As you're aware, the General Appropriation Act requires the cost of producing and distributing the magazine should be offset by its income. Over the last 15 years, since 1981, the production and cost have exceeded the receipts by four million. We have not raised the price of the Texas Highways subscription since 1989. This proposed subscription rate increase would be that subscriptions within the United States would go from the existing $12.50 to $17.50, which is a $5.00 increase. Subscriptions outside the United States would go from the existing $20 to $25.50, which is a $5.50 increase. And the city single copy retail newsstand would be from the existing $2 to $3.50.

The post is the primary reasons why the production costs have been -- postage has gone up since even January of '95, second-class mailing, which is the bulk of where -- how we distribute the magazine, has gone up almost 27 percent. The paper, the body of the magazine, has gone up almost 41 percent since just January of '95. This revenue, this $5 -- $5 increase to subscription rate would give you about $1.1 million. Even with these increases, we will still be for next fiscal year -- the Highway Fund 6 will be supplementing the magazine to the tune of about $1.9 million. In order to break even we'd have to raise the rate up to -- by $13, and that won't happen because our subscribers will fall off. The assumption is a 78 percent -- we will still have renewals at that level, we'll still have new subscribers even at this nominal $5 rate increase for the -- within the United States.

So we feel like at this time it's well in order since 1989 we haven't had an increase and will help us sort of chip away at our, you know, supplemental income in terms of the magazine, so we recommend this minute order authorizing the executive director to increase these rates effective May 1st. Any questions on this?

MR. BERNSEN: Yes.

MS. REED: Yes, sir, Mr. Bernsen.

MR. BERNSEN: We talked earlier, I think, or several years ago about the -- not problems but the expense involved in publishing that magazine. I think that's one of the best magazines published by anybody and I think people come from all over the country, and all over the world I know, to see how we do it and use that as an example. I'm concerned, though, that we're raising the rates up to where you get -- you start pricing the magazine or putting it out of the price range of some of the citizens. At one time I think, as I recall, maybe Arnold will remember this, is that we talked about having paid ads in the magazine and I remember talking or having several series of meetings with the Department of Commerce and some other people about problems with the other literature that goes out.

MS. REED: Well, we've explored that by doing surveys to the subscribers, and the most recent one was about four years ago and that survey indicated -- there was a specific question about paid advertising that surveyed -- 91 percent of the subscribers said we don't want advertising in the magazine. And only -- I guess it was two to three sessions ago when we got the authority through the legislature to have advertising for all of the other travel literature we specifically decided to not seek that authority for the Highways magazine. So that's why we don't do it, we feel like the customer's who are responding to -- the subscribers are saying we don't want ads in there.

The only time we ever put any in there is, I think, twice a year we put the passport and that's about it. That's primarily -- the magazine right now, I was interested in working with Mr. Bisson to find out some information that 67 percent of our magazine's outsourced right now. We're going to -- I think we need to explore some other areas and I plan to work with him and how to get more cost efficient than where we are now on the magazine, but we have a large part that's done outsourced, not within the staff.

MR. BURNETT: Commissioner Bernsen, I think what we've got with the magazine is as we talk to people that sell it across the newsstands that they don't -- that the price we have it now is not worth their trouble to handle our magazine.

MS. REED: Right. Vendors won't take it. At the $2 rate off the newsstand, they're not making enough money on it right now at three -- so they won't carry it. The bulk of our subscriptions, though, are not off the newsstand. We've got a circulation of about 340,000 and only about 9,000 is really off the newsstand. But we're hearing that -- the Budget and Finance Division with the Travel Information Division work to try to see where was that break even that we could still try to find some funding and still be able the ensure we don't have too much of a dropoff for our readers, and both those staff recommendations is that this is probably the best increase at this time. And it has been since '89 we've done anything about it. We seek your approval to authorize the executive director to raise it.

MR. LANEY: Thank you. Let me raise a couple questions, just a couple issues. I have no -- based on y'alls recommendation, I don't have any qualms about raising the subscription price or the newsstand price at all, that don't trouble me. But the end result troubles me. The end result doesn't improve and close the gap on the --

MS. REED: No, sir, it don't.

MR. LANEY: I am very concerned about that. What I'd like to go ahead and -- is to go ahead and adopt -- adopt your proposal, but leave this square in the middle of the agenda for the next 90 days and for you or your staff to bring the Commission up to speed on all the various alternatives from expense reduction on any front to fully outsourcing to advertising.

MS. REED: Okay.

MR. LANEY: Somehow or another to see how -- and what steps we can take to close that gap. We can't afford this.

MS. REED: At one point nine million for this fiscal year.

MR. LANEY: That's -- even though helps a little bit, it's a very, very short-term interim. It's not even fixed. It's a step in the right direction. And so we need to keep this right in front of us.

MS. REED: We agree and we'll be happy to do that. We've already started looking. We'll bring it to you this month.

MR. LANEY: We're satisfied, let's move forward, please.

MR. LANEY: Motion?

MR. BERNSEN: Moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded. All in favor?

(A Chorus of Ayes.)

MR. BURNETT: Commissioners, under Item 7, Routine Minute Orders, we bring to you several as we do every month and ask the Commission to consider these in one motion.

Under 7a is speed zones in various counties around the state to establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state, and these are listed and attached to this minute order. This month we bring you a Section B to this. We had been handling this separately, but we have now put this into the routine minute orders and this is the national maximum speed zone. This is the issue that has been before you every month since December to raise various speed limits on the system.

I bring to your attention that last month we had deferred those facility -- those highways inside the city limits of Corpus Christi. They are on your agenda today to raise these. The City of Corpus Christi still disagrees with us as to how we set the speed zones compared to what they think they should be, but that is in Item B.

In Item C we bring you various load zone restrictions on various counties in the state, and as listed in the attachment. We request your approval of revisions of load restrictions on various roads and bridges on the state highway system.

And Item D, Highway Designation, in Montague County FM 103 and FM 677 designate FM Spurs. In Hildalgo County, authorize the approval and extension of the designation of Farm to Market Road 2220 from US 83 to FM 1016. In Travis County on Loop 360, cancel the designation of US 183 to Loop 1. In Smith County on FM 2868, cancel the designation from State Highway 155 to FM 2661.

And Item E under Routine Minute Order is Authorization of Buildings, Grounds and Improvements in Coryell County, authorize the construction of area engineers and maintenance building, including site improvements. Then in Travis County, authorize the renovation to Building 118 on the Riverside Annex.

And Item F, Interstate Highways, U.S. Highway, State Highways, Farm to Market Road Projects, one item in Harrison County and that is to allow the executive director or his designee to enter into an agreement with Southwestern Electric Power Company for construction of a grade separation on FM 2625.

And finally in the Routine Minute Orders, Commissioners, is Item G, Eminent Domain. As attached to the minute order listing various parcels in various counties of the state request permission to go into eminent domain proceedings for noncontrolled and controlled access highways.

MR. LANEY: That's a heck of a motion, Bill.

MR. BURNETT: No comment.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Bernsen, any questions?

MR. BERNSEN: No.

MR. LANEY: I just want to -- ordinarily I don't like to dwell on issues relating to the construction of the new maintenance center and the renovations of Riverside, we don't need to this morning. I just want to say, for everybody's information, that the Riverside renovation, as expense as it is, I think it's $4.5 million, is part of a master plan of the relocation of all of our employees from one place from of all other leased spaces in Austin, so I think it's very much worth while and focuses on expense reduction also.

MR. BURNETT: With the completion, Chairman, as you point out with 118, we will then be out of all leased spaces in Austin, we will all be in department-owned facilities.

MR. LANEY: Can I have a macro motion, Mr. Bernsen, please?

MR. BERNSEN: Yes, you may. So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded. All in favor?

(A Chorus of Ayes.)

MR. BURNETT: Commissioners, the only item on your agenda left is -- if it pleases the Commissioners, we'll skip back to it, is Item 5, Contested Cases, and Russell Harding, Director of Staff Services will present this to you.

MR. HARDING: Chairman Laney, Commissioner Bernsen, I'm Russell Harding, Director of Staff Services. Agenda Item 5 is an administrative contested case for decision by the Commission. This case involves a personnel action in the department's Childress district which resulted in the termination of one of the district's employees and an appeal of that termination by the employee. A hearing on the employee's appeal was held before a department hearing officer, who subsequently issued a proposal for decision, but findings, conclusions and an order would direct a reinstatement of the employee. The Childress district filed exceptions to the hearing officer's findings and conclusions which were denied by the hearing officer.

What is before you today, therefore, is the record in the administrative case, the hearing officer's proposal and recommended order should you decide to adopt the hearing examiner's recommendation. You also have the Childress district's exceptions and an alternate order that would support district's exceptions and uphold the termination should you decide this is the appropriate action under the facts of the case. All of these materials have been provided to you previously and are before you now for your decision.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Harding. I think we have a Mr. Marshall Capps representing our employee.

MR. CAPPS: My name is Marshall Capps, and I'm an attorney in Vernon and Crowell, Texas, and I'm appearing today on behalf of Ray Aydelott who is the employee in question, and this is Ray Aydelott of Crowell, Texas.

We would like to make some comments for you to consider when looking at this case. First, the item said it was a contested case, but of course it's being contested by the Childress district. Basically we're here to request that you follow the ruling of Mr. John Morrison-Orton who is the manager of the Appeals Office who found that Mr. Aydelott's termination was nonappropriate because he was arrested for possession, not selling, distributing or transporting and manufacturing a dangerous drug. And his recommendation was that based on his findings, the termination of Mr. Aydelott should be set aside and Mr. Aydelott should be reinstated with backpay and that Mr. Aydelott should be given an opportunity to complete counseling or a rehabilitation program.

In this connection, I'd like to make a couple of statements about the case as far as I've seen from looking over it. I did not get involved with this case until this point, but at the original hearing there was only one witness, which was a Crowell supervisor who had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case, but only had testimony as to what he had been told, which was all hearsay testimony. The only other witness that appeared was just one representative from the Commission who said that the procedure's basically been followed.

I would make a point that in this particular case not only is Mr. Aydelott not charged with selling, transporting, manufacturering, so forth, any kind of drugs, but that this action also did not occur or have any connection with the workplace or his job. His arrest and the whole charges against him are based on what happened in his home. He was arrested in his home. He is -- did not have any kind of reports for drug use while at work or any kind of drug activities during work.

I would also call attention to the only documents I know that have been presented in connection with this case which was a copy of his Miranda warnings which clearly stated that he was being charged at the time of his arrest in Miranda warnings for possession of marijuana, not any kind of selling, manufacturing, distribution, so forth.

MR. BERNSEN: How much marijuana did he have?

MR. CAPPS: What exactly was it, do you know?

MR. AYDELOTT: 17 ounces.

MR. CAPPS: 17 ounces.

MR. BERNSEN: That was eight bags -- 18 bags. Is that what the record --

MR. AYDELOTT: That's right.

MR. BERNSEN: 18 bags and two waist-high plants that, I think, proved to be marijuana.

MR. AYDELOTT: I'd like to plea the Fifth Amendment.

MR. CAPPS: Is that what you were charged with?

MR. AYDELOTT: No, I was never charged with those plants, just possession. I don't know how much of that -- I'll refer you to my charges.

MR. BERNSEN: Let me ask you, are you under indictment right now?

MR. AYDELOTT: Yes.

MR. CAPPS: Yes.

MR. BERNSEN: Are you his criminal attorney?

MR. CAPPS: Yes. If I may approach. The indictment just came down and the indictment is for possession only. There's no selling, manufacturing, so forth, charges involved with it. I might also state that the State tried to procollude Mr. Aydelott from receiving his TEC benefits for unemployment and Mr. Aydelott won the first case and also two appeals and is -- and has received unemployment. In all three cases the TEC also found, as did the hearing officer -- or the appeals office manager in this case, that Mr. Aydelott was inappropriately terminated. If you have any questions, I would like to try the answer them at this time.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Bernsen, you have any further questions?

MR. BERNSEN: Other than we've had a chance to read the record and I think Mr. Aydelott did give a statement, did he not, read the statement saying that there was some evidence against him. I think there's a question by the hearing examiner about Miranda warnings or something like that, wasn't there?

MR. CAPPS: What the situation was is he was asked if he was charged in the selling, distributing, so forth, the marijuana and he said he believed he might have been charged with that. That was not any kind of admission that he was in fact doing that, it was just simply a statement that he did not know exactly what he was charged with and he believed he might have been charged with that.

And certainly I don't think that we can try to take the average person on the street and tag on them the responsibilities of knowing all the intricacies of the penal code as to what the different degrees and charges are, the different nuances between this charge and that charge. His response when we was asked that was he thought he might be charged with that.

MR. BERNSEN: And he was?

MR. CAPPS: No, he was not. He was not -- he was charged only with possession.

MR. BERNSEN: No further questions.

MR. CAPPS: I might add in closing that Mr. Aydelott has been highly recognized in his employment. He's never been in any kind of trouble or had any kind of problems with his employer before. All of this that he has been charged with occurred off the premises. It was not inside or outside the immediate workplace or job site, it was totally at his home. The rules of the substance abuse program is that the dismissal is for selling, distributing, transporting or manufacturing of a dangerous drug, and in this case he has just been charged with possession.

As I stated, that TEC and both the hearing manager in this case has said that that does not meet the -- what he has been charged with does not meet the requirements of the substance abuse program in order for his termination to be appropriate, that in both entities it says it is inappropriate.

I would like to thank y'all for giving us some time to talk today and I know this is a small matter, but it concerns Mr. Aydelott and his family and his future and I appreciate y'alls considering it and giving us a positive determination along with the hearing manager.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Capps, before you leave, I've got a question for you. First of all, it is not a small matter. It is not a small matter either for us and certainly not to Mr. Aydelott and we understand that. Was the marijuana in the bags grown by Mr. Aydelott?

MR. CAPPS: Yes, it was.

MR. LANEY: Is that manufacturing?

MR. CAPPS: I do not believe that fits the definition of manufacturing.

MR. LANEY: How do you manufacture marijuana if you don't grow it?

MR. CAPPS: I believe manufacturing is involved with -- for example, a lab, putting chemicals together and manufacturing it.

MR. LANEY: Mr. Bernsen, I'd like to make a motion that we adopt a recommendation based on the objections of the Childress district. Is that the name of the district?

MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: Do I need to read --

MR. BURNETT: David, do we need to read it into the record?

MR. BERNSEN: Do what now?

MR. BURNETT: Do we just need to adopt them, Commissioner?

MR. LANEY: That recommend the termination of Mr. Aydelott under our procedures?

MR. BERNSEN: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded. All in favor?

(A Chorus of Ayes.)

MR. BURNETT: Commissioners, that's all the business we have for you for your April meeting. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. BERNSEN: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Seconded. All in favor?

Before we do that, I want to thank everybody again who helped put on this -- or put on this event. I know it took a lot of time and effort on everybody's part and I thank you on behalf of the Commissioners and everyone else. Thank you.

MR. BURNETT: On behalf of those going to the luncheon, they've asked me to announce that the trolley is outside. Anybody -- everybody here is invited to the luncheon, is that right?

MR. LANEY: All in favor?

(A Chorus of Ayes.)

(Whereupon, At 12:25 P.M., The Meeting Was Concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, Micheal A. Johnson, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas, certify that on the 25th day of April, 1996, I reported the Meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission; said proceedings was subsequently transcribed by me and under my supervision and contains a full, true and complete transcription of the proceedings had at said time and place.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of office on this day of , 1996.

Micheal A. Johnson, CSR

North Texas Court Reporters

308 East Ruby

Iowa Park, Texas 76367

Cert. No. 5891

Expires December 31, 1996

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download