AUG26TRAN - Texas Department of Transportation
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Commission Room
Dewitt Greer Building
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas 78701-2483
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Ric Williamson, Chairman
John W. Johnson
Hope Andrade
Ted Houghton, Jr.
STAFF:
Michael W. Behrens, P.E., Executive Director
Steve Simmons, Deputy Executive Director
Richard Monroe, General Counsel
Roger Polson, Executive Assistant to the
Deputy Executive Director
Dee Hernandez, Chief Minute Clerk
I N D E X
AGENDA ITEM PAGE
1. RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution to recognize Luis Ramirez,
Laredo District Engineer, upon his
retirement after almost 28 years with
the Texas Department of Transportation 17
b. Resolution to recognize Jerry Dike,
Vehicle Titles and Registration Division
Director, upon his retirement after more
than 37 years with the Texas Department
of Transportation 23
2. Approval of Minutes of the July 28, 2005,
regular meeting of the Texas Transportation
Commission 36
3. Aviation 35
a. Various Counties - Approve funding for
airport improvement projects at various
locations (MO) 37
b. Various Counties - Approve funding for
Routine Airport Maintenance Program at
various locations (MO) 37
4. Public Transportation
a. Appoint two new members to the Public
Transportation Advisory Committee (MO) --
b. Hays, Travis and Williamson Counties -
Award STP funds through the (5311 grant
program to the Capital Area Rural
Transportation System for the purchase
of two commuter buses (MO) 64
5. Discussion Item
Possible rule amendments concerning the
approval of the connection of another entity(s
tolled or non-tolled highway to the state
highway system 68
6. Report
Report on US 59 corridor improvements in Bee,
Goliad, and Live Oak counties 90
7. Promulgation of Administrative Rules
a. Proposed Adoption Under Title 43, Texas
Administrative Code, and the Administrative
Procedure Act, Government Code, Chapter 2001:
(to be published in the Texas Register for
public comment)
(1) Chapter 1 - Management
a. Amendments to (1.1, Texas
Transportation Commission, and
(1.2, Texas Department of
Transportation (Organization and
Responsibilities), and Amendments
to (1.5, Public Hearings (Public
Meetings and Hearings (MO) 120
b. Amendments to (1.82, Statutory
Advisory Committee Operations and
Procedures, (1.84, Statutory
Advisory Committees, and (1.85,
Department Advisory Committees
(Advisory Committees) (MO) 120
(2) Chapter 9 - Contract Management (MO)
Amendments to (9.1, Claims for Purchase
Contracts (General) 124
(3) Chapter 9 - Contract Management (MO)
Amendments to (9.15, Acceptance,
Rejection, and Reading of Proposals,
(9.17, Award of Contract, and (9.18,
After Contract Award (Highway
Improvement Contracts), and Amendments
to (9.106, Sanctions (Contractor
Sanctions) 125
(4) Chapter 25 - Traffic Operations (MO)
Repeal of ((25.400-25.409, Subchapter
G, Specific Information Logo Sign
Program, and New ((25.400-25.409, Subchapter G, Information Logo Sign and Tourist-Oriented Directional (TOD) Sign
Program, and Repeal of ((25.700-25.708, Subchapter K, Major Agricultural
Interest Sign Program 127
(5) Chapter 29 - Maintenance (MO)
Repeal of (29.48 and New (29.48,
concerning Boarding Priorities (for the
Galveston/Port Bolivar and Port Aransas
Ferries) 132
b. Proposed Adoption Under Title 1, Texas
Administrative Code, and the Administrative
Procedure Act, Government Code, Chapter 2001:
(to be published in the Texas Register for
public comment)
Part 9, State Aircraft Pooling Board
Chapter 181 - General Provisions and
Chapter 183 - Rulemaking Procedure (MO)
Repeal of ((181.1-181.9, ((181.11-181.13,
and (181.15; and Repeal of ((183.1-183.4 150
8. Discussion Item
Discuss the proposed Texas Rail System Plan 152
9. Transportation Planning
a. Approve of the 2006-2008 Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (MO) 168
b. Approve adjustments to participation
ratios for projects located in economically
disadvantaged counties (MO) 170
c. Appoint members to the Texas Department of
Transportation(s Bicycle Advisory Committee
(MO) 171
d. Authorize a feasibility study for La
Entrada al Pacifico Trade Corridor (MO) 174
e. Dallas County - Authorize CONSTRUCT
authority for a bridge replacement project
on FM 1382 at Draw Creek, in Category 6,
Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation,
of the 2006 Statewide Preservation Program
(MO) 179
f. Webb County - Authorize projects in Category
3, Urban Area Corridor Projects, of the 2005
Statewide Mobility Program (MO) 181
10. Toll Projects
a. Approval of the apparent best value proposal
to plan, develop, acquire, design, construct,
and maintain an Open-Road Toll Collection
System for district toll project
implementation support (MO) 183
b. Travis County - Authorize the executive
director to negotiate and develop an
agreement with the Central Texas Regional
Mobility Authority (CTRMA) for the planning,
financing, design, construction, operation,
and maintenance of US 290 East from US 183
to east of SH 130, including the license of
state-owned right of way to the CTRMA for
the purpose of developing a CTRMA turnpike
project in the median of US 290 (MO) 189
11. Finance
a. Adoption of FY 2006 Operating Budget (MO) 204
b. Adoption of the annual operating budget;
annual maintenance budget; and annual
capital budgets for the 2002 Project of
the Central Texas Turnpike System (MO) 210
12. Pass-Through Tolls
a. Jefferson County - City of Port Arthur -
Authorize the executive director to
execute a pass-through toll agreement with
the City of Port Arthur for improvements
to FM 365 from Spur 93 to US 69 (MO) 211
b. Kaufman County - City of Forney - Authorize
the executive director to negotiate a
pass-through toll agreement with the City
of Forney for improvements to various
highway projects in the city (MO) 216
13. State Infrastructure Bank
Dallas County - City of Mesquite - Consider
granting final approval of an application from
the City of Mesquite to borrow $5,615,287 from
the State Infrastructure Bank to pay for
improvements to I-635 from Town East Boulevard
to US 80 (MO) 221
14. Contracts
a. Award or Reject Highway Improvement Contracts
(1) Maintenance
(see attached itemized list) (MO) 224
(2) Highway and Building Construction
(see attached itemized list) (MO) 226
b. Establish statewide annual participation
goals for the Historically Underutilized
Business Program (MO) 234
c. Establish statewide annual participation
goals for the Small Business Enterprise
Program (MO) 239
d. Contract Claims
(1) Navarro County - Project CPM 92-13-16,
etc. - Approve a claim settlement with
Viking Construction, Inc. for additional
compensation (MO) 241
(2) Webb County - Project NH 99(462), etc.
Approve a claim settlement with Deavers
Construction, L.P. for additional
compensation (MO) 242
15. Exempt Position Compensation
Pursuant to (9-3.06(d), of the General Appropriations Act, House Bill No. 1, 79th Legislature, Regular Session, 2005, approval of
compensation adjustment for the executive director of the Texas Department of Transportation (MO) 245
16. Routine Minute Orders 248
a. Donations to the Department
(1) Amarillo District - Consider a donation from the U.S. Department of Justice for a department employee(s travel expenses to participate in the AMBER Alert Regional Work Session to be held in Austin from August 31 through September 1, 2005 (MO)
(2) Amarillo District - Consider a donation from the International Highway Engineering Exchange Program (HEEP) for
a department employee(s travel expenses
to give a presentation at the
International HEEP Conference that will
be held in Bismarck, North Dakota from
September 10-16, 2005 (MO)
(3) Bridge Division - Consider a donation
from the University of Buffalo in New
York, Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research for a
department employee(s travel expenses
to give a presentation at the Design
and Construction of Prefabricated
Bridges in Seismic Regions Conference
that will be held on September 16,
2005 in Buffalo, New York (MO)
(4) Falls County - Consider a donation
from Texas Pneumatic Tools, Inc. for
funds associated with adding landscaping, to include lighting and entry markers, to a rehabilitation
project along SH 6 in the community of
Reagan (MO)
(5) Leon County - Consider a donation from
Texas Westmoreland Coal Company for
sufficient funding, property, and
services to provide for land acquisition
and exchange of right of way, utility
relocation, environmental assessments,
schematics, plans, specifications and
estimates, and construction and
construction engineering necessary for
relocation of an approximately 3.55-
mile length of FM 39 to a 4-mile length
parcel of property that will then be
redesignated as FM 39 (MO)
b. Eminent Domain Proceedings
(1) Johnson, Tarrant and Williamson Counties
controlled access toll projects -
(see attached itemized list) (MO)
(2) Various Counties - noncontrolled and
controlled access highways
(see attached itemized list) (MO)
c. Highway Designation
Liberty County - Extend the designation of
SH 105 along a new location and redesignate
the former location as a business route in
and around the city of Cleveland (MO)
d. Load Postings
Refugio County - Revise load restrictions
on a bridge on FM 1684 (MO)
e. Right of Way Disposition and Donations
(1) Ellis County - US 287 Business at
FM 875 in Waxahachie - Consider the
release of a surplus right of way
easement (MO)
(2) Tarrant County - Ammo Dump Road
(Clifford Street), east of Academy
Boulevard in Fort Worth - Consider
the sale of surplus right of way (MO)
(3) Tarrant County - I-30, east of Main
Street in Fort Worth - Consider the
sale of surplus right of way (MO)
f. Speed Zones
Various Counties - Establish or alter
regulatory and construction speed zones on
various sections of highways in the state
(MO)
17. Appointment of two (2) persons to represent the
department in discussions with the State of New
Mexico regarding possible relocation of rail
facilities from El Paso, Texas to a location in
New Mexico (MO) 250
18 Executive Session Pursuant to Government Code,
Chapter 551
a. Section 551.071 - Consultation with and
advice from legal counsel.
b. Section 551.072 - Discussion of real property
purchase, exchange, lease, donations
c. Section 551.074 - Discuss the evaluation,
designation, reassignment, and duties of
department personnel, including district
engineers, division directors, and office
directors 276
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD 11
ADJOURN 277
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning.
THE AUDIENCE: Good morning.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's 9:04 a.m. and I call the August 2005 meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order.
It's a pleasure to have all of you here this morning, particularly those of you who have traveled from the far reaches of our great state to attend the meeting and either participate or listen. We appreciate your interest in transportation. We are a great state because so many people are interested in the future of transportation, in part.
Please note for the record that public notice of this meeting, containing all of the items on the agenda, was filed with the Office of Secretary of State at 2:07 p.m. on August 17.
Before we start our meeting today, as we always do, please take a moment to find your cell phone, pager, blackberry, or any other electronic device that might make a sound, and join with me -- this is like the beginning of a Methodist Sunday morning -- please join with me in putting it on the silent mode. I thank you very much.
It is our custom, when we open our meetings, to begin with comments from each commission member. We note the reduction in the number of chairs at the podium. Our colleague Mr. Nichols is off to bigger and better things, so maybe our comments will be less colorful than maybe in the past.
Ted Houghton from El Paso will start.
MR. HOUGHTON: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Austin, Texas, and thanks for traveling. I think we have a full agenda, a lot of interesting topics we're going to see here today. And not to trump anything the chairman said, but we've got some people deciding they want to leave this august agency and look forward to talking to you all about that shortly.
Again, good morning and welcome.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
MS. ANDRADE: Good morning, and welcome to all of you that have joined us at our August meeting. I thank you for your interest, also, in transportation, and I'm looking forward to a busy agenda. We've got a lot of great things to discuss, and I'm especially interested in hearing about our rail discussion.
So thank you all for being here.
MR. WILLIAMSON: John?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'll echo the good morning portion. And I noticed when I got to my room last night there was a little card telling the forecast for today, and I'll relay it to you: the high will be 101 degrees -- which seems to be pretty warm, but the dog days of August are upon us.
I would like to thank everyone who attended and everyone who had anything to do with the function last night. Most of you know that we had a dinner honoring Robert Nichols and his eight years of service to the state as a member of this commission. And Robert, it's difficult to describe in plain terms his contributions because they were anything but plain, but it was a very special evening.
Lastly, I want to note, I think early in the agenda we're honoring three people who have devoted their adult working careers to this agency and to the state, and as I look at them, I think: Golly, you look young for having put in the years that you have.
And to Diane and Jerry and Luis, I want to give you my personal thanks for what you have done for this agency and the state, and it's been a joy working with you. And as they say, don't be a stranger.
Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, John.
Let me remind everyone if you wish to address the commission today during the day's meeting, please complete a speaker's card which you can find at the registration table to your right in the lobby.
If you're going to comment on an item that's on our posted agenda, we ask that you complete the yellow card and identify the agenda item you wish to comment upon. If it's not an agenda item, you want to talk in the open comment period, we ask that you fill out a blue card.
And -- unless, of course, you're a legislator and you can take all the time you want -- we would ask that you hold your comments to three minutes in order to let everybody have the opportunity to comment.
Mr. Behrens, I believe we have a few special resolutions this morning.
MR. BEHRENS: Yes, we do. Like Commissioner Johnson stated, we have three long-time employees of the TxDOT family that are leaving us at the end of this month, and we have resolutions from the commission, and first we'll ask Diane Burkett to come to the podium.
The resolution so reads:
(Whereas, Diane Burkett has associated herself with the Texas Department of Transportation for 36 years, most recently as the executive secretary for the Texas Transportation Commission, having been appointed in October 2000;
(And whereas, she began her career with the department in 1969, working in the Building Services Section of the Equipment and Procurement Division;
(And whereas, she was appointed in 1998 as administrative assistant to the assistant executive director for Support Operations, and earlier in that year as executive secretary to the assistant executive director for Engineering Operations, and in 1989 as executive secretary to the assistant executive director;
(And whereas, she has also worked in the Human Resources Division, the Planning and Policy Division, the Multimodal Transportation Division, and in the Audit Office;
(And whereas, she has held many positions of trust and competence in service to several TxDOT executives, all the while working her entire career within the Greer Building in downtown Austin;
(And whereas, she possesses unsurpassed loyalty to the department, an incredibly easygoing demeanor and ability to get along with just about everybody all of the time;
(And whereas, since coming to TxDOT she has become a wife, mother and a grandmother;
(Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Texas Transportation Commission, observing the occasion of her retirement, effective August 31, 2005, does hereby extend appreciation and the sincerest best wishes to Diane Burkett for her service to the people of Texas.
(Presented by the Texas Transportation Commission on this day, the 25th of August 2005.(
And signed by all four commissioners.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And Diane, here in a moment we're going to step down and give this to you and take a few pictures and we're going to give you a round of applause you so richly deserve, but before that happens, we're going to give each of the commissioners the opportunity to comment personally on this occasion of your departure.
Mr. Houghton?
MR. HOUGHTON: It's a been a year and a half, a little over a year and a half I've had the opportunity of working with you, and I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes but I've figured it out, that if Ted Houghton wanted to get from El Paso to Austin or Houston, it was Diane that made those things happen.
Now, depending upon how you treated Diane was how fast you got there, or how delayed you were, or what airport you sat in for six hours.
(General laughter.)
MR. HOUGHTON: I affectionately call her, depending upon how you want to look at it, either the Den Mother or Mother Superior, but I'm going to miss you. I think you're an outstanding person and going on to bigger and better things. Congratulations, Diane.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Ms. Andrade?
MS. ANDRADE: Diane, we're going to miss you. Thank you so much for everything you did for us. It was always a pleasure to work with you.
And I must have treated her very nice because I never had a problem.
(General laughter.)
MS. ANDRADE: But we're going to miss you, and thank you, thank you so much.
MR. WILLIAMSON: John?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, Diane, I'm going to repeat I guess what I've said in the preamble, but one of the words, I believe, in the resolution talks about demeanor, and the brightness of your smile and your demeanor brings cheer to everyone who comes in contact with you. And that's such a great addition in value to the second floor, and candidly, it's going to be difficult to replace, but I'm going to come looking around your desk and hopefully you've imparted a little bit of it there.
Thank you so much for all you've done. Ted omitted that you also take care of reimbursements for expenses, and you kind of control the purse strings that way.
So it's been great and we will miss you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're all having a little bit of fun with Diane. Luis, we won't treat you or Jerry quite like this. We're having a little fun with Diane because Diane really didn't want to come get this recognition, and it speaks volumes about her and her contribution to the department that she would prefer to give the time and the attention to someone else.
And because that's her style, we sort of insisted that she not do that, because we are all extremely grateful for the time that you have given to the State of Texas.
One of the things I always remind myself about is we are no better or no worse than our best or worse employee, and you would definitely be characterized as one of the best. So we congratulate you on your retirement.
Now we can clap.
(Applause.)
MS. BURKETT: Just that it's been an honor to serve as the commission's secretary, and thank you for bearing with me.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Here in a minute we'll take some pictures.
MR. BEHRENS: At this time I'd ask Luis Ramirez to come forward.
MR. RAMIREZ: Good morning.
MR. BEHRENS: Good morning, Luis. I'd like to read this resolution for you.
(Whereas, the Texas Transportation Commission recognizes Luis A. Ramirez, P.E., who has served with the Texas Department of Transportation for nearly three decades, and most recently as the first and only Laredo District Engineer;
(And whereas, Mr. Ramirez developed the action plan establishing the Laredo District and was appointed in 1991 as the district's first chief administrator;
(And whereas, Mr. Ramirez supervising a wide area of Texas transportation facilities, oversaw planning, designing, constructing, operating and maintaining transportation infrastructure in eight Texas counties;
(And whereas, all of TxDOT joins with Mr. Ramirez in taking pride in the official establishment in September 1993 of Laredo as the department's 25th district which was the first created within the department since 1932;
(And whereas, Mr. Ramirez, who was born in Laredo, earned a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Texas A&I University in Kingsville in 1977, and as he joined TxDOT in January 1978, to work in a variety of posts such as George West, Karnes City, Alice, and Corpus Christi, as his career developed;
(And now, therefore, be it resolved that the Texas Transportation Commission does hereby extend the sincerest best wishes to Luis A. Ramirez in recognition of his professional achievements and a career of loyal service on behalf of the State of Texas and its citizens.
(Presented this Thursday, the 25th of August 2005.( And it's signed by all of the commissioners.
Luis, congratulations.
MR. RAMIREZ: Thank you, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted?
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, I haven't had a tremendous amount of interaction with you, Luis, but I've had a few meetings and they have been very delightful.
But there is one thing that Luis has the distinction of that probably no one in this room could guess, but he is the first district engineer to have a toll road owned by TxDOT, Camino Colombia -- the first district engineer. So there is a first in your district and a first in the state of Texas.
And I haven't been down to Laredo during your tenure, but I'm not letting you escape, I'm coming Tuesday. So you thought you were going to waltz out of there.
But I'm looking forward to coming to see you, Luis, and congratulations on the next venture.
MR. RAMIREZ: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
MS. ANDRADE: Luis, it's been truly a pleasure to work with you. I have had the pleasure of working closely with you and have been totally impressed with what you've done in Laredo that plays such an important role in our state.
It wasn't until you took me to the bridge and had me sit in your Suburban watching all the trucks pass by that I realized what Laredo is for the state of Texas.
You've had many challenges, you've undertaken them greatly, you've led your staff proudly, and I think you should walk away feeling very proud of all your accomplishments.
I wish you the best. I hope that you are not a stranger. You have so many assets that you'll give to someone else, and I just wish you the best and know that you'll have a great life after TxDOT. Thank you.
MR. RAMIREZ: Thank you, Commissioner.
MR. JOHNSON: Luis, I'm glad that Commissioner Andrade mentioned the word (truck( because my first visit to the Laredo District, you and I were driving around and I had never seen that many trucks.
And I asked Luis, Is this every truck in the world here? And he assured me that it wasn't, but it was most of the trucks in the world.
Anyway, that was a wonderful visit and my repeat visits you've been a great host.
Laredo, as we all know, is a district that's an interesting one, it's complex, there are a lot of moving parts and different opinions, and you've survived that environment. In fact, you've grown and succeeded in a very complex environment, and I salute you.
We'll miss you. You're going to be very difficult to replace because of your experience, having been there as long as you have and knowing all the various parts.
I wish you the best. You've contributed most of your working career to this agency and this state, and we're better for it. Thanks.
MR. RAMIREZ: Thank you, Commissioner.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I echo what John says, Luis. Laredo is a complex district and you've walked the minefield well, defending the department's processes in philosophy while doing the best you could to balance the competing viewpoints of how problems should be solved.
And that's probably the highest compliment the commission could pay is the job you've done in kind of keeping the lid on until we worked through some difficult issues. And you've done it with great professionalism, you've always been a great host to me, I've always enjoyed my visits to Laredo, and you're leaving is the department's loss, but we wish you the best.
MR. RAMIREZ: Thank you, Commissioner.
(Applause.)
MR. RAMIREZ: If I may, I'd like to address the commission?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Please.
MR. RAMIREZ: I can recall in 1971 -- and you mentioned, Mike, in 1991 when I went back to Laredo -- in 1971, right out of high school, I had no idea that I would be going back to my hometown. I started off in, as you said, George West. I did not even know where George West was, I honestly didn't. I knew where Kingsville and Laredo was, and that's about it, because that's where I went to school and that's where I grew up.
But I got to work in a lot of different capacities throughout the years. I'm honored to say I got to work on the interstate highway system. Not many people, I guess, can say that, Mike, and I learned a lot and I had a lot of people that taught me a lot.
From our maintenance employees to our super techs -- you recall there were super techs -- and just, you know, really honest people, high integrity, taught me how to go about my business. Even though my parents taught me a lot about integrity and most of my integrity, I learned a lot about TxDOT and employees -- they're just awesome employees.
Going back to Laredo, like I said, in 1991 has been just a dream come true for me. All the commissions that I've worked for, all the administrations that I've worked for have helped us tremendously in Laredo.
We have good folks down in Laredo, they do a lot of good work, but we know that you are the ones that get us the money. We can't lobby and you are the ones that lobby for us. And I'm not just talking about construction dollars, I'm talking about you lobbying for our employees for raises that you go across the street. You don't get paid much of anything to do this work for us, and we are proud of the work that you do and my employees are proud of the work that you do.
So I want to thank you all and turn this back around to you all, and thank you, thank my employees for the memories. Appreciate it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You're too kind. Hang around, we'll take a picture in a minute.
MR. BEHRENS: Jerry Dike, will you please come forward?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Why don't you just go back to your office?
MR. DIKE: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I talked you into that once.
(General laughter.)
MR. BEHRENS: Jerry, let me read this resolution for you.
(Whereas, the Texas Transportation Commission takes great pride in recognizing Jerry L. Dike, who has served with the Texas Department of Transportation through four decades, most recently as director of the Vehicle Titles and Registration Division;
(And whereas, Mr. Dike was named director of the Vehicle Titles and Registration Division in April 1992 and has served in that role during a period of explosive population growth in Texas, as he administered the division's work in the registration and titling of motor vehicles, in regulating salvage yards, and in preventing automobile thefts;
(And whereas, Mr. Dike, who was born in Palestine, began his career with the department in 1965 as a summer employee in the Tyler District, beginning full-time work with the department's Automation Division in 1969, later holding a variety of other technical and managerial jobs as his career developed;
(And whereas, Mr. Dike, in 1995 received the Raymond E. Stotzer, Jr., Award from the Texas Transportation Institute for outstanding leadership, dedication and service to the state in the field of transportation;
(And whereas, Mr. Dike, while a TxDOT employee, earned a master's degree from the University of Texas at Austin in business administration in 1987, and received the George Kozmetsky and Dean's Academic awards;
(And whereas, Mr. Dike has served as a leader of his professional communities, particularly the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators where he was chair of the group's international board of directors;
(And now, therefore, be it resolved that the Texas Transportation Commission does hereby extend the sincerest best wishes to Jerry L. Dike in recognition of his professional achievements in a career of loyal service on behalf of the State of Texas and its citizens.
(Presented this Thursday, the 25th of August 2005.( And it's signed by the members of the commission.
Congratulations, Jerry.
MR. DIKE: Thank you, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted?
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, I have had the opportunity of working with you, Jerry, and on some things that were quite interesting to me, that obviously we can't discuss right here in the open, but very, very interesting.
And you're going to be missed, but there's somebody else who is going to miss you even more so out in El Paso, an associate of mine that is on your Auto Theft Prevention Board, Denise.
MR. DIKE: I will miss her.
MR. HOUGHTON: She extends this too, and I know you've heard from her.
But congratulations and good luck to you in the future.
MR. DIKE: Thank you, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
MS. ANDRADE: Jerry, thank you. Congratulations on all your accomplishments with TxDOT. You've had an incredible career, and I wish you the best in your life after TxDOT.
MR. DIKE: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Jerry, I'm going to apologize for being a pest the last six-plus years. I seem to always call upon you for some mundane things, but you've always been a champion to respond to them very quickly.
Especially I want to thank you for working on some of the special plate issues and how they relate and fund some of our programs, especially Safe Rides to School. You've championed that effort and the growth of those plates continues and it's encouraging to see, and I know your personal attention was very much a reason that that has occurred.
I'm going to miss seeing that tie. I know you have a great domain -- is it 270-plus different plates?
MR. DIKE: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: It's a very complicated situation, it would be simple to just have one or two and we've got 270-plus, or whatever the number is.
You've had a long and distinguished career and during that career I noted that you achieved an MBA which shows the fiber and fabric that you're made of.
MR. DIKE: Thank you, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: Your particular division and this agency are much stronger because of the contributions that you've made. I personally am grateful and I know everybody in this room is.
MR. DIKE: Thank you, Commissioner.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have the pleasure of taking credit for extending Jerry's career at TxDOT -- that's why I told him to go back to his office a while ago.
Two years ago he was near making his decision -- I think that's the first time you chewed on me; when I talked him out of retiring, then you chewed on me.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think his economic opportunity plateaued, as it does in state employment, and he had the opportunity to think about retiring and he was on his way to doing it, but I knew that the next session or the years and the session leading up to would be pretty demanding for his division, and so I kind of leaned on him. I said, Man, you can't do that, we're fixing to have a lot of fun; who's going to solve all the problems?
And I looked up and he withdrew his papers, he decided not to retire. So we had him for two years, and I take credit for that because we've benefitted from not just that two years but from your entire career.
MR. DIKE: Thank you, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: There are several retirees in the audience that I've hopped on a few times for leaving too quick.
Organizations need new blood, but they succeed on the backs of experience and wisdom gained in the job. So it's always a loss when experienced people, such as yourself, Diane, Luis, leave the organization. We regret it but we do wish you the best.
We hope that you learn how to be Ron Jackson without having to take a few strokes every day. Ronnie has to quit giving you those strokes.
MR. DIKE: I hope to do that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Tell Ron I said hello.
MR. DIKE: I will do that, yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Jerry Dike.
(Applause.)
MR. DIKE: May I address the commission?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Please.
MR. DIKE: Thank you.
Commissioner Williamson, thank you, and you did and you're the reason, and I appreciate that. Thank you for your wisdom.
And past Commissioner Johnson, they were not mundane matters, and you're the father of our very popular (God Bless America and God Bless Texas( plate.
And future Commissioners Andrade and Houghton and our Senator-to-be Nichols that's not here, Mr. Behrens, thank you very much for that resolution, and Steve and Amadeo and Ed.
I mean, like Luis said, we have an administration and commission that we're so proud of and we appreciate what you do for TxDOT and for transportation.
Mike may have said, my dad started working for the Highway Department in 1927 and he retired the month that I started, and we're a TxDOT family. My daughter was born a month after I started working here, and my kids grew up in the department. I worked third shift in ISD, graveyard shift for three years, worked nights and weekends, and my daughter's first recollection of the department -- back then we were all punch cards on the computer -- it was the computer confetti. She made cascarones out of it and threw it everywhere, but that's her first recollection of the department.
Then a few years later I was a computer programmer for a number of years and I also worked nights and weekends then, like a lot of programmers have to do, and my kids used to come up to work because the department is such a family-friendly environment, and they were wonderful for single parents -- I was a single parent for many years.
And coming up to the department, they would play, so they would play with toys. When I was packing my office a couple of weeks ago, this is one of the toys that they played with, it's over 30 years old.
And it's my pleasure to introduce my son, Kelly Dike is here, and I'm just mad at him because he didn't bring my grandson William with him. Kelly, would you stand up? But we would have needed Commissioner Nichols then so he could kiss the baby.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Good to see you, Kelly.
MR. DIKE: And they grew up in the department and they grew up with computers and they're both in the high-tech industry ever since. Kelly has been at Apple Computers for ten years.
I'd like to introduce my key staff, and it's not I have key staff because all of them are key staff. Like Luis said, our people do our work. What I've accomplished in the department is not me, it's the people that work for us. And I'd like to introduce them, you may not know all of them.
Harry Morgan is our director of field operations. He has about 200 of our department employees in the 17 regional offices, 18 cities. He's really got a mini-district, and he does a wonderful job supporting all 254 challenging, independently-elected tax collectors and a lot of partners and customers.
Next is Bobby Johnson, our director of headquarter operations. Bobby, would you stand up? Director of headquarter operations, and he's responsible for all registration and titling policy and procedure, our correspondence, and chief of titles and chief of registration work for him.
Scott Renouard is our director of administrative operations, and Commissioner Johnson, he has the special plates branch and is in charge of logistics, getting the millions of things to the tax collectors and all the businesses that do that work.
Mr. Bob Tanner, director of technical operations, and Bob is leader of the registration and titling system, the first and only computer system to be in all 254 counties and does a wonderful job managing that and managing the changes, along with the excellent work that ISD does. And it collects, efficiently and effectively, $4 billion in 30 million customer transactions, and Bob is instrumental in that.
And Susan Sampson -- if she's able to stand -- is director of the Automobile Theft Prevention Authority. She recently broke her leg. And she so wonderfully supports Mac Tristan, chair of ATPA board, and the other governor-appointed board members. Susan, thank you for the job you do.
And Mike Craig, our VTR deputy director, and he does a wonderful job at leading our division. Mike Craig, thank you.
And I've been blessed, like Mike said, I've been in six different areas of the department and I love all the areas of the department, but in VTR it just fortuitously ended up that I ended up there, and I appreciate that.
In VTR we do have 18 million customers and 254 tax collectors to please, and we try to please most all of them all the time. And if we do mess up, it does appear on the front page or it appears in the Austin American Statesman in an editorial, or the Austin Chronicle cartoon, or on the Sammy and Bob Show.
And I vividly remember several years ago when Darrel Hunt and I -- our past deputy director -- sat in a conference room, he and I, and we talked about this RTS registration sticker. And we said, Let's just do something simple, we've got a receipt here that has this information, let's also print the windshield sticker and we'll print a license plate sticker if it needs it, and it's got a license plate number and VIN and county up here, so let's do that.
And so it ended up being an enormous IT project and it was very successful, very successful. But we definitely had some manufacturing problems and some other problems, and we heard from hundreds of our constituents.
There have been over 10 million of those stickers issued, and of course, the manufacturing problems have been corrected and there will be some more improvements in the future, but to us and these folks that do such a wonderful job, it showed the impact we have on the public.
We would like to be 100 percent perfect all the time, and it's kind of like the Highway Department, every highway and transportation project we build, we want it to be 100 percent safe for the public. Well, we would like 100 percent perfection in every license plate and sticker, and if we satisfy 99.9 percent of the public, we've got 18,000 disgruntled people out there, and we heard from about a fourth of them on this point of sale sticker.
But we appreciate the job that we do and we work very closely with the county tax collectors that do a wonderful job. I deeply respect the work they do for their counties and for their customers.
I became very close to Carl Smith in Houston and Harris County. He was in office over 50 years and he had 16 percent of the public down there, and when Carl spoke, it was kind of like E.F. Hutton: when he said something, Jerry, this may not work, I listened very carefully.
And now we've got Paul Bettencourt that has that same excellent sense of what the public and the customers want that Carl had, and Carl does love and sees all the benefits in point of sale stickers.
I think we're all blessed to be working at the state and working at TxDOT under your leadership, and I'm so pleased the legislature gave 4 percent and 3 percent raises for all of our state employees the next two years. And I've enjoyed everything I've done at TxDOT and almost these four decades, but I know it's time for me to go, but Commissioner, I do appreciate being here these past two years.
And commissioners, I wish that the entire public could listen to you and work with you on the matters of transportation for Texas because, like Luis said, what you do for so little has so much impact on TxDOT and transportation in Texas and the public and the governor, and we appreciate what you do.
Steve Simmons told me a couple of weeks ago, he said, Jerry, you're a TxDOT cheerleader. And yes, I am, and I will stay that way.
But I think my quote might be, as I leave the department, the harder you work and the longer you work with the wonderful people like we have here at TxDOT, the harder it is to retire.
Thank you, Ric, thank you very much.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Jerry. Great remarks, Jerry.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Those of you who wish to take a break, please do so. It's going to take us about ten minutes to take some pictures and do some organizational stuff, but it won't take us any longer than ten if you don't want to miss anything.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: I wish to thank everyone in the audience who allowed us with your patience. We place a high value on recognizing our departing employees.
Our next order of business is the approval of the minutes from the July 28 meeting which was held in Brownwood.
Members, the meeting minutes are included in your briefing package. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike, I turn back the agenda to you, please, sir.
MR. BEHRENS: Thank you. We'll move to agenda item number 3, our aviation minute orders for the month of August, one dealing with airport improvement projects and the other dealing with our routine airport maintenance program. Dave?
MR. FULTON: Thank you, Mike.
Commissioners, for the record, my name is David Fulton, director of TxDOT Aviation Division.
Item 3(a) is a minute order containing a request for grant funding approval for 52 airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all requests, as shown in Exhibit A, is approximately $16-1/2 million, $10.8 million federal, $3.6 million state, and approximately $2 million in local funding.
A public hearing was held on July 22 of this year. The only comment received was a statement of support for the grant request for the Collin County Regional Airport.
We would recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard Mr. Fulton's layout and you've got information in your pack. Do you have any questions of Mr. Fulton?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have one question, Dave, it's the question I ask every time -- actually I have two this time -- but the first one is a question I ask every time. To your knowledge, do any members of the commission directly benefit from any of these improvements?
MR. FULTON: I'm sorry, sir, could you repeat that?
MR. WILLIAMSON: To your knowledge, do any members of the commission directly benefit from any of these improvements?
MR. FULTON: Not to my knowledge, no, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think Robert is the only one who has his own plane -- or had his own plane. We're in the clear on these airport deals.
And I see that we are going to have, and we're glad to have, comments. Where's Cynthia? Cynthia, are you here?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's remarkable. I don't have a second question. I was going to ask you to get all the McKinney stuff done, but I don't guess I have to do that.
Well, if you'll take a seat, Dave, we're going to hear from the public.
If I mispronounce your name, I apologize in advance. Lin Libecap?
MS. LIBECAP: Yes. I'm Lin Libecap, Collin County resident and on behalf of the Citizens for Responsible Economic Development -- again Responsible Economic Development. I'd like to thank you for allowing me to speak here today.
I might go a tad over, I'm not used to doing this, but I'll try to keep it succinct.
Up front, what we're asking is for you today either to reject or to table indefinitely the AIP funding and project request by the City of McKinney for the Collin County Regional Airport, the CCRA.
As you know, the federal government assigned oversight responsibilities to TxDOT via the Aviation Block Grant Program, and at the February '05 TxDOT Commission meeting, we requested tabling AIP funding for McKinney until rule, regulation, and legal infractions at the CCRA were eliminated.
While the promised meeting with us was held, it proved to be more or less a token gesture. We were given 60 minutes, had to stick to it, to examine decades of eligibility and compliance infractions. Little or no attempt was made by the officials present to work with us in finding solutions.
One of the most often quoted words was (it's your opinion, it's your opinion( and do have facts documented to back up what we have to say.
In previous documents we provided to the commission, there are infractions against the Aviation Block Grant Program that include funding McKinney's Part 150 study, even though funding Part 150 studies is expressly prohibited under the Block Grant Program.
As of June 27, '05, the ALP developed for McKinney's new airport master plan had not been accepted officially by the FAA, yet projects and funding have been and continue to be approved based on the unaccepted document. It was unknown if or when approval would be given.
On June 25, '05, the McKinney City Council approved a request for approximately half a million AIP dollars for Taxiway F. This taxiway, up for approval and funding today, is on neither the current nor the proposed ALP, although it can be found on a few non-ALP conceptual suggestion drawings.
At the June 27 meeting, CCRA director Kevin Wiegand stated that McKinney was using the new unaccepted ALP on which to develop and expand. He justified this by saying, as per the official transcript, (We don't think that there's much on there that's going to be found wrong or that anyone is going to contest.(
When Mr. Don Keithly questioned why projects not on the official accepted ALP from '98 were being approved and funded, Mr. Wiegand admonished him, saying of the new unaccepted ALP: (We're using that as a guide, let's not twist words.(
Remember, Taxiway F is not on either the old '98 ALP or the new proposed ALP from 2004, nor have we seen a 7460-1 request for changing the ALP to accommodate this project.
Based on previous CCRA projects that were green-lighted without 7460-1, this begs the question: Does a 7460-1 exist for Taxiway F, or is it yet another project being forwarded by TxDOT Aviation based on the new as yet unaccepted ALP -- which would be in violation of the FAA rules.
I only have two more paragraphs. Of paramount importance is the fact that the federal government is not in the business of financial speculation. To approve funding Taxiway F at this time will support speculative development. There's no existing or demonstrated need at CCRA at this time for Taxiway F.
On a similar note, the June '05 request for a perimeter road that TxDOT Aviation will oversee is also not on the current ALP. Seeking approval for piecemeal expansion projects that the FAA has not officially accepted, that's deja vu all over again, folks.
Furthermore, McKinney may claim that this perimeter road is necessary to keep vehicular traffic off of Taxiway A, but aerial photographs of the airport clearly show that there is alternative airport access to the fuel farm other than Taxiway A.
To conclude, we're asking you today to do two things, folks. Reject or table McKinney's requested AIP funding. Again, table, it still can go through. And two, use the authority given to you by the Block Grant agreement to force eligibility, including full regulatory compliance, at CCRA before any projects are approved.
And I was going to add this as a post script, if this goes through, it's going to penalize the other airport facilities that have been playing by the rules.
Thank you. I have some documentation to hand in also at this time.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hang on a second. Members, you can dialogue with the witness if you wish, or you can ask Dave to respond to anything she said. What's your pleasure, Ted? Hope? John?
MR. JOHNSON: I have a question. Lin, do you and your group -- this is the big picture issue -- do you believe or not believe that the McKinney Airport is a tool for responsible economic development?
MS. LIBECAP: Is being used as a tool for responsible economic development?
MR. JOHNSON: Is it a tool for responsible economic development?
MS. LIBECAP: It can be. It's been losing money, though, and it's projected to lose money through 2012, but it can be, if done right.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Dave, as we've discussed before multiple times, the commission's role in this matter is generally as a conduit or as an administrative agency. Characteristically, when someone disagrees with a recommendation staff is going to make, the disagreement includes some allegations that this department has not followed the law or is ignoring the facts.
And I don't wish to engage in things that may become subject to litigation here, but it is the role of the chair to defend the integrity of the department. So the witness has made some statements which give me some concern. Do you have anything to say about that?
MR. FULTON: Yes, I would like to address the two issues she raised, and then I would also like to point out, with your approval, Mr. Mike Nicely, with FAA, who is responsible for all airport grants in the state of Texas is here, and I'm sure he would be a good resource as well.
But I'd first like to address the issues about the airport layout plan, and I'll be very brief. The City of McKinney has an approved airport layout plan dated 1997. The current ALP in review is an update of the 1997 ALP. Application for federal funds can occur at any time whether or not there is an approved ALP. Each project undergoes environmental review and airspace review by FAA before it can go forward. The ALP is a planning document, and as such, can be revised at any time.
The second item she mentioned was the form for the taxiway. I have a copy and I'll be happy to hand it to her after the meeting. It was filed with FAA.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What is that box that lady just put next to that wall?
(Inaudible response from audience.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's okay. I'm just not very comfortable when people bring boxes in and set them down and leave.
MR. FULTON: I think the major issue all along has been compliance, whether we are following the rules, and I would respectfully request you ask Mr. Nicely if that is the case. I think that might be helpful and he'd be glad to address that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, do you have any questions you wish to direct to Dave at this time? You'll have other chances if you wish to defer; if not, ask.
MR. JOHNSON: I have one.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Please.
MR. JOHNSON: Dave, will you briefly review for me, and hopefully my colleagues, the process by which these grants and whose responsibility is it to review them that everything is in compliance so the particular issue or request can move forward.
MR. FULTON: The way the program works in Texas, we are a Block Grant state. For the majority of the airport development grants, the FAA gives us an allocation each year.
Our staff, upon request normally from an airport owner, goes out and makes a scoping visit to determine whether the project is warranted, what type of project is needed. We do a lot of consultation with them, we do some in-house engineering, and then if we feel that it is a worthy project that meets FAA eligibility guidelines, we develop a cost estimate, we talk to the airport owner to see if they are totally committed.
If they are, they then pass a local resolution committing both to the project and to funding. And during this process an environmental analysis is made to see what impact, if any, it will have on the community.
And when all the procedural things are done and during that time it goes into our three-year capital improvement program. When we reach that year in the program, we bring it to you for your consideration.
That's a very brief overview of how we administer the program.
MR. JOHNSON: At any time in that process does the FAA review the application to make sure it's in compliance with all the applicable FAA rules, regulations, et cetera?
MR. FULTON: Only if there's an allegation of something wrong, and that has been done a couple of instances which I think it's called a Part 16 -- and Mike can verify that. It goes to Washington to be reviewed by headquarters when a Part 16 allegation has been made. But normally we handle all those issues, environmental issues and all the other review issues within TxDOT.
MR. JOHNSON: In this particular instance, has the FAA reviewed?
MR. FULTON: In one case they did and we did a project -- on this project or a previous project?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, this one. The witness referred to a couple of FAA regulations that she felt were not in compliance.
MR. FULTON: Yes, sir. Every project requires something called an airspace review, and that's the 7460 form that was filed with the FAA that I have in my hand.
MR. JOHNSON: Does the FAA approve that or sign off on it?
MR. FULTON: They did, right.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay, thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Dave, why don't you take a seat for a moment.
Mike Nicely? And Mike, we view the federal government as our partner, and we appreciate any time someone from the federal government is available to us. I don't wish to put you on the spot, but we have to consider the comments the lady made.
MR. NICELY: That's fine. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to speak with you, commissioners, Mr. Behrens.
First of all, I'd just like to take the opportunity to compliment you, the Aviation Division of the department, on the manner in which they do administer the Block Grant Program. Dave and his staff do a great job.
I'm the manager of the Texas Airport Development Office and we administer the Airport Improvement Program for the state of Texas, that's about $225 million. For a highway department like yours, that's not much, but for an aviation department, that is big, and Dave and his staff administer about $50 million of that money and they do an outstanding job.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But we wouldn't want you to think that we don't think $225 million is a lot of money. We respect that amount of money.
(General laughter.)
MR. NICELY: I have trouble putting it in perspective when you talk about billions of dollars that you do on a highway program. But anyway, it is significant.
I'd like to just comment a little bit about the Collin County Regional Airport. It's something that I think just about every commission meeting you have to address when there's a project there.
Let me just say this about the Collin County Regional Airport, it is a very important airport in the Dallas-Fort Worth airport system. It's a general aviation reliever airport, it is a place where general aviation aircraft -- that's anywhere from small single-engine aircrafts to business jets -- can go and stay out of the airspace and the airports at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas Love Field. That gives those airports the opportunity to serve the commercial passenger jets.
I just wanted to make that clear: the Collin County Airport is an important airport.
It seems like that there's frequently discussions about whether the City of McKinney is in compliance with their grant assurances, grant obligations. There is a formal process for someone to file a complaint with the FAA alleging violations of those grant obligations. Dave referred to it, it's 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 16.
And that's a formal process, there's guidelines on the documentation that's submitted. It goes to our headquarters office; then our headquarters performs the investigation to determine whether the sponsor is or is not in violation of their grant obligations.
Over the past couple of years there have been two Part 16 complaints filed with the FAA regarding the City of McKinney and the Collin County Regional Airport.
There was one filed in early 1994 (2004). It alleged that they were in violation of the grant assurances for missing milestones for closing the landfill, that they had failed to comply with the wildlife management program, that they had failed to consider the local interest of the community, and that they allowed a recycling facility to be built near the airport.
The FAA dismissed those allegations. The FAA did a thorough investigation, it was done in headquarters. The FAA issued a determination in October of 2004 indicating that the airport was not in violation of any of their grant assurances.
Again in 2004, there was a Part 16 complaint filed by the Town of Fairview which is a neighboring community to McKinney. They filed a formal complaint under Part 16 with the FAA.
The allegations there were that they were in violation of the grant assurances relating to seeking local involvement, consistent with local plans, and there was also allegations that they were in violation of the assurance regarding operation and maintenance of the airport and the assurance relating to hazard removal and mitigation. This was again regarding the closure of the landfill. The FAA dismissed those allegations.
There was one other allegation in there that the city had removed a voluntary noise abatement procedure, and there was a complaint about that. The FAA completed our investigation on that and issued a determination on June 28 of 2005 and found that McKinney was not in violation of their grant assurances.
So there is a formal process that someone would go through to have the FAA investigate whether an airport or a community is in violation of their grant assurances, and that's available to people to use. I don't think that it's something that you all, the State, TxDOT can't determine that, that's something that only the federal government can determine.
With that, I'm available if you have any questions.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, Mike Nicely questions?
I want to thank you again for being willing to be here today. We try to, as I say, keep our federal partners out of the line of fire, and we appreciate it.
MR. HOUGHTON: Ric, may I?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Sure.
MR. HOUGHTON: So you're saying that after all of this, McKinney is -- I don't want to put words in your mouth -- a well-run airport, needed airport?
MR. NICELY: Yes, it's a very needed airport.
MR. HOUGHTON: Operationally meets the statutes and falls into compliance?
MR. NICELY: Yes.
MR. HOUGHTON: Okay, thanks.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Mike, very much.
Jack Yates? Now, why does Castroville care about McKinney?
MR. YATES: We care about Castroville; we're here for Castroville.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, okay.
MR. YATES: Chairman and commissioners, Mayor Jesse Byers is out of the state today, but he wanted me to come and speak to you on this matter before you. We're one of the projects.
First and foremost, he said he wanted to thank you for the funding before you today for the Castroville Airport. These projects were all proposed to the city council and a full support resolution for funding and support was passed by the council.
Our airport is a valuable asset to our city and to Medina County. At least 70 aircraft are based at our airport and more than 20,000 operations occur there each year. We also support agricultural aviation and San Antonio Air Life operations from the west heading to San Antonio.
The total economic impact of our airport on the regional economy was determined to be $5.4 million in the TxDOT study most recently done.
I strongly believe that we need to continue to support the maintenance and growth needs of this airport. By doing so, we guarantee that this airport remains financially self-supporting, and we've done that within the past four years in part because of $1.1 million to our airport.
I believe you have or will have the letter from Mayor Byers. I'll depart from it slightly to say we had what we call the (perfect storm( come through. We had a tornado or straight wind about as wide as this room that affected our terminal to the point of where our insurance kicked and fortunately TxDOT kicked in and donations added to it, and we now have about a 3,500 square foot new terminal, and partially out of that also came a new hangar that helped self-support the airport. So that was a major issue for us, but TxDOT helped us and we helped ourselves.
We are self-supporting and that's really a source of pride for the community considering the history of the airport through the past many years.
We want to thank the commission for considering our improvements, and Dave Fulton also, director of Aviation, for his help to our airport.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's kind of you. We do have the letter from the mayor, it's in front of us.
Questions, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much. We appreciate you showing up and offering your observations.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think we'll let the city manager of McKinney go and then we'll let the Collin County Regional Airport fellow go. So Larry Robinson?
MR. ROBINSON: Thank you. I assure you mine will be brief, especially since I heard the comments from FAA.
But first, let me say, Mr. Behrens, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, it's always a pleasure and an honor to come before you and speak, and more importantly to be available for comments and questions that you might have of us.
Let me say that each time I come and each time we have to address these issues, we kind of focus different, and what I like about this one is how important is this airport. And you've heard that this airport is very important, it's vital to economic development, and I'm not just saying for McKinney.
McKinney itself receives the fruits of some of that importance, but if you look at some of our corporate clients there, TI, EDS, and numerous others, international flights are conducted from that airport. One of those entities I named can fly to Beijing nonstop, conduct their business and come back, and we have Customs there for that reason. So there is a great business economic focus that we have there and all benefit.
And by the way, the tax revenues, when you take a look at all the revenues from that airport, we don't lose money. In fact, the biggest recipient is MISD, and when we say MISD, that's a school district.
We're partners. The way we look at it in McKinney, if that airport can do something and bring back in tax dollars to pay for teachers and students, et cetera, we do that. So we do make money at that airport.
The other thing that I would address, and I could address a lot more negative things, but I really just want to address is there a conspiracy between Mr. Fulton and myself or any of my staff, and I'd say absolutely not.
If you believe there's a conspiracy there -- in other words, to get things pushed through and for you guys not to really see this, you'd have to believe that it starts with the city council. One of my council members, Pete Huff, is here if you want to talk to the council, or Mike Massey who represents a board of volunteers that serve on the airport board.
But you'd have to believe that the conspiracy starts there, it goes to 60-some-odd members from the community that put together a year-and-a-half plan to build this airport. You'd also have to believe that it does go all the way to Austin and that there's a conspiracy with Dave Fulton, who, by the way, makes me cross every t, dot every i, walk every step slowly, et cetera.
And if that's not enough, you'd have to believe that a conspiracy goes to Fort Worth, to FAA region in Fort Worth with that staff over there. Then it also goes to Mr. Bennett and I could name others in FAA Washington, by the way, with whom we have several meetings through the years.
I've spent the last five years -- in other words, this airport reports directly to me, not another executive director or an assistant, but directly to me, and we've spent quite a number of years in dealing with the FAA all the way from Washington to the Austin office.
But you'd have to believe that this conspiracy to not comply with the rules and standards goes all the way to FAA in Washington. And again, we've met with Mr. Bennett, we've met with the compliance manager of the entire FAA organization, and legal counsel on several occasions.
And in fact, I've also been able and fortunate to have an interview with Secretary of Transportation Mineta, so you'd also have to include the Secretary of Transportation in on this alleged conspiracy to not follow the rules, not comply, et cetera.
So I say that and I said it would be short. We're in compliance, we are a very vital, important airport, and again, it's also a safe airport.
And I would end up by saying we want to take a little bit of credit for Tiger Woods coming out of a slump. He's won five tournaments. Part of that -- it's no secret -- he lands his jet at CCRA, our airport. His golf coach is Hank Haney in McKinney.
If you have any questions, I'll answer them.
It's very vital. So if you need some help, Mr. Johnson, we'll take care of that.
MR. JOHNSON: The next time he comes in, would you let me know, give me some advance warning.
MR. ROBINSON: I'll try to get a game out at our TPC course.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions, members, of Mr. Robinson?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Larry. It's always a pleasure to have you here.
MR. ROBINSON: Thank you, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We'll finish up the testimony with Ken Wiegand.
MR. WIEGAND: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Behrens, and commission members. I'm Ken Wiegand. I'm the airport director at Collin County Regional Airport.
And Mr. Houghton, I can guarantee you the airport is professional managed. I've been in the business for about 20 years; I retired twice, tried to retire, but this was just too good an opportunity to pass up -- I'm talking about Collin County Regional Airport. It is the epitome of general aviation reliever airports in the entire national system.
What I wanted to do this morning is just thank you for your support in the past and especially for your support today.
The funding that Mr. Fulton has requested this morning will be used to construct the third of three taxi lanes that have opened up more than 100 acres of airport property that are presently in demand by the private sector of aeronautical businesses. These are businesses that will broaden our tax base and employ people.
This taxiway, as a matter of fact, is going to encourage an international company, internationally renowned company that employs 80 people on the airport -- they're an aircraft refurbishing company. Out of those 80 people, 30 percent are minorities. They bring millions of dollars in tax benefit to our community.
The second business is a second fixed-base operation. It's like a retail service station for aircraft. It will provide us with competition for the very first time which will bring our prices down. That's good for our tenants and for our economy. And they are going to employ 12 people and bring $31 million in tax value to our airport and to Collin County.
So with that, I'd just like to thank you for your support in helping us make this happen. We've got some other projects we're paying for on our nickel because they're not eligible for federal funding, and let's see, I think that they cost around $1.3 million. We're paying for that on our nickel; we know how important it is to get those things done.
And so anyway, thank you very much for your support and we're looking forward to your continued support in the future. And I thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions for this witness, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. It's good to see you again.
Dave, do you want to summarize?
MR. FULTON: Thank you, Chairman Williamson.
It is an important airport, as we feel are all the airports on the Exhibit A, and we would recommend approval of the projects that are listed on Exhibit A for item 3(a).
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard staff's recommendations, you've heard witnesses and their viewpoints, and you have the staff's recommendation in the form of a minute order. Do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
Let me say, madam, other than toll roads, we've probably talked about the airport in McKinney, Texas more than any other single topic.
MS. LIBECAP: (From audience.) It's a very important airport.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I know it is. And I would not want and I think the commission would not want you to leave here thinking that we don't listen to Cynthia and yourself and the others who have passionately argued the position.
The challenge, the charge the commission faces is administering the law and developing transportation policy as we understand the governor and the legislature have instructed us to do. Sometimes they instruct us to do things we don't like and we do them anyway, just like sometimes we make decisions that individuals in the public don't like but we have to make the decisions anyway.
There is not a unanimous viewpoint of the best solution for transportation problems in every part of the state and in every community in the state. We just trust that you'll go back home knowing that we really do pay attention, we try to listen to all sides, and we spent a lot of time looking at this problem before you ever get here, just like we think about our toll policy and we think about our CDA policy and the other things that advance transportation.
We appreciate you being here and we hope the day comes when the neighbors around the airport will say, You know, this is a model economic development center and we like it. We hope that will happen someday.
Thank you, Dave.
MR. FULTON: Going to item 3(b), Mike?
MR. BEHRENS: Go ahead.
MR. FULTON: Thank you.
Item 3(b), this minute order is for the purpose of continuation of the Routine Airport Maintenance Program for Fiscal Year 2006. This program allows the department to match local funds for airport maintenance and small capital improvement work items on a 50/50 basis, up to a maximum of $30,000 in state funds per eligible airport. No changes in the program from Fiscal Year 2005 are proposed.
We would recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you heard the staff presentation and the staff recommendation. Do I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. FULTON: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: We'll move then to agenda item number 4 under Public Transportation. Agenda item 4(a) is going to be deferred. We'll then go to agenda item 4(b) which will be the recommendation to award STP funds through the 5311 program to capital Area Rural Transportation System. Making this presentation will be Eric Gleason, our new Public Transportation director.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, good morning. Welcome.
MR. GLEASON: It's good go be here.
MR. HOUGHTON: You're from where, Seattle?
MR. GLEASON: Seattle, Washington, yes.
MR. HOUGHTON: How do you like the weather down here?
MR. GLEASON: So far it's hot. This is a hard time of year to leave the Northwest.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a friend that lives in an apartment complex where I keep a place down here, and he came over last night and we were visiting and he said, Man, I just left Seattle; it was 75, dry and everything was green. I started laughing and I said, We just hired a guy away from Seattle that probably wishes he was back there.
MR. GLEASON: Yes, this is a tough time of year to leave there. The other nine-ten months would be easy.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're glad you're here, we're glad you're in Texas.
MR. GLEASON: Well, I'm glad to be here.
Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Mr. Behrens. The minute order in front of you today awards $480,000 of federal funds, administered through the FTA, for the non-urbanized program, otherwise known as the 5311 Program, to Capital Area Rural Transportation Services, or CARTS, for the purchase of two commuter buses. CARTS is the designated sub-recipient for 5311 program funds in the Austin area.
These buses will allow for the expansion of service levels in the Austin-San Marcos corridor. CARTS will procure the two buses and then enter into an interlocal agreement with Texas State University for the operation and maintenance of the two vehicles. This will allow service in the corridor to be expanded from six round trips a day up to ten trips a day.
So I recommend your approval of the minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you heard staff's explanation and staff's recommendation. Is there discussion, questions?
MR. JOHNSON: Question. Eric, welcome. We're delighted you're here. And it will get a little cooler sometime, so I know you have that to look forward to.
MR. GLEASON: That's what I'm told.
MR. JOHNSON: CARTS is, in my mind, pretty responsible in terms of alternatively-fueled vehicles. Is there any requirement in 5311 or any of the chapters like that that require consideration for alternatively-fueled vehicles, and are these two -- I believe they're going to Texas State University in San Marcos -- are they alternatively-fueled?
MR. GLEASON: It's my understanding that they will use the ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel, so they will qualify as an alternatively-fueled vehicle, yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: What about a requirement?
MR. GLEASON: I'll have to say I'm not familiar enough with the details of the 5311 program to know if it's a federal requirement. I do know that as a matter of policy that we do seek to procure alternatively-fueled vehicles here in Texas.
MR. JOHNSON: You referred to the diesel. Is this bio-diesel?
MR. GLEASON: I'm sorry, pardon me?
MR. JOHNSON: You referred to the fuel, the diesel. Is this bio-diesel fuel?
MR. GLEASON: No. It's an ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel. The bio-diesel fuel is different than that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think some research out of Lamar University indicates that it actually is less polluting than natural gas which, of course, I find frightening.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions or comments directed to our new leader?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: You've heard the presentation and the proposal. Is there a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MS. ANDRADE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment. Welcome, Eric, and I certainly look forward to working with you.
MR. GLEASON: I look forward as well.
MS. ANDRADE: I've been waiting for you.
MR. GLEASON: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're always glad to have new Texans.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 5 will be a discussion item where we will be talking about possible rule amendments concerning the approval of connection of another entity's tolled or non-tolled highway to our state highway system. Amadeo will make that presentation.
MR. SAENZ: Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Behrens, Roger. For the record, Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive director for Engineering Operations.
And as Mr. Behrens said, this discussion item is to get some feedback from the commission as we begin to develop the proposed rules dealing with approval of connections to the state highway system from roads that are constructed by other entities.
And of course, a little bit of history is prior to 1980, the department was the only governmental entity with the authority and means to construct, maintain and operate major high-speed regionally significant highway facilities. Of course, over the years more and more entities have been granted such powers. Typically these entities must first receive approval from the department for constructing the facility.
Some of the entities that now have authority to construct, operate and maintain toll facilities include, of course, cities and counties in the international bridges, regional mobility authorities. A limited number of private toll road corporations also have authority to construct toll roads; county toll road authorities have that same authority; regional tollway authorities, and of course, this past session we have a number of special districts.
Most of these entities, by law or by rule, must first seek approval of the Texas Transportation Commission. For example, international bridges, the city or the county must first gain approval from the commission prior to construction of any new international bridge.
Regional mobility authorities, by statute they must receive commission approval prior to any project that will connect to the state highway system or a TxDOT rail.
Private toll road corporations must also receive commission approval before construction; county toll road authorities, by law, unless it is waived by the commission.
A county toll project becomes part of the state highway system when the debt is paid off. So a county toll road authority builds a facility; once the debt is paid off, it then becomes part of the state highway system, unless prior to that project being constructed, by law, the commission would have said that will not become part of the state highway system.
Separate state statutes require the commission also to approve any toll road that will become part of the state highway system. This statute catches all county toll road authorities. Harris County, however, is exempt from this statute and does not need to gain any commission approval for projects.
Regional tollway authorities don't need to gain commission approval for their projects. But our only regional tollway authority in existence today which is NTTA, their past practice has been to recognize the prudence of working together with the department closely and with Federal Highway Administration, and they have voluntarily agreed to design and construct their facilities to TxDOT standards and to follow the environmental review process and public involvement procedures.
Harris County Toll Road Authority has demonstrated a little bit more independence. One of the things that we need to look at is that they could be building a highway that would not be part of -- or any entities could be building a highway that would not be part of a transportation improvement program that could possibly lead into some federal sanctions and basically shut down the federal program for TxDOT.
We do have rules governing the connection to the state highway system, however, these rules do not give the department the ability to deny the connections based on design and construction or compliance with the federal requirements. So we're in the process of putting together rules that would ensure that we have compliance with federal laws, the major highway facilities are properly designed and constructed, and proper statewide planning is included.
And of course, what we'd like to hear from you, I've got a series of questions that I'd kind of like to pose to you to get your feel and your direction so that we can use that to develop the rules.
Once we have this, we will come back at a later month and propose the rules so that they can be there for public comment, and then finalize the rules at a later date.
Yes, sir?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Stop a moment, Amadeo. A couple of things need to be noted here for the record. Not to correct your testimony, but I think what you meant to say was if given direction from the commission, you'll bring proposed rules.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I do this from time to time, members, and invariably the person I single out isn't happy about it, but I have to do it.
James McCarley is a friend of transportation in this state, and four years ago when I came on the commission, he paid a courtesy call and he made just a passing comment about: My observation about the commission is that you frequently begin making decisions without giving those of us in the regions and the local government fair warning, enough discussion, enough public hearing, or whatever.
I think Wes Heald at that time, and Mike and all the staff, I think, legitimately would say we don't agree with that, we think we do give fair warning. But the fact that someone like James and others after him would have that feeling kind of led this commission towards trying to figure out a way to dialogue with the public such that no one could ever say they didn't have fair warning, and from that came the notion of public discussion, of discussion items.
So James, I give you credit for starting us down the path of doing business this way.
And I also take this time to sort of educate everyone that at my request we're going to start approaching it a little bit differently.
When staff asks me to put discussion items on the agenda, I'm going to always make them prepare questions for us so that they're going to lay out what they think we ought to talk about and then they're going to submit questions to us. We don't have to answer them today, but they're basically using this forum to tell us and the affected public: These are the questions we think you, the commission members, need to be thinking about answering because we perceive these as the rough spots in this discussion item.
Would that be a fair summary, Amadeo?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So the questions are not meant to put us on the spot so much as they're meant to inform us that this is staff's view of what Jim McCarley is going to say we need to be prepared to answer in San Antonio, Houston, El Paso, Dallas, and all points in between.
Please continue, Amadeo.
MR. SAENZ: Okay. Like I said, these are some of the ideas that we are looking into and some of the areas that we're looking into. For example, should the commission or the department staff approve major connections to the state highway system?
Like I said, we approve them, we have approval requirements right now for regional mobility authorities, we have approval requirements for private toll road authorities. But do we want to make this a blanket for any toll road that's being developed, should that be a requirement that that be connected.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But what if it weren't a toll road, what if it were a pass-through toll road?
MR. SAENZ: The pass-through toll is on the state highway system so that project is already on the state highway system, so we already have the approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MR. SAENZ: Another question that we have is, of course, if another entity wishes to connect a regionally significant highway, a major highway in an area that could be subject to the federal air quality requirements, it could be subject to other federal requirements, they want to connect that highway to the state highway system, would we also want to require that that highway be part of a conforming TIP for a metropolitan planning organization.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have another question about that. Let me give you a for example. The county judge in Grayson County talks Ross Perot, Jr., into going up to Grayson County and making that old Army Air facility a relief feeder for Alliance Airport. He needs a road that goes from Point A to Point B where no road exists now and he's willing to pay for it all.
Does your question address that completely privately-built road as well as any road built by a quasi-public entity?
MR. SAENZ: It could be both. Any regionally significant highway facility.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So your view is we have to figure out do we want to enforce all highway construction having to conform to the TIP.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, that it be included in that area's metropolitan transportation plan and their TIP, especially in the areas of non-attainment where you could get into problems. By adding a facility that is not in the current TIP, you could get them out of conformity, and thus impacting the entire area.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, continue.
MR. SAENZ: The third question is, of course, if another entity wishes to connect a regionally significant highway to the state highway system, do we want to require the connection -- for example, the interchange where we go from their road to our road -- to be designed and constructed to our standards.
We do this for regional mobility authorities. Do we have that requirement and do we allow a potential for them to request an exception that could be granted by the department? We do this for regional mobility authorities also.
And should there be some TxDOT oversight over the design and the construction of that facility that is being constructed that would connect to us? That's another thing that we need to look at and would like to get some feedback from you all.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Amadeo, if we were to require TxDOT standards, would that imply that we had to be responsible for the environmental process?
MR. SAENZ: No, sir. They would still be responsible for the environmental process. The standards I was talking more about is basically the geometric standards and such.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Not the pre-planning or pre-design, pre-engineering.
MR. SAENZ: Right. The pre-planning will come in a little bit. Of course, by the same token, the project connects to our project, and I think in looking at it, that interchange is really a project that is basically owned by both of us.
Do we want to be involved in the approvals and the review for the entire project? And that's another question that we'd like you all to kind of give us some feedback on. Should we have, basically, on the rest of the project approval and oversight for how they're going to develop and approve that project?
MR. WILLIAMSON: That will raise some blood pressure.
MR. SAENZ: It will.
And of course, one of the major questions -- and we've touched base on it a little bit -- is if the entity wishes to construct that regionally significant highway project that connects to the state highway system, should the entity show evidence of compliance with the state statutory requirements to provide public involvement and also to conduct an environmental review.
This basically applies to an RMA, but do we want to require it of the other entities that are constructing toll roads?
We remember when we were in Houston there was a lot of public input concerning the environmental process, and the people there, the constituency there liked the department's environmental process because they knew it was set and we were pretty structured, and you could have different entities that have different processes.
So should we require them to comply with TxDOT environmental and public involvement processes for these projects that are of regional significance that connect to the state highway system.
And of course, any other regulation or any requirement that you all think we need to look at, we'd like to get some feedback so that we can see if we need to make changes to our proposed rules and then propose it neatly.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, staff has laid out -- they've identified a problem for public discussion which they believe deserves our attention. They've made some broad recommendations and they've put to us questions that we have to think about in the next month or so.
We do have one member of the public who wishes to comment on this public discussion item, and we're happy to have him. Do you want to question Amadeo now or would you rather hear from Allan Rutter first?
[Inaudible response.]
MR. WILLIAMSON: Allan, old friend, Allan -- or longtime friend, maybe I should say.
MR. RUTTER: No, I'm getting old.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear this morning.
One of the things we get is we get these legislative clipping services and that keeps us from having to recycle too many newspapers, but we've been reading that there have been some uncharitable adjectives used to describe what happens in this room and in this building from around the state, and that is not our experience with either you or our district folks in both Fort Worth and Dallas.
And I say that not just to suck up -- although there's part of that -- but it also is to acknowledge that I have evidence of that, and that is that we were told that this was going to happen today, before today. Several weeks ago your staff called us to apprise us of this discussion.
And frankly, one of the reasons I wanted to be here is to tell you how much we appreciate the collaboration and sense of partnership that we have with the department, both here and in Dallas and Fort Worth. Saying that we owe our success to your support is not just stating the obvious, it's a gross understatement.
I'm sure that these rules that you're contemplating come from a really good idea in general. TxDOT has a really obvious and central interest in the manner in which other people's roads connect to your system, but we hope, on behalf of my board of directors at the NTTA and our staff, that you not take a one-size-fits-all approach to this issue, particularly in light of the wide array of toll authorities that are or will be operating in the state.
I've got two reasons for our request. One is legal -- isn't everything -- and the other more important one is practical.
First, from a legal standpoint it's important to recognize that the NTTA's enabling legislation addresses the issue of connecting to the state highway system in a very different manner from the way that issue is addressed in the enabling statute for other toll authorities -- particularly RMAs -- and for other entities connecting onto or as part of the state highway system.
Our enabling statute doesn't require as much TxDOT oversight over as many issues when the NTTA wishes to connect our projects to your system. There's probably a reason for that distinction in our legislation. At the time the NTTA was created in 1997, our statutory predecessor, the former Texas Turnpike Authority, had been building and operating turnpikes for over 40 years and had demonstrated its ability to connect to your roadways in a manner that met your admittedly and reasonably high standards and expectations.
So we're urging that your proposed access rules for the NTTA be different from your rules for other toll providers for the simple reason that our law is different. But frankly, the most important reason for why those rules should be different is not legal, it's practical.
As I mentioned before, we're an established toll road authority, now with over 50 years' experience of building turnpikes. Our projects connect to several of those roadways, and in every one of those instances, our staff, working with yours, has been able to structure an agreement to effect that connection tailored to the specific circumstances of each one of those interchanges.
We believe that the flexibility has been enormously beneficial to both our organizations, we sincerely hope that it not be constrained or eliminated by rules that attempt to regulate our 50-year-old authority in the same way as a startup. However we accomplish that distinction in the rules is something we can work out.
We prefer to be omitted from those rules and to allow the terms of our statute and the specific tailored features of each individual ILA with you to control. Maybe the rules would, instead, provide exceptions for experienced toll authorities.
But however it's accomplished, the NTTA hopes that nothing changes in these rules that in turn compels our organizations to change the way we've successfully addressed this issue up to now at your State Highway 121, State Highway 78, US 75 and twice at both Interstate 35 and Interstate 635.
Maintaining that flexibility will allow for the best use of TxDOT's resources and ensures that our successful approach to this issue will continue.
I really, really appreciate the opportunity for us to be able to express our views on this before you do the rulemaking. Thanks.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you're always articulate in expressing a logical viewpoint of the department.
Members, any questions of Allan, discussion with Allan?
MR. JOHNSON: It's good to see you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Always good to see you, Allan.
MS. ANDRADE: It's good to see you. I have a question, and thank you for working so closely with us. Has that impaired or has that delayed any of your projects?
MR. RUTTER: No. Part of that is due to the attentiveness that we've received from both district offices, and I think that's always been good.
The extent to which the department is now getting into the toll business now provides them with the same kind of impetus that we've always experienced which is we've got to get these roads built and start collecting money because that's what our bondholders expect of us.
But our past has been distinguished by a real cooperation that our being able to build a facility enables people who are using the state highway facility to use that. The better we make that interchange, the better we construct it, the more we make sure it meets your expectations and standards, the longer it's going to stand up there and the longer it's going to serve the user of the state highway system whose gas taxes have been used to build it.
MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
MR. HOUGHTON: Wouldn't you think, though, Allan, that the standard that you've all agreed to with TxDOT should be a benchmark for the state and then you can start from that point?
MR. RUTTER: Well, I appreciate Amadeo saying that we've chosen to use your standards. We design to the AASHTO guidelines; we want to do so because we want to make sure that our customers have a safe road to drive on.
We construct our roads to TxDOT's specifications in large part because contractors know what that is. That helps us get a road built faster and cheaper instead of coming up with our set of specifications.
I guess my only question would be that it be specific to the interchange or the project that you're building, that there be enough flexibility that you give to your district engineers to deal with whatever they have on the ground there.
A number of the things that you talked about, making sure that something is in the TIP, we require that of any of our projects. Before a local government wants us to build something, it has to be in the TIP, both from a regional priority standpoint and from the air quality standpoint.
And making sure that some of those standards and specifications are met, that may not be a high hurdle for us. We just want to caution as those rules are being developed that they build in enough flexibility for your DEs to deal with changing circumstances down on the ground.
MR. HOUGHTON: And I can ask Amadeo, do we build in enough with our DEs to have that kind of latitude?
MR. SAENZ: Again, for the record, Amadeo Saenz. And we have, to some extent, because most of our rules require that you meet TxDOT or AASHTO standards or you can request for a design exception, and that would be kind of like the special circumstance: you want to do something different that's not exactly tied to that standard. So that flexibility can be incorporated.
MR. HOUGHTON: And the DE has that authority?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, or it would be done at a higher level, even up to Mr. Behrens, if it needs to be.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions, members, comments?
MR. JOHNSON: I have an observation, I guess. Allan, a lot of what you brought, I concur with.
I'm going to put this in two perspectives. First of all, whatever we do, we cannot run the risk of losing federal funding. I think that's a given that all parties would agree with. On the other end of that, I want to put what I'll refer to as our partners -- and that's collectively -- all the entities, both public and private, that can do facilities that they would want to have access to the state highway system.
My thought is that we cannot run the risk of making the requirements so onerous that it discourages the development of transportation assets, nor should they be so onerous that they delay project delivery. And there is a wide area in between those two requirements, the loss of federal funds and the discouragement of so many or so onerous requirements that we impede the development of transportation assets and throw in requirements that delay project delivery.
I think there's ground in there. I think in golf parlance it's the rough on one side and the rough on the other side of the fairway, and there's the fairway in between.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think you, and to a certain extent Ted, make the case for the limited regulation or no regulation approach, which philosophically I share. But I think the difficulty, when staff asked to bring this forward as a public discussion item, we see a lot on the inside that isn't yet in the public's eye -- will be but isn't yet -- and what we see, particularly what staff sees, is an explosion of transportation authorities of different types soon to be approved and in operation.
And while we will strive to be, as Jerry Dike said earlier, 100 percent perfect, we know that ultimately some of these authorities, private sector initiatives are not going to succeed, and that we intentionally plan for the day that we'll have to take one back or take one over.
And I think staff's concern is how do you pick the one that's going to succeed or not succeed, or how do you prepare for the day that one of them is not going to, and we don't want to have handed back to us an asset collapsing around our heads that people have been injured on that we have to take gasoline tax money from the motorists in Cameron County to go repair. I think that's where they're trying to go with it. So that's kind of the slice and the hook rough of that problem.
And we hear what you're saying now and we appreciate what you're saying, and I'm not sure how far we're going to ask staff to move forward with this initiative, and if we do, we will answer these questions for them, and we'll have lots of public hearings.
I appreciate your comments about public hearings. I don't mind being criticized for my decisions, but it really caught me off guard when somebody said we don't listen to the public. That's pretty silly.
MR. RUTTER: Well, that's not been our experience, and we look forward to working with your staff on this and other issues. Thanks.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thanks, Allan.
Amadeo, do you want to sum up?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. I think from what I heard -- and of course, we will be visiting with you all a little bit more during the next couple of weeks -- basically we need to have some flexibility, that we also need to make sure that we don't jeopardize any of the federal funding. So we're kind of working between the two roughs and hopefully we can hit a straight drive.
MR. HOUGHTON: We don't compromise quality and safety.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're trying to develop an entrepreneurial transportation world. We don't want to sit on entrepreneurs, we don't want to sacrifice integrity or quality at the same time.
I suggest you make sure commission administrative assistants have the questions so that they'll ask us to confront what I think our answers are, and let's dialogue with the commission one-on-one through the next couple of weeks before we go to the next step.
MR. SAENZ: We will do that. And we understand the different entities have the different levels of expertise and experience, and I think we could probably learn from our past experience in developing projects and putting in place something that will work for all of us. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, our next agenda item is in the form of a report on the US 59 corridor in Bee, Goliad, and Live Oak counties between George West and Victoria. I'd like to introduce Bee County Judge Jimmy Martinez, who will open this report, and then he will introduce the other speakers.
Judge Martinez, welcome.
JUDGE MARTINEZ: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Judge, thank you for being so patient with us this morning.
JUDGE MARTINEZ: Thank you. We understand, and thank you very much for having us this morning.
My name is Jimmy Martinez and I'm county judge for Bee County, and we're here today to give you a report and update on what has transpired with the Tri-County Coalition.
First of all, I'd like to tell you that the Tri-County Coalition was formed in 2003 and consists of the county judges from Bee County, Goliad County, and Live Oak County. It also consists of the mayors of those counties, and also included in the coalition is our Bee County Commissioner Susan Stasny and David Flores who is doing work for us in trying to put all this together for us.
In 2003, the Tri-County Coalition was successful in securing $10 million from the Texas Department of Transportation -- thank you for that -- so that we could expand Highway 59 from a two-lane highway to a super-two highway. We are very grateful to TxDOT for the upgrade for a super-two highway in our region.
However, we have also become concerned with rapidly changing events that have occurred within our region. The coalition has come to a consensus that circumstances within the Tri-County Coalition have dramatically changed within the last 12 months, and the coalition is seeking now to expand our super-two highway to a four-lane highway.
At the forefront of this decision is: safety; a memorandum of understanding, an MOU, between the Port of Houston and the Port of Victoria; Chase Field has now opened the airport and is a public airport and Goliad County has opened up their public airport also; the Central American Free Trade Agreement; and the new HR-3, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act.
While we realize that the I-69 corridor will relieve the barriers in commerce, experts predict that the completion of the I-69 corridor is 10 to 50 years away. Our presentation today does not in any way oppose the I-69 corridor. I, as an active member of the I-69 Alliance, support TxDOT in its efforts with the I-69 corridor project. However, the issues that exist on US Highway 59 are in the here and now.
We simply would request that you, as TxDOT members and commissioners, would consider our issues, our potential contribution to state revenues, and our petition.
At this time I'd like to introduce our next speaker who is county commissioner from Bee County, Susan Stasny.
Thank you so much, and I do appreciate the work you do for Texas. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Judge.
MS. STASNY: Hello. I'm Susan Stasny. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, Mr. Behrens, we want to thank you for the help that you've given us in the past, and we're honored to be here before you today. I've been here numerous times since I was first elected in 1986.
We come today to discuss the progress that has been made on US 59 in the past few years. The Tri-County Coalition is pleased that TxDOT has scheduled the construction of a four-lane highway on US 59 from Victoria to Goliad. That 23-mile stretch of highway has been long overdue for expansion.
It is the prayer and the dream of our citizens in Bee County that the expansion of US 59 would continue south for another 47 miles to I-37 in Live Oak County. We support and anticipate the I-69 corridor, but I must echo the concerns voiced by County Judge Jimmy Martinez that we are seeing the increased traffic now and we have the safety issues now.
We believe the solutions that we present today are in the best interest of the state of Texas, TxDOT and the Tri-County region. We ask that you consider our presentation favorably.
For our part, the coalition will proceed with its plan to seek a foreign trade zone for NAS Chase Field that was a former air station, to promote the flow of foreign commerce, in addition to seeking four lanes for US 59 to accommodate the increased NAFTA and CAFTA trade.
At this time I'd like to introduce County Judge Jim Huff, Live Oak County.
JUDGE HUFF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, honorable members of this commission. I want to first of all begin by thanking you for hearing us today on an issue that we feel is of tremendous importance, not only to our region but to the state as well.
Live Oak County is very proud to be a part of the Tri-County Coalition. Our county seat is George West, it is the hub for traffic coming from the Valley on US 281 and for traffic coming from Laredo on US 59.
Live Oak County's major industries include petroleum and refining with Valero Energy, and tourism and recreation on Lake Corpus Christi and Choke Canyon Reservoir.
Because our lake levels have been at capacity for the last few years, we have seen a drastic increase on tourism traffic on the US 59 corridor. This, coupled with the use of heavy oil and gas vehicles on US 59 has caused our accident rate to quadruple since 2000.
A study done in 1999 revealed that approximately eight out of ten vehicles using the western half of US 59 in our counties were heavy trucks.
A point of concern, a focus of mine also involves the IH 37/US 59 interchange. It remains a high accident area and increased traffic perpetuates the problem of bottlenecking.
Live Oak County wants to thank the Texas Department of Transportation for upgrading US Highway 59 to a super-two highway, but as you will see, we believe that the time has come for US 59 to realize its full potential and be converted into a four-lane highway.
At this time I would like to introduce Mr. David Flores, our knowledgeable consultant for the Tri-County Coalition project.
MR. FLORES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Thank you for having me. Mr. Behrens, thank you.
Before I proceed with the presentation, I'd like to acknowledge the presence of Nelson Salinas. He is the chief of staff for State Representative Yvonne Toureilles. His assistance and guidance has been of a tremendous help to us and we thank the state rep as well.
Also present was a member of Senator Zaffirini's staff who was called away, though, on urgent business, and we anticipate his return.
The Tri-County Coalition is located in south Texas on US 59. The Department of Public Safety from our region had indicated that accidents on US 59 in some regions quadrupled between 2000 and 2003.
Contributing factors to the safety issues on US 59, we believe, are the increase in border traffic from both personal and commercial vehicles. Laredo alone, total northbound vehicle crossings have steadily increased to the current 2005 level of 7 million vehicles per year. Commercial truck traffic accounts for approximately 1.5 million of the 7 million vehicles crossing annually at the border.
Surface trade from NAFTA increased 8.9 percent from May 2004 to May 2005. In a July 28, 2005 report, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported that surface trade from NAFTA had increased 8.9 percent. The report further indicated that Texas led all states in surface trade with Mexico in May with $6.5 million. Texas has always led the nation as far as doing business with Mexico, one, because of its proximity, and two, because of the trucks coming at 1.5 million every year.
The other issue that has contributed to our accidents is the memorandum of understanding between the Port of Houston and the Port of Victoria. As we know, in an effort to reduce vehicle air emission in and around the Houston area, the Port of Houston signed a memorandum with the Port of Victoria that would divert some ships from Houston to Victoria. Houston is hoping that some of that traffic would also follow the ships.
The result is that more trucks leaving Laredo previously bound for Houston are now using US 59 to reach the Port of Victoria.
A crisis on US 59. Again, this is an example of what DPS has given us. These red stars indicate the fatalities on US 59 between 2000 and 2004. You have one blue dot there; those are the rest of the blue dots. Those indicate injury and non-injury accidents on US 59. We're talking about a 30-mile stretch of highway.
As I mentioned, there was a crisis on US 59, and the symbol for crisis in Chinese is composed of two words: Danger and Opportunity. While the Tri-County Coalition recognizes the dangers on our highway, we choose to push toward the opportunity that lies before us, and our opportunity is our resources. While our resources are vast, no one county can prosper without the resources of the other two.
Bee County currently is in possession of Chase Field Airport with three 8,000-foot runways. Those are approximately two-mile runways.
Goliad County is in possession of two 8,000-foot runways. Any plane in the world that exists today can land at our airports.
Live Oak County, as Judge Huff mentioned, contains I-37, US 281, Valero Refinery, is a hub for traffic from the Valley and from Laredo, and is a major tourist area.
We believe opportunity is calling. This is a picture of Chase Field Airport. The Tri-County Coalition has moved to secure agreements between the Port of Victoria, to promote international trade through the use of foreign trade zones at both Goliad County Airport and Chase Field Airport.
The coalition believes that securing foreign trade zone statuses at our airports could create tremendous revenue potentials for Texas and our region.
The opportunity of location. We believe the coalition is centrally located. We're 19 miles west of the Port of Victoria, 60 miles north of the Port of Corpus Christi, 80 miles south of the Toyota plant which is scheduled to come on line in 2006, 160 miles west of the Port of Houston, and 160 miles east of the Laredo border.
The opportunity of alternatives. With the West Coast ports in so much trouble, the global market is looking for alternatives. West Coast port labor strikes last year cost the global market over a billion dollars.
And this is a statement from Jim McKenna, the Pacific Maritime Association president:
Overcrowding at Southern California's largest ports and rising fuel costs are creating logistic nightmares. West Coast ports are running out of available land for terminal expansion, creating the necessity for increased productivity on every existing acre.
Over the next ten years, cargo volume from Asia is expected to be double today's levels. According to the Wall Street Journal, West Coast ports lag far behind their counterpart in the world. The Port of Hong Kong, for example, handles more than four times the volume of cargo per acre as the most productive ports on the West Coast.
In Singapore, trucks wait less than a minute to pick up their cargo; in Long Beach, California, the wait averages 2-1/2 hours. The West Coast waterfront is becoming a costly bottleneck in the global supply chain. The inefficient use of available technologies and work practices that reduce productivity in the West Coast container yards costs the maritime industry as much as a billion dollars annually.
With 4 billion jobs nationwide depending on the West Coast and with that trade expected to double in the next ten years, it is essential that we find ways to fix this bottleneck in the global supply chain.
This morning, commissioners, we'd like to introduce to you the concept of the AirMaquila Project which we believe will greatly benefit Texas. The Tri-County Coalition believes the maquiladora system could be used to our advantage to create AirMaquila.
Making use of the five 8,000-foot runways, manufacturers in the U.S. could barge their product from the Port of Houston to the Port of Victoria, then air cargo their product from our runways to China, then return the finished product to the U.S. for distribution. Export and assembly and distribution times using the AirMaquila system would be equal to or better than the traditional maquiladora system.
A more enticing aspect of the AirMaquila method is that the average rate of pay for an assembly parts person in China averages 60 cents an hour compared to Mexico's $2.50 to $3.00 per hour wage.
Air cargo flights will reduce imports and export arrival times to a matter of days. Ships bound for the West Coast ports could be delayed for up to six weeks. Now, four of those weeks are traveling, the other two they're usually waiting to dock so that they can disembark their cargo.
Opportunity of trend. Air freight is the fastest growing segment of U.S. cargo economy. That's according to the Bureau of Transportation in 2004. As you know, HR-3 hopefully will give the State of Texas the tremendous revenue boost and we could use that to help complete the four-lane construction on US 59.
We anticipate, also, an increased trade with Central America with the CAFTA agreement. And of course, the San Antonio Toyota manufacturing plant is scheduled to come on line. We believe there that Toyota can air cargo their parts to Bee County or Goliad County and then transport them to San Antonio -- it's, again, 80 miles -- as opposed to using the ships.
Benefits of capitalizing on opportunity. Perhaps the greatest for the state is the reduction of air emissions for Houston. This provides Houston with another plan of action for air emissions with the federal government. It opens the Eastern global market to Texas. Airports would also serve the three seaports, Corpus Christi, Victoria, and Houston, would serve the Laredo border, and of course, San Antonio.
The utilization of these resources could also promote I-69 in Washington. We believe that with the influx of commerce in that region, the revenues created would be recognized in Washington and they would continue or increase efforts to fund that highway.
It promotes economic growth for all of Texas. Farmers, ranchers, fishermen, virtually all industries in Texas could air export their products to anywhere in the world within 24 hours.
One of the examples I use is between Victoria County and Goliad County, there's a ranch called the O'Connor Ranch and they had a tremendous problem with the wild pigs or wild hogs. They began to slaughter them and found that in Europe the Europeans loved wild pigs.
So they began exporting them and found that that was a niche no one else had, so it's a totally new industry for them. Their biggest issue was getting it to Europe in a timely manner, and within 24 hours now they can slaughter a hog and get it to the Europeans.
Impediment to the opportunity and commerce. Well, obviously lack of a sound highway infrastructure to accommodate current and prospective usage. Here we see pictures on US 59 where trucks pass one another in spite of a no passing zone, and the result of that is what we see here, all too common on US 59.
Again, 232 accidents from 2000 to 2004.
We believe the solutions to the impediment of commerce are the construction of a four-lane highway on US 59 from Victoria to I-37 at Live Oak County. Now, we're really just talking about a 47-mile stretch of highway because the approval for a four-lane construction from Victoria to Goliad is already there, so we're talking 47 miles.
The Tri-County Coalition will also study the feasibility of an RMA, or regional mobility authority. In rural Texas those are a little difficult and people in rural Texas don't like the idea of paying a toll. I travel to Houston quite a bit, I love it because it cuts my time down. But we believe we'd be paid in lead, and it's not nickels but bullets.
TxDOT and the Tri-County Coalition could work together toward the construction of a four-lane highway on US 59 using HR-53, and we believe if we partner that it would be beneficial for everyone in the state of Texas, not just our region.
In conclusion, the utilization and the benefit of the resources that the Tri-County Coalition possesses can greatly commercially benefit not only our region but all of Texas. The utilization and benefit of the resources can only be realized if US 59 is converted into a four-lane highway along the Tri-County region.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've seen the presentation. Do you have questions of this witness?
MR. HOUGHTON: The truck count in that 30-mile corridor, do you have an accurate truck count?
MR. FLORES: We don't have an accurate truck count on that. I know when they do the traffic counts, we can't distinguish between the two. So we have just visually seen an increase in the trucks.
MR. HOUGHTON: So the trucks leaving Laredo are going up through 59?
MR. FLORES: Not all of them.
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, I mean some of them.
MR. FLORES: The traditional route when they're going to Houston is I-35 to I-10 in Houston. That is a 71-mile route longer than taking US 59. If you drew a straight line from Laredo to Houston, the Tri-County region would be right there, and that's 71 miles shorter but it's two lanes.
We believe with the increase of fuel costs and, of course, the MOU, trucks have begun using our route more.
MR. JOHNSON: Did you say that the alternative route to Houston from Laredo is 35 to 10?
MR. FLORES: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: And it's 71 miles farther.
MR. FLORES: Right.
MS. ANDRADE: First of all, I want to thank you all for coming and I want to congratulate you all for working together. It's great to see the coalition being formed, it's great to hear that you're considering an RMA. I understand tolls are not easy to sell in your area.
But I have a question for Craig, our DE.
MR. CLARK: Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Behrens. For the record, my name is Craig Clark and I'm district engineer in the Corpus Christi District.
MS. ANDRADE: Craig, what size of a project are we talking about regarding money?
MR. CLARK: For the gap to upgrade it from --
MS. ANDRADE: Two to four.
MR. CLARK: To the four-lane would probably increase $113 million for the whole thing.
MS. ANDRADE: Did we have this project get any safety project money?
MR. CLARK: No, it wasn't considered in the safety bond.
MS. ANDRADE: Did we submit it?
MR. CLARK: No, it wasn't included in that. It didn't fit the categories that we had to look at that.
MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Craig, there's one gap, is there not, in there that's two-lane between two sections of four-lane?
MR. CLARK: Yes. Actually it's two gap sections between Beeville, on either side of Beeville. From Beeville to 37 we have a two-lane highway existing with a proposed -- well, actually with a super-two section under construction. And then from Beeville to Goliad, that section is currently two-lane and we have a proposed super-two application for that section.
MR. JOHNSON: The conversion from a super-two to a four-lane divided, is that complex and expensive or are doing the planning such that we can make that conversion as economically and as efficiently as possible?
MR. CLARK: We haven't really done a whole lot of planning in a conversion from the super-two. The decision was made some time ago to apply the super-two to these two-lane sections to address the safety in that area, to improve the operation and particularly the passing criticality at that traffic volume, and make this a safety enhancement that would not take any right of way or require any environmental clearance because there would be no added capacity. The conversion from a two-lane to a super-two doesn't add capacity for that purpose, for the environmental purpose.
There hasn't really been much study for what you would do with a super-two to take it to a four-lane or four-lane divided.
MR. HOUGHTON: Craig, do you have traffic counts on this?
MR. CLARK: Yes.
MR. BEHRENS: Commissioner Houghton, if you'll look in your briefing book.
MR. HOUGHTON: I'm like Johnny, I have not gone through it.
MR. BEHRENS: You haven't looked at it?
MR. JOHNSON: No, that was David Laney.
(General laughter.)
MR. BEHRENS: We have the current traffic counts, projected traffic counts through 2025.
MR. HOUGHTON: I see the counts.
MR. BEHRENS: And if you look at the bottom figure, there is a percentage of trucks on those particular points along that corridor.
MR. HOUGHTON: So around 22 percent is your truck traffic.
MR. SAENZ: For the record, Amadeo Saenz. I think, Commissioner, if you look at it on the average, in 2005 the current traffic is somewhere around a little bit over 7,000 vehicles per day.
MR. HOUGHTON: And 20 percent, 22 percent.
MR. SAENZ: And 20 percent, so about 1,400-1,500 of those are trucks.
MR. HOUGHTON: A day.
MR. SAENZ: I'm sorry?
MR. HOUGHTON: How many?
MR. SAENZ: About 1,400-1,500. 20 percent of those. You have your average daily traffic varies from 8,400 to 7,200, and then about 20-22 percent of those are trucks.
MR. HOUGHTON: On a daily basis?
MR. SAENZ: On a daily basis, yes, sir.
MS. ANDRADE: So these numbers are daily?
MR. SAENZ: This is your average daily traffic for 2005. And of course, the three numbers that you had in your book, the first number was 2003, then 2005, and our projected 2025 numbers.
MR. HOUGHTON: You're talking about $100 million project to go to a four-divided? What's the feasibility of a toll facility on that or a truck toll facility on that if you're doing 1,400-1,500 trucks a day, if you offer trucks a faster way to get to market?
MR. CLARK: With exclusive truck lanes separated?
MR. HOUGHTON: Yes.
MR. CLARK: It's probably very viable, and that's in consideration as part of the TTC element in TTC I-69 would be the truck lane component of that facility, and I believe it's considered to be quite viable.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Amadeo, is this part of the 59 footprint within the study parameters of TTC-69?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, that's correct. As part of the TTC I-69, the study area encompasses all of what was the old Corridor 18, Corridor 20 which was US 59, all of those are there. We are moving forward with our environmental study, our tier one of that, and hopefully by the end of the year, the first part of next year we will have the TTC-69 corridor identified.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm just curious, and I'm not using this as a reflection of how I view the report, but how do our partners at the I-69 Coalition view this request? Wouldn't want to speak for them?
MR. SAENZ: I wouldn't want to speak for them.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That speaks volumes.
Is Coby Chase in the room? May I speak with you on the record, Mr. Chase?
MR. CHASE: For the record, my name is Coby Chase, director of the Government and Enterprises Division.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Have we had any contact from our I-69 partners about this particular report?
MR. CHASE: No, not that I'm aware of.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we have any reason to believe under SAFTEA LU, is any of I-69 or TTC-69 financed for construction?
MR. CHASE: No.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Will it ever be financed by the federal government?
MR. CHASE: Never.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you.
Amadeo, back to you. Do we have private sector entities interested in building TTC-69?
MR. SAENZ: I have not had anyone come talk to me directly about TTC-69, but we have a lot of private sector companies that are looking at a lot of our facilities. I would imagine that there are some. There has been some talk about I-69 with respect to connecting the Port of Corpus Christi to the Port of Laredo.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is Phil Russell in the audience?
MR. BEHRENS: I don't see him right now.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm kind of curious, in processing this request, what would be the impact on a private sector proposal from Laredo to Corpus Christi if this facility were a tax road in the middle of the proposed -- there's Phil. Do you think he's been watching CSPAN or been watching us? Think he knows what we're talking about?
MR. SAENZ: Of course, any capacity that you add on 59 will have an impact on the TTC-69 corridor in that these two corridors, if they're not one and the same, that the environmental study determines that, will be in competition for the traffic that goes up and down that area.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Phil, have you been keeping up with what we're talking about, this particular US 59 report from these three counties?
MR. RUSSELL: For the record, Phillip Russell with the Turnpike Division.
A little bit. The bottom line, whatever the boss said was exactly right. But if you could restate that question, I will confirm that.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, these good citizens have presented a report on their particular safety and transportation problems on US 59, and the conclusion of the report is that the department needs to commit from $100- to $125 million in resources to make it a four-lane divided road from a Point A to a Point B.
Now, my question to Amadeo was is the current 59 footprint in these three counties part of the TTC-69 study.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And my next question was will I-69 ever be funded by the federal government, and Coby Chase, correctly I think, said no, nor would TTC-69 ever be funded by the federal government.
So then my last question was what would be the impact on any private sector proposer if this facility were enlarged a year or two or three years before they proposed and kept open as a tax road. What would be the probable impact on the proposals the state would receive for the larger corridor?
MR. RUSSELL: And I think that's probably where I walked in where the boss was talking about the potential for competition or to the extent that it might affect those private sector proposals.
And I think that something, Chairman, obviously you always have to look at. Any private sector proposal would always look at all the options, whether it's improving the existing 59 footprint or expanding off location. I mean, that's part of that environmental process that we're looking at right now.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, let's say that we decided to build TTC-69 not as a private sector asset but as a public sector asset.
MR. RUSSELL: As a toll road?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right. How would the existence of that traffic lane as a tax road affect our ability to borrow money to build the parallel toll road?
MR. RUSSELL: I think, Chairman, it would probably detract from that standpoint.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It would lower our ability to borrow money?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Phil.
I would be interested, Amadeo or Craig, in knowing how the I-69 Coalition views this, because they've been our partner steady and strong for the last four years, and that would have an effect on at least my thinking. I can't speak for the other commissioners.
MR. SAENZ: I will make contact with them. I know that they have been very supportive of the entire I-69 corridor and have been with us side-by-side in supporting our moving forward with the development of the I-69 corridor throughout the state of Texas. But I will call and verify that and get something to you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry. Members, other questions?
MR. JOHNSON: Amadeo, is it accurate to say that the designation or delineation of the I-69 corridor has been a factor in the development of this segment of US 59? In other words, we're trying to not do something there and then have to do something else later on after the I-69 corridor is developed?
MR. SAENZ: That's correct, sir. But as we move forward, there's no money for I-69. If you go out and expand a facility that will be in competition with I-69, you lose the potential for some private partnership, you also lose potential in the public market to go out there and secure funding from the public to be able to build a facility like I-69.
MR. JOHNSON: We talk about competition, but it occurs to me that the I-69 corridor, at least one of its abilities or intentions is to get traffic not only from Laredo but McAllen and Brownsville. Let's assume for a moment that the US 77 corridor becomes the main component of I-69. We still have the issue of how you get traffic from Laredo to that main element and also from McAllen to that main element.
And the same thing could be said if we use 281, you still have the Laredo component and you have the Brownsville component, and the same thing for 59, you've still got to get the Valley traffic up there.
MR. SAENZ: All of those are being addressed as part of the 69-TTC study is how do you make the connections and how do you address the connection from Laredo towards Houston, let's say for example, and from the Rio Grande Valley towards Houston, and all of that will be resolved.
Of course, another component is the 35-TTC corridor that we're developing and that has an access to Laredo, so how do those all combine and you convert it into a chicken leg or is it a two-legged chicken or is a three-legged chicken or is it a five-legged chicken. We'll have to find out.
(General laughter.)
MR. SAENZ: The environmental study will let us determine that and we're within probably a year of being able to know kind of how the main connections will connect.
The direction that we chose to go on 59, because we recognized that there was traffic and there was a need, is we went to the super-two. The super-two was developed as part of our research program to be able to allow us to address very quickly areas where you had a lot of traffic, a rolling terrain where you needed to have a method to allow people to pass without having to go into the opposite lane, and it's proven to work very well across the state.
And that's why we chose to go this way, we could very easily super-two this thing in a very short time frame without having to go out there and acquire additional right of way and with minimal -- meeting the required environmental process but it would not take us as much because it's much simpler to do.
I think your question earlier, moving forward to develop this facility from a two-lane to a four-lane will require an extensive environmental process. We think that what we're doing on the 69-TTC will also address the environmental process that we need to do for this that will determine the route, and if later on something needs to be done to 59, we will have a lot of the data that will allow us to move forward.
But the 69-TTC environmental study is going to be our key to allow us to determine the direction that we need to go finally.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, it occurs to me that regardless of which leg of the chicken becomes the main leg of I-69 that this element is going to either become the Laredo element to connect into I-69, or if that is selected as the main I-69 corridor, it becomes then built to interstate standards. So either way at some point in time it's going to be done, it's just a matter of how and when.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And maybe as importantly, a matter of how to pay for it and when.
Hope, Ted, anything else?
MS. ANDRADE: I just have one other question. Judge and commissioners, have you been briefed on what we're talking about on the TTC? So you know? I just want to make sure that you understand what we're trying to accomplish and why it's important that we understand what you're trying to accomplish.
MR. FLORES: Yes, Commissioner, we have been briefed on that, and as Judge Martinez had mentioned, though, in the briefings we received, the projected completion dates for the corridor were 10 to 50 years away, and as he said, the issues are now.
And you saw the accidents on there, they're going to continue to happen, so when our citizens cry out to us that something needs to be done, of course, we come to you and say something needs to be done.
MS. ANDRADE: Well, I'm in your area often so maybe Craig and I could sit down with you all and visit and see how we can continue working together.
MR. FLORES: And on that same note, we would like to thank Mr. Clark and his staff. They've been tremendous for us, helping us put the presentation together and anything we've asked for, he's given us. He's given us things that we didn't know to ask for that have been of tremendous help. And that's a reflection, of course, of the commission itself, so thank you very much.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you and thank you for your time and sharing with us.
MS. ANDRADE: One more thing.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope.
MS. ANDRADE: Yes, Craig is great, I'd like to echo that. And Judge from Live Oak, I'd like to say that you do have a very protected community. Since I drive through there often, I'm stopped quite often, so I am contributing to your county.
JUDGE HUFF: I'm going to give you my card.
MR. WILLIAMSON: She's in line to succeed Robert Nichols as a speed verifier.
MR. JOHNSON: Are you trying to get one of those letters from the DPS?
MS. ANDRADE: Well, one evening you stopped me a couple of times, so thanks very much for reminding me to get home safely.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: We thank you for your time in making us aware of this situation. As I'm sure you know, we don't make decisions like that immediately and from the podium, but we appreciate and will carefully consider what you've shown us today. Thank you very much.
Mike, let's push through.
MR. BEHRENS: We'll then go to agenda item number 7 which is our proposed rules for the month of August, rules for proposed adoption. Our first one will be 7(a)(1)(a), and that will be presented by Richard Monroe, and also 7(a)(1)(b). Richard?
MR. MONROE: Thank you, Mr. Behrens. Good morning. My name is Richard Monroe and I'm general counsel of the department.
Since I'm going to do three of these in a row, I will take this opportunity and be quick about it. Under the law that applies to these, it is necessary for the commission to vote to put these out for consideration by the public. We don't just bring these to you to fill up your day or anything like that, it is according to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
The first minute order before you will allow the department to publish for public comment certain revisions to 43 TAC Section 1.1 which comes under the general heading of the Management of the department. As we all know, the Motor Vehicle Board no longer exists; therefore, we need certain revisions of the rule to take that into account.
And also, there was one very old provision in the rules which allowed the commission to toll a section of highway if it would contribute to congestion relief. Quite frankly, that was done pursuant to a law that was considered by many people to be of dubious legality, given the constitutional prohibitions at the time. Certainly now with the expanded powers of the commission, it's time to get that out of there.
And if you concur in the minute order, we will publish these changes for public comment, and then come back to you later after that public comment to see if you would like to approve them for incorporation into the Texas Administrative Code.
I would recommend approval of the minute order.
MR. JOHNSON: Are there any questions of Mr. Monroe, commissioners?
MR. HOUGHTON: No. Move to approve.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. JOHNSON: There's a motion and a second to move approval and have these published in the Texas Register for public comment. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. JOHNSON: Those opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.
MR. MONROE: Thank you. The next minute order will approve, once again for publication in the Texas Register for public comment, amendments to our rules 1.82, 1.84, 1.85 concerning Advisory Committees.
This is due in part to recent legislation from the latest legislature. A Border Trade Advisory Committee was promulgated for the department. This will give us the appropriate rules regarding that. Also, it will provide formally for a Bicycle Advisory Committee, again as required by the 79th Legislature in recent legislation.
And finally, I think we all know that it has been something of an imposition to our advisory committee members that according to law we could not pay their expenses. Well, now we can, we just have to jump through a couple of hoops: we have to get approval by the governor and the Legislative Budget Board. And the amendments to these rules will allow us the authority to process that paperwork and see if we can get them paid.
I would recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. JOHNSON: Any questions or comments?
MS. ANDRADE: I have one question, Richard. Did you say to all advisory groups or just these particular ones?
MR. MONROE: All advisory committees.
MS. ANDRADE: All advisory committees.
MR. MONROE: Yes, ma'am.
MR. HOUGHTON: So the Bicycle Committee can forego riding their bikes down here and saving money.
MR. MONROE: If they so desire, I suppose so, yes, sir.
MS. ANDRADE: That includes Public Transit?
MR. MONROE: Yes, ma'am.
MR. HOUGHTON: All of them. So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. JOHNSON: Richard, one question before I call for a vote.
MR. MONROE: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: Do you anticipate that we would make that request on a blanket basis or on a case-by-case basis for these advisory groups?
MR. MONROE: I would anticipate we will try to run a couple through on a case-by-case basis and see how that goes. If we are favorably received, of course, I believe we should treat all advisory committees exactly the same, and we would seek compensation for all of them.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. There is a motion and a second to approve the publication of these rules in the Texas Register. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. JOHNSON: Those opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. JOHNSON: Motion passes.
MR. MONROE: Thank you.
The final minute order before you will, once again, approve for publication in the Texas Register for public comment amendments to 9.1 of our rules. This does two things: it recognizes the fact that what used to be the Contract Services Office has been transferred to be part of my office, as the Contract Services Section of the Office of General Counsel; it also changes an amount of time, as required by the recent legislation, in which the executive director is to begin negotiations with the vendor to resolve a claim.
We had been pretty efficient, we thought, in 60 days but now the legislature says we have 120 days to do that. So that change has been made also, once again pursuant to the requirements of new legislation.
I would recommend approval of the minute order.
MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, comments?
(No response.)
MR. JOHNSON: I'll entertain a motion.
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. JOHNSON: All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.
MR. MONROE: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Richard, thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: We have agenda item 7(a)(3) which is additional proposed rules under Contract Management dealing with the contract process. Thomas?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav. I'm director of the Construction Division.
Item 7(a)(3) is a minute order for proposed adoption that will amend Sections 9.15 through 9.18 concerning highway improvement contracts. There are four changes in these amendments, two of which are statutory from the past 79th regular session.
The first change is Section 9.15(b)(1)(h) is revised to make it clear that the HUB plan must be fully complete to consider a bid to be responsive. The second change we have is 9.17(d) is revised to increase the maximum amount for award to a second bidder when the low bidder does not execute the contract from $100,000 to $300,000. That's a statutory change from this past session.
The third change is 9.18(c) is revised to add payment bond to the current performance bond allowance whereby we can use a lesser amount when we have a contract for work where a contractor takes care of a section of roadway.
And the last change we have is Section 9.106. We need to clarify our sanction rules in there that if a contractor fails to execute a contract and they fail to honor their bid guarantee that we could sanction them for that reason.
Staff recommends approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff presentation and staff's recommendation. You have the information in your packet. Are there questions directed at Thomas, discussion?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: May I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 7(a)(4) is proposed rules under Traffic Operations concerning changes to our Logo Sign Program. Carlos?
MR. LOPEZ: Good morning, commissioners, Mike, Roger. My name is Carlos Lopez and I'm director of the Traffic Operations Division.
The minute order before you provides for the proposed adoption of rules to implement Senate Bill 1137 and House Bill 2453 of the 79th Legislature.
The rules will allow for implementation of a Tourist-Oriented Directional Sign Program for wineries, agri-tourism facilities and other tourist-oriented businesses; allow 24-hour pharmacies to participate in the Logo Sign Program; repeal the Major Agricultural Interest Sign Program; and amend the existing Logo Sign rules to improve readability and remove provisions that are no longer needed.
We believe these rules will provide the necessary framework to implement the program mandated by Senate Bill 1137.
We recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, we have several witnesses appearing. Do you wish to talk to Carlos first or do you want to hear witnesses?
MR. HOUGHTON: Is this statutory, Carlos, that we do this?
MR. LOPEZ: Yes.
MR. HOUGHTON: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We'll hear witnesses. We've got a variety here: we've got for, on, and refuses to say. So I guess we'll take the (for( first. Edward Manigold.
And Carlos, might I say it's good to see you back.
MR. LOPEZ: I never left.
(General laughter.)
MR. MANIGOLD: Members of the commission, thank you for this opportunity to speak in favor of the adoption of rules that would implement the law to give signage for wineries and others.
I want to thank, first of all, Senator Frank Madla for shepherding this legislation through and getting it done, and representing him today here with us -- I don't believe she was going to speak unless you had questions -- Sharon Muller from Senator Frank Madla's office.
We also have others represented here who may want to speak and if you have questions of them. We have June Ritterbusch from Salado Winery -- didn't know there was a winery in Salado -- and Gill Bledsoe from Pillar Bluff Winery which is located near Lampasas but it's actually in Burnet County.
And my name, of course, is Ed Manigold. I'm from Spicewood Vineyards located just across the county line in Burnet County.
We started off in Texas with about 46 wineries in 1999 or earlier; we have 92 in 2004; there will probably be over 200 in 2007, that's the projection. These signs, although it's a small item, mean a great economic difference in the success because most of these wineries are small wineries owned and operated by families. They're not big corporate; of these 100 wineries, probably 90 percent of them are very small.
The signage is vital to their economic impact, to their economic success, but also not only to them but to the rural areas. As you know, the vineyards are located in rural areas, therefore, that's probably where the winery is going to be, and small communities benefit greatly from having the tourism resulting from these.
There's been kind of an understanding among the public, as they drive down the TxDOT highways and others, that if they don't see a winery sign there must not be one there, because there are some for some and not for others.
So we thank you for this opportunity and we urge the adoption of these rules that would facilitate it and make a great deal of difference in the economic life of this beginning industry.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And we thank you, Mr. Manigold. Questions of this witness?
MR. JOHNSON: I have one. Do all these wineries that will be identified by these signs conduct tours?
MR. MANIGOLD: Yes, as far as I know.
MR. JOHNSON: So in essence, the benefit to the wineries is to get people to stop in and take a tour of the winery.
MR. MANIGOLD: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: Do you have tasting?
MR. MANIGOLD: Yes.
MR. HOUGHTON: Do you breathalyze them when they leave the wineries?
MR. MANIGOLD: Do we what?
MR. HOUGHTON: Breathalyze them.
MR. MANIGOLD: No, but we have strict rules about the amount that people consume in tastings. We have to give the wine away, you know.
MR. HOUGHTON: Right.
MR. JOHNSON: On any of these tours, do wineries charge for them?
MR. MANIGOLD: Yes, many do, some don't. We do.
MR. WILLIAMSON: A tour and a taste. Thank you, Mr. Manigold.
Now we have on the bill June Ritterbusch. Do you care to speak?
(Inaudible response from audience.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Then we have unidentified, Gil Bledsoe.
(Inaudible response from audience.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: You have been there in the second row very attentive all meeting long, and we always appreciate that. We hope you've learned some things about the transportation system, and we appreciate you driving down here to be a part of this.
Members, do you have other questions of Carlos?
MR. JOHNSON: Move approval.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. LOPEZ: Thank you, commissioners.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 7(a)(5) is proposed rules under Maintenance concerning boarding for our ferries at Port Aransas and Port Bolivar. Zane?
MR. WEBB: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Zane Webb, director of the Maintenance Division.
The minute order you have before you proposes a repeal of 29.48 and a new 29.48 substitute which governs the priority boardings on our TxDOT ferry systems.
The minute order would adopt a system by which we would sell a ticket or a sticker, affix it to a windshield, and that would allow the vehicle that had the sticker on it to go in the front of the line, get on the ferry first, up until the time that the ferry was loaded with 50 percent priority boarding, and at that point be open to regular boarders.
The proposed rule sets the amount of money that we would charge for this. It's on a sliding scale from $400 to $800, depending on the size of the vehicle. It would also stipulate that any funds that we got from the sale of these stickers would go back into Fund 6.
Now, by way of background, priority boarding has long been part of the rules for TxDOT ferry system. We've been able to priority board things like ambulances, fire engines, police officers, or anyone that needed humanitarian reasons like they were sick and going to the doctor. The captain or the manager of the ferry system could, at their discretion, board these people in a priority manner.
These rules will give TxDOT the ability to sell a sticker and allow, by permit, priority boarders.
I guess at that point I'd kind of ask you if you've got any questions. That's substantially what the changes in the priority boarding rules are.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Zane, I'm going to have some questions and it's possible the other commission members will have some questions as well. But members, we do have two witnesses. What's your pleasure: questions now or hear witnesses first?
Okay, then we'll hear first from Ann Bracher Vaughn.
MS. VAUGHN: Commissioners, director, thank you very much for allowing us to be here today and to speak to you.
As you are aware, Port Aransas is exploding, and it's one of the premier destinations on the Texas Coast, and we just appreciate the fact that you're allowing us to have another alternative option to get not only tourists but residents and particularly our service personnel to and from the island with better access.
I would like to commend Howard Gillespie, our ferry manager, and Craig Clark, our district engineer, and cannot go without saying that David Casteel, who was the prior district engineer, also facilitated the very improved operation of our ferry system over what it was several years ago, and they do a tremendous job.
And it would not be without your great extra funding that you gave us that allowed that efficient operation, and we appreciate that very much.
You know, we move over 2-1/2 million vehicles on those ferries every year to and from the island, and not only is that tourists but service personnel and many employees who either work off the island or travel to and from since there's many things you can't buy on the island.
I guess I have a little bit of a question about the cost of what's been proposed, and my question would be is this a cap at that level or would the fee be raised at some point in time. I know the language addresses the fact that it can fluctuate depending on the number of applications that are received. So I guess I just have a question and would like a little bit of clarification for that.
But anyway, we appreciate the fact that you're going to hopefully be putting this in the Texas Register and then having a public comment period in Port Aransas in September. And thank you very much, appreciate it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, questions of this witness?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you, Ann. Georgia Neblett, Mayor.
MAYOR NEBLETT: Commissioners, Mr. Behrens, Ann said it very well so I won't spend time reiterating.
I do want to thank you very much, although not timely, for sending us David Casteel, who in his wisdom hired Howard Gillespie, and for his successor, Craig Clark.
I also wanted to let you know that the City of Port Aransas will try to do its fair share to leverage funds from Washington, D.C. for the ferry operation. We were successful in getting $320,000 in this year's appropriation, and I'll be back in September with my hand out for the money to build the ferry now that we have money to design it.
So I very much appreciate the work you do in Port Aransas and the work you do throughout the state, and I know the issues are tough, and we appreciate your attention to making Texas the great state it is. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. Members, questions of this witness? Hope?
MS. ANDRADE: Mayor, I just want to thank you for your leadership in Port Aransas.
MAYOR NEBLETT: Thank you, Commissioner. We certainly appreciate your attention.
MS. ANDRADE: Well, thank you. And you're comfortable with the $400?
MAYOR NEBLETT: I think there will be, any time you introduce change or something new. I think that the public hearings will be very instrumental in telling us how poorly that will be received or how favorably that will be received. I know there's a very fine line between setting it high enough so that it is a priority boarding and is not so low that it does not serve the function that it is.
I think probably some of the issues that will be raised the way it's written, it's going to be affixed to a windshield, for some of our service people in some of the condominiums that may want to buy a sticker to get their people to and from, if the employee leaves, can you get the sticker, I think there will be questions like that. And I think that's the purpose of a public hearing is to be able to address those issues.
So I think we'll just have to see, but I think it is reasonable considering the traffic that we have on the ferry today.
MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: I have a question.
MAYOR NEBLETT: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: Are you related to any of the Nebletts that I might know in Houston?
MAYOR NEBLETT: I don't know how to answer that because I certainly would hope for a favorable response from this commission, and if I said I was related to Rob Neblett, that might or might not help us.
MR. JOHNSON: And you would admit to that in public?
MAYOR NEBLETT: Yes, sir, I would, but then you would have to admit that you knew him as well.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'll take that under advisement.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Mayor and Ann, both. Thank you for driving such a long distance and waiting so long to have your say. I appreciate it, appreciate your patience.
I do have a couple of questions, Zane.
MR. WEBB: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: The rule, as I understand it, basically outlines the process which permits Texas citizens to apply to the department and for the department to issue a sticker for a vehicle that would have the priority right to board up to the 50 percent load factor. Is that correct?
MR. WEBB: That's correct, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What else will we have to implement in the future in order to permit this kind of unique, first time in Texas, toll system on ferries to operate?
MR. WEBB: Chairman, I think that process has already been begun through the districts, and they're currently working on additional landings, and presently a naval architect is designing a new ferry for the Bolivar system, and planning, as the mayor just said, has already started for a new ferry boat at the Aransas system. So those processes in themselves are going to alleviate a few of the problems.
But they really need to be accomplished also to enhance the priority boarding capabilities.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, how do you see the process of how we recruit people, who we select and how they get on the list, how do you see that working?
MR. WEBB: Well, to begin with, we're holding two public hearings: one at Port Aransas and one at Galveston. And I think during that process, of course a lot of the information will come out through the public and we'll talk to them then.
What we'd like to do at some point is start taking applications for these stickers. I think when we do that -- I'm not talking about taking money, I'm just talking about taking applications, and if we do that, we're going to get some idea about how many stickers that we'll be able to sell. Now, if we get an idea about how many stickers we'll be able to sell, then we get an idea about how much of our cost that we're going to recover.
I think at some point we've got to take into consideration the operational cost of implementing priority boarding because there's additional law enforcement, additional traffic control. And if there are enough priority boarders, we're going to have to talk about capital infrastructure improvements -- in other words, widening of the roadways, putting in additional places for priority boarders to park that are separate from regular boarders, and that capital improvement is somehow going to have to be recovered over time.
And the only way we're going to find out how much capital improvement we can do is by finding out how many stickers we're going to sell.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, it's new, it's innovative and it addresses some public concerns, and I'm all for those kinds of things. I'm certainly all for our good friends, Kyle Janek and Mike Jackson and Craig Eiland being satisfied and Ken Armbrister, that we're trying to address the problem. It's just that we may find that there are a lot of people who say they want this but when they're staring in the face of $400 a year or one-time only or whatever it ends up being, we might be surprised that there aren't as many people who want priority boarding as we first thought.
I try not to get into the department's administrative business but it just seems to me, members, that we might ought to ask staff to do some work on developing the process by which we would recruit people and incorporate that into these rules before we get too far down the road so that none of us are caught off guard.
MR. WEBB: Chairman, are you asking us to put a number in at which it's a break-even point?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Not necessarily. Just better define the process of how you're going to recruit these people, perhaps, and how they'll get their sticker, that's all.
MR. HOUGHTON: Mr. Chairman, it's not a like precedent, but on the international borders they have sentry lanes for people that work in Mexico. They buy a sticker.
Amadeo, do you know the numbers of people that buy sentry lane passes on these international bridges? They're paying about $300 to $400 a year to get in a sentry lane and come past instead of sitting in line, and I understand it's a huge success.
Now, that takes in, Zane, you've still got to go through Customs, Immigration. Here you're just getting on, obviously, a boat. So they're willing to pay, people are willing to pay to move fast, and I would think we could learn some lessons from the sentry lane folks on the international bridges.
I mean, when we're talking about 2.5 million boardings, that's pretty healthy. If you get 20 percent, that's 500,000 people -- cars -- not people, cars.
MR. JOHNSON: But you run the risk that if you have too many your line in the fast lane is longer than the line in the ordinary lane.
MR. HOUGHTON: Right. It's going to be a price issue.
MR. JOHNSON: There's a balance there. We all want this to be an extremely successful and meaningful program, but you don't want to run the risk that these people have paid a fee and their line takes longer to move than the other line.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I guess what I'm saying, Zane, is in developing the rules I think I just would feel more comfortable if we had the process of how we're going to receive the applications and how we're going to provide for the permits, implement the program and do the roadway improvements. If we could reflect those in the rules, I'd feel comfortable about it. I think Senate and House members who are interested in this would feel more comfortable, and probably the citizens would actually feel a little bit more comfortable about it.
MR. WEBB: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: Zane, roughly the breakdown between the crossings at Port Aransas and the crossings at Bolivar, are they pretty equal?
MR. WEBB: Commissioner, they're surprisingly close. We have a longer passage at Bolivar, it takes a longer time to do it and you carry more cars per ferry, but it's about 2-1/2 million vehicle crossings per year at each one of them.
MR. HOUGHTON: Each one?
MR. WEBB: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: You mentioned the construction of new ferries with an additional feature or expanded capacity. What would each of those vessels cost in excess of the vessels that we have in service now?
MR. WEBB: Other than escalation cost, there's going to be some escalation on the one at Port Aransas because that's proposed to be a larger ferry. It will go from 20 cars to 28 cars, so there will be some escalation cost. And I can't tell you exactly what that is at this point, although Craig Clark, the district engineer, is with us today and he may be able to.
Now, the cost of the one at Bolivar, it's essentially the same type of ferry, a 70-car ferry using a Voich Snider propulsion, so it's going to be essentially, except for the increase in inflationary cost, we'd have to say it's going to cost approximately the same as we have in the past.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, I heard the mayor say that she was going to Washington to get the additional funds, so I don't think we have anything to worry about.
(General laughter.)
MR. WEBB: Amadeo wanted me to say that these were already planned and are not part of any growth because of priority boarding, so these were already planned improvements, the landings and all were. They're enhancements that will help the priority boarding when we do it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, you have heard the layout, the discussion, the recommendation and instructions to staff --
MR. MONROE: Richard Monroe, general counsel of the department.
I don't like playing the Grinch but it seems to be one of my roles in life. There is a case that says the sort of general advice you gave about the rules you're voting on gives we bureaucrats a little too much power, and so if we could come up with some wording here for you to vote on, and since these are going to be somewhat controversial -- after all, we're talking about taking people's money -- I wouldn't want to run that risk, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you have some suggested wording?
MR. MONROE: Yes, sir. If you'll refer to page 2 of 5, that would be the preamble, and in the first full paragraph there, the one that starts off (New 29.48(a)(2)( and we follow that down and the sentence ends (cost amortized over a 10-year period.(
Some possible language to insert in there would be: (In order to ensure that there is sufficient demand for annual permits to justify the cost of instituting the program, the department will not begin issuing stickers for a ferry location until at least 400 applications are received for that location.(
I'm not firm on that number, if you would prefer a higher number or a lower number, for that matter, but it would give the staff a firm direction from the commission rather than the discretion that would be given by more general instructions.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What would happen, Richard, if we published the rule at 400 and subsequent public hearings indicated that we might want to reduce that to 300 or increase it to 500? Would that be all right?
MR. MONROE: You can do anything you want.
MR. JOHNSON: 500 would be covered, 300 would not.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But I'm saying if we approve this minute order as amended to 400 and then we go down and have public hearings and the public hearing process dictates that staff comes back and says we need to change that number, I just wanted to be sure that it was okay with Richard, and it's certainly okay with me.
Is there any objection -- there's never objection to what a lawyer recommends.
MR. MONROE: Oh, you'd be surprised.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me rephrase that. I never object to what Richard Monroe recommends.
Any other recommendations, Richard?
MR. MONROE: Yes, sir. If you could please refer to Exhibit C, page 2 of 3. We start at the first capital B there, the fee for an annual permit, and I don't know if yours reads this way: for the Galveston-Bolivar or Port Aransas ferry. Is that already in there?
MR. JOHNSON: Is that an insertion?
MR. MONROE: Yes, sir. My recommendation would be on that capital B: (The fee for an annual permit for the Galveston-Bolivar or Port Aransas ferry is.( It would make it definite.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
MR. MONROE: And finally, to go with the preamble because that's not really the rule, it's an explanation, on Exhibit C, page 3 of 3, I would like to stick in a new E and then re-letter accordingly, and this would go with the preamble, and the suggested language would be: (The department will not issue priority boarding stickers for a ferry location until it has received at least 400 applications for that location.(
Once again, after the public hearings, if the commission wants to change that up or down, that would certainly be within your discretion.
MR. JOHNSON: Does that mean that E becomes F and F becomes G?
MR. MONROE: Yes, sir, they would be re-lettered accordingly.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, any discussion with Mr. Monroe on his recommendations?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Richard. We appreciate your looking out for us.
MR. MONROE: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, Zane, are you comfortable with your recommendation as amended?
MR. WEBB: I think I am, Chairman. The only thing I would like to advise the commission is that if we proceed with selling the stickers at 400 vehicles at $400 apiece, the expected operational costs from the Houston District will exceed the income from the stickers. So their expected operational cost are going to exceed some $200,000 a year. If we only sell 400 stickers, we probably won't reach that, much less any kind of capital improvements.
MR. JOHNSON: But 400 is a minimum here.
MR. WEBB: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's move through the public hearing process. We might be surprised, we may have 1,000 people who want to buy them.
MR. WEBB: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And even if we don't, you know, we've talked a lot the last few years about the common pool of transportation construction and this may fall into that category.
Okay. We have a presentation, a recommendation, we have an amendment before us. Do I have a motion?
MS. ANDRADE: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries as amended. Thank you, Zane. Thank you, Richard.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 7(b), another rule for proposed adoption concerning rule changes that pertain to the State Aircraft Pooling Board which will hopefully become Texas Aviation Services. Dave?
MR. FULTON: Thank you. Again, my name, for the record, is Dave Fulton, director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.
This minute order is for the purpose of repealing Title 1, Texas Administrative Code, Part 9, Chapters 181 and 183, relating to the State Aircraft Pooling Board. The 79th Legislature abolished the State Aircraft Pooling Board and transferred those duties and responsibilities to the Texas Department of Transportation.
Therefore, we would recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, I have to dialogue with Dave and also each of you, just so none of us are caught off guard in the future.
There is a great deal of disagreement in the legislature about whether or not the Aircraft Pooling Board assets and activities should continue.
I know all of us and I know the staff, we attempt to address the concerns of each legislative leader and each member of the legislature as best we can, but in the end, we're appointees of the governor and we're members of the executive branch.
The law that was passed presumes a transfer of assets and a continuation of service under our responsibility. It may be the case that the legislature and the governor at some point in the future come to an agreement about whether or not the service should be continued and at what level.
The problem we face, while those gentlemen and gentle ladies figure that out, is that we have the legal responsibility for doing this and we need to develop rules to assure the public and the state employees of how the game is to be played.
And I toyed with and thought a lot about whether we should move forward with this, and it was my decision, and my decision alone, to put it on the agenda. You can certainly knock it off by expressing to me that you would rather not, but it was my belief that we should empower Dave to move forward with the rules and begin our public hearings and start the process whereby we incorporate this into our activity. We can always stop and say the rules have changed if we're given that direction.
I think that is the best thing for us to do. But we're a four-member panel, and if you're not comfortable with that, this would be the time to say so.
You heard the layout and the recommendation. Do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Dave.
MR. FULTON: Thank you, sir.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 8 is another discussion item. This one will be to discuss the proposed Texas Rail System Plan. Jim Randall.
MR. RANDALL: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Jim Randall, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division. We come here to discuss about the proposed Texas Rail System Plan.
I'd like to first give you a little background information on freight statistics, freight projections, talk a little bit about what we anticipate should be the major focus of the plan, go into a little project delivery mechanisms due to the new tools we got from the legislature, and then we had developed some questions and answers and they were just based on what we thought the general public might ask us.
We are now aware of we should be submitting these type of questions to the commission and we will in the future.
Over the next 20 years, Texas is anticipating a major increase in freight movements from the Far East into the western United States ports and also via NAFTA and the CAFTA traffic. As the state's transportation agency, we recognize that no one motor transportation can efficiently serve the freight needs of Texas.
According to the Federal Highway Administration's Freight Analysis Framework Study, freight tonnage on Texas highways is projected to increase from just over 1 billion tons in 1998 to nearly 1.9 billion by the year 2020 which is about an 85 percent increase.
According to the same study, freight tonnage on the Texas rail system is expected to increase from 282 million tons in 1998 to 473 million tons in 2020 which is about a 68 percent increase over the same period.
Nationally, AASHTO's Freight Bottleneck Study estimates that highway users' costs which are in terms of travel time delays, operating and accidents costs over the next 20 years, based on a no-growth scenario of the national rail system, would be about $492 billion. However, an aggressive investment in our nation's rail system could result in highway users' savings of $397 billion in the same time period.
Based on projected increases, Texans will need an intermodal transportation system capable of adapting to various modal transportation demands. In order to meet the demands associated with the expansion of freight movements, the state needs to ensure the development of a multimodal and intermodal transportation system which will be able to support the additional demands for each modal group.
The failure to do so will eventually lead to an eventual freight shift from one mode to another. We envision this shift would be from rail to highways. This would cause significant impacts for our highway system.
Also, the failure to meet freight demands will have economic impacts on the state either by the reduction of opportunities to create jobs or relocation of jobs to other areas of the nation with a more robust transportation system.
Now, the development of the Texas Rail System Plan was initiated in response to increasing involvement by the state of Texas in freight and passenger rail issues and to provide a baseline analysis of the current rail system in the state.
The plan will serve to identify current and proposed rail projects, determine infrastructure and capacity needs on the system and to develop an awareness of the issues and process by which to address them.
Eventually the plan will be a document that identifies rail improvements, provides the mechanism to coordinate the development of such facilities. This would include the determination of public benefits and the programming of public funds for such improvements.
We anticipate that the plan will focus on major rail relocations and improvements to the state's rail system that could provide public benefits in the following areas:
Improved safety by relocating hazardous materials moved through metropolitan areas and by reducing the number of grade crossings;
Reliable mobility by reducing grade crossing delays;
Foster freight modal shift from highway to rail by making new corridors available for highway roadway expansion and providing opportunities for the establishment of new passenger rail systems;
Economic vitality by increasing opportunities for attracting new business resulting from improved and new transportation infrastructures such as intermodal facilities and/or inland ports, and providing land development opportunities from relocated rail facilities with urban metropolitan areas;
Finally, system preservation by improving freight efficiencies and intermodal utilization by the enhancement of existing facilities, utilization of abandoned rail corridors and modernization and expansion of existing intermodal facilities.
Of course, the development of the Trans-Texas Corridor will provide an opportunity to relocate existing rail lines out of the metropolitan areas. Current development activities along the TTC will be included in the plan. These relocations will provide a wide range of public benefits justifying possible public-private partnerships with railroad companies.
Also, the department's current work with the major rail companies to plan rail projects and the possible development of public-private partnerships in accordance with MOUs signed by Governor Perry in the Class 1 railroads will be addressed.
The plan will also include a discussion on program delivery methods. The 79th Texas Legislature passed bills enabling the expenditure of funds by TxDOT for rail projects which would allow TxDOT to improve statewide transportation safety and efficiency through targeted improvements to the Texas rail system.
This new legislation will increase TxDOT's involvement in rail projects and the further development of the state's multimodal transportation system.
As you know, TxDOT does not have express authority to use state highway funds on rail projects. Past projects have been completed with specific legislative appropriations. Passage of HB 2702 and HB 1546 by the 79th Legislature has enabled the expenditure of non-dedicated funds for state-owned rail projects as well as funds from other sources such as loans and grants.
HB 1546 creates the possibility of financing reasonable rail relocation projects, pending voter approval in November. HB 2702 allows TxDOT to enter into comprehensive development agreements for rail projects and agreements with private entities to establish pass-through fares for reimbursement of facility expenses.
The companion piece of legislation, HB 1546 would create the Texas Rail Relocation Fund if a constitutional amendment is approved by the voters. The establishment and administration of the Railroad Relocation and Improvement Fund will enable TxDOT to plan, design, and implement passenger and freight rail relocation and improvement projects that provide multiple public benefits related to safety, mobility, improved air quality, and economic development opportunities.
Currently TxDOT has limited funding availability for rail development and has employed various strategies to address priority rail planning issues in the state. The Rail Relocation Fund could provide TxDOT with the resources necessary to implement much needed statewide and regional rail projects. These projects would benefit rail efficiencies which in turn could benefit vehicle transportation and Texas passenger rail.
Overall, we propose developing a plan that will focus on improvements which will make use of new funding mechanisms, provide connectivity to future systems such as the TTC, and utilize public-private partnerships to provide long-term mutual beneficial system improvements.
Some of the questions that we came up with that the public might be interested in is: Why is the rail plan necessary?
The development of the state rail plan is the first step in developing a vision and initiating public dialogue regarding rail project development. The rail plan will better position the department to utilize available funding for rail improvements. A comprehensive, coordinated and continuous planning process is necessary for the expenditure of funds for all types of transportation improvements, including rail.
Another question: What type of rail projects are we dealing with?
The plan would include a wide range of rail projects. As mentioned earlier, our focus will be on rail relocation projects, however, other project types could develop sooner due to construction costs, available funding sources, and qualified public benefits. These projects may include the acquisition of abandoned rail lines, improvements to state-owned rail facilities, and intermodal facilities.
Another question could be: How would the department fund large scale rail relocation projects?
No specific funding source at any level is currently available to finance projects of this magnitude. It will require funding from federal, state, local and private levels to finance these projects.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Jim, can I stop you on that one?
MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, you say no funding is available but is it not the case we could go to the Mobility Fund?
MR. RANDALL: For passenger rail, yes, sir.
We are currently analyzing SAFTEA LU to determine the possibility of using the capital grants for Rail Line Relocation Project Program. This is a $350 million a year program nationally that just came out. Also Projects of National Significance is another program we're looking into as far as utilization by the state.
At the state level, the proposed Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund could provide funding, and of course, bond initiatives at the local level could also provide funding, as well as private investments by way of the CDAs.
Another question could be: How do we propose to develop passenger rail?
We plan to conduct this incrementally. Based on statistics provided earlier, our main concern is the efficient movement of freight, both present and projected. Any improvements to freight capacity on lines shared by inner city passenger rail should also benefit the operation of passenger rail service.
Also, the relocation of freight movement in metropolitan areas will improve capacity, providing opportunities for the development of commuter rail service and enhanced inner city service on these existing lines. Over time, with the expansion of commuter rail systems in our metropolitan areas, the demand for inner city passenger rail will increase, allowing for the development of high speed inner city passenger rail within the TTC corridor.
And finally, you would ask: How would a rail project help the mobility of our highway system users?
Rail can improve mobility by providing the following: reduction of vehicle delays at rail-highway crossings; modal shifts of freight from highway to rail, thus slowing the growth of freight movements on the highway system; and finally, development of passenger rail systems.
These are just a few of our thoughts as far as what would be incorporated in the proposed plan, and we're here to take any input from the commission or answer any questions.
I also have Mr. Medina, who has rapidly become the rail expert with the department, to back me up on some of these questions.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We would like to think of him as the rail expert of Texas.
MR. RANDALL: So be it.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, back to my first question, is that restriction also true inside the corridor, Bob?
Amadeo, are you around?
Obviously we'll be focused on the Rail Relocation Fund, but I'm curious about our rail plan in the event that we don't have a Rail Relocation Fund or funding source. Are there opportunities for us to use traditional sources of funding to build freight rail if we know that the construction of that rail relieves congestion on our highways?
MR. SAENZ: We have a transportation connection to the project where we need to put in a public transportation or a highway project where a rail line currently exists and that's one of the options, and would require or necessitate the movement of the rail, we can use our regular Fund 6.
Now, I think your question that you mentioned about the corridor -- and Bob is here and he'll probably jump if I say something wrong -- but the concession fees that come in from, for example, a 35-TTC could be a funding source to implement the rail elements on the corridor. So that is one additional funding source that's there, any concession fees we can use for rail.
MR. HOUGHTON: Can I interrupt? On that corridor or can you transfer it to the TTC-69 corridor or the I-10 transportation corridor, or all corridors?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's let Bob come up for a second.
MR. JACKSON: Any corridor in the state.
MR. HOUGHTON: That we designate as a corridor.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So if I can give you an example, Bob -- and you know I'm not bashful, if I'm asking a question I shouldn't and you need to stop me, say stop. I'll give you an example. We begin building TTC-35, we know that passenger rail can only occur after the rail is down, we have a freight rail opportunity that if pursued would lay the groundwork for the passenger rail, where is the gray area in using the funding? Are we still limited?
MR. JACKSON: You've got concession fees, you've got surplus toll revenue, federal funds, revenue bonds for rail, non-dedicated highway funds if they are available.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, that is far enough, that tells me what I need to know. Thank you.
So in other words, Jim, in developing our plan, not only in perhaps developing solicited CDAs, not only in developing regular transportation programs, but in receiving unsolicited CDAs and certainly in developing our plan, we should not limit ourselves and our planning by the restrictions on funding.
MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Our plans should assume that one way or the other, a rational plan, we'll find a way to fund that.
MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Because I'm most interested in, I think the legislative leadership that have been concerned about this, members, I don't think they were ever concerned that we would spend money for UP or BNSF, they were only concerned that we would do things that would relieve congestion on the roads. That was the primary concern of the legislative leaders.
I think if we keep that kind of uppermost in our minds, we'll be okay. And that's what is uppermost in our minds, that's what we're trying to do.
I'm sorry. Questions, members?
MR. HOUGHTON: Does the same revenue issue apply, Bob, to power and water if we charge a fee? If there's a fee for power and water in the corridor, we can use that for any type of capital project?
MR. JACKSON: We can issue toll revenue bonds under the corridor statute, but I would interpret that the revenue would be limited to the toll portion of the corridor.
MR. HOUGHTON: So if we had a fee from a power transmission line in the corridor, we cannot use that for rail?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Any income you make off the corridor, you can spend on any mode within the corridor anywhere.
MR. HOUGHTON: Okay.
MR. JOHNSON: The Rail Relocation Fund is an appropriated fund. Is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: Not really. If the legislature funds it, then by constitution it's already appropriated.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay. My question is are there any restrictions on where those funds can be appropriated from.
MR. JACKSON: As long as the funds aren't already dedicated by the constitution.
MR. HOUGHTON: So if we come up with a fee in our studies -- and I understand there are studies that we're working on as to how to obtain certain fees to fund a rail mobility fund -- then does that have to be constituted by the legislature?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
MR. HOUGHTON: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
MS. ANDRADE: No questions.
MR. WILLIAMSON: John?
MR. JOHNSON: I'm fine.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Bob.
Well, Jim, it's a good first step. Again, by way of repeating for those who listen to us, we're talking about this, it's here, it's what we're going to do, so nobody needs to be caught off guard. We do believe that rail is a component of a modern transportation system.
MR. RANDALL: What we'd like to do is continue to receive input from the commission, commission aides, go ahead and complete the report, submit it to Mr. Behrens, and then at that time start making arrangements for putting it out for public input, public comment.
Part of the FRA regulations for a state rail plan is that, based on your comment, you're required to have a public hearing. We're going to go ahead and have a public hearing anyway on the plan, so we're probably looking -- I think originally we were trying to talk about having it ready in September, it will probably push that back to probably October, maybe as late as November. So that's kind of our time frame right now.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think as the price of gasoline per gallon goes higher, we would be well advised to move as quickly as possible.
MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. Very good.
MR. WILLIAMSON: There are going a lot of people more interested, I think, in passenger rail in the future than have been in the past.
Thank you, Jim.
MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
MR. BEHRENS: Okay, Jim, I think you get to stay up here, and we're going to go to agenda item number 9(a) through 9(f). If you will take us through those minute orders.
MR. RANDALL: Again, I'm Jim Randall, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.
Item 9(a), as a condition to securing federal funds for transportation projects under either Title 23 United States Code or the Federal Transit Act, each designated metropolitan planning organization in the state are required to develop a transportation improvement program, or TIP.
According to federal requirements, the MPO develops its TIP in cooperation with the state and affected transit operators and must be updated at least once every two years and approved by the governor.
The individual TIPs for each MPO, along with the information on federally funded projects in those areas of the state that are not included in any MPO area, are incorporated into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP.
By letter dated June 13, 2002, addressed to the Commission of Transportation, Governor Perry delegated to the commission, or its designees, the power and responsibility to approve the STIP.
On June 22, 2005, a public hearing notice to receive comments on the proposed 2006-2008 STIP was posted in the Texas Register. A copy of the proposed FY 2006-2008 STIP was also available for review, at the time that the notice of the hearing was published, at each of the department's district offices, at the Transportation Planning and Programming Division's office, and on the department's website.
A public hearing on the STIP was held in Austin on August 4, 2005, and comments were received through August 15, 2005. One written comment was received.
The MPO requested four additional projects to be included in that STIP. Since this request was received beyond the deadline for projects to be included in the STIP posted for public comment, it will be included in the November revision of the STIP.
The STIP is consisted with the Strategic Plan and Unified Transportation Program and meets all the requirements of Title 43 Texas Administrative Code, Sections 15.7 and 15.8, and corresponding federal rules and regulations.
With your approval of this minute order, the STIP will be adopted and forwarded to FHWA for their approval. Also, the executive director will be authorized to sign on the certifications required by federal regulations.
We recommend your approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions? Members, you heard the presentation and the recommendation. Do you have questions of Jim, discussion? Do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. Item 9(b), we bring to you the 4th quarter program from economically disadvantaged counties to adjust matching fund requirements.
In your books is Exhibit A that lists the projects and staff's recommended adjustments for each of them. The adjustments are based on the equations approved in earlier proposals. There are five projects in three counties. The total reduction in participation for these projects is $754,809.
We recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Per the presentation and recommendation, members, do you have questions?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. JACKSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. RANDALL: Item 9(c), this minute order appoints seven members to the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Its primary mission is to advise the commission on bicycle issues and provide a forum for communication among the department, bicyclists and the public.
The committee functions under Title 43 TAC, Section 1.85 concerning Advisory Committees. Additionally, Senate Bill 602 of the 79th Texas Legislature tasks the committee with advising and making recommendations to the commission on the development of bicycle tourism trails in the state. When appointing members, the commission may consider facts such as geographic desirability and occupational diversity.
Upon your approval, the committee will be appointed to staggered terms as follows: terms expiring August 31, 2007, Don Rogers of Dripping Springs, Robin Stallings of Austin, Michael Wyatt of El Paso; for terms expiring August 31, 2008, Gretchen Arnold of Corpus Christi, Tommy Eden of Austin, Regina Garcia of Houston, and Annie Melton of Dallas.
These candidates are recommended for the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the presentation and recommendation. I'll have one question. Do you have questions, discussion?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: We haven't seen Tommy Eden in a year. What's the problem?
MR. RANDALL: I don't know, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: He used to come here every quarter and say something.
MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: Has he been participating in the meetings?
MR. RANDALL: I believe it's been a while since we had a meeting, so I don't know about that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, if you see Tommy when he's reappointed, tell him we miss him.
MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. Now, let me back up. We did contact Tommy and ask him if he did want to serve another term, and he said yes, so that's why he's on the committee.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'd like to see Tommy.
MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. We'll relay the message.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. Item 9(d), this minute order authorizes $1.5 million to perform feasibility and route studies relating to the 340-mile La Entrada al Pacifico Corridor.
In 1997, the 75th Texas Legislature passed House Bill 2115 designating certain highways as a future route of the corridor. Minute Order 110048, dated April 28, 2005, authorized projects for the Fiscal Year 2005 Federal Discretionary Program.
This includes two projects related to the corridor: one for a feasibility study, the other for a route study. The projects were federally earmarked for $500,000 each. In order to fully address the feasibility and route analysis requirement for the corridor, the department is contributing an additional $500,000 to the study.
Staff recommends approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, we have one witness. Do you wish to ask Jim questions first or hear the witness first? We'll hear the witness then. Robin Donnelly. How are you, Robin? Good to see you again.
MR. DONNELLY: Good morning. I'm Robin Donnelly. I'm chairman of the Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance, and we appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this morning.
Before we get into the actual study and where we want to be, I just want to say how much we appreciate the support of TxDOT in our corridor conference. The La Entrada al Pacifico Corridor Conference held Monday and Tuesday of this week was attended by over 200 attendees.
And this was a free conference and we were really excited about it because we've got a lot of people on limited budgets for travel and entertainment, and the communities in west Texas are, as Commissioner Houghton would say, the eastern west Texas portion, we all got together and it was really nice because the counties and communities all got together.
We had a lot of people from Chihuahua, Sinaloa and Durango that came in for the project, and I think it was well worth the effort that TxDOT put together and our sponsors were very generous, and we had a really good conference. So we want to show our appreciation to TxDOT on that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, wait a minute, Robin, are you telling me that TxDOT, of all people, participated in a conference? We actually went and listened?
MR. DONNELLY: I tell you, the people from our part of the world were so excited about seeing TxDOT people out there, I think everybody came back and had to get hearing aids because they had their ears talked off.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Did TxDOT charge the city or MOTRAN or anyone for setting up the conference?
MR. DONNELLY: No, sir. It was a free conference.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Glory be, we do listen to people.
MR. DONNELLY: I think the number of attendees and the people that came were quality folks, and I think that there was a lot of communication that was done at that point. It was great.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for noting that. I appreciate that very much.
MR. DONNELLY: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: You don't think there's any relationship that they fed you very well about three weeks prior to the conference, do you?
MR. WILLIAMSON: And they did, and you too, I might add.
MR. JOHNSON: Oh, okay. I wasn't going to mention that.
(General laughter.)
MR. DONNELLY: But we have had good support from TxDOT on our program. This is our 14th year of Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance.
MOTRAN has developed close relationships with our states in Mexico, Chihuahua and Sinaloa, and this feasibility study and the earmarks are programs that TxDOT helped us get the earmarks in Washington, and we think it's going to be worthwhile. From an earlier comment, you saw that our border needs relief and we're trying to provide that infrastructure for you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Not only relief, but we can lay the groundwork for an economic boom that will last 100 years if we do it right.
MR. DONNELLY: True.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You've got to think long term, medium term as well, you can't just think short term, you've got to think about the long haul.
Members, questions of this witness?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Robin, I want to thank you for appearing.
MR. HOUGHTON: I don't have a question but I do have a comment that I was delighted to speak at their conference out in Midland, and it was well attended, enthusiastic. They had their Mexican counterparts from a couple of the bordering states, all the way down to Topolobampo, and it was well integrated.
And I want to thank you all for having me. I was impressed, and am looking forward to working with these folks to make this a reality.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So you were impressed with them as hosts and our own staff as organizers.
MR. HOUGHTON: It was very well done, first class.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Certainly worth the money.
MR. DONNELLY: Before I leave the podium, since you were out there previously, and I know Commissioner Andrade was scheduled to be there and we know her heart was there with us when we had our appreciation dinner for TxDOT, and I brought what we call the La Entrada al Pacifico mile markers and we'd like to present that to you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, thank you.
MS. ANDRADE: Thank you very much.
MR. WILLIAMSON: If I put this up in my front yard, does that mean we can swing the La Entrada around to Weatherford and back up?
MR. DONNELLY: Well, we'll certainly try to figure that out.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thanks.
MR. DONNELLY: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Robin, great to see you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Jim, did we get a recommendation?
MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. Recommend approval of the minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you heard the presentation and the witness, you read the material. Do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Let's get that thing studied.
MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir.
Item 9(e), this minute order authorizes CONSTRUCT authority for a bridge replacement project in Dallas County on FM 1382 at Draw Creek in Category 6, Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, of the 2006 Statewide Preservation Program.
Currently the bridge is partially closed due to halted construction. The project has previously been let and construction started but was halted due to a worsening soil condition not recognized in the initial design criteria. This prevented completion of the structure abutments or the walls supporting the end of the bridge. Due to the need for a redesign, the contract was terminated and the project was closed out.
The project needs to be re-let incorporating the newly designed abutments. In order to provide Dallas County citizens with a safe and efficient transportation system, it is necessary to advance the project to CONSTRUCT authority at an estimated cost of $2,829,374.
We recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Say, Jim, whenever we completely rebuild a bridge like this, do we get to name it?
MR. RANDALL: That's a good question.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Check into it, and if it is, we'll name this the Grady Smithee Bridge.
MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: This looks like it's really close to his house.
MR. RANDALL: I think we'll check with OGC on that.
MR. JOHNSON: It has to be recommended by the city or the county.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Does it have to be? Can we pass a rule to change that?
MR. JOHNSON: Statutorily.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, do you have questions or comments regarding this matter?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. Item 9(f), Minute Order 109862, dated November 18, 2004, approved the 2005 Statewide Mobility Program. This minute order amends Category 3, Urban Area Corridor Projects, of the 2005 SMP to authorize additional project selections in Laredo at a total estimated cost of $16.2 million, as shown in the attached Exhibit A.
These projects were previously programmed in the Category 11, District Discretionary. Due to estimated cost increases and limited Category 11 funds, the MPO requested that Category 3 be used in addition to the Category 11 funds to address these needed improvements.
The MPO and the district agree that these proposed improvements are a high priority in addressing local mobility needs and the Statewide Mobility Program update will reflect the re-prioritization of Category 3 project funding and scheduling.
Staff recommends approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you heard the presentation. Do you have questions or is there discussion?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion?
MS. ANDRADE: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. RANDALL: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Jim. That's the longest you've been up here.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 10 concerning Toll Projects. We have two minute orders, the first dealing with an Open-Road Toll Collection System, and the second dealing with an agreement with the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority. Phil?
MR. RUSSELL: Thanks, Mike. And again, for the record, I'm Phillip Russell and I'm the director of the Turnpike Division.
The first minute order I bring to you relates, as Mr. Behrens indicated, to an Open-Road Toll Collection System. In December of last year, we issued a request for qualifications for a statewide open toll road system. This is essentially the integrator or the type of system that we've utilized in the past. The toll integrators is the group that designs, constructs and maintains an electronic toll collection system. This CDA would be utilized for our TxDOT projects statewide.
Through that process, we received five qualification statements. We assembled a typical TxDOT evaluation team. We were able to short-list those five qualification statements to three proposers. Through that evaluation process, we separated the technical from the pricing components -- fairly standard procedure for these CDAs -- we evaluated them independently.
And through that evaluation process, it was determined that Raytheon Corporation, the group led by Raytheon, represents the best value to the State of Texas. The Raytheon proposal exceeded the technical qualifications and their pricing components were under early TxDOT assessments.
And so the minute order before you would award the CDA to Raytheon and would authorize Mr. Behrens to negotiate and to execute the CDA.
Staff would recommend approval, and I'll be happy to address any questions you might have.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, I'll have some questions; I'll yield to my members first. Questions or discussion with Phillip?
MR. JOHNSON: My only question -- and I don't know that there's a finite answer to this -- do we have in mind the amount of money that we're going to be expending on this project, ball-parkish?
MR. RUSSELL: Commissioner, really it comes down to the duration of this type of CDA. On this one it's a five-year duration to implement this. Looking at the CDA projects that the districts are suggesting, I would think a practical limit would be somewhere between maybe $200- and $300 million worth of work.
MR. JOHNSON: Is this going to be broken down project by project?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. Again, towards our normal CDA process, to execute the CDA really doesn't guarantee them anything, what really authorizes them is when Mr. Behrens and the appropriate level of authority approves these work authorizations for those individual projects.
MR. HOUGHTON: So there's no limit on this, we haven't described a limit on this.
MR. RUSSELL: No, sir. And again, Commissioner Houghton, when you look at whether it's TTC-35 or any of the other type CDAs, typically the CDA itself, the guts of it come out of those individual work authorizations, what we call notices to proceed, NTP. That's where we authorize that developer to move forward, and all of those NTPs, those approvals fall within the normal TxDOT approval process, whether it's something Mr. Saenz or Mr. Behrens or the commission would review those.
MR. HOUGHTON: We basically ended up with one proposal because the other two for various reasons did not get to the finish line on this.
MR. RUSSELL: One of the three short-listed teams elected not to propose, and a second one did propose but the team found that it was non-compliant. Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Phillip, my question concerns more about the end product, and I want to be sure I'm not confused. Will this CDA cover the design of the -- or the impact of the toll booths?
MR. RUSSELL: It's an electronic toll collection system.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So we're in no way, by approving this, giving mixed signals that we're going to have toll booths on any of our toll roads, other than 130 because we have the financial commitment there.
MR. RUSSELL: Absolutely not, and in fact, it reinforces the notion that we are going towards an electronic toll collection system.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Because I find, as I move around the state -- and the other commissioners might find this as well -- we continue to hear, I continue to hear one of the objections to toll roads is having to stop at a booth, and I just can't emphasize it too much. Other than the situation on 130 where we had made a financial promise before we thought about electronics, we just don't need to have any toll booths on any of the state toll roads.
It just needs to be all electronic and controlled electronically, and it just needs to be that way. People need to be permitted to go faster, not go slower.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, we hear you loud and clear.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions, members?
MR. HOUGHTON: Are we constrained on 130 by our bond covenants to put up toll booths?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We moved at a time when it wasn't logical to think about just an all-electronic system, and we had to have that in our covenant.
MR. RUSSELL: The practical reality, Commissioner Houghton, is that, again, when you're going to Wall Street and talking about your project, at the time we did send signals towards an all-electronic, and in fact, the 45 and Loop 1 components lent themselves toward an all-electronic atmosphere, but in an environment where we had no toll roads here in Austin, we got a fair amount of push back from the bond market and the insurers, so ultimately we elected to have a cash component as well, and that gave a bit more comfort to the lenders and to the rating agencies.
MS. ANDRADE: Phil, for how long do we have that restriction to have toll booths on SH 130?
MR. RUSSELL: For the length of the indenture. To the extent that we elected to remove those, we would have to show all those involved that going to an all-electronic format was to the benefit of those, at least it wouldn't impact that bond indenture in a negative way.
And that's possible, Commissioner Andrade, in the future. I think we're all very comfortable here in the Austin area that people will be highly adaptive to that mode of payment and we might be able to make that case at a later date.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're certainly going to work on it.
MR. JOHNSON: Let's assume for a moment we do that, would the fees or fines for violations go into the pool of money that's used to amortize the indebtedness of that facility?
MR. RUSSELL: I think that would be the case, Commissioner Johnson. Certainly the vehicle enforcement system and all that will be recouping some of those monies, and I would assume it will come back into that bank account. That's probably more of a question for Mr. Behrens or perhaps James Bass.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Anything else, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: You've heard the presentation and recommendation. Do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: Move approval.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. RUSSELL: The second minute order, commissioners, approximately a year ago, a little more than a year ago, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization amended their 2025 Transportation Plan to identify several projects that might be potential toll road projects in the future with certain conditions. That's what's commonly called the Phase 2 projects.
In April I brought to you a minute order, and you approved the minute order, whereby we authorized and requested the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority to begin evaluating and analyzing those Phase 2 projects for future development as toll roads.
Since that time, since April, the CTRMA has been doing exactly what they were authorized and what they were requested to do, and they analyzed those Phase 2 projects.
And so today's minute order that I bring to you reflects one of those Phase 2 projects, the US 290 project. The limits essentially are from 183 to State Highway 130. As currently envisioned, the CTRMA is looking to sign a license agreement with the department whereby they could reconstruct that corridor from 183 to 130, they would ensure that the existing number of non-tolled lanes would remain constant or might be improved, and then they would build tolled express lanes in the median, again connecting up 130 with 183.
By approving this minute order, you would allow the executive director to begin the negotiations and execute a license agreement with the CTRMA to move forward with that further analysis.
The project is critical not only to the Austin area, but it does provide an important link for State Highway 130 back to the interstate.
Staff would recommend approval of this minute order, and again, I'll be happy to address any questions you might have.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I will have one, members; I yield to you first. Ted?
MR. HOUGHTON: What seat at the table do we have in the analysis of all of this, where do we sit? Do we turn this over to them carte blanche, or do we participate in the analysis, the financials? When you say a licensing agreement, do we get something out of this licensing agreement other than they finance it?
MR. RUSSELL: I think, Commissioner Houghton, that would be part of the negotiations that the executive director would have to enter into exactly what would be covered in that license agreement. A license agreement obviously is different from a leasehold estate or even from fee simple, it's a license agreement.
I would envision that we would work very cooperatively, very closely with the regional mobility authority as they begin looking at the traffic numbers.
Obviously the land itself is still a TxDOT project, so we have a vested interest in remaining involved in that process. And I think clearly the discussions we've had to date with Mike Heiligenstein and those guys at the RMA is very much envisioning that cooperative discussion.
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, once you start a precedent, you're going to start it all over the state, so I would think that we would go carefully forward into what we're looking forward to and what we expect to get back as a product and participation. That's my view.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Anything else?
MR. JOHNSON: Phil, roughly where does 130 cut 290?
MR. RUSSELL: Let's see. It's probably three-four miles to the east of 183. I think that's about the distance, four miles, somewhere in that neighborhood.
MR. JOHNSON: So certainly you don't get to Manor.
MR. RUSSELL: It's this side of Manor, yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: Refresh my memory on the development of commercial establishments. Do RMAs have the right to develop commercial establishments within the right of way?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: If I were a commercial establishment and an purveyor of gasoline or a fast food establishment and I had my business up and running outside the state right of way, it would give me a lot of heartburn if all of a sudden competition showed up inside the right of way. I say that as a matter of personal opinion, but I think we need to be very careful there is what I'm saying.
MR. RUSSELL: Commissioner, under House Bill 2702 and Senate Bill 7, that issue obviously was discussed. Those new bills I think now are being analyzed, and to some extent it affects our ability, both from a TxDOT standpoint as well as a regional mobility standpoint, of building those service centers.
And clearly what you're suggesting, the concern of competition between existing businesses and what might be proposed is a sensitive issue.
I will say -- not speaking for the RMA, but I would say that building a service center in a median, or whatever the case may be, when you have existing businesses probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Typically service centers are developed to provide convenience to the traveling toll-paying traffic, and if you have those facilities there in place, it may not make any sense.
Clearly, when we looked at our Central Texas project on 45 and Loop 1, we never considered service centers because all of those establishments were readily available.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, my thought is that -- and I'll notice again when I leave this meeting returning home on 290 -- that's a well developed commercial corridor through there, and if competition inside the right of way appears, it's going to put those people at a disadvantage, and that gives me heartburn.
MR. RUSSELL: Clearly, Commissioner Johnson, what's being envisioned to discuss -- and again, yet to be determined through those discussions -- is that the non-tolled lanes, typically on the outside, would still be a TxDOT-maintained, TxDOT-operated facility. When you start talking about squeezing in express toll lanes, you don't give yourself a whole lot of room for those sorts of operations.
And again, I think the folks that will be involved will look at all those existing establishments and try to make a determination whether that makes sense from a driver's standpoint or not.
It's a fairly small stretch. The intent, again, is to connect up the 130 traffic ultimately to 35, so I think all those things would be taken into consideration.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted?
MR. HOUGHTON: That begs the original question as to a seat at the table as to Commissioner Johnson's concerns are also my concerns, and beyond that, from a revenue, financial and asset type of concern.
MR. RUSSELL: Clearly, Commissioner Houghton, from an informal standpoint, we're taking copious notes and we certainly will utilize those as we sit down with the RMA for these discussions. I'm assuming you all could formally provide any sort of guidance to the department on that as well.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
MS. ANDRADE: I'm fine.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, my question is actually at the opposite end of the spectrum, and I wish that our buddy Patrick Driscoll was here, and we're going to get around to hearing from Bob Tesch in a moment.
My question is, is it entirely possible that we -- well, let me ask it a different way. If we pass this minute order today and tomorrow Doug Pitcock makes a CDA proposal to the RMA to do this project, who will analyze that proposal and make that decision?
MR. RUSSELL: That would probably be an answer for Mr. Monroe. I think clearly the issue in San Antonio is it was a TxDOT project. We'd been moving forward. David Casteel's staff was doing the detailed design work.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But what if they make the proposal to Bob Tesch and not to us?
MR. RUSSELL: I think clearly this minute order is trying to suggest that it will be a CTRMA project. If it occurred tomorrow, Richard --
MR. HOUGHTON: I concur with where he's going.
MR. RUSSELL: It could be that in-between until the license agreement is actually executed.
MR. MONROE: If they make a proposal to the RMA, was that the question?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir.
MR. MONROE: The RMA would analyze it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And thank you. Because I actually see this as an opportunity to telegraph to our friends in San Antonio, as we've always said, we've never been afraid to let the RMAs -- I mean, we want the RMAs to do this stuff. We took the position we did on the Cintra American proposal because we think that's the law and they made the proposal to us. But by our actions today, we could well be signaling to San Antonio, to the Alamo RMA, here's proof of what our intentions are.
Other questions?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: We would want to take note, Mike and Bob, of the commissioners' concerns about not using the RMA shell to go out and put people out of business.
And with that, if you don't mind, Bob, we'll hear from you now. Bob Tesch, a great volunteer Texan.
MR. TESCH: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. For the record, I'm Bob Tesch, chairman of the CTRMA. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you today.
I am well supported by a great staff of folks here today and I have three things to say, really, three things to speak to.
I'd like to thank you for the confidence and support that the commissioners and TxDOT has shown the CTRMA as we have built our agency and advanced our first project. I'd like to give you a brief update on that project, and being sensitive to the time, make our request for approval of this project today.
The relationship and cooperation between the CTRMA and your great professional staff is just unprecedented, and I think it's facilitated excellent progress for mobility in Central Texas and it's allowed the CTRMA to move forward with deliberate speed on our first project, and it's allowed us to overcome substantial diversities.
And Mr. Chairman, as you yourself commented at our groundbreaking that this course of action is not for the weak of heart; it's not for sissies.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Not for girlie men?
MR. TESCH: Not for girlie men, not for sissies, that's right. And we've dealt with a few of those things, but it's a worthy cause and it's a necessary cause, and the result with your support and the great team that we've put together, we think, and staying the course, and what we've learned over the past 2-1/2 years has resulted in our first project, I'm proud to say, being on budget and on schedule for completion on March 7 of '07.
Through this process it's laid the foundation for our advancing to the next phase of the Central Texas Mobility Plan. And I reflect back nine months ago I stood here on behalf of the CTRMA and requested your equity participation to assist us in qualifying for our bond financing on that first project. You provided that and we have put it to good use.
And because of that, western Williamson County is now poised for improved economic development, job growth, and enhanced quality of life. And I think that we're a good example of what that partnership can do and hopefully we're adhering to what we were formed for.
We're here today not to request funding but to request approval of just moving forward with a project. I'd like to emphasize that this project, 290 in eastern Travis County, where it's toll-free today, it will remain toll-free, and only the new capacity that we construct will be tolled.
And at the same time I'd like to state that we are very sensitive to stakeholders and businesses and the local community, and those things that you mentioned, Commissioner Johnson, we'd be very, very sensitive to. Putting people out of business is not something that we want to be a party to, putting people in business is something that we're more related to. But we hear you loud and clearly on that.
And I think, finally, I would be remiss if I didn't thank Governor Perry for recognizing the fact that mobility is a key to prosperity, and the alternative to mobility is a deterioration of economic well-being and quality of life. And through providing RMAs with the tools such as comprehensive development agreements, CDAs, that the state leadership has given us, we, I believe, are demonstrating that it's a win-win situation and that we're really contributing to good economic growth and enhancement of quality of life.
I remain confident that the CTRMA's ability to meet and exceed our expectations in the future, as in the past, will remain on target. We are keenly aware of our charge and that is to set a high standard for other regional mobility authorities. That's at the forefront of our thinking in everything that we do.
And if you would indulge me another 60 seconds on a personal interest note, I'd like to say that about two years ago the governor said to me, Bob, it must feel pretty good being selected as chairman of the state's first regional mobility authority. And I said, Yes, sir, Governor, it does. And he said, Because when you succeed, it's something you'll take with you the rest of your life. And I said, Yes, sir. And he leaned over and looked me in the eye and he said, Of course, if you fail that's something you'll take with you the rest of your life too. And I said, Yes, sir.
(General laughter.)
MR. TESCH: And I want to tell you, commissioners, it's that thought that crosses my mind every morning before my feet hit the floor.
And so we're keenly aware of the importance of our success, and as I like to say over at the Texas A&M campus every chance I get to speak over there, the eyes of Texas are upon us and we know that and we're trying to make Texas proud and we're trying to make you proud.
So thank you not only for your support and the support of your great staff and our partnering that has grown to be as strong as it is, but also the CTRMA would like to thank you for volunteering your time. You are all volunteers too, and you give a great deal and the state is better off for it, and we just want to recognize that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's kind of you and we appreciate those kind words.
Questions or discussion, members?
MS. ANDRADE: I'd just like to thank you, Bob, for your leadership in this effort, and to tell you how much I appreciate you asking for our continued involvement. It's great that we're working that relationship and keep building it. So thank you so much.
MR. TESCH: Thank you, Commissioner.
If I could just add that I couldn't -- I have to emphasize again our great board of directors made of seven volunteer community leaders is our real strength, and the great staff and support we've put together with our team is where the strength is.
MR. JOHNSON: Bob, do we anticipate that this project will be done within the current right of way?
MR. TESCH: Within the current right of way? Mike, you may want to give me some help on that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Former county official Mike Heiligenstein.
MR. HEILIGENSTEIN: Mr. Commissioner, we anticipate acquiring additional right of way. In fact, it will be quite expensive.
MR. JOHNSON: What additional width?
MR. HEILIGENSTEIN: We're looking at 400 through there.
MR. JOHNSON: 400 additional feet?
MR. HEILIGENSTEIN: No, I'm sorry. 200 additional.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you, Bob.
MR. TESCH: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Phillip, do you want to close up? Do you want Mike to speak? Mike isn't signed up.
MR. RUSSELL: Do you have anything else?
MR. HEILIGENSTEIN: I would only reinforce, Mr. Chairman, what you said earlier. This will be an all-electronic facility.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. That's what we need.
MR. RUSSELL: Chairman, you confused me when you said Mike and then you looked at your executive director.
Yes, staff would recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you heard the staff's recommendation and the testimony, we've had dialogue. Is there a recommendation, is there a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: There's a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, commissioners.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Phillip.
MR. BEHRENS: Moving on, our agenda item number 11 concerning finance, James Bass will present two minute orders concerning budget.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Good lord, those people waited all this time for that. Should have put it at the last, Mike. We could have held our audience.
MR. BASS: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm James Bass, director of Finance at TxDOT.
Item 11(a) seeks your approval of the department's Fiscal Year 2006 operating budget in the amount of just over $7.7 billion. This operating budget is in accordance with the appropriations bill passed earlier this year by the legislature, and staff would recommend your approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, I have one question; I yield to the members. Do any of you have questions?
MR. JOHNSON: What happens if we don't pass this?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I guess we can all go home and rest.
MR. BASS: 15,000 angry people show up at your house.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: James, I have one. I didn't take the time to compare. There was a rider in the appropriations bill that reserved certain amounts related to SAFTEA LU or to the federal reauthorization. I'm assuming that rider survived the Appropriations Act?
MR. BASS: Not that I'm aware of. There are several riders in the appropriations bill dealing with the number of enhancement projects.
MR. WILLIAMSON: The estimated feature that LBB held out did not survive the bill?
MR. BASS: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you anticipate those funds in this budget, or did you hold those funds out?
MR. BASS: They were anticipated within this budget. They may not be the precise dollar amount but the growth was anticipated.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So if for whatever reason the Legislative Budget Board is not willing to release those funds, this budget will have to be revised.
MR. BASS: It may not be to the exact dollar amount of the final bill of SAFTEA LU that was passed, but an approximate increase that finally passed was built into the $7.7 billion.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't think he's answering my question.
MR. BASS: I think the answer to your question is no. We recently received an additional $700 million in apportionment each year through the SAFTEA LU.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Not each year.
MR. BASS: Each year.
MR. WILLIAMSON: An additional $700 million each year.
MR. BASS: We went from approximately $2.2 billion of apportionment to an average $2.9 billion.
MR. JOHNSON: Is that a four-year average?
MR. BASS: It's a six-year bill and it's a six-year average, however, one of those years is already elapsed, and so it will be implemented through the final five years of the six-year bill.
MR. HOUGHTON: So that's in here.
MR. BASS: It may not be precisely $700 million. A significant portion was built within there because in working with the Design Division and the Transportation Planning and Programming Division -- they work with Finance Division in doing our broad planning for the department -- they anticipated a growth. It may not be precisely to the dollar amount, but the majority of that increase is already built into the $7.7 billion figure.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. What is the practical impact of the rider in the state appropriations bill which withholds from us the authority to obligate a portion of that increase?
MR. BASS: Rather than operating and going through our normal planning and operation procedures, we'll have to add one or two additional steps and notify the Legislative Budget Board that through whatever mechanism we anticipate receiving additional money, and then we will have to wait for a response from them approving our ability to go forward and spend those dollars.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And so my question is, is that amount withheld and not taken into consideration in this budget, or do we assume in this budget that the LBB will approve whatever we send them, or does it matter for this year?
MR. BASS: For this year it does matter, and let me see if I can attempt. Within this $7.7 billion there is almost $3.8 billion of federal dollars in there because it's different than apportionment, it's the actual reimbursement.
If during the year we think we're going to actually receive more in reimbursement than the $3.8 billion built into it, we would then have to go request approval or permission from the Legislative Budget Board to spend those additional reimbursements.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So the answer is no, it's not built into this.
MR. BASS: $3.7 billion of it is, but if there's more than that, it's not built in there.
MR. HOUGHTON: I've got another question. If early on --
MR. WILLIAMSON: The reason I asked that is because we had some roughness in the regular session over the Mobility Fund bonds, and I want to avoid that roughness, I don't want to catch leadership by surprise, and I don't want them or us to be put in an uncomfortable position.
So if you're saying to the commission today, approve this cash budget, and if this cash budget assumes approval by the LBB at some point during the year to be able to spend $7.731 billion, then we need to start talking to them right now.
If it doesn't assume that and probably doesn't have any impact till next year, then we'll take it up next year.
MR. BASS: In order to spend the $7.7 billion, it requires no additional approval from the Legislative Budget Board or any other office.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you see the point I'm getting at, Coby? I don't want the lieutenant governor -- we're partners, we're not enemies.
Go ahead, Ted.
MR. HOUGHTON: James Randall, on his agenda item 9(a), the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan, does that assume those new federal dollars in there from '06 to '08?
MR. BASS: Yes, from the SAFTEA LU. And keep in mind the appropriations request was delivered almost 12 months ago, the bill just passed 12 days ago, or was signed 12 days ago. So the precise figures are not built into the $7.7- but I believe the estimates we had through the Design Division and Planning and Programming from 12 months ago are pretty close or very close, but there may be some minor adjustments to that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Further questions, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. You've heard the presentation and the recommendation. Do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. BASS: This next minute order, item 11(b), approves the Fiscal Year 2006 operating, maintenance and capital budgets for the Central Texas Turnpike System which initially consists of State Highway 130, State Highway 45 North, and the Loop 1 extension, commonly referred to as the 2002 Project.
The indenture for the system requires that on or before August 31, the commission adopt these various budgets for the ensuing year, and staff recommends your approval.
MR. HOUGHTON: Required by the indenture?
MR. BASS: Yes.
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 12, James will present pass-through toll minute orders, one for the City of Port Arthur to execute an agreement, and the other one is to authorize us to negotiate a pass-through toll agreement for the City of Forney.
MR. BASS: Item 12(a) is the final approval or adoption of an agreement with the City of Port Arthur for a pass-through toll.
Under the agreement, improvements to FM 365 would be constructed and initially financed by the city. The department would then reimburse the city over time based on actual traffic on the improved road at a rate of 8 cents per vehicle mile, with a minimum annual payment of just over $933,000 which would take 15 years for full reimbursement to the city, and a maximum annual rate of $1.4 million which would take 10 years.
We would obviously continue these reimbursements until such time as the total of $14 million was received by the city, and staff recommends your approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I will have questions, members; I yield to the members. Questions?
MS. ANDRADE: I have a question. James, is that the standard of reimbursement?
MR. BASS: There is not a defined standard. I believe, this being the third one that the commission has seen and hopefully will adopt today, one of them was at 7 cents per vehicle mile, and the other I believe was at 15 cents. And through the negotiations and looking at other aspects of the project, I believe Amadeo Saenz, working with the district and whoever the applicant is, they're looking for a reimbursement somewhere in the range of 10 to 15 years, and that seems to be more of a primary factor than the specific per-vehicle-mile rate.
MS. ANDRADE: Okay, thank you.
MR. HOUGHTON: It's becoming a very popular tool, isn't it.
MR. BASS: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: Sort of my line of thought. I think this is terrific, and I remember when actually this delegation has come twice to present this project.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I was going to ask is this the one they've come and talked to us about.
MR. JOHNSON: Yes. And you know, it's a good way to solve some of these challenges.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you happen to know, James, are they going to do all the work themselves or are they going to ask us to do contract and design and such?
MR. BASS: I believe they're going to do it or hire a program manager to handle those responsibilities for them.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So we get an improvement to the system, we don't have to allocate much limited resource to it right now.
MR. HOUGHTON: Who is the program manager?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I bet I could guess.
MR. HOUGHTON: Me too.
MR. SAENZ: Their consultant that had been working with them -- for the record, Amadeo Saenz -- was Chica & Associates that was doing some of the work.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Really?
MR. SAENZ: Right.
MR. JOHNSON: You know, those guys wrote us a letter when we started on our engineering stuff and told us we were exactly right. I've still got that letter, I've never forgotten that.
MR. SAENZ: That was the consultant that had been working with the City of Port Arthur for many years as they came to the commission and prepared. In fact, the City of Port Arthur, under this proposal and based on their prior commitment, paid for the design at their cost and were not seeking reimbursement for that design because they said we committed to that.
MR. HOUGHTON: So who is the PM?
MR. SAENZ: They don't actually have a PM, they had an engineer that was doing early work for them. They may move forward and it could be Chica & Associates, I'm not sure.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, a project like this does conform to our specifications, it has to.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. This project is on the state highway system. To be able to do pass-through toll projects, the project must be on the state highway system, and it will comply with all the state and federal requirements.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm just observing in an era of limited resources internally that there was an actual benefit I didn't think about when we were shepherding this through through the years, and that is it lets us continue to focus on our regular program -- if that's the right way to put it.
MR. SAENZ: It continues to let us focus on our regular program, and we start paying based on the actual usage of that asset at the time that it's opened to traffic and with some limitations, both at the lower level and at the top level.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Maybe we ought to send a letter to the legislature and recommend they do public education that way, you know, monitor kids' progress and reimburse the school districts based on the progress.
MR. HOUGHTON: I'll let you go sell that one.
MR. JOHNSON: Running for the school board?
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Are there other questions, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: You've heard the proposal and recommendation. Do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. BASS: Agenda item 12(b) seeks your authorization to begin negotiations with the City of Forney on a pass-through toll agreement.
The committee submitted a pass-through toll proposal providing for the improvements to FM 740 and FM 741. In their proposal the city listed pass-through tolls of just over $23 million to be repaid over time based upon actual traffic on the project.
Your approval in no way would be an agreement to the specific terms but would allow the department to begin serious negotiations with the city. Once we arrived at mutually beneficial terms, we would then bring that back to the commission for final approval.
Staff recommends your approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, are there questions?
MR. HOUGHTON: Is this three separate features?
MR. BASS: I believe there's actually four on there -- well, in four different colors. You're correct, one of them is a continuous split into two phases there.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm going to have a question of our witness, but our witness is going to appear subsequent to our action, so do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. WILLIAMSON: David, is it Grooms?
MAYOR GROOMS: Darrell.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I've got to get some new glasses.
MAYOR GROOMS: Actually I do have a brother named David and a daddy named David that work for TxDOT.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, Darrell, how are you?
MAYOR GROOMS: Fantastic, thank you. Maybe I put the wrong name up there.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think you put your dad's name down here.
MAYOR GROOMS: Well, I might want to impersonate him, he's a good man.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hey, Darrell, you're on. Mayor of the City of Forney.
MAYOR GROOMS: Yes, sir. Chairman Williamson, members of the commission, Executive Director Behrens, and staff, I'm Darrell Grooms, mayor of Forney. Forney is located in the Dallas District with Bill Hale as their new engineer.
I just want to let you know that we appreciate the opportunity to negotiate this pass-through toll program. We know it's a new system but we're very excited. Forney is growing. I've got my numbers here, 680 percent is our projected growth by 2030. Just in the last year we've grown over 20 percent, we're building a school a year, we are just booming.
We have five farm to market roads inside of our small city limits. This is an opportunity for the City of Forney, as well as TxDOT, to come together and help the state out as well as help the city out.
One thing that we've also done and we're negotiating in our contract with Mr. Saenz, is when we met with him in March, we also made the proposal for the next 20 years that the roads that we upgrade that the city will take over the maintenance of those roads. I believe we're the first ones to do that so far. So that's hopefully a relief to you as well as to us. It will give us an opportunity to where we can put it in our budget, we can fund it, we can manage it, and kind of not be a thorn on your maintenance engineer's side.
And I'll entertain your questions.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Have you got questions of this fella? I'm going to have one but I'm going to wait. You go ahead.
MR. HOUGHTON: Who is your PM?
MAYOR GROOMS: Pate Engineers.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you recommend them or don't? They know a little bit about TxDOT.
MR. HOUGHTON: Just a little.
MR. WILLIAMSON: They were also the first ones to recognize the future.
MAYOR GROOMS: Yes. I tell you, we're very excited. In the city of Forney, it's almost frightening the growth that we're experiencing, and of course, the whole North Texas area is growing, but our town in particular is just booming, and this is an opportunity.
The roads have served us good for a number of years, and now it's time to just expand them, and hopefully we can partner with you and get it done, and save you some money and us some money, and expedite the project is the key.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have one question.
MAYOR GROOMS: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Does that fella still teach fast pitch softball to girls in Forney?
MAYOR GROOMS: Who is it, do you know?
MR. WILLIAMSON: What's his name?
MAYOR GROOMS: Our girls have been going to state the last two or three years, so I would imagine so.
MR. WILLIAMSON: A big old tall fella, used to teach every pitcher in North Texas.
MAYOR GROOMS: He probably still does then. Although we did go up to 4-A last year and we kind of slid back a little bit.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's okay. You've just got to keep trying.
MAYOR GROOMS: We will and it's going to continue. The rate we're growing, we're getting some new players and good players.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You had the minute order pass for you, so good luck, go to it.
MAYOR GROOMS: Thank you very much for all your help.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 13 is our State Infrastructure Bank minute order for the City of Mesquite.
MR. BASS: Item 13 seeks final approval of a loan to the City of Mesquite in the amount of just over $5.6 million to pay for the cost of improvements which include reconstruction of the Interstate 635 main lanes.
Interest will accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4.1 percent with payments being made over a period of 15 years.
Staff recommends your approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, are there questions?
MR. HOUGHTON: I've got one. What is the balance in the SIB unencumbered?
MR. BASS: The unencumbered right now is $17 million.
MR. JOHNSON: Is that before or after this?
MR. BASS: That would be after this -- I'm sorry -- before this. We have $23 million in pending applications, but the key is the $17 million is the cash balance today, next month we'll receive loan repayments from some of the various 52 loans that we've made prior, so it's all timing and cash flow at this point.
MR. JOHNSON: What is the Town Center TIF whose revenues is securing this indebtedness?
MR. BASS: It is the Tax Increment Financing district around the Town Center, I believe it's a mall.
MR. WILLIAMSON: One of their high schools is just across the street. I think it's right in between Town Crossing Boulevard and 635, one of the Mesquite high schools.
Other questions?
MR. BASS: My apologies. I think I mis-spoke in my remarks. It's 12 years at 4.1 percent.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, that changes my mind, I'm against it.
MR. BASS: I thought that it might so I better point it out.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is there a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. BASS: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 14, our contracts for the month of August, our maintenance contracts and our highway and building contracts. Thomas?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav, I'm director of the Construction Division.
Item 14(a)(1) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on August 9 and 10, 2005.
We have 12 projects, an average of 2.8 bidders per project. Staff recommends award of all projects. Questions?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm going to have a question. Any questions, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thomas, familiarize me a little bit more with your bidding processes. Do you go through and estimate what the probable bid should be or the probable low bid should be for a maintenance contract?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir. Those are done by the districts and they may or may not be reviewed, I'm not sure, Zane is not here. But generally the districts develop those estimates.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And how do we notify the prospective bidders? Do they pull it off our website, do we send them a letter, all, none, public notice? How does it work?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Prior to the bid? In the public notice we include the estimate of the project, we have the estimate on the public notice. We don't have a breakdown of the estimate but we have the total amount shown on the estimate.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So you tell the public we have this maintenance project and we think it ought to be about $700,000.
MR. BOHUSLAV: I say it's public notice. It's a notice to contractors that we send out to all the contractors.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're saying we invite you to bid on this.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And we think it ought to be about $700,000.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir. It's not rounded to any round number, it's calculated and extended all the way out.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Other questions, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: You've heard the presentation and the request of staff. Do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 14(a)(2) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway construction and building contracts let on August 9 and 10, 2005. We have 116 projects, average of 3.7 bidders per project. We do have a 14-1/2 percent overrun this month, very similar to last month.
We have six projects we recommend for rejection. The first one is in Jefferson County, it's project number 3059. It was 167 percent over, one bidder. This is for some repair work on some steel beams on State Highway 87 around Port Arthur.
We'd like to get some more bidders and see if we can get a better price for that work. We also want to add some more detail in the plans. There was some work that was (as directed( and we'd like to add some more detail so the contractors know better what's required of that work so they can get a better estimate on their work and bid it better.
The next project recommended for rejection is in Walker County, it's project number 3262. It was 44 percent over, had one bidder on this project. This is for conversion of some frontage roads to one way and rebuilding ramps and rebuilding the frontage roads on IH 45. Again, this bid was too high and we'd like to also solicit some more competition for it.
The next project recommended for rejection is in Walker County again, project number 3402. It was 61 percent over, we had four bidders. It's a rest area on IH 45, an enhancement project, of course. Again, the bid was too high and we want to go back and try to re-bid that and see if we can get better prices for that work.
The next project recommended for rejection is 3220 in Nueces County, 34 percent over, we had one bidder. It's landscape work on US 181 and State Highway 358. We'd like to get more bidders on this project, get more competition and re-bid it again.
Next project recommended for rejection again is in Midland County, 3403. It is 82 percent over, six bidders on this project. This is an enhancement project for the Confederate Air Force Museum, and of course, the city there is the sponsor of that. They would have to fund any of the overruns on the project and the bid was about $5,332,000. We'd like to go back and redesign and see if they can save some of the costs, they can't afford that amount of overrun.
MR. HOUGHTON: This is their money?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Part of it is. It's Enhancement funds with their money participating, and there's a maximum amount of Enhancement money that goes into the project and they fund anything over that, so a significant amount of the overrun, probably most of it, would be their part.
The last project recommended for rejection is project number 3216 in Cameron County. It's 36 percent over, had two bidders. This is for a hike and bike trail in Brownsville, another enhancement project bid at $4.2 million. We'd like to go back and see if they can split that up into two parts and see if they can save some money that way and get better competition, better prices for the work.
Staff recommends award of all projects with the exceptions noted.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll have one question, members. Do you have questions?
MR. HOUGHTON: The airport museums qualify for enhancement projects? That's a question.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Could you repeat that?
MR. HOUGHTON: Airport museums qualify for enhancement?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes.
MR. JOHNSON: Is it now not the Commemorative Air Force Museum?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Maybe that's what it is, yes.
MR. JOHNSON: $548 million, if you multiply that times 12, that's in excess of $6 billion in total letting. Off the top of your head, what were the total lettings for fiscal year ending in four days or five days?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Amadeo, is it $4.5-?
MR. SAENZ: $4.5 billion.
MR. HOUGHTON: Is that another record?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Total record, yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's working.
MR. JOHNSON: Excellent.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's working, we're doing the right things, even if we don't listen to the public enough.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: My one question, Thomas, is again, educate me on the bidding process. How do you ask for bids on these major construction projects?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Every contractor has to be either pre-qualified or bidder's questionnaire. Bidder's questionnaire is a lower qualification requirement they submit and they register with us so we know who to send proposals to. And pre-qualified contractors, there is a financial pre-qualification requirement to see if they have capacity to bid these larger projects.
So we maintain a list of all contractors that are qualified in some manner, and every month -- and this is not just for statewide lettings but also for local lettings -- we send out a notice to them of all the projects that are going to be let in that month. And they in turn respond to us, either by fax or by mail or they can actually do it by internet now, whereby they can request proposals. And we in turn send them bidding proposals to be able to bid the projects. And then, of course, they submit those for the letting, for the bid opening.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And those proposals include the amounts of money we associate with that proposal?
MR. BOHUSLAV: The proposals do not include the estimate of the project, they include what they bid, they include in their proposal their bid prices.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we tell them, for example, that we think project C310-1-36 ought to be about $1.5 million?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes, we tell them in the notice, yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So they've got an idea of how we're going to be scoring them.
MR. BOHUSLAV: They have an idea about what we estimated it at, yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Same as the maintenance contracts.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Are there other questions, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
And now, Amadeo, answer -- is this yours, this next one?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir, the next two.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Take a break just a second.
Amadeo, I don't want to be repetitive of earlier in the year, but I've just got to reinforce something. When you want to request a professional services contract for an engineering firm for a specific design a bridge that Thomas is going to eventually ask for a bid on, when you send out that notice of interest -- is it called?
MR. SAENZ: Notice of intent.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Notice of intent, do you tell the engineering community we expect to pay about $5 million for this work?
MR. SAENZ: Let me ask Mark because I have not seen a notice of intent.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I know we can't, under the law, use the price as part of the consideration for decision.
MR. SAENZ: I don't believe that we put in the notice of intent what we estimate the fee for the service is going to be. Now, what we do for the indefinite deliverable contracts, we do say we are going to solicit proposals for two indefinite deliverable contracts not to exceed $2 million, but those, each individual work order is worked out separately.
Where we do know how much we estimate the fee for that particular service is going to cost is when the districts submit now their scope of services for the work, they estimate what that fee is going to cost and over what period of time they're going to pay it out. That's so that we can just keep the budget.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But I'm just curious when engineers receive our notice -- it's called notice of intent?
MR. SAENZ: Notice of intent.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do they receive warning, like contractors do, of about what we expect it to cost?
MR. SAENZ: No, sir, not in the case of a specific contract.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is there any reason why we can't do that? I'm just curious.
MR. SAENZ: I don't see any reason why not.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you. Now, Thomas.
MR. BOHUSLAV: I believe we're on item 14(b). Is that right, Mike?
MR. BEHRENS: We're going to agenda item 14(b) and (c), both of them dealing with participation goals for Historically Underutilized Business Program and also Small Business Enterprise Program.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Thank you. Item 14(b) is a minute order for the adoption of the HUB goals for Fiscal Year 2006. Those HUB goals are as follows: building construction is 26.1 percent, special trade is 57.2 percent, professional services is 20 percent, other services is 33 percent, commodities are 12.6 percent.
Commissioners, I think I may have mentioned up here before that currently TBPC is working toward re-establishing these goals, revising these goals. They have a consultant onboard now to do that, with several other sub consultants to that consultant. Mason Tillman is the consultant out of California.
So we've discussed revising our goals and we felt like it would be more appropriate to let TBPC run the course and perform their analysis. They're going to do a very detailed analysis. In fact, our staff and our divisions, GSD, Design and our division are working with TBPC to develop a database to see what availability is out there right now. So we're waiting on that to go back and look and revise these goals.
So you're aware that these are the same goals that TBPC uses right now and we are proposing to adopt those.
MR. JOHNSON: When do you expect to have that information or that report?
MR. BOHUSLAV: There is a schedule. I think they probably will have the report by the end of next spring. By the time they gather all their data and go through the process to evaluate it, I think it's going to be next spring, maybe early spring. And then it would take about six months for TBPC to adopt those, and so we're looking at maybe September-October before they actually adopt those as the statewide goals.
MR. JOHNSON: So there's a possibility that in Fiscal Year '07 that we might -- if things move along a little more quickly than you expressed, that we might be able to utilize the results of the study.
MR. BOHUSLAV: We could possibly move out ahead of TBPC if we see the results and go look at those. We do have some ability to go ahead and establish the goals on our own.
MR. JOHNSON: Are these the same as are currently utilized in Fiscal Year '05?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: How have we done in meeting the goals that we've set?
MR. BOHUSLAV: In the different categories, generally in building construction, depending on the year -- and that has a lot to do with how many projects we let -- there are some years we do very well in building construction, some years we don't do well. I've got some numbers I can give you.
In special trade, those are things such as plumbers and those types of services, and we've not done very well in that area, it's a very high goal, 57 percent, but we've not done very well in that area.
MR. JOHNSON: And by not very well?
MR. BOHUSLAV: In the range of --
MR. HOUGHTON: Is the number in brackets what we're doing? Is it 22 percent? So 57 percent is our goal and we're at 22-23 percent?
MR. BOHUSLAV: I'm not sure I know what you're looking at.
MR. HOUGHTON: I'm looking at my notes.
MR. BOHUSLAV: I don't have a copy of that.
I'll tell you what we've done. In the area of building, for instance in 2004 we did 31.7 percent, our goal is 26.7 percent, I believe -- or 26.1 percent. This year we haven't got all the data in for this year, for 2005, but halfway through the year we're looking at about 14 percent.
Special trade, the goal is 57 percent, we're doing this year thus far about 22.7, but that's about as good as we've done in special trade, and this is a small purchasing area, by the way.
Professional services, our goal has been 20 percent; we meet our goal. In 2004 we did 27.9 percent and in 2005 to date, and that's through half the year, we were about 19.7 percent, but we expect to exceed the 20 percent goal.
MR. HOUGHTON: Let me ask you, when you say 20 percent, 20 percent of all contracts?
MR. BOHUSLAV: No, 20 percent of payments. It includes subcontractors as well, so if a prime is a HUB, then we would include them as a part of those payments.
MR. HOUGHTON: If it's the prime.
MR. BOHUSLAV: If it's the prime, or if it's a subcontractor to a prime that's not a HUB, we include those as well.
MR. HOUGHTON: It's the payment they receive.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes. Well, in the case of HUBs, J.D. are you in here? Are we doing awards or are we doing payments? We're doing payments for HUBs.
And then in the area of other services, other services are things such as real estate appraisals and surveying, our goal is 33 percent and we've ranged in the 18 to 23 percent area there.
In commodity purchasing our goal is 12.6 percent. We've ranged from 7 and last year we did about 8.8 percent, this year thus far about 10.8 percent.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions, members?
MS. ANDRADE: So we're working on outreach, we continue to work on that?
MR. BOHUSLAV: We continue a very extensive effort in outreach, yes, ma'am.
MR. WILLIAMSON: May I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Thomas, I think we're going to have to have a vote on those two minute orders individually.
MR. BOHUSLAV: I always want to get off this podium before it's time, so I've got one more to do here.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We don't want you to leave.
(General laughter.)
MR. BOHUSLAV: 14(c) is a minute order that establishes the department's SBE goal for Fiscal Year 2006 for highway construction and maintenance contracts. The proposed goal is 23 percent, and our achievements in that area have been between 18 and I think 21 percent or so in past years.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, to clear the record, we acted on item 14(b) previously, we're now acting on item 14(c). Do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Thomas.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait, Thomas, don't leave.
(General laughter.)
MR. HOUGHTON: Amadeo, when will we see the results of the I want to call it an edict in May by the executive director, by yourself as to the professional services procurement, the redesign, spreading the wealth, we call it?
MR. SAENZ: I will get with Mark. We've started the process a couple of months ago and we've been implementing, and I need to find out where we're at with the contracts and give you a status report on how we're doing there. I'll just prepare a report and send them individually to the commissioners.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm interested in that as well. That's why I asked the question earlier.
MR. SAENZ: That process of going through the selection is not the normal that we can do everything in one month, it usually takes an extended period of time, two to three months, so we may not have a lot of change just yet. But we will get you an update as to what we've implemented and what results we have to date.
MR. BEHRENS: We'll now go to agenda item 14(d), our contract claims, and Amadeo will present two claims that were acted on.
MR. SAENZ: Good afternoon, commissioners, Mr. Behrens, Roger. For the record, again, I'm Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive director for engineering operations, also chair of the Contract Claims Committee.
For item 14(d)(1), the minute order before you approves a claim settlement for a contract by Viking Construction, Inc. for Project CPM 92-13-16, et cetera, in Navarro County in the Dallas District.
On July 19, TxDOT's Contract Claims Committee considered this claim and made a recommendation for settlement to the contractor, and the contractor has accepted. The committee considers this to be a fair and reasonable settlement of the claim and recommends your approval.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions, members?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. SAENZ: Thank you. For item 14(d)(2), the minute order before you approves a claim settlement for a contract by Deavers Construction, L.P. for project NH 99(462), et cetera in Webb County in the Laredo District.
On June 23, TxDOT's Contract Claims Committee considered this claim and made a recommendation for settlement to the contractor. The contractor has accepted. The committee considers this to be a fair and reasonable settlement of the claim and also recommends your approval.
I'll be happy to answer any questions on this one.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Amadeo, a couple of questions about this one. This is a large amount of money for a contractor to agree to. Are we sure that this a fair deal?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. Looking at this project, this was a major project that had some delays and inefficiencies. We went through and did a comprehensive report from staff as well and the committee looked, and we felt that this was fair and equitable and the contractor did agree to it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is this company still in business?
MR. SAENZ: This company is no longer in business, it has been taken over by a different company.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So who will the payment be made to?
MR. SAENZ: The contract was transferred over so the payment will be made to the company that is finishing the job right now, who are the ones that filed the claim.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Why would we do that?
MR. SAENZ: The claim extended through both companies.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But it was the company that's no longer in business that suffered the cost for the claim of additional payment. Right?
MR. SAENZ: Well, the cost that they showed basically carried through both contractors.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I know that the highway construction business is nuanced, so I'll try to reduce it to something I can understand. If I contract with Harding Drilling to drill a well and they got to the end of the job or even halfway down and we had a disagreement over the cost of the drilling mud, we would defer that disagreement till the end of the job, but Harding would have lost that money right then. They would have asked for an additional $10 million and we would have gone to mediation.
If Harding had gone under or sold out to someone else, I don't know that I would still be dealing with the someone else.
MR. BOHUSLAV: This is really the same company. It's a restructured company and part of the ownership has changed, so our check still goes to the same place for this thing, so we're effectively dealing with the same company.
MR. WILLIAMSON: My last question would be are we honoring any court instructions about settlement of assets in making this payment?
MR. BOHUSLAV: No. The restructuring was done internally to the company.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So there's no reorganization in the courts.
MR. BOHUSLAV: No, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: Okay. That's all my questions. Questions, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: A motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. SAENZ: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, it will be up to me to present item 15. This minute order approves the annual salary for the executive director of the department for Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007.
The General Appropriations Act for those two fiscal years establishes salary groups for certain executive level positions. The act establishes an annual salary range from $106,692 to $189,000 for a Salary Group 6 individual, and it also imposes some maximum compensation rates on our appropriation. The department's schedule of exempt positions limits the annual salary of the executive director to $175,000.
This minute order, if approved by us, will approve the determination of an annual salary of $175,000 for our executive director as just and fair compensation, considering other executive heads of other agencies with comparable full-time equivalency caps and other management requirements.
As your chairman, I wholeheartedly endorse this decision and the minute order, if you approve it, will raise that salary accordingly. Do I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: I have a question. The question is how many exempt positions are there in the agency.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Assistant executive director, or second, number two, whatever we call Steve Simmons.
MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. For the record, my name is Steve Simmons, I'm deputy executive director of the department. And we have one.
MR. HOUGHTON: We have one.
MR. SIMMONS: And this is it.
MR. HOUGHTON: And Steve, the max is $189-?
MR. SIMMONS: That is the salary group in the director series for Salary Group 6, and that's listed in the Appropriations Act under Article 11.
MR. HOUGHTON: We could go up to $189-?
MR. SIMMONS: No, sir. By the appropriations bill, the maximum we can go is $175-.
MR. JOHNSON: I asked Mr. Bass if we didn't approve the budget what would happen, and he said there would be approximately 15,000 disturbed employees, and so I'm assuming that if we don't approve this, there will only be one employee.
MR. WILLIAMSON: No, but there will be two really disturbed Texans, one employee and one spouse.
(General laughter.)
MR. JOHNSON: Having made that observation, I'll so move to accept this recommendation.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second, with a hearty second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and I have actually three hearty seconds, a ringing endorsement of our great leader, Mike Behrens. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. HOUGHTON: Are you buying lunch today?
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's where he went, he went out to buy lunch. He wouldn't sit down there, he said I'm going to go buy us lunch.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Can I return this to you? This makes me nervous, I'm not used to this.
MR. BEHRENS: It makes me nervous too.
(General laughter.)
MR. BEHRENS: My comment is not for this action but all of the work that you have done that has helped all of our employees to move forward this session, and they deserve more, and that's all I can say.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we went over there and worked hard for them, like you did, and we'll work hard for them again in about 16 months.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 16 is our routine minute orders. As always, they have been posted, as required, on our posted agenda. I don't know of any of them that affects any of the commission members on any interest that you might hold. So I recommend approval of the routine minute orders.
MR. WILLIAMSON: These are donations, right of way things.
MR. BEHRENS: Eminent domain, load postings, speed zones.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're approving a few billboards in the Harris County area, right, on one of these things, over in the Riverside, next to one of the private schools over there.
MR. JOHNSON: Where your grandchildren will some day go to school.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, are there questions?
MS. ANDRADE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know where Crane County is because I can go drive 75 miles per hour during the day.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Crane County?
MR. BEHRENS: West Texas.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That is oil country.
MR. HOUGHTON: East West Texas.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Southeast West Texas, maybe even.
MR. JOHNSON: South and west of Midland.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's got the pungent odor of money as you drive through it.
MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
MR. HOUGHTON: That's east of El Paso.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Item number 17 is the recommendation of appointment of two persons to serve with the State of New Mexico regarding rail relocation facilities in the El Paso area. Richard.
MR. MONROE: Thank you, Mr. Behrens. Once again, for the record, my name is Richard Monroe, general counsel to the department.
In SAFTEA LU the State of New Mexico was awarded $14 million for the general purpose of transferring certain rail facilities contemplated from El Paso to New Mexico. By this minute order, this commission will appoint the named individuals, Harold Hahn and Tom Cardenas -- I hope I'm pronouncing those correctly -- to represent the state in negotiations that are anticipated under the terms of a memorandum of understanding with the State of New Mexico to try to see exactly what both states want to do to their mutual advantage as to the general purposes mentioned in the minute order itself.
The memorandum of understanding is currently being negotiated. We think we have a final draft now, we hope we do. And perhaps immodestly, perhaps Commissioner Houghton would be in a better position than I to answer any detailed questions you might have, but I will try.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll have one for you but I will let Mr. Houghton. Do you have questions of Richard yourself, Ted, Hope?
MS. ANDRADE: No.
MR. WILLIAMSON: John?
MR. JOHNSON: Ted, do you know these individuals?
MR. HOUGHTON: Yes, I do.
MR. JOHNSON: Is that a ringing endorsement or not?
MR. HOUGHTON: Great friends of the State of Texas.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Richard, my question to you is do you think we can somehow make a song out of Skip to My Lou and SAFTEA LU and kind of make all that work?
MR. MONROE: Probably could. I think that's a very unfortunate name for a piece of legislation.
MR. WILLIAMSON: SAFTEA LU, man.
MR. MONROE: It's not mine, Mr. Chairman, I don't claim it.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, members, you've heard the recommendation and there is a motion.
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. MONROE: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Richard. And congratulations to Mr. Hahn and Mr. Cardenas. They'll do us well, I'm sure.
Michael, do we have open comment business?
MR. BEHRENS: Yes, we do.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, Jerry, bring that disguised box.
MR. ROANE: I'm here with the Tri Track project.
MR. BEHRENS: Jerry, you need to identify yourself for the record.
MR. ROANE: I'm Jerry Roane and I'm here speaking about the Tri Track. And we were working through the process and there's a new law, House Bill 2702, that authorizes Tri Track to be built by TxDOT. House Bill 2702, in the very first few lines of the law authorizing TxDOT to be has Tri Track defined. And what we thought we had was that Tri Track was neither road nor rail so it was undefined.
So Senator Barrientos was very kind in entering this into the legislation, and now that we're in legislation, we were about to propose the Tri Track as a toll road in the Austin area, and we ran up against the $20,000 fee that you guys require to study proposals for toll roads, and we don't have $20,000 to pass out right now because we spent it on this stuff, $17,000 worth of tooling in this one, special tires, wheels are coming from China, this is the shock absorber that goes on the strut part of the car.
So we were in the process, we were rolling forward, and then we got to the $20,000 hiccup, and we're stopped. So what I think I'm asking for is that the commissioners give Mr. Behrens the authority to either waive the fee or ratio the fee based on value, because there's a Spanish company that won a $7 billion project and I think they paid the $20,000, and my project is about $10.4 million, and if you ratio that, it's $29.71 that I would have to pay.
So if we keep it in some form of fairness, then we would be willing to pay some fee to study the system, but we can't pay the $20,000.
Just to clarify what this thing is, this is the drive train for the Tri Track, the strut is the piece on the bottom. It has end caps. The end caps were in the machine shop when we got the notice that we had to pay the $20,000, so those got stopped.
The benefit to the state is that the amount of pollution is tremendously reduced by using the Tri Track. It was mentioned earlier about buses and low sulphur diesel. The amount of NOX pollution that's put out by a bus per passenger is tremendously less on the Tri Track, so low sulphur is good but it still doesn't get you very clean. You have to have the catalytic converter that goes with it in order for it to actually function.
MR. HOUGHTON: How many passengers?
MR. ROANE: There's four.
MR. HOUGHTON: Per vehicle?
MR. ROANE: Per vehicle. But we run them very close together, so we have 9,000 passengers an hour.
Senator Barrientos wrote a letter responding to Mr. Behrens letter saying that we needed to pay the $20,000, and he was concerned about the language in the law, because I think in the law it says he may charge the $20,000. And I think the legal opinion was it says one place (may( and it says someplace else some different language. So it's a little bit fuzzy, I think, whether I have to pay the $20,000, or it's Mr. Behrens prerogative whether I pay the $20,000. That's up for the legal guys to figure out.
In the meantime, UT Austin has asked us to build a guide way between their two campuses, between the main campus and Pickle. This is a request proposed to them. Right now they pay Cap Metro $155,000 a year for that route. We would build it as a complete system and NRE and 16.7 miles of track and 50 cars.
MR. JOHNSON: How long would the route be?
MR. ROANE: 16.7 mile loop, so 8 miles. And 50 cars, GPS limited to the campuses, and the toll would be collected, if there is a toll, by swiping your student ID card or swiping your Visa card in the car, so the electronic tolling would be part of the car.
MR. HOUGHTON: UT students are going to pay a toll?
MR. ROANE: Well, that's why UT asked to pay for it, they didn't want it to be a toll, so they would be taking that from you guys, but there's more roads in Texas to work on.
In the time we've been working on this project, we also went out and talked to CalTrans so they may be building a guide way. We're asking them to build one between Santa Cruz and San Jose, basically. And they asked that we form a California company and propose it as a California company. So Shannon Wiener, who was here with me last time, she's formed that company, it will be a female-owned California company. And so that's in the works.
And a little quick comment about pollution. Somebody mentioned biodiesel earlier. The NOX pollution is actually higher for biodiesel than regular diesel, according to the Austin biodiesel guys.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Not ultra diesel, biodiesel.
MR. ROANE: Biodiesel, French fry grease.
And of course, we'll be showing at the Renewal Energy Roundup and at the WEEC, and we'd love to say that TxDOT is on our side and we're moving forward. And I'm hoping that this is just a little administrative hiccup and that we can work through how to get something started with TxDOT.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Who do you want to talk to next, Jerry?
MR. ROANE: Anybody that wants to, either you or Mr. Behrens.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I know that we have information from you, but if you would be sure -- Coby, did you leave -- be sure and give Mr. Saenz numbers where I can reach you and we'll have someone contact you.
MR. ROANE: All right. I appreciate that.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, one thing that Mr. Roane has requested is that we consider reducing or waiving the $20,000.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, but we can't take that action in open comment period.
MR. ROANE: I understand that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But make sure that Amadeo has information where I can get hold of you.
MR. ROANE: Okay. Great. I appreciate it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's always good to see you.
MR. ROANE: This is the catastrophic crash simulation. If a crane takes out the guide way, each car is non-lethal G-force in this particular motion. The G-force and the speed is on each dashboard of each car. But that's more than $20,000 worth of effort that you're looking at here, this little pittance, but we're making our best effort.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We don't laugh at different ideas.
MR. ROANE: Thanks.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. We now have, it would appear, all from the city of San Juan, four witnesses. First we have Marivel Romero. Thank you for waiting so long.
MS. ROMERO: Thank you. My name is, like you said, Marivel Romero. I'm not a politician, I don't know the laws, and I don't bring statistics with me. I am a property owner in San Juan -- it's a city compatible to Buda, I believe -- where a toll road is being proposed. I'm here to talk to you about the negative effects that this toll road would have in my city.
I live approximately one-fourth away from this proposed site. I know the area. Imagine an 80-foot high rise road. That's how high this toll road would be, 20 feet higher than the highest road we have there in that area.
This road would run through one elementary school and two middle schools, approximately 30 feet away from Clover Elementary. How many of us would want an 80-foot structure road carrying toxic chemicals 30 feet away from where our children go to school?
This road would run in the middle of newly built subdivisions, and I'm not talking about a road being proposed on a street, I'm in the middle of a subdivision. Here's Cesar Chavez; here's Stewart Road. This toll road would run in the middle of those two roads where you see homes to your right, to your left.
This toll road would be approximately 20 feet away from back yards or front yards, depending where you live. Would you want a toll road next to your home?
As we speak, other subdivisions are being built, left and right, and people are going to be buying there, 15 or 20 feet away there will be a toll road, if it goes through. I wouldn't want to buy a home there, not a $150,000 home.
Upon the construction of this toll road, the city of San Juan would lose taxable income, and who is going to pay for this lost income? Us, the citizens of San Juan would. That's what I don't get.
Where is the benefit to our city upon the construction of this road. I don't see it, nor 80 San Juan citizens that I went personally knocking door to door who signed a petition against the toll road.
Who is going to be there when foundations start cracking, when walls start cracking, who is going to pay for that?
The toll road is not for the city of San Juan. Why should we, the citizens, have to pay for a convenient method of transportation? I plea to all of you if there's a problem, let's not seek a quick fix. Ordinary people like me depend on your fairness, on your competence and rational judgment for the benefit of all, including the citizens of San Juan.
Now, what I understand, how did this start. We live next to where there is the bridge, the Pharr International Bridge. They agreed to build this bridge. Well, now they have a problem, they have traffic. McAllen also has an international bridge, they have all these semis going through. So how do they want to fix this problem? Well, let's build a toll road, not in our city, no, no; let's just do it in our neighbor's city in San Juan. I don't see fairness in that.
So I plead that you consider this. I really don't think that the people who have proposed this toll road know exactly where they want to do this road, and as you have heard from me, it will affect us all.
Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait, wait. Questions of this witness?
MS. ROMERO: Sure.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have one, Ms. Romero. Would it matter if the road were a toll road or a tax road, it doesn't matter, just the road being there?
MS. ROMERO: Well, the road that I saw on a map, it goes in between homes, goes next to schools.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So it wouldn't matter if it was a tax road, open road, toll road, it wouldn't matter.
MS. ROMERO: It would matter to me. Why do you want to build a road with heavy traffic, as well as a road where toxic chemicals could be carried, next to a school, next to homes where my neighbors children would be playing in and my children would be playing in.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But it makes a difference to me -- and I don't know about my fellow commissioners -- your opposition and concern is not that it's tolled but that there's any road at all.
MS. ROMERO: That is a concern, yes, but more so if there was toll because, again, of those toxic chemicals running through our neighborhoods. Yes, it would be a concern per that question that you asked, as well.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Because I think the answer all of us would have to say yes, none of us want toxic chemicals above our heads. But I just wanted to clarify it's not that it's a toll road, it's any road.
MS. ROMERO: Right, but there is a proposed toll road there in that site.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to thank you for coming all this way and waiting.
MS. ROMERO: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Jorge -- please, I apologize in advance -- Arcante?
MR. ARCANTE: Mr. Chairman and commissioners, I thank you for allowing us the opportunity to provide you some input on Texas transportation issues. My name is Jorge Arcante. I'm the city manager for the City of San Juan.
You just heard some pretty heartfelt testimony from Ms. Romero. We have a lot of people in town that are quite concerned about the toll project. Obviously we're here to speak to the pending RMA application that Hidalgo County has. I believe you'll probably hear that at your next meeting or soon thereafter.
And you can hear some of the other impacts from some of the other witnesses, but we are getting ready, if this project goes through in San Juan, to give up some very valuable frontage road on a portion of Expressway 83 that is just starting to build up commercially for us after many years of dormancy.
So the kind of economic impact we're talking about is not just giving up some valuable commercial property but all the residential property that would be lost in the taking of the right of way for the proposed corridor.
Back to the RMA process, I think that one of the reasons we have a lot of concern in the city is that the way this particular project got started was a little bit backwards. We had the county get out in front on this and not really include the City of San Juan in the planning process, in the preliminary planning process.
There's been a lot of misunderstanding about what the intent is. You have some very, very good district engineers in our area, certainly the current one. The immediate past one, Amadeo Saenz, was here in the audience. We have enjoyed a very good working relationship with TxDOT in years past. But this was not their process to begin with and I think that's where things got away from us right away.
I think one of the things that the City of San Juan missed is representation at the preliminary design level, and I think that's what has hurt the process to date. We had a very big turnout at the county's required RMA public hearing, and you heard a lot of testimony like the one that Ms. Romero just gave.
Again, the city was not included, and for that reason, we think that this particular application deserves a lot more scrutiny. We know that there have been some issues with representation on the RMA. We understand the county has made some moves now to change those, I believe at your prompting, and that's good. But again, direct representation for an area that will be so directly impacted by the project is in order.
I think it should be a requirement that an economic impact study be done on projects of this size. And as Ms. Romero mentioned, it's quite unfair that we are taking the brunt of the heavy traffic for other cities for their particular cases, in this case, the City of Pharr with their bridge, without some means of taking care of the needs of the City of San Juan.
There's no doubt that a major corridor like this will entail extra costs for the city. There is no doubt that we are going to have some negative impact on the potential of some future growth, commercial growth, but as it stands now, the project has been pared down so that there are no frontage roads, there are no access ramps, and that means that there will be no commercial development.
I think what Ms. Romero is trying to tell you is that it wouldn't be so bad if it was a road that we could use. As it stands now, it doesn't even look like our citizens would be able to use it, and that seems just a little unfair. I think that's what one of the main problems is.
My last point, I need to tell you the mayor actually made the trip with us here and actually got hurt as she was trying to come into the building, and that's why she's not here, and probably will not be able to address you.
But I think she had some concerns about the format of your meetings. I think when the item is on the agenda, she would like to lead a larger delegation here so that you can hear some more input from them.
I also wanted to thank Mr. Behrens for all the courtesies that he's extended us on this particular occasion. You have a wonderful staff, as I've said. We've had a very good working relationship with TxDOT in the past, we would love to continue that.
Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We will be sure that you have ample notification. I hope the mayor is okay.
MR. ARCANTE: I hope so too. We actually don't know, so we're going to rush out of here and find that out.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
MR. ARCANTE: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Father Lasseigne? How close was I?
FATHER LASSEIGNE: We pronounce it La-sang. I'm actually from Louisiana; it's a French name.
MR. WILLIAMSON: La-sang?
FATHER LASSEIGNE: La-sang. Good afternoon. I'm Father Dan Lasseigne. I'm the pastor of St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in San Juan. It's the only Catholic parish in the town which is a town of about 80 percent Catholic residents.
I also took part in that hearing before our county commissioners court, and we were repeatedly told that before the commissioners was not a consideration about toll road or not, but rather the consideration of forming an RMA in Hidalgo County.
And all I can say is that we in San Juan are doubtful about that statement and we were suspicious that the formation of an RMA in Hidalgo County is just one short step away from actually approving what we call the San Juan Toll Road.
We know from the media that the State of Texas is indeed promoting toll roads more than in the past as a way of financing major highway construction that perhaps the state doesn't have the money for now, and we believe that other RMAs are also either considering or have approved toll roads. So we don't think that our thinking is that far removed from reality.
Also, as Ms. Romero said, we have seen a drawing and detailed plans for a very specific kind of toll road which will indeed be very high with no entrances or exits and will indeed carry toxic materials along it. So we've seen those plans. We said, Okay, if the plans are so detailed and so already worked out, again the formation of an RMA, in our thinking, is just simply one very short step from the approval of the toll road.
So we are suspicious of it. We don't see this as simply being a neutral discussion about local control of our highway construction, we see it as a discussion of how quickly can we get this toll road placed through the middle of San Juan.
Two other brief points. One is that San Juan, if you look at it on a map, is long and narrow, and if a very large road was built right through the middle of it -- and it's going to actually run not far from where I live either -- it's going to pretty much divide the town in half.
Yes, Highway 83 divides the town in half, but because it cuts east-west and not north-south, it's less of a dividing line than I think this new road will be.
And third, as the pastor of the Catholic church in San Juan, I recognize, and I think most people do, that the Basilica of San Juan, also known as the Shrine of our Lady of San Juan, is the major attraction of the town. In fact, it's part of the city's logo. I work in the church right behind the basilica. The basilica is a large, very prominent building. It is, you might say, the town of San Juan is the heart of the Catholic Church in all of the Valley.
And I'm concerned, again, this major interchange connecting the new toll road with Highway 83 will also be close to the basilica. Whereas, 83 actually gave life to the basilica, has brought a lot of people within a very short distance of it, I feel like this major interchange could be a visual blight and would not complement the image or the spirituality, if you will, of the town.
One other brief point, you were commenting would we consider something other than a toll road?
MR. WILLIAMSON: No. I just was curious if her complaint was -- her card said toll road, and as I listened to her concerns, it seemed to me the concerns were any road; it didn't matter. Toll, tax, it didn't matter. Which is okay, I just wanted to understand where she was coming from.
FATHER LASSEIGNE: Okay, very good. Thank you. Any questions?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions?
MR. HOUGHTON: I do. [Inaudible].
FATHER LASSEIGNE: Yes, it is.
MR. HOUGHTON: Tell him hello.
FATHER LASSEIGNE: I sure will. And your last name is pronounced?
MR. HOUGHTON: How-ton.
FATHER LASSEIGNE: How-ton. And he would know you in what capacity?
MR. HOUGHTON: [Inaudible].
FATHER LASSEIGNE: Okay, very good.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Any other questions?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to thank you, as I thanked the others, for all the time you spent waiting. I appreciate it.
FATHER LASSEIGNE: All right. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mary Ruiz.
MS. RUIZ: Yes. God bless you for having us here today.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I've got to tell you how impressed I am with anyone that says, I'm a U.S. citizen and a Texan of San Juan.
MS. RUIZ: Yes, a very proud Texan.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's what I like to hear. Texas really gets my soul. I like it when people say, I'm a Texan.
MS. RUIZ: I did bring the map that Pastor Dan was talking about.
My name is Mary Ruiz, and I happen to be a resident of San Juan. This was brought to my attention by our city leaders and elected officials that I highly respect because I'm so grateful that they brought this information to us, or else we would never have known about it.
As you see right here, Cesar Chavez, in this corner right here there happens to be a school, a middle school right there. Over here on this other end happens to be Austin Junior High, and traffic is extremely heavy. We don't even bother to come through this road because this area is full of cars picking up their children. We have people there making sure they cross the streets.
All of this is residential area. Right here is a proposed toll road. Right here down this stretch. It goes all the way down here. Here is Pharr and this is I Road. This is Alamo the next town, and this is Cesar Chavez -- it used to be Morningside. Now, this toll right here, there happens to be a high school, a middle school and a high school on I road.
Now, the traffic is tremendous, there's so much housing here. It is extremely tremendous because we're in the middle of all these three schools right there. Now we're having all this traffic coming down.
I happen to live in this area, it's a new subdivision that I have moved into. Now, all of these people were not even aware that we're going to have this road in our backyard. That's why they're protesting it because they were not informed, they were not involved in the decision-making, they were not regarded whatsoever. As voters and citizens of the State of Texas, I feel we have that right.
Now, another thing, too -- that's the map that we were discussing -- see how narrow San Juan is? Something like this would just cut our city and probably end up killing it because all these people would move out, and our city would just not exist, it would not grow. And our aim as citizens is that our children have a future here to stay.
Now, my concern is that I've been a Christian for 23 years, I've traveled from Corpus Christi to Laredo, and what I have found out is that in Laredo when I was living there for seven years, the same situation occurred with the Colombia Bridge. We have that same problem.
MR. HOUGHTON: [Inaudible].
MS. RUIZ: No, I don't have the map for the Colombia Bridge.
MR. HOUGHTON: [Inaudible].
MS. RUIZ: This is Military Road and it's going to start from I Road right there, and Pharr has the bridge.
Now, as I was saying, I was a resident in Laredo for seven years. The city had a tremendous headache over all the trucks in the city, so they went ahead and they wanted a solution which they went ahead and they received a toll road.
But the only thing is that truckers from Mexico do not have the income, they suffer much more than we down in the Valley do, they had so much trouble even trying to fix their trucks. Now, these trucks came with very dangerous chemicals, gases, and they were traveling through our city.
And I saw right there what that could do to our city in San Juan because I was an eyewitness to it, I saw them just not caring where they went through that area. But when the toll road was brought up, it was a $75 million failure because it just didn't work, nobody took it, it just failed, and it's just an empty structure by the outskirts of Laredo.
And when I saw that the trucks had no regard for the public or anybody who gets in their way, I realized now it's coming to our city where we're going to have them avoiding the toll road and going through our streets, through our schools, through our community, in our neighborhoods.
And what I saw in Laredo was that they damaged a lot of streets, they just damaged a lot of cars, and there were a lot of teenage deaths at that time. That was the biggest concern of the city, the death rate and the accidents that were being caused.
So I thought, well, I left Laredo because I saw not well leadership in the sense that they could have done something else to have avoided this whole thing. Now Laredo, of course, suffers a lot, it's a beautiful city, but now also it has trouble with its bridges and the people crossing over, and there's a problem, a very big problem there.
I really wouldn't like that to happen to San Juan, having that problem that I saw come and growing in our area.
And one thing I wanted to read was this verse from Henry Hopkins. He was an advisor for Franklin D. Roosevelt. He said, (I thank God that I live in a country where dreams can come true, where failure sometimes is a first step to success, and where success is only another form of failure if we forget what our priorities should be.(
I feel that Laredo had a failure with that toll road that was there, and that's why I would like for all of you to understand that economically-wise the Valley cannot sustain a toll road.
And that's what I wanted to say, but I also wanted to inform you that to be able to be a builder, you have to have stability, you need to have the area stable, and that's why I brought all of these articles here about how we are suffering in the Valley. We're suffering because we're having trouble with our schools, there's not enough financing. We have problems with abuse. We have -- how can I say it? -- we have gang members in our area.
We have all these problems. This is just from one month which is August, and look at the subtitles that we have to read. We have police making arrests; this one (Two others die after Mexican explosions.( We don't want the problems from Mexico coming to our city. Here is (Which way to I-69?( That's another concern.
A lot of gang members, and the thing is if our community dies, that's what's going to be moved in. We do not want all of these problems. Agencies recovering stolen vehicles; our police departments are stretched in keeping order; residents reeling from sting at the pumps. If the residents can't pay the gas, our truckers are surely not going to be able to pay the tolls. Defendants in voting and scandals; the Iraq War; pious border frustrations. We're dealing with that with the Minute Maid problems too.
We have Edinburg massacre. This is where our county, our courthouses. We have pot smugglers. This is what it can do to a community by destroying it. Here again, gang members. And then we have local builders fired on permit values.
We have all these dilemmas happening in our city, and this is another dilemma in our city. And we just pray that you can help us out. I know it's a big decision and there's a lot of decisions made upon all of you, but we just hope that you would consider and help us for the residents of San Juan.
Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Are there questions of this lady?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: As I said to the others, we really appreciate your driving all the way up here and your time and patience in waiting to have your say.
MS. RUIZ: Thank you so much.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We'll take all of your comments into consideration. We listen to everybody. Thank you.
Mr. Behrens, is there any reason for an executive session?
MR. BEHRENS: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: The most privileged motion is in order, members.
MR. HOUGHTON: Motion to adjourn.
MR. JOHNSON: I would second because the Chair put in the record that he is not bashful.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: We stand adjourned at 2:40 p.m. Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: August 25, 2005
I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 278 inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Marian Stasney before the Texas Department of Transportation.
8/29/05 (Transcriber) (Date)
On the Record Reporting, Inc.
3307 Northland, Suite 315
Austin, Texas 78731
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- department of transportation columbus ohio
- department of transportation columbus ga
- texas department of transportation drivers license renewal
- pa department of transportation forms
- florida department of transportation toll pay
- florida department of transportation pay tolls
- oregon department of transportation forms
- department of transportation medical certificate
- ohio department of transportation website
- ohio department of transportation projects
- ohio department of transportation odot
- wyoming department of transportation bids