10-OCT27TRN€¦ · Web viewCOMMISSION MEETING. Thursday, October 27, 2005. Ortiz Center. Nueces Room. 402 Harbor Drive. Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 COMMISSION MEMBERS:

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

COMMISSION MEETING

Thursday, October 27, 2005Ortiz CenterNueces Room

402 Harbor DriveCorpus Christi, Texas 78401

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

Ric Williamson, ChairmanJohn W. Johnson

Hope AndradeTed Houghton, Jr.

STAFF:

Michael W. Behrens, P.E., Executive DirectorSteve Simmons, Deputy Executive DirectorRichard Monroe, General CounselRoger Polson, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director

112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637

I N D E X

AGENDA ITEM PAGE

CONVENE MEETING 8

Receive comments from area public officials, 14community and civic leaders, and private citizens.Report by the Corpus Christi District. 69

1. Approval of Minutes of the September 29, 2005, 83regular meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission

2. Public Transportation 84El Paso County - Award Rural TransportationAssistance Program funds to El Paso County (MO)

3. Discussion ItemDiscussion on various Vehicle Title and 88Registration public outreach and marketingefforts

4. Promulgation of Administrative Rulesa. Proposed Adoption Under Title 43, Texas

Administrative Code, and the AdministrativeProcedure Act, Government Code, Chapter 2001:(to be published in the Texas Register for public comment)(1) Chapter 17 - Vehicle Titles and

Registration (MO) 108Amendments to ''17.2-17.3, concerningMotor Vehicle Certificates of Title,''17.21-17.24, '17.28, '17.30, '17.33,and '17.36, concerning Motor VehicleRegistration, '17.54, concerningAutomated Equipment, (Registration andTitle System), '17.61, '17.62, '17.65,and '17.68, concerning Nonrepairableand Salvage Motor Vehicles, and '17.72,'17.73 and '17.79, concerning SalvageVehicle Dealers

(2) Chapter 21 - Right of Way (MO) 111New Subchapter N, Rail Facilities,New '21.801, Acquisition of RealProperty, and New '21.802, Disposalof Real Property (relating to railfacilities)

211234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253

(3) Chapter 23 - Travel Information (MO) 113New '23.13, Links to Community WebSites from Rest Areas and TravelInformation Centers (Travel Information)

(4) Chapter 28 - Oversize and Overweight 115Vehicles and Loads (MO)Amendments to '28.11, General Oversizeand Overweight Permit Requirements andProcedures (General Permits), '28.14,Manufactured Housing, and IndustrializedHousing and Building Permits, '28.15,Portable Building Unit Permits (HighwayCrossings by Oversize and OverweightVehicles and Loads) and '28.92, PermitIssuance Requirements and Procedures(Port of Brownsville Port AuthorityPermits), New Subchapter H, ChambersCounty Permits, New ''28.100-28.102,Purpose

b. Final Adoption Under Title 43, TexasAdministrative Code, and the AdministrativeProcedure Act, Government Code, Chapter 2001:(1) Chapter 7 - Rail Facilities (MO) 117

Chapter 7 - Rail Facilities; SubchapterB, Contracts, New '7.11, ComprehensiveDevelopment Agreements

(2) Chapter 15 - Transportation Planning 119and Programming (MO) Amendments to '15.4, Unified PlanningWork Program

(3) Chapter 25 - Traffic Operations (MO) 121Repeal of ''25.400-25.409, SubchapterG, Specific Information Logo Sign Program and New ''25.400-25.409,Subchapter G, Information Logo Signand Tourist-Oriented Directional(TOD) Program, and Repeal of ''25.700-25.708, Subchapter K, Major AgriculturalInterest Sign Program

5. Transportation Planninga. Approve the 2006 Statewide Mobility Program 123

(MO) (Draft SMP)b. Approve the Texas Rail System Plan (MO) 126

(Draft Summary) (Draft Plan)

311234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253

c. Various Counties - Application for approval 129to deviate from the terms of the railroadclearance statutes for the following companies (MO):1. Synsil Product, Inc.2. Cemex, Inc.3. Prime Rail Interest, Inc.4. ConocoPhillips Sweeny Refinery5. Rohm and Haas Company Bayport Plant

6. Toll Projectsa. Bexar County - Consider final approval of 132

a request for financing from the AlamoRegional Mobility Authority to pay certainengineering, legal and financial planningcosts to study and analyze competing proposals submitted for the proposed Loop1604 and US 281 turnpike project and itsimpacts on other potential elements of aproposed toll system in Bexar County (MO)

b. Bexar County - Authorize the executive 136director to negotiate and develop an agreement with the Alamo Regional MobilityAuthority (AlamoRMA) for the planning,financing, and potential design, construction,operation, and maintenance of managed ortolled lanes on I-35 from the Bexar/Guadalupe County line to the San AntonioCentral Business District, managed ortolled lanes on SH 16 west from InterstateLoop 410 to Loop 1604 northwest, and the tolled interchange at US 281 and Wurzbach Parkway, including the license or lease ofstate-owned right of way to the AlamoRMAfor the purpose of developing these potentialAlamoRMA turnpike projects (MO)

c. Bexar County - Consider the preliminary 137approval of a request for financing from the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority to pay for certain costs for developingpreliminary feasibility, environmental,public involvement, schematics and preliminary financial plans for managedor tolled lanes on I-35 from the Bexar/Guadalupe County line to the San AntonioCentral Business District, managed or tolled lanes on SH 16 west from InterstateLoop 410 to Loop 1604 northwest, and the tolled interchange at US 281 and WurzbachParkway (MO)

d. Travis and Williamson Counties - Accept 149

411234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253

the General Engineering Consultant quarterly progress report as of August 31,2005, for the 2002 Project of the CentralTexas Turnpike System (MO)

7. FinanceTravis and Williamson Counties - Accept the 152Quarterly Investment Report as of August 31,2005, for the 2002 Project of the Central TexasTurnpike System (MO)

8. Pass-Through Tollsa. Authority to Negotiate Agreement

(1) Galveston County - Authorize the 154executive director to negotiate a pass-through toll agreement withGalveston County for improvementsto FM 646 from FM 1764 to FM 517 (MO)

(2) Hays County - Authorize the executive 156director to negotiate a pass-throughtoll agreement with Hays County forimprovements to various highwayprojects in the county

b. Authority to Execute Agreement 167Williamson County - Authorize the executivedirector to execute a pass-through tollagreement with Williamson County forimprovements to various highway projectsin the county (MO)

9. Traffic Operations, 176Dallas, Harris, and Tarrant Counties - Proposedlane use restrictions for trucks on I-20 inDallas County, I-10 and US 290 in Harris County,and I-30 in Tarrant County (MO)

10. Contractsa. Award or Reject Highway Improvement Contracts

(1) Maintenance(see attached itemized list) (MO) 180

(2) Highway and Building Construction(see attached itemized list) (MO) 181

11. Routine Minute Ordersa. Donations to the Department 194

(1) Brazos County - Consider a donationfrom Keep Brazos Beautiful for approximately $30,000 worth ofwildflower seeds to be planted on state right of way (MO)

(2) Bridge Division - Acknowledge adonation from the Precast/Prestressed

511234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253

Concrete Institute (PCI) for a departmentemployee=s travel expenses to attend thePCI Convention and National Bridge Conference that was held in Palm Springs,California from Oct. 16-19, 2005 (MO)

(3) Human Resources Division - Acknowledgea donation from KARRASS for two departmentemployees= registration fees to attend ashowcase on a training program entitled,AEffective Negotiating in Your OwnOrganization.@ The showcase was held inDallas, Texas from Sept. 15-16, 2005 (MO)

(4) Live Oak County - Consider a donationfrom Mr. Bruce Harvey, a private landowner, for funds associated with upgrading highway fencing alongside I-37 (MO)

(5) Texas Turnpike Authority Division -Consider a donation from InfrastructureJournal for a department employee=s travel expenses to participate in theTransportation Investment Forum to beheld from November 7-8, 2005 in Glasgow, Scotland (MO)

b. Eminent Domain Proceedings 194Various Counties - noncontrolled and controlled access highways (see attacheditemized list) (MO)

c. Highway Designations 194(1) Brown County - Designate a segment of

FM 823 along a new location on thestate highway system and redesignate a segment of FM 3064 as FM 823 in thecity of Brownwood (MO)

(2) Kaufman County - Remove a segment ofFM 548 from the state highway system and return control, jurisdiction, and maintenance to the city of Forney (MO)

d. Load Zones & Postings 194Comanche County - Revise load restrictionson a bridge on FM 1689 (MO)

e. Right of Way Dispositions and Donations 194(1) Bexar County - Loop 1604 at Huebner

Road in San Antonio - Consider thesale of a surplus drainage channeleasement (MO)

(2) Chambers County - FM 2354 south of FM 565 - Consider the release of asurplus easement (MO)

611234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253

(3) El Paso County - FM 258 (Socorro Road) at Southside Road in El Paso -Consider the sale of a surplus maintenance site (MO)

(4) Johnson County - I-35W at FM 917 inBurleson - Amend MO 109998 to revisethe value of the consideration forsurplus right of way (MO)

(5) Travis County - US 183 at Tracor Lanein Austin - Consider the exchange ofright of way (MO)

(6) Travis County - FM 685 at CR 138 -Consider the release of a surpluschannel easement (MO)

f. Speed Zones 194Various Counties - Establish or alterregulatory and construction speed zoneson various sections of highways in thestate (MO)

12. Executive Session (none required) 195

OPEN COMMENT PERIOD 195

ADJOURN 196

711234567891011121314151617181920212223242526

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning.

AUDIENCE: Good morning.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What do you think, Richard, do

it again?

MR. MONROE: It's all up to you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning.


MR. WILLIAMSON: Man, we're asleep. One more

time. Good morning.


MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning. It's a great

day to be a Texan.

It is 9:24 a.m., and I call the October 2005

meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order

here in the Sparkling City by the Sea, Corpus Christi,

Texas. It's a pleasure for us to be here this morning and

we thank each of you for joining us.

Please note for the record that public notice

of this meeting, containing all items on the agenda, was

filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 1:55

p.m. on October 19.

Before beginning today's meeting, we

characteristically stop, take a moment, pat our pockets,

find our cell phones, iPods, Dewberries, and everything

ON THE RECORD REPORTING 10/27/2005(512)450-0342

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

else we carry, and we ask everybody to put them on the

silent or no-ring mode so that we won't disrupt anybody

while they're offering testimony. If you will join with

me in doing that, I will be appreciative. Thank you.

This is officially the sixth time a highway or

transportation commission has convened a meeting in Corpus

Christi. Interestingly for us, the first meeting was held

on July 17, 1920, in the wake of the devastating 1919

hurricane. At that special called meeting, the Highway

Commission approved $100,000 in state funds to cover 25

percent of the cost to reconstruct the causeway. The

causeway, as most of you from Corpus Christi will remember

in your history lessons, was completely destroyed by the

hurricane.

In that era, counties were entirely responsible

for building and paying for their roads and their

transportation infrastructure. As motorized

transportation has become more important to the state's

economic growth, the federal government has joined with

the state government in providing funds for the

infrastructure business.

This $100,000 in 1920 was an early example of

state and local partnerships to solve a local and state

problem. The relationship between the state and local

transportation officials is a long-standing one, and as


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

you will learn from the meeting today, continues to grow

and evolve.

Now, it's our practice to take a commission

meeting on the road three or four times a year. It gives

us a chance to see firsthand what's going on in different

parts of this great state. It also gives us an

opportunity to listen directly to the leadership and the

citizens of every part of the state as they express their

compliments and their concerns about the future of

transportation in our state.

It is our custom to open our meetings by

permitting each commissioner to make a quick comment to

the audience and then proceed with our agenda. So with

your indulgence, Commissioner Houghton.

MR. HOUGHTON: It's a lonely way down here, the

far left, far right, depending on your perspective. It's

a beautiful facility, and to the hospitality by the

citizens and the employees of Corpus Christi, I thank you.

This has been a marvelous couple of days, and we look

forward to this meeting.

And to the leadership in this community,

there's a lot of great things happening in your court, as

demonstrated yesterday, and in the state of Texas many,

many things are going to happen in the next couple of

months that will be very profound.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

And I thank you again for your hospitality.

MS. ANDRADE: Good morning. I'd like to also

thank you all. Craig, last night was an incredible

evening with our staff. We truly enjoyed ourselves, and

you made us all feel so special. So thank you, City of

Corpus Christi, the hospitality that we have received

during this trip has been incredible. Thank you so much.

I applaud you and I congratulate you for such a

community that works together, and that understands the

challenges that we face and are willing to step up and

take advantage of the many tools that we have.

Thank you all for coming to listen to our

commission meeting and what we discuss here, and for

helping us keep moving transportation forward in Texas.

Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: My turn?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: First of all, a note of apology.

Craig, I know the district went to great ends for a fun-

filled, informative day yesterday, and I apologize for not

being here. I attended a baseball game last night and I

just heard on the news that the Astros bat rack was

examined this morning and they found a termite

infestation.

(General laughter.)


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. JOHNSON: It was a great thrill to have a

World Series in Texas and in your hometown, and so I had

to avail myself of that opportunity, and unfortunately

wasn't here to partake in the hospitality of the district.

But as the Chairman alluded to, being in the

Sparkling City by the Sea is a great treat. I've come

here often as an adult, came here more as a child, and

it's wonderful to see what's happened here in terms of

community involvement, as Hope referred to, and getting

things done. This is really a gem. If there's a better

example of the success in multimodal challenges around

these United States, I would be surprised.

Congratulations to each and every one of you

for what you do and have done to get us where we are, and

of course, for what you will do to get us even in better

shape. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I'd like to associate

myself with those same remarks, Craig, to you and your

staff. It was a fun time last night, and we appreciate

the hospitality shown by yourself and earlier in the day

by the business leadership in welcoming the commission to

the city.

Let me remind you that if you wish to speak

during the commission meeting this morning, we have a

system -- we're an engineering firm at heart, so we've got


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

plans and procedures and a system for everything -- we

have a system for testimony.

If you are going to comment on an item that's

on the agenda, I need for you to fill out a yellow card,

and you'll find one of those in the lobby, and please take

time to tell us what item you're going to comment on.

If you want to comment in the open comment

period on just whatever is on your mind, please fill out a

blue card, and you can find those in the lobby.

We normally in our meetings in previous years

proceeded with the local presentation and at that time

recognized local legislators. For those of you who are

not aware, I did have the privilege of serving in the

legislature for 13-1/2 years, and it's my habit to first

permit sitting members of the legislature to speak if they

so choose. If they choose to be part of the program, then

that's their choice, but having been through the ringer,

I'm tremendously respectful of the time and the effort men

and women have to put into serving on the legislature, and

so I place their remarks at the highest top of the list

for attention, and I always try to operate on a seniority

basis, so I think Vilma is more senior.

MS. LUNA: We'll all come together if you'll

allow us.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You are a legislator, madam.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Whatever you want is okay with us. Ms. Luna, Mr. Seaman

and Mr. Herrero.

MS. LUNA: And actually, you just forgot to

mention that Senator Chuy Hinojosa is right here standing

shoulder-to-shoulder with us, and in fact, does send his

regards and regrets that he's not able to be here.

First of all, I am Vilma Luna, State

Representative of District 33 and welcome each and every

one of you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Johnson,

Commissioner Andrade, and Commissioner Houghton. We are

so pleased to have you here and I know that it is a

tremendous amount of time and energy out of your very busy

schedules to come here, but we really welcome you.

I have been very lucky in my life -- and I

always share this with you guys and your staff knows

this -- but our family has a real direct link to TxDOT.

My grandfather worked for the State Highway Department for

45 years on a road crew, and as a matter of fact, I was

reminiscing with some of the staff this morning about it

was not unusual that one of our weekend outings would be

going from highway marker to historical marker to highway

marker because he was so proud, as were many of the other

gentlemen that worked with him on that crew, to show us

the work and so proud of the maintenance and the upkeep

that they did on roads and bridges throughout this entire


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

area. They had a big territory.

But more important is the work that you guys

now do, and we want to thank you. I know that you are

very focused on the needs of this region. I am very

heartened every time I hear you speak, Mr. Chairman and

the rest of you all, to hear you talk about what we're

going to look like in 35 years, in 35 years we won't have

the congestion, in 35 years we will have done our part for

air quality, in 35 years, in 35 years, and so on. But

it's not just looking down there, we're looking at all the

steps in between now and then, and I want to thank you all

very much for being so forward-thinking.

We have worked very closely together on

appropriations. As vice-chair of Appropriations and

sitting on LBB, I think I know your budget inside and out.

If there's any little thing I've missed, you know what,

Mike, brings it to my attention pretty quickly. So not

only does Mike and all the rest of your staff, but your

field staff do a tremendous job.

So we as a delegation would like you to know

that we appreciate very much the work that you're doing,

and ask you to please pay special attention to the needs

of our region. We have done our part. I think we are

being very forward-thinking in how we're trying to use our

dollars and our resources, be partners -- which is what I


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

consider us. I think you all are partners with us as

legislators; our local community wants to be a partner

with the state in making sure that we make the best use of

all available resources and be very forward-thinking and

creative.

And we do have an outstanding staff in this

region. Frankly, I think we have an outstanding staff

throughout the state of Texas, it's not just because my

grandfather was there all those years that you all have a

special place in my heart, but I do think that you've got

an outstanding staff, individuals that do not only a lot

of work for TxDOT but incredible work for the community,

such as Cliff Bost, who is my son's soccer coach.

And so thank you and welcome.

(Applause.)

MR. SEAMAN: And I echo what Vilma said. In

fact, when we came up, I said, Can I carry your purse?

Being the vice-chair of Appropriations handles the money,

I always want to carry her baggage.

As Murdock said, we're going to go from 22- to

44- in a couple of decades, million, and if we don't do

education and taxation -- this is from Sharp last week for

a session on the tax bill, and John Sharp, and education

and taxation but most of all transportation.

Thank you for being here, I commend you for


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

what you're doing, I support your goals. Thank you.

MR. HERRERO: Mr. Chairman and members, I'd

also like to reiterate the welcome. It is extremely

important, not only for Corpus Christi but also the

region, the issues regarding rail and port issues and also

highway.

And as Vilma mentioned, we are members of the

transportation industry. I worked for the Highway

Department also one summer, and so I cut brush under

highways, I poured sand on the hot asphalt as it was

beading on the highways, and so I understand the hard work

that it takes both in the field and behind the desk where

you work, and I understand the responsibility and the

dedication that all of you have as commissioners.

I'd also like to commend the work that your

executive director has done. Just in the short time that

I've been in the legislature, he's done a tremendous job,

and I want to thank him for the great work that he's done,

as well as your local district offices here, Craig Clark

as well. But I want to thank you, especially, because I

understand the significance and the importance that you

give to the commission and also that you bring to the

state of Texas. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. We appreciate your

comments.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

(Applause.)

MS. LUNA: I'm sorry. Did you have a question

or a comment?

MR. HOUGHTON: No. Go ahead.

MS. LUNA: I was just going to say I'm calling

an emergency delegation meeting down the street, and so we

will allow you to go forward with your work and get out of

your hair, figuratively speaking.

MR. HOUGHTON: I'll let you go ahead, Ric, and

respond to that.

MR. JOHNSON: Thanks so much for searching for

our hair.

MR. HOUGHTON: Well, she obviously wasn't

referring to me.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Representative Luna, thank you

for everything that you said. I also wanted to thank you,

the last time our paths crossed here, I wasn't disheveled

but my tie was not exact, and you were nice enough to get

me more neatly dressed, and I remember that and I thank

you for it.

MS. LUNA: I've got to keep you looking good.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I need a lot of help.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted?

MR. HOUGHTON: Representative Luna and I have a


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

common goal down in this part of the world and in El Paso,

and I look forward to working with you not only that but

the transportation issues. And Abel and Gene, thanks for

your support. It's something we take note of. Thank you.

MS. LUNA: Thank you all very much.

MS. ANDRADE: Thank you also so much.

Representative Luna, I had the pleasure of meeting you

last year, and I was touched by your story of your

grandfather working for TxDOT, but I have to tell you that

you're absolutely right, we cannot do this by ourselves,

we need partners and supporters, and you certainly have

been that, all three of you. So thank you for your

leadership, and I'm just looking forward to working

together with you all. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Anything more, John?

MR. JOHNSON: No.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, I said this

yesterday to a slightly different audience, and I take

great pleasure in saying it to anyone who will listen: we

do not waste our time saying thank you to legislators,

past or existing, who do not understand the importance of

transportation, we just stay silent. When we have the

opportunity to address the legislators who understand

transportation, we never pass up that opportunity.

When Rick Perry sent me to the commission, he


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

reminded me there are no Democratic highways, there are no

Republican bridges, there are no Liberal right of ways,

there are no Conservative parking lots, transportation is

for all Texans, and we maintain that here at the

commission.

And in your representation, particularly with

Ms. Luna and Mr. Seaman, who I served with -- and Abel is

going to get tired of me saying this, when I get to serve

more with him, I'll understand him better, but he appears

to be the same way -- they understand the importance of

transportation, and we could not be where we're going to

be in 35 years if we didn't have you on the legislative

side as our partners, and we're very appreciative of your

leadership. You're to be commended for what you've done

for transportation in the last six years.

Thank you for being here, and we'll take care

of our business.

MS. LUNA: Very good. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thanks.

(Applause.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike?

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll

begin today by introducing Craig Clark who is our district

engineer for the Corpus District, and he will lead the

district's delegation and then introduce the local folks


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

that have been our hosts and who are part of the backbone

of transportation here in the Corpus area. Craig?

MR. CLARK: While we're trying to find our

presentation, I would also like to recognize our local

political delegations who are so valuable to us and do

such good work for our area. We also have Esther Oliver

from Congressman Solomon Ortiz's office here with us, and

Sondra Zuniga with the office of Senator Chuy Hinojosa.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, Craig, while you're

looking for your CD, let me speak for the commission to

the young lady representing Congressman Ortiz.

Now, you don't need to hear me say it but

everyone else does. We consider Congressman Ortiz one of

the best transportation congressmen in the United States

Congress. He understands transportation to the level that

most people can only dream of. We're very grateful for

his service.

MR. CLARK: While we continue to look, we have

a team atmosphere in our community.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you going to try to read

it, Craig?

MR. CLARK: We recognize that Commissioner

Johnson was called up to the big show last night and

couldn't be with us at our event that we had with the

commission, but to make up for that and recognize him as


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

part of our local team, I would like to approach the dais

and provide Commissioner Johnson with this jersey for the

Hooks.

(Applause.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: We wish that he was really

called in to play and maybe we could have a little better

offense last night and made some more history.

MR. JOHNSON: Craig, I was at a Hooks game in

June -- I believe it was June -- and there was eleven

innings of free baseball, they played 20 innings that

night, and what an experience. This is great for the

community, Whataburger Field and the Hooks, a great family

atmosphere, and for the price of entertainment today,

there's no better value, and I had a fantastic night.

And I'm deeply appreciative for this; in fact,

I'm going to put it on. You can only wear one hat but you

can wear many jerseys. Where's Representative Luna when I

need her?

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Send me in, Coach.

(Applause.)

MR. CLARK: Commissioners, we're going to

continue on with our team report, and I would like to

begin the first part of our presentation for our district

with the very durable city manager for Corpus Christi,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Skip Noe.

(Applause.)

MR. SKIP: I have to admit I've been called

many things but durable has not been on the list. Thank

you, Craig.

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission,

members of the staff. Good morning and welcome to Corpus

Christi. We're very pleased you're here. We're very

excited to have the opportunity to share with you some of

the things that are happening in Corpus Christi.

Before I start, I really want to thank Craig

and his staff. This is about team work and we do have a

great working relationship with your folks here at the

district office. They work with us every day, day-in and

day-out, on all those little problems, making sure that we

get things done here in Corpus Christi, and we appreciate

the great relationship we have with the staff here.

You had an opportunity, a number of you, to

tour a number of things that are happening in Corpus

Christi yesterday, and we're going to take a minute today

to share some of the things that are happening.

You'll find two words in our vocabulary here:

one is investment, we're investing in our future; the

other is partnership, virtually all these projects we're

working on here have a partner we're working with, either


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

at the state or federal or local level.

This map shows you the five areas we cover just

so you can get a sense of the geography of the various

areas where there's been significant investment, and we'd

like to talk about them just for a few minutes.

We've been fortunate that the community and the

leadership of the community and the voters have been

willing to invest in our community for the last six years.

Beginning in 1999 with the decision in our airport, over

$30 million, a new terminal, reconstructed runways, new

parking areas, a new tower, all resulting in a

reinvigoration of our airport.

In fact, we were able to announce this last

week that for the first time in many, many years we'll

have international service out of the Corpus Christi

International Airport to Monterrey starting November 21.

The partnership with TxDOT, the JFK Causeway,

that improvement is significant to Corpus Christi, and we

learned that no better than this last hurricane season

when for the first time in the EOC we weren't sending

staff members out to check the level of the water over the

causeway to see if we could get folks off the island.

That improvement made a significant difference for folks

who live on the island, their ability to get out of the

way of those kinds of storms and disasters we've seen this


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

year.

A number of bond issues. In 2000 the voters

approved $30 million worth of improvements, as well as two

sales tax-supported propositions that paid for

improvements to the seawall and the marina.

The Packery Channel project, the decision, in

partnership with the Corps of Engineers, the General Land

Office and a number of others, to build the Packery

Channel project which has been on the agenda here in

Corpus Christi for many years, a partnership effort, $30

million.

The convention center expansion. Recognizing

that tourism is part of our future, reinvigorating our

convention center, a $25 million expenditure funded

predominantly from the hotel tax.

You all got a chance to take a peek at

Whataburger Field last night, our $29 million project, a

joint venture with not only Ryan-Sanders Baseball but also

the Port of Corpus Christi, the landowner and our partner

in the parking and development of that area.

Marina improvements. There's a big demand for

marina slips and a need to improve our facilities there.

We have our own Riverwalk, only it's called the Bayfront.

We're investing in new slips and facilities to support our

folks who have boat slips in the marina.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

And then lastly, in November of 2004 the voters

approved another $95 million in capital improvements all

intended to invest in our long-term future.

The Bayfront is obviously important for Corpus

Christi because of our tourism base, and this shows you a

number of the projects that we've been involved with, the

top being the arena on the left with the convention center

on the right, Whataburger Field -- and by the way, it did

exceed 500,000 fans this past year, which was a feat

that's only been accomplished several times in minor

league baseball.

In the middle there at the bottom you see the

marina facilities we're constructing, and then the

seawall.

The Packery Channel project, a major investment

on our part, $30 million, $20 million from the Corps of

Engineers, the federal government and $10 million funded

from a tax increment district on the island, causing and

spurring significant potential growth and real growth in

our community. To the right you see the channel itself

that cuts through to connect the Gulf of Mexico with

Laguna Madre, and the area in front of the seawall on the

island is being restored with the dredged sand material.

There's an opportunity there for significant development

and we're seeing that development occur.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

On the left you see a bigger picture of the

island itself. In the upper part of that picture you see

the JFK Causeway and the bridge over the Intracoastal

Waterway.

As this development occurs, we see continued

interest in looking for opportunities for a second

crossing in connection to the island as we try to deal

with the growth that occurs there.

Texas A&M Corpus Christi is part of our

foundation for our long-term future. It's the fastest

growing regional university in the state. They've seen

significant growth and development on the campus, and as

you might suspect, with the campus being an island of 240

acres, they're starting to run out of room.

There's a partnership developing with the city

and the university and the community on how we can assist

them to make sure they will continue to be able to grow in

the future. Part of that involves looking for

opportunities to develop off-site, either spinning

projects off the campus into the community or other sites

for development of university facilities.

One of those is a project that we hope to bring

to the commission soon. This is a picture of one of the

opportunities is a private developer who is willing to

donate property the university could use if Spur 3, which


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

is currently under construction by TxDOT, is extended

southward from 358 to 357, creating an opportunity to have

a connection to that property.

To assist the university in this effort, the

council has authorized an application for a pass-through

toll financing project that we submitted this last week,

and we're looking forward to having the opportunity to

discuss that with your staff over a period to accomplish

this important project.

The south side of Corpus Christi has seen

significant growth. What you see here is a facility near

the intersection of SH 357 and Farm to Market 2444. We're

fortunate enough to have the opening of the first HEB Plus

store, a store of over 180,000 square feet, a new concept

for HEB.

The good news is the great facility is

attracting lots of shoppers; the bad news, you might

suspect, an already congested intersection continues to

see growth and pressures. We know congestion management

and dealing with traffic is going to be a significant

issue on our south side as we deal with the growth that's

occurring there.

As we look to the future, the community is

committed to economic development. One of the things that

comes out repeatedly in all of our surveys is the high


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

priority on growing our economy and providing jobs for our

future. We recognize we need to take advantage of a lot

of the options we've been given by you and the legislature

to fund these kinds of projects and we're working on

those.

We're working to manage our congestion and

that's a bit of a challenge, but we know we need to do

that for the future and do it in advance of development.

And then lastly, with this hurricane season

we've spent a lot of time looking at the impact of storms

and potential storms on our ability to evacuate. Our

evacuation this last September with Hurricane Rita went

very smoothly, but we learned some lessons and -- the best

dollar of the day to assist us in the event of a

hurricane.

At this point I want to turn the program over

to Ruben Bonilla, the chairman of the Port of Corpus

Christi.

MR. HOUGHTON: I've got one question. What's

the enrollment at the university here?

MR. NOE: About 8,300.

MR. BONILLA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I

have the opportunity of introducing to you one of our

commission members for our presentation on the port, but I

first wanted to acknowledge fellow commissioner Mike


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Terrell who is here. Mike is secretary of the Port

Commission, and I believe other than Commissioner Hawley,

we may not be graced with the presence of other

commissioners.

I did want to assure you that as we coordinated

your trip and visit with the World Series when we planned

this several months ago, we anticipated this Astros

rebound and we were assured of a sweep so that we could

celebrate today, but we forgot to tell them we wanted an

Astros sweep.

(General laughter.)

MR. BONILLA: But it is true what you said

earlier, there is a little bit of a problem with offense

in Houston, and we attribute that here in the Port of

Corpus Christi to their problem with air quality. As you

know, we have a significant competitive edge here at the

Port of Corpus Christi, we have no problem with air

emissions, we have clean air, clean water, abundant

transportation arteries, and I think it all goes to the

issue of congestion and poor air quality in Houston.

And when you think about, the Houston Texans

have also got trouble with offense. They're also zero-

and-six or so. In fact, I don't know if you heard about

the anthrax scare that happened on the Houston Texans

practice field and they found a white powder and they


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

called in the FBI just two days ago. And the FBI arrived

and conducted a complete investigation, and of course, the

coach suspended practice while they did that

investigation.

They took it to the lab real quickly in

downtown Houston and then discovered that white powder was

actually the goal line chalk. That's why the Texans were

petrified because they hadn't seen that white powder all

year long.

(General laughter.)

MR. BONILLA: Well, that's just a mild-mannered

introduction. If it was a bad joke, blame Judy Hawley.

MS. HAWLEY: I thought it was a bad joke too.

(General laughter.)

MR. BONILLA: With all due respect to our

president.

The Port of Corpus Christi, Mr. Chairman and

members of the commission -- and my remarks are going to

be very brief because I don't want to duplicate Judy's

presentation -- we have a strategic vision that results

from our decision several years ago to diversify our

mission.

As you know, historically the Port of Corpus

Christi arose really from the debris and the tragedy of

the hurricane of 1919, that hurricane which moved inward,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

to the development of the Inner Harbor with the vote and

the endorsement and encouragement of our citizens, and it

began as an agricultural port, made a transition to a

petrochemical giant to where now we're the sixth largest

port in America in terms of tonnage.

We provide 90 percent of the gasoline that is

provided to the city of Austin via pipeline. We provide

about 56 percent of all diesel and jet fuel that's

consumed at DFW Airport, also by pipeline. So that its

importance strategically and economically is vast, and

therefore, that's why we've placed so much importance on

strengthening our security subsequent to the 9/11 tragedy.

With the help of federal and state grants, we believe we

are well positioned to protect our assets and to prosper

in the future.

So that's what Judy will set out for you is how

our diversification program is vital, is vibrant, it also

depends on seamless transportation arteries both by rail,

by road, by water. And we are appreciative to you for your

support in helping us carry out this mission, and we're

gratified that the community of the Coastal Bend has also

endorsed our efforts.

Lastly, I would say that Judy's presence on the

commission has transformed us and allowed us to be more

visionary, because we have taken the navigation district,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

the port authority into San Patricio County. This was a

result of legislation passed only a few years ago. Some

people were cynical about that, but what it has allowed us

to do is to position the Port of Corpus Christi into

greater growth, and we believe that the future growth and

prosperity of the port and the Coastal Bend is going to

extend far beyond the borders of Nueces County into San

Patricio County because of our assets at Naval Station

Ingleside which reverts to the Port of Corpus Christi, the

development of our container terminal and the elevation of

the Harbor Bridge, to name a few, that link us not as two

counties, eliminating those artificial boundaries, but as

one region that's going to provide great job creation for

the state of Texas.

Without further ado, let me call upon

Commissioner Judy Hawley to provide some highlights.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. HAWLEY: Thank you. While we have this

slide up, I would like to just show you the parameters of

the navigation district now. You can see that the Port of

Corpus Christi really wraps around, it's kind of encircled

in that area, the blue area that's sort of like a

triangle. The Port of Corpus Christi literally has ship

channel going through San Patricio County and then coming

on into the Inner Harbor. So it is a greatly expanded


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

port and port jurisdiction, and a lot of that is what

we're going to talk about today.

You see the visual, this really does wrap all

the way around Corpus Christi Bay.

We'll go to the next slide which is one of our

first real successful joint ventures, and actually, this

was a first for TxDOT as well: the Joe Fulton Corridor

and the rail corridor.

What the Joe Fulton Corridor has done is it

has -- and I know some of you traveled it yesterday as you

came in early before the reception -- what it does is it

opens up 4-1/2 miles of deep water frontage on certainly

the largest tract in Texas and maybe one of the largest

tracts available in the United States.

What that does for us -- and you know how

timely this is with the events of the last few months --

is that is land, 1,200 acres that is eminently suitable

and appropriate for expanded refinery capacity, and deep

water right there, the infrastructure is already in place,

rail is going in, so you've got the pieces that are

already there, and you have partnered with us in making

this happen.

This was your largest project -- and Mike, you

were intimately in on this when we pulled this together,

and Billy Parks as well -- it's the largest project where


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

you have had a public entity be involved on the

contracting and project management and the engineering,

and it was one of those that just worked so successfully,

in record time, and with just tremendous trust between

TxDOT and the Port of Corpus Christi with our engineering

department led by Frank Brodie who has done such an

exemplary job with the management of this project.

Not only does this project open up huge assets

for the United States, for the state of Texas and for the

Port of Corpus Christi with the refining capacity, but it

also provides opportunities for some expanded trade, even

some spillover of the container trade that we're

anticipating once we have the La Quinta Trade Terminal

open.

Not only was it an engineering partnership that

was so eminently successful, but it was also a funding

partnership, and you can see that the very sources of

funds, just like all projects today, you just have to

cobble together the pieces wherever you can find them.

Local funds, federal funds, state funds, and the Port of

Corpus Christi actually put up half of the cash involved

in this project.

Those of you that travel that corridor can see

how close we are to being able to develop that and

actually have that materialize into some economic gains


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

for the state of Texas and certainly handle some of our

strategic refining capacity needs.

The La Quinta and Port-to-Port corridor has

been a project we've really worked on for the last ten

years, really before the container trade increased so

exponentially. And we've talked about that before with

the commission with the China trade, Far East trade, CAFTA

and NAFTA and lots of reasons for that happening, what's

happened at LA-Long Beach and on and on and on.

A couple of statistics that I'd like you to

just sort of hold in your back pocket, because I think

they are significant, is that in ten years the population

of both California and Texas together will increase to 65

million. In that same ten years, we are anticipating that

the container traffic coming into the United States -- and

this is really amazing -- will increase by 40 percent.

And to put that in just real terms from where we are right

now, in ten years that means we will need 12 more

Houstons, the capacity of 12 more Houstons to handle that

increased container traffic.

So it lets you see how timely we are and how

well positioned we are with the La Quinta Trade Corridor.

We have a lot of the infrastructure in place; we have the

permitting; the financing is in the Worther bill in front

of Congress right now, the parts that we don't have are


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

the parts where we have opportunities for partnerships

with you all, and that is capitalizing on that container

facility and linking it to our other corridors in

Mexico -- we're handling the water part, but the corridors

in Mexico and then the corridors on up into San Antonio

and points north, into Houston as well.

One of the advantages of having two container

facilities in Texas is it allows Texas to grow

exponentially. Houston does a great job, Houston is

expanding; Houston does not have the ability or the

capacity to handle all of the volume that's out there.

Chairman Williamson mentioned, I think last

night, if you go to Mobile, if you go to somewhere in

Louisiana, if you go to Florida, that trade is going to

come into the Gulf of Mexico, and we as Texans need to

capture that. Huge opportunities for export/import, huge

opportunities for expanded business opportunities, and

certainly more jobs.

The NASI redevelopment, as you know, we fought

a valiant fight to keep Naval Air Station Ingleside under

the Port of Corpus Christi. All the communities joined

together, it was a huge fight for us to keep that naval

facility in this area. We did not prevail. The Navy and

DOD decided to disseminate those assets to both coasts.

But there is the issue of the property which is


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

on a deep water ship channel, and the port is one of those

very few entities in the history of DOD which has

reversionary rights, and what that means is that we get

the right of first refusal. It's all in the details and

working out if there are going to be dollars associated

with that and what those dollars will be.

But the port, just as Austin was -- just as

actually Mobile was, Staten Island, there's just a handful

of examples, Pascagoula now is in that same position,

where instead of having to go through the public

conveyance process which is very time-consuming, you have

this option of just reverting back to this single entity

point of contact and then they can go ahead and handle

shift of the assets.

We're in that position in the Port of Corpus

Christi right now, and in that capacity we see that there

are many opportunities in that property, many of them

still militarily related. Before the BRAC, we had the

Coast Guard very interested in being there, the Army

Reserve wanted to put warehousing there, Military Sea Lift

wants to be there.

You know, you have partnered with us in a lot

of ventures to try and make us more military compliant for

the efficiency coming in, especially from Fort Hood and

Fort Bliss. That's another opportunity to handle that


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

military deployment there.

There are a number of other commercial

opportunities that avail themselves of that property. The

key to that is getting rail into there, and we were

working very closely with the Governor's Office as we were

going through the BRAC process about how to make that

property more military suitable, and part of that was to

bring in rail. We're still following that, looking to

bring that rail corridor in, working with the Governor's

Office, working with you all.

There are a number of options about how it

might be best to do that, but that rail into the La

Quinta/Ingleside area is critical for some of the economic

and certainly the military options that may be available

with that particular piece of property. So we'll continue

to visit with you on that.

Parlaying on this, I think you saw -- if you

haven't, please step out on the apron outside and you'll

see one -- again another deployment, and it's so

interesting to watch the loading of the material that's

heading over to Iraq.

We've played a huge role in this and we'll

continue to play a huge role, and I think you've been

briefed on this before, but with the relocation of a lot

of the force that were in Europe over back to Texas, Fort


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Bliss has had a huge increase, Fort Hood as well, and a

number of those have just sort of funneled down into the

Gulf Coast, the Port of Beaumont and the Port of Corpus

Christi are going to have an even larger role in

deployment.

Even as the war winds down, we're still going

to have those military deployments for exercises, and we

are ramping up. We've invested a lot of our own dollars

into building some expanded apron space and staging areas,

and you all have come in and helped us. And this is a

huge success story because this is about not only doing

what's right to make things happen, this is about being

American.

What you all helped us do with this, and not

only did you help us find a way to fund it through some

dollars that we managed to move some dollars from one

project to another project and it's really been such a

creative way to handle problems of strategic importance,

but what we have done is we've been able to do it fast

enough to make a difference.

We started talking to you less than a year ago

about the extreme need to get expanded rail into the Port

of Corpus Christi so that we could deploy quicker. And

with this rail, $5.2 million that you have helped us work

through, with that rail expansion -- which will be


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

completed by the first of next year, of 2006 -- we will be

able to handle those military deployments twice as fast as

we've been able to up to this point. So tremendous

investment being able to deploy that material through here

much, much faster.

So thank you for that partnership, thank you

for being responsive, and on top of that, it's the right

thing to do. And you talk about economic development,

what greater partner do we have in Texas than the

military. The military is a huge economic partner as well

as being good friends, good neighbors and a vital part of

what happens in our state.

Another project that we have on line with the

port is the channel improvement project. What we have

now, if you watched the exercise, if you watch ships pass

in our ship channel, it's narrow for them to especially

pass. They call it Texas Chicken where they have to

literally kind of sidle up close to each other and pass.

Fortunately, we have, I think, probably --

well, I say think, I know we have the safest record in the

state of Texas as far as moving traffic, a great pilot

organization and they do a great job. But one of the

things we're going to do to be able to handle more traffic

is to expand and have barge shelves on the outside, and

you can see that that gives us 400 additional feet for the


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

barges, and we have considerable barge traffic here.

We're also going to deepen to 530 feet and by

deepening, we'll be able to handle the larger ships, the

petrochemical ships, the tankers that are going to be

coming in. They don't have to be lighter so it becomes an

economic efficiency for them coming in to use this port.

So anticipating the huge size of those tankers, ultimately

positioning ourselves for some of the bigger container

ships as well.

Harbor Bridge air draft limitation. Right now

we are limited to 138 vertical clearance. You don't think

about that when you think about ships, but if you've ever

been on the Harbor Bridge and one of those tankers it was

kind of a close call. We have to have more air draft for

a couple of reasons. Some of the larger ships that are

coming through that have been developed have not been able

to use this ship channel, so that's one of the pieces that

helps us economically; the other, there's a huge interest

in the cruise industry in this area, and those larger

ships are not able to come through either.

But the big rationale from the port's

perspective is that it will allow us to take advantage of

bringing in these supertankers that do need an air draft

up to 200 feet, and we're limited right now to 138 feet.

And that's a project that we've done some initial work,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

one of the MPO's concerns, and you'll be hearing more

about that in the future.

And the Inner Harbor redevelopment initiatives,

one of the things that we have found in the port business

is successful ports use their assets wisely, and their

assets are waterfront assets but people also like to be by

the waterfront, and areas that maybe traditionally have

sort of been rundown can be converted into areas that the

public can use and take advantage of and they become real

assets for the community.

So that redevelopment, retail, sports,

entertainment, hotel district of which this is a part, is

part of that redevelopment effort to allow the public to

have more access and use that land better.

The Harbor Bridge replacement, you saw has

military labor, the Fulton Boat Dock 3, military labor

that's over there on the north side, and new terminal

locations that's on the north side as well.

So lots of projects that are going on, we're a

vibrant port, but the reason we've been so successful is

because of the great partnership we've had with the State

of Texas and the vision of this particular commission has

really made our job easier and it excites us to think

about the opportunities we have by working with you.

So thank you again for your presence here.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Before I sign off, I would like to say, and I'd be remiss

in not saying thank you to our district engineers. We've

had such a great string of district engineers in this

area. Mike Behrens, once we have you, you're always ours,

and we had you for a while. Billy Parks is here, we had

him as a great district engineer. We had David Casteel

and you stole him from us, Hope, but we almost forgive you

for that, and he did a great job. And now we have Craig

Clark and what a super job you all did last night, I've

just heard rave reviews about that, and we're just

delighted to have your leadership in Corpus Christi as

well.

Thank you to the commission for being here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait. Any questions for Judy?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thanks.

MR. BONILLA: Mr. Chairman, I'm back briefly

wearing a different hat, as Mr. Johnson stated earlier, as

chairman of the MPO. As a member of the Port Commission

and as chairman of the Port Commission, I have the

pleasure and privilege of serving on the MPO. It's called

the Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization

which is really a misnomer because it includes the City of

Corpus Christi, the City of Portland, Gregory and San

Patricio County through its able and very committed judge,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Terry Simpson.

But let me recognize Thomas Fallon and his

staff from the MPO -- if you would stand, please -- just

so you'll know the team behind this effort, the staff that

is here. Thank you.

I have a few prepared remarks and I'd like to

make those for the record because these are matters of

achievement and matters of cooperative and collective

efforts between the MPO and your agency.

As chairman of the MPO, I'd like to thank the

commission for providing communities across Texas with

progressive financial alternatives that will enable us to

accelerate the development for needed projects on the

Coastal Bend.

As you know, the replacement of the Harbor

Bridge, its elevation is vital to the safety and increased

cargo opportunities, as outlined by Commissioner Hawley.

Linked to construction to the new Harbor Bridge is needed

capacity on State Highway 286, known locally as the

Crosstown and added capacity on Padre Island Drive, or SH

358.

We're currently exploring the financing

alternatives available to build these projects in the next

ten years by using the tools you have provided.

Otherwise, it would take us 30 years.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Local mobility projects are not the only

priority of the city and the Port of Corpus Christi.

Projects that provide regional connectivity are essential

to sustaining the economic vitality of South Texas.

The MPO is making certain we establish a

transportation network that capitalizes upon our global

competitive position, our productivity and our efficiency.

I would like to emphasize those projects of regional

significance that will establish a trade triangle between

Laredo, the city of San Antonio, Corpus Christi, all

leading, with seamless transportation arteries by rail and

land, into Mexico.

The first being what Judy referred to as the La

Quinta Terminal, that we also refer to as a Port-to-Port,

Laredo to La Quinta freightway. The continued development

of intermodal port facilities in Texas is vital and

necessary to meet the demands of international trade.

The need to link our inland ports like Laredo

to seaports that have the capacity to efficiently move

freight and cargo are readily apparent. The MPO continues

to stress the feasibility of developing an exclusive

freight corridor between the Port of Corpus Christi and

Laredo.

A TxDOT-sponsored feasibility study is underway

that is developing a concept for a truck-only tollway


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

linking Corpus Christi and the 21-mile Camino Colombia

Tollway which was recently acquired by TxDOT. This

exclusive freightway will be designed for overweight,

high-speed operation of trucks only from the inland port

of Laredo to the Port of Corpus Christi and the La Quinta

container terminal.

The second project of regional significance is

the US 77 Cross-Border Trail. Connectivity to the Rio

Grande Valley is equally as important as trade routes from

Latin America and Mexico seek alternatives to the Laredo

port of entry. A coalition of economic development

interests from Harlingen to Corpus Christi have been

exploring the benefits of an initial phase appropriating

existing US 77 from the Valley to I-37 in Corpus Christi,

providing an interface with the highway system in Mexico.

Projects in the TxDOT Pharr District have

resulted in the majority of US 77 being improved by the

controlled access corridor. However, major projects in

the Corpus Christi District remain unfunded, including a

relief route around Driscoll, a relief route around

Ricardo, and additional intersection crossings at

Kingsville, Ricardo and Sarita.

Development of this trade corridor benefits the

entire Gulf Coast, including the Port of Corpus Christi

and our colleagues at the Port of Houston.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Recent natural tragedies like Katrina and Rita

have underscored the need of having significant

alternative ports of entry. During the recent hurricanes,

almost 35 percent of our nation's refining capacity was

shut down. Much cargo was diverted to the Port of Corpus

Christi, and with these improved corridors, we can expect

increased freight traffic as shippers learn the

opportunities and the efficiencies available in South

Texas.

The third regional project which was also

referred to in Judy's comments is the strategic military

support, but it has a highway linkage. Due to the war

against terrorism, the efficient deployment of military

materials and vehicles through the strategic military

ports of Corpus Christi and Beaumont have become a high

priority.

The development of a strategic military

highway, utilizing US 181, State Highway 123, and the new

Austin toll road, SH 130 between Fort Hood and the Port of

Corpus Christi, will support the capability of the Port of

Corpus Christi. Obviously other supporting projects are

in various stages such as improved rail access which has

been earlier explained.

In addition, improvements to the Port Avenue

which is the entry path of Whataburger Field leading to I-


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

37 will permit the improvement and the movement of

oversized and overweight cargo from I-37 to dock

facilities in our port efficiency operations. The

planning and design is scheduled for 2006 and accelerated

funding is being sought for construction.

Project number 4 is the South Loop. This is a

creative idea arising from the growth of South Texas which

has resulted in significant population growth on Padre and

Mustang islands.

Safe access to the island was enhanced with the

elevation of SH 358 causeway, but planning for the

development of additional capacity is needed. The initial

concept of a relief route from I-37 to south Corpus

Christi and Padre Island was developed in the late '90s.

The funding for the first phase, the environmental

review -- which I believe is $1.5 million -- is programmed

for this year, and is a collaboration between the MPO,

TxDOT, the county, and the City of Corpus Christi that is

of high value to our region.

This new corridor will provide not only a

relief from I-37 around Corpus Christi with a new

connection to the island but will also provide a relief

route around Robstown that connects US 77 to SH 55 and IH

37. The development of this new capacity is only possible

utilizing the new financial tools offered by the


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

legislature and by the commission.

Lastly, a word about the importance of

hurricane preparedness. Recent events have shown the

vulnerability to our coastal transportation network.

Although improvements to SH 358 and US 181 causeway has

improved the region's evacuation potential, other water

crossings, such as the I-37 bridge over the Nueces River,

are of concern.

The MPO Policy Committee has asked our MPO

staff to explore the issues associated with the safe

evacuation of our area and improvements needed to ensure

access by relief vehicles and equipment following an

emergency event.

The demands on our transportation network have

increased as health, safety and security have become

increased priority for our region. Our MPO supports

collaborative planning and welcomes the financial tools

you have provided to make our plans a reality. Our

regional mobility with the Free Trade Alliance in San

Antonio, USA, and the San Antonio Economic Foundation

headed by Mario Fernandez, as well as stakeholders'

incentives in Laredo will help refine our trade triangle

in Texas and promote seamless transportation links by sea,

land and rail into Latin America.

Finally, just a couple of days ago there was a


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

headline here where the city council okayed flights to

Monterrey, providing needed air service, direct passenger

service between our two great communities that compliments

the thoughts and strategies that are outlined and

envisioned by your body and supported by the MPO.

We believe that the Coastal Bend, and

specifically the Port of Corpus Christi, is indeed the

gateway to the world. It's a message that we are shouting

across the country.

I might just conclude, Mr. Chairman, that as I

see you sitting under the Port of Corpus Christi

Authority, the same seating where Commissioner Carrell and

Commissioner Hawley and I sit, that your presence here

certainly elevates the stature of our port commission.

I'll be happy to entertain any questions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought the joke was good.

I don't think the Houston Texans do know where the goal

line is.

(General laughter.)

MR. BONILLA: My son at the University of

Texas, who thinks the BCS is the greatest thing in the

world, was the architect of that joke, so I'll be sure and

advise him of that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Being from North Texas, I can

tell you the Dallas Cowboys are having a hard time finding


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

the chalk line too.

Well, I'm sure we have several questions,

Commissioner, Chairman. We, first of all, want to thank

you for the presentation.

Anything specific, members?

MR. JOHNSON: I have one or two. I had a

question. Commissioner Hawley's presentation talked about

deepening the channel, and I was curious as to both the

additional depth that the channel is going to and also the

additional width, and what do you see as the timing of

that.

MS. HAWLEY: Well, the timing, of course,

depends on the financing and the financing or the big hunk

of that is right now in WRDA and I think it's passed the

House but it hasn't passed the Senate. It's been in WRDA

since last year and they just didn't pass the WRDA bill

which is the Water Resources Development Act, they just

didn't get it done. So our consultants in Washington are

giving us a little more hope that it's going to get

through this year.

The La Quinta project, part of that deepening

is tied up with this, but if the WRDA does not come

through at this point in time, we have the authority to go

ahead and deepen that and then when WRDA comes through

then being compensated for that. So the La Quinta project


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

we could and would move forward regardless of that, but

we're looking at as soon as the funding is made available,

and there will be a local match, of course, that we'll

have to come up with. And that's still variable, they're

not sure if that's going to be 15 percent, 10 percent. It

hasn't been defined yet, so there are still some issues

out there, and that, of course, will determine when we

start as well. But it's a project that we'd like to get

underway as soon as possible.

MR. CARRELL: I think the cost is significant

as far as the match because the deeper you go, the more

the sharing.

MR. JOHNSON: What is the additional depth?

MR. CARRELL: Forty-five to 50 feet.

MR. JOHNSON: And the additional width?

MS. HAWLEY: Four hundred; 200-foot barge

shelves on each side.

MR. BONILLA: If we go to 55 feet, there's a

more favorable sharing formula, the percentage for the

Port of Corpus Christi is less, and that legislation is

tied up in Congress, and since the attention seems to be

focused on Supreme Court nominations today, we may or may

not have that legislation passed favorably this session.

But it's presented each congressional session and this is

the first time it has passed one of the houses, so we


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

believe it's inevitable.

And as we deepen the channel we'll be able to

receive ships of greater depth so they'll be able to bring

in more cargo, and that will ultimately reduce the cost

of, we believe, fuel, also reduce the cost of consumer

goods.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Just to give us some

comparison, how deep is the Houston Ship Channel.

MR. BONILLA: Houston just went to 45 recently,

and we've been at 45, Frank?

MR. BROGAN: Since 1989.

MR. CARRELL: I think part of the significance

of having the port -- we keep referring to Frank. Frank

you might want to come up.

MS. HAWLEY: Frank is the engineer to whom I

referred and sort of the brains behind the Joe Fulton

Corridor process.

MR. CARRELL: Yesterday when Commissioner

Houghton and I were taking a tour of the Fulton Causeway,

I think he made a comment about how many times ships get

to the port, and I think you said three to five different

times to lighten it to get to the size where it can

transport into the Port of Corpus Christi.

And back on Chairman Bonilla's comment about

the cost, help us on that.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. BROGAN: Total project price for the

deepening, widening and extension is $200 million total.

That would include government share, local share and

private share for things like pipeline lowering.

MR. CARRELL: And I thought at a 50-something-

foot depth we had like 50 percent sharing and at 45 it's

only 75-25.

MR. BROGAN: That's correct. The old formula

was 75-25 and the break point if we went deeper than 45

feet, then the local sponsors were obligated to put up 50

percent. And as more ports around the nation are going

deeper than 45, the West Coast and the East Coast, there

is increasing pressure to revisit that matching formula

and try and adjust that to get it back to the 75 federal

and 25 local, so that's an effort we're working on.

MR. CARRELL: And I think if WRDA takes enough

time, we'll finally outlast them and have a better

equation, because we can't move forward without the WRDA

bill.

MR. BROGAN: And I think one of the significant

advantages that our own port has over other ports in the

gulf is that we're closer to the deep water line out in

the Gulf of Mexico than any other port is, and what that

does is that reduces the length of the channel that has to

be dredged and reduces the cost.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Houston, for example, wanted to go from 40 feet

to 50 feet, but that cost is going to exceed $1 billion to

do that because their channel is so much longer. Because

our channel is so much shorter, then our cost is that much

less. But it's just a few miles offshore to get to 52

feet, whereas it's much, much longer in Houston, and

that's why we've always had that advantage. We're the

first port on the Gulf Coast to have 45 feet, and with any

luck, we'll be the first port to have 50 feet. But other

ports around the nation are getting ahead of us, on the

West Coast and the East Coast, and we need to continue to

press forward with that project.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, with your

permission and indulgence of the port commissioners, and

with this many potential voters in the room, I wanted to

talk about the importance of Proposition 1 on the ballot

Tuesday.

There's an interplay here between the port and

rail that it's a multimodal issue. The port owns 26 miles

of rail that circulates throughout the port assets, and

the creation of the Texas Rail Relocation Fund provided

for in Proposition 1 will serve as a twin to the Texas

Mobility Fund which has been the huge shot in the arm for

surface transportation. And this will enable a fund to

relocate rail and to do rail improvements, and I think the


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

port will benefit and our urban areas around the state

will benefit.

I mentioned this morning it's sort of been

conspicuous by its absence, the fact that there is an

election on the 8th and early voting is on seems to not be

in the public focus. So I want to take this opportunity

to mention that and how important it is from a multimodal

aspect, and as I mentioned in my prelude, I don't think

there's any community that I'm aware of that has done the

job on a multimodal basis as Corpus Christi and the

surrounding area.

So please consider that one vote and please

consider that when you do vote.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I appreciate you bringing that

up because you're right, the linkage between the rail

relocation fund and what the commission wishes to do with

their port is pretty apparent.

Ted?

MR. HOUGHTON: It looks to me that your

container operations is a big part of your future. Who is

your partner, or do you have a partner in that on the

private side?

MR. BONILLA: We're engaged in discussions. We

had an MOU with ICT-SI for about six months, and that's

one of the largest Philippine container terminal operators


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

in the world. That did not quite materialize when they

shifted their focus to Asia.

However, we have engaged another firm and we

have met with their senior staff and we anticipate taking

some action on that in November. So while it hasn't been

ratified by the commission, therefore it's still

proprietary information, we're very optimistic. We have

cleared all the environmental hurdles, we've received

permitting by the Corps of Engineers, the community of San

Patricio County and Nueces have endorsed the project so

that we have uniform stakeholder support. And we've even

spoken to GLO about some innovative financing tools that

may enable us to sell the land and lease it back.

So there's various financing tools, and we're

very confident we're going to have a private equity

partner here in less than 30 days.

MR. HOUGHTON: Is there a demand by the

manufacturers/shippers for a container port here?

MR. BONILLA: We believe there is. For

example, as a result of CAFTA, we're seeing new

opportunities in Central America. We have just announced

the importation of melons for the first time into Corpus

Christi from Honduras via shipping interests in Colombia.

Just this week we had a Colombia vessel bring in imported

meats.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

As Judy was explaining, the idea is that we

develop alternatives to the congestion on the West Coast.

We don't have the labor problems that exist on the West

Coast and we don't have the congestion that exists on the

West Coast. And while the West Coast, Long Beach and LA

may bring in 12 to 13 million containers a year, China is

building new ports almost every six months that are

generating 15 million containers per port, so the

congestion is only going to increase. And what Asian

shipping lines are looking at is an alternative, and that

alternative, one alternative, other than the Panama Canal

and on into La Quinta, would be coming to the West Coast

ports of Mexico, Lazaro Cardenas, specifically.

And there was a slide earlier -- we might bring

it up -- linking Lazaro Cardenas with Laredo and then on

into the Port of Corpus Christi, and that underscores the

importance of that freight corridor.

Kansas City Southern, you may recall, bought

out TexMex and TFM, and so now Kansas City Southern has

seamless transportation link from Kansas City right to

Lazaro Cardenas. There needs to be some rehab on some of

the rail in Mexico, but it's going to happen. And so La

Quinta, as it develops, we believe, is going to be an

ideal location and will not in any way be in a competitive

environment with the Port of Houston.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Lastly, we're looking for a major retailer that

will set up a distribution hub. That has to be a Wal-

Mart, could be a Target, could be a Toys R Us, a Lowe's,

and once that distribution center is set up at La Quinta,

then we believe that the shipping lines will come

automatically because they're going to follow the cargo.

We have already a 500,000-square-foot cotton

compress warehouse facility at La Quinta, so we already

have an agricultural hub, so ultimately we will not only

have a general cargo distribution center but also be a

magnet and a distribution export center for cotton

worldwide.

MS. HAWLEY: Ruben, just to follow up on what

you said, in some of our conversations with some of the

major retailers, we have learned -- this is anecdotal --

that had we already had La Quinta operational, that would

have affected/impacted their decisions on where to locate

their distribution centers. So it's the chicken-and-egg

thing.

So we know that there's huge interest, it's

just when they needed to the access, they need it now, and

we're still three years away from having something

operational. So that's one.

And the other thing -- and Hope knows this --

in the interchange with Kelly Field and Toyota, there's a


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

lot of interest in getting our container terminal.

There's a lot of drive there because the cost of shipping

containers to them is exponentially less. So we're

getting some demand from that direction just because of

our location.

MR. JOHNSON: I probably shouldn't say this

because I might not be able to return home, but don't be

apologetic about being competitive to the Port of Houston.

If nobody is going to challenge them, they're not going to

get bigger and they're not going to get better. I believe

very firmly that the only way we improve is that somebody

is challenging us, whether that's in your business or what

you're trying to provide, you know, it's the people of

this area and the people of the state. So don't be

apologetic, please.

MR. BONILLA: Well, an example of that,

Commissioner, is the strategic military designation. I

really welcome and appreciate your comments because when

that opportunity arose in the mid-'90s , not too many

ports wanted it. You know, we were at peacetime, relative

peace, and the Port of Corpus Christi, under the

leadership of Frank Brogan and Alice Faber, sought it

aggressively. Port of Houston did not express any

interest, the Port of Beaumont had an interest.

So now these two ports, Beaumont and Corpus


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Christi, provide almost 50 percent of all cargo that's

being shipped to Iraq in defense of our freedom, so it's a

great story and I think it underscores the importance of

your declaration. So thank you.

MS. ANDRADE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

First of all, for the record, I'd like to thank you for

all the support that you've given this corridor from

Laredo to Corpus Christi. I want to thank you for

arranging the meeting a couple of months ago where

Commissioner Houghton and I were present. I truly think

that was a historical moment when we got two communities

together to support this, so thank you.

But my question on La Quinta is if all

negotiations move forward with the potential partner that

you may have, when do you think you will hang a sign "Open

for Business"?

MR. BONILLA: I'll let Frank Brogan answer that

one.

MR. BROGAN: Three years is, I think, a very

realistic time frame, and if possible, we may be able to

cut some time off that. But I think three years is the

target I would set.

MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.

MR. BONILLA: And I might add that -- without,

I guess, violating the public trust here -- we have


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

already scheduled meetings between senior staff and the

private party, so it's gone beyond the policy level, and

that's in anticipation of refining the MOU and having

strategic timetables about construction.

MS. ANDRADE: That's great. I still remember

when I came here, it was your dream and your vision, so

congratulations.

MR. BONILLA: Thank you. We look forward to

working with you as that project unfolds.

MS. ANDRADE: We do too.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to echo something John

said. Don't be apologetic about Houston. I mean, we're

going to invest in Houston. The state is going to invest

in Houston, its going to invest in Brownsville, it's going

to invest in Corpus Christi. The state is going to invest

wherever there's an economic opportunity to be increased

for its citizens, and if that's Corpus Christi, that's

fine, and we believe our partners in Houston understand.

We know in the past there's been some perhaps

sibling rivalry in our state between ports, but we hope

the governor has kind of made clear to everybody those

days are over, no more whining, no more begging. You

know, we need to get ready for 35 years from now, 30 years

from now, and that includes an aggressive deep water port

in Corpus Christi, without a doubt.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. BONILLA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Using a

sports analogy, we don't expect to strike out. As a

matter of fact, Houston needs us because our Hooks are

hitters.

MS. HAWLEY: We'd better sit down.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Was Mr. Noe coming back up, or

is he done with his piece?

MR. BONILLA: He's done.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me just comment right

quick about you made a couple of points in your

presentation about some projects you're going to be

working with us on.

We don't want to be scary but we do believe in

being direct about where we're headed. We will

increasingly tell our employees in the districts and they

will increasingly tell their contacts in the communities,

we're going to ask the question how does this project

reduce congestion or increase safety or improve air

quality or offer economic opportunity or conserve and

improve the value of our asset, because that's the key

question.

That question popped into my head when you were

talking about the spur and helping Texas A&M Corpus

Christi. The first thing I thought about was: Well,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

where does the state benefit from that.

And so we're trying to look at things like is

this a local road and are we primarily addressing a local

issue and is it local congestion, local air quality or

whatever, or is this a regional road and are we addressing

a regional issue, or is this a statewide road and are we

addressing a statewide issue.

You know, by inference, things that are more

local and less regional and state that don't reduce

congestion or improve air quality or advance economic

opportunity or improve the safety or improve the value of

our assets are going to be less attractive for state

partnering than regional roads or state roads that do meet

those qualifications.

So the governor's instructions were clear, he

didn't want Texans to have to beg for their own money. He

wanted a process in place where every Texan, whether it

was a Texan from Brownsville or Texarkana or Amarillo or

El Paso, knew what the criteria was for hoping to have the

state as a partner in these projects. And I would just

emphasize that to you on your work with the locals.

We're going to be very aggressive in helping,

but we have filters we have to use to keep from building

the road to nowhere for no reason.

MR. NOE: And we certainly understand that. In


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

our application there's areas of transportation congestion

and arguments for our proposal, and it's in the

application

MR. WILLIAMSON: And maybe I shouldn't have

focused on this. That one just happened to catch my eye.

I mean, it's any of them, really. Like helping with the

rail in the yard, that meets the highest check mark

qualifications for everywhere we want to go. That's why

the governor was so quick to tell us to do that, because

it meets his criteria.

So I don't want to like throw cold water on

your project, but we are looking at things a little bit

differently across the state so that we can honestly tell

the citizens, you know, your money is being leveraged with

the private sector and partnered with local and regional

government on a rational basis that will produce clear

results.

MR. NOE: And we appreciate that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you ever find your

business, Craig?

MR. CLARK: What's that?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Weren't you looking for your

CD or something?

MR. CLARK: That was the CD.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought we were looking for


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

a new CD.

MR. CLARK: No. It's all the same one, and I

appreciate your indulgence while we obviously go into

extra innings.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And Johnson is sent to the

showers. It's a long walk down the dugout.

(General laughter.)

MR. HOUGHTON: I did notice one thing on the

presentation that I should have pointed out real early,

the campus of Texas A&M -- I don't know if you can pull

that slide back up. I'm helping John kill some time here.

It's slide number 7, page 7. Now go and enlarge that.

Do you notice anything there, Ric? Did you

have a private beach at your university? Did you notice

that private beach sitting there?

MR. CLARK: It is a research site.

(General laughter.)

MR. HOUGHTON: We've got a lot of beach out in

El Paso but we don't have any water.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We didn't have a private beach

but we did have a football team that could score a

touchdown. It's okay, it's been a few years since we

could say that, though.

MR. HOUGHTON: I was just curious. That is

quite interesting, a private beach. Very nice.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. WILLIAMSON: How are you going to enlarge

the campus? Are you going to go across the water or are

you going to recover, or what are you going to do?

MR. NOE: The university is in a long-range

planning process. There are number of things that are

currently focused on campus that can be located out in the

community, the nursing program and a number of others.

They're also looking for another second campus site that

can serve as a point for a much larger campus.

MR. HOUGHTON: Are they capped out on

enrollment?

MR. NOE: There's not a cap. They're growing

at significant rates and will be at 10,000 probably in the

next two years.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, the problem that is

unfortunate is that -- and the legislative members aren't

here -- the problem the state faces -- our focus is

transportation and we will stay focused on our business,

but the problem the state faces is if your population is

going to 50 million, the implication is you've got to have

more universities, you've got to have more medical

schools, you've got to have more law schools, you have to

have more public schools, and we have been for so long a

state of -- and I think should remain -- a state of

limited service, limited taxation and limited regulation.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

It is sometimes hard for us to kind of get a

grasp on the fact that there's a reason why these college

guys go beg for more money because they've got more

students to educate. And if we wanted to put colleges on

100 percent toll collection and make the students pay for

everything, they wouldn't come ask us for money. It's a

dilemma for the state to figure out how to deal with this

stuff. But it's a good dilemma, it means we're tight-

fisted and we watch the people's money carefully.

John is back. I didn't know they let people

return in the pros, I thought once you were out, you were

out.

MR. JOHNSON: So does that mean I'm supposed to

leave?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm like Ted, I'm just trying

to buy some time.

(General laughter.)

MR. CLARK: As a district, we welcome you to

the Corpus Christi District, an area where thousands of

people come every year seeking sun, the beach, fish and

birds, our rich history, and every 30 years or so a white

Christmas.

Located along the Gulf Coast between San

Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley, we include ten counties

covering 7,806 square miles. There are just over 550,000


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

people and 440,000 registered vehicles. We have 2,800

centerline miles and almost 6,900 lane miles of highway.

Truly multimodal, the Corpus Christi District

includes a port, a ferry system, the Gulf Intracoastal

Waterway, an international airport, 14 general aviation

airports, a regional public transportation system, and a

rural public transportation system.

As you have seen in the previous presentations

from Corpus Christi, the port, and the MPO, we have many

transportation challenges. We have emerging congestion,

arterials clogged by commercial development, high growth

areas needing commuter connections, and corridor

transportation limitations that impede commercial and

industrial growth.

But we have a plan and we have new tools, and

when we combine these tools with willing local partners

and combine with conventional resources, we can meet these

challenges.

Transportation planning in a coastal area

requires consideration of hurricane evacuation. The

Corpus Christi District has several projects coming to

completion to enhance our evacuation.

Two projects totaling $18.4 million provided

signs and paving that allowed for reconfiguration of 83.5

miles of the northbound lanes of Interstate 37 to convert


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

a 10-foot shoulder to a 13-foot hurricane lane that can be

opened to provide added capacity. This allows for the

existing three-lane urban section to operate as four lanes

and the existing two-lane rural section to operate as

three lanes. Our friends in the San Antonio District have

a project currently under construction that will continue

this section all the way to Pleasanton.

We also have raised the JFK Causeway eight

feet, increasing the available evacuation window for a

growing island population. We widened northbound Graham

from SH 358 to Interstate 37 to allow for a two-lane

connection and enhanced operation in an evacuation. We

raised and added capacity to US 181 from the Nueces Bay

Causeway to Portland, and we are constructing a grade

separation in Gregory that will allow for continuous

traffic flow.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita threatened us early

and allowed us to test our evacuation plans. We also got

the chance to view evacuation experiences from other areas

and apply them to our situation. We intend to collect a

wide variety of lessons learned and improve our plans,

infrastructure and public information efforts.

Our three-year transportation improvement plan,

developed through our MPO in the metro area and through

regional rural TIP meetings in the rural area, includes


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

115 projects totaling nearly $380 million.

Our district allocation under the UTP provides

almost $800 million over a ten-year period in the

Statewide Mobility Program fund and $360 million in

Statewide Preservation funds, and this provides the base

funding to plan for our needs and leverage or use in

equity for plans that we develop with our local partners

to deliver transportation infrastructure with new funding

tools.

The increased demands for transportation in

Texas requires that we plan in terms of corridor needs.

The improvement along the US 181 corridor is needed to

meet the demands of expanding industrial activities, to

provide critical hurricane evacuation capacity for growing

populations, as well as allow access to tourists at

recreation areas east of I-37.

As was indicated in the port and MPO

presentations, the Harbor Bridge presents a significant

mobility impediment for US 181. It's a 46-year-old steel

structure over saltwater, squeezing six lanes with no

shoulders that cross 60,000 vehicles a day. With a steep

vertical grade and sharp horizontal curves on each end,

the bridge presents a safety risk. With high truck

volumes and many petrochemical cargos moving through

population areas, there's also a public safety issue as


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

well.

The US 59 corridor is a rural trunk system

corridor that provides east-west connectivity from Laredo

to Victoria, then Houston. This corridor was the subject

of a report to the commission in August by the Tri-County

Coalition. We are interested in working with our counties

along this vital corridor to look for ways to advance

capacity and add operational improvements.

The US 77 corridor provides a vital commercial

route from the Rio Grande Valley Border areas to Corpus

Christi and on to Victoria and Houston. We have a couple

of active projects adding controlled access highway

sections in Corpus Christi and Kingsville. We have a $6.5

million earmark in the Federal Highway Bill to be used to

help fund the continuation of a controlled access section

of highway through Robstown. We will continue to look for

opportunities to enhance mobility along this critical

corridor.

The Port-to-Port project envisions a truck

tollway that would provide high-speed and extra weight

traffic east and west from the ports of entry at Laredo to

the Port of Corpus Christi and other Gulf Coast ports. We

are studying the market forces and potential that would

allow this corridor to provide enhancements needed to meet

growing international trade and economic development.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

SAFETEA-LU also provides a $5 million earmark

to study a site near Robstown for a trade-processing and

inland center. We've expanded our Port-to-Port study area

to include this location and explore the effect of this

combination to improve and enhance trade and

transportation.

The Corpus Christi District lies in the

crossroads of the TTC I-35 and I-69 TTC segments of the

Trans-Texas Corridor. Thirty-one public meetings have

been held in the Corpus Christi District on the Trans-

Texas Corridor, and many in our area are keenly aware of

the huge economic advantages available from this proximity

to these super corridors.

In the BUILD IT component of our business, we

have a robust current construction program of 59 projects

across the district totaling $464 million. We have

several active projects adding controlled access highway

sections. We have several projects that provide

operational improvements that mitigate congestion and

delay. There are a number of projects around the district

that provide added capacity and operational improvements

on clogged local arterials.

In our USE IT business category, we start with

our ferry operations. Currently we have six 20-car boats

in operation with four sets of landings. This system


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

carries well over 2 million vehicles per year. We can see

rapid resort and residential development and ever-

increasing peak demands that will exceed our existing

capacity. We have a fifth set of landings under

construction and SAFETEA-LU included an earmark of

$320,000 for the design of a larger 28-car ferry boat.

We held a public hearing in Port Aransas on

September 19, 2005, regarding the rules for establishing

fees for priority boarding. There was good attendance and

great interest in how this would apply to our ferry

operations.

There was also legislation passed last session,

Senate Bill 1131, that would allow Port Aransas direct

access to many of the new funding tools and apply them to

ferry operations.

We're excited about the implementation of our

ITS system here in Corpus Christi. Besides the ability to

improve traffic operations and safety on our urban

expressways, we are looking forward to applying the

technology to our hurricane evacuations and exploring

applications to enhance trade and freight movements.

As I mentioned before, we have 14 general

aviation airports in the district and many of them have

made good use of TxDOT programs for maintenance and

capital improvements.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

We have three active rural public

transportation providers serving our rural populations.

Our district is active in TxDOT traffic safety

activities. We have great cooperation from our local law

enforcement, local media, and local groups interested in

traffic safety. We are convinced that our efforts have a

positive effect on driver behaviors and improve safety and

save lives.

We very much appreciated the great help and

cooperation we received from the new Whataburger Stadium

and the Corpus Christi Hooks on our Click-it or Ticket

event, so much so that I was led to showcase my services

on the mound. I offered to work into the rotation, but so

far the Hooks have not called me.

(General laughter.)

MR. CLARK: In our MAINTAIN IT category our

area presents some great challenges to highway

maintenance. Much of our district is low elevation with

large flat flood plains and active clay soils. Besides

the coastal climate and geological challenges, we have a

mix of marine, petrochemical and agricultural traffic.

This brings a lot of routine wide and heavy loads,

sometimes super-heavy loads.

The load shown is a Texas record that moved

through the Corpus Christi District and weighed in at


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

nearly 2 million pounds.

These conditions, combined with a large volume

of narrow pavements, create many problems for our

maintenance forces. As you can see, over 50 percent of

the FM mileage in our district is deficient. We are

fortunate to have dedicated personnel in our maintenance

operations that are innovative in finding solutions to

preserve a quality transportation system.

Besides our Harbor Bridge, Corpus Christi has

over 1,200 bridges on this on-system of many types and

eras, from the first segmental bridge built in Texas to 28

steel-timber structures. Our current three-year TIP

includes 15 on-system bridge replacements totaling over

$16 million. Our three-year off-system bridge plans to

replace 19 bridges totaling over $7 million.

To manage these challenges and the many areas,

I am blessed with an outstanding district organization,

comprised of dedicated and talented people. We maintain

our personnel numbers to stay close to our FTE allocation

of 437 and maintain a staff-to-supervision ratio of nearly

12.5 to one.

We have a relatively young but highly

experienced management group. Our directors average 19

years with TxDOT; my area engineers average 20 with TxDOT.

Across the organization, over 70 percent have more than


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

five years' experience.

To help us meet these many challenges, we're

fortunate to have a good local pool of consultant

engineers available with a wide variety of disciplines and

experience.

As I wrap up our district report, I am showing

a slide from the time when the Harbor Bridge was new and

our challenges were different but our dedication to the

task was still the same.

I would like to end by allowing the Honorable

Glenn Guillory, our Aransas County judge, to come up and

address the commission. He has requested an opportunity

to thank the commission for the work that TxDOT has done

in Aransas County.

JUDGE GUILLORY: Mr. Chairman, members, thank

you very much for the opportunity to address this body.

We're talking a project that we recently completed in

Aransas County. By some standards it's a piddling little

contract, it only cost about $20 million, but the

importance of it will be made up in a minute.

I know you want me to be brief --

MR. WILLIAMSON: No. Take your time.

JUDGE GUILLORY: Thank you, sir. I'm a

Louisiana Cajun by birth and a Texas politician by

occupation, so I've got two strikes against me.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

(General laughter.)

JUDGE GUILLORY: About a decade ago, there was

a four-lane, divided highway with access roads and

overpasses designed to replace the Highway 35 between the

San Patricio County line and Rockport. Unfortunately, due

to budget constraints, a two-lane highway was built.

In the first year of operation of that highway,

we lost 16 people, the next year we lost people at the

average of about one a month. To put that in perspective,

if we opened the Houston-Galveston highway, just on a

census basis, the first year they would have lost 500

people. If you would have extended that by distance that

they have four times as much highway as we do, it would

have been 2,000 people. Of course, that wasn't

acceptable.

So we put together a delegation -- San

Antonio -- with about 2,000 signatures on a petition which

is about 10 percent of the people in the county. When we

got to San Antonio to make our presentation, we found that

we were behind Houston asking for $200 million and San

Antonio asking for about $150 million. So we figured by

the time they got to our $20 million we had about a chance

of a snowball in hell of getting funded, we thought the

commission would probably be out robbing banks to try to

fund those projects.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Well, we were wrong. The project was funded,

the commission in the meeting made a commitment to try to

fund that project, and in fact it was. They scratched

around and found bits here and there, they went ahead and

redesigned the project, and over the next five-year

period, that project was built.

As Judy mentioned -- and Judy was at the

delegation, she was a representative then, and Gene Seaman

was as well -- there were three managers during the term

of that project: Billy Parks who has subsequently retired

and gone over to the dark side --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Absolutely.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE GUILLORY: -- and of course, David and

Craig. And there's been an amazing amount of consistency

over those three managers during the project, but that's

not the amazing part either, although I would be probably

remiss in not mentioning one more name, and that's Bill

Wrightman who was the engineer for the entire project.

He's your engineer out of Sinton and he did a wonderful

job.

It's a marvelous project, and the marvelous

thing about the project is that 4-1/2 years, with all the

heavy equipment running up and down that highway, the

amount of work that was done, over a million cubic yards


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

of dirt moved over a five-year period, there were two

deaths, and that's just amazing.

It shows you can get things done if you try

hard enough, and it's a credit to your predecessors and

yourselves, and of course, the work that TxDOT did to make

that project come together the way it did that really

strikes us to the heart. And we want to thank you very

much and your predecessors very much. If you ever sit up

here and think that the time you spend may be spent

better, don't, because there's no higher project result

than to save lives.

So on behalf of myself, the commissioners court

and the citizens of Aransas County, we thank you and TxDOT

very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you're very kind to say

that.

(Applause.)

MR. CLARK: And that would conclude our

marathon report.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions, members?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Craig, I've just got a couple.

You touched on the corridor and the chairman touched upon

the importance of the Laredo-Corpus Christi-Lower Rio

Grande Valley triangle. I guess we're all kind of dancing


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

around and touching around 281/77, which is it, which

should it be and so forth, and that's what the public

hearings are attempting to do. We're smart enough to not,

if we even have a preference, to indicate what that would

be publicly while the hearing process is going on.

I would just, I think, encourage you to

encourage your business community and your civic community

to be thinking logically about where's the logical path of

an international corridor to be, and to begin to talk to

those who would be impacted by that path and see if you

can't begin to create if not partnerships, at least least-

resistance decisions kind of ahead of time.

We understand how difficult it is, probably

more than most people, to sell these wide corridor

concepts. We're also totally convinced this is the

correct thing for the future but we understand that it may

not be so important right now.

But it will be very important four years from

now when we have an excess of electric generation we need

to ship to Mexico in exchange for other natural resources

not yet processed that can be brought back into Texas and

processed by high-quality Texas labor. We understand that

if someone were thinking about that in the year 2005,

someone in the year 2025 will say thank you for figuring

that out 20 years earlier.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

So we do understand the difficulty in this. We

also understand it's the correct thing to do and we

encourage you and Judy, the port, the city and county to

be talking. We know you're talking west but if you're

thinking south, then you need to start talking south as

well. The more talking that can be done, the better, I

think.

Members, anything else before we take a quick

break?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you did a good job and

you thoroughly educated us about your operation and the

Corpus Christi area. It's our custom, members of the

audience, to take a break at this time and give everybody

a chance to relax, and we'll do so and return to the

state's business, and we hope you come back to watch us

work. About 15 minutes, please.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: We are going to return from

our brief recess and take up the regular order of

business. And the first order of business, members, is

the approval of the minutes from last month's meeting. Do

I have a motion?

MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.

MS. ANDRADE: Second.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

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.

Michael?

MR. BEHRENS: Going to agenda item number 2,

under Public Transportation we'll have a minute order

looking to award Rural Transportation Assistance Program

funds to El Paso County. Eric?

MR. GLEASON: Good morning, members of the

commission, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Behrens.

The minute order before you awards $145,000 of

federal funds under the Rural Transit Assistance Program

to El Paso County Rural Transit District in support of

development of a public transportation system there in El

Paso County. This award is actually part of a much larger

project in El Paso County that is not only looking at ITS

development to assist in coordination of services and

efficiencies in customer service improvements, but it's

also one that includes the introduction of a new vehicle

in service in El Paso County, one that does have the

latest technology in natural gas engine technology, and


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

includes with it something called hydraulic line assist

which helps in the fuel consumption by assisting the

vehicle in initial acceleration. So that when it consumes

quite a bit of fuel, it assists that phase of the

acceleration thereby reducing fuel consumption, and

coupled with the natural gas technology, it improves air

quality as a part of that.

The Intelligent Transportation System portion

of the project of which these funds are a portion, again,

a larger overall effort, looks specifically at researching

and then assessing the feasibility and developing the

software applications to address issues of automatic

vehicle location programs, systems to allow the operator

to know exactly where its vehicles are, to help with

communication between the central dispatch center and

those operators in the field, to ultimately allow for the

introduction of automated fare payment or smart car

technology as a part of the operation, as well as

passenger information, real-time passenger information on

the service.

What these $145,000 will do specifically is

that initial assessment of technology and its application

in the El Paso County area. In addition to our funds, as

a part of that there is a significant CMAQ contribution

which, as I understand, is up for approval tomorrow. That


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

actually constitutes about 80 percent of the ITS

investment, our share is about 20 percent.

This project intends then to have, by the fall

of 2007, 17 vehicles operating in El Paso County that are

equipped with an automated dispatch system radio, the

technology to allow for communication, and will begin to

assess some of the benefits of that application to the

extent of improving the coordination of our services, and

the significance of that improvement with respect to

overall statewide to coordinate our systems better. It

will allow us to examine the impact of fuel technologies

on fuel economy and fuel consumption.

So I recommend your approval of this award

today and will be glad to answer any questions you might

have.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the

explanation. Do you have questions?

MS. ANDRADE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

Eric, will you keep us posted as to how well

it's doing?

MR. GLEASON: Absolutely. I had a conversation

yesterday with the project manager where one of the things

that we talked a lot about was making sure that we had

both some up-front work around the outcomes and what we

would expect to happen and then the ability throughout the


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

project to measure the results with respect to those

anticipated outcomes, not so much in the context of

success or failure but in the context of learning what we

can learn from this for other applications throughout the

state.

MS. ANDRADE: And we've invested $145,000, and

what's the price of the total project?

MR. GLEASON: The total cost of the ITS

development portion of the project is $725,000; the

balance of the funds are coming from the CMAQ area.


MR. WILLIAMSON: Any other questions or

comments, members? Do I have a motion?

MR. JOHNSON: My sense is this is a tremendous

project, first of its kind and certainly worth doing and

following it to see how it does.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Absolutely. Okay, do I have a

motion?





aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Opposed, no.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

(No response.)


Eric, how are you finding Texas, buddy?

MR. GLEASON: I'm finding it fascinating. It

is a real challenge. It is a very different environment

than I'm used to working in. I'm enjoying it

tremendously.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, by all accounts, you're

doing a good job. Everybody is very complimentary.

MR. GLEASON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, sir.

MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, agenda item number

3 is a discussion item where Mike Craig of our VTR

Division will talk about our public outreach and our

marketing efforts in order to try to increase vehicle

registration in Texas. Mike?

MR. CRAIG: Thank you very much. Good morning.

We've got quite a few projects underway, four of which we

feel like have enough visibility or interest either on the

legislative side or enough impact statewide that we wanted

to bring them to you and let you kind of get some idea

what's going on so if you're starting to hear things about

it, you're aware.

The first one is the marketing and sales of

special license plates. This is one that has legislative


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

interest. It was presented in two forms, one in the 78th

Legislature and again in the 79th Legislature, and it

changed at that point.

As you can see, it was not mandatory in the

78th, it was optional, it was permitted if we wanted to

pursue it. Definitely we had a lot of projects going and

that was one that definitely wasn't a priority.

It's an unprecedented type of program in the

United States, there's no other state that has this, so we

feel like there was a high risk involved with it until we

had time to do more analysis. So we did not move out

initially with it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But we weren't afraid to be

the first one to do it?

MR. CRAIG: We're never afraid to be the first.

As long as we can make money and help people in the public

move goods and products.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We don't ever want to be

afraid of taking risks.

MR. CRAIG: We're not afraid to take risks at

all.

So in the 79th they changed that up quite a

bit. Came back to us, required us, in effect, to

implement this program, but in so doing, they also gave us

some benefits associated with that. In the prior bill


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

they had not provided funding up front. We shared that

risk with whichever vendor was the successful one that we

were to select. So in that respect, we benefitted from

it.

We have moved out on that and as you can see

there, there's certain things that it provides for:

personalized plates, organizational plates, collegiate

plates. Those are all involved in this process, plus they

can bring new plates to us as well, new plate designs. It

does specify that we recover all costs, but under this

provision, as we'll see later in the slide, those costs

ultimately would be paid back off the revenue generated

from the sale of these plates -- which we'll get into a

little pricing scheme as well later on.

Our goal is to increase revenue to the state.

We've had two bidders on this project, both feel that they

can do a really good job marketing and selling plates and

getting us an increased revenue from them.

As I mentioned earlier, the cost-sharing, the

risk-sharing, if you will, $632,000 was estimated by us to

start this project. Out of that, half of that would be

paid up front by this vendor. So they feel it's a very

viable project, we feel it's viable, and we're both going

to put money into it to prove it truly is a viable

project.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

To give you some idea of the timelines, we

initiated the initial RFP based on prior legislation in

February of 2005. This rocked along during the 79th

Legislature. At that point, it appeared that new

amendments to that law were going to be passed. We went

ahead and published the RFP as it was, based on the prior

legislation, and then provided through interviews and

negotiations with the two bidders, that we would work in

those new provisions and they would agree to it, and then

they would base their bids on that. So that's where we

are today.

We show there that October 27 is when we were

wanting to announce this winning bidder. We actually, at

this point, because of legislative interest, we knew even

prior to this that we wanted to brief those legislators

who did have interest, or their staff, as to where we were

on this, what we did, how we got to where we are, and why

we made the selection that we had, so that's going to

happen actually on November 2, next week. As soon as we

can brief those folks up on that, then we'll announce the

winning bidder.

Any questions on that? I've got four here so

I'll break at each one.

MR. JOHNSON: Mike, what sort of steps are they

going to take and venues are they going to use or outlets


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

to market specialty plates that, you know, we don't sort

of already do internally? How are they going to increase

outreach, I guess is my question.

MR. CRAIG: Correct. We don't really market

specialty plates, currently we don't have that capability,

we don't dedicate funds for that. Organizations who come

in, if there's an organizational plate, they do it

possibly, as well as the colleges if they want to. We

don't do that; this provides us that mechanism.

They'll go into dealerships where there's an

opportunity at that point where they're buying the

vehicle, hey, would you like a special plate with that?

Obviously we can put it in other venues as well, similar

to another project that we'll be talking about which you

and I have met with the press earlier on.

MR. JOHNSON: I think since the chairman is not

here that we should appoint him a committee of one. His

alma mater, I think, has moved to number three in terms of

the number of college license plates, and we should make

him the chairman and sole member of the committee to get

them back up, especially proportionate to their population

of graduates and interested parties.

MR. CRAIG: As we deal with our new vendor,

we'll certainly make that one a priority.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, volunteer his services.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

(General laughter.)

MR. CRAIG: Any other questions?

(No response.)

MR. CRAIG: Let me move on. The next project

we have that you would like to know about is the vehicle

registration compliance and public awareness campaign.

This is one that we've had going in a grassroots method

for the last number of months, and basically what we found

out, for a little background, Texas residents, as we all

know, need to title and register vehicles before they're

operated on the highways of our state.

We've got about 18.7 million vehicles

currently, and obviously as we get our toll roads and our

infrastructure in place and provide more opportunities for

industry, we're going to have more vehicles coming in.

And that brings in about $1.3 billion a year total; out of

that, a third goes to local government, to the local

county for their road and bridge funds, so it helps them

maintain their roads as well.

As we went through this bid process, there were

five bidders. We selected one bidder, obviously, named

Think Street. They've done a very good job, very creative

in the way they're going to market this campaign

statewide. We've had some public outreach already on

these things and I'll get into that just a little later,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

but so far we've been very pleased with what they've done

to this point.

The project scope, we didn't want to go into it

with a negative, you know, we want to beat you over the

head because you haven't registered your vehicle, we

wanted to make it positive to the public who may or may

not be aware what the requirements are associated with the

registration of vehicles and where that money actually

goes.

So what we tried to do is we have a very

diverse population, we're putting this out not only in

English but Spanish as well, to get it to everybody who

may have a vehicle that's operating. We're rolling it

out, as I said, with a positive message. It's basically

to remind current Texans and any newcomers who are coming

into the state because any newcomers who are in here that

are operating off the previous state's registration, they

have six months, eight months, ten months left on that and

they don't know that once they've established residency,

they've got to register their vehicle and title it in

Texas. Many of these people are going to want to comply

and if we just get the information out there to them, we

think they will.

Within 18 months we're seeking to reduce

registration noncompliance by a minimum of half a percent,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

and half a percent of what, I think, begs the question.

We have done ten years of public parking lot surveys, and

through that period of time we've consistently found of

Texas-plated vehicles, 4.5 percent are not currently

registered. So that's our base. From that we're trying

to reduce that by half a percent.

What that equates to is through that analysis

of that 4.5 percent, it comes to about 720,000 vehicles a

year that are not registered for the entire year.

Extrapolate from that $60 in registration, it comes to

$43.2 million of just the Texas vehicles. We can't

quantify those that are coming in with out-of-state

plates, out-of-country plates, we don't know if they're

truly Texas residents or not. That's where the

information, the public awareness will be targeted.

If we can reduce that by half a percent, we

bring in $43.2 million. Well, overall if we did all 4.5,

this half percent, we basically get $5.6 million.

We benchmarked this, we've gone through and

modeled the program that we currently have in progress.

We take that data on, we'll extrapolate from that later on

to developing our improvement. We're going to follow up

with research again in 2005 into 2007 to gauge the

effectiveness of this campaign. We really encourage

Texans, let's go out and do the right thing. And Texans,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

if we know about it, all tend to do the right thing, and I

believe that we find that to be true with Hurricane

Katrina, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Wilma, everybody steps

up and tries to help. In this case, you've got a product

that you're paying for that you're actually going to

benefit from because you're putting that much back into

it.

The cost of the project is $2.5 million over a

two-year period. Again, if you think back to what I just

mentioned, if we can drop it by half a percent, we can

more than pay for the project within 18 months, and we

feel like we can beat that.

As I mentioned earlier, the out-of-state/out-

of-country registrations that are running on our highways,

if those in fact turn out to be Texas residents and they

will come in and register their vehicles, we think there's

more money to be had than the $43.2 million. So we think

this will make some real inroads on that.

Actions to date and timeline. We have done

posters; we have done phone calls. We found that one-

fifth of Texans think that registration is a source of

revenue-building to maintain Texas highways, only one-

fifth. Eighty percent don't; they weren't aware of it.

When told where the money goes, they are much more

supportive, much more inclined to come in on time to


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

register their vehicles.

We did telephone calls. More than 95 percent

of these folks agreed that liability insurance -- which is

another area I'll touch on a little bit later in another

presentation -- is very important, and obviously we all

want our vehicles that are out there to have current

insurance. Almost three-fourths believe that individuals

who drive without vehicle registration are also less

likely to have that insurance, so there's a connection.

The target audience was identified, strangely

enough, as the 18 to 34 group which that's in my rearview

mirror, but there certainly is a large contingent out

there of those folks and we're trying to touch that

particular group.

We're doing a statewide radio campaign that

began in September and it's going to run through December

of this year. Public relations grassroots efforts is

being conducted in three pilot markets, and that's

underway right now. Those three were in Longview, El Paso

and Houston.

Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Houghton

were nice enough to come out and meet with us, we had

press conferences there, we think they went very well, and

we think that this is certainly a process where as we see

changes may need to be made of what we're presenting to


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

the public, but I think we're very positive on how that's

going to work for us. And that's going to go through the

end of this year.

We've got special promotional events underway.

We've already done one at the Astros game, prior to the

end of the season, obviously, that we were actually in the

booth with the announcers and they were discussing this

with us. That's going to continue on with the Houston

Texans games. Hopefully they'll score some touchdowns and

more people will be watching. But that's going to

continue as well.

As I said, we've got bilingual available print

material and you'll see some of those things in the press

package you got. We've got rack brochures, bumper

stickers, posters, we've got all kinds of things. We're

going to style this somewhat along the lines, hopefully as

successful, as the Don't Mess With Texas campaign. We

hope to get to that level of success.

Statewide kickoff. As we finish these

grassroots, we're going to move to a statewide

implementation in '06 in January. You're going to see a

whole lot of heavy television and radio spots on this,

you're going to be seeing more and more of it. You'll

also notice in your package you got CDs that have musical

jingles and they really are catchy. Put them in your cars


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

as you drive around and I think you'll find them very

interesting.

Outdoor advertising obviously is another area

that we're going to really focus on to try to get the

information out there.

As said, we're going to try to get this into

the driver's education curriculum in the schools too. We

think that if the young child is aware of it and they

notice their parent's windshield is not displaying a

current registration that they may place a little pressure

on them. It's not a punitive issue; it's one of

encouragement by their child.

Any questions on that particular campaign?

MS. ANDRADE: I have one. I have to say that I

really like the Spanish one, and [speaks in Spanish] is

very catchy, but do you have a bumper sticker in Spanish?

MR. CRAIG: Yes, we do. All those are going to

be bilingual.

MS. ANDRADE: Great.

MR. CRAIG: This campaign they have three

registered trademarks. What they're focusing on is Put

Texas In Your Corner.

MS. ANDRADE: I really like that.

MR. CRAIG: That's the one. They also have

Registered Texan, and Check the Date and Love your State.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

We feel like we can get the folks, when they step in their

car every day and put the key in and look over at their

windshield, if they will do that and check that date, even

if we don't get them a renewal notice -- which

occasionally we don't -- it will prompt them for coming in

and registering their vehicles. This will certainly be

daily prompt for them if they will just get in the habit.


MR. JOHNSON: Mike, how are we progressing on

the issue of the sticker itself and unbundling that from

its paper container when you receive it in the mail and

making it either childproof or genius-proof, pick your

poison?

MR. CRAIG: Well, what you're asking about is

our current point of sale sticker that we've just

implemented and had some issues with. I'll steal a quote

I recently heard, without attribution, we've got a

problem, we've got a plan and we're moving up to correct

that.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's the best way to deal

with it.

MR. CRAIG: That's where we're going. We're

working with our partners which are the tax assessor-

collectors, they're giving us good input from the


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

customers. Obviously we're getting direct input from the

customers as well.

The process itself, the system itself is

flawless, the automated system has been perfect. We're

working, right as we speak, to improve that project, the

actual functional portion of that project to get something

out. It's going to take three months to simulate actual

usage through our lab with Thomas Bohuslav and

Construction, but once we get that new design in and make

sure it works as it should under laboratory conditions,

but we're also going to look at the practical application

as well to make sure that we don't slow down the customer

and cause any inconvenience.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, laboratory conditions are

fine but field trials might even be better.

MR. CRAIG: And in truth, we had field trials.

We piloted this in numerous counties and never had a

problem with it. The problems really came up where we've

got the larger counties and we do more volume, and they're

more vocal.

MR. JOHNSON: So the larger volume created an

inconsistency in the way people received their

registration stickers and how do you unbundle the

registration sticker from its contents?

MR. CRAIG: I think they're more vocal about


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

it.

MR. JOHNSON: Or the larger areas just more

bumblers and fumblers like I am and can't separate it.

MR. CRAIG: It seems like where you have a more

rural group, and we were in the smaller counties or less

metropolitan counties, smaller metropolitan counties, they

had more direct contact and conversation with those

customers and were able to explain it better to them, or

they would physically show them how that works, and so

there was less dissatisfaction.

Then we had actually defective forms. It was a

little complex on how you did it anyway, and then you

factor in the defective forms as well, then you have some

real problems, and we are addressing those.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: John, whenever you move out to

Old Washington, you'll find that those of us who live in

the country have a little more time to do things.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I look forward to that day.

(General laughter.)

MR. CRAIG: Any other questions on this?

(No response.)

MR. CRAIG: The next one we had is the vehicle

registration renewal outsourcing. This is a brand new

bill that was introduced last session, a new statute.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Previously we had not had the capability to advertise in

our renewal notices that we send out each year to 18-

something million of our customers. This provides that

under House Bill 2702.

What it provides is -- and the commission does

have involvement here because they are the ones who

authorized us to proceed with this -- a contract with a

vendor for not only the insertion of the advertising in

the renewal, but we're looking potentially at having them

do the whole process for us, we'd like to outsource it

all, if possible. That would be the printing, the

inserting, the envelopes. If they feel like it's

advantageous to them to change the size of the envelopes,

the style of the renewal, they'd pick up all the costs of

that.

There is precedent for this one, as opposed to

the special plate marketing that I spoke of earlier. We

checked and there are two other states currently doing

this, there's New York and Florida. And they've realized

benefits from it, it seems to have worked well for them to

this point. We talked to both jurisdictions and they

fully support it.

The project scope, as I mentioned earlier, they

will produce these inserts, they will coordinate these

with any, like General Motors or Ford Motor Company, any


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

of the larger corporations who would like to advertise,

and they'd use that revenue to offset any additional costs

associated with this.

It's a cost-sharing project. We'll pay for

basically what we have done in the past, but if they add

weight to that mail package, it goes above an ounce,

they're going to pay the cost of that. As I said earlier,

they're going to pay for any programming associated with

this and any changes that are associated with the

envelopes or the renewal notices themselves.

And basically it's a possible bonus. We would

see this as a potential bonus of about a million dollars a

year for the department.

Our goals, again, reduce costs associated with

the mailing of approximately 1.5 million -- that's 18

million a year, that's 1.5- monthly, and then there's no

computer program costs associated, they pick up all the

costs.

Where we are now, we've got our timeline

developed for it, we've got our RFP being developed, we're

going to try to get this out on the street by January

2006, and basically do the things that I spoke about,

their redesign, all those things would be part of our

discussions with that vendor as to how we're going to

proceed.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Any questions on that?

(No response.)

MR. CRAIG: Okay. Last but not least is our

financial responsibility verification program. This is a

subject that's been tackled by the legislature for a

number of years without resolution. It was also at one

point given to the Texas Department of Public Safety to

address. They came out with a report recommending a

delay, if you will.

In the last session under Senate Bill 1670 it

was given to the Texas Department of Insurance to lead but

partnering with TxDOT, with DIR, Department of Information

Resources, and also with the DPS, to sit down and try to

work out a program that will provide a means to reduce,

obviously, noncompliance, those that don't have current

insurance to come in and register their car or get their

driver's license or get their vehicle inspected, to have

that in place when they do come in.

And in addition to that, it's not just an

event-based process, so when you come in and register your

vehicle and you walk out and you go cancel your insurance

and nobody knows about it. What we want to do is provide

a means that we have ongoing verification so when you walk

out the door and you cancel that insurance, we know about

it, and we get back to that person to bring him back into


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

compliance or we flag their record in some way to cause

them to provide more evidence the next time they come in

as to what their current status is.

So we're trying to fulfill the goals of 1670,

we're trying to decrease the number of uninsured motorists

in Texas, we want to enhance the goals to validate proof

of insurance and we want to provide ability to law

enforcement to identify insurance coverage on vehicles

involved in accidents. And we feel like we're moving

ahead quickly on this.

The cost. We have a $6 million appropriation

for this to spend on this. That money is in actually

TxDOT's Fund 6 budget. From that the TDI, as they sort of

pay for this development or whatever costs associated with

it, the implementation and maintenance will start to build

out of that fund.

Actions to date, the project charter has been

approved. I have noted there a request for proposal.

It's actually an invitation to negotiate. I found out

after we did this kind of what the difference is, but it's

similar, I would think. Those responses are due back. We

have a pretty strict timeline on this. By law the vendor

is supposed to be on board by December, so the window is

closing rapidly to get that done.

And implementation of the system is due, and


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

again mandated by the legislation, for the end of 2006.

What we really foresee at this point is a phased

implementation, doing the passenger vehicles first and

commercial vehicles last. So that's the status on that.

We really do feel like this program and the

level of interest of all the departments involved and the

agencies, along with the insurance industry -- that

obviously has a high interest in how this is going to be

structured -- that we're going to come out with a very

good product.

Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions, members?

MR. HOUGHTON: Good show.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We like what you're doing.

MR. CRAIG: We'll keep you posted as things

move along.

MR. HOUGHTON: Remember the committee that

Chairman Williamson is a member of one.

MR. CRAIG: You weren't here, Mr. Chairman, but

you were volunteered in absentia.

MR. WILLIAMSON: As a committee of one?

MR. CRAIG: Yes, I think it was. I didn't see

any other hands go up.

(General laughter.)

MR. CRAIG: Okay, that's all I've got.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. BEHRENS: Okay, Mike, you can just stay up

there.

We'll go then to agenda item number 4(a)(1)

where we're going into our proposed adoption of rules.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike, have you heard anything

from the automobile industry about any of this, from the

automobile dealers?

MR. CRAIG: About which?

MR. WILLIAMSON: About any of this.

MR. CRAIG: Well, let's see, there's really not

anything negative. The insurance issue is one that we've

already dealt with as far as the dollar fee that's

collected. Dealers are not required to verify insurance

by law, however, we do provide that they can collect a

dollar insurance fee. So as long as they're exempted from

that requirement to verify insurance, I doubt if we're

going to have an issue with it at all. I think that would

be the only one that would kind of lap over something they

might be concerned about.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

MR. BEHRENS: These rules pertain to some

corrections in rules that pertain to VTR.

MR. CRAIG: What I'm bringing to you today are

proposed amendments that we would like to obviously

present to you for an option and they're really clean-ups,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

there's not a lot to them. They were bringing forward

some statutory cite changes from the 78th Session, and

then we've got specific ones that are just non-

controversial legislation that was passed in the 79th.

I can walk through this with you real quickly,

if you'd like. Just for example, we're touching on cotton

vehicles and the ability of those to also transport chili

peppers, to use that same statute, which provides a little

broader width for operation of those modules on the

highways. Again, not controversial at all.

We've got classic travel trailers. Again,

these are older vehicles, 25 years old or older, that can

operate the vehicles without limitation. They pay an

additional $15 fee for registration of that vehicle.

All-terrain vehicles were also addressed the

last session of the legislature. Basically instead of

having only a three-wheel vehicle and only having a

saddle. they've also now provided for a multi-wheel

vehicle, a redefinition of that, and also a bench seat as

opposed to just a saddle. You can see these are not real

complex.

The last one that I can address for you was

salvage vehicles, they redefined that to less complex but

probably equally contentious at some point by the public

because it provides for totaling of vehicles by insurance


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

companies that many people feel like older vehicles should

not be totaled, but by the value, pre-damage value. If

the damage itself is of such a dollar value, the insurance

company tends to total those out, and the upshot of that

is when they do that under current law -- used to you

could pay a total loss and the individual would keep that

vehicle and continue to operate the vehicle as if it were

not totaled out, now we have to be notified. We then flag

that record, they do become salvage vehicles, and that's

noted on their subsequent title which reduces the value of

it, and there's money associated with that process that

the customer has to pay.

But for this purpose, all we're doing is citing

that change to that definition of what a salvage vehicle

is.

So having said all that, I would recommend at

this time and propose that we adopt these amendments.

Any questions?


recommendation. Do you have questions or comments?

MR. JOHNSON: So moved.

MR. HOUGHTON: Second.



aye.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 4(a)(2), these are

rules pertaining to right of way, and John Campbell will

present these for you.

MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning. For the record,

my name is John Campbell, director of the Right of Way

Division.

I'd like to present for your consideration this

morning Minute Order Number 4(a)(2) which provides for the

proposed adoption of new Section 21.801 and new Section

21.802 concerning acquisition and disposal of real

property from rail facilities.

Section 21.801 is a new section which adopts

essentially the same acquisition procedures that apply to

right of way to accommodate rail facilities. It describes

the requirements for those purposes, it provides for a

unique two-step process of review and approval by the

commission. So the commission will actually first approve

the investigation of the purchase of the property, and

then will come back to follow up with approval of the

actual acquisition. It also clarifies that the department

may use a right of way acquisition provider under a CDA to


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

acquire real facility property.

Section 21.802 essentially adopts the same

procedures for existing real property, disposal for rail

facility property. It also creates a priority for

consideration of the sale of surplus rail property and

that also allows for a little bit more flexibility when we

have an exchange situation so that we can deal with a

party to an exchange.

It also authorizes the commission to consider

the cost of future maintenance as fair value consideration

for the transfer of property to another governmental

entity. It also directs the revenue from the sale of any

rail facility property be credited to the State Highway

Fund.

Staff recommends your approval of these

motions. Any questions?


explanation. Do you have any questions or comments?





aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)



1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

(No response.)


MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 4(a)(3) concerns

travel information and is to link community websites to

our rest areas and to our travel information centers.

Doris?

MS. HOWDESHELL: Good morning, commissioners.

For the record, my name is Doris Howdeshell and I'm the

director of the Travel Division.

The minute order before you today is for

proposed adoption of new 23.13 concerning links to

community websites from rest areas and travel information

centers. The purpose of this minute order is to outline

the policies and procedures that communities must follow

in order to make that link.

The purpose of the links is to provide

information to the traveling public when they are standing

in a rest area, for example, that has a Wi-Fi connection.

There are paragraphs in here that provide for how to get

approval for links and also removal if there are

complaints in regard to the link.

Staff recommends approval and I'll be glad to

answer any questions.


explanation and recommendation. Do you have questions or


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

comments?

MR. JOHNSON: Doris, you mentioned what would

be one of the reasons that there might be a removal?

MS. HOWDESHELL: If we get three complaints

from the traveling public, for example, if the information

on that community's website is outdated or inaccurate,

then we would work with that community to get the

information either updated or remove it from the link.

MR. JOHNSON: While I've got you in my sights,

I wanted to mention personally the terrific job the Travel

Division did on the film at the short course. I thought

it was exceptional. I made those comments but I didn't

get to see you and congratulate you.

And then more subtly, I want you, for mapping

purposes, to consider the difference between Yellowstone

National Park and Old Faithful, just a subtle difference

there.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Thank you very much. Thank

you for your comments.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you want to respond to that

Old Faithful-Yellowstone shot or just leave that lay.

MR. JOHNSON: No. That's another issue that

we've been discussing.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, do you have other

questions or comments for staff?


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234


MR. JOHNSON: Second.



aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 4(a)(4), these are

proposed rules for adoption concerning oversize and

overweight vehicles. Carol?

MS. DAVIS: Good morning. I'm Carol Davis,

director of TxDOT's Motor Carrier Division.

The minute order you have before you proposes

rule amendments to Chapter 18 concerning oversize and

overweight limits. These amendments are mostly clean-up:

they clarify motor carrier registration requirements for

permit applicants; they clarify escort vehicle

requirements; implement several bills that were passed

during the past session; they eliminate a requirement for

certain permit applicants to provide tax lien information;

and clarify reporting requirements for an extended

expiration date for Port of Brownsville permits.

We also have a new section, Subchapter 8, which


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

implements provisions of House Bill 1044. This

establishes the Chambers County permitting program,

provides for the county to issue permits for the transfer

of overweight loads on FM 1405 and the frontage roads of

SH 99 and Cedar Crossing Business Park. And requirements

in these proposed rules were modeled after the Port of

Brownsville permitting program.

We are recommending approval of the minute

order.


explanation and recommendation. Do we have questions or

comments?

MR. JOHNSON: Carol, again while I've got you

in my sights, I think few people realize or recognize the

amount of work that you and your team did in concert with

the districts as a result of Hurricane Rita and her visit

and the repercussions afterwards, and I appreciate what

everybody did and what you were able to do in response to

my call in terms of some of these overweight and oversized

residential moving of residences getting back into place.

MS. DAVIS: Thank you. I appreciate that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions or comments,

members?




1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234



aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. BEHRENS: Moving to our rules for final

adoption, agenda item 4(b)(1) concerning rail facilities

and comprehensive development agreements. Doug?

MR. WOODALL: I'm Doug Woodall, TP&D for the

Turnpike Division. I'm here for Mr. Russell who is on a

well-deserved vacation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: He sure doesn't look like

Phil. Now, who determined well-deserved, his employees?

I mean, who was the well-deserved vacation? Did you need

a vacation from him?

MR. WOODALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: One thing about this

commission is we'll help you dig that hole just as deep as

you can.

(General laughter.)

MR. WOODALL: House Bill 2702 of the 79th

Legislature --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is this your first appearance?


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. WOODALL: Pardon?

MR. WILLIAMSON: This is the first time you've

been in front of us?

MR. WOODALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, man, this is a free shot.

MR. HOUGHTON: There's no video record of this

either.

(General laughter.)

MR. WOODALL: House Bill 2702 authorized the

department to enter into comprehensive development

agreements for rail facilities or rail systems. This

minute order would adopt new Section 7.11 concerning

comprehensive development agreements for these facilities

or systems.

Rules implementing this were part of a new

Texas Administrative Code Chapter 7 entitled Rail

Facilities. The additions to the rules were posted in the

Texas Register, an opportunity for comments was offered

till 5:00 p.m. on September 12, 2005. We received no

comments.

Staff recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: No comments?

MR. WOODALL: That's correct, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Everybody liked it?

MR. WOODALL: Pretty straightforward, a little


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

bit over one page of rules that pretty much defer the

processes and procedures for rail facilities to Chapter 27

which is our established process for comprehensive

development agreements.


explanation and the recommendation. Do we have questions

or comments?




All those in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. BEHRENS: Jim is going to talk about final

rules for adoption concerning our Unified Planning Work

Program.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. Good afternoon,

commissioners. Jim Randall, director of the

Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

Item 4(b)(2), this minute order adopts

amendments to Title 43, Texas Administrative Code Section

15.4 relating to the Unified Planning Work Program.

Section 15.4 currently provides that travel outside the


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

metropolitan area boundary by a metropolitan planning

organization staff and other agencies participating in the

MPO planning process shall be approved by the department

and funded from the Transportation Planning funds. The

amendment to Section 15.4 removes this requirement and

instead requires department approval of travel outside of

Texas.

The amendments further provide that the travel

through Arkansas by the Texarkana MPO staff and travel

through New Mexico by the El Paso MPO staff shall be

considered in-state travel.

The proposed rules were published in the August

12, 2005, issue of the Texas Register and comments were

received through September 12. One comment was received

from the Association of Texas Metropolitan Planning

Organizations, or TMPO. TMPO agrees with the amendments

to remove the requirement that the department approve

travel beyond metropolitan area boundaries but raised

other issues outside the scope of the proposed rules. The

department staff will consider TMPO's other comments for

possible future rule amendments.

Adopting these rules will reduce administrative

burdens on both the department and the MPO staffs. Staff

recommends approval of this minute order.



1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

explanation and the recommendation. Do we have questions

or comments?





aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 4(b)(3) are rules for

final adoption concerning our Logo Sign Program. Carlos?

MR. LOPEZ: Good afternoon, commissioners. My

name is Carlos Lopez and I'm director of the Traffic

Operations Division.

The minute order before you provides for final

adoption of rules to implement Senate Bill 1137 and House

Bill 2453 of the last legislative session. The rules

allow for implementation of a tourist-oriented directional

sign program for wineries, agricultural interest

facilities, and other tourist-oriented businesses, allow

24-hour pharmacies to participate in the Logo Sign

Program, and repeal the Major Agricultural Interest Sign

Program.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

The proposed rules were published in the Texas

Register on September 9, 2005, and we received two

comments. The Railroad Commission of Texas has requested

that propane retailers be allowed to participate in the

Tourist-Oriented Directional Sign Program. The department

declined to accept this comment since propane retailers do

not represent a significant or unique tourist attraction,

however, these proposed rules would allow gas stations

that have propane-refueling capabilities to have a propane

legend added to their logo sign.

A private citizen requested that the proposed

rules be amended to allow the use of an RV-friendly symbol

on the logos of those businesses that meet certain

requirements for the parking and movement of recreational

vehicles on their property. The department agreed with

this comment and has incorporated in it the new language.

We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So now we can drink and get

plenty of propane on our way, those signs tell us where to

do that.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes, that's exactly right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This would be Frank Madla's

pet project.

Members, you've heard the explanation and

recommendation. Do we have questions or comments?


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. HOUGHTON: Move to approve.


MR. WILLIAMSON: You have some thoughts, John?

MR. JOHNSON: I don't have any comments, no.



aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Opposed, no.

(No response.)


MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 5 is our

Transportation Planning minute orders; there are three

minute orders and Jim Randall will present those to you.

MR. RANDALL: Again, good afternoon,

commissioners. Jim Randall, director of the

Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

Item 5(a), this minute order approves the 2006

Statewide Mobility Program of the Unified Transportation

Program, or UTP. The UTP is the basic transportation

planning document that guides and controls project

development and construction for the department.

In order to align the UTP with the simplified

budget strategies outlined in the Strategic Plan, the

department has divided the UTP into two documents: the


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Statewide Preservation Program and the Statewide Mobility

Program.

The Statewide Mobility Program is part of the

BUILD IT strategy and contains all the department's

categories which enhance the transportation system.

Additionally, the 2006-2008 Aviation Capital Improvement

Program, as recommended by the Aviation Advisory Committee

at its August 4, 2005, meeting, is being submitted with

the SMP for your consideration.

Also included in the SMP are public

transportation project listings and program information

for 2006 through 2009. Actual transit program allocations

and your grant recipients will be approved by future

minute orders.

The 2006 SMP will authorize over $12 billion in

transportation projects through Fiscal Year 2009. Along

with the major mobility categories, the SMP will allocate

$840 million in new programs for congestion mitigation and

air quality funding, STP mobility funding for our eight

largest metropolitan areas, district discretionary

funding, and other transportation programs for state

parks, railroad crossings and landscaping.

The 2006 SMP incorporates funding from the

recently passed federal transportation bill SAFETEA-LU.

As part of SAFETEA-LU, Congress authorized new


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

congressional high-priority projects for Texas. In the

2006 SMP, we will ask the commission to authorize $660

million in new federal earmarks for project development

and construction.

Overall, SAFETEA-LU will provide an estimated

$14.5 billion for Texas through Fiscal Year 2009. This is

the third such increase over the last federal bill TEA-21.

A 30-day comment period regarding the draft

2006 SMP ended October 7 with no comments received. With

approval of this minute order, the department may continue

the project planning and development for Fiscal Year 2006

and beyond.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, Jim, you said this would

result in what level, what dollar contract level in 2009?

MR. RANDALL: In 2009 we're probably looking at

at least $3 billion. This is $12 billion over the four-

year period, 2006 through 2009.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And how does that compare with

say the current year?

MR. RANDALL: I believe we're over that right

now as far as we're in the $3- to $4 billion, I believe,

as far as actual letting.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So by inference, the plan

itself doesn't anticipate what changes might occur at the


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

local or regional level, nor what concessions the regions

might be executing.

Members, you've heard the explanation and the

recommendation. Do you have questions or comments?




All those in favor will signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. RANDALL: Thank you, sir.

Item 5(b), this minute order approves the 2005

Texas Rail System Plan and plan summary. The purpose of

the plan is to identify current and proposed rail

projects, determine infrastructure and capacity needs on

the Texas rail system, and to develop an awareness of the

issues and processes by which to address transportation

needs by policy-makers around the state.

The plan focuses on major rail relocations and

improvements to the state's rail system that provide

public benefits related to improved safety, reliable

mobility, economic vitality and system preservation.

House Bill 3588 and House Bill 2702 passed by


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

the 78th and 79th Texas legislatures, respectively,

broadened the department's responsibility concerning rail

facilities.

In an August 31, 2005, letter to the Federal

Railroad Administration, Governor Rick Perry designated

the department as the agency that will administer and

coordinate Texas's participation in rail-planning

activities and responsibilities as required by federal

regulations.

A public hearing notice was published in the

Texas Register on September 9, 2005, with comments

accepted through October 10, 2005. A public hearing on

the plan was held in Austin on September 23, 2005. Six

oral comments and 34 written comments were received, and a

summary of the comments and responses is shown as Exhibit

A.

I might also mention yesterday we received a

letter from Speaker Craddick also supporting the Rail

Plan.

Upon approval of this minute order, the 2005

Texas Rail System Plan will be submitted to the Federal

Railroad Administration through the Federal Highway

Division office.

Staff recommends your approval of this minute

order.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. WILLIAMSON: I was just reading through

some of the comments. You didn't just print all the nice

ones, did you?

MR. RANDALL: Oh, no, sir. Go back to the

back.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, there's some in back? I

didn't get there yet.

MR. RANDALL: As far as the comments they were

basically that they were pleased that we have the plan,

they were encouraged with and wanted us to put a little

more emphasis on passenger rail, especially high-speed

passenger rail. And of course, we got various comments on

supporting various corridors around the state. They

encouraged safety, also encouraged us looking at new

technologies to implement in the future.

One of them recommended that we reroute

existing proposed corridor beyond the existing one. This

was, I believe, out in the Coupland area those folks would

like to see us go farther out to the east if we could,

consider maybe rerouting that area.

Also, we made two slight revisions in the

document itself. We had mistakenly included a designation

of major metropolitan districts, leaving out Corpus and

Lubbock, and they showed us the error of our ways, so we

removed that reference from the report and the map,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

corrected that. Also, some mistake over affiliations we

needed to update.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, members, you've heard

the explanation and recommendation. Do you have questions

or comments?





aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. RANDALL: Item 5(c), this minute order

recommends the approval of five applications --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Isn't it amazing that we're

talking about rail? It's amazing. Six years ago, who'd

have thought we'd be talking about rail? It's amazing.

Go ahead.

MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. We recommend the

approval of five applications seeking to deviate from

statutes on railroad safety that concern minimum clearance

distances between railroad tracks and structures.

On October 1, 2005, the department assumed all


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

powers and duties of the Texas Railroad Commission that

relates to railroads and the regulation of railroads, and

with the new law established by House Bill 2702, the

department is authorized to perform any act and issues in

your rules in orders permitted by the Federal Railroad

Safety Act of 1970.

Five applications concerning railroad safety

were filed with the Railroad Commission that are now

pending before the department. The applicants have

provided information such as plans, site restrictions and

photographs to describe obstructions within clearance

zones and the relative locations of existing and proposed

rail facilities.

A summary of the applicant information and

their requested railroad clearance deviations is shown in

Exhibit A. Each applicant has requested a deviation from

requirements specifying the minimum clearance between

railroad tracks and structures.

All plans and sites have been requested and

reviewed by department rail safety inspectors. The claims

for deviation requests have been reviewed and are

recommended for approval with specific qualifying

conditions.

Department rail safety inspectors will conduct

follow-up site visits to ensure the qualifying conditions,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

such as warning signs, lighted signs and other safety

features are installed as outlined in their applications.

Inspectors will also ensure that the servicing railroad

companies are notified of the clearance deviations.

Your approval will allow for greater, more

cost-effective use of these rail facilities while ensuring

the safety of railroad employees and facilities.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This includes the item the

governor wrote us about with regard to cement?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. There were five

applications pending that came over to us effective

October 1.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike, how bad is the cement

shortage impacting us on our construction business?

MR. BEHRENS: I think it's somewhat better but

there still are some contracts where they're still having

to get in line to get some cement, but I don't think it's

as bad as it was several years ago. But I think it's

probably if you have a bigger concrete business like some

of our contractors, they probably have some priorities.

If you're a small person, it probably is more of an

impact. Say the individual that goes out, he might have

to wait in line while large pours are being made.



1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

explanation and the recommendation. Do you have questions

or comments?

MR. HOUGHTON: Move to approve.




aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 6 concerns

toll projects. We'll have Doug come back up, and there's

three minute orders concerning Bexar County and the Alamo

Regional Mobility Authority, and then one concerning our

quarterly report concerning Travis and Williamson counties

on the Central Texas Turnpike System. Doug?

MR. WOODALL: Good afternoon again. My name is

Doug Woodall with the Turnpike Division.

Item 6(a), the minute order grants final

approval of a request by the Alamo RMA for financial

assistance in the amount of $1 million to enable them to

participate in the CDA procurement process on the US

281/Loop 1604 project, and also allow the RMA to obtain

engineering, financial and legal services for project


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

development and developmental financial terms proposed by

the Alamo RMA for inclusion in the CDA.

This minute order also directs the executive

director to implement the actions authorized and required

by these provisions.

Staff recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Why?

MR. WOODALL: To allow for participation of the

Alamo RMA with the Department of Transportation on this

project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You're good. He only skipped

one beat.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: We have the Honorable Dr.

Thornton with us, but if you don't mind, we'll lay out all

three and then speak about all three after all three are

laid out, if that's okay with you.

Is that okay, Richard?

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Amadeo, can I talk with you a

moment, please? I'm sure the members have questions

besides myself, but I need to clarify something.

I'm keenly aware that when we do things we're

basically laying the groundwork to treat everybody the

same in the future, and I'm for all doing this, but I just


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

want to be sure I understand.

MR. SAENZ: For the record, Amadeo Saenz,

assistant executive director for Engineering Operations.

What we're doing here is we're working closely

in partnership with the Alamo RMA in the evaluation of the

CDA proposals that were received for the toll system

project on US 281 and Loop 1604. These toll equity

requests for $1 million will be allowed so that the Alamo

RMA staff can have resources to help us in the evaluation.

We're treating this toll equity request as a

loan with the understanding that we will have a success

story. If we have a success story, then the money that we

have basically provided to the RMA for their evaluation

can be paid back to the department so that we can then

have that money to be used for the development of other

potential projects across the state.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So if you're the Nueces RMA

some day, or you're the Coastal Bend RMA, and you're in

the process of thinking about your first project and

Kiewit comes along and proposes a CDA, much the same way

as the Cintra or Zachry American did to Alamo, we're

basically saying to the Coastal Bend RMA we're sitting

here ready to advance you the money to help you analyze it

along with us.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. WILLIAMSON: By habit, we're not going to

treat one area different from another.

MR. SAENZ: No, sir. We're going to basically

treat every area the same. We will advance you the money

so that you have the resources to be able to evaluate,

whether you're evaluating as part of the team, both of us

together, or if the project team be you as an RMA that was

independent, it could have a toll equity request for doing

the evaluation, but then as you go to closing and you go

out there and either get a concession fee back to the RMA

or you go out there and do your bond issuance to finance

the project, and at that point then you would basically

reimburse the department so that we would basically have

that money to be used elsewhere across the state.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And how will your

recommendation as the lead staff person differ if Kiewit

makes that proposal to the Coastal Bend RMA, not to us?

MR. SAENZ: It will work the same way. If the

RMA had already selected the project and were moving

forward with the project and they needed assistance for

the preliminary development and selection of a potential

concession, they would be doing the work, they would be

taking the lead, they can still come back and ask for toll

equity and we would treat it exactly the same.

But when they finish and go through their


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

process and do select someone to do the project, whether

they get a concession or they go through a bond issuance

where they get the resources to pay for the project as a

design-build project, and at that point that money could

be reimbursed back to the department. So it works the

same way, whether we're lead or they're lead.


staff's explanation and recommendation and Amadeo has

answered my questions. Before I ask staff to lay out the

next one, do you want to ask questions about this, or do

you want to wait and hear them all?

MR. JOHNSON: Hear them all.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you, Amadeo.

Mike, if you don't mind, let's go ahead and lay

all three of them out and let Dr. Thornton speak.

MR. WOODALL: Item 6(b), this minute order

grants preliminary approval for the executive director to

negotiate and develop an agreement with the Alamo RMA for

the planning, financing, and potential design,

construction, operation and maintenance of several

projects by the Alamo RMA.

This will also include a license of state-owned

right of way to the Alamo RMA for the purpose of

developing these potential projects. These projects are

Interstate 35 from the Bexar-Guadalupe County line down to


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Interstate 37 in the San Antonio Central Business

District, State Highway 16 west from Interstate Loop 410

to Loop 1604 north, and the US 281/Wurzbach Parkway

interchange.


director to present the draft agreement to the commission

for its future consideration.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Again, members, want to

question and comment now or wait for the third? Okay, go

ahead.

MR. WOODALL: 6(c), this minute order will

grant preliminary approval of a request by the Alamo RMA

for financing in the amount of up to $7.5 million, also in

the form of a loan. The requested assistance will be

utilized for project-related work performed by the Alamo

RMA staff and administration, as well as legal, financial

and engineering consulting, for the purpose of developing

preliminary feasibility, environmental, public

involvement, schematics and preliminary financial plans.

The assistance may also include plans, specifications and

estimates, as needed.

The initial projects will include adding

capacity on the projects in the previous minute order:

Interstate 35, State Highway 16, and the US 281/Wurzbach

Parkway interchange.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234


director to implement the actions authorized and required

by those provisions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you have questions?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. We have as our witness

the Honorable Dr. Bill Thornton, who is the chair of the

Alamo Regional RMA. Bill, good morning, sir.

DR. THORNTON: Hi, Ric. How are you doing?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Fine. How are you?

DR. THORNTON: Hope, in all this misery of

athletic teams, you should remind them that San Antonio is

the home of the World Champion Spurs. We don't worry

about chalk and things like that.

(General laughter.)

DR. THORNTON: Let me say to Corpus Christi, as

a former mayor, former chairman of our chamber, the things

I heard this morning are very exciting, and I will tell

you clearly that those decision-makers in San Antonio, led

by primarily our Commissioner Hope Andrade, we look

forward to working with Corpus Christi and doing it in a

regional way, as you mentioned several times, to benefit

the people of Texas. It's very exciting what you're

doing. Congratulations.

Ric, I think we're seeing that vision you and I


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

talked about once casually and the governor's plan to

involve local involvement in addressing congestion

problems. This action today is a major step forward in

accomplishing that and taking it to a reality, and I think

it will be an exemplary act that you take here, and we

will take this very seriously and do a very good job.

These three items are significant. I remember,

Commissioner, and you said this is going to be a

challenging task, and we know that it is, and we take that

very seriously. But it also then binds us more closely,

which I talked about at your meeting in Austin. What

we're recognizing, I think, even more as you take this

action today is our partnership, our proper relationship

with TxDOT, that being the RMA and TxDOT.

As we talked about, we'll be using your right

of ways, we're using your resources, we will fit into your

system, we will fit into the interoperability of these

toll projects around the state. You clearly are what

binds all of this together, yet you, I think, very wisely

and generously allow for local participation.

This partnership is developing now with people,

not just documents and dollars, and I will tell you that

our engineer -- I call him ours -- David Casteel and his

staff, have done an exceptional job in bringing us into

this. And also Amadeo Saenz which we've talked personally


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

several times just simply to say thank you for the way

we're being managed, and this partnership is being

nurtured, I think, very, very well.

Let me say our community, since our meeting in

Austin last month when other polls were coming from other

communities, our community of those citizens who live

closest to this project are supporting these efforts at

the rate of 62 percent. That's a good estimate, and

that's before we've even started putting our message out

of the benefits of acceleration of these projects and

moving them along much quicker.

The task is before us. If you vote favorably

on this, you've given us an opportunity. We're here to

say thank you for that. The resources are tremendously

important for us. Every dollar we're spending is a loan

borrowed from the city and the county to this point and

then from TxDOT here.

Let me just add parenthetically, some way in

there, if there are ways to find some of our just day-to-

day, turning on the lights and paying the phone bills,

that would be helpful too, but clearly these are funds to

carry us through these major projects.

This nascent movement of RMAs, I promised you

several months ago we would become your favorite one and

that we would try to be a model for those who would


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

follow, and we do share advice with other RMAs that call

us. We take this very seriously and we're saying thank

you.

I will also tell you this, first one -- and I

mentioned this to Amadeo -- that we're going through with

your leadership -- and this, Commissioner Houghton, goes

back to what you were talking about -- as we look at these

future three projects, we will not look for separation

from TxDOT but rather we will be looking for more

partnering with TxDOT as we do any of our functions in the

future. We recognize how closely tied we are.

So we hope for a favorable vote on these and we

promise to do some good work for you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I appreciate those kind words,

Bill. You've worked hard and I think we've all

demonstrated patience as we go through the rough spots.

Tell me, it appears to me -- it could be a good

friend of mine once said you tend to project to the public

that which you wish to occur, you have to be careful about

that -- but it appears to me that almost suddenly across

the state people have kind of blinked twice and said,

Well, you know what, we don't have any money, I guess we

really do have to do this. It doesn't seem to have near

the emotional negativism that I saw even a couple of

months ago. It's almost like overnight people have kind


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

of opened their eyes and said, Look, it's either

congestion or pay for it; don't think it really matters,

gas tax or tolls, you've got to pay for it.

Are you seeing that in the San Antonio area?

DR. THORNTON: We are. Our polling shows and

our meetings with the citizens groups, if someone is

finally confronted with the truth of limitation of

funds -- and I point it out, I said, TxDOT is spending

money in San Antonio, 410 and I-10, 410 and 281, I-10 as

it comes into the downtown, hundreds and hundreds and

hundreds of millions of dollars, TxDOT is spending in San

Antonio. Now, if you want further dollars spent, we're

going to have to bring new dollars for these projects to

be accelerated. And people understand that.

If they recognize an effort, a tremendous

effort is being made but if we want more, we're going to

have to bring new dollars. And if you give them the

choice: raise your taxes, isn't going to happen; raise

your gas tax, I don't believe will happen. And both of

those are not choices, they are impositions, and everybody

in Bexar County will pay those when you fill your car or

pay your taxes, as opposed to tolling which is a choice

and only those who benefit from the improvement will pay.

So I think the vision, the creation of what

you've done several years ago -- and that's why I say this


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

nascent movement -- it's going to be received well if

people understand. And if we can get 62 percent of the

people before we send our message out, Commissioner

Andrade, already 62 percent, when we get the message out,

it's going to be much less volatile, it will be a welcome

approach to solving these problems in our cities.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, it just seems to me

like -- and I was talking with Mike last night -- I travel

the state a lot and just almost overnight it's changed,

it's been remarkable.

DR. THORNTON: You have served in elected

office. There are always those who say no, there are

always those who say no.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The easy way out, grabbing the

Road Fairy.

DR. THORNTON: But I will tell you, this effort

that you are giving us an opportunity to participate in

addresses these problems, I think, very fairly and very

effectively, and you involve local participation. It's a

very creative, farsighted way to do it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, we've got three

minute orders before us, and you've heard staff's

explanation and recommendation and the witness speaks on

all three. Are there questions or comments of the

witness?


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MS. ANDRADE: I'd like to make a comment.

Chairman Thornton, it's great to see these agenda items,

and I'm pleased at what we finally have arrived, and I

know that we've been through some rocky roads together,

but at the end I knew I was confident that it would all

work out. I think it was just the infancy of the RMA, and

as a parent, I think that we still wanted to make sure

that it was going to be okay.

And as a parent also, I'll tell you that you

are my favorite RMA, but we parents have a way of showing

that all of our children are our favorites, so Cameron

County is also our favorite RMA and so forth.

But thank you for your leadership, thank you

for hanging in there with us, and I'm glad that we're

going to make this loan, and I think it proves our

commitment to keep you involved in the decision making.

So thank you for your patience in all this.

MR. THORNTON: I'm not an engineer, but any

great road that's going to last a long time is going to

have to have some dirt moved and some disruption of

people's lives to get a foundation. We established a firm

foundation to build something that will last long beyond

my time. I tell people all the time: we will not see the

benefits of RMAs and their ability to address problems in

the future, but it's on a firm, firm foundation.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Thank you to you, Hope, and Mr. Chairman, to

you.


MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted, did you have anything?

MR. HOUGHTON: The message that I've been

preaching -- it sounds like I'm preaching -- across the

state is One Texas, and Mr. Chairman, that message I've

taken to Houston Monday that we are One Texas, as Houston

goes, goes the state, as Dallas goes, goes the state, and

no one is bigger than the state of Texas. And I look

forward to working with the Alamo RMA as well as all the

other RMAs, and this is a dynamic state, it's incredible

what we've got going. And when we look at as the whole,

the whole is bigger than the pieces, if the pieces start

falling apart, we're in trouble.

So with that said, it's going to be lot of fun.

There's a lot of heavy lifting but it's a lot of fun heavy

lifting. Look forward to working with you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: John?

MR. JOHNSON: I listened to a conversation

between a reporter and one of the members of the

commission, and I was under the impression this item was

going to be deferred.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We were just trying to pull

that reporter's leg.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. JOHNSON: Oh, so I didn't hear that

accurately?

DR. THORNTON: That's not funny, sir.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you know, is this as big

as CTRMA, Bob, the initial projects at the Alamo, are they

bigger than the initial projects at CTRMA.

MR. DAIGH: Everything is always bigger in

Austin, sir.

DR. THORNTON: That's slow-pitch softball,

isn't it.

(General laughter.)

MR. DAIGH: This is substantially larger than

the CTRMA.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So this will be basically the

next step, this will be our largest RMA effort now.

MR. DAIGH: Yes, sir, but we'll be back.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Bill, I want to thank you for

pointing out about the state's commitment in regular gas

tax dollars, because that does get lost in the background

noise. And I know Patrick and Ben in Austin and other

guys in North Texas, they've got to write about what

they've got to write about, but no one has stopped

investing gas tax money in Travis County, in Bexar County,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

in Harris County, in Dallas and Tarrant counties. I'm

thinking that we've let something like $400 million so far

in gas-tax-related construction projects in Bexar County.

We're going to keep on doing that, it's just a

question of no road, slow road, or the toll road. If you

want to get it faster and if you want the economic

opportunity, the congestion relief, the improvement of air

quality and safety that comes with it, then this is the

choices that we make.

DR. THORNTON: You are doing a lot of work in

San Antonio for which we're grateful.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thanks for coming all the way

down here, we appreciate it, and we appreciate your

comments.

DR. THORNTON: Thank you, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, do we have questions

or comments to staff?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, Mike, let's bring the

first one forward, please, sir. It's item what now?

MR. BEHRENS: 6(a).

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have item 6(a) before you,

members.

MS. ANDRADE: So moved.



1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234



aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. I have item

6(b) before you.





aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: All oppose, no.

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. And now I

have item 6(c) before you.





aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)



1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries all three times

on the very capable and strong back of Hope Andrade.

Thank you, guys. Let's go forward and build

some roads. Hey, the real fun is going to be when we

figure out how to move that railroad out of downtown San

Antonio and Austin. That's going to be fun. If we get

Proposition 1 passed, we'll get that done first.

MR. BEHRENS: Okay, Doug, let's go to 6(d).

MR. WOODALL: Item 6(d) seeks your acceptance

of the General Engineering Consultant's quarterly progress

report for the Central Texas Turnpike Project. The

project is on schedule; it's open to traffic with

construction completion on or before December 2007.

The estimated completion cost is currently $437

million lower than the original GEC's projections. The

current costs are estimated to be approximately $2.5

billion compared to approximately $2.9 billion in the

original GEC report.

Some progress items to mention since the last

report. On Sections 1 and 2 which is the MoPac North

extension, the southbound frontage roads and major utility

tie-ins are completed, and that frontage road facility is

open to traffic. On Section 8 which is east from the

Parmer Lane/620 interchange over 183, the westbound


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

frontage road is completed and open to traffic. The

traffic switches allow mobility along the corridor while

facilitating completion of the main lanes, allowing more

room for completion of the main lanes.

On State Highway 130, some milestones on 130

with the opening of the State Highway 195 bridge over

Interstate 35. Also construction has begun on three main

lane toll plazas and eight ramp plazas. Substructural

work has being completed at three of the interchanges and

the largest utility relocation along the project in terms

of scope was completed, that's a reroute of the TXU

utility line along FM 685, and that has been completed

under this quarterly report.

As far as the right of way, a total of 411

parcels were required for construction; 329 of those

parcels are now available for construction; the remaining

82 parcels are primarily corner clips, slivers and minor

acquisitions. Segments 1, 2 and 3 of State Highway 130

are under construction and scheduled to be completed prior

to September of '07, and Segment 4 they're anticipating

initiating construction this December and will be

completed with that segment on or prior to December of

2007.

Staff recommends your approval of the quarterly

report.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234


explanation and recommendation. Do you have questions or

comments?

MR. JOHNSON: I have a question.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON: Doug, concerning the

interoperability of electronic tolling of our other toll

systems around the state, are we satisfied that we are

well advanced in making sure that all these systems are

interoperable, especially the CTTP?

MR. WOODALL: In discussions with Mr. David

Powell of the Turnpike Division, it's my understanding we

obviously have agreements with the existing toll

authorities and have numerous options available to us for

the advancing RMAs, their projects, and we feel confident

that we'll have interoperability on every system.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, you know, agreements are

one thing but the actual interoperability of the toll tags

and the readers and the toll plazas is another. We need

to make sure that everything works.

MR. WOODALL: Yes, sir. And the tags that we

have in place and I believe in August you approved the CDA

for systems integration, and that system that's proposed

under there would be interoperable with the existing

systems in place. So we think we're well on our way to


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

achieving interoperability.

MR. JOHNSON: Good. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions or comments?

(No response.)





aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. WOODALL: Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That wasn't too bad, was it?

MR. WOODALL: No, sir, not at all.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 7 under

Finance will be the Quarterly Investment Report for that

same Central Texas Turnpike System. James?

MR. WILLIAMSON: James, I'm glad you finally

decided to travel with us for once.

MR. BASS: Mr. Munoz was busy today.

For the record, I'm James Bass, director of

Finance at TxDOT.

Agenda item 7 presents the Quarterly Investment


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Report for the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2005 which

ended on August 31.

At the end of August, the balance of investment

funds for the 2002 project stood at $1-1/4 billion. The

detail of those investments have been provided to you in

the quarterly report.

Staff recommends your acceptance of the report

and will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did we buy natural gas futures

with some of that money?

MR. BASS: No. I don't believe you have

allowed that in our investment policy.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, members, you've heard

the report and the recommendation. Do you have questions

or comments?





aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)



1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 8 concerning

pass-through toll financing, we have two minute orders,

one requesting that we have the authority to negotiate an

agreement, and one to give us the authority to execute a

pass-through toll agreement. James?

MR. BASS: The first item seeks authorization

to begin negotiations with Galveston County on a pass-

through toll agreement. The county submitted a pass-

through toll proposal providing for improvements to Farm

to Market 646.

Your approval today would in no way be an

agreement to any specific terms but would simply allow the

department to begin negotiations with the county in hopes

that we would then be able to come back in a future month

and provide you with those specific terms for your final

consideration at that point.

Staff recommends your approval of this minute

order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Amadeo? Is this a local road

or a regional road or a state road?

MR. SAENZ: This is a regional road in

Galveston County.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is this solving primarily a

local problem, a regional problem, or a state problem?

MR. SAENZ: It's solving a regional problem,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

it's solving some safety issues and some mobility issues.

As we go through it and evaluate it further, we'll be able

to tell how much of each of those will gain benefit.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it's primarily to reduce

congestion and improve safety project?

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. And this will lead to

some economic development in the area by being able to add

capacity to this corridor.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm sure it will assist in

economic development but will it provide any additional

economic opportunity?

MR. SAENZ: I think as we look forward that you

allow for this added capacity you will have some economic

opportunity for making some changes in the type of

development that will be there, for example, if we're

building residential there's some potential economic

opportunity in more commercial development that would

allow the possibility for having some facilities to move

into the area that will bring additional jobs.


presentation and recommendation and heard Amadeo's

comments about this particular project. Do you wish to

authorize staff to negotiate on this matter?




1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234


All those in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Don't get too

far, Amadeo.

MR. BASS: Item 8(a)(2) seeks your

authorization to begin negotiations with Hays County on a

pass-through toll agreement. The county has submitted a

pass-through toll proposal providing for improvements to

US 290, Ranch to Market 12, Farm to Market 1626, and Farm

to Market 967.

Once again, your approval today would simply

give us the authority to begin negotiations and would not

be agreement to any specific terms.

Staff recommends your approval, and I would

like to bring to your attention that Hays County

Commissioner Will Conley is in the audience in case you

might have any questions for him.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is he the one that is always

saying no toll roads under any circumstances?

MR. BASS: I'm not so advised.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I suspect that's from Comal

County, that's not from Hays County.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Okay, Amadeo. I'm going to take you through

each one, one at a time.


MR. WILLIAMSON: 290, local, regional or state?

MR. SAENZ: 290 is a regional and state. In

this area where we're talking about here, it's a regional

area providing some added capacity and mobility

improvements on 290.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So as it's used now, this

section of 290 is thought to be a regional and a state

road?


MR. WILLIAMSON: And is this problem we seek to

solve a local, regional or state problem?

MR. SAENZ: A regional problem with some

statewide issues.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And is it primarily focused on

which of our five benefits?

MR. SAENZ: It will be focused on the reduced

congestion; it will focus in the Austin area because

they're near non-attainment and to some improvement of air

quality; it will be focused on safety that we're going

from a four-lane, undivided to a four-lane, divided

facility; it will be some congestion relief. So that's

four of the five, and of course, economic opportunity will


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

also come as this corridor gets developed.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Farm to Market Road 1626?

MR. SAENZ: 1626 and 967 are a major commuter

route from the south to the northern part of Hays County

in Austin, parallel to 35, so it's a regional road. It

will solve a regional problem and allow, I guess, some

statewide benefits in that if you have this corridor you

could move some traffic off of 35 which is a statewide

corridor.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it's primarily congestion

relief?

MR. SAENZ: It's congestion relief.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So would you anticipate an

improved level of service for both these roads?

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. Both these roads that

we're building and some slight level of service as traffic

moves off of 35 and into this facility that we could see

some improvements on 35.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Highway 12, the fourth

project?

MR. SAENZ: Highway 12 is a regional, more

local. It's from San Marcos going west and for traffic

that travels from the west to San Marcos, to access San

Marcos but also 35. So there is some local and some

regional, maybe leaning more towards the regional. This


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

also will solve a safety issue in that it is through the

Hill Country area. It will also solve a congestion issue

and you have some benefits then for regular access to 35.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's okay to solve a local

problem, but it's more a local problem we're solving.


MR. WILLIAMSON: On a regional road.


MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, do you have questions

of Mr. Saenz?

MR. HOUGHTON: Amadeo, when are these projects

slated to be improved in the Unified Transportation Plan?

MR. SAENZ: These projects are not currently in

the Unified Transportation Plan.

MR. HOUGHTON: Not at all?

MR. SAENZ: No. Hays County, of course, is

part of the CAMPO area and they are not in their short-

range plan, they're somewhere in the middle- to the long-

range plans. Hays County is very aggressive and has done

bond elections and has some resources, and they'd like to

partner with us as they develop these projects, either

through some partnership money, or some of them, like 290,

as well as some pass-through toll opportunities on the

other projects.

MR. HOUGHTON: What's their total investment


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

and our commitment? Obviously, ours is a payback over

time.

MR. SAENZ: Right. We have been in

communication with the county. $43 million is the total

cost of all the projects, of which they're asking for $33

million in pass-through tolls, so they're investing close

to $10 million in the proposal. And we will meet with

them and discuss the terms and conditions, applying the

benefits and the indexes to determine kind of what the

final number really is.

MR. HOUGHTON: So we don't have a real formal

index to analyze the road as to the state issues versus

regional issues versus local?

MR. SAENZ: No, sir. Some of these indexes

we're still in the process of developing to determine what

is the actual benefit to air quality. We know that as you

add capacity to the road, you add capacity so your volume

over capacity ratio improves. When you have a lower

volume over capacity ratio, you get an improvement in air

quality, so we know there's a benefit there.

We also know that if you add capacity to this

road and traffic moves to this road can have an impact to

the roads around it, both positive and negative, so that

could give you a regional or a very wide air quality

impact, and we're working to develop those.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

It's the same thing with some of our congestion

indexes and such and so forth.

MR. HOUGHTON: I can't see the future but I can

sure see what people are maybe starting to think is

solving local problems with pass-through financing which

may not be in our best interest. That's my view.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. We will look into that.

I think one way to look into that is that as we go through

it, if the road is local and it's only local, maybe the

level of investment from the department and the level of

investment from the local entity that their shares maybe

need to change so that you have more of an equal, so that

you can have some kind of balanced level of input into the

project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, it's a shame that we'd

be having this conversation in Corpus Christi and not in

Austin, but I hope we'll continue next month in Austin and

in December.

But you make a good point, Ted, and I think all

members have to start focusing on and project to the

public our concerns. I'm aware that the department has

approached TTI for some help on finalizing the measurement

indexes, and I think it's time for us to be talking about

them so that Bob Daigh and David Casteel and Craig Clark

all understand the criteria.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. HOUGHTON: The thing is these aren't on the

Unified Transportation Plan, they pop up as well, here, we

found a road that needs to be improved, where we have this

plan out here as major state and regional roads that are

sitting out here five or ten years from now and not being

brought forward, but we may be solving local issues with

state funds and that, in my opinion, may not be in our

best interest.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But it also might be in our

best interest.

MR. HOUGHTON: It might.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I haven't asked you about

the timeline of solutions, I'll start asking you about

that next month. I need for you to be prepared, and in

turn, your employees need to be prepared to tell you just

straight up is this a local or a regional or a state road,

and is this a local problem, a regional problem or a state

problem. And next month I'm going to be asking is this

solution long-term, short-term, or mid-term, and then

we're going to know what the indexes are that measure the

impact of the investment.

That's the only way we can get to a point that

this program will be self-sustaining and is supportable by

the legislature.

MR. HOUGHTON: Are some of these communities


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

abandoning these long-term projects or these short-term

fixes? I'm sorry, that's a loaded question.

MR. SAENZ: Well, I think every proposal is

different. These are certainly priorities, for example,

in Hays County, these are the priorities they've

identified. Unfortunately, through the resources that

they have, working through their normal traditional funds

that come through the MPO and such, they were not able to

fund these projects, so these projects kind of got left

behind.

MR. HOUGHTON: So they could be circumventing

the MPO.

MR. SAENZ: Right, and that's where we need to

evaluate to see what impact these projects have on the

system with respect to the indexes, and that will

determine the level of commitment or reimbursement that we

can maybe put into these projects to see what happens.

There was a time that these projects competed with all the

other projects at their level and they did not make that

list.

MR. HOUGHTON: Didn't make it.


MR. HOUGHTON: And now some communities could

be, in fact, circumventing the MPO, they didn't get what

they want and they show up here.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, and that's the first

thing we check because there are some projects that we've

received that were in the plan but may have been in the

plan somewhere down the road, and so the community wants

to advance them because it's a huge project that solves

either a local problem or solves a regional problem, some

of them are statewide problems. But the area as a whole

did not see it as a highest priority so they put it on

down, but maybe the regional importance and the local

importance are such that the local community will now want

to spend money on that project and bring it forward, it's

important to them and we're all going to benefit because

that asset is put on the ground.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Again, not unlike Category 12

has been treated in the past, but hopefully towards a

little bit more self-control by requiring that the local

government put the cash up first and take a chance on

whether or not they're going to get their money back very

fast.

But it was time for us to start having this

conversation and we need to spend about three months

talking about it.

MR. SAENZ: That's why we set some standards as

to how much and at what rates we will pay back to make

sure that we are going to be paying back based on the


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

usage. So if the traffic is there, then that repayment

will be fast.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That poor Hays County

commissioner is sitting back there saying, Holy crud, you

guys are fixing to bust my deal.

MS. ANDRADE: Amadeo, I have a question. And I

agree, I think I'd feel much more comfortable when we have

guidelines so that when we go into communities and we talk

about if it's a local road, this is what we have. But I

would ask you, at what point do we start reimbursing them

on these pass-throughs?

MR. SAENZ: We do not start reimbursing them

until the project is completed and open to traffic.

MS. ANDRADE: At the end of the year?

MR. SAENZ: Well, what we do, once we negotiate

it and we come back to you with the terms -- as you'll act

on the next item -- then we will execute an agreement.

The local entity will go out there and build a project and

in that agreement we'll decide whether we're going to

reimburse you every six months or once a year, and it's

all based on the traffic that uses the facility over that

period of time.

MS. ANDRADE: Okay, thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Just one final question,

Amadeo, is this package --


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Or maybe you know, Mike -- is this wrapped up

in a previous deal we had with Hays County for them to do

something else and we wanted done?

MR. SAENZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I mean, this is a little bit

of us holding up our end of the deal?

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. This is one, as I

mentioned, we have been in communication with the county

judge, and one of the things that we had suggested to the

county is that if they went out there and they did certain

things, we would entertain a pass-through toll agreement.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Certain things on our

statewide long-term system.


MR. WILLIAMSON: Seek a long-term solution to a

statewide problem on a statewide road.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. So this is tied to that.

We will take that into consideration as we move forward.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Any other questions or

conversations with Amadeo, members?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: You've heard the explanation

staff and the recommendation.




1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234



aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. BASS: Item 8(b) would authorize the

department to enter into a pass-through toll agreement

with Williamson County. Under the agreement, the county

would initially finance the construction of various

improvements.

The department would reimburse the county over

time based upon the actual traffic on the improved roads

at a rate of 10 cents per vehicle mile, with a minimum of

just under $7.6 million per year which would lead to a 20-

year payback, and a maximum of just under $15.2 million

per year which would equate to a payback over a ten-year

period, until such time as just under $152 million is

reimbursed to the county.

There are a couple of things I'd like to point

out before moving to the staff recommendation. One of

those is a technical correction to the minute order you

have before you. The next to the last paragraph on the

first page, you will note on the second line it says,


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

"Through tolls of $152,942,000." That should read

"$151,942,000."

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, they won't mind giving us

another million; leave it like it is.

MR. BASS: No, this is what we pay them.

(General laughter.)

MR. BASS: The second thing I would like to

point out, from Williamson County with us today, Judge

John Doerfler and Commissioner Frankie Limmer are also

here in the audience, I believe.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, there they are over in the

hole. Hey, guys. Where's Krusee? I saw him last night.

He must be stuck out in the bay fishing.

MR. BASS: And staff would recommend your

approval.

MR. HOUGHTON: Is this the first one that gets

approved, executed?

MR. BASS: No. This would be the fourth one

that has received final approval with the terms from the

commission.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, Amadeo, step up and

let's go through it. We have done a lot of this already

about these projects, so I don't want to drag it out, I

just need to be sure that we go through the exercise.

Let's take, for example, item number 2 out to


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

the right, project 2.

MR. SAENZ: Project 2?

MR. WILLIAMSON: That is clearly a regional

road.

MR. SAENZ: Item number 1 and number 2 are

regional roads but really with statewide implications. US

79 in Williamson County is a four-lane, undivided

facility.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does it go all the way to A&M?

MR. SAENZ: I'm sorry.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does it go to A&M or Hearne?

MR. JOHNSON: Jacksonville.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, is that the Robert Nichols

Express?

MR. JOHNSON: It will have a special toll lane

for him.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's right, a high-speed

toll lane for Robert Nichols.

(General laughter.)

MR. SAENZ: As you go past into Milam County,

then it goes into a four-lane, divided highway with a

grass median, so this closes the gap.

For this project, like I said, it's regional

because it provides regional mobility but it also provides

statewide mobility. If you look at the traffic on those


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

two projects, as you get closer into the Austin are,

they're operating at levels of service where you do have

congestion. As you get further away, they're operating at

a little bit higher level, Cs and Ds, A and B being very

good, C and D being fair to good, and E and F being

basically you're experiencing congestion.

By changing the facility from what I would call

a four-lane, undivided with no shoulders to a four-lane,

divided with crossovers and left-turn lanes where you

control the access to both sides of the highway, you

improve that level of service to C in the areas near

Austin and to A and B in the areas further away. So in

essence, you're improving that whole corridor from a

congestion perspective.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This has got to be a mid-term

to short-term solution, this can't be a long-term solution

for that area.

MR. SAENZ: This is a mid-term solution. I

think eventually the next solution would be the

possibility that you would expand and as traffic builds up

that this facility would be developed as a potential

controlled access facility expressway, with the

possibility of future main lanes to be managed lanes or

tolled lanes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So has Williamson County done


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

its traditional fine job of advance planning and acquired

enough right of way for those express lanes?

MR. SAENZ: This project will be acquiring

right of way. We will be working with Williamson County

with respect to the amount of right of way so that we do

have it.

One of the other projects that we'll talk

about, the 183 project, is regional for the projects we're

talking about, but the 183 also has very significant

statewide implications. But that project, what is simply

being done right now is getting the right of way, widen

out and build only the frontage so that in the future you

can expand the main lanes as tolled lanes, and it will tie

into the 183A system that is currently being developed by

the CTRMA.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I just want to be sure on that

with regard to particularly the 79 part, that we've either

negotiated with them to be sure and get the right of way

bigger or we ourselves are going to go out and buy bigger

right of way, because you can never buy it cheaper than

right now.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. The right of way is a

big expense on those projects, and we negotiated and I

will verify that, but I'm sure that we are buying enough

right of way to be able to address the future expansion.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

The other projects are more regional and local,

the project on 1660 and 2338. For example, the 1660

project, is the realignment of an existing farm to market

road, and this will allow for, in essence, almost a bypass

around Hutto that will improve safety, mobility, move

commercial traffic out of the downtown area of Hutto

because 1660 goes through Hutto. So it will improve

safety, it will improve mobility.

All these projects, as you add the capacity, as

I mentioned earlier, will have a positive impact on air

quality. I don't have what the measure is but that's

something that's being developed.

So all these projects will meet all of the

factors that we've been talking about and have a positive

impact for the whole area.

The 2338 is also a major arterial that's going

from a two-lane highway to a five-lane, curb-and-gutter

rural facility with left turns. It will improve mobility,

it will reduce congestion. That one, for example, is

currently operating at level F which is basically almost

gridlock. By expanding the extra lanes and putting in

your left-turn lane, you, in essence, improve that level

of service to B. So you have now a facility that will

operate. That is, like I said, a local-regional facility.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's let members ask


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

questions, Amadeo.

Members, questions or comments for Amadeo?

MR. HOUGHTON: Mine is the same one, the

Unified Transportation Plan, were these in the plan or did

these just pop up because they were not approved?

MR. SAENZ: These projects were in the long-

range plan but were out in past the ten-year mark, more

into the longer term. And again, Williamson County has

gone through and they're willing to go out there and bring

these assets forward.

MR. HOUGHTON: So our investment is $151

million.

MR. SAENZ: Right, $151-. Their original

request was $174-, and we're at $151,942,000, $152-, and

we would pay it over a ten-year period, so we would

probably start paying in 2010, and if the traffic is such,

we would pay it in a minimum of ten years so we would pay

out by 2020, but if the traffic is not there, then it

really would be stretched out till 2030.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Krusee's original request was

like $600 million; this is pared way down.

MR. HOUGHTON: They're willing to vote for

bonds in Williamson County for $600 million?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike is an aggressive guy.

(General laughter.)


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. SAENZ: What James brought before you when

we presented the original submittal, it was presented with

a lot more projects, but working with Williamson County

and their folks, they decided to break it up into a Phase

1 and Phase 2.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I might have been

overstating it. How close was it? It was much bigger

than this originally, was it not?

MR. SAENZ: It was like $272- or something like

that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, $272-. $600- was what

he dreamed about. I like Krusee, he's not afraid of

anything.

Any other questions of Amadeo?

MR. SAENZ: Just a few more statistics with

respect to the safety index and looking at the crash rates

for these facilities. A four-lane, undivided facility,

for example, on 79, the crash rates on 79 which is the

number of accidents per 100 million vehicle miles, is

running about in the 100 to 110. If you look at the

statewide average for similar roads, that's pretty close

to the statewide average.

That piece of 79 that is towards the Milam

County line, between 1999 and 2001 had six fatalities.

Going to a four-lane, divided highway will certainly


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

improve that because now you have, in essence, separated

the traffic. Right now you've got four lanes and no

shoulder, so if someone wants to turn left, they're

turning left just immediately next to the oncoming

traffic, and now you'll be able to control that with left-

turn lanes and crossovers.

So those projects, from the safety index, have

a great improvement in safety.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Any other questions of Amadeo,

members?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: James is back up. James has

given you his explanation and his recommendation.

MR. BASS: With a minor revision.

MR. WILLIAMSON: As revised.





aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. HOUGHTON: Don't leave, James. Can I ask


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

you one more question back on 6(d), what out of the $2.9

billion for the project is equity from all parties?

MR. BASS: On which item?

MR. HOUGHTON: Texas 130.

MR. BASS: There was $700 million from the

state and $500 million from the local governments into the

project.

MR. HOUGHTON: Thanks.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 9, Traffic

Operations, this is a minute order to recommend some lane

use restrictions in Dallas County and Tarrant County and

Harris County.

MR. LOPEZ: Good afternoon, commissioners.

Again for the record, my name is Carlos Lopez, I'm

director of the Traffic Operations Division.

The minute order before you authorizes the

creation of a left-lane restriction for trucks on portions

of I-20 in Dallas County, I-10 and US 290 in Harris

County, and I-30 in Tarrant County.

This restriction will prohibit trucks from

operating in the left lane of these highways. Trucks

would be allowed to use these lanes to pass other vehicles

and to exit the highway. The department conducted traffic

studies and determined that these restrictions could be

beneficial for safety and mobility.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

The department published notices requesting

public comment on these restrictions in the August 19 and

August 26 editions of the Texas Register and also held a

series of public meetings. No comments were received.

We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. HOUGHTON: Can you amend it for I-10 in

Harris and El Paso counties, Carlos?

(General laughter.)

MR. LOPEZ: I think Chuck is looking at I-10 in

El Paso.

MR. SAENZ: We're working on El Paso County on

I-10.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes, Amadeo is looking at that.

MR. JOHNSON: Carlos, I've been under the

impression that there are lane restrictions for trucks on

I-10 East in Harris County.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes. This is adding another about

nine miles to that, and it covers that same distance

because they're going to change it to a 24-7 operation

instead of a 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. operation. By the

way, all the ones in Houston will be 24-7.

MR. JOHNSON: And when will these go into place

as being enforced?

MR. LOPEZ: As soon as we can get signs up and

the cities pass ordinances.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. JOHNSON: So we're waiting on the city in

this case.

MR. LOPEZ: This is the first step in making it

all happen. I think, in any case, our signs are already

getting fabricated, hoping that you will approve this

minute order and the ordinances will be passed.

MR. HOUGHTON: A leap of faith.

MR. LOPEZ: Trust.

MS. ANDRADE: Carlos, I have a question. Do we

work closely with that community to see if they can also

enforce it? I mean, it's okay we put the signs up, but if

they don't enforce it, it doesn't do us any good.

MR. LOPEZ: One of the first things we ask our

district engineers to do -- and they've been doing this --

is see if they get that commitment from enforcement,

because you're exactly right, a sign doesn't make it all

happen, you've got to have the enforcement in place also.

Up to now we've been very fortunate. I talked

to Houston before yesterday and they report a very high

compliance rate in Houston, that they just had a real good

focus on enforcing this in that area. They're not getting

complaints from the public or the trucking industry. The

public perceives them working well and they're asking for

more.

So this is something that started off with a


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

letter that Commissioner Johnson sent back in 2000 and I

think it's starting to catch on around the state.

MS. ANDRADE: Sometimes the general public

doesn't know when it happens, so maybe we should have a

press conference or something to announce it, just not

hang up the sign and not do anything else.

MR. LOPEZ: I think in Dallas it might be more

kind of a big splash.

MS. ANDRADE: Good.

MR. JOHNSON: Hope's point is a good one,

though, in terms of enforcement. My recollection is that

on I-10 East there in Harris County, the City of Houston

really did a bang-up job in enforcement and got people

recognizing the fact, and the traffic accident rates with

trucks involved were reduced 68 percent. So I mean, these

are meaningful ways to deal with the safety issue, as

long, as she points out, enforcement is there. If it's

not, people are going to take shortcuts and leeways.

MR. LOPEZ: Right, and I'll just point out

that's something that we'll continue to do is look at

these after a period of time to make sure they're doing

what we intend for them to do.


explanation and the recommendation.



1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234




aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. LOPEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Carlos.


contracts for the month of October, maintenance contracts

and highway and building construction contracts. Thomas?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Thomas Bohuslav and I'm the director of the

Construction Division.

Item 10(a)(1) is for consideration of award or

rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on October

6 and 7, 2005, whose engineers' estimated costs are

$300,000. We had 20 projects, an average of 3.35 bidders

per project, total bid almost $10 million.

There's one project we recommend for rejection,

Project Number 4013 in Collin County. This is a sweeping

and debris removal contract that came in at 143 percent

over. It's a bit high and we want to go back and see if


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

we can get better prices for that contract.

Staff recommends award of all projects with the

exception noted.


explanation and recommendation.





aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 10(a)(2) is for the

consideration of award or rejection of highway and

building construction projects let on October 6 and 7,

2005, and it also includes Cameron County Project Number

3208 which was deferred last month. We had 89 projects,

an average number of bidders of 3.45 per project, total

bid amount almost $410 million.

We have three projects to recommend for

rejection. The first project is Project Number 3227 in

Panola County. It was 40 percent over, we had two bidders

on the project that overbid about $5.8 million, for


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

widening of about 50 miles of lane sections on FMs in

Panola County for some safety work.

We feel this price is too high and we'd like to

go back and relet it, and hopefully get additional

contractors to bid as well.

Another project recommended for rejection in

Terry County is Project Number 3214. It was 85 percent

over and two bidders on it, $2.9 million was the total

bid. This is for some safety work for end treatments over

a nine-county area, 16 separate project locations.

These prices are high, and again, we'd like to

go back and see if we can actually change a specification

requirement in there that might help us get more material

suppliers for concrete there and that they might supply

the product as well and get better prices for that reason.

The last project recommended for rejection is a

project in Grayson County, Project Number 3233. It's 45

percent over, we had two bidders, $2.7 million was the

total bid. It's reconstruction of some frontage roads

there, and we believe we can get better prices by going

back and reletting that one and hope to solicit more

competition for that one as well.

Staff recommends award with the exceptions

noted. Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thomas, I want to ask you


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

about one. You know, every month when I go through these

things, I look for the largest contracts and kind of put

my eagle eye on those and see what I know about them, and

I was reading through here and I think the largest single

low bid amount is this one in Goliad County on US 59.

Does that sound right to you? Corpus Christi District.

Do you want the controlling project number?

MR. BOHUSLAV: I see it there. It's sequence

number 3201.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's the biggest one this

month, isn't it? I believe it is.

Now, the reason that I honed in on that was

because I had remembered receiving some letters or some

copies of some letters from a county judge about that

project, so I went back to my file, and then strangely

enough, I think yesterday -- and I can't be sure, but I

think yesterday that same county judge accosted me at a

public meeting about this project.

And I want to ask you a couple of questions

because this county judge wrote some pretty serious things

for the public record that bothered me quite a bit, and I

want to be sure we're not approving a contract that in the

end is going to cause more trouble than it's going to help

in Goliad County, because based on this fellow's words,

I'm not sure we want to move forward with this contract.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

And I didn't find his first letter, I just

found the second. He addressed this letter to the

Assistant Attorney General of all people, he doesn't

address it to the chairman of the commission or the

executive director, doesn't address it to his district

director, he addresses the letter to the Attorney General.

And he says: "Dear Mr. Click, We appreciate

your efforts" -- this is him saying this to Mr. Click; I

don't know what he's got to do with our highways -- "in

continuing our quest for a facility that by TxDOT's own

estimation will satisfy the traffic numbers anticipated

for another 40 to 50 years. Goliad County has been on

this quest for five years" -- this is the egregious

part -- "and when we became aware TxDOT was not

considering our input for this project from the results of

various public meetings, we decided" -- I guess we, there

must be more than one county judge involved in this -- "we

decided to make the attorney general, the comptroller" --

what in the heck has she got to do with anything? --

"members of the Highway Commission and the Board of

Professional Engineers aware of our frustrations.

"Our request today is obtain from the following

counties and other persons such correspondence and

graphics as they have in their files, Michael Behrens,

Craig Clark, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller, members


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

of the Highway Commission," the three senior members

only -- sounds like an open records request.

"You began receiving our correspondence about

the same time Commissioner Andrade began receiving

duplicates of our submission. Time is of extreme

importance. We ask your immediate attention with complete

presentations for two pieces of correspondence. These are

necessitated by the news article appearing on August 19,

submitted by Turner Collie & Braden."

What's that all about? What do you know about

this, Thomas?

MR. BOHUSLAV: I'm not involved on those

aspects of planning for this project, but the DE is here,

he probably would be able to respond to this.

MR. HOUGHTON: I'd like to state one thing,

they said the three senior members, it's those three down

there.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I mean, I see a copy of

this letter less than a month ago and this project pops up

now, we're approving it, it seems to me that we've got a

very angry county judge that doesn't like the way we're

doing business, why would we approve this project? I

think we need to stop and make sure we've got him

satisfied.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. HOUGHTON: I'd like to ask a question.

Craig?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Craig, I'm just telling you, I

take great offense at people who write letters like this,

and I don't want to make him any madder than he obviously

already is.

MR. HOUGHTON: Can there be, I call it, bait-

and-switch? Can we award this project and then the county

judge or somebody intervene and want to change the design

of this project?

MR. CLARK: Not at the point that we would

award the project and proceed.

The difficulty with this judge and this project

predates me in this district, even predates my

predecessor, David Casteel. I think it began when Billy

Parks was district engineer here when they began a process

of public hearings and design development for this

expansion of this section of 59.

In the course of that public involvement, this

judge was particularly interested in some different design

approaches that would be made in this section of highway,

some different standards by which it would be built that

differed from the controls and the limitations that we had

associated with the trunk system program that this project

was being advanced under.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

Those discussions with my predecessors, myself,

and Commissioner Andrade were all made in terms of trying

to re-enfranchise this judge in our process and in the

ultimate facility that we were going to deliver. We have

been able to meet with him and bring some of the proposals

that they had into our design at the time that we were

advancing it, but we didn't completely satisfy him.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Should we carry forward with

this contract? I mean, this letter was dated September

13, that's less than two months ago. If we're going to

keep having him complain about what we're doing, why would

we spend $49 million, why don't we wait till we satisfy

his complaints and go spend this $49 million someplace

where people are satisfied?

MR. CLARK: I believe that the information he

tried to convey to you and mentioned to me, as late as

yesterday when we had the meeting hosted by the city, was

that he believed that this project should be approved and

awarded as it was let because of the need of his

constituents in that county for this facility and the

problems that it would address.

MR. HOUGHTON: Is there an election coming up?

MR. CLARK: Probably.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I mean, people ought not to

write letters they aren't serious about. Was this need


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

not apparent as recently as two months ago?

MR. CLARK: I think that that letter and

previous letters were mainly to try to influence design

decisions in that project and change design decisions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: By writing the attorney

general of the state and the comptroller who doesn't know

anything about building roads?

MR. JOHNSON: Craig, are you including routing

decisions when you say design decisions? My recollection

was early on he wrote at least one and maybe more letters,

but it was a routing issue to the west of Goliad, 59 after

you cross the river.

MR. CLARK: And more of his routing was in

another section of 59 that we have yet to advance. The

section that we're talking about here, there was some

routing areas that they did not agree with the exact

alignments, but they weren't greatly different, and we

were able to, I think, address most of those with him.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What's his reference to this

Turner Collie & Braden news article of August 19? Do you

know anything about that?

MR. CLARK: That article, I believe, was part

of a press event in Victoria where they talked about a

variety of projects, this being one, and I think Turner

Collie & Braden was involved in some of the other


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

projects, but because of Mr. Parks's knowledge of this

particular roadway segment, he made comments with respect

to it, and that's what they focused in on the article.

MS. ANDRADE: Mr. Chairman, let me add to

Craig's comments. I've had two personal visits, along

with Craig, to this judge. I've gone to Goliad and met

with him, and this has been an ongoing issue. In fact,

one of the challenges that I gave Craig was let's end this

because it's just been going on.

He's got a different view as to where he wants

this and we pulled the public hearings that were held and

that didn't prove that, because he kept saying that the

community wanted it also, and it did not prove that. This

is where he wants it. The choices that we gave him were:

this is where we have it funded; if you want it over there

and your constituents want it also, this is how much extra

it costs, if you're willing to pay for it, we'll put it

there. But he doesn't want to pay for it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it's your view that we're

not going to have someone unhappy even after we spend this

money. Oh, no, you're not saying that? You're just

saying we have to move forward.

MS. ANDRADE: I believe the community deserves

this. It's been going on for years and years, and it's

time that we get it done. It's just the way he, and I


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

believe his brother also has worked with TxDOT before.

But we've given him the time.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, that got Monroe up.

MS. ANDRADE: Oh, I'm sorry. We've given him

the time and I think Craig spent a whole afternoon with

him when we did the second visit. So we've made every

effort to listen to him and made every effort to meet his

needs.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Don't let us go too far here,

Richard.

MR. MONROE: For the record, Richard Monroe,

general counsel of the department.

I believe this is one of at least two letters

I'm aware of that the judge has written. Grady Click has

referred both of those to me, and I wrote to the judge

saying these other people are not in a position to answer

your questions. Your questions and requests for

information should be addressed to this department.

However, I think if you will read that letter

carefully, it is difficult to find out what information he

is actually asking for. So in this letter of which I am

speaking back to the judge, I said you will need to be

specific and define for me what information you want and

then we will proceed accordingly under the provisions of

the Public Information Act.


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

To my knowledge, he has never responded to my

letter, but if you'd like, I can check into that with the

people that actually handle the Public Information Act

requests. But usually a request from a person such as

this and with my prior involvement, I probably would have

been made aware if he had ever responded to my letter. As

I say, as far as I know, he has not.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But it's your feeling,

Commissioner Andrade, is we need to move forward no matter

what.

MS. ANDRADE: Yes. It's been a project there

for many years.

MR. JOHNSON: Is my recollection in the

ballpark as being accurate that we had a visit from that

three-county delegation, Bee, Goliad and Victoria, and the

Bee County judge was the spokesperson and they were

requesting improvements on 59, talking about safety

issues?

MR. CLARK: Yes. That was in August.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think they were requesting

something different than this.

MR. JOHNSON: But basically it was 59, it

wasn't necessarily this specific, because it covered a

three-county area where 59 is quite prominent. In the

big-picture, small-picture sort of mentality, I'm


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

confused.

MR. CLARK: The Tri-County Coalition, Goliad

being one of the tri-counties, was looking to update the

commission on the activities on the 59 corridor in total.

In some of the other segments of this 59 corridor, we have

projects that are operational changes, that being Super 2

construction of two-lane roadways, that would help the

safety but not necessarily adding capacity, and they were

trying to make a case with the commission that the

conditions have changed and the demands on the system may

require us to look again at the possibility of adding

capacity.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Well, I was just caught

off guard, Mike, because I saw the county, I saw the

amount, a bell went off, I went back and looked at my

file, I found this letter, and I'm asking myself why we're

approving the contract when the county judge, an important

official in the county, this guy obviously is angry,

obviously doesn't like what we're doing, and we obviously

have a shortage of money everywhere, so why are we moving

forward with a contract that's just going to make somebody

madder when we can stop it and go do someplace else until

he gets calmed down and we've worked it out.

But are you saying it's not going to work out

and the citizens have been waiting many years and we need


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

to move forward no matter whether this person is happy or

not?

MR. HOUGHTON: With that said, Ric, you and I

were the only ones at the event last night and he made it

a point to talk to me about this and said, I really would

appreciate your vote to approve it. And I said, Sure, be

glad to approve it. I was unaware of the letter since he

referred to the three senior members of the commission.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, like I said, I take

things like this really serious.

MR. HOUGHTON: And I did threaten that I could

take the money out to El Paso, and he proceeded to tell me

I'll come find you. But he was very, very much proactive

in his remarks on approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Well, you've heard the

explanation and recommendation and probably more than you

wanted to hear about one in particular about this minute

order. What's your pleasure?

MR. JOHNSON: I have one question of Thomas.

Where did you get them boots?

MR. BOHUSLAV: The tall man's store.

(General laughter.)




1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234



aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you,

Thomas.


routine minute orders, and they've all been duly posted as

required. I've looked at all the minute orders and I don't

think any of them have any impact on any of the

commissioners. I'll go through them if you'd like to;

otherwise, I recommend approval of the routine minute

orders.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I do have one question about

11(a)(4). Now read that sentence, the explanation.

MR. BEHRENS: "Consider a donation from Mr.

Bruce Harvey, a private landowner" --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, stop. Now, if he wasn't

a private landowner, what else would he be? I kept

looking for the hidden trick in this deal. What's the

deal?

MR. HOUGHTON: Engineers don't have tricks.

(General laughter.)


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've had time to

look it over. What's your pleasure?





aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)


Mr. Monroe, do we have reason to go to

executive session?

MR. MONROE: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you, Mike, for a

job well done.

MR. BEHRENS: We have no open comments.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We have no open comments. We

thank Craig one more time for your hospitality, and

members, the most privileged motion is in order.

MR. JOHNSON: I don't have a World Series game

to go to, so I'm not going to make the motion.

MR. HOUGHTON: Move to adjourn.


MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

to adjourn. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying

aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)


(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: For the record, we stand

adjourned as of 1:48 p.m. Thank you, members.

(Whereupon, at 1:48 p.m., the meeting was

concluded.)


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

234

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission

LOCATION: Corpus Christi, Texas

DATE: October 27, 2005

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages,

numbers 1 through 197 inclusive, are the true, accurate,

and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording

made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum before the

Texas Department of Transportation.

10/31/05 (Transcriber) (Date)

On the Record Reporting, Inc. 3307 Northland, Suite 315

Austin, Texas 78731


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

101112131415161718192021

22

234

Documents

10-OCT27TRN€¦ · Web viewCOMMISSION MEETING. Thursday, October 27, 2005. Ortiz Center. Nueces Room. 402 Harbor Drive. Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 COMMISSION MEMBERS: