Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

Commission Room
Dewitt Greer Building
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas 78701-2483

9:00 a.m. Thursday, December 13, 2001

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

JOHN W. JOHNSON, Chairman
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
RIC WILLIAMSON

STAFF:

MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director
RICHARD MONROE, General Counsel
HELEN HAVELKA, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director
 

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:16 a.m., and this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is called to order. Welcome to our final meeting of the year. It is a pleasure to have you here today.

Please note for the record that public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was filed with the Office of Secretary of State at 4:36 p.m. on December 5, 2001.

Before we get started, I would like to see if my colleagues, the fellow commissioners, have any comments. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I'd welcome everybody here today. Have a great holiday and drive carefully. That's all.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's a pretty good way of summing it up.

MR. JOHNSON: I concur. We certainly hope that everyone has a very meaningful and special holiday season, and please drive carefully.

As we go through the agenda I would ask that if you would like to speak on an agenda item that you fill out a yellow card and submit it so we may call you at the appropriate time, and if you would like to address the commission at the open session at the end of the meeting, please fill out a blue card, and please be mindful that time is very important, and we ask you to hold your comments to three minutes or thereabouts.

We will commence the meeting by having the approval of the minutes of our two commission meetings that were held in November, the normal commission meeting and then the enhancement meeting. Is there a motion to that effect?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Mike, I will turn the agenda over to you.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll begin with agenda item number 2, aviation. Dave Fulton will talk about funding for airport improvements.

MR. FULTON: Good morning, commissioners and Mike. My name is David Fulton, director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.

This minute order contains a request for grant funding approval for four airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all these projects shown in Exhibit A is approximately $547,000: 438,000 federal, 54,000 state, and 54,000 local.

A public hearing was held on November 26 of this year, and no comments were received. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: One short question.

MR. FULTON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: To what extent when we're going through these projects and recommending them for approval or disapproval -- to what extent do we consider what we may or may not be doing to enhance connectivity of these airports to our state highway system, and in particular to any proposed expansion of our system? Do we ever give that any kind of thought?

MR. FULTON: Let me see if I understand your question --

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I'm not suggesting that we should. I'm just curious.

MR. FULTON: The connectivity between the highway system and the airport system?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.

MR. FULTON: We haven't done a great deal of that. Fortunately, we have a fine highway system in this state, but most of the airports are pretty well served. We do consider the access road into the airport from a major highway eligible for funding. It's both federally and eligible for state funding.

There has been discussion at times at the larger airports to look at access there, but for the general aviation airports we have not done anything to that regard.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's something we might want to start considering in the future.

MR. FULTON: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, chair.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, David.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 3, public transportation, Margot Massey.

MS. MASSEY: Good morning. I'm Margot Massey, director of Public Transportation Division.

The item we have before you today is request for toll credits of $125,023 for the City of Longview. You may recall that in September you approved some state discretionary funding for Longview to help them implement fixed-route service. They don't have federal funds yet. We're hoping they'll flow soon, and these would go along with the state funds to buy alternatively fueled buses for their fixed-route system.

We recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Can I get in one question, chair?

Margot, you're doing a real good job of pushing public transportation towards alternative fuels. Do we have a mechanism in place where we're letting the EPA and TNRCC know of our efforts to --

MS. MASSEY: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  -- contribute to --

MS. MASSEY: We've communicated with both those agencies and the land office and comptroller's office.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, chair. So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item number 4 -- we have the proposed adoption of our administrative rules, the first being 4(a)(1), employment practices.

MS. ISABEL: Good morning. I'm Diana Isabel, director of human resources.

This proposed minute order has two actions. The first is to repeal Section 4.60 through 4.64, and then we want to simultaneously propose adoption of the new Section 4.60 through 4.63 concerning employee training and education. The purpose of this repeal and modification is strictly to revise and simplify the structure, clarify the meeting, and shorten the length.

Some of the major -- there aren't any major revisions. We have done a little bit of cleanup to require employees to attend accredited colleges and universities and allow latitude in taking correspondence and internet courses, and we also are ending the authorization of a waiver that was there so if an employee leaves our employment under the master's program and goes to another state agency we no longer would allow that waiver.

Staff recommends that this proposed minute order be adopted. Are there any questions?

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Only comment.

In the rework of these rules you reduce the volume by 25 percent.

MS. ISABEL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Hats off to you.

MS. ISABEL: We have to thank OGC for that.

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any questions. I'll move --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MS. ISABEL: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 4(a)(2) -- we have the proposed adoption of our control of access and frontage road rules, and for the first time at a commission meeting as the director of Design Division, Ken Bohuslav.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: My name is Ken Bohuslav, and I am the director of the Design Division.

The minute order we have for your consideration proposes adoptions of amendments to the department's frontage road policy contained in Title 43 of the Texas Administrative Code Section 15.54. On June 28 of this year the commission adopted minute order 108544 that directed staff to review and modify the existing rules in Section 15.54, and to better define the policy outlined in that minute order. That review is now complete.

Proposed amendments emphasize that the department will not automatically include frontage roads during project development, but that they will only be included where there are good engineering reasons or when frontage roads construction is determined to be in the best interests of the state.

Proposed amendments codified the commission policy outlined in minute order 108544 to state that all freeways and relief routes shall be designated as controlled access highways. In addition, proposed amendments focus on when access to any new frontage roads would be permitted. Unless the frontage road is provided specifically to resolve a landlocked situation or because purchase of access rights is too costly, access will not be permitted to the highway rights of way, including any frontage road constructed for engineering reasons, as mentioned previously.

Commission approval will be required before any new public or private access to a controlled access facility could be granted. This approval should be sought early, before adjacent property owners make any investments based on assumptions of access to the right of way.

Due to the interest in these frontage road rules, we have scheduled six public hearings around the state to receive public comment. Hearings are scheduled as follows: January 8 in San Antonio, January 15 in Irving, January 18 in Houston, January 22 in Lubbock, 23 in McAllen, and January 24 in El Paso.

At each location we'll begin at 2:00 p.m. with an open house format to give interested persons an opportunity to clarify any questions they have about the proposed amendments, and this will be with the department staff on an informal basis. At 4:00 p.m. we will begin the official public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comments on the proposed rules. Public hearings will last until at least 6:00 p.m.

Comments may also be submitted in writing up until February 4, 2002. Comments will then be addressed before the final rules could be adopted.

Staff recommends your approval of the proposed rules for publication in the Texas Register. The preamble to be published in the Texas Register will include the dates, location, times of each of the six public hearings. Your approval is recommended.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're still thinking about it. Is it true -- do you know, or do you know, chair? Somebody told me yesterday that the Greater Houston Partnership has endorsed our frontage road policy.

MR. JOHNSON: I have not heard.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And the Harris County -- is it MPO or traffic --

MR. JOHNSON: HGAC.

MR. WILLIAMSON: HGAC has endorsed the frontage road policy?

MR. JOHNSON: My information is they were going to consider it and they believed they were going to take favorable action, but I haven't heard their final decision.

We do have Representative Joe Pickett, who filled out a card.

Representative Pickett, did you want to say anything about frontage roads or the border colonias?

REP. PICKETT: I'll wait on the group --

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, if you need a motion I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm going to second it, but I was going to make some comments.

I probably, on this one single issue, received more phone calls, letters. I wouldn't put them in a category of fan mail, but a lot of letters related to the issue because it is one of great concern and sensitivity to communities in economic development as well as moving people, and there's a lot of concern and fear out there. For those people who are listening to that and who will be reading the transcript, these public hearings -- this is a proposed set of rules.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: That's very important to emphasize. And that through this process once we have a document out there for everybody to read and look at, through that public hearing process we'll be taking very serious input. And this thing may be shaped and molded slightly differently than the way it's proposed. But the best we have seen -- this looks pretty good to me.

So anyway, I've already made my second.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, extremely well said. The six open hearings around the state I think are extremely important. They're hopefully convenient to anyone who has something that they want to say about this particular issue. This has, as Robert mentioned, probably brought more attention than any other item certainly since my stay on the commission, and it's an extremely important one, and for that reason we want to make sure we get it right, and we want to make sure that we hear everybody who has -- is affected by it and has an opinion.

So I encourage you to attend and participate in those January hearings.

There is a motion and a second to that effect. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Ken, thank you.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: I would also mention that copies of the proposed rules that you passed this morning are available at our public information office, which is on this same floor on the other side of the elevators.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for doing that. I'm sure there are a number of people in the audience who will avail themselves of that opportunity.

MR. BEHRENS: Moving on to agenda item 4(a)(3), vehicle titles and registration rules, Jerry.

MR. DIKE: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Jerry Dike, division director of Vehicle Titles and Registration Division.

And this minute order proposes the adoption of amendments to rule 17.1 through 3, 17.21, 17.22, and 17.52 to update these rules and bring them into compliance with state laws that passed in the previous legislative session: House Bill 642, House Bill 2134, House Bill 2217, House Bill 1378, and House Bill 2204 on various registration and titling issues.

These proposed amendments correct the existing rules and ensure they're consistent and clarify language.

Staff recommends your approval of the minute order to propose these rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, Jerry.

MR. DIKE: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 4(a)(4), right of way rules on relocation assistance and benefits.

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 item 4(a)(4), which is a minute order for the proposed adoption of Sections 21.11 -- I'm sorry -- it's the proposed adoption of the repeal of Sections 21.111 through 21.117 of Title 43 of the Texas Administrative Code, and new Sections 21.111 through 21.118. These sections concern the relocation assistance benefits and procedures of the department.

Staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

John, thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(a)(5), Travel Information magazine advertising.

Doris.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Good morning. For the record my name is Doris Howdeshell, director of the Travel Division at TxDOT.

The minute order you have before you this morning proposes new Section 23.29 concerning magazine advertising. The Texas Civil Statutes Article 6144(e) authorizes the department to publish Texas Highways, which is the state's official travel magazine, and other travel literature for the purpose of assisting and encouraging travel in Texas.

In furtherance of that purpose the department may include certain paid advertising in travel literature, provided that the quality and the quantity of those products are maintained.

New 23.29 prescribes department policies and procedures related to advertising content for the magazine. Subsection (b) actually prescribes subjects acceptable for advertising. Subsection (c) specifies those subjects that are not acceptable for advertising in the magazine. Subsection (d) prescribes policies and procedures for soliciting advertising sales and accepting orders, and then the last section prescribes conditions under which the department will not accept advertising or will remove an advertiser.

Staff is recommending approval of the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a couple of comments. Some of them may even be a question.

I had sent you -- well, first of all, let me just say I think this is great. I know there's been a great concern about the quality of the magazine possibly going down by including advertising, and I think a lot of us are very sensitive to that. I feel like that's important. The quality of the magazine certainly has been outstanding.

But also I know that I have sat through a couple of legislative sessions where members of the Finance Committee were very concerned that in effect that magazine was operating at a pretty substantial deficit, and that in effect we were having to take tax money and subsidize the issuance of the magazine. This will allow the magazine to stand on its own, which I think is important. And we'll take the direction that they gave us.

Secondly, related -- I had sent you a number of questions which you had responded to. I was a little concerned -- since this is proposed we'll have to have comments and possible changes, but I was concerned because the rules were written strictly for mail. It did not allow the use of electronic communication or orders --

MS. HOWDESHELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- in some of this stuff, and I certainly do not want to exclude mail, but I think it would be important to consider at least the option in the proposed rules or the possible reworking of these rules when they come back around -- the inclusion as an option the use of electronic communication or orders.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Yes, sir. And after I had answered your questions earlier in regard to mail as opposed to electronic I have gone back and reread the proposed rules, and there is a place in there that I think it would work very well just to change one word where we actually remind advertisers of what the insertion order deadlines are. It actually says we will remind them by mail.

If we could just change the word "mail" to a reminder will be sent instead of mailed, it allows us the option to do at least a reminder electronically as opposed to just the --

MR. NICHOLS: That was my only comment.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. I watched this one from a distance because I'm generally -- having been in the position that some of those finance people are I understand what the argument is. It occurs to me this is a great publication, like PBS when they started advertising a little heavier -- I don't think it's going to hurt us, and it's going to help us.

But you know, this magazine might be a good tool for the commission to begin to educate the public on the changes that Governor Perry and this commission are bringing to the transportation system.

It might have been interesting, for example, to have had a short article about the frontage road issue and the whys and the background of it, and while I'm not suggesting you add 50 pages to your text, I think that when Joe Pickett is vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee in a year and a half and we come before him and show that we're using the magazine to convey information to his taxpayers he might find that attractive. It's something to think about.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Yes, sir. Thank you for your comments.

Mr. Nichols, I would like to add that we are selling advertising in other publications, and although we are not required by legislation to either have a subscription price or break even or make money on those publications, we are doing fairly well.

An example is the Texas State Travel Guide. We actually are mandated by law to hand that guide out free of charge. It's a 265-page publication, and we print 1.2 million of those a year. Net ad revenue this last year was a half a million dollars. The product costs about a dollar a piece to print, so it's about half paying for itself through ads.

However, those ads -- some of those ads are sepia-toned black and white and would not be the quality of what we would put in the magazine in regard to four-color printing.

MR. JOHNSON: Doris, one of the observations that I have is the Texas Highway magazine I think is in a league of its own, and you and the people who work on it should be congratulated on that, and the people who have gotten it to where it is.

I concern myself with a radical change -- and I'm certain we're not going down that alley, that this is a radical change. If we're going to all of a sudden with deference to my friend Rad Sallee in the front row over here look like a newspaper in terms of all the ad space that's being provided, and so my observation is if this is done in extremely good taste it can blend in with what we're doing, but I also think there's a limit.

Now, we do have a physical responsibility to endeavor to have these items be as close to economically on a break-even or positive level as possible, but this magazine has been a superlative product since its inception, and I hope people will understand and appreciate that, and that we will endeavor to maintain the highest quality not only of what's in it in terms of -- for the readers, but also, in our approach to the advertising, that it be somewhat limited and it not become overly saturated with ads.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Absolutely. That is our goal.

I will tell each one of you that it was a very difficult decision for our staff to come to because of the history of the magazine and the beauty of the magazine to actually consider accepting ads.

For the record, last year we lost about $280,000. We have a rider in the appropriations bill -- it's number 5 -- that requires us -- the language is a little ambiguous, but it requires us to approximately break even. Our goal is to do just that and to control the quality very tightly.

For example, our revenue projections were based on for the first year inside front cover, inside back cover, a couple of full-page ads, and a couple of half-page ads. So we're not at this point even talking about adding ten pages worth of ads.

MR. JOHNSON: When you talk about projections we're dealing with a fiscal year here and not the calendar year?

MS. HOWDESHELL: Correct.

MR. JOHNSON: So the fiscal year has -- when you get up and running with this will probably have four or five months left and maybe two issues -- two or three at most?

MS. HOWDESHELL: Our goal is to actually have the first ad in the magazine August of this year, which of course will only be one month during the current fiscal year.

Well, our projection is that we will actually lose about $10,000, because we have a number of start-up costs. But then the following fiscal year we project that we'll make about 120,000, because we'll have the full 12 months.

MR. JOHNSON: Anything else?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MS. HOWDESHELL: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Doris, thank you very much.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(a)(6), rules on contracting and procurement procedures, Texas Turnpike Division.

MR. RUSSELL: Good morning. For the record, my name is Phillip Russell, and I'm the director of the Texas Turnpike Authority Division.

As you are aware, under Senate Bill 342, which created the regional mobility authorities, the Senate Bill 342 also dissolved the Texas Turnpike Authority board of directors and provided that all rules, policies, and procedures of the TTA board would continue in effect until superseded by action of the Commission. TTA staff has been working very closely with administration and the Office of General Counsel to merge the TTA rules, procedures, and signature authority as appropriate with those of the department.

Minute order pending before you proposes the repeal of the following sections of Title 43 of the Texas Administrative Code: Chapter 50, relating to the Texas Turnpike Authority board and employees, the public involvement procedures, and signature authority; Chapters 53.60 through 53.71, which related to the disadvantaged business enterprise and historically underutilized businesses -- or the procedures; and Chapters 53.90 through 53.94 relating to the review of contract workforce.

The rules relating to the board are no longer needed with the dissolution of the TTA board. Existing TxDOT rules governing the remaining areas will result in duplication of effort.

One exception to this will be the signature authority, which is outlined in Chapter 50, and a separate minute order will be presented to you later on today, and staff recommends repeal of these rules and the approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a few questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Phil, is there anything we're abolishing that will disrupt the flexibility of the department to negotiate the four exclusive development agreements authorized under the statute related to constitutional amendment 15?

MR. RUSSELL: No, sir, Mr. Williamson. I can't think of anything that would affect us.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, chairman.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, Phil.

MR. BEHRENS: We now have rules for final adoption under 4(b)(1). We have management rules concerning advisory committees.

MR. MONROE: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Richard Monroe. I am the general counsel of the department.

Pursuant to appropriate law, this commission is required to review its advisory committees from time to time and to renew the mandate of those which are necessary and to disband those committees who have either outlived their usefulness for one reason or another or are otherwise not required.

No comments were received when we published these rules for comment. By these rules you would abolish two statutory advisory committees, the Household Goods Carriers Advisory Committee and the Vehicle Storage Facility/Tow Truck Rules Advisory Committee. Neither one of these has met in some time. Representatives of the industry have indicated to our division that these rules are no longer necessary. You would also abolish the Statewide Transportation Policy Committee, which has not met in several years and is no longer necessary.

By this minute order you would continue the existence of the Aviation Advisory Committee, Public Transportation Advisory Committee, Port Authority Advisory Committee, and the Bicycle Advisory Committee.

I would recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: We have one person signed up to speak on this item. That's Tommy Eden.

Welcome, Mr. Eden.

MR. EDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commission members. My name is Tommy Eden.

I'm afraid I signed up to speak on the wrong item. I had meant to sign up under 4(a)(2), which is about construction. If you'd prefer I can hold my comments until the end or I could address the issue right now.

MR. JOHNSON: Four(a)(2) is on --

MR. EDEN: Construction. Amendments to 15.54, construction, control of access on freeways/frontage roads.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, since you're here and up, why don't you go ahead?

MR. EDEN: Okay. I spoke to this commission last month concerning the need for policies -- a policy change regarding the construction of sidewalks on TxDOT highways, and the differences between the policy of TxDOT and the policy of the Federal Highway Administration, and I gave the commission members who were here a copy of the Federal Highway Administration policy. I'm sorry I didn't bring it with me today.

But as you may already be aware, TxDOT's policy is more or less stated in the Texas Administrative Code as providing for sidewalk construction when replacing an existing sidewalk where highway construction severs an existing sidewalk system or where pedestrian traffic is causing or is expected to cause a safety conflict.

Now, these rules are much less stringent than the ones that are required by the Federal Highway Administration, and as I mentioned last month, the Federal Highway Administration requires that sidewalks be constructed when -- both pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities be included in any project unless pedestrians are prohibited from that highway or where the cost of building those sidewalks is more than 20 percent of the cost of the greater project, or where there is not a great deal of need; for instance, where there was a cul-de-sac.

I would hope that this commission could bring the Texas Administrative Code in line with the Federal Highway Administration requirements by requiring that sidewalks be built under those circumstances where they are required by the Federal Highway Administration, so if you can start the process of making that change to the Texas Administrative Code that would really help everyone, because most of these highways are built without sidewalks, and that simply violates the Federal Highway Administration's guidelines.

Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Question?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. I have a question.

I remember when you spoke, and the question of whether or not we were in violation of the Federal Highway guidelines I think was directed to our staff. I think we had asked staff at that meeting to try to find where that discrepancy is that he's referring to and respond back to him. I think -- did we do that?

MR. BEHRENS: I think we're still working on that.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. EDEN: I did receive a response from your staff. Basically it says, "As you pointed out in your comments, federal policy requires safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists be given full consideration during the development of all federal aid highway projects. We believe TxDOT's current policy meets the federal requirement that full consideration be given during project development."

That's more or less all it says. It goes on, but that's the crux of the matter. It does not say anything about how these -- other than referring to the codes that I just mentioned, it really doesn't say anything about how the Texas requirements meet the federal requirements.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, staff is continuing to look at the matter, and we appreciate your being here.

MR. EDEN: Okay. I'll be glad to come back next month if you need another update on the same problem, because I will continue with this issue until I see an improvement in this.

Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We'll always be glad to see you.

MR. JOHNSON: Now we're on 4(b)(1). There were no comments. Correct?

VOICE: That is correct, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you.

MR. MONROE: At the risk of being something of a grinch, if the commission does want to deliberate on the subject of sidewalks we could always put it on the agenda so that everyone who has an opinion on sidewalks can come and give their story too.

MR. JOHNSON: We'll take that into consideration.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(b)(2), contract management, Thomas Bohuslav.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav. I'm director of Construction Division.

Item 4(b)(2) are proposed amendments to Section 9.5 for final adoption concerning special labor provisions for determining the prevailing wage rate. Senate Bill 311, 77th Session, amended the Government Code Subchapter (a), Section 2258.022, requiring that we consider additional formulas for determining prevailing wage rates. For counties bordering Mexico and counties adjacent to counties bordering Mexico -- that's about 29 counties -- these rules will now refer to the statute -- the amended statute, and they were published in the Texas Register October 12 for public comment. We received no comments.

Staff recommends approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I actually have a question, and I apologize for not sending you that question before. But this goes back to the Davis Bacon Act and all that.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: We have Davis Bacon Act that we require for federal aid projects, and we also have state laws for wage rates.

MR. NICHOLS: On the federal requirement that has to do with new construction projects and not necessarily maintenance?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: It applies to construction projects. Not necessarily new construction, but the construction -- it does not apply to maintenance projects. I can't say we do not use federal funds for maintenance projects. I can't say if they would apply for a maintenance project.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. We won't get into it here.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: Yes. Richard advises me if it's federal funds used on a maintenance project that Davis Bacon would apply.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And we don't have any choice in this matter, Thomas?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: To what extent -- when our contracts are negotiated or when our bid documents are prepared to what extent do we allow contractors to take the lower one of these wages into consideration in their proposal? At all?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: We determine the wage rates. The wage rates are included in the proposal, and those are the minimum wage rates for the classifications for that contract. There is no negotiation for that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: We, in concert of course with -- Department of Labor actually provides us the wage rates for federal aid projects, and for state projects we include the provision that addresses these statutes here, but the wage rates are included and therefore that contract had minimum wage rates.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does this drive up the cost of projects to the state?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: It will. Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: I have always thought that was a bad thing, because the government basically in effect is requiring businesses to do things that they don't normally have to do, but it is a federal requirement, so that was the argument or battle that was won or lost up in the -- at the federal level. And I remember -- I came and we spent an afternoon working on that one time, and I was thinking that -- for some reason I had recalled that if it had to do with maintenance we were not required to do it, and I don't remember why --

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: Let me straighten everything out here. First off, federal aid funds require that we use USDOL, Department of Labor, wage rates. For any construction contract we would use federal funds we'd use those.

For state-funded projects we have state statutes that require classifications in wage rates, and we actually use -- we have the option through the law to use USDOL wage rates, and we use those and include those on state construction projects.

The statutes for state-funded projects make an exception for maintenance projects such that all you have to pay is the minimum federal wage rate, which is $5.15 I believe, so maintenance is an exception unless you use federal funds.

MR. NICHOLS: That may be what I was thinking about, and what we do is -- that's the separation between maintenance and new construction, that one statutory requirement at the state level, but as we go into construction and the definition of what construction is, the construction division sends out contracts related to rehabilitation, resurfacing, some of those things, which could be interpreted to actually be maintenance projects, but because of the size of them they're sent out through construction, and therefore are being categorized as a construction project and having that extra requirement put on them that if they were sent out through the maintenance category they would not be required to put on them.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: That is an assessment that we have historically -- and this is back before my time -- historically classified these projects into construction and maintenance the way they're handled through our funding, and that's how the determination is made as to whether or not it's a construction project or maintenance project and whether or not the labor provisions apply.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So what happens if we don't pass this?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: I do have a copy of the -- of what we included in our contracts just so you'll understand it better here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does this make it worse, Thomas?

MR. NICHOLS: I think we should pass it. I also move -- I just think it's an issue that there is a choice that we can make internal to this agency as to how we want to categorize some of those and affect at a state level requirements put on contractors for some of those things, and I think that's something that can be -- and this is not an appropriate time to get into it.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: We could go back and reevaluate that and make -- determine the most appropriate way to look at it -- relook at that again.

MR. NICHOLS: I'd like to see us do a reevaluation of that. It's a carryover, so I guess I direct -- I guess that's directed to you, Mike, to -- let's at least take a look at it, see what the impact would be. Is it something that would possibly save the state some money, or would the reprocessing of contracts in two different manners actually offset the -- I don't see what the benefits are.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did I understand this correctly, Thomas? This mostly affects the border area?

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: This affects those counties that are adjacent to the border and those counties that are adjacent to the counties that are adjacent to the border.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The only reason I was curious about -- the only reason I instituted the dialogue is that having spent some time on the border recently and looked at some transportation projects that border members think are important to the state it occurs to me that every time we drive up the cost of project A we're making project C -- pushing it one more day down the road, and it just seems to me that the balancing of social justice against efficiency and effectiveness for economic development of the areas are in conflict.

MR. THOMAS BOHUSLAV: The additional provision that was included in the statute basically says that you have to do another calculation, and we do our calculation based on basically counties, and we tend to group counties with USDOL if they have uniform wage rates in those counties.

This additional provision will require that we take those localities and take the mean between that locality-calculated wage rate and the statewide-calculated value, which would be an average statewide value, and we take that mean and we apply it to those counties which will be -- we won't use the locality. We won't use the statewide USDOL. We will use the average between the two, which will be the higher value.

MR. JOHNSON: Did Mr. Nichols move?

MR. NICHOLS: I did make a motion.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Behrens, would you continue to investigate --

MR. BEHRENS: Yes, we will.

MR. JOHNSON:  -- this matter? And there's a motion --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

MR. JOHNSON:  -- and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: The motion carries.

Thank you, Thomas.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(b)(3) -- we have our final adoption of the border colonia access program rules.

MR. RANDALL: Good morning. My name is Jim Randall. I'm director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

The minute order we bring before you today adopts new Sections 15.100 to 15.106 to Title 43 Texas Administrative Code concerning the border colonia access program. Senate Bill 1296, passed by the 77th Legislature, requires the Texas Public Finance Authority, in accordance with requests from the Office of the Governor, to issue general obligation bonds and notes in an aggregate amount not to exceed $175 million, and as directed by the department to distribute the proceeds to counties as financial assistance for colonia access roadway projects to serve border colonias.

This legislation requires the commission to establish a program to administer the use of the proceeds of the bonds and notes. Rider 52 to the department's appropriations for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 requires the department to establish a transportation program to improve access to colonias. New Sections 15.100 to 15.106 implement the requirements of Senate Bill 1296 and Rider 52, set forth the procedures by which an eligible county may apply for assistance, and establish criteria by which the commission will select projects.

On October 29, 2001, a public hearing was held to receive comments concerning the proposed adoption of the new sections. Seven participants provided oral comments and testimony at the public hearing, and one set of written comments was also received. Of the 12 comments received, five were concerned with project selection criteria, three wanted clarification on how the funds could be used, and four were concerned with model subdivision rules, program expansion, project scoring, and projects within a city's limits.

The comments and responses are shown in your books as Exhibit B.

The department has revised the definition of minimum colonia access road standards under Section 15.101 to make the road standards more flexible. The requirement to have the more stringent standards from AASHTO, or the county's road standards have been removed. Instead, if the county does not follow the AASHTO road standards then the executive director or designee may approve the county road standards.

This change will allow the department and the county to reach a mutual acceptable road standard that will provide safe roads for the traveling public while maximizing the program funds.

After reviewing and analyzing the proposed rules and public comments, we believe new Sections 15.100 to 15.106 implement the requirements of Senate Bill 1296 and Rider 52 and provide for the administration of the border colonia access program.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have several questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: I believe there are some questions, and then I believe Representative Pickett wanted to enter a comment, so why don't we go to the questions first?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. It will probably be more appropriate because Mr. Pickett might want to comment on some of my questions.

I have several questions, Jim. I've asked staff continually through the last 60 days about some items of concern to me. First, let me just say that I know that the governor has been most pointed in his insistence that we move along with these rules, and I'm sure we're going to, but I have three concerns that are concerns today and will be concerns a year from now and two years from now.

First concern is regarding the contracting process for these roads. Under these rules to what extent will the Department of Transportation have any involvement in the design and the let of contracts related to this money?

MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. Within the rules we have three sections: one course under design criteria, which I just mentioned, that has to be approved by the executive director or designee regarding whether it's AASHTO standards or county road standards.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Every dollar spent in the program?

MR. RANDALL: Sir?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Every dollar spent in this program is subject to that?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

MR. RANDALL: We also have provisions of the rules for certification in which the county will certify to TxDOT that they have provided -- have abided by all the requirements within the rules. We also have a compliance provision within the rules that says that if for some reason the county does not comply with the rules they can be withheld from the program until they can be reestablished in the program for following our requirements.

And finally, the department has what we call local public agency projects, and it's a procedure in which the department works with locally let projects such as enhancement projects to make sure they follow the contracting provisions that we have set up.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. So there's no chance that any of this money is going to be spent under contracts that weren't made available to the public and fully scrutinized by the public so that the public has confidence that these roads were -- that these contracts were negotiated under some sort of competitive basis?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. Those provisions should be in place.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. My second question or my second area of concern -- back to the design or the standards, my concern is based upon this: The governor and the legislature led the citizens of this state to make this capital commitment, and as is frequently the case in the legislative world, the governor and the legislature have asked the Department of Transportation to be responsible for this program. But unless I'm missing something this will be the most aggressive this department has ever been in handing control of a project over to local government while maintaining some degree of responsibility for the quality of that control down the road.

If I'm wrong about that, Mike, I've got tough skin. Tell me I'm wrong. But it just appears to me that this is a step in a new direction, which is not new for this commission. We've done a lot of that. But it looks to me like this is the most aggressive we've ever been in being responsible for dollars and saying, Here it is, whichever community, and I just want to know that our quality control -- the greatest amount of quality control are reflected in these rules while granting the greatest amount of local flexibility.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. We're confident of that as well as with our district engineers and district staff that can follow up on the projects, and we'll follow through with the rules as well --

MR. WILLIAMSON: The worst thing that can happen is for us to spend this money to help people and these roads get built at twice the cost they should be, or they start falling apart in two years, as has been the case in the past when other governmental entities have tried to build these roads.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir --

MR. WILLIAMSON: We don't want to be associated with failure. We want to be associated with success.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. I think TxDOT staff is well aware of that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: My third area of concern -- and it appears in some background information -- is the money being apportioned in a logical and fair manner amongst all counties --

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  -- in your mind?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. The way the rules are set up is that the money will be allocated essentially in two phases. First 50 percent of the distribution will go to counties based on the colonia population within the county, with of course the county with the highest colonia population will have the highest number of dollars available for their work.

The second provision is that the second 50 percent of the distribution will go to projects that are -- or evaluated on a project-by-project basis, so essentially we have two tiers. One, 50 percent will go to the counties based on their colonia population; a second fund or pot of money which will be distributed solely on the project's merit.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

Well, I appreciate you allowing me the dialogue, chair, and like I say, I know the governor has made it clear to all of us that this is an important thing to him, and I'm fully supportive of that. I just -- I don't want to be associated with failure. I want our department to be associated with success. Let's just all kind of keep that in mind.

MR. RANDALL: We understand that.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: Good job. I think it's been an issue that's been thoroughly fleshed out, a lot of public comment, modifications, changes, and I think what you have put together is probably the very best approach with everything we've known, and I echo what Ric says. It's a very large program, and it's going to be locally controlled with some state responsibility, so let's hope it works good, and we're certainly going to be watching over it.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. I need to mention that Mr. Saenz has taken a real leadership role in this program, and we appreciate his experience in this area.

MR. JOHNSON: Jim, a question. Actually, two questions. First of all, how extensive was the input throughout the process in terms of arriving at our final rules, and secondly, to follow up on Ric's observation that there is a lot of local input here, a lot of local control, and yet there's a TxDOT stamp, signature, brand, whatever, on that, and when these things are constructed we turn maintenance of these roads back to the county, and do we not have some exposure there in terms of the product being maintained and having our signature, stamp, whatever on it?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. I'll answer your second question first. Yes, sir. The way the program's set up these will become county roads maintained by the county -- road, their responsibility. However, in the rules a provision for the counties to acquire materials for the maintenance of the roads, so hopefully that will help address some of the issues you have there. At least there will be an area that they can get materials to help maintain those colonia roads.

As far as input, as I said earlier, we had a public hearing. We had seven individuals to show up that made comments. We also -- Mr. Behrens appeared before the Senate Border Affairs Committee and addressed several of the issues that the committee members had concerning the program, and also Mr. Saenz has met with the ad hoc committee that Senator Lucio set up concerned with the county judges and sat down with them and hopefully addressed some of the issues that they had.

So with those three actions we feel that we fairly well covered all the issues and concerns of the public.

Also, if I can add that if we get into the program and we see that we need to adjust the rules, we can always come back to the commission and ask to revise the rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Representative Pickett, did you want to address --

REP. PICKETT:  -- end of the last question. I'm just learning to walk again. Excuse me. I had to buy a pair of shoes. They keep taking my boots away from me in the airport, so this is new for me.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought you were going to say Shapleigh kicked you in the ankle and you were on crutches for a while.

REP. PICKETT: No. He bites, but the dentures fall out usually.

(General laughter.)

REP. PICKETT: Thanks, Ric. That will be in the paper tomorrow, and I'll be in trouble.

You echo some of the same concerns that I have, and the ad hoc committee that Senator Lucio put together -- one of the county commissioners from El Paso was there at that meeting, was on that committee, and it doesn't really matter what you do. There's going to be somebody wanting to try to tweak it with a little advantage towards theirs, and at this point I can't tell you what would be the advantage in my community or I'd have even more suggestions.

The 50 percent coming off the top for population sounds good, and I've already been asked questions about the new census. We're not really using the census. We're using Water Development Board numbers, and I know that this goes back to the 1989 model subdivision order rules, but actually House Bill 1001 that passed in '95 would probably have more of an impact on whether those colonias had been growing during that six year period, so I have a little concern there.

The adjusting the rules is probably the most important. I know it sounds like -- I'm hearing that you're negotiating with the governor's office in talking about a first $50 million issuance. I think that's a good idea, because any comments that I have I would really probably make those after the first issuance, because I could see where some of the comments were made about the abutting. There was one of the five criteria that says, well, if you pave a road but if there's people within an eighth of a mile of there, that's a larger number that's served, but it's not counted because they're not abutting.

That may be a fallback on your next round because the five criteria are pretty easy to meet, and I have a feeling that we're going to get to a point of what are we going to do when that second 25 million is based on the five criteria when everybody meets the five criteria. We don't really show what we're going to do when everybody rates a hundred.

That's not addressed in your rules, because I think everybody's going to rate a hundred or everybody is going to rate 80, and the reason 80 is because of that school bus issue.

Since House Bill 1001 a lot of areas have pushed for schools to be located in colonias areas to where we may have been busing back in '89 and busing before 1996. It may not be the same issue. So I have a little concern about the bus part of it, but if we're going to come back and maybe revisit it, I don't know what I would do differently. The 50 percent population, the preparedness -- and we're all going to have to rely on our districts and TxDOT.

The county as you know works a lot differently than TxDOT does, and being prepared is what my message is going to be to my community for that other 25 million, but I would like to leave it open, commissioners, and Ric especially for a second go-around.

And Mr. Randall is absolutely right. I think we may see some tweaks in two of your five criteria. I think that would help.

Other than that, my message is going to be -- to the people that I'm going to work with this week that we ought to embrace it and be ready, and in my position as chairman of the MPO I'm going to form an ad hoc committee, because we heard concerns from our county about the AASHTO, and I appreciate the staff taking that as one of the major considerations, and I visited with Mr. Saenz, and I'm now adding him to my speed dial.

And with that, if you have any questions -- but I think the second round is where you're really going to get some hard comments. The 100 percent population may not have been a bad way to go and then take the criteria. If you didn't meet the five it fell out. Doing it bass-ackwards. Because there's going to be -- and again, Mr. Saenz and I have already come up with a proposal on how to present projects from our county, and I think all the others are going to figure it out too. It's pretty apparent.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, my comments and my dialogue with Jim on the record about the success versus failure -- it's my instinct that if we're successful -- when I say "we," I mean the legislature, the governor, and the department -- if we're collectively successful with this, this will just be the first of several rounds of going to the public and receiving permission to make needed capital infrastructure investment in our Border.

But we have to be successful this first round. There's nothing that breeds self confidence in a program like success.

REP. PICKETT: And actually, to make a comment from the legislative side, at that time the secretary of state came to our general government committee with that rider, now known as Rider 52, and where originally he thought it may not have been successful -- want to be more successful, there was going to be a dollar amount proper added to that rider, and it would have actually limited us, because it's a lot less than this issuance that passed the public, so it actually was a better route that we took as well.

MR. JOHNSON: I think your observation that we need to have the ability to tweak these as we learn in actual application that they need some modification is very appropriate.

REP. PICKETT: And again, you're doing all the things that I would suggest. Don't issue the 175 million, because right there we're going to find out real quick. And I understand you want to move fast or going to try to do this in a few weeks in January with possibly another letting six months after that. But again, you're going to probably see the projects come forward and may have to tweak that 50 percent, because again, I don't see any of the projects that we're presenting from our area aren't going to meet the five criteria all the time.

And if any way that we can manipulate that five criteria we're going to do it, and I'm going to make sure we do it, so then what happens when you've got $100 million in requests for that balance that's left over and everybody meets the criteria? And what you do now and the other ways that you rank projects is a little bit more tedious. And I'm not asking you to add any more. Please don't do that. But there's probably going to be a way that you're going to have -- again, I appreciate it, and would like you to move forward. We're ready to go.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I know that you and your colleagues from all the border TxDOT districts worked extremely hard on the passage. This is the result of Proposition 2, and the governor traveled extensively from -- I was with him in Amarillo when he spoke on Proposition 2, and it was very --

REP. PICKETT: And we were a little worried too, chairman. Candidly, a lot of people don't understand colonias. If it's not in their backyard -- we were worried that a lot of people would vote against it because of reasons of not understanding how these were all created, and it really was --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, it was interesting. I don't know what message he used in Amarillo, but I was with him in the Dallas area, and his basic message was that's part of our state and we need to fix this problem.

MR. JOHNSON: Exactly.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And that's just the bottom line.

MR. JOHNSON: The situation down there is un-Texan. It's un-Texas-like.

REP. PICKETT: Absolutely.

MR. JOHNSON: And he did a marvelous job of carrying that message as I know a lot of people did in the border communities.

REP. PICKETT: And again, the reason I didn't mention anything on the access roads is we're trying to have a policy for our region before your public hearing on the 24th, and I appreciate your bringing that forward. We didn't have anything to do the rest of the year. We were just worried about amending our TIP and working on the MTP and air quality modeling, so we had two or three hours --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Have you got your regional mobility authority organized yet?

REP. PICKETT: Absolutely. Again, thank you, commissioners.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions or comments on this issue?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Jim.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(b)(3), the final adoption of rules concerning design.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: Again for the record, my name is Ken Bohuslav, and I'm director of the Design Division.

The minute order proposes the final adoption of new Section 15.120 through 15.122 concerning design considerations when developing transportation projects. Senate Bill 1128 from the 77th Legislature added a section to the Transportation Code requiring the department to consider certain design factors when developing transportation projects. The bill further requires department to develop rules.

The proposed rules describe how the design factors will be considered during the development of transportation projects. The proposed rules were presented to and approved by the commission at the September commission meeting. The rules were subsequently advertised for comments in the Texas Register. No comments were received on the new sections.

However, the department made one minor revision to the proposed rules. The definitions of resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction have been revised to improve the clarity and to identify the appropriate design criteria that applies to each type of project. With these minor changes staff would recommend your approval of the final adoption of these rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: The motion carries.

Thank you, Ken.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(b)(4) for final adoption, rules on land acquisition procedures.

MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning. Again, for the record, my name is John Campbell. I'm the director of the Right of Way Division.

I'd like to present for your consideration item 4(b)(4). This minute order provides for the final adoption of amendments to rules, including various sections of Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 21, with regard to the operations and responsibilities of TxDOT's Right of Way Division. These are specifically in regard to land acquisition procedures.

By Minute Order 108649 on September of 2001 these rules were presented for proposed adoption. They were posted for public comment. No comments have been received, and we have not incorporated any changes to the rules as originally proposed. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: John, I hadn't asked my staff to dialogue with you as the rules were being developed, because as you know by now my concern of the awesome power of government to take people's property away from them.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I understand there are times when we have to do that, but I just want from you to me assure me that we're not doing anything in here that is diminishing private property rights unfairly.

MR. CAMPBELL: I can guarantee for you, sir, that we do not do anything that would unnecessarily impose upon private property rights.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you.

So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: The motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 4(b)(5), final rules on traffic operations.

MR. LOPEZ: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Carlos Lopez, and I'm director of the Traffic Operations Division.

The minute order before you implements House Bill 299 from the 77th Legislature. House Bill 299 allows the department to establish a maximum 75-mile-per-hour daytime speed limit on any portion of the state highway system located in a county with a population density of less than ten persons per square mile. Before a higher speed limit may be created the commission must find that it is reasonable and safe.

These 75-mile-per-hour speed limits will not apply to large trucks. The nighttime speed limit will remain at 65 miles per hour. The rules also list the counties that will be eligible for the higher speed limit, and that this list will be revised with the release of each federal census.

The department received no public comments on this item. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, comment?

MR. NICHOLS: Two comments. One, I'm absolutely amazed there were no comments on this. Raising the speed limit to 75 miles an hour -- the state has gone -- the whole transportation speed thing went up, came back down, went back up, and I'm just flabbergasted. That's the first comment.

Second comment is when we fight -- this is the rule for the authorization to do that. When we reach the point that we have a recommendation to actually change one to 75, I would appreciate it if somebody would give me a call --

MR. LOPEZ: Sure.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- as opposed to just finding it routinely in a minute order.

MR. LOPEZ: We'll probably start seeing some next month.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me ask you. Any of them in Weatherford?

(General laughter.)

MR. LOPEZ: No. This is --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me assure you there's no 75 mile an hour in Parker County, Texas. Let me ask you. Is the source of your curiosity, Mr. Nichols, that you think that we ought to go to 75 or we ought not to, because I'll go on the record in telling you I think it's insane to do that, but I'm not in the legislature anymore.

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't get to vote in the legislature, and they didn't ask me for my comment.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What would your comment have been?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move that we accept this --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Too damn fast. I so second.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I have a question. Did the statute -- this does not apply to light trucks and light trucks pulling trailers. Correct?

MR. LOPEZ: It does apply.

MR. JOHNSON: It does apply?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: In other words --

MR. LOPEZ: It's the big 18-wheelers that it will not apply -- so if a highway has --

MR. JOHNSON: Is that part of the statute or is that part of our --

MR. LOPEZ: It's part of the statute.

MR. JOHNSON: All right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It just shows you just how much common sense -- I travel the roads of many of these counties in my business, and for example, I can well imagine a truck doing 65 on State Highway -- US 80 going west from Breckenridge to Albany. Is that correct? Is it 80? I can well imagine how much fun it's going to be to try to stay out of the way of some guys going 75 miles an hour in their Suburban and staying in front of a heavy truck doing 65 or 70 that doesn't want to break the law, and I'm sure there are some truck drivers out there who don't want to break the law.

I just find this amazing.

MR. JOHNSON: I believe there's a motion and a second to this item. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Carlos, thank you.

MR. LOPEZ: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, on item 4(c), this has been discussed and it's been decided to defer until the January meeting. However, Dianna Noble is here available if anybody would want to have any discussion concerning this agenda item.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I wish to have a discussion.

MR. BEHRENS: Dianna, will you come forward?

MS. NOBLE: Good morning, chairman, commissioners.

The original item, item 4(c)(1), was for the deferral of an MOU with TNRCC. The commission in October 25, 2001, had proposed a repeal and proposed a new MOU to replace a previous MOU. We did have a public hearing on November 27, 2001.

Going back to the commission meeting of October 25, there had been a direct question from Commissioner Williamson related to provisions related to the state implementation plan, language that had been contained in the previous MOU. The question was related to whether or not those provisions were still maintained in the newly proposed MOU, and my response was yes.

Subsequent to that in an attempt to transfer the language to Commissioner Williamson I noticed that language was not contained within the proposed MOU and notified the administration as well as the commissioner's aides, so there was some discussion about whether or not we needed to go ahead and amend the proposed MOU to include those provisions.

Would you like further discussion?

(No response.)

MS. NOBLE: The original MOU had had that language related to the SIB that included TNRCC involving and informing TxDOT related to the state implementation plan and the mobile sources. That specific language does not include any threshold related to TxDOT approving the mobile emissions, but more the technical involvement of TxDOT's expertise in how mobile sources contribute to air quality; the issue being that motor vehicle emission budgets are part of a huge pie in which TNRCC allocates portions of that pie both to point sources, off-road sources, and mobile sources, and obviously TxDOT's expertise is within the mobile source vehicle emissions budget.

I believe that there is a mechanism for continuing discussions with TNRCC on how they should involve TxDOT in the development of the motor vehicle emission budget as well as other issues in the SIB that do impact transportation.

And some of the mechanisms that are available to us are through a work group that had been formed a couple of years ago when Mr. Heald was still the executive director. There was a work group that was developed to address air quality issues, one of which is the technical side of transportation conformity, and we could ask that work group to develop a process or procedure.

A second mechanism is through a letter agreement. That doesn't necessarily put it in an MOU form, which is in a rule form.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The whole matter is before us at my request, chair, simply because I had the opportunity during the spring to sort of witness the legislative give and take over the Harris County area SIB, I guess, nonattainment issue. And it occurred to me that -- we're not attacking TNRCC when we say this.

It occurred to me that the transportation world has an awful lot to gain or lose by participating in the discussions and the final decisions about how attainment is to be had, and in visiting with various people it occurs to me that we should at least defer action on this and give staff an opportunity to work something out by letter agreement that gives us some level of comfort that we have some stake, some sitting at the table to negotiate these matters.

Now, I'm well aware that industry's position is, well, if you've got a seat at the table then we ought to have a seat, but as a business guy I can say this with a clear conscience. My oil and gas company is not the same thing as the Fort Worth district office of TxDOT. TxDOT -- we are part of government. We represent all people who have no face in the process.

We're not the same as a chemical company or a refinery, and the very notion that someone would say, Well, if TxDOT's got a place at the table then we need to have a place at the table too -- that's ridiculous. We're in the business of regulating these things and managing these things, and I will speak publicly and privately when necessary to point out the difference.

I think it's silly that I should expect to sit at the table with the Railroad Commission as they work out rules to regulate my business. That's nuts, and anyone who would think they should is nuts. But I do think this department has an appropriate place in that process, and I know you'll do the best you can to get us there, and I request that we defer action on this and we give staff time to do that.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, do you have any --

MR. NICHOLS: No. So we need a motion to --

MR. JOHNSON: Defer or withdraw? We don't need a motion on it? Okay.

Thank you, Dianne.

MS. NOBLE: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 5 under frontage rights and access rights, 5(a), Navarro County, the minute order for construction of a frontage road.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: Again, for the record, my name is Ken Bohuslav, and I'm the director of the Design Division.

The minute order we have for your consideration approves construction of approximately 0.8 mile section of frontage roads on the east side of Interstate 35 from 15th Street to US Highway 287 in Corsicana. One hundred percent of the project costs will be provided by the city. Two new public streets are proposed to access the frontage road and would be approved by this minute order. No other public or private access would be permitted.

The department has determined that the proposed extension will be beneficial to the safety and operation of the interstate highway by removing local traffic from the main travel lanes. Commission approval will authorize the department to enter into any agreements necessary to construct the project and authorize only the two public access points I mentioned. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: We have one person signed up to speak on this matter, Mayor April Sikes, the mayor of Corsicana.

Welcome, Mayor.

MAYOR SIKES: Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Nice to have you back again.

MAYOR SIKES: It's so good to see you again.

I hate to speak for fear of messing something up. I love the wording "approve." How can I follow that? But I will just say that I am April Sikes, Mayor of Corsicana. Chairman Johnson, good morning. So good to see you again. I'll have you know I did enjoy after our TEA 21 speech about our grant money. Your City of Houston went to TML.

I can also vouch for your, Chairman Williamson, that Weatherford does not have 75-mile-an-hour speed limits. Went through there this weekend to our City of Abilene.

And, Commissioner Nichols, good morning. We love Commissioner Nichols in Corsicana.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR SIKES: I'm going to introduce before I hurt some feelings the people who are with me today from the city. I have our city manager, Truitt Gilbreath. They're not as bashful as I am. They may stand up. Our economic development director, John Bennett, from the county our county judge, Alan Bristol; our county commissioner from Precinct 2, Billy McManus; County Commissioner from Precinct 3, William Baldwin; from our chamber of commerce, our executive director, Daryl Schliem; and from our newspaper, our editor Raymond Linex. Depending on what happens today we'll decide whether we take him back with us or not.

With that said, I am from Corsicana as you know, south of Weatherford, north of Houston, and just a little bit west of Jacksonville. I will have you know, Commissioner Nichols, that our Corsicana Tigers are no longer in the football playoffs, as obviously they should not be after the Jacksonville fiasco.

When I wanted to gather my thoughts as to what I would say to you today I first thought I would go over the history of the entire program, all the details about bonds and TIFS and reinvestment zones and schematic designs and development projects, and I quickly disregarded that plan because after I spoke with you on November 15 you already have that information. And as I said, Commissioner Nichols was gracious enough to come to Corsicana, listen to me again, and frankly, I'm afraid if I say the details any more I'm going to wear out my welcome, and I like to come to Austin, and I don't want to do that.

My second approach was to use some subliminal messages, and when I discussed the tremendous impact --vote yes -- that this frontage road would have -- vote yes -- on our community, then I thought that wouldn't be very professional -- vote yes -- for the mayor to appear before you and -- vote yes -- do that, so I will not stoop -- vote yes -- to that approach.

And lastly, my third thought was simply to say thank you for considering our project, for placing us on this agenda. I thought I would say that 45,124 times, which is the number of people whose lives you will affect if we can approve this project.

Instead of doing that -- which you know if you say a word over and over enough it loses its meaning, and I certainly don't want that to happen -- I will simply say a very genuine thank you. Thank you to the commission for the opportunity to have been heard now several times in the last month. Thank you for placing this project on this agenda. Thank you to Commissioner Nichols for being gracious enough to come to Corsicana, for caring about and understanding our project, to our local TxDOT engineer, Darwin Myers, and his assistant, Ray Nance, and Jay Nelson, our district engineer, and his staff, who for the last almost now three years have worked on this project.

Everything this commission has done to help Corsicana and Navarro County is very much appreciated, and if you choose to approve this frontage road project, as Commissioner Williamson said, you will be part of a successful project. No failure associated with this.

This is the chance of a lifetime for our community. We humbly request that you help us in making this become a reality. You will forever change the lives of the citizens of Corsicana and of Navarro County, and for that we will be forever grateful for you having done so. And we are all here and willing to answer any questions if there are any left.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

MAYOR SIKES: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have one question, Mr. Chairman, of probably Mr. Bohuslav.

Do you think there's any chance that if we pass this, Mr. McCarley will go back to North Texas and assure every community in North Texas that yes, we are reasonable people and we understand when frontage roads and ramps are necessary --

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: I think there's a good possibility.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So that senators might not be bothering us quite as much about things that we know we can fix.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: I don't think I can guarantee that.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: The dialogue about this particular project has been ongoing for some time.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: That's correct.

MR. JOHNSON: In your mind this conforms not only to the policy that was in place when that dialogue started, but also with the intent of a new policy -- frontage road policy that will be under consideration from this point forward.

MR. KEN BOHUSLAV: Yes. That's correct.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 5(b). John Campbell will present this access rights --

MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning again. I'm John Campbell, director of the Right of Way Division. I'd like to present for your consideration item 5(b).

Item 5(b) proposes the sale and release of access control for a single 100-foot location at the IH-10 and North side frontage road at Fry Road. This is in Harris County. This is for the discretionary sale of access rights to an adjacent private property owner. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: John, one of the issues here was -- this is a driveway for all intents and purposes, and one of the issues was whether the adjacent tracts, which are undeveloped I believe, would have access to this driveway, and I was assured by the people that Sam's Club had -- bringing this issue forward that there would be no access to either the western or northern tracts which are undeveloped, and this would be exclusive to the Sam's tract.

Are we satisfied that, one, that will be the case? There will be no other developable tracts that will have access to this drive, and where I'm coming from is there might be more traffic getting onto and off of the frontage road from this point than we believed in the original petition.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. In fact, we have a specific provision in this minute order that states that this will be an exclusive right of access only to the occupants of the Sam's tract.

Now of course, the ability for us to enforce that provision -- we can provide no guarantees to that end, but --

MR. JOHNSON: What would be our ability to enforce or what would be -- what could we do if a developer to the west sought, got access, permission to build a street or two into this --

MR. CAMPBELL: Into the --

MR. JOHNSON: -- street and therefore there was more traffic into and off of the frontage road?

MR. CAMPBELL: Our remedies would be I suppose repeal of this right. This is a property right which we're allowing for sale. We certainly have the statutory authority to go back and control access, so if we required a remedy down the road because we saw that this provision had been violated, our options would be to go back and purchase back the access.

We've also -- in light of your comment with regard to the concern for traffic that's imposed upon the frontage road, the adjacent property owner in this situation has prepared and provided a traffic impact analysis, which has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable at the Houston district.

MR. JOHNSON: The property owner of the Sam's tract?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: All right.

Any other questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I just think this is one more instance that Mr. McCarley can take back to North Texas --

MR. JOHNSON: And this is another one that we've commenced prior to any thought of changing any of the frontage road or access road -- access to the frontage road rules?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. Or at least the actions taken by the adjacent property owner were far in advance of our consideration of the frontage road rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Adjacent property owner. Who --

MR. CAMPBELL: The Sam's tract.

MR. JOHNSON: All right.

MR. CAMPBELL: In terms of their development plans.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: In the proposed rules -- I'm trying to tie this to the proposed rules -- the -- this type of approval -- under the proposed rules, one of the considerations that we can take -- because we know when we change a rule, draw a line in the sand, there are a number of projects that have had significant or made significant commitments based on the old rules.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: This is one of those situations.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

John, thank you very much.

MR. BEHRENS: Go to Item 6, and Jim Randall will take you through Item 6(a) through 6(d).

MR. RANDALL: Again, I'm Jim Randall, Director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

Item 6(a), the proposed Bolivar Bridge project, is of significant importance to mobility in the Houston-Galveston area. Currently direct access from the island to the peninsula is via ferry.

The proposed facility, commonly referred to as the Bolivar Bridge, would actually include constructing two bridges and widening the existing two-lane roadway, locally known as Sea Wolf Parkway, to four lanes.

Harris County and Galveston County have proposed, if feasible, an innovative funding plan that will provide leveraged dollars for expeditious funding and construction of the Bolivar Bridge.

Various state laws provide potential alternatives by which the bridge could be developed as a toll bridge in an expeditious manner and with the involvement of the Harris County Toll Road Authority.

Due to the agencies involved and the size and complexity of the proposal, it is necessary for the department, Harris County, Galveston County, and the Federal Highway Administration to discuss the various alternatives and possibly develop an agreement which will outline each agency's participation in the project.

The minute order before you authorizes the executive director to enter into discussions with Harris County, Galveston County, and the Federal Highway Administration that may lead to, for the commission's future consideration, a proposal for the development of a toll facility from Galveston Island to the Bolivar Peninsula. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. I want a couple, if you don't mind.

So -- and I'm not anticipating what the executive director might negotiate; I'm just trying to establish in my mind the goal here.

Maybe one way this would turn out is the Harris County Toll Authority would become sort of the project manager, and they would build a toll bridge, and maybe we'd put some toll equity money into it. Is that kind of where this is headed?

MR. RANDALL: That's a possibility, and there's also the possibility of an RMA being formed down in that area between Galveston County and Harris County to address the project also.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you have reason to believe -- is Judge Eckels and the Galveston County officials beginning to consider that concept?

MR. RANDALL: No, sir. I can't comment on that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Because I know I spent the last couple of days in the counties south of Houston and west of Houston, and I get the distinct impression that we're fixing to see an RMA proposal come from that area for a lot of different projects, so I'm just kind of curious if this one --

MR. RANDALL: No, sir. I haven't gotten any feedback in that area.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If the executive director ended up negotiating a scheme where Harris County sort of managed the project, do they have the ability to do right of way negotiations for projects like this?

MR. RANDALL: Harris County or the Toll Road --

MR. WILLIAMSON: The Toll Authority.

MR. RANDALL: I believe the Toll Authority has that ability.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's all my questions.

MR. JOHNSON: This is probably out in left field, but does the Harris County Toll Road Authority have the ability to change its charter to maybe absorb Galveston County or Montgomery County or a county that might be interested in working on a toll road, as opposed to forming an RMA, or are these charters immutable?

MR. RANDALL: I'm going to have to defer to Mr. Monroe on that one.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, and he probably doesn't know the answer. I'm just --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know. Richard is usually right on top of that stuff.

MR. JOHNSON: Right.

MR. MONROE: I'm not so sure it would be a matter of charter. They are proscribed and prescribed by statute what they can do.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know. Somebody out in the audience might know, but I have the impression that they are limited to Harris County, whereas NTTA is -- has a certain number of counties --

MR. JOHNSON: There are four counties in NTTA, and there's just one in the Harris County Toll Road Authority, and that's what --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. McCarley knows that. He's an expert on that stuff.

MR. MONROE: It is possible for the Harris County Toll Authority to extend its operations, under certain conditions, into adjoining counties.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, because it's a department of Harris County -- that was the point I was trying to -- I think they're -- aren't they kind of different animals? The Harris County Toll Authority is almost a department of county government, as opposed to NTTA's an entity all on its own.

MR. MONROE: They are very different animals. Once again, different statutes have a lot to do with that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Of course, now maybe what you're suggesting, chairman, is we need to just let Harris County annex Montgomery County and make it one big county.

(General laughter.)

VOICE: I was just going to say that the Harris Toll Road Authority, which is working with the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority to extend the west part of the toll road -- they have some kind of interim agreement, and I don't the Harris County one can operate without that permission.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Looks like a good idea to me.

MR. JOHNSON: Entertain the motion.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you.

MR. RANDALL: Item 6(b): This minute order tenders a proposal to the City of San Marcos for a future project to extend RM 3407 on new location from RM 2439 west and north to RM 12, a distance of approximately three miles.

Due to increased growth, the city passed a resolution on October 8, 2001, expressing their interest in extending RM 3407. Constructing the proposed facility will alleviate congestion while improving traffic flow and safety.

The minute order we bring before you today will preserve this transportation corridor for potential future construction. Under the terms of this proposal, the city will be responsible for providing preliminary engineering, including a schematic and right of way maps.

The city will also complete the environmental process, including mitigation and remediation, provide all right of way, utility relocation, and assistance, at no cost to the state, and access will be permitted only at the locations approved by the state.

Once the extension is completed, the city will accept maintenance and operation of RM 2439 from RM 12 to RM 3407, which is a distance of approximately 1.6 miles, and the operation and maintenance of RM 12 from RM 3407 to Loop 82, a distance of approximately three miles.

The department will review and process applicable environmental documents. Also, once the commission approves a subsequent minute order authorizing construction of the project, the department will complete the extension project and add it to the state highway system as RM 3407.

The department will also remove from the state system the portions of RM 12 and RM 2439 described earlier. This action does not constitute approval of construction and is for the purpose of advance planning for acquisition of right of way.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: We have the city manager from San Marcos, who would like to speak to the meeting: Larry Gilley.

Welcome.

MR. GILLEY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I am Larry Gilley, city manager of San Marcos, and I'm here representing the City of San Marcos this morning to tell you that we certainly support this project and would encourage the commission to approve this minute order.

This project is very important to our community, and it has received broad-based community support. That support has been demonstrated in a variety of ways, including recommendation for approval by our transportation advisory board. As was indicated previously, our city council has adopted a resolution supporting this minute order, and perhaps most importantly, our community has voted to approve general obligation bonds for the right of way acquisition for this project, so it's very important to us, and we appreciate the efforts that have been made on the department's staff to assist us in developing a plan that will benefit, we believe, both the Department of Transportation and the City of San Marcos.

So thank you. We do encourage your adoption of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Question?

MR. NICHOLS: A couple of comments, not so much questions. First of all, I was going to compliment the City of San Marcos, the county and the district for the approach they took on this project. Also, you all have -- I paid particular attention to an area with access permitted only at those locations approved by the state, that this is not really being developed as a full controlled-access project, although it's very important to move a lot of traffic.

You all have approached this project to have a few -- I guess you'd call it a restricted access: limited, restricted access, which I think is an outstanding approach by a community on a project like this, and it also falls very much in the direction that we think we need to go as a state on trying to preserve these -- some of these projects for the movement of actual traffic.

So my hat's off to you. Please send our regards back to the council. That's all I had to say.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: Second.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. Item 6(c): This minute order tenders a proposal to the North Central Texas Council of Governments and Denton and Tarrant counties for a project to extend FM 1938, an urban road, from State Highway 114 in Westlake to FM 1709 in Southlake, a distance of approximately 3.6 miles.

The proposed roadway consists of a four-lane divided highway with a wide median to allow future expansion to six lanes without any external disturbance. This route is part of the North Central Texas Council of Government's regional plan as an arterial route and has also been included in two previous regional plans.

Under the terms of this proposal, the North Central Texas Council of Governments will be responsible for placing the project in Priority 2, Category 4(c), STP Metropolitan Mobility.

In Priority 2, a substantial portion of the project's construction plans, including geometric, structural, hydraulic, and pavement design approval, should be completed and a substantial amount of the required right of way should be purchased.

Denton and Tarrant counties will be required to provide 100 percent of the right of way and eligible utility adjustments. It is also expected that the town of Westlake and the cities of Southlake and Keller will fund the engineering cost.

The department will place the roadway on the state highway system upon completion of Priority 2 activities. The commission will then consider the project for future funding, using all available funding options.

With the approval of this minute order, the executive director is authorized to enter into any necessary agreements and to proceed in the most feasible and economic manner with approved project development activities.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: Comment.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: As in the previous project in San Marcos, when we looked at the schematics on this and visited with some of the leadership from those communities, this project was proposed with a -- not as a full controlled-access, but with a very restricted access, also, with just a few city connections and things of that nature.

I did not see it in the minute order as I did in the San Marcos minute order; it's spelled out differently, but it appeared to me to be very similar --

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: -- in that it had restricted access, and I just, for the record, want to state that that's my understanding of how that project's being developed, even though it's not in there. Is that --

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I would like to endorse those remarks, also. That was the only thing I noticed that gave me pause.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: One thing before you second, Ric: The -- in the minute order addresses the funding options, or at least illustrates that there are several funding options, and, you know, my observation, the one thing I want to point out -- and certainly the Council of Governments understands this -- is that we need to work together to get this funded, and just depending upon maybe Strategic Priority Funds, as much demand as there is for those, might not be the appropriate place to look for funding.

And so I'm pleased to see in the minute order that the funding sources -- or the diversity of funding sources are mentioned.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. There's two or three sources that this project could be eventually funded from.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a second?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Item 6(d): This minute order amends Exhibit L, Category 12, Strategic Priority of the 2002 Unified Transportation Program to include a project in the Austin District on US Highway 183 from north of Loyola Lane to north of FM 969, at a total estimated cost of $10,550,000.

The project will include the construction of main lanes and frontage roads, including a grade separation at Loyola. Minute Order 108653, dated September 27, 2001, approved the 2002 UTP. Upon approval, this project will be added to Exhibit L of the 2002 UTP.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Question, comment.

MR. NICHOLS: Comment. I had requested a couple of meetings ago this be held back for time to study, and it was -- since it was my request, basically I've decided -- I'm satisfied that we should now approve that.

I would also like to say that one of the things that makes it difficult, in helping a community on some of their transportation needs is when that community, by resolution or appropriate mechanism, approves projects and then, as you develop those projects or try to develop those projects, those resolutions start then changing. It's a very disruptive process.

And as we can all accomplish so much more working shoulder to shoulder in the same direction, I want to throw that in. With that, I submit it.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, I've had the same feelings that Robert has. You know, as a proponent of local responsibility and local decision making, it's -- I would like to see the department -- and I know the governor feels this way -- that we should, as much as possible, extend responsibility to act and responsibility for one's actions to local government.

But it's very disruptive -- it's hard to be a good partner and it's hard to focus on success when you're dealing with local communities which seem to want to change the direction and the rules at random.

And it's just a difficult thing. If Robert feels like we need to move on with this, well, that's fine; I just -- I have some concerns about it also.

MR. JOHNSON: Did you make the motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Jim.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 6(e) will be presented by Richard Monroe.

MR. MONROE: Once again, for the record, my name's Richard Monroe. I'm general counsel for the department.

Earlier in the meeting the commission approved our border colonia rules. Now we get to the process of funding those projects.

If you approve the minute order before you, as I would urge you to do, you will be sending a request that the Texas Public Finance Authority commence action to sell bonds which will pay for these colonia roads. If you have any further questions, I'll try to answer them, but that's the gist of it, and I would urge you to ap