Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting
Commission Room
Dewitt Greer Building
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas 78701-2483
Thursday, September 28, 2006
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Ric Williamson, Chairman
John W. Johnson
Hope Andrade
Ted Houghton, Jr.
STAFF:
Michael W. Behrens, P.E., Executive Director
Bob Jackson, Interim General Counsel
Roger Polson, Executive Assistant to the
Deputy Executive Director
Dee Hernandez, Chief Minute Clerk
PROCEEDINGS
MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning.
AUDIENCE: Good morning.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It is 9:06 a.m., and I would like to call the
September 2006 meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to
order. It is a pleasure to have each and every one of you here with
us this morning.
Please note for the record that public notice of this meeting,
containing all items on the agenda, was filed with the Office of
Secretary of State at 11:38 a.m. on September 20, 2006.
Before we begin today's meeting, let's all take a moment to reach in
our pockets and purses, notebooks and valises and pull out our
pagers, cell phones and all of our electronic devices and place them
on the silent or vibrate mode so that no one will be interrupted
when they're addressing the commission.
And I thank you very much for that.
It is our custom to open with comments from the commission, and we
begin with Commissioner Houghton from the far west reaches of our
great state. Ted?
MR. HOUGHTON: Just proud to be here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much, and thanks for coming today. There's a few noteworthy events
on our agenda, and I see some great friends out in the audience. Mr.
Chairman, I noted that we don't have a full house today. We must not
be giving anything away. But thank you for being here today.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?
MS. ANDRADE: I also would like to welcome everyone to Austin and to
our commission meeting for this month. And I'd like to, if I may,
Mr. Chairman, remind everyone, in case you haven't heard, that our
slogan "Don't Mess With Texas" is up for a national award and voting
ends tonight, and so I would like to encourage you to support this
by going to www.votedmwt.com, and place your vote. Voting ends
tonight and we're competing with some other slogans like "You Got
It" and the Las Vegas slogan about "What Happens Here Stays Here"
but I don't think "Don't Mess With Texas" we've all taken ownership
and are proud of that slogan, so if you all would support it, we
would appreciate it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Hope.
MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: John?
MR. JOHNSON: Hope, I think that's an excellent point and suggestion.
"Don't Mess With Texas" is clearly recognized in a lot of areas and
it's been a great slogan for our cleanup efforts around the state,
and so I'd encourage you, as Hope has, to get online and vote to
support it.
It's wonderful to see so many people here from the Valley. We've got
a couple of items on the agenda from the Valley, very important to
what's going on all up and down the Rio Grande River. There's just
so much commerce going on, it's the gateway to Texas, and we're glad
to be able to assist that commerce.
We have some financial issues which I think are exciting which will
show you not only is a lot of work going on presently across this
great state, but in the next few years even more work will continue
to be done.
Welcome and delighted that everyone is here.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, John. And I associate myself with the
remarks of my three colleagues. We appreciate you taking the time
out of your valuable day to be with us, whether you have business
with the commission or you're simply observing the business of
others.
Let me remind everyone if you wish to address the commission during
today's meeting, we ask that you complete one of two speaker cards
which you can find at the registration table to your immediate right
in the lobby. If you're going to comment or discuss an item that's
on our agenda, we ask that you complete a yellow card, such as the
one in my left hand, and please identify the agenda item upon which
you wish to speak. If you wish to comment during the open comment
period which will occur at the end of this meeting, we ask that you
fill out a blue card, similar to the one in my left hand, and
identify, again, the item upon which you're going to be commenting.
Regardless of the color of the card, we ask that you try to limit
your comments to three minutes so that everyone will have the
opportunity to voice their opinion before the commission.
Mike, before we go to the minutes, let's take a moment and address
items of a more personal nature.
MR. BEHRENS: Thank you. We always like to honor people that have put
in long service with the department, and I'm going to yield the
floor to Commissioner Johnson to make that presentation.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mike.
It's a pleasure to recognize people who are part of the fiber and
fabric of this great agency. There are almost 15,000 employees, and
believe me, they do a tremendous job, but today I have the
significant honor of recognizing one who has helped me over the
course of almost eight years stay abreast of what is going on. She's
kept me out of lawsuits and a few other issues that we run the risk
of being a party to. And she's devoted so much time on my behalf, I
have a personal stake in this, and so I'm delighted to be able to
recognize Phyllis Chandler who has been my very able and capable
administrative assistant since I was sworn in almost eight years
ago.
Phyllis has served this state and this agency for 15 years. She
started in the Paris District and then came to the Austin area, and
she's just done me a tremendous job and I'm deeply grateful and
beholding to her. Likewise, everything she does and everyone she
comes in contact with, she represents this agency and this state in
magnificent fashion.
So Phyllis, if you would come forward, I have the distinct pleasure
of giving you a plaque with your name and 15 years of service, along
with a token that our service awards allow us to present to people
like yourself who truly have done a great job.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Phyllis, do you want to like take a moment and blast
all four of us at once?
(General talking and laughter; pause for presentation and photos.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Phyllis has worked for John the last few years or
worked with John the last few years, and I can't let it go, John,
without a comment about Phyllis. We have, as you said, nearly 15,000
great employees, and for the most part, I think, down the line
dedicated to the mission and the plan of the agency.
And I think of a lot of adjectives when I think of Mike or Steve or
Amadeo or Coby or Jefferson or when I think of Maribel Chavez in my
area. The adjective I think about with Phyllis is grace and dignity.
In the six years I've been here, you have always conducted yourself
with grace and dignity, and that's frequently not easy, particularly
in the last couple of years of the firestorm we've had to go through
with the new Texas transportation plan. So I add my appreciation for
15 years well done.
Mike, I think that we were going to change the agenda a bit.
MR. BEHRENS: Yes, sir. I'd like to start out with agenda item number
9. Do you want to take care of the minutes before we do that?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike, are you telling me I need to take care of the
minutes?
MR. BEHRENS: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: No. He's just advising you.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, we need to approve the minutes from the
August 24 meeting. They're in your packet, you've had time to read
them, no doubt. Do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: We'll take up agenda item number 9 which concerns
Finance, and this is recommending approval of financial documents
that are needed for issuance of the Texas Mobility Fund bonds.
James?
MR. BASS: Good morning. For the record, I'm James Bass, chief
financial officer of TxDOT.
Through this minute order, the commission directs the department to
execute any necessary documents and to issue no more than $1.3
billion of Texas Mobility Fund bonds.
The finance plan for this issuance includes a constant maturity swap
which has been reviewed by and recommended for commission
consideration by the Derivative Committee. The commission would also
approve the documents in the exhibit which are associated with the
bonds and would authorize the department representative to approve
any necessary revisions to those documents.
Additionally, the minute order would approve certain entities as
swap counter-parties to the commission and would also approve a
custodial bank to assist the department with certain investments for
the Mobility Fund.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have, and staff
recommends approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation of this agenda item. Have you questions or comments?
MR. HOUGHTON: What is, James, the capacity for authorization under
the Texas Mobility Fund?
MR. BASS: Currently the authorization that we've received from the
Bond Review Board is the ability to issue up to $4 billion of bonds.
After this issuance, although it approves us up to $1.3-, the
current plan is for $1.25-. That would put us at having issued $3-
out of the $4 billion approved. We do believe there's additional
capacity above and beyond that from the revenues coming in, however,
that would require us to go back to the Bond Review Board to receive
that approval.
MR. HOUGHTON: We know what the capacity might be?
MR. BASS: It varies depending upon various structures that the
commission might approve as we go forward. Conservative, I'd say
five and a quarter billion, on up.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions, comments, members?
MR. JOHNSON: My observation is that's a great-looking tie.
And I think this is significant because the voters of this state
approved the Mobility fund, and it shows what we were able to do in
terms of leveraging our resources to get more work done more
quickly, and I just salute everybody who has been involved, from our
financial advisors to your very capable staff. I think this is a
great step.
MR. BASS: Thank you. I would also say the districts have done a
truly amazing job of putting this money to work.
MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely.
MR. BASS: And there's billions of dollars of activity in play today
that wouldn't be other than for the Mobility Fund.
MR. HOUGHTON: Can we identify that activity by district?
MR. BASS: Yes, we can.
MR. HOUGHTON: And the follow-up question there is with the
increasing capacity, it would then increase the amount of capacity
to the districts. Do they know that yet?
MR. BASS: We continue to work through that with our financial
planning group that meets monthly to discuss that on how to allocate
that.
MR. HOUGHTON: But we have not added that new capacity into their
allocation to the major metros. Correct?
MR. BASS: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. WILLIAMSON: James, I have a couple of questions similar to that
of John and Ted from a slightly different aspect. Recently I've been
asked about whether or not we're deploying the Mobility Fund fast
enough to address the state's congestion problems. For the audience
that doesn't keep up with the arcane-ness of our department, as I
understand it, we're basically a cash flow operation, we have three
major sources of input: that's the gasoline tax collected at the
state level; that's the federal gasoline tax, 70 percent of which we
pay is returned to our transportation program; and we have the motor
vehicle registration fee. The Mobility Fund is underwritten by a
series of fees and taxes not associated with those three cash flow
inputs, so this is now our fourth major source of cash flow coming
in.
Now, cash flow out, besides the administrative overhead, the
transfer to other departments, the things that keep the entire
operation working, as I understand it, breaks into two pieces: a
distribution to our districts based upon plans they develop with
local and regional leaders; and a smaller, perhaps in the range of
15 percent, distribution directly from the commission primarily
targeted at pass-through toll and military base expansion
operations.
When someone opines that the Mobility Fund has not been deployed
fast enough, would they most likely be making that observation based
upon the cash coming in without realizing that the contracts are
being executed to spend that money going out on the district side?
MR. BASS: I would agree. I think it's a misunderstanding of how the
department operates and that we are truly operating on a cash flow
basis. For example, the amount of activity that is going on that has
been advanced through the Mobility Fund is roughly $5 billion.
There's $5 billion in our accounting system that's targeted and
working from the Mobility Fund. However, I mentioned after this
issuance we will have only issued $3 billion from the Mobility Fund,
and that's what a lot of people tend to focus on is when we issue
the bonds, therefore, there must only be $3 billion worth of work
going on.
As we all know, the larger construction projects take two, three,
four years sometimes to build and complete, therefore, we only issue
the bonds as the cash flow of those thousands of projects dictate,
and that's why the projects, the dollar amount that's been advanced
today exceeds the amount of bonds that we've issued, however, over
the next 18 to 24 months we think those two will catch up as all
those projects come to completion.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's like two disconnected but parallel lines:
they'll cross occasionally, they'll separate, and they'll cross.
MR. BASS: Almost always the amount of projects advanced will lead
the amount of bonds issued out of this program.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And Ted asked for some information and I want to
echo that, and I know Hope has spoken to me several times about
wanting to know some of this data on a detailed level, and that is
we all know that, for example, in Montgomery County there is a
tremendous pass-through toll program soon to be started that's a
direct result of the department's financial ability to make
guarantees to Montgomery County. We know that State Highway 121 in
North Texas will soon probably be awarded to a private sector
consortium. All of those things are possible because of the cash
flow in the department has and projects it will have.
I think it would be very interesting to know -- and I may need to be
directing this to Coby if he's not left the room; he must have
anticipated I was going to call him up -- I think it would be
interesting to know the economic impact, not just on highways, Ted,
but on the state's employment base, the result of this expansion of
highway construction over the last six years. It would be
interesting to know the probable reduction in congestion and the
probable improvement in air quality. If we can quantify the enhanced
safety, the number of jobs -- again not related to construction --
that we've brought in, and how much we've been able to preserve our
system as a result of this. I think perhaps if the financial and GBE
divisions can work on that data and produce it for us, I think we'd
like to see it.
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, there's kind of two components to it. One is the
Mobility Fund as we ramp up and you have kind of when you peak out
on the Mobility Fund, but then you have your CDA program that's
going parallel with that. But from a Mobility Fund standpoint,
there's a bubble there that we're going to hit that the revenue
stream is going to be able to support so much of debt.
MR. BASS: Correct. At some point we will fully leverage the first
wave of the Mobility Fund and then we'll have to wait a period of
time as that debt is retired before we can issue additional, or
receive additional funds into that we could then leverage as well.
MR. HOUGHTON: The other question is I'll go back to one of my
original questions, if you have the capacity based upon the revenue
sources, the tickets and things like that, is the increase to the
eight major metros under the Mobility Fund, what they will see,
realize in cash to leverage projects.
MR. BASS: There's, as in most cases, always good news and bad news.
The good news is we believe there's additional capacity from the
Mobility Fund because the revenue is coming in, the estimate is
continuing to grow as Texas grows. The thing that's combating that,
that we face not only in the Mobility Fund but in all of our
programs, is the increased construction cost. And so how much does
that additional money truly equate to additional projects or is it
helping us come closer to matching inflation over time. And that's
going to vary on a region-by-region basis, but that's the other I
want to, I guess, tell you the cloud associated with the silver
lining as well.
MR. HOUGHTON: Good news/bad news.
MR. BASS: Right.
MS. ANDRADE: Mr. Chairman, if I may say, I'm glad that you're asking
for information as to how we can translate what this means to the
normal citizen about that it does create many more job
opportunities, and it does bring economic opportunity. The last tour
that I took of our SH 130 from the helicopter, I could see lots of
people working, I could see lots of new roofs which means it's
attracted new development, and I would appreciate you translating
that into what does this mean for the districts that we live in.
Thank you.
MR. BASS: And Chairman, you mentioned pass-through tolls and
Montgomery County. I'm not sure if they've closed the initial
issuance of their debt to advance that project that will then
partially repay over time. If they haven't, they're very close to
it. And I know Williamson County, as well, is very close to
providing the initial funding for their project. So even that
program is advancing projects throughout the state and delivering
those years ahead of otherwise.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And hopefully our Cameron County partners are fixing
to kick it up into about fourth gear and get after it down in --
what did I call you, the far west end of the state -- that would be
the far southern entrance to the state.
Anything else members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. BASS: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, James.
MR. BEHRENS: Now we'll move to agenda item number 2 which will be a
report given to you by Amadeo on TTC-35, about the comprehensive
development agreement procurement process, and also other activities
that are happening along the TTC corridor. Amadeo?
MR. SAENZ: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Amadeo
Saenz, assistant executive director for Engineering Operations. I
apologize for my voice this morning. I think I'm coming down with a
little bit of a cold. And I thought I sounded bad until I talked to
a couple of our guys this morning that sounded much, much worse, so
I feel I'm better off.
But the agenda item number 2 is a status report that I would like to
give you on the activities that are going on with our Trans-Texas
Corridor 35, we've reached a couple of milestones. But before I
start, I wanted to go through and give you a status. I will have
some PowerPoints, it will start kind of in the middle of my
presentation; I didn't have PowerPoint for the whole thing. We'll
get to it in a minute.
I wanted to kind of give you a status of where we're at on some of
the different projects that we have been developing through the
TTC-35 procurement process. The first one I want to talk about is
the State Highway 130 Segments 5 and 6. If you all recall, at the
end of June, our June commission meeting, TxDOT signed a commitment
agreement approving the facility implementation plan and moving
forward to agree to enter into a facility agreement with
Cintra-Zachry, provided that the 23 elements that were outlined in
the commitment agreement were delivered. We have been working on
those diligently to get those approved.
The biggest item was, of course, the re-evaluation of the
environmental for 130 Segments 5 and 6, and I'm happy to say that
that's moving forward. We have been having some public hearings. We
had a public hearing on the 26th, we had a public hearing yesterday,
and we have a public hearing tonight, and that will complete the
public involvement process of that re-evaluation of that document.
And we anticipate having clearance from Federal Highway by
Thanksgiving of this year. That will clear one of the biggest things
that needed to be looked at.
There's also Cintra has been working on some of the requirements
that they have, Cintra-Zachry. Of course, they had to submit some
interchange justification reports for connections to Interstate 10.
That has to have Federal Highway approval and that's been done.
We've been finalizing the price reasonableness evaluation, and a
value engineering report and study that has to be done for the
project because of the size. Those are well underway and will be
completed this month. Preliminary schematics have been submitted to
Federal Highway for them to review and approve; that's also a
requirement. So we're well underway to completing all our 23 items
that were pending as part of that commitment agreement.
Where we go from here, of course, the environmental will be cleared.
Once that's done, we will finalize the facility management plan that
Cintra is also developing, and sign the concession agreement, and
then Cintra will have the time that was allowed for them to close
financing and get the project moving. So that project is well
underway and is moving just like we had planned.
If you recall, also we did receive from Cintra-Zachry -- they're
able to bring projects forward -- they identified a railroad project
from north of Dallas-Fort Worth down to Laredo as a project that was
ready for development. We agreed with them, and on July 31 we did
reply to them that we agreed that that rail project was ready for
development, and we have been working closely with Cintra-Zachry to
put together the facility implementation plan or where they will put
a facility implementation plan together that basically outlines how
they plan to develop or plan and develop that project and implement
that project.
At the same time, we are working closely with Federal Highway
Administration and the Surface Transportation Board. This project of
constructing rail is a project that has never been done before, at
least a project of this magnitude, so we have been working and
trying to coordinate with Federal Highway Administration and the
Surface Transportation Board because Surface Transportation Board is
the federal agency that approves the construction of rail projects.
We have a meeting next week in Washington, meeting with both federal
agencies to finalize the process of how we clear the environmental
and get that project moving. At the same time, as I mentioned,
Cintra-Zachry is doing their agreement and facility implementation
plan, and then those processes will merge together and we'll move
forward on that process.
The last project that I wanted to bring up on here, a project that
we did receive from Cintra-Zachry, a letter that Loop 9 in the
southern part of the Metroplex was ready for development, and they
identified a project from Interstate 30 east of Dallas, then south
and west around Dallas and Fort Worth, and come back to Interstate
30 west of Fort Worth. They've also said that this was a project
that falls under the connectivity projects that the facility
agreement allows them to bring forward.
We have been reviewing their submittal and agree with them that
because a lot of environmental work had been done on a portion of
that project, the portion in the Dallas District that goes from
about 35 East all the way to 30, because we have a lot of
environmental investigations that we have done, that project, we
agree, is also ready for development and we want to initiate moving
forward with that project.
The portion of the project west of 35, from west of 35 West all the
way to 30, no environmental work has been done to date, so we have
been in communication with the RTC and are looking at initiating the
environmental study so that we can have more data before we proceed
with that portion of the project. So in that case, what we're doing
is basically breaking the project into two where we will initiate
the environmental study to catch up the western leg but not slow
down the eastern leg because the western leg has not been done. So
we will approach that project in two different scenarios but move it
forward.
That's what we've been doing on project-specific for TTC-35. I'll be
happy to answer any questions. Then I'm going to jump into our
master development agreement, but I'd like to see if you have
questions on these first.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, please feel free to ask or comment. I'm
going to have an extensive -- not extensive -- I'm going to have a
list of questions for Amadeo that are designed to establish certain
things for the record and they can wait till the end. So please if
you have questions, go ahead.
MR. SAENZ: Well, I'll be happy to go through and we'll just do the
questions at the end.
MR. WILLIAMSON: John?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, my question was what I interpreted, Amadeo, is
the treatment as the TTC-35 approaches the Metroplex that both
elements we're proceeding on, we're just in various stages:
environmental on the western leg, if you will, and then we're
actually proceeding further than that on the eastern leg. But we're
not neglecting one for the other, it's just one is further along.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. What it is is one portion of the project was
further along than the other, we want to be able to do the
environmental so that we can make the right decisions as we move
forward on the western leg. But both projects will be moving
forward.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
MR. HOUGHTON: And this is, for lack of a better word, the donut
concept that the RTC has been endorsing, as well as the locals.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. The Loop 9 project has been a project that has
been in the Metroplex long-range plan as an identified need.
MR. HOUGHTON: And had not been able to fund that project.
MR. SAENZ: Not been able to fund it. They had identified it, and
through some commitment with Dallas County, had decided to move on
that southeastern leg. The southwestern leg, they had not initiated
any environmental studies, and that's why that one is a little bit
further behind, but it is a project that the Metroplex had
identified and has been looking at. And of course, when we look at
it and we look at the grand scheme, those projects are projects that
are potential connectivity projects. With respect to whether they
will be designated TTC-35 or not, the environmental process will
determine that as we get to the completion of that process.
MR. HOUGHTON: And Cintra-Zachry has determined that that project
will self-fund?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. In their letter they said that the project was
a project that was ready for development and they felt that it could
self-perform.
MR. HOUGHTON: Which means that the transfer risk for building that
is to the private sector, not on either Dallas County or the State
of Texas. Correct?
MR. SAENZ: That's correct. And then, of course, this is based, as
always, on preliminary studies, preliminary financial information,
kind of 30,000-foot view. As we drill down into the project, we'll
be able to have a lot more detail, but most of the time our original
numbers are very conservative and they only get better.
MR. HOUGHTON: And we've decided this is about the same footprint
project as 5 and 6 on 130, would you not say?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. What the Metroplex had been looking at
developing on Loop 9 was a controlled access expressway type
facility on about 400 to 500 feet of right of way.
MR. HOUGHTON: And how many miles?
MR. SAENZ: I believe it was over 140 miles.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, that's not this project.
MR. HOUGHTON: I'm just talking about the Loop 9 on the southeastern
side.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, the southeast side.
MR. HOUGHTON: From Interstate Highway 20 down to 35.
MR. SAENZ: Okay. I'm talking about the whole thing that was
submitted.
MR. HOUGHTON: I'm just talking about the one.
MR. SAENZ: About 40 miles.
MR. HOUGHTON: Right. About 40 miles?
MR. SAENZ: Yes.
MR. HOUGHTON: And I understand you've committed to have a facility
implementation plan done by December 31. Is that correct?
MR. SAENZ: Some people are going to have to work a lot of hours to
do that, but we are going to work diligently to move this project
forward.
MS. ANDRADE: Amadeo, remind me how long --
MR. SAENZ: Excuse me, Commissioner, but one of the things is we have
been working to put together a program where we have identified
business terms and technical requirements and specifications that
will allow us to be able to move forward through those procurements
at a much faster pace than we have in the past without having to
reinvent the wheel every time.
MR. HOUGHTON: As a result of our experience on the 130, 5 and 6.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MS. ANDRADE: Amadeo, remind me how long these projects have been
waiting for funding.
MR. SAENZ: I don't know exactly.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Loop 9, 35 years.
MR. SAENZ: Loop 9, about 30-35 years, and it was not funded in the
next ten years. It was in their plan as identified over the next 25
years, but it was not funded within the next ten years, so it was 35
plus ten, 45 years before they could get to it.
MR. HOUGHTON: I may be stretching this out a little bit, Amadeo, but
what is the back-of-a-napkin type of cost estimates to build this
project, this southeastern portion of Loop 9?
MR. SAENZ: I will have to ask staff and get that to you, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: I'm just curious.
MR. SAENZ: Forty miles, I would say somewhere between about $400- to
$600 million for that first segment, ballpark figure based on $10-
to $12 million a mile.
MR. JOHNSON: Amadeo, to follow up on Hope's question about time, how
long has this project been in the wishful stage, if you will, have
we or can we make a calculation as to projects of that nature that
have been around for a long time but unfunded that are going to come
to fruition as a result of the development of these corridors and
the way that we're able to do it, and in essence, are coming at no
cost to the people -- not the people who drive the roads, but at no
cost out of our normal funding mechanisms.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, we can. Of course, we have just asked the eight
metropolitan areas to update their Metropolitan Mobility Plan, and
now they're taking and identifying these projects that are what I
call revenue-positive projects or self-performers which means that
this project can be built without any public money. And of course, a
lot of these projects also will result in an additional concession
fee, and that concession fee they can then apply to a second tier of
projects.
So we're getting to that point where the MPOs, and in this case the
RTC will identify if I build 121, if I build 161 through a CDA
process, I'll be able to generate a billion dollars more and now I
can apply that billion dollars to these other projects.
So we'll be able to come up with a list of what I would call the
second tier projects -- well, the first tier and second tier
projects that can be done without any public money, and we'll be
able to provide that to you.
MR. JOHNSON: I think, one, the total amount of dollars is
staggering, but also the amount of time, as Hope mentioned and you
said, that we have had these projects literally in abeyance waiting
on funding, that that answer is going to be staggering too, and it's
incredible what is going on in terms of moving projects and
corridors through the pipeline and getting them done so everybody
can benefit.
MR. SAENZ: Right. If I remember correctly, about three months ago
when the Metroplex folks were here with us making their
presentation, Michael Morris in his presentation identified that the
new tools were bringing in about $5 billion worth of projects that
they could not do prior to implementing some of the new tools. So
it's a staggering number, it's a great number.
MS. ANDRADE: Amadeo, and I think that's a key message that we need
to communicate to our public, because I know that even to me that
I'm involved in everyday transportation, it's astounding to hear
that these projects have been waiting for 30 years and that if we
don't do it this route, that we would probably wait another ten to
15 years, and I don't think that's quite a message that's
communicated as well because I'm surprised when we hear that.
MR. SAENZ: Well, I think a couple of things that you all have done
have really helped, and one is for, I guess, the longer past when
the commission was the one that selected all the projects statewide
for mobility, the region never knew when a project was going to get
selected, or if a project was going to get selected, or maybe a
portion of a project was going to get selected. When you all
initiated the change that now we are allocating to them the
resources and we let them put together their plan and identify their
priorities, they now realize that the money that's available can
only carry them so far and they have to learn and they have to
utilize all the tools to be able to leverage those.
And now they get to prioritize. They use the Fund 6 for their
priorities, leverage that Fund 6 to catch the next set of projects
that will bring in that additional resource so they can do the
future projects. And now they can see in their plan how their system
is going to evolve by one project, in essence, helping the other,
very similar to the system financing that the toll agencies use,
they take one project to help another.
The next item that I'd like to talk about is give you a status
report on the development of the master development plan that was
part of the requirement of the TTC-35 procurement. And of course,
just as a little bit of history, what we tried to accomplish with
our CDA is we wanted to bring on board a long-term strategic partner
to work along with TxDOT, we wanted to minimize the public sector
financing contributions that would be required to develop a corridor
like TTC-35, and maximize the private sector financial
contributions, and we also wanted to see how we could accelerate the
delivery of that project. We've been working on all of those.
The master development plan is a 50-year partnership that shows
near-term projects, mid-term projects and long-term projects that
will be developed for Trans-Texas Corridor from Oklahoma all the way
down to Mexico. The CDA was only basically put in place and we had
the first item of work, and the only item of work that Cintra was
required to do was for $3.5 million they were committed to putting
together this master development plan which is what we're talking
about right now. And the master development plan included a project
development plan, it included a project financial plan for the
projects that would be developed over the 50-year period, and then
as well as some quality plans and some project management plans on
how they would do the projects.
The CDA did not authorize Cintra-Zachry to construct any named
facility in the MDP. It did have a requirement or a commitment that
they would have the right of first negotiation on at least $400
million of the CDA.
The master development plan was basically broken up into milestones
of how we wanted to accomplish this thing. Our first milestone was
kind of basically a planning document. We want them to tell us how
you're going to approach projects through a project management plan,
tell us how you're going to ensure that what you give us is done
with quality and how you would manage that, and of course, give us a
schedule of how you're going to put together this master development
plan. That was done very early on in the project; we reached
milestone one very quickly.
The second milestone, basically we asked them to tell us and show us
the demographics that they were going to be using, what are the
trends, what's the population demographics, what's the population
growth rates that you're going to be using, what are your traffic
growth rates you're going to be using, so that we could make sure
that as we're putting something together we get something that is
realistic and not something that's not realistic.
The third part is basically once you have your demographics, we want
you to then apply and list the potential projects that need to be
developed or that would be developed under this master development
agreement, and also put together some draft financial models of how
you would finance these projects.
The fourth milestone was basically to take those projects in
milestone number three, do a risk and financial analysis on each of
those projects, do some sketch level traffic and revenue studies, do
some conceptual engineering, kind of drill down and get as much
information as you can, and apply it to those projects so that we
can see exactly, with the best information we have, how much will
the project cost, what will the financial requirements be, and how
could we do that.
And then, of course, under milestone five we started phasing the
facilities into which facilities should be done first, which should
be done second, which should be done in a longer term. The near-term
facilities are the facilities that could be developed in the first
five years; the mid-term facilities are from year five to about year
ten; and the long-term facilities are facilities that are after year
ten.
Milestone number six then took all that information that we got and
all the research and work that was done, and it was put together and
we updated the documents that were part of the earlier milestones in
two through five, as well as updating the conceptual financial plans
and conceptual project management plans that were part of the CDA
document. Those were then all put together and submitted to us in
one document that identified the near-term projects, the mid-term
projects, and the long-term projects, as well as the financial.
Milestone number seven, because this master development plan is a
living document, as we go through and other projects are identified,
or as we go through and the environmental process determines where
projects are located that are different than the assumptions that
were made as part of this plan, then this plan needs to be updated
to conform to that. If you have a different route that requires a
different length of project, of course, the project will have a
different cost. As we go through time, you have to update estimates.
So this document will always be a living document and we have to
have a methodology in place so that we can update the document in
the future.
Some of the elements of the plan, for all the potential projects --
or facilities, as we call them in the plan -- the master development
plan identifies their characteristics: kind of where is it going to
be located; what mode is it, is it rail, is it highways, is it truck
lanes, is it utility corridors; if it's highways, how many lanes
will it have. From that we come up with conceptual design and cost.
We look at phasing and sequencing, how would you phase and sequence
the project. And then also we look at the revenues that this project
can generate over time, and in addition, what potential funding
sources are available to finance the project. We did that for all of
the projects.
Now, as we look at the projects, the near-term projects are the
projects that we would say are ready to go in the short-term.
They're projects where the need is there and the financial is there,
so for near-term projects, we did a more comprehensive financial
model which included the estimated concessions that could be
realized if the project was built.
All the proposed planning in this document is based on what
Cintra-Zachry identified in working with us, where they thought, and
we agreed, that the project may go. As I said, this is a living
document. NEPA will determine where the final location of each one
of those facilities will be, and if it's different from the
assumptions that were made in this document, then this document will
have to be updated.
We have to make sure that all our projects will comply with all the
environmental approvals; we'll have coordination with the MPOs, the
cities, the counties; Federal Highway will also have to approve all
our; and of course, we ourselves do a lot of review and approvals.
The final traffic and revenue forecast will depend on the financial
models of the final projects. So the document is a living document
and will be subject to change.
Just in moving forward, if you recall when the proposal came in and
Cintra-Zachry's proposal had identified projects from the Metroplex
all the way down to San Antonio and they stopped at Interstate 10,
and those were their near-term projects. And if you recall, they
identified that the cost of those projects at the time was about $6
billion and the concession fee that they would be willing to provide
for the right to operate over a 50-year concession was about $1.2
billion.
The near-term projects that the facility agreement identified starts
up from north of the Metroplex, connecting 35 over east around
Dallas, continues east around Dallas and south, and when we look at
all these projects, there are several things that I need to show you
on this slide. One, these are the near-term facility projects that
are part of TTC-35, those are shown in the green. And then, of
course, the lines that are shown in the dash are some of the
connecting projects that they've also identified at this time and
they're working.
So you see the Loop 9 projects is shown as a connecting project that
is being worked on. The final numbers have not been determined for
that project, but at this time it's not TTC-35, it's a connectivity
project. The environmental process will determine whether Loop 9 in
the future becomes TTC-35 or remains as a connectivity project, but
they can both be developed under this procurement.
Then around the Austin area you see the black dashed line, of
course, that's the 130, 1 through 4, that's being developed, and of
course, the green is the 130, 5 and 6 that's shown on there. And of
course, the new projects that were added to near-term projects are
the loops around the San Antonio area.
When we take a look at these projects and we total them up, these
projects total to about $8.8 billion which would be the cost of the
facility, and under the development plan those projects can be
built, and in addition to getting those projects built, we would get
almost $2 billion of potential concession fees.
What you will notice in this list that some of the projects have
parentheses around them, and these show that not every project has a
positive cash flow or every segment of the project has a positive
cash flow. But if you look at the corridor as a whole, the corridor
as a whole does result in an additional almost $2 billion. This is
just kind of a recap.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a series of questions I'm going to ask,
Amadeo, but just one pops up as appropriate right now.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What will happen to that $2 billion? Take your time,
go slowly.
MR. SAENZ: The $2 billion, of course, can be used to address
connectivity projects.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, don't talk in engineer-ese. How will the $2
billion be spent?
MR. SAENZ: The $2 billion, of course, comes to the department as a
concession fee, it goes into Fund 6. Commission will work with the
locals to identify other projects. We can either extend the corridor
to other parts along the 35 corridor, we can use it to build
connection projects from the corridor back into the metropolitan
areas. For example, the plan identifies some projects that connect
Waco to the corridor, that connect Temple to the corridor, the Loop
9 project, there's other connectivity projects in the Metroplex.
Some of this concession fee can be used for that.
The concession fee can be used to fund other modes of transportation
projects, like some of the rail projects and such that are needed
for the corridor.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So two points to be made. First, we frequently hear,
well, this is just a revenue scheme. Well, it's a revenue scheme to
do what? Solve transportation problems. It's not a revenue scheme to
pump up other state government, it's not a revenue scheme to help
higher education. The $2 billion will be used to address the state's
transportation problem.
MR. SAENZ: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's the first point to be made.
The second point to be made is that local and regional leaders will
identify which problems most address their congestion, air quality
and safety goals, and together with us will decide which projects to
build to address those problems.
For example, if Temple, Austin and San Antonio were able to persuade
those corporate citizens, the Union-Pacific Railroad to abandon
their tracks through the city center to permit the various transit
systems to take those tracks over for commuter rail and move to a
higher speed freight rail in the corridor, that would be an
appropriate project for the concession revenue to be targeted
towards. Yes or no?
MR. SAENZ: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Please continue.
MR. SAENZ: Okay. Just as a summary, the plan, as it's updated now,
identifies $8.8 billion in the near-term transportation construction
projects, and also provides for a concession fee above and beyond
that of $1.9 billion for TxDOT to use as we've just discussed.
Looking at the plan, we have less information or less detailed
information for the mid-term and long-term projects, so what I tried
to do here is just basically identify. And of course, they did
identify the rail project that they had submitted earlier as ready
for development in their mid-term projects, but that's because rail
projects will take much longer to develop. We spoke earlier of the
coordination that will have to happen for the environmental side
between the Surface Transportation Board, Federal Highway
Administration and ourselves, so they did place that project, to be
a little bit more realistic, that it could be done but would be done
probably as a mid-term project.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Can higher speed freight rails, steel rails, can
they also be used for higher speed passenger rails?
MR. SAENZ: Higher speed passenger rails and higher speed freight
rails use the same facility.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So what is possible in terms of a interregional rail
system between Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio: 90 miles an hour
non-stop?
MR. SAENZ: Between 80 and 90 miles per hour non-stop, yes, sir.
They also showed some additional connectivity loops east and around
Dallas to TTC-35, and also some connections in Hillsboro and some
other projects that are identified in the plan. There's a countless
number of other projects that are in there.
In the long-term projects they did show the need for the high speed
rail facilities between Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio, and some
of the primary roadway work south of San Antonio to Laredo are shown
as long-term projects. And that makes sense in that if you look at
the congestion that we're seeing on 35 south of San Antonio to
Laredo, we still have a lot of capacity on the existing facilities.
They also showed the western loops around Dallas-Fort Worth to be on
the longer term, again because there's less of a need there. And of
course, they also identified some of the utility facilities.
I must remind you all that if you look at 2017, it is only ten years
away from here, so long-term is just post ten years.
MS. ANDRADE: I have a question. When you say primary roadway between
San Antonio and Laredo, could that possibly be truck lanes?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, ma'am, that could be additional truck lanes or
additional multipurpose lanes that they can add capacity within the
median like we're doing on some of the other projects.
The environmental process will determine where the final route for
TTC-35 is going to be along the entire corridor, but if you remember
on the draft EIS, it showed that south of San Antonio the preferred
draft EIS corridor was parallel to the existing 35, so it would be
expansion of 35, if it stays that way through the environmental
process.
And as we move forward, and as I mentioned earlier, the MDP is a
dynamic document that will be changed as needed. The final route for
TTC-35 will be determined during the environmental process and we're
committed to including public involvement in every step of the
process, as we've been doing already. And we must continue to do the
planning now rather than wait for congestion to grow out of
proportion and then try to stop the gap later.
That pretty much concludes my presentation. I do have a couple more
comments, but I'd ask for questions before we move forward.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll ask a few and then rest a moment.
A great deal has been made about -- a great hubbub has been raised
by some members of the free press and some candidates for public
office about the unusual secrecy connected to this contract. For the
record, I want to establish what this contract is. We asked for
proposals from the private sector to develop a master development
plan. The plan was the core of a contract that had a cost of how
much money?
MR. SAENZ: The cost of that contract was $3.5 million.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's million with an M?
MR. SAENZ: Million with an M.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's not a $7 billion contract, as some have
assumed.
MR. SAENZ: It's a $3-1/2 million contract.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It is a $3-1/2 million contract to develop a master
development plan.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And there were three proposers, and the partnership
of Cintra, a Spanish firm, and Zachry America, or whatever they're
called, a third-generation San Antonio construction firm, had, in
our judgment, the best approach to developing this contract. Is that
correct?
MR. SAENZ: That's correct, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Had we not been able in the time line specified to
reach an agreement with Cintra-Zachry on the development plan, would
we have then moved to our second choice and begun negotiations with
them to develop a plan?
MR. SAENZ: No, sir. What would have happened, because we did execute
the comprehensive development agreement, we would have to reopen and
re-procure the entire CDA.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And when we did that, had we exposed the
Cintra-Zachry proposal, the Fluor proposal, and the other one -- the
name escapes me -- we would have exposed their proprietary and
financial data to their competitors, who would then be re-proposing
for the second procurement. Correct?
MR. SAENZ: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: In your engineering judgment, given that this is a
complex transaction, have you handled this contract any differently
than you would have handled a typical design-blind bid-build
contract?
MR. SAENZ: They're handled exactly the same way.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And why has the commission instructed staff and
reminded themselves to generally remain silent and not argue with
those who have lodged illogical and inaccurate complaints?
MR. SAENZ: If we were to move forward and release the data, we, in
essence, would not have anyone that would want to propose to us
because they would not be able to bring in any innovation, bring in
any ideas on how to develop projects, and in essence, the program
would die.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And in your experience in state government, Amadeo,
do other agencies headed by elected officials screen and protect the
intellectual and financial data of their private sector proposers in
much the same way?
MR. SAENZ: We do everything exactly like all the other agencies.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So we haven't treated this contract any differently
than we have treated other contracts or as other contracts in other
state agencies in this state are treated?
MR. SAENZ: That's correct, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Has there actually been a secret contract?
MR. SAENZ: No.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for that.
Now, I am told that we are doing an internal study on the amount of
money which will be saved on the maintenance -- this is very
critical to distinguish this -- not the expansion of Interstate 35
but the maintenance of existing lanes and future expanded lanes,
we're doing a study on the cost savings of maintenance as a result
of traffic shifting to this parallel road.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. We've got a consultant that's working on that,
they've submitted some preliminary information that's still being
reviewed by our folks.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And let's assume for a moment that that figure is
going to be in the, say, $500 million on the low end, $750- on the
high end -- I think that's a good range -- is that $500- to $750
million money that would have been distributed out of the taxpayers'
tax revenue to maintain 35?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So to the extent that we're eliminating $500 million
of maintenance on 35 as a result of traffic patterns shifting to the
parallel, that's $500 million we have to invest in solving other
transportation problems in the state.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And is it also my understanding that we have a
congestion relief study ongoing to determine what percentage of
traffic moves off of Interstate 35 and onto the parallel?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, it's part of the same study that's looking
numbers.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is it safe to say that no less than 2.5 percent and
no more than 10 percent of the traffic is going to fall somewhere in
that range?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So for those who live in, for example, Hillsboro who
believe that Interstate 35 is their economic lifeblood and the
parallel might have the same impact on their city as Route 66 had on
some cities in Oklahoma, we can represent to them that it appears,
least case your traffic shrinks 2-1/2 percent, worst case it shrinks
10 percent, and in no circumstance should that be enough to markedly
impact your local economy?
MR. SAENZ: That's correct. The other thing that I think we need to
continue to stress is people will always have a choice: they can
come on the toll road if they so choose, but if they don't want to,
they can stay on the existing 35.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you're leading into my next series of
questions. We've been studying for two years now the actual cost and
tax revenue associated with the state's transportation grid. At this
point in time is it safe to say that we've identified no tax road in
the state that generates enough revenue to pay for itself?
MR. SAENZ: So far, in all the work that we've done, we've not been
able to find a road that pays for itself.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Some roads get as high as 57 percent, most roads are
around 21 percent, as far as we can tell right now.
MR. SAENZ: The one that I've seen that has the most was around 55 to
60, most of them run somewhere in the teens to low twenties.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And is it safe to say in our demographic studies
we've determined that the flat rate gasoline tax is one of the
single most regressive taxes the state levels because there are no
exemptions, the state doesn't recognize rich or poor, it collects
the same fee from everybody?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Whereas, TTC-35 will be paid by someone volunteering
to pay the toll to achieve whatever purpose they wish to achieve.
MR. SAENZ: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Leaving the tax road to be used by those who don't
wish to volunteer to pay that toll.
MR. SAENZ: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: My final question before a I rest a moment. Is it
accurate to say, after three years on this mission, that we've
determined that high speed rail, higher speed rail and the transfer
of freight out of downtown Texas could not possibly occur unless we
moved to the side and built it on a parallel with private financing?
MR. SAENZ: That's correct, we'd not be able to do it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm going to rest a moment. Please ask whatever
questions you wish to. I've got a few more I need to establish for
the record but I want to think about it.
MR. HOUGHTON: We need to spend a little bit more time on something
the chairman just brought up on the rail piece as a mid-term. We
have a letter from Cintra-Zachry believing that that project is
ready for development. Is that correct?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: And we're analyzing that or we agree with them that
that project is ready for development?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. As I mentioned earlier in the early part of the
presentation, we agree that that project is ready for development.
We're working to coordinate with Surface Transportation Board.
Because of the rail project, the cost, the type of project, the
different type of development it was put in as a mid-term project
which means that it's between five years and ten years instead of
between zero and five years, but it is a project that is being
worked on now. But we feel that probably it will take us a little
longer to put that project in place than it would allow us in the
first five years.
MR. HOUGHTON: And this is a project you can't really build in
stages, Amadeo, because you can't stop a rail line at Seguin.
MR. SAENZ: You have to build segments of independent utilities so
that someone is willing to use it, because if you build it and stop
it, we just can't get anywhere. It's very hard to make the railroad
do a U-turn.
MR. HOUGHTON: Yes, pretty tough to get a freight train to go the
other way.
MR. SAENZ: Yes.
MR. HOUGHTON: So from the standpoint of air quality and what we're
trying to accomplish, especially in the San Antonio, Austin and the
Tower 55 issues in Fort Worth, would you say this is a significant
project?
MR. SAENZ: Oh, this is a significant project that will allow for the
movement of freight rail from the metropolitan areas, improve air
quality, improve safety, improve congestion, and of course, by
moving it over, you would allow for economic opportunity along the
new corridor. There could be some instances, as you develop this
master rail project or this long rail project, that you can break it
up and have some usable segments that will allow you some short-term
gains that will even help finance the project.
And I'll give you an example off the top of my head. This is not in
the plan, but off the top of my head, I say okay, if we do something
to Tower 55 to separate those two railroads and you're able to then
charge a tax or a toll on the movements that go across this
grade-separated structure, that money then can be used to expand the
rail somewhere else. So just this one little idea that may be able
to be used to piece together the bigger project.
MR. HOUGHTON: So those trains sitting at Tower 55 waiting to cross
--
MR. SAENZ: Now they can just go straight across, there's no stopping
them.
MR. HOUGHTON: -- degrading the air, now we're talking about
significant economic opportunity.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope, anything?
MS. ANDRADE: Amadeo, I was in Chicago this week at a seminar and I
learned that Cintra actually currently manages 47 projects
worldwide, so I'm glad to hear that we have such an experienced
partner.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, ma'am.
MR. WILLIAMSON: John, anything?
MR. JOHNSON: I asked my questions before.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Then my last series of questions are about the
contract itself, Amadeo. Again, I'm establishing some things for the
record.
Much has been said about what was originally $6.9 billion, what is
now $8.1 billion -- and I'll get back to that in a moment --
construction --
MR. SAENZ: $8.8 billion.
MR. WILLIAMSON: -- $8.8 billion enuring to the benefit of a firm
that's located in Spain. When we execute plans with this development
agreement, that $8.8 billion will be forwarded by or be the legal
obligation of the private sector. Is that correct?
MR. SAENZ: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And that $8.8 billion will be spent on what?
MR. SAENZ: Building a state asset, building TTC-35.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Will they have to hire people?
MR. SAENZ: Oh, yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Will they hire people in Spain and bring them across
on a boat and house them here?
MR. SAENZ: I don't think so. I think that a project of that size
they're going to go out and contract with people there locally to
get the project built.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So they'll probably hire Texas citizens or United
States citizens who move to Texas to work on this particular project
for ten years, much like the Alaskan Pipeline.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Will they go mix the concrete up in Spain and bring
it across on a boat?
MR. SAENZ: No. Everything will be done here.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So the concrete will probably be purchased, or the
asphalt -- I don't want the asphalt guys to go nuts; we don't know
what they're going to use.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: They'll probably mix the concrete or concoct the
asphalt locally in the state of Texas.
MR. SAENZ: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, what about the iron, what about the long steel
rods that go into the concrete, will they bring that in from maybe
France?
MR. SAENZ: No.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Because France is right next to Spain.
MR. SAENZ: That will also be here. There are some requirements. Some
of the financing that is being used is through TIFIA loans -- which
is just a loan that they will borrow, it's a source of money that's
available to anyone, including the private sector.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But not from the state of Texas, it's from the
federal government.
MR. SAENZ: It's from the federal government, it's a federal program.
When you use TIFIA, in essence, you federalize the project and then
there's federal requirements with respect to steel products of Buy
America, that you have to be able to show that the product that you
are using is 25 percent cheaper if you're bringing it from abroad.
So you will still have a lot of product that is here from the U.S.,
maybe not Texas but here from the U.S.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So we've established that most of the $8.8 billion
will be spent paying Texas citizens and purchasing products made or
manufactured in the United States of America.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. One other thing that we have added into this
agreement that regardless of where the project has federal dollars
or no federal dollars that it will have compliance with DBE
programs, extensive training programs. This is going to require a
lot of people to work on this project, and we want to make sure
that, one, we have a trained workforce, but we don't want to go out
there and take people from other contracts that are doing work on
other projects to do this project.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Driving up the cost of the tax-supported projects
that we have across the state.
MR. SAENZ: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: A few more questions along the same lines. Which
entity or which organization or which individual will hold title to
the ground beneath the asset?
MR. SAENZ: It will be the State of Texas through the Texas
Department of Transportation, just like any other highway.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And who will actually own the asset itself?
MR. SAENZ: We will.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We being?
MR. SAENZ: TxDOT.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So the State of Texas, acting through its designated
agent, the Texas Department of Transportation, will actually own the
asset.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So when someone says toll roads owned by somebody
from Spain, that is actually a misstatement of the truth.
MR. SAENZ: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, much has been said about well, okay, so the
money is going to be spent here and you're going to hold the title
but they're going to control it all. Who sets the toll rates on the
corridor?
MR. SAENZ: By agreement, through statute requirement, you all, the
Texas Transportation Commission. When you approve the contract, you
approve the toll rate as well as the toll escalation rate process
that was incorporated into that agreement.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And are we guaranteeing any of their debt?
MR. SAENZ: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Now let's talk about the only privately financed
toll road in the state that we're aware of to date. That would be
the Camino Colombia in South Texas.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, that was built.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Did the state put any money into that toll road when
it was built?
MR. SAENZ: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Much like TTC-35, the private sector put the money
up.
MR. SAENZ: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, did those private sector entrepreneurs perhaps
make a bad decision to build that toll road, or did they perhaps put
more money into it than they should have, or did the economy not
advance like they thought it would?
MR. SAENZ: I think they made some assumptions as to what was going
to come forward with respect to development in traffic, and based on
those projections, they didn't get their return because the traffic
did not come up.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So they put their money up and they took a risk, and
they risked wrong. And did that cost the State of Texas anything
when they went under?
MR. SAENZ: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Did the State of Texas have the opportunity to buy
that asset?
MR. SAENZ: We did and we have.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What was the original cost of that asset?
MR. SAENZ: Original cost of the asset, I think, based on the
financing, was close to $90 million.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And what did the State of Texas pay for that asset?
MR. SAENZ: We paid right at $20 million.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And what would it have cost the taxpayers of the
state to build that asset had that asset not been there?
MR. SAENZ: If it had been built just as a regular road of that type,
about between $35- and $40 million.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So the private sector took a risk, they guessed
wrong, they lost maybe $70- or $80 million, the state got the asset
at less than what the state would have paid to build the asset in
the first place, and the road is being used today.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: If these fellows from Spain, who appear to be
intelligent men, have guessed wrong, will the State of Texas have to
pay their liabilities?
MR. SAENZ: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Will we have the opportunity to purchase the asset?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, we will.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And do we have an agreement on how we would value
that, or would we just simply pay whatever in our judgment was what
we could afford to pay?
MR. SAENZ: The only one that we have that is for 130, 5 and 6,
because each agreement will have its own buy-back or default
clauses. For 5 and 6, should the company go bankrupt because the
traffic is not there, then we have no responsibility at all, we just
take it over. Very similar to Camino Colombia, it would go through
foreclosure and then we would have the opportunity to procure it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Very good. And then the last question -- which I
know will relieve the audience greatly -- much has been said about
the taking of private property and we have spoken, we hope clearly,
from this position that we understand how painful that is, but that
we also understand that if you make a decision to expand your road
system, whether you expand the existing footprint or whether you
build parallel to the existing footprint, you're probably going to
be taking someone's property.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You're either tearing down the restaurant and the
service station and the church in downtown Waco, or you're taking
somebody's property on the outside edge of Waco. There's no way to
escape that.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But in parallel to the criticism that the project
will take land unnecessarily, it is often said, and we will get not
benefit from that. I was attending a meeting in Rockwall County
about a month ago and a county commissioner, who I know and who I
believe to be an intelligent person, looked me straight in the eye
and said, Why would we want you to build this when you're not even
going to put an exit in Rockwall County? And I looked at this person
for a moment and I said, Whatever are you talking about? And she
said, Well, everyone knows the contract provides for no exits and
entrances.
And I looked at her for a full five seconds and I said, Now, does
that make sense to you, is that logical to you that someone would
build a road that they need to entice individuals and companies to
use in order to get their money back and then would not provide
exits and entrances to it, does that make sense? And this person
thought for a moment and said, Well, no, I don't guess it does.
I said, are you sure you're not confusing the definition of a
controlled access road which means no frontage roads and limited
entrance and exit with this idea you have in your head of no ramps?
And after a moment, this person had to admit that this person had
not given a lot of thought to this person's concern.
So my question to you is: Are there entrances and exits on this
road, if it's to be built?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And how will those entrances and exits be
determined, the location of those?
MR. SAENZ: Part of those have already been identified through
statute that says that we will connect all of the major highways,
State and U.S., but then through the engineering study, all the
other major roads, both on the system and some of the major ones
that are off system, based on traffic, we'll have to connect to them
and allow people to be able to get on and get off.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But there will be no frontage roads.
MR. SAENZ: There will be no frontage roads. There will be some local
access roads to allow people to get to their property where we
severed property.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And the reason that we take the position that we
should not build frontage roads on the corridors, not just 35 but
69, 20, all of them, is because the cost associated with that. Is
that correct?
MR. SAENZ: The cost associated with that, but also more important is
to be able to preserve that this is a through corridor and not
necessarily a local collector street corridor.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Because what we really want in building our
parallels is we want Interstate 35 to remain the local and regional
boulevard of choice for the taxpayers of the state, while the
corridor becomes the regional and national transportation corridor
of choice.
MR. SAENZ: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have finished establishing the facts I wished to
establish for the record. I appreciate your patience, Amadeo.
MR. SAENZ: I do want to just cover a few more items, really because
they've been in the news. Of course, this master development plan
took the original conceptual financial plan and the original
conceptual project management plan that were part of the proposal
requirements, and we have updated them and now we make them part of
this plan as we accepted this plan. And this morning we were able to
get Mr. Behrens to sign off and we have let Cintra-Zachry know that
the plan is accepted and now becomes property of the department. The
master development plan is a public document and will be released to
the public.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So he's signed it?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You're in agreement?
MR. BEHRENS: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Good. I'm glad to get that out of the way.
MR. SAENZ: What this does is basically that plan becomes public
document and it should be available on our website, and whoever
wants it, I think can get it.
Now, in looking at this and in our conversations with Cintra-Zachry,
because these are updates to their conceptual plan that were part of
litigation that has been going on and is ongoing, since this plan is
an update of the original plan and now it is completed and
incorporated and accepted by TxDOT and a public document, then our
recommendation to Cintra, and they're also in agreement, is that the
matter of the lawsuit that we were pursuing due the proprietary
property and the intellectual property that was part of the original
proposal is really no longer needed, so we are moving forward with
the dropping of that lawsuit.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Well, obviously that's an administrative
decision, not a decision for the commission to make, and I don't
think we want to interfere with that, but I just want to be sure in
the process of doing this we're not frightening anyone away from
making proposals to us in the future.
MR. SAENZ: No, sir, because this basically follows the same process
on any contract. Once we have everything, nothing that is protected
or nothing that is proprietary, then the document becomes a public
document.
MR. WILLIAMSON: One more time the amount that Cintra originally
suggested they would spend in the state of Texas to build roads was?
MR. SAENZ: Was $6 billion for near-term projects from San Antonio to
north of the Metroplex.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And that's now how much?
MR. SAENZ: $8.8-.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And the original concession fee was how much?
MR. SAENZ: $1.2- and it's now $1.9-.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So it would be fair to say that we are soon to make
a $10 billion dent in our $86 billion problem.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Which one great young American walked up to me this
morning before the meeting and said, I said I woke up this morning
worrying about how to close the gap -- which is what I like to hear.
MR. HOUGHTON: Let's do some math here. It's a $6-, $7-, $8 billion
road project and you layer in on top the rail.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: So if you layer in on top the rail, you're looking at
another $6- to $7- billion worth of transportation assets being
built for the state of Texas.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, because I don't have the rail in the original
numbers, true.
MR. HOUGHTON: And at the same time, I want to make sure of one
thing. Does Cintra-Zachry have a leg up on building any of these
assets?
MR. SAENZ: No, sir, because, of course, they have completed the
requirement of the plan, the plan is now ours. They're our partner,
our long-term partner for 50 years. They have the right to submit
projects from this plan that they say are ready for development, but
the final decision-maker whether we proceed with Cintra-Zachry or we
open it to an open procurement rests on you all.
MR. HOUGHTON: Open procurement would be something like we do today?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: We procure it based upon a blind bid.
MR. SAENZ: Procured based on a blind bid.
MR. HOUGHTON: Or what we've done on 130, a design-build?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: We could do one or all or a multiple of those.
MR. SAENZ: We could pursue the project in whole different methods,
either design-bid-build which is our normal process, or a 130
design-build, or a separate individual concession.
MR. HOUGHTON: So at the end of the day you're looking at about $14-
to $15 billion worth of projects that somebody else is going to pay
for.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, I'm glad you started asking that question
because that triggered something in my mind. I had a conversation
with a guy in Dallas -- I won't name the guy -- but he asked me
about the Loop 9 proposal that the Cintra people put in, and he
said, Well, isn't that just politics? And I said, Well, no, what do
you mean politics? And he said, Well, aren't you just doing that
because there's an election? And I kind of laughed and I said, You
know, I think these guys want to build stuff whether there's an
election or not. And he said, Well, I won't believe it till I see it
-- I think his exact words were: I'll believe it when I see the
contract. And if that fellow is watching, he knows who he is.
Is it not the case, Amadeo, that when they notify us under the plan
that an item is ready, that's the beginning of the process?
MR. SAENZ: That's the beginning of the process.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's not a matter of we'd like to go do this, it is
we are ready to put the money up to build this asset right now, give
us the environmental document, we're ready to go.
MR. HOUGHTON: And I wasn't being flippant when I discussed having a
facility implementation plan by December 31. That comes from our
partner that says we would like to get to the table to start
negotiating the terms of that Loop 9. So I'm not saying we'll do it
by December 31, but I think we need to do it as soon as possible.
That came from our partner.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I know that we have a great transportation in
southeast Dallas County, North Texas, Grady Smithy, and I know Grady
was just apoplectic because he knew that this was a real deal and no
one seemed to be paying much attention to it. And this conversation
I was having with this particular individual, I was not successful
in persuading him that this is how the process works: when the
developer says this is ready to go, it's them saying we'll do it and
no one else will and it won't cost you anything.
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, I think somebody needs to talk to Commissioner
John Wiley Price about handing the keys over and him believing and
endorsing the concept that he believes that this can get done.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hasn't he been a wonderful partner to deal with,
John Wiley Price?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: Outstanding.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's been an amazing thing to deal with that guy and
see his commitment to southeast Dallas and improving that part of
the county.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Anything else? This requires no action of us, this
is an administrative matter?
MR. SAENZ: No, sir. This was a report and just for your information
to let you know where we're at in the project.
MR. WILLIAMSON: For the commission, I want to express to Mike, who
has made many trips up and down 35, to yourself, to Steve Simmons,
who has caught some of this, to Coby -- who else has caught a lot of
this grief?
MR. BEHRENS: Phil.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Phil Russell.
MR. SAENZ: Of course, all our district folks.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Everybody in the districts and in the public hearing
process, for the commission, we deeply appreciate the patience --
and I'll use the same word I used with Phyllis a while ago -- the
grace and dignity with which we've all handled at times some pretty
rough treatment over something that we've all been rather confused
about because this contract has been handled no differently than any
other contract, nor will the next one be handled any different than
any other contract. You've done well in a difficult situation.
I also want to publicly thank Mr. Cintra and Mr. Zachry for
suffering the indignities you have suffered during this process as
well. You can't build those assets fast enough for us, if you are
out there in the audience.
MR. HOUGHTON: So we've determined today there's no black helicopters
running up and down 35?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I was going to have a line of questions about that,
but I'm afraid it would just trigger more confusion than it's worth.
The only black helicopter is the one Behrens uses to fly around to
the public hearings, owned by the State Aircraft Pooling Board, the
subject of a recent audit.
MR. SAENZ: I thank you, for all our folks. We have a lot of great
people that are working on this project, that spent countless hours
with great dedication, and we appreciate your comments, and I will
pass that on to them.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're going to take a break and let everybody kind
of catch up with their personal business. We'll be back in 17
minutes.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: We'll return from our break and we thank you for
your patience. Mike, do we have some friends from the southern
entrance to our state that wish to speak?
MR. BEHRENS: Yes, we do. I would suggest that we take agenda item
number 6 under Transportation Planning, and that will address
several items which will include items that pertain to Hays and
Travis County, and also to Cameron County.
So Wayne, if you will go ahead and take your items under agenda item
number 6, starting with 6(a) which is our district discretionary
programming authority.
MR. DENNIS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commission members, Mr.
Behrens. For the record, my name is Wayne Dennis. I'm the deputy
director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.
The minute order that we're bringing before you today provides
additional district discretionary programming authority for project
development, as shown in the attached Exhibit A. Minute Order
105320, dated April 27, 1995, established district discretionary
programming authority for project development. District
discretionary programming authority gives the districts the
flexibility to prepare plans and purchase right of way for projects
with high local interest.
Subsequently, Minute Order 106304, dated October 26, 1995, and
Minute Order 108177, dated April 27, 2000, increased this
programming authority to help the department achieve its projected
letting goals. As construction costs have continued to increase
statewide, so has the need for increased DEVELOP authority.
With your approval, this minute order would provide additional
DEVELOP authority for each district for project development. The
program will be distributed to the districts based on the allocation
formula for Category 11, District Discretionary Program of the 2006
Statewide Mobility Program. Statewide, this would increase the
programming authority from $3.3 billion to $4.75 billion.
Projects will be identified and programmed for the entire
construction cost estimate within this program, however, no project
will be funded for construction until authorized funds are
identified from one of the department's categories.
Staff recommends approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation on item 6(a). Do you have questions or comments?
MR. JOHNSON: Wayne, the formula that was used in the calculations to
determine the allocation for each of the districts, has that formula
been one that we've used historically for this?
MR. DENNIS: Yes, it is, and it's 70 percent vehicle miles traveled
and 30 percent registered vehicles.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted or Hope, anything?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have just one and that's more in the nature of a
comment and a compliment to you, Michael Behrens. This agency has
evolved, the focus of this agency has evolved a lot in the last six
years, and I want to tell you how much I appreciate you and the
staff constantly escalating your focus on an entire corridor, on
planning ahead, on working with local and regional governments, in
development complete solutions as opposed to just figuring out which
projects can be laid down within the cash flow. This is exactly what
the state needs to solve its problem by 2030, and this is a good
move, this is a great move, shows good staff thinking, I think.
What's your pleasure, members?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. DENNIS: Item 6(b). This minute order tenders a proposal to
Brazoria County to authorize the purchase of right of way and
utility adjustments for a project on State Highway 36 from the Fort
Bend County line to FM 1495, a distance of approximately 31.35
miles.
State Highway 36 is a hurricane evacuation route and serves as a
major transportation corridor in Brazoria, Fort Bend, and Austin
counties. Improving this corridor is essential and will facilitate
traffic flow in these counties during an evacuation.
If this minute order is approved, the county will acquire 100
percent of the necessary right of way and utility adjustments once
the project receives environmental clearance. The department will
obtain environmental clearance and work with the county in
developing the project. Staff hereby recommends approval of this
minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation on item 6(b).
MR. HOUGHTON: Is this the contribution by Brazoria County on the
pass-through that they're proposing, Amadeo? Right? Okay. So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: This is a hurricane evacuation route. Correct?
MR. DENNIS: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. DENNIS: Item 6(c). This minute order amends Category 6
Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation Program of the 2007
Statewide Preservation Program. With your approval, three off-system
bridges will be authorized CONSTRUCT authority in the Austin, San
Antonio, Childress and Paris districts.
The first bridge is located on County Road 240, also known as Sculls
Crossing, over the San Marcos River between Caldwell and Guadalupe
counties. This structure is on a direct route to the closest
emergency facility, the Central Texas Medical Center, located in
southern Hays County. It is a one-lane, wooden structure that is
load posted and frequently floods. This bridge is functionally
obsolete. The State Office of Rural and Community Affairs awarded a
grant to the reconstruction of three bridges in Caldwell County.
There's approximately $100,000 remaining in the grant and it is
being reserved for this bridge. If project development is not
underway by the end of the year, the grant money will no longer be
available.
The second bridge is located in the Childress District in Hollis
Road over the Red River, and it spans between Hardeman County in
Texas and Harmon County in Oklahoma. The bridge is structurally
deficient but was not included in the 2007 Statewide Preservation
Program due to the issues related to the bridge's ownership. The
ownership problem has been resolved and Hardeman County owns their
half of the bridge in Texas. Each state will be responsible for 50
percent of the project cost.
The third bridge is located in the Paris District and is on County
Road 1410 over the Little Mustang Creek Relief in Red River County.
The most recent inspection in June of this year determined the
structure was unstable and it required it to be closed. Since the
inspection, a large scour hole has developed and water levels have
fallen, exposing an additional three feet of abutment support.
Approving this minute order will facilitate project development
before the next update of the Statewide Preservation Program. Staff
recommends approval of the bridge projects listed in the attached
Exhibit A for an estimated construction cost of $5,050,000.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation.
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. DENNIS: Item 6(d). This minute order authorizes the department
to provide $1,838,000 to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation, also known as Amtrak, to fund the Heartland Flyer
Passenger Rail Service. The Heartland Flyer is a state-supported
route and provides daily passenger rail service between Fort Worth
and Oklahoma City, with an additional Texas stop in Gainesville. The
Heartland Flyer travels over the BNSF Railway line.
Since the Heartland Flyer route is not part of the Amtrak system
originally designated in 1971, the State of Oklahoma funded this
service through a contract with Amtrak to cover operating losses.
Oklahoma has covered these losses since service was established in
1999. Due to budget limitations in Oklahoma, the DOT can only
provide $2,138,000 of Amtrak's projected total loss of $3,976,000
for fiscal year 2006. This leaves a funding shortfall of $1,838,000.
In order to continue this service, it is necessary for Texas to
provide $1,838,000 to offset the operating losses on the Heartland
Flyer. Staff recommends your approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation on item 6(d).
MR. JOHNSON: I have a question. Wayne, is this a common occurrence
where states or departments of transportation or local jurisdictions
might subsidize Amtrak rail service?
MR. DENNIS: Yes, it is in some states. There's Amtrak's base system,
again, that was established back in '71; there were several other
later coming state-supported routes that are funded by the federal
government, but there are also some routes that are funded by the
states. In other words, the states came to Amtrak desiring this
service. In this case, Oklahoma has been doing a lot of rail
development on the Oklahoma side to improve track operations, and
they just have a budget shortfall.
I guess the other issue is, a concern that we have is once you tend
to lose these passenger routes, you're going to have difficulty
re-establishing them. The freight companies will come in and they'll
use those time slots to move more freight. They can be
re-established and Amtrak has that legislative authority, but it's
very difficult once you lose that slot.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And what time element, how long are we guaranteed
that this passenger route will remain open by our taking this
action?
MR. DENNIS: This will take care of federal fiscal year 2007 which
starts October 1.
MR. JOHNSON: And ends?
MR. DENNIS: September 30.
MR. JOHNSON: September 30 of '07?
MR. DENNIS: Yes, sir.
We've done some analysis on this roadway, and what we've seen due to
the ridership that is there, we estimate that there is a retail tax
impact of about $2.2 million to the State of Texas. Also, based on
the ridership that they have, you're going to be taking about 50,000
per year cars off the road between here and Oklahoma City.
MR. JOHNSON: That's a good point. So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: All those in favor of the motion will signify by
saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. DENNIS: Item 6(e). This minute order tenders a proposal to the
City of Buda in Hays County to construct a new location facility on
the state highway system from I-35 at Main Street to State Highway
45 southeast. It realigns FM 2001 and it constructs interchanges at
I-35 and FM 2001, and at I-35 and Main Street.
Minute Order 110508, dated April 27, 2006, tendered this same
proposal to the city and the county, however, due to a series of
complex transactions required for the project, the city informed us
that they would not be able to meet the original July 27 acceptance
deadline that was established in that minute order. This minute
order proposes the same provisions as the previous minute order and
gives the city and county 90 days to fulfill the agreement
requirements.
Both the city and the county continue to have a considerable
interest in development of these projects as the area is becoming
increasingly urbanized and is experiencing rapid development. The
proposed projects will provide for north-south mobility by enhancing
utilization of State Highway 45 and State Highway 130 toll roads. In
addition, the projects will provide improved access to area
developments and facilitate incident management along Interstate 35.
The estimated cost to the department is $22.4 million and the cost
to the city and county are $23.2 million. If agreed to by the city
and county, the local governments will submit a SIB loan to the
department, not to exceed $15 million, for the construction of the
Main Street extension project.
Staff recommends approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You've heard the staff's recommendation and
explanation on item 6(e).
MR. HOUGHTON: This is a timing issue then, Wayne. Right?
MR. DENNIS: Yes, sir. When we originally submitted it, it was pretty
complicated and they came back and asked for some more time.
MR. HOUGHTON: Just need a little bit more time.
MR. DENNIS: And there's really no way to extend a tender minute
order without bringing it back to you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And we do have a witness, the mayor of Buda. Would
you like to hear from the witness first?
John -- that's easy to pronounce. I'm sorry. I know you've been here
before and I was sitting here trying to remember how to pronounce
your name, and I apologize.
MAYOR TRUBE: No problem. Thank you, Chairman, commissioners, staff.
Appreciate the opportunity.
We would, first off, like to apologize. It is a complicated minute
order, it took a little more time than we had anticipated to work
out the moving parts in terms of financing this particular project,
as well as working with the county and the other parties involved.
But at this time we're glad to say that we have gotten the minute
order passed at the county level, the city level, we have our
financial agreements all written in place and placed through a
variety, an agreement and a SIB loan as well.
So at this time we would like to, A, really make sure and express
our appreciation and our enthusiasm for doing another partnership
with TxDOT. Mr. Behrens and Bob Daigh, our district engineer, have
been very, very good partners to us, very productive for the Hays
County, particularly northern Hays County transportation needs. We
are here standing by for anything that we can do for you as well.
Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions or dialogue with the mayor?
MR. JOHNSON: Appreciate your being here.
MR. HOUGHTON: And his service on CAMPO. I understand he's got that
tour of duty also.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I wasn't sure about this, so I went down to
northern Hays County last night and drove all around just to make
sure that it's still a congestive nightmare, and I can tell you,
Mayor, that we're probably not doing enough to help you fix your
problems.
MAYOR TRUBE: We have experienced a lot of congestion and growth in
our area, all the way down to San Marcos. But I'm glad to say, in my
opinion and I think in the opinion of at least my city council and
the county, TxDOT has stepped up, and again, with the team we've got
and the leaders we've got in the area, the district engineer, Mr.
Behrens and this board, we're not feeling left out, we're feeling
like we have the attention that we need and we're accomplishing our
goals and hopefully accomplishing some of your goals as well.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I was amazed at the houses, the businesses, it's
incredible.
Members, What's your pleasure?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MAYOR TRUBE: Thank you very much.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Mayor.
MR. BEHRENS: Amadeo is going to present item 6(f) concerning the
Brownsville West Rail Relocation Project in Cameron County.
MR. SAENZ: Thank you, Mr. Behrens. Again for the record,
commissioners, Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive director for
engineering.
Item 6(f). The minute order before you tenders a proposal to Cameron
County for a project to construct the Brownsville West Rail
Relocation Project.
Minute Order Number 110479, dated March 30, 2006, authorized three
grade separation projects on US 281, FM 802 and FM 3248 in Category
6, Structure Replacement and Rehabilitation under the railroad grade
separation replacements of the 2007 Statewide Preservation Program.
Title 23, USC Section 130 states that railroad relocation costs may
be reimbursable expenses when the relocation of a portion of a
railroad eliminates the hazards of railroad highway crossings and
therefore, the need for the grade crossing or the grade separation
and the cost of the relocation is less than what the grade crossing
would have cost.
The county has considerable interest in developing the Brownsville
West Rail Relocation Project. The project will improve the
transportation network of the area through the proposed rail system
improvements and thereby improve the safety and traffic flow of the
three named highways. By relocating the rail, the existing rail line
will no longer be needed, will be abandoned for another
transportation corridor, thus, the grade separations will no longer
be needed.
If approved, the minute order will then be tendered to Cameron
County that within the next three years they would have to obtain
all the necessary agreements with the railroad that states that they
will relocate to the new rail line proposed location; they will
obtain from the railroad company, in the State's name, the
railroad's property interest along the current location of the line
from which the service is being relocated; they will notify the
department that the international bridge and the connecting
facilities of the rail line in Mexico is under construction.
In turn, the department will amend the Unified Transportation
Program to authorize no more than $13 million from eliminating the
grade separations and apply them to this project, and then we will
also cancel development and construction of the railroad grade
separation projects on 281, 802, and FM 3248 along the existing rail
alignment.
Staff recommends approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, to refresh your memory, this minute order
was before us either last month or the month before.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And we had collectively some concerns about the
committing resources for an indefinite period of time when we
weren't sure of the commitment from the Republic of Mexico. I think
that Amadeo has visited with local officials, I know the governor
has, I think my good friend Rene Oliveira has done some visiting as
well, and I believe they're ready to represent to us that we can
make this thing work.
We do have two witnesses, the county judge of Cameron County,
Gilberto Hinojosa, and David Allex with the Cameron County RMA. Do
you want to hear the witnesses first, do you want to deal with the
letters first?
MR. HOUGHTON: I was going to ask Amadeo the total cost of the
project, Amadeo, on the relocation. We're going to put $13 million
at the maximum.
MR. SAENZ: We're putting $13 million. I believe the total cost of
the project, including half of the international bridge -- and I'm
going to look back and ask the Cameron County folks to help me a
little bit -- about $25- to $26 million is the cost of the project
to build half of the international bridge plus the rail line to
connect to the existing line that's in Brownsville.
MR. HOUGHTON: And we're re-allocating $13 million to that project.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, we are re-allocating $13 million of railroad
grade separation dollars that will no longer be needed and applying
them to this project. And the $13 million was what we had allocated
for those railroad grade separations.
MR. HOUGHTON: Right. And as a result, the Union Pacific, I believe,
will then exit that facility and the facility will be in the name,
the title in the name of the State. Is that correct?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. The right of way under which the roads and the
railroad cross will be transferred over to the name of the State.
MR. HOUGHTON: What about the rail bed?
MR. SAENZ: The existing rail bed?
MR. HOUGHTON: Right of way.
MR. SAENZ: The existing rail bed is going to be used and developed
under a transportation project that the district and Cameron County
and the City of Brownsville are working to develop that they call
the West Loop project.
MR. HOUGHTON: And where do we derive the authority, or under what
legislation do we derive that authority to do this?
MR. SAENZ: The elimination of the rail crossings -- let me get back
to my notes -- of course, we're eliminating the railroad crossings
which is what we were doing with the grade separation project, and
by relocating the line, that will also eliminate the rail crossings,
so it accomplishes the same thing.
MR. HOUGHTON: And they will build a transportation facility inside
the old rail bed?
MR. SAENZ: Yes.
MR. HOUGHTON: Is that the RMA project?
MR. SAENZ: That's one of the projects, that was the project that was
submitted by the RMA, the West Loop project.
MR. HOUGHTON: Under what legislation was that derived, RMAs?
MR. SAENZ: RMAs were so many numbers: 3588, 2702.
MR. HOUGHTON: Which one of the visions of Governor Rick Perry.
Correct?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions or comments, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's hear from the witnesses and then we'll read
some letters into the record.
Judge, I'm going to let you decide who goes first.
JUDGE HINOJOSA: I'll go first. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the commission.
This railroad relocation project, I believe, is probably the first
in the state of Texas, and it's consistent with what Governor Perry
has proposed to the legislature and that the voters voted recently
to work on a statewide program for railroad relocation projects.
It's only about a four- to five-year project, it will move all rail
lines in Brownsville to the west about six miles, moves an
international bridge to the west as well. The minute order talks
about three at-grade crossings that will be eliminated. In reality,
when it's all said and done, it will eliminate a total of seven
at-grade crossings that were in the future scheduled for
construction.
At 1998 costs, the total cost for the seven at-grade crossings were
$48 million, so it's significantly more today. You were talking
about closing that gap just a little while ago. If you calculate at
1998 costs, the savings to the State of Texas by the accomplishment
of this project, it's something like $27 million, probably a lot
more today. We already have the $13 million in place that you are
matching, essentially.
We believe that this project will fast-track, given what this
commission has done today, and we will be able to get a diplomatic
note to begin construction on the bridge relatively quickly and have
this project well on its way when the next legislative session gets
underway. So that you can use it as a model to begin working on
projects all across the state of Texas and greatly enhance the
safety and the railroad traffic's ability to move products in and
out of different communities without creating the congestion that
some of these rail lines have created and the dangers that are
associated with hazardous materials, flammable materials that could
create significant problems in congested communities.
So thank you very much for your help on this project, and I think
the vision of this commission and the governor to move forward on
this project is to be commended.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, questions or comments for the judge?
MR. JOHNSON: I've got a question.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Please.
MR. JOHNSON: Judge, you mentioned some of the benefits, and clearly
there are several benefits that the community is going to benefit
from. When we visited in April, we came and had our commission
meeting there in Brownsville, we spent time at the port and came to
recognize what a great resource the port is for your community and
the region. How does this rail relocation affect the port and the
multimodal aspects that the port has? Is there any effect, and what
are sort of the future plans that relate to surface transportation,
be it rail, vessel?
JUDGE HINOJOSA: There's been a lot of discussion on that issue with
the port in recent years. The port, you probably have read in the
news, spent about $21 million trying to develop an international
bridge at the Port of Brownsville crossing into Mexico. That was not
successful. I think the clear indication from Mexico is that they're
not interested in a rail bridge at that particular point because of
the problem that it would cause in going all the way around
Matamoros. And so the Port of Brownsville really is in need of an
alternative method by which it can move the rail that is moving
products from the Port of Brownsville into Mexico and back.
And this will allow them, I believe, a much better transportation
corridor for their rail traffic because it takes all the rail out of
Brownsville, it gives them the ability to put together longer trains
that will move faster without any danger that there might be any
collisions with automobiles, and it will, I believe, enhance their
ability to do business.
You know, we think this is a win-win thing for Brownsville, Cameron
County, Mexico, the Union Pacific, obviously, because they get a new
rail and a bridge, and the Port of Brownsville.
MR. JOHNSON: Can the customers of the port be cost-competitive by
utilizing this freight rail? I mean, it occurs to me that that's
sort of out of their control which is going to possibly affect the
competing ways of moving freight.
JUDGE HINOJOSA: Well, one of the things that is going to happen with
the bridge that is going to be constructed, you remember that the
bridge that is already there today is 100 years old, and that bridge
can only handle certain types of cargo, of railroad cars. The large
container vehicles cannot cross through that bridge, so the port is
very limited in being able to bring container cargo that would be
transported on rail because it can't cross it under the current rail
system that they've got today.
MR. JOHNSON: And the port is outfitted for containerized cargo?
JUDGE HINOJOSA: Well, they're working in that direction. They've got
proposals before Congress to allow them to deepen the port and build
a turn basin that will allow them to bring in large containers, and
this works perfectly into their future plans. The new international
bridge that will be built will be able to handle the container cars
that they're hoping to bring into the Port of Brownsville. So it
actually enhances their attractiveness as a port internationally.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
JUDGE HINOJOSA: I forgot to mention, also we have with us today our
commissioner from Precinct 2 which is in the area, Commissioner John
Wood; and you mentioned David Allex, the chairman of the regional
mobility authority -- in my opinion, the best in the state of Texas;
Richard Ridings from HNTB, the engineers that have put this project
together in record time -- we got our presidential permit with their
efforts, and they're in the final stages, if they haven't already
completed the engineering plans for that project; Pete Sepulveda,
Department of Transportation director; David Garcia, his assistant;
Charlie Cabler who is the city manager for our partner, the City of
Brownsville; and our city commissioner, Commissioner Carlos
Cisneros.
Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Judge. We appreciate you being here.
David?
MR. ALLEX: Thank you. For the record, I'm David Allex, chairman of
the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority, serving at the
pleasure of Governor Perry.
I want to express my deep appreciation on this item on your agenda
to the governor of the State of Texas, who has intervened on our
behalf to some degree, but most importantly, to each one of you,
individually and collectively, for your support for the Cameron
County Regional Mobility Authority and what we've tried to achieve
over the last two years.
I want to digress for just a moment, but the vision of the
Trans-Texas Corridor, the crystallization of projects in Cameron
County were so far off you could hardly see them. We can almost
start to touch them now. And this is one of the things I think that
the vision of the governor and what you have implemented over the
last couple of years, because of RMAs is something that will create
hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in areas like Cameron and
Hidalgo counties along the border.
Let's not forget -- and I keep harping on this every time I get
before you all -- that the engine that fuels our economy in South
Texas and in Cameron and Hidalgo counties is indeed Mexico. I work
Mexico three days a week, and if you eliminate 23 intersections that
the rail is going to go through Matamoros and through the city of
Brownsville, and you save an hour or hour and a half time on rail,
that's the money we're going to save, commissioners.
You know, you talk about what's the value of having a new rail.
Well, you eliminate all that traffic going through Matamoros and
Brownsville and you save time for freight going through there. So
this is one of, I think, most important projects as far as economic
impact to our area.
Pete Sepulveda and I met with some individual businessmen in Mexico
just a couple of weeks ago. They're building an intermodal freight
terminal that will have cargo and freight on the Mexican side of
where this bridge is going to be, this new rail bridge. We estimate
there will be hundreds, maybe as many as a thousand jobs over the
next five or six years on recent development of industrial parks on
the Mexican side. In fact, we know of two industrial parks on the
west side of Matamoros that are under development as we speak.
Those jobs will translate into retail sales for Brownsville and for
Cameron County; those jobs will provide for warehousing and
distribution facilities in Cameron County; those jobs that are
created -- 3,700 is projected right now -- in those new industrial
parks and at the container and trucking terminal on the Mexican,
will be the economic generator that will have economic impact on
Cameron County. And your RMA is going to do it and we're going to do
it with your leadership, and thanks a lot for that.
The second thing, there's been a lot of talk about -- and we've done
some projections on this -- the Cameron County Regional Mobility
Authority, if you include everything that we're going to do in the
next ten years, it's going to be in excess of about a billion
dollars, that's a lot of money. But when you consider that that's a
billion dollars worth of construction and over a ten-year period --
and I'm the eternal optimist and I'm probably a little bit liberal
in my projection of population growth -- in the next ten years to 15
years we'll have 10 million people in South Texas and northern
Mexico, as we know it today with only 4 million.
And I've said this to Commissioner Hope a million times, the only
thing that divides this area is a street with water in it. Our
cultures, our education, our families, what we do as everyday
activity is no different than walking across the street and buying a
hamburger in that place next door. That street with water in it is
no barrier at all, and you know that as well as I do in the El Paso
area. So anything we can do on either side of that street with water
in it is going to have an economic impact on both areas.
If we're going to do a billion dollars worth of construction work
over the next ten years, that will be 20,000 in construction jobs
over the ten-year period, not all at one time, but 20,000
construction jobs over the next ten years. If we're successful in
doing that in the next ten to 20 years, ten to 15 to 20 years, it
will create another 20- to 40,000 permanent jobs, hot dog stands,
hotels, restaurants on South Padre Island, on the mainland, all over
the place. So you're looking at some real significant economic
impacts that the RMA and the leadership of Cameron County, with the
leadership of the state government can do to create jobs in an area
that needs the jobs.
So I can preach this all day long because I live it every day;
that's my job is to create jobs in Mexico and Cameron County. So I
just wanted to bring that up to you.
The 19,000 you have working in the Texas Department of
Transportation, this is one of the most valuable assets you have.
And Mr. Chairman, when you start talking about how great they are,
they've spent 15 years working for you, Commissioner Johnson, these
are the most important assets that this department has. And I can't
say enough about your regional engineers, Amadeo, Mike, and
everybody else who has helped us at the Cameron County RMA to make a
success. We would not be here today if it wasn't for them, and I
sincerely appreciate their time and their effort and yours too.
Thank you very much.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions or comments for David?
We do appreciate so much the work you do with your RMA, in addition
to the work you do in your community and your business.
MS. ANDRADE: David, I just want to echo that. Your commitment, your
leadership has just been incredible out there. Thank you for
everything that you do. To Commissioner Wood, thank you, and the
judge and Pete, it's been a pleasure to work out there with you. And
I just love the fact that you're creating jobs and improving safety
for your citizens. You're doing a great job, so we're very happy to
be part of it.
MR. ALLEX: That's what it's all about, and I'm honored to be part of
it myself.
MS. ANDRADE: Working together.
MR. HOUGHTON: And David, I appreciate you allowing Pete to come out
to El Paso a week or so ago for our RMA educational conference. We
had both your and the NET RMA, and I hold you all up as the poster
child of RMAs in the state of Texas. You got out there, got out
there quick, and took it by the horns, and I appreciate very, very
much what you're doing for the State of Texas.
MR. ALLEX: Thank you, commissioners.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, David.
Members, I also want to make you aware we have received some letters
from people that are significant to our daily lives. Without reading
all of them, Rene Oliveira, who is a House member from the area, a
close friend of mine, wrote saying: Today we'll consider the minute
order; there's a sizable funding gap; the final phase of the
international bridge will enhance safety in our area; thank you for
your consideration.
Senator John Cornyn wrote: As we move forward with the planning of
the West Rail Relocation Project, he wants to reiterate his strong
support for the project, and the impact of the international bridge
component. We'll put his letter into the record.
The chairman of the House Transportation Committee, a great friend
of this body, Mike Krusee, wrote and spoke about goals -- things we
like to talk about around here -- the impact on Brownsville as well
as Matamoros, and the impact on safety. He was very eloquent in his
letter. That will be part of the record.
And then finally, our boss, Mr. Perry wrote. After talking with some
people down in the area, he considered it to be of highest
importance and directs us to please proceed. That letter also will
be part of the record.
Members, you've heard the staff's explanation, the witnesses'
testimony, you're aware of the letters. What's your pleasure?
MS. ANDRADE: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you.
Thank you for your patience and thanks for coming halfway up the
state again. One day we're going to just move the transportation
department down to the southern entrance to the state and then
everybody will have to come south and spend some money to talk about
transportation.
Good to see each one of you. Thank you very much.
MR. SAENZ: Mr. Chairman, we also received letters from the State of
Tamaulipas, where they're endorsing the project, as well as the City
of Matamoros.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's good.
MR. SAENZ: I'll also pass them along to Roger to put in the record.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We'll put them in the record also.
MR. SAENZ: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Amadeo.
Mike, do you want to return to the agenda, or do we need to do any
more skipping around?
MR. BEHRENS: No. I think we can go back to our regular ordered
agenda, and we go back to agenda item number 3. We'll have Coby come
up and continue his discussion and talk about recommendations that
the commission might consider for our next legislative session. Coby?
MR. CHASE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Coby Chase and
I'm the director of TxDOT's Government and Business Enterprises
Division. Today I will further discuss the formulation of your
legislative agenda for the 80th Session of the Texas legislature.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And you wish to announce that you wore that tie in
honor of Michael Behrens. Right?
MR. CHASE: As long as I have at least one Longhorn up there, it's
not to career limiting to wear this tie. It's also kind of autumnal,
it is the beginning of fall.
MR. HOUGHTON: Looks like a University of Tennessee tie to me.
MR. CHASE: Well, okay then. Anybody else want to weigh in on what I
wore today? I'll start clearing the fashion choices before I appear.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, John had a comment on a tie, I'm sure Hope and
Ted are going to have a comment later on today, I wanted to get mine
in.
MR. CHASE: Thank you. I do appreciate that, Horn to Horn.
(General laughter.)
MR. CHASE: As mentioned in past meetings, statutory changes that
would improve the operation of the department, recommended to the
Texas Legislature by the Transportation Commission, are authorized
by law. The purpose of this ongoing dialogue is to make these issues
public.
Since January you have listened each month as I've described our
in-depth development of the legislative agenda. Throughout this
process, my staff and I have reviewed and researched several issues,
all the while keeping in mind how these issues assist the department
in reaching the goals outlined in our strategic plan. Not only are
we correlating these issues and their relevancy to reducing
congestion, enhancing safety, expanding economic opportunity,
improving air quality, and increasing the value of our
transportation assets, we are also looking for opportunities to
incorporate strategies to meet these results-driven goals. We also
try our best to make choices that do not limit options in the
state's mobility future.
We began this process by soliciting input from you, TxDOT staff, and
members of the legislature through interim hearings and through
conversations. As I mentioned last month, we decided to take this
process further by sending letters to over 1,900 interested parties,
detailing the issues we are considering for inclusion in your
legislative recommendations. While the response has not been
overwhelming -- but from a marketing standpoint, it would have been
a success -- we heard back from a little over 3 percent of the
recipients.
Of that 3 percent, about one-third actually did comment on the list
of issues, and the others pretty much just wanted their addresses
updated which is actually very valuable information to us, it
actually served another purpose.
We sent out this information hoping not only to reinforce our
message to the state but also to get a pulse of what is going on in
Texas. We have heard from a good cross-section of recipients,
including groups like the Houston-Galveston Area Council and smaller
municipalities such as Nacogdoches.
Last month I detailed some of the major issues being considered for
the agenda. This month I would like to focus on the issues that seem
to have created the most direct reactions from the responses we've
received from our mail-out.
Several municipalities have expressed their concern over the outdoor
advertising relocation issue. As you may recall, sometimes the
removal of a billboard is required when improving a highway. When
this happens, the department and the owner often compromise on a
relocation of the billboard, however, many cities have ordinances
limiting the placement of new billboards, thereby requiring the
purchase of it at a cost to taxpayers or to the highway system, as
the case may be.
This is an expensive endeavor and it would be helpful to see a
variance in city ordinances allowing for these relocations, or
cities could opt to purchase the billboard to be removed if they
would prefer to enforce their own ordinance. All this would not
result in a net increase in the number of billboards in a given
area. Many cities view this as an expensive solution to a problem
they currently do not have to deal with, meaning it's pushed back on
the state to deal with and to pay for.
We have received very positive feedback on several issues. It is
widely agreed that fees collected from oversize/overweight trucks
should be deposited into the Texas Mobility Fund as opposed to the
current process of depositing these fees into general revenue. One
can certainly argue that these fees are directly related to
transportation and we'd also like to investigate re-evaluating and
raising these fees.
We've also seen consistent support for the early acquisition of
right of way. As opposed to waiting for the environmental work to be
completed before acquiring right of way, it would assist the
department greatly to be able to acquire property sooner if the
owner is willing to do so, again, only in a willing situation, not
to condemnation.
Several of the respondents also agreed with the prospect of local
transportation planning authority. Allowing counties the ability to
designate property as part of a future transportation corridor would
most certainly save the department and taxpayers funds which could
be utilized in other areas.
As a matter of fact, I was in Lufkin with Phil Russell and Denise
Pittard a couple of Fridays ago, talking to the I-69 Alliance there,
and one, I understand, fairly new county commissioner of one of the
member counties, I don't think he heard me exactly right. He thought
I said that this priority exists and he wanted to know how he could
get it started right away. And so that was actually a good sign, and
we'll build on that enthusiasm, mark my words.
Of course, we have several issues to be considered, and one of our
top priorities will be to capitalize the Rail Relocation and
Improvement Fund. This strategy will certainly help TxDOT in meeting
all of our goals. I have nothing new to report on this front since
my last report, but we will continue to work on a solution and keep
you informed on any developments.
In an effort to enhance safety on Texas roadways, we have researched
several options for your consideration. Some of these include the
establishment of sobriety checkpoints as a tool to be utilized by
local municipalities to assist in the enforcement of drunk driving
laws, the implementation of variable speed limits to help motorists
respond to changes in roadway conditions. We've also researched the
benefits of exclusive truck lanes and how they can not only enhance
safety but reduce congestion and increase the value of current
transportation assets.
All of that being said, we are nearing completion of the research on
all the issues which have been brought to your attention so far. At
this point I would speculate that we would have a draft report
available to you for your review in the month of November, with an
eye towards final adoption in December. We will amend that schedule
if you would like us to, but looking at everything we have in place,
we should be able to have something to your offices and to your
staffs and in front of you in early November. We can discuss it at
greater length at the November commission meeting, and then December
adoption. If you want to change that, let me know and we'll be happy
to do that, and as I wrote in here, however, if the commission has a
different preferred future, please let me know.
And to follow up on something raised at the last meeting,
Commissioner Houghton requested an update on the Oregon Road User
Fee pilot program. This program is being explored in Oregon as an
alternative to traditional funding methods through the development
of a revenue collection system funded by a pay-as-you-drive method.
As part of the pilot program, vehicles are equipped with a GPS
device which tracks miles driven at certain times of the day.
Motorists would be charged accordingly based on the time of day and
the average daily traffic of the roadway traveled.
We are currently working with our own executive staff and the staff
of the Oregon Department of Transportation to coordinate a visit to
further discuss this program and other ideas. Commissioner Andrade
will be participating in that visit with us.
These are my prepared remarks for today. I'll be more than happy to
answer any questions you may have.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard Coby's explanation of where he
is in his process at this time. Do you have questions or comments
for Coby?
MS. ANDRADE: My only question, Coby, as you know, Public Transit
will come before the November meeting with the outcome of their
study group also. Will this give you enough time in 30 days to
include that in the draft?
MR. CHASE: Yes. Our preferred future for November, it's still an
open, living, organic document at that point, we consider our final
draft a draft, and if it needs to be amended. And we will work with
the Public Transportation Division, so kind of like doing a master
development plan for Trans-Texas Corridor, we will have an idea of
what happens when we all come together.
MS. ANDRADE: I just wanted to remind you and make sure that you're
aware that's coming.
MR. CHASE: Yes, ma'am, absolutely.
MR. HOUGHTON: Coby, we talked about the opportunity of researching
the cap on CDAs being raised to 99 years.
MR. CHASE: Yes, sir, still there. I just didn't touch on all the
issues today, but yes, sir, that is still there. If I've said it
before, it's still there, absolutely.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Anything else? John? A few things, Coby. Am I given
to understand there is no fuel tax on bio-diesel, or do you know?
MR. CHASE: I don't know off the top of my head; I don't believe that
there is.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What about ethanol?
MR. CHASE: There's a federal tax on it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm not proposing and wouldn't want anybody in the
audience to not understand the nature of my question. I want to know
two things in order to see if we want to add it to our list. I want
to know the extent to which alternative fuels are taxed in the same
manner as traditional fuels at the state level, and I want to know
the extent to which railroads, public transit agencies, airlines,
and whatever other mode of transportation I have left out, are or
are not subjected to the same clean air standards as are the
internal combustion machine burning traditional gasoline and diesel.
MR. HOUGHTON: Could I add to that list a little bit?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Please.
MR. HOUGHTON: Rail companies, diesel for locomotion, my
understanding, is not taxed in the state of Texas.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So maybe amend, this is a semi-research and possible
discussion point for next month.
MR. CHASE: What about all fuels that propel all forms of
transportation?
MR. WILLIAMSON: If we're going to stand for using the one thing in
common that everything has, that is the cost of something, as a
matter of addressing congestion, improving air quality, then it's
incumbent upon us to consider everything that happens in our state
and decide whether or not we want to discuss that with the
legislature.
Again, I'm not suggesting we tax, necessarily, bio-diesel, I'm
generally not a tax guy, but if bio-diesel is being consumed in ever
greater proportions and there's no significant difference in the
emissions of bio-diesel and traditional diesel, then there's no
reason for us not to at least put on the table the impact of
bio-diesel on the air quality and whether or not it's paying its
share of the road it consumes and the air it dirties.
MR. CHASE: Sure. Do you want us to add aviation fuel in there too?
That's not taxed.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. So aviation fuel input and aviation exhaust
output, we want to kind of know about those things.
MR. CHASE: I don't think they pay for the roads.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Then the second thing is part of the reason we
started this several years ago was so no one could honestly accuse
of catching them by surprise when we went to the legislature with
proposals. I know that Bob Jackson, our head lawyer, has some
recommendations that will be made at some point on administrative
matters about RMAs. Lest I have overlooked discussing this with him,
I don't want us to forget we want to make an examination of how
boards are reformed when counties are added to an existing RMA. That
might be a weakness in the law we didn't anticipate four years ago.
But to be more specific, it is my understanding that the North Texas
Toll Authority, and perhaps the Harris County Toll Road Authority,
might wish our partnership and assistance in expanding their
existing authority with some of the flexibility of regional mobility
authorities, and while we want to be partners with those two groups
in addressing the state's problems, we don't want to be on record as
supporting changes in the law which, in our view, will act to
restrict regional planning and execution as opposed to expanding it.
So as you do your research and as you communicate with your NTTA and
HCRTA partners, we don't want to indicate for a moment that we're
interested -- you know, we have four strategies to solve the state's
transportation problem, one of those strategies is empowering local
and regional leaders to act locally and regionally. We view regions
more like our department districts or combinations of our districts,
we don't view regions as just one, two, three or four counties that
choose to call themselves a region, and I don't think any of us want
to mislead them into thinking that we do -- for what that's worth.
MR. CHASE: What I hear in there, we don't want to make sure we're
not doing anything that would limit the transportation future of a
region.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're very sensitive to that. And we don't want to
mislead them into thinking that we would.
MR. CHASE: Right, absolutely.
MR. WILLIAMSON: As we've been four things over the last six years,
we've tried to be professionally clear about the things we're not
for, we're not for any more demo projects, we're not for piecemeal
building things, we're not for continuing to localize the power and
thus the problem, we are interested in regionalizing the authority
to solve those problems.
MR. CHASE: Absolutely.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Anything else, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you, Mr. Behrens.
MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Coby. We'll forgive that tie today.
Going on to agenda item number 4, Aviation, Dave Fulton will
recommend projects to be approved for funding for the month of
September.
MR. FULTON: Thank you, Mike. For the record, my name is Dave Fulton,
director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.
This minute order contains a request for grant funding approval for
eight airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all
requests, as shown in Exhibit A, is approximately $3.3 million:
approximately $1.2 million federal, $1.8 million state, and $300,000
in local funding.
A public hearing was held on August 17, no comments were received.
We would recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, I don't see the Robert Nichols Memorial
Airport in here anywhere.
MR. JOHNSON: Fortunately, it's not memorial.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You're right.
(General laughter.)
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. FULTON: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 5 is our rules for this month.
Agenda item 5(a)(1) would be proposed rules concerning Chapter 2 and
our Environmental Policy. Dianna?
MS. NOBLE: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is
Dianna Noble, director of Environmental Affairs for TxDOT.
Agenda item 5(a) proposes a repeal of Subchapter A concerning
Comprehensive Policy on the Environment and the repeal of certain
sections in Subchapter C concerning Environmental Review and Public
Involvement for Transportation Projects, and simultaneously proposes
new subchapter titled Environmental Review and Public Involvement
for Transportation Projects.
The new subchapter redefines the policy, reorganizes the rules,
restates several of the requirements from the repealed rule, and
creates new provisions regarding federal and state environmental
requirements that affect environmental processing for transportation
projects.
The new sections continue to implement the requirements concerning
environmental processing for federal aid projects and satisfy
Transportation Code 201.604 that the department provide for, by
rule, the environmental review of the department's transportation
projects that are not subject to review under the National
Environmental Policy Act.
New 2.1 provides for general procedures and emergency actions,
including the policy. New 2.2 is a definition section and defines
terms used in this chapter. New 2.3, the federal aid transportation
project section, restates requirements repealed in 2.42; it also
includes new provisions to implement portions of SAFETEA-LU. This
new sections recognizes that the Federal Highway Administration and
the department may enter into a memorandum of agreement under which
the Federal Highway delegates to a state transportation agency the
authority to issue approvals of environmental documents and take
other actions. The new section authorizes the department to request
that Federal Highway publish in the Federal Register a notice that
issues a permit, license or approval is final, and therefore, that
any claims on the project must be filed within 180 days.
New 2.4 also is related to project coordination. It restates the
duties of the districts and Environmental Division on exchanging
information with other governmental entities concerning projects.
This section also implements SAFETEA-LU and establishes new
requirements for environmental processing that apply to federal aid
projects and that are classified as environmental impact statements
for projects.
New 2.5, Public Involvement, restates the requirements for public
involvement concerning a project, and there are also new provisions.
For federal aid projects, the SAFETEA-LU requirements apply if the
original notice of intent -- which is for an EIS type project -- was
published in the Federal Register after August 10, 2005. For
purposes of consistency for a state project, the requirements apply
if the original notice of intent was published in the Texas Register
after August 10, 2005. The new section also provides additional
requirements for the notice of availability of the final
environmental impact statement for the Trans-Texas Corridor project.
The next three sections deal with public involvement. New 2.6,
Meeting with Affected Property Owners, new 2.7 dealing with Public
Meetings, new 2.8 dealing with the Opportunity for Public Hearings,
all restate the requirements for these types of public involvement.
New 2.9, related to Public Involvement/ Public Hearings, restates
the requirements for this type of public involvement. It also lists
the types of projects for which a public hearing is mandatory.
New 2.10 deals with Categorical Exclusions, and it restates the
environmental review requirements for a project classified as a
categorical exclusion. New 2.11 deals with Environmental Assessments
and restates the environmental review requirements for a project
classified as requiring an environmental assessment.
New 2.12 relates to Environmental Impact Statements and restates the
environmental review requirements for a project classified as
requiring an environmental impact statement. It also includes new
provisions on developing the preferred alternative to a higher level
of detail. This implements SAFETEA-LU. It also adds new requirements
for preparation of a draft environmental impact statement for the
Trans-Texas Corridor project.
New Section 2.13 relates to re-evaluations and it restates the
environmental review requirements for when a project must undergo a
re-evaluation.
New 2.14 is related to Supplemental Environmental Assessments and
authorizes the department to prepare a supplement environmental
assessment. This new section requires the preparation of a
supplemental environmental assessment when there are changes to the
project that were not evaluated in the environmental assessment or
when there is new information or circumstances that were not
evaluated in the environmental assessment.
New 2.15 is related to Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements
and restates the requirements for a DIS.
New 2.16, related to Mitigation, restates the requirements for
mitigating the environmental impacts of a project and there are also
new provisions that before the department acquires by purchase or
condemnation real property to mitigate an adverse environmental
impact that the department, if authorized by the regulatory
authority, must offer to purchase a conservation easement from the
owner of the real property.
New 2.17 which deals with Special Right of Way Acquisition restates
the requirements concerning the acquisition of right of way under
certain circumstances, including the acquisition of private land
having an agricultural conservation easement and the taking of
certain public land in public or private historic sites. Subsection
(e) concerns Early and Advance Acquisition and specifies a method
for conducting the environmental review for early and advance
acquisitions.
New 2.18 relates to the Maintenance Projects and Programs and
restates the requirements concerning the environmental review and
approval for maintenance type projects and programs.
New 2.19, Rail Transportation Projects, restates the requirements
concerning the environmental review and approval for a rail
transportation project.
New 2.20, titled Public or Private Entity Receiving Financial
Assistance from the Department for a Project, restates the
environmental processing requirements for such projects, including
the information the entity must submit to the department.
If proposed for adoption, the department would conduct a public
hearing on November 9, 2006 to solicit comments on these proposed
rules.
That concludes my presentation and I'll be glad to answer any
questions.
MR. JOHNSON: Any questions of Dianna?
MR. HOUGHTON: I do have. Dianna, these are by statute and by rule
under SAFETEA-LU?
MS. NOBLE: Yes, sir, Commissioner. It's, in essence, accomplishing
two things: one is implementing requirements in SAFETEA-LU, and the
other one is implementing a state requirement that requires the
department to have environmental procedures for projects that are
not covered under NEPA which is a federal provision.
MR. JOHNSON: There is going to be a public hearing on November 9?
MS. NOBLE: Yes, if the commission so chooses to propose the
adoption.
MR. JOHNSON: And it's most likely place would be where it would be
held?
MS. NOBLE: It would be here at the Greer Building at, I believe,
nine o'clock would be when we would have it.
MR. JOHNSON: And should this be passed, comments will be accepted
till November 13?
MS. NOBLE: That is correct. And so they will be posted, of course,
in the Texas Register.
MR. HOUGHTON: What kind of attendance do you get at these types of
hearings?
MS. NOBLE: Generally when there is attendance, it tends to be from
those that tend to be environmental advocacy type groups are the
ones that generally attend the meetings.
MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, Hope?
MS. ANDRADE: I have a question. There's something in here that says
about published in newspapers in English. Do we publish these
notices also in Spanish? I realize that the dominant language is
English, but is there an opportunity for us to get more people to
participate?
MS. NOBLE: I didn't state the full requirement indicates that the
notice must also be published in any other languages that might be
dominant in the area. For example, in Houston there tends to be a
lot of dialects, either Chinese or Vietnamese, so in essence, it
would require the publication in at least another newspaper to
announce that public meeting or hearing. And of course, Spanish is
another language that we likely also publish another notice.
MS. ANDRADE: So we do do that?
MS. NOBLE: Yes.
MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions? What would your pleasure be?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. JOHNSON: There's a motion and a second. All in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. JOHNSON: Those opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Dianna.
MS. NOBLE: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 5(a)(2) is proposed rules under
Contract Management that deal with amendments to the Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise Program. J.D.?
MR. DOSSETT: Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Behrens. For the
record, my name is James Dossett. I'm the director of the Business
Opportunities Program Office.
This minute order proposes adoption of amendments concerning the DBE
Program to conform to the federal rules for the administration of
the DBE Program. The Federal Highway Administration performed a
compliance review on the department's DBE Program last fall and
raised several issues and provided recommendations to address the
issues. The proposed rule revisions are intended to comply with the
recommendations and specific federal rules. The current rules do not
now comply with federal rules and the revisions will amend 9.53 to
comply with federal rules and Federal Highway Administration
recommendations.
Staff recommends approval.
MR. JOHNSON: Any question, comments?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. JOHNSON: There's a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by
saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. JOHNSON: Those opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.
J.D., it's nice to know that your name is James.
(General laughter.)
MR. DOSSETT: Thank you, sir.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(a)(3), more proposed rules, these under
Traffic Operations concerning our Logo Sign Program. Carlos?
MR. LOPEZ: Thank you, Mike.
Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Carlos Lopez and I'm
director of the Traffic Operations Division.
The minute order before you provides for the preliminary adoption of
revisions within our existing Logo Sign Program rules. This
amendment proposes revisions to Sections 25.401, Definitions, and
25.406 concerning Major Shopping Area Eligibility.
We recently became aware of some errors in our existing rules
related to two definitions. The definitions for Major Shopping Area
and Eligible Highway did not totally conform to that contained in
the statute. This proposed amendment is designed to ensure that
these definitions, as contained in the rules, accurately correspond
to state law.
We recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, Carlos, is this the one that's going to permit
us to put billboards up on our property without having to apply for
a permit with the state?
MR. LOPEZ: I think that may be under John Campbell's purview.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I know Mr. Johnson is interested in that.
Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and recommendation. Do
you have questions or comments?
MR. JOHNSON: Carlos, I noticed that one of the things that this
affects is the way we identify shopping malls. Does this narrow or
widen our ability to do that? And what is an IAW statute?
MR. LOPEZ: Well, what it's going to do is make the rule correspond
to the statute. The statute is a little tighter than what we have in
our rules, but we have been signing for the malls that are under the
rules right now through a variance process. We wrote in our rules
that if you had 650,000 square feet and didn't have to be under a
covered roof, that opened it up to the outlet malls, so we've been
signing for the outlet malls and we think it's a good thing because
they generate a lot of traffic. We'll continue to be able to do that
but we'll have to do it by a variance now.
MR. JOHNSON: And this program for shopping malls will fall under our
new contract for all the logo signs which is a little more advanced
in terms of the mechanism, the way the state receives their
compensation.
MR. LOPEZ: That is correct. It's bundled in with our regular Logo
Sign Program and a new Tourist-Oriented Destination Sign Program.
MR. JOHNSON: Now, would a filling station or a restaurant pay the
same amount that a shopping mall would for their identification?
MR. LOPEZ: No. The mall signing is a little more costly simply
because they are typically located on highways with higher traffic
volumes. In fact, this time around the payment structure for various
logo signs is dependent on the amount of traffic on a road which
makes sense.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, it does, and I think that's a tremendous
advancement. But what my question is if Exit 34 on a particular
roadway and there's a filling station there and a fast food
restaurant and a shopping mall, would, in essence, they pay the same
amount or is there a difference because the shopping mall has
650,000 square feet and a service station might have 25,000 square
feet and the restaurant 12,000 square feet.
MR. LOPEZ: In most cases it's going to be a difference in cost
because the mall sign will not be part of that blue sign with all
the logos, it will be its own sign, have a lot bigger lettering, and
stand on its own structure.
MR. JOHNSON: So there are some variables involved besides the
traffic counts.
MR. LOPEZ: That's correct.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions or comments, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: What's your pleasure?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. LOPEZ: Thank you, commissioners.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Good to see you, Carlos.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(a)(4), proposed rules concerning
Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Loads. Carol?
MS. DAVIS: Good morning. I'm Carol Davis, director of TxDOT's Motor
Carrier Division.
The minute order before you proposes amendments to Chapter 28
concerning Oversize/Overweight Vehicles and Loads. Specifically,
these amendments clarify policies concerning manufactured housing
permits, update statutory citations, and streamlines the process for
permits issued by Chambers County to transport loads with Cedar
Crossing Industrial Park.
We are recommending approval of the proposed amendments at this
time.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, members, you've heard the staff's explanation
and recommendation on item 5(a)(4). Do you have questions or
comments?
MR. HOUGHTON: We're not talking about small home movers this week?
MS. DAVIS: No, sir. I thought I'd give you a break.
MS. ANDRADE: I must say we missed you.
MS. DAVIS: Thank you. I'll be back next month.
MR. HOUGHTON: You're becoming very familiar on that podium.
(General laughter.)
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MS. DAVIS: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(b)(1) is a rule for final adoption. This
would be concerning Access Management. Mark?
MR. MAREK: Thank you, Mr. Behrens, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I'm
Mark Marek, director of the Design Division for TxDOT.
This minute order proposes final adoption of amendments to 11.50
through 11.52 and 11.55 and a new section 11.56 relating to the
connection of a regionally significant highway to the state highway
system, to be codified under Title 43, Texas Administrative Code,
Part 1.
Transportation Code Chapter 203 provides that the Texas
Transportation Commission may lay out, construct, maintain and
operate a modern state highway system. Access management is one
method of preserving the substantial investment in the ground
transportation system by preserving the roadway level of service.
Senate Bill 637 of the 79th Legislative Regular Session 2005 amended
Transportation Code 203.032 to allow a county with a population of
3.3 million or more or a county adjacent to a county with a
population of 3.3 million or more to adopt access permitting
authority on the state highway system in a manner similar to that
delegated process available to municipalities. Counties meeting
these requirements are defined as eligible counties.
Sections 11.51 and 11.52 are amended to allow the delegation of
access permitting authority to these eligible counties. 11.52(f) is
amended to require compliance with the department's environmental
review rules. 11.55 is amended to expedite the approval process for
entering into agreements to provide local access roads in
conjunction with department projects.
The new Section 11.56 is added to provide a uniform means by which
public and private entities, with the authority to construct and
maintain and operate regionally significant highway facilities, may
obtain permission to connect those facilities to the state highway
system. While most such entities are required to obtain commission
approval to construct regionally significant highways, certain
entities with independent authority may construct a regionally
significant highway and not necessarily conform to the
Transportation Improvement Program, or the TIP. Adding regionally
significant highways that are not in the TIP, especially in
non-attainment areas, can threaten the entire area's transportation
conformity under the Federal Clean Air Act, resulting in sanctions
that could severely hamper the state's Federal Highway Program.
The current rules govern connection to the state highway system but
do not give the department the ability to deny connections based on
these conformity concerns, design and construction issues, or
non-compliance with federal requirements. This new rule will ensure
that proper statewide planning is employed in the construction of
major highway facilities that connect to the state highway system
and that those facilities are properly designed and constructed in
compliance with federal laws and that environmental impacts are
adequately considered.
No comments were received on these proposed rules. Staff recommends
approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Member, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation on item 5(b)(1). Do you have questions or comments?
MR. HOUGHTON: Just one. How many counties meet this?
MR. MAREK: There are about seven of those counties.
MR. HOUGHTON: Seven?
MR. MAREK: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(b)(2) is another rule for final adoption
in our Vehicle Titles and Registration area dealing with specialty
plates. Rebecca?
MS. DAVIO: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Rebecca Davio.
I am the director of the Vehicle Titles and Registration Division.
We have before you requesting final adoption of amendments to 17.28.
These rules deal with how we administer the Special License Plate
Advisory Committee. We posted the rules and didn't get any comments,
and so we request your approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff explanation and
recommendation. Do you have question or comments of staff?
MR. HOUGHTON: How many specialty plates do we have now?
MS. DAVIO: We have approximately 119.
MR. HOUGHTON: What's the most popular?
MS. DAVIO: What's the most popular?
MR. HOUGHTON: Number one.
MS. DAVIO: The State of the Art.
MR. HOUGHTON: Number two?
MS. DAVIO: The Animal Friendly.
MR. HOUGHTON: Really?
MS. DAVIO: And we've actually sold, collectively, the most
personalized license plates. There's still a few good ones out
there, though, if you're interested. I'd be happy to take your
order.
MR. JOHNSON: In your calculations, have you included the
universities?
MS. DAVIO: Yes, sir. All the university plates have sold about
16,000, collectively.
MR. HOUGHTON: Where would that be included in that one, two, three,
four, five calculation?
MS. DAVIO: It would probably come up about number five.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Where does Vanderbilt sit on that one?
MS. DAVIO: I have that information here for you; let me look. I was
ready for you this time.
MR. JOHNSON: Just out of curiosity, the universities, how do they
sort of fall, the top four or five?
MS. DAVIO: The executive director's alma mater is number one.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay. And who might be number two?
MS. DAVIO: The University of Texas is number two.
MR. JOHNSON: They moved back into the number two slot ahead of the
Texas Technological College or University in Lubbock?
MS. DAVIO: Yes. They're number three.
And our newest plate that we just started receiving orders for is
the Texas Rangers plate.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that Rangers as in the gun-toters, or Rangers as
in the guys that don't have any pitching?
(General laughter.)
MS. DAVIO: The last one. We'll also start selling Texas Astros.
MR. JOHNSON: Texas Astros plates. We have a new team.
MS. DAVIO: Houston Astros. Same thing.
MR. JOHNSON: They have pitchers and no hitters.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know. They hit last night.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, it took them a long time.
MR. HOUGHTON: Took them a long time to win.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Seconded.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. You notice that we didn't embarrass
Steve Simmons by asking you about the University of Houston.
MS. DAVIO: I would have been ready.
MR. JOHNSON: Rebecca, one other question. Just for the record, so my
good friends from Lubbock might know how many more plates they need
to subscribe to so they can move back into the number two position.
How far is Texas Tech behind the University of Texas?
MS. DAVIO: About 700.
MR. HOUGHTON: What's Mr. Behrens' alma mater?
MS. DAVIO: 6,138 plates. UT Austin, 3,510.
MR. HOUGHTON: Two to one.
MS. DAVIO: Texas Tech, 2,806.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And University of Houston?
MS. DAVIO: 558.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I didn't know you had that many cars, Steve.
(General laughter.)
MS. DAVIO: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: We've taken care of agenda item number 6, we'll go to
agenda item number 7. This will be a comprehensive development
agreement and a recommendation to issue a request for proposals for
detailed proposals on TTC-69. Phil?
MR. RUSSELL: Thanks, Mike.
Good afternoon, commissioners and Roger. For the record, I am
Phillip Russell, director of the Turnpike Division. And I probably
should state right off the bat, not to preempt any of your
questions, but I should state this morning when I woke up and looked
at the agenda item being for 69 and that it ultimately would go
through or could go through Louisiana, that I selected the color of
my tie, I think it's representative of LSU, and I certainly didn't
want to use my burnt orange tie, I knew I would irritate either Mr.
Behrens or Commissioner Houghton, so it seemed to be the better part
of valor to choose a nondescript tie color.
MR. WILLIAMSON: LSU.
MR. RUSSELL: I think it's LSU.
MR. JOHNSON: So the record will be perfectly clear, what color do
you have on your tie?
MR. RUSSELL: Uh-oh, you're calling my bluff. I think their colors
are kind of yellowish and blue.
MR. JOHNSON: They would prefer purple and gold probably.
MR. RUSSELL: I was close, though. But actually, I was going to ask
what are Vanderbilt's colors now?
MR. JOHNSON: I deflect that question ahead of our Aviation Division.
They're old gold and black.
MR. RUSSELL: Okay. I was thinking through but I couldn't recall.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought they were orange and black. No?
MR. JOHNSON: They only get orange scuff marks on their headgear
about the third Saturday of November.
MR. RUSSELL: That would be Tennessee, Mike.
(General laughter.)
MR. RUSSELL: Very well. Commissioners, as Mr. Behrens pointed out,
the minute order before you relates to TTC-69. As you recall,
earlier this year we initiated a process to bring onboard a
long-term strategic partner for Trans-Texas Corridor 69, similar to
the one that we've currently employed on 35.
We have initiated the process, request for qualifications earlier
this year. We received two submittals. We have thoroughly reviewed
both of those submittals and determined that both should be
short-listed.
The minute order before you, should you choose to approve it, would
essentially do two things: number one, it would authorize us to go
out with a request for detailed proposals to these two developers;
second, it would set the stipend amount at $750,000 to the
unsuccessful proposer. Again, that would be a cap of sorts. It would
authorize payment for the intellectual properties up to an amount
including $750,000.
Staff would recommend approval, and I'd be happy to address any
question you might have.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Phillip, earlier in the morning a member of the free
press came up and asked me a couple of questions about this. I fear
I might have misled her into thinking that this would come sooner on
the agenda than it did. I was going to apologize to her if she's
still here, but I think she's left.
She did ask a couple of probing questions about the stipend, and I
want to repeat for the record in case she's watching by video or she
watches the tape later, we have two issues we have to sort of
confront with the stipend. One is the fact that engineers under the
law of the state really can't work prospectively, they have to work
on a product, and the tight-fistedness of the commission won't
permit us to disburse money unless we receive something for it. So
this is a method we've developed to assure that the engineering
component of these consortia are paid something for their work, and
to also assure that the taxpayers of the state get something of
value for the payment.
Could you kind of clarify for the record and for whoever might be
watching, live or the tape, what it is we will buy when we pay this
up to $750- to the consortia that might not be selected.
MR. RUSSELL: Right, Chairman. And she visited with me at the break,
as well, and so I was able to discuss that issue with her. And
you're right, it really does two things: it defrays some of their
cost, but ultimately what it does for us is it provides us that
intellectual property on that proposer. So we have free use of that
information that we can impart on the successful proposer on that
project or any other project that we deem appropriate. So it
essentially purchase the intellectual property rights up to an
amount of $750,000.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So one of the things that we think happens in this
process, members, is each individual competing or each consortia
looks at the same objective differently. One might think that the
trade corridor between Laredo and Corpus Christi is more valuable
than any other piece of the system and so they might spend a lot of
time and money looking at truck routes, freight company routes, how
much Wal-Mart or Target or H.E.B. uses rail as opposed to truck
along that route, and that information is incorporated into their
proposal. Whereas, the other consortia might believe that the Port
of Houston to extreme northeast Texas route is more important
because of the number of cars that are willing to get off of
congested 59 onto a toll road might be.
In either case, the State of Texas, the taxpayers will receive the
benefit of that data when they make that payment. We'll know what
that truck traffic is between Laredo and Corpus Christi, and we'll
know what that probable passenger toll traffic is between Texarkana
and Houston. Just so everyone knows, we don't pay things for nothing
around here.
MR. RUSSELL: That's exactly right.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, members, this is a fairly significant event in
our lives. Do you have questions or comments?
MS. ANDRADE: I have a question. Phil, would you once again walk me
through the time line of the process? Is this going to happen in
December? How long will they have?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, ma'am. We'll work with those two consortia during
the intervening couple of months to make sure our documents are
correct and appropriate. We anticipate issuing the actual request in
December. We typically give about 90 days for their return
submittal. We'll evaluate those carefully, and I would anticipate
probably somewhere around next mid-year we'll have a developer
selected and we'll bring it back to you all for an award.
MS. ANDRADE: So mid '07?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, ma'am.
MR. JOHNSON: Phil, I'm under the impression that you've recently
received an award. Is that correct?
MR. RUSSELL: What's that now?
MR. JOHNSON: I'm under the impression, I've got it in the cobwebs of
my mind that you have recently received a recognition or an award.
Is that correct?
MR. RUSSELL: I'm not sure. The one up in the Little League ballpark
in Georgetown?
MR. JOHNSON: So I have you confused with someone. Is that what
you're telling me? I wanted to congratulate you for whatever you've
been recognized for in the Little League ballpark or wherever.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Tell us about that.
MR. RUSSELL: Mike might know more than I.
MR. BEHRENS: The award is still forthcoming.
MR. JOHNSON: Obviously you shouldn't have let me know.
(General laughter.)
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Only two consortia submitted proposals?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: I find it fascinating that Cintra and Zachry have taken
their experience along TTC-35 and each has gone out, and in essence,
recruited, organized and developed their own separate teams and now
they're in competition with one another. I do think that's
exceptional for many reasons, but primarily the benefit is they are
the most experienced in terms of using this approach in the state of
Texas and we will benefit from their experience and their
competition one with the other -- we being the people who utilize
these corridors and travel the roads of this state. So I'm
fascinated by that and I'm going to be curious to see how this
unfolds.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. Commissioner, there have been several
comments about that. My experience on not just these procurements
but whether you're talking about consultants or anything, all of
those guys try to team up with appropriate members that will give
them the advantage on that particular project. So from one
standpoint, I'm not particularly surprised. I think what you'll see,
whether it's 121, 161, whatever the next project is, you'll see all
sorts of different permutations between equity partners, designers,
contractors, and again, their goal is to try to create a team,
ultimately, that will be successful and they'll win that
competition.
So I think you'll see more of that, and I think the offshoot is
exactly what you're saying: you're going to have a
cross-pollenization out there through the industry, ultimately we're
going to grow the industry, and create more competition. That's
pretty good for all of us.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, the keener the competition, the better served we
all are.
MR. RUSSELL: Absolutely.
MR. HOUGHTON: What can be released to the public regarding the
developers? Can their teams be released?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: When you look at the teams, it's fascinating to see
who's on them and you kind of get an inkling what's going to happen
in the transportation business, especially multimodal types of
transportation.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, I think you're exactly right. Again, we're
transitioning from the way we've traditionally done business to
something that's a bit different. As Amadeo whispered to me just a
second ago, it's already on the website, so this information is out,
but clearly you'll see certain components on all these teams,
whether it's design, construction, financing, traffic and revenue
guys.
MR. HOUGHTON: Some non-traditional transportation folks are on those
teams which is fascinating in itself.
MR. RUSSELL: Absolutely. And it seems to always be that mix, that
Commissioner Johnson was alluding to, of different folks, whether
they're domestic partners or folks from global markets, they're all
coming together for this unique project trying to bring the best and
the brightest. I think it's a pretty good deal for us.
MR. HOUGHTON: Great.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Anything else, members? I, too, am fascinated but
from a different perspective. And obviously 69 is a different asset
than 35, but this is a pretty significant deal and it's drawing far
less attention the second time through, and it fascinates me that
having once gone through the fire and brimstone of 35, it may be the
case that as TTC-20 and TTC-45 and ultimately TTC-10 and whatever
other Ports to Plains ends up being -- and I'm sure there will be
one -- perhaps it will become everyday business for the department
and we can go about our business of solving the transportation
problem.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: It's becoming old hat, I think is part of the problem.
They've cut their teeth on 35 and this is nothing new. It's
unfortunate because this is big, it's huge.
MR. RUSSELL: Well, I think step by step, brick by brick we're kind
of re-educating. Mr. Behrens and I talked about a meeting I had this
morning, and you know, there's still a lot of misunderstanding and
myths that are out there, and as we go through piece by piece and
let people understand clearly what we're talking about, some of the
transportation challenges we have in front of us, they get it, but
it takes a lot of that one-on-one discussion for people to fully
understand a very complex subject.
But I think you're right. As they become more familiar, slowly but
surely we're going to be gaining momentum on this.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Any other questions or comments, members? Do I have
a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Phil. Godspeed, buddy.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 8 under Right of Way, this is a
recommendation to allow the use of options for advance acquisition
of right of way in the Dallas area. John?
MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning. For the record, my name is John
Campbell, director of the Right of Way Division.
I'd like to present for your consideration this morning agenda item
number 8 to authorize the use of option agreements to secure the
right for potential purchase of required right of way along the
proposed route for two separate IH-35 projects in the Dallas County.
The minute order provides the authority for the Dallas District
engineer to negotiate the execution of option contracts and to
expend funds for option fees and related administrative costs.
Staff recommends your approval of the minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard an explanation and a
recommendation regarding the agenda item. What's your pleasure?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion, signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries, John.
MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: All that waiting for just 41 seconds.
MR. CAMPBELL: It's my pleasure to be here, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: He can talk about billboards if you want him to talk
about LEDs real quickly.
MR. CAMPBELL: Didn't Carlos cover billboards for me earlier in the
program?
MR. WILLIAMSON: How are on going ahead and codifying the fact that
LEDs are not the same as paper billboards?
MR. CAMPBELL: How far are we along that end?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I know we're working on that, I've told John that.
MR. CAMPBELL: We're in the dialogue on that topic.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're in the dialogue stage?
MR. CAMPBELL: We're in the dialogue stage.
MR. HOUGHTON: Demonstration projects.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you're so unflappable, it's the only thing
that I've ever seen you flap over.
MR. CAMPBELL: Over LED signs?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Billboards, any billboard.
MR. HOUGHTON: Have we determined whether that Godzilla over there is
in compliance?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think we have an official determination that it is
an on-premise sign.
MR. CAMPBELL: It's an on-premise sign, therefore exempted from
regulation.
MR. HOUGHTON: It's an on-premise sign, John?
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Over the objection of our Aggie administrator.
MR. CAMPBELL: And technically, it probably exceeds the limit from
the controlled highway.
MR. HOUGHTON: It does? Even though you can see it from the top of
35?
MR. CAMPBELL: It's big, isn't it?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Coby Chase said he sat under it during a ball game
and got a suntan.
MR. JOHNSON: It was a night game?
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, John.
MR. BEHRENS: Okay, we'll go on. We've covered 9, we'll go to agenda
item number 10. This is our SIB loan with the City of Kerrville.
James?
MR. BASS: Good afternoon. Again, for the record, I'm James Bass,
chief financial officer at TxDOT.
Item 10 seeks your final approval of a loan to the City of Kerrville
in the amount of $2.8 million to pay for roadway and drainage
improvements to Holdsworth Drive. Interest will accrue from the date
funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4.1 percent, with
payments being made over a period of 20 years.
Staff recommends your approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation. Do I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you, James.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 11, our contracts for the month of
September, both our highway maintenance contracts and building
construction, and then the second part will be our regular
construction projects.
MS. BOSWELL: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Elizabeth
Boswell. I'm the director of the Construction Section of the
Construction Division.
Reference agenda item 11(a)(1), authorization of this minute order
provides for the award or rejection of highway maintenance projects
let on September 7 and 8, 2006 whose engineers' estimated costs are
$300,000 or more.
Staff recommends rejection of one project as follows. This is a
two-year project located in Bowie County and consists of the
installation of traffic signals at various locations. Staff
recommends rejection of this project so that it may be redesigned as
a one-year contract to attract additional bidders and lower bid
prices.
Award is recommended for all remaining projects as shown in Exhibit
A.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hang on a second, I'm looking at the one that's over
and you're recommending to accept.
MS. BOSWELL: Okay.
(Pause.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: I've seen what I needed to see. Members, need to
keep looking?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MS. BOSWELL: Construction projects. Reference agenda item 11(a)(2),
authorization of this minute order provides for the award or
rejection of highway construction projects let on September 7 and 8,
2006, as shown in Exhibit A. Staff recommends rejection of two
projects as follows.
The first project is located in McLennan County and provides for the
non-site specific installation of traffic signals at various
locations throughout the district. Staff recommends rejection of
this project so that the project may be redesigned to clarify
bidders' uncertainty and attract additional bidders.
The second project recommended for rejection is located in Starr
County and provides for the reconstructing, widening and extending
Atkins Street from US 83 at FM 650 to US 83 to Aurora in the city of
Roma. Staff recommends rejection of this contract due to
insufficient competition as only one bid was received on this
project and the bid submitted was approximately 66 percent over the
engineer's estimate. In addition, staff feels a redesign is in order
to reduce cost and attract additional bidders.
Award is recommended for all remaining projects as shown in Exhibit
A.
MR. HOUGHTON: I have one question that's semi-related to this,
Amadeo. We just completed our fiscal year. Correct? What was the
total amount of awards for construction projects in the fiscal year
'06?
MR. SAENZ: For the record, Amadeo Saenz. It was around $5.3 billion.
MR. HOUGHTON: Is that a record?
MR. SAENZ: So far that's the highest we've done.
MR. HOUGHTON: We did not publicize that at all, did we? I don't
remember seeing that number.
MR. WILLIAMSON: No, but we should have.
MR. HOUGHTON: $5.3-?
MR. SAENZ: Around $5.3-, I think, is the last report I saw.
MR. HOUGHTON: What is that over fiscal year '05?
MR. SAENZ: About $300 million.
MR. HOUGHTON: $300 million?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. I think 2005 was right at $5-. We will get
numbers because we let projects that we let through the commission,
and that's what I'm talking about the $5.3-, the projects that are
let and awarded here. We also have projects that are awarded locally
in the maintenance area for projects less than $300,000, and then we
also have some projects that are being awarded through a local
entity, a city, a county, some of those are enhancements. So when
you sum up those, I think we'll be up in almost $5.4- or $5.5-.
MR. HOUGHTON: That is something significant, Mr. Chairman.
MR. JOHNSON: I tell you what makes it as much significant as the raw
numbers is that we're doing that with the same number of full-time
equivalents that we've had for a decade At one time I think we had
17- or 18,000 in the early '90s and now we've got 14,000, and our
full-time equivalent numbers has remained pretty constant, and yet
the volume of business that comes through here has increased
substantially. So I think that's remarkable and a tribute to the
people of this agency.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. And this is the first month of the fiscal year
so we can still put something out to let you know what we've done in
fiscal year 2006.
MR. HOUGHTON: I think this should be a big issue across the state.
MR. SAENZ: We'll do that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait a minute, don't leave. I'll call for a vote on
this item in a minute, but I have a couple of questions. Is my
memory failing me, or am I seeing an unusual number of in excess of
engineer's estimate and recommend that we go ahead and approve the
contract?
MR. SAENZ: Go ahead and answer.
MS. BOSWELL: Are you referencing for this month an excess of over
the engineer's estimate recommending award? I would say our numbers
are less this month. We had fewer projects that required
justification.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Recommend award of nine construction projects,
multiple bidders, 20 percent or more, and above engineer's estimate.
So this is down as opposed to up?
MS. BOSWELL: It was down from last month.
MR. SAENZ: It's down from prior months.
MS. BOSWELL: Yes.
MR. JOHNSON: What's the dollar amount of those contracts? Are they
fairly small by comparison?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, it may just be because they've been rising
over the last six months that I'm paying more attention to it, John.
I'm aware that with all of the innovation that the legislature has
permitted us to have and with all the activity at the local level,
there's still a finite amount of cash flow available to invest in
this stuff, and I just am growing more concerned, Mike, about the
cash flow commitments we're making to our partners and balancing
that against the known cash flow of the state. The worst thing that
can happen to us is to have to cut a letting or have to cut three or
four lettings in a row by a large amount, as opposed to recognizing
the cost is going up right now and choking back a little bit at a
time.
John, you and I are in the business and we know the price of oil and
gas rises and falls, but the price of oil and gas isn't the only
reason these prices are going up. I'm paying three times today for
concrete what I was paying a year ago, and I'm paying almost twice
as much for steel, and I suspect that's where a lot of the increase
in price is.
MR. BEHRENS: And even actually going back to the August letting in
September, and that's on the letting side, it's not on the
Construction Division side, we actually are looking at each month's
letting and we've actually decreased the amount of letting to try to
stay in balance with our cash flow.
MR. JOHNSON: Elizabeth, in our books we have a one-page summary
which has a total number of projects, total number of bids, et
cetera, and when we lump together all of these projects from let's
say $100,000 to $50 million, we're sort of getting a distorted
picture because in all probability there are going to be more
bidders for the lesser amount of contracts than let's call them the
super contracts, and it would be helpful to me if we went through
the same thing but broke the contract amount size into categories. I
don't know what the right thresholds are but I'm thinking under $5
million and then $5- to maybe $20- or $25-, and then $25- and above,
but where we catch a number of projects that has meaning and we can
follow the chairman's suggestion of over and under, but also how
competitive these things are in terms of the average number of
bidders, et cetera.
MS. BOSWELL: We can do that.
MR. JOHNSON: Good.
MS. ANDRADE: I have one comment.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Please.
MS. ANDRADE: Amadeo, I know that we want to let the state know how
much money we're putting out there, but also in the local district
offices. I know in San Antonio we celebrate because the local
district office is having record-breaking construction years. We
might want to encourage our district offices so that communities
take ownership of the fact that we are having record-breaking years
in local communities.
MR. SAENZ: And I think a lot of our districts are doing that. I know
San Antonio has done it for the last two years or maybe three years
-- three years at least, and I think a lot of our districts are
already doing the same thing.
We review every project that is over the engineer's estimate by 10
percent when we only have one bidder, and we review every project,
no matter how many bidders, when it's over 20 percent and evaluate
and make a recommendation on those projects. Some we recommend for
rejection and some we recommend for award.
I guess when we look at the total projects -- and they may be
distorted because we've lumped everything together -- I think we'll
be able to present you a much better picture by breaking up the
projects. We are still getting almost four bidders per contract in
total, and really our bids, based on what we are awarding, we were
almost 7 percent under our estimates. We do have some projects that
either we missed the estimate or we had some errors in it. For
example, we talked about the Starr County project. That project also
had some errors in quantities that showed the difference that was
not included in the presentation. But we will look at that.
One of the other things, and I mentioned it earlier, is this used to
be a much bigger problem because when we were selecting projects and
people would get their project and say that's my project no matter
what it costs, but now as the regions get their allocations, it's
like they have their checkbook and they're balancing and keeping
their checkbook, so as projects overrun, they're keeping track of
the impacts to their allocation based on those overruns and
underruns.
I have a request from a district that says my project underran by a
million dollars, does that mean I still have my money available?
Yes, you do. But by the same token, another district says my project
overran by a million dollars, where do I have to get it from? But by
giving it to them and making them and holding them accountable,
they're beginning to see and understand how they manage their
resources.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Can't be a bad thing.
MR. JOHNSON: Good stuff.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MS. BOSWELL: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 12 is our Routine Minute Orders.
They've all been duly posted, as required. I went through all of
these minute orders; I don't see any that would affect or where
there's anything associated with any of you individually as
commissioners. So I recommend approval of the Routine Minute Orders.
MR. HOUGHTON: Where are they going to spread seed for Keep Brazos
Beautiful, on what highways?
MR. JOHNSON: Most of them are going to be around El Paso.
MR. HOUGHTON: I was going to say we've had enough rain out there to
sprout something.
MR. BEHRENS: It's going to on various highways in Brazos County.
MR. WILLIAMSON: They're going to spread it on Highway 6 right next
to all of those electronic devices we're fixing to put up.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Speed limits, where is that?
MR. BEHRENS: Speed limits would be 12(e).
MR. WILLIAMSON: We haven't raised anybody's speed limits, have we?
MR. BEHRENS: I don't think we have any.
MR. HOUGHTON: I hope so.
MR. BEHRENS: We have a number of construction speed zones in there,
and the other is just regular speed zones that are being adjusted.
MR. HOUGHTON: We need to go faster in far west Texas.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, members, what's your pleasure on this one?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
Mike, do we have any reason to go to executive session?
MR. BEHRENS: I don't have any reason. We may ask our new general
counsel if he has any reason.
MR. HOUGHTON: Did everyone sign the appointment? Is he general
counsel yet?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think we appointed him general counsel, and didn't
we put him in charge of the Amarillo Maintenance Division as well?
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Bob, do we have any reason to go to executive
session?
MR. JACKSON: No, sir, we don't.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we need to say welcome aboard?
MR. JOHNSON: Congratulations.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We can congratulate ourselves.
I was thinking about the continuity of the employee base when we
were recognizing Phyllis and the different spots that she's been in,
and then thinking about Bob and the different places he's been, and
now we look up and he's our head lawyer. Pretty impressive, head of
the best engineering and construction law firm in the state.
Do we have any open comment testimony?
MR. BEHRENS: We have none.
MR. WILLIAMSON: This is not a record but it's close. The most
privileged motion is in order.
MR. JOHNSON: Before I proceed to make that, I do want to set the
record straight. To the best of my knowledge, Vanderbilt and the
University of Texas at Austin have met eleven times on the gridiron,
and the University of Texas at Austin has won two of those games.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, John, I think your memory is absolutely
perfect, although it must have taken some time to dig back all the
way into the '20s to find all those records because I think it was
'28 when we last played, wasn't it?
MR. JOHNSON: It was in that neighborhood, but we were dominating the
series so much that the University of Texas at Austin didn't want to
schedule us anymore. In lieu of us, they now have Sam Houston State.
MR. WILLIAMSON: They didn't think they were scheduling Vanderbilt
all those years, they thought they were scheduling the University of
Mississippi. I don't know how they confused Vanderbilt and the
University of Mississippi, but back then things were probably
different.
MR. JOHNSON: Vanderbilt was just a little farther away.
MR. WILLIAMSON: By train.
MR. JOHNSON: By anything.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you make that motion?
MR. JOHNSON: Move we adjourn.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second that we adjourn. All
those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. We are adjourned, Mr. Jackson, at
12:47 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: September 28, 2006
I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 170,
inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared
from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Carol
Oppenheimer before the Texas Department of Transportation.
10/03/2006
(Transcriber) (Date)
On the Record Reporting, Inc.
3307 Northland, Suite 315
Austin, Texas 78731
125 East 11th Street . Austin, Texas 78701 
Copyright 2012. Texas Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved.
