Board Meeting
Finance Committee Meeting
March 7, 2003
1:15 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
8700 Tesoro Drive #700
San Antonio, Texas 78217

Notice was duly posted and a meeting of the Finance Committee of the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District Board was held on March 7, 2003. The meeting was called to order at approximately 1:16 p.m. by Tullos Wells.

I. Participants:

In attendance were:

• Tommy Adkisson
• Gus Garcia
• Fred Harless
• Carroll Schubert
• Tullos Wells

Mariano Camarillo and Jeff Wentworth were unable to attend; however, Joe Morris attended on behalf of Mr. Wentworth.

II. Items of Business:

A. Obstacles of Various Financing -

Tullos Wells thanked Mario Medina, Texas Department of Transportation, for his presentation and asked him to join the finance meeting. Mr. Wells then confirmed that each member would be provided with a copy of Mr. Medina’s presentation.

Mr. Wells advised that Mariano Camarillo asked that the Committee think about what information that would be necessary to obtain prior to the next meeting in order to lay out options and start making selections.

Fred Harless asked if there was some way for the managers to contract with the Corridor Council. Mr. Wells advised that he was not sure that the Corridor Council would be a willing partner, as he believed they were “burning their resources.” Mr. Wells inquired about what things the Committee should look at:

Ross Milloy advised that the Corridor Council would be happy to continue doing what they have been doing, but advised that there is a fundamental base that the Committee needs to form (i.e., a Director of some kind). Mr. Milloy further advised that he does not believe that it will be effective or workable to have a project management company reporting directly to the Board without some kind of oversight. He also stated that there is a need for outside legal counsel because of the complexity of the federal laws, state laws, and cross-jurisdictional agreements. Mr. Milloy expressed his concern about having the agreements prepared internally within a project management contract because there is also no oversight present.

Mr. Milloy further suggested, as regards to the minimum operating staff, that he and his group perform this role for a while. He advised that the group might want to get someone who has a vast experience in this area, as he views himself as more of a supporter and promoter. He advised that this person would need to be not only knowledgeable but also experienced. Mr. Milloy said the person would need to know federal programs, as well as the federal process.

Mr. Milloy suggested rough costs of staffing for this project to range from $300,000 to $350,000, if Texas Department of Transportation does most of the legal work, as well as depending on how fast the group wants to go. Mr. Milloy advised that the big issue he sees is what will be done in Washington, as there is probably not a better time to go after a big portion of money within the next 8 months while TEA-21 is being redone, SH130 is in play, and while the project has already been identified as a high priority trade corridor. He added that if the group can get some legislative help in Washington, it would really make a big difference.

Mr. Wells agreed with Mr. Milloy – the Committee needs some way to bring some cash to the operation because there is a need for a base level of support. Mr. Wells also noted that Mr. Milloy and his group were doing a great job. Mr. Wells added that all of the members were pitching in some degree of resources, but there would be no substitute for having someone who wakes up every day with a mission to take the project to the finish line.

Mayor Garcia said he believes there are 6 or 7 entities the group may obtain funding: there is each one of the two counties, the 2 major cities, the 2 transit agencies and the private sector. Mayor Garcia advised that the private sector is a long shot, but he thought that the other 6 resources were viable. Mr. Harless advised that he was willing to put an item on the Austin agenda, as well as talk to Travis County to get some portion of the funding in place.

The discussion continued regarding various sources of funding.

The members also discussed adding a representative from VIA to the Finance Committee. The group discussed the idea of VIA being a possible resource for funds. Mr. Wells advised that he has talked with Shelton Padgett about this very notion and believes that VIA will be approached at every angle by many organizations for any dollars they may have.

The group discussed the aspects of approaching the entities as suggested by Mayor Garcia. Mr. Wells advised that there might be a way to accomplish this:

• The funds may just come south of the match of TEA-21 money which would give the group a portion there;
• It is a diminus sum to the entities, by and large, if, as the Mayor suggests, everyone gives a little;
• Commissioner Adkisson advised that his sense is these entities need to “prime the pump” to “get it going”; he said he also believes that “well begun is halfway done” and that advertising should be done sooner rather than later. Commissioner Adkisson also suggested that the group should begin finding out “who the who” is out there and how other systems operate.

A discussion ensued regarding obtaining information on other commuter rail systems.

It was confirmed that if the committee were to select the toll option, it would mean that the Board would not be asking single entities for matching funds. Mayor Garcia suggested that the Committee put a financing package together.

Mr. Wells suggested that if the Committee could get funds from the single entities and measure it over a 3 or 4-year period with $400,000 a year from each of the 6 entities, it would almost take the project to the required match.

Mr. Medina advised that the Board would be using money for operations and day-to-day activities. Mr. Medina also reiterated that when utilizing the toll credits option, there is not a local match.

A brief discussion ensued regarding the use of the toll credits option. Mr. Harless advised that he believes the group should pursue the toll credits option. Mr. Schubert confirmed that doing this from an operations standpoint is not the same as a match and would not be money that could be used. Mr. Schubert also advised that at some point the Board may have to go to the entities, but also may not.

Mr. Milloy noted that the local money can be used for federal legislative efforts but the federal money cannot be. Mr. Milloy advised that the Committee would have to make a decision. He added that it would be easy to let TXDOT do it, but his fear is that TXDOT will not move quickly enough. He reiterated that the Committee must come up with a number in the next 6 months in order to say, “this is what we need to do our deal.”

Commissioner Adkisson advised that he forsees a relationship with TXDOT, but not necessarily a managerial position. Mr. Medina advised that TXDOT would be happy to help, but will leave the decision to the members. Mr. Medina also pointed out that in order to get over the federal hurdles, the group would not be able to hire a consultant any time soon.

Mr. Wells agreed with Mr. Milloy as regards to there being a lot to do locally, as well as in Washington. He advised that it was important that the group move quickly to provide some infrastructure.

Mr. Harless confirmed the entities suggested by Mayor Garcia - VIA, Capital Metro, City of Austin, City of San Antonio, Travis County, Bexar County, and Private Sector; Mr. Harless suggested the group talk to Williamson County, but Williamson County would need to be in the district first. Mayor Garcia discussed the person he recommends contacting to get Williamson County involved – Mike Heiligenstein, Clean Air Force Commission Chairman. Mayor Garcia stated that Mr. Heiligenstein is very committed to the issue of clean air and believes he would be the guy to contact. Mayor Garcia also suggested contacting the new, powerful state representative from his region. He also suggested that Mr. Wells schedule a visit to Austin so that some of the members can join him and visit Representative Krusee to discuss their position.

Mr. Milloy inquired regarding whether the Committee wanted his staff to come up with some kind of reasonable apportionment of the numbers and/or figure out some formula for what the inside contribution would be more or less. Mr. Wells advised that it would be helpful to have a proposed budget and options to suggest to each entity. Commissioner Adkisson added that prior to the entities being approached, the Committee should exhaust all avenues to show that those entities are the last recourse. He added that if there were any other options available, they should, at least, be given a passing reference.

Mr. Wells also suggested that the Committee be crafting a formal request for toll credits option, as well as get on the agenda for TXDOT. The group agreed to proceed with toll credits option. Mr. Milloy confirmed with the Committee that the “staff” has authority to proceed with obtaining the checklist of items required.

Mr. Milloy then advised as regards to the funds from the MPO, TXDOT has taken the position that the only funds available to the STIP funds and there are not much in that area. Mayor Garcia advised that he was not looking to TXDOT for funding as much as he was for operational means.

Mr. Medina was asked what options the committee was missing. Mr. Medina responded that he did not believe there were any other options within the TXDOT. Mr. Medina said he had checked with FWA regarding what the Board could go ahead and fund and was advised that the Board could go ahead and hire a general engineering firm if they would like.

Mr. Medina advised that if the group wants to proceed with toll credits at this time, he would get with Mr. Milloy to find out what hurdles will need to be jumped in order to proceed. He further advised the Committee that TXDOT’s March committee meeting deadline would be missed, but should be able to make the next meeting to be held at the end of April.

Mr. Wells advised that he would like to be prepared so that by the next Board meeting a presentation is prepared and can be approved by the Board. He also suggested that as the Committee was utilizing the toll credits path, a budget and a plan of how to approach each entity should also be prepared.

B. Other Items:

Bill Bingham advised that federal grants are reimbursement grants and inquired about the usual time between an expenditure and reimbursement. Mr. Median stated that his understanding was a turn-around time period of approximately 30 days. Mr. Bingham discussed the idea of interim funding, stating that the Committee may want to select a bank in Austin and San Antonio in order to obtain a better rate.

A brief discussion regarding interim financing ensued.

Mayor Garcia stated that he was happy the project was proceeding and he believed the Committee would come up with some good ideas. Mr. Milloy noted the importance that selling this particular project as a congestion reliever is really not as appropriate as an economic development engine because that is really what it is. Mr. Milloy added that he believes there may be a number of ways to obtain funding in addition to the traditional means (i.e., subsidize service in return for area development).

III. Meeting Adjourned:

No further business was brought before the Committee. Mr. Wells adjourned the Finance Committee at approximately 1:45 p.m.

Board Meeting
March 7, 2003
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
8700 Tesoro Drive #700
San Antonio, Texas 78217

I. Call to Order:

Notice was duly posted and a meeting of the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District Board was held on March 7, 2003. Chairman Tullos Wells called the meeting to order at approximately 11:15 a.m.

Participants:

• Tommy Adkisson
• Dave Marsh
• Mariano Camarillo
• Al Notzon
• Sid Covington
• Shelton Padgett
• Gerald Daugherty
• Carroll Schubert
• Gus Garcia
• Tullos Wells
• Fred Harless

Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, Sam Barshop, Mariano Camarillo and Senator Jeff Wentworth were unable to attend; however, Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Morris represented Senator Wentworth.

II. Chair and Member Comments:

Chairman Wells made opening comments:

• 1. He congratulated Shelton Padgett, new VIA Chairman and welcomed him to the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District Board; and
• 2. He announced that Senator Wentworth could not be with the group, but Senator Wentworth asked him Deputy Chief of Staff, Joe Morris, to sit in for him. Mr. Wells advised that there is no proxy voting, but the group appreciates Mr. Morris’ participation.

Mr. Wells asked the Board for any initial comments prior to addressing the items contained in the agenda. Mr. Wells noted that the Board is now 30 days old and he has noticed two things:

• 1. There are a lot of people who have a passion, one way or the other, about this project; he is impressed about how the public awareness has grabbed hold of the project and how it is going to be done; and
• 2. He has gotten to know better the members of the Board and appreciates the devotion by each, which will make this project work.

III. Approval of Minutes of February Meeting:

Mr. Wells asked for approval of the minutes for the February meeting. He then turned over the meeting over to the Rules and Procedures Committee Chairman, Al Notzon.

Mr. Notzon advised that there was one change regarding the VIA representative and now that Mr. Padgett had been added to the Board, he will also be added to the Rules and Procedures Committee.

Mr. Notzon then moved that the minutes be approved as presented. Mr. Notzon’s motion was seconded by Mayor Gus Garcia and approved by unanimous vote.

IV. Amendments to Temporary Bylaws:

Mr. Notzon discussed the amendments made to the existing bylaws. He noted that a redlined version was prepared by Bill Bingham. Mr. Notzon then moved that the group approve the bylaws and amended/presented. Commissioner Gerald Daugherty seconded Mr. Notzon’s motion. Mr. Wells asked Mr. Bingham if he has any comments about the proposed changes before the Board voted.

Mr. Bingham stated that right now there are only two counties that are in the district and believed there may be times when the Board would like to meeting in San Marcos or New Braunfels. The amending of the bylaws would allow them to do this.

There being no further comments/concerns, Mr. Wells requested a vote on Mr. Notzon’s motion. The Board unanimously passed the motion to approve the Bylaws as amended.

V. Remarks by Peter Hackley, Project Manager, Commuter Rail Feasibility Study:

Mr. Wells turned over the meeting to Mr. Milloy for introduction of guest speakers.

Peter Hackley, of Carter-Burgess, presented the a power point presentation entitled, “Austin-San Antonio Regional Commuter Rail.” The presentation touched on the following items:

• the Feasibility Study performed in 1999 regarding the effectiveness of a commuter rail, as well as basic assumptions;
• system summary;
• what has changed;
• why commuter rail;
• next steps;
• Railroad agreements;
• Possible station locations;
• NEPA process;
• Ridership issues;
• Interagency agreements;
• Travel times;
• Right-of-Way issues;
• Legal Issues;
• Financial Plan; and
• Implementation plan.

At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Hackley asked the members for any questions.

Commissioner Daugherty inquired as regards to moving freight from San Antonio to Austin and how the freight would get to its actual point of destination. For example, train freight up to Austin, then truck to actual destination v. putting freight on a truck in San Antonio to Austin – Commissioner Daugherty said he was trying to figure out savings.

Mr. Hackley responded that he did not believe the group was talking about moving freight moving from San Antonio to Austin but rather moving freight from Mexico to Chicago. Mr. Hackley advised that his understanding is a high number of the trucks on the highway are moving from Mexico. Commissioner Daugherty then inquired as to the certainty of whether the particular 90-mile stretch in Central Texas is the necessary focus. Commissioner Daugherty then asked if there was any known opposition from Truckers/Teamsters.

Mr. Milloy advised that most shipping is not being done in Austin because there is no railhead. He added that from Mexico to Canada, most accidents and lowest level of service (a/k/a/ “the choking point”) is the San Antonio–Austin area. Mr. Milloy advised that trains are getting longer – at capacity – somewhere around 30 a day. He also stated that trucking is escalating in the United State by 2%: Texas 6%, and Corridor 10%.

Discussion continued regarding the freight shipping.

Dave Marsh inquired as to the whether Mr. Hackley had any idea of how many lanes of highway the cost associated with 130 miles of rail (i.e., $475,000,000) would be. Mr. Hackley advised that Carter-Burgess estimated $1.4 billion on SH130; from Austin to San Antonio and that the amount Mr. Marsh seeks would be much higher.

Carroll Schubert confirmed the speed of the commuter rail would depend on road grade, civil strengths (i.e. curves/turns, etc.). Mr. Hackley advised that trains will go as fast as you want them to.

Mr. Wells stated that his sense of the ridership numbers used in the study were not overly ambitious. He said that he would be interested in how Carter-Burgess came up with those numbers. Mr. Wells stated that he understands that the time the trip takes will affect how many people will utilize commuter rail. Mr. Hackley agreed that the ridership number used in the study is not necessarily representative. Mr. Hackley stated that Carter-Burgess performed the study based on the idea that the commute would be 1.5 hours of travel time. He stated that if you run express trains from downtown Austin to downtown San Antonio, those numbers would significantly increase.

Commissioner Daugherty inquired about the terminology “ridership.” He confirmed that the number being used, 8,000, was representative of how many traveled between each, not necessarily full-length riders. Commissioner Daugherty noted that he thinks it is very important to clarify what 8,000 ridership means. He said this number would lead one to think that there are 8,000 people riding the train (meaning 8,000 less in cars); however, it is a much different number - there will be 8,000 boarding (not people). Commissioner Daugherty also questioned the accuracy of the number of students that would be willing to pay $9.00 a day to commute.

A brief discussion ensued regarding numbers pertaining to ridership.

Mr. Padgett stated that he believed the project would be successful and the public would be happy with the possibilities of being able to access flights from Austin and/or San Antonio.

Mr. Notzon noted that TXDOT has got to be a key part of this project. He cited AMTRAK’s lack of success as a result of them not having a customer-friendly service. He stated that if you do not have a customer-friendly system, people will not utilize it.

Commissioner Daugherty stated that if you do not have a way to get from the train to your destination and/or are having to get on another form of transportation to get to their true destination, he does not believe people will not want to use that system.

Mr. Notzon advised that he was more likely to ride today than he was 2 years ago. He cited the attitudes he has witnessed in people that have to commute on IH-35 daily has changed – it used to be bad, but now has become almost impossible.

Discussion ensued regarding whether the majority of people leave an airport via public transit of some sort or by rental car (or other means).

Mayor Gus Garcia advised that some people are used to a certain system, for example, Washington, DC people do not know how to use mass transit. He stated that we are not used to it, but we need to get used to it because we cannot continue the slaughterhouse between Austin and San Antonio. He advised that we have a disaster already present, not waiting to happen. He added that he has other things to do, but he believes this is a important issue. He stated that our air quality and traffic accidents are killings us, not to mention spills, trailers, jackknifing and all sorts of things. He stated that he believes there is a better way to do this and that no “dumb bunny” is developing this project.

Commissioner Daugherty stated that he is participating in this project because he thinks there is a constructive way to do a number of these.

Mr. Hackley continued the discussion regarding how to make the last connection.

Mr. Schubert inquired as to the “8,000 ridership” number. Mr. Wells confirmed that Commissioner Daugherty has the issue correct - but the numbers are not in at this time and this was not a debate that would be resolved today. Mr. Wells then thanked Mr. Hackley for his presentation.

Mr. Wells announced a short recess. He stated that the meeting would reconvene shortly.

The Board took a brief break at 12:10 for lunch; reconvened at approximately 12:16 p.m.

VI. Remarks by Mario Medina, TXDOT Multimodal Division:

Mr. Wells introduced Mario Medina, TXDOT Multimodal Division. Mr. Wells advised that Mr. Medina was asked to walk the member through, financially, fiscal issues on this process through a Powerpoint presentation discussed/presented by Medina:

Mr. Medina presented a power point presentation entitled, “Austin-San Antonio Regional Commuter Rail Presentation.” The presentation touched on the following items:

• Discussion Issues;
• TXDOT’s role;
• Federal-Aid Funding;
• Project Management Options;
• TXDOT Contract Management;
• RCRD Project Management;
• RCRD Project Management;
• Local Funding Options;
• Tapered Match;
• Toll Credits;
• Advanced Funding Agreement; and
• Current Priorities.

Mr. Medina advised that based on what he has heard, he believes he needs to address 3 things:

• TXDOT’s role with board;
• Project management; and
• Funding – the necessary steps to utilize the available funds.

Mr. Medina added that TXDOT would like to have a chair at the negotiation table. The reason TXDOT cannot take the lead because of constitution (roadway projects and not rail).

Mr. Medina stated that Congressman Lamar Smith acquired funding of $5.6 million for TEA21 – construction of Austin-San Antonio corridor; 80% is federal; 20% is either State or local; looks like this will be local. Mr. Medina advised the Board that this funding is not a grant; the $5.6 million is not free – there is a reimbursement process involved. Mr. Medina advised that there are two ways to possibly manage the project:

• TXDOT can do it directly; initiate the studies and use those funds; or
• TXDOT can act as a pass-through for the Board to go ahead and direct the study; federal aid requirements;
• TXDOT would provide oversight; can submit fees for consultants studies and proceed with best qualified committee.

Mr. Medina added that the main points he wanted to stress were:

• Advertise the RFP;
• Select based on qualifications and competence (cost plus fixed fee);
• Negotiate the contract cost with the most qualified applicant; and
• Not award compensation based on a percentage of construction costs.

Mr. Medina then discussed local funding options:

TXDOT Funding Limitation:

• Tapered Match – deferring payments to a later date;
• Toll Credits – state may apply toll revenue used for capital expenditures to build or improve; and/or
• Use of advance funding agreement – if Board decides to manage itself.

Mr. Medina suggested the current priorities be:

• Decide what do you want to do? (i.e., TXDOT manage v. Board Manage)
• Decide the local match;
• Add studies to TIPs and STIP; and
• Obtain Commission approval, if necessary.

Mr. Medina then asked if any Board members had any questions.

Mr. Padgett inquired as to the 80/20 split Mr. Medina discussed. Mr. Harless inquired as to how quickly the match would have to be raised/pledged. Mr. Medina advised that the state would provide 80% and project would contribute 20%. He advised that he did not believe there was a certain time limit as long as the project knew it would get the money. He then suggested that the project proceed with the tapered match scenario.

Mr. Marsh inquired as to the possible use of non-dedicated revenue. Mr. Medina advised this would not be an option. Pursuant to Mr. Milloy’s request, Mr. Medina discussed why a SIB loan would not work on this project (i.e., commingling of funds).

Mr. Harless stated that he believed it was in the project’s best interest to fund quickly. Mr. Notzon confirmed that his understanding is the Board could get the commitment from the private sector now and use the tapered match approach. Mayor Garcia advised the Board that city councils might not obligate future councils.

A discussion ensued regarding how to use the toll credits option. Mr. Medina advised that applying is the first step (i.e., make a formal request). He also added that if the Board manages the project, it would be around summer before they could get started; however, if TXDOT manages it, they could feasibly start within two (2) weeks. Mr. Medina also stated that he believed the funds could not be used to actually hire staff and pay wages (establishing an infrastructure).

Mr. Notzon confirmed that TXDOT was offering to manage the project for a cost. Mr. Medina advised that TXDOT would not require a fee, as they would be using federal funds. He noted that the Board could play a big a part in the RFP process as desired, but TXDOT procedure would be followed (points system).

Mr. Milloy reiterated to the Board that there is an immense amount of work to be performed and TXDOT tends to be a slow organization.

Mr. Wells thanked Mr. Medina for his attendance/information. The board moved on to discussion of Board Vacancy.

VII. Discuss of Board Vacancy:

Bill Bingham advised that Travis and Bexar Counties are the only counties involved at present and the Board could not select someone along the Corridor from other counties until other counties were added. Mr. Wells advised that this particular matter could wait until further developments.

Mayor Garcia advised that waiting would be best.

No action was taken on this issue.

VIII. Legislative Report:

Mr. Milloy advised that Gonzalo Barrientos had drafted legislation; faster/cheaper; raise our priority level if legislation comes to fruition.

IX. Public Comments:

Mr. Wells inquired as to whether anyone had signed up to speak. No speakers.

Mr. Wells asked for other comments. One of the members requested that federal procurement procedures be added to the next agenda.

Mr. Wells and Mr. Milloy confirmed that the next meeting would take place on April 4, 2003, at a place to be determined.

Mr. Harless inquired as to what efforts were being made to bring other counties into the district, as well as whether or not there were any negative responses. Mr. Milloy advised that there had not been any negative responses, but he believed the members should get infrastructure and finances in order before approaching other counties. He also stated that he believed Williamson County and Hays County would join willingly.

Brief discussion ensued regarding joining additional counties.

X. Adjourn:

There being no further items of business brought before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Schubert. Commissioner Adkisson seconded Mr. Schubert’s motion. The motion was approved and Mr. Wells adjourned the meeting at approximately 1:06 p.m.

Board Meeting
Rules & Procedures Committee
March 7, 2003
10:15 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
8700 Tesoro Drive #700
San Antonio, Texas 78217

Notice was duly posted and a meeting of the Rules and Procedures Committee of the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District Board was held on March 7, 2003. The meeting was called to order at approximately 10:26 a.m. by Al Notzon.

I. Participants:

In attendance were:

• Sid Covington
• Al Notzon
• Gerald Daugherty
• Shelton Padgett
• Dave Marsh
• Tullos Wells

Gonzalo Barrientos and Sam Barshop were unable to attend.

Additional participants included Bill Bingham.

II. Items of Business:

A. Bylaws &

Mr. Notzon advised that proposed bylaws were previously distributed for members’ review. He then introduced Mr. Bingham to the group:

Mr. Bingham advised that the proposed changes that were made to the bylaws were categorized as follows:

• 1. Basic corrections;
• 2. Few additions.

Mr. Notzon asked for specific concerns/questions from the committee.

Dave Marsh discussed the idea of changing the name of the Board in an effort to reduce confusion. Mr. Marsh then moved to strike “commuter” from the title.

A discussion ensued regarding the proposed change/motion and various names/scenarios were discussed. Gerald Daugherty advised that he had a problem with the requested change and Mr. Marsh’s withdrew his motion.

Mr. Covington then made a motion to adopt bylaws as is, which was seconded by Mr. Daugherty.

The bylaws were approved as presented.

B. What the Charge to the Committee is going to be -

Mr. Notzon advised that the committee would seek input from the Board Chairman, Tullos Wells, for ideas of what was expected of the committee.

Mr. Wells advised that his sense of what was expected from the committee involved 2 component parts:

• 1. How to get up and running/operational, which is a broad portfolio; and
• 2. How to craft exactly how to become operational (i.e., best model going forward).

Mr. Notzon then asked the committee members for thoughts/comments.

A discussion ensued regarding the timeframe in which the group needs to act. Sid Covington advised that he believes the Board clearly needs to establish rules and regulations, consulting agreements, the securing of services and the developing of a strategic plan on how to proceed. Mr. Covington suggested looking at the next 6 to 12 months for a plan.

Mr. Marsh agreed with Mr. Covington and further added that the group should probably perform a little research in an effort not to reinvent the wheel (i.e., obtaining information on how other districts operate).

C. Other Items of Business -

Ross Milloy advised that his group would be available as their schedules permit. Mr. Milloy advised they would be busy over the next few months with various conferences. Mr. Wells expressed his appreciation and stated that Mr. Milloy and his team were doing a great job of taking care of the Board and “keeping all of the plates spinning.”

III. Meeting Adjourned:

No further business was brought before the Committee. Chairman Notzon adjourned the Rules and Regulations Committee at approximately 10:56 a.m.