Board Meeting
November 5, 2004
11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
AACOG Offices Board Room
8700 Tesoro

San Antonio, Texas

I. Chairman and Member Comments:

Chairman Wells thanked the members and the audience for attending.

Chairman Wells commented on the recent elections involving transportation options in Austin and San Antonio, specifically mentioning Capital Metro’s referendum and the passage of the Advanced Transportation District in San Antonio. Chairman Wells stated that this has been a very active time for this Board and there had been significant energy expended on Rail District matters, especially by Sid Covington. He thanked Mr. Covington for being so involved and devoted, particularly during this past month.

Chairman Wells also thanked VIA and Capital Metro for the financial support they contributed to the District for the 2005 fiscal year.

II. Call to Order:

Notice was duly posted and a meeting of the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District Board was held on November 5, 2004. Chairman Wells called the meeting to order at approximately 11:12 a.m.

Participants:

• Tullos Wells (Chair)
• Gerald Daugherty
• Al Notzon
• Tommy Adkisson
• Fred Harless
• Carroll Schubert
• Mariano Camarillo
• Dave Marsh
• Daryl Slusher
• Sid Covington

Gonzalo Barrientos, Sam Barshop, Tim Tuggey and Jeff Wentworth were unable to attend. Other participants included Ross Milloy and Bill Bingham. Joe Morris attended in Senator Wentworth’s absence. Todd Hemingson attended in Tim Tuggey’s absence.

III. Approval of Minutes of October 1st Meeting:

The Members, upon a motion by Mr. Covington and second by Mr. Harless, unanimously approved the October 1, 2004 meeting minutes.

IV. Committee Reports:

A. Freight Rail Relations Committee (FRRC):

Sid Covington stated this committee held no meetings since the last Board meeting. Chairman Wells said he believes things are going well with TxDOT’s discussions with the Union Pacific Railroad.

B. Rules & Procedures Committee:

Al Notzon stated the Rules & Procedures Committee had met today, and referred to amendments to Section 3, Article 6550c-1, Transportation Code, Revised Statutes in Board packet. He stated that two recommendations were presented for 3-year or 2-year terms for Boardmembers, and that an Executive Committee be formed with an effort to balance representation for both the Northern and Southern sections of the region.

C. Program Management Oversight Committee (PMOC):

Mariano Camarillo stated that the PMOC met October 27th and again this morning at 9:00, a quorum was present (Camarillo, Wells, Covington and Notzon.) Mr. Camarillo stated that the PMOC discussion consisted of the P&PE Consulting Services Agreement along with the recommendation to accept the resignation of Carter & Burgess from the Program Management Team. A brief discussion ensued.

Mr. Camarillo then moved that the Board provide authorization to the PMOC to approve Work Authorization No. P&PE-1 – Planning and Preliminary Engineering Services: Phase 1 (the Carter Burgess contract) and that the amount of the first work authorization be capped at $50,000.00, pending completion of the contract. Mr. Harless seconded the motion. The Board unanimously approved the motion.

D. Public Information Committee (PIC):

Dave Marsh reported that the PIC met this morning at 8:30 and a quorum was present (Marsh, Covington, Schubert, and Wells). Mr. Marsh stated that the PI discussion focused on a work authorization for public involvement processes for the P&PE Contract. He thanked the committee members for their efforts in developing the Public Involvement work authorization. Steve Lowry introduced Heather McKissick, who will be joining the PMT Team as the Public Involvement Planner and Facilitator. Mr. Marsh also thanked the entire committee along with Al Notzon’s and Sid Covington’s help.

V. Presentation by Gene Skoropowski, Capitol Corridor Joint Powers:

Chairman Wells introduced Mr. Gene Skoropowski of the Capital Corridor Joint Powers. Mr. Skoropowski then gave his presentation entitled San Antonio Presentation 11-05-04, describing the activities of the Capital Corridor commuter rail service stretching 170 miles between San Jose and Auburn serving 16 stations in eight northern California counties. In his presentation, Mr. Skoropowski shared diagramed information on rider profiles. This rail line project is used by work or business (58%), leisure (31%), schools (5%), personal (4%), other (2%).

For the year 2003, the service level consists of 24 daily trains with ridership of 1,139,000 people. The 2003 Revenue totaled $12.8M. Following Mr. Skoropowski’s presentation, Daryl Slusher asked if their trains were all on existing tracks. Mr. Skoropowski confirmed that they are currently using existing tracks. He went on to recommend that if only a single track is currently available, then this Board might consider a double track. Councilmember Slusher asked for public reaction to traffic delays due to commuter rail. Mr. Skoropowski explained that in their project the gates are not down too long.

He also added that their average trip is over 70 miles and that this project is classified as ‘intercity’. He shared that the national average on a commuter rail trip is 22 miles. Councilmember Slusher asked about fare box recovery rates and Mr. Skoropowski said that their Cost to Revenue ratio is up to 40% now, and indicated that their goal was to achieve a fare box recovery rate of 50%.

Fred Harless asked about the Capital Corridor Joint Powers’ use of marketing and advertising on their trains. Mr. Skoropowski stated they did not currently utilize marketing or advertising on their trains, but are seeking select locations on board each train for select advertising. He insisted that the CCJP project does not intend to litter their trains up with advertising. Mr. Marsh asked for fare cost per mile. Mr. Skoropowski stated a one-way ticket which entails a 90 mile trip is $18.00. Mr. Skoropowski added that a ten-ride ticket brings it down to $8.00 per one-way trip and that the purchase of an unlimited monthly pass will average about $5-6 per trip.

He explained that it is scaled up for the longer distance trip. He added that the distance is based on niche market for short riders. Councilmember Schubert asked how riders in smaller cities and the metropolitan areas get to the station. Mr. Skoropowski explained that the lowest access by auto in the country was at 38%. He added that his project sees about 30% arrive on busses and that four dedicated bus routes are in operation as an extension to the railroad to take commuters to locations in which the tracks do not go. Chairman Wells thanked him for his presentation.

VI. Approve planning and preliminary engineering contract and Work Authorization No. 1:

Mr. Camarillo stated the PMO has met frequently regarding the P&PE contract. Mr. Covington presented the process relating to this contract. Mr. Camarillo stated the PMO recommends that the Board consider approval of the contract and WA#1 and approve a Notice to Proceed resolution. He then welcomed discussion and offered to answer any questions. Chairman Wells supported the PMOs efforts made, emphasizing key points including the fee cap. He also stated that all the elements of this contract are needed.

Mr. Notzon said the motion is the approval of the umbrella contract, WA#1, Notice to Proceed and cap amount is $1.2M. Commissioner Daugherty asked if it is wise to spend $1.2M prior to confirmation that UP is in agreement for allowing the use of their existing lines. He expressed serious concern about being willing to continue to spend these funds and made a point to commend Carter Burgess on the work they have invested in this project thus far. Chairman Wells responded that Commissioner Daugherty is a valuable part of this organization because he asks valid questions. He stated the reason to recommend spending this money is based on the need to ascertain the feasibility of operating commuter rail in the Austin-San Antonio Corridor.

He explained that this is preliminary engineering, and it needs to be done before going to UP to show them what the plan is. He referred to this situation as the ‘chicken and egg’. Mr. Wells said he believes it would be imprudent of this Board not to spend the money to keep this option alive. Mr. Covington concurred and stated he has been in previous meetings with UP and they have not said ‘no’, which is optimistic at this early stage. Mr. Covington added that all indications are that there will be a favorable response from UP and that he hoped the cost of their relocation becomes a state cost, not a District cost. He went on to comment that from dealing with FTA, using the UP line and relocating the freight off that line, this makes the best sense intuitively, but all alternatives must be reviewed before any final decision is made.

He referred to the 1999 study as a reference point and emphasized that there is a deadline of August 2005 for a Federal funding application and that if the work is not done in time, the District must wait another full year. He advised that it would not be prudent to have that delay and that he would like to have the facts that will come out of this work to take to the public. Mr. Covington stated that it is a lot of money, but necessary for really good answers. Mr. Harless added the purpose of the grant is to do just what is being done. He stated that the purpose of the Rail District was to analyze whether commuter rail was feasible and that’s what the District was given the authority and the funding to do.

Mr. Harless concurred with Commissioner Daugherty that it is a lot of money that requires constant monitoring and that this Board must continue to spend it properly. Bingham added that the P&PE contract has been seen and reviewed by TxDOT and that it is under final review, which will take a short period of time.

Mr. Marsh mentioned that the Board has been working on this project for seven months and all Board members have spent a lot of time getting to this point. He stated that everyone lives and works in this Corridor and has an interest in finding transportation solutions and that this Board is exercising due diligence in how these funds are spent. The resolution is passed with all members present voting for it with the exception of Daugherty who voted against.

VII. Discuss contract fee cap for Program Mgmt Team relative to future assignments:

Mr. Bingham referred to documents in the Board briefing packets regarding the contract fee cap for the Program Management Team. He said that the staff felt that there was a need to authorize additional work to be performed by the PMT that would lead to an increase in the cap (currently set at $1.3 million). Mr. Milloy said the staff had met with TxDOT and they had given their approval. Chairman Wells said that Mario Medina and Wilda Won of TxDOT have been helpful allies and that he appreciated the energy they have put into Rail District projects.

VIII. Discuss with possible action, Work Authorization for Public involvement component of Alternatives Analysis (WA#9):

Mr. Marsh explained that the PI Committee has been working on the Public Involvement component for the upcoming Alternatives Analysis study. He said that the committee reduced the original scope of work by 62%. Mr. Marsh complimented the PMO committee’s work on the authorization. A brief discussion ensued. A motion to approve the work authorization, subject to the Board approving an increase in the cap on the Project Manager’s Contract, was made by Mr. Camarillo. The WA#9 passed unanimously. Mr. Marsh mentioned that the Board and staff should organize documentation of all public involvement activities related to the project. Mr. Wells expressed appreciation to Mr. Covington for his relentless determination in getting information out to the general public about this project.

IX. Consideration and adoption of bylaws amendment regarding Executive Committee:

Mr. Notzon referred to the memo from Mr. Bingham concerning the bylaws amendment regarding the Executive Committee, which was provided in the Board packet. He explained that the committee met this morning and discussed the amendment to legislation. Mr. Notzon stated that the Rules & Procedures Committee recommends the changes and move to approve the changes of bylaw amendment regarding the Executive Committee effective immediately. Chairman Wells stated that any suggestions should go to Mr. Covington, who will shepherd this Executive Committee. Motion was made by Mr. Notzon and seconded by Mr. Covington. It unanimously passed

X. Resolution to set Board meetings every other month with Executive Committee meeting alternative months:

Mr. Notzon referred to the tentative schedule prepared for Executive Committee and Board meetings for 2005. He said that the schedule offered is to be used as a base schedule and that other meetings may be scheduled or rescheduled as is necessary. Mr. Notzon added that the decision by the Rules & Procedures Committee was to recommend informal meetings of the Executive Committee and embrace the schedule provided, using this as a method of procedures and that the schedule will be provided at the December meeting. Chairman Wells stated this schedule will be addressed at the next Board meeting.

XI.-XII. Instruct the Executive Director to notify appointing authorities that Board appointments end in February 2005 and recommended legislative action:

Chairman Wells instructed staff to notify the appointing authorities by mail with information regarding Board appointments which end in February 2005. Mr. Milloy agreed to oversee this task.

Mr. Notzon explained that the next item is recommending legislation regarding Board Terms and video-conferencing. He presented the two proposals made in Committee earlier, for a 2-year term and a 3-year term for each Board member. He added that the Rules & Procedures committee moves adoption as policy to move forward with the 3-year terms with the ability to meet at more than one location via video-conferencing, which should go into the spirit of the Open Meetings Act law, and not just the letter of the law, by providing more convenience and opportunity to the public to participate in these meetings by offering more than one location to convene in. Chairman Wells deferred to Mr. Bingham who said both would be submitted to Senate and they would put it in proper form. He also stated that this starts the process in stating the Board is interested in moving this forward. Mr. Covington commented that there were 2 board term alternatives presented; a 2-year term and a 3-year term. He stated that the decision of the Rules & Procedures committee was to go with 3-year terms. Mr. Harless asks how it would work for those who go off their original board. Mr. Bingham explained that currently, the creating statute states when an appointment is made, the member of the Rail Board is on this Board for two years. He stated that each Board member could continue to remain on this board, but the main appointing entity board (i.e., CapMetro) could ask for that appointee’s resignation or allow them to remain on the Rail Board. He added that the position belongs to the appointed authority moreso than the individual.

After a brief discussion, the motion was made by Mr. Notzon to approve the proposed legislation and it was unanimously approved by the Board. Chairman Wells stated he was very pleased with the Board’s activity.

XI. Other Business:

Chairman Wells deferred to Mr. Covington on the discussion of the P&PE Contract and the issue of Carter-Burgess being a part of the PMT contract originally and that they have formally withdrawn from the PBS&J team in order to accept the award of the P&PE contract. No other business came before the Board.

XII. Financial Report:

Mr. Milloy provided the Board with the Reconciliation Detail – Checking Account, Period Ending 10/31/2004 for review and reference.

XIII. Public Comment:

Clif Davis representing Carter-Burgess thanked the Board and staff for the opportunity to serve with the PMT and to move forward with the project and thanked them for the vote of faith in their organization. Mr. Wells expressed appreciation on Carter-Burgess’ participation.

XIV. Adjourn:

There being no further items of business brought before the Board, Chairman Wells adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m.