Board Meeting
March 5, 2004
11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
San Marcos Activity Center
501 E. Hopkins
San Marcos, Texas 78666

I. Chairman And Member Comments:

Chairman Wells opened the meeting by stating that while en route to the meeting he was reminded that the Board is not only involved in the railroad business, potentially, but also the transportation business, economic development business, environmental business and most certainly in the public safety business.

Chairman Wells reminded the Board that it was just over a year ago that the Board was formed and met for the first time. Wells thanked Dave Marsh and the Public Information Committee for doing an excellent job at letting the public know what the Board is doing. Wells advised that he is proud of and thankful for all Board members, staff, contractors and those who have coached from the sidelines to get the Board where they are today.

Chairman Wells also thanked Mayor Todd, Grant Keever, from Senator Barrientos’ Office, and Joe Morris, from Senator Wentworth’s Office, for attending the meeting.

II. Call to Order:

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

Participants:

• Mariano Camarillo
• Sid Covington
• Gerald Daugherty
• Fred Harless
• Dave Marsh
• Al Notzon
• Carroll Schubert
• Daryl Slusher
• Tullos Wells
• Senator Jeff Wentworth

Tommy Adkisson, Senator Barrientos, Sam Barshop, and Shelton Padgett were unable to attend. Other participants included Ross Milloy and Bill Bingham.

III. Approval of Minutes of February 13th Meeting:

Dave Marsh and Fred Harless moved and seconded approval of minutes for the February 13, 2004 meeting. The minutes were unanimously approved.

IV. Committee Procedures and Reports:

A. Freight Rail Relations (FRR):

Sid Covington advised that the FRR Committee has not met since the last board meeting, but they have initiated putting in place a State of Texas Task Force to begin negotiations with Union Pacific, comprised of a representative for the Governor’s Office, Chairman Wells representing the Rail District, and Chairman Mike Krusee representing the House Transportation Committee. This Task Force has had an initial meeting and another meeting is planned shortly to begin discussions with Union Pacific. Additionally, Covington stated that as part of the on-going discussions with Union Pacific that have been on-going for a number of years, there has been a fairly recent response to some of the earlier questions - which was basically positive feedback. TxDOT is currently reviewing the recent responses and, so far, there are no red flags and the process is moving forward. Covington added that he hopes to have more indication of where the process is going by this time next month.

B. Program Management Oversight Committee (PMO):

Mr. Camarillo advised that the PMO Committee has not met since the last board meeting but is scheduled to meet today upon adjournment of the board meeting. Camarillo stated that the PMO Committee would review the work authorizations that are currently pending, as well as the RFQ that has been prepared and provide questions, comments and directives to PBS&J as a result of the review of the proposed RFQ. Camarillo also stated that the PMO Committee will have a general discussion to look at resources and the allocation of resources as the Board begins to bring on more consultants, as well as how to address the on-going activities that the committee will oversee going forward.

C. Public Information Committee (PI):

Dave Marsh advised that the PI Committee has met twice since the last board meeting. Marsh stated that the PI Committee was joined by Al Notzon, Covington and others to help with a design development meeting with the consultant engaged to design a logo. After giving the consultant her charge, the committee met again on February 24th and reviewed proposed logos. The committee also reviewed, in particular the text of the proposed annual report, which is included in each of the member’s packets. Marsh stated that the proposed report has been initially edited to incorporate Councilman Slusher’s comments, but the Committee may still work on the brevity of the documents. Marsh hopes to get the document ready in time for the next meeting.

Marsh communicated to the Board that the PI Committee chose a logo and with that being done, can now move forward to get the annual report document done and the website updated with necessary information. The Board then reviewed the logo that was chosen by the committee. Marsh said the design concepts should be attributed to Notzon, who during the PI Committee meeting, drew out the Alamo and the Capitol for the design consultant.

Chairman Wells stated that he was proud of the logo and thanked Marsh and his committee for their hard work.

V. Discuss Draft RFQ on Alternative Analysis/Environmental Clearance, possible action:

Bill Bingham advised the Board that they have a draft RFQ – which is in response to discussions by various committees – to begin looking at the preliminary engineering and planning process for the commuter rail project. Bingham stated that the process would be as follows:

• once approved by the Board, the RFQ would be published to interested parties;
• interested parties to submit qualifications;
• submissions to be reviewed by committee or committees of the Board and eventually presented to the Board for discussion and action.

Bingham suggested that Board begin this process so that the Board is ready to start discussion of the movement of rail lines, andto respond with information to support congressional or state appropriations. Bingham added that the contract itself would have a provision to allow the District to cancel it in the event the work being done turns out unnecessary (i.e., a thirty day notice provision). Bingham also stated that in the initial contract entered into with the current consultant, there is a provision that prohibits the prime contractor from bidding on this particular work. Bingham noted state and federal procurement laws may also have some impact on disqualifications of firms. Bingham advised that the Board may send the RFQ to a committee for further discussion and let that committee approve and issue it, or may have it come back to the Board for approval and issuance..

Chairman Wells advised the Board that Committee’s recommendation is for the Board to approve the RFQ today. Marsh and Covington moved and seconded approval of the proposed RFQ.

A brief discussion ensued regarding environmental clearance and concerns about whether the process should be carried forward prior to the Board establishing Union Pacific’s position.

Chairman Wells proposed the creation of a committee, and asked for volunteers to comprise such committee, to review RFQ responses and give an evaluation/summary to the Board. Covington and Notzon volunteered to sit on the committee. Covington inquired about including TxDOT and PBS&J on the committee, whether it be in a voting capacity or for technical support. Milloy stated that Staff suggestion would be to include TxDOT and extend an invitation to FHWA (funding partner) and FTA (probable overseer at the federal level) to serve on the committee.

Marsh inquired about the length of time involved in the process. Milloy, stated that he would like to see the length of time reduced so that the whole period of contract negotiations is moved closer to a June date. Milloy requested that an agreement be concluded as quickly as possible after June 9th. Bingham suggested adding language that provides the Board the right to accelerate or change schedule and also make clear that the Board may also call a halt to the process or positions of the contract if awarded.

Milloy pointed out that one portion of the work is the alternatives analysis – that was something the FTA raised questions about regarding the original feasibility study. Milloy advised that this is part of the federal process that we have to go through.

In response to Carroll Schubert’s inquiry regarding whether or not there would be a matrix of some sort so that the Board will know about issues, as well as estimated costs associated with them, Milloy stated the work plan adopted lays out how “we plan to get there.” Milloy advised that there are some hoops that we have to get to with the various administrative and local, state and federal governments, for example, the MPO process, TIP at the state, certain portions of the study done before you can move on to the next step. Milloy added that in the federal process, for instance, you have to get preliminary engineering done before you can proceed to design. Milloy stated that there are many steps like that along the way.

The Board discussed various aspects of the RFQ in further detail, including the selection and procurement process prior to unanimously approving the RFQ as amended.

VI. Project Work Plan Discussion (Work Order No. 4), possible action:

Chairman Wells asked Steve Lowry to discus the Project Work Plan. Milloy advised the Board that this is part of the process in the documentation and development of a plan in order to satisfy FTA requirements. Milloy added that the Project Work Plan is a document that will change over time, but tries to outline the tasks ahead. The Board received the proposed plan on February 13, 2004, comments have been submitted and incorporated.

Lowry advised that the information before the Board does incorporate comments to the proposed work plan through March 4th. Lowry suggested that if there are any additional comments from the Board, they could be discussed before accepting. Lowry stated that it would not be uncommon to have changes made going forward.

Lowry introduced Pete Hackley, who discussed the elements of the Program Management Plan chapter of the Project Work Plan, as well as the proposed template for a progress report that he asked the Board to review and provide comments in the next few weeks.

The proposed Austin-San Antonio Commuter Rail Program: Program Management Team Activity Report includes:

• Section I – Progress Summary;
• Section II – Activities of Program Management Consultant;
• Section III – Other Activities; and
• Section IV – Issues and Concerns.

The Board briefly discussed the proposed report.

Chairman Wells inquired as to whether the report would include the financial commitments and funds expended/funds committed. Hackley stated that financial information is something that could be added to the report. Lowry stated that the report was to identify activities, which would be accompanied, at some point in the future, by a financial report.

Notzon suggested that if there is a concern that needs to be raised as a caution, it be included under Section III: “Other Activities.”

When asked by Schubert about the distribution of the proposed report, Lowry suggested:

• distribution to Executive Director;
• distribution to the Board for review; and
• once formalized, published for public review

Milloy asked whether there would be any warning systems in place that will give the Board sufficient notice that an upcoming work authorization should be approved in order to continue satisfactory progress. Milloy asked that PBS&J make certain that they have a prior notice system so that the Board and he are alerted to any deadlines that must be met at the State and Federal level.

Milloy noted that the Board will be spending a large amount of money concerning environmental issues during this process, as much as 20% or 30%. Milloy stated that during that process, there will be an opportunity for public interaction. Lowry advised that the public involvement portion is federally mandated and will be corridor-wide and will follow a very prescribed processes that have been established at the federal and state level.

Finally, Milloy inquired concerning the timeline of the feasibility and ridership update. Milloy stated that there is about a month-long period for submitting a draft to the District and review and comments by the District is about 60 days, he would request that the process be reduced to do a concurrent process to bring the board in and review all at once so that a final can be accomplished before October, which would be prior to the conventional recess. Milloy stated that timing-wise, in terms of federal applications, it would be better to shorten this process.

Covington motioned and Councilman Slusher seconded approval of Work Authorization No. 4. The motion was unanimously approved.

Lowry introduced Dennis Newjar, who has been identified in the RFQ as the contract manager. Lowry stated that Newjar will play an important role as the proposals are processed and the statements of qualification are submitted.

VII. Austin-San Antonio Chamber Trips to D.C.:

Milloy stated that the San Antonio Chamber has a delegation going to Washington on March 7th through the 10th and the Austin Chamber has a delegation going from March 27th through March 30th. The Corridor Council prepared a document for both groups concerning support for commuter rail, which is included in each member’s packet. Milloy hopes to obtain some congressional earmarks in the successor legislation to TEA 21 and is targeting about $5,000,000 in 2005 appropriations. The State Highway 130, Segments 5 and 6 are included in the packets, as well, because that is one potential route for the relocation of Union Pacific down to San Antonio and that is something the Corridor Council hopes the Chambers will pursue.

Finally, Milloy mentioned that there will be a Joint MPO meeting wherein the Corridor Council hopes to lay out what the Commuter Rail District has accomplished today, as well as what the relationship with Union Pacific is at that point. The staff of the MPOs have indicated a target date of Wednesday, April 21st, about 6:00/6:30 p.m. in San Marcos. Milloy hopes to be able to provide an update concerning where the Board is going and what they expect to accomplish.

Chairman Wells stated that his understanding is that Milloy is going on both trips, Councilman Schubert is going on the San Antonio trip; and Wells and Councilman Slusher are going on the Austin trip. Chairman Wells encouraged members to go if they so wish.

VIII. Financial Report:

Milloy confirmed receipt of VIA’s check. Milloy stated that all checks have been received for the Rail District’s operations for the first year, with the exception of the City of Austin. Milloy stated that the City of Austin has cut their check, it just has not been received. Milloy stated that there was an update of the current financial status in each Member’s packet.

Chairman Wells thanked Capital Metro for taking the lead and providing support when it was needed early on, as well as every entity providing support thereafter.

IX. Other Business:

Milloy briefly discussed the editorials included in each Member’s packet concerning various aspects of rail and roadway developments in Texas.

X. Public Comment:

Laurie Anderson, Director of Engineering for the City of San Marcos; introduced herself and stated:

• They are very appreciative that the Board chose to meet in San Marcos;
• They would like to be more involved in the process;
• There are currently 33 at-grade crossings in San Marcos, and not a single overpass or underpass in the community;
• They are just completing the Transportation Master plan, wherein they have had over 20 public meetings and one of the things just about every citizen in San Marcos will tell you is “please, please, please help us do something about the railroad in our community”;
• The Railroad bisects the community: approximately 2/3 of the community lives on the west side of the tracks, while the hospital facilities are located on the east side of the tracks;
• Union Pacific creates a tremendous problem to the City;
• Ms. Anderson advised that they would love to be a resource to the Board – they are a center point in the Corridor and have a large university that impacts San Marcos greatly with transportation as 1/3 of the 26,000 students are commuters from Austin and San Antonio;
• They have a large interest in commuter rail and how that might serve San Marcos and requested that the Board please keep us involved.

Chairman Wells thanked Ms. Anderson for addressing the Board.

XI. Adjourn

Chairman Wells thanked the Members and the audience for their attendance and participation.

There being no further items of business brought before the Board, Chairman Wells adjourned the meeting at 12:18 P.M.