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.