Board Meeting
Friday, May 6, 2005
10:00 a.m.
AACOG Conference Room
8700 Tesoro
San Antonio, Texas 78217

1. Call to Order

   Chairman Covington thanked the Board and the audience for attending the May 6th, 2005 meeting of the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District Board meeting.

   Chairman Covington also welcomed and thanked Dennis Newjahr of PBS&J, who is the new Program Manager for this project, for attending the meeting.

   Notice was duly posted and a Board meeting of the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District board was held on Friday, May 6, 2005. Chairman Wells called the meeting to order at approximately 10:15 a.m.

   Participants:

   • Sid Covington, Chairman
   • Tommy Adkisson
   • Mariano Camarillo
   • Gerald Daugherty
   • Fred Harless
   • Dave Marsh
   • Al Notzon
   • Daryl Slusher
   • Tim Tuggey
   • Tullos Wells

   Other participants included Ross Milloy and Bill Bingham.

2. Chairman and Member Comments

   Chairman Covington reported that although the June meeting was supposed to be an Executive Committee meeting, he believes that in order to meet an August submittal for federal funding, the June meeting should be a full Board meeting.

   Tim Tuggey encouraged the Board to attend the upcoming in-depth orientation sessions with the VIA Board.

3. Consider approval of March 4th Board Meeting Minutes

   Upon motion by Fred Harless and second by Tullos Wells, the Board unanimously approved the March 4, 2005 meeting minutes.

4. Committee Reports

   1. Program Management Oversight Committee

      Mr. Camarillo reported that each member was provided a copy of the minutes for the most recent PMOC meeting. In summary, members from each committee discussed project alternatives, received presentations by Tom Shelton and James Bennett, made recommendations to move forward on New Starts application, discussed next steps at length, and reviewed the 2004 Feasibility Study Update.

   2. Public Information Committee

      Mr. Marsh reported the PI Committee met on May 4th and received report from staff and consultants on the public meetings conducted. The Committee discussed analyzing what had been done right and what we might learn from the process. The conclusion was the meetings were successful.

      Chairman Covington encouraged the Board to review the summary provided by Mr. Marsh and the PI Committee.

      Mr. Marsh presented “Public Information Program for Alternative Analysis: Final Draft PI Report” to the Board. The presentation included the following information:

      Nine public meetings in March 2005 -

      • 03/03 in Buda/Kyle – 15-20 attended;
      • 03/05 in Austin – 15-20 attended;
      • 03/07 in Georgetown – 20-25 attended;
      • 03/08 in Round Rock – 25-30 attended;
      • 03/10 in Austin – 70-75 attended;
      • 03/12 in San Antonio – 50-55 attended;
      • 03/21 in San Marcos – 50-55 attended;
      • 03/22 in New Braunfels - 45-50 attended; and
      • 03/24 in San Antonio – 70-75 attended.

      Public Comments: Common Themes

      • Over 3200 comments received;
      • Commuter rail a good option;
      • Proposed station locations make sense, but want more stations;
      • More frequent service encouraged, especially during peak hours;
      • Need easy connections to other modes at destinations; and
      • Security & Safety at stations.

      Speakers Bureau

      • Meeting notification and speakers bureau generated lots of interest

        • 7 radio interviews;
        • 4 TV interviews;
        • 25 newspaper interviews; and
        • 8 presentations/briefings to stakeholder groups.

      Requested Action

      • PI Committee requests that Board accept PI Report as one of several documents to be submitted to FTA as part of Rail District’s New Starts application.

5. Consider acceptance of report on public outreach effort and March 2005 public meetings:

   Mr. Marsh moved for acceptance of the PI Committee’s Involvement Report and Mr. Wells seconded the motion. After a brief discussion, the Board accepted the PI Committee’s Involvement Report.

6. Consider progress report on Alternative Analysis and FTA New Starts submittal:

   Tom Shelton presented “Austin-San Antonio Commuter Rail Project - Alternative Analysis Progress Report.”

   The presentation included information as follows:

   Agenda

   • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts Process
     • Three Tier Process
       • Complete the Alternative Analysis Process;
       • Complete PE ; and
       • Complete Final Design.
     • Resolution of Study Assumptions
     • Funding
       • Dedicated local source;
       • Capital costs – regardless of the amount;
       • Operating costs – regardless of the amount; and
       • UP relocation completed in 2010 – TxDOT Funded.
   • Discuss Alternatives to be evaluated
   • Project Schedule
   • Next Steps
     • With Confirmation of Items discussed
       • P&PE and PMT proceed with evaluating baseline and build alternative options;
       • Produce Financial Plan;
       • Estimate ridership potential for build alternatives;
       • Estimate cost effectiveness for LPA Alts.; and
       • Prepare for next board and committee meetings.

   Upon request by Chairman Covington, Dennis Newjahr augmented Mr. Shelton’s presentation by discussing with the Board the issue of Eastern/Western alignment in San Antonio. Mr. Newjahr stated that just because the decision was made in 2004 to move forward with the Western alignment, it does not mean the East Side is excluded from being part of the system. Ridership information would lead us to where stations would be located. Even if a location for a local preferred alternative is selected at this time, does not mean that we cannot add additional station locations in the future. The consultants will continue to look at the East side. There is a need to go back to the community and find out where they want the stations to be located. There also needs to be a bus-rail link. He stated that the East side alignment is not dead – we are still looking at it. This is just the beginning, not the end, and other adjustments will need to be made along the way. Things will change.

   A lengthy discussion of the Board ensued.

7. Consider approval of contract amendment to Planning and Preliminary Engineering contract:

   Alison Schulze discussed the parameters of the proposed amendment to the Planning and Preliminary Engineering contract. Ms. Schulze advised that the amendment would extend the economic forecast through 2030 (instead of 2015).

   Upon motion by Mr. Marsh for approval of the contract amendment to the Planning and Preliminary Engineering contract, and second by Mr. Wells, the Board unanimously approved the contract amendment to the Planning and Preliminary Engineering contract.

8. Consider acceptance of 2004 Feasibility Study Update:

   Dennis Newjahr presented to the board “Austin-San Antonio Commuter Rail Project 2004 Feasibility Report Update.” The presentation included the following information:

   Agenda

   • Purpose of Updating the Study
   • Foundation for alternatives analysis; and
   • Population changes:
     • 5 counties (Williamson, Travis, Hays, Comal and Bexar):
       • 2005 – 3.1 million;
       • 2030 – 5.2 million; and
       • 69% increase in the population.
   • Service Plan
     • Initial Service Plan
       • Capital costs - $394 million;
       • O&M costs - $28 million annually;
       • Service – 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.;
       • 60 minute headways – peak hours;
       • 90 minute headways – off peak periods; and
       • 6 train sets – one spare set.
     • Full Service Plan
       • Capital costs - $608 million;
       • Full double track and crossover track;
       • O&M costs - $41 million annually;
       • Service – 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.;
       • 30 minute headways – peak periods;
       • 45 minute headways – off peak periods; and
       • 11 train sets – one spare set.
     • Ridership
       • Using existing demographic data:
         • Optimistic outlook;
         • Population growth;
         • Transit Oriented Development;
         • Initial Service Plan – 1.4 – 5.0 million annually; and
         • Full Service Plan – 2.0 – 8.0 million annually.
     • Key Findings
     • Operational Overview
       • 110 Mile corridor;
       • 14 stations;
       • Maximum running speed
         • 79 MPH;
         • 45 MPH – city limits; and
         • Restricted speed zones.
       • Travel Time
         • 90 minutes – express service CBD to CBD with stops at San Marcos and New Braunfels;
         • 105 minutes – CBD to CBD;
         • 142 minutes – Georgetown – San Antonio; and
         • 193 Grade Crossings.
     • Third Party Review
       • Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) Review; and
       • Outcome.

   Upon completion of Mr. Newjahr’s presentation, a lengthy discussion by the Board ensued.

   Upon motion by Mr. Slusher for acceptance of the 2004 Feasibility Study Update, and second by Mr. Marsh, the Board approved the motion for acceptance of the 2004 Feasibility Study Update with Mr. Daugherty and Mr. Notzon voting against the motion.

9. Report on Status of Appointments to the Board and Administration of Oath of Office to Any Newly Appointed Board Members:

   Bill Bingham advised that the following appointments to the Board had been received, to date:

   Austin City Council re-appointed Sid Covington and Daryl Slusher. Mr. Bingham reminded the Board that all members continue to serve until they are replaced by their respective parties.

10. Legislative Update

    Mr. Milloy reported that the Bill concerning the amendment/extension of the ASAICRD Board terms was supposed to be heard today, but due to the death of a Member of the House, it was postponed. Mr. Milloy will report back to the Board once the Bill has been heard.

    Mr. Milloy reported on federal legislation. As the Senate considers funding and amendments during the week of May 9, it is imperative that the bill be passed quickly by the Senate since the current TEA 21 extension – the sixth! – expires May 31. After the Senate passes its bill, a conference committee must work out the many difference between House and Senate reauthorization bills.

11. Financial Report

    Mr. Milloy provided the Board with documents concerning the following financial information:

    • “2005 First Quarter Statement of Income and Billable Expenses”;
    • “2004-2005 Fiscal Year Budget: October 2004 through September 2005″; and
    • “Reconciliation Detail: Checking Account, Period Ending 04/30/2005.”

12. Other Business

    At the suggestion of the Staff, Mr. Milloy attended a meeting with the FTA to review the new requirements they were developing at the time regarding New Starts. Mr. Milloy reported that the August 15, 2005 deadline is important. Mr. Milloy also stated that the process was very arduous (i.e., an example of a 40 year process time for another program). Mr. Milloy came away with more of a focus to find local funds.

    Chairman Covington reported that he is going to try to sit down with Mr. Bingham to go over the rules and make sure we don’t fall into any traps with committee assignments we have experienced in the past.

    Chairman Covington also wants to have a workshop for the Board and Staff prior to the summer, if possible. He also will discuss renewal of Corridor Council contract (September) and renewal of the PMT contract (December).

13. Public Comment

    There were no comments from the public.

14. Adjourn

    There being no further items of business brought before the Board, Chairman Covington adjourned the meeting at 12:19.