HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 12.13.2011 CC-WThe City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor
George Garver presiding.
Council Present: Council Absent:
Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Tommy Gonzalez, Bill Sattler, Pat Berryman
Troy Hellmann, Rachael Jonrowe
Staff Present,
Paul E Brandenburg, City Manager; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Bridget Chapman, Acting City
Attorney; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Ed Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director; Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager
Minutes
A Update and discussion related to the Lone Star Rail District programs and activities -- Patty Eason,
Councilmember District 1 and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
Sattler, Berryman absent.
Polasek introduced Joe Black, Sid Covington and Allison Schultz of the Rail District. He said they will be giving
an update on the Rail District and their plans for the future. With a Powerpoint Presentation, Black spoke about
the challenges in the region including public safety issues, reduced mobility, NAFTA traffic, economic
development, lack of transportation choices, decreasing reliability and air quality and he continued to speak
about these issues. He spoke about how 1-35 is pretty constricted in terms of space and added there is not
enough room for the City to build more lanes. He said one of the ways the traffic issues along 1-35 can be
addressed is with passenger rail. He spoke about the objectives of the district. He said it was created by the
legislature and is a political subdivision of the state. He said they have a lot of things they are expected to do by
the legislation. He spoke about why regional rail will be good for Georgetown. He said it was recommended in
Georgetown by the My35 team for near term implementation. He described the makeup of the My35 team. He
said the main traffic problem is a deficiency of capacity. He said they are looking for congestion proof methods
to provide new capacity using mostly existing rights of way. He said the rail will be able to transport over 5,000
passengers per hour, or 5,000 cars per hour being taken off of the road. He said the rail will be able to expand
easily by adding a rail car, train or crew member. He added putting additional capacity to a highway is more
expensive than expanding upon a rail district. He spoke about the jurisdictions and service area of the proposed
rail. He listed the cities involved including Georgetown, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels, Schertz and San
Antonio. He said they are finely grained and have 20 members on their Board and he described the
representation on the Board.
Black spoke about the financial and economic benefits of LSTAR through the year 2030. He said, even if you
take half of the estimated dollars, rail is still a huge benefit to the community. He described some of the basic
facts about the LSTAR proposed service. He said it is important to note there are institutions of higher learning
within two to five miles of the Lone Star rail line. He said the potential travel market from those institutions alone
is about 300,000 if 10% is convinced to use the rail on a daily basis. He said there is about 117 miles of
passenger rail in the plan. He said there will be up to 16 stations at full service and about 20 to 30 trains per
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 1 of 3 Pages
day. He noted the trains will run seven days a week. He spoke about how people will use the train not only for
work, but for entertainment. He said the train would have an express train service of 75 minutes or less from
Austin downtown to San Antonio downtown. He said this would beat the private auto trip times. He said there
will also be wife on board. He said the rail will be primarily routed in the existing rail right-of-way. He described
the areas where there will be green field alignments. He spoke about how the rail will run along an "education
corridor." He said Austin Community College is planning their new campuses near the proposed rail lines. He
said they need to create capacity along the Union Pacific railroad. He spoke about the many ways they will be
doing this and the agreements they have with the Union Pacific railroad. He spoke about how 20 to 30 freight
trains will need to be re-routed. There was much discussion regarding the movement of rail lines and the
agreement with Union Pacific. He said the urban freight rail bypass in itself is a huge mobility improvement
through the area. He said some of the benefits of the urban freight rail bypass include enhancement of regional
mobility, increased public safety and enhanced freight mobility. He spoke about what has happened so far in
terms of fundraising and said they have raised $7.7 million in federal funding, $8.7 million state appropriation,
$50 million in Texas Rail Relocation Fund, and secured $20 million SA -BC MPO and $20 million in CAMPO
funds. He said they completed the initial feasibility, initial ridership study, preliminary revenue/cost studies and
financial benefits and economic impact studies. He said they evaluated and rejected the FTA new starts process
because the Lone Star line does not fit the traditional definition of commuter rail. He spoke about how Lone Star
differs. He described their local funding concepts for ongoing operations. He spoke about what else they are
working on right now including the environmental and engineering studies to clear the passenger route, station
location studies, updating the financing plan and business plan, updating ridership studies, working on urban
bypass rail studies and conducting local funding discussions with local partners.
Black said they are always asked what happens next. He said he does not know due to federal scheduling. He
said there are many twists and turns to the federal process and noted they are busy navigating them now. He
said they know the process and are proceeding methodically. He said the engineering and environmental
studies are expected to take 3 or more years. He said, after the federal approval, they are expected to move to
final design and construction which is expected to take 2 to 3 years. He said 5 to 7 years would be a realistic
time frame for this. He said they are soliciting interest from potential private sector partners and he described
these efforts. He said they are also working on federal funding requests as well. He noted they need to
establish local funding mechanisms. He spoke about the local funding and operations and maintenance costs.
He said the annual operations and maintenance costs will be spread between three functional areas. He said
1/3 will go to San Antonio/Bexar County region, the next 1/3 will go to AustinfTravis County region and the last
1/3 to smaller cities and their counties at approximately $10 million for initial service and $14 million for the final
service.. He said local O&M funding and the support at the local level is needed to apply for federal grants and
to solicit public-private financing options. He spoke about the capital costs and noted these are numbers they
have not yet updated. He said they are still working on the capital costs and added these are 2006 numbers.
He said the capital cost for regional passenger rail is about $394 million for the initial service increasing to $613
million at full service. He said the capital cost for the entire Union Pacific freight service urban bypass is $1.7
billion. He said Lone Star does not expect to cover that cost. He said all of the capital expenses will be covered
over time through a combination of UP cost-sharing, public-private partnerships, federal grants and loans (FRA,
FHWA) and state rail relocation funds. He spoke about ProjectCONNECT and how it is made up of City of
Austin, Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail District and others to coordinate regional rail network development in
Austin and to anchor the urban core. He said the practical goal for this is to create and operate a seamless high
capacity transportation system for Central Texas. Some of the efforts include fare coordination, schedule
coordination, transfer facilities, common marketing/system image, shared customer service and levering
technology to have an intelligent transportation system. He showed the City Council the Lone Star Rail District's
pledge to the region which is to offer the public a choice. He said LSTAR will give Central and South Texas
independence from congested highways and they will also deliver benefits to those Central and South Texans
who choose not to ride the LSTAR with improved safety, mobility and environmental quality, positive economic
impact at the local and regional level and new opportunities for community vitality and prosperity.
Gonzalez asked and Black said Georgetown, Buda, Kyle, San Marcos, New Braunfels and Schertz are
members of the group of smaller cities. Gonzalez said and Black agreed the cost to a smaller City would be
about $1.5 million to $2 million per city for operations and maintenance. Covington said it is more than just the
cities as well. He added the universities and counties will also be paying into the pot. Convingtion said that's
where it gets to be tricky on how to separate costs. Jonrowe thanked the representatives of Lone Star Rail for
updating Council on the future of transporation in Central Texas. Meigs asked and Black said rail is not
self-sustaining anywhere in the world. Black said the most sustaining rail is in Toronto and then New York.
Black spoke about various ways they can keep costs down. Hellmann asked and Black said there are six cities
and county participation, as well as Austin Community College and Texas State involved in this project. Black
spoke about future entities that could become possible partners in this project. Black added the goal is to make
this more affordable. Hellmann asked if cities can sign on later and what that would cost. Black said cities can
sign on later. He noted one factor is a city or entity must be located along the rail line. Covington the cities can
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 2 of 3 Pages
become members of the district as soon as their population passes 18,000. He noted they just picked up Kyle
in this last census. He said cities who had the ability to join and decided not to in the past will be able to join but
noted, to be fair to the members who have been in the district for a while, the newer entities will have to pay .
retroactively to catch up. He said they are trying to sit down and determine what make sense for everyone.
Hellmann asked for an example of a retroactive fee. Covington said it depends on how long the entity was
eligible to be a member before they joined. Hellmann asked and Covington spoke about the environmental work
that will have to be done between the green field area between Round Rock and Georgetown. Covington said
there is no rail on that piece of dirt. Hellmann asked and Covington said that section will have to be treated the
same as the rest of the project. Hellmann asked and Covington said the $50,000 membership goes toward
salaries, lobbyists in Washington and public outreach efforts. Covington said they use those local funds pretty
frugally. Covington spoke about how the rail district contracts with the Austin San Antonio Corridor Council to
provide administrative services for them. Hellmann asked about moving the freight line and Black described the
process for the Council. Eason spoke about how some Council members would like for the City to drop out and
then go back at a later time. Eason described how having a rail in Georgetown will be a huge benefit to the city
and its economy. Eason spoke about even though people say there is no rail that is self supporting, there is also
no highway that is self supporting. Black spoke about this being a multi -modal solution and how it can not just
be about the rail system but improvements to highways as well. Eason spoke about the bigger vision and
added future of the rail is to connect north as well. Mayor asked and Brandenburg said he does not have any
questions and added it is a good follow up to a previous workshop that was held on this issue. There was much
discussion.
Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.074 and 551.086 -- 4:10 PM
Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned — 6:06 PM
Appro
", 'i�
ayor GeiSrge Garver
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 3 of 3 Pages
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 06:06 PM.