Travis County Commssioners Court
October 8, 2002
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Agenda Item 6
6. A. Consider a resolution supporting the creation of an intermunicipal
commuter rail district under art. 6550c-1, v.t.c.s., And take -- vernon's
Texas civil statutes, and take appropriate action. B. Consider appointment
of member(s) to the intermunicipal rail district board, and take appropriate
action.
>> commissioners, I -- I believe that you have in your packets
a substantial amount of information about this matter. You all know that you
appointed me to serve as your representative on the Austin-san antonio corridor
council upon my taking this office. The first meeting I attended, this issue
was raised, then council voted at that time to make it a number 1 priority
for the council to proceed forward with the commuter rail district now that
the 130 project is underway. I believe that you have had distributed to you
and -- a number of resolutions and letters that -- that supported the passage
of this legislation. From cities and counties that would be affected by it.
That includes Williamson, hays, comal, and bexar counties. Yesterday at the
state capitol there was a press conference that was -- I guess that you could
say the emcee was senator barrientos who sponsored the legislation, along
with senator wentworth who could not attend yesterday, but was vitally interested
in this legislation being ism menltsed by our region. It is -- implemented
by our region. It has been some years sce the legislation was passed, so the
question is necessarily raised why haven't we done this before, why now? I
think there are a number of factors that are -- that make it important to
proceed at this time. First of all we have -- submitted for you to consider
the population as well as the volumes of traffic that our highways are experiencing,
particularly i-35. I don't guess any one of us needs to see the figure to
know the congestion is perhaps the -- clearly the number one issue with voters
these days. It's a -- has a substantial impact not only on the quealtd of
our life as we spend much more time in traffic, but on the quality of our
air. Commissioner Gomez mentioned a little while ago. It seems to me now that
we have acted to form a regional mobility authority, we have acted to a significant
level in proceeding forward with 130, this is the next tool that we need to
put in our kit to address these issues. So I put forward today a resolution
that would indicate Travis County's willingness to participate in the formation
of the commuter rail district. We know that -- that not only do we have the
interests of our -- of our commuting public to consider, but there are a couple
of other things going on. It is quite clear that freight rail is going to
be a very important addition to our region and the governor's trans Texas
corridor plan talks about it, it's -- we have experienced a huge increase
in nafta traffic, trucks on our highways, so I believe we have identified
a -- a consensus in this region about how to proceed forward with commuter
rail that would first focus on moving freight, through freight traffic off
of the u.p. Line and into a new rail corridor. Tsd important that we form
an entity -- it is important that we form an entity that would proceed with
the studies that we require, to advocate a course of action, not only with
our state legislature but in congress. We don't have another entity to do
that, but we do have this ability to form a district to address rail issues.
Finally, there's some money available that hasn't been available before. Congressman
lamar smith earmarked $5.6 million that texdot is holding and texdot has indicated
to us in this area that they have got that money, but that until this district
is formed, they don't consider this issue to have local support. So there's
money there for us to use for these studies, there are studies that need to
be done that address an issue that everyone agrees needs to be addressed,
there is now on consensus of opinion along this corridor that the formation
of this district is an important initiative to take at this time. So therefore
I do move approval of this resolution.
>> I would lining to -- you have got a motion.
>> second.
>> all right.
>> I think to -- I would like to ask a few questions. Because
I had some questions last time that the issue came before us, I think maybe
this time there's a little bit more information that makes it a little easier
to consider the rail district from my point of view. And I think that I read
with enter the newspaper story in Sunday's paper which addressed the need
to get the -- the semi's off of i-35, I couldn't agree with you more. I think
from the local standpoint capital metro has also wanted to address those freight
trucks. We are very proud that our contract that we have with -- with a provider
enables us to remove some of those semi's off the roads. So it would be good
to have another partner addressing those freight trucks on a regional basis
whereas we can do it on a local basis. I think we want to be able to do that.
That's the importance of capital metro being in existence. The other thing
was -- of course the money wasn't there before. I don't want to pass over
any opportunity to draw down federal dollars to this community for this purpose
or for any other purpose. I want to do that. I guess my only question is the
-- the 5.625 would address the studies -- or complete the studies that are
being conducted or have been started?
>> yes.
>> okay. And then there's going to be -- I'm sure, staff
is going to be needed. Will they address the staff?
>> the carter [inaudible] council has agreed to staff this
at the beginning until we reach a point where we think that won't anymore.
>> overhead, I guess offices and that kind of a thing.
>> yes.
>> okay, for the duration of the studies then?
>> right.
>> until they complete all of that. I guess the only other
deal is what about negotiations with u.p.? Do we think those are going to
-- are going to be successful? I mean, how long are those going to take, for
a couple of years or -- I guess we don't know, but --
>> we don't know how long --
>> how long that will take?
>> here's what we know.
>> okay.
>> we know that u.p. Is really not going to take these negotiations
seriously until there's an entity that is empowered to conduct the negotiations
and to enter into -- on the state and federal level to proceed forward with
them. Sort of at the point where there's been some discussions, as I understand
it, between them from different segments of the community, but no one has
ever officially approached them with a way to get this done.
>> okay.
>> commissioner Gomez, I don't think it can take a couple
of years to have negotiations with the u.p. Line. There is a sense of urgency
because quite frankly they are in the final engineering and design of what
the sh 130 corridor is going to look like. And there is a reservation of land
for rail, but the question is not -- has not really been addressed of whether
it ought to be in the middle, no one thinks it ought to be, like on mopac,
that's not the best place to put it. Or if it truly ought to look like what
the governor has said in the specific rail corridor, a specific corridor for
the highway, potentially on either side, related to trails and pedestrian
kinds of questions. Those discussions near to occur now. They are going to
be locking down that design within the next six months. If we want to have
that planning occur concurrently with the roadway it needs to occur now. Otherwise
rail will be an after thought and there are some definite design issues that
the railroads would have related to curves, related to grades, and potentially
if this could occur at the same time the roadway is going on, you could have
some terrific economies of scale while they are going in there and doing the
bulldozing and grading that's necessary to put in a highway and all of the
engineering studies there, you could be having the same kind of activity going
on right next door related to the rail. So the time really he is now to have
those -- really is now to have those good discussions. As commissioner Moore
said u.p. Is -- I hate to say it -- taking us seriously because we didn't
have anybody to speak on behalf of the whole region and there was no place
to put them and there was no place to put them where the public was going
to own the right-of-way and it was going to be all new expense, all new rail,
all new land. Now all of these things are folding in at the same time. It's
that sing is in -- it's that sync thing. The time is now, or else it will
be a window of opportunities that will be lost.
>> we are saying maybe six months max to try to get these
negotiations going?
>> going.
>> then we will know if they will be successful or not.
>> yes.
>> and clearly, yes, exactly. What we don't have is the --
we have question that's we don't have the answers to or an ability to negotiate
over, but we know we need the feasibility studies about the moving freight
and we know we need to have the discussion with u.p. This entity will allow
us to get those answers.
>> okay. At some point let's say negotiations break down,
what happens then?
>> well, that's what the board of the commuter rail district
will have to decide. But -- we will talk about who is going to be on that
board in a few minutes. But -- but I -- it's like anything else, it's a long-range
thing. We are talking about, you know, something comparable to the 2025 plan
at campo. You have to think long-range here. First steps first. We finally
identified what those first steps should be and how we are going to pay for
them.
>> okay. I guess I'm trying to still envision this. There's
a rail district that will be created regionally that will include Travis County
and the cities in it. And bexar county on the other end with the cities in
it and then I guess all of the communities in between.
>> add just sent counties, right. The road that capital metro
plays in Travis County will remain intact.
>> yes.
>> the role.
>> and capital metro would have a seat on the board.
>> right. But I guess -- how much money will capital metro
need to -- to contribute to the operations of the computer -- commuter district.
>> it's going to be up to capital metro after the commuter
rail district gets to a point where it identifies what it's going to need
and going to do. There's no commitment inherent in this formation of this
district.
>> okay. But will -- the commuter rail district have money
of its own with which to operate and continue to draw down or will we depend
on Travis County and capital metro, bexar county and capital metro and any
other counties to provide the funding for the rail district?
>> the commuter rail district board will have to decide after
it's used the federal money that we have identified, and reached a place where
we have the studies where -- so that the commuter rail district board can
decide what is a prudent course of action, if they need additional funding,
that board is going to have to go to whatever participants in this rail district
are there and ask them for resources, and identify federal and state resources
that -- that could be obtained. So -- so the answers to those questions can't
be obtained until we form the district. Proceed with these studies. [one moment
please for change in captioners]
>> and so I want to make sure that you all know up front
that that's what I'm going to be concerned about. I'm elected from this county,
and I want to be responsible to people in this county. I also want to be concerned
about the region and my state and I guess my country and my world. But i've
got to focus at some point on one thing, and that is the closest thing that
I'm closest to, and, you know, I mean, that's why county government is where
the rubber meets the road. So I don't want to be distracted from that. I want
to contribute to the region, but I also want to be real up front about where
my allegiance lies and this has to be on the home front.
>> which is entirely appropriate, and let me just stress
that we've got a transportation plan that is locally approved that includes
the components of rail and roads, both local rail and regional rail, to address
local congestion problems. The participation that I see that cap metro would
make in this one piece of the solution would be entirely consistent with what
cap metro would see as its mission and its duty. And so, in fact, we have
had lengthy discussions that it is quite likely -- I can't speak for the future
board that's going to be making decisions, but it would seem likely that the
saving of the pieces of commuter rail, once we've addressed the freight issue
and once we've frownt a track of -- found a track of [inaudible], you would
face it in a way that would address the most pressing problems for that, and
for us that commuter rail issue would address problems most likely between
Williamson and travis, travis and hays first, which is entirely consistent
with what you are saying.
>> okay. Let me just check -- go ahead, commissioner. I can
come back.
>> I guess let me say that I applaud commissioner Moore for
bringing this issue before us today. And I really appreciate that. I really
have reservations about some things, and number one, I notice there are several
resolutions that were past by other entities and, however, it did mention
in the resolution itself that the city council approved it in 1998. However,
that was under a different council. The membership of that council now is
not the same. Of course, while we're looking at commuter rail, I think, commissioner
Moore, I think you explained that very well. Traffic congestion is a serious
problem here in Travis County. It really is. And we need to do something about
it. There's no doubt in my mind that we need to do something about it. However,
what we do about it, how do we educate the public on it as far as looking
at a district, districts, to me, have the authority and the ability probably
to level taxes.
>> no. It is not a taxing district.
>> all right. And how -- so the question would be what would
that be as far as the impact if there are shortfalls and things like that,
what would be the implication as far as the taxpayers are concerned. Also,
I really feel very strongly about -- when commuter rail was brought to my
attention some time ago, it was only talking about passenger. I remember when
I served on council the issue came up as far as commuter rail, and, of course,
we've talked about great, we've brought up about freight and passenger, and
of course there was some dispute on where freight would be located. Now, I
of course at that time opposed any freight being located east of ih-35 based
especially within the corridor of s.h. 130. And the reason was my constituents
because we had to fight a truck battle which at that time t.t.a. Because of
the s.h. Alignment, s.h. 130 alignment being on the western side of decker
lake which would have wiped out many communities. So we had public hearings
in that community, I attended them, and we had overwhelming support that we,
the community over there in precinct 1 said, listen, we do not want to have
s.h. 130 west of decker lake because it would destroy many neighborhoods in
that area if it was to have been posed on that particular --
>> and you were successful in that.
>> right. Very successful. But in itself, [inaudible] because
I wasn't going to support any funding as far as going to the voters to support
approval of the bond initiative for the acquisition of right-of-way if it
would have went any other way. I think maybe that was clear. And of course
now we're talking about something that's already going to be an impact on
the community as far as freight is concerned. On a community, I think, that
is overwhelmed with a lot of hardships. Hardships meaning again we still have
to deal with the s.h. 130 scenario even on the eastern alignment. Now, to
give you a breakdown of what I'm really trying to say here and what I'm getting
to, an example, s.h. 130, the route of it as far as the mileage is concerned,
we're talking about a little more than three or four miles of alignment within
Travis County itself. And the bulk of that is in precinct 1. A little more
than 14 some odd miles in precinct 1, six point something miles in precinct
2 and a little more than 13 miles over in precinct 4. Now, we're talking about
commuter rail, we're talking about transporting what? What's going to be transported?
As far as what I can see is some of the stuff that looked at being transported,
we're talking about a variety of gases. We're talking about liquids and other
things. Which are hazardous materials, in my mind, and of course we have been
fighting environmental [inaudible] in that community, the tank farm is a good
example of trying to get those tank farms shut down. And as I continue to
fight across this community for environmental justice. And I think it's very
important. I think what we need to do, and I have, you know, a lot of concerns
here whether the city of Austin's position on this right now?
>> they are [inaudible]
>> I don't know. I haven't seen a resolution. From this city
council. From the current city council that exists now. There was a different
city council then. So that's something I think we need to see. And I remember
and I can very distinctly remember when I served on the campo board, phyllis,
speaking with her, and we talked about the traffic situation on mopac and
how we were going to divert traffic. And I'm saying this to say because what
they did bring up was noise abatement-type stuff. How could we abate noise
and a whole lot of other stuff. None of these things are in hand right now.
Staff, t.n.r. Staff, we don't have a staff here, I don't know if they've had
a chance to review all of the information that's in the backup suggesting
desired studies and a whole lot of other studies to review that, and they
are the experts, in my opinion, on things that I think we ought to look at
and flesh through this thing. I really don't feel comfortable at this point
with so many unknowns out there to look at a resolution at this time and support
it without -- an empty resolution, that's what I like to say it is because
I think there are a lot of factors that still need to be plugged in here.
Making sure that the constituents in precinct 1 and the other precincts too,
2 and 4, have an opportunity to participate probably in a public hearing,
I don't know, but I do think that there is not enough stuff on the table here
for me to go forward. Now, of course, everybody votes their own mind and that's
your prerogative, but the [inaudible] of what we're talking about is the [inaudible]
in precinct 1. That's the alignment. That's what they are talking about. Union
pacific, that's what they are talking about, southern pacific. You are looking
at a passenger situation on the west side, and then on the east side you are
talking about dump ago bunch of freight and stuff. So it seems to be a variance
here that I can't seem to understand until I get some information, per se,
before we move forward. I can support a commuter rail and the passenger end
of it, but as far as freight is concerned, that's a different story, especially
if it's going to go right up and down and possibly displace persons and residents
as s.h. 130 was going to do before this [inaudible] was reached and agreed
upon. There is still a lot of unknowns and I think we still need to allow
the questions that need to be asked from our t.n.r. Staff to look at the situation,
look at the impacts, look at what's going to cause hardship and come back
with something that is inknock you lus to the point it won't impact anybody
in Travis County, per se, as far as the [inaudible] are concerned. There are
a lot of things, again, that I would like to look at before we go forward
on this particular issue. And public health and public safety is a big deal
over there because of the encroachment and the intrusion of unwelcome environmental
hazards that affect this community today as I sit on this dais. Now, we all
talk about environment this, environment, but as far as I'm concerned there's
a lot of rhetoric that goes on in this community when we talk about environment.
Especially when we talk about -- it comes down to environments of the communities
over there. It's double talk. So I'm concerned about that and I think we need
to put out the table and let's look at this for what it is, let's go through,
let's have some public hearings. I want to hear what folks have to say about
this as they talk about s.h. 130. In my mind, it's not enough due diligence
at this point for me to feel comfortable to support any resolution or anything
else until we have this information available. And again, I would like to
refer this back to the city council to see what they think of it today as
they did in 1998, difference in the council. We're talking about difference
in the council now. Those are just some of the comments, and I have many more,
but those are just some of the basic concerns that we have. And the trucking
industry, well, I haven't heard anything -- is it cheaper to haul freight
by rail versus freight? The s.h. 130 is supposed to divert traffic away from
the ih-35 corridor, that's why s.h. 130 is intended to be there. But this
commuter rail is something new as far as I'm concerned because, again, when
I serve odd campo, that issue was brought up and I posed it then as far as
commuter rail, freight rail being located over there next to that s.h. 130
corridor. So my position has not changed, and I think we need to do our due
diligence on this, so that's where I'm at on this.
>> if I can try and answer some of those concerns. Commissioner,
you raised some very good questions --
>> i'll let staff answer my concerns. You can try, but I
want staff, turn to do this.
>> why thank you. It is the same right-of-way. We're not
talking about additional right-of-way being needed in the s.h. 130 corridor
in order to accommodate rail. It is the same right-of-way and there is already
an alotment in the s.h. 130 corridor. So we can be very glad that the good
cause that we fought and we won related to getting the s.h. 130 alignment
moved out of western neighborhoods in that route, it has been success sus
fully moved east, and it is not going to be impacting the neighborhoods.
>> well, I disagree with you on that?
>> may I finish, please?
>> you sure may, but I differ with you and i'll tell you
why after you finish.
>> are you finished?
>> i'll tell you why. Go ahead, commissioner.
>> it's the same right-of-way that is going to be used for
the s.h. 130. No additional right-of-way will be necessary. If you want to
talk about a safety issue, right now that [inaudible] coming right down the
heart of Austin coming through south Austin, crossing the river and coming
up through the heart of central city Austin, and there is no greater safety
issue and one that has been dealt with successfully by this commissioners
court of responding to the central Austin neighborhoods saying the freight
ought not be there. It is less of an issue that the freight is coming through
as it is that right now we have idling trains that sit there sometimes for
days at a time rumbling right next door to central Austin neighborhoods waiting
to go north or south. There's only one track there for a good portion of this
distance. S.h. 130 has the ability we can either double track, we might have
space to even triple track or even four tracks in that area. Safety issues
related to freight. Let me tell you about hays county. Hays county has something
like 40 grade crossings that right now literally shut that town down. To get
the u.p. Freight moved, their hospital is on one side of the tracks and everyone
else lives and works on the other side of the tracks. Can you imagine being
in an ambulance on your way to the way to the u.p. Freight moved, their hospital
is on one side of the tracks and everyone else lives and works on the other
side of the tra everyone else lives and works on the other side and if you
are not having a heart attack you would if you see this train there and you
cannot get across and get over to emergency help. It is a huge safety issue.
We can have very good discussions about d to let me tell you about hays county.
Hays county has something like 40 grade crossings that right now literally
shut that town down. To get the u.p. Freight moved, their hospital is on one
side of the tracks and lse lives and works on the other side of the tracks.
Can you imagine being in an ambulance on your way to the hospital, and if
you are not having a heart attack you would if you see this train there and
you cannot get across and get over to emergency help. It is a huge safety
issue. We can have very good discussions about what that right-of-way will
be used and for commissioner Gomez in terms of what can this do for capital
metro to compliment this mission. Right now the only way we can talk about
h.o.v. Lanes, express bus lanes, the only way that we can talk about it before
was this horrible plan txdot had come up with saying let's wipe out $600 million
worth of neighborhoods on either side to give us an extra lane. If we can
control the u.p. Right-of-way, you would have the ability to not only have
double tracks in the middle, but you could carve out two h.o.v. Lanes on either
side, and that could accommodate capital metro's mission related to having
an advantage in mopac that right now they do not enjoy. They are in the same
lanes as everyone else and they get stuck in the same traffic as everyone
else w. The ability to have h.o.v. Lanes in the middle in the u.p. Right-of-way,
you not only respect the neighborhoods because you don't sacrifice them and
make it an unbelievable expense to try to do h.o.v. Lanes, but you then figure
out a way to give capital metro an advantage on mopac to be able to get a
lot more folks than just ha the rail might being able to serve. In terms of
trying to pull down other moneys, i've been to d.c. Three different times
on transportation lobbying trips, and each time we've had conversations with
senator kay bailey hutchison, who is a huge advocate for rail and has always
mention to do us what is happening on rail, what's going on with the commuter
rail district. She is very interested in trying to help us ear mark funds
as congressman smith has also done. In our conversations with judge nelson
wolfe, the new county judge in bexar county and commissioner atkinson, they
are interested in trying to get things moving between bexar and comal counties.
There are statistically, I think these are the numbers, 30,000 cars coming
down 1283 who choose to come down mopac to get into central city to work.
There are another 30,000 cars coming from the georgetown and Round Rock area
that choose not to get on 35. They too come down mopac. This could do more
to try and relieve the pressure on mopac than anything that we think of related
to h.o.v. Lanes if we can successfully get those folks into another mode of
transportation and it compliments of what capital metro would do in erms terms
of getting people moved around and throwing in express buses. The final thing
I would like to say is I know everybody wants to go 13 steps ahead and start
talking about, well, when are the trains going to start running. It really
is one of first things first. And the first thing is can we all unite as a
district and say that the u.p. Freight traffic appropriately needs to be in
another corridor and that the safety issues related to where those trains
are now, the idling trains, the shutting down of san marcos, every single
hour, because of the freight traffic running through. All of those safety
issues are things the region can say that's a good thing. And to design into
the 130 corridor which is already being bought and paid for by the people
of this region, and to accommodate it in a way that includes all of those
safety issues, that it's not an afterthought, that you make the grades and
the turns appropriate so it will be a safe passage through that area. So I
think the time is now, and I would also want to just mention that senator
barrientos and senator wentworth, also mike krusee have been trying to have
good, substantive talks with u.p. And I think it's the appropriate place to
put them in the eastern most alignment, the one that is away from the neighborhoods,
and it is one that can safely move trains through this region. And again,
those are -- if you have trains -- right now it's month nop pli. A lot of
people are having to put their trucks on interstate 35. With the ability to
have more lines. There is also a homeland security defense angle to this in
terms of the extension of s.h. 130 all the way to fort hood and killeen. There
is a national security interest in terms of being able to move -- have rail
traffic move between that facility and our Texas ports, which right now are
not open to them. So I think the time is now, and I think this is something
that is looking ahead to the future and a lot of the very appropriate questions
that you are asking, commissioner, about what dozens this mean, what are the
implications, is this going to compliment cap metro, I think we will answer
all of those things, but it starts with the first step and it is one of the
safety issues related to the freight rail that right now is rumbling through
the heart of major cities in central Texas, and more appropriately, can go
on a different corridor and open up the possibilities for excellent discussions
about either commuter rail, h.o.v. Lanes, whatever happening in the mopac
corridor.
>> the question that you posed to me earlier and I told you
why I differed and you were talking about right-of-way and stuff like that,
not on s.h. 130, with the existing right-of-way, let me say this. Colony park,
chimney hills, harris branch, cavalier park, new additions that have been
constructed, new additions that's on line to be constructed out there as far
as subdivisions are concerned, and we're talking about something that -- and
when I brought up hazardous materials, environmental hazards, that's a real
-- that poses a real threat to that community with this particular commuter
freight rail in a part of s.h. 130 and for the proximity. Now we're talking
about environmental hazards. Gases, a variety of gases. I don't even know
what they are. We are talking about liquids and other other kind of things
that could pose a serious problem to the residents in that area. That, in
my mind, is a threat. I think we can go forward with this, but I think we
need to do our due diligence before we make the first step. I think the first
step should be a firm, positive first step whereby Travis County has done
the necessary due diligence. And the questions that are being posed here,
the discussions we're having here today before we go forward. It's not that
none of us are in opposition of reducing traffic congestion, and as far as
the taxes are concerned, no tax increase, however, there is. There's a sales
tax that supports this, user fees and stuff like that.
>> no, there is not.
>> well, according to legal, it is. Now, I'm looking to legal,
the county attorney. And if that's the case, then that means if there is a
sales tax, that means another entity that looks at sales tax. And as far as
sales tax is concerned, we saw a clear example of how elusive sales tax are
with the past city council budgets. They were depending on sales tax revenue
and it didn't come so they had to make some drastic cuts in their budget because
there was not enough sales tax. Again I have a lot of reservations. I think
we need to be [inaudible] in a sense whereby we can take the taxpayers, look,
this is what it is, this is what it's going to look like, and this is the
direction we need to go. Based on information that we get over a period of
time to make intelligent, I think, decisions, to me. Now, of course, I would
like to ask t.n.r. Staff just one question, and that is for such alignment
of right-of-way and stuff because this didn't come before the voters, this
did not come before the voters. When you talk about acquisition of right-of-way
for s.h. 130, there was nothing mentioned about commuter rail freight and
right-of-way. So the voters had no idea what we're doing here. They didn't
vote for that. What they did vote for was s.h. 130. That's what the voters
voted on. November of 2001. So, again, what we're telling the voters, what
are we doing here. I think we need to stop, halt, look at this, ask these
housekeeping questions that need to be answered and t.n.r., Talking about
rail back and forth and a whole bunch of stuff. Right now barbara jordan school,
a whole bunch of schools over there, I mentioned a lot of stuff that will
be impacted.
>> mr. Geiselman?
>> and we have michael.
>> mike, do you have information to share with us? Please
come forward after joe. Now, it's going to be the county judge's turn sooner
or later, but is there anybody else who has come down on this item who would
like to give complents? If so, -- comments? If so, please come forward now.
>> to answer your question, I don't know whether or not the
rail freight operations was analyzed as part of the draft environmental impact
statement of highway 130.
>> he can't speak any louder.
>> I understand. Just got to hear what he's saying.
>> I don't know whether spoke is the only alignment that
might be looked at for the relocation of rail. My sense is that engineering
design on 130 has progressed to the point that if rail has not been integrated
into those design plans at this point, it might be difficult to make most
of that alignment available for rail relocation. Because rail has very restrictive
criteria when it comes to grade. It's much more rigid than automobile. And
so unless the alignment was looked at almost from the outset for rail relocation,
I think it may be difficult at this point for t.t.a. And the engineers of
that project to go back and now make that alignment feasible for rail. Just
keep that in mind. We may talk about something different at 130 when it comes
time to relocate rail. Loop 1 corridor to [inaudible] corridor.
>> okay. Mike.
>> I'm the executive director of campo and I'm pleased to
sit next to joe who was my predecessor at that job. It's my understanding
-- one of the first studies is to look at possible rail alignments, and that
is part of the 5.6 million that Margaret Moore addressed. It's my understanding
some of the rail could be on s.h. 130 and there may be cases where the rail
may have to be in other places. That is the purpose of the study is to see
what are the possible and best rail corridors in that vicinity. That's my
understanding.
>> so is this commuter rail in the metropolitan plan?
>> yes, sir, it's in the plan that was adopted in 2000. It
was also in the plan adopted in 19 #- 4. It's a -- 1994. It's a very important
part of the plan in terms of north-south travel. There's five projects. 130,
i-35, h.o.v. Commuter rail, light rail and h.o.v. On loop 1. And we need all
five of those because of the population growth and the heavy congestion in
that north-south corridor.
>> okay. But -- my turn.
>> sorry, judge. Go ahead.
>> it's in the plan now, but is it in with a certain alignment
or is it in basically for the alignment to be studied, and does s.h. 130 seem
to be an appropriate beginning pointed for stud sni.
>> that's correct. It's just a general location. We don't
do alignments. Alignments are done either by txdot or the commuter rail district.
But it's in there as a general location.
>> okay. My questions are a little more specific than some.
Tom, jump in if you need to. So this issue has not been taken up by capital
metro yet, but it will be presented to capital metro at some point we think?
>> well, I imagine so.
>> they have an appointment to this board.
>> if the district is triggered, they would have a --
>> right. We haven't discussed the issue per se, the adoption
of it.
>> do we know at this point what is expected of capital metro?
>> no, not really.
>> if the answer is no, that's fine.
>> you mean as far as a financial commitment?
>> right.
>> no, that has not been identified for any of the entities
involved.
>> the resolution is generally worded and it basically indicates
our support for the creation of a intermodal.
>> it's intermunicipal is the word.
>> okay. So basically it's to indicate our support for the
creation of a rail district. And I guess we changed our resolution to say
intermunicipal.
>> yeah, I tracked the one that the city of Austin passed.
>> no problem. We can easily get that done. So what financial
commitment, though, would Travis County be making by approving the resolution?
>> none.
>> and there's agreement for that. However, at some point,
assuming a feasibility study is positive, the partners will be given presentations,
recommendations, et cetera, and if a commitment other than supporting the
resolution is required, the [inaudible] at that time will be able to say yay
or nay?
>> yes.
>> let's get you on record, tom. Yes?
>> what was the question, judge?
>> what I was trying to sfeab earlier is the resolution is
generally worded and basically is intended to evidence our support of creation
of the rail district. And what I was trying to say is the next pointed after
you get all the partners signed on is to do the feasibility study. That would
be financial feasibility, alignment feasibility. We think that -- and we now
say u.p., I just soon -- union pacific, right?
>> yes.
>> we think that they have rail that is available for lease
or sale or purchase, right?
>> not yet. They have the rail. They have the rail in the
alignment that we think is desirable for commuter rail. However, they have
not indicated any willingness to share that right-of-way, lease that right-of-way.
>> we plan to negotiate that.
>> yes, sir, if I may, I think that's the whole purpose of
the district is to have an entity to negotiate with them. I know capital metro
has had discussions with union pacific as well. I might also point out in
terms of operations, senator wentworth, senator barrientos and representative
crewsy have committed to finding $500,000 for seed money. Some of that could
come from campo, some of our [inaudible] funds for the initial operation of
the staff. So they are committed to find those funds. Spell.
>> if u.p.s rail falls through, other options would be pursued.
>> they are the only rail line in the vicinity so, I think
they are the prime candidate, prime alignment.
>> but if you can't acquire existing rail, have you to build
your own.
>> right. One other thing that is looked at --
>> hold on. But we don't know at this point where this will
lead. It just seems logical to try to get with union pacific and either share
their rail or acquire it. If that falls through, though, then we're left with
trying to locate rail elsewhere.
>> right.
>> but at some point we will know that because those who
will be out there doing the work, assuming the money is available, will be
working on exactly that issue and others.
>> that's correct. That's what the 5.6 million is for is
to look at alternatives and to recommend one. And in the feasibility study
of 1999, they looked at two options. One was co-locating commuter rail in
the u.p. With freight rail, building another track, and the other was relocating
u.p. And using that alignment.
>> if the 5.6 is in fact at some point unavailable and the
partners have to be asked to contribute financially, at that time we have
a right to say yay or nay.
>> yes, sir.
>> there's nothing in the creation of the district that requires
us to ante up money that we are not committing at the time, right?
>> that is true.
>> judge, can I ask that question a different way to tom.
Would this commuter rail district have the ability on its own to pass resolutions
or whatever to force the financial commitment of a Travis County or capital
metro or city of san antonio, that that board forces the participation of
another entity?
>> no, they don't have the legal force -- to force another
entity to fund it. It will sort of -- it will have to rely on the kindness
of strangers is one way to put it. They can't force to you pay to support
it.
>> exactly. So we couldn't have, i'll call it a run-away
board, of somebody making decisions this entity may or may not agree with
related to the commitment of its resources. Those decisions would always come
back to this board, this commissioners court to make decisions related to
the commitment of any dollars by this government or any other government.
>> to what extent do we plan to involve the transportation
department at Travis County? In the future.
>> my thought on that was that they would certainly be kept
informed and be participants as staff, but I did not intend for it to add
to their workload, and that's the commitment of the [inaudible] to do the
staffing.
>> -- of the corridor council to do the staffing.
>> they are available to me and that's what they are here
for, as far as I'm concerned.
>> I would think on these technical issues, if there is a
feasibility study done, I would think that would be run by t.n.r. We would
expect them to give us their take on it in addition to reading the court and
--
>> certainly, but it's not going to have to be their program
to have to manage.
>> because the rail district would have staff doing that.
>> right.
>> but staff will really work for the districts, and at some
point when Travis County commissioners court, especially if we are expected
to make additional commitments, we would turn to our staff and say does this
make sense, questions like that.
>> where we are with campo, they don't staff campo, but they
are our technical assistance folks that as we participate in campo and have
a seat at the table there, we can turn to them and get staff analysis, technical
assistance, the briefings, the same thing for commissioner Gomez, she certainly
has the ability to ask t.n.r. Technical questions related to her participation
being on capital metro. I would see this as being no different. That Travis
County would have a seat at the table on this rail district like we do at
campo, and we certainly have our transportation experts there to give us technical
information.
>> that word "expert" has been used twice. I want to make
sure that you understand that we have not developed the expertise within t.n.r.
At this point to make some of these evaluations. It doesn't mean that we can't,
but it will take some level of effort for us to get there.
>> mean it in the relative sense, joe, more expert than the
five of us. [laughter] just a couple of things and i'll be done. If, in fact,
the goal is to move freight from trucks to trains, then if the rail is not
available [inaudible] the same materials would travel down s.h. 130 on trucks.
I guess at some point -- or 35. And I guess at some point the question is
which one is bound to be safer. I don't know what the answer is, but we can
look at that at some pointed in the future. I do think that's a relative concern.
But I was in support of our commuter rail the last time we looked at it. I
see this as basically us blessing the creation of a district to go ahead and
conduct the necessary feasibility studies which would include financial, alignment,
how much of the load we think it will take off of vehicular traffic on 35,
s.h. 130.
>> [inaudible]
>> what you said a few minutes ago, though, is that the money
remains in federal hands, and the work remains undone until the district is
created, and Travis County and city of Austin are critical partners. And without
our participation, basically it stays where it's been since the legislation
was pass understand '97.
>> commissioner Davis, you do raise a very good point related
to the city council. I think it would be appropriate for the Austin city council
to renew its support of the rail district because you do raise an appropriate
question that that was done, there are I think two new members --
>> they have two appointments they would have to make to
this board, and they are -- they are going to have to act on it.
>> right, but, you know, building on your comments, it sounds
like we're really creating a study group, called a commuter rail district,
that needs to look at environmental studies with that 5.625, other feasibility
studies, alternatives in terms of alignment. And I would -- and fiscal, financial.
But I would add the safety because I think it's very true, kind of like the
longhorn pipeline, and it goes different directions by schools and churches
and homes. And i'll tell you, in the south central Austin, it goes by [inaudible]
church and becker school. The downtown area when it comes up before it crosses
the river, and as soon as it crosses the river, it's the downtown, city hall
area. And businesses. And all of that is precinct 4. And so I need to speak
up for all those folks. And so, to me, it sounds like we're creating a study
group called the commuter rail district for the purpose of utilizing the 5.625
for studies that include the ones that I named. And that's my understanding
of what the -- of the discussion we've had today. And that's how I would approve
it. I understand it's non-taxing and that it doesn't have -- we are creating
this, we are creating this district. This district is not creating county
government. Therefore I can see they don't have the right to paz resolutions
to do one thing or the other.
>> we're supporting the creation of it.
>> right.
>> and committing to participate by appointing a member.
>> right.
>> and a person we can ask all of the key questions, but
you don't get the answers until after the district is created.
>> right. And with that understanding, judge, and I know
-- I would ask this be sent to capital metro as well because I understand
we have an appointee on the board, but I think the whole board needs to understand
what this creation of this study group called commuter rail district entails.
And that's my take on this going on the discussion held this morning.
>> well, I just had a couple of follow-up questions. Judge,
were you finished?
>> yes, sir.
>> commissioner Gomez? Mike. Could you tell the public the
difference between commuter rail and freight rail? Are they one and the same
or would one do something different than the other one?
>> well, commuter rail carries people and freight rail carries
freight.
>> okay. All right. Now, as you know, we've been talking
about freight this morning, but when this issue came before us, it was commuter
rail, which was a passenger-type situation. Nowhere was it mentioned about
freight. And that's my concern is that -- because we're talking about freight
that could be, again, hauling [inaudible] rocket gases, certain liquids, we
don't know all the things. And if we're talking about locating on the east
side of this community, then, again, we're looking at some creating environmental
hazards that could further impact the community since s.h. 130 is going to
be implemented. So we're talking about additional hazards to a community that's
already overburdened with those type of situations now. And I named those
neighborhood associations. Now, as far as the u.p., Union pacific, line and
all that stuff, we don't know what that is. So if we're talking about this
reds, just commuter rail -- this resolution, just commuter rail, if we're
talking about freight, there needs to be a different resolution. And I think
under commuter rail district [inaudible] however the resolution speaks to
just one. So it's kind of hard for me to support something that I don't have
enough data on, again, taxing implications, user fee, a whole bunch of stuff
that we have to look at as far as it's concerned. But passenger is a lot different
than commuter freight -- not commuter, but frail rail, and we have been talking
about both. So my question is does the district by supporting or passing the
resolution, does that mean we are embracing both the commuter rail and also
a freight rail district?
>> I think you can separate one from the other. Most commuter
rail systems around the country operate on tracks that are either purchased
from a freight railroad or jointly used. For example, fort worth-dallas operates
a commuter rail line and they have commuters during the rail and freight at
night. Some are -- tracks are only passenger rail, some are mixed. And I think
it's important to the commuter rail district negotiate with union pacific
to figure out what that balance is and how to locate all of those. I do think
safety is paramount in all of the evaluations that the district would do.
>> see, that's a pointed I want to nail down right there,
those comments. You talk about public safety, and I'm here to protect that
and I think all of us are here to do that. I know that we are embarked and
encroached upon unequally, I think, as far as precinct 1, 2, 3, 4. I don't
know about 3. But I do know that on the alignment, we're talking about an
alinement that extends probably beyond that 130 deal. So we're talking about
neighborhoods that may be impacted. That's what we're talking about here.
That's exactly what we're talking about by virtue of the resolution, what
are we saying, okay, neighbors, we're going to turn our back on you. Don't
mean anything. That's an environmental issue big time. I'm getting a little
sick and tired of the rhetoric about folks being environmental but when it
comes down to the rubber meet the road, the [inaudible] is getting most of
the environmental hazards and this is another one, a clear example. So there's
no way in the world I can support this resolution until we're able to be in
a position to see exactly what we're dealing with. I'm really concerned about
this freight rail situation because of the contaminants and things that will
be transported adjacent to these neighborhoods and stuff like that. So it's
a lot that needs to be hashed out. So those are my final comments on it. I
wish we could go through the due diligence on this as we did the h.m.a.
>> can -- r.m.a.
>> can I propose changes to the resolution? On that first
paragraph on the third line which allows a non-tax being district to be created
to provide commuter rail. And then on the one, two, three, four -- fifth "whereas."
>> say that one more time.
>> the first paragraph, third line, after the comment which
allows on non-taxing district to be created.
>> can I clarify that taxing issue because it's been discussed.
What the statute allows the district to do is collect a sales tax at the district's
own facilities. And that would be in lieu of whatever other sales tax can
be collected will. So once the district is formed, once it has a facility,
a terminal, a station, something like that, anything that is sold at that
facility the district gets to collect the sales tax on that in lieu of whatever
city it's in. If it's in the unincorporated area --
>> but isn't that seen more as a revenue source than a tax.
>> so yes, the district has some sales tax authority, but
it's not the ability to impose a sales tax countywide or citywide. It's not
the ability to collect sales tax above and beyond as what's already being
collected.
>> right. I see that as a revenue source that's available
to everybody. And not everybody can tax, though.
>> right.
>> okay. On the sixth whereas --
>> do we want to make that change in view of the clarification?
>> yes.
>> a non-property tax -- a non-property taxing district.
>> well, let me just say this. That this references a specific
statute. So the statute itself is clear about what is I loud and is not. --
allowed and not. I don't know that this resolution has any effect one way
or the other other than if you --
>> it just makes me feel better. Okay.
>> I think property taxing would be the -- non-property taxing
district. And then on the fifth one, after to enhance mobility on that second
line, comma, and then safety for its residents, I would add that in. And on
the last page, the therefore be it resolved, after -- at the end of statutes,
comma, for the purposes of conducting environmental studies, other feasibility
studies, alternatives --
>> where? I'm sorry.
>> at the end of the second page where it says now therefore
be it resolved. At the end of that. After statutes, comma, for the purpose
of conducting environmental studies, other feasibility studies, alternatives,
especially alignment, safety of residents, and financial obligations to all
entities.
>> I'm really concerned about trying to limit what the district
does through this resolution.
>> yeah, but the -- but those are things that we've talked
about this morning that -- [multiple voices]
>> I understand what we've talked about and the district
will do, but the statute itself addresses the duties and responsibilities
the district will have.
>> I don't think we're limiting them because they've already
been mentioned as things that they are going to do.
>> but the -- until the board itself meets --
>> if you reference the law, can you really restrict the
law anyway?
>> provided by the statute, I think that --
>> put the language on the studies in the whereas clauses.
Rather than the now therefore.
>> all right.
>> that would be my suggestion.
>> such as a district created on pass and I think of a resolution
favoring its creation. And at the end say --
>> how about if there's a whereas it says whereas there is
a necessity for the --
>> due diligence studies to occur, yada, yada.
>> including but not limited to.
>> that would help.
>> that was in a whereas clause as opposed to --
>> do you want to give you time to try to work that language
out? Indicate our support of the creation of the district and later today
we will have the specific revised language that we approve. How is that?
>> that way they have instructions to go clean it up.
>> please.
>> any more discussion?
>> judge, I would just like to say this before we take the
vote. Of course, I'm going to oppose it based on those factors that I brought
up before. I just think that we need to do our due diligence before we move
forward. I think public hearings are very necessary in this. I think the public
ought to have an opportunity to see what we're doing, why we're doing it,
how we're going to do it. And, again, when it came to s.h. 130, of course
we did hold public hearings in this corridor and in fact the neighborhood
groups that would be affected by the corridor. Even when it was supposed to
be west of decker lake, we had folks coming in, you know, they were held all
over from Williamson county down the line because of the impact s.h. 130 was
going to have on the folks in that community. So here again, we're not having
the public hearing. I wish we could have one before we move forward. I just
think it's a lot of due diligence that needs to be done here. It's not that
I don't support commuter rail. I do. I think we can move persons a lot better
through the community -- using commuter rail. However, if you create a commuter
rail district, that means that I guess they will have the authority to deal
with the freight rail phase of this, which would be a hardship to the community
in precinct 1, especially if those safety issues of spillage, train derailing,
stuff like that, it could wipe out some communities, depending on the stuff
of what they are carrying. I don't know what those things are. So again, it's
just hard for me to go along with this until I think all the due diligence
is in place and the public knows what we're doing, why we're doing it, how
we're doing it and a whole bunch of things. So there's a bunch of questions
in my mind that still have not been answered. The alignments, just a whole
lot of things. And so without that information, it's hard for me to take the
first step, even though I want to take the first step, but I just have to
cautiously wait and evaluate what comes down through all of this process.
But, again, I do know that the folks in precinct 1 are tired of being impacted
by unwelcome things and having no control on what goes on there. I think public
hearings would be, in my mind, necessary before we take any step. But based
on information, based on fact. Right now I don't have any of that this morning.
Thank you.
>> any more discussion?
>> commissioner, i'll just very quickly say that we do agree
that the due diligence needs to occur. For me this is a way to ensure that
the due diligence does occur. There has been a great deal of discussion about
this in the community when this legislation was first brought up in the 1997
session. And communities up and down this corridor have had discussions within
their community in terms of the passage of resolutions of support for this.
As mike as told us, commuter rail has been part of the toolbox in the campo,
now called the 2025 plan, but it's been in there for a number of cycles where
there have been three members of commissioners court sitting on campo. And
the last time we approved that 2025 plan, you were sitting on campo and approved
commuter rail as part of the option. So I think this as part of the necessary
due diligence. We just are procedurally disagreeing on how to get there.
>> let me say that you are right, I did support commuter
rail under the constraint it was to transport passengers. I think I made a
clear distinction on on that. During that campo meeting when the freight phase
came up I did not support it and I still don't support it because [inaudible]
this would be an additional hardship and of course the voters would have no
idea this was coming before them as far as a freight rail scenario. We're
talking about freight rail here. I want to separate freight from comeert because
this is two -- commuter because this is two separate, distinct things. And
I think the people out there need to understand, the residents in Travis County
need to understand that commuter rail is transporting passengers. Freight
rail is transporting freight, which can be very hazardous. And I have never
supported freight rail carrying hazardous materials such as this on a rail
scenario in precinct 1.
>> there's a current statute -- does the current statute
authorize rail for passage of rail and freight?
>> well, the statute authorizes a commuter rail district.
Obviously it can purchase right-of-way and construct railroad tracks. I think
the issue is from a practical standpoint once the district has built a track
for commuter rail, it's feasible for freight rail to use it also. And I can
foresee scenarios where it makes financial sense to allow freight to use the
rail because maybe then the district doesn't have to pay for the entire facility.
See what I'm saying?
>> but then there would be liability.
>> true.
>> all in favor of the motion? Show commissioner Sonleitner,
Gomez, Moore and yours truly voting in favor. Voting against commissioner
Davis. 6 b., Consider appointment of members to the intermunicipal rail district
board and take appropriate action.
>> I have included in your packet the statute that describes
the different appointments that must be made to this board, and I would take
this opportunity to discuss how I would address the two that are the responsibility
of this commissioners court. One would be a member from the court itself,
and the other is a representative of our cart, our capital area rural transportation
system. Commissioner Gomez sits on that board. I just passed out a listing
of all the board members of cart. I -- I don't want to be shot at. I would
like to indicate my interest as serving on the board subject to you all's
approval. As to how we select the person to represent cart, my suggestion
would be we turn sto that board and ask them to designate someone they think
is appropriate and willing to serve. But I --
>> you can make this -- when do we need to make this decision?
>> well, I think we have to make the decision by the time
the district is formed, which would be upon the passage of the resolution
by the last creating member. Under the schedule that's been given to me, that's
going to be the city of san antonio, and they've told us they are going to
act on it either October 31st or November 7th. We have about a month.
>> I need more time. I haven't thought in about this. I didn't
see a whole lot of backup.
>> we all could be thinking, but I appreciate hearing that
you have a willingness to do this because this is not going to be --
>> well, I'm on the core done council, so it seems logical
-- on the corridor council, and it seems logical --
>> and the list, change that as to the --
>> no kidding. I think that's on their web page.
>> they need to fix that.
>> well --
>> my purpose in having thispostedo discuss it and decide
how we want to proceed and when we want to act on it so there would be time
for everybody to think bit.
>> I think we need to use the same approach as we did for
the r.m.a. Board. We need this person to be able to do what for us? Other
than physically appear at the meetings?
>> well, to participate in the decisions of the board itself
and bring back to the commissioners court the items that the court would then
have to approve for the district to proceed with its business. [one moment,
please, for change in captioners]
>> I'm looking at the statute here now, but I guess the statute
doesn't really address the -- --
>> so ours has to be a commissioner?
>> yes.
>> thank you, that's the clarification that I'm trying to
get, an outside person.
>> it has to be a member of this court, one appointment.
>> yeah.
>> the other has to be a -- a representative of carts, that's
why I'm suggesting referring that to the board of carts because it is no more
specific than that. It seems to me that that board is an appropriate body
for us to turn to scanned for advice. How -- to turn to and ask for advice,
how to fill that slot. The city of Austin will devise its own strategy for
filling its appointments. The texdot commission has two appointments to make.
I presume that what we will do is send them a letter saying --
>> campo.
>> -- saying heads up, your commission needs to act on this.
Campo has an appointment, which I -- which I am told will be on the agenda
for Monday night to discuss. You know, I -- frank le, from the minute that
I -- frankly from the minute that I read this -- that I read this statute
and realized that getting the board appointed was going to take a substantial
amount of time given everybody's meeting schedules and agenda rules and so
it's -- it's none too soon to begin the discussion.
>> yeah.
>> but I think that as a -- a member of the commissioners
court needs to be on there, it's logical for you to be that person. I see
where the Texas transportation commission appoints two people?
>> right. And capital metro has an appointment, so they will
have to take that up on their agenda about how they want to fill it. So --
>> all right.
>> each county that joins, which includes Williamson at this
point, they will have an appointment to the board. Then, of course, san antonio
via -- whatever they call their metropolitan planning organization. San antonio
bexar or something like that. They do their rural transportation through their
cog as I understand it. You have to deal with all of that of. Of.
>> I would just -- I don't have any problem with that, I
would just ask for us to take another week to do it.
>> that's fine. We have the time.
>> we will have this one back on -- next week. 7 is to consider
--
>> judge, before you go to 7, did -- who is going to be responsible
for getting in touch with the city of Austin for --
>> I have been.
>> all right. As far as getting the resolution, current resolution
as opposed to the one that was passed in 1998.
>> I visited with lisa gordon who has the responsibility
for this area. We also, of course, visited with the councilman wynn who is
-- has two hats in this deal. He's on the city council, but he's also the
chairman of the corridor council at this time and was at the press conference
yesterday, we visited about what they needed to do. So I will tip -- I visited
with the mayor's office.
>> I hope that you have visited with councilmember thomas,
also --
>> I will. I have not --
>> danny thomas because he's on the campo board. Not only
that he's -- he's a resident in that area that I talked about earlier. I would
want to make sure that everybody know what they are doing here as far as what's
being presented here before the commissioners court this morning.
>> actually, I think recently the city of Austin staff indicated
to our staff that -- a desire on the city's part to move forward on commuter
rail.
>> I guess it's a separate issue as opposed to what I really
need to distinguish, freight versus commuter.
>> councilmember thomas is on capital metro now, isn't he,
Margaret? He will also get a double dose, campo, capital metro two and city
council.
>> on the clerk's side, do we need --
>> yes, sir.
>> does the county clerk -- are you here to give information
or just to tell us go ahead and do it?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> any questions?
>> move approval.
>> she moved approval of 19 a appeared b. -- 19 a and b [sic]
>> second? Any more discussion? That passes by unanimous
vote. Thanks very much for coming over. I know you wanted to learn about commuter
rail districts
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM