HomeMy WebLinkAboutContract 47352-A1 ary sE
COMTRAZ 1
CT V.0. -
PROJECT
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1
CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS — GENERAL ELECTRIC RAILWAY TRACK INSTALLATION
ALLIANCE AIRPORT RUNWAY EXTENSION PROJECT
THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF FORT
WORTH, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation ("City"), by and through its duly authorized
assistant city manager, as authorized by the City Council, and GE Manufacturing Solutions,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with a mailing address of 12850 Three Wide Dr., Fort
Worth, Texas 76177 ("Company").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City and Company entered into a Reimbursement Agreement (City
Secretary No. 47352, M&C C-27302) (the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2009, City authorized the execution of a Local Project
Advance Funding Agreement ("LPAFA") with the Texas Department of Transportation
("TxDOT") which provided $80,000,000.00 in local Regional Toll Revenue ("RTR") funds to City
to support the relocation of FM 156 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe ("BNSF") mainline
track to support the extension of the Alliance Airport runway; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to mitigate the impact of the proposed SH 114/FM 156 project
on Company, the North Central Texas Council of Governments ("NCTCOG"), with cooperation
by City, has committed to working in good faith to establish a rail line, totaling a distance of 3.0
miles, for Company's use as a test track for locomotives ("Test Track Project"); and
WHEREAS, the NCTCOG, acting through the Regional Transportation Council,
approved the use of an additional $3,000,000.00 of the RTR funds for the Test Track Project at
its December 10, 2015, regular meeting, and such funds are held in trust by the City and
constitute fully available funds, and are not subject to any further appropriation or authorization
of any kind; and
WHEREAS, City has agreed to reimburse Company in an additional amount of
$3,000,000.00 (the "Additional RTR Funds") for a revised total amount up to $15,000,000.00
solely from RTR funds, and not from any other funding source, for the costs and expenses
incurred by Company with respect to the right-of-way acquisition, design and construction
efforts related to the Test Track Project, and such reimbursement has been approved by the
City Council of City pursuant to M&C C-27302 and Ordinance No. 21758-05-2015
("Reimbursement Funds"); and
WHEREAS, City and Company acknowledge and agree that the original $12,000,000.00
of Reimbursement Funds (the "Original RTR Funds") shall be available for immediate
reimbursement of Test Track Project expenses per the terms of the Agreement. The Additional
RTR Funds shall be available to Company for reimbursement of fifty percent (50%) of Test
Track Project expenses exceeding the Original RTR Funds up to a total reimbursement amount
of $2,570,000.00. The remaining $430,000.00 of the Additional RTR Funds shall only be
Amendment 1 to Reimbursement Agreement FF11C�A-L R �})RD
City of Fort Worth&GE Manufacturing Solutions, LLC j 0 T 5 E C ii ETA RV
GE Test Track Project
Page 1 of 5
available for reimbursement of up to fifty percent (50%) of any expenses incurred by Company,
if any, that fall within the $860,000.00 contingency amount budgeted for the design and
construction of the test track (the "Contingency Budget").
WHEREAS, City has further agreed that the Reimbursement Funds may be used to
reimburse Company for costs and expenses incurred by Company with respect to flagging
services required at such Double Eagle Boulevard crossing during track testing of Company's
locomotives during Company's temporary use of such BNSF track.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of
which is deemed hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed by and between City and Company
as follows:
1. RECITALS:
The recitals, above, are incorporated into this Amendment insofar as they contain
material elements germane to the parties, including, without limitation: (i) the
amount and availability of the Reimbursement Funds for reimbursement of
Company's expenses incurred with respect to land acquisition, design and
construction of the Test Track Project; (ii) the rights and responsibilities of the
parties with respect to the flagging services and expenses at the Double Eagle
Boulevard crossing; and (iii) the availability of Reimbursement Funds for
reimbursement of Company's expenses incurred with respect to such flagging
services.
2. REIMBURSEMENT BY CITY:
Upon submission by Company to City of statements showing actual expenditures
of Company, or its affiliates, for the Test Track Project, City shall reimburse
Company for such expenditures (up to the aggregate amount of Reimbursement
Funds) within thirty (30) business days of submission via electronic funds transfer
to GE's account specified below:
Deutsche Bank (ACH and Wires)
Account: 50268101
Routing (ABA): 021001033
60 Wall Street
New York, New York 10005
Company shall submit such statements not more often than every 30 calendar
days to City's authorized employee, Bryan Beck, for purposes of reimbursement.
For clarity, Company may periodically submit statements showing actual
expenditures for reimbursement, and in no event shall Company be required to
wait for completion of the Test Track Project for reimbursement. To the extent
Company seeks reimbursement from the Additional RTR Funds, Company's
statements must further provide reasonable evidence that such reimbursement
request does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of Company's expenditures relevant
to such request.
Amendment I to Reimbursement Agreement
City of Fort Worth&GE Manufacturing Solutions, LLC
GE Test Track Project
Page 2 of 5
3. RESPONSIBILITY OF COMPANY: Company will be responsible for: (i)
obtaining all such necessary rights—of-way and acquiring land for the Test Track
Project; and (ii) the design and construction of the Test Track Project, utilizing its
design standards and procurement and letting procedures for the construction of
an industrial plant railroad.
Company shall have the exclusive right to control the details of its operations and
responsibilities and shall be solely responsible for the acts and omissions of its
officers, agents, servants, employees, contractors, subcontractors, patrons,
licensees and invitees. Company acknowledges that the doctrine of respondeat
superior shall not apply as between City and Company, its officers, agents,
employees, contractors and subcontractors. Company further agrees that
nothing herein shall be construed as the creation of an owner-prime contractor
relationship, partnership, or joint enterprise between City and Company.
4. AUDIT: City shall have the right, upon reasonable notice and during normal
business hours, to audit and obtain copies of the relevant books, records, and
accounts of Company relating to the acquisition, design and construction efforts
to verify the accuracy of the actual costs incurred by Company for the Test Track
Project up to twelve (12) months after the final presented invoice by Company.
5. COVENANT: City covenants and agrees that: (a) it shall not use the
Reimbursement Funds for any other purpose other than to reimburse Company
for the acquisition, design and construction efforts related to the Test Track
Project and for flagging services for the Double Eagle Boulevard crossing as
described herein; (b) no further action of any kind is required to appropriate, or
authorize the use of, the Reimbursement Funds in accordance with this
Agreement; and (c) this Agreement is subject to Section 271.152 of the Texas
Local Government Code or any successor thereto.
6. INDEMNITY: EACH PARTY ("INDEMNIFYING PARTY") AGREES, TO THE
EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY, AND HOLD THE
OTHER PARTY ("INDEMNIFIED PARTY"), ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS,
SERVANTS, AND EMPLOYEES HARMLESS FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS, LAWSUITS, ACTIONS, DAMAGES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES
OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THOSE FOR PROPERTY
DAMAGE OR LOSS AND PERSONAL INJURY (INCLUDING DEATH) TO THE
EXTENT DIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR BE OCCASIONED BY ANY
NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION OR INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT OF
INDEMNIFYING PARTY, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, ASSOCIATES,
EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS, OR SUBCONTRACTORS RELATED TO THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED. IN THE EVENT OF
JOINT AND CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE OF BOTH COMPANY AND CITY,
RESPONSIBILITY, IF ANY, SHALL BE APPORTIONED COMPARATIVELY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. EXCEPT AS
SET FORTH IN SECTION 5, HERETO, NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE
CONSTRUED AS A WAIVER OF THE CITY'S GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
AS FURTHER PROVIDED BY THE LAWS OF TEXAS.
7. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS: The Agreement, as amended, is solely for the
Amendment 1 to Reimbursement Agreement
City of Fort Worth&GE Manufacturing Solutions, LLC
GE Test Track Project
Page 3 of 5
benefit of the City and Company and Company's affiliates, and neither the City
nor Company intends by any provision of the Agreement to create any rights in
any third-party beneficiaries or to confer any benefit or enforceable rights, under
the Agreement or otherwise, upon anyone other than the City and Company,
including the public in general.
8. VENUE AND JURISDICTION: The Agreement, as amended, shall be governed
by the laws of the State of Texas. Venue for any action brought to interpret or
enforce, or arising out of or incident to, the terms of this Agreement shall be in
Tarrant County, Texas or the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Fort Worth Division.
9. COUNTERPARTS: This Amendment may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.
10. ASSIGNMENT AND SUCCESSORS: Company shall not assign all or any part of
its rights or privileges under the Agreement, as amended, without the prior
written consent of City, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. Any
attempted assignment without the City's prior written approval shall be void and
constitute a breach of the Agreement.
11. ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT; TERM: The Agreement and this Amendment
(including its Exhibits, if any) constitute the entire agreement between the parties
hereto relating to the subject matter hereof, and no further alterations of the
terms and conditions of the Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed
by both of the parties hereto. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and Company's assigns. The
Agreement, as amended, will automatically terminate upon the full satisfaction of
the parties' obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment shall become effective as of the date it
becomes fully e ecuted by the parties.
GE MANUFACI U IING SOUTIONS, LLC CITY OF FORT WORTH
a Delaware li t I ill any
By: By:
Walter Amaya, re d nt Jesus J. Chapa
Assistant City Manager
Date: ` Date:
Recommended by:
C�111—
Brya Be k, P.E.
Regi nal ransportation Coordinator
Amendment 1 to Reimbursement Agreement
City of Fort Worth&GE Manufacturing Solutions, LLC
GE Test Track Project
Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES
FORM '.295
101`1
Complete Nos.1-4 and 6 if there are interested parties. OFFICE USE ONLY
Complete Nos.1,2,3,5,and 6 if there are no interested parties. CERTIFICATION OF FILING
1 Name of business entity filing form,and the city,state and country of the business entity's place Certificate Number:
of business. 2016-9877
GE Manufacturing Solutions, LLC
Fort Worth,TX United States Date Filed:
2 Name of governmental entity or state agency that is a party to the contract for which the form is 02/05/2016
being filed.
City of Fort Worth Date Acknowledged:
/I( /11/ 4,
3 Provide the identification number used by the governmental entity or state agency to track or identify the contract,and provide a
description of the goods or services to be provided under the contract.
47352
Reimbursement of funds related to capital project
4 Nature of interest(check applicable)
Name of Interested Party City,State,Country(place of business)
Controlling Intermediary
General Electric Company Fairfield, CT United States X
Segovia,Justo Fort Worth,TX United States X
Amaya,Walter Fort Worth,TX United States X
5 Check only if there is NO Interested Party. ❑
6 AFFIDAVIT I swear,or affirm,under penal of erju ,t al he above disclosure is true and correct.
-LEIGH A.ALLISON
erf" Notary Public,State of Texas
My Commission Expires
July 23, 2018 Signature of authorized agent o ntracting business entity
AFFIX NOTARY STAMP/SEAL ABOVE /�
Sworn to and subscribed before me,by the said W A 14 F-2 AMIAJA this the day of
20. to certify which,witness my hand and seal of office.
A. k116',0N A/aT� A4tic-
Sig ture of officer administering oath Printed name of officer administering oath Title of officer administering oath
Forms provided by Texas Ethics Commission www.ethics.state.tx.us Version V1.0.34944
City Manager's Office
Approved as to Form and Legality:
9KQA!--
Douglas W Black
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
M&C: C-27565 Attest:
Date: 12/15/2015
Mary J K er
City Secr ary ` .^a b
0
oo
000
OFFICIAL RECORD
CITY SECRETARY
K WORTH,TX
Amendment 1 to Reimbursement Agreement
City of Fort Worth&GE Manufacturing Solutions, LLC
GE Test Track Project
Page 5 of 5
M&C Review Page 1 of 2
Official site of the City of Fort Worth,Texas
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FoRTWORT111
COUNCIL ACTION: Approved on 12/15/2015 - Ordinance No. 22006-12-2015
DATE: 12/15/2015 REFERENCE NO.: C-27565 LOG NAME: 02GE TEST
TRACK AMEND 1
CODE: C TYPE: NOW PUBLIC CONSENT HEARING: NO
SUBJECT: Authorize Amendment No. 1 to the Reimbursement Agreement with General Electric
Company or a Division or Affiliate Thereof, in the Amount of$3,000,000.00 for a Revised
Amount Not to Exceed $15,000,000.00 for the GE Test Track Project Associated with the
GE Locomotive Facility in the Vicinity of the Intersection of State Highway 114 and FM 156
and Adopt Appropriation Ordinance (COUNCIL DISTRICT 7)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Authorize a transfer in the amount of$3,000,000.00 from the Aviation Grants Fund to the Grant Capital
Projects Fund;
2. Adopt the attached appropriation ordinance increasing estimated receipts and appropriations in the
amount of$3,000,000.00 in the Grants Capital Projects Fund; and
3. Authorize the execution of Amendment No. 1 to the Reimbursement Agreement with General Electric
Company or a division or affiliate thereof, in the amount of$3,000,000.00 for a revised amount not to
exceed $15,000,000.00 for right-of-way acquisition, design and construction for the GE Test Track Project
associated with the GE Locomotive Facility.
DISCUSSION:
On May 19, 2015, (M&C C-27302) the City Council authorized a Reimbursement Agreement to support the
GE Test Track Project to facilitate testing of locomotives manufactured at the GE Locomotive Facility in an
amount not to exceed $12,000,000.00. As the project has developed, it has become necessary to provide
additional funding support to complete the project.
The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), acting through the Regional Transportation
Council, approved the use of an additional $3,000,000.00 of the Regional Toll Revenue (RTR) funds for the
GE Test Track Project at its December 10, 2015 regular meeting.
The funds associated with the improvements contemplated in this action are from excess funds held in trust
by the City and would otherwise be returned to the NCTCOG at the completion of the Multimodal
Transportation Project. No City funds will be expended as part of this project.
This project will not be a capital asset of the City.
FISCAL INFORMATION/CERTIFICATION:
The Financial Management Services Director certifies that upon the approval of the above recommendation
and the adoption of the attached appropriation ordinance, funds will be available in the Grants Capital
Projects Fund.
http://apps.cfwnet.org/council_packet/me review.asp?ID=2181 8&councildate=12/15/2015 1/26/2016
MINUTES
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
December 10, 2015 .
The Regional Transportation Council (RTC) met on Thursday, December 10, 2015, at 1 pm in
the Transportation Council Room of the North Central Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG). The following members or representatives were present: Monica R. Alonzo, Bruce
Arfsten, Douglas Athas, Brian Barth, Mike Cantrell, Rudy Durham, Andy Eads, Charles Emery,
Gary Fickes, Rob Franke, Sandy Greyson, Roger Harmon, Clay Jenkins, Ron Jensen, Jungus
Jordan, Taylor Armstrong (representing Lee Kleinman), Stephen Lindsey, Brian Loughmiller,
David Magness, Carter Burdette (representing Scott Mahaffey), Matthew Marchant, Ray Smith
(representing Maher Maso), Cary Moon, Stan Pickett, Mark Riley, Kevin Roden, Amir Rupani,
Kelly Selman, Gary Slagel, Lissa Smith, Mike Taylor, Stephen Terrell, Oscar Trevino, Oscar
Ward, Bernice J. Washington, Duncan Webb, Glen Whitley, Kathryn Wilemon, Erik Wilson, and
Zim Zimmerman.
Others present at the meeting were: Vickie Alexander, Nancy Amos, Gustavo Baez, Melissa
Baker, Berrien Barks, Carli Baylor, Keith Bilbrey, Brandi Bird, Brandy Bissland, Alberta Blair,
Dale Booth, David Boski, Kristina Brevard, Tanya Brooks, Ron Brown, John Brunk, Loyl Bussell,
Marrk Callier, Byron Campbell, Jack Carr, Angie Carson, Dave Carter, Sarah Chadderdon, John
Cordary, Jason Crawford, Mike Curtis, Roy Davenport, Ruben Delgado, Jerry Dittman, Chad
Edwards, Traci Enna, Brittney Farr, Kevin Feldt, Christie Gotti, Mike Grace, Tony Hartzel, Jeff
Hathcock, Omega Hawkins, Rebekah Hernandez, Jesse Herrera, Robert Hinkle, Jodi Hodges,
Tracy Homfeld, Jessie Huddleston, Yagnesh Jarmarwala, Dan Kessler, Karen Khan, Tony
Kimmey, Ken Kirkpatrick, Chris Klaus, Marcus Knight, Paul Knippel, Tom Kramptiz, Garry
Kraus, Dan Lamers, Eron Linn, Sonny Loper, Paul Luedtke, Matthew MacGregor, Mickey
Marlow, Steve McCullough, Chad McKeown, Michael Miles, Mindy Mize, Cesar Molina, Erin
Moore, Michael Morris, Ron Natinsky, Jeff Neal, Sidd Neekhra, Mark Nelson, Emily Nicholson,
Bruce Nipp, Cynthia Northrop White, John Polster, Paul Pomeroy, James Powell, Vercie Pruitt-
Jenkins, Dean Radeloff, Chris Reed, Molly Rendon, Cristal Retana, Milton Richter, Bill Riley,
Kyle Roy, Greg Royster, Moosa Saghian, Kelli Schlicher, Lori Shelton, Walter Shumac, Randy
Skinner, Tom Stallings, Shannon Stevenson, Rick Stopfer, Gerald Sturdivant, Vickie Suhm,
Leon Tate, Don Treude, Lauren Trimble, Frank Turner, Travis Ussery, Dan Vedral, Mitzi Ward,
Karla Weaver, Kendall Wendling, Devin Wenski, Sandy Wesch, Amanda Wilson, Brian Wilson,
Ed Wueste, and Ann Zadeh.
1. Approval November 12, 2015, Minutes: The minutes of the November 12, 2015, meeting
were approved as submitted in Reference Item 1. Mike Cantrell (M); Rob Franke (S). The
motion passed unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda: The following item was included on the Consent Agenda.
2.1. General Electric Test Track Funding Proposal: A motion was made to approve the
General Electric Test Track funding proposal, detailed in Referenced Item 2.1, to
allocate up to $3 million in Regional Toll Revenue funds from costs savings from the
BNSF Railway Mainline relocation project.
Jungus Jordan (M); Kathryn Wilemon (S). The motion passed unanimously.
expressed the importance of the service to citizens, and noted that remaining members are
working to resolve the issues. Mr. Magers noted that TAPS has been operating since 1986,
providing approximately 150,000 trips per year. He discussed the previous Chair of TAPS
and noted that TAPS Board members trusted the leadership and believed it to be truthful. In
addition, he discussed recent efforts of the TAPS Board to restore the agency. Mr. Magers
noted that he believed if TAPS had 60 days of funding to continue operations, this would
allow time for the consultants to prepare invoices for reimbursement and determine the
status of the agency and a plan to move forward. Lissa Smith asked if members where
aware of the total debt, and how much of the debt TAPS owed to the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). Mr. Carter noted that Texoma Area Paratransit System debt totals
approximately $4.4 million, with $1.1 million owed to the IRS in unpaid payroll taxes. Glen
Whitley asked how much money TAPS anticipates will be reimbursed for invoices that the
consultants are reviewing. Mr. Morris noted that consultants are reviewing invoices for
services paid up to 12 months ago and are working to reestablish cash flow to the entity. Mr.
Carter noted that an exact total is not known at this time, but that it is potentially up to
$3 million. Mr. Whitley also asked how many counties remained with TAPS and the monthly
cost to keep services to those counties. Mr. Carter noted that six counties currently use
TAPS and that approximately$50,000 per week is needed to sustain current services. Clay
Jenkins asked if Board members have given any thought to contacting investment bankers
or consultants within the impacted counties for assistance and noted that he would be willing
to contact someone for TAPS. Bernice J. Washington discussed the financial issues and
expressed how the situation elevates the distrust from the general public for local elected
officials. She also offered to contact agencies that could potentially provide assistance to
TAPS. Andy Eads asked what part of the MPO area TAPS serves. Mr. Morris highlighted
four areas served by TAPS that will be discussed in Item 7: the unincorporated portion of
Collin County, the McKinney urbanized area, Wise County, and the southern portion of
Collin County that is within the Dallas-Fort Worth urbanized area. Each of these four areas
have different funding sources and rules which complicate the situation. Mike Cantrell asked
if there was anything that prohibited the six counties still in TAPS from contributing finances
to sustain TAPS over the next few months until the status of the agency can be determined.
In addition, he asked if there were also cities that were a part of TAPS that could also
contribute financing. He noted that the entities could divide the contribution equally to
provide the $250,000 assistance needed, without the need for a bank. Mr. Carter noted that
Sherman and Denison were also a part of TAPS. In addition, he noted that entities could be
asked to provide financial assistance but that he did not believe the Fannin County
Commissioner's Court would approve spending up to $50,000 for TAPS. Mark Riley
discussed the business of the RTC and the willingness of members to help those that help
themselves. He noted that if each entity in TAPS were willing to contribute financing, it
would send a message to RTC that all parties are willing to be partners to provided
assistance to the agency. Mike Taylor noted that he believed members are not against the
program, but that it was his opinion that what has occurred at TAPS is fraud and
mismanagement. It is difficult for members to provide financial assistant to an agency that
has not yet identified the problem or a solution to resolve the problem. He agreed that the
counties/cities in TAPS should divide the financing equally and as cash begins to flow back
into the agency, determine solutions and come back to the RTC with a plan to more forward.
Glen Whitley discussed the previous leadership at TAPS and the members of the Board that
have remained despite the current issues. He agreed that entities in TAPS should be willing
to provide some financial contribution as demonstration of their commitment. Mr. Magers
noted that he was willing to ask the Greyson County Commissioners Court to provide
assistance and also discussed assistance currently being provided by the County. David
Magness noted that as a STAR Transit Board member, he understands the complications
3
30 days for public comment. Mr. Lamers noted that much of the information has been
covered in detail at the previously held Mobility Plan Workshop and RTC meetings.
Electronic Item 5 included a more detailed presentation for member review. Guiding
principles for development of the Plan were highlighted. In addition, the cost estimate was
reviewed. Draft Mobility 2040 expenditures total approximately$108.9 billion over the life of
the Plan. He noted that the total for expenditures may change slightly due to projects being
fine-tuned and the inclusion of high-speed rail costs for the region. A motion was made to
approve staff to present draft Mobility 2040 recommendations at public meetings in
December 2015. Glen Whitley (M). Jungus Jordan (S). Discussed was held.
Monica R. Alonzo asked for an explanation of the public meeting process. Michael Morris
discussed the public meeting process, noting that three meetings will be held in December
2015 at which draft Mobility 2040 recommendations will be presented. At January 2016
public meetings, the 60 day public comment period begins for Mobility 2040 during which
recommendations must be held constant. If changes are made to recommendations, the
60 day public comment period must be restarted. Sandy Greyson noted that on the maps
included in the presentation, the Cotton Belt is shown as rail only. She asked when the
decision was made not to include bus rapid transit or high-intensity bus service in
recommendations. Mr. Morris discussed the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's (The T)
full funding grant agreement that provides regional rail from downtown Fort Worth to the
AB Station. The RTC's policy is that riders are not forced to get off of a train and transfer to
some other mode of transportation. Ms. Greyson asked if the RTC policy stating a one-seat
ride from east to west/west to east is driving the fact that the map shows only rail. Mr. Morris
noted yes, and that it is also due to the triparty agreement among the transportation
agencies to provide customer service that does not force transfers between jurisdictions.
Ms. Greyson noted that she had mentioned previously an interest in including options other
than rail as part of Mobility 2040. She asked if the RTC must revisit its policy to address
adding this option prior to adoption of the Mobility Plan. Mr. Morris noted that the RTC must
revisit its one-seat ride policy and that the transit agencies must also revisit their triparty
agreement. He noted that it would be important to make any changes to recommendations
prior to the January public meetings due to the 60-day comment period during which
significant changes would prompt an additional 60-days for public comment. Ms. Greyson
also asked if the Trinity Parkway toll road was shown with and without tolls. Mr. Morris noted
that the project is shown as a toll road recommendation in Mobility 2040. Ms. Greyson
asked about a potential high-intensity bus service on the George Bush corridor and if the
option would be presented to the public. Mr. Lamers noted that a map provided in Electronic
Item 5 shows additional corridors being considered for potential high-intensity bus that will
be presented to the public. Matthew Marchant asked the deadline for adoption of Mobility
2040. Mr. Lamers explained the expiration of the current Plan and the air quality conformity
process, noting that staff believes the March 2016 request for approval provides sufficient
time for projects to move forward. Mr. Marchant asked who determines what constitutes a
material change that triggers the new 60-day public comment period. Staff noted that it is
defined as any major regional transportation project and that these changes are monitored
closely by federal partners that tend to be risk averse. Mr. Marchant reminded staff that he
had requested at the November RTC meeting that the one-seat ride policy be discussed and
that it now seems as if adding options will delay projects. Mr. Morris discussed the new
federal transportation bill and additional funding for transit. Changes would be a violation of
the triparty agreement among the transit agencies and the RTC policy. If members wish to
provide bus service instead of rail on the Cotton Belt corridor, the RTC policy would need to
be revised. It was suggested that members, as part of the motion, request to include this
option at December public meetings. Ms. Greyson asked why the bus rapid transit option
5
previously proposed policies addressing urban sustainable development and rural
sustainable development be combined. The new proposed policy addresses each of the
three types of sustainable development, including urban, rural, and suburban. Staff also
proposed that urban thoroughfare revitalization include projects both on and off the State
highway system. A motion was made to permit staff to present the policy bundle proposal
and creation of the credit bank at public meetings as part of Mobility 2040. Glen Whitley(M);
Rob Franke (S). Andy Eads was opposed. The motion passed.
7. Contingency Emergency Supplement Transit Options for Texoma Area Paratransit
System: Jessie Huddleston discussed action to provide emergency transit operations for
governmental agencies that are currently under contract to the Texoma Area Paratransit
System (TAPS). She discussed the types of providers needed for interim service options for
services previously provided by TAPS. In urban areas, the most likely providers of service
are metropolitan transportation authorities such as Dallas Area Rapid Transit and the
Denton County Transportation Authority. These agencies have a lot of experience running
efficient, fixed-route and large volume demand-response services. In rural areas of Collin
and Wise counties, the most likely providers are traditional rural operators such as STAR
Transit and SPAN, Inc. The agencies specialize in feeder services and demand-response
trips that cover long distances. In either geography, there are also groups of citizens that
need specialized services, such as trips for seniors to meal sights. In the interim, these
citizens may be best served using taxi vouchers so a mix of providers may be needed.
Reference Item 7 outlines a contingency plan for the next 90-120 days to provide continuous
transit operations. In the southern Collin County area (metro), RTC is responsible for this
geography. The estimate to keep essential services running for this time frame is up to
$500,000. This money would come from Regional Toll Revenue (RTR)funds allocated to
transit sustainability. In the McKinney urban area, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
and TAPS are both responsible in this geography. The estimate of needed funds is up to
$100,000, also from RTR funds allocated to transit sustainability or federal funds if funds
that have already been allocated can be accessed. In this action, staff is asking to assist
McKinney in reestablishing its direct recipient status. McKinney would gain responsibility for
what happens in its urban area and work with FTA to access federal funds if available. If
federal funds cannot be accessed, the money would be used to fund operations as in the
southern Collin County area. In the rural portions of Collin and Wise counties served by
TAPS, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is responsible for this geography. If
the counties leave TAPS or the agency no longer exists before the counties leave, funding
of up to $75,000 could be loaned to the interim provider and may be repaid. Mr. Morris
clarified that none of the funds will be provided directly to TAPS. During the 60-120 period,
local entities should be in conversations with transportation authorities and rural transit
providers to find a long-term provider. Erik Wilson asked how many people were served by
TAPS. Ms. Huddleston noted that previously TAPS served approximately 350 riders per day
in Collin County, with the true need being much higher. Before services were cut altogether,
100 trips per day were being provided. She noted that currently, no trips are being provided.
In Wise County, only 18 trips per day are currently being provided. Bernice J. Washington
asked if the proposed funding would be a loan or a gift. Mr. Morris noted that these are
existing transit funds. In the first two options, the money will be used for interim service until
a long-term provider is established. Related to TxDOT, flexibility is requested. The money
may be needed only as cash-flow, so it could be a loan. He noted that TxDOT is negotiating
over$200 million on transportation projects with RTC and that the $75,000 may be part of
the partnership with TxDOT. Mike Cantrell asked if the RTR transit funds being proposed
were specifically for Collin County. Mr. Morris noted that they are regional RTR funds
dedicated to transit. Mr. Marchant noted that he believed Collin County should be
7
11.Air Quality Freight Initiatives: This item was postponed until the January 14, 2016,
Regional Transportation Council meeting.
12. Progress Reports: Regional Transportation Council attendance was provided in
Reference Item 12.1 and the current Local Motion was provided in Electronic Item 12.2.
13. Other Business (Old or New): There was no discussion on this item.
14. Future Agenda Items: There was no discussion on this item.
15. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Regional Transportation Council is scheduled for
Thursday, January 14, 2016, 1:00 pm, at the North Central Texas Council of Governments.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.
9