,
... and that is on this
chart right here.
We have the secondary and
primary voltage customers
and they saw corresponding
decrease in the fuel charge.
Before I move on on the
generation plan, is there
any questions on fuel
charge?
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Mayor pro tem cole.
>> Cole: I believe during
the rate case we had some
questions about the estimate
for the power [inaudible]
adjustment.
Do we have any -- do we have
any estimates of what that
should be?
At one point we thought it
might be a significant
number and how it was
recalculated.
Do we have any estimates
what that might be yet or am
I -- am I remembering that
[09:12:00]
correctly?
>> Well, the process of
going about determining what
that number is is here.
>> Cole: I'm confused.
I need your help
understanding the 6%
reduction versus --
>> okay, let's go to this
slide right here, 6.
And the -- this year the way
the formula works for
calculating the power supply
adjustment charge, the
system average had
previously been 3.598.
3.6.
And now going forward
effective this october it is
now 3.356 or 3.4.
So it has gone down that
much.
The reason it went down, i
might add, is that we've had
lower gas prices that are
folding into our portfolio
and we've had a pretty good
year of operation.
Not a lot of outages and so
forth.
So we'll see that trend
down, we hope, but you never
know how it's going to
[inaudible].
Does that help answer?
>> Cole: I'm just trying
to understand, I thought you
said -- maybe that was a
projected cost that there
was an estimate.
>> Yes, it was 6%.
I think maybe what you are
thinking during the rate
review, in our cost of
service we had estimated and
if I remember right it was
73 per secondary and this
is 3.72.
But then in january if you
remember last year 2011 we
had three outages in a row.
That increased our fuel
58
overall.
Then when we recalculated
with the new rates effective
OCTOBER 1st, IT CAME BACK
Down because our over/under
recovery was almost
imbalanced at that point.
So we brought it back down
[09:14:01]
6% from where it was from
the january of 2012.
>> Cole: Okay.
I got you.
Thank you, ma'am.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: With
the outage --
>> we had an outage with the
sand hill plant within a
six-month period and when
that occurs we have to buy
power off the market and
sometimes it's higher than
nuclear or coal plant.
In that instance it
increased the psa or the
fuel factor.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Yeah.
And sometimes depending on
whether it's local or
statewide it can be -- the
price you have to pay can be
significantly more and we've
seen that.
>> Especially during the
peak period.
>> I'm going on to the
generation plan.
This is update, current
generation plan.
Our generation plan, as you
recall, kind of boils down
to these three primary
goals.
The first is renewable
targets, then our energy
efficiency, and our co-2
emissions.
Also underlying all of this
is that we maintain
affordable rates by future
increases not exceeding 2%
per year and a lower 50% of
texas overall as to how we
measure up on our rates.
On our renewable energy
goal, I'm happy to say
austin energy is well on its
way to achieving it's 2020
renewable goal.
We've contracted for
short-term wind, we have our
webberville solar project,
this is what's happened this
year, and biomass project
has come online.
And the los cientos and the
[09:16:02]
white tail project will come
on this month.
If they don't bring that up
to speed this month, the
trigger is that they have
tax credits that are
really important.
That's why you will see wind
projects come on and a lot
in december because they are
making sure that with their
business planning that they
take advantage of the full
year before the tax credit.
So in terms of construction.
As you remember, council
also authorized an
additional 200-megawatt wind
project this past year, but
due to some affordable
issues in europe with the
counter party we were unable
to do that deal.
We're watching and waiting
for what's going to happen
with congress with respect
to tax credits for wind
projects.
We expect that there's a
good likelihood there will
be a two-year extension of
those and then we'll again
find ourselves back in the
market this next year
looking at some additional
wind acquisitions, not to
mention solar and everything
else, but I'm just talking
specifically about wind
projects.
By 2013, ae forecasts 20% of
all customers' energy supply
will be from renewable --
27% from renewable sources.
The wind we did acquire is
attractive prices and has
assisted in our portfolio.
Future additions to meet
these goals of 2013 and
therefore just a balance, if
you will, of making sure
that we're within our cost
metrics.
>> Morrison: Mayor?
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison.
>> Morrison: A note here
that we have the local
advisory committee about to
come to their final
recommendations, think
thursday they plan to do
that, and then they are
going to come to the
emerging technology and
telecommunications
committee.
So we have that to look
forward to, but I'm hoping
that you and I and some
other folks might be able to
sit down after those
[09:18:00]
recommendations come out
before they get too far
ahead to make sure we're all
on the same page.
>> I'm aware of that draft
and I have taken a look at
it.
>> Morrison: I look
forward to it.
>> This is just another
slide with some nice
pictures of these projects.
The biomass facility, we
have operational flexibility
in that probably at a later
quarterly report go into
that as to how we operate
that.
Moving on to our energy
efficiency goals, we have an
ambitious target of
800 megawatts achieved by
2020.
Since 1982, on the heels of
the carter administration
and all of the -- all of
that, that's when austin
energy's program started
like a lot of other big
utilities across the
country.
Since 1982 to 2007, 700 mega
weights of on peak went to
savings that happened
through these programs and
the additional goal is 800
and we're well on our way to
meet that, to take a line
and draw it to where we are
and where we have to be,
we're pretty close to on
target.
It will vary year to year
but we're on target.
That will be 1500 megawatts
between 1982 and 2020.
That's very commendable for
the type of loads that we
have.
I'm speaking to when --
before I came.
On the co-2 reduction, our
goal number 3, the fayette
power plant represents
approximately 75% of the
annual co-2 emissions.
Meeting the goal requires
significant reduction of --
I'll have a generation slide
in a minute and you can see
how that was set up in april
of 2010.
Natural gas combined cycle
generation is the council
approved plan to meet future
supply needs for base
generation.
[09:20:00]
At this time, at this point
for base generation, that is
the generation we need to
effectively operate the
electric system with inside
the market, that is in every
case we've analyzed the best
choice for base resource.
Here's a familiar chart to
you.
Over time the different
numbers have been in there,
but I want to emphasize the
coal number.
If you look on the left,
what this shows is to meet
our co 2 level based on
operating forecast that we
have today, system growth
and all in, that we would
operate fayette to the
equivalent capacity of
367 megawatts.
That is we would bring the
plant's operation down and
if you take the hours of the
year we run it, et cetera,
and do the math, you end up
with a nominal capacity of
367 megawatts.
That helps us meet the
target and it does that with
all of these other majors
being completed as well,
that is to solar, we have to
have 200 megawatts, wind
1127, all of those other
numbers across the site also
contribute to the overall co
2 goal so it's all
inclusive, but fayette
represents a very large part
of that 75%.
This is the plan that we're
operating on year by year,
quarter by quarter.
I suppose we will be
bringing to you changes as
we have them since we've
started doing these
quarterrerly reports.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Could I just clarify on that
coal capacity, that's just a
self-imposed limitation,
there's no physical
reduction in the capacity.
>> Correct.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: If
needed it could be jened
back up.
>> That's correct.
And the dynamics of how we
do that is a path we've yet
to take.
In other words, --
[inaudible] we'll try to
[09:22:00]
optimize to make sure we
meet our co 2 goals but
we're not going to do
anything to make sure we
don't report the
reliability.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Our
plan is for local
consumption that we would
only rely on 367 megawatts
instead of 602, but the
actu of the plant
which would affect co 2
emissions could be affected
by lots of outside factors
including ercot.
>> Sheryl, do you want to
address that?
>> The question is that to
meet just the local loads
and that's really to meet
our co 2 goal.
So that equivalent capacity
factor is what will help us
achieve co 2.
We blend that with
renewables and additional
gas that we might add to our
portfolio but it's still out
there for ercot.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: But
you still have with the 367
at that date in 2020, you
have enough capacity to meet
austin energy's needs.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Okay.
Councilmember martinez.
>> Martinez: Expand a
little bit more on that.
In this scenario that you
mentioned where we're
operating at 367 and ercot
says we need more capacity
during peak demand times, go
ahead and ramp up to 602,
would those carbon emissions
be applied to austin
specifically or would the
state bear that
responsibility, if you will?
>> This is sheryl maily,
chief operating officer and
we'll go back and forth on
this.
I think that the idea is
that yes, we would run it at
602 during those heavy peak
hours and that we will not
use it at other times
because the co 2 is really a
function of the hours we run
the plant, not the capacity
of the plant.
So if you take the hours of
the year that we're going to
run the plant and you do the
calculation on that, that's
how you end up with the 367.
[09:24:01]
In other words, to meet our
co 2 goals we just have to
drop the hours that we run
the plant.
But when we have the demands
and the ercot market, the
602 will come back.
Back.
>> Martinez: And another
question I have is in the
market as I look forward in
your wind and solar, would
the cost that psa, is that
what you are calling it now?
Would that drive you to use
coal at certain times for
operation expenses if -- if
the fuel charge or the
transmission charge from,
you know, south and west
texas wind and west texas
solar, can that force you to
use more coal?
>> We're going to be looking
to optimize the goals and
that means meeting the
carbon goals as well past
2020.
And so it will be something
we're managing.
When there's opportunity to
generate in the wholesale
market and produce revenue
towards that net settlement
that larry mentioned when he
talked about the psa, then
staff is certainly going to
look at those opportunities,
but we're also going to be
bound to look at carbon goal
over time as well.
So it's a giant balancing
act that they would be doing
down at the energy desk and
looking at ways to maximum
nice the investment
customers have made and get
returns out of assets we own
but we certainly also want
to be taking those other
resources and the renewable
resources when they are, you
know, competitive in the
market.
>> Martinez: Okay.
Thank you.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember riley.
>> Riley: Aren't the
carbon emissions affect by
the operation?
In other words, when you
ramp up from -- from nothing
and then there are
significant emissions as
opposed to maintaining
operation at a lower level.
To the extent that we're
reducing our capacity from
[09:26:00]
602 down to 367, is that --
does that signify steady
operation at a lower level
or does that signify
shutting it down numerous
times and then starting it
up?
>> It's probably more often
going to reflect reducing
the operation.
In our participation
agreement we do have minimum
requirements to operate that
unit at minimum load for our
share.
While there may be some more
starts than in the future,
that's really a function of
the ercot market to some
degree and our outages and
scheduling of those.
But a lot of it is going to
be by reduced output
operation as opposed to
increased starts.
So instead of operating it
this time of year where
perhaps there's an
opportunity to slide that
unit back in favor of our
resources either on the
wholesale market or -- we'll
still be operating at
minimum load.
I think you are talking to
the start of emissions which
when we go through startup
there's a window of time
that's actually not reported
but it does have some
emissions during that period
of time but outside of our
permit we're allowed to do
startup.
I don't know the specific
number.
We could certainly get back
to you if you want on what
that number is, but I don't
think it a heavy increase
number.
>> Riley: Ideally we would
see relatively steady
operation at a lower level.
>> Correct.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: And
another factor is lcra owns
half of those two units.
And so even if we reduce our
capacity at fayette to zero,
those two units would still
be operating at 50% capacity
and the third unit
theoretically at 100%
because we don't have any
financial interest in that,
that part of it.
>> Correct.
And we doave to take our
minimum.
We do have a minimum that we
need to make sure that the
units can operate
effectively.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councimember spelman.
>> Spelman: Another way of
reaching our co 2 limits and
[09:28:01]
keeping fayette open is put
additional emission controls
on the fayette plant.
Under that circumstances
would it make financial
sense for us to do that?
>> First of all, we have to
be mandated to do that and
there is currently -- there
is currently a lot of
[inaudible] around the
e.p.a. and that.
Right now we don't have any
financial plans to add --
the next big rule is called
macc and I'll let sheryl
speak to that.
>> The additional
infrastructure that will be
invested in fayette soon to
meet the maximum would be in
mercury control.
And so that is the next
project.
Of course, we remove a lot
of our emissions when we
added the scrubbers, in the
operation in 2011.
There's not really another
project beyond those two,
the one that we've already
made and the macc.
Those are the two rules we
have to comply with.
>> Spelman: We have to
comply with the macc it's
already a requirement?
>> It's upcoming.
>> Spelman: It's in the
process.
>> We've done our pilot.
We will be proceeding with
engineering and moving into
the construction phase of
that over the next year's.
[Inaudible].
>> Yes.
>> Spelman: Is there
anything else we could do
[inaudible] mercury
emissions, point where we
would be meeting our co 2
goals and still keep the
coal plant [inaudible]?
>> There's not any cost
effective technology
available at that scale to
look at reducing the carbon
emissions at the fayette
plant.
We've heard a lot about
clean coal technology and
other technologies for
future plants.
But for a large plant like
fayette to be able to
harvest all that co 2,
there's not a commercially
available technology today.
>> Spelman: So it just
wouldn't -- at least with
current technology and
current market, there's
nothing which makes any
financial sense which would
allow us to keep it going
and still [inaudible].
>> That's correct.
>> Spelman: Thank you.
>> And I think the last
comment you made about makes
financial sense, that's the
key to this because as the
pollution controls continue
to go on to coal facilities,
[09:30:01]
they become at some point
uneconomical to do.
This is a big issue across
the country.
Fortunately we don't have
that much coal as part of
our base resource so it's,
frankly, easier for austin
energy group to be pulling
some of these tools out and
doing this than maybe some
other utilities that have
more.
I want to point out on this
generation chart, so how do
we maintain a cost effective
and operation of our grid
and make sure we have
reliable power to customers.
We're looking at gas.
This is that 800 megawatts
that you see up there in
2018.
That's just an estimate of
what it would take
mathematically to balance
the equation.
We have 200 megawatts in
2017.
I think through the rates
work we did with you, i
think you knew we were
planning to add an
additional turbine at the
sand hill facility.
That's been on the plans for
a long time and we've moved
it off a couple years, but
we really need that.
I think it's important to
understand here, I won't get
too technical about it, but
we're an operator inside
ercot, we're required to
carry reserves, we're
required to carry all the
balancing we need to operate
the many is.
So when we have intermittent
resources such as wind and
solar, we don't get to count
the full capacity of that.
And that's the results,
that's how it operates in
ercot.
It isn't a rule we get to
decide how it works, it's
the one that all of the
market, all the ercot market
uses.
So that's why it's important
that we have a real, real
sufficient based load
resource and that's why
that -- I won't go into why
the 35% renewables, but
there's been a lot of
science done, a lot of
engineering done as to how
much renewable can you put
inside of a grid and be
reliable within the
technology we know today.
And that number tends to be
around 30%.
Some states have come up
with a number that's like
33.
Some have come up with 20.
It depends on the market you
[09:32:00]
are in and how the dynamics
work.
But I believe 35 is
achievable for us in this
market and -- and with that
we have to add that
compliment of base
resources.
Our fleet, on page 13, just
a quick review.
What do we have name plate
capacity for all of our
units in austin energy's
fleet.
And here it is.
I just provide that to you
for your information.
Give you a scale of how many
megawatts each facility has.
Two important charts as we
look out for the future.
The first is our energy
requirements, and right
behind that is our capacity
requirements.
So when you look at energy
supply for the entire year,
this shows our combined
cycle facility coming into
play and it also shows that
we're forecasting that the
market purchases in 13 and
16 to make sure that we have
a balance of energy.
If we know we are going to
do market purchases ahead of
time we can do that fairly
economically.
The next chart is probably
more important.
This shows you what I was
just showing on the
generation chart.
This shows where we're short
in capacity.
So that top number out of
our total capacity needs
which are on the left-hand
side, that is the megawatts
that we are short every year
in our forecast.
In order to meet the full
reserve requirements.
Then the next red line down
is with less reserve
requirements and then just
to meet our load is the big
red line on the bottom.
That's our peak demand of
our system.
We try to do the very best
we can at forecasting 6789
frankly, with the growth
that we have going on in the
system right now, these are
conservative forecasts.
These are conservative
forecasts.
All of the busyness at the
[09:34:01]
bottom of this chart is our
solar and wind and
everything so you can get a
balance as to the capacity
of these resources and what
the capacity of our total
system needs are.
>> Morrison: Mayor?
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison.
>> Morrison: Larry, could
you go back a little bit and
explain the -- what the
requirements are above peak?
Is that state driven or is
that our policy?
>> It's ercot market driven.
I'll let sheryl explain
that.
>> Yeah, the first line that
is the dotted line without
the diamonds on it, that's
our peak ancillary services.
So those are the market
obligations.
To participate in the
market, as larry said, for a
load, we have to make sure
our load is backed up with
ancillary load in the
marketplace.
The very top line with the
diamonds on it would be what
our need would be if we had
a reserve requirement.
We don't currently have
that.
Ercot has a guideline for
reserves and so we've used
the guidelines to produce
that line.
Although it's not mandatory
for anyone in the market and
that's been under great
discussion for the past year
there is no absolute way to
kick in and produce those
reserves in the ercot
market.
It's an energy only market.
But the goal of ercot is to
maintain that and
historically austin energy
when we were our own
balancing authority we also
would have maintained a
reserve and it would have
been a guideline we would
have at that time followed.
But it's still a good
practice and I think it's
good for us to look at that
because there is discussion
going on to a potential for
a reserve market today.
You know, has not decided to
go that way but it's been
under discussion.
As people with a load like
energy is, it's good to keep
in mind we have some
obligations to look at how
we want to produce the
reserve for our customers.
>> Morrison: And the
reserve is just a way to
mitigate risk?
Is that correct?
>> That's right.
It's risk mitigation and
it's ercotwide today but we
[09:36:00]
still like to look at that
as something we think is
important to our customers
and reliability to the grid
to all of us who have load.
>> Morrison: Thank you.
>> Back to co 2 reduction of
fayette, I wanted to show
this chart.
The current operation is on
the left and the co 2 goal
is the horizontal line up
between the 4 million and
5 million metric tons.
And over in the right is the
reduced fayette power plant
replace scenario.
So that is -- that is a
framework around what we're
studying and we have not
made any decisions yet but
we have been looking at
several different options.
As you know, there was a
resolution passed by you
last year, I believe, that
told us to come back this
fall and take a look at some
of those options and we've
looked at approximately 200
plus iterationings of
different scenarios running
this and running that and
adding more renewables in
and doing all kinds of
different maneuvers.
But I will say and I'm not
surprised that at the end of
the day with all of our
renewable [inaudible] and
everything else, adding this
amount of gas, clean
efficient burn gas
generation, high technology
gas generation is -- and
most of those -- come out to
be our best option.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember riley.
>> Riley: Larry, I wanted
to ask you about this.
A minute ago you were
talking about a feeling that
some jurisdictions have --
ceiling some jurisdictions
have placed and it's
generally in the ballpark of
30, 35%, which is about the
target we've set for 2020.
As we look at options
represented to the fayette
power plant, a lot of folks
[09:38:00]
are asking why we can't
replace some of that
capacity with renewables.
And from what I'm asked
specifically about this
slide, as we think about how
we make up that capacity,
what our options might be
that could push us a little
bit further along the road
of renewables, and in
particular there's one idea
that a lot of folks have
been talking about and i
know you've met with some of
the vendors who are talking
about this and that is the
hybrid plant, the hybrid
wind, solar, gas plant and i
know that's being used in
some western states as a way
of firming up renewables.
And I realize that's not so
much of an issue with our
market that we have her
under ercot, but it does
raise the question about
whether some option like
that involving hybrid
generation would allow us to
push that -- that ceiling a
little further.
Whether we could make up
some of our fayette capacity
with -- through some --
through some means of hybrid
generation that would entail
some additional
new braunfels.
Do you see that as being
a -- renewables.
Do you see that as option?
>> In really we are doing
hybrid.
So anyone that would bring a
product that would be hybrid
would be bringing to us the
same thing that we're doing.
Because if you look at the
addition of -- you have to
understand -- I know you
know this, but within all of
the generation goal we are
increasing our amount of
renewables.
Even if it's a growing
utility, we're not to 35%
yet, but when we get to 35
we'll have to maintain 35.
So we'll have to continue to
add renewable to that.
We'll have to continue to
have energy efficiency goals
and all that.
As far as purchasing power
to make it a hybrid, in
effect we are doing that.
We will go out and buy more
wind projects.
But I think directly to your
point, for example, if it's
financially attractive to
[09:40:00]
us, in other words, we model
this and we say, hey, we're
going to go out and get a
whole bunch of wind energy
and use that instead of
relying on some gas and we
can make it work and it's
financially an option to us,
we will definitely look at
it.
And I think that real
opportunity does exist with
wind.
It does exist with wind.
>> Riley: Thank you.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Just
to emphasize again that
whatever option is
exercised, we are always
constrained by the 2% per
year and remaining in the
bottom 50%.
So any option would have to
be evaluated against those
constraints.
>> Right, and that's kind of
why I always jump to the
wind equation because under
the wind we have recently
acquired is in the ballpark
to make all that work.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Yeah, and all this is
contracts, I think there all
20-year contracts; is that
correct?
>> I believe so.
I believe they are either 20
or 25.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: So
that's fixed, etched in
stone.
>> Yes, it is.
It's fixed power supply.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: It
is.
>> Well, this chart will
make you a little dizzy and
I apologize, but we really
don't have any other way to
show this.
We'll continue to work on it
and make it larger, perhaps.
But options to be
considered, again, are some
new gas scenarios and
operating and what this
chart shows is up till now
what we've been doing, up to
13, every line shows you the
amount of metric tons of co
2, the various thermal
plants we have for lease.
Then if you go into the
scenario that in 2013 or
2014 we could, whether our
partner wants to buy us out
of fayette or whatever we
want to do, whatever happens
in the market, we show some
[09:42:02]
either continuing to run
fayette, that's that line in
the middle right below the
20% five emissions.
Then we show new gas coming
on.
There's several options that
we have right there.
So we're not at a dead
decision-making point right
now, but this is what we're
studying.
And we're doing all of this
with the ceiling of not
being able to raise the
rates by more than 2% a
year.
So that's one of the huge
metrics that we have over
the top of this to make sure
we are studying something
that's going to be
affordable.
So -- and maybe you have any
questions.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Yeah, just, again, the other
constraint is remaining in
the bottom 50%.
And the reason that was
imposed was because let's
just say hypothetically, not
saying it could happen or
would happen, but
hypothetically the price of
natural gas plunged by 50%,
75%, and that would mean
that we -- we would -- we
might actually be in a
scenario hypothetically of
having to reduce, not
talking about increase 2%,
we might have to decrease 2%
to stay within that metric.
>> That would be a good
problem to have.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: That
would be a good problem to
have, but the reason for
that metric is you have to
stay -- even though you are
not directly officially
competitive, in reality you
have to stay competitive.
So if other utilities are
dropping their prices
because of some windfall
event, we would have to do
the same.
>> Riley: Mayor?
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember riley.
>> Riley: A number of
times we've spoken of carbon
emissions.
There are other pollutants
[09:44:00]
we need to be concerned
about as a community and
those include things like
nox and put us into
nonattainment.
Is the utility mindful of
those other pollute can't or
are we strictly focused on
carbons?
>> Go ahead.
>> Yes, we do look at those
other pollutants.
We spoke about mercury but
we're aware of the nox
emissions and we're
constantly looking at that.
The electric utility
recently asked to bring back
a report updating them on
the nox of the decker power
plant so we'll be doing that
over the next couple of
months.
But we look at the whole
portfolio.
>> Riley: As we look at
options for replacing
fayette, is that part of the
calculation?
>> We haven't specifically
looked at and tracked the
impact on nox emissions, but
when he look at purchase of
facilities we're looking at
all those things and looking
to our portfolio as
diverse as possible.
>> Riley: Okay.
Thanks.
>> Well, in summary, this
plan is designed to be
flexible and to meet goals,
remain affordable.
Our asset purchasers may
impact base and psa rates.
So it -- meaning to say that
if we get into a situation
where we're adding capital
facilities, then it will
impact both rates versus
just public purchase power.
Our asset additions to
reduce fayette are likely to
require base rate increase.
Again, all staying within
the affordability
requirements.
So we made no commitment and
ae will continue to study
the options and we'll be
back with our next report as
we get a little closer.
[09:46:00]
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Okay.
Thank you.
Any more questi?
All right.
>> I'm going to turn it over
to ann little, senior vice
president of finance and on
our finan.
>> Good morning.
I will present the financial
results for the nine months
ENDING JUNE 30th, WHICH IS
Our third quarter for fiscal
year 2012.
In this slide the first
numerical column shows you
the amended budget.
That's for the 12-month
period.
And then you will see the
third quarter projection
compared to the actual third
quarter and the column to
the right is the difference.
If you look at the
difference column, you will
see that we're favorable
throughout this quarter.
Based in other revenues are
ahead of budget by
$34.5 million.
In about 22 million of that
is in base rate and the
remainder is in other reef
revenue.
In base rate about a third
of it is due to industrial
growth, a third is due to
commercial and residential
growth, and about a third of
it is due to weather.
We've had a little bit
warmer weather in this
quarter than predicted.
But just remember there are
base revenue is always
forecasted on normal
weather.
The fuel revenue is off set,
of course, by the fuel costs
below that.
And then our expenses are
less than budgeted by about
$24 million and that's due
to personnel vacancy
savings, contract savings
and debt service savings.
So the actual third quarter
9 million,
about out that's $58 million
less than forecasted so it
very favorable at this
point.
The largest variance that
you saw was in revenues and
[09:48:00]
so I wanted to talk a little
more about our revenues.
The top chart shows a
four-year comparison of our
revenues and the gigawatt
hours related to that.
The bars are the revenues
and you can see a moderate
growth pattern.
Then to the far right the
green bar is our budget for
comparison.
But what's really
interesting is the gigawatt
hour line at the top.
And if you compare this year
and last year for the same
quarter, there's a 4%
increase.
And that's due, as I said
earlier, to growth and
weather for that third
quarter period.
Down at the bottom you will
see our peak, and, of
course, that's a one-time
occurrence but it's a good
indicator of growth and
warmer weather.
And you can see that in this
quarter we had the highest
peak of the four years,
2702.
But no that the year is
complete, we know that that
is our peak for the year.
So the last quarter we
didn't go past that whereas
last year the peak was 2714.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Are
you trying to say the peak
normally occurs in the
summertime?
>> It does.
It usually occurs in july or
august.
It has, of course, occurred
in june before, but it a
little bit unusual.
This year, though, our
nonsummer peak was also due
to air conditioning load.
And so what it really says i
guess is that our summer
started a little bit earlier
and ended a little bit
earlier than in previous
years.
>> Morrison: I'm just glad
that you are confident we've
reached our peak for the
year.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
was going to say I thought
it started earlier and ended
later, but I'll take your
word for it.
>> This is a look ahead and
it shows the 12-month budget
compared to our current year
estimate for
september 30th of 2012.
And again you can see that
[09:50:00]
base revenue is
5 million greater than
budgeted and, of course,
this is n estimate.
And it's due to the growth
and the warmer weather that
we saw in the first
three-quarters.
Fuel, of course, is off set
by fuel expense.
But then you'll notice in
the middle of the transfers
in from the strategic
reserve fund.
And you may remember that we
came to you and asked for a
transfer in and that was
made in september of this
year.
And it was needed.
We haven't used it, but we
always need to have adequate
cash during our peak months.
That's our high-risk months.
And if we do have an outage,
we have to be able to cover
any of those costs.
The operating expenses are
expected to be even with
budget so we have no savings
there at year end.
Debt service is a little bit
less than expected, and we
expected to convert our
commercial paper earlier in
the year to long-term debt,
and commercial paper
interest is less than
long-term debt.
We didn't do that so we have
a savings.
Also we have a debt service
reserve fund that we share
with water, and as those
reserves -- as that debt is
reduced, then it releases
funds so a little bit of
that was recovered to reduce
the debt so we have some
significant savings there.
Overall we estimate that our
deficit will be about
1 million or about
$20 million for the --
19 million or $20 million
for the year, and that's
$59 million better than
expected.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Mayor pro tem cole.
>> Cole: I just have a
quick question.
It's just unusual to hear
such huge swings in what was
budgeted and what we
actually have.
Can you tell us the top
[09:52:01]
three factors?
Is it really the weather?
>> Weather is always the top
factor.
Weather and growth.
Our industrial growth, about
7 million of that is in
industrial growth and about
8 million is for commercial
and residential growth.
And then probably 8 to
10 million is due to the
weather.
So those are the significant
items.
>> I wanted to point out
that I -- when I first saw
these numbers, I too was
interested in why, but
we've -- you know, our
service area is receiving a
lot of growth.
And until we actually read
the meters and we have the
information come in, we
don't really understand, you
know, where that growth is
coming from, but it's from
our system.
So we're going to -- so
we're exceeding our forecast
in terms of system growth
and that's indicated not
only by weather but also on
the chart on page 21 on the
third quarter estimate of
where we are already in our
sales.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember tovo.
>> No, go ahead.
>> Tovo: I guess I just
want to pick up on that
question.
I was just reflecting on the
difficult discussion we had
about lowering the revenue
requirement by like 3 or
$4 million.
And so to see these
estimates come in, I mean
the actuals coming in tens
of millions of dollars
beyond what was anticipated
is -- has been indicated
kind of a surprise.
Was none of the growth -- i
understand you can't predict
the weather, but some of the
growth that we're
experiencing that accounts
for some of these increases
surely must have been
underway when we were
looking closely at these
issues.
>> Well, actually --
>> Tovo: At what point can
you account for that growth.
Do your projections not take
[09:54:00]
into account the residential
and commercial growth that
must have been underway for
it to be online and
using energy?
>> Actually our growth is
5% a year, less than
2%.
And this is the third
quarter report in our
current year estimate is
based on that, but actually,
as I said earlier, the last
quarter we -- the weather
was much milder than
expected.
So the growth may not be
that significant when we get
to year end.
It still will probably be
less than 2%.
As far as revenue goes.
So while it's growth,
especially considering the
economy, but it's not
predictable, and when you
5% or
2%, it still produces a lot
of revenue if it higher than
that but that half a percent
is too difficult to predict.
Another thing I wanted to
point out, the $20 million
deficit, our expense are
still it gooder than
revenues on this slide and
that 19 or $20 million
deficit includes the
$25 million transfer.
So the deficit is much
larger when you take that
into consideration.
So that was an important
thing that we did and it was
a budget amendment.
We didn't predict that when
we prepared the budget at
the beginning of the fiscal
year.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember riley.
>> Riley: Can you speak to
where we stand about the
utility bond rating?
Are our bond ratings
revisited on any particular
schedule and where do we
stand, if that's the case,
where are we on that?
>> We just recently
concluded meetings for two
days with rating agencies, a
[09:56:03]
teleconference, and I guess
my summary of those meetings
were they were very
positive.
The main fact is that we
approved a comprehensive
rate package and all of
those accompanying pieces of
that was, in my opinion,
perceived very positively by
those agencies.
Fundamentally we're there to
take our commercial paper,
which is full, and turn that
into long-term financing.
And we had been putting that
off for some time and we're
getting critically low to
the point where we were
actually using some of the
water utility's commercial
paper program in order to
sustain.
So we got to a place to
finance and it's all worked
out very well.
We have our rates package
and those meetings, from my
57600
suggest or give us advice, if
you will?
>> I'll be glad to respond to
that.
The rating agencies have
clipping services like we have
here in the city.
And they do solve a lot of our
actions.
We had the opportunity to visit
with all three in august, early
bond
sale prior to that.
At that time, we talked about
general fund transfer policy
change.
Viewed favorably both for the
rating as well as this
rating.
They were aware of it already.
We did touch on it again and
talk about the fact that it was
a collaborative effort for both
the city and the utility.
They were interest in the
governance.
They don't give advice.
They look at all of our actions
or surprisingly aware of what
we're doing.
>> So since they are surprising,
where did the conversation say
it came up?
>> Oh, yes.
Many of the slides were
presented to them.
So, yes, they did talk about
that.
>> And how did they view the
conversation of --
>> I think my view of it is they
were looking for strategy.
They heard a lot of strategy.
They have the plan, the view of
this.
The whole strategy is laid out.
They know they're watching many
other utilities across the
country facing the dilemma.
The fact that they have a lot of
expenses coming forward to clean
it up and making that cost
effective decision about whether
we disclose it, take all of the
equipment off of that spot and
put brand new gas machines back
on or whatever we're going to
do.
That's primarily what folks are
looking at that they have to
operate.
And their expectation of us, i
don't think there was an
expectation.
But I think they know that we're
watching things because we're
add kressing the same issues
that others are.
To a large degree, it's a
measure of peer groups across
the country.
Governance or anything else
they're doing, they're going to
look at fine triple a performing
systems and they're going to let
that -- that's how they're
measured.
>> Seems like they look at us
like a very large user customer
and that they want a clear
pathway, a definitive pathway in
policy stability as well in the
revenue side but also no mayor
peaks and valleys.
If we want to ramp down fayette,
they're probably fine with that
as long as they have a steady
path way to achieve that without
any vulnerability.
>> Specifically we talked about
the fact that how we would phase
it.
How nay would pull the question
in.
Is that affordable?
We're not doing any analysis.
Everything is with the 2%,
right?
We use that with the lid.
We can look at any scenario.
That's what we're looking at.
A positive story because it's
longer term and strategic.
>> One last comment if you think
about what the council has
recently accomplished in the
last 75 years, you have a
generation plan that sets
policy, changed your
transportation policy and you
now have firmly rate policies as
well as affordability.
You covered cost structure as
well as how they're going to
meet the cost structure from
their perspective.
That's fairly positive going
forward.
We have consistency with our
policies and they all work
together.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: They were
specifically briefed on the new
transfer poll sni.
>> Yes.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: That's a
positive too, I think.
>> This is the last slide.
We near the process of working
on some performance measures and
benchmarking.
And so with the next quarterly
report, we should have the
results for you on that.
That's the final slide.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Okay.
Thank you very much.
Great job.
So, we'll move on -- I only have
two items that were named by
councilmembers for discussion.
That's 27 and 28.
Councilmember tovo?
>> Tovo: Go --
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yeah.
>> Tovo: Yeah, I wanted to also
just ask if we could add maybe a
five-minute discussion next week
to our agenda just to talk a
little bit about the citizens
forum, what worked well, what we
might want to do differently
next time, again, about a
five-to-seven-minute discussion
for next week.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yeah,
give me the topic again?
>> Tovo: The citizen's forum
that we had this past saturday.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: This
tcitizen's forum.
>> Tovo: I heard in passing
some suggestions.
I wanted to capture that before
we move too far beyond it so the
next time we could learn.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: About a
year ahead of that discussion.
>> Tovo: Mostly.
We don't have to have that
discussion right away.
I wanted to ask transportation
staff about the analysis that
they provided.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: 45
minutes.
>> Tovo: Encouraging.
So I noticed we did get a mow.
We referred to it on saturday,
the taxi cab analysis.
It didn't include the earnings.
Specifically and I think the cab
drivers were specifically
interest in the council having
data about how their earnings
had been impacted by the -- or
how their income had been
impacted during the same months
where the additional permits
were out on the street.
So I -- I asked a couple of
questions through the q&a
process.
And also was able to get some
taxi cab permit comparison data
from the transportation
department, thank you very much
for that.
I'm going to pass it out to my
colleagues.
So that you all have access to
it as well.
>> Thank you.
>> Tovo: This was referred by
the transportation department,
is that right?
The taxi cab comparison?
>> Yes, councilmember tovo.
Gordon barrett, transportation
department.
Yes, this was taken by the data
provided by the three
franchises.
>> Tovo: So it's my
understanding that during the
period of time you were looking
at, which is july, august, and
september of 2011 and comparing
that to july, august, and
september of 2012, there were
several increases.
The rates went up 10 cents a
mile.
The wait time, the rates for
wait time went up and we also
implemented a $1 per passenger
surcharge in that period of
time.
There were substantial
increases, relatively
substantial increases that the
cab drivers would be
experiencing in terms of their
fares.
But during that same period --
but because of the permits --
well, I would argue that the
permits had an impact on them,
what the data reflects is the
decrease in the average income
per taxi.
It's down about 5.59%.
And the average income per hour
is count about 12%.
Is that what your analysis
showed?
>> Well, I think I would like to
differentiate -- the data
provided is for what the fares
are.
We have no data about what tips
might be provided to the driver.
So that's one of the reasons why
we -- we didn't feel real
comfortable speculating about
tip rates to really give you a
revenue picture of what the
drivers are getting a all of the
data we have is what the
franchise provides us on a
number of trips.
And the fares paid for those
trips.
That's what they get from their
trip meters.
So, to me, the kind of bottom
line information is, we had
about a 1% decrease in total
trips taken in 11 we had acl
during the three-month period.
In 2012, we did not have acl
during that.
So part of that would be -- but
normally we would think of the
growth as being greater than
that over from year-to-year.
>> Tovo: What do you mean by
that?
Normally we think of the growth
being greater than that from
year-to-year?
>> Well, what we've seen, like
we saw last year, you know, the
indicator we had is the number
of trips dispatched from the
airport.
That's been going up pretty
consistently as the pattern so,
that 1% decrease in the number
of trips in that generated --
but because of the increase in
the fare structure, that was a
1% increase in fares produced
from that.
But, again, we don't know what
other monetary compensation
there might have been for
drivers.
>> Tovo: But you don't have
that -- I mean, you don't have
that data for the year before
either.
I mean tips aren't factored into
the 2011 income numbers.
And so they're not factored into
the 2012 income factors data
either.
So it's apples to apples as far
as that goes.
We don't have tip information
for either -- either year so
we're just going to discount
that.
But still, you have a 6%
increase in the number of cabs
and you have what I read as a
38% increase in the number of
taxi hours on duty.
And a substantial decrease, you
5%, almost equivalent to
the increase in the number of
permits.
You've got the income -- the
average income per taxi driver
decreasing by almost the same
amount you have the number of
59
decrease in income compared to a
6% increase in taxi cab permits.
I think this is something we
should pay attention to.
It does seem that the numbers --
correlation doesn't equal
causation.
More and more time when more
permits were on the street, the
cab drivers did experience a
decrease in their income and
increase -- they're working
longer hours and that's
documented by the franchise
numbers.
And, you uh know, again, I would
argue it's a significant
concern.
The cab drivers who have seen
this information said that it
also doesn't account for some of
the increases they've
experienced in the memo fees.
Your memo says you can't verify
the -- let's see.
It said it couldn't verify --
>> right, the terminal fees, i
don't want to say the driver
owns the vehicle or we lease the
vehicle.
One company is increased austin
cab in the last year.
And then from 235 to 255.
And the other two companies have
kept their terminal fees the
same.
Lone star as we talked to you
about several months ago, they
have a a reduced terminal fee
for anyone who hasn't register
in the airport.
We understand two out of their
30 new vehicles, only 32 of them
register at the airport.
So the only terminal fee
increase we've heard of is,
again, the austin cab.
>> I thought I heard one other
one.
If you don't have that
information, then I don't want
to repeat it.
>> Again, a lot of ancillary
charges so we just asked what
the terminal fees are.
If they increased the lease
rates or anything.
>> We're aware of the increase.
One of the three franchises, so,
again, just to summarize, in the
period of time you know, during
the -- there was some structural
increases -- there was some
structural increases that should
have yielded more income for
taxi cab drivers, the passengers
that are charged, the increase
in the rate, the increase in the
wait time rates.
But the data shows that taxi
drivers' income went down.
They're working substantially
longer hours.
Not clear if it's 13% as you
38%
increase as noted on the taxi
cab permit comparison data.
But somewhere between 13% and
14% that they're working longer
and it bears repeating they're
making less.
Sorry, whether it's 13 or 14, so
roughly 6% -- we put 6%
additional permits on the
street.
So the people work the same
hours, that would be 6%.
The other drivers worked 6% to
7% more hours, basically a
pretty flat market.
So.
>> I guess do you -- I mean, do
you agree with my conclusions
that it seemed like we a ugt to
consider that there's a
relationship between the
increased number of permits on
the street and some of the
increasing number of hours our
cab drivers are working and the
decreasing income they're
bringing in?
Or is it an unfair question to
put to you?
>> I think it's unfair.
>> Tovo: I withdraw.
>> We're reviewing the
information.
So I feel safer to say here's
the information.
>> Tovo: Got it.
Mayor?
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Are you?
>> Tovo: I'm done, thanks.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison?
>> Morrison: This is helpful
information.
I want to go back to the one
thing you mentioned, the acl was
include in the july, august,
september.
In september of '11 and this
year it was in october.
That could skew the data.
Could you give us a sense of --
my guess is there's a huge
number of taxi trips in the acl
that could impact the numbers
here.
In your memo, you mentioned this
data is not available until
after the end of the month.
So it's not impossible for you
to even incorporate the october
data.
I presume it will be available
on wednesday or thursday.
How quickly could you redo this
incorporating october data?
>> Probably a week or so.
Because by the time --
>> carlton thomas, austin
transportation department.
The franchises will not report
that information until the 15th
of the following month.
>> Morrison: The 15th.
If we wanted to wait for that,
we'd have to wait for another
meeting in december, I guess.
Thank you.
>> Correct.
The new variable we haven't had
in the past, formula one coming
to town in november.
We've never had a november event
like that.
So there's two -- there's acl
and formula one that might --
well, they're not going have a
significant increase, but
hopefully give it back moving in
the right direction
>> Morrison: Everybody taking
hell copters instead.
Also on the timing of these
items, on the agenda, is there a
time frame in which we need to
approve them or not?
>> Again, these are third
readings based on the action the
council took last december.
So
>> Morrison: I'm wondering if
they have to be approved within
30, 90 days.
There's always so many
surprising little details to
work out.
>> The regulatory area.
From the city of attorneys, we
understand there's a minimum
time frame, but not a maximum
one.
>> Morrison: Thank you.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: I have a
question.
This goes the opposite way of
what councilwoman tovo was
announced not getting enough
hours.
I've had complaints and others
have too about working too many
hours.
From what I understand, i
haven't looked at it myself, but
what I understand from the
driver is that there is a
12-hour limitation that they can
be on duty then they have to
have a break.
But they can take a five-minute
break and come back for another
12.
This is for the future, not
necessarily action on this item,
but something to discuss in the
future is could there be other
constraints to make sure there's
not that abuse.
I would suggest something like
mandatory eight-hour break and
24 mandatory eight-hour break
after a 12-hour shift, something
along those lines to ensure that
someone couldn't really work 23
hours and 50 minutes with a
five-minute break in the middle
there, or a ten-minute break.
>> Mayor, the current ordinance
says if they work a 12-hour
shift, they have to take eight
hours off.
In theory, they could work 16
hours in 24.
But I understand, someone
pointed out if they work 11
hours and 59 minute, in theory,
they could take off five
minutes.
So if that's an issue, we can
work with the city.
>> A maximum number of hours in
a 24-hour period.
Something to look at in the
future.
For safety.
This is not an economic issue.
>> Tovo: I don't think we're
going in opposite directions.
That's part of what's reflected
when we see a 14% increase in
the number of hours, a concern
that the cab drivers themselves
have said they're work long
hours and are concerned about
safety but they feel they need
to make the same living that
they were making before.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember spelman was next.
Did you have something?
>> Spelman: I did.
How long have we been collecting
information on total miles,
eight miles, number of
passengers, stuff like that?
>> That's the standard
reporting.
Three year s?
>> At least three years.
It's always been required of the
franchises.
>> Spelman: We're looking at
month-to-month comparisons
between july '11 and july '12
and so on.
When you look at month-to-month
comparisons, a lot of things can
happen.
Weather, small changes in the
number of commercial hours, the
context of austin energy, things
like that.
Is there a way we can back up
and maybe look month-to-month or
an annual comparison so we don't
have tworry about the timing of
acl and how hot it was in august
of 2009 over a several year
period to get a sense of the
trend of the taxi passengers,
taxi fares, things like that?
We can certainly do that.
>> Spelman: How far back can we
go, gordon?
>> Three, four years.
Additional data, we might be
able to go back -- we'll look at
the data we have available, what
we can bring to you.
What we can do with the data.
With our growth overtime with
permit changes, it would be
interesting to see what the
trends are.
>> Tovo: We've been saying a
lot of things about what the
monday report would say and how
many cabs fwheed in order to
deal with the demand.
I haven't seen the demand time
series.
If we had a sense of what the
demand time series would look
like for the long haul, we could
have a better sense of where we
were relative to where we've
been.
>> We have begun asking more
detailed information about how
many taxis are available during
spisk hours of the day so we can
start to look at what the trends
are for service in the evening.
And during the day, we asked
that of the franchises, we asked
for information about the
accessible vehicles, you know,
when they are on the street and
how many trips they're taking.
So I think the light that's been
brought on this issue, we're
asking for a lot more
information.
Moving toward having all three
of the electronic dispatching so
we can get trip-by-trip
information, if we want to drill
down to that so we can look
spatially at what the demands
are.
So I think we're getting a lot
more sophisticated, a lot more
data will be available in the
future.
>> Not sure all that data is
something we'll be able to
depart.
But I look forward to what you
said.
Do we have any information on
dispatched triples.
One of the arguments for giving
lone star particularly more
permits they needed more permits
in order to mount a dispatch
operation.
Having two competing dispatch
operations was for many of us
the argument in favor of giving
lone star the permits.
Do we have a long time series on
dispatch or any information at
all on dispatched trip s?
>> Previously that information
has been spotty.
We're moving towards electronic
reporting to have more reliable
data.
So as we go back further in the
years, we can't count on the
information we have.
>> Spelman: We did ask the
question, we just didn't get the
information?
>> Exactly.
>> Spelman: Even if the data
are unreliable, we could have a
sense of the spotty, possibly
inaccurate data looked like.
If you could include where
asterisks is appropriate, it
would be helpful for me to
understand where roughly we've
been.
>> We'll scrub our records.
>> Spelman: Thank you.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Mayor pro
tem.
Excuse me, councilmember
martinez is next.
we've been talking
about the monday report and also
the formula.
Now we have data that shows that
the cab drivers are working
longer, the wait times have
increased, and they're making
less money.
Now what?
Do we have any sense for what
would have happened if we would
have just issued the permit
purely based on the
recommendations of the upc?
>> I think the permits that are
currently out working are
consistent with what the formula
said.
Now we've been tracking the data
at the airport and the growth
data.
The formula this year will
probably be flat.
It may only be 1% or 2%.
We just had a big bump last
year.
Again, formula one is what it
could be, that may pump up quite
a bit.
So again, we heard from you that
we want to have future
discussions about the formula.
We've got some ideas about how
we could modify the formula to
take into account the -- some of
the issues that we're seeing.
Also to incentivize the
franchises to make sure their
drivers are getting triples.
So I think there's a way to move
toward that.
And, you know, have to say we're
a year and a half out from
redoing all of the franchises.
So we will have another
opportunity.
>> So the issues we're seeing
being brought forward that we've
never done, you think we can
address in the future when we
issue the new permit and as we
modify the formula?
Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Yes?
gordon talking about
future modifications to the
formula.
The concerns that are being
expressed now can be addressed
at a later time as we gather
more information?
>> Yes, there's a lot of
discussion.
But a formula that has a cap,
the cap is based on how good the
franchises are doing in getting
trips for their drivers would
lead to both balance the
interest of the two parties.
So I think there's something to
be discussed and something we
can improve as we move forward.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember martinez is next.
>> Martinez: I think if we're
going to -- I think we should
start seeking more information
so we can understand the
industry better.
But if all three franchises are
opening in a year and a half, we
need to start working on it now.
We need a master plan today of
all of the topics we're going to
discuss.
All of the contemplated changes.
I care say it's not an
opportunity.
I wouldn't call it that at all.
It's going to be a lot of work.
Because if you talk about having
to stay on the street longer and
your passenger pickups are less,
that could happen as you issue
more permits because more cabs
go to the airport and sit in
queue.
There for you have to sit longer
and wait for the same average
number of customers so you make
less triples.
So that could be a reality.
But we also need to parse out
and maybe even come up with in
the new franchise agreements
stipulations as to how many cabs
per franchise can sit at the
airport in queue or if they're a
green fleet as councilmember
riley has suggested give
preferential treatment for
incentiveizing them to turn
their fleet over to a much
greener fleet.
All of these things, I think we
have to work on it now.
If it's utc, fine, but honestly,
my first -- just throwing an
idea out there, I would say it
might have to be an ad hoc
committee outside.
We want cab industry folks,
customer folks, thole, motel
folks.
Everybody who is really impacted
by the cab industry needs to be
a part of this discussion.
And I'm open to any suggestions
but I throw out there on the
table that maybe a couple of us
can come up with an item from
council stipulating or -- not
stipulating but directing the
city manager to help us create
the ad hoc committee and the
master plan for everything that
we're going to talk about.
Because a year and a half is
quick in council time.
We spend a year negotiating with
police, fire, ems, we can at
least dedicate a year to this.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison?
>> Morrison: I think you're
absolutely right, councilmember
martinez.
I wanted to get the issue -- i
seem to recall we had in one of
our resolutions sometime ago a
request as we move forward in
this that we look at all of the
aspects of the franchise
agreement that are gaucheble and
what we have the authority to
put into a franchise agreement
in terms of, for instance,
limits on certain fees and
things like that.
Am I right that we asked you all
to do something like that?
>> That is correct.
We provided council with a
detailed report.
It may have gone out to you in
april.
I'm not certain.
But we can definitely
redistribute that.
>> Morrison: If you could,
please.
I appreciate it.
I apologize if I missed it.
There were a few other things
going on.
But I think that's going to be
important too in that discussion
to help level the playing field.
One other question.
We were provided a memo from the
taxi drivers.
I think it was yesterday in
response to your memo.
I don't know if you had a chance
to see it.
One of the things that they
brought up that we haven't
discussed yet is the potential
impact of nontaxi dispatches
from the airport.
And some of numbers that are
here are that during july,
august, and september, between
00 -- 2011 and
2012, the total number of taxi
dispatches from the airport went
down 11.9%.
And so that also could be
impacted by the acl noninclusion
this year.
But they also suggest that the
number of nontaxi dispatches
from year-to-year between '09
and '12 has gone gone up by
234%.
Can you talk about what those
dispatches are?
The nontaxied dispatches?
>> We know limousines,
supershuttles, hotel shuttles,
all service the airport in
addition to taxis.
We heard some anecdotal
information that those have
increased and, of course, the
data from the airport that they
have directly represents that.
As to the market between taxis,
we have to get the data to see
how many of the operations, how
many people are actually carries
out.
It's a long term look at all of
our vehicles for hire, the whole
spectrum, to make sure they're
balanced and we have rules so
they're all serving the niche --
the appropriate niche as we've
been talking about.
Other things seem to pop up
every once in a while.
>> Morrison: They do.
To be clear, these numbers for
nontaxi dispatch apparently do
not include super shuttle,
show --
>> at a recent utc meeting, the
council for tdaa provided that
information.
What she conveyed to the
commission was that during the
downturn, a lot of the hotels,
local hotels, moved away from
providing courtesy service to
the airport.
And that has since improved.
So when given a choice between
taking a taxi and a free
courtesy vehicle, the courtesy
vehicle ridership and the taxi
departures went down
>> Morrison: That makes sense.
Your ear right, gorton, not just
at the airport, but we have a
lot of stuff going on,
especially in the center city.
So it's a big balancing act.
>> Martinez: Mayor?
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember martinez?
>> Martinez: Great information
but we've seen an increase in
cap metro.
It has an impact on the taxi cab
triples.
The flir specifically circulates
the downtown route and goes to
the airport every half hour on
the half-hour and it's a dollar.
We're doing everything we can to
encourage customers to do that,
but it could be a direct number
impact on the amount of those
coming out of the airport via
taxi.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Anything
else?
That's it.
It's a good thing.
Any other items for discussion?
Councilmember morrison?
>> Morrison: I didn't pull this
ahead of time and would be
surprised if there's any staff
that could answer questions for
us on this.
But I've been interested in two
related items, 7 and 56.
And what 56 is, it's --
basically it's about allowing --
it's doing a license agreement
with sea home developers to
allow them to use some of our
parkland along the lake for
rainwater storage and water
quality.
My guess is staff isn't going to
be here to answer questions.
I wanted to raise that to my
colleagues.
I do have questions, number one,
about exact law li how that will
work.
And I have heard a couple of
concerns about using our
parklands for water quality
purposes and how that's going
to -- whether that's a good
troed be going down.
So we're submitting the
questions and maybe the
questions will be answered.
I might be pulling that for
discussion on thursday.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Okay,
anything else.
Without objection, we're
adjourned at 10:40.