Loading...
R-05-11-22-9F4 - 11/22/2005RESOLUTION NO. R -05-11-22-9F4 WHEREAS, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code, V.T.C.A., authorizes local governments and agencies of the state to enter into agreements with one another to perform governmental functions and services, and WHEREAS, the City of Round Rock wishes to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Travis County, Williamson County, the City of Austin, Hays County and the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority for a Mobility Plan Study, Now Therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK, TEXAS, That the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City an Interlocal Agreement with Travis County, Williamson County, the City of Austin, Hays County and the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, a copy of same being attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein for all purposes. The City Council hereby finds and declares that written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of the meeting at which this Resolution was adopted was posted and that such meeting was open to the public as required by law at all times during which this Resolution and the subject matter hereof were discussed, considered and formally acted upon, all as required by the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended. RESOLVED this 22nd day of November A EST: R� N ,/►�WELL, ayor City of Round Rock, Texas CHRISTINE R. MARTINEZ, City Secr.jary @PFDesktop\::ODMA/WORLDOX/O:/wdox/RESOLUTI/R51122F4.WPD/sc INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective this day of November, 2005, by and between TRAVIS COUNTY, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, the CITY OF AUSTIN, the CITY OF ROUND ROCK, HAYS COUNTY and the CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL MOBILITY AUTHORITY (the "CTRMA") (collectively, the "Funding Parties"), political subdivisions of the State of Texas. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on July 12, 2004, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ("CAMPO") Transportation Policy Board approved amendments to CAMPO's 2025 Transportation Plan, authorizing the development of the projects in the CTRMA/TxDOT Regional Implementation Program (the "Program") as toll roads subject, in certain instances, to conditions imposed by certain clarifying resolutions; and WHEREAS, the following projects, commonly known as the "Phase 2" toll roads, were added to the 2025 Plan as part of the Program: US 183 from I35 to SH 71; SH 71 from I35 to Presidential Boulevard; 290 E from US 183 to SH 130; 290 W (the "Y" in Oak Hill); Loop 360 from LP 1 North to US 290 West (study purposes only); SH 45 Southwest from Loop 1 to FM 1626; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2005, the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board voted to approve a new long-range transportation plan (the "Mobility 2030 Plan"), which includes the Phase 2 toll roads; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2005, the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board also adopted an amendment to the motion to adopt the Mobility 2030 Plan providing for a re -review of the Phase AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 EXHIBIT 5 "A" 2 projects through a study to be initiated by the City of Austin and other entities (the "Mobility Plan Study" or the "Study"); and WHEREAS, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code authorizes local governments to enter into agreements to mutually provide for governmental functions and services, including planning, streets and roads, and other governmental functions in which the contracting parties are mutually interested; and WHEREAS, the Funding Parties have agreed to participate in the Mobility Plan Study; to provide funding therefore; and to designate individuals to provide oversight and guidance during the performance of the Study; and WHEREAS, the Funding Parties have also agreed that additional parties should participate in the oversight and guidance for the Study as provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the undersigned Parties agree as follows: I. FINDINGS Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein for all purposes and are found by the Funding Parties to be true and correct. It is further found and determined that the Funding Parties have authorized and approved the Agreement by resolution or order adopted by their respective bodies, and that this Agreement will be in full force and effect when approved by each party. -2- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 II. ACTION 1. Governance. The Mobility Plan Study shall be directed by a "Steering Committee" composed of members appointed by each of the Funding Parties to this Agreement and additional parties as indicated herein. Members shall be appointed as follows: Steering Committee Entity Members City of Austin 2 CTRMA 2 Travis County 1 Williamson County 1 Hays County 1 City of Round Rock 1 State Representative (Williamson County) 1 State Representative (Travis County) 1 TxDOT — Austin District 1 Total 11 Steering Committee members appointed by the Funding Parties shall be members of the governing bodies of those entities. The State Representatives on the Steering Committee shall be members of CAMPO and shall be voted on by the Steering Committee members designated by the Funding Parties. The TxDOT representative to the Steering Committee shall be the Austin District Engineer. Once all Steering Committee members have been identified the Steering Committee shall elect two of its members to serve as Co -Chairs. The Co -Chairs shall jointly schedule and call meetings, oversee meetings of the Steering Committee, and meet regularly with the Project Coordinator (as defined below) to review the status and progress of the Study. 2. Scope of Study. A preliminary draft of the Scope of Work for the Study is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The final Scope of Work shall be approved by a vote of the Steering -3- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Committee members, and shall then define the work to be performed and the issues to be addressed in the completion of the Mobility Plan Study. 3. Project Coordination and Oversight. A Project Coordinator shall be responsible for coordinating the day-to-day activities necessary to perform the Mobility Plan Study, and that individual shall be provided through contractual resources of the CTRMA. The Project Coordinator shall be approved by the Steering Committee as a whole, and shall report regularly to the Steering Committee Co -Chairs on the status and progress of the Study. The Steering Committee shall create a Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC"), comprised of two designees from the CTRMA and the City of Austin; one designee each from Travis County, Williamson County, Hays County, and the City of Round Rock; and the Executive Director of CAMPO. The TAC shall assist the Project Coordinator with technical issues related to performance of the Study. The primary consultant to be utilized in the performance of the Study is CRA International, Inc. ("CRA"), whose services shall be provided through existing contractual relationships with the City of Austin. CRA shall conduct the research necessary to complete the Study and compile an analysis of the new capacity toll facilities included in the Mobility 2030 Plan. It is anticipated that options will be provided for consideration by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the Study report to be made to CAMPO. To the extent CRA has already commenced work on aspects of the Study (as of the date of this Agreement), such work shall be presented to the Steering Committee and the TAC for review and comment. The Project Coordinator shall be authorized to communicate with representatives of CRA in the performance of the Study. In addition, the CTRMA shall make available certain of the services and work product of its Traffic and Revenue Engineering Consultant retained for financial analysis of Phase 2 -4- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Projects. CRA and the CTRMA's Traffic and Revenue Engineering consultant shall be authorized to communicate directly with one another to exchange technical data and information, subject to the oversight of the Project Coordinator, Steering Committee and TAC. Additionally, TxDOT shall provide cooperation and reasonable access to information related to these Phase 2 Projects. 4. Funding. Each of the Funding Parties to this Agreement has committed funding in an amount not to exceed that reflected on the following table: Entity Maximum Funding Amount Allocable Share Williamson County $25,000 0.0706 (7.06%) Travis County $25,000 0.0706 (7.06%) City of Round Rock $25,000 0.0706 (7.06%) CTRMA $125,000 0.3531 (35.32%) City of Austin $144,000 0.4068 (40.68%) Hays County $10,000 0.0282 (2.82 %) Payment for compensable services (i.e., currently anticipated to be CRA and the Project Coordinator) provided for the Study shall be made by the party to this Agreement having the contractual relationship with the person or entity providing the services. The party making payment shall then be reimbursed by each of the other Funding Parties in an amount determined by multiplying the cost of the compensable services by each party's allocable share of the funding, as reflected on the above table. For example, if the City of Austin receives an invoice from CRA for $50,000 for services related to the Study, the City of Austin shall notify each of the other Funding Parties, who shall then pay to the City their allocable share of the expense based on the percentages shown above — $3,530 each for the counties and the City of Round Rock; $17,660 for the CTRMA; and $1,410 for Hays County. In no event shall a Funding Party -5- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 be obligated to contribute more than the "Maximum Funding Amount" shown above, and it shall be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator to manage work and present to the Steering Committee a budget for expenditures that does not exceed the aggregate total of the Maximum Funding Amount. 5. Process. The Steering Committee shall meet once per month or at the discretion of the Co -Chairs of the Steering Committee (which may be less than once per month). Except as provided herein, meetings shall be open to the public for observation purposes only. The Steering Committee may vote to discuss certain matters in private if public discussion of those matters could undermine the availability of information; prejudice the independence of the Study; or compromise confidential data provided by others (including parties to this Agreement) pursuant to appropriate confidentiality agreements. In the event confidential information is to be received or discussed, Steering Committee members may be required to execute confidentiality agreements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Steering Committee may vote to accept public comment at certain meetings, and the Co -Chairs may establish protocols for the receipt of public comment. Although the Steering Committee is not subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act, notices of meetings shall be posted, at a minimum, seventy-two (72) hours in advance of each meeting on the websites of the CTRMA and the City of Austin. The Steering Committee will hold at least one public meeting to receive public comment at which a representative from CRA will attend. The Steering Committee shall conduct two public meetings after a draft report has been made available and its release has been authorized by the Steering Committee. Following the public meetings the Project Coordinator shall work with the consultants to finalize the Study report. It is not anticipated that either CRA or the CTRMA's Traffic and Revenue Engineering -6- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 consultant will have a direct role in public meetings other than as a resource for the Steering Committee and the Project Coordinator. The final report shall be presented to the Steering Committee, and, if accepted, the Steering Committee shall present the final report to CAMPO (with the assistance of the Project Coordinator and the consultants). Any member of the Steering Committee who disagrees with any findings or conclusions of the Study may submit a dissenting report which shall be distributed to CAMPO members at the same time as the report that was accepted by the Steering Committee. III. GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS 1. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall continue in force and effect until the earlier of the completion of the Mobility Plan Study (including its presentation to CAMPO) or December 31, 2006. The term of the Agreement may be extended by written agreement of the Funding Parties. 2. Steering Committee Actions. A quorum of the Steering Committee must be present (in person or via conference call or proxy) to vote on any matters requiring Steering Committee action. Actions requiring a vote of the Steering Committee will be deemed approved upon a vote of a majority of the Steering Committee members present. In the event of a tie vote, the measure will be deemed to have failed. Steering Committee members must be present at meetings (or participate via conference call or proxy) in order to vote on matters before the Committee. Proxies may be utilized only if the designated Steering Committee member has provided an affidavit to one of the Steering Committee Co -Chairs designating their proxy and authorizing that individual to vote on any matters before the Committee. Proxies for Funding Party Steering Committee members must be either another member of that elected body or that entity's representative(s) on the TAC. For Steering Committee members other than Funding Parties, -7- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 proxies must be individuals employed by the same entity as that Steering Committee member and must be under their direct supervision or control. 3. Payment form Current Revenues. Each of the parties paying for the performance of governmental functions or services under this Agreement shall make those payments from current revenues available to the paying party. 4. Prior Written Agreements. This Agreement . is without regard to any and all prior written contracts or agreements between the Funding Parties regarding any other subject matter and does not modify, amend, ratify, confirm or renew any such other prior contract or agreement between the Funding Parties. 5. Other Services. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to create, by implication or otherwise, any duty or responsibility of any of the Funding Parties to undertake or not to undertake any other service, or to provide or not to provide any service, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement or in a separate written instrument executed by all Funding Parties. 6. Governmental Immunity. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to waive, modify, or amend any legal defense available at law or in equity to any of the Funding Parties nor to create any legal rights or claim on behalf of any additional party. None of the Funding Parties waives, modifies, or alters to any extent whatsoever the availability of the defense of governmental immunity under the laws of the State of Texas and of the United States. 7. Amendments and Modifications. This Agreement may not be amended or modified except in writing and executed by all Funding Parties to this Agreement and authorized by their respective governing bodies. 8. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 any other provision hereof, but rather this entire Agreement will be construed as if not containing the particular invalid or unenforceable provision(s), and the rights and obligations of the Funding Parties shall be construed and enforced in accordance therewith. The Funding Parties acknowledge that if any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, it is their desire and intention that such provision be reformed and construed in such a manner that it will, to the maximum extent practicable, give effect to the intent of this Agreement and be deemed to be validated and enforceable. 9. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several. counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall be considered fully executed as of the date first written above, when all Funding Parties have executed an identical counterpart, notwithstanding that all signatures may not appear on the same counterpart. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Funding Parties have executed and attested this Agreement by their officers thereunto duly authorized. -9- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 By: By: TRAVIS COUNTY Sam Biscoe, County Judge WILLIAMSON COUNTY John Doerfler, County Judge -10 - AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 By: By: By: By: CITY OF AUSTIN Toby Hammett Futrel, City Manager CITY OF ROUND ROCK Nyle Maxwell, Mayor CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL MOBILITY AUTHORITY Mike Heiligenstein, Executive Director HAYS COUNTY Jim Powers, County Judge The signatures below are of non -funding Parties. By their signatures below each reflects their agreement to abide by the procedural aspects of this Interlocal Agreement. -11- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES Name: Title: District: Name: Title: District: TxDOT AUSTIN DISTRICT ENGINEER Robert Daigh, P.E. EXHIBIT A To Interlocal Agreement for MOBILITY ALTERNATIVE FINANCE STUDY Scope of Work November 9, 2005 Task 1 - Will the Phase 2 Toll Plan cover its costs and produce surplus revenues that could be used to fund additions to the system approved by CAMPO? 1. Review the CAMPO model, especially as it relates to managed lanes and toll facilities with parallel frontage roads, as follows: a. The model data sets b. The model toll forecasting compatibility c. The model toll forecasting accuracy 2. In light of this review, analyze the following: a. What usage level assumptions can be made on data currently available and based on the Traffic and Revenue analysis conducted by URS? b. What cities and road comparisons exist to compare the proposed facilities and system and the usage/toll rates on existing managed lanes and /or toll facilities with parallel free frontage roads? c. How do tolls at these prices affect the projections in the toll feasibility studies? d. Based on what other toll agencies have done, what is a reasonable range of toll rates? e. How do the toll rates for the roads in the Phase 2 Plan compare to the toll rates for urban toll roads in cities across the U.S.? f. In the planning process, when and how are toll rates normally analyzed and then set? 3. How does the CAMPO area's percentage of highway lane miles scheduled to be tolled compare to the rate of tolling in other American metropolitan areas? a. What are the projected number of lane miles and projected percentage of tolled lanes in the comparison cities? b. What is the current and projected congestion index in those cities? c. What are the factors in the comparison cities (if any) that may impact this analysis (i.e. history of aggressively pursuing mobility plans and construction, state investment, high levels of public transit, addition of lane miles compared to addition of vehicle miles). AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Page 12 of 17 Task 2 - Will each Phase 2 Plan toll facility generate sufficient revenue to cover its costs of bond financing, extra construction costs as a toll facility and operations and maintenance costs? Will the Phase 2 Plan toll facilities generate sufficient revenue as a system to cover the costs of bond financing, extra construction costs as toll facilities and operations and maintenance costs?" 1. Detail the assumptions underlying the analysis. Task 3 - How much surplus revenue, if any, will each of the Phase 2 Plan toll facilities generate after all financing costs, construction costs and operations and maintenance obligations are met? How much surplus revenue, if any, will the Phase 2 Plan as a system generate after all financing costs, construction costs and operations and maintenance obligations are met? 1. Detail the assumptions underlying the analysis, including the toll rate(s) for each facility, traffic assumptions, interest rates, construction costs and growth assumptions. Task 4 — If the Phase 2 Toll Plan is not implemented, what are the alternatives? What are best practices from other cities to finance and implement infrastructure? Why and how are they different? 1. How does the TxDOT/CTRMA Phase 2 Toll Plan differ from the plans submitted to the Texas Transportation Commission in 2004 by the other seven Texas metropolitan areas? 2. What approaches are similar metro areas in the United States taking? 3. Could the capacity in the Phase 2 Plan be built without tolling using the funding described at http://www.ctrma.org/ppt/21.htm ? a. What about the Phase 2 Plan, but excluding Loop 360? b. What about the Phase 2 Plan, but for Loop 360 doing only the following: I. building intersection improvements such as overpasses, underpasses or roundabouts to remove stoplights and II. building no extra lanes? c. Describe the options for the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board and the costs and benefits of each scenario. I. What effect would each scenario have on the creation of a sustainable transportation system? II. What is the overall sustainability of the region's transportation network? Include in this analysis the future costs of local governments building new lane miles as well as maintaining current and future transportation systems? How will the liability be bonded? Can it be sustained? AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Page 13 of 17 4. What alternative financing and traffic management models exist to build this system? a. Analyze options including, but not limited to: I. A mixture of non -tolled lanes and high occupancy toll lanes. II. A mixture of non -tolled lanes and managed lanes. III. A mixture of non -tolled lanes and managed lanes with congestion pricing. IV. Shadow toll support. V. Local option gas tax. b. Analyze each of these above options under two scenarios: 1ST SCENARIO: TxDOT pays for the operation and maintenance of the entire highway through the region's distribution of gas tax revenue, and the revenues from the managed lanes stay in the Austin area. II. 2ND SCENARIO: Any revenues realized from the managed lanes are required to be dedicated first to operations and maintenance. 5. What are the long-term impacts to the CAMPO 2030 Plan of not utilizing the tolling and system financing options analyzed in Number 4? 6. How could the strategies analyzed in Number 4 be used to first build the Phase 2 system and then expedite the improvements to Interstate 35 prepared for CAMPO? As part of your analysis, also include consideration of tolling all freight trucks (such as 18 -wheelers). Task 5 — Confirm the funds available for the Phase 2 Toll Plan projects in both tolled and non -tolled scenarios including the following. 1. That TxDOT/CTRMA will fund the right-of-way and utility relocation costs for tolled projects in lieu of the City of Austin and other local entities and the dollar amounts for each. 2. Identify the effect, if any, on projected toll rates and financing needs if TxDOT/CTRMA must borrow additional funds to pay for right-of-way and utility relocation costs in lieu of the City of Austin and other local entities contributing these funds. Task 6 — Utilizing the information and analysis in Tasks 1 through 6, determine the following. 1. Which model and scenario in Task 4.4 does the most to reduce traffic congestion? 2. Which model and scenario in Task 4.4 has the best cost/benefit to Central Texas residents? 3. What is the cost -benefit to Central Texas drivers of the Phase 2 Toll Plan? AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Page 14 of 17 a. By tolling US 183, SH 71 and US 290W and thereby assuming the operation and maintenance costs for these highways and receiving access to toll revenues, will Central Texas residents realize a net gain or loss in total transportation funding, in the costs of mobility and congestion, and in new or additional facilities? This analysis should be performed from the perspective of tolling's impact on Central Texas local governments and Central Texas drivers - not from the perspective of the Toll Plan's impact on the TxDOT budget. This analysis should also assess the ramifications and impact of the Phase 2 Toll Plan on Central Texas local governments, and in particular the ramifications of any loss of State highway funding and transfer of operations obligations to Central Texas local governments and residents. b. How does the Phase 2 Toll Plan compare with the preferred options in Task 7.1 and 7.2 above? AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Page 15 of 17 Exhibit Background The Central Texas region has experienced tremendous growth over the last twenty years. During that same time, local governments and TxDOT did not build adequate transportation infrastructure to keep pace with the increases in traffic. This is evidenced by the fact that the City of Austin has been voted the most congested city for its size in the United States for three years in a row. Over the next twenty years, the Central Texas region, as defined by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), will double in population. The draft 2030 CAMPO Transportation Plan has identified $18.0 billion dollars in transportation infrastructure (roads, buses, rail) to both catch up and address the future growth. In 2001, the CAMPO area in partnership with the Texas Turnpike Authority (a division of TxDOT) embarked on a $2.2 billion toll road program called the Central Texas Turnpike Project (CTTP). With local general obligation bond support for right of way, the State now has 72 miles of turnpike under development, including SH 130, Loop 1 North, SH 45 North, and SH 45 Southeast. The Phase I turnpikes, owned and operated by TxDOT, will be open to traffic in late 2007. In April of 2004, the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA) and TxDOT presented a proposed Phase 2 Toll Plan. This Plan was prepared with direction from the Texas Transportation Commission regarding toll road development in the eight urban areas of Texas; the availability of additional funding for toll roads from the Texas Mobility Fund; and, a level commitment of construction dollars from TxDOT Administration for the Austin District. The Phase 2 plan included finishing construction of two major corridors: US 183 from IH 35 to SH 71, and SH 71 (Ben White Blvd.) from east of IH 35 to Austin Bergstrom International Airport. Both of these projects have been in the regional plans and under development and construction since the late 1970's; however, lack of funding and local political support slowed completion of these projects. The Phase 2 plan also included the western extension of US 290 from east of William Cannon to FM 1826, including improvements to a segment of SH 71 west and the US 290 West/SH 71 west interchange in Oak Hill. Again, this project has been on the drawing board for a number of years and only partial funding was available for this project. The other major projects in the Phase 2 Plan included the upgrading/expansion of US 290 east from US 183 to SH 130 and the upgrading and expansion of Loop 360 from SH 71 to US 183. The Phase 2 toll plan proposed $1.8 billion of construction over 5-7 years (not including Loop 360 funding), using a variety of revenue sources including additional State gas tax dollars, Texas Mobility Fund dollars, TxDOT operations and maintenance support, and toll revenue bonds. There were three major assumptions in the Phase 2 Toll plan. They included: • The CAMPO region could quickly "catch up" on completion of important major infrastructure by tolling and leveraging limited resources; Page 16 of 17 AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 ■ By tolling major portions of the region's roadway system, the CAMPO area, through the CTRMA, would have a future revenue stream (surplus toll revenues) to build the rest of the CAMPO 2030 plan (both roads and transit); and, • If all of the available TxDOT revenues forecasted for the next 10-15 years were used to complete only SH 71 and US 183, there would be no way to fund and complete the other major projects in the CAMPO 2030 plan. Purpose of Study In 2000, a community -funded Peer Review conducted by Cambridge Systematics compared CAMPO with other large metropolitan planning organizations. The Peer Review addressed policy board composition; the lack of a technical advisory committee; the long-range travel demand model; demographic forecasts; and, lack of a viable financing/funding program to assure implementation of the long-range improvement plan. A number of the Peer Review recommendations were addressed by CAMPO. However, the Phase 2 Toll Plan continues to point out several deficiencies, including the travel demand model and toll road forecasts; adequate funding; and, a real regional implementation program. While the Phase 2 Toll Plan outlined a specific plan of action, it did not clearly outline the funding and implementation alternatives or the next steps that CAMPO would take to complete the remainder of the road and transit projects in the long-range plan. The haste with which the State implemented the allocation of the Texas Mobility Fund deprived the community an opportunity to digest the major shift in highway funding. This lack of public discussion on alternatives and the absence of a comparable analysis (with other Texas cities, etc.) raised doubts about the validity of the proposal. These omissions, coupled with the lack of a clear presentation regarding the role of the Phase 2 Toll Plan in the larger implementation of the CAMPO plan, necessitate an independent review and analysis of not only the Phase 2 Toll Plan, but also of analyzing the Plan in the context of CAMPO's long-range implementation strategies. AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Page 17 of 17 DATE: November 17, 2005 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting - November 22, 2005 ITEM: 9.F.4. Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Agreement with Travis County, Williamson County, the City of Austin, and the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority to conduct a Mobility Plan Study. Department: Transportation Services Staff Person: Tom Word, Chief of Public Works Operations Justification: On June 6, 2005, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) adopted a new long-range transportation plan called Mobility 2030 Plan. Included in the plan were a number of proposed "Phase 2" toll roads to be developed by the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA). In adopting the Mobility 2030 Plan, CAMPO also adopted an amendment providing for a re -review of the Phase 2 toll road projects through a study initiated by the City of Austin and the CTRMA. Round Rock has been requested to provide oversight and guidance for the study by designating a City Council member to serve on the Steering Committee for the study, and a staff member to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee for the study. Additionally, the City is being requested to contribute $25,000 toward the cost of the study, which would represent 7.06% of the total study cost of the $354,000. Funding: Cost: $25,000 Source of funds: General Fund Outside Resources: CTRMA Background Information: N/A Public Comment: N/A INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective this day of November, 2005, by and between TRAVIS COUNTY, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, the CITY OF AUSTIN, the CITY OF ROUND ROCK, HAYS COUNTY and the CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL MOBILITY AUTHORITY (the "CTRMA") (collectively, the "Funding Parties"), political subdivisions of the State of Texas. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on July 12, 2004, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ("CAMPO") Transportation Policy Board approved amendments to CAMPO's 2025 Transportation Plan, authorizing the development of the projects in the CTRMA/TxDOT Regional Implementation Program (the "Program") as toll roads subject, in certain instances, to conditions imposed by certain clarifying resolutions; and WHEREAS, the following projects, commonly known as the "Phase 2" toll roads, were added to the 2025 Plan as part of the Program: US 183 from 135 to SH 71; SH 71 from 135 to Presidential Boulevard; 290 E from US 183 to SH 130; 290 W (the "Y" in Oak Hill); Loop 360 from LP 1 North to US 290 West (study purposes only); SH 45 Southwest from Loop 1 to FM 1626; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2005, the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board voted to approve a new long-range transportation plan (the "Mobility 2030 Plan"), which includes the Phase 2 toll roads; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2005, the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board also adopted an amendment to the motion to adopt the Mobility 2030 Plan providing for a re -review of the Phase AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 O 6 " I I tic —c F, 2 projects through a study to be initiated by the City of Austin and other entities (the "Mobility Plan Study" or the "Study"); and WHEREAS, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code authorizes local governments to enter into agreements to mutually provide for governmental functions and services, including planning, streets and roads, and other governmental functions in which the contracting parties are mutually interested; and WHEREAS, the Funding Parties have agreed to participate in the Mobility Plan Study; to provide funding therefore; and to designate individuals to provide oversight and guidance during the performance of the Study; and WHEREAS, the Funding Parties have also agreed that additional parties should participate in the oversight and guidance for the Study as provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the undersigned Parties agree as follows: I. FINDINGS Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein for all purposes and are found by the Funding Parties to be true and correct. It is further found and determined that the Funding Parties have authorized and approved the Agreement by resolution or order adopted by their respective bodies, and that this Agreement will be in full force and effect when approved by each party. _2_ AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 II. ACTION 1. Governance. The Mobility Plan Study shall be directed by a "Steering Committee" composed of members appointed by each of the Funding Parties to this Agreement and additional parties as indicated herein. Members shall be appointed as follows: Steering Committee Entity Members City of Austin 2 CTRMA 2 Travis County 1 Williamson County 1 Hays County 1 City of Round Rock 1 State Representative (Williamson County) 1 State Representative (Travis County) 1 TxDOT — Austin District 1 Total 11 Steering Committee members appointed by the Funding Parties shall be members of the governing bodies of those entities. The State Representatives on the Steering Committee shall be members of CAMPO and shall be voted on by the Steering Committee members designated by the Funding Parties. The TxDOT representative to the Steering Committee shall be the Austin District Engineer. Once all Steering Committee members have been identified the Steering Committee shall elect two of its members to serve as Co -Chairs. The Co -Chairs shall jointly schedule and call meetings, oversee meetings of the Steering Committee, and meet regularly with the Project Coordinator (as defined below) to review the status and progress of the Study. 2. Scope of Study. A preliminary draft of the Scope of Work for the Study is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The final Scope of Work shall be approved by a vote of the Steering -3- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Committee members, and shall then define the work to be performed and the issues to be addressed in the completion of the Mobility Plan Study. 3. Project Coordination and Oversight. A Project Coordinator shall be responsible for coordinating the day-to-day activities necessary to perform the Mobility Plan Study, and that individual shall be provided through contractual resources of the CTRMA. The Project Coordinator shall be approved by the Steering Committee as a whole, and shall report regularly to the Steering Committee Co -Chairs on the status and progress of the Study. The Steering Committee shall create a Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC"), comprised of two designees from the CTRMA and the City of Austin; one designee each from Travis County, Williamson County, Hays County, and the City of Round Rock; and the Executive Director of CAMPO. The TAC shall assist the Project Coordinator with technical issues related to performance of the Study. The primary consultant to be utilized in the performance of the Study is CRA International, Inc. ("CRA"), whose services shall be provided through existing contractual relationships with the City of Austin. CRA shall conduct the research necessary to complete the Study and compile an analysis of the new capacity toll facilities included in the Mobility 2030 Plan. It is anticipated that options will be provided for consideration by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the Study report to be made to CAMPO. To the extent CRA has already commenced work on aspects of the Study (as of the date of this Agreement), such work shall be presented to the Steering Committee and the TAC for review and comment. The Project Coordinator shall be authorized to communicate with representatives of CRA in the performance of the Study. In addition, the CTRMA shall make available certain of the services and work product of its Traffic and Revenue Engineering Consultant retained for financial analysis of Phase 2 -4- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993 v1 Projects. CRA and the CTRMA's Traffic and Revenue Engineering consultant shall be authorized to communicate directly with one another to exchange technical data and information, subject to the oversight of the Project Coordinator, Steering Committee and TAC. Additionally, TxDOT shall provide cooperation and reasonable access to information related to these Phase 2 Projects. 4. Funding. Each of the Funding Parties to this Agreement has committed funding in an amount not to exceed that reflected on the following table: Entity Maximum Funding Amount Allocable Share Williamson County $25,000 0.0706 (7.06%) Travis County $25,000 0.0706 (7.06%) City of Round Rock $25,000 0.0706 (7.06%) CTRMA $125,000 0.3531 (35.32%) City of Austin $144,000 0.4068 (40.68%) Hays County $10,000 0.0282 (2.82 %) Payment for compensable services (i.e., currently anticipated to be CRA and the Project Coordinator) provided for the Study shall be made by the party to this Agreement having the contractual relationship with the person or entity providing the services. The party making payment shall then be reimbursed by each of the other Funding Parties in an amount determined by multiplying the cost of the compensable services by each party's allocable share of the funding, as reflected on the above table. For example, if the City of Austin receives an invoice from CRA for $50,000 for services related to the Study, the City of Austin shall notify each of the other Funding Parties, who shall then pay to the City their allocable share of the expense based on the percentages shown above — $3,530 each for the counties and the City of Round Rock; $17,660 for the CTRMA; and $1,410 for Hays County. In no event shall a Funding Party -5- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 be obligated to contribute more than the "Maximum Funding Amount" shown above, and it shall be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator to manage work and present to the Steering Committee a budget for expenditures that does not exceed the aggregate total of the Maximum Funding Amount. 5. Process. The Steering Committee shall meet once per month or at the discretion of the Co -Chairs of the Steering Committee (which may be less than once per month). Except as provided herein, meetings shall be open to the public for observation purposes only. The Steering Committee may vote to discuss certain matters in private if public discussion of those matters could undermine the availability of information; prejudice the independence of the Study; or compromise confidential data provided by others (including parties to this Agreement) pursuant to appropriate confidentiality agreements. In the event confidential information is to be received or discussed, Steering Committee members may be required to execute confidentiality agreements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Steering Committee may vote to accept public comment at certain meetings, and the Co -Chairs may establish protocols for the receipt of public comment. Although the Steering Committee is not subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act, notices of meetings shall be posted, at a minimum, seventy-two (72) hours in advance of each meeting on the websites of the CTRMA and the City of Austin. The Steering Committee will hold at least one public meeting to receive public comment at which a representative from CRA will attend. The Steering Committee shall conduct two public meetings after a draft report has been made available and its release has been authorized by the Steering Committee. Following the public meetings the Project Coordinator shall work with the consultants to finalize the Study report. It is not anticipated that either CRA or the CTRMA's Traffic and Revenue Engineering -6- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 consultant will have a direct role in public meetings other than as a resource for the Steering Committee and the Project Coordinator. The final report shall be presented to the Steering Committee, and, if accepted, the Steering Committee shall present the final report to CAMPO (with the assistance of the Project Coordinator and the consultants). Any member of the Steering Committee who disagrees with any findings or conclusions of the Study may submit a dissenting report which shall be distributed to CAMPO members at the same time as the report that was accepted by the Steering Committee. III. GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS 1. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall continue in force and effect until the earlier of the completion of the Mobility Plan Study (including its presentation to CAMPO) or December 31, 2006. The term of the Agreement may be extended by written agreement of the Funding Parties. 2. Steering Committee Actions. A quorum of the Steering Committee must be present (in person -or via conference call or proxy) to vote on any matters requiring Steering Committee action. Actions requiring a vote of the Steering Committee will be deemed approved upon a vote of a majority of the Steering Committee members present. In the event of a tie vote, the measure will be deemed to have failed. Steering Committee members must be present at meetings (or participate via conference call or proxy) in order to vote on matters before the Committee. Proxies may be utilized only if the designated Steering Committee member has provided an affidavit to one of the Steering Committee Co -Chairs designating their proxy and authorizing that individual to vote on any matters before the Committee. Proxies for Funding Party Steering Committee members must be either another member of that elected body or that entity's representative(s) on the TAC. For Steering Committee members other than Funding Parties, -7- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 proxies must be individuals employed by the same entity as that Steering Committee member and must be under their direct supervision or control. 3. Payment form Current Revenues. Each of the parties paying for the performance of governmental functions or services under this Agreement shall make those payments from current revenues available to the paying party. 4. Prior Written Agreements. This Agreement is without regard to any and all prior written contracts or agreements between the Funding Parties regarding any other subject matter and does not modify, amend, ratify, confirm or renew any such other prior contract or agreement between the Funding Parties. 5. Other Services. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to create, by implication or otherwise, any duty or responsibility of any of the Funding Parties to undertake or not to undertake any other service, or to provide or not to provide any service, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement or in a separate written instrument executed by all Funding Parties. 6. Governmental Immunity. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to waive, modify, or amend any legal defense available at law or in equity to any of the Funding Parties nor to create any legal rights or claim on behalf of any additional party. None of the Funding Parties waives, modifies, or alters to any extent whatsoever the availability of the defense of governmental immunity under the laws of the State of Texas and of the United States. 7. Amendments and Modifications. This Agreement may not be amended or modified except in writing and executed by all Funding Parties to this Agreement and authorized by their respective governing bodies. 8. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable -8- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 any other provision hereof, but rather this entire Agreement will be construed as if not containing the particular invalid or unenforceable provision(s), and the rights and obligations of the Funding Parties shall be construed and enforced in accordance therewith. The Funding Parties acknowledge that if any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, it is their desire and intention that such provision be reformed and construed in such a manner that it will, to the maximum extent practicable, give effect to the intent of this Agreement and be deemed to be validated and enforceable. 9. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall be considered fully executed as of the date first written above, when all Funding Parties have executed an identical counterpart, notwithstanding that all . signatures may not appear on the same counterpart. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Funding Parties have executed and attested this Agreement by their officers thereunto duly authorized. -9- AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 By: By: TRAVIS COUNTY Sam Biscoe, County edge WILLIAMSON COUNTY John Doerfler, County Judge CITY OF AUSTIN By: 1 .9 \-VvY11Mte AL Toby Hammett Futrell, City Manager Bv. CIT O"R�� iG By: By: Maxwell, Mayor CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL MOBILITY AUTHORITY Mike Heiligenstl' , Executive Director HAYS COUNTY Jim Powers, County Judge The signatures below are of non -funding Parties. By their signatures below each reflects their agreement to abide by the procedural aspects of this Interlocal Agreement. 40 - AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 -11 - AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES Name: Title: District: Name: Title: District: TxDOT AUSTIN DISTRICT ENGINEER Robert Daigh, P.E. EXHIBIT A To Interlocal Agreement for MOBILITY ALTERNATIVE FINANCE STUDY Scope of Work November 9, 2005 Task 1 - Will the Phase 2 Toll Pian cover its costs and produce surplus revenues that could be used to fund additions to the system approved by CAMPO? 1. Review the CAMPO model, especially as it relates to managed lanes and toll facilities with parallel frontage roads, as follows: a. The model data sets b. The model toll forecasting compatibility c. The model toll forecasting accuracy 2. In light of this review, analyze the following: a. What usage level assumptions can be made on data currently available and based on the Traffic and Revenue analysis conducted by URS? b. What cities and road comparisons exist to compare the proposed facilities and system and the usage/toll rates on existing managed lanes and /or toll facilities with parallel free frontage roads? c. How do tolls at these prices affect the projections in the toll feasibility studies? d. Based on what other toll agencies have done, what is a reasonable range of toll rates? e. How do the toll rates for the roads in the Phase 2 Plan compare to the toll rates for urban toll roads in cities across the U.S.? f. In the planning process, when and how are toll rates normally analyzed and then set? 3. How does the CAMPO area's percentage of highway lane miles scheduled to be tolled compare to the rate of tolling in other American metropolitan areas? a. What are the projected number of lane miles and projected percentage of tolled lanes in the comparison cities? b. What is the current and projected congestion index in those cities? c. What are the factors in the comparison cities (if any) that may impact this analysis (i.e. history of aggressively pursuing mobility plans and construction, state investment, high levels of public transit, addition of lane miles compared to addition of vehicle miles). Page 12 of 17 AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Task 2 - Will each Phase 2 Plan toll facility generate sufficient revenue to cover its costs of bond financing, extra construction costs as a toll facility and operations and maintenance costs? Will the Phase 2 Plan toll facilities generate sufficient revenue as a system to cover the costs of bond financing, extra construction costs as toll facilities and operations and maintenance costs?" 1. Detail the assumptions underlying the analysis. Task 3 - How much surplus revenue, if any, will each of the Phase 2 Plan toll facilities generate after all financing costs, construction costs and operations and maintenance obligations are met? How much surplus revenue, if any, will the Phase 2 Plan as a system generate after all financing costs, construction costs and operations and maintenance obligations are met? 1. Detail the assumptions underlying the analysis, including the toll rate(s) for each facility, traffic assumptions, interest rates, construction costs and growth assumptions. Task 4 — If the Phase 2 Toll Plan is not implemented, what are the alternatives? What are best practices from other cities to finance and implement infrastructure? Why and how are they different? 1. How does the TxDOT/CTRMA Phase 2 Toll Plan differ from the plans submitted to the Texas Transportation Commission in 2004 by the other seven Texas metropolitan areas? 2. What approaches are similar metro areas in the United States taking? 3. Could the capacity in the Phase 2 Plan be built without tolling using the funding described at http://www.ctrma.org/ppt/21.htm ? a. What about the Phase 2 Plan, but excluding Loop 360? b. What about the Phase 2 Plan, but for Loop 360 doing only the following: I. building intersection improvements such as overpasses, underpasses or roundabouts to remove stoplights and II. building no extra lanes? c. Describe the options for the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board and the costs and benefits of each scenario. I. What effect would each scenario have on the creation of a sustainable transportation system? II. What is the overall sustainability of the region's transportation network? Include in this analysis the future costs of local governments building new lane miles as well as maintaining current and future transportation systems? How will the liability be bonded? Can it be sustained? AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Page 13 of 17 4. What alternative financing and traffic management models exist to build this system? a. Analyze options including, but not limited to: 1. A mixture of non -tolled lanes and high occupancy toll lanes. IL A mixture of non -tolled lanes and managed lanes. III. A mixture of non -tolled lanes and managed lanes with congestion pricing. IV. Shadow toll support. V. Local option gas tax. b. Analyze each of these above options under two scenarios: 1ST SCENARIO: TxDOT pays for the operation and maintenance of the entire highway through the region's distribution of gas tax revenue, and the revenues from the managed lanes stay in the Austin area. II. 2ND SCENARIO: Any revenues realized from the managed lanes are required to be dedicated first to operations and maintenance. 5. What are the long-term impacts to the CAMPO 2030 Plan of not utilizing the tolling and system financing options analyzed in Number 4? 6. How could the strategies analyzed in Number 4 be used to first build the Phase 2 system and then . expedite the improvements to Interstate 35 prepared for CAMPO? As part of your analysis, also include consideration of tolling all freight trucks (such as 18 -wheelers). Task 5 — Confirm the funds available for the Phase 2 Toll Plan projects in both tolled and non -tolled scenarios including the following. 1. That TxDOT/CTRMA will fund the right-of-way and utility relocation costs for tolled projects in lieu of the City of Austin and other local entities and the dollar amounts for each. 2. Identify the effect, if any, on projected toll rates and financing needs if TxDOT/CTRMA must borrow additional funds to pay for right-of-way and utility relocation costs in lieu of the City of Austin and other local entities contributing these funds. Task 6 — Utilizing the information and analysis in Tasks 1 through 6, determine the following. 1 Which model and scenario in Task 4.4 does the most to reduce traffic congestion? 2. Which model and scenario in Task 4.4 has the best cost/benefit to Central Texas residents? 3. What is the cost -benefit to Central Texas drivers of the Phase 2 Toll Plan? AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Page 14 of 17 a. By tolling US 183, SH 71 and US 290W and thereby assuming the operation and maintenance costs for these highways and receiving access to toll revenues, will Central Texas residents realize a net gain or loss in total transportation funding, in the costs of mobility and congestion, and in new or additional facilities? This analysis should be performed from the perspective of tolling's impact on Central Texas local governments and Central Texas drivers - not from the perspective of the Toll Plan's impact on the TxDOT budget. This analysis should also assess the ramifications and impact of the Phase 2 Toll Plan on Central Texas local governments, and in particular the ramifications of any loss of State highway funding and transfer of operations obligations to Central Texas local governments and residents. b. How does the Phase 2 Toll Plan compare with the preferred options in Task 7.1 and 7.2 above? AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Page 15 of 17 Exhibit Background The Central Texas region has experienced tremendous growth over the last twenty years. During that same time, local governments and TxDOT did not build adequate transportation infrastructure to keep pace with the increases in traffic. This is evidenced by the fact that the City of Austin has been voted the most congested city for its size in the United States for three years in a row. Over the next twenty years, the Central Texas region, as defined by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), will double in population. The draft 2030 CAMPO Transportation Plan has identified $18.0 billion dollars in transportation infrastructure (roads, buses, rail) to both catch up and address the future growth. In 2001, the CAMPO area in partnership with the Texas Turnpike Authority (a division of TxDOT) embarked on a $2.2 billion toll road program called the Central Texas Turnpike Project (CTTP). With local general obligation bond support for right of way, the State now has 72 miles of turnpike under development, including SH 130, Loop 1 North, SH 45 North, and SH 45 Southeast. The Phase 1 turnpikes, owned and operated by TxDOT, will be open to traffic in late 2007. In April of 2004, the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA) and TxDOT presented a proposed Phase 2 Toll Plan. This Plan was prepared with direction from the Texas Transportation Commission regarding toll road development in the eight urban areas of Texas; the availability of additional funding for toll roads from the Texas Mobility Fund; and, a level commitment of construction dollars from TxDOT Administration for the Austin District. The Phase 2 plan included finishing construction of two major corridors: US 183 from IH 35 to SH 71, and SH 71 (Ben White Blvd.) from east of IH 35 to Austin Bergstrom International Airport. Both of these projects have been in the regional plans and under development and construction since the late 1970's; however, lack of funding and local political support slowed completion of these projects. The Phase 2 plan also included the western extension of US 290 from east of William Cannon to FM 1826, including improvements to a segment of SH 71 west and the US 290 West/SH 71 west interchange in Oak Hill. Again, this project has been on the drawing board for a number of years and only partial funding was available for this project. The other major projects in the Phase 2 Plan included the upgrading/expansion of US 290 east from US 183 to SH 130 and the upgrading and expansion of Loop 360 from SH 71 to US 183. The Phase 2 toll plan proposed $1.8 billion of construction over 5-7 years (not including Loop 360 funding), using a variety of revenue sources including additional State gas tax dollars, Texas Mobility Fund dollars, TxDOT operations and maintenance support, and toll revenue bonds. There were three major assumptions in the Phase 2 Toll plan. They included: ■ The CAMPO region could quickly "catch up" on completion of important major infrastructure by tolling and leveraging limited resources; AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Page 16 of 17 ■ By tolling major portions of the region's roadway system, the CAMPO area, through the CTRMA, would have a future revenue stream (surplus toll revenues) to build the rest of the CAMPO 2030 plan (both roads and transit); and, • If all of the available TxDOT revenues forecasted for the next 10-15 years were used to complete only SH 71 and US 183, there would be no way to fund and complete the other major projects in the CAMPO 2030 plan. Purpose of Study In 2000, a community -funded Peer Review conducted by Cambridge Systematics compared CAMPO with other large metropolitan planning organizations. The Peer Review addressed policy board composition; the lack of a technical advisory committee; the long-range travel demand model; demographic forecasts; and, lack of a viable financing/funding program to assure implementation of the long-range improvement plan. A number of the Peer Review recommendations were addressed by CAMPO. However, the Phase 2 Toll Plan continues to point out several deficiencies, including the travel demand model and toll road forecasts; adequate funding; and, a real regional implementation program. While the Phase 2 Toll Plan outlined a specific plan of action, it did not clearly outline the funding and implementation alternatives or the next steps that CAMPO would take to complete the remainder of the road and transit projects in the long-range plan. The haste with which the State implemented the allocation of the Texas Mobility Fund deprived the community an opportunity to digest the major shift in highway funding. This lack of public discussion on alternatives and the absence of a comparable analysis (with other Texas cities, etc.) raised doubts about the validity of the proposal. These omissions, coupled with the lack of a clear presentation regarding the role of the Phase 2 Toll Plan in the larger implementation of the CAMPO plan, necessitate an independent review and analysis of not only the Phase 2 Toll Plan, but also of analyzing the Plan in the context of CAMPO's long-range implementation strategies. AUSTIN: 053071.00003: 332993v1 Page 17 of 17