HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 08.23.2016 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
August 2 3, 2 0 1 6
The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on August 2 3, 2016 at 3:30 PM at City Co uncil Chambers, 101
E. 7th St., Geo rgeto wn, Texas
The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact
the City Se c retary's Office, at least three (3 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-
3652 o r City Hall at 113 East 8th Street fo r additional information; TTY use rs ro ute through Relay
Texas at 7 11.
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A Re vie w and discussion regarding an ESD #8 partnership with the future Fire Station #6 -- John
Sullivan, Fire Chief
B Update, information and possible feedback on the budget for Downtown West – Eric Johnson,
CIP Manager and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager.
C Prese ntation and Discussion relate d to the Lo ne Star Rail District -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP
Transpo rtation Services Director
Exe cutive Se ssion
In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes,
Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular se ssio n.
D Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney
- Advice fro m attorney about pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items
Se c . 55 1.0 72 : Del i berati on abo ut Real P roperty
Forwarded fro m the Georgetown Transpo rtation Enhancement Corpo ratio n
- Rivery Blvd. Extension Project (Parc el 11 , 16 11 Park Lane)
- Mays Street Project (Parcel 8, Westinghouse at Rabbit Hill Rd.)
- SW Bypass P roject (Laubach – 4 20 0 IH35 So uth)
Se c . 55 1.0 74 : Personnel Matter s
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Se c retary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the
appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal
Se c . 55 1.0 87 : Del i berati on Regardi ng Eco nomi c Devel opment Ne go ti ati ons
- Tamiro Plaza Phase 2
Adjournme nt
Ce rtificate of Posting
Page 1 of 89
I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that
this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to
the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2016, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted for at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the
s cheduled time of s aid meeting.
__________________________________
Shelley No wling, City S ecretary
Page 2 of 89
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
August 23, 2016
SUBJECT:
Review and disc ussio n regarding an ESD #8 partnership with the future Fire Station #6 -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Fire Department e njo ys a collaborative relationship with Emergency Service District #8 (ESD8 ) and has explored the
option of co-deve lo ping a fire station in the area of Four T Ranch Road and Williams Drive.
The lo cation o f the fire station was based upon previous deployme nt studies and a current assessment of emergency
service demands.
The ESD has purchased the two (2) ac re site and has offe re d to pay for the construction of the fire station. Additional
terms may include the fire department operating a minimum o f one (1) engine company o ut o f the new facility (statio n 6).
Additionally, it is being propo sed that the City would assume the operational costs of maintaining the fac ility and provide
annexation terms that wo uld reimburse the ESD fo r the facility.
A pre sentatio n of the background, general terms, optio ns and timeline will be presented during the August 23 rd Council
meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Discussion only
SUBMITTED BY:
John Sullivan, Fire Chief
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
F ire Statio n #6 P ro p o s al
Page 3 of 89
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL
Fire/Medical Station 6
Council Workshop –August 23, 2016
Page 4 of 89
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL
Agenda
Introduction of ESD Commissioner’s
Overview of ESD/City Relationship
Emergency Service Demand -Analysis
Proposed Fire Station Site
General Terms, Timeline and Operation
Open Discussion/Feedback
Page 5 of 89
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL
ESD Commissioners
Bobby Bunte, President
Benny Piper, Vice President
Troy Rodriguez, Secretary
Troy Dalton, Member
Dr. Ira Wood
Page 6 of 89
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL
ESD Map
Page 7 of 89
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL
Drive Time
4-minute
5-minute
6-minute
Total Response
Dispatch
Turn-out
Drive time
Drive Time Model
Page 8 of 89
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL
Emergency Service Demand
Page 9 of 89
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL
Emergency Service Demand
Page 10 of 89
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL
Placement for Current/Future Demand
Page 11 of 89
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL
General Terms
ESD8
Purchase property and pay for construction
Maintain title on property
Maintain insurance on building
City
Assist with RFP/Q process and construction oversight
Pay portion of FF&E
Assume operational costs (move Engine from FS5)
Reimburse ESD for FMV of building (if annexed)
Consideration of FS costs within service contract
Joint
Design and approval
Page 12 of 89
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL
Proposed Construction Timeline
Oct 2016 –Finalize Term Agreement
Nov 2016 –RFQ/P for Design
Jan 2017 –RFQ/P to GGAF, ESD, Council
Feb 2017 –Design/Develop (8-weeks)
April 2017 –Present to Council/ESD
April 2017 –Construction Docs (12-weeks)
August 2017 –Present to Council/ESD for CM@R
September 2017 –Construction (9 –12 months)
October 2018 –Station 6 Operational
Page 13 of 89
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL
Questions and Comments
Page 14 of 89
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
August 23, 2016
SUBJECT:
Update, informatio n and po ssible feedback on the budget fo r Downtown West – Eric Johnson, CIP Manager and Laurie
Brewer, Assistant City Manager.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Follow-up from Council feedbac k at the July 2 6, 2 01 6 Workshop. This is an update regarding the Downtown West
P roject. Staff will pre sent Council requested options and will be ask for feedback to steer the detailed design based on
budgetary conside ratio ns.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The funding fo r constructing these City facilities c omes partially from pro ceeds associated with the sale of the
Albertson’s building, and the prospective sale of othe r City facilities.
Near the end of the Architectural De sign phase of the project, Balfour Beatty will submit a Guarantee d Maximum P rice
for the project and we will return to Council for approval of that GMP.
SUBMITTED BY:
Eric Johnson, CIP Manager and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Do wntown Wes t Bud get P res entation
Page 15 of 89
8/17/2016
1
Downtown West Budget
Update
August 23, 2016
Development Process
• First step is programming
• Programming uncovers needs
• Schematic Design is based on those needs
• Not unusual to see escalation through that
process
City of Georgetown
Page 16 of 89
8/17/2016
2
Benefits of Downtown West, Downtown
• Buffer between Downtown and Residential
• Money gained from sale offset by land purchase
• Keeps Light and Waterworks as part of Campus
• Shared Parking
• Revitalizes buildings we already own
• Shotgun House is on Old Library lot
City of Georgetown
Downtown West
• Considered in both 2003 and 2014 Downtown
Master Plans
• Extensive public process that sought input
from internal and external stakeholders
• Parking study concluded there is ample
parking for the use
• Relocates approx. 50 employees (cars) out
of Downtown core, plus MC/CC visitors
City of Georgetown
Page 17 of 89
8/17/2016
3
City Council Feedback from July 26th
• Renovation Plan that is Worthy of our City and
Exemplifies our Values
• Cursory Review of Demolition and Reconstruction
• Funding Strategy
• $13,000,000
City of Georgetown
Renovate Existing Buildings - $13,000,000
• Assumptions
– Delay Street Improvements
– Omit Side Walls of Façade MC/CC
– Reduce A/V Budget $50,000 (8%)
– Reduce Furniture Budget $75,000 (9%)
– Renovation at $180/SF & New at $300/SF
City of Georgetown
Page 18 of 89
8/17/2016
4
City of Georgetown
Renovate Existing Buildings - $13,000,000
• Includes
– Construction - $10,500,000 ($285/sf)
– Other City Contracted Services - $2,500,000
•A/V
• Furniture
• Owner Contingency
• Testing
• Security
• TempSet (A/C controls)
City of Georgetown
Page 19 of 89
8/17/2016
5
Other City Contracted Services
City of Georgetown
City of Georgetown
Page 20 of 89
8/17/2016
6
City of Georgetown
Possible Future Expansion
City of Georgetown
Page 21 of 89
8/17/2016
7
Benefits / Challenges
• Benefits
– Provides Expandability
• 18 spaces in CH and 10 spaces in MC/CC
– Quickest Option
– Lowest Cost
– Open Existing Structure Allows Flexibility
• Challenges
– Unforeseen Existing Conditions
– Connecting to Existing Structure
City of Georgetown
Demolition of Old Library ONLY -
$15,787,000
City of Georgetown
•+$2,787,000
•+6 - 10 months
• Assumptions
– Same Square Footage
– Renovation & Addition to GCAT
– Demolition Costs
– New Construction at $300/SF
– Similar Sitework costs
Page 22 of 89
8/17/2016
8
Demolition of Old Library ONLY -
$15,787,000
City of Georgetown
• Includes
– Construction - $13,287,000
– Other City Contracted Services - $2,500,000
•A/V
• Furniture
• Owner Contingency
• Testing
• Security
• TempSet (A/C controls)
Benefits / Challenges
• Benefits
– Could Allow for a Second Floor
– Could Reorient the Building
– Could Better Tie in to Adjacent Development
– Could Maximize Efficiency
• Challenges
– Higher Cost
– More Time
– Aesthetic Compatibility with Neighborhood
City of Georgetown
Page 23 of 89
8/17/2016
9
Demolition of Old Library and GCAT -
$20,926,000+
City of Georgetown
•+$7,926,000+
•+12 – 18+ months (Data Center)
• Assumptions
– Demolition Costs
– New Construction at $300/SF
– Similar Sitework costs
– Relocation of Data Center (Equipment - $1M)
– Does not Include Location for Data Center
Demolition of Old Library and GCAT -
$20,926,000
City of Georgetown
• Includes
– Construction - $18,426,000
– Other City Contracted Services - $2,500,000
•A/V
• Furniture
• Owner Contingency
• Testing
• Security
• TempSet (A/C controls)
Page 24 of 89
8/17/2016
10
Benefits / Challenges
• Benefits
– Same as Library Demolition
• Challenges
– Significantly Higher Cost
– Significantly More Time
– Moving the Data Center
• Acquiring Location
• Acquiring Equipment
• Building new Data Center
City of Georgetown
Cash Funding
In addition to design modifications, we also
evaluated possible alternate funding sources
to supplement the sale of the buildings at
$6,249,000
City of Georgetown
Page 25 of 89
8/17/2016
11
Funding Options
• Other Possible Funding
• Certificate of Obligation
City of Georgetown
$1,295,000
Supplement
Remaining
Balance
Funding Summary
• Budget
• Cash Funding
• Other Possible Funding
• Certificate of Obligation
– Debt Service (20 yr)
City of Georgetown
$13,000,000
$ 6,249,000
$ 1,295,000
$ 5,456,000
$ 381,920
Page 26 of 89
8/17/2016
12
Next Steps
• Feedback on Design Options
• Proceed with Design Development
• Guaranteed Maximum Price – Fall 2016
• Begin Construction – Winter 2016/2017
• Occupy Building – By the end of 1
st Quarter 2018
City of Georgetown
Page 27 of 89
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
August 23, 2016
SUBJECT:
P resentation and Discussio n related to the Lone Star Rail District -- Edward G. Po lasek, AICP Transportation Servic e s
Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Membership in the Lone Star Rail District was discussed extensive ly with City Council during the FY 2014 budge t
process. The resolution at that time was that the City continue membership with the follo wing provisions:
1 . Provide Direct input into th e Scop in g p rocess of the EIS;
2 . En viro nmental process would Fe derally clear corridor for ran ge o f tra nsit/transportation op tion s
(e.g. elig ible for future Fede ra l Fu nd in g);
3 . This recommendation does no t n e cessa rily extend to funding co nstruction /operations of the Lon e
S ta r Ra il project; however, it affo rds th e GTAB Board time to co ntin ue stu dying the Lone
S ta r/Tra nsit Options as directed by City Council on July 9. 2 01 3, while p ursuing environmental
clea ra nces; and
4 . Con tinu ed membership is an an nu al bu dget decision
Staff began working with Lo ne Star Rail to determine the funding options for operations and maintenance.
Recently Union P acific has withdrawn from the disc ussio n with Lone Star Rail regarding relo cation and the CAMPO
P olicy Board has taken action to potentially remove the Lo ne Star Rail Program fro m the financially constrained eleme nt
of the 2040 Plan. This mo ve would effectively end the Environmental Process undertaken by the District.
SP ECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The City may po tentially benefit from this EIS Process in several ways. First, if funding does become readily available fo r
the Rail Distric t the re wo uld be clearances necessary to build the project. Second, if we remain in the project through the
environmental study, and chose not to fund our portio n of the operations at that time, we still have that option in the future
when the funding is mo re readily available. Finally, we wo uld have environmental cle arances o n the corridor for othe r
transit options (dedicated bus lanes, high-occupanc y vehicle (HOV) lanes, etc.) or e ven a traditio nal roadway if the Rail
P roject does not materialize.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$49,500 Annual dues paid to Lone Star Rail due after October 10, 2016.
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, AICP Transportation Services Dire cto r
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Lo ne Star Res olution by CAMP O
CAMPO Bac kground Material
Page 28 of 89
Page 29 of 89
Page 30 of 89
Date: August 1, 2016
Continued From: June 6, 2016
Action
Requested:
APPROVAL
To: Transportation Policy Board
From: Chairman Conley
Agenda Item: 8
Subject: Discussion and Action of CAMPO’s Activities to Improve Mobility
between Georgetown and San Antonio
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the approval of Resolution 2016-8-8 authorizing CAMPO staff to begin the
process of removing LSRD’s commuter rail project from the 2040 Plan on the basis of its
inconsistency with the federal fiscal constraint requirement.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LSRD has been forced back to the early stages of an Environmental Impact Statement and
Alternatives Analysis of potential commuter rail service in the UP Corridor that runs between
Georgetown and San Antonio due to the February 9, 2016 letter from Union Pacific Railroad that
severed the agreement between the two organizations. The EIS was initiated with the
publication of notice in the Federal Register on October 6, 2014 (please see the Federal Register
Notice here: http://eis.lonestarrail.com/images/uploads/virtual/NOI_FedReg_2014OCT6.pdf or
in Attachment A).
On February 9, 2016, UP sent a letter to LSRD that ended the agreement between the two
organizations. The agreement allowed LSRD to study and potentially implement commuter rail
service in UP’s privately owned rail corridor running between the cities of Georgetown and San
Antonio (please see Attachment B).
Subsequent to February 9, 2016, there have been meetings between UP, LSRD staff/consultants
and board members, CAMPO, AAMPO, and TxDOT to discuss potential next steps. LSRD staff
also made a trip to UP Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska on February 29, 2016 to discuss UP’s
intentions. On March 1, 2016, there was another meeting between TxDOT, LSRD, and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to discuss potential next steps. Three (3) options
were discussed in detail. Those options were:
1.Close the current Environmental Impact Study (EIS) with the selection of the “No Build”
alternative. Should LSRD choose this option, there would be no required payback of
funds expended to date. This option would also allow for the examination of other
potential strategies to address mobility in the corridor;
2. Continue to advance the current EIS but eliminate the UP Corridor alternative as “fatally
flawed” and proceed with new alternatives that haven’t been discussed with participating
agencies or the general public along the corridor. The selection of this option would
entail advancing an Alternatives Analysis with options that haven’t been discussed with
Page 31 of 89
the public or participating agencies. For transparency, FHWA and TxDOT recommended
that LSRD get concurrence from AAMPO and CAMPO before proceeding since the
federal funds allocated by those agencies were allocated to study and implement
commuter rail service in the UP Corridor in particular. (Please see Attachment C –
Federal Project Authorization Agreement)
3. Continue to advance the EIS as it is currently written with the UP Corridor in it. FHWA
cautioned that it would be difficult to advance this option given UP’s firm position.
Further, FHWA stated that they could not justify the expenditure of federal funds to study
an outcome that cannot be implemented.
There was also a LSRD board meeting held on March 4, 2016 where this issue was discussed.
UP’s position has consistently been that commuter rail service in this particular corridor does not
support their business model. Going back to a feasibility study done as early as 1999 by
TxDOT, UP is described as being skeptical of the proposed commuter rail service and having
concerns about the potential effect on their business and their long-standing customers in the
corridor (Please see the “1999 Austin San Antonio Commuter Rail Study” located here:
www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/commuter-rail.html).
In March 2016, the TPB discussed next steps for the LSRD and authorized the CAMPO
Executive Committee and the CAMPO Executive Director to negotiate with our sister agency,
the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO), the Texas Department of
Transportation, and the Texas Transportation Commission on a viable approach to move forward
on ways to improve passenger mobility between our fast-growing regions in light of the recent
developments between the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and the Lone Star Rail District (LSRD).
The CAMPO and AAMPO Executive Committees met April 20, 2016 and received briefings
from LSRD and TxDOT on the current status and potential next steps for the environmental
study. Chairman Conley sent a letter to AAMPO Chairman Lopez (please see Attachment D)
that asked about the status of AAMPO’s decision. Chairman Lopez responded and stated that
AAMPO would take this item up at its August 22, 2016 board meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
In June 2011, the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board allocated $20 million in Surface
Transportation Program – Metropolitan Mobility (STP-MM) funds to LSRD. State and federal
funds allocated to LSRD flow through the Texas Department of Transportation. TxDOT has an
oversight role and must ensure that LSRD follows the requisite state and federal procurement
rules as well as ensuring that expenses incurred meet the eligibility requirements. LSRD has
spent approximately $23 Million in federal and state funds.
Agency/Funding Source Amount Awarded Amount Expended
Congressional Earmark $5,700,000 $5,600,000
Congressional Earmark $1,980,000 $1,938,726
CAMPO $20,000,000 $11,926,671
TxDOT $8,700,000.00 $5,612,793.00
Page 2 of 54Page 32 of 89
Alamo Area MPO $20,000,000 $0
Total $56,380,000 $23,139,464 1
LSRD does not have the ability to tax and SB 657 provided no clear revenue source but it can
issue revenue bonds and charge for the use of its facilities as well as enter into public/private
partnerships. LSRD can also receive funding from federal, state, and local sources. In 2011,
CAMPO awarded $20 million in STP-MM funds to LSRD for the purpose of conducting
feasibility and environmental studies in the Union Pacific corridor between the greater regions of
Austin and San Antonio. The Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO) also
awarded $20 million to LSRD in 2011 for the purpose of project implementation (construction).
In addition to the STP-MM funding awarded by CAMPO and AAMPO, LSRD has received
federal earmark funds of $1.98 and $5.7 million sponsored by Representative Lamar Smith.
They have also received another $8.7 million in Texas General Revenue and Texas Mobility
Fund monies. LSRD has also spent an estimated $11,926,671 of the $20 million of STP-MM
awarded to it by the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board in 2011.
FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are responsible for confirming fiscal
constraint of long-range transportation plans and Transportation Improvement Programs per long
standing federal law going back to the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation and
Efficiency Act of 1991 and carried through subsequent federal transportation bills into the
current FAST Act.
Under the regulatory requirements of 23 CFR 450.324(f)(11)(i-v), metropolitan planning
organizations and transit operators must demonstrate that a proposed project or program of
projects has “reasonably” sufficient revenues in the future to construct, operate, and maintain the
infrastructure. The FHWA and FTA have a Question and Answer document on Fiscal Constraint
that may help to provide more information on this subject. Please see Attachment H. Please
note, however, that the legal citation references in the document have not been updated so it may
be necessary to access a current copy of the statute or the regulations. Both the statute and the
regulations can be found on the FHWA website located at www.fhwa.dot.gov.
23 CFR 450.324(f)(11)(i-v) reads as follows:
(f) The metropolitan transportation plan shall, at a minimum, include:
(11) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented.
(i) For purposes of transportation system operations and maintenance, the financial plan shall
contain system-level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be
available to adequately operate and maintain the Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23 U.S.C.
101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53).
1 Source: Texas Department of Transportation – Rail Division. Lone Star Rail District billings from inception to March
2016.
Page 3 of 54Page 33 of 89
(ii) For the purpose of developing the metropolitan transportation plan, the MPO, public
transportation operator(s), and State shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be
available to support metropolitan transportation plan implementation, as required under
§450.314(a). All necessary financial resources from public and private sources that are
reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the transportation plan shall be identified.
(iii) The financial plan shall include recommendations on any additional financing strategies to
fund projects and programs included in the metropolitan transportation plan. In the case of new
funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified. The financial plan
may include an assessment of the appropriateness of innovative finance techniques (for example,
tolling, pricing, bonding, public private partnerships, or other strategies) as revenue sources for
projects in the plan.
(iv) In developing the financial plan, the MPO shall take into account all projects and strategies
proposed for funding under title 23 U.S.C., title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 or with other Federal
funds; State assistance; local sources; and private participation. Revenue and cost estimates that
support the metropolitan transportation plan must use an inflation rate(s) to reflect “year of
expenditure dollars,” based on reasonable financial principles and information, developed
cooperatively by the MPO, State(s), and public transportation operator(s).
(v) For the outer years of the metropolitan transportation plan (i.e., beyond the first 10 years), the
financial plan may reflect aggregate cost ranges/cost bands, as long as the future funding
source(s) is reasonably expected to be available to support the projected cost ranges/cost bands.
The regulatory language above details what must be done when producing a new long-range
transportation plan and/or Transportation Improvement Program. However, the language
contained in 23 CFR 450.324(f)(11)(viii) details the requirements of an MPO to demonstrate
fiscal constraint in the event there is an amendment to the long-range transportation plan and/or
Transportation Improvement Program. The specific regulatory language of 23 CFR
450.324(f)(11)(viii) reads as follows:
(viii) In cases that the FHWA and the FTA find a metropolitan transportation plan to be fiscally
constrained and a revenue source is subsequently removed or substantially reduced (i.e., by
legislative or administrative actions), the FHWA and the FTA will not withdraw the original
determination of fiscal constraint; however, in such cases, the FHWA and the FTA will not act
on an updated or amended metropolitan transportation plan that does not reflect the changed
revenue situation.
The regulatory language above directly addresses the situation in which CAMPO and AAMPO
currently finds themselves. The February 9, 2016 letter from Union Pacific to the Lone Star Rail
District that severs the relationship among the two agencies has irreparably damaged the ability
of LSRD to demonstrate fiscal constraint on the project and that revenue will be reasonably
available in the future to construct, maintain, and operate the commuter rail service that has been
contemplated and studied by LSRD since 1999.
Page 4 of 54Page 34 of 89
LSRD has had and continues to employ consultants that have developed financial models based
on the use of the Union Pacific track to produce increment tax revenues from development that
might be spurred by the existence of the commuter rail service at various locations within the
Union Pacific rail corridor. LSRD’s 2006 Executive Summary on the Economic Impact
Analysis of Passenger Rail Station Areas estimated $161 Million in tax increment revenue that
would be generated over 25 years and available to LSRD for operations and maintenance. Union
Pacific’s change in its business model and the severance of the agreement that would have
allowed the use of UP facilities calls the financial model into question and thus triggers an
examination of fiscal constraint on this project and the 2040 Plan. The commuter rail project is
currently listed in the 2040 Plan at $2.049 Billion.
LSRD also anticipates the award of FTA New Starts grant or Full Funding Grant Agreement
(FFGA) to fund a substantial portion of the upfront construction and rolling stock costs. The
FTA New Starts process is a rigorous analysis that focuses heavily on financial viability as well
as projected ridership. Additionally, the New Starts Process “requires documentation of local
and state government support and an acceptable degree of local financial commitment including
evidence of stable and dependable financing sources”2 for a project to receive an FFGA. Since
the receipt of the Union Pacific letter, several county and city governments have cancelled their
membership in LSRD or have not yet renewed their commitment to funding the project through
their commissioners’ courts and/or city councils. This lack of public official support from the
northern to southern termini of the corridor also calls into question the LSRD financial model
and its ability to successfully navigate the FTA New Starts Process upon completion of the EIS
with the selection of an option of anything other than “No Build.”
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
During the 75th Texas Legislative session, Senator Gonzalo Barrientos sponsored Senate Bill
657 (please see Attachment E for the full bill language) that provided for the creation of rail
districts. The specific bracketed language of SB 657 led to the creation of the Austin – San
Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District (later to be renamed Lone Star Rail District) in
2003. The mission of the rail district, as laid out in SB 657, is to “provide commuter rail service
between two municipalities….” The Lone Star Rail District (LSRD) is composed of a board of
23 organizations: Hays, Williamson, Bexar, Bastrop, Travis, and Caldwell Counties; the cities of
Austin, Georgetown, New Braunfels, San Antonio, Schertz and San Marcos; the transit
authorities of Alamo Area Regional Transit, VIA Metropolitan Transit, Capital Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Cap Metro), Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS); two
members appointed by the Texas Transportation Commission; and a representative from Austin
Community College. LSRD also has two (2) full-time paid staff members. The LSRD board
meets monthly at 10:00 am in San Marcos at the Activity Center located at 501 E. Hopkins
Road. Past meeting agendas and minutes can be found at the following location:
http://lonestarrail.com/index.php/lstar/about-rail-meetings/.
2 Source: Federal Transit Administration website
Page 5 of 54Page 35 of 89
LSRD Previous Studies
24 studies on the potential for commuter rail service between Georgetown and San Antonio in
the Union Pacific Corridor (and other potential alternatives) have been completed by the Lone
Star Rail District and/or TxDOT since 1997. Please see Attachment F for a full compendium of
the studies that can be seen at the following link http://lonestarrail.com/index.php/lstar/about-
planning/.
LSRD Current Activities
An Environmental Impact Statement and an Alternatives Analysis were initiated by LSRD and
its consultants in December 2014. The EIS is currently 20-30 percent complete and will require
another 12-24 months to complete according to LSRD staff. The Alternatives Analysis being
done for the purpose of preparing the Locally Preferred Alternative from the EIS to enter into the
Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts process is also in the early stages of development
and will take another 12-24 months to complete.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Attachment A – Federal and State Register Notices
Attachment B - Union Pacific Letter to Lone Star Rail District
Attachment C – Federal Project Authorization and Agreements
Attachment D – LSRD CAMPO Letter to AAMPO and Response
Attachment E – SB 657 from the 75th Legislature
Attachment F – LSRD Completed and Underway Studies
Attachment G – Letter from LSRD to CAMPO TPB (July 6, 2016)
Attachment H – Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and
Programs Questions and Answers
Page 6 of 54Page 36 of 89
RESOLUTION (2016-8-8)
AMENDMENT OF THE 2040 PLAN
WHEREAS, pursuant to federal law, the Governor of the State of Texas designated the Capital Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Austin
region in 1973; and
WHEREAS, CAMPO’s Transportation Policy Board is the regional forum for cooperative decision-
making regarding transportation issues in Bastrop, Burnet, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson
Counties in Central Texas; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to federal law, the Governor of the State of Texas designated the Alamo Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO) for the San Antonio region in 1963; and
WHEREAS, AAMPO’s Transportation Policy Board is the regional forum for cooperative decision-
making regarding transportation issues in Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, and a portion of Kendall Counties in
Central Texas; and
WHEREAS, the Lone Star Rail District (LSRD) was established by the Texas Legislature in 1997 to
facilitate rail improvements between Austin and San Antonio; and
WHEREAS, LSRD and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) began feasibility and
environmental studies on potential commuter rail service between Austin and San Antonio in 1999 and
LSRD is currently working on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that focuses on the Union
Pacific Rail Road, SH 130, and IH 35 corridors; and
WHEREAS, the Union Pacific Rail Road notified LSRD on February 9, 2016 that is no longer interested
in exploring the possibility of passenger rail service on its privately-owned line and cancelled the
agreement between LSRD and UPRR to study commuter rail in the UP rail corridor; and
WHEREAS, the TxDOT has informed LSRD that passenger rail service within the current rights-of-way
of IH 35 and SH 130 are not feasible from engineering and cost perspectives; and
WHEREAS, LSRD’s financial models to demonstrate financial feasibility per the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 23 CFR 450 have been and continue to be focused on the
use of the Union Pacific’s rail corridor which is financially fatally flawed as a result of the cancellation of
the agreement between Union Pacific and LSRD; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Policy Board of CAMPO has a fiduciary responsibility to demonstrate
fiscal constraint in the long-range transportation plan and in the Transportation Improvement Program
and amendments of those documents per the requirements of 23 CFR 450.324; and
WHEREAS, the efficient mobility of people and goods between and across the Austin and San Antonio
regions provide quality of life and economic benefits to the residents of the State and both regions; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Policy Board would like to direct the use of remaining Surface
Transportation Program – Metropolitan Mobility Funds allocated to the planning and project development
of commuter rail between Austin and San Antonio towards reasonable outcomes that can be implemented
Page 7 of 54Page 37 of 89
within the financial constraints of funding that can reasonably be assumed to be available to LSRD during
the horizon of the 2040 Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Transportation has state and federal responsibility for studying,
developing, and implementing transportation alternatives between cities in the State of Texas; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Transportation has the technical capacity and expertise to conduct
a planning feasibility study; and
WHEREAS, AAMPO, CAMPO, and the Texas Department of Transportation have a longstanding
partnership of collaboration on planning studies and are required to work together to develop and
implement transportation-related goals that benefit the residents of their respective regions and the State
of Texas per state and federal transportation law;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board hereby votes to remove
the Lone Star Rail District commuter rail project from the CAMPO 2040 Plan because the project cannot
demonstrate fiscal constraint. The Policy Board also requests the Texas Department of Transportation to direct
the Lone Star Rail District to cease the expenditure of all funds related to this project save those expenditures
necessary to close out the current Environmental Impact Statement with a finding of “No Build.” The Policy
Board also requests the Texas Department of Transportation to form a partnership with the staff of AAMPO and
CAMPO to conduct a robust transportation alternatives study between the Austin and San Antonio regions that
utilizes the previous work of the Lone Star Rail District and any other studies conducted by other organizations
that examined multimodal options in the Austin – San Antonio Corridor; and
Hereby orders the recording of this resolution in the minutes of the Transportation Policy Board; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board delegates the signing of necessary documents to the Board
Chair.
The above resolution being read, a motion to was made to authorize CAMPO staff to remove the Lone Star Rail
District’s commuter rail project from the 2040 Plan on August 8, 2016 by _____________________; duly
seconded by ______________________.
Those voting "AYE":
Page 8 of 54Page 38 of 89
Those “Opposed”:
Abstain:
Absent and Not Voting:
SIGNED this 8th day of August 2016.
Chair, CAMPO Board
Attest:
Director
Page 9 of 54Page 39 of 89
Page 40 of 89
60232 Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 193/Monday, October 6, 2014/Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Impact Statement; Lone
Star Regional Rail Project, Williamson,
Travis, Bastrop, Hays, Caldwell,
Comal, Guadalupe, and Bexar
Counties, TX
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 40 CFR 1508.22
and 43 TAC §2.5(e)(2), the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA),
Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT), and the Lone Star Rail District
(LSRD) are issuing this notice to advise
the public that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a
proposed transportation project to
construct and operate a regional
passenger rail service system along the
IH–35 corridor connecting the greater
Austin and San Antonio metropolitan
areas. A required letter of initiation
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 139 was
completed as well. As the project
proponent, the LSRD intends to apply
for Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
program funding and seek to retain
federal funding eligibility for this
proposed project. The proposed project
would provide for implementation of
passenger rail service within the
existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
corridor that extends from Williamson
County to Bexar County, Texas. FHWA
as the lead federal agency will
coordinate closely with the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
to perform the analyses required to
evaluate reasonable alternatives for the
proposed action. The EIS may include a
potential alternative that would include
development and operation of a new
freight bypass to carry some of the
existing freight rail traffic between
Taylor and San Antonio to allow the
addition of passenger service along the
existing UPRR line.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Salvador Deocampo, District Engineer,
Federal Highway Administration, Texas
Division, 300 East 8th Street, Room 826,
Austin, Texas 78701, Telephone 512–
536–5950.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The LSRD
(formed in 2003 with authorization of
the State of Texas) is an independent
and accountable public agency focused
on providing regional passenger rail
service. As the project proponent, the
LSRD has conducted numerous
planning, environmental, and
alternatives analyses over the past 10
years to evaluate feasible options for
development of passenger rail service
along the IH–35 corridor between the
metropolitan areas of Austin and San
Antonio. Through these efforts, the
LSRD has worked closely with the
UPRR, as a major stakeholder, to
evaluate operational scenarios for joint
freight and passenger operations within
UPRR’s existing system. A potential
alternative to be evaluated in the EIS
includes development and operation of
passenger rail service within the
abandoned MoKan railroad right-of-way
between Georgetown and Round Rock,
and along the existing UPRR corridor
between Round Rock and San Antonio.
A branch route providing passenger rail
service between Round Rock and Taylor
along the existing UPRR corridor could
also be evaluated.
A potential alternative could include
development of a freight bypass to
accommodate some existing freight rail
traffic that could be displaced by the
proposed passenger rail operations. The
proposed freight rail bypass could
extend from the UPRR Austin
Subdivision near Taylor and follow a
greenfield alignment (new location) to
Seguin. From Seguin, the proposed
freight rail bypass could follow existing
UPRR right-of-way through the San
Antonio area and terminate at Tower
105 near downtown San Antonio.
The need for the proposed project
stems from the rapid growth occurring
in Central and South Texas. Congestion
within the IH–35 corridor has resulted
in decreased mobility and travel time
reliability for both travelers and freight
transporters. The deficiencies of the
existing transportation network,
including lack of modal transportation
options and limited roadway capacity,
contribute to decreased regional air
quality, increased crash rates, and
diminished quality of life for residents
living in close proximity to IH–35.
The Lone Star Regional Rail Project
would provide regional passenger rail
service connecting communities along
the IH–35 corridor between the
metropolitan areas of Austin and San
Antonio. As currently envisioned, the
project would span approximately 120
miles across Williamson, Travis,
Bastrop, Hays, Caldwell, Comal,
Guadalupe, and Bexar counties. Based
upon previous studies, the purpose of
the proposed project is to improve
mobility, accessibility, transportation
reliability, modal choice, safety, and
facilitate economic development along
the IH–35 corridor in Central and South
Texas.
The EIS will be prepared in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing
NEPA, and FHWA regulations. The EIS
will evaluate the reasonable alternatives
and the No Action (the no-build
alternative), Transportation System
Management (TSM)/Transportation
Demand Management (TDM), and other
transit, rail, and roadway alternatives
incorporated by reference from other
applicable studies. Federal Surface
Transportation Program-Metropolitan
Mobility (STP–MM) funds were used to
conduct the previous studies and are
funding the current EIS.
The EIS will analyze potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts from
the proposed construction and
operation of the reasonable alternatives
considered including, but not limited to
the following: regional transportation
system impacts (including all modes
and effects on congestion); air quality
impacts; noise and vibration impacts (in
accordance with FRA/FTA guidelines);
impacts to water quality and water
resources including surface and
groundwater, wetlands, rivers, and
streams, and floodplains; impacts to
historic, archaeological, and cultural
resources; impacts to threatened and
endangered species and protected
habitats; impacts on farm and range
lands; socioeconomic impacts including
environmental justice communities;
impacts on land use and potential
displacements; hazardous materials; and
impacts to aesthetic and visual
resources.
Public involvement is a critical
component of the NEPA process and
will occur throughout this study.
Scoping letters describing the proposed
action and a request for comments will
be sent to federal, state, and local
agencies as well as stakeholders,
community groups, and citizens who
previously expressed an interest in the
proposed project. Agency and public
scoping meetings are planned for the
fall of 2014. The purpose of agency and
public scoping is to identify relevant
and potentially significant issues related
to the Lone Star Regional Rail Project as
part of the NEPA process. Scoping
meetings, conducted pursuant to 23
U.S.C. 139, will provide opportunities
for cooperating agencies, participating
agencies, and the public to be involved
in review and comment on the Draft
Project Coordination Plan, defining the
need and purpose for the proposed
action, determining the range of
reasonable alternatives to be considered
in the EIS and the appropriate
methodologies to be used, and the level
of detail required in the analysis of
alternatives. Federal agencies with
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 03, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM 06OCN1ms
t
o
c
k
s
t
i
l
l
o
n
D
S
K
4
V
P
T
V
N
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
N
O
T
I
C
E
S
Attachment A
Page 10 of 54Page 41 of 89
60233 Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 193/Monday, October 6, 2014/Notices
jurisdiction by law or special expertise
with respect to potential environmental
issues (such as FRA and FTA) will be
requested to act as Cooperating
Agencies in accordance with 40 CFR
1501.16. Agencies and the public will
be notified of the dates, times, and
locations of the scoping meetings at a
later date. Additional public meetings
will also be held on dates to be
determined at a later time. In addition
to public meetings, public hearings will
also be held. Public notice will be given
of the times and places for the public
meetings and public hearings. Because
of the geographic scope of the project,
public meetings and public hearings
may be conducted at multiple locations.
Opportunities for public participation
will also be announced through
mailings, notices, advertisements, and
on the EIS Web page http://
www.LoneStarRail.com.
To ensure that the full range of issues
related to this proposed action is
addressed and all significant issues are
identified, comments and suggestions
are invited from all interested parties.
Such comments or questions concerning
this proposed action should be directed
to the FHWA at the address provided
above.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway, Planning,
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
Issued on: September 29, 2014.
Salvador Deocampo,
District Engineer.
[FR Doc. 2014–23711 Filed 10–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0090]
Notice of Buy America Waiver
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Correction to Notice of Buy
America Waiver
SUMMARY: On September 16, 2014,
NHTSA published a Notice of Buy
America Waiver that provided findings
to requests from the Michigan Office of
Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) to
waive the requirements of Buy America.
The Notice stated an effective date of
October 16, 2014. However, that date
did not correctly reflect NHTSA’s
intentions for the effective date. Also,
the Notice did not accurately cite the
appropriate section of the United States
Code for motorcyclist safety grant funds,
23 U.S.C. 405(f). This document corrects
those errors.
DATES: The effective date of this
correction is the date of publication
October 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
program issues, contact Barbara Sauers,
Office of Regional Operations and
Program Delivery, NHTSA (phone: 202–
366–0144). For legal issues, contact
Andrew DiMarsico, Office of Chief
Counsel, NHTSA (phone: 202–366–
5263). You may send mail to these
officials at National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 16, 2014, NHTSA published
a Notice of Buy America Waiver that
provided findings in regards to five
requests from the Michigan Office of
Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) to
waive the requirements of Buy America.
In summary, NHTSA found the
following:
•A waiver of the Buy America
requirements, 23 U.S.C. 313, was
appropriate for OHSP to purchase a
portable data projector, wireless remote
control presenter, DVDs, high-visibility
motorcycle vests and twenty training
motorcycles.
•A non-availability waiver of the
Buy America requirements was
inappropriate for OHSP to lease a
copy/printer/fax machine.
Need for Correction
The Notice of Buy America Waiver
stated the waiver was effective on
October 16, 2014. This date did not
correctly state NHTSA’s intentions. On
September 16, 2014, at 79 FR 55529,
NHTSA intended the waiver to be
effective on an earlier date in order to
allow the grantee an opportunity to
purchase the items requested. Also, the
Notice did not accurately cite the
appropriate section of the United States
Code for motorcyclist safety grant funds.
The Notice cited to 23 U.S.C. 405(g), but
NHTSA intended to cite 23 U.S.C. 405(f)
for motorcyclist safety grant funds.
In FR Doc. 2014–0090 appearing on
page 55529 of the Federal Register of
Tuesday, September 16, 2014, the
following corrections are made:
In the DATES section in the left
column, revise the paragraph to read as
follows:
‘‘The effective date of this waiver is
the date of publication.’’
In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section in the middle column, revise the
first and second paragraph to cite the
following provision: ‘‘23 U.S.C. 405(f).’’
Issued in Washington, DC, on September
30, 2014, under authority delegated in 49
CFR part 1.95.
O. Kevin Vincent,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014–23822 Filed 10–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 736X; Docket
No. AB 290 (Sub-No. 368X]
CSX Transportation, Inc.—
Abandonment Exemption—in
Knoxville, Knox County, Tenn.; Norfolk
Southern Railway Company—
Discontinuance of Service
Exemption—in Knoxville, Knox
County, Tenn.
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) and
Norfolk Southern Railway Company
(NSR) (collectively, applicants) have
jointly filed a verified notice of
exemption under 49 CFR part 1152
subpart F–Exempt Abandonments and
Discontinuances of Service for CSXT to
abandon, and for NSR to discontinue
service over, approximately 1.18 miles
of rail line on CSXT’s Second Creek
Spur on CSXT’s Central Region,
Huntington Division, KD Subdivision
between milepost 0KS 275.09
(Valuation Station 15304+87) at the end
of the track and milepost 0KS 276.27
(Valuation Station 15368+89 near West
Baxter Avenue in Knoxville, Knox
County, Tenn. (the Line). The Line
traverses United States Postal Service
Zip Code 37921 and includes no
stations.
Applicants have certified that: (1) No
local traffic has moved over the Line for
at least two years; (2) any overhead
traffic on the Line can be rerouted over
other lines; (3) no formal complaint has
been filed by a user of rail service on the
Line (or by a state or local government
entity acting on behalf of such user)
regarding cessation of service over the
Line, and no such complaint is either
pending with the Surface
Transportation Board (Board) or with
any U.S. District Court or has been
decided in favor of a complainant
within the two-year period; and (4) the
requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c)
(environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11
(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12
(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR
1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental
agencies) have been met.
As a condition to these exemptions,
any employee adversely affected by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 03, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM 06OCN1ms
t
o
c
k
s
t
i
l
l
o
n
D
S
K
4
V
P
T
V
N
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
N
O
T
I
C
E
S
Attachment A
Page 11 of 54Page 42 of 89
Attachment A
Page 12 of 54Page 43 of 89
Attachment A
Page 13 of 54Page 44 of 89
Attachment B
Page 14 of 54Page 45 of 89
Attachment B
Page 15 of 54Page 46 of 89
Attachment C
Page 16 of 54Page 47 of 89
Attachment C
Page 17 of 54Page 48 of 89
Attachment C
Page 18 of 54Page 49 of 89
Attachment C
Page 19 of 54Page 50 of 89
Attachment C
Page 20 of 54Page 51 of 89
Attachment C
Page 21 of 54Page 52 of 89
Attachment C
Page 22 of 54Page 53 of 89
Attachment C
Page 23 of 54Page 54 of 89
June 19, 2016
Hon. Ray Lopez, Chairman
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
825 South St. Mary’s Street
San Antonio, TX 78205
Re: Environmental Impact Analysis on Commuter Rail Between San Antonio and Georgetown
Dear Chairman Lopez:
The purpose of this letter is to ascertain the position of the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (AAMPO) on the Environmental Impact Analysis (EIS) currently being conducted
by the Lone Star Rail District (LSRD) on the feasibility of commuter rail between our two (2)
regions.
As you may recall, our Executive Committees met jointly in New Braunfels on April 20, 2016 to
discuss the current status of the EIS. At the end of the discussion, CAMPO Executive
Committee members asked AAMPO Executive Committee members a significant question.
CAMPO wanted to know if the AAMPO Policy Board would be willing to change its policy that
prevents the use of Surface Transportation Program – Metropolitan Mobility (STP-MM) funds
for environmental studies. CAMPO asked this question because our region has so far provided
all of the MPO-controlled funding for the current LRSD-led environmental study. CAMPO
board members also asked that AAMPO provide an answer to our question in order for us to
discuss and take action on CAMPO’s continued participation at our June 2016 Transportation
Policy Board meeting.
Since our conversation, CAMPO has continued to discuss this matter with the state elected
officials in our region, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and the Lone Star Rail District (LSRD). We did not take action at our
June 2016 meeting but instead opted to gather more information and to discuss the matter
further. LSRD staff was at our June 2016 Transportation Policy Board meeting and several
Board members had the opportunity to ask key questions about the status of the EIS. Many of
our board members now firmly believe that LSRD is not the appropriate organization to carry
this concept through to implementation. CAMPO is willing to work on looking at all alternatives
to improve safety, mobility, and economic development along IH 35 and other
corridors. As such, many of CAMPO’s board members believe that the responsibility for
conducting the feasibility of and undertaking the appropriate NEPA process, that would include
an aggressive and inclusive public outreach program, is best located at the MPO level where the
elected officials who are most accountable and closest to the electorate are in control of the
process.
Unfortunately, we find ourselves no closer to a resolution with LSRD than when LSRD began
this work in the late 1990s. It is the belief of many of our board members that the six (6) options
laid out by LSRD are not feasible. The first issue with LSRD’s approach is that it takes the EIS
Attachment D
Page 24 of 54Page 55 of 89
process back to Step One. A quick examination of LSRD’s six (6) options reveals serious issues
with each option and does not warrant the additional expenditure of millions more in public
money. CAMPO’s concerns with LSRD’s options are as follows:
Option 1 is the same option that has been rendered fatally flawed by the Union Pacific
Railroad’s decision to withdraw from the agreement they had with LSRD to use their tracks. It
has been LSRD’s position that Union Pacific has a history of “flip-flopping” on commuter rail
issues across the country. That has yet to be proven by LSRD, but if it were true, it also raises
questions as to why LSRD would base so much public money on a deal with a fickle
organization.
Option 2 involves a potential line adjacent to Union Pacific’s corridor. This option is also
fatally flawed. The cost of buying the right-of-way needed would be astronomical and would
render the financial model that LSRD has developed to date to be unworkable. Therefore, the
project could not demonstrate fiscal constraint. Additionally, buying the needed right-of-way
would do nothing for communities along the corridor such as New Braunfels and San Marcos.
Those communities want fewer freight trains coming through – this option would add additional
trains and additional at-grade crossings while removing property from the tax rolls and
displacing a large number of businesses and families. It is also highly unlikely that LSRD would
be able to obtain all of the needed parcels along such a lengthy corridor without exercising its
eminent domain powers. The use of eminent domain would most certainly cause concern for
local and state elected officials along the entire corridor.
Option 3 would entail using the IH 35 Corridor. TxDOT – Austin and San Antonio District
Offices have indicated that there is no room within the existing right-of-way to place rail service.
TxDOT has been planning for at least five (5) years to use nearly all of the available right-of-
way to implement the long-planned for improvements to the IH 35 Corridor. An examination of
the schematics of the project in the Austin region quickly reveals there is no room. Additionally,
the right-of-way situation becomes even worse from Slaughter Lane to US 183 North in Austin.
LSRD has mentioned a tunnel option to address that problem. A tunnel option in Austin alone
would drive the cost of the project up to the point of making it unfeasible as the tunnel would
have to be extremely long and would have to be cut through solid limestone on the Austin end of
the line and perhaps on the San Antonio end as well. A tunnel option would also not forego
major issues associated with station and access accommodations that are critical to successful
operations. There is also the issue of digging the tunnel underneath the Colorado River as it
flows through Austin. As we have several significant karst features both in Austin and San
Antonio, a tunnel option, even if financially feasible, could pose significant engineering and
safety problems for IH 35 and for surrounding structures. Lastly, launching an EIS study of IH
35 for commuter rail would endanger ongoing NEPA work being conducted by TxDOT as well
stand-alone construction projects geared to make desperately needed operational improvements
to the IH 35 Corridor. We should not jeopardize our ongoing efforts on IH 35 for a concept that
is so undefined and problematic.
Option 4 proposes to use the SH 130 Corridor for commuter rail purposes. SH 130 was
previously studied by TxDOT and was found to be inadequate from an engineering and a
financial perspective. Please see the September 2008 study on SH 130 that was conducted by
Attachment D
Page 25 of 54Page 56 of 89
Carter and Burgess as a contractor to TxDOT. The entrance and exit ramps on SH 130 were
found to be problematic from an engineering and safety perspective, according to the study, and
the corridor doesn’t have the population to meet necessary ridership estimates now or in the
reasonable time line of this project to support the ongoing operations and maintenance costs.
Also, the current grades on SH 130 are too steep for rail service. Therefore, this option is fatally
flawed from a financial and a technical perspective.
Option 5 proposes to use portions of the IH 35 Corridor, some of Capital Metro’s track assets,
and/or buying right-of-way adjacent to the existing Union Pacific line. This proposal is simply
an amalgamation of previous options that already have fatal flaws either from an engineering,
financial or environmental process perspective.
Option 6 proposes to use a yet to be named “hybrid” of Options 1-5. This option lacks any true
definition and is simply an insurance policy for LSRD that allows them to keep studying
something when Options 1-5 are found to be fatally flawed.
The CAMPO board will take action at its August 8, 2016 board meeting. We respectfully
request that AAMPO provide a response to our initial question on AAMPO’s potential policy
change by July 29, 2016, if possible. We also request that AAMPO provide any additional
funding that LSRD might need to complete the EIS and to fund potential construction if LSRD
actually produces a timely and implementable result.
Sincerely,
Will Conley
CAMPO Policy Board Chairman
Attachment D
Page 26 of 54Page 57 of 89
Attachment D
Page 27 of 54Page 58 of 89
Attachment D
Page 28 of 54Page 59 of 89
Page 60 of 89
75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report - Bill Text
Attachment A 75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report.html[3/16/2016 11:49:05 AM]
1-1 By: Barrientos, et al. S.B. No. 657
1-2 (In the Senate - Filed February 18, 1997; February 24, 1997,
1-3 read first time and referred to Committee on State Affairs;
1-4 April 4, 1997, reported adversely, with favorable Committee
1-5 Substitute by the following vote: Yeas 13, Nays 0; April 4, 1997,
1-6 sent to printer.)
1-7 COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR S.B. No. 657 By: Gallegos
1-8 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
1-9 AN ACT
1-10 relating to the creation of intermunicipal commuter rail districts;
1-11 granting authority to issue bonds and power of eminent domain.
1-12 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
1-13 SECTION 1. Chapter 13, Title 112, Revised Statutes, is
1-14 amended by adding Article 6550c-1 to read as follows:
1-15 Art. 6550c-1. INTERMUNICIPAL COMMUTER RAIL DISTRICTS
1-16 Sec. 1. DEFINITIONS. In this article:
1-17 (1) "Commission" means the Texas Transportation
1-18 Commission.
1-19 (2) "Commuter rail facility" means any property
1-20 necessary for the transportation of passengers and baggage between
1-21 points in a district. The term includes rolling stock,
1-22 locomotives, stations, parking areas, and rail lines.
1-23 (3) "Creating municipality" means a municipality
1-24 described by Section 2(a) of this article.
1-25 (4) "Department" means the Texas Department of
1-26 Transportation.
1-27 (5) "District" means an intermunicipal commuter rail
1-28 district created under this article.
1-29 (6) "System" means all of the commuter rail and
1-30 intermodal facilities leased or owned by or operated on behalf of a
1-31 district created under this article.
1-32 Sec. 2. CREATION OF DISTRICT. (a) A district may be
1-33 created to provide commuter rail service between two
1-34 municipalities:
1-35 (1) each of which has a population of more than
1-36 450,000; and
1-37 (2) that are located not farther than 100 miles apart
1-38 as determined by the department.
1-39 (b) A district is created on passage of a resolution
1-40 favoring the creation of the district by the governing body of each
Attachment E
Page 29 of 54Page 61 of 89
75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report - Bill Text
Attachment A 75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report.html[3/16/2016 11:49:05 AM]
1-41 creating municipality and the governing body of each county in
1-42 which a creating municipality is located.
1-43 (c) The following political subdivisions may become a part
1-44 of a district created under Subsection (b) of this section with the
1-45 approval of the governing body of the political subdivision:
1-46 (1) a county located adjacent to a county in which a
1-47 creating municipality is located; and
1-48 (2) a municipality with a population of more than
1-49 18,000 located in a county described by Subdivision (1) of this
1-50 subsection.
1-51 (d) For purposes of this article, a municipality is located
1-52 in a county only if 90 percent or more of the population of the
1-53 municipality resides in that county according to the most recent
1-54 federal census.
1-55 Sec. 3. BOARD. (a) A district is governed by a board of
1-56 directors. The board is responsible for the management, operation,
1-57 and control of the district.
1-58 (b) The board is composed of the following members:
1-59 (1) two public members appointed by the commission;
1-60 (2) one member appointed by each political subdivision
1-61 that has become a part of the district under Section 2 of this
1-62 article;
1-63 (3) one member appointed by each creating municipality
1-64 to represent the regional planning organization of which the
2-1 municipality is a part;
2-2 (4) one member appointed by each creating municipality
2-3 to represent the business community of the municipality;
2-4 (5) one member appointed by each authority created
2-5 under Chapter 451, Transportation Code, that serves a creating
2-6 municipality;
2-7 (6) one member appointed by each county in which a
2-8 creating municipality is located to represent transportation
2-9 providers that provide service to rural areas in the county; and
2-10 (7) one member appointed by all other board members to
2-11 represent all municipalities in the district that do not otherwise
2-12 have representation on the board.
2-13 (c) A vacancy on the board is filled in the same manner as
2-14 the original appointment. Each member serves a term of two years.
2-15 (d) The members of the board shall elect one member as
2-16 presiding officer. The presiding officer may select another member
2-17 to preside in the absence of the presiding officer.
Attachment E
Page 30 of 54Page 62 of 89
75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report - Bill Text
Attachment A 75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report.html[3/16/2016 11:49:05 AM]
2-18 (e) The presiding officer shall call at least one meeting of
2-19 the board a year and may hold other meetings as the presiding
2-20 officer determines are appropriate.
2-21 (f) A member of the board is not entitled to compensation
2-22 for serving as a member but is entitled to reimbursement for
2-23 reasonable expenses incurred while serving as a member.
2-24 (g) The board shall adopt rules for its proceedings and
2-25 appoint an executive committee and may employ and compensate
2-26 persons to carry out the powers and duties of the district.
2-27 (h) Chapter 171, Local Government Code, applies to a board
2-28 member of a district.
2-29 Sec. 4. POWERS AND DUTIES OF DISTRICT. (a) A district
2-30 created under this article is a public body and a political
2-31 subdivision of the state exercising public and essential
2-32 governmental functions and has all the powers necessary or
2-33 convenient to carry out the purposes of this article. A district,
2-34 in the exercise of powers under this article, is performing only
2-35 governmental functions and is a governmental unit within the
2-36 meaning of Chapter 101, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
2-37 (b) A district has perpetual succession. A district is
2-38 subject every 12th year to review under Chapter 325, Government
2-39 Code (Texas Sunset Act), but is not abolished under that chapter.
2-40 (c) A district may sue and be sued in all courts of
2-41 competent jurisdiction, may institute and prosecute suits without
2-42 giving security for costs, and may appeal from a judgment without
2-43 giving supersedeas or cost bond. An action at law or in equity
2-44 against the district must be brought in the county in which the
2-45 principal office of the district is located, except that in eminent
2-46 domain proceedings, suit must be brought in the county in which the
2-47 land is located.
2-48 (d) A district may acquire by grant, purchase, gift, devise,
2-49 lease, or otherwise and may hold, use, sell, lease, or dispose of
2-50 real and personal property, licenses, patents, rights, and
2-51 interests necessary, convenient, or useful for the full exercise of
2-52 any of its powers under this article.
2-53 (e) A district may acquire, construct, develop, own,
2-54 operate, and maintain intermodal and commuter rail facilities
2-55 inside, or connect political subdivisions in, the district. For
2-56 these purposes and with the consent of any municipality, county, or
2-57 other political subdivision, the district may use streets, alleys,
Attachment E
Page 31 of 54Page 63 of 89
75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report - Bill Text
Attachment A 75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report.html[3/16/2016 11:49:05 AM]
2-58 roads, highways, and other public ways of any municipality, county,
2-59 or other political subdivision and may relocate, raise, reroute,
2-60 change the grade of, or alter, at the expense of the district, the
2-61 construction of any street, alley, highway, road, railroad,
2-62 electric lines and facilities, telegraph and telephone properties
2-63 and facilities, pipelines and facilities, conduits and facilities,
2-64 and other properties, whether publicly or privately owned, as
2-65 necessary or useful in the construction, reconstruction, repair,
2-66 maintenance, and operation of the system. A district may not use
2-67 or alter a road or highway in the state highway system without the
2-68 permission of the commission. A district may at its discretion
2-69 acquire by purchase any interest in real property for the
3-1 acquisition, construction, or operation of any commuter rail
3-2 facility on terms and at a price as agreed to between the district
3-3 and the owner. The governing body of any municipality, county,
3-4 other political subdivision, or public agency may make conveyance
3-5 of title or rights and easements to any property needed by the
3-6 district to effect its purposes in connection with the acquisition,
3-7 construction, or operation of the system.
3-8 (f) A district has the right of eminent domain to acquire
3-9 lands in fee simple and any interest less than fee simple in, on,
3-10 under, or above lands, including easements, rights-of-way, and
3-11 rights of use of airspace or subsurface space. The power of
3-12 eminent domain under this section does not apply, however, to land
3-13 under the jurisdiction of the department or a rail line owned by a
3-14 common carrier or municipality. The district shall, to the extent
3-15 possible, use existing rail or intermodal transportation corridors
3-16 for the alignment of its railroad. Proceedings for the exercise of
3-17 the power of eminent domain are begun by the adoption by the board
3-18 of a resolution declaring the public necessity for the acquisition
3-19 by the district of the property or interest described in the
3-20 resolution and that the acquisition is necessary and proper for the
3-21 construction, extension, improvement, or development of commuter
3-22 rail facilities and is in the public interest. The resolution of
3-23 the district is conclusive evidence of the public necessity of the
3-24 proposed acquisition and that the real or personal property or
3-25 interest in property is necessary for public use.
3-26 (g) A district may make agreements with any other public
3-27 utility, private utility, communication system, common carrier,
3-28 state agency, or transportation system for the joint use of
3-29 facilities, installations, or properties within or outside the
Attachment E
Page 32 of 54Page 64 of 89
75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report - Bill Text
Attachment A 75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report.html[3/16/2016 11:49:05 AM]
3-30 district and establish through routes, joint fares, and, subject to
3-31 approval of any tariff-regulating body having jurisdiction,
3-32 divisions of tariffs.
3-33 (h) A district may adopt rules to govern the operation of
3-34 the district, its employees, the system, service provided by the
3-35 district, and any other necessary matter concerning its purposes,
3-36 including rules regarding health, safety, alcohol or beverage
3-37 service, food service, and telephone and utility services, to
3-38 protect the health, safety, and general welfare of residents of the
3-39 district.
3-40 (i) A district may make joint ownership agreements with any
3-41 person.
3-42 (j) A district shall establish and maintain rates or other
3-43 compensation for the use of the facilities of the system acquired,
3-44 constructed, operated, regulated, or maintained by the district
3-45 that is reasonable and nondiscriminatory and, together with grants
3-46 received by the district, is sufficient to produce revenues
3-47 adequate:
3-48 (1) to pay all expenses necessary to the operation and
3-49 maintenance of the properties and facilities of the district;
3-50 (2) to pay the interest on and principal of all bonds
3-51 issued by the district under this article and payable in whole or
3-52 in part from the revenues, as they become due and payable; and
3-53 (3) to fulfill the terms of any agreements made with
3-54 the holders of bonds or with any person in their behalf.
3-55 (k) A district may make contracts, leases, and agreements
3-56 with, and accept grants and loans from, the United States of
3-57 America, its departments and agencies, the state, its agencies and
3-58 political subdivisions, and public or private corporations and
3-59 persons and may generally perform all acts necessary for the full
3-60 exercise of the powers vested in it. The commission may enter an
3-61 interlocal agreement with a district under which a district may
3-62 exercise a power or duty of the commission for the development and
3-63 efficient operation of intermodal corridors in the district. A
3-64 district may acquire rolling stock or other property under
3-65 conditional sales contracts, leases, equipment trust certificates,
3-66 or any other form of contract or trust agreement. Any revenue bond
3-67 indenture may provide limitations on the exercise of the powers
3-68 granted by this section, and the limitations apply so long as any
3-69 of the revenue bonds issued pursuant to the indenture are
Attachment E
Page 33 of 54Page 65 of 89
75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report - Bill Text
Attachment A 75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report.html[3/16/2016 11:49:05 AM]
4-1 outstanding and unpaid.
4-2 (l) A district by resolution may adopt rules governing the
4-3 use, operation, and maintenance of the system and shall determine
4-4 all routings and change them when the board considers it advisable.
4-5 (m) A district may lease the commuter rail facilities or any
4-6 part to, or contract for the use or operation of the commuter rail
4-7 facilities or any part by, any operator. A district shall
4-8 encourage to the maximum extent practicable the participation of
4-9 private enterprise in the operation of commuter rail facilities.
4-10 The term of an operating contract under this subsection may not
4-11 exceed 20 years.
4-12 (n) A district may contract with any county or other
4-13 political subdivision of the state for the district to provide
4-14 commuter rail transportation services to any area outside the
4-15 boundaries of the district on such terms and conditions as the
4-16 parties agree to.
4-17 (o) A district may purchase an additional insured provision
4-18 to any liability insurance contract.
4-19 (p) Before beginning the operation of commuter rail
4-20 facilities, the board of a district shall adopt an annual operating
4-21 budget specifying the anticipated revenues and expenses of the
4-22 district for the remainder of the fiscal year, and the district
4-23 shall adopt an operating budget for each succeeding fiscal year.
4-24 The fiscal year of the district ends September 30 unless changed by
4-25 the board. The board shall hold a public hearing before adopting
4-26 each budget except the initial budget. Notice of each hearing must
4-27 be published at least seven days before the date of the hearing in
4-28 a newspaper of general circulation in the district. A budget may
4-29 be amended at any time if notice of the proposed amendment is given
4-30 in the notice of meeting. An expenditure that is not budgeted may
4-31 not be made.
4-32 (q) A district is eligible to participate in the Texas
4-33 County and District Retirement System.
4-34 (r) The board of a district shall by resolution name one or
4-35 more banks for the deposit of district funds. District funds are
4-36 public funds and may be invested in securities permitted by Chapter
4-37 2256, Government Code. To the extent funds of the district are not
4-38 insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or its
4-39 successor, they shall be collateralized in the manner provided for
4-40 county funds.
4-41 Sec. 5. BONDS AND NOTES. (a) A district may issue revenue
Attachment E
Page 34 of 54Page 66 of 89
75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report - Bill Text
Attachment A 75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report.html[3/16/2016 11:49:05 AM]
4-42 bonds and notes from time to time and in such amounts as its board
4-43 considers necessary or appropriate for the acquisition, purchase,
4-44 construction, reconstruction, repair, equipping, improvement, or
4-45 extension of its commuter rail facilities. All bonds and notes are
4-46 fully negotiable and may be made redeemable before maturity, at the
4-47 option of the issuing district and at prices and under terms and
4-48 conditions the issuing district determines in the resolution
4-49 authorizing the bonds or notes, and may be sold at public or
4-50 private sale, as the board determines.
4-51 (b) A district shall submit all bonds and notes authorized
4-52 to be issued, except notes issued to an agency of the federal or
4-53 state government, and the records relating to their issuance to the
4-54 attorney general for examination before delivery. If the attorney
4-55 general determines that they have been issued in accordance with
4-56 the constitution and this article and that they will be binding
4-57 obligations of the district issuing them, the attorney general
4-58 shall approve them, and the comptroller shall register them. Bonds
4-59 and notes issued under this article are incontestable after
4-60 approval, registration, and sale and delivery of the bonds to the
4-61 purchaser.
4-62 (c) To secure the payment of the bonds or notes, the
4-63 district may encumber and pledge all or any part of the revenues of
4-64 its commuter rail facilities, may mortgage and encumber all or any
4-65 part of the properties of the commuter rail facilities and
4-66 everything pertaining to them acquired or to be acquired, and may
4-67 prescribe the terms and provisions of the bonds and notes in any
4-68 manner not inconsistent with this article. If not prohibited by
4-69 the resolution or indenture relating to outstanding bonds or notes,
5-1 a district may encumber separately any item of real estate or
5-2 personalty.
5-3 (d) All bonds and notes are legal and authorized investments
5-4 for banks, trust companies, savings and loan associations, and
5-5 insurance companies. The bonds and notes are eligible to secure
5-6 the deposit of public funds of the state, cities, towns, villages,
5-7 counties, school districts, or other political corporations or
5-8 subdivisions of the state. The bonds and notes are lawful and
5-9 sufficient security for the deposits to the extent of the principal
5-10 amount or market value of the bonds or notes, whichever is less.
5-11 Sec. 6. COMPETITIVE BIDS. A contract in the amount of more
5-12 than $15,000 for the construction of improvements or the purchase
Attachment E
Page 35 of 54Page 67 of 89
75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report - Bill Text
Attachment A 75(R) SB 657 Senate committee report.html[3/16/2016 11:49:05 AM]
5-13 of material, machinery, equipment, supplies, or any other property
5-14 except real property may be let only on competitive bids after
5-15 notice published, at least 15 days before the date set for
5-16 receiving bids, in a newspaper of general circulation in the
5-17 district. A board may adopt rules governing the taking of bids and
5-18 the awarding of contracts. This section does not apply to:
5-19 (1) personal or professional services;
5-20 (2) the acquisition of existing rail transportation
5-21 systems; or
5-22 (3) a contract with a common carrier to construct
5-23 lines and to operate commuter rail service on lines owned in whole
5-24 or in part by the carrier.
5-25 Sec. 7. EXEMPTION FROM TAXES. The property, material
5-26 purchases, revenues, and income of a district and the interest on
5-27 bonds and notes issued by a district are exempt from all taxes
5-28 levied by the state or a political subdivision of the state.
5-29 SECTION 2. The importance of this legislation and the
5-30 crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an
5-31 emergency and an imperative public necessity that the
5-32 constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three several
5-33 days in each house be suspended, and this rule is hereby suspended,
5-34 and that this Act take effect and be in force from and after its
5-35 passage, and it is so enacted.
5-36 * * * * *
Attachment E
Page 36 of 54Page 68 of 89
Studies To-Date
(listed in chronological order)
STUDY AUTHOR(S) DATE
1 Origin-Destination Survey and
Multimodal Assessment for the Austin-
San Antonio Corridor
Texas Transportation
Institute
March 1997
2 Feasibility Report, Austin-San Antonio
Commuter Rail Study
Carter & Burgess March 1999
3 Final Report, Austin-San Antonio
Commuter Rail Study
Carter & Burgess July 1999
4 Public Involvement Plan PBS&J, Carter & Burgess February 2004
5 Program Work Plan PBS&J, Carter & Burgess March 2004
6 2004 Feasibility Study Update
includes (as Appendix B): The
Economic Implications of Regional
Passenger Rail
PBS&J, Carter & Burgess
Texas Perspectives
December 2004
7 Station Design Report, Final Draft Carter & Burgess March 2006
8 Economic Impact Analysis, Passenger
Rail Station Areas, Executive
Summary*
* Individual EIAs listed on page 3
Carter & Burgess, Capital
Market Research
April 2006
9 Phase 2 Travel Demand Model Report Carter & Burgess, AECOM June 2006
10 Phase 3 Travel Demand Model Report Carter & Burgess, AECOM June 2006
11 2006 Conceptual Engineering Design
Report
Carter & Burgess December 2006
12 Seaholm Station Study Carter & Burgess December 2006
13 Financial and Economic Benefits Study Carter & Burgess,
Cambridge Systematics
March 2007
14 Existing Conditions Report Carter & Burgess April 2007
15 Alternatives Analysis, Passenger Rail Carter & Burgess December 2007
16 Report on Rail & Transit Options in the
SH 130 Corridor, Fatal Flaw Analysis
Carter & Burgess September 2008
17 Brand Development Research,
Brand Style Guide
Hahn,Texas May 2009
1
Attachment F
Page 37 of 54Page 69 of 89
Lone Star Rail District
Studies To-Date December 2014
____________________________________________________________________________________
STUDY AUTHOR(S) DATE
18 Station location analyses, station
planning studies, environmental
baseline: passenger rail
Jacobs Engineering Studies put on
hold 2012
19 Alternative Alignments Analysis for the
Lone Star Rail District Freight Rail
Relocation Project, Taylor to Seguin,
Texas
Jacobs Engineering April 2012 (final
draft)
20 Local Government and Stakeholder
Engagement, Executive Summary
Hahn,Texas November 2013
21 Freight Rail Benefits, Economic
Development and Impact
Hahn,Texas, Texas
Perspectives
22 Freight Rail/Truck Diversion Study Hahn,Texas, Atkins
23 LSTAR Station Evaluation Planning
Study (PEL Report)
Jacobs Engineering May 2014
24 Alternative Alignments Analysis for the
Lone Star Rail District Freight Rail
Relocation Project, Taylor to Seguin,
Texas (PEL Report)
Jacobs Engineering July 2014
25 Lone Star Regional Rail Environmental
Impact Statement
Burns & McDonnell On-going,
started June
2014
2
Attachment F
Page 38 of 54Page 70 of 89
Lone Star Rail District
Studies To-Date December 2014
____________________________________________________________________________________
Economic Impact Analysis, Passenger Rail Station Areas (listed in geographic order, north to south)
(Note: Economic Impact Analyses are currently being updated.)
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AUTHOR DATE
8a Georgetown Passenger Rail Station
Economic Impact Analysis (EIA)
Capital Market Research June 27, 2005
8b Round Rock Passenger Rail Station
EIA
Capital Market Research May 18, 2005
8c McNeil Road Passenger Rail Station
EIA (North Travis County)
Capital Market Research May 2, 2005
8d Braker Lane Passenger Rail Station
EIA (North Austin)
Capital Market Research June 3, 2005
8e 35th Street Passenger Rail Station EIA
(Central Austin)
Capital Market Research August 30, 2005
8f Austin CBD/Seaholm Passenger Rail
Station EIA (Downtown Austin)
Capital Market Research May 24, 2005
8g Slaughter Lane Passenger Rail Station
EIA (South Austin)
Capital Market Research March 31, 2005
8h Kyle-Buda Passenger Rail Station EIA Capital Market Research August 22, 2005
8i San Marcos Passenger Rail Station EIA Capital Market Research September 30, 2005
8j New Braunfels Passenger Rail Station
EIA
Capital Market Research November 29, 2005
8k Schertz-Garden Ridge Passenger Rail
Station EIA
Capital Market Research December 21, 2005
8l Loop 1604 Passenger Rail Station EIA
(Far North San Antonio)
Capital Market Research July 29, 2005
8m Loop 410 Passenger Rail Station EIA
(North-Central San Antonio)
Capital Market Research October 31, 2005
8n San Antonio CBD Passenger Rail
Station EIA (Downtown San Antonio)
Capital Market Research December 30, 2005
8o Kelly USA Passenger Rail Station EIA
(South San Antonio)
Capital Market Research December 30, 2005
3
Attachment F
Page 39 of 54Page 71 of 89
Page 72 of 89
Attachment G
Page 40 of 54Page 73 of 89
Attachment G
Page 41 of 54Page 74 of 89
Attachment G
Page 42 of 54Page 75 of 89
Page 76 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
Planning Topics
Border Planning
Census Issues
Congestion
Management
Context Sensitive
Solutions and
Transportation
Planning
Delta Region
Economic
Development
Freight Planning
Health in
Transportation
Livability Initiative
Megaregions and
Multi-Jurisdictional
Planning
National Highway
System
Performance Based
Planning
Planning Menu
Planning Processes
Statewide
Planning
Metropolitan
Planning
Rural Planning
Tribal Planning
Pedestrian &
Bicycle Program
Land Use &
Transportation
Planning Tools
Public Involvement
FHWA ĺ Planning
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for
Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers
I. Introduction and Background:
Fiscal constraint has remained a key component of transportation plan and program
development since enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) in 1991 followed by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21) in 1998 and most recently by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) on August 10, 2005. In
response to the passage of SAFETEA-LU, FHWA and FTA developed and issued the
Final Rule on statewide and metropolitan transportation planning and programming
processes, published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2007 with an effective
date of March 16, 2007.
The following "Questions and Answers" are intended to provide non-binding
information on financial planning and fiscal constraint as part of transportation plan
and program development, in support of the FHWA/FTA Final Rule on statewide and
metropolitan transportation planning and programming processes. This information
does not establish additional prescriptive requirements; rather, it outlines the wide
range of transportation planning and programming processes and practices
undertaken by State DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and public
transportation operators, and offers a range of options under a variety of
circumstances. As such, this information is not presented in a regulatory framework,
rather, these "Questions and Answers" highlight some (but not necessarily all) of the
options currently available to State DOTs, MPOs, and public transportation operators
in meeting financial planning and fiscal constraint requirements in transportation
planning and programming.
II. Questions and Answers:
General Information and Key Terms and Definitions
1. What are the differences between future revenue sources that are
"reasonably expected to be available" and those that are "available" or
"committed?"
Revenue forecasts that support a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP), metropolitan transportation plan, or a metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) may take into account new funding sources and levels of
funding not currently in place, but which are "reasonably expected to be available"
Planning Environment Real Estate
HEP Events Guidance Publications Glossary Awards Contacts
Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty (HEP)
About Programs Resources Briefing Room Contact Search FHWA
Attachment H
Page 43 of 54Page 77 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
Contacts
For more
information,
please contact
Lorrie Lau.
Regional Models of
Cooperation
SAFETEA-LU
Section 1927
Scenario Planning
and Visualization
in Transportation
Transportation
Planning Update
Travel Model
Improvement
Program (TMIP)
Transportation
Planning
Excellence Awards
Transportation
Safety Planning
[see 23 CFR 450.216(m), 23 CFR 450.322(f)(10)(ii), and 23 CFR 450.324(h),
respectively]. New funding sources are revenues that do not currently exist or that
may require additional actions before the State DOT, MPO, or public transportation
operator can commit such funding to transportation projects. In addition, future
revenues may be projected based on historic trends, including consideration of past
legislative or executive actions. To be considered "reasonable," the financial
information and financial plans that accompany the TIP, STIP, and metropolitan
transportation plan must identify strategies for ensuring the availability of these new
revenue sources in the years when they are needed for project development and
implementation [see 23 CFR 450.216(m)].
In air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, the fiscal constraint requirements
are more stringent. To support air quality planning under the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's transportation
conformity regulations specify that an air quality conformity determination can only be
made on a fiscally constrained metropolitan transportation plan and TIP in air quality
nonattainment and maintenance areas consistent with DOT's metropolitan planning
regulations[see 40 CFR 93.108].
Relative to STIP/TIP development in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas,
projects included in the first two years of the STIP and TIP shall be limited to those for
which funds are "available" or "committed" [see 23 CFR 450.216(m) and 23 CFR
450.324(i), respectively]. Definitions for the terms "available funds" and "committed
funds" are contained in 23 CFR 450.104. Therefore, nonattainment and maintenance
areas may not rely upon proposed new taxes or other new revenue sources to support
projects listed in the first two years of the TIP and STIP. As such, new funding from a
proposed gas tax increase, bonding, a proposed regional sales tax, or a major funding
increase still under consideration would not qualify as "available" or "committed" until
it has been enacted by legislation or referendum. However, for the third and fourth
years, the STIP/TIP may include a project or project phase if full funding can
reasonably be expected to be available for the project within the time period
contemplated for its completion.
For information on treatment of public-private partnerships and other innovative
financing mechanisms, see Q&A 11.
2. What are some examples of "reasonable" and "not reasonable" revenue
forecast assumptions?
Determining whether a future funding source is "reasonable" requires a judgment
decision. Two important considerations in determining whether an assumption is
"reasonable" are: (a) evidence of review and support of the new revenue assumption
by State and local officials and (b) documentation of the rationale and procedural
steps to be taken with milestone dates for securing the funds. Albeit not all-inclusive,
some examples of "reasonable" and "not reasonable" assumptions are highlighted in
the following table. Additionally, please note that the examples labeled "reasonable"
do not necessarily meet the special test of "available funds" or "committed funds"
(see above Q&A #1).
Reasonable A new toll or other user fee dedicated to a particular project or program may
be reasonable if there is clear evidence of support by the Governor,
legislature, and/or other appropriate local/regional decision-makers and a
strategy exists with milestones for securing those approvals within the time
period for implementing the affected projects.
Reasonable A new tax for transportation purposes requiring local and/or State legislation
and/or support from the Governor is reasonable if there is clear evidence of
sufficient support (both governmental and public) to enact the new tax and a
Attachment H
Page 44 of 54Page 78 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
strategy exists for securing those approvals within the time period for
implementing the affected projects.
Reasonable If a State or local jurisdiction has past historical success in incrementally
increasing gas taxes for transportation purposes, it is reasonable to assume
that this trend (and the historic rate of increase) over a comparable period of
time will continue.
Reasonable A new bond issue for a particular project or program may be reasonable if
there is clear evidence of support by the legislature, Governor and/or other
appropriate decision-makers and a strategy exists with milestones for
securing those approvals within the time period for implementing the affected
projects or program.
Reasonable If a transit operator has past historical success in incrementally increasing
transit fares, it is reasonable to assume that this trend (and the historic
frequency of increase) over a comparable period of time will continue.
Reasonable If a transit operator that has never received discretionary major capital transit
(e.g. New Starts) funding in the past proposes a major capital transit project
for inclusion in the metropolitan transportation plan, it could be reasonable if
a strategy with milestones is presented for satisfying the FTA program
requirements. For example, in conducting an alternatives analysis to
determine a locally preferred alternative (LPA) the LPA must be adopted into
the metropolitan transportation plan as a means for solidifying candidacy for
New Starts project development (i.e. preliminary engineering, final design,
and receipt of a Full Funding Grant Agreement).
Not
Reasonable
Assuming new funds from an upcoming Statewide, regional, or local ballot
initiative would not be reasonable if polls indicate a strong likelihood of defeat
or there is a history of repeated defeat of similar ballot initiatives in recent
years. However, this assumption could be reasonable if a new strategy has
been developed to achieve success where past attempts have failed, and is
supported by State and/or local decision-makers.
Not
Reasonable
A 25 percent increase in gas tax revenues over five years is not reasonable if
the growth over the previous five years was only 15 percent. However,
special circumstances may justify and support a significantly higher increase
than the historic rate, provided there is clear evidence of support from State
and/or local decision-makers.
Not
Reasonable
An assumption that a single metropolitan area will receive funding for multiple
large-scale transportation projects under a federal discretionary program
(e.g., FTA's New Starts) is not reasonable if the assumption would result in
that one metropolitan area receiving a disproportionately high percentage of
the total national program dollars.
Revenue Projection and Cost Estimation Methods
3. To what extent can future Federal program funds be assumed when
developing metropolitan transportation plans, TIPs and STIPs, particularly
beyond the current authorization in SAFETEA-LU that ends at the end of FY
2009?
When the horizon year for the metropolitan transportation plan or the TIP/STIP period
extends beyond the current authorization period for federal program funds, "available"
funds may include an extrapolation based on historic authorizations of Federal funds
that are distributed by formula. For Federal funds that are distributed on a
discretionary basis (including FTA's New Starts, earmarks, and other congressionally-
designated funding), any funding beyond that currently authorized and targeted to the
area may be considered as reasonably available, if past history supports such funding
levels.
Attachment H
Page 45 of 54Page 79 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
Therefore, when determining future year authorizations/apportionments, a growth rate
estimated on the basis of previous authorizations can be used to approximate the
future annual growth rate of Federal authorizations. For example, since SAFETEA-LU
authorized Federal transportation programs for Federal Fiscal Years (FY) 2005 to
2009, funding beyond FY 2009 could be estimated based upon the growth rate over
the prior five years.
Upon the enactment of new authorizing legislation, State DOTs (in cooperation with
MPOs and public transportation operators) should use the actual authorization levels
and individual discretionary project funding amounts in the development of a
metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP.
4. How should Federal and non-Federal funding sources be reflected in the
TIP and STIP?
All projects and programs funded under Title 23 and 49 (of the U.S. Code) must be
listed in the TIP/STIP [see 23 CFR 216(g)]. There is an important distinction,
however, between the specific projects listed in the TIP/STIP and the financial plan
and information that accompany and support the TIP/STIP. Highway and transit
operations and maintenance (O&M) activities typically do not involve Federal funds,
and are therefore are not required to be listed individually in a metropolitan
transportation plan, TIP, or STIP.
For example, with the exception of Federally-supported transit operating costs in
urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000, and Federally supported
preventive maintenance in areas with more than 200,000 in population, transit O&M
activities are funded by a variety of non-Federal sources (e.g. States, localities, as
well as advertising and fares). While these non Federal sources are not included in the
project listings of the TIP/STIP, this important information is needed to demonstrate
how the transit operator and other Federal funds recipients in a metropolitan area
and/or State will operate and adequately maintain the programmed Federal capital
investments and should be provided in the financial plan and supporting information
accompanying the TIP/STIP. Similarly, non-Federal highway system O&M costs do not
have to be included in the project listings of the TIP/STIP, but should be provided in
the financial plan and supporting information accompanying the TIP/STIP. It is
acceptable to present non-Federal O&M costs and their funding sources at a systems-
level of detail (e.g. for highways by highway functional classification). In the event that
a proposed transit system expansion project has been approved for entry into the FTA
planning and project development process (for preliminary engineering, final design,
project development, etc.), the system wide operating and maintenance costs should
be consistent between the TIP/STIP and the financial plan submitted for FTA project
approvals.
The Federal funding reflected in the TIP and STIP (and the supporting financial plan)
for projects/project phases may be based on authorization levels for each year,
although obligation authority limitations may be utilized for a more conservative
approach. In addition, for Federally-funded projects, the project-specific portion of the
STIP/TIP must identify the source(s) of Federal and non-Federal funding by year [see
23 CFR 450.216(i)(3) and 23 CFR 450.324(e)(3), respectively].
The cumulative total of the State and Federal funds in the TIPs and STIP should not
exceed, on an annual basis, the total State and Federal funds reasonably available to
the State.
5. To what extent should cost and revenue estimates be reflected in year of
expenditure (YOE) dollars?
Attachment H
Page 46 of 54Page 80 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
As outlined in the FHWA/FTA Final Rule on statewide and metropolitan transportation
planning and programming (published February 14, 2007), cost and revenue
estimates for the STIP, metropolitan transportation plan, and TIP must use an
inflation rate(s) to reflect "year of expenditure dollars," based on reasonable financial
principles and information, developed cooperatively by the State DOT, MPOs, and
public transportation operators [see 23 CFR 450.216(l), 23 CFR 450.322(f)(10)(iv),
and 23 CFR 450.324(h), respectively]. Past trends suggest that it may not be
reasonable to use the same inflation rates for forecasting costs and revenues. Future
project costs generally will be tied to construction cost indices, while revenue
forecasts track more closely with past trends in tax receipts and cost of living indices.
The use of YOE may reveal that revenue growth is insufficient over time to
accommodate the effects of inflation on costs for construction, operations, and
maintenance, of highway and transit projects and programs. In these cases, additional
sources of revenue may be needed, or certain projects in the STIP, TIP, and/or the
metropolitan transportation plan may need to be scaled back, delayed or removed to
bring the costs of the highway and transit projects or program in line with revenue
projections.
6. Is there a recommended inflation rate(s) for cost estimates as part of fiscal
constraint for metropolitan transportation plans, TIPs, and STIPs?
When State and/or local cost data are available, States and MPOs are encouraged to
use them to develop cost inflation indices. Local historic cost data and experience with
cost inflation are valuable data sources for use in projecting future rates.
In the absence of State and/or local data, FHWA and FTA would be comfortable if State
DOTs and MPOs utilize an annual inflation rate of four percent for project costs.
Because circumstances may vary from State-to-State, from region to region, as well
as between highway and transit projects, a State DOT or MPO may assume a lower or
higher rate based on circumstances. Inflation assumptions should be documented in
the financial plan. It is important to note that the four percent inflation rate applies
only to "planning/programming-level" cost estimates. As projects advance through
project development to construction, these "planning/programming-level"
assumptions should be replaced by more recent and rigorous cost estimation
performed by project sponsors, consistent with appropriate project documentation.
For projects estimated to cost over $100 million (major projects), the cost estimate
information developed in accordance with FHWA's major project requirements (see
question and answer number twelve for more information on major projects.)
We recognize that developing and applying cost inflation rates is not an "exact
science." Several sources are available for States and MPOs to utilize in forecasting
highway and transit capital, operations and maintenance costs including construction
cost indices, the consumer price index, and State and local project cost histories.
National resources such as http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?
link=http://www.economy.com/default.asp, local universities, and Engineering News
Record may also be used.
7. What are some possible approaches for developing cost estimates for
financial plans and projects/project phases reflected in the STIP/TIP?
Capital costs can be based on historical costs for projects of comparable scale and
design. Cost forecasts may be established in a number of ways. For example, capital
costs can be based on historic costs for: (a) an interchange; (b) new construction on
new rights-of-way; (c) structure (number, type, and deck square footage (area) for
various structure types); (d) transit vehicles for rolling stock procurement; or (e)
widening and/or reconstruction, based on the extent of the project. Information from
more detailed project cost estimates can be used, if it is available.
O&M costs can be based on historic data applied on a per-lane mile and functional
Attachment H
Page 47 of 54Page 81 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
classification basis or an annual lump sum basis. For bridges, O&M costs might be
based on historic data on a per-square foot of bridge deck area basis. Transit
operating costs can be estimated by general mode type on a revenue-mile or
passenger-mile basis.
Major transit capital projects (e.g. New Starts) can be estimated during planning from
data collected in FTA's Standard Cost Categories. Transit agency O&M cost estimates
should be consistent with and based upon recent trends as reported by regional
transit agencies and transportation service providers in the National Transit Database.
The operating costs should be inflated through the period of the TIP and STIP, and
include additional operating costs necessary for any proposed transit system
expansions that are listed in the TIP and STIP.
The increasingly refined cost estimates prepared during project development should be
incorporated into the project information contained in the TIP/STIP as well as the
underlying financial plans, when the TIP/STIP are updated.
8. Do changes in revenue sources after the metropolitan transportation plan,
TIP, or STIP are adopted automatically nullify and void the FHWA/FTA fiscal
constraint determination?
No. In cases where FHWA/FTA find a STIP, metropolitan transportation plan, or TIP to
be fiscally constrained and a revenue source is subsequently removed or substantially
reduced (e.g., by legislative or administrative actions), FHWA/FTA will not withdraw
the original determination of fiscal constraint. However, in such cases, FHWA/FTA will
not act on an updated or amended STIP, metropolitan transportation plan, or TIP that
does not reflect the changed revenue situation [see 23 CFR 450.216(o), 23 CFR
450.322(f)(1)(viii), and 23 CFR 450.324(o), respectively].
9. What tools exist on cost estimation and management for "pre-
construction" (i.e., transportation planning and programming) phases?
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 08-49 (Procedures
for Cost Estimation and Management for Highway Projects During Planning,
Programming, and Preconstruction) resulted in a comprehensive guidebook on
highway cost estimation management and project cost estimation procedures aimed
at achieving greater consistency and accuracy between long-range transportation
planning, priority programming, and preconstruction cost estimates. The completed
guidebook, entitled Guidance for Cost Estimation and Management for Highway
Projects During Planning, Programming, and Preconstruction (NCHRP Report 574), is
available from the Transportation Research Board's website at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_574.pdf .
Additional processes, methods, and tools focused on right-of-way (ROW) cost
estimation and management to complement the NCHRP Report 574 currently are
being developed. Entitled NCHRP Project 08-49(2), Right-of-Way (ROW) Methods and
Tools to Control Project Cost Escalation, the objectives of this research effort are to:
(a) refine ROW-related cost estimating and the management processes that support
ROW cost estimating; (b) develop ROW-based methods and tools, focused especially
on those used in the planning phase of project development; and (c) provide specific
guidance on how to implement those strategies, methods, and tools related to ROW
cost estimating and estimate management for projects. This report is expected to be
available from TRB in the second half of calendar year 2009.
The National Transit Database (NTD), maintained by FTA, contains a wealth of
statistics on the transit industry. Over 650 transit agencies and authorities file annual
reports with FTA for inclusion in the NTD. The reported data consist of selected
Attachment H
Page 48 of 54Page 82 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
financial and operating data that describe public transportation characteristics. The
NTD is a valuable resource that can assist in developing cost estimates for public
transit during the transportation planning process. A tool to manipulate and analyze
NTD data is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link=http://www.ftis.org/.
Though developed to help assist transit agencies in Florida, the Integrated National
Transit Database Analysis System contains NTD data from all reporting agencies
nationwide, which can be helpful in developing peer transit system profiles for
comparison to an existing an/or planned future expanded system.
Also, FTA is currently developing guidepost cost data on components of major capital
transit investments (e.g., New Starts), based upon projects implemented to date and
projects currently in project development. This summary-level data can assist
planners in estimating costs of major capital transit investments for planning
documents. These summary project cost data will be available online at
http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304.html.
Highway and Transit Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
10. To what extent must highway and transit O&M be reflected in the STIP,
metropolitan transportation plan, and TIP?
For purposes of transportation systems O&M, the financial plans and financial
information that support the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP shall
include financial information containing systems-level estimates of costs and revenue
sources that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and
maintain Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public
transportation (as defined by 49 U.S.C., Chapter 53) [see 23 CFR 450.216(m), 23
CFR 450.322(f)(10)(i), and 23 CFR 450.324(h), respectively].
Systems-level cost and revenue planning estimates for O&M will be more general than
estimates for individual projects. For the financial plan that supports the TIP, the MPO
may rely on the system-level information contained in the financial plan that supports
the metropolitan transportation plan in developing four-year "snapshot" estimates of
O&M funding sources and costs. For the non-metropolitan portions of the STIP, the
State DOT may utilize other documents (e.g. the long-range statewide transportation
plan and/or other State DOT budget information) to provide this system-level
information for the time period covered by the STIP. O&M involving local and/or State
funds may be shown in the applicable financial plan as a "grouped line item."
In addition, there is a longstanding Federal requirement that States properly maintain,
or cause to be maintained, any projects constructed under the Federal-aid Highway
Program (see 23 U.S.C. 116) and FTA's Financial Capacity Policy holds public transit
operators to similar requirements1. FHWA/FTA do not specify at what level a
transportation project or system must be maintained and operated for purposes of
estimating necessary revenues and costs for the financial plan for the STIP, TIP, or
metropolitan transportation plan, associated with operating and maintaining the
system. Where applicable, this is left to the State, MPO, transit operator, and local
decision making processes.
Innovative Finance, Flex Funds, Advance Construction (AC),
and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)
11. To what extent must innovative finance mechanisms and Federal funds
transfers between programs be reflected in the STIP, metropolitan
transportation plan, and TIP?
Both public and private sources of funding are to be reflected in the financial
Attachment H
Page 49 of 54Page 83 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
information and financial plans that support the STIP, metropolitan transportation
plan, and TIP. Among the financing techniques2 to be included in the financial plans
(to the extent they are utilized) are:
Tolls and pricing;
Grant Anticipated Revenue Vehicles (GARVEE bonds) and/or Grant
Anticipation Notes (GANs);
State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs); and
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit
assistance;
Private Activity Bonds (PABs);
Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs).
Moreover, cash management techniques (e.g., AC, tapered match, flexible match, and
toll credits) are to be reflected in the financial plans.
The fiscal constraint demonstration for projects supported by transfers of Federal
flexible funds should be based on the original ("pre-flex") funding source.
Furthermore, it is important that the fiscal constraint demonstration for other projects
supported by the pre-flex funding programs take the flexible fund transfer into
account.
(a) To what extent must Advanced Construction (AC) be shown in the
STIP/TIP?
The two key actions governing AC projects are:
1. Prior to Federal authorization of a project as AC, the project must be
included in the Federally-approved STIP [see 23 CFR 630.705]. The project
will be demonstrated as supporting the fiscally constrained element of the
STIP using all or some combination of State, local and private funds. The
financial limit on the amount of AC is set by the State's or MPO's ability to
demonstrate fiscal constraint of the STIP or TIP respectively.
2. Generally, when an AC project is converted to a federally funded project, the
STIP will document the full or partial conversion of the project as an
individual project or as part of a project grouping. This project or group of
projects needs to meet all STIP/TIP requirements, including the indication
of the Federal funding category(ies) that are intended to be used for the
conversion. Fiscal constraint must be demonstrated for the individual
categories of Federal-aid funds. The amount of conversion is limited by the
amount of apportioned Federal-funds available in the category to be
converted and the amount of obligation authority available at the time of
the conversion. As with any project, it should be noted that the State is not
locked into the category of funds identified in the approved STIP/TIP.
However should the approved AC "conversion" substantially change the
current STIP/TIP's fiscal constraint determination; the STIP/TIP may need
to be amended. The fiscal constraint determination should be supported by
showing the individual project or group of project conversions in the
STIP/TIP or by showing the total amount and source(s) of Federal funds to
be converted as part of the financial plan for the STIP/TIP.
(b) How should GARVEE/GAN debt service be reflected in the STIP,
metropolitan transportation plan, and TIP?
Attachment H
Page 50 of 54Page 84 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
For a GARVEE- or GAN-funded project, the Federal share of the debt-related costs
(e.g., interest and principal payments, associated issuance costs, and ongoing debt
servicing expenses) anticipated to be reimbursed with Federal-aid funds over the life
of the bonds should be designated as AC in the transportation plan/program
document showing GARVEE/GAN bond proceeds as the revenue source.3 In the case
of projects taking advantage of the new Debt Service Reserve reimbursement
capability, the same process should be followed, but including immediate repayment
of the debt service reserve in the first year of the debt.
(c) How should "public-private partnerships" (PPPs) be treated in the STIP,
metropolitan transportation plan, and TIP?
Like any other transportation project, the funding sources associated with financing a
PPP project generally are to be "reasonably expected to be available." The exception is
the first two years of the TIP and STIP in air quality nonattainment and maintenance
areas, in which projects shall be limited to those for which funds are "available" or
"committed" (see 23 CFR 450.104 for the definitions of these terms). A PPP project
may be "reasonable" if there are clear expressions of support by the Governor and/or
other appropriate local/regional decision makers and a strategy exists for securing
necessary approvals within the time period for implementing the affected project(s).
Other indictors of "reasonableness" for PPP projects are if a State or local jurisdiction
has had past success in implementing PPP's, and if State enabling legislation is in
place, or if efforts are underway to enact State enabling PPP legislation and there is
evidence of support by the Governor and/or legislature. There should also be interest
in the project from the investment community.
PPP projects often are undertaken to supplement conventional procurement practices
as a way to achieve cost and time efficiencies and expand funding sources, thereby
reducing demands on constrained public budgets. Some of the funding sources used
to support PPPs include: (a) shareholder equity; (b) grant anticipation bonds/notes
(GARVEEs and GANs); (c) revenue and general obligation bonds; (d) private activity
bonds; (e) bank loans; (f) SIB loans; (g) TIFIA credit assistance; (h) direct user
charges (tolls and transit fares) leveraged to obtain bonds; (i) normal Federal-aid
formula funds; and (j) other public agency dedicated revenue streams made available
to a private franchisee or concessionaire (e.g., leases, direct user charges from other
tolled facilities, and shadow tolls).
Additional information on new PPP approaches to project delivery can be obtained
online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/index.htm. Additional information on these financing
approaches and tools is available online from the American Association of State and
Transportation Officials at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?
link=http://www.innovativefinance.org/.
(d) How should tolling/pricing strategies be treated in the metropolitan
transportation plan, TIP, and STIP?
The following considerations should be kept in mind:
1. While tolling/pricing may be a means to pay back a variety of funding
mechanisms (e.g. bond measures, private equity, and State revenues), toll
revenues are usually used in combination with other fund sources.
2. The existence of State enabling legislation allowing a State and/or a
locality(ies) to pursue alternative funding through the use of tolling and/or
PPPs is a key first step in determining fiscal constraint "reasonableness,"
particularly for the metropolitan transportation plan.
Knowing the parameters or rules for the new tolling or pricing provisions also is
Attachment H
Page 51 of 54Page 85 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
important.
For example:
How much funding is available each year through the proposed program?
Can the tolling/pricing provisions only be used in certain corridors or
municipalities?
Are tolling/pricing provisions only available for a specific type of project?
Is Federal authority required for the tolling?
(e) How should TIFIA be treated in the metropolitan transportation plan,
STIP, and TIP?
The TIFIA statute conditions a project's receipt of TIFIA assistance on the project's
satisfaction of all applicable planning and programming requirements. That includes
inclusion in the applicable long range transportation plan and the STIP/TIP.
The TIFIA project has to be fiscally constrained to be included in the applicable STIP,
TIP, and metropolitan transportation plan with funds reasonably expected to be
available. For projects in the first two years of the STIP/TIP in metropolitan non-
attainment and maintenance areas, funds for the project must be available and
committed. TIFIA loans would typically be shown in the STIP/TIP as one of several
revenue sources for the project. The financial plan for the STIP/TIP and the
metropolitan transportation plan should also show the repayment for a TIFIA loan.
(f) How should Private Activity Bonds (PABs) be treated in the metropolitan
transportation plan, TIP, and STIP?
These bonds should be shown in the STIP/TIP and transportation plan as a revenue
source when used in combination with other funds on a Title 23 eligible project. Since
repayment of principle and interest on the PAB is the responsibility of the private
developer/operator of the project, repayment of the PAB does not have to be shown in
the TIP, STIP, or metropolitan transportation plan or the accompanying financial plan
to the TIP, STIP or MTP.
Other Issues
12. What is the connection between financial plans that support statewide
and metropolitan transportation plans and programs and financial/funding
information for FHWA major highway projects and FTA major capital
investment projects?
Financial plans that support the metropolitan transportation plan and TIP include
revenues from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be available
to carry out the metropolitan transportation plan and TIP, and include any additional
financing strategies needed for projects and programs [see 23 CFR 450.322(f)(10)
and 23 CFR 450.324(h), respectively, for additional details]. However, more detailed
project-level financial plans must be prepared and updated annually for individual
highway projects with an estimated total cost of $100 million or more [SAFETEA-LU
Section 1904] and FTA major capital investment (New Starts) projects. Financial plans
for projects with an estimated total cost of $500 million or more have to be approved
by FHWA. These project-specific financial plans contain specific cash flow
information.4 While the financial plans used in metropolitan transportation planning
and statewide transportation planning are different from those developed for "big
ticket" highway and transit projects, their underlying assumptions (e.g. local economic
Attachment H
Page 52 of 54Page 86 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
conditions; future inflation rates; revenue sources, growth rates, and yields based
upon population and employment projections) should be consistent. The project-
specific cash flow schedule information from a project-specific financial plan can serve
as a valuable resource on annual levels and sources of revenues for developing the
financial plans and financial information that support the metropolitan transportation
plan, TIP, and STIP. Furthermore, a Full Funding Grant Agreement (issued for FTA
New Starts projects) should be referenced in the STIP/TIP and accompanying financial
plans as it establishes the maximum Federal share and payout schedule for a FTA New
Starts project. Project-level financial information that is refined during project
development should be incorporated into the TIP/STIP and their underlying financial
plans when the TIP and STIP are updated.
13. When might cost bands be utilized in the financial plan for the
metropolitan transportation plan?
For the outer years of the metropolitan transportation plan (i.e., beyond the first 10
years), the financial plan may reflect aggregate cost bands, as long as the future
funding sources necessary to pay for these costs are reasonably expected to be
available to support the upper limit of the projected cost bands (23 CFR 450.322(f)
(10)(v)).
Cost bands are useful where there is significant potential for uncertainty and risk.
Some projects in the second 10-years of a metropolitan transportation plan might fall
into this category, particularly larger projects. Risks and uncertainties may result from
cost escalation (materials and labor), construction unknowns (unknown site
conditions), uncertain environmental mitigation, unknown right-of-way needs,
contractor risk and other causes. A cost band is a potential range of project costs that
considers these and other risks and other potential uncertainties. A cost band can help
convey the uncertainty of an estimate for a project and help educate other parties
(such as the public and elected officials) who may not be intimately familiar with the
project about cost variability. The use of cost bands in the second ten years of the
metropolitan transportation plan can help avoid misleading the public or others with a
false sense of precision.
The use of cost bands does not avoid the requirement to show fiscal constraint.
Revenues necessary to meet the outer (upper) band of the cost band in the financial
plan must be "reasonably expected to be available." All necessary financial resources
from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be available to carry
out the upper band(s) of the cost band(s) shall be identified. In the case of new
funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified [see 23
CFR 450.322(10)(v)].
III. Additional Information and Resources:
The National Transit Institute (NTI) course Financial Planning in Transportation
addresses topics such as transportation plan and program revenue projections, cost
estimates, and fiscal constraint "reasonableness." Additional information on this
course can be obtained on-line from NTI at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?
link=http://www.ntionline.com/CourseInfo.asp?CourseNumber=ID811.
FHWA and FTA are collecting and sharing examples and case studies of noteworthy
fiscal constraint practices and financial plans that support metropolitan transportation
plans, TIPs, and STIPs, and posting them online via the FHWA/FTA Transportation
Planning Capacity Building Program website at http://www.planning.dot.gov/.
1 Financial Capacity Certifications may be utilized to fulfill the requirement for
demonstrating transit operators' ability to operate and maintain their systems. FTA
Attachment H
Page 53 of 54Page 87 of 89
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA
Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint for Transportation Plans and Programs Questions & Answers - Planning - FHWA.htm[8/2/2016 4:19:01 PM]
Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Accessibility | Web Policies & Notices | No Fear Act | Report
Waste, Fraud and Abuse
U.S. DOT Home | USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000
Circular C 7800.1A - "Financial Capacity Policy" requires FTA grantees to certify their
ability to: a) operate and maintain current assets, b) operate and maintain new
projects listed in the TIP/STIP, and C) maintain the same level of service during a 20-
year period, or a single equipment replacement cycle. These self-certifications are
subjected to FTA review during STIP approval and, subsequently, at the time of grant
application. Circular C 7800.1A also calls for Unified Planning Work Programs to
include "...development of analytical revenue and cost forecasting techniques needed
to assess financial capacity..."
2 Additional information on innovative financing techniques include: FHWA Innovative
Finance Guidance (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/); FHWA Innovative Finance
Primer (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/resources/general/); TIFIA Credit
Program (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/); and Innovative Financing Techniques
for America's Transit Systems (http://www.fta.dot.gov/12309.html).
3 Prior to project authorization, "AC" projects must be identified in a fiscally
constrained TIP and/or STIP. At the programming stage, the MPO and/or State needs
to document, by year, the revenues necessary for the AC project, including the
amount of Federal funds available for obligation sufficient to fund the estimated costs
that will be incurred on all projects on a Federal fiscal year basis. This would include
previously authorized AC projects that are not fully obligated.
4 Additional information on financial plans for major highway projects is available at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_delivery/default.aspx while additional
information on financial plans for FTA major capital investments is available at
http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304_3559.html.
HEP Home Planning Environment Real EstateUpdated: 10/19/2015
Attachment H
Page 54 of 54Page 88 of 89
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
August 23, 2016
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending o r co ntemplated litigation and other matters o n which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
Sec. 551.072: De l i berati o n about Real Proper ty
Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation
- Rivery Blvd. Exte nsion Pro ject (P arcel 11, 1611 Park Lane)
- Mays Street Pro ject (P arcel 8, Westinghouse at Rabbit Hill Rd.)
- SW Bypass P roje c t (Laubach – 4200 IH35 South)
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Sec re tary and Municipal Judge: Consideratio n of the appointment, employme nt,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
Sec. 551.087: De l i berati o n Regardi ng Economi c Devel opment Negoti ati ons
- Tamiro Plaza Phase 2
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 89 of 89