Cooperative Agreements for Corridor Management (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

9 CHAPTER TWO INSTRUMENTS OF COOPERATION It was noted in the literature that “Agreements may take many forms. They can be tentative and general in nature, or highly specific and binding. And different sorts of agree- ments occur throughout a process. There is the initial agreement to enter the process; there are agreements about scheduling and agendas, and final agreements on recom- mendations or actions” (5). Indeed, considerable variety was observed in the types of cooperative agreements that state and provincial agencies have pursued with regard to corridor management—ranging from simple agreements to conduct or endorse a study to detailed explanations of roles, requirements, and financial obligations. Respondents provided approximately 30 examples of resolutions, MOUs, and intergovernmental agreements for review. Some of those documents were executed agree- ments, whereas others were model agreements used on a regular basis. Following is an overview of the primary types of cooperative agreements for corridor management and examples of each type. RESOLUTIONS Thirty-eight percent of state and provincial respondents in- dicated that they had obtained resolutions in support of corridor management, either alone or as an initial step to- ward other more detailed agreements. The following are examples of resolutions in support of corridor management submitted by survey respondents or identified for review: • • • • • • Resolution Accepting, Supporting, and Adopting an Inter- regional Corridor Management Plan (Benton County, Minnesota); Resolution Endorsing Vision and Corridor Management Plan for TH 10/TH 24 (City of St. Cloud, Minnesota); City of Conway Resolution R-99-60 (city resolution for access management plan, Arkansas); Metroplan Resolution 99-34 [metropolitan planning or- ganization (MPO) resolution for access management plan, Arkansas]; US-19 Corridor Access Management Strategy Joint Resolution 2001 (Levy County, Florida, with the City of Chiefland and the City of Fanning Springs); and Resolution Appropriating Funds to Pay for the Route 4 Corridor Management Plan (Town Board of the Town of Fort Edward, New York). The Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) indicated that it pursues resolutions from local governments as means of obtaining endorsement of a corridor management plan and as an op- portunity for communities to state their concerns and iden- tify issues to be resolved. An example of a resolution in support of corridor management is that enacted in Benton County, Minnesota, in April 2002 (see Appendix B, pp. 37– 38), in which it was resolved that the Benton County Board of Commissioners. endorses the vision and corridor management plan for the TH 10/TH 24 Corridor; endorses the concept that an adequate network of supporting roads is necessary to attain the TH 10/TH 24 Corridor vision and that the roadway networks identified in the TH 10/TH 24 Corridor Management Plan will be considered as interim guides until such time as refinements to these improvements are identified; recognizes the regional significance of the corridor in support- ing the regional economy and intends to reflect the TH 10/TH 24 Corridor Management Plan vision, strategies, and policies through updates to the Benton County land use and transporta- tion plan, as well as subdivision ordinances; and is committed to working in partnership with Mn/DOT and the other partners along the corridor as a member of the TH 10/TH 24 Corridor Management Team in order to achieve the vision and implement the recommendations to the TH 10/TH 24 Corridor management plan (6). In New York State, local governments are required to enact resolutions in support of funding obligations as a re- quirement of the state transportation agency’s Master Fed- eral/Local Aid Agreement. For example, the town board of the town of Fort Edward enacted a resolution indicating its intent to appropriate funds to pay for 100% of the federal and nonfederal share of the cost of the corridor manage- ment plan for Route 4, with the federal share to be reim- bursed to the community upon approval of the town’s pay- ments. In some cases, a resolution is passed by a governing body authorizing an individual, such as the chairperson, mayor, or city or county manager, to enter into an agree- ment on behalf of the governing body. An example of this is Conway, Arkansas, Resolution R-99-60, which states that “The City of Conway approves the access management plan in specific for Segment 1 of Dave Ward Drive and in general for Segment 2 and further authorizes the mayor to enter into the access management agreement for Dave Ward Drive with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department and METROPLAN” (7). A separate resolution was enacted by Metroplan, the MPO for the Little Rock, Arkansas, metropolitan area in support of access manage-

10 ment and to formally adopt the access management plan for Highway 60/Dave Ward Drive. A resolution may also form the basis for coordination between several parties. For example, the 2001 Joint US-19 Corridor Access Management Strategy Joint Resolution 2001 of Levy County, Florida, and the cities of Chiefland and Fanning Springs states that 1. The PARTICIPANTS recognize the benefits of access management; 2. The PARTICIPANTS will actively investigate the devel- opment of coordinated access management standards for the SEGMENT; 3. The PARTICIPANTS acknowledge the findings contained in the report entitled An Access Management Strategy for the US-19 Highway Corridor as a basis for developing co- ordinated access management standards for the SEGMENT; and 4. The PARTICIPANTS support the creation of a committee to oversee the development of access management stan- dards for the SEGMENT. MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING The MOU is the most common type of agreement used for corridor management with regard to corridor studies and ac- cess management. MOUs are the tool of choice for 69% of the survey respondents that had used a cooperative agreement. Examples of MOUs or memorandums of agreement submit- ted by survey respondents or identified for review are: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Memorandum of Agreement for the 78th Street Inter- change on Highway 2 (Alberta, Canada); Memorandum of Understanding for the Purpose of Es- tablishing a Policy Governing Access to or From Any Highway Designated by the Commission as Being a Lim- ited Access Facility Within the City of Casper, Wyoming. (Note: Resolution in support); Memorandum of Understanding: Intent to Conduct a Corridor Study (four parties—South Dakota); Memorandum of Understanding Between Manitoba Transportation and Government Services and the Rural Municipality of Headingley Regarding the PTH 1W Pro- posed Highway Upgrading and Access Management Plan (Manitoba, Canada); Memorandum for Temporary Access (Utah); Memorandum of Agreement for Placement of Telecom- munications Installations in Primary Highway Rights-of- Way (Alberta, Canada); and Memorandum of Understanding for Orchard Park Commerce Center—Milestrip Road (three parties— New York). An MOU may be created between two or more govern- mental entities or between governmental entities and pri- vate parties. For example, the South Dakota DOT, Meade County, Pennington County, and the Rapid City MPO used an MOU to voice the Intent to Conduct a Corridor Study (8). The Utah DOT entered into a MOU with a private property owner in regard to the temporary permitting of a left-turn ingress and egress (9). The New York State DOT (NYSDOT) entered an MOU with the town of Orchard Park and the Orchard Park Commerce Center to provide for access to the shopping center, with conditions for future mitigation if needed to accommodate planned future high- way improvements. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS The maintenance agreement is the most common form of intergovernmental agreement reported by state transporta- tion agencies for corridor management (54%). Respon- dents indicated that they enter into these agreements with local governments in regard to utilities and landscape maintenance, as well as sometimes to advance access man- agement objectives. Some overlap was observed in what is considered a maintenance agreement and other types of in- tergovernmental agreements. The following are examples of intergovernmental agree- ments for corridor management received from survey re- spondents or identified for review: Cooperative Corridor Preservation Agreement (Utah); Local Agency Agreement Hazard Elimination Project (Oregon); Cooperative Improvement Agreement for Preliminary Engineering and Construction Finance Abandonment and Retention (Oregon); Access Management Plan for State Highway 60/Dave Ward Drive (tripartite—Arkansas); Intergovernmental Agreement for US-85 Access Control Plan (11 parties—Colorado); Model Intergovernmental Agreement Between Local Governments and the State of Colorado DOT for Access Control (Colorado); Model Interlocal Agreement Between Washington State DOT and County or City for Mitigation of Land Devel- opment Impacts (Washington State); Cooperative Agreement for the Construction of a High- way Within the Corporate Limits of the City of Casper (Wyoming); Freeway and Controlled Access Highway Agreements (California); Intergovernmental Agreement for US-6 Corridor (four parties—Dallas County, Iowa); and State Road 7 Partnership (collaborative of jurisdictions and agencies within Broward, Miami–Dade, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida). The Iowa DOT entered into an agreement with three municipalities—the city of Clive, city of Waukee, and city

11 of Urbandale—for the implementation of a corridor access management plan for the US-6 Corridor in Dallas County, Iowa. The multiparty agreement, which is reproduced in Appendix B, establishes access management standards for the corridor (e.g., 0.25 mi access spacing, auxiliary lanes, and access roads during platting) and other parameters for implementing the US-6 Corridor master plan. These pa- rameters establish the binding nature of the agreement, re- quire changes to be approved by written agreement of all parties, establish that each city will adopt the necessary implementing ordinances, and establish that the parties will meet annually to review and evaluate the plan. The cooperative agreement for the State Road 7 partner- ship in Florida provided a framework for multijurisdic- tional cooperation on the redevelopment and revitalization of a 26-mi north–south arterial roadway in Florida that runs through the center of Broward County. State Road 7 links 14 jurisdictions and was the focus of major commer- cial investment during the 1970s, but it has been deteriorat- ing and suffering from disinvestment since the 1990s. In 2000, local governmental leaders formed the State Road 7/US-441 Collaborative, with technical assistance and or- ganizational support from the South Florida Regional Planning Council, in a desire to reverse the negative image of the corridor and to coordinate their improvement efforts. The State Road 7/US-441 Collaborative formalized its efforts by entering into the State Road 7 Partnership Agreement in 2001 (Appendix B, pp. 60–63). The agree- ment was signed by 14 participating jurisdictions and 7 agencies, including Florida DOT District 4, Broward County MPO, South Florida Regional Planning Council, Broward County School Board, South Florida Water Man- agement District, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Coun- cil, and Florida Department of Community Affairs. The State Road 7/US-441 Collaborative has two inter- linking goals: 1. To create and sustain a partnership organization rec- ognized and supported by all 14 of the jurisdictions along the State Road 7 Corridor; and 2. To improve the corridor and its communities by co- ordinating local resources and planning to promote the economic vitality, aesthetic improvement, com- munity redevelopment, and safety of the corridor. The collaborative set about achieving these goals through a membership and meeting process designed to ensure that • • • • Decisions are made by collaboration and consensus, not by single rule; Citizens are empowered through inclusion in the development of a corridor master plan and have a voice in the decision-making process; and Discussions and decisions are in full view of the pub- lic and recorded in reports that are in the public re- cord. The collaborative was successful in obtaining federal funding for the creation of a strategic master plan for the corridor, along with a variety of other grants and resources. The master plan process includes design charrettes to iden- tify redevelopment potential along the corridor and to gather feedback on the desires of corridor residents. The corridor is served by a heavily used public bus system and plans are under way for additional service, as well as road- way widening. Another objective of the collaborative is to facilitate pedestrian and transit-oriented development along the corridor. In March 2004, the collaborative commis- sioned the Urban Land Institute to conduct a market as- sessment and development review for the State Road 7 Corridor in Broward County. Broward County government has also agreed to proceed with a new mixed-use land use category that will assist with State Road 7 redevelopment. The Houston TranStar consortium is an intergovernmen- tal agreement worthy of mention as an outstanding example of cooperation for operations management. The Houston Tran- Star consortium is a partnership of four government agencies that are responsible for providing transportation and emer- gency management services to the greater Houston region. It was formed through an intergovernmental agreement be- tween the Texas DOT, Harris County, Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, and city of Houston to share public resources and technology (e.g., intelligent transpor- tation systems) for the purpose of congestion management, incident management, emergency management, and related activities. As noted on the consortium’s website, “The Houston TranStar partnership of state and local public transportation agencies is a model for agencies combining resources across modal and political jurisdictional bounda- ries in management centers worldwide” (10). PUBLIC–PRIVATE AGREEMENTS The public–private or utility agreements that were submit- ted with regard to corridor management dealt with access, easements, landscaping, joint occupancy of public right-of- way, or maintenance. Government agencies may also use development agreements as a way to require landowners or developers to “make reasonable contributions toward what- ever services and other resources the government will need to provide as a result of [the development]” (4). All jurisdictions that want to be involved in the rede- velopment and upgrade of the corridor have a seat at the table and an equal voice in discussions;

12 Examples of public–private agreements collected or submitted by respondents include the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Future shared access agreement (Utah), Landscape maintenance agreement (Utah), Wyoming DOT (WYDOT) agreement for joint occu- pancy (Wyoming), and Toll highway franchise agreements (California). For example, the Utah agreement for future shared access between the state transportation agency and a private busi- ness provided for the establishment of a shared access drive with the adjacent parcel at such time as the adjacent parcel is developed (11). The Wyoming agreement for joint occu- pancy provides for continuation of multiple utilities within one easement and establishes which utilities have priority to remain in that location when the facility is improved. In California, authorizing legislation was adopted in 1989 to create public–private agreements and partnerships for the development of privately financed and operated toll road demonstration projects (see also Funding and Finan- cial Arrangements in the next section). The California DOT (Caltrans) also works with local governments during de- velopment review to facilitate “irrevocable offers to dedi- cate”—a voluntary public–private agreement whereby a landowner enters into an agreement with a local govern- ment to dedicate land for a future transportation improve- ment. In exchange, the property owner obtains certainty with regard to access and future development plans. Under this process, title to the land is not transferred until the de- velopment proceeds or the highway is programmed (12). The NYSDOT engages in such agreements as well. ELEMENTS OF CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS The content and elements of the cooperative agreements submitted by state and local governments varied widely. Authorizing legislation may dictate the details of the agreement or the placement of specific language. For ex- ample, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Law in Pennsyl- vania (53 Pa. C.S. §§2301-2315) specifies the elements that must be contained in intergovernmental agreements (2): Participating parties; Triggering event; Legally binding process; Other partners; Precise contents, including duration; Financing; Purchasing requirements; Termination clauses; Fiscal payments; and Personnel management. Corridor management agreements are often accompa- nied by appendices that contain access management plans or other technical supporting documents. For example, the three-page intergovernmental agreement for the access management plan for State Highway 60/Dave Ward Drive in Conway, Arkansas, precedes the specific access man- agement plan, which is appended to the agreement, along with authorizing resolutions from each of the participants (7). One potential benefit of separating agreements from technical support documents is that it enables authors to negotiate specific details of an agreement or plan sepa- rately in small groups or committees. Then, the detailed plan may be adopted as a separate document or appendix to an agreement through one of the methods as described, such as a resolution, MOU, or intergovernmental agree- ment. Regardless of the specific structure, most of the agreements contain similar key elements as discussed in the following section. Participants and Geographic Coverage An agreement must identify each party to the agreement and the geographic area it covers. All parties involved in an MOU or agreement, regardless of number, are generally identified in the first paragraph. The number of parties to an agreement varies according to limitations established by state law, the purpose of the agreement, and the geographic area involved. For example, an MOU between the Utah DOT and a private party included two parties and began with the state- ment, “The undersigned acknowledges . . . ” (13). At the other end of the spectrum is the intergovernmental agree- ment for US-85 in Colorado, which involved 11 local ju- risdictions and the Colorado DOT and covered approxi- mately 52 mi of highway (14). A resolution, being a statement of intent by a specific body, typically involves only the body making the resolu- tion. Unlike an agreement in which participants are typi- cally identified at the beginning of the document, the entity enacting a resolution is generally identified later in the document. For example, the city of St. Cloud and Benton County, Minnesota, each entered individual resolutions in support of the Interregional Corridor Management Plan for TH 10/TH 24. The city of St. Cloud enacted Resolution 2002-4-96 endorsing the plan, by including the phrase that is typical of resolutions, “Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of St. Cloud, Minnesota, that . . . ” (15). Benton County enacted Resolution 2002-#16, which states the intent of the Benton County Board of County Commissioners to accept, support, and adopt the plan, to which Benton County is also a party (6).

13 • • • • The boundaries of the geographic area covered by agreements need to be clearly defined for the purposes of administration. The agreements reviewed generally define the area of coverage in terms of a segment of roadway be- tween two intersecting roadways. Some also include mile points and location maps for clarification. For example, the geographic coverage of the US-85 agreement in Colo- rado is defined more specifically in the agreement [the section of State Highway 85 between Interstate 76 (MP227.00) and Weld County Road 80 (MP 278.74)], than in the attached access control plan [US-85 from the junction of I-76 to the Junction of Weld County Road 80 (hereafter referred to as the “Segment”)] (14). The Dallas County, Iowa, agreement for US-6 also applied to the area abutting the roadway to address the construction of access roads. Define the limits and responsibilities of the two dif- ferent levels of governments and the standards which would be acceptable; Formalize the understanding between the department and the municipality; Document the respective responsibilities so that as coun- cils and department staff change from time to time, the understanding will endure; and Establish a cooperative working relationship with the af- fected local units of government with land use powers. Several respondents noted that the primary purpose of their agreement was to promote local participation in cor- ridor access management and right-of-way preservation. For example, the WYDOT reported the use of maintenance agreements to advance access management objectives on specific corridors. Washington State enters into agreements with local governments that place priority on access con- trol and right-of-way preservation through “developer built or cash contributions toward highway improvements (in- cluding non-motorized improvements).” Some agreements also divide the subject area into seg- ments for the purposes of administering separate access management plans. The Access Management Plan for State Highway 60/Dave Ward Drive in Conway, Arkan- sas, defines the coverage area as follows: “ROUTE— This access management agreement pertains to State Highway 60, also known as Dave Ward Drive, from the overpass at Harkrider (State Highway 365) west to the Ar- kansas River, (the Roadway). For the purposes of this agreement, the route is divided into two segments” (7). The segments are described in detail with maps provided in the appendices and are subject to different access management plans. The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) also indicated that it “manages access points and median breaks” along select highways through a mainte- nance agreement. The purpose statement for the Arkansas agreement for State Highway 60/Dave Ward Drive re- flected these goals: STATEMENT OF PURPOSE—Highway 60/Dave Ward Drive is a principal arterial on the City master street plan and serves as an intra-regional arterial roadway connecting the City to its economic region. The primary purpose for this agreement is to protect the capacity of the roadway to carry significant local and intra-regional traffic. The secondary pur- pose is to increase the safety for drivers and pedestrians that use this facility. It is the intent of this agreement to provide access to abutting properties consistent with the primary and secondary objectives (7). Purpose, Need, and Authority The ICMA advises that the purpose and need section of an intergovernmental agreement should state this: the activity or activities to be handled through the agreement, any standards that the activity should meet, and any exceptions to those standards. Statutes and regulations appropriate to the agreement should be cited (2). The Arkansas agreement goes on to identify the specific statutes granting the city and the state the authority to regu- late access to public roads. It also specifically establishes the MPO’s standing in the agreement “in consideration of the financial contribution which the MPO contributed to improvements on the Roadway and in recognition of its role in transportation planning within the metropolitan area.” State and provincial agencies that have adopted coop- erative agreements were asked to characterize the specific nature of these agreements. Generally, the stated purpose of cooperative agreements is to clarify the level of impor- tance of the specific roadway for regional mobility and to establish the intent of the participating entities to cooper- ate in managing an arterial to preserve safety and mobil- ity. Another key purpose was to define the roles and re- sponsibilities of each involved party with regard to managing the arterial. Other purposes noted were to estab- lish mutually acceptable standards to guide arterial man- agement. Cooperative agreements have also been pursued by state transportation agencies as a method of improving state and local coordination in access permitting. The Florida DOT (FDOT), District 7, initiated a process for coordinated re- view and met with local elected officials, commissioners, and development directors from Hillsborough County and its municipalities to devise a system of intergovernmental coordination (16). One result of this effort was that recip- rocal agreements were signed between the district and each Comments on purposes of agreements were that they were to

14 of the local governments to waive the fees normally associ- ated with access connection permits for each governmental agency. Another result was the commitment to engage in joint review of proposed site plans. The district has been made an active part of the review process for all proposed development in the county requiring a connection to the state highway system. Uniformly regulating the maintenance of highways was another principal reason that state agencies adopted coop- erative agreements. For example, the Alabama DOT has entered maintenance agreements with local governments to regulate street systems, rights-of-way, and street lighting. The NYSDOT uses maintenance agreements with private property owners to establish conditions on access and re- quirements for future changes if traffic conditions change, as part of the NYSDOT highway work permit process. Fi- nally, a few agencies, such as WYDOT, noted that they en- ter into cooperative agreements with utility companies to promote proper utility installation during highway con- struction and reconstruction projects. Some agreements provide significant documentation on the purpose and authority for entering into the agreement. For example, the Model Interlocal Agreement between the Washington State DOT and County or City for Mitigation of Land Development Impacts (17) has a specific purpose statement and carefully notes the authority to enter into the agreement, as well as sources of authority that each agency brings to the table. The agreement also provides a location for local ordinances to be added to the agreement as addi- tional sources of authority (Section 2.4), as shown here (17). 2. Purpose and Authority 2.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a means to fund and construct improvements to State transportation facilities made necessary by traffic im- pacts caused by the construction of new develop- ments. It is the intent of this Agreement to furnish a framework within which the parties will work together and with developers to provide an equitable balance in the bearing of costs for these improvements and to provide a predictable method of assessing traffic mitigation payments. 2.2 The parties have the authority to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW (Revised Code of Washington), Interlocal Cooperation Act, wherein the legislature has authorized governmental units to make the most efficient use of their individual powers by enabling them to cooperate on a basis of mutual advantage for public benefit. 2.3 The STATE has the authority and obligation to perform all duties necessary for the planning, locat- ing, designing, constructing, improving, repairing, op- erating and maintaining of State highways, bridges and other structures pursuant to Title 47 RCW and rules promulgated there under, Title 468 WAC (Washington Administrative Code). 2.4 The [___________] has the authority and obliga- tion to plan for and manage growth within its jurisdic- tion, to review new development plans and grant building permits, and to provide for the mitigation of development impacts pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act), Chapter 36.70B RCW (Local Project Review), Chapter 36.75 RCW (Roads and Bridges), and Chapter 58.17 RCW (Sub- divisions). [as provided by law and/or] [Ordinance Nos. ________] 2.5 Pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW (State Envi- ronmental Policy Act – SEPA), the parties are obli- gated to identify the significant adverse environ- mental effects, if any, of new development on State transportation facilities and to provide for the mitiga- tion of such adverse effects as long as such mitiga- tion measures are reasonable and capable of being accomplished. Roles and Responsibilities The discussion of roles and responsibilities is often the lengthiest and most detailed part of a cooperative agree- ment. However, the level of detail varies depending on the subject of the agreement and whether it is an MOU or a more binding form of intergovernmental agreement. The South Dakota Memorandum of Understanding: In- tent to Conduct a Corridor Study states such roles and re- sponsibilities in a fairly simple manner: The parties to this agreement will form a Corridor Steering Committee with other needed participants to perform the fol- lowing tasks: • • • • • Create a scope of services for the project, Provide technical advice to the project consultant, Receive public input, Review study findings, and Make recommendations to public agencies based on study findings (8). The MOU later states that “The study will be administered by the State in cooperation with the Counties and the MPO and facilitated by the Corridor Steering Committee.” A more detailed picture of responsibilities is found in the “Model Interlocal Agreement Between Washington State Department of Transportation and County or City for Mitiga- tion of Land Development Impacts” (17). That agreement outlines the responsibilities of the state and the city or county with regard to impact mitigation and provides the state the right to review all proposed developments having frontage on or access to a state highway for the purpose of potential mitigation of impacts on the transportation net- work.

15 Similarly, the Conway, Arkansas, example provides for adoption, termination, and modification in the same type of section. It states that Adoption, Duration, Amendment, and Termination This element may include such information as the effective date, the period covered by the agreement measured in time or completion, terms for renewal or amendment, and ter- mination requirements. The typical duration of intergov- ernmental agreements is 10 to 20 years, with 5 years gen- erally being the minimum term (2). Most of the agreements reviewed for the synthesis addressed ongoing considera- tions, such as access management and roadway mainte- nance, and thus they had no limit on duration. Termination generally occurred on consent of the parties or if the agree- ment was violated according to certain conditions. Agree- ments that involved specific improvements or actions gener- ally terminated on completion of the project or action. This agreement will be deemed adopted when passed in iden- tical form by the Conway City Council, the Metroplan Board of Directors, and the Arkansas State Highway Commission and signed by their proper representatives. This agreement may be terminated or modified, in whole or in part only by mutual agreement of all of the parties as evidenced by resolu- tions adopted by each governing body. In the Washington State Model Interlocal Agreement, which addresses mitigation of development impacts, an entire section is devoted to detailed descriptions of the ef- fective date, duration, amendment, and termination, as follows: For example, the state of Oregon agreement with the city of Sherwood addresses the effective date and duration in the same section as follows: Effective Date, Duration, Amendment, and Termination This Agreement shall become effective five (5) days after both the STATE and the [________] approve and sign this Agreement and after the Agreement is filed with the County Auditor . . . . This agreement shall become effective upon the execution of this agreement by all parties and shall remain in effect for the purpose of ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the useful life of the facilities constructed as part of the project. The pro- ject shall be completed by April 30, 2003, with final billings and all payments made by June 30, 2003, following final exe- cution of this agreement by both parties. This Agreement shall apply to all developments . . . . on or after the effective date of this Agreement through the termination date of this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified only by written amendment executed by both parties. Termination is addressed later in the document. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by either party, in whole or in part, upon thirty (30) days advance written notice . . . . An Oregon DOT local agency agreement in regard to a hazard elimination program project with Portland specifi- cally states that “The term of this agreement shall begin on the date all required signatures are obtained and shall ter- minate on completion of the Project and final payment or ten calendar years following the date all required signa- tures are obtained, whichever is sooner” (18). The agree- ment further addresses termination by stating, “This agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both parties.” Finally, the agreement lists five specific con- ditions under which the state can terminate the agreement with the local government (agency): In the event that this Agreement is terminated by ei- ther party, the sections of this Agreement that govern the expenditure or reimbursement of developer miti- gation payments that have been paid, but not ex- pended, shall survive its termination. The parties agree to expend or reimburse developer mitigation payments under the same terms and conditions in ef- fect under this Agreement as when such payments were collected. The parties further agree that prop- erty acquired by dedication/donation during the term of this Agreement shall inure to that party in whose name it was acquired (17). a. If Agency fails to provide services called for by this agree- ment within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. Some agreements have elements of adoption, duration, amendment, and termination interspersed throughout the document. For example, the draft of the Utah Cooperative Corridor Preservation Agreement begins by stating, “THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ___________ Day of _________, 2003 . . . ” Then the agreement states the effective date at the end of the docu- ment. At another point in the document, an amendment is addressed with the statement, “Based on future considera- tions and needs, this Cooperative Corridor Preservation Agreement may need to be amended from its original form and, therefore, any desires to amend this agreement shall require the concurrence of both agencies.” b. If Agency fails to perform any of the other provisions of this agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from State fails to correct such failures within 10 days or such longer period as State may authorize. c. If Agency fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project. d. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority at levels sufficient to pay for the work provided in the agreement. e. If Federal or state laws, regulations, or guidelines are modi- fied or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this agreement is prohibited or State is prohibited from pay- ing for such work from the planned funding source.

16 Funding and Financial Arrangements A crucial element of any agreement that involves shared fi- nancial obligations is a detailed statement about which party (or parties) is responsible for bearing the cost of various por- tions of the agreement. A report by the ICMA notes that such arrangements may “encompass personnel, service, funds, equipment, property, or facilities” (2). The ICMA outlines four possible components of the financial arrangements: 1. Support for a professional and accountable financial operation, 2. Process for ensuring fairness in apportionment of costs and reimbursement among the partners to the agreement, 3. Disposition of financial returns and remuneration from the intergovernmental agreement, and 4. Distribution of any holdings should the parties termi- nate the agreement. Some agreements may not result in direct financial out- lay by any of the parties. The parties may also choose to create an arrangement for determining the allocation of costs at a later time, as in the Colorado Model Intergovernmental Agreement, which contains the following paragraph: This agreement does not create any current specific financial obligation for any of the Agencies. Any future specific finan- cial obligation of the Agency shall be subject to the execution of an appropriate encumbrance document, where required. Agencies involved in or affected by any particular or site- specific undertaking provided for herein will cooperate with each other to agree upon a fair and equitable allocation of the costs associated herewith, however, notwithstanding any provi- sion of this Agreement, no Agency shall be required to expend its public finds for such an undertaking without the express prior approval of its governing body or director. All financial obligations of the Agencies hereunder shall be contingent upon sufficient funds therefore being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available as provided by law (19). Exhibit A of the US-85 access control plan for Colorado states that “Responsibility for construction cost for roads, closures, traffic control and/or any other features covered by this agreement and plan shall be based on a fair and eq- uitable allocation of the costs as agreed upon by the in- volved parties” (14). Both this example and the Colorado model agreement as described, require the parties to come to agreement on cost allocation at a later date. The Local Agency Hazard Elimination Project agree- ment between the Oregon DOT and the city of Portland (agency), which addresses needed access management and other safety improvements for selected intersections, estab- lishes the specific financial arrangements: The Project shall be conducted as a part of the Hazard Elimi- nation System program (HEP) under Title 23, United States Code. The total Project cost is estimated at $279,930. The HEP funds are limited to $270,600. The Agency shall be re- sponsible for the match for the federal funds and any portion of the Project not covered by federal funding. The estimate for the total Project cost is subject to change (20). Some agreements are developed solely to address finan- cial considerations such as the Model Interlocal Agreement between the Washington State DOT and County or City for Mitigation of Land Development Impacts. The intent of this agreement “is to provide a means to fund and construct improvements to State transportation facilities made neces- sary by traffic impacts caused by the construction of new development” (17). It sets out a specific plan not only to determine who has financial responsibility, but also what dollar amount. Time frames for payment and methods for returning payments if improvements are not made are also established by the document. In Pennsylvania, the Transportation Partnership Act (Act 47 of 1985) enables municipalities to form partner- ships with one another and the private sector to improve transportation facilities and services in a designated area (21). The Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) may provide technical assistance to communities interested in the pro- gram. The process involves the enactment of an ordinance by a municipality to designate a transportation develop- ment district. Funds may then be raised for transportation improvements in the area through special assessments, general tax revenues, loans, and donations. Such districts may be attractive to local governments, because they en- able communities to expedite improvements that may oth- erwise be delayed or of low priority to the state. The State Road 7/US-441 Collaborative, discussed ear- lier in the synthesis, exemplifies how cooperative arrange- ments can spur success in obtaining outside resources and funding support for corridor management activities. The collaborative has been successful in marshaling a variety of funding support including, but not limited to, $50,000 from the Department of Community Affairs and FDOT District 4 to advance its work; a $1.5 million study of express bus service for the corridor, commissioned by the Broward County MPO; $500,000 from FDOT’s Transportation En- hancement Grant Program to develop a unified landscaping plan to beautify the road; and $2 million from the FHWA to create a State Road 7 strategic master plan. The California legislature enacted Assembly Bill 680 in 1989, authorizing the development of four privately fi- nanced and operated toll road demonstration projects. The first public–private toll road constructed under the law is the 91 Express Lanes project—the world’s first fully auto- mated electronic toll road (22). The Express Lanes project has been in operation since 1995. It is a 10-mi-long toll highway in eastern Orange County, California, that includes two westbound lanes and two eastbound lanes in the median of California State Route 91. FasTrak, an electronic toll and traffic manage-

17 ment system, is used to manage traffic flow, optimize vehi- cle throughput, collect tolls, and audit toll transactions. The 91 Express Lanes facility is owned and operated by the California Private Transportation Company (CPTC), a limited partnership of Level 3 Communications, Inc., Cofiroute Cor- poration, and Granite Construction, Incorporated. CPTC owns and operates the 91 Express Lanes under a 35-year franchise from Caltrans. CPTC’s franchise expires in 2030. CPTC developed the 91 Express Lanes at a cost of $134 million. The facility’s initial construction financing was ac- complished through a combination of investor equity and bank and institutional debt. The initial debt was refinanced with AAA-insured bond financing in July 2001. No state or federal tax dollars were used to finance the project. CPTC is responsible for all operating costs, including services provided by Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol. The 91 Express Lanes facility has enjoyed positive finan- cial performance since opening in 1995, and it reached the operating breakeven point (sufficient revenue to cover operat- ing expenses) in only its third month of operations. By 1998, the facility reached the cash flow breakeven point (sufficient revenue to cover operating expenses and debt service). More than 500,000 Southern California FasTrak customers use the express lanes and report average time savings of 30 to 40 min per trip. The 91 Express Lanes facility demonstrated that local and state governments could enter into successful partner- ships with the private sector as a means of financing and building public infrastructure during times of limited pub- lic funds. It is also the first toll road in the United States to employ value pricing for managing traffic demand, whereby toll rates vary by direction of travel and time of day, with higher tolls during peak hour, and peak directional flow.