HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/23/2006 - DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CREATION OF A REGIONAL TR DATE: May 23, 2006 WORK SESSION ITEM
SPONSOR: Kurt Kastein, FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Councilmember
District 4
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Discussion regarding the Creation of a Regional Transportation Authority.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The City of Fort Collins, along with the North Front Range MPO and its member entities, are
engaged in discussion regarding the creation of a Regional Transportation Authority. In the course
of discussion several critical issues have emerged. It is important that the Fort Collins City Council
make its position on these issues known,so Councilmember Kurt Kastein can effectively represent
the City at the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council.
Councilmember Kastein is asking City Council to form a position on each of the issues attached
surrounding the North Front Range Regional Transportation Authority.
BACKGROUND
Over the past several years there have been extensive discussions related to a proposed Regional
Transportation Authority(RTA), previously Rural Transportation Authority. The attached list of
issues have arisen throughout the course of that discussion,plus others have developed out of recent
RTA initiatives in the Pikes Peak Region and elsewhere. The purpose of this discussion is to obtain
Council's position on the attached issues.
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of issues collected by the NFRMPO from its member entities addressing the Pros and
Cons of each RTA issue (edited and revised by TSA staff)
2. City of Loveland Position Paper in regards to RTA
3. RTA Structural Discussions Matrix
4. Spreadsheet indicating potential regional sales tax revenues (created by City of Loveland
staff)
5. Regionally Significant Corridor Maps
Attachment 1
Proposed North Front Range
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)
Contrasting Statements
in Support or in Opposition
Proposed North Front Range
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)
Contrasting Statements in Support or in
Opposition
Table of Contents
1. Need for a Regional Transportation Authority
1.1 Creation of an RTA p.1
1.2 Boundaries of the RTA p.3
1.3 RTA to Address Regional Transportation Issues p.4
1.4 RTA Schedule p.5
2. Other Structural Issues
2.1 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)/RTA Formation
2.1.a Opt-in/Opt out p.5
2.1.b Methods of Revenue Generation p.7
2.1.c Level of Sales Tax Burden p.8
2.1.d Share Back Provisions p.8
2.1.e Weighted Vote in Decisions by RTA Gov. Body p.9
2.1.f IGA Amendments & Adding New Communities p.10
2.2 Ballot Question
2.2.a Projects Listed in the Ballot Language p.10
2.2.b Use of Funds on I-25/Federal or State Routes p.11
2.2.c Percentage of Revenue to Administration p.12
2.2.d Transit/Multi-Modal Spending p.12
2.2.e Sunset of Sales Tax p.13
3. Post-Ballot Operations
3.1 Maintenance of RTA Projects p.14
3.2 Management/Administration of RTA p.14
4. Additional Questions Posed by City of Fort Collins
4.1 APF/Impact Fees p.15
Proposed North Front Range
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Issue Paper
Contrasting Statements in Support or in Opposition
1. Need for a Regional Transportation Authority
1.1 Creation of an RTA
A Regional Transportation Authority(RTA) is being proposed as a financial mechanism
to assist counties, cities and towns in their transportation needs A RTA as authorized
by Colorado law allows multiple cities, towns and counties to join together to plan,
finance, operate and manage many kinds of multi-modal transportation projects,
including, but not limited to roadways, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, passenger rail and
rideshare choices that improve the movement of people, goods and services
The goal of the RTA is to meet the transportation needs of the various member
governments and their collective vision for the development future of the North Front
Range. The process objectives are:
1) attain strong involvement and ensure elected officials and staff understand the
process;
2) design a realistic "picture of the future" in terms of the RTA;
3) identify implementation strategies for the project;
4) provide a forum for public outreach and ensure these issues are communicated
to the appropriate authorities; and
5) guide the public process to obtain information that will result in clear, focused
project decisions.
An RTA can accomplish the following:
1) finance, construct, and operate transportation projects and progress, and
2) maintain regional transportation systems, including:
- Roads, highways, streets - mass transit lanes - drainage facilities
- mass transit operations - sidewalks - lighting
- railroads - culverts - landscaping
- park-and-ride facilities - bus systems - paving
- toll collection facilities - airports - over/underpasses
- bridges - bikeways - parkways
* Note: This document was produced by North Front Range MPO Staff but has been edited and revised
by City of Fort Collins Transportation Staff for the purpose of this discussion. 5.17.06
RTA Issue Paper
Page 2 of 16
Question: Should a RTA be presented to the voters of the North Front Range region?
Pro's
• The North Front Range region is expected to see vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
increase from 11 million daily VMT to 25 million daily VMT by the year 2025, but
current financial forecasts indicate state and local governments will not be able to
construct the necessary facilities to accommodate this increase in VMT, let alone
maintain current facilities.
• Estimated transportation revenues for the North Front Range area through 2025 are
just over $1 billion dollars; creating an estimated $1.9 billion dollar shortfall for state
and local transportation projects and services on regionally significant corridors. A
regional funding source could apply dollars to local, county and state transportation
improvements to help lessen the shortfall.
• A regional funding source could generate dollars for an improved "local match," which
could strengthen partnerships with the Colorado Department of Transportation, the
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal Railroad
Administration.
• The proposed North Front Range Transportation Authority (NFRTA) is projected to
raise $18 to $30 million dollars on an annual basis.
• 20- ear regional population projections indicate that improved and expanded re
gional
transportation will be even more necessary in the future to reduce automobile
congestion, maintain the quality of life and preserve the environment.
• Diminishing federal and state transportation funding through (CDOT) has brought
many decision-makers to the conclusion that something must be done now,
regionally, to ensure Northern Colorado's economic well-being and continued quality-
of-life, regardless of decisions made at the State level. The gas tax (used for both
federal and state funding) has lost 817% of its purchasing power since 1957. The
amount of gas tax being collected by both federal and state governments is currently
falling again due to the introduction of more fuel-efficient vehicles and gasoline
conservation due to increasing prices.
Con's
• A single-purpose, special transportation district will only add to the complexity of
many local governments in the region trying to address needed transportation
investments.
• An RTA cannot be as responsive to the citizenry as a general purpose local
government since its board is appointed by local governments and not directly elected
by the region's residents.
2
RTA Issue Paper
Page 3 of 16
• County governments have the authority to create "transportation districts" already
without resorting to the Regional Transportation Authority legislation adopted by the
State.
• Another source of funding for transportation investments, besides the gas tax, will
soon be developed by the federal government, as well as state governments. The
falling gas tax will not be required in the future and therefore RTAs will not be
necessary.
• Sales tax, the principal source of funding in an RTA, will impact poorer residents much
more so than more affluent residents and is not user-based. Those who drive
automobiles should pay for transportation investments with a user fee — not be a
general population sales tax.
1.2 Boundaries of the RTA
A two-county RTA is being proposed(consisting of either all or parts of Larimer and
Weld Counties). The generally accepted proposed boundary would coincide with the
current MPO region boundary including the urban areas of both counties.
Question: Should the proposed RTA boundary coincide with the MPO boundary?
Pro's
• The urbanizing areas of both Larimer and Weld Counties are growing together. Fort
Collins, Loveland and Greeley will eventually become one large regional city. This is
happening faster all the time as many existing and new residents seek less expensive
housingon the outskirts of cities and towns. One RTA is necessary I
ary to deal with this
kind of development future.
• The North Front Range MPO has documented that over 40% of traffic on SH257 in
Weld County originates from Larimer County. Similar cross-usage on other facilities in
both Larimer County and Weld County means that a one-county RTA wouldn't make
sense since so many residents travel across the county lines every day for
employment, shopping, medical services, etc.
• Historically, 20-30% (?) of sales taxes collected in Fort Collins and Loveland (in
Larimer County) are paid by Weld County residents.
• Any improvements to I-25 or nearby north-south (e.g. LCR 5, WCR 7, WCR 13,
Timberline extension) roads would occur within both Larimer and Weld Counties.
• Any improvements to east-west roads (e.g. SH14, Prospect Road, Harmony Road,
SH392, Crossroads, and WCR 74) would occur within both Larimer and Weld Counties.
3
RTA Issue Paper
Page 4 of 16
• North-south transit (bus or train) would occur within both Larimer and Weld Counties.
East-west transit (bus or train) would occur within both Larimer and Weld Counties.
• There is a lot of public animosity toward creating more layers of government; more
bureaucracy, more costs. Every regional transportation authority is a legal jurisdiction,
similar to a special district, requiring a board, staff, headquarters, etc. One RTA would
minimize costs and additional special districts in the North Front Range.
• Any RTA created in the North Front Range would gain a seat on the board of the
North Front Range MPO Planning Council. One RTA is preferable to two, or three, etc.
Con's
• Most of the sales tax or other revenue for an RTA would be generated within Larimer
County, but most of the RTA projects would most likely be built in Weld County
because there are more regionally significant corridors in that county.
• The development agreements between Larimer County and its communities focus new
development principally in cities and towns while Weld County communities do not
P P P Y tY
enjoy the same assurances in their agreements. This could lead to less planned
development patterns in Weld County that may require more transportation resources
being directed to the eastern part of the region.
• County governments have statutory responsibilities for transportation. They, in
cooperation with their cities and towns, are the appropriate entities for raising the
necessary funding required by growth and development. A completely new
government, a single-purpose special district for transportation, that crosses county
boundaries, can not be as responsive to taxpayers as existing county governments.
1.3 RTA to Address Regional Transportation Issues
The amount of traffic congestion is increasing on the region's roadways The number
of people commuting for work purposes between cities in the region is growing. This
increases congestion and the wear and tear on our roadways, increasing safety risks
and causing travel to take more time.
Question: Is the purpose of the RTA to address regional transportation issues, local
transportation issues, or both? If limited to something like regional transportation
issues, what are the criteria for"regional" designation?
Pro's
• The previous RTA effort recommended that an RTA Master Plan, consisting of MPO-
designated Regionally Significant Corridors, be the basis for all spending of RTA funds.
These 19 corridors consist of state highways, county roads, city streets, railroad
4
RTA Issue Paper
Page 5 of 16
corridors and tributaries. The intent was to focus RTA revenue on those projects most
likely to contribute to the interconnectivity of the region's cities and towns, as well as
to adjacent regions.
Con's
• Local governments need money for transportation. We need to take care of
immediate needs — not regional "future" projects that don't solve today's financial
shortfalls.
• An RTA is simply a funding mechanism, not a government. It should not impose a
regional agenda on its local governments.
1.4 RTA Schedule
November 2007 is the current target date of the RTA Subcommittee. Any vote to form
and fund an RTA is required to occur at a November election.
Question: What is a realistic or optimal schedule for presenting an RTA proposal to
voters?
Pro's
• The RTA Subcommittee will recommend November, 2007 as the appropriate date for
an RTA to be considered by voters. This timeline matches the 2030 Regional
Transportation Plan timetable, allows more information to be included from the North
I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) program currently in progress, and gives
adequate time for coalition building by interested parties. The North I-25 EIS is
important since it could contain some appropriate "regional" transportation projects
for the RTA to assist in funding.
Con's
• November 2007 is too soon for a full discussion to take place regarding an RTA and all
its ramifications to local governments.
• A target date should not be set. Local governments should determine when an RTA
ballot initiative is appropriate based on their schedules — not a regional group.
2. Other Structural Issues
2.1 Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)/RTA Formation
2.1.a Issue: Opt-in/Opt-Out
An "Opt-out" provision would allow a member whose registered electors
voted not to approve the RTA the opportunity to withdraw. There are a
5
RTA Issue Paper
Page 6 of 16
variety of different options as to how that could occur, and there are
consequences to the RTA of each option. For example, a member could
withdraw alter providing notice by December 1, 2007, with the consequence
to the RTA that the sales tax from that community would be lost to the
regional effort.
Questions: In the event that the majority of a community's electorate fails to
pass the RTA proposal, should a community have the right in the IGA to elect to
withdraw from the RTA?
Is it necessary to have participation from all the local governments within the RTA
boundary? Are there certain entities that must participate in order for an RTA
proposal to move forward? Should entities have the choice to opt in or out of the
RTA in the future?
Pro's
• Leads to a unified region.
• Transportation improvements won't necessarily respect jurisdictional boundaries,
nor the users of those improvements.
• No Opt-out: If the overall region's residents vote to join the RTA, then individual
communities need to support that vote, similar to the recent Referendum C & D
situation here in Colorado. While Larimer County's majority supported Referendum
C & D, Weld County's majority did not. Even so, Referendum C was passed by the
majority of state voters while Referendum D was not. Therefore each county and
community respects the statewide vote. Otherwise there would be "pockets" within
the state causing serious troubles in implementing state laws. The same should be
true of regions, especially involving transportation where roads, highways or
transit routes crisscross the region.
• Special Opt-out: The current RTA Subcommittee is recommending requiring an
affirmative vote from the three largest cities (Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland — the
principal sales tax collection sites), as well as a majority of the region, in order for
the RTA initiative to pass. This is similar to the Roaring Fork RTA where a
minimum of Aspen and Glenwood Springs majority votes were required to create
the RTA.
• Penalties for Opting out: In the successful Pikes Peak RTA (Colorado Springs, El
Paso County), capital projects were only included for those governments that
joined in the RTA at the beginning. Should other local governments wish to join at
a later time, they would be entitled to maintenance funding only from the RTA - no
capital projects until the next vote (in ten years) for an additional list of capital
projects.
6
RTA Issue Paper
Page 7 of 16
Con's
• Every community or county should have the right to opt-out of the RTA even if the
majority of regional voters approved the RTA. This should be based on the vote
within that community or county and not based on the signing of an IGA prior to
that vote. Our governmental system is set up on city and county jurisdictions, not
regional. The local majority of voters (for or against) should be respected by the
local jurisdiction.
2.1.b Issue: Methods of Revenue Generation
According to RTA legislation, there are three methods to raise revenues for an RTA:
• Sales Tax— up to 1%
• Vehicle Registration Fee - up to$10 annually per registration
• Visitor Benefit Tax- up to 2%
Initial research with the Colorado Department of Revenue estimates that a % cent
sales tax could raise approximately$44 mi0ion dollars annually and a vehicle
registration fee of$10 could raise approximately$5-$6 million annually. The sales
tax source is assumed for this RTA. At this point is does not look like the Visitor
Benefit tax would raise enough revenue to be worth pursuing. The State s RTA
legislation ties sales tax collections only to the State sales tax base — what the State
can collect— which means the RTA sales tax would not be collected on food or
prescriptions
Questions: What type of revenue mechanisms should be considered; a sales
tax only, or a sales tax and a vehicle registration fee?
Pro's
• Sales tax is the principal generator of revenue for the RTA.
• Through a sales tax, everyone pays for transportation improvements — roads,
highways, transit, maintenance — everyone benefits.
• The revenue generated from a vehicle registration fee would come from actual
users of the transportation system.
• Every avenue allowed by the state law, including a vehicle registration fee, should
be pursued to raise additional revenue for the region and its communities.
Con's
7
RTA Issue Paper
Page 8 of 16
• The sales tax is a regressive tax. Lesser incomes pay a greater percentage of their
earnings.
• The cent sales tax generates somewhat less than what is required to meet the
needs of the region and its communities.
• If a vehicle registration fee is utilized, by state law none of the fees can be applied
to transit.
• The region's residents are already paying for many additional services when they
pay their vehicle registration fees.
2.1.c Issue: Level of Sales Tax Burden
What amount and duration of sales tax would be appropriate? A %, %z, % or 1
cent sales tax? For Fve years, ten years or more?
2.1.d Issue: Local Share Back Provisions
Local "share back"relates to whether or not a portion of the revenue of the RTA
is paid back to the members for expenditure on RTA approved projects, or on
other local projects The "share back"could be calculated as the member's
percentage of the overall RTA population. It could also be calculated as the
member's percentage contribution of overall sales and use tax revenue to the
IVFRTA. A 50% share back of RTA revenue has been suggested by some.
Questions: Should member communities of an RTA receive a local share back of
the total revenue collected? If so, should there be any limitations on how a
participating entity could use the local share back revenue? For example, could a
local entity use their share for local transportation projects without any regional
significance, or for local maintenance efforts?
Pro's
• Local needs are as great as regional needs (e.g. declining gas tax revenues).
• Shareback could take the place of a weighted vote on an RTA board, avoiding a
previously contentious issue regarding what communities would have the greater
voice on the new RTA board.
• Shareback allows local governments to make those transportation improvements
they determine to be necessary.
• Shareback provides a dedicated funding source for local improvements, transit and
maintenance.
• Shareback is an incentive for each of the region's local governments to participate.
8
RTA Issue Paper
Page 9 of 16
• Share back may become a more important source of transportation revenue in the
future as gasoline tax revenues continue to decline.
Con's
• Regional projects are the objective of a Regional Transportation Authority, not
local projects.
• Large regional projects will be more difficult to complete with share back taking a
part of the revenue.
• Resources are minimized when they are divided among a greater number of
needs.
2.1.e Issue: Weighted Vote in Decisions by RTA Governing Body
The North Front Range MPO has a provision in its Articles ofAssociation allowing
that some members may call for a weighted vote in certain circumstances The
weighted vote gives greater voting power in those circumstances to those members
having greater population. The state law authorizing the creation of RTAs provides
that the governing board of an RTA must include at least one elected official from
each member of the RTA communities
Question: Since some RTA communities are greater in population or
generate more sales tax than others, should the elected officials representing those
communities on the RTA board have a weighted vote based on population, or upon
a percentage of sales tax generated by that community?
Pro's
• Larger cities represent more of the region's population and therefore should have
more votes than smaller communities with lesser populations.
• One person; one vote concept.
• Weighted voting has never been used on the MPO Planning Council, even though
it exists, so there hasn't been an issue for smaller communities with weighted
voting.
Con's
• Weighted voting is a disincentive for smaller communities to participate.
• Doesn't provide a regional perspective.
9
RTA Issue Paper
Page 10 of 16
• Isn't really required if a balanced regional list of projects is established in the
original ballot language.
2.M Issue: Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Amendments and
Adding New Communities to RTA
The statutes authorizing the creation of RTAs allow the members of the RTA to
set forth in their IGA the procedure for amending the IGA. The RTA Board may
choose to require some kind of super majority vote of RTA members to amend
the IGA. The statute also sets forth the procedure for adding new community
members to an RTA. This inclusion procedure requires that the applying
communitys governing body approve the inclusion and that the RTA's governing
board approve the inclusion after a noticed public hearing and with a two-thirds
affirmative vote. The statute does not clearly spell out whether a community
seeking to join would need a popular vote to do so, although previous TABOR
litigation would indicate that local voting would iikely be necessary.
Questions: What process should be used for the IGA to be amended? How
should communities be allowed in the future to be added to and included in the
RTA?
Pro's
• Amendments to the IGA may become necessary and should be accommodated,
particularly for additional projects to be added if revenues are above projections.
• Other communities may want to join in the future and it may benefit the RTA to do
SO.
Con's
• No flexibility for other governments that may want to join later.
• No flexibility for new projects to be added to the RTA.
2.2 Ballot Question
2.2.a Issue: Projects Listed in the Ballot Language
The RTA statute requires a rural transportation authority board to authorize the
location of the rural transportation projects or system upon a 213 vote. It makes sense
that the 213 vote would not be necessary if the voters approve an IGA that specifically
describes projects the RTA will finance, construct, operate, and maintain.
Question: Should the ballot language creating the RTA include specific
projects to be completed with RTA dollars?
10
RTA Issue Paper
Page 11 of 16
Pro's
• Voters will more likely approve the RTA ballot initiative if specific projects are
listed, both regionally and locally.
• It's fair that the voters are aware of what they are voting for.
• Voters decide where RTA dollars will be spent— not a political decision by the
future RTA board.
Con's
• You lose flexibility in projects and programs by specifying too much.
• Defining projects upfront requires a lot of work before the ballot issue goes to the
voters.
2.2.1b Issue: Use of Funds on I-25/Federal or State Routes
By state law the Colorado Department of Transportation has a responsibility to
maintain and improve state highway systems in the North Front Range and this
region will still eligible for state and federal funding with a RTA in place.
However, with additional local funds the region will be better poised to contribute
the a local match to those state projects, which could accelerate their
implementation. At the same time, the Pikes Peak RTA has a provision in their
IGA that RTA road funds will only be used on local streets and roads, not on the
state highway system.
Question: Should RTA dollars be used to fund identified RTA projects on I-25
and/or state/federal highways in the RTA?
Pro's
• Residents see state highways as being many of the most congested facilities in the
region.
• More likely to pass since we have so many state highways in this region.
• Can leverage state and federal funding with RTA resources.
• May need state and federal environmental clearances.
Con's
• May need state and federal environmental clearances.
• Have to involve CDOT on these projects.
• Projects may be more expensive due to Bacon-Davis wage requirements.
11
RTA Issue Paper
Page 12 of 16
• Federal and state projects generally are the most expensive projects that could be
tackled by the RTA — consuming most of the dollars.
Focus regional RTA funds away from state facilities while allowing RTA local
shareback dollars to be used by local jurisdictions as they see fit, including
participating in state/local - public/private partnerships on state highways.
2.2.c Issue: Percentage of Revenue to Administration
A small percentage of the RTA revenue will be necessary for administration,
accounting and project management. The Pikes Peak RTA agreed to use up to
1% of its revenues for these administrative costs
Question: Should a ceiling be placed on the level of total revenue that can be used
for RTA administration?
Pro's
• Limited administrative costs known up front by the voter.
• There must be sufficient level of administration to make RTA projects successful.
1% seems appropriate.
Con's
• It doesn't take even 1% to administer the RTA. Pikes Peak is currently doing it for
.8%.
• There shouldn't be a ceiling on administrative costs since no one knows what it will
cost to administer over the life of an RTA.
2.2.d Issue: Transit/Multi-Modal Spending
One of the major discussion points in the past is how much of the RTA revenue
should be devoted to transit in the region. The Pikes Peak RTA agreed in the IGA to
commit 10% of the RTA funding to transit needs, with 90%going to the capital
costs and maintenance of streets.
Questions: Should RTA dollars be used to fund transit capital and/or
operations? Should there be specific allocations of resources to certain categories of
projects? For example, specifying a certain percentage for roads and a certain
percentage for alternative transportation? Should some of the resources be
allocated to the maintenance of existing and future improvements? If there are
specific allocations to certain categories, what should those allocations be?
Pro's
12
RTA Issue Paper
Page 13 of 16
• Creates a much needed, dedicated funding source for ongoing operational and
capital costs of transit.
• The future will require greater investments in transit to help move people between
urbanizing areas of the North Front Range.
• Needed for both regional and local transit since there is no dedicated funding
source at this time.
• Transit advocates are credited for getting their constituents out for the vote in the
Pikes Peak RTA ballot initiative (estimated at 5% of the voter turnout). This put
the measure over the 50% mark. An RTA can't succeed if transit is not included to
some level. (Transit capital and operations receives 10% of the Pikes Peak RTA
revenue.)
Con's
• Voters can't see progress as readily if RTA dollars go toward operations.
• Not enough people will ride buses and trains to make transit a viable investment
by the RTA.
2.2.e Issue: Sunset of Funding Source(s)
There has been considerable discussion in the past that the tax/fee increase
should sunset, or end, after some specific period of time. The Pikes Peak RTA
has a sunset provision of 10 years for the street capital portion of funding
(60916), and has no sunset provision for the transit and maintenance portion of
the funding.
Questions: Should the RTA tax/fees sunset? Should all the funding from the
RTA ballot proposal sunset (if a sunset if chosen), or should some portion not be
sunset; for example maintenance or transit operations?
Pro's
• Voters more likely to approve an RTA with an established sunset.
• Specific projects would be completed within that time period to indicate success
and accomplishments of the RTA.
• With a long enough sunset, you don't have to go back to voters more than once.
• A short sunset gives the RTA an opportunity to show success and then go back
to the voters again for additional project authorizations.
13
RTA Issue Paper
Page 14 of 16
Con's
• No dedicated, ongoing funding for long-term projects (e.g. transit) and ongoing
maintenance needs (including on the projects built by the RTA).
• There will be no other dedicated funding for transportation at the end of the
sunset. Note: In the 1% sales tax approved by the Pikes Peak RTA voters, only the
capital dollars sunset after 10 years. The maintenance and transit funds do not
sunset.
• Voters won't approve something without a sunset.
• Can't run transit without secure, continuing funding.
3. Post-Ballot Operations
3.1 Issue; Maintenance of RTA Projects
Any project or transportation system funded through the RTA will require
financial resources for maintenance in the future.
Question: How should long-term maintenance and repair of RTA projects be
addressed?
Pro's
• Maintenance is taken care of by the owners of the facilities.
• No long-term RTA responsibility for long-term maintenance.
Con's
• This would only increase local government and state maintenance budget
problems.
• There would be no long-term RTA responsibility for maintenance of facilities
completed with RTA assistance.
3.2 Issue: Management/Administration of the RTA
There must be an initial understanding and agreement in the IGA of who will be
responsible for daily oversight and management of the RTA and how projects will
be implemented and managed. The Pikes Peak RTA has a separate governing
board, but it contracts with the Pikes Peak Area COG to manage the funds and to
contract with the local membergovernments for projects. The member local
14
RTA Issue Paper
Page 15 of 16
governments then provide project and construction management and for
operating the transit system.
Questions: What organization(s) will handle the daily oversight and
management of the RTA and decide how projects will be implemented and
managed. What is the administrative structure for the RTA? Are administrative
functions like accounting and reporting, project identification and prioritization, etc.
performed through an existing structure like the MPO, by one or more of the
member entities through an intergovernmental agreement, or by a new
administrative entity? What entity(ies) is/are responsible for project and operational
management?
Pro's
• Could be potentially a neutral party.
• Opportunity for individual representation from each jurisdiction participating in the
RTA.
• Individual jurisdictions don't have to manage and administer the RTA themselves.
Con's
• Creates another layer of government.
• May become a very political entity. Would become the first special district on the
MPO Planning Council.
4. Additional Questions Posed by the City of Fort Collins
4.1 Minimum Local Funding and Adequate Public Facilities (APF)
Ordinances for Projects Receiving Shared RTA Revenues
Neither the MPO planning council nor a RTA has the authority to impose regional impact
fees or adequate public facility(APF)regulations Currently, most local governments
within the North Front Range region have implemented some form of impact fees, and
a few have adopted APFregulations The majority of the revenues generated from
impact fees are used as one-time payments that fund the expansion ofpublic facilities
needed to accommodate new development. The intent is for new development to pay
for its 'proportional Share"of the capital costs of additional infrastructure capacity.
The IGAs could be written to require that cities contribute some minimum percentage of
the total project costs from local revenues, either from impact fees or some other local
15
RTA Issue Paper
Page 16 of 16
revenue source. Without the matching local revenue source, the project would not be
eligible for the regional pool of RTA revenues The IGAs could also include some
requirement thatAPF ordinances be in place to regulate developments that impact
transportation projects receiving shared RTA revenues
4.1 Question: Should the City of Fort Collins advocate for minimum local funding
and APF Ordinances for those entities with projects which will use the shared RTA
revenues?
Pro's
• Impacts of growth would be funded with guaranteed levels of local dollars.
• Development projects with much regional impact would be less likely to occur
without accompanying adequate transportation infrastructure.
Con's
• Agreeing on local funding level would be difficult.
• Agreeing on APF requirements would be difficult.
16
ATTACHMENT
Loveland City Council's Position Statement
On the Concept of a
North Front Range Regional Transportation Authority
Date: March 7, 2006
Over the past several years there have been extensive discussions
related to a proposed Regional Transportation Authority (RTA),
previously Rural Transportation Authority. The following list of issues
have arisen throughout the course of that discussion, plus other have
developed out of recent RTA initiatives in Colorado Springs and
elsewhere. Presented here is the last best understanding of Council's
former position on the issues. The purpose of this discussion is to
confirm or amend those statements to reflect the current consensus.
The issues are divided into 3 categories: IGA/Formation, Ballot
Question, Post-Ballot Operations.
IGA/Formation
A. Issue: Opt-in/Opt-out
Description.- In the event that the majority of a community's electorate fails to
pass the RTA proposal, should a community have the right in the IGA to elect
to opt-out of the RTA. The 'hybrid Opt-out"option is such that a community
would have 30 days after the election to opt-out in the event that the local
electorate failed to pass the initiative.
Council Position: The Council is in favor of a "hybrid opt-out" provision, but
would be willing to negotiate this issue.
B. Issue: Level of sales tax burden
Description: The law provides the option of sales tax burden of any
increment up to 1%.
Council Position: The Council is in favor of a .5% sales tax.
C. Issue: Imposition of a vehicle registration fee
Description.• The law provides the option of imposing a vehicle registration fee
UP to $10 per vehicle.
Council Position: The Council is neutral on the issue of whether the IGA should
provide that the RTA has the authority to impose a vehicle registration fee. The
Council would agree to an IGA with or without such authority.
D. Issue: Share Back Provisions
Description: Should member communities of an RTA receive a share back of
the total revenue collections?
Council Position: The Council position is that each community should receive a
share-back. Share back dollars could be used by local jurisdictions on projects as
needed, but they must be used for RTA-approved projects. Each community
should also be able to partner with other jurisdictions by using share-back funds
to complete or supplement RTA-approved projects.
E. Issue: Weighted Vote in Decisions by RTA Governing Body
Description: The state law authorizing the creation of RTAs, provides that the
governing board of directors of an RTA must include at least one elected
official from each member of the RTA communities and since some RTA
communities are greater in population or generate more sales tax than
others, should these elected ofcials serving on the RTA board have a
weighted vote based on population or a percentage of sales tax generated by
that community?
Council Position: The Council is in favor of a weighted vote for each community
member of the RTA based on the percentage of sales tax generated for the RTA
by that community.
F. Issue: Amends to the IGA for Participating Communities
Description: Clear language should be defined on future IGA amendments or
provisions for adding additional members to the RTA.
Council Position: There is statutory language that addresses amends to the
organization.
Ballot Question
A. Issue: Projects Listed in the Ballot Language
Description: Should the ballot language creating the RTA include specific
projects to be completed with RTA dollars?
Council Position: The Council is in favor of specific RTA projects being listed in
the ballot language.
B. Issue: Use of Funds on I-25/Federal or State Routes
Description: Should RTA dollars be used to fund identified RTA projects on I-
25 and/or state highways in the RTA?
Council Position: The Council is in favor of RTA dollars being used for projects on
state and federal highways, but RTA funds must not be used to replace federal
or state funding for these projects.
C. Issue: Percentage of Revenue to Administration
Description: Should a ceiling be placed on the level of total revenue that can
be used for RTA administration?For example, Colorado Springs'RTA can only
use 196 of its revenues for administration costs.
Council Position: The Council does not yet have a position on this issue.
D. Issue: Transit/Multi-Modal Spending
Description: Should RTA dollars be used to fund transit capital and/or
operations?
Council Position: The Council's position is that no greater than 10% of total
collected RTA funds should be utilized to support transit or other multi-modal
projects such as rail, bicycle, or pedestrian. RTA funds used for transit should be
utilized to support regional transit routes, not replace or create local transit
funding. This does not preclude a community from utilizing its share-back funds
for support or supplementation of regional transit initiatives at a higher level.
E. Issue: Sunset of Sales Tax
Description: Should the RTA sales tax sunset.
Council Position: The Council is in favor of the RTA sales tax sun setting after 10
years.
Post-Ballot 9nerations
A. Issue: Maintenance of RTA Projects
Description: How should long-term maintenance and repair of RTA projects
be addressed?
Council Position: The Council believes this is an issue that needs to be addressed
in future IGA negotiations.
B. Issue: Management/Administration of the RTA
Description: What organization (s) will handle the daily oversight and
management of the RTA, and how projects will be implemented and
managed.
Council Position: No position has been identified on this issue.
RTA Structural Discussions Member Entities
ISSUES Latimer Co. Weld Co. Fort Collins Greeley Loveland Windsor Evans Berthoud Johnstown Milliken LaSalle Timnath Garden City
IGA/ FORMATION
Should have an opt-out, but Split on issue, but No opt-out provision in
Opt-in/Opt-out leaning toward no opt-
not for major communities out RTA.
Description: In the event that the majority of a
community's electorate fails to pass the RTA proposal,
should a community have the right in the IGA to elect to
opt-out of the RTA. The hybrid opt-ouY'option is such
that a community would have 30 days alter the election
to opt-out in the event that the local electorate failed to
pass the initiative.
If citizens of Loveland
Level of Sales Tax 0.25% Mostly settled on .5% support the RTA, tax to be
limited to .5%.
Description:The law provides the option of a sales tax
burden of any increment up to 196.
No VRF if 1 % sales Support imposition of
Vehicle Registration Fee $5 vehicle registration fee tax. Otherwise maybe VRF.
Description: The law provides the option of imposing a
vehicle registration fee up to $10 per vehicle.
Transit decisions from Council support the
Shareback Provisions shareback rather than regional Yes to Shareback (30% Shareback provision up to
project. Shareback needed for - 65%) 30% for regional noted
local flexibility projects.
Description: Should member communities of an RTA
receive a share back of the total revenue collected?
No position at this time - RTA governing y e
Weighted Vote awaiting more information Mostly No weighted by sales tax
generated or oonulation.
Description: The state law authorizing the creation of
RTAs, provides that the governing board of directors of
an RTA must include at least one elected official from
each member of the RTA communities and since some
RTA communities are greater in population or
generate more sales tax than others, should these
elected olhcials serving on the RTA board have a
weighted vote based on population or a percentage of
sales tax generated by that community2
IGA must be amended y
IGA Amendments & Adding New Members Intent - Joint Larimer and Weld No position at this time a least a super-majority
RTA awaiting more info (213) vote of the RTA
aovernina board.
Description: How should the IGA be amended and how
should new communities be allowed in the future to be
included in the RTA?
BALLOT QUESTION
Local transit improvements Ballot language should
Projects Listed in Ballot Language needed, but not specificprojects to be responsive to Absolutely include all the specific
transit customers RTA projects.
Description: Should the ballot language creating the RTA
include specific projects to be completed with RTA
dollars?
Support of RTA funds for
No, but have funds available State and Federal
Use of Funds on 1-25 / Federal or State Routes for cost-sharing for some No position at this time highway, but not be used
things (eg. Intersections). awaiting more info to replace federal or state
funding already slated for
Description: Should RTA dollars be used to fund
identified RTA projects on 1-15 and/or state highways in
the RTA2
No position at this time - adminisrative cost of 1 %
Percentage or Revenue to Administration awaiting more information Need a cap (.5 - 1/5) with the ability to amend
that amnunt in the IQA
Description: Should a ceiling be placed on the level of
total revenue that can be used for RTA administration?
For example, Colorado Springs'RTA can only use I% of
Transit ( Multi-Modal Spending RTA nal transit needed in No position at this time 10% of total collected
RTA fi mric
Description: Should RTA dollars be used to fund transit
capital and/or operations?
Sunset of Sales Tax No position at this time - 5-10 years Yes on Sunset - 5 - 15 Yes on Sunset - 10 years
awaiting more information years
Description: Should the RTA sales tax sunset2
POST-BALLOT OPERATIONS
Open to RTA w//maintenance Yes, but mostly to local Portion of RTA funds to
Maintenance of RTA Projects percentage (35 /o?) on RTA maintenance be used for maintenance.
Improvements.
Description: How should long-term maintenance and
repair of RTA projects be addressed?
Transparency necessary, Use existing structure - Local body wI e
Management / Administration of RTA wherever the RTA may be no new layer of responsible for the
housed. government management and
implementation of specific
Description: What organization(s) will handle the daily
oversight and management of the RTA and decide how
projects will be implemented and managed.
No position at this time - o pose ion a is Ime o posi Ion prove e a
Sunset of Maintenance and Transit Funding awaiting more information awaiting more this time - awaiting more
information information
Description: Should all the funding from the RTA ballot
proposal be sunset (ifa sunset if chosen), or should
some portion not be sunset,• for example maintenance or
transit operations;'
RTA Revenue Protections (Annual Totals)
Taxable Sales Taxable Sales Taxable Sales Taxable Sales Total Revenue Total Revenue Total Revenue Percentage Population Percentage
CTY MPO Jurisduction Q4 - 2004 Q1 -2005 Q2-2005 Q3-2005 .25 ¢ Sales Tax .5 � Sales Tax 1 2 Sales Tax Total 2004 Total Pop.
LarCo X Berthoud $ 53576,589 $ 43721 ,893 $ 63051 ,518 $ 53571 , 174 $ 54,803 $ 109,606 $ 219,212 0.46% 43930 1 .29%
WeldCo X Evans $ 155938,383 $ 145625,212 $ 175628,425 $ 175529,040 $ 164,303 $ 328,605 $ 657,211 1 .39% 165280 4.26%
LarCo X Ft Collins $ 529,478,990 $ 468,903,390 $ 511 ,796,575 $ 522, 122,333 $ 530807753 $ 1031615506 $ 2033235013 43.00% 126,903 33.23%
WeldCo X Garden City $ 39516, 102 $ 39565,360 $ 39360,099 $ 39604,567 $ 35, 115 $ 70,231 $ 1402461 0.30% 348 0.09%
WeldCo X Greeley $ 289,4655007 $ 262, 110,664 $ 289,991 ,843 $ 286,732,323 $ 238207750 $ 536417499 $ 1132825998 23.87% 853887 22.49%
LarCo X Johnstown (LarCo) $ 19052,401 $ 19112,041 $ 69654, 131 $ 59920, 193 $ 36,847 $ 73,694 $ 1479388 0.31 % 69122 1 .60%
WeldCo X Johnstown (WeldCo) $ 63526,306 $ 638027401 $ 738397407 $ 538647895 $ 67,583 $ 1357165 $ 2707330 0.57% (Rolled total to above line)
WeldCo X LaSalle $ 3,8131948 $ 4,0269660 $ 2,7999435 $ 4, 1099704 $ 36,874 $ 73,749 $ 1479497 0.31 % 1 ,857 0.49%
LarCo X Loveland �,015,855 $ 169,449,294 $ 197,209,781 $ 198,090,974 $ 1 ,961 ,915 $ 3,923,830 $ 73847,659 16.6l % 573485 15.05%
LarCo X Timnath $ 1 ,311 ,511 $ 192429938 $ 1 ,5419561 $ 1 ,693,507 $ 14,474 $ 28,948 $ 57,895 0. 12% 225 0.06%
LarCo X Windsor (LarCo) $ 23667,938 $ 231627535 $ 234257636 $ 239957077 $ 25,628 $ 51 ,256 $ 1022512 0.22% 12,711 3.33%
WeldCo X Windsor (WeldCo) $ 36,409,322 $ 32,254,096 $ 35, 174,329 $ 40,392,330 $ 360,575 $ 721 , 150 $ 1 ,442,301 3.05% (Rolled total to above line)
WeldCo X WeldCo (non-inc) $ 3138187747 $ 32,5071806 $ 37,9991571 $ 343726,699 $ 3427632 $ 6857264 $ 133707528 2.90% 163286 4.26%
LarCo X LarCo (non-inc) $ 7393209395 $ 659688,776 $ 859750,865 $ 100,2939476 $ 8129634 $ 196259268 $ 392509535 6.88% 529884 13.85%
$ 11 ,814,885 $ 23,62%770 $ 47,2597540 381 ,918
Share Back $$ - 50% 50% Share Back Based on Revenue 50% Share Back Based on Population
$ 113814788511 $ 23,629577011 $ 47,259,540 $ 11 ,8145885 $ 23,6295770 $ 4732595540
CTY MPO Jurisduction .25 Sales Tax .5 � Sales Tax 1 d Sales Tax .25 2 Sales Tax .5 rt Sales Tax 1 d Sales Tax
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note #1 LarCo X Berthoud $ 273401 $ 543803 $ 109,606 $ 763256 $ 152,513 $ 3057026
Larimer & Weld Unincorporated Pop. Est. I WeldCo X Evans $ 829151 $ 164,303 $ 328,605 $ 251 ,816 $ 503,632 $ 19007,265
(Larimer: Total Uninc. Pop - 68,681 ( Estimated in NFR MPO 77%) 1 LarCo X Ft Collins $ 23540,377 $ 53080,753 $ 1031615506 $ 13962,914 $ 33925,828 $ 738517655
lWeld: Total Uninc. Pop. - 42,857 ( Estimated in NFR MPO 38%) l WeldCo X Garden City $ 179558 $ 359115 $ 709231 $ 59383 $ 10,766 $ 219531
)Calculation ratio used to develop Sales Tax Pecentage 1 WeldCo X Greeley $ 19410,375 $ 29820,750 $ 59641 ,499 $ 19328,485 $ 296569971 $ 59313,941
LarCo X Johnstown (LarCo) $ 183423 $ 363847 $ 733694 $ 947694 $ 189,388 $ 3787776
Note #2 I WeldCo X Johnstown (WeldCo) $ 333791 $ 673583 $ 1357165 $ - $ - $ -
Larimer & Weld Unincorporated Pop. Est. WeldCo X LaSalle $ 18,437 $ 36,874 $ 73,749 $ 28,724 $ 57,448 $ 1149895
)Larimer: Total Uninc. Pop - 68,681 ( Estimated in NFR MPO77%) 1 LarCo X Loveland $ 9807957 $ 13961 ,915 $ 33923,830 $ 8897168 $ 1 ,778, 336 $ 33556,672
lWeld: Total Uninc. Pop. - 42,857 ( Estimated in NFR MPO 38%) 1 LarCo X Timnath $ 73237 $ 14,474 $ 283948 $ 33480 $ 63961 $ 133921
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LarCo X Windsor (LarCo) $ 125814 $ 255628 $ 515256 $ 196,612 $ 393,223 $ 786,446
1 Note #3 1 WeldCo X Windsor (WeldCo) $ 180,288 $ 360t575 $ 721 , 150 $ $ $
I In creating a value added calculation to reflect current figures 1 WeldCo X WeldCo (non-inc) $ 171 ,316 $ 342,632 $ 685,264 $ 251 ,904 $ 503,808 $ 13007,615
ILoveland's Q4 2004 Next Sales Tax Revenue has been replaced I LarCo X LarCo (non-inc) $ 406,317 $ 812,634 $ 13625,268 $ 818,006 $ 13636,013 $ 33272,025
lwith the Q4-2005 Figure (not yet reported by DOLA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .
tF7M'usted
lculations
Author Notes 10% off top for Transit $ 191819489 $ 29362,977 $ 49725,954 $ 19181 ,489 $ 29362,977 $ 49725,954
1 % to Administration $ 118, 149 $ 2367298 $ 472,595 $ 1187149 $ 2367298 $ 472,595
The figures in this document were developed New Total Revenue for Share Calc $ 10,515,248 $ 219030,495 $ 429060,991 $ 119162,503 $ 229325,006 $ 449650,013
from currently available sales tex reports through e Back Figuresthe Department of Revenue for the state of Colorado MPO Jurisduction 50% Share Back Based on Revenue 50% Share Back Based on Population
Date of Report Creation: February 27, 2006 LarCo X Berthoud $ 24,387 $ 48,775 $ 97,549 $ 725046 $ 144,091 $ 288, 183
Created By: Keith Reester, City of Loveland WeldCo X Evans $ 733115 $ 146,229 $ 292,459 $ 237,912 $ 4757823 $ 951 ,647
LarCo X Ft Collins $ 2,2601935 $ 4,521 ,870 $ 9,0431741 $ 1 ,854,528 $ 3,7091055 $ 7,418, 111
WeldCo X Garden City $ 153626 $ 31 ,253 $ 62,505 $ 53086 $ 10, 171 $ 20,342
WeldCo X Greeley $ 1 ,255,234 $ 2,510,467 $ 5,0201934 $ 1 ,255, 130 $ 2,510,261 $ 5,020,522
LarCo X Johnstown (LarCo) $ 163397 $ 32,794 $ 65,588 $ 8%465 $ 178,931 $ 3577861
WeldCo X Johnstown (WeldCo) $ 30,074 $ 60, 148 $ 1209297 $ $ $
WeldCo X LaSalle $ 163409 $ 32,818 $ 65,636 $ 27, 138 $ 54,275 $ 1087551
LarCo X Loveland $ 873,052 $ 1 ,746, 104 $ 3,492,208 $ 840,071 $ 15680, 142 $ 3,3%284
LarCo X Timnath $ 63441 $ 12,882 $ 25,763 $ 33288 $ 63576 $ 13, 152
LarCo X Windsor (LarCo) $ 11 ,404 $ 22,809 $ 45,618 $ 185,755 $ 371 ,511 $ 743,021
WeldCo X Windsor (WeldCo) $ 160,456 $ 320,912 $ 6417824 $ - $ - $ -
WeldCo X WeldCo (non-inc) $ 152,471 $ 304,943 $ 609,885 $ 237,994 $ 475,989 $ 951 ,978
LarCo X LarCo non-inc $ 361 ,622 $ 723,244 $ 1 ,446,488 $ 772,839 $ 15545,677 $ 3,0911354
Regionally Significant
East - West Corridors
LARIMER WELD
287 LCR64 WCR100 Nunn
14 Wellincton
U �J
U
4CRS2F I WCR90
CO Pierce
Cn
Poudre Rive Fo t - • 14
Ault
Trai l WCR82
- ' 14
Spring Creek ' mamma, ' — — ' i M
Trai I N � `. Eaton
�j . J I . ....... . WCR74
1 U arro y - 4P •. ve RM
ance
So •
� Poudre Rivers r. 37
Trai I PoN
L LOvel ossBMro - s
nA
At
• e h
M
:, Gre lev E
34
Big Thompson oAso� LO
Trail ' lliken -
• P
1 WCR44
• Q ati�
L= �e ,;oaa i ;Gilcrest LO
I60
WCR34
I Wad WCR32 U
N PI tteville
ss
LEGEND
- — = North Front Range Boundary
= Bike / Pedestrian Trails
NORTH FRONT RANGE
iFELSBURG
HOLT &
MRTROPOIITAN PUNNING OR"NIMON U L L E V I G
2/14/06 05-211
Regionally Significant
North - South Corridors
LARIMFR WELD
287 LCR64 WCR100 % Nunn
14 1 Wellincton
J �
1 —
< CRS I • — — • - � - — WCR90
CO Pierce
i Fo t Ault
Co 14 WCR82
r 1
M
( N � Eaton
o�� I U U U
---------- WCR74
...... ..
1 art y ve ance
37
9
(
( o t
d Paaidre firer
L Lovell ssro ' s 34
34To BM
I Gr le
;•. ai /- sey
( r
o �
' ( liken `°I 60 :-
• on Rive
, R5
WCR44
Little , ,oath ( i (crestLO
rt ou eo
Ix
m I WCR34 o,
( Mead r WCR32 U
N PI tteville ��
� a
25 D
LEGEND
- - • — • — = North Front Range Boundary
»»--»»--»»--»»» = Rail Lines
NORTH FRONT RANGE
o o11! r • . � HOLTFELSBURG
i HOLT &
MRTROPOIITAN PUNNING OR"NIMON U L L E V I G
2/14/06 05-211