Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/05/2007 - CITIZENS' REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (RTA) DATE: June 5, 2007 WORK SESSION ITEM PRESENTERS: RTA Steering FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Committee Representatives SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Citizens'Regional Transportation Authority(RTA)Steering Committee presentation on its proposal for an RTA. (majority report) GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Provide the Citizen Steering Committee with a clear indication of Council's level of support so they and the area cities will be able to judge the potential for getting the Fort Collins City Council's support of this proposal. 2. If Council is not prepared to support this proposal in its current form, provide feedback on what modifications would be needed to gain its support for the creation of a regional transportation authority and its willingness to support continued negotiations. 3. Designate one elected representative to negotiate any modifications to this proposal if there is a majority of the City Council in support the proposal or expressing an interest to actively pursue negotiations to develop an RTA. BACKGROUND The Problem Northern Colorado has experienced significant growth over the past decade,becoming increasingly interconnected, socially, economically, and environmentally. It is our responsibility as public officials,planners and far-sighted citizens to address that reality and ensure that our unparalleled quality of life is not compromised Most of our travel is already within the Northern Colorado region. If the projected growth in Northern Colorado is realized, the region's population will increase 70 percent from 400,000 to three-quarters-of-a-millionby2035. With the expected growth will come a further increase in travel within the region; in a matter of 25 years,total vehicle miles driven will double and travel times will take 50 percent longer. It is our opinion that we must act now with wisdom and foresight so that projected growth and congestion do not overwhelm us. As people live longer, a greater portion of our population will be seniors. It is anticipated that between 2005 and 2030,22.7%of the new growth in Northern Colorado will be people over 65 years of age. The region will experience growing demands to meet the mobility needs of this segment of the population. June 5, 2007 Page 2 Northern Colorado is approaching non-compliance with federal air quality standards with some pollutants today. Expected increases in vehicle traffic and congestion in the future will likely exacerbate vehicular emissions and total air pollution. This evident trend in pollution levels could have dangerous consequences, not just for our region's environment, but for the health of our residents. Deteriorating roads, long commutes and a lack of transportation alternatives are becoming an alarming fact of life in the region. Gas taxes, federal and state-funded improvements, and other transportation revenue sources are not keeping up with our transportation needs. The cost of transportation construction,operations and maintenance are not being covered by the current sources of revenue available. Residents of Northern Colorado are best positioned to understand and address the pending transportation needs in our communities. Other Front Range communities have taken steps over recent years to address their long-term transportation needs. Denver metro area voters passed the FasTracks plan and Pikes Peak region voters approved a Regional Transportation Authority. In the face of our growing transportation needs, it is time far Northern Colorado to consider such a resolute,forward-looking step of our own. The Process: north front range 1XaHFhMrRQM SUMMIT —`. t t a, --oo. FxawALwew=iam&mmw SRt NfiNMllilflN flfnl(.ILf principles rn,aassmMcmmm.z committee The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) process began in the summer of 2006 with North Front Range Transportation Choices Summit. North Front Range Transportation Choices Summit The North Front Range Transportation Choices Summit was a regional gathering through which participants helped identify priorities for the future transportation system of the region. Regional transportation choices explored included regional bus and rail transit service, arterial and highway widenings, interchange improvements, connections between cities and activity areas, bicycle and pedestrian mobility, system maintenance, and others. Attendees at the Summit included representatives from environmental groups, local governments, elected officials, the business community and residents from the region. Activities during the Summit focused on "CONNECTIONS," an interactive exercise in which participants planned the future transportation system by identifying needs, purchasing transportation improvements, and evaluating tradeoffs. Participants were divided among 27 tables to represent all parts of the region and diverse perspectives. Each group was given$1.3 billion in resources to negotiate, spend, and build their future transportation vision for the region. The Summit provided opportunity for dialog on how the region interacts and a consensus approach as to how to plan for our regional transportation improvements. June 5, 2007 Page 3 RTA Principles Committee Following the Transportation Summit, the RTA Principles Committee was organized in the fall of 2006 for the purpose of developing a set of principles to lay the groundwork for formation of a RTA Coalition to address critical transportation needs in the North Front Range region of Colorado. The Committee was made up of a group of twelve citizen volunteers that represent four communities of interest:business,environmental,civic,and governmental communities. Each community of interest was represented by three citizens on the RTA Principles Committee. In addition,the Committee had balanced representation between Larimer and Weld counties. The principles were developed through an iterative process. Committee members suggested possible principles; these were discussed; subgroups worked on refinements and ultimately, at the last meeting, a full group of principles was approved. Citizens' RTA Steering Committee The Citizens' RTA Steering Committee (Steering Committee) was formed in early 2007. The Steering Committee again was broadly based with representation from many perspectives from the regional community. A variety of interests were represented on the committee including business, environmental, transit, civic, social service, the elderly, the disabled, development, education, charitable organizations,the media,students,realtors,former elected officials,and average citizens. The group met weekly from the middle of February in both a large committee format and in subcommittees studying and discussing specific issues related to transportation in northern Colorado and the RTA. The group explored information from the Summit, examined the transportation problems and challenges facing northern Colorado, reviewed the product of the Principles Committee, contemplated and discussed the results of polling on the RTA issues, considered the merits of a variety of transportation improvements, and evaluated the challenges of meeting the varied needs of thirteen local jurisdictions. The Steering Committee even explored the nuances of the options available for the intergovernmental agreements that will be required to place the RTA on the ballot. Technical analysis was provided in a number of areas for the committee's benefit. They were supported throughout the process by experts in transportation,transit,economic forecasting,politics, polling, and a variety of other disciplines. All Steering Committee meetings were facilitated to ensure that all voices were heard and a thorough discussion of the issues was completed. Toward the end of committee deliberations, members and groups were asked to bring forward complete proposals that could be discussed and evaluated by the Steering Committee. In all, six proposals were brought forward. Each was given ample time for presentation and discussion - some even made the case for their proposal more than once. The Steering Committee did decide that they only wanted to move one proposal forward and most worked towards that end. A few members did not. The Steering Committee did not sanction a "minority report" nor were any groups ever asked to prepare one. Toward the end of their deliberations, the Steering Committee chose a particular course and the June 5, 2007 Page 4 attached final draft proposal represents the perspective of the vast majority of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee made their"final"proposal to include concepts and input from all Steering Committee members, groups, and approaches. Benefits: 1. It's a regional transportation solution plus provides flexibility for local jurisdictions to address their most pressing transportation needs. Fact: The plan provides local jurisdictions with approximately$275 million in local funds over the next 10 years to be used for their most critical local transportation needs. This could be for maintenance, transit expansion, or additional roadway improvements. 2. Tangible Regional Results - Addresses Critical Roadway Needs Fact: The plan will provide for regionally significant interchanges and roadway improvements identified by the public through polling and elected officials. 3. Solid Foundation for Transit- Sets the Stage for Building a Strong Regional Transit System Facts: The plan will provide for the first time ever, critical intra-regional bus services between cities and towns within the region and inter-regional bus service from the North Front Range to connect with RTD, and an express route to Denver's Union Terminal. This plan also provides for paratransit enhancements to connect communities and serve critically missingpopulations within our region. The plan also makes a statement for commuter rail and multi-modal transit stations. The collective transit proposal is to set the stage for a regional transit operator to serve our regional transit needs. 4. Citizen-Based Initiative to Address Needs Equitably Fact. Three months of hard work have been invested by the North Front Range Regional Transportation Authority Citizens Steering Committee to develop a regional solution to transportation,yet remain flexible to address local needs. Polling done during this process clearly indicates public awareness of the transportation problem and a willingness to pay to fix it. 5. The Time is Right- Provides our Region Leverage in Future Funding Allocations Fact: The Federal government has no finds to address our regional needs. The State has no funds to address our regional needs. If we want to solve our transportation needs, we must do it locally. Inaction will only allow our transportation problems to get worse. June 5, 2007 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Citizens' RTA Steering Committee Proposal. 2. NFRTA Citizens' Steering Committee Proposal Summary(May 23, 2007). ATTACHMENT 1 NORTH FRONT RANGE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CITIZENS STEERING COMMITTEE PROPOSAL REGIONAL SOLUTION + LOCAL FLEXIBILITY PLAN MAY 23 , 2007 This draft report documents the directions made at the May 16th NFRTA Steering Committee meeting for a North Front Range Regional Transportation Authority Regional Solution + Local Flexibility Plan. A supermajority of the Steering Committee supported the proposal. NFRTA BOUNDARY The primary objective is to establish a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) that includes the cities of Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and Evans, a portion of Larimer County, and the towns of Berthoud, Johnstown, La Salle, Milliken, Timnath, and Windsor. Though other counties and communities may join this effort, the following map and this document represents the proposed RTA boundary and objectives. FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Source Tax Rate Comments Sales Tax 1 % Sales Tax is based on State definition (excludes food) Use Tax 1 % Use Tax includes only motor vehicle and building material Motor Vehicle Registration 1 $ 10 1 Per Vehicle Per Year REVENUE PRODUCED (10 YEARS) Revenue Type Revenue Sales Tax $496,312,469 Use Tax $ 102,240,491 Vehicle Registration $5958555852 Total RTA Revenues $65894089812 RTA Administration Costs ( 1 %) $655845088 Net RTA Revenues $65198249724 Note: The projected revenues reflect population and expenditure growth but do not reflect any adjustments for inflation and are expressed in 2007 dollars. ALLOCATION AND DURATION OF TAX Type Duration % Allocation Net Revenue Allocation (10 Years) Regional Roadway 10 Years 45% $293 , 3215126 Regional Transit No Sunset 13% $ 84,737,214 Local Shareback 10 Years 42% $27317661384 Total 100 % $65198249724 North Front Range RTA Coalition Draft Citizens Steering Committee Proposal Regional Solution + Local Flexibility Plan — May 23, 2007 - Page I 4 Legend City Limits County Boundaries QRTA Boundary Generalized Summary Areas Berthoud Evans Fort Collins Greeley Johnstown La Salle Larimer Loveland Milliken Timnath I Windsor 0 1 2 4 N Miles A z e 5 FortCollins ' Win s Tim ath indsor I Lorimer Greeley tand n a. � Ev.ns ZVOP wi Salle Johnstown ero o r Mi►like e th d ee; North Front Range WO RTA Coalition Draft Citizens Steering Committee Proposal Regional Solution + Local Flexibility Plan — May 23, 2007 - Page 2 DESCRIPTIONS REGIONAL ROADWAY PROTECTS : The NFRTA Regional Roadway Projects accounts for 45 % of the collected net revenues. The following map and table identifies the roadway capital projects that could be funded by the RTA. The project list is preliminary and could change based on jurisdictions input, polling, and updated cost estimates. Roadway costs are estimated in 2007 dollars. Total revenues are based on non-inflated 2007 dollars and exceed project costs. This difference was to cover road construction inflation which has been occurring at a higher rate then overall inflation from consumer spending. Local shareback could be used in the out years if construction inflation causes roadway cost estimates to exceed revenues. The selection of projects was based on: 1 . Relationship between revenue allocations and location of project; 2 . Traffic impacts from various jurisdictions based on the regional travel model; 3 . Project Selection Subcommittee and NFRTA Steering Committee; 4. Input from local jurisdictions; and 5 . Input from the Summit and recent public meetings. The regional roadway project list is not prioritized. The RTA Board will choose priority by considering RTA funds available, the most efficient use of resources, availability of other sources of funds, and greatest benefit in reducing congestion. The RTA Board will also ensure the annual project selection reflects an appropriate geographic distribution of funds. The RTA Board may only fund other projects when the list is completed. However, no through-lane miles on I-25 may be reconstructed or added with RTA funds . It should further be noted that in order to maximize the number of regional roadway improvements and recognize the economic benefits to developments within proximity to the regional interchanges, 35% of all interchange funding will be required locally. This local funding could be provided from a variety of public or private sources, including local shareback, Special Improvement Districts, Metropolitan Districts, etc. North Front Range WO RTA Coalition Draft Citizens Steering Committee Proposal Regional Solution + Local Flexibility Plan — May 23, 2007 - Page 3 Owl Canyon Rd I LCR 70 / LCR 72 from US 287 to 1-25) , Grade Separation at Lemay CR II— ` I m u e I o w Vine e� n�rient C U -- Grade Separotio at Timberline J LCR 5 1 LC 44 Realignment ❑ 14 rt ins ,n Pros ct Rd LCR 44 Re rgnment C +5 9 23 O N 9 12� IX Q �— Q ranee armony Rd Timn 74 a; ® s WCR 44 Grade Separation o ig N _ a C441 enter Rd x^, xx 9 9 Lei Wind or x+ �" d w e o, st l o 0 o Od Bwd' ►- ss 3 3 n Grade Separation xl at 65th Ave v 34 Lo nd Greeley v ,7LIM I Tj < 40 , sa Wr ♦ 3 25 N 7 Grade Separation f Eva / N 7 Leo, 50 at 83rd Ave 0 S4 e John st n m ,7 ,x 601 �. ' - be N zs S ratio ' J VI C n 91 , p� � OC and -. ` 29 , 6 ' o M ,] ,7 C i E ® as 9 x Q > >e � p E 34 I Legend N Roadway Projects A ■ Selected Project 0 1 2 4 ❑ o Potential Project Miles North Front Range WO RTA Coalition Draft Citizens Steering Committee Proposal Regional Solution + Local Flexibility Plan — May 23, 2007 - Page 4 REGIONAL ROADWAY PROJECTS Total Other Improvements Project Cost Funding Funded Cost (2006$) Sources I-25/US 392 Interchange $2350005000 $850505000 $ 14,95000 I-25/Crossroads Interchange $2050005000 $750005000 $ 13005000 I-25/US 34 Interchange $ 1450005000 $459005000 $9J005000 I-25/1'rospect Interchange $2350005000 $ 8505000 $ 14,9505000 1 st St — Berthoud $ 1250005000 $0 $ 120000 LCR 1 /WCR 13 - US 34 to LCR 18/WCR 54 $4,466,667 $0 $4,46607 US 287 - Vine to SH1 $2458615913 $4500000 $2001 ,913 Harmony Rd - US 287 to I-25 $3613601681 $ 80000 $28,3605681 Prospect Rd — Sharp Pt to I-25 $710005000 $0 $70000 Timberline - Mulberry to Mountain Vista $4518400 $25338,462 $ L846,338 Timberline - Prospect to Mulberry $7, 846,500 $4,3841615 $3 ,46105 Timberline - Harmony to Prospect $919381900 $5 ,553M6 $4,385M54 Timberline - RR Grade Separation south of Vine $ 1858311600 $ 10,523M77 K3085523 Owl Canyon Rd / LCR 70 / LCR 72 - US 287 to I-25 $ 17,5825000 $0 $ 17,58200 US 34 - Denver to Boyd Lake $5165000 $0 $5 ,6505000 US 34 - Boyd Lake to I-25 $616501000 $0 $6,6505000 US 34 - I-25 to LCR 3 K5001000 $0 K50000 SH 402 - LCR 9 to I-25 $ 101588,235 $0 $ M588,235 Two Rivers Pkwy - 20th St to SH 402 $850005000 $0 $850005000 Two Rivers Pkwy - SH 402 to SH 60 $29,267J 51 $0 $29,2679151 US 85 - WCR 74 to SH 392 $25857J43 $0 $2, 8579143 US 85 - SH 392 to US 85 Bypass $ 154285571 $0 $ 154285571 US 85 - US 85 Bypass (N) to WCR 54 $552385095 $0 $552385095 US 85 - WCR 54/37th St to WCR 48 $353335333 $0 $35333,333 US 85 - WCR 48 to SH 60 $75142, 857 $0 VJ42, 857 US 34/83rd Ave Grade Separation $ 1050005000 $3550000 $6,50000 TOTAL Project Costs $322J28,446 $6693009000 $25694289446 TOTAL Revenue $29393219126 Notes: (1) Roadway projects are not prioritized. (2) Total Roadway Revenues exceed Project Costs to accommodate higher construction cost inflation compared to overall inflation. North Front Range WO RTA Coalition Draft Citizens Steering Committee Proposal Regional Solution + Local Flexibility Plan — May 23, 2007 - Page 5 REGIONAL TRANSIT PROTECTS : The NFRTA Regional Transit Projects account for 13 % of the collected net revenues. Regional Transit includes four efforts : Regional Transit, Multi-Modal Transit Stations, Paratransit, and Commuter Rail. The vision for transit in this proposal includes both a short-range and long range component. The short-range vision is to establish a functional albeit limited regional transit system in northern Colorado. This transit system will connect the communities in the region, link northern Colorado to the Denver Metro area and the Regional Transit District (RTD), coordinate and enhance services to growing senior and disabled populations region-wide, and lays the groundwork for future rail service. This proposal represents the first installment toward reaching a larger vision. The longer range vision sees a transit district in northern Colorado where services are enhanced as demand increases and resources become available. This regional transit district will be fully capable of providing all types of local and regional transit service. Those services are likely to include: car and vanpooling, paratransit, demand response, fixed route bus, bus rapid transit, and rail services for northern Colorado and beyond. Proposed transit elements include : Regional Transit: Regional Transit intra-regional and inter-regional services . • The first is regional bus service between the major cities of Greeley, Loveland, and Fort Collins. Additional regional service connects the communities of Johnstown, Windsor, and Milliken, to the regional system. • In addition to the intra-regional service between communities within the North Front Range, there are three inter-regional routes proposed to tie into RTD . This would include an express limited transit service from Greeley to the RTD connection in Brighton via US 85 ; and a similar express limited regional transit service from Fort Collins, Loveland, and Berthoud to the RTD service in Longmont via US 287 . • True express service between Northern Colorado and Denver Union Station would also be established with frequencies conducive to attracting a large ridership (approaching a quarter million passengers annually). This service acts as the first investment in future bus rapid transit (BRT) or rail service and provides flexibility to meet the conditions of any North I-25 EIS outcome. • Regional transit spending will increase to $7 million annually from the present base of approximately $500,000. This represents an average annual increase of 1 ,400%. • Funding may be used for regional multi-modal transfer centers where local and regional transit services (public/private) come together to provide coordinated transit in the region. These funds can leverage funds from other sources such as the Federal Transit Administration. These centers may also establish the sites for future bus rapid transit (BRT) or rail stations. • To the extent funds are available and opportunities exist, the RTA Board will see to establish additional intra- or inter-city transit in the most appropriate fashion and may take any other actions that are in support of the longer term vision for a unified regional transit agency, as determined by the RTA Board. • The future possibility of receiving federal funds for commuter rail in northern Colorado is dependent upon northern Colorado ' s transit efforts becoming part of a Record of Decision for the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Achieving that is no small feat. In order to North Front Range WO RTA Coalition Draft Citizens Steering Committee Proposal Regional Solution + Local Flexibility Plan — May 23, 2007 - Page 6 receive a Record of Decision for the North I-25 EIS to allow federal funds to be received, there is a requirement that: 1 ) regional transit service must be provided along the 1-25 corridor (broadly defined), 2) a dedicated source of funds for this service needs to be identified, and 3 ) there needs to be an operator identified. If the RTA is approved with transit service provided by the RTA, a Record of Decision will be met to include transit and the longer commuter BRT/RAIL goal. Currently, the annual fixed route transit service within the region is approximately $ 8 .2 million. Total fixed route transit funding within the region would increase by 87% with the addition of RTA regional transit funds. Paratransit: Currently, the existing paratransit service provided by jurisdictions within the region are not connected. The NFRTA proposal provides additional paratransit funding to provide service connectivity between existing paratransit programs either through additional service, coordinated scheduling and administration, or both. Current paratransit funding from regional jurisdictions is approximately $4 million annually. This proposal would increase paratransit funding by approximately 46%. Rail: The NFRTA proposal is to establish revenue to support future commuter rail. This revenue may be used for right-of-way acquisition, feasibility studies, or other rail oriented expenditures. If no projects are deemed likely at the end of each 10-year RTA period, the set aside funds may be transferred to other transit projects at the RTA Board' s discretion. The target for the annual rail revenue is $ 1 million. This equates to 1 . 6% of the total RTA revenues within the NFRTA area. These funds can leverage funds from other sources such as the Federal Transit Administration. REGIONAL TRANSIT PROJECTS Annual Costs and Revenues Total 10 -Year Project Fare Annual RTA Cost Cost Revenue Funded Projection (2006$) RTA Cost Intra-Regional Service Greeley — Loveland Fort Collins — Loveland $ 1948400 $ 179,414 $ 1 , 305 ,466 $ 139054,660 Johnstown - Milliken - Windsor Inter-Regional Service c Greeley — RTD $3 ,613,944 $ 151215990 $29491 , 954 $24,919,540 Loveland — RTD 94 Express NFR - Union Station $2, 0341672 $ 1 , 1051800 $9281872 $9,288,720 Total Fixed Route Transit $791339496 $294079204 $497269292 $47,262,920 Service Multi-Modal Transit Stations $7505000 $0 $75000 $795009000 Paratransit Enhancements $250005000 $ 1009000 $ 1 ,90000 $1990009000 Rail $ 1 ,000,000 $0 $ 150005000 $1090009000 Total Transit Costs $1098839496 $295079204 $893769292 $8397629920 Total Transit Revenues $8497379214 North Front Range WO RTA Coalition Draft Citizens Steering Committee Proposal Regional Solution + Local Flexibility Plan — May 23, 2007 - Page 7 • • • - ' 28 �a - y 25 i 8 74 5 85 32 39 392 37 68 1 `64 26 27 - 34 34 i 3 17 4 402 64 sr 25 8 60 60 56 60 85 87 Longmont Expre s Route to Denv Union Station to Brighton Legend N Demand Response Area Existing Transit Routes A Intea-Regional Transit within North Front Range 0 I 2 Inter-Regional Transit to RTD IIFZMOZ� — Existing Rail Corridors Miles North Front Range WO RTA Coalition Draft Citizens Steering Committee Proposal Regional Solution + Local Flexibility Plan — May 23, 2007 - Page 8 LOCAL SHAREBACK: The local shareback percent is 42% of total net RTA revenues distributed by population. Local shareback can be used for a variety of transportation related efforts, including roadway capital projects, transit, road maintenance, local share of regional interchanges or additional regional roadway, or transit projects. Local shareback money requires maintenance of effort. Maintenance of effort is a fixed-dollar amount based on average amount of general funds used for transportation over the past five years in two categories : transit and all other transportation related expenditures. Maintenance of effort in transit means that funds must be used to maintain a transit base level of service and cannot be used for other transportation related projects. All other transportation related efforts will be maintained at the general fund calculation, but may be spent on any transportation related projects. The estimated 10-year shareback by jurisdiction based on existing and forecast population is presented in the following table. Population Percent Population Revenue 42% Local Location 2005 2010 2015 (2010) Allocation Shareback (est.) Combined Berthoud 5 ,670 11 ,596 17,521 2 . 6% $ 17,039,018 $7, 1565388 Fort Collins 1465722 1565660 1661597 35 . 3 % $230J94,253 $9601 ,586 Johnstown 75304 125168 175032 2 . 7% $ 175879,508 $7,509,393 Larimer County 49,548 51M70 521592 11 . 5 % $75 ,041 ,622 $31 ,517,481 Loveland 63 ,538 71 ,946 80,353 16.2% $ 105 ,716,556 $44,400,954 Milliken 45923 45901 4, 879 1 . 1 % $752015468 $350245617 Timnath 293 307 6,920 0. 8% $5 ,30001 $2,226,034 Windsor 151569 155940 161311 3 . 6% $23 ,422,037 $9, 8375256 Evans 175571 185713 191854 4.2% $27,496,649 $ 11 ,548,593 Greeley 819614 955522 1091430 21 . 5% $ 140,358, 837 $58,950,712 La Salle 1 ,484 11480 19475 0. 3% $2, 174, 694 $913 ,371 Total 3949236 4439603 4929964 100% $651 ,824,724 $27397669384 North Front Range WO RTA Coalition Draft Citizens Steering Committee Proposal Regional Solution + Local Flexibility Plan — May 23, 2007 - Page 9 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS Issue Resolution Additional comments Limit to no more than 1 % with Attorney to add additional language RTA provision that the RTA board will not that calls for a proactive review of Administration add staff or operate any facilities or members who are managing projects transit services. and services. Single member votes unless two Same process as used by MPO. Weighted Voting members request, then weighted voting Population to be adjusted every year as based on population. defined in IGA. Amendments and Allow new members if all existing New Members members agree and voters approve. Annexations allowed in once per year. Bonding OK on debt financing (bonding per se may not work, but other forms possible. Including Federal Agreed that Federal and State routes in and State Routes principal could be addressed. No opt out. Any jurisdiction agreeing to Opt In / Opt Out join the RTA will be bound by the results of the vote across the region. Governing Body One ( 1 ) Elected official per jurisdiction. All jurisdictions are required to impose, The RTA Board will annually review collect and use the proceeds from a each jurisdictions level and use of the Transportation meaningful transportation impact fee impact fee and may withhold 50 Impact Fees that is consistent with the level of fee percent of the shareback if the Board imposed by the majority of the determines the jurisdiction is not self jurisdictions . imposing an appropriate fee. Shareback Shareback revenues will be distributed Distribution on the basis of population and not tax revenue point of collection. North Front Range WO RTA Coalition Draft Citizens Steering Committee Proposal Regional Solution + Local Flexibility Plan — May 23, 2007 - Page 10 ATTACHMENT NFRTA Citizens Steering Committee Proposal Summary ( May 23 , 2007 ) Issues SC Recommendation Rationale Core Issues for Discussion One (1 ) cent with .58 cents for regional Addresses regional roadway and transit needs roadways and transit, and .42 cents while at the same time allowing local 1 . Level of Sales Tax available to the local jurisdictions for jurisdictions to decide where to place local shareback. shareback to address their most pressing local transportation needs. 45% Regional Roadway, The scenario balances Greeley's minimum for 13 /o 2. Split between Capital Roadway Projects, ° Transit, maintenance with the need for a solid foundation abilitytransit and the Transit, and Local Shareback. 42% Local Shareback for regional to commit to critical roadway improvements. 3. Shareback Distribution Distribution based on population. Equitably distributes funds throughout the region based on point of origin of travel trips. Voters prefer measures that focus on specific 10-year sunset on the capital projects with a set timeline. The sunset allows 4. Sunset improvements and shareback; no sunset the region to take stock of what the State has on transit. done on transportation, how transit funding has evolved, and potential shifts in local priorities in considering renewal of the RTA. Maintenance of effort is based on the average amount of general fund The SC believes that the maintenance of effort revenues used for transportation in the clause will be an important commitment to make 5. Maintenance of Effort Clause past 5 years. All maintenance of effort to the voters. In particular, the RTA needs to be funds are to be used for transportation a step forward for transit and ensure that funds purposes and in particular, transit funds dedicated to transit increase over time. must be continued to be used to support transit. Other Issues The intent is to fund solutions to the region's 6. Managing Agency The RTA will be a pass through agency. transportation, not to create another layer of government. Lodging taxes were not included because of 7. Inclusion of Other Revenue Sources Up to 1 % Sales and Use Tax and $10 their low revenue potential. Motor vehicle motor vehicle registrations. registration fees connect the problem to paying for the solution. The SC recommends transitioning to a The SC proposal provides the building blocks for 8. Transit System regional transit system in the future. The creating a regional entity in the future that can SC proposal provides the building blocks help leverage Federal and State funds to benefit for regional action. the region. Supports a requirement for all 9. Equity Among Jurisdictions communities to be collecting reasonable impact fees. No opt out provision. Any jurisdiction 10 . Opt out agreeing to join the RTA will be bound This provision is consistent with addressing a by the result of the vote across the regional problem with regional solutions. region. Weighted voting is rarely used because it isn't Single member votes unless two needed. The IGA should include language to the 11 . Weighted Vote members request voting based on effect that the RTA will prioritize capital population. improvements and distribute funds proportionately. Limit to no more than 1 % with provision The intent is to fund solutions to the region's 12 . RTA Administration that the RTA Board will not add staff or transportation, not to create another layer of operate any facilities or transit services. government. Allow new members if all existing Provides flexibility to respond to adjust RTA 13 . Amendments and New Members members agree and voters approve. boundary and respond to annexations. Annexations allowed in once per year. 14. Bonding Allow debt financing. Federal and State routes can be funded Some of the region's most critical needs are on by the RTA, but 1-25 widening is Federal and State roads like North College in 15. Federal and State Routes excluded from consideration. Fort Collins and US 34 in Loveland. With Interchanges are included with the respect to interchanges, the State has said that condition of a 35% co-pay. it will not be funding interchanges in the future. 16. Governing Body One (1 ) elected official per jurisdiction.