The URL can be used to link to this page

7A - Transportation Master Plan Update - Phase 2 DRAFT LIST OF POTENTIAL FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Action Required to implement Prima Financial Burden Revenue Existing Existing Non-Boulder Federal, T M RATE Used Now For Council Popular Vote Law Change Other to Boulder Boulder Visitors, New Growth Motor Vehicle State Transportation Master Plan Transportation Action Residents Businesses Employees Users Other FEDERAL STATE & COUNTY 1. TEA-21 Surface Trans. Program NI 2. TEA-21 Transportation Enhancements tM 3. TEA-21 Congestion Mitigation tM IM 4. TEA-21 Urbanized Area Formula Grant 0 (RTD) lel 5. TEA-21 New Starts 0 wl RTD IM 6. TEA-21 Value Pricing Competitive IM 7. TEA-21 Formula Grants -Eld.l Disabled Special Transit competitive $ tel 8. Land & Water Conservation Fund competitive $ !el 9. State Highway Users Trust Fund IM 10. TABOR Growth Dividend ? M► 11. Dedicated Revenue Source: Transit ? ? 12. Colorado Conservation Trust Fund 0 13. State Trails Program Competitive $ 0 14. Motor Fuel Tax (wholesale) ? 0 15. Motor Vehicle Registration Fee tel Increase 0 16. Regional Transportation District 0 0 0 0 17. County Road & Bridge Fund 0 0 rM 18. Specific Motor Vehicle Ownership Tax No: General Fund 0 19. New Wheels Motor Vehicle Reg. Fee. tM ? $ 20. Sales Tax for Mass Transit IM CITY TAXES FEES and DEBT 21. Property Tax W Increase 1« 1M 22. Sales Tax 1el 0 Increase !M IM 1M 23. Motor Vehicle Sales & Use Tax Part of above 0 Increase ? 24. Use Tax 0 W Increase tel IM 25. Accommodations Tax W Increase Isl 26. Development Excise Tax 0 0 Increase 27. Project Investment Fee ? 28. Tax Increment Financing 0 ? 29. Head Tax IM ►M 30. Motor Fuel Tax (retail) ? 31. Transportation Utility Fee 0 0 0 32. Peak Period Pricing (Tolls) rM ? 33. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Fee 0 ~ 34. Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) Fee W ? 35. Vehicle Performance Fee W ? 36. Off-Street Parking Space Fee CAGID / UHGID W Increase ? 1M 37. On-Street Parking Fee No: General Fund 0 Increase ? 1M 38. Peak Period Parking Fee ? DRAFT LIST OF POTENTIAL FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Action Required to Implement Prima Financial Burden Revenue Existing Existing Non-Boulder Federal, T M PRATE Used Now For Council Popular Vote Law Change Other to Boulder Boulder Visitors, Now Growth Motor Vehicle Transportation Action ~ Users State, Transportation Master Plan Residents Businesses Employees Other 39. Bicycle Fee 0 $ 40. Toll on Roads 7 r~ 41. Advertising 0 $ 1M 42. Cost-Effective Actions 0 Savings None REGULATORY TOOLS 43. Annexation Agreements 0 44. Zoning Ord.; Subdivision Regulations 0 45. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance 0 1M DISTRICTS AUTHORITIES, UTILITIES & INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS 46. Business Improvement District Petition 47. Special Improvement District Petition $ rM iM 48. General Improvement District 0 Petition iM 49. Metropolitan District Dist. vote IN MI 50. Transportation Utility ►M 1M 51. Trans. Management Associations >•i $ tM 52. Intergovernmental Agreement ? 53. Rural Transportation Authority tM 54. Regional Service Authority 1M PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES 55. City Contribution to Districts tM ttl 56. Joint Development ? 57. Sale/Leaseback ? >M 58. Lease/Purchase >•i 7 tM 59. Subsidies & Incentives ? 1M NONPROFIT VENTURES 60. Private Non-Profit Foundation $ 61. Homeowners Associations hi $ 62. Civic Association W $ 63. 63-20 Corporation $ DEVELOPERS & PROPERTY OWNERS 64. Const. of Imp.: Developer's Share t« 65. Const. of Imp.: Cost Participation 1/► 66. Right of Way Dedication ti 67. Vol. Easements and Land Dedication 0 t« 68. Tax-Generating Development t« ? None Annual Revenues Key: $ = Less than $100,000; _ $100,000 - $1,000,000; _ $1,000,000 to $2,500,000; = More than $2,500,000 t M PPDATE- Transpoit-&-m-aster SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE T Plan APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE QUANTIFICATION FEDERAL, STATE AND COUNTY (Federal/State) Under TEA-21, the Colorado Department of Transportation CDOT uses a portion of these funds for priority Federal funding for this and other TEA-21 TEA-21 has authorized funding for a six-year This is a national program with a + When CDOT sponsors a project, only In FY 2002, there were two DRCOG TIP 1. Transportation (CDOT) receives formula-based funds for roads, bridges and safety state highway improvements. Another portion, projects is primarily from the federal motor period (FY 1998 through FY 2003). Funds that formula-driven allocation among federal and state funds are used. When a projects in the City of Boulder: on US 36 Equity Act for the 21' improvements match these revenues on a 80/20 (federal/state) "small urban projects" funds, is distributed to fuel tax; $0.18.4 per gallon of gasoline and are allocated to each State and metropolitan States. project is funded through DRCOG, then totaling S1,383,000 including $159,000 in Century (TEA-21) basis. CDOT must divide 50% of these funds (after set-asides for metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for $0.244 per gallon of diesel. planning organizations are set by federal there is a small local government match local (City) funds. safety and enhancements) by population between areas of 200,000 further distribution by project. funding formula. that typically ranges between 7% and In FY 2003, the DRCOG TIP includes or more and the remainder of the state. For the remainder of STP Federal and state funds are used to finance 15%' four road reconstruction projects in the TEA-21 /CDOT funds, CDOT establishes expenditure targets (fiscal constraints) for For Boulder, the MPO is the Denver Regional these projects. Cityro Boulder that total $4,830,000, each transportation region. Council of Governments (DRCOG). Boulder + The volume of funding to the State and Surface Treatment including E664,000 local (City) match. Pro competes with other jurisdictions to get projects it No local participation is required for the Denver metropolitan region is These are SH 93: Broadway-Baseline; US Program Within each transportation region, project priorities are wants on the DRCOG Transportation projects sponsored by CDOT; some local predictable for the duration of TEA-21. 36 (28 St) at Iris Avenue (SH 119); established through a process that involves CDOT, and the Improvement Plan (TIP), which then goes into the participation, typically less than 15%, is SH93/SH7 (Broadway) from University to Metropolitan Planning Organizations, such as the Denver State Transportation Plan (STIP). Ten percent of often required for projects prioritized by 2 Limited range of eligible project. a (USC Title 49, Section Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Projects are the Surface Treatment Program funds are DRCOG if they are to receive approval for Pine and 36 (28 St) Arapahoe Ave. to 1108 Boulder Creek. compiled into the Statewide Transportation Improvement earmarked for "transportation enhancements." (See inclusion in the TIP and ST[P. - Future federal funding is uncertain; TEA- Program (STIP). below.) 21 ends in fiscal year 2003. (Federal/State) Under TEA-21, 10%of the Surface Treatment Program revenues Enhancement funds may be used for bicycle and Federal and state funds are used to finance Funds to the State are established by federal This is a national program. that is a - There is significant competition for funds In FY 2002 in the City of Boulder, there must be set aside for transportation enhancements, which include pedestrian path improvements and street-related these projects. These revenues are funding formula. Within Colorado, funds subset of the Surface Transportation at the metropolitan level.. was one enhancement project, 2. TEA-21/CDOT facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, scenic easements, landscaping, and other similar projects. principally from federal and state motor fuel allocated to each transportation region by the Program, described above. + Funds are available on a 80/20 (federal to Wonderland Creek Underpass at SH 119, Set Aside for landscaping, and other improvements. Funds are distributed to the taxes. CDOT Commission. $1.88 million (local share: $125,000) In Transportation State (CDOT), which, in turn, distributes funds to DRCOG for Funds may be particularly useful to finance existing local) match. FY 2003, one project: Iris Avenue Two project funding selection. Enhancement funds are pan of the deficiencies. Twenty percent local participation is - Future federal funding is uncertain; TEA- Mile creek Park is proposed: $1.0 million Enhancements Surface Transportation Program.. Project selections are the same required. 21 ends in fiscal year 2003. (local shire $125,000) as for the Surface Transportation Program. (1ederal/Smte) This TEA-21 program is for state and local government projects Boulder is one of five nonattainment areas eligible Federal funding is primarily from the - Boulder competes for CMAQ funds at a The program is applied nationally. + For projects funded through the CMAQ In FY 2003, Colorado anticipates receiving and programs that meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and for CMAQ funds. (Others are Colorado Springs, federal fuel tax. regional level. The City of Boulder received a program , substantial federal funds are $23,867,000. Approximately S16,161,0W 3. TEA-21 /CDOT are within areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Denver, Fort Collins and Longmont) CMAQ grants for community used. was apportioned to the Denver Congestion Mitigation Quality Standards (nonattainment areas). Funds are apportioned + This program is well established and transit service. The Stampede, metropolitan area. / Air Quality (CMAQ) to states on a formula basis that is weighted by state's share of Eligible projects include transit improvements, requires no legislative action or vote. - Future federal funding is uncertain; TEA- population in nonattainment areas and the degree of pollution. transportation demand management programs, and Also, The DASH receives CMAQ 21 ends in fiscal year 2003. In FY 2003, the Stampede will receive public fleet conversion to cleaner fuels and others Historically, Boulder has contributed funds. $480,000 in federal funds; matched with that facilitate cleaner air. between 201% and 50°/u to its CMAQ 5120,000 in local funds. The DASH (1JSC Title 49, Sec. 1110) projects. Transit Service is receiving substantial The Stampede and the DASH Transit Service have CMAQ funds in FY 2003 through 2006. been funded with CMA funds. (Fed-al/Regional) This is the primary federal source of RTD funding for capital These funds are applicable to planning, operations, Federal and state funds are used to finance Funds flow from the FTA to the RTD on a The RTD received about $29.97 million in maintenance projects that are not part of a new start grant. maintenance and capital costs associated with transit these projects. These revenues are formula-basis. Funds are available to transit + The RTD receives substantial federal FY 2002 and is scheduled to receive about 4. TEA-21/ Federal These TEA-21 funds are for transit capital and preventative and Para-transit services. principally from federal and state motor fuel providers throughout the county revenue through this program. $31.9 million in FY 2003. Transit Admin. A maintenance and include 1% for transit enhancements. The funds taxes. that are located in communities of 50,000 or more. - Future federal funding is uncertain; TEA are awarded directly from the FTA to transit organizations on a Funds are awarded directly to the RTD, which 21 ends in fiscal year 2003. Urbanized Area prioritizes its capital needs within its six-year Local participation of between 20% and Formula Grant formula based on population, population density and transit operating data. In the Denver Metropolitan area, these funds are Transit Development Program UDP). To benefit 50% is typically required. Program awarded to the RTD. from these funds, the City must lobby the RTD for ((JSC Title 49, Sec. 5307) capital improvements that serve City purposes (Federal/Regional) These funds are awarded at the national level to specific major, This funding resource is available to the RTD and Federal funding is primarily from the RTD manages the locally generated requests RTD has used New Stan funds for + For projects approved under the New New Start funding commitment was $120 multi-year projects on a discretionary and competitive basis. not to the City of Boulder in a direct way. The federal fuel tax. for funding within the Denver Metropolitan design and construction of its Start program, federal funds are million for the Southwest Rail Line and 5. TEA-21 /Federal City can lobby for projects that might be eligible for area under this program. Authorization for Southwest Light Rail Line ($120 out substantial and are committed for a multi- $225 million for the Southeast Corridor. x Funds may be used for transit capital assistance for new fixed New Start funds. However, no such projects are funds is at the federal level. of $178 million), the rail portion of year time horizon. Transit guideway systems and extensions to existing fixed guideway currently envisioned within the 2002 TMP Update. the Southeast Corridor ($225 of Administration (FTA) - Future federal funding is uncertain; TEA- systems (New Starts) (40;4 of funds), fixed guideway $883 million), and its North 21 ends in fiscal year 2003. Discretionary Capital modernization (40% of funds), and bus and bus-related facilities Corridor Bus/HOV Line. Funding Investment Grants and (20% of funds). for the US 36 commuter Loans Program (New rail/bikeway alternative would require additional New Start funds Starts) plus voter approval for the sales and (JSC Title 49, Sec 5309) use tax increase. (Federal/Siate/Local) This TEA-21 program, Value Pricing Pilot Program, formerly Value Pricing and market-based pricing strategies Federal funding is primarily from the This is a program that is available on a Boulder won a discretionary grant + The program is consistent with many Nationally, $11,000,000 is available for 6. TEA-21 / Federal called Congestion Pricing, encourages implementation and are concepts that are consistent with the 2002 TMP federal fuel tax. discretionary and competitive basis, nationally, to execute a Congestion Pricing Boulder transportation objectives. Value Pricing pilot programs. Transit Admin. (FTA) evaluation of pilot projects to promote economic efficiency in the Update. Federal funds are available on a 80/20 Program in 1994. A number of However, Boulder might not consider use of highways and support congestion reduction, air quality, Federal/Local matching basis. analytical components were another pilot project at this time, given Value Pricing energy conservation and transit productivity goals. completed; the planned the results of the project in the mid 1990s. demonstration project was cancelled _ Federal funding will expire in Fiscal Year Pilot programs can encompass a variety of applications including at the City's request. Final Report: 2003 TEA •11 Ad, Section area wide pricing, pricing multiple or single facilities or corridors, City of Boulder Congestion Relief 1216. single-lane pricing, and other market-based strategies such as area- Program, 3/99, describes the project wide Parking Cash-Out demonstrations, and tolls and its results. PAGE 1 OF 10 5/31/2002 1 1 UPDATE SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Transportation Master Plan APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION APPLIED ELSEWHERE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS (Federal/State) This TEA-21 program is for grants for transit projects that benefit Funds are available for transit serving elderly and Federal funding is primarily from the Colorado receives funds on a formula basis and This is a national program that - Federal funding allocated to Colorado is in FY 2002, CDOT received $991,000 for 7. TEA-21 / Federal the elderly and persons with disabilities. States receive funds from disabled patrons. federal fuel tax. distributes these funds on a competitive, functions in each state. Special relatively limited, about $3 million per statewide distribution. Transit Admin. (FTA) the FTA on a formula basis. In Colorado, funds are received by discretionary basis. Transit receives funds from this year. CDOT, which, in turn, awards grants on a competitive, program on a discretionary an Formula Grants for - Future federal funding is uncertain, since discretionary basis. competitive basis. Elderly and Persons TEA-21 expires in FY 2003. with Disabilities SC Title 49, Sec. 5310 (Federal) When funds are available, the State assists the National Park Funds must be dedicated to outdoor recreation. CO Division of Parks administers this program This is a federal program. When + Under the prior state program, funds 8. Land and Water Service is administering grants from the Land and Water Applicant must own the land that is being when funds are available, funds are available, they are were available on a 50/50 basis (federal / Conservation Fund Conservation Act of 1965. In Colorado, CO Division of Parks improved. Funds may be made available for a three- distributed to all states. local). and Outdoor Recreation manages the administration of funds. For year period. These funds could be used for bicycle the first time since 1995, Congress has appropriated funds to the trail improvements. state grant program. - Funds are available intermittently. (State) CDOT's major source of State funds is the Highway Users Tax In Boulder, HUTF revenues go into the Revenues are primarily from State motor This is an established stream of revenues. Most states have a statewide + This is a current and predictable source of In 2001, the City of Boulder received 9. Highway Users Tax Fund (FIUTF). After removing some "off-the-cop" revenues, the Transportation Fund. fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees. program to generate transportation revenue that Boulder relies on. about $2,475,000. Future revenues are Fund (HUTF) HUTF revenues are distributed as follows: 65% to CDOT, 26% to There is also a transfer of sales and use tax funds with a program to distribute estimated to increase 1 percent per year. counties and 99/6 to municipalities on a formula basis. 80% of the revenues on motor vehicles from the funds locally. 2 Revenues are already committed to municipal share is based on motor vehicle registration and 20% on General Fund to CDOT. Cities and transportation. (recalculate share to lane miles. A different funding formula could direct more funds to counties do not receive additional HUTF municipalities) urban areas such as the City of Boulder. fund distributions from the transfer. (State) The State has forecasted future State revenue surpluses, beginning The trickle down impact on Boulder would be an State funds are primarily from the State In 2002, the State legislature approved this This is unique to Colorado. + With the Growth Dividend, Boulder State staff estimates that the TABOR 10. State Surplus in 2003. With the passage of HB1310/SB179 in 2002, the State increase in HUTF funds plus additional funds to income tax and sales and use tax. Without authorization (HB1310/SBI79)- would benefit directly from an increase in Growth Dividend might yield $885 (TABOR Growth may retain these surpluses rather than rebate them to the citizens. compete for through DRCOG. the TABOR Growth Dividend, taxpayers HUTF revenues and potentially from million over twenty years. Dividend) This authorization is termed the "TABOR Growth Dividend." would receive rebates to income and getting more projects funded through sales/use tax fees paid. DRCOG. (supplemental revenues) Funds are distributed as follows: sufficient funds to allow the General Fund to grow at 6% per year; 2/3rds of remainder to transportation; 1/3 of remainder to the capital construction fund. (Stare) This is a stream of state revenues that are dedicated to transit This could be applicable to community transit, The local incidence is on payers of retail The 2002 Colorado legislature passed an act Prior to 2002, Colorado was one of • These are not new source revenue but is a In 2001, CDOT received $213.4 million 11. Dedicated Source service. Funds might be distributed on a formula or a competitive transit-related improvements along the multi-modal goods, which includes residents, businesses requiring 10% of the sales and use tax revenues five states without a dedicated mandatory allocation of more than $20 from sales and use tax revenues on motor of Revenue For basis. Most typical revenues used for transit are sales, property, corridors or funding/discounting the ECOPASS. and visitors, statewide. (Groceries are on motor vehicles that are transferred to source of revenue to fund transit, million per year. vehicles and related item. Ten percent of Transit gasoline and income tax. In 2002, the Colorado legislature passed exempt from the state sales tax.) CDOT be spent on transit. (These revenues Other states without a dedicated this figure is $21.3 million. (§43-4.206 C.R.S.) HB1310/SB179; it states that 10% of the sales and use tax revenues are sometimes called the SB1 revenues.) source of revenue are Alaska, . It is unclear how the revenues might flow transferred to the I IUTF (SB97-001 funds) must be spent on Arkansas, Hawaii and New Mexico. from CDOT to RTD or others. (allocation of existing tax) transit. This is a thane from 'may" be spent on transit. (State) 40% of State lottery revenues go to the Conservation Trust Fund Funds currently go into the Boulder Lottery Fund. Revenues are from State lottery proceeds. There are effectively no legal or administrative Funds are distributed statewide by + This is reliable source of funding. In 2001, Boulder received an estimated 12. Colorado for use by local governments for park and recreation projects. 'T'hese funds could be used for bicycle trail The state lottery is a voluntary game of costs associated with receipt of these funds. formula. $700,000 from the Colorado Conservation Conservation Trust Funds are distributed on a per capita basis. improvements. chance. Participants (funders) are residents Trust Fund. Fund and visitors. (formula-driven funds) (State) Established in 1971, this program is funded with three primary Funds are available for both non-motorized and GOCO revenues are from State lottery There is staff time and resources associated Funds are available statewide on a + Funds are available on a 50/50 basis (state Annually, approximately $1.7 million are 13. State Trails revenue sources; GOCO-Local Government Funds, GOCO-State motorized trails. Cities, counties, districts, State proceeds. The state lottery isa voluntary with applying for grants from GOCO. competitive basis. / local), available for non-motorized trails and Program Parks Funds, TEA-21 Section 112 Recreation Trails Program and and non-profit organizations are eligible for funding game of chance. Participants (funders) are $700,000 are available for motorized trails. Off-Highway vehicle (OHV) registration fees. through an annual competitive process. residents and visitors. Recent grants have averaged - Total funding statewide is relatively between $50,000 and $1DO,DOD. limited. (win discretionary grants) GOCO provides local governments and nonprofit organizations TEA-21 revenues are primarily from the matching grants to preserve parks, trials, and open space. GOCO federal fuel tax. - Revenues are unpredictable as they are is funded with proceeds from Colorado Lottery Revenues. Local based on competition. governments compete for funding. (State) This tax is currently imposed by the State on distributors of Users of gasoline and special fuels ultimately Only the state may impose a motor fuel - It would require a change in state In 2001, The State collected $531,500,000 14. Motor Fuel Tax gasoline, gasohol and diesel fuels. It is imposed at the wholesale pay this. Residents, visitors and businesses tax. A local option rate increase that enabling legislation to allow local in motor fuel taxes. (wholesale) level in lieu of a State sales tax on motor fuels. would all pay the tax. would require a change in State Statutes governments to collect motor fuel tax. It is unlikely that the State would willingly No revenue calculations for the City have The current rate is $0.22 per gallon on gasoline and gasohol and The tax would particularly impact In 1997, there was an attempt to place a relinquish its sole rights to a motor fuel been prepared (§39-27.102 C.R.S.) $0.205 per gallon on diesel businesses in the delivery business. $0.05 per gallon increase in motor fuel taxes tax statewide. Support was withdrawn in favor of earmarking sales tax revenues for transportation projects. (State / County/ City) These fees are imposed by the State, based on the type and weight The City currently directs these revenues to the Both residents and businesses pay motor Only the State is authorized to impose Each Colorado county receives and - Allowing local governments to receive In 2001, the City estimates that it received 15. Motor Vehicle of vehicles. The fee is paid where the vehicle is registered. Transportation Fund. vehicle registration fees. motor vehicle registration fees at this time. disperses motor vehicle registration motor vehicle registration revenues about $260,976 in motor vehicle Registration Fee fees in a manner that is prescribed above the $4 per vehicle payment to registration fees. The County Division of Motor Vehicles collects the fees on behalf If fees were imposed on all registered vehicles, funds In 1997, there was a proposed ballot by State Statute. counties would require a change in (City term: Auto of the State and retains $4.00 per vehicle for most vehicles and would be most applicable for projects that correct initiative to impose a $10 per vehicle enabling legislation. In 2001, a $1 surcharge would have yielded Registration Fees) $1,50 per vehicle motorcycles, trailer coaches and construction existing deficiencies or maintain the current system. surcharge. Support was withdrawn in about $65,200 equipment. for distribution within the County on the basis of favor of earmarking sales tax revenues for 42.3-133 C.R.S,) vehicle owner's registered residence. transportation projects. (surcharge) The State earmarks the fees for the HUTF, a portion of which is redistributed back to cities and counties. PAGE 2 OF 10 - 5/31/2002 SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN t-- ~A~ UPDATE Transportation Master Plan APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION APPLIED ELSEWHERE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION NAME DESCRIPTION UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS MASTER PLAN (Regional) Currently, the RTD matches its local revenues, from a dedicated The incremental 0.4% sales tax would fund a 105- The local incidence is on payers of retail There are no incremental administrative costs + If voters approve, this would generate RTD's 0.6% sales and use tax generated 16. Regional 0.6% sales and use tax, with federal revenues and operating mild system of light rail over then years, including sales and use tax, which includes residents, associated with collecting additional revenue. substantial revenues for transit in the about $202 million in 2001. Transportation revenues (farebox, advertising, etc.) to fund its bus and transit commuter rail service along the existing railroad businesses and visitors. (Groceries are Voter approval is needed. Denver metropolitan area. District services. tracks near US 36 and a bikeway that parallels US exempt.) A 0.4% sales tax increase would generate 36. Authorization to proceed was granted by the sufficient funds to finance the local share The RTD may now (H111310/0179) to ask voters for an legislature in May 2002. of a $4.4 billion plan to develop a 105-mile additional. 0.4% sales tax, after eti[ions are gathered and certified. stem of light rail over ten ears. (County) Colorado counties impose a mill levy for road and bridge Currently, these revenues are allocated to the Imposed on the basis of assessed real estate Boulder County sets the mill levy. State Each Colorado county imposes a - Revenues are already committed, as these In 2001, Boulder received about $538,700, 17. County Road and improvements. Cities receive an amount equal to 50% of the Transportation Fund. values. Statutes established the distribution formula. Road and Bridge Fund mill levy, funds go into the Transportation Fund. which was about 27 percent of the County Bridge Fund revenue accruing to the fund that was collected against assessed The County could increase the mill levy with a State Statute sets the distribution. Road and Bridge Fund. Revenues to the valuation in the City. Boulder receives Fund revenues from Due to assessed valuation formulas, popular vote. City were equivalent to a municipal mill Boulder County. Funds are most applicable to finance projects that residential properties pay 33% of what nom + This is a predictable and reliable stream of levy of 0.20. (2001 assessed valuation is (rnill levy increase) correct existing deficiencies or maintain the current residential properties pay, for the same funding. $1,912,398,310) ($538,700 / system. value of property. $1,912,398,310) Boulder County imposes a 0.443 mill levy for its Road and Bridge Fund. The City received about 27% of total County Road and 2 Boulder County imposes a low mill levy Bridge Fund revenues.. Note: 11B1310/SB179 now allows counties within Visitors do not pay property taxes in a for its County Road and Bridge Fund City staff forecast a 1% increase in the RTD service area "to provide transit services in direct way. (0.443) relative to other Colorado revenues per year. cooperation with the RTD." Counties. (County) This tax is collected and distributed at the county level. This is in These funds are distributed to the General Fund, Both residents and businesses pay specific + Produces a predictable revenue stream. + Produces a predictable revenue - Requires a change in State enabling In 2001, Boulder estimates that it received 18. Specific (Motor lieu of a personal property tax on motor vehicles. CAGID and UFIGID since these are the funds that ownership taxes. stream. legislation. $1,516,000 in specific ownership tax Vehicle) Ownership collect property tax revenues. No funds are . The fee schedule and the distribution - Revenues are already committed, as these revenues. Tax it is levied annually by counties on vehicle ownership and is allocated to the Transportation Fund at this time. Since the tax is based on the value of the formula is established by State Statute. funds go into the Transportation Fund. (S 42-3-106,107 C.R.S.) collected when license plates are renewed. Counties distribute all vehicle, it does not have as severe an impact Since the school district has the highest tax revenues but $1.00 per vehicle to each government (county, Since revenues are collected from existing and new on low-income households as some other mill levy, it receives the largest portion of + This is a predictable and reliable stream of (rate increase) cities, districts) within the county, which receives property tax vehicle owners, they would be most applicable to taxes and fees. revenues. funding. revenues, proportionate to expected property tax revenues finance projects that correct existing deficiencies or received. to finance the local government share of projects I There are no additional administrative partially funded by new development. State Statutes establish the tax rate. It is based on the value and age costs associated with collecting this of the vehicle. Tax revenues averse about $75 per vehicle. revenue. (County) This would be a one-time tax on "new wheels" registered in the This would be applicable for projects that are This tax could discourage some • Allowing local governments to impose a In 1997, Loveland considered a - The revenue generating potential of this If a $100 new wheels tax were approved in 19. New Wheels City or County. It would include registration of any cars from triggered by new development. transportation-related businesses from "new wheels" tax might require a change in ballot item to place a $100 new tool may be relatively small. Boulder and imposed on newly registered Motor Vehicle out of state and the purchase of vehicles instate if the purchaser establishing a location in Boulder.. State Statutes unless it is considered a wheels registration fee. Support was vehicles, this tax might generate about Registration Fee does not give up another vehicle registration at the same time. This tool might be imposed at the County level to specific occupation or excise tax. withdrawn in favor of earmarking $55,050 in revenue in 2001. finance projects that extend beyond City sales tax and the item failed. (367 new residential units x 1.5 vehicles (new tax) boundaries. Administrative costs would be minimal per dwelling x $100) because the County could be retained to Also in 1997, there was a statewide collect the fee when it collects the motor initiative drive to place a $100 new These calculations exclude vehicles vehicle registration fee. wheels registration fee on the registered to commercial and public sector November ballot but it failed. entities. (County) Counties may impose a sales/use tax up to 1.0%. Imposed countywide, this tax would be most Same as sales tax. + The County already imposes a 0.55% sales + Would produce a significant and stable Boulder County in 2001, a 0.5 % sales tax 20. Sales Tax for Mass applicable to finance upgraded intracounty transit and use tax which includes (effective 7102) In Boulder County, 0.1% of the stream of revenues. would have generated about $203 million Transit service, such as the DASH Transit Service, broader a 0.1°% tax for transportation county sales tax is dedicated to + County does have authorization to in sales tax revenue annually; a 0.1% sales In addition, any county outside of the RTD service area can dissemination of the ECOPASS, and Para transit improvements. Incremental transportation. This authority impose an additional 0.45 tax would generate about $4.1 million A% dditional 0.5%: °a sales tax mpose an additional 0.5%sales tax for financing, constructing, service upgrades administrative costs would be minimal. extends from July 2002 through July annually. operating or maintaining a mass transportation within the county. 2009. $48.4 million are anticipated before reaching its 1.0% sales tax ceiling. (§29 2-ID3.5 CRS) Since the RTD already imposes a 0.6% sales tax, this legal + The County could impose an additional over the 7 years. They will be used - Counties may impose a sales tax of up to ($4,061,198,679, taxable sales x .005) (new tax) authority is not available in the Denver metropolitan area. 0.45% sales tax with a popular vote. to fund $38.0 million in roads; $6.0 1.00%. Imposing this tax, which is above million in transit (park n ride and the 1.0°%, would require a change in State The County's use the mass transit authority regional bus service) and $4.3 Statutes. tax would require a change in State million in bicycle/pedestrian Statutes. improvements. CITY TAXES, FEES & DEBT 21. Property Tax This is a tax on real and personal property. The city mill levy for An incremental mill levy could be earmarked for Would be imposed on the basis of assessed Requires a popular vote to increase the CAGID imposes a net mill levy of - Any increase in the mill levy would The City's 2001 taxable assessed value is collections in 2002 is 9.301. This would be an increase in the city the transportation fund; it could be used as debt real estate values. There is a weak mill levy. 6.575 mills. require a popular vote. $1,912,398,310. A one mill levy (.001) (Section 94, Article VI, mill levy from the current amount that would be earmarked for service to finance particularly large projects of connection between assessed values and the would generate annual revenues of Charter of the City of transportation projects. It could be used in conjunction with the citywide benefit; it could be used within a district. need for roads. UHGID imposes a net mill levy of $1,912,398. B issuance of general obligation bonds. The administrative staff are in place to 3.163 mills. + Generates significant and predictable Boulder) This would most applicable to finance projects manse and disburse sales tax revenues potential revenue stream. that correct existing deficiencies or finance the local Due to assessed valuation formulas, g P government share of funded b residential properties pay 33% of what non The Forest Glen Transit Pass GID (Rate increase) Currently, property tax revenues are earmarked for the General projects partially Y residential ro erties PaY, for the same imposes a net mill levy of 1.49 mills Fund, the Permanent Parks Fund, the Library Fund and Public new development. P P Safety. value of property. Visitors do not pay property taxes in a direct way. PAGE 3 of 10 - 513112002 T M PPDATE- SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Transpo ton Master Plan APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION 22. Sales Tax The City currently imposes a sales tax of 3.26% (excluding the The voter-approved allocation to transportation Households and businesses that purchase The administrative staff is in place to • Boulder earmarks 0.6% of its + Produces a significant and predictable In 2001, the City's 3.26% sales tax 0.15% food service supplemental tax) and earmarks revenues to 8 states that funds are earmarked "for projects related retail goods in the county pay these taxes. manage and disburse sales tax revenues. sales tax revenues for the revenue stream. generated $62,669,849 in revenue. This is (Rau increase) funds. Included in this total is Ob%, which is earmarked for the to transportation or for related or appurtent to Transportation Fund. based on taxable sales of about $1.92 Transportation Fund, pursuant to a vote in 1967. transportation services, or facilities..." (BRC 3-2-39) The sales tax is also imposed on visitors and e A popular vote is necessary to increase the billion ($62,669,849 / .0326). (Note: These travelers who purchase retail goods and stay tax rate. . Fort Collins dedicates 0.25% to + Historically sales tax revenues have figures exclude use tax.) The Transportation Fund also receives 37.5% of excess sales and in local lodging. capital projects including increased without a change in the rate. In use tax revenues after debt service and administrative costs within Sales tax revenues are the largest single source of the last year, however, Boulder transportation; set to expire but If imposed in 2001, a 0.1% increase in the BURA area. The BURA debt retires this year, 2002. Transportation Fund revenues. may be reinstated just for experienced a slight decline in sales tax Boulder's sales tax rate would generate Boulder offers a refund on sales taxes paid transportation. revenues. revenues about $1,922,400. With voter approval, the sales tax rate (excluding the 0.15% food for food based on family income and family [$1,922,388,006 (estimated taxable sales) x service supplemental tax) could be increased another 0.74% to size. For example, a family of 4 earning • Boulder County has a 0.1% sales .001] 4.0%. Alternatively, sales tax rate could be increased on food and between $33,300 and $33,700 is eligible to tax for transportation lodging or any other category of taxable expenditure.) receive a $236 refund. improvements. . Jefferson County imposes a sales tax n a local imp. district. 23. Motor Vehicle This concept would allow cities to impose an incremental sales tax This and other vehicle related taxes might be If the fee were imposed on the value of the Currently, cities receive sales and use tax on - This might require a change in state In 2001, the City's 3.26% sales and use tax Sales & Use Tax on motor vehicles, as a local option. It would be a one-time fee appropriate to finance the projects that facilitate a vehicle, then there would be some direct vehicles registered in their jurisdiction. enabling legislation. generated $1,941,850 in revenue, based on levied either on all vehicles registered in the City at the time of sale shift to alternate modes. correlation between income and the fee Administrative procedures are in place. motor vehicle sales of about $90.2 million (Local option rate increase) or on all vehicles sold in the City at a rate higher than the general paid. ($1,941,850 / .0326) to residents and sales tax. Increasing the tax rate on motor vehicles might businesses registered in the City. If imposed at the point of sale, this tax require a change in state enabling legislation to This concept would allow cities to impose an incremental sales tax would place dealerships located in Boulder allow a local option sales tax rate increase on A 0.1% increase in Boulder's sales and use on motor vehicles only, as a local option. This is not authorized at a competitive disadvantage to dealerships motor vehicles only. tax rate on motor vehicles would generate by State Statutes at this time. in other portions of the metropolitan area. about $90,240 in revenue. ($90,240,798 x This tax might more easily be imposed at the .001). This would be a one-time fee levied either on all vehicles registered If imposed where the vehicle is registered, it county level with distribution back to in the city at the time of sale or on all vehicles sold in the city, at a may discourage some transportation-related municipalities. rate higher than the general sales tax. businesses from locating in Boulder. 24. Use Tax The City currently imposes a use tax of 3.26%. With voter Since a substantial portion of this fee is from This tax is imposed on households and A popular vote is necessary to increase the Sixty percent of Colorado - Requires a vote to increase the use tax In 2001, Boulder's use tax revenues were approval, it could be increased to 4.0%. A use tax is a compliment building materials, which are growth-related, use tax businesses that purchase or use taxable use tax. municipalities that impose a sales tax rate. about $16,201,300, about 209/6 of sales and (Rate increase) to a sales tax. It is imposed on the same items as a sales tax for revenues might be more applicable to projects that retail items in the city and on contractors also impose a use tax. A few have use tax collections. The City's use tax on products purchased outside of the city and "used" in the city. Use serve new growth. who purchase building materials for use in dedicated use tax revenues to capital + Use tax revenues on automobiles are autos generated $2,346,000; the use tax on tax revenues are typically from building materials, machinery and the city. projects. Eagle adopted a 4% use tax generally predictable. building materials generated $2,941,000; equipment and motor vehicle sales. for capital improvement. Louisville the use tax on business purchases imposed a 3.375% use tax on 2 Use tax revenues on building materials generated $10,913,000. Use tax revenues are earmarked the same as sales tax revenues; Use tax revenues from building materials building materials for schools and fluctuate with real estate construction 0.6% is earmarked for the Transportation Fund. correlate with new construction. open space. activity. If a 0.1% increase in the use tax rate (3.26% to 3.36%) had been imposed in 2001, it would In Colorado, municipal sales and use tax rates are often (but not have generated about $497,000. ($496,972,515 x .001) always) imposed at the same rate. 25. Accommodations This is an excise tax that is imposed on lodging establishments This may be particularly appropriate if there are overnight visitors would pay the This would require a popular vote to increase There are 29 Colorado - This would require a popular vote. In 2002, an estimated $2.3 million was Tax based on their room revenue. It functions like a sales tax improvements that benefit visitors. incremental lodging tax. the lodging tax. There would be no additional municipalities that impose a lodging generated by the City's 2.24% surcharge. Boulder already has a 2.24% lodging tax. Revenues go administrative costs other than notice to tax. Within the Denver + The stream of revenues would be accommodation tax. (rate increase into the General Fund. lodging operators about the tax rate increase. metropolitan area, they include generally predictable and would increase Boulder already collects its own sales and Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Denver, as room rates increase. lodging tax revenues. Englewood, Greenwood Village Lakewood, Northglenn, Thornton, + It would not be imposed on residents. Westminster and Wheat Rid e. 26., Development This is a tax imposed on new development on a per square foot The transportation excise tax is to pay for the Builders pay the fee at the final inspection The Development Excise Tax is in place. There A number of municipalities in + Perceived to be equitable to existing In 2001, City staff estimate that the Excise Tax basis for nonresidential and a per unit basis for residential. In additional functional capacity needed for streets, stage of the building permit process. are relatively modest legal and administrative Colorado impose an impact fee for residents and businesses. transportation excise tax generated Boulder, a specified portion of the tax rate is transferred to the bikeways, greenways, pedestrian facilities, grade costs associated with changing the tax rate. transportation that is similar to the $882,000. Forecasts for future years are (Increase in tax rate Transportation Development Fund. separations and transit. The current fee is $1,051 to The Development Excise Tax study (6/96) Development Excise Tax on + Excellent supplemental revenue source if difficult because the relate to future real $1.741 for residential units and $1.53 per square foot prepared for the City shows that the transportation. Many more are matched with local government revenues. estate development activity. for nonresidential. current residential fees pay for about 22% considering this idea. and nonresidential fees pay for about 11% - Produces an unpredictable revenue of the needed growth-related Fort Collins is considering a 1% stream.. The 2002 TMP does not focus on additions to the improvements. If transit were removed Construction Value Tax (excise tax) transportation infrastructure. from the calculations, then the current imposed on improvements to real - The Development Excise Tax Study reports residential fees pay for about 57% and estate. that transportation portion of the current nonresidential fees pay for about development excise tax finances a small 30% of the needed improvements. portion of the improvements needed to support new development. 27. Project Investment This fee functions like a supplemental sales tax. It is imposed on a This fee is particularly appropriate for The project investment fee would function This would be a privately imposed fee that Park Meadows Mall used a PIF to + This requires no vote, since it is imposed Revenues would relate to the scale of the Fee voluntary basis by landlords on their tenants. It has been used by improvements within multi-modal corridors where like a sales tax on retail goods and would would require no vote of the people or City finance site-related infrastructure privately. development that would be subject to a shopping centers to fund project-area infrastructure improvements. the improvement served a retail development or have the same equity consequences. It Council. The parties imposing the fee would improvements. Lakewood is project investment fee. tve-f-) generated new retail development. would be imposed by the landlord and likely require an agreement that they would considering several applications of a + Funds generated can be substantial. concluded as a condition of the lease. receive improvements or services in return for PIF for retail developments to fund Revenues would be paid to the landlord. fee revenues. site-related improvements. + Public sector administrative costs are minimal. PACE 4 of 10 - 5/3112002 SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BO LDE TION j _1/PDATE U R TRANSPORTA MASTER PLAN UPDATE Transpo ti nMasterPlan APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO• INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION APPLIED ELSEWHERE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION NAME DESCRIPTION PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS MASTER 28. Tax Increment The concept of tax increment financing is to earmark incremental This tool is most appropriate to finance This is a reallocation of property and sales If the urban renewal powers are used, then Boulder has used tax increment + Can provide additional financing Revenues would tie directly to the Financing sales and property tax revenues from redevelopment toward public improvements in a specific geographic area where tax revenues to improvements within a there are significant administrative costs in financing in the Crossroads Area and (property tax revenues from the Count forecasted sales and tax revenues. improvements within the redevelopment area. If the urban the improvement will generate substantial specified area that has been declared g a ts property establishing the project area. If the is pursuing TIF in Downtown. and School District) for Boulder projects (Additional application of an renewal authority (BURA) is used, then all incremental property additional development activity. blighted. concept of tax increment is used, then at no additional cost to Boulder taxpayers. existing tool) tax revenues (school, county, city, etc.) can be earmarked for implementation is more streamlined. project area improvements. If the formal urban renewal authorities are - Must be within blighted area, if urban invoked, then property tax revenues + Authorized under State Statutes. renewal authorities are used.. previously flowing to the School District and the County would be earmarked for - It may be helpful to coordinate with improvements within the blighted area. County and School District, since property tax revenues would be frozen at base Year levels. 29. Head Tax This would be a tax imposed on employees or employers who This would be applicable to finance projects that The tax could be imposed on 100% on This taxing authority is available to home rule Currently, Aurora, Denver and - Requires a vote to impose a new tax. City staff estimate that there are about work in the City of Boulder. correct existing deficiencies and projects that serve employees or 100% on employers or shared cities only, such as Boulder. Greenwood Village impose a head 103,000 employees in the City. (This (New) commuters. between the two. tax. Denver's tax is $117 per year + Produces a predictable stream of revenue includes public and private sector.) The City has substantial flexibility regarding who pays (employer per employee; Aurora's tax is $48 versus employee) and who is exempt (public, nonprofit, low-wage This is one of few tools that can target per year. Greenwood Village's tax is If imposed on all employees, earners). people who work in Boulder and reside $48 per person per year. In each elsewhere. case, the employee pays 50% and the • a $4 per month ($48 per year) tax employer pays 50%. would generate $4.9 million per year;, If imposed as a flat tax, it would impact • a $10 per month tax ($120 per year) low-wage employees more than high-wage Boulder voters turned down a $116 would generate $12.4 million. employees. Excluding those earning less per year head tax in 1994. than some minimum amount could lessen the regressive impact. Government employers and non-profits could be exempt. 30. Motor Fuel Tax A specific occupation tax is a form of excise tax. This would be applicable for projects that correct If passed through to customers in a price Only home rule cities have the authority No Colorado city has used its + Currently authorized under home rule No revenue calculations have been (retail) existing deficiencies and for the City share of increase, this tax is regressive as those with to impose a specific occupation tax. excise tax authorities to impose a authorities. prepared. projects partially funded by new development. lower incomes spend a larger portion of Examples are lodging taxes, based on room motor fuel tax. This may be This particular application would be imposed on transportation- their income on gasoline. If absorbed as an revenues and taxes imposed on cable TV legally questionable. + Imposing an excise tax does not require Specific Occupation generating businesses, such as gas stations. It might be based on This and other vehicle-related taxes and fees might operating expense, it would reduce the companies, based on subscribers. extensive analysis of equity implications. Tax on Gasoline Sales gallons of fuel sold, or the value of fuel sales. also be appropriate to finance improvements that profitability of businesses selling gasoline. • Counties in Florida, Illinois and There may be a question regarding the facilitate a shift to alternative modes. It would require a new administrative Oregon may impose a motor legal feasibility of this approach. The tax would be imposed directly on a system to impose this new tax. fuel tax or a motor vehicle fuel major contributor to the need for dealer license tax. transportation improvements. Ordinance needs to state that the primary purpose of this tax is to raise revenue, not Municipalities in Oregon may Residents, visitors, and businesses would all regulate land use. impose a business license tax on pay the tax. motor vehicle fuel dealers. (Eugene, Pendleton, Tillamook The tax would particularly impact impose the fee among others.) businesses in the delivery business. 31. Transportation Cities have the authority to create, franchise or license utilities This may be applicable to maintenance of The utility fee would need to be structured The Fort Collins utility was tested in the Fort Collins implemented and then - May be time-consuming to impose fee. As an illustration, there are 657 lane miles Utility Fee under § 31-21-101 CRS. transportation improvements rather than to to share costs equitably among users. For Colorado Supreme Court. The Court ruled abandoned the utility in favor or a in Boulder that are maintained by the constructing capital projects. example, the Fort Collins fee schedule was that the street maintenance fee was a form of simpler transportation finance City. A maintenance fee of $0.10 per (New While this statute is typically used to franchise electric, gas and based on land use and trip generation and special services fee and the fee schedule program. Fort Collins is now + May be perceived as an equitable linear foot per lane would generate about feel telephone services, it has also been used by the City of Fort Collins was imposed on developed on a reasonably correlated with use and was considering a "Transportation technique to collect street maintenance $ 346,900 per year. This tool could replace exiting Transportation Fund properties thereby freeinP Y to create a street utility. per front foot basis. appropriately imposed. The Fort Collins City Maintenance Fee", collected via the costs, Y g up existing revenues (657 x 5,280 x $0.10) revenue sources. Attorney does not believe that it was necessary city's utility billing system. The fee currently used for street maintenance. Providing favorable treatment to properties to create a utility to impose a street would be based per residential unit abutting roads maintained by the State maintenance fee. and per vehicle trip for could cause an inequity. nonresidential uses. There may be significant costs (technical, Eight Oregon cities impose a administrative, and legal) to establish a utility. transportation unlit fee. 32. Peak Period This tool regulates use of roads or bridges during peak periods by The City could use Automatic Vehicle The Business Impacts Report (6/98) prepared There are costs associated with purchasing Electronic tolling has been applied + Using this market-based tool, there is a As pan of its Congestion Relief Program, Pricing ('tolls) charging a fee or toll. The toll might be levied to enter a high- Identification (AVI) technology to collect variable for the City, concluded that business equipment and implementing a controlled by many cities and toll authorities, direct link between those who benefit the City tested a $1 peak / 504 off-peak occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, a corridor or an area (zone) during roadway fees on a particular roadway, and during a impacts are relatively low but for impacts entry/exit system. including the E-470 Authority. The from the transportation facility those who trip charge and determined that it could peak periods of travel. particular time of day on lower-wage employees, manufacturing US 36 corridor was financed with pay. The tool can be used in a direct way raise as much as $114 million annually (See firms and retailers with competition outside toll revenues; tolls applied in 1952 to monitor the availability and efficient use Modeling Report) City does not HOV lanes. This concept might be of Boulder. Some negative impacts could and removed in 1967. Cordon-line of transportation facilities. more appropriately tied to controlled-access roads be mitigated with "lifeline tolls", ECO- pricing has been applied in such as US 36. passes and shuttle services. Trondheim (Norway) and - The tool would challenging to implement Singapore. since there are no controlled access roads or areas in Boulder at this time. PAGE 5 of 10 - 5/3112002 T >IPDATE SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Transpo tin Master plan APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE QUANTIFICATION 33. Vehicle Miles This is a fee based on miles traveled. The fee could be a sliding This fee would favorably impact mode choice and The Business Impacts Report (6/98) These fees would be assessed either at filling + A fee on VMT will reduce travel, As part of its Congestion Relief Program, Traveled (VMT) Fee scale where the first "increment" of miles are exempt and vehicle miles traveled, which are primary concluded that a VMT charge may stations or annually, during vehicle significantly if the tax is high and strongly the City tested a ten-cent VMT charge and additional miles traveled are charged a hither per-mile fee. Other Transportation Master Plan objectives. negatively impact lower-wage employees, registration. enforced. The strongest effects will be on determined that it could generate as much (New fee) adjustments could be structured to provide 'credit" for emissions- manufacturing firms and retailers with trips of lower value and on trips for which as 875 million annually. (See Modeling saving or gasoline-saving devices. Companies using vehicles for The Congestion Pricing Modeling Report (1998) competition outside of Boulder. Some alower-priced alternative is available. Report) long hauls outside of Boulder might be classified separately. found that a 104 VMT charge would increase transit negative impacts could be mitigated with usage by 2001% increase shared rides by 2.9% and "lifeline tolls", ECO-passes and shuttle + This fee does not require new equipment. It is collected by monitoring vehicle odometers. The fee might be decrease auto VMT by 6.24%. services. assessed annually when vehicles are registered. + The fee is a potentially significant money This fee would burden local residents and generator. businesses but not commuters. 34. Vehicle Hours This is a fee based on vehicle hours of use, possibly collected by If the fee is high enough, it might reduce peak our This fee would burden local residents and This may be the most expensive of the three - Requires the purchase and installation of No estimates have been prepared. Traveled (VHT) Fee monitoring engine running time. It would require installation of a travel, thereby easing congestion without expanding businesses but not commuters. The fee travel-based fees since it requires the purchase new equipment in vehicles. new device, capacity. would impact those traveling during the and installation of new equipment. (N- f-) peak hour the most. + By reducing peak hour congestion, this tool could reduce pressures for capacity improvements. 35. Vehicle This is an annual fee that is imposed per vehicle on the basis of its If the fee were high enough, it would impact This fee may be inversely correlated with This may be the least expensive of the three The State requires emission testing of + Requires no new equipment. No estimates have been prepared. Performance Fee effects on air quality. The fee might be assessed annually when vehicle-purchasing decisions, thereby directly household income, since low-income vehicle-travel related fees. gas and diesel powered vehicles when vehicles are registered. improving air quality, an objective of the TMP households tend to own older and less registering or selling vehicles in the + Correlates directly with improving air (New f~) Update. efficient vehicles. "enhanced area" which includes quality. It could be based on emissions, BTUs, or CAFE (Corporate most front range counties. The test Average Fuel Economy) standards. is done privately. This is not a revenue tool. The fee covers the test costs. 36. Off-Street Parking This is a one-time, annual or monthly fee imposed on property This fee would be applicable to any project that This fee would impact all parking space There are significant administrative costs CAGID and UHGID impose + Once established, parking space fees No revenue estimates have been calculated Space Fee owners per off-street parking space. Property owners could pass reduces dependence on the automobile, such as users, including residents, businesses, associated with developing and maintaining a parking fees to finance their parking generate a predictable stream of revenue. for additional application of this concept. this fee on to users in a variety of ways. funding the ECOPASS and community transit. commuters and visitors. database showing off-street parking spaces per lots and structures. (New application of fee) property and sending monthly or annual bills. In 2001, CAGID raised $2.2 million from CAGID and UHGID use a form of this fee in that they charge for It penalizes properties that have complied Eugene uses parking fee revenues its short-term and long-term parking fees. use of spaces in the parking garage and parking lots within their with city parking regulations and benefits from municipal facilities to finance district boundaries. properties that have not. High tax buss passes for its employees. In 2001, UHGID raised about $114,000 generators (retail, lodging) are particularly from lot revenues. impacted. It imposes a direct charge on a less desirable travel mode, potentially impacting mode choice. 37. On-Street Parking This concept would involve a charge to use on-street parking in a This tool may be particularly useful in managing This fee might particularly impact There would be costs associated with Boulder imposes on street parking + Could be a self-financing tool to better Typically, permits are used as a tool to Fee more universal way than parking meters, which are currently in parking within multi-modal corridors. university students. administering and enforcing this fee. fees is some locations; revenues go to allocate a scarce resource, on-street allocate a scarce resource (parking) rather place in some high-demand portions of the City. For example, the General Fund. parking. than as a revenue generator. (Additional application of residents might be charged for on-street parking if they do not existing fee) have adequate off-street parking. Boulder issues on-street parking + Can be accomplished under current State permits to residents in statutes. neighborhoods abutting downtown. 38. Peak-Period This is a fee that is imposed on drivers to park vehicles in certain This tool can help facilitate a shift to alternative There would be staff requirements to enforce A mild form of peak period parking + This tool would foster efficient use of This could be a cost savings tool if it Parking Fee locations and/or during certain times of day. This tool could be modes, the peak period parking fee. fees is imposed within CAGID and high-demand areas without expanding the reduces peak demand and reduces pressure used for on-street or off-street parking. UHGID since meter usage is not parking supply. for additional parking. required throughout the day. 39. Bicycle Fee This concept is to impose a one-time or an annual fee on all This fee is inversely correlated with the TMP This fee may be inversely correlated with There may be significant costs associated with - An annual fee would be costly relative to No revenue estimates have been bicycles in the City. The bicycles could be tagged with a city objectives, which include increasing bicycle income. enforcing the registration and imposing revenues generated from an administrative calculated. (Newfee) registration ridership. penalties for not registering. perspective. This may be applicable to capital improvements for bicycle paths. Fees might be applicable to finance - Revenue-generating potential is relatively bicycle security programs. low. 40. Tolls on Roads Colorado Revised Statutes authorize the collection of tolls for This is a tool that is appropriate for new roads that The burden of paying the toll corresponds There are significant legal and administrative The State financed US 36 with toll - A local toll may meet political resistance. No revenue estimates have been prepared, construction of a new turnpike or for improvements to existing provide a quick route with no easy, free substitutes. directly to the user.. Drivers that benefit costs associated with using tolls. revenues (1952 to 1967). The E-470 as no roads have been proposed for a toll. (New fee) turnpikes including the retirement on bonds. from a faster trip pay the toll. Authority uses tolls as its primary tool to finance E470. • There is State-enabling legislation allowing Toll roads or toll bridges are most effective when the creation of toll roads at the State level. the improvement is the only route between places Toll roads or toll bridges are most effective Local governments in Colorado have or is a substantial time or mileage improvement when the improvement is the only route not attempted to apply this tool. over the next best alternative. The tool has between places or is a substantial time or relatively little applicability to the Boulder TMP mileage improvement over the next best Update. alternative. 41. Advertising Businesses would pay a fee to place advertising on city-owned Revenues are generated privately and on a This would require a charter amendment. The RTD generates revenues from + Private sector vendors generate revenues. As an illustration, the RTD generated facilities such as transit station stops. voluntary basis by vendors who want to Boulder currently prohibits advertising. advertising inside and outside of its about $3.4 million from advertising sold (New charge) advertise, buses. (lt prohibits advertising on its - May be considered visually unappealing. on buses (interior and exterior.) light rail vehicles. 42. Cost Effective This tool would keep costs down by focusing on cost-effective This concept could be applied to all capital TMP This relates to who pays the tax or fee used This would require administrative staff time to + This action can be implemented In 2001, a one percent reduction in capital Improvements ways to make capital improvements and perform on-going Update capital improvements. to make the improvements. consider where and how to reduce costs. administratively. costs would have saved $95,400; a one operations and maintenance. percent reduction in operations and maintenance costs would have saved $159,200. (Transportation Fund & Transportation Development Fund PAGE 6 OF 10 - 5/31/2002 1 UPDATE SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Transpo tian Master Plan APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE QUANTIFICATION REGULATORY TOOLS 43. Annexation Annexation agreements can state the types and timing of Transportation projects which extend to or through This tool clarifies the financial burden There is legal and planning staff time associated This tool is available to all Colorado + Annexation agreements can establish clear This is not a direct revenue-generating Agreements infrastructure improvements that are required as a condition for currently undeveloped property and projects which between the municipality and new with negotiating individual annexation municipalities. Some municipalities responsibilities for constructing specific tool; it is a cost-control tool that directs annexation. are needed to serve new development not current development. agreements. Upfront costs can be extensive that have had or encouraged transportation projects. These financial burden to new development and (Broader application of existing deficiencies may be financed in pan by (but perhaps worth the effort) if annexation is substantial annexations, such as responsibilities can be met using districts, away from the municipality. existing tool) placing the burden on property to be annexed. complex or of the municipality wants extensive Aurora and Castle Rock, have used intergovernmental agreements between exactions. this tool aggressively to control the districts and the city, up-front This tool is less applicable to the TMP update than financial burden on existing residents construction, and binding requirements on others. and businesses. future subdividers and builders. 44. Zoning Ordinance These regulatory tools are typically used to assure on-site This tool is appropriate for projects triggered by The burden of using these regulatory tools Remarks in zoning and subdivision regulations This tool is available to all Colorado + A benefit of referencing transportation This is not a direct revenue-generating and Subdivision improvements are constructed in a timely manner and consistent new development. It can be used to require to implement transportation improvements can reference related requirements to pay the municipalities. Most use the tool to improvements in zoning and subdivision tool; it is a cost-control tool that directs Regulations with local government standards. dedication of rightof-way, construction of portions is clearly on new development. development excise tax, cost share in future require on-site improvements. regulations is to tie the benefit of receiving 'financial burden to new development and of road, bicycle and pedestrian paths and specific improvements, participate in permission to develop to subsequent away from the municipality. (Broader application of They typically include requirements dedicate land and to build participation in off-site transportation maintenance of public improvements and the requirements to participate financially. existing tool) internal road, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, which are not improvements. creation of future districts. part of the broader transportation master plan. 45. Adequate Public This regulatory tool insures the timely construction of APFOs are appropriate for projects triggered by An AFPO might deter development This tool works best at the countywide level. Douglas County has an APFO and - APFOs can cause unintended overbuilding This is not a direct revenue-generating Facilities Ordinance infrastructure relative to development by requiring developers to new development. The tool can be used to require without concurrent transportation Otherwise, development will go to where detailed concurrency requirements. where APFOs are not in place. tool; it is a cost-control tool that directs (APFO) / cause needed improvement to be built. It is typically enforced at the dedication of rights-of-way, construction of improvements in place or planned for. It APFOs are not in place, which may be the financial burden to new development and concurrency the rezoning stage of land development. portions of bike and pedestrian paths and financial shifts the burden of responsibility away opposite of the intended effect. + An APFO is a negotiating tool to secure away from the municipality. Requirements participation in off-site transportation from the local government and towards the unique negotiated agreements to help fund This concept does not necessarily require developers to pay for improvements. developer. Adopting an APFO requires extensive some transportation improvements. improvements, but only that improvements be available when technical, administrative and legal work to (Existing tool) development occurs. establish the ordinance and manage + AFPOs may prevent leapfrog development through its requirements. development and pace development with infrastructure improvements. This tool is less widely used than other regulatory tools and might be more difficult to pass. DISTRICTS, AUTHORITIES, UTILITIES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS 46. Business Cities may create BIDS to fund capital improvements or The BID might be used to finance improvements The incidence is on non-residential BIDS are established by petition. A benefit There are 18 BIDS in Colorado. + BIDS may enter into IGAs with other BIDs are self-financing tools. Fees and Improvement District maintenance within a district. Unique attributes of BIDS are: (a) within primarily non-residential portions of multi- properties within the district. Residential study is needed to develop fees or assessments This is a newer statutory tool than governments. assessments are structured to generate (BID) Only non-residential property owners pay for improvements; (b) modal corridors where there is a direct benefit to the properties do not pay. that are based on benefits received. SIDS, GIDs, and Metro Districts. sufficient revenues to pay for district The BID can fund maintenance programs. abutting property owners. + BIDS can fund on-going maintenance. programs and facilities. JI.25-1201+ C.R.S.) Fees must be in sync with benefits received. A BID is a governmental entity that may enter Downtown Boulder has a BID. into intergovernmental agreements with others. Others in the County include (Application of tool) Longmont Gateway BID and Main Street Louisville BID. 41. Special Cities may create special improvement districts (SIDs). The local These districts are most applicable for localized The incidence of payment is on properties SIDS can be established by petition from There are 52 SID's in Colorado. + When the road requirement is built into SIDS are self-financing tools. Assessments Improvement District government or property owners may initiate SIDS. There is a improvements where a substantial portion of the included in the SID. property owners or by resolution of the city. If This tool is used widely in an annexation agreement, an SID with are structured to generate sufficient (SID) hearing, which states maximum costs per property owner. The benefit is attributable to properties along the established by resolution, more than 50% of the Colorado. Boulder uses SIDS to payments spread over 10 years can be a revenues to pay for district programs and 31-25503 C.R.S.) district is formed by ordinance or resolution. improvement. Local governments sometimes participate property owners affected can protest and halt finance neighborhood-scale more palatable way to finance a project facilities. to finance the through traffic share. the formation of a district. improvements, such as sidewalks. than outright cash. (Broader application of These districts are only financing vehicles, they are not new When SIDS are used for projects with larger benefit Denver uses SIDS for existing tool governments and have no power to make contracts or levy taxes. areas, often the local government shares in costs A benefit study is necessary to develop a cost neighborhood alley improvements. + Fixed life which corresponds to financing ) and/or finances segments of larger projects. Assessments must be in sync with benefits sharing formula, based on benefit. specific improvements. The primary distinguishing feature of SIDS is that the formula for received. Aurora has made extensive use of repaying district debt is most often some form of assessment, SIDS in financing new roads or based on benefit. Typically, district debt is issued and payment is road upgrades since the 1950s. • This is a financing tool only; SIDS are not spread equally over 10 to 15 years. governmental entities and may not enter into IGAs. 48. General All municipalities may create general improvement districts GIDs may be useful in financing smaller The incidence of payment is on properties A GID may require less up front legal or There are 35 GIDs in the State. + GIDs may enter into an IGA with a city GIDs are self-financing tools. Taxes and Improvement District (GID). These districts may use property tax revenues to repay transportation projects which benefit a defined area. included within the GID. administrative costs because a benefit study The most extensive use of GIDs for or county. fees are structured to generate sufficient (GID) district costs. might not be needed. transportation is in Boulder. revenues to pay for district programs and 31-25-604 CRS) GIDs may acquire, construct and install streets, GIDs may impose property taxes and may CAGID (Central Area General + No benefit study is needed if only facilities They may be initiated by a petition signed by a majority of parking facilities and drainage improvements. also impose fees, rates, tools or charges. Since a GID is a government entity, it can sign Improvement District), UHGID property taxes are to be used for (Broader application of electors owning property in the district. The local government an IGA with a city or county. (University Hills General repayment of district obligations. existing tool) adopts an ordinance or resolution creating the district. A distinguishing feature of GIDs is their Improvement District) and Forest authority to impose property taxes. Glen Transit Pass GID are + These districts are not new governmental or Public Improvement The governing body of the municipality or county where the examples. entities. However, GIDs may have an District 3020-505+ GID is located is the ex officio governing body of the district. advisory board, such as CAGID and CRS) UHGID. PAGE 7 of 10 - 5/31/2002 T M ~ SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Transpo tionMasterPlan APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION APPLIED ELSEWHERE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS 49. Metropolitan Metropolitan districts are also called Title 32 districts or special This tool is most applicable to infrastructure The incidence of payment is on properties - Independent metropolitan districts can There are 383 Metropolitan + With proper review of service plans and Metropolitan Districts are self-financing District districts. These are separate government entities, which have a improvements that are needed to serve new growth, within the district. create governance problems for cities and Districts in Colorado. Metro adoption of binding intergovernmental tools. Taxes and fees are structured to 32.1-201 et al C.R.S.) separate board of directors. They may use property tax revenues, Metropolitan districts might finance all or a counties, particularly if the district has districts were used extensively in agreements, metro districts can be a useful generate sufficient revenues to pay for user fees or assessments to collect payment. Often district debt is substantial portion of transportation projects within Some forms of payment, such are property financial problems and cannot deliver Arapahoe, Douglas, Jefferson and in financing portions of transportation district programs and facilities (Broader application of issued. their boundaries. taxes, are imposed on vacant and improved services to which they committed. resort mountain counties to finance improvements. existing tool) land. Other forms of payment may be internal infrastructure or new large Metropolitan districts are formed by a petition among property A creative use of metro districts is to require them to imposed only when construction occurs. The local government has control or developments. The tool is used - District boards may subsequently reverse owners within the proposed district. Typically, the land is vacant finance their share of larger regional improvements influence over metropolitan districts only more cautiously now as a few their decision to finance projects included and the number of property owners is small. The first step is to through a binding inter-governmental agreement prior to service plan approval. Careful metropolitan districts went in the service plan. draft a service plan that sets forth services to be provided and a with the local government. review of this plan including possible bankrupt. finance plan. requirements to sign an IGA can avoid the + This type of district may extend into types of problems that have historically There are a few in Boulder County multiple jurisdictions. The city (or county) has authority to accept or reject the service burdened cities and counties. (CO Tech Center, Fairways, plan or impose service plan requirements. Once the service plan Superior, Superior/McCaslin). is approved, the local government has no further control. Developers like metropolitan districts since they provide a source of long-term tax exempt financing. 50. Transportation (Local Government Utility) Cities may create, franchise or Boulder could create a transportation utility to Fees can be structured so that the user Both types of utilities can be formed under Fort Collins developed and - The most stringent PUC requirement This is a self-financing tool Utility license utilities (§31.21.101+). This statute was used by the City of manage any portion of its maintenance program benefits. See discussion above on current statutes. implemented a Transportation relates to insurance outside of municipal (§3421-101+ and §40.1-108 Fort Collins for street maintenance. (streets, bicycles, pedestrian paths, etc.) Transportation Utility Fees Utility, was challenged and won in boundaries. CRS) If a transit organization is formed and provides court, and then abandoned the (PUC-Regulated Utility) Under the Public Utilities Commission, Boulder would be required to create a utility if it service outside of Boulder, it must become a utility in favor or a simpler (New entity) local governments must become a transportation utility whenever governs a mass transit service that extends outside of PUC-registered utility. PUC regulates rates, transportation finance program. - There are administrative costs to it provides service outside of its corporate boundaries (§40-2-108) municipal borders, schedule and service areas and imposes insurance establishing a local government utility to requirements. PUC staff say their level of replace current city functions administrative burden is low. 51. Transportation These are private non-profit organizations that are established to These entities can be organized to develop a plan, Equity and incidence issues cannot be In Colorado, transportation management In Texas, transportation + The strength of private non-profit Cost estimates have not been prepared. Management implement specific public improvements, provide specific public deliver a service, raise funds, facilitate public/private evaluated until the financial details of the associations have been established private non- corporations are established to buy transportation corporations is the ability Public and private members typically fund Association / services or convene multiple interest groups regarding a common partnering, receive and dispense funds, corporation are in place. profit entities -sometimes originated by a rights of way and assist in the to coordinate public and private sector organizations. Organization objective. private party and sometimes by one or several planning and project design. activities in a cost-effective and This tool may be applicable to complex, high profile local governments. streamlined manner. or multi-jurisdictional projects. US 36 Transportation Mobility Transportation Organization is a TMA. Corporation In Denver, Transportation Solutions, a TMA, reimbursed RID for operating the B-Line Shuttle Service. 52. Intergovernmental Inter-governmental agreements (IGAs) may be between two or IGAs may be useful when funding improvements IGAs do not establish any new equity There are legal costs associated with drafting CAGID and UHGID share + They can be instrumental in documenting IGAs do not generate revenue. They Agreement (IGA) more governments authorized under Colorado statutes. They that traverse multiple jurisdictions, such as implications since they do not create any IGAs, but in-house legal counsel typically drafts responsibilities with the City. the cost sharing arrangements among local facilitate planning or service delivery may be between cities and the county, between a city and a community transit service, regional bikeways and new forms of payment. these. governments. across governmental boundary areas. (29-1-201 CRS; Const., metropolitan district or between a county and a metropolitan wider dissemination of the ECOPASS or to Article XIV, § 18(2); 29-20 district or between the City and the University of Colorado. implement car-sharing programs such as "7-ipcar" or IGAs do not create a new form of revenue CRS (HB 1342)] "Flexcar." to finance transportation improvements They may provide any function authorized by all participating (Broader application of parties. A creative use of IGAs is between governments and exuring tool) metropolitan districts. Another use is for donation and transfer of land. 53. Rural Governments in any area outside of the RTD area may use this This may be applicable for improvements that The incidence is similar to the City or • A popular vote is necessary to impose the There are two RTAs in the State: - Using this authority in Boulder County If imposed in 2001, a 0.4% sales tax in Transportation authority. It may provide highways, roads, bikeway, bridges, extend into Boulder County or for any major County sales tax. sales tax but not the fees, tolls and charges. the Baptist Road Rural would require a change in State Statutes. Boulder County would have raised $16.2 Authority railroad or mass transit services. Directors must be elected improvements for which the City wants to increase Transportation Authority in million. ($4,061,198,679 x .004) 43.4-601+ C.R.S.) officials. its sales tax. • Using this authority in Boulder County Colorado Springs and the Roaring - A popular vote is required. requires a change in State Statutes. Fork Transportation Authority in (New entity) With permission from the local government and voters, the Garfield County. + Can produce substantial and predictable authority may impose a sales or use tax of 0.4% or less which is revenues if a sales and use tax is imposed. exempt from 29-2.108 CRS. Unique attributes of RTAs are the ability to impose a 0.49k sales tax and impose a motor vehicle registration fee. The RTA may also impose fees, tolls and charges and may issue revenue bonds. 54. Regional Service The primary purpose of this authority is to provide services and This authority would be appropriate for any large The authority may impose property taxes, An organizational commission for There is one regional service - Using this authority in Boulder County This is a self-financing tool. New services Authority facilities that transcend local government boundaries. Boundaries project, such as community transit service of ECO rates, fees, charges and special assessments authorities may be formed by resolution of authority in Colorado: the Ouray would require a change in State Statutes. and improvements would be financed with (§32-7-101+ C.R.S.) must include at least all of one county and may include other PASS, which benefits not only Boulder but Boulder and may issue revenue bonds.. the local governments or by petition.'I'he Regional Service Authority. new taxes and fees. counties and may not be within the Denver metropolitan area. County as well. If property taxes are used, the commission proposes services and the - A popular vote is required. (New organization) improvement should be to correct existing maximum mill levy. There is a popular Services may include "public surface transportation" and several deficiencies. vote on formation and election of board of other non-transportation services. This authority is unique in its directors. ability to levy property taxes. Using this authority in Boulder County requires a change in State Statutes. PUBLIC / PRIVATE VENTURES PAGE 8 of 10 - 5/31/2002 T M LPDATE SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Transpo ton Master Plan APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE QUANTIFICATION 55. City Contribution To finance the non-district share of transportation improvements, This tool may be applicable for any improvements This is a straightforward means of cost- There would be legal and administrative staff This tool is used often. For + This can be a streamlined way to finance This is not a new revenue source; it is a to Districts the City could pay for a portion of transportation improvements that would be partially funded by districts. The sharing with property owners who also work if the City assists in the creation of a example, cities typically bear some arterials that traverse developments. cost-sharing arrangement. that will be financed by a district. When using this technique, tool can enhance the use of districts by taking care benefit from or cause the need for district. administrative and technical costs cities typically pay for their share up-front, thereby reducing the of the costs associated with through trips. improvements. to establish districts and engineer (Broader application of amount of district debt. improvements. (Neighborhood- existing tool) based improvements funded by SIDS in Boulder are an example.) 56. Joint joint public / private sector development occurs when there is an This tool may be applicable in the development of From the public sector's perspective, the There would be legal costs to develop and The bus/shuttle transfer stations at - Relying on joint development as a revenue Development opportunity for complementary uses of the same facility (such as park and ride facilities and the development of intent of joint development is saving money negotiate a development agreement, which states either end of the 16" Street Mall in tool is unwise, given the uncertainty that land) or complementary mix of public and private uses, such as bicycle and pedestrian paths and other and/or improving the quality or usability the responsibilities of the public and private Denver are joint development it will occur when and as anticipated. public uses on the ground level and private uses above. improvements within multi-use corridors.. of the ultimate development. party. projects. (Public/private partnership) + Joint development would only occur The joint development may involve asale/leaseback of land, The transaction would not occur unless all when there is a benefit to the public sector leasing air rights, common ownership, and fee simple ownership. parties benefit. over the next best alternative. 57. Sale/Leaseback This is a tool where one entity (public or private) purchases land This tool would work best where there is a large or This transaction would not occur unless all There would be legal and administrative costs to + The City could earn revenues from leasing This tool facilitates a project or or an improvement and leases it back to another entity (public or expensive parcel to be purchased or where the parties benefit. negotiate and execute a lease/purchase excess land to a private party. improvement. The potential for revenue private), remainder of land that the city purchased has agreement. generation or cost savings depends on the (Public/privatepartnersbip) private market potential. example. One application is where an authority, a private non-profit or for- + The City could save upfront costs profit organization purchases property and leases it back to the associated with the purchase. This feature City. could be useful if it is desirable to avoid the issuance of debt. Another application is where the City purchases property and leases development rights back to a private-sector developer. 58. Lease/Purchase This tool is the converse of the sale/leaseback. It is a tool where This tool is useful if the need is urgent or there are This transaction would not occur unless all There would be legal and administrative costs to - If the land is question is clearly escalating land is leased with an option to purchase at some future date. It other pressures to acquire key land and acquisition parties benefit. negotiate and execute a lease/purchase in value, it may be challenging to This is a financing tool and maybe a cost- would enable the City to control and use land for a smaller initial funds are limited or will become available in the agreement. negotiate a future purchase price. savings tool but not a revenue-generating (Public/private partnership) outlay than an outright purchase. future. This is a cost management technique. tool. + The City could secure control over key parcels of land for less than the full purchase price. 59. Subsidies & There are a wide variety of potential subsidies and incentives that This concept may apply to bikeways, road Incidence and equity issues will depend on This requires legal and administrative costs to Municipalities use subsidies and + The City may provide an in-kind This could be a cost-savings tool if Incentives can be offered by the City to encourage construction or crossings, easements, pedestrian improvements, the specific subsidy or incentive intended. negotiate agreements or to draft ordinances that incentives extensively. incentive (such as a density bonus) in development constructs desired public development activity that it desires. landscaped treatments, drainage improvements, etc. In every case, the policy maker will need to facilitate incentives. return for construction of desired improvements or builds tax revenue weigh the value of the desired (private- An example is tax increment improvements, thereby saving money. generating real estate. sector) improvement against the pubic- financing, where a blighted area sector incentive or subsidy offered. receives a share back of property and sales tax in return for desirable real estate development. NONPROFIT VENTURES 60. Private Non-Profit Private non-profit foundations are organizations dedicated to any Relative to transportation projects, there may be Financing private non-profit foundations is While there are legal costs associated with the Boulder already has a Park and - It may be time consuming to establish a This is a cost-savings, not a revenue- Foundation non-profit purpose. Some foundations are also charitable trusts foundations dedicated to improving air quality, voluntary. There are no equity burdens creation of private-non-profit foundations, these Recreation Foundation. new foundation. generating tool. that can accept tax-advantaged contributions from private sources. enhancing use of alternative modes, financing or imposed by using foundations as a financing costs are not the burden of local governments. (Broader application of maintaining bicycle and pedestrian improvements, vehicle. Other Colorado based - Success is unpredictable. existing tool) Under Colorado lay, a local government may establish a making or maintaining landscaped improvements. Applying for a grant from an existing foundations that have contributed supporting foundation to solicit and receive gifts and grants from or contributing to pilot project, or implementing foundation with transportation, air quality or to park and open space projects individuals, corporations, other private foundations and the federal other high image or high visibility projects environmental objectives is relatively include: El Pomar Foundation, + This may be a very popular way for government. Foundation contributions may be exempt from straightforward but requires staff resources. Gates Family Foundation, and corporations and affluent individuals to federal income tax. Foundations may qualify to receive funds Recreation Equipment, Inc. (REI) contribute locally. under federal programs available only to 501(c)(3) organizations. Foundation. 61. Homeowners These organizations are created to maintain the physical condition HOAs may be willing to maintain landscaping, This would be a voluntary activity. There may be some administrative and/or legal HOAs are common. However, the - Quality control could be difficult to This is a cost-savings, not a revenue- Associations (HOA) of commonly owned property and indirectly maintain or enhance bikeways or pedestrian improvements that traverse costs associated with establishing agreements and use of HOAs to maintain impose. generating tool. (Broader application of the value of their individual properties. or abut their development. monitoring success. transportation improvements is more rare. existing tool) + HOAs may be more committed to maintaining bikeway, pedestrian and landscaped improvements than any other organization. 62. Civic Associations The public purpose of some civic organizations can include Civic association may be willing to maintain This would be a voluntary activity. Legal costs should be relatively minimal. There Civic associations maintain - Quality control could be difficult to This is a cost-savings, not a revenue- (Broader application of maintenance of public spaces. landscaped entry treatments or other visible features are administrative costs associated with portions of state highways. impose. generating tool. existing tool) that boost civic pride. establishing standards and monitor the quality of the service. + There are civic pride benefits and well as cost savings. PAGE 9 OF 10 5/31/2002 SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE TTraaspa non >1PDATf Master Plan APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION APPLIED ELSEWHERE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS 63. 63.20 This is a non-profit corporation formed under a state's general This could be used to make transportation No additional taxes or fees are incurred. Extensive legal and administrative work would This tool has not been used in - Since this is tool has not been tested in This is a self-financing tool. Corporations non-profit corporation law that meets the following requirements improvements, which are needed to serve nearby Revenues to pay for the improvements are probably be necessary. Colorado to our knowledge Colorado to our knowledge; there are of IRS Revenue Ruling 63.20. (a) Engaged in activities that are property, which will be developed. A 63-20 generated by the sale of land that likely a number of currently unknown essentially public; (b) Income does not inure to the benefit of any corporation could issue tax-exempt bonds to install (presumably) benefits from the issues that will materialize. (New tool) private person; (c) State or political subdivision has a beneficial transportation improvements. Bonds would be improvements. interest in the corporation and obtains title to bond-financed repaid from the revenues generated by the sale of property, and; (d) State or political subdivision has approved the private property adjacent to the project. + This tool ties the sale of developing land corporation and bonds to be issued, if any. directly to the construction of needed improvements. DEVELOPERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS 64. Construction of In addition to constructing interior local streets, developers could This tool is appropriate for improvements that are A practice of requiring developers to There are legal and administrative costs Many municipalities use this tool to + If developers are required to build needed This is a cost savings tool from the Improvements: be required to construct their share of adjacent collectors and attributable to new growth. oversize and be reimbursed transfers the associated with monitoring an over-sizing and finance portions of collectors and improvements and be reimbursed by municipal perspective since it transfers Developers' Share of arterials. Developer might: financial burden of construction to new reimbursement program. arterials. adjacent development or the development financing burden to new development, collectors and arterials build their fair share of improvements, or; This tool may be particularly appropriate for development, not the city. excise tax fund, then Boulder is relived oversize the improvements and be reimbursed when adjacent missing segments of arterials or collectors. from bearing these up-front costs. development occurs, or; participate through payment of the development excise tax (discussed above) 65. Construction of This tool would require developers to sign an agreement to This tool may incorporate extraordinary The burden would be placed on new There are legal and administrative costs Castle Rock has made extensive use + This tool would enable Boulder to show This is a cost savings tool from the Improvements: Cost participate in their fair share of specific future improvements, such improvements that are excluded from the development. The cost-participation associated with establishing, negotiating and of cost participation agreements to financial capacity to match state and municipal perspective since it transfers Participation as freeway interchanges. improvements financed by the development excise formula could be matched specifically to a monitoring cost participation agreements. fund major transportation projects. federal funding for major improvements. financing burden to new development. Agreements tax. fair-share formula, based on trips generated. 66. Right-of-Way Developers and property owners of vacant or under-improved This tool is applicable to construction of road The incidence is on the property owner It is a relatively standard practice to seek right- This is standard practice in most - In infill situations, where a road should be This is a cost savings tool from the Dedication land would be required to dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the extensions. In some instances, the tool may be dedicating the land. While the road of-way dedication of one-half of the needed municipalities. widened, there are challenges regarding municipal perspective since it transfers eventual construction of road, bicycle and pedestrian appropriate for infill road improvements. improvement may carry more traffic than right-of-way for roadways that abut properties. setbacks and uneven curb and lane lines. financing burden to new development. improvements. the local development would require, the (Continued application of dedication is for the system wide existing tool) In some instances, after improvements are constructed, additional functioning of road, bicycle and pedestrian + Right-of-way is dedicated prior to new right-of-way could be sold or leased for development. improvements. development and the roadway design is incorporated into the development. 67. Voluntary Property owners would either dedicate land or provide an This tool is applicable for any project where land is Since this would be voluntary, there are no There are legal costs associated with accepting a Voluntary easements for open + There are no direct costs other than This is a cost savings tool from the Easements and Land easement for a transportation improvement, which traversed their currently owned privately. significant equity implications. To transfer of land or an easement and accepting space and trails have been used. assuming responsibility to maintain the municipal perspective since it transfers Dedication property' encourage voluntary dedication or liability thereafter. property and/or relieve the current owner financing burden to new development. easements, a local government might offer of liability. (Broader application of land use or density bonuses. existing tool) 68. Construct Tax- This practice encourages the real estate development that generates Within multi-modal corridors, it may be desirable This is not a new financial resource; it is an This may require some additional marketing Nearly all municipalities in - There are intricate relationships between As an illustration, a 5,000 square foot Generating property and/or sales tax. Substantial property tax generators to concentrate traffic-generating and tax-paying uses increased application of existing financial work to attract tax-generating development. Colorado engage in the process of jobs, population and related air quality restaurant with taxable sales of $350 per Development include lodging, manufacturers and buildings for tenants with such as retail and lodging, tools. attempting to attract tax-generating and transportation that are being explored square would annually generate $10,500 substantial personal property, such as banks. Substantial sales tax businesses. by the City. for the Transportation Fund and $49,175 generators include lodging and regional retailers. Legal and administrative procedures are in place. for other City funds. [(5,000 x $350 x .0341) - S59,675, total sales tax PAGE 10 OF 10 - 5/31/2002 Attachment B Multimodal Policy Focus City of Boulder Transportation Plan Update - Multimodal Corridors " Work In Progress (May 31, 2002) Facilities Land Use Design Performance Overall High Muttimodel Corridor Regional Muttimodal Land Use Design Indicator Length Pedestrian Bicycle Frequency Transit Facilities Summary Summary Summary PmaTransit Rating Composite of Number of Sidewalk Total linear High Number of Compohe of Percent miles of Frequency Regional Composite of Setback, Composite of coMdor bike and RTD Transit Pedestrian, Composite of Integration, Coverage, Lend Use Bicycle and Measurement Mlles lanes and Local Transit Routes Bkycle and Porosity, and Directness, Density and Pedestty ian paths divided Routes Along Transit Visual Continuity by corridor Along Corridor Rating Balance Interest and Actlvft and Street length Corridor Segment Amenity Crossings Segment Broadway to 28th 1.26 M H M L M M L Iris Ave0agonal Hwy 28th to 83rd 8.37 iz- L L M M M L L 83rd to 71st 3.06 L L I. M L Broadway to Folsom 1.06 H M L L M H Valnant/Balsam Folsom to 4711h 1.06 H H M L M M L 47th to Pearl Pkwy 1.36 L H M L M M L Broadway to 28th 1.18 H H M L ` 28th to Foothills Pkwy 0.74 L H M L M M M Pearl Pkwy Foothills Pkwy to 56th 1.18 L H M M M L L 561h to Twin Lakes 2.72 L L 'i L L L L Twin Lakes to Diagonal 129 L L M L L L Hwy Pearl to Folsom 1.84 H H M M H H M Folsom to 33rd 0.69 M H M M M M M Arapahoe Ave/Canyon 33rd to 56th 1.31 L H M M M M L 55th to 75th 2.50 L L M M L L gth to Broadway 0.95 H M M L M H Broadway to 33rd 0.71 M PI M M M M Baseline Road 33rd to 66th 1.32 M M M M M M M 56th to 76th 2.79 ML Vassar to Broadway 1.18 M M M L M M L Table Meseta. Boulder Broadway to Moorhead 0.86 H M M H M M L Rd Moorhead to 78th 3.34 L L M 't'• L ii N. US 36 to Violet 0.79 M H M M M L L Violet to Iris 1.26 M M M M M M L Iris to Balsam 0.66 H M H M H M Broadway Balsam to Baseline 2.16 H i i H M H H Baseline to Greenbrier 2.11 M M H H H H >.?sy M Broadway to Table Mesa 2.49 M L M L L M L N Broadway to Jay Rd 1.58 L L L L L L Jay Rd to Ills 1.02 M M M L M L L 28th SVUS; 36 Iris to Arapahoe 1.51 M M M M M M L Arapahoe to Baseline 0.98 M M L L L M M Baseline to Clry Umtts 4.81 L L L H L L Diagonal Hwy to Goose 093 L H L M L L M Creek Goose Creek to Colorado 1.18 L M L M L L L Foothills Pkwy Colorado to south of 0.83 L M L M L L L Baseline South of Baseline to US 078 L L M L L L 38 Valmont to Arapahoe 1.02 M M M M M M 55th St Arapahoe to Baseline 1.01 M M Attachment C Regional Travel Policy Focus Bou Ider TM P U pdate Regional Connections To Longmont, North Front Range To Lyons, Estes Park 4{ + 6,000 vpd To Frederick, Firestone, /vpd 2,000 vpd ,North Front Range o- 12,700 vpd To Weld County To Gunbarrel 10,000 vpd 4,900 vpdf' . 3,000 vpd i To Erie 3,200 vpd ~6,700 vpd 1 F b ` 9,900 vpd 17,500 vpd To Lafayette 8,500 vpd To Nederland To Lafayette 21200 vpd 25,100 vpd To Lafayette, Brighton -3,000 vpd To Louisville 811'm 000 vpd 20,000 vpd To Superior, Louisville 1>rs Regional Connections ~Dlagonal Hwy. SH 52 To Broomfield, A - LookoutRd. Westminster, a Valmont Dr. Denver Metro Areau Arapahoe Rd. ' 01 1 -Baseline Rd. -S. Boulder Rd. US 36 To Golden, ASH 9315. Foothills Pkwy. Jefferson County Boulder Canyon Dr. US 3Woothllis Hwy. 0 1 2 3 L S A Mlles 20011 Tm lc Counts In vehlclw per de v d Boulder TMP Update s Regional Connections - Socioeconomic Data 2001 2025 Difference U ~ IN. I{ x5 = 200 Households H • 14,- 41, M I 1 P r r r 0 - ` = 200 Jobs M 71_ ((LSA Attachment D TDM Policy Focus CITY OF BOULDER M Transportation Demand ~~.P'O Management (TDM) Plan Quick Primer Why Transportation Demand Management (TDM)? Travel issues in Boulder cannot be solved solely by expansions in infrastructure - be it roads, buses, or other similar services. Simply providing options is the start of the process; developing a desire to use the services is the logical next step to truly begin to manage traffic in Boulder. TDM endeavors to influence travel decisions by providing a menu of travel options to all types of travelers. A combination of financial incentives, cost savings, education, pricing, and travel services (such as transit), presented as an integrated TDM program, gives drivers a reason to use a different way to travel. What is TDM? TDM is a set of strategies for managing the demand placed on the transportation system. It is a term that has been applied to a range of actions that are directed at encouraging the use of all travel options. TDM is not providing actual facilities or infrastructure (such as bus stations, roads, new bus routes, etc.), but rather, enhancing and managing the use of existing and new infrastructure investments. TDM supports the use of core alternative transportation modes: • Carpooling: two or more people traveling in a car • Vanpooling: eight to 15 people traveling in a van • Transit: promotion of transit services through TDM • Bicycling and Walking • Teleworking: working from home and teleconferencing What are TDM strategies? TDM strategies, such as parking management, rideshare matching, marketing and promotions, incentives and subsidies, and other services, are used to extend the effectiveness of the core modal strategies. For example, financial incentives can be used to encourage vanpooling at a particular worksite or area. The use of support strategies can double, triple, quadruple, and in some cases, quintuple the effectiveness of the core TDM strategy, depending upon the exact package of strategies. TDM strategies include: • Parking management and parking fees • Employee Transportation Coordinators at area employers • Rideshare matching • Incentives and subsidies • Marketing and promotions • Guaranteed Ride Home • Intelligent Transportation Systems • On-site Information and Amenities • TDM-friendly site design Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Quick Primer 1 CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE TDM strategies manage the demand for transportation infrastructure and the use of modal options by using potential positive and negative incentives: Modal Possible Incentives and Strategies to Manage Positive Incentives Negative Incentives Bike / Transit Integration Carsharing Fuel Tax increase Commuter Benefits Flexible Work Schedules Parking Pricing / Management Location Efficient Mortgages New Urbanism Road Pricing Park-n-Rides Pay-as-you-drive Insurance Vehicle Use Restrictions Bike/ Walking Improvements Ridesharing School Trip Management Shuttle Services Marketing Telework Promotion Transit Enhancements Site Design Transit Oriented Development How effective can TDM be in reducing the number of those who drive alone? Each TDM strategy has its own inherent opportunities and limitations. In general, TDM strategies complement each other - for example, parking management helps encourage all core TDM options. In some situations, support strategies will only aid a few core TDM strategies. Generally, TDM effectiveness can be summarized by the application of packages (per worksite). These are national effectiveness averages, as estimated by a reduction in single-occupant vehicle use per worksite in favor of the selected mode. Generally, packages are not cumulative, as the various TDM strategies employed at different levels of implementation will be somewhat repetitious. However, economies of scale also will enhance complementary modes. Mode Basic Enhanced Aggressive Mode Basic Enhanced Aggressive Carpooling 1-5% 3-12% 15-25% Vanpooling 1-2% 2-3% 5-10% Transit TDM 1-4% 4-6% 7-15% Bike / Walk 1-2% 2-6% 4-9% Telework 5-10% 7-20% 15-25% Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Quick Primer 2 Expert Peer Panelist Questions The following is a list of questions that will be provided to the Expert Peer Panelists for the June 12th event. This list will help the panelists prepare for the presentation and discussions. Role of TDM ❑ Does your community have stated TDM goals? How did you measure success? What are appropriate and realistic TDM goals for a community? ❑ Should a community concentrate on one strategy or multiple strategies? What are the one or more core TDM strategies that should be offered? ❑ What was the political process you used to put TDM in place? Who stepped up as leaders to promote TDM? What were the principal motivations for implementing TDM? ❑ How have you used mandates, if any, in implementing TDM measures? ❑ How do you use TDM to address non-commute trips? Funding ❑ How should TDM programs be funded? What kind of partnerships have you formed to pay for programs? ❑ How has TDM effected economic development in your community? Has this influence public and private investment? Marketing ❑ What were your marketing successes and failures? ❑ How do you market to groups of differing sizes and densities? General ❑ Any experience with location-based mortgages? ❑ What are the effects of affordable housing concerns? ❑ Have you implemented free transit services? ❑ What is your experience with user-paid programs? Boulder Transportation Demand Management (T M) T M Strategies and Program Options PPDATE- Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (DRAFT - May 31, 2002) Transportation Master Plan Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies for Consideration Category: Modal Promotion Strategies Boulder experience to Revenue 1 Cost to Revenue I Cost to Strategy Description Implementer options date Commuter Implementer General promotion and marketing activities oriented towards Employer Medium. The City of Bicycling promotion encouraging commuters to bicycle. Marketing messages can include Community Boulder has actively Low revenue (cost Neutral health and cost savings, convenience, and other benefits. Regional promoted bicycle savings) commuting. Develop a specific guide for a particular worksite that includes bicycle Developer Low. The City has routes, locker and rack locations, and other pertinent information to Employer developed many bicycle Bicycle riders guide guides, but they have not Neutral Low cost. the bicycle commuter. General community information can be Community been tailored specifically to included on a cut-and-paste basis in order to save costs. Regional employers or worksites. Bicycle users group Organizations of bicyclists and bicycle commuters tend to increase Employer Low. Only informal groups Neutral Neutral. the sustainability of bicycle commuting over, time. Community of bicyclists have occurred. Medium. Although Boulder Low cost, assuming that Bike stations provide secure and covered parking for bicyclists. Most Developer has not yet implemented a Low cost, assuming a private-sector partner Bike station effective in dense concentrations of worksites, bike stations can serve Community Bike Station, it has a grant parking user fees are is found to provide fee- as an encouragement to commute to work by bicycle. to pursue a Bike Station in levied. based products and the short term. services onsite. The Bike to Work Day promotion provides many commuters with a Employer High. Boulder and the Medium cost. Bike to Bike to Work Day "first-time" experience with bicycling to work. A small proportion of Community Denver region actively Neutral Work Day is a high- these commuters, every year, become habitual bicycle commuters. Regional promote Bike to Work Day profile event. General promotion and marketing activities oriented towards Employer Low. The City participates encouraging commuters to carpool. Marketing messages can include Low revenue (cost Carpool promotion Community with RideArrangers ) Neutral cost savings, stress reduction, socialization, convenience, Regional ridematching services. savings) environmental reasons, and other benefits. Comprehensive marketing of all modal options, and how to best make Developer High. The City of Boulder use of them, are a key component to TDM promotion. Marketing Employer and regional partners have Medium cost, depending General marketing materials can include flyers, brochures, posters, and targeted email Community excelled at general TDM Neutral upon specific campaigns messages. Regional marketing materials. Commuter orientation meetings provide new employees and residents with the opportunity to learn more about travel in the Employer Modal commuter orientation community prior to habits forming. In some communities, participant Community Unknown Neutral Neutral employers require all new employees to attend an evening commuter orientation meeting as a condition of new hire. Page 1 of 7 - 05131102 Boulder Transportation Demand Management (TpM) Strategies and Program Opt ns T.MPPDATE Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (DRAFT - May 31, 2002) Transportation Master Plan Boulder experience to Revenue I Cost to Revenue I Cost to Strategy Description Implementer options date Commuter Implementer Special events are an effective means of distributing transportation Medium. Boulder has information to a large group of individuals. Targeted events can Employer conducted various events Special events include: luncheons with commuters from a particular neighborhood or Community and fairs, however, they Neutral Low cost zip code, new hires, or other targeted groups. have not been targeted for rideshare purposes As a means of promoting telework, telecenters are collective business Developer Low cost, assuming a Telecenter creation offices located near residential areas where teleworkers can access Community None. High cost typical business services, such as copiers and conference rooms. Regional user fee is imposed. General promotion and marketing activities oriented towards Employer High. Boulder has actively encouraging teleworking. Specific activities can include outreach to promoted telework through Teeework promotion employers, training of teleworkers and telemanagers, and general Regional Community its ETC network and with Neutral Low cost marketing. regional partners. General promotion and marketing activities oriented towards Employer High. Boulder has excelled Transit promotion encouraging commuters to use bus and rail alternatives. Activities Community in the promotion of transit Neutral Medium cost can include: bus route maps, brochures, posters, how-to classes, Regional alternatives to commuters and free-ride days. A riders guide oriented to new bus riders in Boulder can help High. Boulder has already overcome any predispositions against riding the bus due to a lack of Community developed materials Transit riders guide information. Items can include how to read a bus schedule, where to Regional pertaining to how to use Neutral Low cost wait for the bus, how to use online information, and how to use the the community transit bikes-on-buses racks system Medium. The City General promotion and marketing activities oriented towards Employer participates with Neutral (promotional encouraging commuters to vanpool. Marketing messages can RideArrangers vanpool Low revenue (cost only, not including any Vanpool promotion include cost savings, stress reduction, socialization, convenience, Community Regional services and has offered savings) subsidies or operational environmental reasons, and other benefits. GO Boulder labeled expenses) vanpools. Page 2 of 7 - 05/31/02 Boulder Transportation Demand Management (TP,M) TM Strategies and Program Options PPDATE- Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (DRAFT - May 31, 2002) Transportation Master Plan Category: Efficiency Strategies Strategy Description Implementer options Boulder experience to Revenue 1 Cost to Revenue ! Cost to date Commuter Implementer Low. Although DRCOG and RTD have ATIS implementations offer commuters advanced information on the implemeneted ATIS, Advanced Traveler Information availability of alternatives. Specific examples of ATIS include kiosks Community Boulder has not yet Neutral High cost Systems at bus shelters informing patrons when the next bus will arrive, Regional significantly brought these realtime bus routing at shelters and stations, and online ridematching. capabilities to the bus shelters and other high- traffic areas Employers offer flexible work arrangements, so as to minimize Medium. Many employers Alternative Work Arrangements employee commute lengths, and, maximize productivity hours. Employer have adopted this strategy. Neutral. Neutral. Typical strategies include flextime and staggered work hours. Medium. Boulder and RTD Bicycles serve the "last mile" connection between community or Employer have promoted its regional bus service, and, the worksite or school. Promoting this investment in bikes-on-bus, Bikes on Buses promotion connection often satisfies the convenience factor associated by many Regional Community however, most commuters Neutral Neutral. commuters with using the bus. still do not know how to use the service. Employers allow employees to concentrate working hours in fewer Medium. Many employers days per week. The two most popular alternatives to the "five days, throughout Boulder Compressed Work Weeks eight hours per day" workweek are: 1) four days of ten hours each, Employer implement Compressed Neutral Neutral and, 2) nine days (in two weeks) of nine hours each. The extra "day Work Weeks. off" often translates into commute trip avoidance. Employee Transportation Employers dedicate a representative and/or liaison to all employees Employer High. Boulder has a very Low cost' to both the Coordinators informing them of commute alternatives and the availability of Community (coordination) aggressive ETC network. Neutral community and the services or incentives at the worksite. employer. Truck traffic often deters the use of alternatives, particularly walking Freight management and bicycling. As many of Boulder's larger employers are located in Community None. Neutral Neutral industrial zones, managing peak period freight traffic can help to improve the quality of commute for these employees. Tourists have a unique set of transportation requirements. Tourist trip management Recognizing the need to address trips internally while visiting, tourist Community Unknown Neutral Neutral trip management emphasizes a "park once, travel often" concept for trips internal to the community. Page 3 of 7 - 05/31/02 Boulder Transportation Demand Management (T M) TM Strategies and Program Options PPDAlE Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (DRAFT - May 31, 2002) Transportation Master Plan Category: Financial Incentives Boulder experience to Revenue / Cost to Revenue / Cost to Strategy Description Implementer options date Commuter Implementer Commute Alternatives / A transportation allowance is provided to commuters, for use on Employer Limited. City of Boulder is Neutral (depending on Neutral (depending on Transportation Allowance whatever modal options they choose. Typically, allowances are used Community considering implementation how implemented) how implemented) in conjunction with parking pricing and other modal strategies. for city employees. Similar in function to "Airline Miles", a Commuter Club provides either Employer Commuter Club points or cash-based incentives to commuters who use alternative Community None. Low revenue Medium cost modes of transportation Regional Implemented as either ECO Passes or group Value Passes, free bus Employer High. ECO Passes have Free bus passes passes are provided to commuters for the use on community transit Community Low revenue Medium cost and/or regional (RTD) transit Regional been extensively promoted. Providing bicycle accessories to commuters, such as headlamps and Employer Free bicycle accessories helmets, can improve the safety of bicyclists and serve to encourage Community Unknown Low revenue Low cost greater use of bicycle commuting. Regional General incentives can include cash, prizes, recognition, discounts with eligible businesses, work time-off, or other incentives to use Employer Limited. Various prizes General financial incentives alternatives. Unlike a commuter club, these incentives do not Community and other campaigns have Low revenue. Low cost assume a continuation of the incentive program for an extended Regional been conducted. period of time. A Guaranteed Ride Home program provides a free taxi ride home to Employer High. Guaranteed Ride Neutral, although the Guaranteed Ride Home those who fall ill, have an emergency, or are left stranded by a Community Home is a standard benefit program provides Low cost carpool. Regional with RideArrangers and insurance for trip ECO Pass participation. emergencies at no cost Allows employees the opportunity to choose a parking space or Neutral (if parking is Parking cash out receive cash equivalent of the space. Works best when parking Employer None. Neutral unbundled from leases) spaces are unbundled from leases Provide and/or promote the availability of tax benefits for the use of Employer Medium. Boulder has Low revenue (employers Taxation incentives alternatives. Currently, federal tax law permits pre-tax allocation of Community received recognition for Low revenue (tax also benefit from certain alternative transportation expenses. Regional leadership in promoting savings) reduced payroll taxes) Commuter Choice benefits. Page 4 of 7 - 05/31/02 Boulder Transportation Demand Management (T M) T M Strategies and Program Opt fons PPDA TE Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (DRAFT - May 31, 2002) Transportation Master Plan Boulder experience to Revenue / Cost to Revenue 1 Cost to Strategy Description Implementer options date Commuter Implementer As vanpools lose riders over time, such as when someone changes Neutral, however, the jobs, it is important to ensure other riders maintain a consistent user Employer Low cost (typically $100 Vanpool empty seat subsidy fee. The empty seat subsidy covers the cost of the lost rider in the Community None. subsidy does provide per month per empty van until a new rider can be found to replace that individual, or at Regional insurance of cost neutrality seat). least for a minimum period of time. Subsidizing the monthly cost for using a vanpool greatly increases the Employer Vanpool subsidy cost-savings incentive for participating in a vanpool. A typical subsidy Community Unknown Medium revenue Medium cost is 30% to 50% the per-seat cost. Regional Category: Pricing Strategy Description Implementer options Boulder experience to Revenue / Cost to Revenue / Cost to date Commuter Implementer User fees are implemented for crossing a particular cordon around None. Congestion Relief Variable. Could be Neutral (if used in lieu of the community. The fee can change with the time of day or severity Community Study concluded this option either a revenue or cost sales tax). Low to Cordon pricing of traffic. Often, alternatives to driving across the cordon are Regional was undesirable for for commuters, medium revenue (if used provided, such a s remote parking and shuttle services. Boulder. depending upon in conjunction with sales behavior. tax) Developer High. Downtown Boulder Neutral. Fees are used Parking fees can be set for cost-recovery, or, variable based upon Employer and University Hill have Low cost. to recover cost of Parking fees time of day and length of parking had parking fees for over a . parking facilities and Community decade. enforcement. Variable. Could be Vehicle insurance rates are not levied as a fixed rate, but rather as either a revenue or cost Neutral (depends upon Pay-as-you-go vehicle insurance variable, based upon the total number of miles driven. Successfully Regional None. for commuters, cost-recovery formula) implemented in Texas. depending upon behavior. None. Congestion Relief Variable. Could be Neutral (if used in lieu of User fees are implemented on area roads, with higher fees either a revenue or cost sales tax). Low to Roadway pricing associated during peak times, and discounted or zero fees associated Community Study concluded this option Regional for commuters, medium revenue (if used with off-peak travel times. was undesirable for depending upon in conjunction with sales Boulder. behavior. tax) Page 5 of 7 - 05/31/02 Boulder Transportation Demand Management (T~M) TM Strategies and Program Options PRATE Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (DRAFT - May 31, 2002) Transportation Master Plan Category: Facility I Land Use Elements Strategy Description Implementer options Boulder experience to Revenue I Cost to Revenue / Cost to date Commuter Implementer Multi-modal access management, which includes consideration of Low. Multi-modal access access for ALL modes, improves the respective efficiency of each Developer management has been Access management mode. Curb cuts, pedestrian corridors, bicycle corridors, and other Community considered on a case-by- Neutral. Neutral. considerations can be included. case basis. Low. Most large employers Bicycle racks and long-term lockers should be placed as close to the have implemented bicycle Low cost. Atypical Bicycle racks and lockers front door as possible, in order to give an additional incentive to Developer racks, however, Boulder Neutral bicycle rack costs only bicycle over those who drive alone. Employer does not have a formal $200 for purchase and ordinance for number and installation. location. Clustered parking (including parking structures) reduces pedestrian Low. Clustered parking Clustered parking distance between buildings and improves ambient quality for Developer has been utilized in certain Neutral. Neutral, depending on pedestrians. Employer situations; however, zoning cost-recovery plan code has no specifications. Commuter stores are primarily information centers that provide a central location for obtaining commuter information. This information Low. Although Boulder can include maps, schedules, bus passes, ridematching, vanpool Developer does not operate a Commuter Store sales, and more. Typically, Commuter Stores also sell commuter- Community Commuter Store, there are Neutral Medium cost. oriented products, such as coffee mugs. In a few situations, centralized locations for communities require employees to pick up their bus passes at obtaining information. Commuter Stores. Aside from constructing separate HOV facilities, HOV priority systems Low. Although Boulder has High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) offer signal "queue jumping" for buses and vanpools. Priority systems deployed the use of similar make use of the same signal prioritization technology as utilized b Community technology, priority by queue jumping emergency vehicles has not been implemented Onsite amenities provide retail services to employees, without Low. Some large requiring a trip. Examples include ATMs, convenience retail, Onsite amenities Developer employment sites offer Neutral Neutral childcare, food services, and cleaners - all located within easy onsite amenities walking distance, preferably onsite. Parking management strategies utilize a variety of factors to balance Low. Parking management the availability of parking with the availability of modal alternatives. Developer strategies are concentrated Parking management Residential and commercial parking permits, parking pricing, shared Community in the high density areas of Low cost Medium cost use parking, time restrictions, and other strategies are included in Boulder, including general parking management. downtown and the Hill page 6 of 7 - 05/31102 Boulder Transportation Demand Management (T M) TM Strategies and Program Opt4bns PPDATE- Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (DRAFT - May 31, 2002) Transportation Master Plan Boulder experience to Revenue 1 Cost to Revenue / Cost to Strategy Description Implementer options date Commuter Implementer The establishment of parking maximum ratios ensures that a Low. Parking maximum development site does not oversupply parking, thereby creating an Developer ratios have been Neutral Low revenue (cost Parking maximum ratios imbalance between modal options. Parking maximums are typically Community established n savings g Y previously i ) implemented in areas where modal options are apparent to users. the PUD process Preferential parking programs provide parking spaces for carpoolers Low cost (parking signs Preferential parking and vanpoolers near the front entrances. These reserved spaces Developer Unknown Neutral and hang tags run less typically require a hang-tag or other identification mechanism for use. Community than $100 per space) Separating pedestrian and bicycle traffic from vehicular traffic Medium. Boulder has been aggressive regarding Protected pedestrian bicycle improves safety and enhances the quality experience of the Developer bicycle and pedestrian Variable, depending / alternative. Protected corridors include separated sidewalks (typically Neutral upon site factors and corridors with a landscaped buffer), marked corridor in a parking lot, and other Community trails, and to a lesser design. similar improvements. extent, pedestrian accessibility in site design. General promotion of land use and site design elements that facilitate Low. TDM friendly the use of modal alternatives. Elements can include preferential Developer improvements have been TDM Friendly Site Design parking for carpoolers, drop off locations close to the main entrance, Community incorporated at some sites Neutral Low cost bicycle parking improvements, and various other strategies on a limited basis. Separating parking from building leases provides an opportunity for Developer Medium. Downtown and Neutral (if accompanied employers to offer a transportation allowance or other cost-neutral Employer by a transportation Unbundled parking leases promotion of alternatives, without incurring any additional cost for Community (as required at University Hill districts have allowance). Low cost (if Neutral. "wasted" parking. development review) unbundled parking. no allowance) Page 7 of 7 - 05/31/02 CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD NON AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 10, 2002 SUBJECT: Staff briefing and board input on Transportation Master Plan Update - Ph=Policy Refinement REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Public Works Department Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation Mike Gardner-Sweeney, Transportation Operations and Planning Coordinator Randall Rinsch, Senior Transportation Planner BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion and reaction to the policy refinement materials PURPOSE: Since the fall of 2001, staff has been working on the Update of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). Phase I, Plan Assessment and Policy Focus Direction concluded in March with TAB recommendation and Council approval of four areas for policy focus: funding, multimodal corridors, regional travel and transportation demand management (TDM). Staff and the TMP Study Committee have been working on these areas in Phase 2 of the Update, Policy Refinement. The attached materials represent progress to data in this phase and present a high level summary of the developed screening criteria, inventory and categorization of options, and some initial refinement results. This item and the staff presentation provides the Board the opportunity to review and comment on the inventories and proposed screening criteria, in anticipation of asking the Board to make a recommendation to City Council relative to this phase at the TAB's July meeting. BACKGROUND: On June 16, 2001, City Council approved a public process outline and TMP management structure reflecting the TAB's recommendations for the TMP Update. This process includes four-phases of work and the inclusion of a number of "Transportation in Boulder" outreach/education sessions with the public. These are: • Phase 1: Policy Direction and Scope Completed by establishing the four areas for policy focus of funding, multi modal corridors, regional travel and transportation demand management (TDM). • Phase 2: Policy Refinement Explores areas in which adjustments are needed to take the AGENDA ITEM # VII Page 1 TNT to the next step in developing a transportation system supporting the TMP's goals and objectives. This phase includes white papers and research providing background, policy options and the screening criteria for consideration by the TMP Study Committee. • Phase 3: Plan Development Will develop the plan to the level of an investment program that is fiscally constrained and optimizes progress supporting the policy directions of the plan. This phase includes the transportation modeling needed to test the results of the program, facility and investment alternatives proposed. • Phase 4: Plan Adoption Prepares and presents an integrated plan through the intensive public outreach process needed to support adoption of the update. Based on the TAB recommendation, a series of "Transportation in Boulder" education/outreach sessions were held in the fall 2001 to educate Study Committee members and the public and provide background for the assessment work. Two additional Transportation in Boulder sessions were recently held on TDM and transportation modeling in preparation for this and the next phase of the Update. The TMP Study Committee met in May to review the proposed study approach, evaluation criteria and inventories for each policy focus areas. Three subcommittees have continued this work in the areas of funding, multimodal corridors and TDM, and continue to further refine these materials. DESCRIPTION OF THE ATTACHED MATERIALS: The following section provides a brief description of the study approach being used for the policy focus area and an explanation of the attachments. All attachments are works in progress and several subcommittees are meeting between the time of this memo and the June 10' meeting. Staff will bring updated materials to the June 10Y' meeting. Funding Focus Area. Funding is an issue in the existing plan and is necessary to support the programs and investments that will be identified in the other focus areas of the Update. Existing funding sources are unable to support the investment program in the current TMP and will significantly limit the development of programs and facilities under a fiscally constrained Update. The objectives of the Funding Focus Area during Phase 2 are to: • Compile a comprehensive list of potential resources to be included in the funding toolkit; • Understand the merits, potential and limitations of each funding tool; • Concur on evaluation criteria to select the best funding tools; • Narrow the funding toolkit by eliminating those with a "fatal flaw," and; Learn how Boulder's peer cities finance transportation. During Phase 3, funding tools deemed most appropriate through the evaluation criteria will be matched to proposed alternatives of facility improvements, programs and activities. The 2002 TMP Update will be fiscally constrained such that the adopted plan must contain fimding recommendations sufficient to finance the TMP recommendations. AGENDA ITEM # VII Page 2 The materials included in the attachment for this policy focus area (Attachment A) include a one page summary of current transportation finance for the city of Boulder, the initial screening criteria for performing the fatal flaw analysis, an evaluation matrix of major considerations relative to each technique, and the comprehensive descriptive inventory of transportation financing techniques. Multimodal Corridors Focus Area While the 1996 Transportation Management Plan identified 10 multimodal corridors within the city of Boulder, it does not provide much guidance on how to implement or prioritize the development of such corridors. The work effort in this focus area is directed at understanding the components that are part of a successful multimodal corridor, how they contribute to that success, and where opportunities exist for strategically improving the success of the corridors. The multimodal corridor assessment contains three work efforts as follows: ■ Develop corridor indicators that are relevant, easy to understand, reliable, easily accessible and available. Indicator information will be collected for each corridor to develop appropriate indicators in the areas of transportation facilities or infrastructure, land use, and corridor design. ■ Define travel characteristics to document the current travel performance each corridor. ■ Establish correlations by comparing the potential indicator categories with actual travel characteristics, and identify what indicators are the most important in predicting multimodal trip activity. The attachment for multimodal corridors (Attachment B) is a summary matrix of multimodal corridor segments, ranked in the four areas of transportation facilities or infrastructure, land use, corridor design and travel performance. This table represents the aggregation of six to 12 indicators that were collected and evaluated under each of these four areas. During Phase 3, alternative transportation plans will be developed, and multimodal travel estimates will be projected based on applying the correlated indicators. Regional Travel Focus Area A significant increase in current employment and the expected large future increase with limited housing growth in the city suggests increased commuting by employees from outside of Boulder. Consequently, regional travel is an increasing challenge to the transportation goals of the city. Regional travel also presents a unique set of challenges as actions on regional corridors depend on regional partners and will likely be funded by outside funds. The regional travel analysis aims to: ■ identify which regional corridors are significant to city transportation efforts; prioritize these corridors for future focus and investment; and, • define the vision for the regional corridors, their relationship to the city's multimodal corridors and our approach for achieving this vision. The Regional Travel work tasks and.products for Phase 2 fall into three broad areas of work: AGENDA ITEM # VII Page 3 • Evaluate Socio-economic Base Data and Projections: Collect updated information for regional population and employment estimates and growth forecasts and demographics. Map existing and projected distributions and describe potential implications on local and regional travel. Include information from the Jobs to Population project that describes expected changes in the economy, work force characteristics and travel patterns. Describe Current Travel Conditions: Describe existing corridors and facilities, travel characteristics such as volumes, level of service, etc., including local and regional transit service. Assess transit coverage and linkages. Identify proposed improvements to the corridors, their schedule, cost and funding. Using survey data and modeling, map linkages between employment centers and residential areas relative to available transit service for both regional travel and for sub-community travel. • Project Future Travel Demand: Based on projected population and employment and demographic characteristics, project future travel demand for each corridor, modal characteristics of these trips and the adequacy of the existing and planned facilities and transit service. Characterize the likely impacts and identify potential improvements and funding strategies, The attachment for this area (Attachment C) includes a map of the identified regional connections with their current traffic volumes, a map displaying the projected growth in population and employment from the DRCOG regional data sets, and a summary matrix characterizing the status of the regional corridors relative to current and planned improvements, their funding, funding strategy and partnerships. Evaluation of these connections for future regional travel depends in large part on results from transportation modeling and will be included when those are available, but an initial ranking of regional connections by priority is included in the summary matrix. TDM Focus Area Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has been an integral part of Boulder's transportation services for over 15 years, but this evaluation is aimed at broadening the various TDM strategies that can be deployed to help achieve Boulder's transportation goals and objectives. A joint subcommittee of TMP Study Committee members and Jobs to Population Balance Task Force members has been working to develop a general understanding of TDM strategies that could be considered for Boulder and will be developing goals, objectives and evaluation criteria. A major component of the TDM policy focus area is the Expert Peer Review Panel occurring on June 12, 2002, which has been asked to address a set of questions developed by the subcommittee. The further analysis of TDM applications will include cost effectiveness, translating national experience into potential Boulder effectiveness, fatal flaws as applied to Boulder, and the development of evaluation criteria. The development of TDM packages will occur in the next phase of the TMP Update and through the Jobs to Population scenario development. The attachment related to TDM includes a TDM Quick Primer outlining what TDM is, how it is used, and general ideas of effectiveness in reducing single-occupant vehicle trips nationwide. AGENDA ITEM # VII Page 4 The matrix of Strategies and Program Options is a comprehensive list of TDM strategies included in the TDM Toolkit document, along with an evaluation of the city's experience with each to date, their relative cost to the user and cost to implement. An additional column will be added to this table reflecting the potential yield of each strategy in terms of mode shift. And the questions that the Expert Peer Panelists have been asked to consider are included. NEXT STEPS: Due to growing budget constraints, staff has scaled back the public process on this phase of the Update and will be evaluating the reductions needed in future phases of the Update. The second meeting of the Study Committee has been canceled, and the individual Committee members will be asked to review the work of the sub-committees and comment via e-mail. These comments will be incorporated into the materials presented to TAB on July 9h, 2002. The public forum for this phase that was scheduled for Monday, June 24`" will now occur as an open house prior to the TAB meeting on July 9w, and citizens will have the opportunity to address the Board during its meeting. On July 9ffi, the Board will be asked to make a recommendation to City Council on the Phase 2 materials, which staff will carry to Council at its meeting on July 10th. BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: The TAB is asked to discuss and provide their thoughts and reaction to the proposed assessment materials. Attachments: A- Funding Policy Focus B- Multimodal Policy Focus C- Regional Travel Policy Focus D- TDM Policy Focus AGENDA ITEM # VII Page 5 Attachment A Funding Policy Focus Transportation Finance in the City of Boulder - 2002 Approved venues Beginning Fund Balance: $4,220,000 These Services ®Registration ves Transportation Fund Provides les Tax Sources of Funds: $23,860,000 ✓ Manages transportation and Revenues Operating Uses of Funds: $16,220,000 - TDM programs $ istration Fees Capital Uses of Funds: $10.070.000 ✓ Maintains roads & bikeways $ deral Reimb. Total Uses of Funds: $26,290,000 ✓ Constructs r oads and & Bridge Ending Fund Balance: $1,900,000 bikeways Transportation Development Fund Provides Receives Beginning Fund Balance: $1,620,000 These Revenues Sources of Funds: $1,460,000 These Services $ Transportation Excise Tax Operating Uses of Funds: $290,000 ✓ Constructs transportation $ Interest Income Capital Uses of Funds: $1.580.000 improvements caused by new $ Reimbursements Total Uses of Funds: $1,870,000 growth and financed with excise tax revenues Ending Fund Balance: $1,210,000 (l)-111110.1 ives CAGID (Central Area General Imp. District) Provides ns venues Beginning Fund Balance: $690,000 These Services nership Tax Sources of Funds: $4,820,000 rm Fees rm Fees Operating Uses of Funds: $2,280,000 structures and lots s & Tokens Debt & Transfers Out: $2.620.00✓ Maintains Mall d Transfer Ending Fund Balance: $620,000 ✓Operates and maintains ✓ Eco-Pass Program me, Interest Total Uses of Funds: $4,900,000 ✓ Pays structure debt Receives UHGID (University Hills General Imp. District) Provides These Revenues Beginning Fund Balance $410,000 $ Property/Ownership Tax Sources of Funds: $360,000 These Services $ Lot Revenues Operating Uses: $310,000 ✓ Operates and maintains $ Meterhoods & Tokens Transfers Out: $20.000 parking lots in Hills $ General Fund Transfer Total Uses of Funds: $330,000 ✓ Eco-Pass Program $ Interest Ending Fund Balance: $440,000 Transit Pass General Imp. District Receives Beginning Fund Balance: $0 Provides These Revenues Sources of Funds: $9,000 $ Property Taxes Operating Uses: $9,000 These Services $ ECO Pass Subsidy Debt and Transfers Out: L ✓ Distributes Eco -Pass within $ Admin. Subsidy Total Uses of Funds: $9,000 Forest Glen Ending Fund Balance: $0 General Fund Receives Beginning Fund Balance: $9,790,000 Provides These Trans. Revenues Sources of Funds $84,850,000 These Services Operating Uses: $61,840,000 ✓ Governmental services such ~ $ $ On- Specific Street Parking Ownership Meter Taxes _ Debt & Transfers Out: $13.560.000 as public safety, planning, Revenues Total Uses of Funds: $75,400,000 recreation, legal, admin. Ending Fund Balance: $9,450,000 and other WORKING DRAFT CRITERIA FOR SELECTING FINANCIAL TOOLS FOR 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDER THESE CRITERIA Mandatory Good Don't Eliminate Criterion Criteria this (Fatal Flaw Criteria To Know at Criteria without this Consider this time A. Financial / Administrative Criteria 1. Proven technique in Boulder. 2. Proven technique in Colorado. 3. Proven technique in US. 4. Raises substantial revenue. 5. Generates a predictable revenue stream. 6. Administratively easy and cost effective to implement. 7. Can be used to leverage other funds 8. Flexibility with respect to rate changes B. Equity / Incidence 1. Uses incentives; is not unitive. 2. S/he who benefits pays. 3. Avoids unintended consequences, such as discouraging transit ridership. 4. Minimizes impact on limited income; tax is progressive, not regressive. 5. Is imposed on more than City residents, property owners and businesses (e.g., commuters, visitors, other cities 6. Supports seconds goals of the City 7. Environmentalljust. 8. Does not place Boulder businesses at an undue competitive disadvantage. C. Political /Legal Process 1. Allowed under State Statutes. 2. Does = require voter approval. 3. Potential political acceptance. 4. Avoids opposition by singling out some one (or some organization). DRAFT PRINTED ON: 5/31/2002 City of Boulder Transportation Plan Update - Multimodal Corridors Work In Progress (June 8, 2002) Facilities Land Use Design Performance Overall High Multimodal Indicator Corridor Pedestrian Bicycle Frequency Regional Multimodal Land Use Design Automobile Performance Transit Length Transit Transit Facilities Summary Summary Performance Summary Performance Rating Composite of Number of Sidewalk Total linear High Number of Compoite of miles of Frequency Regional Composite o Setback, Percent Composite Composite of corridor bike and RTD Transit Pedestrian, Integration, Total Measurement coverage, Land Use Bicycle and Transit Miles lanes and Local Transit Routes Bicycle and Porosity, and Average Directness, paths divided Routes Along Transit Density and Visual Delay Pedestrian Ridership Continuity by corridor Along Corridor Rating Balance Interest and Activity and Street length Corridor Segment Amenity Crossings Segment Broadway to 28th 1.25 M MH 2 M M C L LM Iris Ave/Diagonal Hwy 28th to 63rd 8.37 L L 4 4 LM L C L MH 63rd to 71 st 3.05 L L 0 4 L L LM Broadway to Folsom 1.06 MH M 0 0 M MH C L ValmonUBalsam Folsom to 47th 1.06 MH MH 2 0 M M E LM LM 47th to Pearl Pkwy 1.35 LM MH 2 0 LM M 8 L LM Broadway to 28th 1.18 H MH 12 0 H H MH L 28th to Foothills Pkwy 0.74 M H 12 0 MH M M L Pearl Pkwy Foothills Pkwy to 55th 1.18 LM H 6 2 M L C L LM 55th to Twin Lakes 2.72 L L 0 0 L L F L L Twin Lakes to Diagonal 1.29 L LM 4 0 LM L B M Hwy Pearl to Folsom 1.84 H H 10 4 H MH C M MH Folsom to 33rd 0.69 M H 8 7 MH M C M MH Arapahoe Ave/Canyon 33rd to 55th 1.31 LM H 8 7 M M E LM MH 55th to 75th 2.50 LM L 6 3 LM L E LM M 9th to Broadway 0.95 MH M 2 0 M H C MH L Broadway to 33rd 0.71 M H 8 2 MH M C MH MH Baseline Road 33rd to 55th 1.32 M M 2 2 M M E M LM E LM L 55th to 75th 2.79 L" L 0 2 IR Im" Vassar to Broadway 1.16 M M 8 0 M M C LM H Table MasalS. Boulder Rd Broadway to Moorhead 0.65 MH M 4 9 M M C LM H Moorhead to 76th 3.34 L L 0 2 L L D M N. US 36 to Violet 0.79 LM MH 6 1 M LM B LM H Violet to Iris 1.26 M M 6 1 M M B L H Iris to Balsam 0.66 MH M 10 1 H MH C H Broadway Balsam to Baseline 2.16 H MH 10 5 H H C H H Baseline to Greenbriar 2.11 MH M 12 17 H MH B M H Broadway to Table Mesa 2.49 MH L 6 0 LM M B L H N Broadway to Jay Rd 1.58 L L 0 0 L L B LM L Jay Rd to Iris 1.02 M M 6 0 M L C L M 28th St/US 36 Iris to Arapahoe 1.51 M M 4 2 M LM E L M Arapahoe to Baseline 0.99 M M 0 0 LM LM E M L Baseline to City Limits 4.61 L LM 0 15 LM L H Diagonal Hwy to Goose 0.93 LM H 0 2 LM L F M L Creek Goose Creek to Colorado 1.18 L M 0 4 LM L F LM LM Foothills Pkwy Colorado to south of 0.83 LM M 0 6 LM L E L LM Baseline South of Baseline to US 0.79 LM 0 6 LM L LM LM 36 Valmont to Arapahoe 1.02 LM M 8 2 M M E M 55th St Arapahoe to Baseline 1.01 LM LM 0 0 LM M F Multi Modal Corridor Assessment Junea.xls Page 1 WORKING DRAFT #2 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR SELECTING FINANCIAL TOOLS FOR 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Criteria are in general riori order within each category) CONSIDER THESE CRITERIA Good Don't Eliminate Criterion Considered Fatal Flaw Criterion this Criterion but Not Know at Criterion Fatal Flaw this time A. FINANCIAL / ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA 1. Raises substantial revenue. ❑ 2. Generates a predictable revenue stream. ❑ 3. Proven technique in Boulder. ❑ -4. Administratively easy to implement. 5. Net revenues are not cost effective; poor return. O 6. Can be used to leverage other funds. ❑ 7. Easy to change rates. ❑ 8. Proven technique in Colorado. ❑ 9. Proven technique in US. ❑ B. EQUITY / INCIDENCE 1. Supports mode shift objectives of TMR ❑ 2. Supports City goals. 3. Avoids unintended consequences, such as ❑ discouraging transit ridership. .4. Environmentally just. 5. S/he who benefits pays. ❑ 6. Does not place Boulder businesses and institutions ❑ at an undue competitive disadvantage. 7. Imposed on more than City residents, property owners and businesses. (e.g., can be imposed on O commuters, visitors, other cities 8. Uses incentives; is not unitive. ❑ 9. Minimizes impact on limited income households; ❑ tax/fee is progressive, not regressive. C. POLITICAL /LEGAL PROCESS 1. Potential political acceptance. 2. Simple; easy to understand. ❑ 3. Does = require voter approval. ❑ 4. Allowed under State statutes. ❑ 5. Avoids opposition by singling out some one or some ❑ o ani ation. DRAFT PRINTED ON: 6/10/2002 200 Proposed Traanspaort<ati on Budzet Modal Investment Distribution Modal Investment Distribution TDM Mitigation 4% 2% Pedestrian 22% Roadway IV Bike 41% 19% Transit 12% Y car -1003 Proposed Budget 2002 Approved Budget* "i'103 free ao+sed Bud~zet Total Total Mode/Funct'on o/m Enhancements $ % o/m Enhancements $ % Pedestrian 2,485,900 2,826,165 5,312,065 19% 2,063,966 3,195,396 5,259,362 22% Bike 1,317,516 2,456,128 3,773,644 13% 1,037,148 3,524,771 4,561,919 19% Transit 1,197,883 1,206,223 2,404,106 9°/ 1,245,925 1,973,198 3,219,123 12% Roadway 12,144,094 2,934,947 15,079,041 54% 6,889,638 2,634,301 9,523,939 41% M 506,664 381,837 888,501 3°/ 539,645 412,943 952,588 4°/ ti ation 455,134 249,250 704,384 3438,973 114,737 553,710 Total 18,107,191 10,054,550 28,161,741 12,215,296 11,855,346 24,070,642 E.-Of Total 64% 36%1 1 100°/ 51% 49% 100°/ - Budget Proposal based on Pedestnan/Bike/Transit Modal Emphasis Scenario; includes Funds 180 & 181 * - $3.6M of roadway o/m expenditure is CDOT and Federal funding for Broadway/Boulder Creek Bridge Replacement and Broadway Reconstruction g:\tran\cip.01\03modefunding.xls Page 1 of 1 Total Chart 6/10/2002 City Council Transportation Goal AGENDA June 6, 2002 8:00am to 9:30am Park Central Building, 3rd Floor - Olmstead Room 1. Travel Demand Managment: • City employee Travel Allowance program update - Ron Secrist • Boulder Valley School District - Student Transportation Coordinator: Program Update - Landon Hilliard 2. Regional Connections / Community Transit Network • Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) connections plan (A subset of the Arapahoe Transportation Network Plan) - Bob Whitson Briefing by BVSD Student Transportation Coordinator of Boulder City Council Transportation Subcommittee Thursday. June 6. 2002, 1739 Broadway Working Towards An Ideal Provide safe and practical choices of appropriate transportation; including walking, bicycling, and mass transit, to all students of the Boulder Valley Schools in order to enhance student mobility, reduce traffic congestion around schools, and promote safety and human health. r Goals: -Provide transportation options. -Reduce car trips to school. -Link health and environmental benefits of Active Transportation. The 2001-2002 school year: s Highlights: Panther TV, TDM Conference, Mt. Sanitas Challenge, Bike bell reward. ' Accon-tplishmer. s: ->Boulder Valley Photo Squad (BVPS) ->Transportation Survey of Boulder High School ->Bicycle and Pedestrian Education (e.g., Feet First, Street Smarts, Sprockids, Off Ramp) =Introduction of TeenPass Program TeenPass Sales in Spring 2002: March Ai?ril may # of Schools 10 10 12 # of Passes Sold 330 528 673 Percentage Change NA 60%T 27%T l si;hts: -Boulder Vision 2002 "State of Boulder's Transportation" -Eldorado K-8 School "Transportation Task Force" h ,hallenges: ->Build Volunteer STC network (ambassadors representing each school). -Inform school community of transportation options. (possibilities of active transportation) ->Continue participation of big events into daily travel. ("normalize" active transportation) Overcome impediments to walking, biking, and transit (i.e., pattern of travel, hurried schedule, inconvenience, weather, perception of danger, "all or none" attitude, backpacks!). ' n Folsom Avenue dy ORBIT a 4") ro Colorado ' ~~ar university r2. o CID T a Zt UND, 28th Street a ie c~ € 1r ~e s xr R M w aw a n aff d am Mw so Rs x j& i aas rw w a sn rr u~ M ~s t 'A- z NF-1W CIRCULATOR ROUTS 1 0 30th Street 32nd Street 4t 0 -0 NEW CIRCULATOR ~ 33rd Street ROUTE SION ro~ao r y Legend Ili uture regional " Super Stop" Future regional terminus: The Boulder Transit Village existing propaect local transit service Mulr Valley Regional Center Transportation Connections Plan Local, high-frequency transit service F uture Transit Map 40- Regional transit service 'ip,Te q UiV In kaic Jaw-1,2N12 cap a I ~ III I 1! ►1 ~jt,~ YMCA Future BiaURetd Moulder lransil ietofA .n Also see North 28th Street TNP an,! update, ~`lla e , ` ' as aPpraprlate, connections-in that plan ' See deta lt'Sff"eet for two alteratives for this 1C 41'Malt, superblock e Movie 1 heater a j sip, iL I ,••-'--=~c:.~~a-RCSaw,,. e w ~y i Chrysler 7. Target Pe~x ,.A I w fll k4 I. m r~ r. Wendg'a _ • Christy - Cr Additional v#ricufar corm ctionsSound aticipated ih qse, highli hted Spnrtc I Track j \~edevelopm~eOf areas, 3 and Walnut Gardens 1al~t S'tr C " '"~~r I„~ i' Uair olcy'x Parking, I y Center I Marshall Structure Market square for the Plaza McUon jd"s A ris i Burger iiug Sears i.Cevars i; 6i Crossroads World Savings . Mail ~ X11 3tenler ( rrty Canyon Boulevard Co ding nit r'rrturo C ompUSA RTD ~ ~ I itt,dNtiefupmeut Maintenance r„ t , Marriot Hotel ~ King j W The Village w.~. _ Buffalo Soopers Village i - its 1,• i ~ C,rnvt: street flank Oe AVe @ r= Harrel House t i W Scutt 1 i 1larnae 4tr let Carpenter C _ w, Park i Safeway t i OG ? , it Millenium University of Colorado finial Research C'cnter and East Campus , Courdrs Court i~ r._ r 7 - Taw following oplicins will be further studied ut context t>l the entire Arapahoe corridor in the study area, from Frjisom to Vvestvit*w. (Ce,Clld 1 Existing roadway with multi-use paths on the north and south sides of the street Existing Upgraded i Proposed facility 2. Continuous, six travel lanes with bicycle zlanes- 3. Option two, plus queue jumps at all or certain intersections. 5,;,:,ntlca I cdcaiau t 1,,.1,,,;, ' 4. Dedicated busfbike/right-turn only lanes the entire corridor, from Folsom to Westview. i ~,,o.a .~m>rx I "+rin,,n7 Haadn.a. I,jl+u;d¢,+i,h ,i<Ir+~aib.s: z' , raw Srimdtlnb''h.culururOn<ctu*,fn~ltl'.~+~ilhoutSiJCN'o1l0) Boulder Valley Regional Center Transportation ,I'- °I> ....._.,.:.,~.n.,_.,:.: ! ,m ,i9•~I a H,A,. f doubt} Connections Plan 1 i Overview Trzuaii Ku1•,•_ Swi, r{J ~ -i rail is 6ium.l F1lLlYe X tux 7N Not to Scott: .lune-4, 2002 Carter Saargess