5 - Presentation - Recommendation regarding the Sept. 14, 2010 Transportation Finance Study Session
rF 'aQ - .v
Study Session on
Transportatmion Fminance
)tl
QpU ~oU
p "F,, rr i
(~1Y
Purpose for Tonight
Present constraints resulting from
current available funding
Revenue and cost trends
Implemented efficiencies and
reductions
Complete Streets priorities
Potential funding sources
Council feedback
Big picture overview
• TMP set broad multimodal goals
Significant progress to date
VIVIT near 1994 levels
28% bus+bike+walk mode share (ACS)
so%
7o% *ME }Work Trip
so~% o - SOV share
5o%a
ao% SOV Work
so% Trip Goal
20% Trend line
rend line
T%
~o
10%
0%-
1990 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025
Big picture overview
• TMP assumed significant progress to:
Complete the modal systems
Implement aggressive TDM measures
Additional person travel would occur on
the multimodal system
Price signals would support goals
Have been delayed in implementation,
in part due to limited funding
■
Budget Basics
Transportation Funding Sources 2010 (in millions of dollars)
Interest, $0.5,
2% Development
Other, 2.2 9% Excis a Taxes,
$0.692%
State Highway
User's Tax, $2.5,
10%
Sales Tax, $14.9,
Federal funding, 63%
$3.4914%
Funding Trends
Funding declines from all sources
• Increased costs for materials
• Increase in operations and
maintenance needs
• Results:
Maintenance schedules extended
Reductions in staff
Reduced transit and Eco Pass support
Decreased capital construction
Funding Trends:
Declining Purchasing Power
Transportation Budget less Federal Funding--Inflation Adjusted
25, 000, 000
20, 000, 000
15,000,000
t CPI Inflation Adjusted
~ C31 Inflation Adjusted
10,000,000 -r Adopted Budget
5,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Maintenance over Enhancement
O&M v Enhancements, as percent of total expenditures
City Transportation budget (without federal funds)
100%
80%
60%
■ Enhancements
O O&M
40%
20%
0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Blue Ribbon Commission
Transportation Fund Projection: 2006-2030
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
NO p
N:' tiO ti~ `L~'
OrO O~ O~ NO N~ I- ~O '~tK ' ~O
ry ryO ~O ,tiO ryO ~O ~O ~O ~O rL0 ~O ~O ~O cL0 rLO
Total Revenues -Total Expenditures
Transportation more significantly
affected: increasing to 15M annual gap
in maintenance by 2030
Complete Streets Investment Plan
Streamlined Gunbarrel
strategic
package
maintains
system and
makes key
enhancements -
to connect Transit Village
community 14th & Walnt
_
Requires a n CO 63rd & Arapahoe
Broad vvc-i (potential)
00
additional $7 & Euc'ic
million annually
?z-
(over existing
$20 million per Table Mesa:
r
year)
~s
36
Options for local funding
Broad sources (general fund)
BRC I: property taxes, sales taxes, employment
opportunity tax
Specific sources (transportation)
Explored in Transportation Funding Report of
2009
• Transportation Maintenance Fee
• Advertising
• VMT tax
• Parking space fee
• Local option gas tax
Transportation Maintenance Fee
• Paid by both residences and
businesses
Based on expected trips generated by
square foot or acreage and dwelling
units
Is stable and predictable
Fee basis is legal in Colorado
One piece of funding solution
Transportation Maintenance Fee
Widely used in Oregon and Florida
Being explored by many CO cities
Lessons from Loveland:
Keep it simple
Fit the fee to your values
Index fee rates
Recommendations by TAB
Questions for Council
I. Do you have questions or need additional
information about current revenues, efficiencies
and reductions?
Do you have questions or need additional
information about the Complete Streets Plan and
the TMP priorities?
3 Should staff continue to explore options for
additional funding?
If yes, should the emphasis be on broad sources or
specific, or both?
If specific, should we continue work to develop a
transportation maintenance fee., or should other
options be revisited?