Loading...
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?