Loading...
5 - Recommendation regarding the Sept. 14, 2010 Transportation Finance Study Session CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 9, 2010 AGENDA TITLE: TAB input on transportation funding work, to be incorporated into the City Council study session scheduled for September 2010. I PRESENTER/S: Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation Michael Gardner-Sweeney, Transportation Planning and Operations Coordinator Martha Roskowski, GO Boulder Program Manager Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner Randall Rutsch, Senior Transportation Planner AK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Over the past several years, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and staff have worked together to explore additional funding options for transportation. This memo shares the draft memo for an upcoming study session with City Council on transportation funding. TAB is asked to respond to the questions being posed to Council. This information will be incorporated into the final memo for Council. Please note that the attached memo is still a work-in-progress, and further staff review may result in minor changes to the memo to improve clarity and communication. BACKGROUND: In 2009, TAB and staff developed the Transportation Funding Report, which investigated the feasibility of several sources of revenues. Staff shared this information with City Council in a study session in December of 2009. Council agreed that staff should continue to explore a Transportation Maintenance Fee, while expressing concerns about the timing of seeking additional funding and the need to explore efficiencies. Hence, staff has continued work at a modest pace, with an emphasis on providing additional background and information. City Council is scheduled to hold a study session on Transportation Funding on Tuesday, September 14th, 2010. This memo provides a draft of the memo for the session. The purpose of the study session is to provide additional information on transportation funding and seek direction on next steps. As background for the study session, Weekly Information Packet items are being shared with Council. Two will be sent in August: One covers how peer cities have identified additional local funds for transportation (including lessons learned from a staff field trip to Fort Collins in May), and an overview of reductions in Boulder's transportation program. Staff is also developing a WIP on pavement maintenance, which includes information on the condition of our pavement, and the cost implications of not adequately maintaining the surface. These WIPS will be shared with TAB as they are distributed to Council. Staff plans to have a Report on Progress ready for distribution in early September. This report will be transmitted to Council via a WIP. BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: The Board is asked to provide responses to the questions in the study session memo, and that advice will be included in the final memo. NEXT STEPS: Staff will incorporate TAB comments into the study session memo and continue to prepare for the study session on September 14th. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft of September 14 th Council Study Session Memo Attachment A MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Osborne and Members of City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation Michael Gardner-Sweeney, Transportation Planning and Engineering Coordinator Martha Roskowski, GO Boulder Program Manager Randall Rutsch, Senior Transportation Planner Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner Cris Jones, Transportation Planner Ken Baird, Financial Analyst DATE: September 14, 2010 SUBJECT: Study Session: Transportation Finance PURPOSE: This memo and upcoming discussion provide an update on the finances of the City's Transportation Division, outlines funding priorities, and explores options for additional revenues. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Boulder has a robust transportation network that provides real transportation choices. For many trips, taking the bus, riding a bike, walking or driving are all viable options in our community. Boulder is nationally and internationally recognized for its commitment to sustainable transportation. While these statistics are impressive, the City is not on track to meet its goals of reducing single- occupant vehicle trips to 25% of all trips by 2025. Achieving these goals will only be possible if the city not only sustains today's robust menu of multimodal options, but also enhance it. However, today the City is struggling to maintain and operate the existing multimodal system of roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit services, due to financial challenges on several fronts. While the City is still completing some improvements to the system, the rate of these projects has slowed considerably, and is limited to only a few large construction projects. Smaller projects such as sidewalk repair and completing missing links in the bicycle and pedestrian system are on a very slow timeline. From a broad perspective, the opportunity costs are significant, as repairing roads becomes significantly more expensive if pavement deteriorates past a certain point, and project costs continue to increase. The lack of funding also hinders the City's ability to implement innovative new approaches, including rethinking how we use our public spaces. This study session provides information on the financial picture of the City's transportation division, it walks through the highest priority needs as outlined in the Complete Streets Investment Program, and it asks Council to consider options for exploring additional funding. This study session builds on a study session held in December 2009. At that meeting, City Council endorsed continued exploration of a Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF) and limited advertising to support a bikeshare system. They also asked about funding strategies used by peer cities, transportation budget reductions and efficiencies, and discussed the balance among overall city needs in an uncertain economic period. A series of Weekly Information Packet items distributed to Council in recent months addresses some of these items in more depth. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: • 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? • Should staff continue to explore options for additional funding? o If yes, should the emphasis be on broad sources or specific, or both 2 o If specific, should we continue work to develop a transportation maintenance fee, or should other options be revisited? BOARD INPUT: At their August 9, 2009 meeting, the Transportation Advisory Board considered the information in this memo. They were asked the questions that are put before Council: <add TAB input here> COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS: • Economic: Any additional funding measure would impact some or many of the people who live in, do business in, or visit the City of Boulder. The additional costs will need to be balanced against the benefits of maintaining and improving the transportation system. The incidence of costs, efficiency, equity and fairness will be major criteria in developing and considering any proposal. While any new fee or tax would have economic impacts, the costs of not maintaining the existing system or adding strategic enhancements are significant and must also be considered. The inability to fully benefit from regional transit improvements, as envisioned in the Complete Streets investment package, will limit the ability of employees traveling into Boulder to use transit. The on-going functionality of the multimodal transportation system is of key economic importance to the community. Expansion of the system will continue the city's progress toward providing efficient and sustainable transportation options. • Environmental: The extent of the environmental impact will depend on the amount of additional funding. Additional funding for maintenance extends the life of existing facilities, reducing the need for reconstruction and material use. Funding the Complete Streets investment package will also support the reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), best management practices and Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals intended to reduce the impact of the transportation system on the environment. • Social: The extent of the social impact will depend on the amount and type of funding selected. Equity and fairness will be major criteria in developing and considering any proposal. Expanding mobility in the community through the Complete Streets investment package will benefit many residents and in-commuting workers. BACKGROUND: In 1989, the Boulder City Council charted a new course for transportation, calling for the development of a robust multimodal transportation system to provide viable and attractive options to driving alone. Since then, the City has developed a strong bicycle and pedestrian system with 150 miles of bike facilities, including bike lanes, bike routes and 52 miles of off-street multi-use pathway with 76 underpasses. In comparison, the City has 305 centerline miles of roadway for motor vehicles. Roadway investments have focused on maintenance and operations and functional efficiency and safety improvements. A majority of the roads have sidewalks and the city has had a proactive sidewalk repair program. Taking the bus has become a much more viable option with routes on the Community Transit Network offering schedule-free service with buses at least every ten minutes. Regional partnerships have resulted in improving transit connections on key regional corridors and development of programs like the Business and Neighborhood Eco Pass and the University Pass. The breadth of alternatives is a clear indication of the City's commitment to implementing the direction of its Transportation Master Plan. This approach has resulted in 27.8% of trips in Boulder in 2008 being made by bus, bike or foot, compared to a national average of 8.2% and an average of 7.4% in the metro Denver region. t While these statistics 80% are impressive, the City 70% (Work Trip is not on track to meet 60% - its goal of reducing SOV share 50% single-occupant vehicle trips to 25% of all trips ao°%o SOV Work by 2025. The goal of 30% Trip Goal holding vehicle miles 20% Trend line traveled at 1994 levels 10% is within reach today, 0% to part because 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 economic downturns typically reduce driving trips. Maintaining the progress to date and achieving the goals will only be possible if the city not only sustains today's robust menu of multimodal options, but also enhances it. An underlying assumption of the TMP in the setting of the goals was that additional funding would be available for transportation projects and programs. However, revenues have been even lower than those projected in the TMP under the "current funding' scenario which assumed no new sources of funds, but continued growth in sales taxes and other sources. 'Figures from 2008 American Community Survey, journey to work data of Boulder residents. Financial declines in the last decade are challenging the City's ability to maintain and operate the existing system of streets, paths, bus service and supporting programs. Pavement overlay schedules have been extended, transit services have been reduced, aesthetics such as median maintenance and street sweeping have been cut back, staff positions have been eliminated, and support for programs such as the Eco Pass and outreach to encourage people to explore other modes have been reduced and streamlined. The sidewalk repair program, launched in 1994, has completed repairs on 60% of City sidewalks, with another 14 years anticipated before the program will have reached all sections of the city, given current funding levels for the project. In addition, much still needs to be done to increase the safety, accessibility and convenience of the multimodal system. A number of important missing link projects still await funding, and many opportunities exist to refine our existing infrastructure to increase safety, attractiveness and functionality for all modes. The opportunity costs of letting maintenance slip and of not enhancing the system are significant. ISSUES' Transportation Funding Sources 2010 (in millions of dollars) Most of the City's interest, $0.5, Transportation Fund is 2% Development provided b dedicated other, $0.9, 4% Excise Taxes, 0 State Highway $0.6, 3 /o revenues, which are separate users Tax, $2.5, from the City's General Fund. 11% The primary source of revenue for the Transportation Federal funding, Fund is a 0.6% sales tax' $3.4,15% sales Tax' 514.9, 65% specifically dedicated to transportation, which was approved by voters in 1967. In 2010, the sales tax is estimated to generate two thirds of the Fund's 2010 budget of $22.8 million. While the sales tax has been a valuable and significant source of funding, sales taxes are very volatile, as evidenced by a steep decline in the past two years as well as in the early and mid 2000's. In Transportation Budget less Federal Funding--Adjusted for Inflation comparison, only 39% of the entire City budget came from 25,000,000 sales taxes in 2010. Virtually all of the other revenue 20,000,000 sources for the Transportation Fund are also specifically 15,000,000 -CPI Inflation Adjusted restricted to transportation. • C31 Inflation Adjusted 10,000,000 --*--Adopted Budget From 2002 to 2010, the Transportation Fund has 5,000,000 declined 12% in actual dollars. When adjusted for - inflation, the decrease in 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 spending power is even greater, as shown in the chart below. Depending on which cost index is used, the decline in purchasing power is between 24% and 44%. The actual decline in spending power lies in between the two, as the cost of construction materials follows the Colorado Construction Cost index (C3I), while more general transportation costs more closely follows the Consumer Price Index. Note that while federal dollars are an important part of Boulder's transportation past and future, these funds come as grants for specific major construction projects, so are not included in the trend analysis.2 The financial challenges of the last decade have necessitated reductions and efficiencies within the Transportation Division. In determining what to cut, staff turned to the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) for guidance. The TMP outlines priorities for investment: o Highest priority: system operations, maintenance and travel safety o Next priority: operational efficiency improvements and enhancement of the transit, pedestrian and bicycle system o Next lowest priority: quality of life, such as sound walls and traffic mitigation o Lowest priority: auto capacity additions (new lanes and interchanges) Since the City had no plans for auto capacity additions, cuts were made in the first three bullets. The neighborhood traffic mitigation program was eliminated and aesthetic efforts such as street sweeping and median maintenance were reduced. The rate of improvements to the system slowed significantly, so that today, the only major projects underway are those on which City funds serve as a local match to much larger federal grants. The completion of planned improvements to 280i Street has been pushed back. The schedule for routine maintenance of the roadways pavement system with chip/seal and overlays has been stretched out. Transit services have been reduced on the HOP, JUMP and BOUND routes. Eco Pass subsidies have been reduced, and the marketing efforts of GO Boulder have been nearly eliminated. These trends are visible in the chart on O&M v Enhancements, as percent of total expenditures the City Transportation budget (without federal funds) right, which shows that the percentage of 100% the budget that goes to enhancements of the 80% system is declining, as the City focuses on the 60% first bullet of ■ Enhancements maintaining and 40% 0 O&M operating the existing system. At this point, 20% the only major enhancement projects 0% the City is undertaking 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 are those that are highly leveraged with federal funds. Given that few other enhancements remain in the budget, efficiencies and reductions have been necessary in the maintenance and operations of the existing system. 2 Federal funding has declined over the period from 2002 to 2010.... more here. In 2010, the Transportation Division made significant progress on the development of a pavement management system, The goal is to identify the optimal level of funding, timing, and renewal strategies that will keep the roadway network in satisfactory condition through resurfacing and other treatments. The pavement on the city's street system currently has an overall rating of approximately 78 out of 100 (100 being the best). Boulder's goal is to keep the city's streets at an overall rating of between 75 and 80. The City of Boulder's street maintenance budget has stayed relatively stable over the last decade, but has not increased to match the increases in costs of materials, resulting in reduced buying power. At current investment levels, pavement condition is likely to deteriorate to an approximate 72 rating overall during the next five years. Maintaining a rating of 75 would cost $800,000 more per year, while maintaining a rating of 78 would cost an additional $1.6 million per year. An Operations and Maintenance study in 2007 provided recommendations for improving efficiency and implementing best practices, several of which have been adopted. A staffing analysis in 2009 resulted in a reduction of five maintenance positions, some of which helped achieve budget reductions with the balance reallocated helping to catch up on non-personnel cost escalation. The division is currently undergoing another analysis that will focus on service level standards, benchmarking, and assuring the proper distribution of funds between personnel expense, non- personnel expense, and fleet costs. Past and ongoing efficiency analyses have included cross- departmental efforts to share resources and avoid duplication of effort. In implementing reductions, division management has attempted to minimize impacts to the public. However, some cuts such as reductions on the HOP and JUMP transit routes, and cutbacks in street sweeping and median maintenance have visible and tangible impacts on the public. Other reductions since 2009 have included cuts in administrative support, Transportation Demand Management, planning efforts and enhancement related programs, which are not as immediately visible to the public in general but have long-tem impacts. Question: o Do you have questions or need additional information about curr°ent revenues, efficiencies and reductions? Need for additional funding: The conversation around transportation funding has been evolving for the past twenty years, with various studies, planning efforts and initiatives building a strong vision and direction for the future. The graphic in Attachment A provides a recap of the long and winding road of transportation funding. In recent years, the City convened two Blue Ribbon Commissions of community leaders to analyze the City's financial status and make recommendations. The first group, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization, produced a report in 2008 that focused on establishing a long-term, balanced and stable funding stream for the City. The BRC outlined the overall financial challenges of the city, as year-to-year growth was steadily outstripping growth in revenues, creating a long-term funding gap. The report noted that transportation was particularly affected by rising costs and the volatility of sales taxes. The Commission also identified numerous sources of revenues and provided opinion on which were the most viable.3 The second Blue Ribbon 3 http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/City%20ManagerBlueO'o20Ribbon',,620Report%202008/final main report.pdf Commission report 4, released in March of 2010, focused on efficiencies and outlined the challenges that current budgeting processes and restrictions on revenues pose in developing a comprehensive, prioritized budget across all departments. Other recent efforts include the FasTracks Corridor prioritization strategies as modified by Ft0 Local Optimization (FLO) process, a planning effort started in 2005 which developed a more Gu Harts streamlined, strategic investment program for :I _ transportation improvements and operations. The FLO process culminated with the adoption q, of the Complete Streets Investment Program into the Transportation Master Plan in the fall of 2008. The Complete Streets Program - outlines the funding needed to adequately maintain and operate our transportation system --3r t!Fm d Ain coming years, as well as identifies the top priorities for improvements of the system. The Complete Streets Program is a smaller package than the Action Plan and the Vision Plan, the two investment programs identified in the 2003 TMP which articulated how the City could Us. ~s move toward build-out and operation of the full system. As outlined above, the City's ability to maintain its transportation system has been deteriorating and the pace of improvement has slowed significantly. The Complete Streets Investment Program, adopted by Council in 2008, provides an outline of the highest priorities for additional funding, at a cost of approximately $79 million per year. The areas include: • Maintenance and operations: Provide adequate funding to maintain pavement at industry- accepted levels, and to perform other maintenance functions to keep the system safe and functional. Have the ability to implement safety-related improvements to the pedestrian, bicycle and auto system as needed. Maintain transit services at 2008 levels which require contributions from the city to augment RTD's basic services. For several years, the City has augmented RTD's basic transit service to provide schedule-free, high frequency service on the named routes the HOP, JUMP and BOUND. RTD's ability to provide transit services is declining, and the relatively modest cuts to transit services in recent years are projected to become more significant. As noted above, an additional $1.6 million is needed simply to maintain today's pavement conditions. The total financial needs in this maintenance and operations area are estimated to be $35 million (M) between now and 2025, or about $2.5 M annually beginning in 2011. • Community Connections: Complete the highest priority improvements on the multimodal system, including multi-use pathway extensions, underpasses, bridges and signing of bike 4http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/tiles,TinanceiBud.et;brc_ii/BLUE-RIBBON_COMMISSION FINAL_REPORT wi th_Appendices.pdf routes. This includes the build-out of the Four-Mile and Wonderland Greenway systems, and numerous missing link projects. Implement low-cost innovations that repurpose existing public right-of-ways to support all modes. Provide additional support for sidewalk repairs. Needs: $2 M per year, $30 M by 2025. • FasTracks: The FasTracks improvements slated for Boulder, including bus rapid transit along US 36 and Northwest Rail commuter train service, will require additional investment from the City. FasTracks calls for a 2.5% match from local communities. The FLO process also identified a number of desired connections and improvements to provide safe, convenient and attractive access to the regional transit services. These include connections at the Transit Village area, in Gunbarrel and improved access to the Table Mesa park-n-ride. Needs: $2 M per year, $30 M by 2025. • Expand Transportation Programs and Services: Improve local transit services on the 204 and establish new service on 28`h Street and/or Folsom corridors. Increase funding to Special Transit to serve increasing mobility needs of older people and those with disabilities. Expand existing Eco Pass programs with a special focus on low-income populations and students. Needs: $1.4 M per year, $21 M by 2025 It is important to note that the Complete Streets Investment Program is scalable and strategic. Should a smaller increment of funding be identified, staff would turn to the TMP guiding principles to guide spending. The principles suggest that maintenance would be the top priority, followed by strategic improvements to the system, so a mix of the two, with emphasis on maintenance, would be undertaken. ➢ Question: o Do you have questions or need additional information about the Complete Streets Plan and the TMP priorities? New funding for transportation: The first Blue Ribbon Commission and the FLO process both suggested that additional funding sources for transportation be explored. Options for raising additional local revenues for transportation includes broad, general sources, or specific sources that are directly tied to a service or activity. It is likely that combination of sources would be required to fully fund transportation needs in the future. At the December, 2009 study session, Council asked how other communities raised new local revenues for transportation. A Weekly Information Packet item distributed in August 2010 provides detailed information.5 In short, cities use a wide variety of mechanisms, including taxes on fuel, property taxes and sales taxes. These new revenues are generally used to enhance existing funding sources. A number of communities are looking at Transportation Maintenance Fees. The only new source of local funding for transportation in recent years has been a modest increase in Development Excise Taxes as approved by Council in Summer of 2009. Although rates were raised slightly and the percentage going to transportation grew, the slowdown in development has s The WIP can be found at xxx resulted in a net reduction in fiends from this source in 2010 over previous years, from a historical average of around $1 M to $600 K this year. This study session does not provide a thorough analysis of the various options for new revenues, but instead outlines next steps if Council is interested in exploring broad or specific sources of funding. Both approaches could be explored concurrently, with efforts carefully coordinated to provide Council the opportunity to weigh trade-offs and opportunities. Broad Sources: Broad sources are taxes or fees that would support the City's General Fund with maximum flexibility to direct funds to top priorities. The City Manager's budget process would then determine the amount that would go to transportation, using priority-based budgeting principles to determine the city's highest needs. The Blue Ribbon Commission I Potential broad sources of revenue included increases in property or sales taxes, or the adoption of occupational privilege or accommodation taxes. The City has implemented many of the BRC I recommendations to stabilize current revenue sources such as extending sales taxes that were set to expire and "de-Brucing" the property tax. With a focused and sustained effort on implementing priority-based budgeting and consistently striving for efficiencies, it is time to begin the next steps exploring broader funding sources for the municipal corporation. The City Manager will be proposing a community process by which broader revenue sources may be considered. While the city is in a natural progression to consider new sources of funding, depending on the outcome of the November 2010 statewide ballot, a process to consider new revenues may become more urgent. Specific sources: The first BRC identified several potential sources of revenue that would be specifically linked to the costs of providing transportation services. In 2008, the Transportation Advisory Board, staff and a group of stakeholders looked at these transportation-related mechanisms to examine their potential to fully or partially fund the Complete Streets Program and compiled the results into the Transportation Funding Report, which is included as Attachment B. The group looked at: • Transportation Maintenance Fee • Development Excise Tax • Private Advertising in the Public Right-of-Way • Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax • Parking Space Fee or Levy • Local Option Gas Tax The second BRC cautioned against having future revenues earmarked for specific purposes, in order to provide the city with flexibility to address top priorities. However, the BRC also noted that some funding sources, such as fees, must have a close nexus to the services or impacts they are addressing, and may be appropriate in some cases. Transportation Maintenance Fee: The group that developed the Transportation Funding Report settled on a Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF) as the most viable approach for significant funding, and staff concurred with that finding. While it would not address all transportation funding needs, a TMF would provide a predictable and stable source of revenue for covering basic, on-going maintenance of the multimodal system, and could free up some dollars currently used for maintenance efforts. Council discussed the funding report at a study session in December 2009, and suggested that staff continue to work on developing the TMF, while also exploring other options, including efficiencies and broader sources of revenue. A TMF levies a fee, collected on utility bills, for basic upkeep of the multimodal system, under the premise that both residences and businesses create a certain amount of impact on the system. The fee is based on estimates of how many trips each type of use generates. The fee would provide a stable source of revenue for pavement overlays and routine maintenance of all elements of the multimodal system. Staff has completed a modest level of analysis and background work on the development of a Transportation Maintenance Fee, as suggested by the Council study session in December 2009. However, the general Council discussion at the study session also indicated that Council wanted to take a broader look at potential revenue sources across the City corporation. The options laid out will help staff understand the general course Council wishes to pursue. Advertising: The Transportation Funding Report also identifies advertising or sponsorship recognition as a potential source of funding for a very limited set of specific projects. At the December, 2009 study session, Council expressed general support for exploring advertising and sponsor recognition as a means to help support a public bike-sharing system. The City is currently in contract negotiations with Boulder Bike Share, a local non-profit, and B-cycle, which will supply the bikes and kiosks. The partners hope to launch a system in 2011. A multi-departmental staff team is poring through the sign code and other city regulations to identify what sponsor recognition or advertising can be allowed under the city's current guidance. Should the team find that amendments to the sign code may be necessary to implement a successful bike-share system, staff will return to Council for consideration. Options for Council: There are several courses that Council could pursue in terms of looking at new revenues. These approaches are not exclusive, and could be explored concurrently. • Approach 1: Begin consideration of broad sources of new revenues for the City as a natural progression of actions taken in response to BRC I and II recommendations. o If Council is interested in exploring broad sources of revenues, then the City Manager and Finance Director would propose a process by which new sources would be advanced for Council consideration. The outcome of the November 2010 statewide ballot could influence the timing of such a process. • Approach 2: Council also could continue work on specific sources of revenue. These efforts would be coordinated with any broader city efforts: • Approach 2A: Continue to develop and support a Transportation Maintenance Fee as a viable, sustainable and logical approach to providing additional funding for basic services. In this case, staff would return to Council in the first half of 2011 with a study session specifically to further explore and outline TMF implementation specifics. This process would be coordinated with any bthe broader City effort. • Approach 213: Revisit the other sources of funding explored in the Transportation Funding Report. In this case, staff would schedule a study session in the first half of 2011 to have a more robust discussion on the various options. ➢ Question: o Should staff continrre to explore options for additional fisnding? o If yes, should the emphasis be on broad sources or specific, or both? o If specific, should we continue work to develop a transportation maintenance fee, or should other options be revisited? NEXT STEPS: Staff will proceed with next steps as outlined in the options above, consistent with Council input. Staff will return to Council if implementation of the bikeshare program suggests revisions to the sign code or licensing agreements. ATTACHMENTS: A: Long and Winding Road of Transportation Funding B: Transportation Funding Report