economic & planning systems - commuting solutions€¦ · the capital cost estimate for the sh...

JULY 2019ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS

Final Report

SH 119 Mult i-Modal Corr idor Vision

(MMCV) Funding Analysis

Prepared for:

Regional Transportat ion Dist r ict (RTD)

Prepared by:

Econom ic & Planning System s, I nc.

June 27, 2019

EPS # 173002

Table of Contents

1. I nt roduct ion ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1

Project Overview ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Funding and Financing Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Funding and Financing Targets ................................ ................................ ............. 5

Cost Assum pt ions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Com m it ted External Funding Sources .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Potent ial Addit ional Funding Sources .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Total Capital Funding Required .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Bonding Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Cost and Funding Opt ions/ Scenarios ................................ ................................ ..... 9

Focused: RTA on SH 119 Corr idor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Broad: Countywide Bonded .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Broad: Countywide Pay-As-You-Go ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Next Steps .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Appendix A ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 21

Sales Tax .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Vehicle Regist rat ion Fee .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Lodging Tax .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Property Tax .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Occupat ional Pr iv ilege Program ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Value Capture from Transit -Or iented Developm ent ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix B ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 33

List of Tables

Table 1. Com m it ted External Funding Sources .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 2. Sources with Potent ial for Addit ional Funding .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 3. SH 119 Funding Needs Sum m ary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 4. Bonding Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 5. Colorado RTA Exam ples .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 6. RTA Revenue Generat ion Tools .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 7. SH 119 Bond Proceeds .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 8. RTA Advantages and Disadvantages .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 9. Countywide Funding Needs Sum m ary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 10. Countywide Bond Proceeds .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 11. Countywide Bonded Advantages and Disadvantages .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 12. Countywide Pay-As-You-Go Advantages and Disadvantages .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 13. Pay-As-You-Go ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 14. Pay-As-You-Go: General Need Disbursem ent .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 15. Top Tier Funding Tools .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 16. Total Retail Sales .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 17. Local Sales Tax Revenue Potent ial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 18. County Sales Tax Revenue Potent ial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 19. Total Vehicles .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 20. Vehicle Regist rat ion Fee Revenue Potent ial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 21. Total Hotel Revenue .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 22. Lodging Tax Revenue Potent ial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 23. Total Assessed Valuat ion .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 24. Property Tax Revenue Potent ial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 25. Occupat ional Pr iv ilege Program Em ploym ent Base .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 26. Occupat ional Pr iv ilege Program Revenue Potent ial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 27. Value Capture Growth Base .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 28. Value Capture Revenue Potent ial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 29. All Funding and Financing Sources Considered... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

List of Figures

Figure 1. Route Alignm ent 1.5 Mile Buffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

173002-Final Report_6-27-2019 1

1. I nt roduct ion

P r o j e c t O v e r v i e w

The Regional Transportat ion Distr ict (RTD), in partnership with the City of Boulder,

the City of Longm ont , and Boulder County, is undertaking a plan for a m ult i-

m odal corr idor v ision (MMCV) along State Highway 119, linking the Boulder and

Longm ont com m unit ies. The consultant team , led by Parsons with Econom ic &

Planning System s (EPS) as a subconsultant , is support ing RTD and partners with

technical evaluat ions, refinem ent of concepts, and recom m endat ions for

im plem entat ion.

This report presents the f indings of EPS’s funding and financing analysis for the

MMCV for SH 119. Specific costs are delineated for capital im provem ents

associated with the m anaged lane BRT opt ion (as determ ined through the overall

project process) , as well as the operat ions and m aintenance (O&M) associated

with this serv ice.

F u n d i n g a n d F i n a n c i n g A n a l y s i s

EPS evaluated funding and financing opt ions related to the costs of const ruct ion

and operat ions for the SH 119 MMCV I n consider ing both funding and f inancing,

dollars at t r ibuted to a new source (e.g., a dedicated sales tax) are evaluated as

‘funding,’ whereas those that convert a future revenue st ream into a present

value for capital expenditures (e.g. TI FI A bond) are considered ‘f inancing.’ The

pr im ary focus of this effort was on funding sources, with a general analysis of how

these funding tools m ay be used to f inance the project .

This analysis included:

• A com prehensive list of funding and financing m echanism s available at the

federal, state, and local levels that m ay be relevant to the SH 119 MMCV. This

is included in Appendix B.

• An applicat ion of evaluat ion cr iter ia to determ ine the m ost suitable

m echanism s for the SH 119 MMCV, separat ing the com prehensive list into Top

Tier and Lower Tier opt ions. This analysis is detailed in Appendix A.

• A detailed analysis of the Top Tier opt ions, including revenue generat ion

est im ates specif ic to the SH 119 corr idor, City of Boulder, and City of

Longm ont . These est im ates are included in Appendix A.

• An assem bling of the m ost suitable m echanism s into three funding st rategies,

each addressing the needs of this project in different ways. These st rategies

are detailed in Chapter 3 .

SH 119 Mult i-Modal Corr idor Vision (MMCV) Funding Analysis

2

This work was done in the context of the Novem ber 2018 statewide elect ion, where

Proposit ion 110 failed to gain statewide approval. This measure would have provided

signif icant funding for the SH 119 MMCV through allocat ion of revenues from a

0.62 percent increase in the state sales tax. The failure of this m easure shifted

the focus to local funding opt ions for this project , detailed in the next chapter.

Geographies Considered

This analysis considers three geographies for revenue generat ion est im ates: the

City of Boulder, the City of Longm ont , and a 1.5 m ile buffer area around the SH

119 BRT route alignm ent , as shown in Figure 1 .

I n each of these geographies, the funding tools available, potent ial revenue of

those tools, and likelihood of adopt ion vary. This broad analysis enables a “m ix

and m atch” approach to funding, with sources based on local context .

Figure 1 . Route Alignm ent 1 .5 Mile Buffer

Econom ic & Planning Systems

3

Funding and Financing Mechanism s

This analysis began with a com prehensive list of funding and financing

m echanism s that m ay be applicable to the SH 119 MMCV project . This list is

included in Appendix B. This init ial step com piled t radit ional funding sources

(e.g. federal BUI LD grants) as well as innovat ive sources (e.g. federal EB-5

I m m igrant I nvestor Program ) . The effort involved com prehensive evaluat ion of

tools at the federal, state, regional, and local levels, and included both one- t im e

(e.g. grant ) funding and ongoing (e.g. tax) revenue generat ion tools.

Evaluat ion Criteria

A set of four cr iter ia was established to screen, evaluate, and com pare each

funding and f inancing opt ion:

• Revenue Yield refers to the revenue generat ing capacity of a part icular

funding source. This cr iter ion was not applied to f inancing m echanism s,

because they do not generate revenue, but rather require a dedicated funding

source for repaym ent over the long term .

• Stability refers to whether the funding source or financing technique is

subject to uncertain f luctuat ions that can im pact the ability to project future

revenue with certainty, as well as the ability to rely on the source to back

revenue bonds for financing the project .

• Legal Param eters refers to the legal lim itat ions and/ or requirem ents for

creat ing a funding source or financing technique that will dedicate the revenue

st ream to this t ransit project .

• Ease of Adm inist rat ion refers to the ability of the current state, regional, or

local governm ents to im plem ent and adm inister the funding m echanism s

and/ or financing techniques.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

173002-Final Report_6-27-2019 5

2. Funding and Financing Targets

For the purpose of this analysis, capital costs for the m ult im odal corr idor v ision for

SH 119, with the m anaged lanes 2- route BRT configurat ion, were est im ated at up

to $270 m illion, with this figure used as the m axim um project cost and the total

funding target . The current dedicated funding for this project totals $53.3 m illion

and given that this level of funding not adequate to cover the total project cost ,

there is a need to include other sources. While Proposit ion 110, which was on the

statewide ballot in Novem ber 2018, would have addressed m uch of this funding

short fall, the m easure failed to receive statewide approval in the elect ion. I t did,

however, receive support within Boulder County. This local support for new

t ransportat ion funding st rategies led the project team to explore local and

regional solut ions to funding the SH 119 MMCV.

C o s t A s s u m p t i o n s

The capital cost est im ate for the SH 119 BRT includes all const ruct ion and indirect

costs but does not include the SH 119/ SH 52 interchange or intersect ion

im provem ents. Capital costs were determ ined by Parsons through the project

process and are presented in 2023 (year of expenditure) dollars, escalated by 3.0

percent per year from 2018 to 2023. These cost est im ates, developed in May

2019, will be updated when project elem ents and design are f inalized. The total

project capital costs of up to $270 m illion ( in 2023 dollars) is used to determ ine

funding needs and allow flexibility through f inal design. Details on these costs can

be found in the Parsons m em o t it led “SH 119 Capital Cost Est im ate

Basis/ Definit ions for Locally SH 119 BRT Preferred Alternat ive,” May 2019.

All costs are evaluated and escalated with the goal of a const ruct ion start in 2023.

Revenues have been evaluated in constant dollars (no inflat ion or escalat ion) .

This avoids addit ional assum pt ions and uncertaint ies associated with apply ing

growth and appreciat ion rates over a long term forecast .


6

C o m m i t t e d E x t e r n a l F u n d i n g S o u r c e s

A total of $53.3 m illion has been com m it ted to the SH 119 MMCV, as out lined in

Table 1 . Com m it ted funding sources include:

• RTD: RTD has com m it ted $30 m illion in capital funding for this project ; this

total includes a $5 m illion m atch for the County ’s TI P Regional Grant from

DRCOG.

• DRCOG: The SH 119 MMCV received $8.15 m illion in federal funding through

a TI P Regional Grant , as well as $5 m illion through the sub- regional m atch.

• CDOT: The SH 119 MMCV has been allocated $9 m illion in Regional Pr ior it y

Project (RPP) funding; this includes $1.7 m illion in m atching funds for the TI P

Regional Grant .

• City of Boulder: The Cit y of Boulder has com m it ted $1 m illion in m atching

funds for BRT stat ion enhancem ents.

• City of Longm ont: The City of Longm ont has com m it ted $150,000 in

m atching funds for the Coffm an Busway.

Table 1 . Com m it ted External Funding Sources

Source Description Amount

Millions

RTD Includes $5M match for DRCOG TIP Grant $30.00

DRCOG Federal - TIP Regional Grant $8.15

DRCOG Sub-regional match $5.00

CDOT Regional Priority Project - includes $1.7M match for DRCOG TIP Grant $9.00

City of Boulder Cash match for BRT station enhancements $1.00

City of Longmont Cash match for Coffman Busway $0.15

Total $53.30


7

P o t e n t i a l A d d i t i o n a l F u n d i n g S o u r c e s

I n addit ion to the $53.3 m illion of com m it ted funds for the SH 119 BRT, there

m ay be an addit ional $65 m illion in potent ial funding available for the project , as

shown in Table 2 . These sources are not com m it ted, but represent addit ional

funding sources that are generally regarded as relevant and possible. After a

detailed rev iew of New and Sm all Starts grant cr it er ia, the team concluded that

these are not realist ic sources. Thus, they are not listed below.

Table 2 . Sources w ith Potent ia l for Addit ional Funding

T o t a l C a p i t a l F u n d i n g R e q u i r e d

The com m it ted and potent ial funding sources available, as out lined above, were

used to determ ine the balance of addit ional funding required for the SH 119

MMCV. As shown in Table 3 , if only com m it ted funds are available, $216.7 m illion

in addit ional local funding is required for capital costs associated with the project .

I f all potent ial funding is realized, $151.7 m illion in addit ional funds will be

needed.

Table 3 . SH 1 1 9 Funding Needs Sum m ary

Source Amount

Millions

SB267 from CDOT Region 4 $20

SB267 Transit Grant from CDOT DTR $10

Federal BUILD Grant $25

Federal/State Grant for Bike Path $10

Total $65

Source

All Available

Funding

Committed

Funding Only

$ Millions $ Millions

RTD/DRCOG $53.3 $53.3

Supplemental Potential $65.0 --

Local Generation Required $151.7 $216.7

Total Project Cost $270.0 $270.0


8

B o n d i n g C a p a c i t y

Bonding revenue st ream s is a form of public finance often used for t ransportat ion

and other infrast ructure projects. Ut ilizing this st rategy allows capital

im provem ents to be const ructed upfront , while revenues are collected over a

per iod of t im e and used to repay the bonds. As shown in Table 4 , assum ing a 30-

year term and 6 percent interest rate and account ing for adm inist rat ive costs and

a 1.20 debt coverage rat io, there is a general 10 to 1 rat io of total bond proceeds

to annual revenue st ream . Under these assum pt ions, for exam ple, a $200 m illion

bond capacity ( to cover that level of capital cost ) would require $20 m illion in

annual revenue.

Table 4 . Bonding Capacity

Description Factors Low End High End

Revenue Stream to be Bonded $4,000,000 $8,000,000 $16,000,000 $24,000,000 $40,520,000

Estimated Net Revenue Available for Debt Service

Total Annual Revenue $4,000,000 $8,000,000 $16,000,000 $24,000,000 $40,520,000

Estimated Annual Administrative Costs1 1.00% $40,000 $80,000 $160,000 $240,000 $405,200

Debt Coverage 1.20 $660,000 $1,320,000 $2,640,000 $3,960,000 $6,685,800

Net Revenue Available for Debt Service $3,300,000 $6,600,000 $13,200,000 $19,800,000 $33,429,000

Estimated Total Bonds2 $45,420,000 $90,850,000 $181,700,000 $272,540,000 $460,140,000

Capitalized Interest 0 months $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Bond Reserve Fund 1 yr D/S $3,300,000 $6,600,000 $13,200,000 $19,800,000 $33,430,000

Formation & Issuance Costs 3.00% $1,360,000 $2,730,000 $5,450,000 $8,180,000 $13,800,000

Estimated Total Bond Proceeds (Net of Issuance Costs) 2 $40,760,000 $81,520,000 $163,050,000 $244,560,000 $412,910,000

Note: Assumes the follow ing bond assumptions: 30 year term and a 6% interest rate1Assumed an administrative fee of 1 percent of the annual revenues available for debt service.2Rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

Source: Economic & Planning Systems

173002-Final Report_6-27-2019 9

3. Cost and Funding Opt ions/ Scenarios

Based on the init ial evaluat ion of funding opt ions, revenue potent ials, the local

context , and the needs of the SH 119 MMCV, funding tools were “bundled” in

order to create scenar ios that would m eet funding needs in an achievable m anner.

I n addit ion to funding only the SH 119 project , a countywide BRT scenario is also

included in this analysis, with capital and O&M est im ates for addit ional BRT

projects in the County as out lined in the 2014 Nor thwest Area Mobility Study

(NAMS) . As a final suite of opt ions, three funding scenar ios are presented:

• “Focused”: RTA on SH 119 Corr idor

This opt ion addresses the $152 to $217 m illion in funding required to complete

the capital const ruct ion of the SH 119 BRT. Ut ilizing a Regional Transportat ion

Authority (RTA) organizat ional st ructure, a var iety of funding m echanism s can

be im plem ented within a buffer area around the route alignm ent in order to

generate the funds required for const ruct ion. These revenue tools would be

used to back bonds for the project . This scenario only includes capital costs.

• “Broad”: Countywide Bonded

This opt ion addresses the $484 to $549 m illion in funding required to

com plete the capital const ruct ion of the SH 119 MMCV, as well as a port ion of

the bus rapid t ransit projects in Boulder County ident if ied in the 2014 NAMS

study. I n addit ion to capital costs, this scenar io includes $17.48 m illion in

annual funding for ongoing O&M costs. Revenue tools would be used to

service the debt for these projects.

• “Broad”: Countywide Pay-As-You-Go

This opt ion also addresses the $484 to $549 m illion in funding required to

com plete the capital const ruct ion of the SH 119 MMCV, as well as a port ion of

the bus rapid t ransit projects in Boulder County ident if ied in the NAMS study.

This scenar io presents a phased st rategy for project const ruct ion, and includes

funding for capital costs as well as ongoing O&M costs. Funding would be used

in a pay-as-you-go st ructure, with revenue available to spend as it is

collected.

F o c u s e d : R T A o n S H 1 1 9 C o r r i d o r

Colorado law allows cit ies and count ies to form Regional Transportat ion Authorit ies

(RTAs) to fund and build t ransportat ion infrast ructure im provem ents and provide

t ransportat ion services within a m ult ijur isdict ional area boundary. An RTA has the

power to build, finance, operate, and m aintain any regional t ransportat ion

system . Most RTAs in Colorado provide funding for the const ruct ion and operat ion

of t ransit projects. Exam ples of RTAs in Colorado are sum m ar ized in Table 5 .


10

Table 5 . Colorado RTA Exam ples

An RTA can raise revenue in a var iety of ways. As sum m arized in Table 6 , the

Authority can levy a sales tax up to 1 percent ; property tax up to 5 m ills; charge

tolls; charge a m otor vehicle regist rat ion fee up to $10.00; and levy lodging taxes

of up to 2 percent . RTAs m ay enter into agreem ents to receive other revenues

from part icipat ing j ur isdict ions, and m ay issue bonds.

Table 6 . RTA Revenue Generat ion Tools


11

I n this scenario, the hypothet ical RTA consists of a 1.5 m ile buffer around the BRT

route alignment. This area captures most of the cit ies of Boulder and Longm ont,

including the downtown areas of both cit ies. Three revenue tools have been included

in this scenario:

Lodging Tax: This tool levies an addit ional tax increm ent on lodging sales within

the RTA; this would be in addit ion to the City of Boulder ’s exist ing 7.5 percent

lodging tax and the City of Longm ont ’s ex ist ing 2.0 percent lodging tax. The

revenue available is a funct ion of the hotel inventory, occupancy, and room rate. To

calculate revenue potent ial, the total current hotel revenue was est im ated using

inventory, occupancy, and average room rates. Given that the buffer area includes

a m ajor ity of the area in both cit ies, plus the area along the SH 119 corr idor, the

aggregate exceeds the hotel revenue of the indiv idual m unicipalit ies. Est im ated

current hotel revenue in the 1.5 m ile buffer area is $108.2 m illion annually. A

lodging tax rate of between 1.0 percent and 2.0 percent applied to this figure

would result in revenue for the RTA of between $1.1 and $2.2 m illion annually.

Sales Tax: This tool levies an addit ional tax increm ent on retail sales within the

RTA; this would be in addit ion to the City of Boulder ’s exist ing 3.860 percent sales

tax (8.845 percent overall in the City) and the City of Longm ont ’s ex ist ing 3.53

percent sales tax (8.515 percent overall in the Cit y) . Both cit ies current ly have

local sales taxes dedicated to t ransportat ion. I n Boulder, a 0.75 percent sales tax

is directed to the Transportat ion Fund, 0.60 percent of which was im plem ented in

1967 and does not expire. A sm aller percentage, 0.15 percent , expires in 2039

and is allocated between open space and t ransportat ion based on a

predeterm ined schedule. I n Longm ont , a 0.75 percent sales tax directed to the

St reet System Maintenance and I m provem ent Fund was im plem ented in 1985.

The revenue available from a sales tax is based on sales volum e and the tax rate

applied. To calculate revenue potent ial, the total current retail sales were

est im ated. Given that the buffer area includes a m ajor ity of the area in both

cit ies, plus the area along the SH 119 corr idor, the aggregate exceeds the retail

sales revenue of the individual m unicipalit ies. Est im ated current retail sales in the

1.5 m ile buffer area are $3.9 billion annually. A sales tax rate of between 0.1

percent and 0.5 percent applied to this f igure would result in revenue for the RTA

of between $3.95 and $19.76 m illion annually.

Property Tax: This tool im poses an addit ional m ill levy on property within the

RTA; this would be in addit ion to the City of Boulder ’s exist ing 11.981 m ills (an

average of 85.6 m ills total in the City) and the Cit y of Longm ont ’s exist ing 13.420

m ills ( an average of 96.2 total in the City) . The revenue available is based on the

assessed valuat ion of property and the m ill levy applied. To calculate revenue

potent ial, the total assessed valuat ion within the RTA was est im ated based on the

proport ional share of the area within each city and the corresponding assessed

valuat ion. Est im ated current valuat ion within the area is est im ated to be $3.81

billion. A property tax rate of between 2 m ills and 5 m ills would result in revenue

for the RTA of between $7.62 and $19.05 m illion annually.


12

Table 7 sum m arizes the revenues that could be available through an RTA using a

lodging tax, sales tax, and property tax within the buffer area, at rates as out lined.

Table 7 . SH 1 1 9 Bond Proceeds

As shown, an RTA within the buffer area could generate $17.5 m illion annually; if

bonded, this revenue could generate $175 m illion in funding for the project . Given

the range of $151.7 to $216.7 m illion needed to address capital costs, this shows

that in order to fund all capital elem ents, m ost of the potent ial funding sources

are needed. I f these funds do not m ater ialize, som e capital elem ents m ay have to

be t r im m ed.

Key Considerat ions

Key considerat ions for a scenar io that ut ilizes an RTA to generate funding are

sum m arized in Table 8 . Overall, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits that

this organizat ion can provide.

Table 8 . RTA Advantages and Disadvantages

Source

All Available

Funding

Committed

Funding Only



Regional Transporation Authority

Lodging Tax (2.0%) $2.12 $2.12

Sales Tax (0.10%) $3.95 $3.95

Property Tax (3 mills) $11.43 $11.43

Total Annual Revenue $17.50 $17.50

Bond Capacity $175.0 $175.0

Net Position (Surplus/Deficit) $23.29 ($41.71)


Advantages Disadvantages

∙ Utilizes creative funding tool ∙ Narrow focus

∙ Expandable as needed ∙ Substantial lift for local funding, with limited benefit

∙ Incorporates external revenue through lodging tax ∙ Requires new governing body

∙ Adds a new layer of governance

∙ Requires multiple ballot questions

∙ Requires IGAs with CDOT, RTD

∙ Requires input from neighboring jurisdictions

∙ Low viability for passage


13

B r o a d : C o u n t y w i d e B o n d e d

By broadening the scope of projects addressed, there is an opportunity to expand

the scale of revenue available as well. Under this scenar io, revenue tools are used

to fund the SH 119 MMCV, as well as other Boulder County BRT projects out lined

in the NAMS study.

As shown in Table 9 , this scenar io includes both capital and O&M costs for the SH

119 BRT, as well as the Highway 7/ Arapahoe, US 287, South Boulder Road, and

Highway 42 BRT projects. The approach in this scenario has been to include all of

corr idors ident if ied in the NAMS study ( located in Boulder County) . Capital costs

associated with these projects were taken from the NAMS report and increased by

a factor of 2.

The com mit ted and potent ial funds out lined above were considered in this scenario

only as they apply to the SH 119 project . As shown, if only com m it ted funds are

available for the SH 119 BRT, $548.7 m illion in addit ional funding is required for

capital costs associated with these projects. I f all potent ial funding is realized for

the SH 119 BRT, $483.7 m illion in addit ional funds will be needed. These totals do

not include the $19.48 m illion in annual O&M costs for all f ive BRT projects.

Table 9 . Countyw ide Funding Needs Sum m ary

Source

All Available

Funding

Committed

Funding Only

Operations &

Maintenance

$ Millions $ Millions $ Millions (Annual)

SH 119 BRT Local Requirement $151.7 $216.7 $7.50

Countywide Projects

SH 7/Arapahoe $90.0 $90.0 $3.26

US 287 $113.0 $113.0 $3.37

South Boulder Road $74.0 $74.0 $3.35

SH 42 $55.0 $55.0 $2.00

Subtotal Countywide BRT $332.0 $332.0 $11.98

Total Countywide $483.7 $548.7 $19.48

Source: Parsons; Northw est Area Mobility Study (2014); Economic & Planning Systems


14

Two revenue tools are included in this scenario, and apply to all of Boulder County:

Sales Tax: As applied in this analysis, this tool levies an addit ional tax increm ent

on retail sales within Boulder County, which would be in addit ion to the County’s

exist ing 0.985 percent sales tax (overall 4.985 percent com bined state, county,

and special levies) . The County current ly dedicates 0.1 percent of that tax to

t ransportat ion ( road and t ransit ) . This dedicat ion was approved in 2001 and

extended in 2007, and is current ly set to expire in 2024. Revenues are allocated

to regional t rail connect ions (15 percent ) , regional t ransit and t ravel dem and (15

percent ) , and roadway im provem ents, shoulder im provem ents, and pedest r ian

access and safety projects (60 percent ) . This scenario would not replace this

exist ing revenue, but rather increase this successful tool to raise addit ional funds

for t ransit .

The revenue available through an addit ional sales tax levy is based on sales volume

and the tax rate applied. To calculate revenue potent ial, the total current retail

sales in the County were est im ated at $5.67 billion per year. A sales tax rate of 1.0

percent applied to this f igure would result in revenue for the County of $60 m illion

annually. This scenar io assum es that funds dedicated to current t ransportat ion

init iat ives through the 0.1 percent levy would be doubled to 0.2 percent ($12

m illion annually) , with the rem aining 0.8 percent ($48 m illion annually) dedicated

to County BRT projects. This newly doubled County t ransportat ion fund would

cont inue to be dispersed throughout the County using the current process.

Accordingly, these funds would be allocated for projects that are within

m unicipalit ies as well as those located in the unincorporated area of the County.

Other Local Revenue: A secondary revenue generat ion tool is included in this

scenar io in addit ion to the countywide sales tax increase. While this tool m ay vary

based on local polit ical and com m unity support , for the purposes of this analysis

an Occupat ional Pr iv ilege Program was m odeled. I t is recom m ended that

addit ional work with stakeholders regarding this tool be com pleted in the near

future to ensure the term s out lined below are reasonable and that all perspect ives

see the benefit . Modificat ion to this approach m ay be needed, based on

com m unity feedback.

This revenue source that has been ident ified is related to em ploym ent and applies

to business and/ or their em ployees. Given the concent rat ion of em ploym ent

within the City of Boulder and the corresponding t ransportat ion needs, this

program was m odeled for the City of Boulder only . The City has prev iously

researched the im plem entat ion of this program , and that research form ed the

basis of this est im ate.

Using the City’s ex ist ing research, 82 percent of total em ploym ent (92,550

em ployees out of 112,870 total) was used as the basis for calculat ion. This factor

is based on research docum ent ing the average percent of total em ployees for

which this fee has been paid in Colorado cit ies that im plem ent it . A fee of $9.75

per m onth was m odeled, m atching the fee current ly charged by the City and


15

County of Denver. This m onthly fee is divided evenly between em ployer and

em ployee, each paying 50 percent . Federal and state governm ent em ployers are

exem pt from paying the fee; however, em ployees at these organizat ions st ill pay

the em ployee share. Based on these assum pt ions, annual revenue of $10.3

m illion could be raised. Sim ilar to the dist r ibut ion of the county sales tax between

exist ing needs and BRT projects, this est im ate assum es that 80 percent of this

revenue, or approxim ately $8 m illion, is allocated to BRT projects, while the

rem aining 20 percent of revenue rem ains with the City for local needs.

Table 1 0 sum m ar izes the revenues that could be available through a countywide

st rategy using a county sales tax of 1.0 percent and a City of Boulder

Occupat ional Pr iv ilege Program of $9.75 per m onth. Assum ing both tools are

adopted and dedicate 80 percent of revenues to BRT projects, this approach could

generate a total of $58 m illion annually.

Within this scenario, the revenues cover $19.48 m illion in annual O&M costs for the

ident if ied projects, leav ing $38.52 m illion annually for capital expenditures. This

annual revenue st ream result s in a bond capacity of $385.2 m illion. Given the

range of $483.7 to $548.7 m illion needed to address the capital costs of the

ident if ied projects, the analysis shows that these revenue sources would need to

be augm ented to cover all of the ant icipated costs or, conversely, capital elem ents

would need to be t r im m ed. The value of this com ponent of the analysis is to

present the concept of a com prehensive, countywide solut ion, which will be

refined in the following sect ion.

Table 1 0 . Countyw ide Bond Proceeds

Source

All Available

Funding

Committed

Funding Only



Boulder County Consortium

County Sales Tax (80% of one penny)1

$50.00 $50.00

Various Local Revenue Sources2

$8.00 $8.00

Total Annual Revenue $58.00 $58.00

Less: Annual Operations and Maintenance ($19.48) ($19.48)

Net Available Annually $38.52 $38.52

Bond Capacity $385.2 $385.2

Net Position (Surplus/Deficit) ($98.50) ($163.50)

1 Funds collected and administered by County and applied throughout the County, including projects w ithin municipalities2 Figures show n reflect hypothetical example of City of Boulder Occupational Privilege Program (80% of $9.75)



16

Key Considerat ions

The key considerat ions for a scenar io that ut ilizes the countywide bonded solut ion

are sum m ar ized in Table 1 1 . Overall, the com prehensive nature is a com pelling

advantage; however, the revenue potent ial relat ive to the cost threshold is a

substant ial disadvantage.

Table 1 1 . Countyw ide Bonded Advantages and Disadvantages


∙ Comprehensive solution ∙ Could compete with future statewide funding solution

∙ Doubles the existing funding available for Boulder

County needs∙ Requires countywide cooperation and support

∙ Maintains local governance within existing entities,

including transportation committee with jurisdiction

representation

∙ Increase in County sales tax may affect ability of local

jurisdictions to pass local increases in the future

∙ Recognizes strong nexus between both employers

and residents with transit

∙ Builds on Countywide support for Proposition 110

∙ Accounts for recent County polling that suggests

support for ballot issue

∙ Includes funds for additional local transit service

∙ Includes funds for O&M


17

B r o a d : C o u n t y w i d e P a y - A s - Y o u - G o

I n this scenario, a countywide pay-as-you-go funding st rategy uses the sam e

revenue tools as the countywide bond st rategy; however, these revenues are

expended as they are collected, rather than bonded against and expended

upfront . This st rategy is m odeled over 15 years with $58 m illion collected

annually ($50 m illion from a county sales tax and $8 m illion from addit ional local

funding m odeled as an Occupat ional Pr iv ilege Program in the City of Boulder) . The

program could be sunset ted after this per iod, or proceeds could be directed to

other t ransportat ion needs in the county. I t is im portant to recognize the

difference in t im e-hor izon with the financing scenario requir ing 30 years.

Assum ing two years for revenue tools to be passed and collect ion to begin, $58

m illion annually from 2021 through 2035 would result in a total of $870 m illion of

available funds. This scenario also assum es $483.7 m illion in total capital costs,

account ing for $151.7 m illion in local funding for the SH 119 project and that all

potent ial funding opt ions are realized.

Two opt ions are presented under this scenario:

BRT Projects Only: This opt ion is sum m arized in Table 1 3 on page 19. I n this

opt ion, const ruct ion of the SH 119 BRT begins in 2023. Const ruct ion of each of

the other four BRT projects is m odeled over two years, with capital costs divided

evenly between the years. With one project const ructed at a t im e but const ruct ion

taking place consecut ively ( i.e. one project begins when the previous one is

com pleted) , the f inal BRT would be com pleted in 2032. O&M costs for each

project begin the year const ruct ion is com pleted and total $178 m illion over the

15 year t im e per iod. Expenditures, account ing for both capital and O&M, total

$661 m illion over this t im e, result ing in an ending balance of $209 m illion that

can be used to address other t ransportat ion needs in the county.

BRT Projects and General Need Disbursem ent : This opt ion is sum m arized in

Table 1 4 on page 20. Under this scenario, const ruct ion of the SH 119 BRT begins

in 2023. Const ruct ion of each of the other four BRT projects is m odeled over two

years, with capital costs div ided evenly between the years. With a one-year gap

between m ost projects, the final BRT would be com pleted in 2035. During these

“off” years for capital costs, there is a $40 m illion disbursem ent of funds for

general t ransportat ion needs through the county, with a total of $160 m illion in

general need disbursem ent over the 15 years. O&M costs for each project begin

the year const ruct ion is com pleted and total $152 m illion over the 15 year t im e

period. Expenditures, account ing for capital, O&M, and general need disbursem ent

total $795 m illion over this t im e, result ing in an ending balance of $75 m illion.


18

Key Considerat ions

Key considerat ions for a scenar io that ut ilizes a countywide pay-as-you-go

st rategy to generate funding are sum m ar ized in Table 1 2 . Overall, the

com prehensive nature and countywide cont r ibutors and beneficiar ies outweigh the

lim itat ions of this st rategy.

Table 1 2 . Countyw ide Pay- As- You- Go Advantages and Disadvantages

N e x t S t e p s

This report out lines three possible scenarios for funding the SH 119 BRT. With

const ruct ion of this project ant icipated to begin in 2023, im plem entat ion of any

new funding m echanism will require im m ediate next steps.

Given that a new funding tool is likely to require voter approval, any j ur isdict ion

involved should target the Novem ber 2020 ballot for adopt ion. I f approved by

voters in 2020 this would allow full collect ion to begin in 2021—well t im ed for a

2023 const ruct ion start .

For certain tools, groundwork has been com pleted already. This is part icular ly

relevant for the countywide sales tax, where recent polling by the County has

been com pleted and results indicate support for this m echanism . Addit ional work

and out reach will be needed on any other desired tools. A general suggested

t im eline involves:

• Resolut ion of the technical basis for funding through the end of 2019,

• Com m unity out reach occurr ing in January through October 2020, and

• Countywide elect ion regarding the new funding tool(s) on the Novem ber

2020 ballot .


∙ Builds on items stated in Table 11 ∙ Builds on items stated in Table 11

∙ Greater resources available for capital ∙ Exposure to escalating construction costs

∙ Potential to adopt for shorter time period, making

ballot proposition more compelling

∙ Need for phasing of projects


19

Table 1 3 . Pay- As- You- Go

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 TOTAL

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2021-2035

$484

SH 119 $76 $76

SH 7 $45 $45

US 287 $57 $56

S. Bldr

Road$37 $37

SH 42 $28 $28

$178

SH 119 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50

SH 7 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26

US 287 $3.37 $3.37 $3.37 $3.37 $3.37 $3.37 $3.37 $3.37

S. Bldr

Road$3.35 $3.35 $3.35 $3.35 $3.35 $3.35

SH 42 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00

Beg. Bal. $58 $116 $174 $156 $131 $136 $139 $129 $117 $124 $127 $140 $151 $190 $228

Exp. $0 $0 ($76) ($83) ($53) ($56) ($68) ($70) ($51) ($54) ($45) ($47) ($19) ($19) ($19) ($661)

End. Bal. $58 $116 $98 $73 $78 $81 $71 $59 $66 $69 $82 $93 $132 $170 $209


Uses (000,000)

Capital

O&M

$58 $58 $58 $58 $58$58 $58 $870

Sources (000,000)

Revenue $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58


20

Table 1 4 . Pay- As- You- Go: General Need Disbursem ent

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 TOTAL

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2021-2035

$484

SH 119 $76 $76

SH 7 $45 $45

US 287 $56 $57

S. Bldr

Road$37 $37

SH 42 $28 $28

$152

SH 119 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50

SH 7 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26 $3.26

US 287 $3.37 $3.37 $3.37 $3.37 $3.37 $3.37

S. Bldr

Road$3.35 $3.35 $3.35

SH 42 $2.00

$160

$40 $40 $40 $40

Beg. Bal. $58 $116 $174 $156 $131 $141 $147 $149 $156 $148 $134 $138 $145 $149 $122

Exp. $0 $0 ($76) ($83) ($48) ($53) ($56) ($51) ($67) ($71) ($54) ($51) ($54) ($85) ($47) ($795)

End. Bal. $58 $116 $98 $73 $83 $89 $91 $98 $90 $76 $80 $87 $91 $64 $75


Uses (000,000)

Capital

O&M

General need through the County

$58 $58 $58 $58 $58$58 $58 $870

Sources (000,000)

Revenue $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58

A p p e n d i x A


23

Table 1 5 . Top Tier Funding Tools

Top Tier Funding Tools

Federal

BUILD (Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development) Grant

Small Starts

CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement

Program)/Surface Transportation Block Grant

State

State Sales Tax Increase

Regional

RTD Capital Funds for SH 119

Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)

Managed Lanes Revenue

Local

Vehicle Registration Fee

Occupational Privilege Program

Local Sales Tax Increase

Transportation Utility Fee (TUF)

Transit Oriented Development (Value Capture)


The purpose of Appendix A is to docum ent the detailed calculat ions for each of the

revenue sources evaluated. Result s of this analysis inform ed the tools that were

included in the scenarios presented in Chapter 3 . The var ious sources were

evaluated based on different geographies. Generally, those pertaining to the RTA

reflect the geography of a 1.5 m ile buffer around the SH 119 BRT route

alignm ent . Others were based on the geographies of the City of Boulder, the City

of Longm ont , and/ or Boulder County, depending on the type of revenue source

and the relevant geography.

The com prehensive list of funding tools was init ially evaluated and categorized

into “Top Tier” and “Lower Tier” groups. The Top Tier sources are sum m ar ized in

Table 1 5 . Cr iter ia for determ ining these sources included:

• Potent ial for

signif icant revenue

yield

• Expected stability

• Legal param eters

that do not require

changes to

statewide

legislat ion

• Mechanism s in

place—or that could

be established—to

collect revenues

• Reasonable nexus

between the

funding source and

BRT service

• Potent ial for

com m unity support

Lower Tier opt ions were those that would require large-scale change (e.g. state

legislat ion) , were not appropriate to the m arket , or duplicated Top Tier opt ions

(e.g. m ult iple “dist r ict ” tools) . Accordingly, they were not tested in detail and are

not writ ten up in this Appendix. They are, however , included in a com prehensive

list in Appendix B.

Appendix A

24

S a l e s T a x

Sales taxes are levied on all taxable retail sales in a given area. For the purposes

of this analysis, two scales of sales tax were considered: a local sales tax at the

three pr im ary geographies, as well as a County sales tax applied to all of Boulder

County. The base for this analysis is the total retail sales in a given area,

sum m arized for the four geographies considered in Table 1 6 .

Table 1 6 . Total Retail Sales

Local Sales Tax

A local sales tax can be levied with revenues directed towards t ransportat ion

projects. Both the City of Boulder and City of Longm ont current ly have local sales

taxes specifically for t ransportat ion. I n Boulder, a 0.75 percent sales tax is

directed to the Transportat ion Fund; 0.60 percent of that was im plem ented in

1967 and does not expire, while 0.15 percent will be reallocated from Open Space

and Mountain Parks to Transportat ion in 2020 and then reallocated from

Transportat ion to General Fund purposes in 2030 before expir ing in 2039. This

levy is part of the City’s 3.86 percent total local sales tax (8.845 percent total

within the City, including local, county, state, and special levies) .

I n Longm ont , a 0.75 percent sales tax was im plem ented in 1985 and is directed

to the St reet System Maintenance and I m provem ent Fund. This levy is par t of the

City’s 3.53 percent total local sales tax (8.515 percent total w ithin the City,

including local, county, state, and special lev ies) .

Revenue available from a sales tax is dependent on sales volum e and the tax rate

applied. This tool can be ut ilized within an RTA or as a standalone m easure;

however, use within an RTA is lim ited to a tax rate of 1 percent .

GeographyEstimated Total

Retail Sales (2017)

Buffer $3.9 Billion

City of Boulder $2.3 Billion

City of Longmont $1.9 Billion

Boulder County $5.7 Billion



25

Revenue potent ial at var ious rates and geographies, both within an RTA and as a

standalone tool, are sum marized in Table 1 7 . As shown, revenue potent ial ranges

from $1.89 m illion annually (w ith a 0.1 percent levy in the City of Longm ont) to

$19.76 m illion annually (with a 0.5 percent levy in the 1.5 m ile route buffer ) .

Table 1 7 . Local Sales Tax Revenue Potent ial

Geography Rate Annual Revenue

Within RTA

Buffer 0.10% $3,953,000

0.20% $7,906,000

0.50% $19,764,000

City of Boulder 0.10% $2,299,000

0.20% $4,599,000

0.50% $11,497,000

City of Longmont 0.10% $1,887,000

0.20% $3,773,000

0.50% $9,433,000

Standalone Tool

City of Boulder 0.10% $2,299,000

0.62% $14,256,000

City of Longmont 0.10% $1,887,000

0.62% $11,697,000


Appendix A

26

County Sales Tax

I n addit ion to a local sales tax, revenue based on a countywide sales tax levy was

est im ated. The County current ly has a 0.1 percent sales tax dedicated to

t ransportat ion projects; this levy expires in 2024. For this analysis, revenues are

presented in 2021 dollars, assum ed to be the first year of revenue collect ion.

Consistent w ith County report ing, current sales tax revenues (2017) were

escalated at 2 percent annually to arr ive at this est im ate.

As shown in Table 1 8 , t he current 0.1 percent sales tax countywide is est im ated

to generate $6.25 m illion dollars annually. All funding scenar ios assum e that

funding rem ains for current uses, and addit ional revenue is generated through an

increase in this rate. As shown, to generate the $20 m illion in annual revenue

needed to bond $200 m illion for capital costs for the SH 119 BRT, a 0.32 percent

sales tax across the County would be required. I f the current 0.1 percent is

increased to a full penny, or 1.0 percent , $62.6 m illion in annual revenue could be

generated. Funding scenarios presented in this report use this total revenue to

double the current County funding for t ransportat ion projects ( from 0.1 percent to

0.2 percent ) , with the rem aining 0.8 percent , or $50 m illion annually, available

for countywide BRT projects.

Table 1 8 . County Sales Tax Revenue Potent ia l


Boulder County (2021)

Existing Dedicated 0.10% $6,256,000

SH 119 BRT Only 0.32% $20,000,000

Full Penny 1.00% $62,564,000

Double Existing Dedicated 0.20% $12,513,000

Countywide BRT Share 0.80% $50,051,000



27

V e h i c l e R e g i s t r a t i o n F e e

A vehicle regist rat ion fee is paid annually when register ing a vehicle. Current fees

charged to vehicle owners vary based on vehicle weight . Revenue available

through an increase in this fee is dependent on the num ber of registered vehicles

and the fee applied. Table 1 9 sum m arizes the current total vehicles in each of

the three geographies; these totals were used as the basis for revenue potent ial.

Table 1 9 . Total Vehicles

This tool can be ut ilized within an RTA or as a standalone m easure; however, use

within an RTA is lim ited to a $10 fee per vehicle. Revenue potent ial at var ious

rates and geographies, both within an RTA and as a standalone tool, are

sum m arized in Table 2 0 . As shown, revenue potent ial ranges from $322,000

annually (with a $5 per vehicle fee in the City of Longm ont) to $1.2 m illion

annually (with a $10 per vehicle fee in the 1.5 m ile route buffer) .

Table 2 0 . Vehicle Regist rat ion Fee Revenue Potent ia l

GeographyEstimated

Total Vehicles

Buffer 124,100

City of Boulder 68,700

City of Longmont 64,500



Within RTA

Buffer $5.00 $620,000

$10.00 $1,241,000

City of Boulder $5.00 $343,000

$10.00 $687,000

City of Longmont $5.00 $322,000

$10.00 $645,000

Standalone Tool

City of Boulder $5.00 $343,000

$10.00 $687,000

City of Longmont $5.00 $322,000

$10.00 $645,000


Appendix A

28

L o d g i n g T a x

Lodging taxes are levied on all stays in

lodging establishm ents in a given area.

This analysis exam ined an addit ional tax

increm ent on these lodging sales; the base

for this revenue is the total hotel revenue

in a given area, sum m arized for the

geographies considered in Table 2 1 .

Revenue available from a lodging tax is

dependent on hotel inventory, occupancy,

and room rates. The tool can be ut ilized

within an RTA or as a standalone m easure;

however, use within an RTA is lim ited to a

tax rate of 2.0 percent . The City of Boulder

current ly has a 7.5 percent lodging tax,

while the City of Longm ont has a 2.0

percent lodging tax.

Revenue potent ial at var ious tax rates and geographies, both within an RTA and

as a standalone tool, are sum m arized in Table 2 2 . As shown, revenue potent ial

ranges from $326,000 annually (with a 1.0 percent tax in the City of Longm ont)

to $2.16 m illion annually (with a 2.0 percent tax in the 1.5 m ile route buffer ) .

Table 2 2 . Lodging Tax Revenue Potent ia l


Within RTA

Buffer 1.00% $1,082,000

1.50% $1,623,000

2.00% $2,164,000

City of Boulder 1.00% $866,000

1.50% $1,299,000

2.00% $1,732,000

City of Longmont 1.00% $326,000

1.50% $489,000

2.00% $651,000

Standalone Tool

City of Boulder 1.00% $866,000

2.00% $1,732,000

City of Longmont 1.00% $326,000

2.00% $651,000


Table 2 1 . Total Hotel Revenue

GeographyEst. Total

Hotel Revenue

Buffer $108,184,000

City of Boulder $86,602,000

City of Longmont $32,570,000



29

P r o p e r t y T a x

Property taxes are levied on the assessed

value of property in a given area. The base

for this analysis is the assessed valuat ion of

all t axable property in a given area,

sum m arized for the three geographies

considered in Table 2 3 .

Revenue available through a property tax is

based on assessed valuat ion and the m ill levy

applied. This m ill levy would be in addit ion to

the City of Boulder ’s current 11.981 m ills

(average of approx im ately 85.6 m ills total

within the City) and the City of Longm ont ’s

current 13.420 m ills (average of

approxim ately 96.2 m ills total within the City) .

This tool can be ut ilized within an RTA or as a standalone m easure; however, use

within an RTA is lim ited to 5 m ills. 1 Revenue potent ial at var ious tax rates and

geographies, both within an RTA and as a standalone tool, are sum m ar ized in

Table 2 4 . As shown, revenue potent ial ranges from $2.8 m illion annually (with a

2 m ill levy in the City of Longm ont) to $25.7 m illion annually (with a 7 m ill levy in

the City of Boulder) .

Table 2 4 . Property Tax Revenue Potent ia l

1 The provision allowing use of a property tax as a revenue tool within an RTA is set t o repeal January 1, 2029


Within RTA

Buffer 2 mills $7,619,000

5 mills $19,049,000

City of Boulder 2 mills $7,334,000

5 mills $18,335,000

City of Longmont 2 mills $2,825,000

5 mills $7,063,000

Standalone Tool

City of Boulder 5 mills $18,335,000

7 mills $25,669,000

City of Longmont 5 mills $7,063,000

7 mills $9,888,000


Table 2 3 . Total Assessed Valuat ion

GeographyAssessed Value

(2017)

Buffer* $3.81 Billion

City of Boulder $3.67 Billion

City of Longmont $1.41 Billion

* Estimated based on share of each City


Appendix A

30

O c c u p a t i o n a l P r i v i l e g e P r o g r a m

An Occupat ional Pr iv ilege Program (som et im es referred to as an em ployee tax or

head tax) raises revenue through businesses operat ing in a local jur isdict ion

and/ or em ployees of the business. Neither the Cit y of Boulder or City of Longm ont

current ly use this tool, although it is used elsewhere in the state (e.g. Denver,

Aurora, Glendale, Greenwood Village, and Sher idan) . This tool is not available for

use within an RTA, and is only est im ated for the two cit ies.

I nputs and assum pt ions for this analysis are sum m arized in Table 2 5 . The City of

Boulder previously researched the im plem entat ion of this tool, and this analysis is

based on the City’s ex ist ing research. Not all em ployees are subject to this

program ; for exam ple, som e program s exem pt em ployees working in m ult iple

jur isdict ions that both levy this fee, or em ployers in certain sectors (e.g. nonprofit

organizat ions) . The City’s research found that , on average, 82 percent of a given

area’s em ployees were subject to this program and this factor was used in this

analysis. Addit ionally, federal and state governm ent em ployers were exem pt from

the fee in this analysis (although em ployees are st ill subject ) ; this is applicable in

the City of Boulder where an est im ated 10 percent of em ploym ent falls under

these em ployers. A reduct ion factor for federal and state em ployers was not

applied to the City of Longm ont .

Table 2 5 . Occupat ional Privilege Program Em ploym ent Base

Revenue available from an Occupat ional Pr iv ilege Program is dependent on

eligible em ployees and the rate applied. Revenue potent ial at two rates is

sum m arized in Table 2 6 . Rates m odeled are based on the City of Denver’s

current rate of $9.75 per m onth per em ployee; this total m onthly fee is paid

equally by both em ployer and em ployee, each paying 50 percent (with the

except ion of federal and state governm ent em ployers, in which case only 50

percent of the fee is collected through the em ployee port ion) . Rates are m odeled

at the full $9.75, as well as at half that rate, or $4.88 per em ployee per m onth

(also split equally between em ployer and em ployee) . As shown, revenue potent ial

ranges from $1.8 m illion to $3.6 m illion annually in the City of Longm ont , and

$5.1 m illion to $10.3 m illion annually in the City of Boulder.

GeographyEst. Employment

(2018)

Non-Exempt

Employees

Employee

Base

Federal/State

Government

Employment

City of Boulder 112,900 82% 92,500 10%

City of Longmont 37,900 82% 31,000



31

Table 2 6 . Occupat ional Privilege Program Revenue Potent ia l

V a l u e C a p t u r e f r o m T r a n s i t - O r i e n t e d

D e v e l o p m e n t

New developm ent around t ransit , often referred to as “Transit Or iented

Developm ent” (TOD) , can add to a walkable, m ixed-use environm ent and connect

to other areas. This developm ent often increases land values and can be ut ilized

as a value capture st rategy. Revenue available through value capture is based on

establishm ent of som e form of dist r ict , which collects revenues ( through a m ill

levy on new developm ent ) and directs proceeds to a given project . I n est im at ing

the value capture potent ial from new developm ent , the base for this analysis is

the total growth—both resident ial and com m ercial—in a given area. This growth is

sum m arized for the geographies considered in Table 2 7 .

Table 2 7 . Value Capture Grow th Base

The am ount of revenue available is dependent on an area’s capture of this growth

and the m ill levy applied. For this analysis, areas are assum ed to capture 50

percent of resident ial growth and 75 percent of com m ercial growth (both to 2040)

within TOD.

Geography

Monthly Rate

(employer +

employee)

Annual Revenue

Standalone Tool

City of Boulder $4.88 $5,144,000

$9.75 $10,287,000

City of Longmont $4.88 $1,816,000

$9.75 $3,632,000


GeographyEst. Residential

Growth (2040)

Est. Employment

Growth (2040)

Buffer 11,100 20,300

City of Boulder 4,300 22,500

City of Longmont 8,100 3,700


Appendix A

32

Revenue potent ial based on this capture, at var ious m ill lev ies, is sum m ar ized in

Table 2 8 . As shown, revenue potent ial from resident ial developm ent ranges from

$31,000 annually (w ith a 10 m ill levy in the City of Boulder) to $97,000 annually

(with a 15 m ill levy in the 1.5 m ile route buffer) . Revenue potent ial from

com m ercial developm ent ranges from $29,000 annually (with a 10 m ill levy in the

City of Longm ont) to $265,000 annually (with a 15 m ill levy in the City of Boulder) .

Table 2 8 . Value Capture Revenue Potent ia l

GeographyGrowth to

2040

TOD Capture

of GrowthRate Annual Revenue

Residential

Buffer 11,100 50% 10 mills $64,000

15 mills $97,000

City of Boulder 4,300 50% 10 mills $31,000

15 mills $47,000

City of Longmont 8,100 50% 10 mills $41,000

15 mills $61,000

Commercial

Buffer 20,300 75% 10 mills $159,000

15 mills $239,000

City of Boulder 22,500 75% 10 mills $177,000

15 mills $265,000

City of Longmont 3,700 75% 10 mills $29,000

15 mills $44,000


A p p e n d i x B


35

Appendix B sum m arizes the com prehensive inventory of funding sources

considered in this analysis. Detailed inform at ion on these sources were presented

to the SH 119 BRT Stakeholder Commit tee in August 2018.

Funding sources are sum m arized in Table 2 9 . Sources were init ially categorized

by government level—federal, state, regional, local, and other. The stakeholder and

consultant team evaluated the opt ions and narrowed the list to those presented in

this docum ent prev iously . The cr iter ia used in the vet t ing process include:

• Source of funds

• Funding prov ider/ adm inist rator

• Whether voter approval is required

• Whether special dist r ict form at ion is required

• Allowable uses (capital, O&M, or both)

• Total funding available ( if program m at ic)

• Addit ional st ipulat ions (e.g. if legislat ive changes would be necessary for

im plem entat ion) ; and

• Exam ples, where available/ applicable


37

Table 2 9 . All Funding and Financing Sources Considered

Funding Source Provider

Voter

Approval

Special

District Usage Total Program Funding Description Stipulations Examples (Allocation)

Federal

1 Build Grant U.S. DOT No No Capital

$1.5 billion through 2020; $150

million per state; $25 million per

project

The BUILD Grant Program replaced the TIGER program, and allocates funds for public transit projects,

as well as other transportation projects30% of allocations must be to projects in rural areas Richmond GRTC Pulse BRT ($25 million)

2 New Starts FTA No No Capital$2.3 billion annually (New + Small

Starts)

Federal capital funding program for new fixed guideway system, extensions to existing, fixed guideway

BRT, or corridor-based BRT projects

Capital cost over $300 million or seeking $100 million or more from Section 5309

fundsLake County, IN Commuter Rail ($388 million)

3 Small Starts FTA No No Capital$2.3 billion annually (New + Small

Starts)

Federal capital funding program for new fixed guideway system, extensions to existing, fixed guideway

BRT, or corridor-based BRT projects

Capital cost under $300 million or seeking $100 million or less from Section 5309

fundsSacramento, CA Streetcar ($100 million)

4Enhanced Mobility for Seniors & Individuals with

DisabilitiesFTA No No Capital $270-280 million annually

Federal capital funding program for transportation services planned, designed, and carried out to meet

the special transportation needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities

Total program allocation must be 55% for capital/traditional projects and 45% for

nontraditional projects

5Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement

Program

U.S. DOT

(FAST Act)No No Capital $2.4 billion annually

Federal grant program for transportation projects or a program that is likely to contribute to the attainment

or maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard with a high level effectiveness in reducing air

pollution

Formula Chicago Pulse BRT Dempster Line ($10 million)

6 National Highway Performance ProgramU.S. DOT

(FAST Act)No No Capital $22-24 billion annually

Federal funding program for the construction of a transit project eligible if the project is in the same

corridor as, and in proximity to, a fully access-controlled highway Formula; lump sum allocated to each state, then apportioned among programs

7 Surface Transportation Block Grant ProgramU.S. DOT

(FAST Act)No No Capital $12 billion annually Funding for transportation, roadways, bridges, and transit Formula; lump sum allocated to each state, then apportioned among programs

State

8 State Sales Tax Increase Colorado Yes No Capital$766 million annually; $160 million

for SH 119 (potential)

Statewide ballot initiative scheduled for November 2018 to increase state sales tax from 2.9% to 3.52%

(0.62% increase) for transportation funds.

Revenue would flow to Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF) and Multimodal Transportation

Options Fund (MOTF)

9 State Motor Fuel Tax Colorado Yes No Capital; O&M $321 million annually (2017) Raise the Colorado State gas tax, currently $0.22 per gallon, and allocate funds to transit projects Voter approval with funds allocated to project San Fernando, CA Light Rail ($200 million)

10 Road Usage Charge CDOT Yes No Capital; O&M Varies based on tax structure A new tax to replace the gas tax, and instead charge based on miles traveled. Voter approval with funds allocated to projectOregon ($340 million over 10 years); Colorado pilot

program

11 FASTER Transit Grants CDOT No No Capital $15 million annuallyState funds for transit, with revenues from additional surcharges, fines, and late fees on motor vehicle

registrations$5 million for local projects; $10 million for statewide projects

Regional

12 RTD Capital Funds for Highway 119 RTD No No Capital $30 million total Guaranteed funding from RTD for the construction of BRT on Hwy 119.

13 Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) City/County Yes No Capital; O&M VariesCities and counties can form RTAs to fund and build transportation infrastructure improvements.

Revenues can come from a sales tax, property tax, tolls, vehicle registration fee or lodging tax.

Formation by IGA with approval by CDOT. Tax revenue sources approved by voters

within District.

San Miguel County, CO ($1.3 million annually); Roaring Fork

Transportation Authority, CO ($21.3 million annually)

14 Managed Lanes Revenues CDOT No No Capital; O&M Varies A toll or express lane, with revenue used to subsidize transit projects. Need to build infrastructure for toll facilities Santa Clara, CA ($5 million over 5 years)


Appendix B

38

Funding Source Provider

Voter

Approval

Special

District Usage Total Program Funding Description Stipulations Examples (Allocation)

Local

15 Vehicle Registration Fee CDOT/County Yes No Capital; O&M$114.8 million annually (current

CDOT revenue)Additional annual vehicle registration fee in counties with access to road/infrastructure Voter approval (County or RTA jurisdiction) with funds allocated to project E-470 ($45.3 million total)

16 Occupational Privilege Tax City Yes No Capital Varies based on tax structure A tax imposed on businesses operating in a local jurisdiction and/or on employees of the business. Can only be levied by home rule municipalities Denver, CO ($16 million annual revenue)

17 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Tax City Yes NoPrograms to

reduce GHG$1.8 million annually The CAP Tax is levied based on the amount of electricity consumed.

Funds programs to reduce GHG emissions; funds would need to be allocated and/or

expanded. Current voter-approved tax in Boulder expires March 2023 Boulder, CO ($1.8 million annually)

18 Improvement Districts - GIDs and PIDs City/County Yes Yes Capital; O&M VariesPublic infrastructure districts that apply an additional property tax or assessment to a specific

improvement area to pay for new public infrastructureVoter approval of electors within the district. Boulder, CO General Improvement District

19 Development Impact Fees City/County No No Capital Varies

A levy of one-time fees charged on new development to defray the cost of constructing the infrastructure

needed to serve the demands created by new development. Fees can be charged on a countywide

basis or applied for a particular subarea or district.

Requires a technical analysis showing a "nexus" between the fee and infrastructure

demands generated by new development. Would rely on 'Benefit District' approach.

20 Improvement Districts - LIDs and SIDs City/County Yes Yes Capital VariesA LID or SID can impose an assessment on property owners for specific improvements that benefit

properties located within the district. Voter approval of electors within district

21 Transportation Development District (TDD) City Yes Yes Capital; O&M Varies A TDD is a special assessment district that can impose additional sales tax and property assessment. This type of special assessment district would need to be proposed to the Colorado

Legislature for adoptionKansas City, MO Streetcar ($1 million annually)

22 Local Sales Tax Increase City/County Yes No Capital; O&M VariesCurrently Boulder County has 0.1% tax rate dedicated to transportation; potential to increase this rate

with funds dedicated to transit.Voter approval with funds allocated to project

Boulder County ($4.8 million annually to Road and Bridge

Fund); Colorado Springs, CO ($250 million in 5 years)

23 Use Tax City/County Yes No Capital Varies

A use tax is applied to an interim point in the production or manufacturing process before a final sale. All

three jurisdictions currently have some form of use tax; potential to increase existing tax with a portion

dedicated to transit

Voter approval to expand existing use tax programs in respective jurisdictions

24 Transportation Utility Fee (TUF/TMF) City/County No No O&M Varies Monthly fee collected from properties based on the use of infrastructure. Adoption by local government. Loveland, CO (utility fee to pay for street maintenance)

25 Tax Increment Financing City/County No Yes Capital VariesCreation of a special district to leverage incremental property taxes from new development to pay for or

finance public improvements.

In Colorado, TIF can only be utilized by Urban Renewal Authorities and Downtown

Development Authorities

26 Business Improvement District (BID) City Yes Yes Capital; O&M VariesA BID is a quasi-public corporation that can be established to develop, maintain, and operate a broad

range of public improvements.

Voter approval of commercial property owners within proposed boundaries; Counties

cannot form BIDs

27 Transit Oriented Development - Value Capture City/County No Yes Capital; O&M Varies

TOD is development around transit that adds to the walkable, mixed-use environment and connects to

other areas. This form of development increases land values and can be utilized as a value capture

strategy.

Must establish some form of district, with revenue proceeds directed to project Boulder Transit Village Development

28 Transportation Reinvestment Zones City/County No Yes Capital; O&M Varies Designated zones around transportation projects used to leverage revenue from property tax incrementsThis type of value capture mechanism would need to be proposed to the Colorado

Legislature for adoptionToll 49 Smith County, TX ($12.9-16.9 million annually)

29 Cordon Area Congestion Fee City No No Capital; O&M VariesCongestion pricing based on a specific area, usually a city center. Price often varies based on level of

congestion, with a fee paid to drive into the "cordon area"

Singapore; London; Stockholm (has not been implemented

in the United States or in medium- and small-sized cities)

Private

30 Joint Development P3 No No Capital; O&M VariesFunding strategy where a public entity leases land or rights to a private developer for a significant period

of time, with the developer paying rent to the public entity.

31 Public Private Partnership P3 No No Capital; O&M Varies

Long-term contractual arrangement between the public and private sectors in which a private entity

designs, builds, finances, operates, and maintains (DBFOM) a facility for a public purpose, in exchange

for a payment stream during the period of operations.

Need to contract out for a set number of years

RTD, Eagle P3 $2.2 billion capital project to design-build-

finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) a portion of the RTD

FasTracks expansion project

32 Naming Rights/Sponsorship P3 No No O&M Varies Raise revenue by selling the naming rights of a station or route to a private company for advertising. Denver, CO A-Line Commuter Rail ($5 million)

Financing

33 General Obligation Bond (GO) Municipal bond Yes No Capital Varies A GO bond is secured by the county's pledge to use legally available resources to repay bond holders. Voter approval

34 Revenue Bonds Municipal bond No No Capital Varies A revenue bond use revenues generated by the entity issuing bonds for repayment.

35Transportation Infrastructure Finance & Innovation Act

(TIFIA)U.S. DOT No No Capital $300 million annually

Provides Federal credit assistance to eligible surface transportation projects, including highway and

transit.

Project costs must equal or exceed $50 million, or equal at least 1/3 of the most

recently completed fiscal year's formula apportionment for the state (lower cost

thresholds for local infrastructure and TOD projects)

Other Sources

36 Federal EB-5 Immigrant Investor ProgramForeign

InvestorNo No Capital; O&M Varies Foreign investors invest in commercial U.S. enterprises Minimum investment of $500,000; total funding depends on number of jobs created

Pennsylvania SEPTA Rail ($150 million in 2018, up to

$300 million total)

37 Intellectual Property Rights Transit agency No No Capital; O&M VariesTransit companies develop technology and leverage that development into new revenue sources by

selling the rights to services or technology; may also act as consultants to other agenciesComplex; time-consuming; may be difficult to place value on intellectual property San Bernardino, CA; Salt Lake City

38 Energy Cost Savings

Transit agency

& energy

company

No No O&M Varies

Establish programs and policies to reduce energy consumption and energy needs (reducing operating

costs); revenue may also be generated by selling surplus energy generated through alternative

technologies to energy companies

Requires investment in appropriate green infrastructure Philadelphia SEPTA Rail ($250,000 annually)


eports\[173002- Funding Sources & Options 9-6-18.xlsx]T-Summary (2)

economic & planning systems - commuting solutions€¦ · the capital cost estimate for the sh...

Documents