Loading...
02-23-00 Town Council Packet Q�bRAvjo) mac ICc+ SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL 10-o,,_052- 2/ZS WORK SESSION 02-23-2000 3:00 - 3:15 P.M. INTERVIEW REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (RTA) CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD APPLICANTS 3:15 -4:45 RTA DISCUSSION -- Walter Kieser/Dan Blankenship NOTE: ALL ITEMS AND TIMES ARE TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. PLEASE CALL THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK AT 923-3777 ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING FOR ANY AGENDA CHANGES. oRl�t�►at_ 4', W �-a3-0O �✓o.tK- Decisions to date (as of February 10 2000): SCSSMAI As of February 3,2000 \ 1. Glenwood Springs,Carbondale,Basalt,Aspen, Snowmass Village,Pitkin County and Eagle County have signed resolutions of intent to participate in RTA discussions with the goal of forming an Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)and placing a RTA formation question on the ballot in November 2000. 2. Each participating jurisdiction has appointed two people to officially represent their jurisdiction. 3. Each participating jurisdiction has appointed a key staff contact. 4. Participating jurisdictions have agreed that there will be a vote in November 2000 on at least the formation of the RTA, contingent on the completion of the IGA. 5. The RTA steering committee(the predecessor to the RTA Policy Committee)has agreed that there will be a public involvement component to the RTA IGA effort, including a citizen advisory committee, survey, meetings and interviews with community members. Decisions made at February 10,2000 RTA Policy Committee Meeting: 6. RTA Policy Committee decision making:The RTA Policy Committee will work to make decisions by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached,a vote on motions will be taken.A 213rds majority of five jurisdictions will be required to pass a motion. Each jurisdiction will have one vote. 7. Ratification of RTA Policy Committee decisions: Policy Committee representatives will take decisions back to their respective boards and councils and ask for approval on an ongoing basis. A written record of decisions made at each Policy Committee meeting will be provided to policy committee members and each jurisdiction's staff contact person shortly after each meeting. In addition to ongoing updates after each Policy Committee meeting,boards will set aside the time they deem necessary to discuss and officially ratify a`lump of decisions"rather than waiting to ratify all IGA decisions at the end of the process. 8. Approval of proposed IGA timeline: Policy Committee members agreed to the proposed timeline, including meetings on the 2nd and 4d'Thursday of each month at least through April,with the possibility of two more meetings in May,and completion of IGA decisions by June 1. Concern was expressed regarding the limited amount of Policy Committee meeting time. It was decided that if necessary additional meetings might be scheduled and/or meeting duration would be extended. 9. Problem and Opportunity Statement:Approved,with the addition of minor editorial changes. (Final version attached.) 10. RTA Decision Making Framework, including RTA Options: Accepted as a sound method for determining the essential elements of the IGA,with a number of wording changes and options deleted or added. With these changes the Policy Committee accepted as complete the range of options presented. The final version of the Decision Making Framework is attached. RTA PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT As approved at the February 10, 2000 RTA Policy Committee Meeting The Problem 1. Current RFTA funding will not sustain existing service levels nor support needed service improvements. 2. Without a RTA,RFTA will have to cut back on regional transit service. 3. As the valley continues to grow, traffic levels are projected to increase. 4. The entire Roaring Fork Valley is not fully represented in RFTA decision making. 5. Funding and service imbalances exist. 6. Significant valley-wide transit improvements are not possible with current institutional framework. 7. There is currently no "umbrella" organization that can move the region's transit efforts forward. The Opportunity 1. RTA stabilizes and enhances transit funding. 2. RTA enfranchises all Valley jurisdictions in transit service and funding decisions. 3. RTA creates a dedicated source of regional transit funding, avoiding the annual"begathon"from jurisdictions' general funds. 4. RTA creates foundation for improved/expanded transportation options in the entire service area. 5. RTA creates the foundation to resolve regional organizational and service complexity. 6. RTA consolidates resources of member jurisdictions. 7. RTA is essential for valley to receive major new sources of federal grants and increases the region's ability to compete for these funds. 8. RTA essential for completion of major multimodal transportation improvements in the region. RTA Decision Making Framework (including changes from 2/10 Policy committee Meeting) The Rural Transportation Authority Intergovernmental Agreement will consist of 9 main topics. 1. What are the jurisdictional boundaries of the RTA? 2. What will the RTA do? 3. What is the composition of the RTA board? 4. What is the relationship with existing and future local transit services? 5: How will the board vote to make decisions? 6. What is the relationship between the RTA, RFTA, and RFRHA? 7 What financing mechanisms should be used? 8. What level of service is derived from different funding packages? 9. What are the elements of a to-be-drafted November 2000 ballot question(s)? 1. What are the jurisdictional Boundaries of the RTA? (Please note: jurisdictional boundaries do not necessarily equal service area boundaries. Service area boundary options are discussed under topic 8.) Option 1: All of Pitkin County, RE-1 School District in Eagle County, Aspen, Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, Snowmass Village, and City of Glenwood Springs. Option 2: The above, plus the portion of Garfield County that lies within the Roaring Fbrk Valley. Option 3: Either Option 1 or Option 2, but the IGA would emphasize that additional areas can join the RTA in the future, as laid out in the RTA enabling legislation. 2. What will the RTA do? Option 1: RTA serves as a new structure that allows the region to apply and receive new sources of funding and allocates funding to various service providers throughout the region. Option 2: Option 1, plus the RTA is the provider of regional trunk service covering the area that funding will permit. Option 3: Option 2, plus the RTA is feeder service provider, covering area that funding will permit. Option 4: One of the above three options, but RTA is the umbrella transportation planning organization for the region. Option 5: In addition to one of the above options the RTA would have all the powers provided in the enabling legislation and would be in the business of providing a full range of transportation improvements. Page 1 of 5 02/14/00 3. What is the composition of the RTA board? Option 1 A: Equal Representation: One elected official representative from each participating jurisdiction, appointed by that jurisdiction (by statute, RTA Board must consist of at least five members). Option 1B: 1A above, plus one or more at-large members appointed by each jurisdiction. 4. What is the RTA's relationship with existing and future local transit services? Option 1: Local communities have local control over in-town services; RTA is not involved at all in funding local services. Option 2: Local communities have local control but money from RTA flows into local services. Option 3: RTA runs whole system. Option 4: The RTA would fund and/or run local services,with varying arrangements with each community depending on each communities' preference, but details would be worked out after RTA is formed. 5. How will the board vote to make decisions? Option 1: Simple majority plus any statutory requirements that may exist. Option 2: Two-thirds majority plus any statutory requirements that may exist. Option 3: Three-quarters vote. Option 4: Varying voting requirements for different kinds of decisions. 6. What is the relationship between the RTA, RFTA, RFRHA: Option 1: RTA serves as a new structure that allows the region to apply and receive new sources of funding and allocates funding to various service providers throughout the region. RFTA and RFRHA continue to exist as separate organizations. Option 2: RTA + RFHRA—Option 1, plus immediate absorption of RFRHA and rail corridor, trails. RFTA remains a separate organization. Option 3: RFTA becomes the RTA. RFRHA and trails remains separate organization. Page 2 of 5 02/14/00 Topic,6, continued: Option 4a: All 3 become one. Option 4b: All 3 become one, but merging is phased over a specified time period, as detailed in the IGA (time certain or event-triggered). Option 5: RFTA and RFRHA merge by May 2000, before IGA is written. Option 6: Some portions of RFTA and RFRHA become part of the RTA, others remain separate. 7. What financing mechanisms should be used? Option 1: Basic funding for RTA a. Vehicle Registration Fee ($10 per vehicle/year) b. OR Nominal regional sales tax (.04%) C. Dedication of some portion of existing funding sources d. Combination of all Option 2: Enhancement of transit funding Basic funding of RTA, derived from options above, plus one or more of the options below a. Region-wide RTA sales tax: -determine levels (more than .4% requires legislative amendment.) C. Region-wide visitor services fee (Requires legislative amendment) d. Committed (through IGA) local contribution from selected local sources (e.g. dedicated sales tax, property tax levy, special district contributions, etc.) e. Combination of funding mechanisms Page 3 of 5 02/14/00 B. What level of service is derived from different funding packages? Option 4 OPTION 1A OPTION 1B OPTION 2 OPTION 3A OPTION 3B OPTION 3C Level of Maintain Same as 1A Expanded Expanded Trunk Same as 3A Same as 3A Same as 3A Roaring Fork Service and Collector/ but include Service: existing feeder system services Valley trunk Distribution Services east to Eagle/ services(30- (Including to Rifle/West .Gypsum minute 1-70 communities) fr uen ) Fundint: $10 Same as 1A $10 $10 registration fee, up Same as 3A Same as 3A Same as 3A Registration Fee except use a registration to.75 cent sales tax small amount of fee, portion and/or visitor benefit sales tax as a of.4 sales tax fee funding source instead of the $10 registration fee. Method of Existing RFTA Existing RFTA Existing RFTA All resources pooled rdetermined Same Level of Service Either 3A, 36, Resource TDP Model TDP Model TDP Model and appropriated by and Funding as 3A— or 3C Allocation: RTA Board vote. However, some portion OR OR of funding is dedicated OR to trunk service and Appropriated Appropriated local services are a local by Board vote Appropriated by by Board vote. option. For example: Board vote Trunk — .4 cent Local — .3 cent Trails — .05 cent Page 4 of 5 f r' 02/14/l1C 9. What are the components of the to-be-drafted November 2000 ballot question WT Options to be developed as effort progresses. pap 5Of5 02/14/00