Addressing Colorado's $9+ Billion Transportation Challenge

2. Thank you!

3. The $9+ Billion Challenge

4. The Problem Colorado under-funds transportation $1B annual shortfall in CDOT budget just to maintain the system and begin to address congestion $9+ Billion in major projects statewide wane on lists Vehicle travel on Colorado’s highways increased by 73% from 1990 to 2013 with population growing 57% in the same period General Fund funding was non-existent between 2009 and 2016 in a bad deal yet state revenues grew by $3B in that same time period Colorado, still, has no reliable transportation funding mechanism SB 267 is a year to year allocation and is untested

5. THEN AND NOW per capita spending vs. 1991 2015 population 3.3 million 5.4 million vehicle miles traveled 27.7 billion vehicles miles traveled 49.3 billion vehicle miles traveled $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ dollars spent/person $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $68.94/person $125.70/person All dollar figures adjusted for inflation

6. OUR CHALLENGE continued growth

7. Statewide Polling – Public Sees Problem Large, statewide polls conducted NCLA/Fix North I-25 - April 2015, March 2016, and April 2017 Colorado Contractors – January 2017 Since 2015, up to 9 of 10 voters view the state’s roads, bridges and infrastructure as desperately in need of repair 8 of 10 would like to see portion of state budget set aside for large, economically significant transportation projects (NCLA 2015 and 2017 poll) Gas tax increase won’t pass on ballot; dedicated sales tax mixed polling Only 30% support 10 cent gas tax increase; Only 40% support .62% sales tax increase

8. The Utah Comparison

9. DIA to Copper Mtn. 100 mi SLC to Park City 37 mi

10. THE UTAH COMPARISON Colorado Twice the population Twice the projected population Twice the employment Twice the state budget Same DOT budget Utah Colorado

11. THE UTAH COMPARISON Utah Appropriates $600M from State General Fund = 25% of State Sales Tax And…Increased Sales Tax for Transportation And…Indexed Gas Tax No Medicaid Expansion Utah Colorado

12. The $1.7B Billion Challenge

14. The Problem I-25 Fort Collins to Longmont (26 miles) lacks adequate capacity resulting in frequent traffic delays - 70,000 cars daily each way North I-25 at Level of Service D headed to LOS F by 2035 = 3 hours to Denver and DIA Population by 2040: +52% Larimer, +111% Weld Cost to widen I-25 from Hwy 14 to Hwy 66: $1.2B, but no funding has been committed Was no consensus in region about what needed done, no organized lobbying effort focused on securing funds to widen North I-25 North I-25 mostly ignored as a priority by CDOT, Governor’s Office, Legislature

16. Two PRonGED STRATEGY Northern Colorado and Statewide

17. Northern Colorado

18. STATEWIDE

19. North I-25 Coalition goals • Get an additional lane on I-25 from SH 66 to SH 14. 
 • Get the “missing miles” (136th Ave. to E-470) funding to complete construction. 
 • SH 7 & I-25 interchange improvements.

20. BUILDING THE MOMENTUMWhat We’ve Accomplished so Far • Strong Regional Consensus on North I-25 • Local governments and business united • Weld / Larimer united • Local government investments – MPO, TIGER grant match • Positioned North I-25 as a top priority for CDOT • Forged strong working relationship with CDOT • Developed Policy Framework responsive to CDOT needs/concerns • Resulted in CDOT proposing Phase One Project

21. Our Successes • Over $300M will be invested in region • $250M+ investment in Phase One I-25 Express Lane Projecct • Interim Solution • Crossroads • Berthoud Climbing Hill

22. The OPPORTUNITYThe Economic Benefits of Phase One Total Transportation Benefit: $1.1B Primarily from travel time savings, lower vehicle operating cost, and more efficient business and freight logistics. Total New Economic Activity: $2.1B New Jobs supported by the economic activity540 Economic activity comes from project spending and the savings from direct transportation benefits. The new activity supports new jobs and increases the gross state product (GSP).

23. STATEWIDE

24. Statewide Goals • Secure $3.5 in bonding capacity • Accelerate critical transportation projects throughout Colorado • Fund through existing revenues and a new, dedicated revenue source

25. BUILDING THE MOMENTUMFix Colorado Roads Coalition • NCLA • Colorado Concern • Colorado Business Roundtable • NFIB • Upstate Colorado • Weld County • Glenwood Springs Chamber of Commerce • Colo-Wyo Petroleum Marketers Assoc • Vail Valley Partnership • Colorado Springs Regional Business Alliance • Loveland Chamber of Commerce • Colorado Counties, Inc • AAA • Colorado Motor Carriers Association • Greeley Chamber of Commerce • Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce

26. BUILDING THE MOMENTUM • Positioned transportation as a top priority of legislative leaders, Governor and Media over course of 2015 and 2016 • Crafted/orchestrated introduction of TRANS II Bonding Proposal (2015) and The Fix Colorado Roads Act (2016) • $3.5 Billion in projects statewide, TRANS Bonds, retention of 5% of state sales tax, 45 projects; $1B in funds for CDOT maintenance • Entered 2017 with transportation as the number one priority of legislative leaders, the Governor and countless stakeholders

27. Political realities of 2017

28. The Good NEWS • Motivated Legislative Leaders and New Political Players • Openness to the full range of solution options • Bonding • Tax Increases • Existing Revenues (GF and CDOT) • Strong voter intensity demanding a solution now • Significant statewide needs ($9+ Billion)

29. Obstacles to a solution • Beyond the MJ Tax, no statewide tax increase since before TABOR (1992) • Polling not favorable to a tax increase • Inconclusive that voters can be moved with education • Split Legislative Majority • Differing funding philosophies • Influential and Active External Forces • A public that demands knowing what they get for their investment

30. Threading the political needle • Respect and find the balance between the philosophical funding preferences of the two political parties • Be informed by the current preferences and expectations of voters based upon polling and past voter action • Recognize and weigh the perspectives of external interest groups who are influential with voters and the attendant pressure on decision makers • AFP, Independence Institute, CoPIRG/Conservation Colorado • Continue to educate voters of their role in a solution to the challenge • Consider the legal parameters of a solution package

31. HB 1242 – The grand deal

32. EXPECTATIONS ELEvated • Introduced by the top legislative leaders in House and Senate • Offered promise of over $700M in annual revenue • Promised over 60% to local governments and multi-modal • $3.5 Billion Bonding Package

33. The REALITy CHECK • 62% Sales Tax Increase • No General Fund Commitment • State system secondary concern • CDOT bore brunt of reductions • No detailed project list • 60% of funds lacked any specificity • Diminished local government taxing capacity without sufficient return

34. 1242 - The UNTOLD STORY • HB 1242 doomed upon introduction • Failure to include key leaders upon introduction • Close to deal before HB 1242 introduction

35. SB 267 – The GRAND BARGAIN

36. SB 267 – The Rural sustainability act • Fix to the Hospital Provider Fee and host of other elements • $1.88B for Transportation from COP proceeds for roads (over 4 years) • 25% for rural counties under 50,000 population • 10% for transit • $100M from General Fund and $50M from CDOT funds to service COPs

37. SB 267 – The Rural sustainability act • Project List Selection • RTD and Commissioner positioning North I-25 for significant portion of funds

38. Next Steps

39. 2017 Ballot Initiatives • Tax question in 2017 • Fix Our Damn Roads • TRUMP/Federal Infratture

40. “Politics Is the art of the possible” “POLITICS IS THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE”

41. 2018 • Honest assessment of political options • Referred Measure • Scaled back, state system focused bonding program • Funded with additional general fund and a new revenue source • Direct Ballot Initiative

42. WHAT IS possible Funding Options Voter Appetite Legislative leaders preferences How the funds are spent The Project list Transit v. Roadway Spend Revenue allocation: Metro v. Outside External Forces

43. JOIN US FixColoradoRoads.com FixNorthI25.com