PPRTA-3 Topic List for Decisions, Updated December 8, 2021

to work with the other member governments to fund their proposed A-list projects. The revenue “buffer” provides an opportunity to respond to unforeseen circumstance, higher than anticipated inflation, regulatory changes, local match for grant opportunities, and to potentially start delivering B-list projects once A-list projects are fully funded.

11. Previous item #1: Program Funds
    1. Leave to Each Entity to Request
    2. Give Priority to Named Projects-what would be the standard and process? Would this wording be in the ballot, the IGA, or a Board Policy?
    3. Regional Grant Match Program Fund-no initial funding, but funding could be added if an opportunity arises using the funding contributions from each entity per population.
    4. Regional Federal/State Companion Project Fund-no initial funding, but funding could be added if an opportunity arises using the funding contributions from each entity per population.
    5. CAC Recommendation: On May 5, 2021, the CAC supported staff’s recommendation for item a 13-2, item b 15-0, item c 13-2 and item d 14-1. A few CAC members are not in favor of program funds and are concerned they could be perceived as slush funds. Several CAC members supported program funds and asked that controls either remain in place and that controls be put in place for new programs. Programs should not detract from funding A-list projects.
    6. BOARD Decision: On August 11, 2021, the Board supported staffs recommendation for items a, b. c & d. On September 8, 2021, the Board defined superrnajority as 2/3^rd of the directors present at the Board meeting. The Board clarified a superrnajority vote would be required for B-list and non-listed projects proposed for the “State or Federal Discretionary Grant Match Fund Program”.
       
       Staff Recommendation:
       1. Leave opportunity for each entity to request A-list program funds. Similar to A-list projects, entities should present an initial budget for the program funds to the CAC and Board. These programs will be allocated annually through the budget cycle. Changes to these budgets should be justified by the requesting entity.
       2. Capital programs should be included in the ballot in alphabetical order with the projects. By default, capital programs and projects are prioritized through the annual budget process. Entities requesting capital program funds must demonstrate a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to complete A-list projects in addition to their capital programs.
       3. Include a “State or Federal Discretionary Grant Match Fund Program” on the A-list. This program could be available for all member governments and could be used for local matching funds for projects. Consider either nominal or no initial budgeted funds. Board can approve budget or budget amendment to provide match funding. Establish policy for obtaining State or Federal Discretionary Grant Match Fund Program consideration when applying for grant funds (commitment of local funds typically needed in grant applications). The grant funded project would be “child” project under the Grant Match Fund Program (therefore incorporated into the A-list by way of the Program).
          
          The State or Federal Discretionary Grant Match Fund Program could be used to fulfill local match requirements for discretionary grants awarded by the State of Colorado (programs pending development) or the Federal government (e.g., INFRA, RAISE grants) or future grant opportunities resulting from a federally declared disaster. The program is not intended to provide local match for revenue allocations administered by PPACG.
          
          If the proposed grant project is not on the A-list, but is included on the B-list than a majority vote is necessary to plan for matching funds for the state or federal awarded grants. If the proposed grant project is not on either the A-list or B-list, then a super majority vote (2/3 or 3/4 of full board membership) is necessary to plan for matching funds for the state or federal awarded grants.
          
          When the State or Federal Discretionary Grant Match Fund Program is included on the A-list on the ballot, language may be added that eligibility for this program will be set forth in either the Establishing IGA or by Board Resolution to provide transparency for the electorate.
       4. A separate CDOT Companion Project Program is not recommended; however, member governments could use other programs, if available and relevant, to partner with CDOT or other entities to incorporate betterments deemed appropriate for the jurisdiction with the project led by CDOT or other entity.
12. Previous item #6: Eligibility for “Mid-Stream” Capital Projects for New Members Joining “Mid­stream”.
    1. The current the ballot language and the Establishing IGA (which currently says that new members joining “mid-stream” only get Maintenance funding) do not legally allow for a new entity joining “mid-stream” to receive Capital projects as well as Maintenance and in order to do so a “mid-stream” amendment to the Establishing IGA and an election would need to be held. (For reference, the cost of the ballot measure in 2017 for the 1-25 Gap project was$210,000. With inflation, a similar “mid-stream” ballot measure in 2026 or beyond would probably cost the PPRTA and/or the prospect entity $250,000.) However, during the PPRTA- 3 election and Establishing IGA revision, language could be added to the ballot (see #5 above) and the Establishing IGA to allow the Board to add the Capital projects of any newly ­joining entity “mid-stream.” Should such language be added?
    2. Would these projects be added to the II A” list or the “B” list? Or would this be left to the discretion of the Board?
    3. Would these projects need a supermajority vote of the Board? If so, what percentage?
    4. CAC Recommendation: On June 2, the CAC discussed the concept of allowing mid-stream members and allowing funding for A-list capital projects. The capital funding could be delayed by 1 or 2 years after joining the PPRTA. No formal recommendation provided.
    5. BOARD Decision: On August 11, 2021, the Board supported staff’s recommendation.
       
       Staff Recommendation: Hesitant to change ballot language; however, ask legal to provide potential ballot language for consideration. Recommend deferring decision on including new capital projects until mid-stream, new member is identified. Revenue impacts need to be considered with the addition of potential new projects.