RTD draft would set regular fare reviews, annual capital-plan vote

The Regional Transportation District’s proposed fiscal policy would require its Board to consider fare changes at least every three years, approve a 10-year capital plan annually and limit capital-project debt to the lesser of 30 years or an asset’s expected useful life. The draft policy is scheduled for discussion by the Finance and Planning Committee on Sept. 30; if adopted, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2027.

The fare provision would replace the current policy, which allows the Board to consider fare changes but sets no review cycle. The proposal calls for considering potential fare and pass adjustments in light of inflation and budget needs; it does not require an increase on a fixed schedule.

The annual capital plan would list project needs, costs and funding sources, including projects that are unfunded or only partly funded. It would be reconciled with the adopted budget and actual spending. RTD management would report plan variances twice a year, and the committee would receive quarterly updates on funded or partly funded multiyear projects.

The draft would also require gradual principal repayment on new long-term debt, with an exception for refinancing unamortized debt issued before 2026. Other provisions would keep the operating reserve at three months of operating expenses and limit its use for operating deficits to temporary or one-time conditions. The Board would set drawdown limits and replenishment timelines in advance.

Project expenses carried forward for more than three years and exceeding limits in the general manager and chief executive officer’s delegated authority would require renewed Board approval. The draft defines a balanced budget as recurring revenues meeting or exceeding recurring expenses and calls for annual financial forecasts to explicitly disclose structural deficits.

Staff comments in the packet questioned how the 10-year capital plan would align with RTD’s federally required Transit Asset Management Plan, its Asset Management Plan and the annual budget. Staff also raised concerns about reporting requirements and the lack of clear definitions or thresholds for terms such as “structural deficit.”

The packet says the proposal is expected to return as a recommended action during the October meeting cycle for committee and full Board votes.