1. 2005 TWG Legislative Recommendations

2. Fix It First ? WSDOT recommends first priority be Alaskan Way Viaduct, SR-520 with new state revenue Does the TWG concur?

3. State Responsibility - Megaprojects WSDOT asserts state financial contribution limited to replacing current capacity On Viaduct, that would be approx. $2 billion On 520, approx. $1.8 billion Does TWG concur that regional taxes, user fees or feds cover the rest?

4. State Responsibility – Productivity Tools Assuming state prioritizes preservation, how much of the productivity tools – HOV extension, fixing chokepoints, commute trip reduction – should be state versus region’s responsibility?

5. State Responsibility If WSDOT assumes responsibility to complete HOV and fix chokepoints HOV in Pierce- Snohomish needs $500m Fixes on I-405 and SR- 167 need $?? Maintain nickel package momentum Does TWG assume this is the limit of state responsibility?

6. State Revenues If we assume “Fix it First” is the minimum state commitment over 10 years, there is at least $3.1 billion or more in state revenue needed, not counting I-5 rebuilding If we assume fixing chokepoints and HOV completion, the total presumably surpasses $4 billion Is the TWG prepared to advocate state tax increases equal to $3.1 billion or equal to $4 billion+ in 2005 session? Does TWG want more than just “Fix it First” from state in next ten years?

7. Regional Revenues If we assume for practical purposes that state financial capacity is capped at preservation of existing capacity, increases in capacity & alternative modes to meet demand are a regional responsibility Does TWG accept that regional revenue, whether thru user fees or regional taxes, are necessary? Does TWG want to endorse user fees, regional taxes or combination of both to meet region’s share of transportation system costs?

8. The State Tax Decision How Much On What Paying For What

9. WSDOT Analysis – how much $? WSDOT prepared hi, lo and medium estimates of $11 billion, $4.6 billion and $ 8 billion WSDOT assumed 34% to cities & counties WSDOT assumed sales tax increase to allow non-18 th amendment revenues to transit of $600 m to $1.3 billion over ten years Does TWG concur with 34% to locals at all 3 total funding levels? Does TWG concur with assumption on transit distribution?

10. WSDOT Analysis – how much $? The WSDOT low figure --$4.6 billion – assumes nickel increase, $10 license fee increase, 0.075% sales tax increase, and $900 m in bond proceeds WSDOT assumes $1.9 billion drops to capital projects – with nothing for capacity improvements Does TWG believe $1.9 billion is enough?

11. WSDOT Analysis – how much $? The WSDOT medium figure --$8.1 billion – assumes dime increase over 2 years, $20 license fee increase, 0.100% sales tax increase, and $1.8 m in bond proceeds WSDOT assumes $4.2 billion drops to capital projects – with $487 m for capacity improvements Does TWG believe $4.2 billion is enough?

12. WSDOT Analysis – how much $? The WSDOT high figure --$11.67 billion – assumes fifteen cent increase over 3 years, $30 license fee increase, 0.175% sales tax increase, and $2.6 m in bond proceeds WSDOT assumes $6.5 billion drops to capital projects – with $2.6 billion for capacity improvements Does TWG believe that $6.5 billion is enough

13. TWG Options – to get more for capital projects A.Within hi, lo or medium, adjust the % for locals, transit, or WSDOT programs down to increase $ to capital programs B.Shift from one scenario to the next higher C.Add incremental increases in available tax sources (gross weight fees, sales tax on gas, increase license fee) D.What is the $ figure for capital projects the TWG wants to shoot for?

14. State Transit Subsidy WSDOT 2005 revenue analysis assumes $300 million to $700 million for transit operating subsidies for special needs & preservation projects Does the TWG support the state getting back into direct subsidy to local transit agencies?

15. State Distribution to Cities & Counties WSDOT 2005 revenue analysis assumes 34% of all new state revenue to local government Does the TWG support a flat percentage, a fixed dollar amount for locals, or some sliding scale as more revenue is generated?

16. WSDOT Operating Programs The WSDOT 2005 revenue analysis assumes $826 million to $948 million for its operating programs from the new revenue Does the TWG support this level of spending on maintenance, fuel, IT and traffic operations?

17. Which Taxes at What Levels Does TWG want flexible $ at state level? Options –General Sales tax boost 0.075 to 0.150 to generate $950 m to $1,901 m; or –Sales tax on gas $4,599 m –MVET statewide at modest level Possibly confined to spending on highways of statewide significance

18. Which Taxes at What Levels Gas tax increase –5 cents in 2005 = $1,793 m over ten years –10 cents over two years = $3,406 m –15 cents over three years = $4,838 m –Alternative? Trigger tax increase as base price of gasoline falls How high a gas tax boost does TWG want? Do we want to phase it in?

19. Which Taxes at What Levels Vehicle License Fee Increase –$10 per year = $678 m over ten years –$20 per year = $1,356 m –$30 per year = $2,034 m How high a vehicle license fee boost does the TWG want? Do you want to phase it in?

20. Which Taxes at What Levels Gross weight fees –1 cent per lb. on cars = $1,972 m over ten years –1 cent per lb. on large vehicles = $117 m Weight Distance Tax –New tax, no formula on books Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax –New tax, needs collection technology Does TWG want to advocate any of these?

21. The Regional Funding Dilemma Does TWG want to rely upon user fees or upon regional taxes to make up difference in capital projects between state revenues and total costs? Are user fees project specific or are they fungible to other regional needs? If regional taxes are needed, do we rework RTID legislation, find a substitute for RTID, or require single ballot measure for transit and roads in the region?

22. RTID Options to increase chances for success Redraw boundaries to RTA or UGB territory –Loses one person / one vote representation –More likely to pass ballot measure –Better matches who pays with who uses Does TWG support?

23. RTID Options to increase chances for success Change ballot title requirements to drop listing of all taxes or lengthen title wording –Fear that listing taxes prompts disproportionate “no” votes Does TWG support?

24. RTID Options to increase chances for success Give different mix of taxes? –What is left - Property tax? –Change amount available from current tax authority? Does the TWG want to advocate other taxes for RTID?

25. RTID and State Funding Are the amendments to RTID that you endorse sufficient to reasonably assure there is enough revenue generated to finish the major projects the TWG wants? If not, do we need a different scheme to raise money or a different structure to authorize and manage the regional share?

26. Regional Options Switch to giving counties the taxing authority by legislative action Direct counties to use interlocal agreements to share revenues to fund projects over time Does the TWG want to advocate?

27. Regional Options to increase chances for success Require single ballot measure for an ‘all- modes’ regional transportation package Remove the ‘silo’ restrictions on how funds in RTA and RTID can be used Does the TWG want to advocate?

28. TWG Choices on Regional Funding Does TWG support changing boundaries of RTID? Does TWG support changing ballot title requirements? Does TWG want to change RTID tax authority? Does TWG want a single ballot measure? Does TWG want to switch to counties to authorize funding for RTID projects

29. Getting Going – Legislative Levers Make state money contingent on regional contribution Set deadline for RTID/RTA to decide on plan and ballot measure Set parameters for an integrated regional transportation plan and funding scheme

30. Getting Going – Legislative Levers Does TWG see a need to push region to decide on plan? Does TWG want Legislature to: –Make $ contingent –Give region a deadline –Set parameters

31. User Fees & 2005 Legislature WSDOT needs explicit authority for SR 167 HOT lanes WSDOT says SR 520 needs toll authority clarification by Legislature Does TWG support either of these?

32. Other Finance Options Other options for financing new construction have been proposed –Local Improvement Districts by corridor –Tax increment financing –Public/private partnerships Does the TWG want to advocate any of these to the Legislature?