March 12, 2004
To: RTID Executive Board Members
Fr: Kjristine
Lund, Executive Director
Re: RTID
Revenue Scenarios
Action Required
The Executive Committee must decide the financing level to include in the RTID transportation ballot measure.
Background
The transportation investment need in the 3-county region is far greater than the financial capacity of the RTID alone. The RTID must decide the parameters for financing its share of the region’s transportation investments.
The RTID’s financing must pay for complete project segments and will leverage funds from federal, state, and other local governments to complete major corridor investments. A system performance model will measure the effect of the overall level of investment. The RTID plan will include financing, performance, and project specific cost estimates.
The RTID Executive Committee must recommend the mix of funding sources from its currently authorized funding tools to set the parameters for the plan. Voters will decide the investment plan at the ballot.
To develop the final plan for voter approval, technical analysis must be done to match project scopes, expenditures, cash flow and financing. In addition, the projects that comprise the plan must be modeled for system performance. In the world of constrained budgets, this process begins by matching project scopes to the financing available.
Sound Transit Joint Ballot Decision
The financing scenarios presented here all assume a joint ballot measure with Sound Transit. It is my recommendation that we proceed with that assumption at this time in order to successfully accomplish the technical work needed in the available time for a November 2004 Ballot.
The RTID Executive Committee can prepare a draft plan that shows a balanced regional system. That plan will show the benefits the public will receive from this investment plan.
Should the Sound Transit board vote not to proceed with a joint ballot, the RTID Executive Committee could reassess its intent for the best ballot date and adjust its plan accordingly. Without a joint ballot, the most significant adjustments to the plan would need to occur in the west King County subarea, specifically within the City of Seattle.
Scenario #1
$13.75 Billion Transportation Investment over 15
years
|
Tax
(in billions) |
District
wide |
King
|
Pierce |
Snohomish |
|
0.3% MVET |
1.9 |
1.2 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
|
0.1% RTA tax transfer |
1.9 |
1.2 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
|
0.3% roads sales tax |
5.8 |
3.5 |
1.3 |
1.0 |
|
$75 license fee |
3.7 |
1.9 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
|
Local option gas tax at 2.8 cents |
1.1 |
0.6 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
|
Total
Revenue (state
bonding) |
14.4 |
8.4 |
3.4 |
2.6 |
|
Total
revenue (RTID
only bonding) |
13.5 |
7.8 |
3.2 |
2.5 |
|
Current Project Lists |
13.75 |
8.4 |
3.0 |
2.4 |
SCENARIO
#2:
|
Tax
(in billions) |
District
wide |
King
|
Pierce |
Snohomish |
|
0.3% MVET |
1.9 |
1.2 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
|
0.1% RTA tax transfer |
1.9 |
1.2 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
|
0.2% roads sales tax |
3.8 |
2.4 |
0.8 |
0.7 |
|
$75 license fee |
3.7 |
1.9 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
|
Local option gas tax at 2.8 cents |
1.1 |
0.6 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
|
Total
Revenue (with
state bonding) |
12.4 |
7.3 |
2.9 |
2.3 |
|
Total
Revenue (RTID
only bonding) |
11.7 |
6.7 |
2.8 |
2.2 |
|
Current Project Lists |
13.75 |
8.35 |
3.0 |
2.4 |
|
Need to cut |
(1.35) |
(1.05) |
(0.1) |
(0.1) |
SCENARIO #3:
$11.3 Billion Transportation Investment over 15 years
|
Tax
(in billions) |
District
wide |
King
|
Pierce |
Snohomish |
|
0.3% MVET |
1.9 |
1.2 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
|
0.1% RTA tax transfer |
1.9 |
1.2 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
|
0.2% roads sales tax |
3.8 |
2.4 |
0.8 |
0.7 |
|
$75 license fee |
3.7 |
1.9 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
|
Total
Revenue (with
state bonding) |
11.3 |
6.7 |
2.6 |
2.1 |
|
Total
Revenue (with
RTID only bonding) |
10.7 |
6.2 |
2.5 |
2.0 |
|
Current Project Lists |
13.75 |
8.35 |
3.0 |
2.4 |
|
Need to cut |
(3.05) |
(1.65) |
(0.4) |
(0.3) |