Section 1: Declares road construction and maintenance to be the state’s top transportation system priority.

Section 2: Requires the legislature to pass legislation that allocates at least 90% of all “transportation funds” to road construction and maintenance. “Transportation funds” includes the state transportation fund, the highway fund, public transit and ferry operating and capital accounts and reserves, regional and local transit funds, and local government transportation accounts. Federal funds and school districts’ transportation funds are excluded. It is not clear whether the legislature is supposed to allocate these funds itself or require that each state and local agency allocate its transportation funds in accordance with the 90% for roads formula.

Section 3: Requires performance audits of each transportation agency to be carried out by the state auditor. It is not clear what standards should be used to measure performance. The auditor’s office does not currently conduct performance audits.

Sections 4 & 5: Exempt road construction material and labor from sales and use taxes.

Sections 6 &7: Require that all city and county comprehensive plans and development regulations be revised to reflect the priorities of the initiative.

Arguments For and Against

• Would release funds to be spent on road construction and maintenance throughout the state.
• Would levy no new taxes.

• Would likely shut down transit. Local-option taxes could not be used to save transit. In the most congested areas of the state - a large number or people currently use transit. Forcing people back into cars will increase traffic and gridlock and pollution.
• All new transportation systems, including roads, take many years to plan and develop. Interrupting transit projects which are already finished or well into the development process will simply prolong our current problems.
• Limiting transit would weaken community and severely impact  mobility for the old, young and disadvantaged.
• Urban, rural, and suburban areas have different needs. I-745 would weaken state and regional policies and plans that emphasize the need for transportation choices to fit local needs.
• Since federal grants usually require local match spending - limiting local spending on transit would eliminate federal spending as well - which means less total money would be available for transportation.
• The Constitution and state law require that voter approved funds be spent only for a stated ballot purpose.  A large portion of transit funds available in the state have been approved by the voters to be used only for that stated purpose.
• May require new funding sources for State Highway Patrol, Department of Licensing and other programs that may be excluded from the 90% of funds that must be spend on road construction and maintenance
• Ambiguities within the initiative and conflicts with other laws will lead to costly litigation
• Almost certainly, this initiative will not have the results promised by its supporters and hoped for by those who vote for it. Ironically, passage of I-745 will only increase voter cynicism and mistrust of government.

The Municipal League Board has taken a position in opposition to Initiative 745, and recommends a "No" vote.  The League will join the campaign of “Citizens for Real Transportation Choices” and work to defeat I-745.

I-745 poses a major impediment to building a rational, balanced transportation system.  It offers a transportation vision that is unaffordable, non-sustainable and environmentally irresponsible.