VLT $0.67B

Growth$1.26B

Upgrades$5.75B

COMPARISON BETWEEN AACE STUDIES

EXPENDITURES

● Maintenance and Operations- Roads- Bridges

● Safety

● Growth

- Roads- Bridges

● Upgrades

2009-2018 NEEDED EXPANDITURES BY COUNTY

(Amounts Shown in Thousands)

HURF AND VLT REVENUE HISTORY ($Millions)

HURF: restricted to roads and bridges

VLT: limited to transportation purposes

HURF REVENUE PROJECTIONS ($Millions) VLT REVENUE PROJECTIONS ($Millions)

The forecasted county VLT revenue for 2009 is 8 percent less than the official forecast. The decline in VLT in FY 2008 and the last few months of calendar year 2008 was greater than the decline in HURF. While VLT growth is forecasted to resume in 2010 and 2011, it is at lower growth rates than had been predicted in 2008. Finally, the growth rates predicted in the September 2008 forecasts are predicted to resume in 2012.

1 From AZDOT Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund Forecasting Process & Results FY 2009-2018, September 2008.2 Ibid, page 6 where Net HURF is the difference between forecasted HURF and allocation for DPS/Economic Strength Program3 19% of Net HURF4 Calculated based on Net HURF: where 2009 is reduced by 6%compared to Net HURF; 2010 resumes growth, but at 1/2 of Official Forecast year to year growth rate; 2010 is at 3/4 of Official Forecast year to year growth rate; later years follow Official Forecast growth rate

ARIZONA ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION ASPHALT PRODUCTS PRICING

2001-2009

CHANGE IN VEHICLE-MILES TRAVELED ON RURALHIGHWAYS, UNITED STATES, 2006-DECEMBER, 2008

VEHICLE-MILES TRAVELED ON ALL ROADS, UNITEDSTATES, 1998-2008 (MOVING 12-MONTH TOTAL)

FYFY

Transfer to DPSTransfer to DPS Transfer to GFTransfer to GF

Total Total HURFHURF

DiversionDiversion

% of % of HURFHURF

DivertedDivertedHURFHURF SHFSHF TotalTotal SHFSHF CTFCTF

19981998 15.0015.00 15.0015.00 30.0030.00 -- -- 30.0030.00 3.4%3.4%

19991999 12.5012.50 12.5012.50 25.0025.00 -- -- 25.0025.00 2.5%2.5%

20002000 12.5012.50 12.5012.50 25.0025.00 -- -- 25.0025.00 2.5%2.5%

20012001 12.5012.50 12.5012.50 25.0025.00 5.005.00 -- 30.0030.00 2.9%2.9%

20022002 52.1052.10 25.4025.40 77.5077.50 -- -- 77.5077.50 7.2%7.2%

20032003 54.5054.50 38.3038.30 92.8092.80 -- -- 92.8092.80 8.4%8.4%

20042004 48.7048.70 30.2030.20 78.9078.90 -- 8.208.20 87.1087.10 7.4%7.4%

20052005 52.2052.20 32.3032.30 84.5084.50 118.00118.00 13.0013.00 215.50215.50 17.5%17.5%

20062006 71.4071.40 32.9032.90 104.30104.30 -- -- 104.30104.30 8.0%8.0%

20072007 74.6074.60 32.6032.60 107.20107.20 -- -- 107.20107.20 7.8%7.8%

TotalTotal 406.00406.00 244.20244.20 650.20650.20 123.00123.00 21.2021.20 794.40794.40 7.1%7.1%

ADOTADOT CountiesCounties CitiesCities

22.5822.58 2.852.85 4.584.58

18.8118.81 2.382.38 3.813.81

18.8118.81 2.382.38 3.813.81

23.8123.81 2.382.38 3.813.81

51.7151.71 9.909.90 15.8915.89

65.8265.82 10.3610.36 16.6216.62

54.7954.79 17.4517.45 14.8514.85

176.66176.66 22.9222.92 15.9215.92

68.9668.96 13.5713.57 21.7821.78

70.2770.27 14.1714.17 22.7522.75

572.23572.23 98.3498.34 123.83123.83

Transfers from Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) and State Highway Fund (SHF)(millions of dollars)

Impact of HURF/SHF Transfers

FY 2009 HURF TRANSFER: $84.9B

FY 2010 HURF TRANSFER: ???

THE BOTTOM LINE

● Not a request for additional monies

● Recognize competing priorities for limited resources

● Demonstrated shortfall for needed maintenance

● PLEA TO MINIMIZE HURF TRANSFERS