A $15 billion transportation package that funds a slew of major to medium-sized transportation projects in Washington state with an 11.7-cent gas tax increase cleared its first test Monday afternoon. It passed the Senate on a 27-22 vote that featured a mix of support from Republicans as well as Democrats.
Sens. Joe Fain, R-Auburn, Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, and Don Benton, R-Vancouver, confer following Lt. Gov. Brad Owen’s ruling
The showdown over Lt. Gov. Brad Owen’s ruling on whether the vote would be subject to the two-thirds rule majority Republicans adopted earlier provided some parliamentary fireworks. He said the package would have been subject to the two-thirds requirement, but he set that aside by saying the rule was unconstitutional and in conflict with a 2013 state Supreme Court ruling.
That paved the way for the vote on the revenue package, which offered a telling moment for the 2015 legislative session: Almost as many Republicans voted no – six Senators – as Democrats voted yes – seven, which grows to eight when you count Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, who caucuses with the GOP in the Majority Coalition Caucus.
The slim margins of majority in each chamber means the ultimate spending plans that are approved – and signed by a Democratic governor – will have to be products of compromise within the chamber, and not just a conference committee at the end. The Senate package was designed this way, being the result of negotiations between Sens. Curtis King, R-Yakima, Joe Fain, R-Auburn, as well as Marko Liias, D-Mukilteo and Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens on the other side. “I think we can turn political gridlock on its head,” Liias said during the floor debate Monday.
Now it moves over to the House, where it will most likely stay for another month, at least, until the House Democratic Caucus reveals its budget proposal. Majority Leader Pat Sullivan, D-Covington, contends that should take precedence over transportation spending.
And it was clear from the debate on the Senate Floor, as well as the statements offered after the vote, that many Democrats’ largest source of ire was the policy reforms the package includes. There’s eight of them and proponents argue they’ll fix long-standing problems with the Department of Transportation and how transportation projects get funded in Washington state.
The list expands to nine when you count the most politically contentious one of all: the stipulation that if Gov. Jay Inslee moves forward in adopting a low-carbon fuels standard, funding for transit grants will be shifted into roads funding. Sen. Pramila Jayapal, D-Seattle, said that would hamstring the state in cutting carbon emissions, but Senate Majority Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, said it would offer “consumer protection” against a program he believed would raise fuel prices too drastically with minimal benefits to residents. The stipulation is included in the main revenue bill, SB 5987.
“If I have any regret, it’s that the reforms are not even stronger,” Schoesler said on the floor.
The other reform proposals are in separate bills and include:
SB 5990, which transfers sales and use tax on transportation projects from the operating fund into a transportation funding account. That passed the Senate last Friday on a 26-23 vote.
SB 5991, which diverts 20 percent of extra money from a toxics control accounts into stormwater culvert and fish-barrier removal projects. It passed on a 27-22 vote.
SB 5992, which makes a requirement the Department of Transportation use design-build procedures, where one firm designs and builds a marine vessel project, instead of separate bidding processes, to lower costs. It passed 48-1.
SB 5993, which changes the state apprenticeship program to apply to projects costing more than $3 million, as well as some other steps. It passed 48-1.
SB 5994, which would exempt some projects from review under the State Environmental Policy Act if they’re categorically exempt under the federal Environmental Policy Act, as well as streamline permitting processes for the DOT. That passed 39-19.
SB 5995, which added “congestion relief” to WSDOT’s list of six policy goals that are spelled out under state law. That passed 49-0.
SB 5996, which would change the DOT’s permitting process as well institute reporting requirements for violations of environmental permits, and for any engineering errors that leads to more than $500,000 cost overrun for a project. That passed on a 47-2 vote.
SB 5997, which would recommend the DOT use design build standards for projects worth more than $10 million. This passed by a 49-0 vote.
Of the proposals, it’s the shifting of sales tax revenue, excess toxics money and the overhaul of the environmental permitting have been the three that have drawn the most controversy.
The use of sales tax revenue from transportation projects for transportation was a sticking point in last year’s failed negotiations over a transportation package. This year, it’s led senior Democrats such as Sullivan to charge that the package is siphoning money away from schools and putting it to roads.
But Duke Schaub, a lobbyist for the Association of General Contractors in Washington state, said that was misguided, because it would only take effect if the revenue package takes effect. In that instance, the economic activity generated from the construction projects over the 16-year lifespan of the package would more than make up for the revenue diverted out of the general fund.
A study from the Washington Roundtable last fall found that a $6 billion transportation package would generate almost $42 billion in economic activity, including the creation of about 200,000 jobs statewide.
“Finally we’re getting somebody to listen to the point that you’re paying double taxation,” Schaub said. “The general fund will more than make up for this.”
He also touts design-build as a cost-effective, efficient way of getting projects completed, but acknowledges the fight looming on the environmental permitting requirements. Still, he said the DOT can take up to two years to go through environmental review with all of the various state, local and federal agencies that are charged with reviewing projects and gauging their environmental impacts. Speeding that up would be another cost-saver, he said.
“Whatever legislation that would speed that up would be beneficial not only to transportation but to the taxpayers of Washington state,” Schaub said.
He also acknowledged that proponents of the transportation package have a tough road in front of them.
“We recognize this is going to be tough sledding,” Schaub said. “A lot of this stuff has yet to be negotiated. The ultimate goal: Pass a revenue package.”
Your support matters.
Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.
