by Scott Panitz

Reporter, WNPA Olympia News Bureau

Transportation leaders in the state Senate released a 2012 supplemental transportation-budget proposal on Feb. 21 that would appropriate funding for vital highway maintenance and preservation, ferry operations and seed money for future construction projects. It would also create or sustain more than 43,000 jobs for the remainder of the 2011-13 biennium.

“This budget is basically a bridge to the next biennium in that it allows us to continue to maintain our roads and avoid severe cuts in services,” said Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, (D-10th, Camano Island), chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee, who has been especially adamant about maintaining the current level ferry service.

The supplemental budget is similar to the one advanced by House Transportation Committee Chairwoman Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-41st, Mercer Island) on Feb. 16.

The proposals would both add close to $800 million to the $9 billion biennial budget, taking advantage of the full appropriation of bond proceeds for the Seattle to Medina State Route 520 Bridge Replacement project and lower-than-expected project bids.

There is also funding from a package of fee increases that would raise, among others, driver’s licenses, vehicle title registrations and license plates that haven’t kept up with inflation over the years, said Haugen.

“These investments target some of our most urgent preservation and safety needs, and they set the stage for building the next generation of big projects that Washington needs to fuel job growth and keep people and commerce moving,” said Clibborn.

While the Senate proposal, SB 5992, would funnel $39.5 million of new revenue into current biennium needs, the House’s bill HB 2190, accounts for four additional fee increases and would invest $55 million. Both proposals would allow for the construction of a second 144-car ferry, and provide slightly different amounts to restore the State Patrol auto-theft program, reduce the highway-maintenance backlog and fund additional Safe Routes to Schools projects.

“The modest fee increases we’ve proposed won’t fix all of our revenue problems, but they will generate enough to continue work on our major transportation projects uninterrupted,” said Haugen.

Senator Tracey Eide (D-30th, Federal Way), vice chairwoman of the Transportation Committee, said she is most encouraged by the potential for the proposal to put people back to work.

“Every time I see cargo and construction, I think of jobs and that’s what I believe this budget is about,” she said.

About $27 million of new revenue from both proposals would be used to seed future projects, including improvements to the Federal Way-Triangle, Lewis-McChord, SR509 Des Moines to Sea-Tac and North Spokane corridors.

Sen. Curtis King (R-14th, Yakima), who cosponsors the bipartisan bill, said that the Senate proposal would cut administrative positions at the Department of Transportation by 5 to 7 percent by the end of the 2013-’15 biennium and eliminate project-report redundancies, saving the $8.4 million per biennium starting in 2015-’17.

One of the most glaring differences between the Senate and House supplemental budgets is a large disparity in investment in public transportation. The House would spend $10 million to be distributed to regional, metropolitan, county and rural public transit, whereas the Senate only plans to spend $3.5 million.

Clibborn said that, while it may seem significant, most of the differences will be easily hashed out in what she called a “conference” once the proposals pass through the process. She did say, however, that she is concerned about the Senate proposal’s lack of recognition to the appropriation of the new revenue for the upcoming biennium.

“They are not making any reference to how we would spend the same revenue streams in 2013-’15,” she said. “They want to save that for next year’s budget, whereas I’ve been showing how this goes forward to save the ferries and do some of those things. So that’s going to be a much bigger question. It’s what do we do in the out years and how are we looking at this money.”

Haugen reiterated her position that, while the governor’s proposed oil-barrel fee, or “tax” as she called it, was not right for this year, a big, long-term revenue solution is needed within the next two years.