Dueling supplemental transportation budgets under consideration

The House and Senate Transportation Committees have released their particular versions of the 2026 Supplemental Transportation Budget.  And while it’s “only” a supplemental budget for the second year of the biennial budget, the stakes are high given funding challenges at WSDOT, particular for preservation.

The biggest difference between the two versions is the fact that the Senate would provide more funding than the House by issuing bonds.  The Senate would provide new bond capacity of about $1.5 billion (about $5.8 in new bond capacity is available).

AGC and allies in Labor and business sent a letter to the Legislature supporting the bonding idea. 

The letter states in part:  “Bonding is a practical, time-tested tool that protects taxpayers at a time when construction costs remain volatile. Inflation and uncertainty in materials pricing make long-term forecasting difficult. Delaying projects under these conditions does not save money—it increases costs. Bonding allows the state to lock in today’s prices and preserve purchasing power rather than paying significantly more in future biennia. Stable financing also promotes efficiency. It reduces costly stop-and-start construction, avoids re-design and re-bidding triggered by funding gaps, supports crew cohesion for complex work, underpins apprenticeship recruitment and retention and improves schedule reliability for projects already authorized. Greater certainty strengthens coordination among WSDOT, local partners, and contractors, improves bid competition, and supports workforce stability.”

Differences between the two approaches will have to be worked out before the Legislature adjourns March 12.

Highlights from the two proposals:

Preservation (Program P):

House:  From $903,386,000 → $1,308,386,000 = Increase of $404,800,000

Senate:  From $903,386,000 → $1,428,405,000 = Increase of $525,019,000

Discussion:  Both versions meet immediate (2026 paving season) preservation requests; WSDOT says it has about $164M teed up for the upcoming paving season. The House states an intent (no specific pool of money identified) to increase to $1.7B in 2027-29; silent on 2029-2031.  Meanwhile, the Senate, because of the certainty of the bond proceeds, looks further out and increases preservation to $1.7B in 2027-29, and $1.85B in 2029-31.

Note that Program P includes both asphalt paving, as well as bridge work (eg, deck replacements, rehab, seismic retrofits, painting).  Not exactly clear on what the asphalt vs. bridge split is, but historically bridge work accounts for about 25-40% of Program P.

Highway Improvements (Program I):

House:  Reduces Program I by about $180M, but there does not appear to be any postponing/delay of projects previously funded.  This “rebalances” Program I funding.

Senate: Preserves Program I commitments AND adds $400M overrun bonding backstop.  That is, the Senate would authorize these bonds, but they would only be let when there are “unanticipated construction-related cost increases” in the big projects funded via the Move Ahead WA plan.

Discussion:  While neither pushes previously funded projects out, there could be ramifications for projects that haven’t been funded (eg, Hwy 2 trestle); they may have to wait longer to be funded.  The Senate’s bonding, however, make it likelier that unfunded projects can get in the queue sooner than the House’s approach – but the House could make up for this in next year’s budget process.

Ferries:

Both versions largely ignore the Governor’s proposal for construction of 3 new additional ferries and his $1B in bonding to pay for it (although construction of 3 ferries is underway).  They merely give a little more for operating and capital, but from existing ferry accounts.

Bonding:

Senate:

NEW bond authorization:  $1.5B

  •         $1.1 in general obligation bonds
  •          $400M for cost overrun reserves on an as-needed basis; could be helpful to protect mega project timelines

Existing bond ceiling increase:  $500M

  • This is a specific bond ceiling increase for the 520 project, not new bonding authority.

For more information, contact AGC Chief Lobbyist Jerry VanderWood.

Share this post