Both the State Senate and House passed similar-but-different Transportation Budget proposals recently. AGC supports the proposals. Both address major shortfalls in WSDOT’s budget that, if not addressed, would mean halted and postponed projects and decreased preservation work that is already precariously insufficient. The shortfall is due largely to diminishing returns from the state gas tax, the primary funding mechanism for WSDOT, and cost inflation. In addition, the state is under a US Supreme Court mandate to replace hundreds of fish passages under roadways, and that project, which is already straining preservation and highway construction funding, needs an additional $5 billion over the next six years to meet the court’s requirement.
The Senate plan closes the $1 billion shortfall in the state’s budget for the 2025-27 biennium and commits funding levels through 2031. The balanced, six-year plan invests about $9.2 billion to ensure the state can complete promised projects, preserve and maintain infrastructure, and increase road safety. The package ensures key projects across the state continue as scheduled, including new ferries, the North Spokane Corridor, and improvements to Snoqualmie Pass and State Route 18.
“This is a year of budget challenges, but through a spirit of collaboration and compromise, we found a bipartisan solution to keep Washington moving ahead,” said Sen. Marko Liias (D-Edmonds), chair of the Senate Transportation Committee. “I appreciate Ranking Republican Sen. Curtis King’s (R-14) commitment to working together to create a plan that will deliver a safer and stronger transportation system for Washingtonians in every corner of our state.”
The House plan makes similar commitments to current projects and preservation. “This budget is built on our commitment to maintaining the transportation system that millions of Washingtonians rely on every day,” said House Transportation Chair Jake Fey (D-27). “We are making the best use of available funding to preserve our roads, keep safety projects moving, and continue our work on fish passage barrier removal, but the reality is that the size of our needs far exceeds available revenue.”
Regarding the need for new revenue, both the House and the Senate proposals would increase the gas tax; 6 cents in the House and 9 cents in the Senate. While a difficult decision, increasing the gas tax remains the most efficient means to raise revenue, and the gas tax is protected by the state Constitution and can only be spent on roads and bridges. There are other fee increases in both plans, such as those on electric and hybrid electric cars. The House also has a graduated fee for cars with MPGs over 25. The Senate has some revenue enhancements that the House does not, such as a small surcharge on electric bikes and requiring public transit to pay tolls. The Senate version would raise about $3 billion over six years, the House about $4.4 billion over 6 years.
The proposals differ with regard to how they would fund major elements of the budget in fiscal year 2025-27. For example, for highway improvements (Program I), the Senate would fund $4.5 billion and the House $5 billion. For preservation (Program P), the Senate would provide $902 million and the House $904 million. For local programs (Program Z), the Senate would provide $734 million and the House $1 billion.
The Senate proposed two separate pieces of legislation impacting the Transportation Budget. Bill SB 5804 would transfer the fish passage obligation from the Transportation Budget to the state’s Capital Budget, basically using public works assistance account funds to pay off bonds that would generate the $5 billion funding need. SB 5802 would transfer a slice of the state sales tax from the Operating Budget to the Transportation Budget. Those bills remain under consideration.
Leaders of the two Transportation Committees will now work to iron out the differences between the two versions.
For more information, contact AGC Chief Lobbyist Jerry VanderWood.