Transportation leaders speaking at yesterday's Washington Highway Users Federation Legislative Briefing confirmed rumors that have been building in recent days: this week could be make-or-break for determining whether there will be a special session in November to consider a transportation revenue package that would include the completion of State Route 167.
Senators Tracey Eide and Curtis King and Representative Judy Clibborn all referenced a series of meetings this week that would include various combinations of transportation committee members, budget writers, the governor and members of the various caucuses, all trying to hash out a deal. "Given where we left things at the end of the legislative session, I never dreamed we'd be so far or so close on a package as we are today," said Clibborn.
Although all made it clear that there remained substantive differences between the Republican-led Senate and Democrat-led House, the Legislative Briefing audience heard a greater degree of specificity in terms of where there was consensus and where the critical points of negotiation remained.
First, the areas of agreement. Overall there appears the be a desire for some sort of package. In recapping the ten transportation listening sessions held over the last month by the Senate Transportation Committee, Senator Eide noted that, "Over 80% of the people attending the listening sessions wanted a package."
Second, there appears to be general consensus on the major revenue elements. "The revenue part of it-- I think we can get there," said King. Nearly every one of the funding tools included in this year's House package was referenced at some point during the Briefing.
"The question is how we spend it," cautioned Senator King, who noted that while the Senate and House agree on most items, there did remain about $200 million in differences in terms of the two chambers' wish lists.
Most parties, however, appear to agree on the importance of freight mobility in general and the completion of SR-167 in particular. King went on to state that, "We need projects that grow the economy like SR-167 and SR-509. Those projects are going to have a significant economic return for Washington."
Eide agreed. "One message that was clear was the importance of trade and the need to connect our growers to our ports," she said in describing testimony at the listening sessions. "We have got to have a strong freight mobility component in this next package...and complete SR 167."
Even lawmakers that don't normally work on freight issues concurred. "Even though I don't represent a port, the importance of freight has been impressed upon me," said Senator David Frockt.
With that said, differences do remain. The biggest stumbling block remains the need for reform. Nearly all of the speakers concurred that policy reforms would be a significant component of the final deal, but they did not sugar coat the fact that differences remain in terms of what those reform ought to look like. Major points of discussion include the need for permit streamlining, labor reforms around prevailing wage and apprentices, the use of sales tax from transportation projects for transportation instead of the general fund, ferry construction, and the question of using Environmental Legacy Stewardship Account funds for stormwater projects.
Another issue is how to treat transit. Some lawmakers appear to want transit specifically funded in the budget, while others would prefer to provide meaningful funding tools to local governments and let them decided what types of investments they would like to make given their local needs. "I understand transit is important to King County and that they will likely want to use their money to fund transit," said King.
Another new wrinkle-- new demands by certain legislators for more funding for State Route 520-- a project that had receive significant funds from the last two revenue packages.
Clearly, significant hurdles remain. But the fact that leaders of all four legislative caucuses and the governor are meeting regularly this week and exchanging specific proposals can only be viewed as a positive sign. Speaking to the ripeness of the moment, the News Tribune editorialized this weekend: "Washington lawmakers will be distracted and running in 100 different directions when they convene in January for next year’s short session. A transportation plan that fixes big, expensive problems across the state is necessarily complex and dependent on knotty political and financial tradeoffs. It needs a session all its own, and November’s the time to do it.