A new state park, affordable housing, and more for Pierce County in capital budget
Both chambers of the Washington state Legislature have unanimously approved their versions of a two-year construction budget that would send billions of dollars to projects across the state.
The two proposals feature many parallel priorities: broadband, affordable housing, education, behavioral health infrastructure, and more. But there are differences in their approaches.
Next week, budget writers from both chambers will start negotiating a final plan.
Funding for the capital construction budget relies upon bonding — and bonding hinges on approval from a super-majority of legislators in each chamber.
“The capital budget doesn’t get as much attention as other spending plans, but it should,” said Rep. Mike Steele, ranking Republican on the House Capital Budget Committee, in a prepared statement. “This budget puts people before politics. It’s truly a 100 percent bipartisan effort — something that can’t be said about the state’s other spending plans, which usually devolve into partisan disagreements on policies and priorities.”
Gov. Jay Inslee proposed an extra-large capital budget for 2021-23 that would tap future bond capacity to jump-start the state’s economy and speed up key projects.
Since then, new federal stimulus money has poured into the state, some of which will be spent in the capital budget. The Senate’s plan approaches the governor’s proposed level of spending, allocating $6.2 billion with $3.9 billion in bonds, while the House would spend about $5.7 billion, with $3.5 billion in bonds.
The Senate’s would represent a more than 25 percent increase in the construction budget the Legislature approved for 2019-21, and the House’s would represent a roughly 16 percent increase.
Highlights of the plans
Both chambers emphasize a goal to create jobs and boost the state’s economy as it recovers from the pandemic.
There’s hundreds of millions in each budget for K-12 school construction, projects at four-year colleges and community colleges, local governments’ infrastructure projects, state park improvements, clean energy technologies, behavioral health facilities, and affordable housing.
When deciding the projects to include in their budgets, the lead capital budget writers in each chamber — Sen. David Frockt of Seattle and Rep. Steve Tharinger of Port Townsend — described looking for projects that are ready to go, to create jobs and spur economic activity. Tharinger also talked about making investments in long-term infrastructure, such as water, sewer, and broadband.
“We look to members in different districts,” he said, who know what their communities’ needs are.
The two chambers projected bond capacities a little differently, they told McClatchy. And the House doesn’t pull forward any bond capacity from future years, while the Senate pulls forward some, according to Frockt — but not nearly as much as the governor proposed before the federal funding existed.
They differ in how much funding is sent to some areas of the budget. In other cases, they fund the same projects, such as the $191 million construction of a University of Washington behavioral health teaching hospital.
When asked in phone interviews, the budget writers pointed to a few key differences in spending between the two budgets.
For one, both allot hundreds of millions of dollars in one-time federal stimulus money, but they do it differently.
The Senate invests nearly $400 million in federal stimulus money into the Statewide Broadband Office and sets $189 million aside for a “Coronavirus Capital Projects Pool” for allocating to eligible projects.
In the House, Rep. Tharinger told McClatchy they didn’t think so much money could be spent out of the broadband office in the next two years. That plan instead spreads $400 million out among water, sewer, and broadband investments and puts $189 million into projects responsive to the COVID-19 pandemic.
An example of such a project, Tharinger said, is upgrading the HVAC system in the Temple of Justice where the state Supreme Court works.
The two chambers propose spending a little differently when it comes to housing, Sen. David Frockt pointed out. In total, the House appears to spend about $296 million on efforts related to housing and homelessness while the Senate looks to spend $315 million.
Among the differences within that priority area, the Senate’s plan would direct $205 million to the Housing Trust Fund, a grant program that funds construction and renovation of affordable housing, while the House would send $175 million to that fund.
The Senate spends more on higher education as well. Tharinger said he thinks the House proposal was a “little low” in its investment in community colleges, in particular, and will likely want to increase its numbers there.
The proposals are far from final. This budget season is “very fluid,” said Tharinger, especially because of the federal money and some lack of clarity in how it can be spent.
“There will be more decisions made in conference in the Senate and House than there have been in the past,” he said.
What’s proposed in and around Tacoma
An online map allows anyone to zero in on projects in their area that are included in the two capital budget proposals that passed out of the chambers. Here are some of the projects in and around Tacoma that are included in the budgets:
$36 million to construct a new building at University of Washington Tacoma;
$51 million to design a new forensic hospital at Western State Hospital;
$1.4 million for Bates Technical College to acquire land and facilities so it can expand its baccalaureate degree programs;
Nearly $3 million to design a Center for Innovative Learning and Engagement for Tacoma Community College;
$11.1 million for constructing the new Nisqually State Park near Eatonville, including a roundabout at its entrance, a welcome center, an administrative complex and caretaker’s residence, restrooms, campground, and trails;
$9.8 million to finish the design and renovation of the Evergreen Building at the Pierce County Skills Center;
Funding for the Shiloh Baptist Housing Development Project — the House provides $3 million and the Senate provides $2.1 million;
Money for the Asberry Historic Home Site Acquisition: $800,000 in the Senate, and $919,000 in the House.
.jpg)