Education vs. transportation: Which will get funding from the Washington state Legislature

“Kids over concrete” is the rallying cry some Democrats are using to denounce the transportation package currently in front of the Legislature.

The package includes a gas tax increase of 11.7 cents a gallon, but it would also redirect sales tax money from transportation projects back into the transportation fund.

Currently, that money is available for schools.

House Majority Leader Pat Sullivan says the schools need that money, especially with the Legislature in contempt of the McCleary decision on school funding.

“We’re under a court order, a contempt order and we’re not meeting our obligation and so we have to find a solution this session,” says Sullivan. “We’re not only going to comply with the court, but really to make sure we’re meeting the needs of our students.”

But on the other side, Republican Senator Curtis King, the chair of the transportation committee, rejects the claim that reclaiming the sales tax from road projects would hurt school funding.

He argues that the projects themselves will create a big enough boost in the economy to more than make up for shifting the tax money.

“If we invest those monies wisely, you get increased sales tax from the development around those transportation projects. It all goes into the general fund. Then once they’re built, you have increased property value evaluations that you pay property tax on.”

Sullivan disagrees, saying these road projects take years, and any additional money for schools would be a long time coming.

“We’re under a contempt order today,” he says. “So, any kind of economic impact from the new transportation projects won’t be felt for sometime. Our forecast already counts on some funding from transportation projects.”

As for Randy Dorn, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, he says both transportation and education need more revenue. But at the end of the day, the kids have to come first.

“The Supreme Court, their most paramount duty is education. It didn’t say transportation,” says Dorn. “It said it must be uniform and it must be stable funding to support 21st century education system. So that’s what McCleary was based on and that’s one I’m advocating for.”

Finally, there’s State Secretary of Transportation Lynn Peterson, who says you can debate all you want, but without a lot more money for roads, projects across the state will be delayed, and we’ll be in this same situation next year.

“We will have to make some really tough decisions but I’m sure that because it’s such an important part of our economy. If that were to happen we would continue conversations with the Legislature and work to find a way through in the next session,” says Peterson.

Could this all fall through once again? Could the Legislature end up doing what it did last year and kick the can down the road without fixing the road? We put the question to Senator King, who chairs the transportation committee.

“I hope not,” says King. “Well, we’re in the midst of negotiations and you know, it is part of what we’re negotiating for.”

The transportation bill is set to move out of committee at the end of this week and the state Legislature has until April 26 to pass it.