Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the I 5 Bridge Replacement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs larger bond authority for I‑5 bridge replacement, 18‑7
Summary
The House Transportation Committee recommended a due‑pass on a substitute to House Bill 1958 that raises maximum bond authority for the Interstate 5 bridge replacement from $1.6 billion to $2.5 billion; the committee recorded an 18‑7 vote with two excused members.
House Bill 1958, as reported out in substitute form, would authorize the issuance of bonds to pay for design, right‑of‑way and construction work for the Interstate 5 bridge replacement project. The committee voted 18 in favor and 7 opposed, with two members excused, to recommend the bill for passage.
Mister Menicki, a staff member who briefed the committee, said the original bill "allows for the issuance of up to $1,600,000,000 worth of bonds for the design right of way and construction of the Interstate 5 bridge replacement project." He said a proposed substitute — identified in committee as H-2096.1 — would raise that cap to $2,500,000,000 and would create a separate structure for issuance and repayment rather than amending the existing tolling structure.
Vice Chair Donaghy, who moved the proposed substitute, told the committee the project is "a very difficult project, very needed" and described the bridge as a lifeline for I‑5 and commercial traffic along the West Coast. Donaghy said the project will rely in part on user fees and that the substitute is intended to keep funding for this project separate from other toll systems in the state to avoid mingling of funds.
Representative Lee asked about updated total cost estimates. Menicki said the committee expects updated numbers this summer and that the most recent estimates the staff had seen, from roughly two years earlier, ranged "between 6,000,000,000 and 7.5" (billions), a figure he said he had not seen updated since then.
During roll call, several members described concerns about the bill’s effect on future user fees. Representative Lee said members on her side would cast a mixed vote because of questions about "what is fair for people to pay" given the doubling of potential borrowing and tolling bonds from earlier finance plans. Despite those concerns, the substitute received a due‑pass recommendation from the committee.
Votes at the roll call were recorded as follows: Aye — Representatives Fey, Birnbaum, Donaghy, Reed, Barcas, Lowe, Bernofsky, Dent, Doer, Entenmann, Hunt, Nance, Paul, Ramel, Taylor, Timmons, Wiley and Zahn (18). Nay — Representatives Griffey, Clicker, Lee, Orcutt, Richards, Stevie and one additional nay recorded in the roll (7). Representatives Mendoza and Schmidt were excused.
The committee’s recommendation advances the substitute to the next stage of consideration, where updated cost estimates and further debate on financing and tolling structure are expected.
