$60M transportation bond still in limbo

AUGUSTA – Members of the House rejected a $60 million transportation bond for the second consecutive day Thursday while the Maine Senate followed suit by the smallest of margins.

The House voted 82-63 against the version of the $18 million supplemental transportation budget bill containing the $60 million bond, and the Senate agreed in an 18-17 vote. The disagreement over the bonding focused more on prior agreements made by legislative leadership and the wisdom of borrowing money rather than the need for additional transportation funds.

The bill now is stalled in the Senate where further amendments or reconsiderations could be possible today.

At issue is an agreement between Republican and Democratic leaders to give two-thirds approval to a $158 million supplemental budget in March on the condition there would be no borrowing in the current session. During those budget negotiations, Republicans refused to back a proposal by Gov. John Baldacci to put a $30 million general obligation bond before voters to fatten the depleted transportation budget. Instead, Republicans persuaded Democrats to support transferring $15 million from budget surplus funds and an additional $15 million in the transportation budget for construction projects.

Republican and Democratic members of the Transportation Committee voted 10-3 in favor of the borrowing and maintained they were left out of those discussions by leadership. The overwhelming majority of the committee approved its supplemental budget and then included provisions for a $60 million bond, issued in anticipation of expected federal transportation funds, within the bill to fund transportation projects contingent on voter approval in a statewide November referendum question. Bonds issued in anticipation of federal funds do not require two-thirds approval in the House and Senate.

But because the transportation supplemental budget includes projects that need to get under way within the next 60 days, the bill carries an emergency provision requiring a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate to allow it to become law after being signed by the governor. The bonds and the transportation budget could be passed with a majority vote, but transportation officials were banking on the bill becoming law this month for project planning.

Sen. John L. Martin, D-Eagle Lake, offered one of the more impassioned speeches of the session as he charged opponents of the bonds with playing politics with Mainers’ transportation needs simply for the sake of being able to claim that they opposed borrowing money.

“No one should leave this room today saying ‘we did this to save money for the voters of Maine,”‘ Martin said. “What you can say is that you’ve denied the right of the voters to make a decision because you won’t put it to a vote and let them decide. Obviously, you must think they’re stupid, because you won’t give them the right to vote and let them make the decision. Then you can tell them that you’ve postponed their transportation project this year under the guise of not wanting to bond this year. … To me, that’s unfortunate.”

Sen. Richard Nass, R-York, argued that the bond’s inclusion made LD 1974 “a dangerous bill” in that it attempted to borrow against an incoming stream of money.

“Today we don’t have the money – we spent the money and, unfortunately, there’s nothing left to fix the roads,” Nass said. “Until we face up to that and our long-range needs, we won’t catch up with these problems and they’ll never be fixed.”

House Democratic leader Glenn Cummings, D-Portland, blamed Republican leaders for refusing to allow transportation bonds to move forward. He said Maine roads and the state’s economy needs the investment.

“The budget deal was just the latest in a growing history of Republican efforts to obstruct any investments in Maine’s future and economy with bonds,” said Cummings. “I held true to my word and my agreement with Republican leaders not to support these bonds, but not without grave reservations. I think Republican obstinacy on transportation bonds reflects poorly on their party, especially given the state of our roads.”