Virginia House Panel Rejects Metro Financing Bill

The plan to create regional funding for Metro requires participation by Virginia, Maryland and the District. (By Nikki Kahn -- The Washington Post)

RICHMOND, Feb. 22 -- A regionwide effort to ensure financial stability for the Metro transit system was dealt a serious setback Wednesday when a legislative subcommittee in Virginia turned down a funding bill that had been approved by the state Senate.

To create a new financing system for Metro -- the only major public transit system without a guaranteed stream of government revenue -- Virginia, Maryland and the District would have to act in concert. The Maryland General Assembly and the D.C. Council are considering finance proposals, and the Virginia Senate passed a bill Friday that would have allowed Northern Virginia jurisdictions served by Metro to raise $50 million a year for the transit system through a quarter-cent sales tax increase.

But bills passed by the Senate also must win approval in the House, and the measure failed to make it out of a House Finance subcommittee. The 5 to 5 vote on whether to advance the bill to the full committee killed it for this year.

Although several lawmakers said the action was a major blow, they have not given up hope on creating a new Metro financing system in this legislative session. The Senate has embedded the language of the bill in its $72 billion budget proposal for the next two years. But the budget would still have to be approved by the House, which is reluctant to endorse any tax increases.

"I'm disappointed, obviously," said Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (D-Arlington), the sponsor of Senate Bill 267, which passed that chamber 36 to 3. "But my overall concern is that this is an example of local government willing to tax themselves for something that is of the highest regional priority . . . and they won't just give us that simple authority to do it ourselves."

U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) began the drive for a new financing system last year when he introduced a bill that would give Metro $1.5 billion for capital projects. The catch was that the Washington region served by Metro would have to guarantee the transit agency $150 million annually.

For years, Metro's leaders have appealed to the region's governments to provide a steady and consistent flow of money so the transit system will not have to compete with other public needs financed through their budgets.

During a hearing before the subcommittee, several supporters of the bill from Northern Virginia told committee members that Metro was facing an emergency.

"I implore you, don't kill this thing," said J. Kenneth Klinge, a former member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. "If you do, there will be a day when Metro is no longer existing."

The four delegates on the subcommittee who represent jurisdictions served by Metro and a Democrat from southwestern Virginia voted for the bill. Three Republicans from Northern Virginia whose constituents would not have been taxed voted against it, as did two GOP lawmakers from the Richmond suburbs.

In discussing their opposition, delegates from the Washington suburbs said that they believed there were other ways to raise the money, though they did not cite any specific alternatives.

One delegate cited Metro's operational and staff problems as reasons the General Assembly should not pour more money into it.

"Metro is a mess," said L. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Prince William), an anti-tax delegate who noted the recent dismissal of Richard A. White, the system's longtime chief executive, as an example of how the system's management needs to be overhauled. "Some of us are hesitant at throwing more money at Metro until we have some assurance that internal reforms are going to take place."

Finance Committee Chairman Harry J. Parrish (R-Manassas), who also voted against the bill, said he would take another look at the bill if supporters would amend it to put the tax to a regional vote.

"If [supporters] were sincere about this, they should put this to a referendum and let the people have a vote," Parrish said.

Whipple said that local officials had decided against that option and were willing "to take responsibility" for raising taxes, if necessary.

Several local officials said the vote was an example of lawmakers in other parts of the state failing to understand the issues facing the Washington suburbs.

Arlington County Board Chairman Chris Zimmerman (D), who also serves on the Metro board, said the financing effort had gained momentum over the past several months, as leaders in the District expressed support and legislators in Maryland introduced a bill to dedicate funding.

"It would be most unfortunate for us to lose that momentum," Zimmerman said.

Davis was not available for comment Wednesday night. His spokesman said that there were other ways for Virginia to meet the challenge and that the money did not have to be raised this year.

"The congressman believes there is more than one way to skin this cat," said Robert White, Davis's press secretary. "This is designed to be a long-term solution. . . . If Congress goes first and the jurisdictions follow, that's one way to do it. If the jurisdictions pass it this year, that's great."

The Davis plan's combination of federal and state funding, which would add $300 million a year over 10 years, would provide money for 340 rail cars and 275 buses and for station improvements.

Staff writer Michael D. Shear contributed to this report.