The budgets offered by the Senate and by House Democrats provide only limited restoration of the funds lost through I-695, mainly for transit programs. The House Republican package, which dedicates sales taxes from motor vehicle-related transactions and car rental taxes to support bonding, provides substantially more ongoing support for highway construction. Third, adherence to the spirit as well as the letter of Initiative 601 represents a major philosophical split among the various budgets. As we ve noted previously, appropriations from the emergency reserve fund are contrary to I-601, as would be use of local option tax credits. While Republicans in the House have agreed with the Democratic proposal to amend I-601 to reduce the ERF to 5 percent of annual revenues from 5 percent of biennial revenues, that change should not alter the limitations on appropriating from the fund.
Excess revenues spill into school construction.
Any other use ought to require a supermajority vote. Strangely, most of the efforts to get around the requirements of I-601 are unnecessary. Adjusting the limit to handle transfers and using unrestricted reserves provide nearly all of the flexibility required for I-695 mitigation as well as any essential supplemental spending. Much of the remaining budget work will be done quietly and with little public involvement. Several years ago, the Washington Research Council published a series of recommendations for improvements in the state budget process.