Senate substitute on transportation funding allows counties limited homeless/mental-health spending; senators debate local control

Senators debated a substantive substitute to Senate Bill 2 60 on Monday that would prescribe how counties may allocate a 0.2% local sales-and-use tax increment often described as the "fifth of the fifth." The substitute allocates parts of that increment among cities, counties and transit, and authorizes counties of the first class to use up to 0.05 of the 0.2 for homelessness and mental-health programs if the county elects to implement the tax.

Sponsor’s explanation: Sen. Cullimore (substitute sponsor) said the substitute clarifies distribution options and gives counties discretion on implementation. He described an optional framework that does not force counties to impose the tax; instead, it outlines what the county council could decide if it chooses to impose the increment. "It does not require that they use 0.05. It does not even require that they implement the tax," the sponsor said on the floor.

Objections and concerns: Sen. Johnson objected on grounds of local control, arguing the reallocation is a local government issue and that the Legislature should not alter the uses that counties or voters expected: "This seems to me to be a local government issue," the senator said, adding that the change could reallocate funds away from what voters believed they were supporting. Sen. Bramble pressed for clarification about whether the substitute changes the purpose of taxes presented to voters; the President and sponsor clarified that the particular 'fifth' at issue is a council-imposed local option (not a voter-approved tax) and that the substitute gives counties additional flexibility.

Scope and constraints: The substitute restricts the 0.05 homeless/mental-health allocation to counties of the first class. The sponsor said the change is meant to provide counties with optional tools to address homelessness and mental-health needs that tend to concentrate in larger counties.

Outcome and next steps: The substitute was placed on third reading and will proceed through further floor action; the transcript excerpt shows the floor adopted subcommittee action to move the substitute to a third reading but the final roll-call tally for third reading is not clearly legible in the transcript excerpt included here. If enacted, county councils that choose to impose the increment could decide whether to direct a portion to homelessness and mental-health programs under the allowable limits in statute.

Procedural note: The floor debate included repeated clarifications about whether the tax in question was a voter-approved measure or a county council authority; the President clarified several times that this specific 'fifth' was a county-imposed option rather than an up-front voter-approved levy.