|
Legislators ponder proration solutions
Thursday marked the halfway point of the special session called by Gov. Don Siegelman to address funding shortages for state education. Some lawmakers have said they are ready to quit if a consensus isn’t reached quickly on what cuts should be made in education spending. Meanwhile, most other bills have been put on hold, pending the outcome of the special session. The House approved one of the governor’s bills to address proration of the state’s education budget. That measure would give more flexibility to city and county superintendents as to how they can spend state education appropriations. But other bills backed by the governor haven’t fared as well. Legislators must wrap up their special session by Monday night in order to resume their regular session on Tuesday. If a solution to the education funding crunch isn’t resolved by the end of the special session, the governor can call another special session during the Legislature’s spring break or let the state courts set the state’s education spending priorities. Deficit spending is prohibited by state law and requires the governor to cut spending when appropriations exceed what the state collected. When Siegelman announced proration Feb. 2, he first proposed cuts of 6.2 percent to the education budget. However, that plan drew fire from educators in both K-12 and in higher education. K-12 supporters claim their funding is an essential function of government and can’t be cut across the board. However, another plan that would have shifted most of the cuts to higher education, drew criticism from that group. Universities encouraged lawmakers to rewrite the 2001 education budget to cut everybody 6.2 percent which would be in line with Siegelman’s proration order. If higher education were forced to absorb the majority of proration, officials at Auburn University say the results would be devastating. School officials say such cuts would cause the closing of schools, colleges and the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, would cause a large tuition increase and extensive unpaid furloughs or layoffs of faculty and staff. As usual, when money runs short, lawmakers begin to look for other revenue sources which includes property tax increases and elimination of tax exemptions. The Federation’s policy states opposition to any property tax increase and pledges to continue to fight to keep exemptions for agricultural input items. Alfa Farmers President Jerry Newby said state leaders should remove non-education spending from the education budget, and the state should base its budget on taxes collected the previous year, not on what the state is projected to collect.
Hearing set for Family Farm Preservation Act
A hearing before the Alabama House Ag Committee on the Family Farm Preservation Act has been set for March 7 at 1:30 p.m. at the state house, but could be postponed because of the special session. Farmers and other Federation leaders are expected to give testimony at the hearing. The hearing was requested by the Alabama League of Municipalities and the Alabama Association of County Commissioners which opposed the bill. However, chances of the bill passing out of the House Ag Committee appear to be good since the majority of the members are cosponsors of the act. The Senate version of the bill remains in the hands of the Senate Rules Committee which will ultimately decide which Senate Committee considers the measure.
House defeats bill to raise property taxes
A bill that would have raised local property taxes, sales taxes and other levies for schools by $131.6 million starting October 2004 was defeated in the House of Representatives Wednesday. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Nelson Starkey, D-Florence who told reporters he was “terribly disappointed” with the outcome of the vote. Lawmakers voted 54-39 in favor of the bill, short of the 63 votes needed to pass a proposed change to the state constitution. The plan would have required cities and counties to collect at least 30 mills of property taxes or the equivalent in sales taxes or other levies, up from the current minimum of 10 mills or the equivalent. Even if Starkey’s bill had been approved by both the House and the Senate, it still would have required approval by a majority of state voters in 2002. Supporters of the legislation said Starkey’s bill would have forced people in counties with low tax rates for schools to pay their fair share for education. Opponents said that under the plan, a majority of voters statewide could have imposed tax rate increases on counties below the 30 mill minimum if most voters in those lower-tax counties opposed raising taxes for their schools. Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Pelham was among those who voted against the bill. She said she believes it’s the responsibility of the local people to pass taxes for their school system.
Here’s how representatives voted on the Starkey bill
The House of Representatives voted 54-39 for a plan to raise minimum local taxes for schools. The plan failed to pass, since it takes 63 or more votes in the House to pass a proposed change to the state constitution. Voting against: Allen, Baker, Barton, Boothe, Bridges, Buskey, Clouse, Crigler, C. Ford, Galliher, Gaston, Graham, Greene, Greeson, Hooper, Hurst, Johnson, Kennedy, Laird, Layson, Martin, McClurkin, McKee, Millican, Morrison, Morrow, C. Newton, Oden, Pringle, Seibenhener, Spicer, Thigpen, D. Thomas, E. Thomas, Vance, Venable, Warren, Willis, Wren (39). Voting for the plan were: Beasley, Beason, L. Black, M. Black, Boyd, Carns, Carter, Curry, Dukes, Dunn, J. Ford, Gaines, Gipson, Grantland, Guin, A. Hall, L. Hall, Hamilton, Hammett, Haney, Hawkins, Hayden, Hill, Hilliard, Hogan, Houston, Hubbard, Jackson, Jones, Knight, Letson, Lindsey, Major, Mancuso, McDaniel, McLaughlin, McMillan, Melton, Morton, D. Newton, Page, T. Parker, W. Parker, Payne, Penry, J. Robinson, O. Robinson, J. Rogers, M. Rogers, Sanderford, Sanderson, Schmitz, Starkey, J. Thomas (54). Abstaining: McClammy. Absent or not voting: Bandy, Carothers, Clark, Dolbare, Holmes, Humphryes, Maull, Mitchell, Perdue, Turner, White (11).
Bill Status
HB241 - Ag Litter Bill - sponsored by Richard Lindsey, D-Cherokee, clarifies the state’s criminal litter law regarding agricultural products. It would exempt the unintentional depositing of agricultural products in their natural state from the criminal littering statutes. It was approved by the House Ag Committee and is awaiting final action in the House. The Federation favors this legislation. SB210 and HB280 - Tax Exemption Notification Bill - sponsored by Sen. Harri Anne Smith, R-Houston, and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Calhoun, would require tax officials to annually notify certain property owners of applicable tax exemptions. The Federation favors this bill. HB345 - Insurance Policy Tax Bill- sponsored by Rep. Richard Laird, D-Randolph, would levy a $3 annual fee against insurance policy holders for each property and casualty policy they have. The fund would create a pension fund for volunteer firefighters. The Federation and Alfa Insurance Company oppose this bill. HB344 - Insurance Commissioner Election Bill - sponsored by Rep. Richard Laird, D-Randolph, would mandate that the State Insurance Commissioner be elected by popular vote. The Federation opposes this bill. SB355 and HB458 - Trespass Bill - sponsored by Sen. Curt Lee, R-Walker and Rep. Joe Carothers, D-Houston, would protect landowners from liability if a person enters their property without permission and is injured. The Federation supports the bill which is awaiting committee action.
Federation opposes increases to liability insurance
Two bills, SB76 and SB289, sponsored by Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Franklin, would raise the minimum liability insurance for motorists in Alabama. Both bills would increase minimum bodily injury limits from $20,000 to $50,000 for one person in any one accident and would increase limits from $40,000 to $100,000 for two or more persons. SB 289 does not address an increase to the minimum limit for property losses in an accident. However, SB76 would double the current minimum limit for property losses from $10,000 to $20,000. The Federation and Alfa Insurance Company opposes both of these bills.
Questions about ag legislation?
Email Freddie Patterson at fpatterson@alfafarmers.org or Paul Pinyan at ppinyan@alfafarmers.org
|
Alabama Legislature Website
