Marti Crow

Conference Committees are beginning to meet and I worry that the Legislature will do way too much lawmaking in conference reports this year because the regular session has been shortened, the House has not met many Fridays and the back up of bills is building.

The Coal Bill
   Since the Senate passed HB 2014, the coal plant bill, last week, a joint House/Senate conference committee has been meeting to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.  The bill allows for the construction of two coal-fired power plants in Holcomb; overturns a KDHE decision to deny the permits necessary for the project to be built; and strips the KDHE environmental agency of its authority to regulate pollution by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. 
  There are a few differences between what each house passed, but nothing is expected to prevent a hasty agreement by the majority of the conference committee.  Once that happens, the bill will go to both chambers for an up or down vote on the conference report.  If approved, the bill will go to Governor Sebelius who has promised to veto this bill as she vetoed three similar proposals last session.

FY 2010 Budget
   This week the House Appropriations Committee reviewed components of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as the federal stimulus money.  There was debate in the committee and budget subcommittees about the Governor’s budget amendments proposing how to utilize the stimulus dollars.  The process is not close to being completed, but here is an update on what has been considered to date:

•    Higher Education
   Monday, Republicans on the Committee voted to reject federal stimulus money for Kansas colleges and universities. The stimulus money for higher education would provide tuition stabilization and affordability during these hard economic times for many Kansas students and their families.  The money for higher is includes increases in the higher education tax credit; an increase in the maximum Pell Grant by $500 to a maximum of $5,350 in 2009 and $5,550 in 2010; and the addition of $200 million to the College Work-Study program that allows students to work their way through school.  Also, the money would provide funding for several deferred maintenance projects to address crumbling infrastructure at our state colleges and universities.
   Kansas is facing a $1 billion budget gap for 2010.  Our Legislature cannot afford to turn down help from the federal government.  Our higher education system and students are a vital piece of restarting and sustaining economic vitality.  Turning down financial help for our universities and students makes no sense.  Other states will gladly take our share.
   My concern is that rejecting these funds will most adversely affect the very Kansans this money was allocated to help: parents who are experiencing unemployment or loss of savings at the time their kids are in college, students struggling to pay for their education, and our state business community relying on an educated workforce to help build our economy. Ironically, we have spent the first six weeks of the session trying to figure out how to deal with a shrunken revenue stream to finance this year without raising taxes or cutting programs that a crucial to our state citizens’ security and quality of life.  Turning down federal dollars is like rejecting a life raft when your boat is taking on water.
   In a recent study, the Docking Institute of Public Affairs noted that every dollar spent on university deferred maintenance projects, generate over $2 in increased economic output of goods and services.  It also increases state earnings creates good new jobs. If the entire $439.7 million in “shovel-ready” campus infrastructure projects were addressed, they would produce an immediate and profound statewide impact, increasing the economic output of goods and services by $967.3 million, increasing earnings by $283.4 million and creating 8,254 new jobs statewide.

•    K-12 Education
   An estimated $367 million is available to our state to maintain the present level of state support for local school districts and higher education.  To receive the federal money, Kansas must maintain state funding for higher education and K-12 schools at the FY 2008 or FY 2009 level, whichever is greater.  The House Education Budget Committee voted to accept the Governor’s recommendations for application of federal stimulus money in 2010.  Per pupil funding must remain at $4400 for the next two school years in order to maintain eligibility for federal recovery funds.  The Senate Ways and Means Education Subcommittee also voted to accept the Governor’s budget recommendations.  Accepting the federal funding allows our state to avoid placing an added burden on local taxpayers or fording school districts to making deep cuts to staff and programs important to our kids.

•    Medicaid
   Through nine quarters, October 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010, the federal government will increase its share of Medicaid will increase by 6.2%.  As a result, it is estimated that Kansas will receive an additional $103 million in FY2009, $200 million in FY 2010 and $102 million in FY 2011 for Medicaid costs.  To receive the additional funding, Kansas must maintain current eligibility standards.  The federal funding directly offsets spending that the state would have to make from the State General Fund, freeing up some money for other reneges. 
   I was disappointed to hear that on Thursday, the House Social Services Budget Committee voted not to accept the Governor’s recommendation that would use that money to enable Kansas to take advantage of the recent federal reauthorization of the SCHIP childrens’ health insurance program.  The Governor proposed to expand eligibility for Kansas children whose families earn up to 250% of the federal poverty level.  Rejecting the proposal denies health insurance for 8,000 additional Kansas children.  The action not to fund SCHIP is deeply disappointing.  I joined most of the Legislature last year in voting to support a bill that provided for this expansion of Kansas HealthWave if the federal Congress and President approved the reauthorization of SCHIP.  No it is not only reauthorized but we have the funding for it without raising taxes and at a time when more families are unable to cover their kids with health insurance.  I hope when the rest of the legislature considers this, the majority will not choose to renege on their commitment last session to uninsured children.

Smoking Ban
   SB 25 is known as the Kansas Indoor Clean Air Act because it bans smoking in all public places, including taxicabs, restrooms, lobbies, hallways, and common areas in public and private buildings across the entire state of Kansas.  The House Health and Human Services Committee held hearings on the bill this week.  The bill includes several exemptions, including private clubs and the gambling floor of state-owned casinos.
   Last year, in response to legislation ordering a study of health reform, the Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA) unveiled recommendations.  A statewide smoking ban was one component of the recommendations, a cost-effective, preventative policy to protect nonsmokers and encourage those who do smoke to quit or cut back.  That recommendation also included a proposal to increase taxes on cigarettes to fund expansion of health insurance availability.
   Supporters of SB 25 argue that research has repeatedly shown that both smoking and secondhand smoke lead to illness, poorer quality of life, higher health care costs, and premature death.  Since 80% of Kansans do not smoke, legislation is seen as crucial to protect against exposure to secondhand smoke in public places.  Statistics show that about 300 Kansans die each year from exposure to smoking.  Supporters contend that public health should take precedence over business interest in allowing smoking and that there is insufficient evidence that adverse economic impact results from smoking bans.  They testified that the state and private sector health costs reflect the damages of smoking and second-hand smoke.
   One argument by opponents of the bill that a state-wide smoking ban would adversely affect some businesses.  A small business owner testified that 85% of her tavern’s customers are smokers, and that the proposed ban would force her out of business.  Business owners who had already been affected by city smoking bans testified that their establishments had lost up to 50 % of business.  Some businesses argued that as difficult economic times already endanger businesses, an additional obstacle is untimely.  Others argued that decisions regarding whether a business, particularly a restaurant, should ban smoking should be left to that business itself. 
   Local control emerged as a key reason for opposing this legislation. Another rationale for opposition is free market, that the market alone should drive business decisions.  If consumers want a smoke free environment, they can choose where they eat and drink.  Tobacco products generate a lot of tax revenue, and a smoking ban would significantly lower that revenue. 

Higher unemployment numbers underscore need for federal stimulus money
   This week the Kansas Department of Labor released information that reflected a 6.9% unemployment rate in our state, up from 4.9% last month and up from 4.3% last year.  This is a strong sign that Kansas is beginning to feel the national and world-wide recession.  According to January 2009 estimates, Kansas businesses lost 3,900 jobs in the last year, a 0.3% decrease for workers seeking employment. Although the unemployment increase is partially due to seasonal employment declines, it reflects the economic slowdown with Kansas employers eliminating jobs as a result.
  On the local front, the Kansas City area has a 8% unemployment rate; Leavenworth County’s is 8.6% and Leavenworth city is a depressing 11.2%.  The number of unemployed people in Kansas is nearly 96,000, the highest since June 1983, our city shows 1700 folks out of work.  This is the highest unemployment rate in nearly 26 years and the state’s biggest month-to-month increase in seven years.   January’s unemployment rate was 31% higher than what was reported in December 2007.  To see the report go to: http://www.dol.ks.gov/LMIS/newsrel/pr0902/pr0902.html
   These numbers are troubling for everyone in Kansas.  The entire state has felt the burden of the economic downturn, with some of the state’s largest employers significantly scaling back personnel.  Throughout the last few months we have seen mass layoffs at Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft and Boeing in Wichita, Goodyear in Topeka, and General Motors in Kansas City.  Our area is also affected by layoffs in western Missouri.
   The stimulus package offers an important opportunity to expand unemployment benefits to our neighbors who are struggling to make ends meet during a, hopefully short, jobless period.  In order to qualify for $69 million in federal unemployment stimulus money, Kansas must make minor modifications to the method of determining a worker's base wage period.  HB 2374 would lengthen the period of employment that can be considered in deciding whether a laid-off worker is eligible for benefits and would allow workers to receive unemployment benefits if they leave their jobs to care for a sick or disabled family member.  The bill will increase the number of workers eligible for unemployment benefits, but unemployment benefits help the local and state economy because unemployed folks can continue to pay their mortgage or rent and other necessities.

Transportation Committee
•    Prohibition on driving in passing lane
   This week, the House Committee on Transportation held a hearing on SB 145, which would amend state traffic laws and make it illegal to drive in the passing lane on a highway located outside the city limits with two lanes of traffic proceeding in the same direction.  A driver may only use the left lane when passing another vehicle, when preparing to make a left turn, or when directed by official traffic-control devices or another provision of the law.  If the highway outside of city limits is divided into three or more lanes, the far left lane would be governed by the passing lane law.   The passing lane rule would not apply to emergency vehicles, law enforcement officers, and KTA or KDOT official vehicles. 
   Although this proposal would have no fiscal effect on agency operations, the bill would require funding from the State Highway Fund for signs to educate drivers about the change in law.  Motorists would not receive fines for violating the law until after July 2010, but then violators would be charged a $60 fine. 
   Supporters of the proposal testified that the legislation will lead to more orderly traffic and prevent road rage when drivers are frustrated by vehicles lingering in the passing lane.

•    Tax exemptions on leased motor vehicles
   The Committee also held a hearing this week on SB 288, which would provide a property tax exemption on motor vehicles with at least a one year lease if the vehicle is being used exclusively by the state or any municipality or political subdivision of the state. The bill would also provide the same exemption for vehicles used exclusively for literary, educational, scientific, religious, benevolent, or charitable purposes.   A new tax exemption would reduce revenue to the State but because it is uncertain how many leased cars fit these guidelines, an accurate fiscal effect is unavailable, although it is probably insignificant.
   Proponents testified that vehicles purchased by entities that are normally exempt from property taxes should be allowed to lease vehicles under the same exemption.  Currently, because vehicles being leased by these organizations are taxable, there is a disincentive to lease a car – an increasingly growing trend in the current unstable economic condition. It was argued that the measure would facilitate business and expand customer choice for exempt entities. 
There were no opponents to the bill which would take effect on the first day of the tax year for 2010. 

VOTER I.D.
  The House Elections Committee amended SB 3 this week, replacing it with language from HB 2077, which requires every voter to provide identification at every election, revises acceptable identification documents, allows voters without identification to provide a signed statement, and provides a form of identification to those who qualify based on federal standards.
   We must balance concerns about protecting the integrity of our state voting system with concerns that an identification requirement at the voting booth will discourage voter turnout.  Disabled, elderly, poor and minority voters are likely to be impacted by the requirement for identification.  Studies have shown that people earning less than $35,000 per year are less likely to have photo identification than those who earn more.  If you cannot afford a car, you don’t need a drivers’ license.  Many elderly and disabled voters do not drive.  Advance voting has made voting more convenient and increased participation but an identification requirement will make voting by mail in advance more difficult and suppress voting Kansans unable to easily reach their voting place.
   The Secretary of State’s office confirmed there have been no cases of voter fraud in Kansas that would have been prevented by showing photo identification.  In my view, this law only places an unnecessary burden on our constitutional right to vote, crucial to our democracy.  I cannot justify a law to expand government authority and limit constitutional rights when the state’s top election officer has confirmed that the bill’s provisions fail to address the issue of concern. 

House Taxation
   HB 2325 clarifies the existing limitations on a county's authority to raise taxes, but makes no statutory changes. The county tax rate currently rises in fixed increments of .05% and cannot exceed a cumulative 1% for general purposes, and 2% for special purposes.  Any attempt to raise taxes more must be approved by the Legislature prior to a vote of the population. Committee members questioned of the validity of this policy, because the people in a city should be able to make their wishes clear about a tax increase before the Legislature gets involved in a local tax issue. And, a majority vote in favor of a tax increase helps a county's position when they come to ask the Legislature for approval. The bill will have no fiscal impact.
   HB 2353 adds disabled veterans and their surviving spouses to the list of folks eligibiley for the Homestead Property Tax Refund. Under this proposal, a veteran must be 50% disabled, as calculated by federal standards in order to qualify. A surviving spouse is eligible if the military personnel was killed in the line of duty.  This bill will have an estimated negative fiscal impact of $215,000 in 2010. The Department of Revenue estimates that there are currently approximately 7,147 disabled veterans with a disability rating of 50% or greater. It is estimated that most disabled veterans already qualify for the Homestead Property Tax Refund under the current qualifications. The Department of Revenue estimates that this bill would allow an additional 10%, or 715, of the disabled veterans to qualify for an average tax refund of $300. The current Homestead program requires participants to meet both an income and a demographic test. The household income can be not more than $29,700 or at least one person in the household must be age 55 or above; a dependent under age 18; blind; or otherwise disabled. This bill adds to the definition of disability under current law, which generally requires that the applicant be unable to engage in gainful employment by reason of physical or mental impairment.  Homeowners with a residence valued at $350,000 or more may not participate in the program.  Renters are eligible based on a statutory assumption that 15% of their rent is equivalent to property taxes paid.