President's Message-
Spring Issue 2004
Don't Balance One Budget
at the Expense of Another According to Webster's,
to hold one "harmless," means "lacking the capacity or intent to
injure". That definition describes in pretty good measure the Association's
posture on a number of funding issues that are flying around the halls of the
Alabama Legislature. With just a few days left
in the 2004 regular session, a number of different proposals are being surfaced
to fill the gap in the state's ailing general fund budget. Many of those proposals
include the increasing of taxes now "shared" between the state and local
governments.
Our position is consistent on
all these bills - the distribution formula used on these tax sources should be
preserved. If county governments receive one-quarter of a tax's proceeds today,
then the counties should receive one-quarter after the tax source has been amended.
To
do otherwise, is not to hold the counties "harmless".
We
have preached this message during the first two-thirds of this year's session.
We have had great response from our membership and from the leadership in both
the House and Senate. But there is still work to be done.
For
example, a bill was introduced earlier this session doubling the state's recording
fees on deeds and mortgages. All of the increase was to go to the state, even
though the counties now retain one-third of that tax to defray expenses on the
local level.
During the committee meeting
on this legislation, the Association explained the importance of maintaining the
distribution formula used on existing taxes by referencing something that happened
to the state's general fund budget just a few years ago.
A
special legislative session was called late in 2000 to help fill a hole in the
state's education trust fund budget. A number of different proposals were floated
as a way to address the problem. However, in the end the legislation that was
used to correct funding problems in the state's education budget was an increase
in the telecommunications tax, which was at that time earmarked for the state's
general fund budget.
The legislation did,
in the loose sense of the word, hold the state's general fund budget "harmless"
because it did not take money out of the fund. But ALL of the growth money was
diverted from the general fund and shifted to the state's education budget.
The
passage of this legislation propped up the education budget and just before Christmas
in 2000 everyone left the capital city with smiles on their faces.
Now,
as the state is looking behind every door for revenue to rescue programs like
Medicaid and Mental Health, this "general fund" tax source cannot be
raised. This tax source has already been increased and the revenue has been used
for another purpose that was - at the time - deemed to be more important.
Playing
Monday-Morning Quarterback is always dangerous. We're not second-guessing the
Legislature's decision back then, but the county position on "shared"
revenue is motivated by the realization that county government must have revenue
increases from time-to-time in order to operate.
Counties
cannot operate simply by being held "harmless" in the loosest sense
of the word. If these "shared" revenue sources are increased and all
of the increases used for the current emergency in the state's general fund, counties
will very soon find themselves in the same position as the state. When it comes
time to raise revenue, these "shared" taxes will be tapped out because
all of the growth has been diverted elsewhere.
That
is why this Association has worked for the passage of revenue measures that generate
money for the state, while preserving the participation of county government.
We continue to pledge our assistance in the passage of that kind of legislation.
A
few years ago, the director of the Alabama Department of Transportation came to
our convention and promised to help us get a bond issue passed for county bridges.
At that time, he said that the people of Alabama don't know the difference between
county bridges and state bridges. He said, the people just want safe bridges and
our state and county governments should be in the business of providing "safe"
bridges, regardless of whether those bridges are on the state system or the county
system.
His advice rings true today. As the
state looks to preserve services on the local level, it cannot do so at the expense
of county government. The people expect all of their services to be provided in
an efficient, effective manner. We cannot fulfill that expectation if we balance
one budget at the expense of another. | 
