 |
President's Message-
Pre-Convention Issue 2004
ACCA Stands Against
Preemption of Local Taxes In the last edition
of The County Commissioner we talked about the possibility that legislative leaders
would eventually generate revenue for the state’s general fund budget by
adjusting the distribution of existing taxes now shared by county government.
We also expressed the Association’s strong
opposition to such a course of action and made arguments in support of a partnership
between local and state government during these “tough” economic times.
Now that the 2004 Regular Session has concluded,
one must admit that our predictions were right on target. There was considerable
pressure on the Alabama Legislature to fund very important state services and,
in the end, the legislative leadership made some decisions that generated revenue
for the state at the expense of local governments.
The
really troubling part of this was the willingness of the governor’s office
to strike a deal with the tobacco companies so they would not lobby the legislature
to block the proposed tax increase. It’s a sad state of affairs when these
11th hour deals are struck with no input or concern for local governments. I thought
we were all supposed to be on the same team! But don’t worry, if we need
to raise local taxes, all we have to do is get approval from the Legislature.
You see, again, this tends to pit all of us against each other. I don’t need
to explain, most of you are all too familiar with this scenario anyway.
On
the last day, county leaders rallied to the Alabama State House and worked hard
to oppose this “preemption” of local tax sources. The debate on the
House floor became heated at times. But, in the end, the House and Senate gave
final approval to the Riley-approved version of this new tax, which included the
preemption of future local tobacco taxes.
Our
Association took the high road and made arguments in support of a partnership
between the state and its cities and counties because there are many ways legislators
can and do vote to support our Association’s position.
Counties
must fund local programs on what are frequently stagnant or declining revenue
sources. Because the state has enacted such a substantial increase in tobacco
taxes, one must assume that the revenue from tobacco taxes will decline. Couple
that decline with the prohibition against future local tax increases and local
services will undoubtedly suffer from the passage of this eleventh-hour funding
measure.
As we said, the debate against this
preemption was heated and emotional. County government found many allies in both
the House and Senate. The most critical vote came on the House floor when supporters
of our position attempted to send the bill back to conference committee so this
preemption language could be removed.
That
motion was defeated by a 42-to-46 vote. We have usually refrained from publishing
the names of those persons who vote to support Association positions because there
are so many other ways that legislators can and do help us during a legislative
session. Publications of a list invariably produces some criticism from legislators
who believe that even though they voted against our position, they helped us in
other ways.
However, this vote was so important
that those 42 House members should be recognized for their vote against preempting
this local tax source.
The House members
voting in favor of our position were: Reps. Albritton, Ball, Beason, Bentley,
Boothe, Brewbaker, Buskey, Carns, Clouse, Collier, Davis, Dukes, Fite, C. Ford,
Gaines, Galliher, Garner, Gaston, Gipson, Glover, Grantland, Greer, Grimes, A.
Hall, Hammon, Hill, Hinshaw, Hurst, Letson, Love, McLaughlin, McMillan, Millican,
Morrison, Morton, Payne, J. Robinson, Sanderford, Schmitz, Venable, Ward and Wood.
In the Senate, those voting to prevent preemption
were: Sen. Byrne, Dixon, Erwin, Lee, Z. Little, Marsh, Means, Mitchell, Poole,
Roberts, Smith and Tanner.
In sharp contrast
to the tobacco tax bill, the Administrative Office of Courts (AOC) and our judges
saw the benefit and logic in preserving state/county percentages and supported
an increase in court fees that did DID preserve the current funding distribution
formula. The passage of this bill resulted in an additional $2.4 million going
to county general funds.
This preservation
of the court-fee distribution formula did not come easy. County officials from
almost every corner of the state made telephone calls and visits to their legislators
and judges to ensure that county money was preserved. Here in Jefferson County,
my colleagues on the Jefferson County Commission stood in unison to protect the
county-participation in state court fees. As president of the Association, I very
much appreciate their support and hard work.
We
also must thank the bill’s sponsor, Rep, Greg Albritton, who stood firm in
his support of county-participation in this revenue source. Simply put, without
his unwavering commitment, this issue might also have been lost.
With
the 2004 session now behind us, it is my belief that the final chapter has not
been written on the issue of balancing state revenue needs against those of the
local governments. The state has more financial difficulties looming on the horizon
– next year’s general fund budget is already more than $200 million
in the hole. With your continued due diligence and wisdom, I am confident we will
find a “shared” solution to our state’s financial difficulties.
If given a chance, Alabama’s counties can help!
Unfortunately,
I will not be joining you until the last day of our convention in August. I will
be training with our local EMA team. I do hope to see you on Thursday. In the
mean time, have a safe, enjoyable summer! | |
