November ballot questions hold promise or challenge for counties
This November, according to Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California, voters will decide 162 state ballot measures in 34 states. The total number of measures falls far below the 202 that were decided in the 2002 general election. One reason for the fall in activity is a reduced interest in tax and bond measures, with 24 fewer such measures on the ballot this year than two years ago, said IRI President John Matsusaka.
Interest, however, has skyrocketed in the issues of marriage and gambling. Thirteen states are asking their citizens whether marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, and six states are looking at gambling as a new revenue source.
Many of the ballot measures would directly affect county governments, either adding costs, reducing revenues or, in very few instances, stabilizing or increasing revenues.
Following is a report on ballot measures that would impact county governments, as reported to County News by state associations of counties.
Arizona
There are two propositions of interest to counties on the Nov. 2. Proposition 103 amends the Arizona Constitution to specify that a pro tem Justice of the Peace must meet the same qualifications as an elected Justice of the Peace, except that a pro tem JP is not required to reside in the precinct in which the justice will be served. If this proposition passes, pro tem JPs would not need to be a member of the Arizona Bar and therefore would remove some of the cost barriers for rural counties. The Justice of the Peace association in Arizona supports this proposition.
The “Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act” (Proposition 200) is also being closely watched by counties in Arizona. The proposition would amend state law to require individuals who wish to register to vote to submit proof of citizenship with their application and require all voters at polling places to present identification before being allowed to vote.
It would also require state and local officials and service providers to verify an individual’s identity and immigration status before providing services or benefits that are not federally mandated and to report any violation of federal immigration laws to federal officials.
Concerns have been raised about this proposition because some worry about increased provisional balloting, which would slow the election process. Some are also concerned that a provision within the proposition would leave county employees who do not report federal immigration violations open to prosecution.
California
California has a number of propositions on the ballot this November that would directly or indirectly affect county governments. The biggie is Proposition 1A. Initially, the California State Association of Counties supported Proposition 65, however, after discussions with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, CSAC agreed to oppose Proposition 65 and support Proposition 1A.
Proposition 1A essentially would prevent the state legislature from taking and using local tax dollars that local governments use to provide essential services such as first responders funding, parks, roads and libraries to name a few.
Proposition 1A would also require the state to reimburse local governments for the cost of programs and services it forces counties, cities and special districts to provide. Under the proposition, if the state fails to provide reimbursement to local governments, the mandate must be suspended.
CSAC, again in coordination with the governor’s office, has agreed to oppose both gaming propositions on the Nov. 2 ballot.
Proposition 68 would allow the State Constitution to be amended to permit up to 30,000 slot machines at 16 existing sites not in Indian Reservations (race tracks, etc.) with 33 percent of the profits to be paid to a state fund unless the governor is able to negotiate, within 90 days, each of the current Indian casino compacts to increase contributions to the state fund to 25 percent. And Proposition 70 would allow the constitution to be amended to require the governor to offer 99-year compacts to Indian tribes for casinos with unlimited Nevada-style gaming, with a contribution to the state at normal business tax rates.
The final proposition that could have a major impact on local governments in California is Proposition 63. This proposition would impose an additional tax of 1 percent on taxpayers’ personal income over $1 million to provide dedicated funding to the state and counties for the expansion of mental health services and programs. It also creates a commission to approve certain county mental health programs and expenditures. It prohibits the state from decreasing current funding levels for mental health services.
Florida
Three of the ballot questions before Florida voters could have a potential impact on county governments.
The first question (Amendment 4) would allow Miami-Dade and Broward counties to hold referendums on whether to authorize slot machines in existing, licensed pari-mutuel facilities (thoroughbred and harness racing, greyhound racing and jai alai). The legislature may tax slot machine revenues, and any such taxes must supplement public education funding statewide. The issue is widely supported by the gaming industry and, if passed, would open the door to gambling in the state, which is now forbidden by the state’s constitution.
Amendment 5 would create a state minimum wage of $6.15 per hour indexed to inflation, and Amendment 6 would repeal a Constitutional Amendment passed by voters in 2000 that authorized a high-speed ground transportation system linking the five most populous regions in the state.
Indiana
In Indiana, they are keeping their eye on two state Constitutional Amendments. Public Question #1 would allow the General Assembly to make certain property exempt from property taxes, including a homeowner’s primary residence; personal property used to produce income; and inventory.
Public Question #2 would allow the General Assembly to establish a uniform date for the beginning of the terms of the county offices of clerk of the circuit court, auditor, recorder, treasurer, sheriff, coroner and surveyor.
Although Question #1 could be problematic because it could result in different tax rates, the real question to watch is #2, according to the Association of Indiana Counties.
The Indiana Constitution states that every county must have certain elected offices and that no county-elected official can hold that office for more than two consecutive four-year terms. Interpretations of those provisions have lead to some unusual circumstances for Indiana’s counties because often when an elected official has left office in the middle of a term, his or her successor expects to remain in that office for a full four years, as suggested by the Constitution, instead of the time remaining in the current term. Subsequently, many counties face a situation where the persons elected to hold an office cannot assume the office until the unelected incumbent serves a full four years.
Currently in Indiana, there are more than 45 counties with over 65 county offices that fall under the classification of holdover office. The Association of Indiana Counties proposed and supports this amendment to the Constitution as a way to reestablish these offices on a normal starting date of taking office on Jan. 1 immediately following the November general election.
North Carolina
The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners is supporting one major ballot initiative on Nov. 2. North Carolina is one of only two states in the country without the ability to authorize self-financing bonds; Amendment One would change this.
At press time, 35 counties had passed resolutions in support of the amendment, and NCACC expected to get many more supporting resolutions before the Nov. 2 election. Approval of the amendment would allow local governments to issue self-financing bonds to pay for everything from streets to water and sewer services to sidewalks in special development districts.
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, State Question 714 has the attention of its residents. If approved, it will increase the income for senior citizens to be eligible for the assessment-freeze that limits property tax increases. Currently, a senior citizen’s property valuation is frozen as long as the total household income is less than $25,000. Passage would amend the state Constitution to allow the valuation to be frozen when the total household income is below HUD’s estimated income for each county. This question is the result of a Senior Citizens Summit in Oklahoma County where senior citizens were asked what the county could do to help them stay in their homes and maintain an independent lifestyle.
Oregon
Questions about forest management plans, “takings compensation” and workman’s compensation face Oregon voters and Oregon’s counties this November.
Measure 34, opposed by the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC), would require a change in direction for managing state forests in Tillamook and Clatsop Counties. Currently, state law allows “mixed use” activities in the forests, including timber sales, mining and conservation. If approved, Measure 34 would shift and narrow forest management practices to include equal (“balanced”) measures of conservation and timber production. It’s estimated that the measure, if passed, would decrease revenues for local governments by $17.2 million to $19.4 million per year.
An even larger budget threat for counties looms in Measure 37. Measure 37 would require the state or a city, county or metropolitan service district to compensate owners for any reduction in the fair market value of their property that results from government’s enforcement of land use policies. If a government entity cannot pay for the fair market reduction, then it must either forgo enforcement, repeal or change the restriction. Local government administrative costs for responding to claims under this measure are pegged at $46 million and $300 million per year. This amount does not include any estimates of claims that will actually need to be paid.
Finally, workman’s compensation premiums would most likely increase for counties if the proponents of Measure 38 are successful in their bid to dismantle the state’s workman’s comp insurance program. SAIF, State Accident Insurance Fund, is a public corporation that sells and administers workman compensation policies. It was founded by the state in the 1980s to take the sting out of rapidly rising premiums for workman’s comp insurance. SAIF has not raised insurance premiums in 14 years.
Measure 38 would abolish SAIF and require the state to reinsure and satisfy SAIF’s current obligations. Newspaper reports say private insurer Liberty Northwest, the second largest workman’s comp insurance provider in the state, is behind the effort to eliminate SAIF. If approved, the measure would require local government expenditures of $2.6 million to $10.5 million per year on a recurring basis.
Washington
Ballot Question I-892 may hold the promise of reduced state taxes for Washington state residents, but it would also limit local control over placement of gaming devices, explained Bill Vogler, Washington State Association of Counties executive director. If Okayed by voters, Ballot Question I-892 would reduce the state property tax by the amount of gambling tax generated by an expansion of more than 18,000 video-type slot machines. Currently these machines are allowed only in limited areas and on Indian reservations.
A significant provision in the ballot question, Vogler said, would preempt cities and counties from regulating the placement of these machines if any gambling is already authorized in a jurisdiction. The only way to ban the expansion would be to ban all gambling, thus elimination the local gambling tax collected on current gambling devices allowed under the law.
Wyoming
Constitutional Amendment (B) could give a big boost to county economic development efforts if it passes muster with the state’s voters. The adoption of this provision would authorize the legislature to enact laws for local governments to use local sources of revenue for economic or industrial development subject to approval of the voters. As it now stands, counties in Wyoming cannot use local revenues to offer any incentives to recruit businesses. Infrastructure improvements or land acquisitions for industrial parks, for example, are not allowed, explained Joe Evans, Wyoming County Commissioners Association executive director. The association strongly backs the amendment.
|
