March 5, 2015 After an extremely slow start, the debate to determine supplemental state aid (SSA) for schools has ground to a standstill. A bill passed by the House early in the session set SSA at 1.25% and was sent to the Senate where it was ignored for three weeks. The Senate then started a new bill setting SSA at 4%. After the obligatory processes in both chambers the bill was sent to a conference committee. The committee has met several times to date with no resolution. The House version at 1.25% would appropriate one half of the new revenue available for next year to K-12 education. The Senate version at 4% would spend all of the new revenue the state will receive and dip into the ending fund balance. Keep in mind that the new revenue referred to above is the new revenue available for the entire state budget. The 1.25% increase would increase K-12 funding by $100 million, leaving $100 million in new revenue for the entire remainder of the state’s budget. The 4% increase puts the entire $200 million in new revenue into the K-12 budget and dips into the ending fund balance for an additional $50 million, leaving nothing for the remainder of the budget. We have heard the argument to set the SSA at 4% and then not provide the funding. The result of that action would be giving school districts the authority to raise spending by 4% and to cover the shortfall from SSA with property tax dollars. It would be similar to an unfunded mandate. While that may not be controversial in districts that have steady to increasing enrollment and substantial reserve funds, it would be a double blow in districts that do not have reserve funds (which are financed by property taxes) and have declining enrollments that makes them subject to budget guarantee provisions that are also financed through property taxes. The problem becomes even more serious if we look another year out. If we dip into the ending fund balance to finance this year’s budget, next year the ending fund balance will be depleted or very nearly so and there will no source from which to draw to even maintain spending, let alone fund any increase. To put some of this into perspective, from FY2012 to FY2015 Iowa’s budget has increased by nearly $982 million; of that $328 million, or 33.4%, has gone to K-12 education, $97,000 or 10% has gone to our universities and community colleges, 22% went to Medicaid and mental health, 19% went to property tax credits, and only 16% has gone to the rest of the state budget. If the state is to make good on its commitments to our K-12 schools in light of our current budget situation, a 1.25% increase is the maximum that is sustainable for both the budget we are currently preparing and for the following year.
On another issue entirely, there is a bill currently before the Legislature that would ban any type of hand-held communication device while operating a vehicle. This has been the law for two years for drivers of commercial vehicles. Use of a cell phone would be allowed if the driver uses a Bluetooth connection to the vehicle’s audio system or a headset. The bill in the Senate has been modified to allow hand-held cell phone use while outlawing texting. The complete ban on hand-held devices has been relatively well received in the commercial industry. Law enforcement officers contend that a ban on texting only is useless because in the brief moment they may have for observation they cannot determine if a person is texting or speed dialing to make a phone call. My current inclination is to support a complete ban on hand held devices and allow officers to enforce the law as a primary violation. I would be interested in hearing your opinion.
Please join me at my upcoming legislative forum: March 21 Kings Pointe Regatta Grill 10:00 a.m.
