CCAM Resolution #1 2015 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THE SUNSET PROVISION FROM THE COUNTY BUDGET ACT WHEREAS, HB 451, which passed during the 2013 session of the Missouri General Assembly, repealed Sec. 50.622, RSMo, and enacted in lieu thereof one new section relating to procedures for counties to decrease their budgets, and WHEREAS, Sec. 50.662 (2), RSMo, now authorizes a county to amend its budget twice during any fiscal year when there is a verifiable decline in funds of at least 2% that could not have been estimated nor anticipated when the budget was adopted, and WHEREAS, any decrease in appropriations cannot unduly affect any one officeholder and cannot impact any dedicated fund authorized by law, and WHEREAS, the county must provide 30 days notice of a public hearing regarding any amendment to the county budget, including a published summary of the proposed reductions and an explanation of the shortfall, and WHEREAS, before any reduction affecting an elected officeholder can occur, negotiations must take place with all officeholders who receive funds from the affected category of funds in an attempt to cover the shortfall, and WHEREAS, county commissioners can reduce the budgets of departments under their direct supervision and responsibility at any time without these restrictions, and WHEREAS, these provisions cannot restrict a charter county from amending its budget pursuant to the terms of its charter, and WHEREAS, this new law put counties on an equal footing with the state and municipalities who already had the authority to amend their annual budgets during any fiscal year to reflect changes in revenues (increases or decreases) that were neither estimated nor anticipated when the original budget was adopted, and WHEREAS, these provisions regarding decreasing a county budget are set to expire July 1, 2016, Missouri does hereby call upon the Missouri General Assembly to permanently remove the sunset provision in the County Budget Act as set forth in Sec. 50.662 (2), RSMo.
CCAM Resolution #2 2015 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ACHIEVING A COMPROMISE ON THE ISSUE OF A SALARY INCREASE FOR MISSOURI SHERIFFS WHEREAS, in the 2014 session two unsuccessful bills were introduced (HB 1726 & SB 835) which specified that a sheriff s compensation must be increased by 15% on Sept. 1, 2014, by 10% on Jan. 1, 2015, and by 5% on Jan. 1 every year thereafter, and WHEREAS, SB 835 further specified that the salary increases were to be paid for with money in a fund established by the county treasurer that contained up to $50,000 received by the sheriff for serving court orders in civil cases and assisting in property sales, and WHEREAS, in the late 1980s, legislation was enacted (Sec. 50.333, RSMo) to bring salary equity to county elected officials. A Salary Commission was created to set salaries for the various elected officials and meets in off-election years to set salaries for those who will be running for their respective offices in the next cycle. This means an elected official cannot take a pay increase unless he/she is elected for an office in a new term. The statute also sets a base line salary based on each county s assessed valuation, and WHEREAS, the base line is set up at 100% per assessed valuation. Depending on its financial health, some counties may pay at only 80% of the salary that is allowed; others may be above the base line, and WHEREAS, this is a decision made by all elected officials in a public meeting and all make the same percentage in their classification by the formula which has worked to create fairness and to stop favoritism and discrimination for over 25 years, and WHEREAS, the effects of last year s proposed legislation could have potentially led to the destruction of the salary commission, whereby if one official is allowed to supplement his/her salary using discretionary funds that are used to support their departments, it might not be long before another official follows suit, and WHEREAS, should these discretionary funds decline over time, it could prompt a run on general revenue, and WHEREAS, other ancillary questions abound: Who will pay fringe benefits for these salary increases? Will the sheriff still participate in the Salary Commission? Will the sheriff still participate in any COLAs? Missouri, acknowledging there are many unanswered questions and unintended consequences, hereby remains open to suggestions and supports negotiations with the Missouri Sheriffs Association to find a good balance for all parties concerned.
CCAM Resolution #3 2015 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE S FULFILLING ITS MANDATED RESPONSIBILITIES BY APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PRISONER PER DIEM, ASSESSMENT MAINTENANCE, AND JUVENILE FUNDING COSTS WHEREAS, the County Commissioners Association of Missouri (CCAM) asks for the Missouri General Assembly s consideration of the financial burden that state mandates have on county government and the corresponding impact they have on a county s ability to provide other necessary and essential services to Missouri citizens, and WHEREAS, county governments prepare their budgets based on a calendar year and the ups and downs of appropriations are based on the state s fiscal year, all of which make it difficult to forecast anticipated reimbursements, and WHEREAS, it is commonly known that the average daily cost for counties to house one state prisoner is $45.00, which excludes expenditures for inmate medical care, as well as for prisoners who are not adjudicated (actually sentenced to be confined in a state prison and sent to a state facility), and WHEREAS, the FY 2015 $3 increase in the prisoner per diem (taking it from $19.58 to $22.58 and representing a $5.3 million increase for Missouri county governments) was historically the highest amount Missouri counties have seen, a major step forward, and one that was both overdue and desperately needed, and WHEREAS, roughly two-thirds of the aforementioned per diem increase is currently being withheld due to the state s budgetary constraints and needs to be released, and WHEREAS, the $3 per parcel reimbursement for assessment maintenance is the minimum funding level allowed by state statute and it is commonly known that the average per parcel cost is $18, and WHEREAS, the FY 15 assessment maintenance funding remains at $3 per parcel and is based on a higher 2013 parcel count, and WHEREAS, the FY 15 reimbursements to single-county circuits for juvenile court employees salaries stays at the same level as the previous year, and the per diem reimbursement rate for delinquents housed in juvenile facilities stays the same at $14 a day, Missouri does hereby call on the Missouri General Assembly to fulfill its mandated responsibilities by appropriating adequate funding for costs associated with (1) housing state prisoners in county jails, (2) biennial property assessment and maintenance, and (3) juvenile court employees salaries and costs associated with housing juvenile delinquents in county-owned facilities.
CCAM Resolution #4 2015 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ALLOWING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO BE EXEMPT FROM OR OPT-IN TO ANY SALES TAX INCREASE OR SALES TAX EXEMPTION PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE WHEREAS, the cost of county services continues to increase annually, prompting many to diversify their revenue streams through the use of sales taxes to supplement the property tax base, and WHEREAS, a serious erosion of the local tax base is occurring with the unprecedented growth of uncollected sales and use taxes on Internet purchases, and WHEREAS, in Missouri taxes are structured around laws drafted and passed in the 1930s which were designed to tax the main focus of industry in the state at that time, and WHEREAS, the Budget-Busting Tax Breaks passed on the final day of the 2014 legislative session were not properly vetted, nor were the long-term consequences to local governments finances fully considered, and WHEREAS, the Governor s vetoes of these sales tax breaks fortunately were not overridden, thus causing no significant negative impacts felt at the local level for critical functions such as emergency services, law enforcement, and road and bridge repair, and WHEREAS, had they been overridden, that action would have removed local taxation control from Missouri counties who are funded by various sources of revenue (grants, fees, property and sales taxes, with sales taxes being by far the greatest source), and WHEREAS, essentially any state-imposed local sales tax exemption results in a higher property tax because many counties are required to adjust their property tax levy based on actual sales tax revenue, and WHEREAS, local voters have approved local initiatives funded by sales taxes and any unanticipated reduction could possibly jeopardize local bond commitments, leaving communities vulnerable to default, and WHEREAS, county residents enjoy being part of the democratic process by casting their votes for funding specific local services through a local sales tax; reducing the amount of this revenue would diminish specific directives set by the very people we represent, Missouri does hereby call on the Missouri General Assembly to abstain from passing legislation that would have a negative budgetary effect on local governments without guaranteed replacement revenue, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Commissioners Association of Missouri requests that the local portion of any state-imposed sales tax exemption be exempt or at the very least local governments be given the chance to opt-in to the sales tax exemption.
CCAM Mission Statement 2015 THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI STANDS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRE-EMPTION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY The passage of Amendment 1 in April 1995 deleted the uniformity provision in the Missouri Constitution which required that a law applicable to a county in a class apply to all counties in that class. The repeal of that provision further requires non-charter county officials to seek state legislative approval for individual laws to help solve local problems all due to the perceived inability to effectively deal with them at the county level. The Missouri General Assembly should not be allowed to micro-manage county government from Jefferson City due to the lack of local authority to deal with local issues. Missouri county officials have expressed their opposition to the erosion of local authority which would allow counties greater flexibility in dealing with truly local issues and problems. An example of the pre-emption of local authority by the Missouri Legislature recently occurred in Sec. 72.080, RSMo, relating to the incorporation of a village, a law which was subsequently and fortunately repealed. Missouri's county officials also believe it is critical to protect the citizens they represent when large scale developments infringe upon their constituents way of life, including compliance with local planning and zoning and other ordinances. In summation, the pre-emption of local authority is of prime concern and one that the County Commissioners Association of Missouri will closely scrutinize in the 2015 legislative session.