|
|
|
Ohio Municipal League email:
Also please include a phone number and/or address for instances when we need
further contact with you. Please type
“OML Inquiry” in subject line so that we can identify e-mails picked up as spam. |
No. 9 October 5, 2006 PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS BULLETIN TO YOUR COUNCIL, DEPARTMENT HEADS & STAFF Lively Post-Election Session Expected. With four weeks to go before the November election, it seemed like a good time for us to look forward to expectations about the “lame duck” session that will follow the elections. Leadership has tentatively scheduled a extraordinarily large number of session days for November and December. Any legislation that has been introduced or will be introduced between now and the end of the year that does not pass through the General Assembly before this session ends in late December will have to start all over again when the new session begins in January. There are also many efforts in the areas of education, immigration, taxes and other areas that have been marked for action before the end of the year. It is expected that a capitol budget will be considered during the lame duck session. In addition, the change in administration, whatever that change will be, plus changes in the number of Republicans and Democrats that will occur in January may push movement on certain legislation that may be more certain of passage in the current political mix than the new mix next year. To say the least, the lame duck session will be an unpredictable time. How unpredictable, harried and lengthy the session will be depends on the outcome of the election. Though, as a rule of thumb, the more Republican the outcome of the election the calmer the lame duck and a more Democratic outcome will cause a busier lame duck is a fair view, we expect a substantial post-election session either way.
While there are probably a couple of issues we will follow in that session that we don’t even know about yet, certainly, many of the issues of concern for the League we have mentioned before. HB 56, an attempt to either ban or regulate the use of red-light cameras by municipal police forces will certainly be under consideration. While any attempt to place a form of restriction on municipal eminent domain powers on the statewide ballot will have to wait for the November 2007 ballot, consideration of changing the statutory definition of “blight” might see some consideration during the post-election session. Estate Tax. Further efforts to repeal the state estate tax are also a possible issue for this last set of sessions for this 126th General Assembly. The League’s position on this last issue has always been that the decision to keep, modify or eliminate the estate tax is a state tax policy decision. However, because the state created this source of revenue upon which many municipalities and townships rely for essential services, the elimination of the estate tax should not occur without replacement revenues for those local government services. In 2001, the estate tax supported local government services with $285.6 million. In 2002, that support was $259.2 million. In 2003, it was $256.9 million. In 2004, the yield was $226.1 million and in 2005, the tax provided $240.5 million in support of city, village and township services and capital improvements. Elimination of the tax without replacement revenues would either force the cutting of local services or the seeking of more local tax revenues. Local Government Funds. The Task Force on the Local Government Funds, of which the League and other local government associations are non-voting members, is scheduled to have its final report to the General Assembly by December 31 of this year. Though there have not been formal meetings recently, discussions have continued throughout the year. We expect some formal meetings may occur during the lame duck session to finalize that report. There are a few issues that have come to the fore that are critical to insuring that the final report is a positive one. Creating a strategy for the next budget to make the transition from the five-year freeze on the LGF’s to a new formula that creates growth in the LGF’s in the next budget is a key issue under consideration. Whether the new LGF’s provide local government and library support stemming from a broader mix of state revenues is also a central issue being considered. Finally, there is serious consideration underway to consider the repeal of the estate tax within the context of reformulated LGF’s. That would allow for the real consideration of eliminating that tax within the context of expanded support for local governments. We will keep you informed as the negotiations and discussions of this important set of issues move forward. State Issues. To date, the League has not taken a position on any of the state issues. As of our last Board meeting, at the Annual Conference in Cleveland, it wasn’t clear which issues were going to be on the ballot. We also have no requests to support or oppose any of the issues. But, as an update, there appears to be four issues that will be on the ballot for which votes cast will be counted. They are: Issue 1, which sought to repeal changes made by the General Assembly to benefits and other aspects of the Workers’ Compensation system (SB 7), will not be on the ballot. Issue 2 is on the ballot. That proposal would increase the state minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.85 an hour beginning January 1, 2007. If passed that wage rate would be adjusted to the increase in the Consumer Price Index each year thereafter. Except for some smaller businesses and family businesses, the wage rate would apply to all employers, including public employers. Issue 3 would allow for two casinos in Cleveland and thousands of slot machines at Ohio’s seven racetracks. Dubbed as the “Learn and Earn” issue some of the proceeds from those operations would be earmarked for an Ohio college scholarship program within the Ohio Board of Regents. Issue 4 and 5 will also be on the ballot. Dubbed Smoke Less (Issue 4) and Smoke Free (Issue 5), the success of the two competing issues are intertwined by their different approaches to reach the ballot. Issue 5, which would create more stringent statewide smoking regulations, is an initiative that, if successful, would create a state statute to establish those regulations. Issue 4, with it exceptions from a smoking ban for some bars and restaurants, bingo halls, bowling alleys and other locales, is a Constitutional amendment. As such, if both pass, the Smoke Less Constitutional amendment would trump the Smoke Free statute and, thus, be the effective smoking regulation in Ohio. Issue 4 (Smoke Less) would repeal and ban all local ordinances regarding smoking, insofar, as those ordinances, such as the City of Columbus’ ordinance, are more stringent than the provisions of Issue 4. As a state law, Issue 5 (Smoke Free) would interact with municipal ordinances within the usual context of Home Rule and allow for more stringent municipal smoking ordinances. |
