Roles and Responsibilities of County Government

Download Report

Transcript Roles and Responsibilities of County Government

ACMA Legislative Report
~Summer 2014~
Craig Sullivan
Executive Director
CSA Legislative Priorities
• Eliminate payments to the Arizona State Hospital (ASH) for the
Sexually Violent Persons (SVP) population
• Re-establish the county share of lottery revenues
• Increase investment in transportation infrastructure, by:
• Stopping the diversion of local government HURF revenues
• Identify and enact enhanced revenue options and efficiencies
In addition to the restoration of HURF, CSA urged the legislature to
work with stakeholders to identify and enact revenue enhancements
for the existing HURF distribution system, and to pursue policies that
improve efficient utilization of transportation resources.
2
CSA Legislative Priorities: Result
The budget includes the following county-related provisions:
• Sexually Violent Persons (SVP) Payments: Maintains FY15 payments
at FY14 levels, approximately 34% of costs. Includes "flexibility
language" allowing counties to pay via any county resource.
• Direct Appropriation to Counties (Lottery Revenue): $7.15 million
line item appropriation, distributed to 13 counties under 900,000 persons.
• HURF Restoration: $30 million appropriated for HURF restoration
• Counties receive: $10 million
• County Flexibility Language: Allows counties, with fewer than 200,000
persons, to use any source of county revenue to meet a county fiscal
obligation for FY 2015.
4
Fiscal Year 2015 State Budget
JLBC
Baseline
FY15
Changes to JLBC
Baseline
Total Revenues1
$8,708
$8,762
$54
Total Expenditures2
$9,035
$9,224
$189
Note: Figures may not add due to
rounding
1 Excludes $601 million beginning
balance
2 Excludes $120 million in HURF
restoration
5
State Budget as Enacted
In Millions
FY15
FY16
FY17
Ongoing
Revenues
$8,708
$9,061
$9,465
Ongoing
Expenditures
$9,200
$9,415
$9,719
Structural
Balance/ (Deficit)1
$(492)
$(354)
$(254)
Carry Forward
$601
$139
Fund Transfers
$54
$0
$0
One-time Capital
Outlay
$24
$0
$0
Ending Balance /
(Deficit)
$139
$(215)
$0
$(215)
$(254)
Note: Figures may not add due to rounding
1 Excludes one-time revenues and expenditures and does not account for $460M in “rainy day” fund
$(469)
6
State Budget with K-12 Judgment
In Millions
FY15
FY16
FY17
Ongoing Revenues
$8,720
$9,069
$9,486
Ongoing
Expenditures
$9,564
$9,774
$10,074
Structural Balance/
(Deficit)1
$(844)
$(706)
$(589)
Carry Forward
$596
$0
$(220)
$0
$(932)
One Time Revenue
$52
$(6)
$0
One-time Capital
Outlay
$24
$0
$0
Ending Balance /
(Deficit)
$(220)
$(706)
$(932)
$(589)
$(1,520)
Notes:a) Figures are taken from JLBC K-12 Inflation Funding Lawsuit Update Table 4, based on the April FAC forecast;
b) Figures only reflect projected balances due to the K-12 inflation reset, if back payments are required the FY16
ending balance could reach $(1.4) billion.
c) some figures may not add due to rounding
1 Excludes one-time revenues and expenditures and does not account for $460M in “rainy day” fund
CSA Legislative Agenda
&
County-related Bills
8
CSA-sponsored Legislation
Enacted into law:
• HB 2218: fire districts reorganization elections (Fann) Ch. 260
• HB 2240: developmental disabilities; client income; retention (Brophy McGee)
Ch. 167
• HB 2320: county seals; approval of use (J. Pierce) Ch. 57
• SCM 1006: urging Congress; PILT program; funding (Griffin) Transmitted
Did not advance through the process:
• HB 2149: state parks; SLIF fund distribution (Borrelli)
• Held House Rules
• HB 2224: sale of fireworks; counties (Fann)
• Failed in House Public Safety, Military and Regulatory Affairs
• HB 2531: court-ordered evaluation services; payment (Brophy-McGee)
• Held Senate Third Read, to pursue an administrative remedy
• SB 1271: county liens; abatements (Ward)
• Assigned to Senate Government & Environment
Public Finance & Secondary Districts
• HB 2379 special districts; secondary levy limits (Olson)
• Held House Rules
• HB 2386 special districts; elections; financing; limits (Olson)
• Held House Gov.
• SB 1316 financial reporting; political subdivisions (S. Pierce)
• Held, Senate Third Read
• SB 1413 taxes; manufacturers’ electricity sales; exemption (Yarbrough)
• Ch. 7
9
Public Health & Healthcare
• HB 2436 food handler training; courses; certification (Shope)
• Ch. 210
• HB 2530 county dog licensing; temporary license (Brophy McGee)
•
Held House COW
• SB 1035 special health care districts; reimbursement (Melvin)
• Ch. 65
• Administrative implementation of Medicaid Expansion
10
Courts & Criminal Justice
• HB 2093 incapacitated persons; jurisdiction of court (Petersen) S/E
Vehicle/ SB 1176 change of venue; guardianship (Crandell)
• Held Senate COW
• HB 2457 mental health; veterans courts; establishment (Farnsworth)
• Ch. 37
• HB 2460 probation; community supervision; search; seizure
(Farnsworth)
• Assigned House Judiciary
• HB 2461 probation officers; authority (Farnsworth)
• Ch. 152
• SB 1249 dangerous & incompetent defendants; commitment (Driggs)
•
Assigned House Judiciary, Appropriations
11
General Government
• HB 2126 S/E municipal annexation; size; exception (Pratt)
• Ch. 256
• HB 2196 election law amendments; repeal (Farnsworth)
• Ch. 5
• HB 2225 county medical examiner; autopsies; images (Fann)
• Ch. 88
• HB 2339 firearms; permit holders; public places (Barton)
• Vetoed
•
HB 2420 county supervisors; pop. threshold; membership (Stevens)
• Ch. 265
•
HB 2483 firearms; private land; lawful discharge (Kavanagh)
• Ch. 62
12
13
2014 Summary
Incremental progress on financial objectives resulted in $10 million
in HURF relief for counties in FY15.
• Secured direct county appropriation, projected through 2017
• Session law “flexibility language”
• Elevated awareness of growing transportation funding crisis
Lawmakers exercised caution when funding new items or
addressing cost shifts due to projected structural deficits.
• Situation made worse by lawsuits (Medicaid Expansion, K-12
inflation) and child welfare crisis
Improved operating environment with many new legislators taking
an interest in county issues.
• Education efforts and relationships paying dividends
Major changes on the horizon.
• New Executive = New Agenda
• New Leaders in 3 of 4 legislative caucuses
• Legislative mix?
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
FY2013 Annual PILT Payments – County by County Breakdown
14
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
The purpose of PILT is to offset losses in tax revenue and to reimburse
counties for services provided on, or associated with federal public lands.
State Fiscal Year 2014 PILT Payment Compared to Property Tax Rate
FY2014 NAV*
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
Total / Average
$525,723,278
$1,006,475,403
$1,519,086,333
$438,624,843
$192,240,653
$335,715,128
$216,835,366
$31,996,204,979
$1,771,371,872
$903,351,854
$7,559,129,097
$1,988,882,373
$338,356,662
$2,232,629,599
$1,112,115,440
$52,136,742,880
FY2014 PILT
Payment**
$1,657,182
$2,142,985
$1,705,008
$3,426,420
$2,784,560
$844,890
$1,928,269
$3,011,264
$3,469,643
$1,519,256
$3,152,584
$1,223,747
$978,173
$3,177,599
$3,476,376
$34,497,956
PILT Equivalent
Property Tax Rate
FY2014 Actual
Primary Tax Rate
PILT Payment as a percent
of Property Tax Rate
0.3152
0.2129
0.1122
0.7812
1.4485
0.2517
0.8893
0.0094
0.1959
0.1682
0.0417
0.0615
0.2891
0.1423
0.3126
0.3488
0.4593
2.6760
0.5466
4.1900
2.3711
0.7432
1.9608
1.2807
1.8196
0.6996
3.6583
3.7999
3.7215
1.9308
2.0606
2.1279
69%
8%
21%
19%
61%
34%
45%
1%
11%
24%
1%
2%
8%
7%
15%
16%
*PILT using actual FY14 payment as reported by The Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management
**Net Assessed Value as reported in Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) Average Statewide Property Tax Rates 2013
15
16
Emerging & Ongoing Issues
The state & federal fiscal situation:
• Federal appropriations processes (PILT, SRS, SCAAP, etc.)
• What does the education lawsuit mean for the state fiscal
situation?
Research & stakeholder issues, including:
• Transportation
• PSPRS Cost Containment Strategies
• Animal licensing and control practices
• Auditor General “county audit” training
• Title 36 and indigent defense costs
• County data collection