2009 SESSION

RECAP OF THE 2009 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

As for many in our area and throughout the country, 2009 was a year of historic challenges for the Kansas Legislature. With the economic difficulties plaguing Kansas and the resulting hole in the state budget, this session was undoubtedly the most difficult of my three years in the Kansas House. Given the primacy of budget discussions, I will begin my recap of the 2009 session on that topic.

The Fiscal Year 2010 Kansas Budget

While the Kansas Legislature made some important progress on non-budget issues, the budget dominated the legislative agenda. Unlike the federal government, the State of Kansas cannot run budget deficits. Accordingly, the Kansas Legislature had two options for solving the state’s financial woes: tax increases or budget cuts.

The worst recession in at least 25 years is not the time to raise taxes on hard-working Kansans. To avoid such a result, I worked diligently as Vice-Chair of the Kansas House Taxation Committee to prevent any tax increases this legislative session.

Instead, the Kansas Legislature worked diligently to cut state spending. Below is a summary of these difficult cuts in state spending from the 2010 Kansas Legislature:

• • General government spending = -12.75%

• • Poor and disabled spending = -6.75%

• • Public safety spending = -12.15%

• • Agricultural and natural resources spending = -25.5%

• • Higher education spending = -5.75%

• • Community mental health centers = -12.75%

• • K-12 education = -3.45%

I received dozens (if not hundreds) of emails, calls, and letters about many of these serious cuts. By far, most of these communications have concerned the impact of budget cuts on K-12 education.

As the son and brother of five Kansas teachers, I share this concern. However, K-12 education, while likely the most important activity funded by the State of Kansas, is not the only one. K-12 education received cuts that (on a percentage basis) were half of those suffered by the disability community, almost 4 times less than those faced by law enforcement and community mental health centers, and over 7 times less than the cuts incurred by the agricultural programs.

Given: (a) the severe pain felt by other state programs and (b) the fact that K-12 education consumes 52% of the state budget, the Kansas Legislature could not hold K-12 education harmless and balance the budget. My goal was to keep this cut small enough to preserve school staff while relieving some of the budget-cutting burden from other state programs.

The final compromise budget, while far from ideal, accomplished this goal. It avoided far greater cuts (proposed at 5%) to education and other programs that were offered in the legislature last week. Also, the final budget allowed almost all school districts to avoid staff and teacher layoffs. For instance, it is my understanding that the Independence, Sedan, West Elk, and Elk Valley schools absorbed these cuts without laying off teachers or staff.

Nonetheless, I still have concerns about the final 2010 budget. With this budget, the Kansas Legislature avoided a direct tax increase. The final 2010 budget included no new taxes or direct tax hikes for Kansans.

That description does not tell the whole story. In 2006, the Kansas Legislature promised local governments that it would provide them with tens of millions of dollars annually in property tax relief. This money was promised to offset lost local revenue from the machinery and equipment (“M&E”) tax, a key component of the tax base especially in Montgomery County. In 2009 alone, Montgomery County taxpayers were promised over $1.3 million in payments to offset lost M&E revenue.

Given the tight budget, former-Governor Sebelius threatened to break this promise. I opposed the Governor’s plans and helped broker a compromise that paid half of this M&E money to local governments on March 1, 2009 and was to pay the other half on June 1.

Despite this additional promise, the Governor and a majority of legislators broke their pledge and stripped the June 2009 M&E money from the budget. This action, which I fought against diligently, will cost Montgomery County $650,000 this year alone. Without these promised state funds, local taxpayers were forced to cover the shortfall, resulting in substantial local property tax increases.

Comprehensive Energy Plan

Three other non-budget items deserve mention from the 2009 legislative session. After two years of gubernatorial vetoes and inaction, it took a mere 6 days for the new Kansas Governor – Mark Parkinson – to work with the Kansas Legislature to adopt a Comprehensive Kansas Energy Plan.

The Comprehensive Energy Plan is key for Kansas because it strikes a balance between environmental concerns and long-term energy needs. It allows the construction of one coal-fired power plant in western Kansas, establishes new renewable energy and conservation requirements, and creates regulatory certainty in Kansas regarding the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.

Specifically, the Comprehensive Energy Plan:

• • Directs the KDHE to establish emissions standards that are no more stringent, restrictive or expansive than those required under the Federal Clean Air Act.

• • Clarifies that the KDHE Secretary cannot use his emergency powers to create new long-term restrictions on Kansas businesses

• • Allows Kansas Electric Transmission Authority to assist in the building of transmission lines that would serve small and local communities.

• • Sets State Energy Efficiency Standards.

• • Requires energy companies get at least 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020.

• • Permits Net Metering, which allows consumers to receive payment for an excess electricity that they generate from personal windmills or solar panels

• • Requires new coal-fired plants to purchase at least 5% of its coal supply from Kansas coal mines provided it is competitively priced.

This Comprehensive Energy Plan is great news for our state because it will create 1500 new construction jobs and hundreds of permanent jobs in western Kansas, encourage conservation and renewable energy, and re-establish regulatory certainty over carbon dioxide emissions in Kansas.

Battery against a Law Enforcement Officer

The Kansas Legislature also passed a bill making it far more likely that criminals who attack a law enforcement officer will serve time in prison. This bill, which I sponsored with the help of Independence Chief of Police Ken Parker, ends the presumption that a criminal receives only probation for battery against a law enforcement officer.

Under current Kansas law, it is a felony to commit battery against an on-duty law enforcement officer. Given the presumption that such felons would receive probation, however, only a small number of convicted offenders ever spent time in prison. The new law changes this presumption to recommend imprisonment for criminals who cause bodily harm to an on-duty law enforcement officer.

I am pleased that this bill became law. Our police officers put their lives on the line every day to protect Kansans. This new law will help ensure that the criminals who injure our officers spend time in prison.

Graduated Driver’s Licenses

Finally, I am proud to have chaired the subcommittee that drafted and passed the graduated driver’s license. In summary, the graduated driver’s license (which went into effect on January 1, 2010) made four key changes in the driver’s license law for Kansas teens.

(1) Requires Kansas youth to hold a learner’s permit for one year before obtaining a full driver’s license and drive for at least 50 hours under that permit. If Kansas teens complete this requirement, they can receive a full driver’s license at the age of 16.

(2) Prohibits a teen who receives a full license on his or her 16th birthday from driving after 9:00 p.m. at night during their first 6 months of full licensure unless driving to and from work or school.

(3) Prevents a teen driver from having more than one non-adult passenger in the car, except for their brother or sister, during these initial 6 months.

(4) Bans teen drivers from using cell phones while driving during the 6-month restricted period.

I know that the graduated driver’s license will not end the tragedy of serious traffic injuries and deaths among Kansas teens. By requiring more driving experience and limiting the most dangerous aspects of teenage driving, however, I believe this bill will reduce teen accidents, prevent injuries, and save lives.