Liveblogging: Debate On HB 1, Second Reading
Vince Leibowitz | Apr 24, 2006 | Comments 0 |
Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) is now speaking on his bill, HB 1:
Chisum: There are going to be amendments about recapture.
Chisum: “This bill has a guaranteed yield for Chapter 42 districts so they are yielding the same amount of pennies. Likewise, it has a hold harmless clause in here so that no school districts use any money.”
He’s now tallking about the 88.6 percent reduction. He’s moved passage.
Yields to Harold Dutton (D-Houston) for a question:
Dutton: “We’re trying to follow the court’s admonishions? [with this bill.] That gets us out of the trap currently, I wonder if you have any sort of prognosis about how long before we’re back in the same trap if we do what this particular bill prescribes.”
Now Chisum is proceeding to explain the SCOTX decision…doesn’t seem like he’s answering Dutton’s question.
Chisum: “We have a 17 cent, after this buydown…where school districts could go in and access new revenue.” Now he’s explaining how the local ISDs can increase tax rates.
Chisum: “As for how long that would last, that would be up to the court. There’d have to be another lawsuit.”
Dutton: “Do you have a prognosis of when we’ll be back to a court might deem us to have a statewide property tax.
Chisum: “Well, Mr. Dutton, it will be at least to the general session. I’m relying on future legislators to look at this…”
Dutton: “…it recognizes that this is only a temporary solution to the challenge made by the Supreme Court made by our funding system…”
Chisum: “Absolutley…”
I cannot believe this…the author of the bill has ADMITTED this is a stop-gap measure.
Dutton just asked him if newspaper headlines should read that the Lege finally fixed school finance in the morning…Dutton says no.
Mark Strama (D-Austin) is now asking about the M&O tax increases.
Strama: If the other bills pass, the question I have is, as HB 2 continues to buy property taxes down further, does a school district have to have an election anytime they raise their taxes a penny or can they go up to their other rate.
Chisum: Said no, they’d have to have the elections like it says in the bill.
Now Delwin Jones (R-Lubbock)
Jones: Reference was made to your bill as a temporary solution. Is it true that the other three or four bills are temporary…”
Chisum: “That’s my understanding of legislation. We make some, we throw some out. This is temporary until some legislature changes it in the future.”
Evidently there is some confusion over when exactly the school districts have to have the rollback elections, as Rep. Davis is asking about the elections now.
Chisum says that after they raise the tax rate over six cents, the ISDs have to have an election.
She’s now pointing out that, because of the compression, ISDs now don’t have the authority to raise taxes as their voters may have previously given them.
Chisum says that there is enough money in the system for equitible funding…more money than they can raise right now.
$1.36 is evidently the magic number. Anything above requires an election.
Now Rafael Anchia (Dallas) is asking about the elections.
Chisum: “We’re going to guarantee them the same amount of money they’re getting now at a much lower tax rate.”
Anchia: “Why are requiring the elections? What’s the policy reason?”
Chisum: “We want the voters to have say so in how much their taxs go up.”
Anchia: Is it that you don’t trust school board members to manage the tax rate?
Chisum: “NO…” We’re putting in money…over than above what they’re getting right now…”
Anchia: Isn’t the legislature in effect setting a rate by requiring an election every time the school wants to raise the rate?
Chisum: No…
Anchia: “I want to understand…the three pennies that’sfree money without an election?”
Chisum: No election
Anchia: “In order to get another three pennies, they have to have an election?”
Chisum: That’s correct.
Anchia points out it costs about $500,000 to hold an election in DISD (he’s a former DISD trustee).
Anchia: “Included in this requirement is a distrust of school board members…”
Strama’s back:
Strama: “You said we’re going to give them three billion dollars and they don’t then go and ask for more money without having an election of the voters is that right?”
Chisum:”…we’re lowering the tax rate, we’re allowing them to go back up three pennies without an election…but if they want to go more than that…then they must go to them [taxpayers] and get permission…”
Strama: Notes it’s not giving 3 billion to schools, but actually three billion in property tax relief.
NOW the amendments…
This one is by Chisum. “Makes it clear that the tax relief is going down equal to 88.67 percent of their tax rate…”
Senfronia Thompson’s back up…asking more questions about the election. Chisum says it’s a clarification amendment, notes that instead of a 17 cent reduction it’s a percentage reduction because not everyone is at $1.50.
Dunnam’s back. “Does that mean that everyone is getting at least 17 cents or some will get more and some will get less?”
Chisum: “I think that they will all get the same amount. It’s a percentage compression rather than a penny compression.”
Ahhh…there’s a chart on tax compression rates…
Dunnam asks how this doesn’t violate the calander rule if the amendment decreases the amounts…the amendment changes it where some people don’t get 17 cents…Author’s correcting amendments are not subject to the calendar rule.
Dunnam: “You’ve got an amendment that violates the calendar rule and because you say it’s an author’s correcting amendment, it gets buy.”
Chisum now says the amendment is brought by the Lege Council.
Nothing against Dunnam, but I do think he’s incorrect in this regard. The way I read the bill initially, I didn’t think any ISD except those at $1.50 would get a full 17 cents.
At any rate, he’s asked for a point of order.
Oh, my…now Betty Brown’s recognizing the Terrell Fighting Tiger Band, which includes Garret Oakley, the son of Brown’s successor Rep. Kieth Oakley in the House.
More recognitions…
The point of order was overrulled. Now Craig Eiland’s asking a question.
HB1, Amendment 1 vote: Adopted.
HB2, Amendment 2 (by Geren): Geren says it puts recapture back in so money goes to the PSF…Says this keeps the gap between rich and poor districts from growing.
Jim Jackson (R-Dallas) is now asking about the amendment. Says it seems like retribution to the Chapter 42 districts (the poor ones).
Darn. I missed some of this good debate, but Jim Jackson just mentioned the word “private shools…”
Villereal is now up: Isn’t the point to keep the 41s and the 42s together…
Rep. Woolley is now asking about a specific ISD, claimiong that a Chapter 41 district she represents will loose money as a result of the amendment.
Truitt’s asking questions now…does he agree his amendment is harmful to the Chapter 41 districts, he says no.
(KEEP IN MIND: Chapter 41=property rich; Chapter 42=property poor).
Geren’s time has expired.
Dan Branch is speaking on the amendment now.
I’ve got some other work to do now, so I’m going to have to pick this up later.
Related posts:
Filed Under: Uncategorized
