Dear Friend:

It has been a month since my last public legislative forum, so I am excited to share two upcoming opportunities with you. Please join me for:

• A town hall meeting on Saturday, April 18, 10 am, at the Corinth Library (8100 Mission Road). The event is sponsored by the Johnson County Library and the League of Women Voters. 

• The NE JoCo Chamber of Commerce is also sponsoring a town hall meeting on Wednesday, April 22, 6 pm, at Prairie Village City Hall (7700 Mission Road). 

The Kansas Legislature wrapped up the 2015 regular session on Thursday, April 2 and we are off until April 29. Between now and when we return to Topeka, the Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG) will meet to update their forecast for the rest of the current fiscal year, as well as make predictions about FY 2016. The next fiscal year’s budget is the only must-pass bill during each session. 

About CREG: Made up of representatives of the Division of the Budget, Department of Revenue, Legislative Research Department, and one consulting economist each from KU, K-State, and WSU, this group of experts meets in April and November to analyze receipts (taxes paid and anticipated) and expenditures correlated to the current and following year’s budgets as signed into law. In existence since 1975, the track record of CREG is impressively accurate – until last year that is.

• Why have estimates been SO far off? Good question! The experts who do this work base their estimates on current law, population fluctuations, spending trends, and other economic data. When it comes to forecasting the Kansas budget, there is simply no parallel on which to model trends. It has become common to call the 2012 tax cuts an “experiment”, but when it comes to the basics of economic forecasting, how do you make estimates based on policy that has no equal?

Budget

The House has not been given an opportunity to vote on a budget yet, which means that issue will be left to deal with when the Legislature returns to Topeka in May. 

I am concerned about what we’ve seen so far in budget proposals from the Governor and the Senate.  The Senate passed a budget bill, and the conference committee process got underway before the break, albeit without an official House position.  The House Appropriations Chair and the Vice-Chair are the only two House members with any input at this point. 

The current agreement provides a budget that deficit-spends by many hundreds of millions of dollars, relies on one-time fund sweeps from KDOT and other state agencies, $1 billion in borrowing through KPERS bonding authority, and other assumptions built in that require legislative action that has not yet happened (and may never) and still falls short of balance by anywhere from $130 million to $240 million depending on which version you look at.  Nothing I have seen so far can be considered fiscally responsible. 

Floor Action

The legislature passed HB 2258 – a drastic, downright mean-spirited and punitive revision to our TANF requirements for the working poor. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families is already just that – temporary – and it currently requires work or at least job training. It is not a princely sum of money – you can see the current Kansas guidelines here. 

Federal law provides a maximum of 60 months assistance, but allows states to determine their own max. Among other changes, this bill:

• Reduces the lifetime maximum in Kansas from 48 to 36 months
• Sets a daily cap on ATM withdrawals at $25
• Restricts the places where TANF benefits can be used

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with work requirements, and agree certain things are not appropriate uses for government assistance funds.  However, I have to question the speed with which this bill was rammed through the process. (Are you sensing a theme throughout my newsletters this year?)

You may have heard of the “gut & go” procedure where a bill that has passed one chamber is stripped of its contents, then an entirely different piece of legislation is inserted.  In this case, HB 2258 began as a bill pertaining to Kansas Mortgage definitions, a noncontroversial bill that passed the House 121-0. It was sent to the Senate, where it was gutted of the original contents and used as a shell into which the TANF reforms were inserted. At that point, it went to the Senate floor where it was debated for over six hours and many amendments were offered. The Senate passed it 30-10 at approximately 2:30pm on April 2. Exactly one hour later, it was up for a Motion to Concur on the House floor with no opportunity to amend, and no time to read the contents. You see, HB 2258 had technically already passed the House (as the mortgage bill mentioned above). Never mind that it was entirely, I emphasize completely, different than the bill we originally passed. The new version was not subject to full debate, just a simple up or down vote.

I refuse to pass a bill in order to learn what is in it. For that reason, I voted NO on Senate sub for HB 2258. I am disgusted by the manipulation of the process to stifle honest – and necessary – debate.

• Bill Summary

In The News - UBER

The big hubbub in the final week involved the ride-sharing service Uber.  H Sub SB 117 contains a simple set of needed protections, using language Uber helped draft in other states as part of a national compromise. Specifically, the bill:

• Requires drivers to carry liability insurance, just as you and I have to carry insurance. 
• Requires a background check to ensure that drivers do not have a criminal record that would put Kansas passengers in danger

The bill addresses a gap in insurance coverage for drivers engaged in Transportation Network Companies (TNC).  Not only is the driver and his/her vehicle not covered by their personal automobile insurance policy while they are engaged in driving in the TNC network (basically anytime they are logged in to the network before, during and after actually transporting a customer) but the passenger and any other driver involved in an accident would be at risk.  

An amendment was added that relates to drivers who have a lien against their vehicle requiring them to provide proof of both comprehensive and collision coverage, in addition to the liability insurance required.

It is important to remember two things about this amendment:

1. ANYONE who has a bank loan using a vehicle as collateral must provide proof of comprehensive and collision coverage to the bank providing the loan, so this is not requiring anything above and beyond for TNC drivers. Whether you drive for a TNC or not, if you have a loan against your vehicle the bank requires you to purchase this insurance product – the bill simply requires a TNC driver to provide proof of that insurance.
2. NO TNC driver is required to provide proof of comprehensive or collison coverage if they own their car outright.  In other words, no loan – no requirement to purchase comprehensive and collision insurance.

Uber sent an alert to its subscribers to oppose the requirements of this amendment.  So many emails were sent to legislators that it crashed the state system, causing a number of problems with communications for a couple of days.

I carefully considered Uber’s concerns. However, they are not the only TNC operating in the state. When Kansans are operating a business where lives are in a driver’s hands, our citizens should have a minimum expectation of personal safety and protection if something should happen. The bill passed the House 107-16 and the Senate 35-2. I voted YES.

The Kansas City Star had a front page story this week regarding Uber’s fight with Kansas City, MO over a more stringent set of regulations and additional fees approved by that city. The Kansas plan provides needed protection without imposing undue regulation or financial burden.