In addition to being the 82nd day of the 110-day session, Friday, April 3, marks the end of Week 12 as well as the end of the Second Funnel Week. In order for a bill to remain alive for the remainder of the session (other than taxing or spending bills), it had to have been voted out of committee in the opposite chamber from where it were introduced. (For example, a House Education Committee bill would need to be have been approved by the Senate Education Committee by Friday or else it is dead for the year).

Funnel weeks at the Capitol are traditionally hectic, as legislators move quickly to keep as much legislation alive as possible. During the second funnel, budget deliberations are usually heating up as the policy committees are closing out their business for the year. The pace is usually very difficult for everyone to keep up with. However, this year, the budget process is way behind schedule due to an impasse over school funding that has now entered a fourth month.

School Funding Impasse

Much of the progress at the Capitol has ground to a halt as legislative leaders continue to argue about school funding. The Senate passed a 4% increase for schools, while the Governor and House have argued that 1.25% is all the state can afford. When March revenue estimates showed projected state revenues coming in lower than anticipated, leaders in the House became very reluctant to negotiate above the 1.25% they had already approved. Senate Democrats offered this week to "split the difference" by proposing 2.625% - exactly halfway between 1.25% and 4% - however, the proposal was immediately rejected by the Republicans who argued it would break the budget.

Extended Timeline

Legislators have heard that "budget targets" - the amount of money allowed to be allocated by each appropriations subcommittee - may not be released for two to three weeks. Individual appropriations bills cannot be written until after those targets are known, which may not occur now until after the 100th day of the 110-day session. This means the current legislative session - which ends up May 1 - may go DEEP into overtime, possibly well into June.

A few things to be aware of with this session:

• First, if you have a policy initiative in mind that you would still like to see move forward this year, the fact that the session will go long could work in your favor. Many legislators are facing some long waits in the next few weeks while budget negotiations come together. Sometimes, it becomes a good time to focus on other legislative proposals.
• Second, if your main focus is on funding for certain programs, you need to be calling and emailing legislators NOW about that funding. The late timeline indicates that when there IS forward motion on budgets, it is likely to go quickly with little chance to alter whatever funding levels are in the spending bills as introduced.   You want your priorities in their minds BEFORE they begin writing those bills.

As long anticipated, late last week a TIF bill (HSB 225) was introduced by House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Tom Sands. Sands assigned the bill to a subcommittee that includes himself, Rep. Josh Byrnes of Osage and Rep. Chuck Isenhart of Dubuque. The subcommittee already met this past week and will likely be forwarding the bill to the full House Ways & Means Committee for consideration.

True to form, HSB 225 contains largely the same provisions as Chairman Sands indicated he intended to pursue to PDI lobbyists last summer and in every conversation since then - namely public buildings, TIFs without end dates, and debt. Specifically, the bill does the following:

Section 1 - Adds some details to the reporting that the Legislative Services Agency is required to prepare for legislators, specifically tracking TIF debt and annual appropriation debt.

Sections 2 and 3 - Grandfathers any existing public building projects that used TIF, but then specifically prohibits thereafter the use of TIF for public buildings, including the remodeling, maintenance or repair of public buildings.

Section 4 - Addresses all existing TIF districts that do not have an end date (Pre-1995s and slum & blight TIF districts). At the 20 year mark, the base would be increased by 7.5% per year for 20 years and then the TIF would sunset. If that TIF is already 20+ years old, the increase in the base would begin as of July 1, 2016.

Section 5 - Places a 20-year limitation on all new TIF districts.

Section 6 - Makes the bill effective upon enactment.

PDI is registered as opposed to the bill, along with the Iowa League of Cities and the Metropolitan Coalition. While we definitely appreciate the limited scope of Sands' TIF bill when compared to previous years, our message at the subcommittee was the need for more flexibility. In the public building provision, we suggested the bill should allow for some exceptions to an all-out ban on public projects in cases where a community believes that project is a priority, perhaps requiring a super majority city council vote or allowing a reverse referendum. On the time limit issue, we pointed out that different cities would have different needs with how best to reset the clock on existing TIFs, and suggested any bill on this issue contain a number of different options a city could utilize.