Missouri Farm Bureau
|
Kevin Craig - "Liberty Under God"
|
| Building
Codes |
These are not Congressional, federal
issues. |
| We are
philosophically opposed to the idea of requiring statewide building
codes; however, if such a law is proposed, we believe farm
buildings, including the farm residence, should be exempt and the
bill should only establish minimum standards and must require
approval by local voters prior to enactment. |
|
| Circuit
Court Budget |
|
| We believe
county commissions should have the same veto power over circuit
court budget requests as they have over all other county offices,
departments and commissions requesting county funds for salaries,
equipment, supplies and services which are not specifically set by
state law. |
|
| Constitutional
Amendments |
|
| We believe
the Missouri Constitution is too easily changed (having 100
amendments since its adoption in 1945 through 1998 as compared to
the U.S. Constitution having only 27 amendments since 1790,
including the first ten called The Bill of Rights). A Constitution
should be a framework for action rather than a collection of
special-interest taxes and programs. Therefore, we support an
amendment to the Missouri Constitution requiring a two-thirds
majority rather than a simple majority to adopt amendments. We
believe that only a simple majority vote should be necessary to
completely remove existing constitutional amendments previously
adopted by a simple majority. |
|
| County
Government |
|
| We believe
any county should be authorized to adopt a charter form of
government (home rule) if approved by a majority vote. |
|
| We oppose any
efforts to change existing elected offices in second, third, or
fourth class counties to appointed positions. |
|
| We support
the consolidation of county offices and/or facilities when desirable
and practical. |
|
| We support
giving the voters of a county the authority to approve the sale of
property built from voter-approved county bond issues. |
|
| We encourage
county governments to develop reasonable and adequate emergency
preparedness programs including possible emergency drills. |
|
| We believe
school tax increases and bond issues should be placed before local
voters no more frequently than once a year. |
|
| We support
decoupling and/or changes in the salary-setting procedures for
elected county officials that will simplify, make more equitable,
and less political the process for establishing salaries for county
elected officials. |
|
| We believe
county commissioners should be notified in advance of hearings, as
well as proposed regulatory or operational changes which will affect
the counties. In many cases, local elected officials and taxpayers
find out about changes after the fact. |
|
| We support
legislation that would give county governments equal standing with
both the municipality and the local developer when tax increment
financing districts are established, including the following: |
|
| 1. permanent
county government representation on a municipalities' T.I.F. (Tax
Increment Financing) Commission; and |
|
| 2. a
prohibition on the General Assembly from diverting revenue from
voter-approved county sales taxes. |
|
| County
Government Audits |
|
| We believe
counties and other local tax-supported political subdivisions that
are supported primarily by taxes should be audited by competent
outside auditors or auditing firms on a regular basis, and audit
conclusions should be published. |
|
| We believe
fire protection, sewer, ambulance and water districts that are
supported by taxes should be audited the same as any other
tax-supported district. |
|
| County
Planning and Zoning |
|
| If planning
and zoning becomes necessary, it should be administered at the
county level and counties should be allowed to enact zoning
authority for specific concerns such as solid waste disposal. Only
the unincorporated areas and not the incorporated areas should be
able to vote for the acceptance or rejection of planning and zoning. |
|
| We oppose
legislation granting county commissioners the authority to name
county planning commissions to develop a comprehensive master plan
even if the master plan would go to a vote of the people. |
|
| We favor
legislation that would prohibit non-charter, first class counties
from imposing regulations or requiring permits for agricultural land
or buildings. Missouri statutes contain such a limitation on second
and third class counties. |
|
| We favor the
regulation of agriculture being limited to state jurisdiction and do
not believe local jurisdiction, such as county commissions and
county health organizations should be allowed to regulate
agriculture. |
|
| Counties
developing a land-use policy should ensure a policy favorable to
agriculture. We urge all county governments to allow their
respective county Farm Bureau the opportunity to help draft a county
land-use policy. |
|
| We oppose the
taking of property for road frontage as a condition for county
approval of non-commercial building permits. We also oppose the
addition of other unrelated requirements as a condition for the
approval of non-commercial building permits. |
|
| We oppose
changing existing state law setting the minimum size of parcels for
subdivided development in the unincorporated area of the county. |
|
| Economic
Development |
|
| Economic
development is important to the vitality of all areas of the state.
We support efforts by the state legislature and the Department of
Economic Development to address the economic development needs in
Missouri's agricultural communities. |
|
| An example of
such a program is the development of rural enterprise zones which
give businesses incentives to build and expand in rural areas. |
|
| We believe
that grain processing plants should be eligible for enterprise zones
the same as manufacturing plants which qualify now. |
|
| Federal
Regulations |
|
| We support
preventing state regulations from being stricter than federal law
unless justified through a public hearing. |
|
| We believe
economic impact studies for proposed regulations should be made
available to industry, landowners and the media before any new
regulations are adopted. |
|
| We also
believe that economic impact studies for proposed regulations should
be developed through hearings including affected industry and
landowners. |
|
| Initiative
Petitions |
|
| We believe
the influence of out-of-state interest groups through the initiative
petition process should be restricted. |
|
| We support
legislation which would require sponsoring organizations of
initiative petitions to be identified and give accurate and detailed
public notice of the provisions contained in the statutory or
constitutional changes being proposed. Such notice should be given
in advance of any efforts to obtain signatures. |
|
| We support
legislation which would require people gathering signatures on an
initiative petition to ask potential signers of the petition to
first read the ballot title. |
|
| We support
limiting the use of professional signature gathering organizations
for initiative petition efforts, including prohibiting payment on a
per-signature basis. |
|
| We recommend
that when an initiative petition is approved for inclusion on the
Missouri ballot, and Missouri Farm Bureau has no policy on that
issue, that Missouri Farm Bureau make an effort to inform members of
the pro and con facts of the issue. |
|
| We further
recommend that Missouri Farm Bureau poll county presidents to
determine whether to establish a position on the initiative after
providing appropriate educational materials. |
|
| Mailing
Lists |
|
| We oppose
county, city, state and federal government agencies from making
mailing lists available to the private sector to be used for
business solicitation purposes. |
|
| Public
Employees |
|
| We believe
the law preventing the use of public employees on public time and
the use of other public resources to pass or defeat a constitutional
amendment or proposition before the voters for their approval should
be strictly enforced. |
|
| Rural Fire
Protection |
|
| We believe it
should remain the right of the citizens in rural communities to
determine whether they will be served by volunteer fire departments
or tax-supported fire districts. |
|
| Whenever
possible, we believe rural fire district boundaries should be
established to include all of a landowner's contiguous property if
the landowner desires to be included in the fire district. |
|
| We support
legislation that would remove population restrictions in 321.322
RSMo as to provide for a five year phase-out for all fire protection
districts affected by a municipality annexation. |
|
| We believe
the same protections should apply to rural fire districts as school
districts when subject to forced annexation by municipalities. |
|
| We believe
any person running for election to a rural fire district board in
Third and Fourth Class Counties must live and vote in the fire
district he or she is running in . |
|
| Rural
Housing |
|
| We urge
federal agencies to examine their programs to ensure that
calculations for housing assistance treat outstate rural residents
the same as residents in rural metropolitan statistical areas. |
|
| Rural
Subdivision Streets |
|
| We believe
rural subdivision street maintenance should be the responsibility of
the property owners. If county government accepts the responsibility
of rural subdivision street maintenance, county courts should have
the authority to levy street improvement taxes. |
|
| Rural
Water Districts |
|
| We oppose
efforts to weaken or repeal the authority of rural water districts
relative to local control and administration of rural water
services. |
|
| Sovereign
Immunity |
|
| We support
the complete restoration of sovereign immunity for local government
and public officials when acting in an official capacity of the
office, and further, if sovereign immunity can not be restored, we
oppose raising the limits of sovereign immunity on local agencies. |
|
| State
Legislature |
|
| We are
concerned that the integrity of the state and federal
legislative process has deteriorated by allowing amendments
of an unrelated subject matter to be attached to pending
legislation. We believe this practice of piggybacking amendments
should be corrected either legislatively or through a constitutional
amendment. |
There might be tension between this
recommendation and the one
above. Kevin Craig agrees that Constitutions should be rarely
amended, and that "earmarks"
have become an engine of federal growth. |
| We believe
the excessive use of executive orders to legislate and regulate,
such as executive orders regarding collective bargaining and urban
sprawl, bypass the legislative process and should be restricted. |
|
| We oppose any
effort to reduce the size of the Missouri House of Representatives. |
|
| State
Regulations |
|
| We favor the
requirement upon legislators and state agencies filing new laws and
state regulations to also file an estimate of the costs to the
public sector to comply with the laws and regulations and an
estimate on the benefits that the public will receive. |
|
| We support
the establishment of a state regulatory review commission with
agricultural representation to review all state rules and
regulations to determine their necessity, their statutory authority
and whether or not they should be abolished. |
|
| We support
the sunset and review of all new and current regulations. |
|
| We believe
state agencies should be assessed financial penalties for failing to
act in accordance with mandatory requirements and deadlines
contained in state law. |
|
| We support a
three-acre exemption on sewage treatment regulations. |
|
| We strongly
oppose the State Health Department contracting with county health
officials to enforce stringent health regulations at the county
level that result in the discontinuation of county fairs' and local
churches' fundraising activities. |
|