The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - October 19, 1994 (53)or CITY OF LODI r 07 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Resolution in Opposition to Unfunded Federal Mandates MEETING DATE: October 19, 1994 PREPARED BY: City Clerk RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 94.125 (attached) opposing unfunded mandates. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This item appears on the agenda at the Mayor's request. The City of Lodi received information from the National League of Cities requesting that the City participate in "National Unfunded Mandates Week% October 24 - 30, 1994. As part of the event, we are being asked to adopt a resolution in opposition to costly unfunded mandates and to urge our Congress representatives to do the same. FUNDING: JMP Attachment None required. Jifer M. rrin I Clerk APPROVED THOMAS A PETERSON ecvclea Pave, City Mannger cc RESOLUTION NO. 94-125 zaaassssasssssaasssas A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION TO UNFUNDED MANDATES ====aaxaaxsassxassszsxxszasxsaassssasnum aszasssxzaxsazasxsssasasasxasas WHEREAS, unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments have increased significantly in recent years; and WHEREAS, federal mandates require cities and towns to perform duties without consideration of local circumstances, costs, or capacity, and subject municipalities to civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance; and WHEREAS, federal mandates require compliance regardless of other pressing local needs and priorities affecting the health, welfare, and safety of municipal citizens; and WHEREAS, excessive federal burdens on local governments force some combination of higher local taxes and fees and/or reduced local services on citizens and local taxpayers; and WHEREAS, federal mandates are too often inflexible, one -size -fits -all requirements that impose unrealistic time frames and specify procedures or facilities where less costly alternatives might be just as effective; and WHEREAS, existing mandates impose harsh pressures on local budgets and the federal government has imposed a freeze upon funding to help compensate for any new mandates; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impact of these legislative and regulatory actions directly affect the citizens of our cities and towns; and WHEREAS, the National League of Cities, following up on on last year's successful effort, is continuing its national public education campaign to help citizens understand and then reduce the burden and inflexibility of unfunded mandates, including a National Unfunded Mandates Week, October 24-30, 1994; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Lodi endorses the efforts of the National League of Cities and supports working with NLC to fully inform our citizens about the impact of federal mandates on our government and the pocketbooks of our citizens; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Lodi endorses organizing and participating in events during the week of October 24-30, 1994; and finally BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Lodi resolves to continue our efforts to work with members of our Congressional delegation to educate them about the impact of federal mandates and actions necessary to reduce their burden on our citiz.cis. Dated: October 19, 1994 saaaaacaoasasxxaxsaxassay:aaassaassaaoaaaaasaasssassssssaxaxsaaaxxsaa=am I hereby certify that Resolution No. 94-125 was passed and adopted by the Lodi City Council in a regular meeting held October 19, 1994 by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members - Mann, Pennino, Snider and Sieglock (Mayor) Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - Davenport • -1 -Q�� J fifer M Perrin Ci y Clerk 94-125 Notional 1301 eennsy6anio Avenue N.W. League Washingtof, p� ; ��+ C G - of 20004 Cities (202) X626.3",-, N Fax: (202) .626-gOA3 .. September 19, 1994 Dear Local Leader: OffiCeS�l President Sharpe lames Mayor. Newark, New Jersey First Vice President Carolyn long Banks Councikvoman•ot-longe, Ailanto, Georgio Second Vice President Hal Conklin Mayor, Santa Barbaro, Coli"o Immediate Post President Glenda E. Hood Mayor, Orlando, Fkxido Executive Director Donald 1. Borue I am writing to enlist your community's support and active participation in this year's NATIONAL UNFUNDED MANDATES WEEK, scheduled for October 24-30, 1994. Our purpose is to reduce the burden of unfunded federal mandates on our cities and towns, and on our local taxpayers. To succeed in this effort, we need your leadership and assistance. We must continue to increase the public's awareness about mandates and organize at the grass-roots level to force the federal government to respond to our concerns. Dealing with unfunded mandates has been a top NLC priority for many years. Last year, thousands of you took part in National Unfunded Mandates Day on October 27, 1993. That effort had a significant impact on Congress and the White House this year. Although some said it could not be done, we now have bi-partisan support in Congress for federal mandates relief legislation. Clearly, our efforts are making a difference ... but we must keep up the pressure on our national legislators to ensure concrete action at the federal level. That's what this year's NATIONAL UNFUNDED MANDATES WEEK is all about. This year's campaign is designed to continue to educate our citizens about the impact of unfunded mandates on local budgets and to organize grass-roots support for a significant change in / OCTOBER 24 - 30, 1994 \ CAunom CAUTWN COSTLY is COSTLY NY1ttrDATiFS r0suvo an \""E"UP National Unfunded Mandates Week 7� 1 how the federal government develops and implements laws affecting local governments. For this year's campaign, I am asking you do to do three things: 1) Write to Congress. Modify the sample mandates letter on the next page and fax it to the members of your Congressional delegation -- immediately. 2) Schedule events during National Unfunded Mandates Week. Pick two days during the week of October 24-30 for anti -mandates public awareness activities; use one day to educate your citizens about mandates, and use one day to educate and get commitments from your Congressional delegation and candidates for Congress about mandates. Citizens and those who aspire to represent citizens in Congress need to know what unfunded mandates are, who really pays for them, and how they impose growing and severe financial and administrative burdens on cities. 3) Let your state league and NLC know what your plans are for National Unfunded Mandates Week. We all know that solutions to the unfunded mandates problem will not appear overnight. Our efforts during the past year have made a difference, and we must continue to build momentum. Your active participation in National Unfunded Mandates Week will continue the education process and send a clear message to Congress that our resolve on this issue is as strong as ever. I have enclosed a variety of materials to help you get started with your local efforts. Please join me in this important campaign! Sincerely, Sharpe James President Mayor of Newark Enclosures Pass PLEASE MODIFY AND FAX THIS LETTER TODAY! MODIFY AND FAX THIS LETTER TODAY! Model Mandates Fax Letter September 1994 The Honorable U.S. Senate/House of Representatives Washington, O.C. 20510/20515 Dear Senator/Representative The citizens and taxpayers of need relief from future unfunded federal mandates. I am writing to urge you to push for passage of the Federal Mandate Accoui..ability and Reform Act (S.993/H.R.4771) before Congress adjourns. While a number of other mandates proposals have been offered, passage of this legislation is an all-important first step in the battle to slow down the growing financial and administrative burdens unfunded federal requirements impose on local taxpayers. The cumulative impact of federal legislative and regulatory requirements directly and adversely affects the citizens of our community. Federal mandates require us to perform duties without any consideration of local circumstances, costs, or capacity. If we fail to comply with a mandate, we often are subject to civil or criminal liability, as well as onerous enforcement orders. Federal mandates require compliance rrrlardless of other pressing local needs and priorities affecting the health, welfare, and safety of our citizens. Mandates require us to raise local taxes and fees or cut services to meet federal priorities. The Federal Accountability and Reform Act, sponsored by Senators Kempthorne and Glenn and Representatives Conyers and Towns, would provide significant accountability and procedural safeguards to protect municipalities from future unfunded mandates. This is the only mandates relief legislation that has been endorsed by the National League of Cities and all other organizations representing state and local governments. It is a strong and viable bill. It provides the only chance for mandates relief this year. The citizens of need your help. We strongly encourage you to make the passage of the Federal Mandate Accountability and Reform Act your top priority over the few weeks remaining in this session of Congress. Sincerely, MODIFY AND FAX THIS LETTER TODAY! Model Mandates Fax Letter September _, 1994 The Honorable U.S. Senate/House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20510/20515 Dear Senator/Representative The citizens and taxpayers of need relief from future unfunded federal mandates. I am writing to urge you to push for passage of the Federal Mandate Accountability and Reform Act (S.993/H.R.4771) before Congress adjourns. While a number of other mandates proposals have been offered, passage of this legislation is an all-important first step in the battle to slow down the growing financial and administrative burdens unfunded federal requirements impose on local taxpayers. The cumulative impact of federal legislative and regulatory requirements directly and adversely affects the citizens of our community. Federal mandates require us to perform duties without any consideration of local circumstances, costs, or capacity. If we fail to comply with a mandate, we often are subject to civil or criminal liability,_ as well as onerous enforcement orders. Federal mandates require compliance regardless of other pressing local needs and priorities affecting the health, welfare, and safety of our citizens. Mandates require us to raise local taxes and fees or cut services to meet federal priorities. The Federal Accountability and Reform Act, sponsored by Senators Kempthorne and Glenn and Representatives Conyers and Towns, would provide significant accountability and procedural safeguards to protect municipalities from future unfunded mandates. This is the only mandates relief legislation that has been endorsed by the National League of Cities and all other organizations representing state and local governments. It is a strong and viable bill. It provides the only chance for mandates relief this year. The citizens of need your help. We strongly encourage you to make the passage of the Federal Mandate Accountability and Reform Act your top priority over the few weeks remaining in this session of Congress. Sincerely, ft National Unfunded MandatesWeek October 24-30,1994 ACTIVITY CHECKLIST 0 Yes, We Will: O Personalize and fax, immediately, a letter to members of our Congressional delegation urging action on Federal Mandate Accountability and Reform. D Adopt an unfunded mandates resolution at a governing body meeting before or during the week of October 24-30. O Personalize a news release and send it to our local and regional media. O let our state municipal league know about the activities we are planning for Unfunded Mandates Week. O Conduct a press conference, rally, march, information briefing or other activity during National Unfunded Mandates Week. cAwnoti COMP Nuumpff" ANMD ., Owl National League of Cities CAUTWN COMY MANDATES \ AHEAD i NATIONAL ADVOCACY MATERIALS for National Unfunded Mandates Week October- 24 - 301 1994 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 X G+ SPECIFIC UNFUNDED MANDATES CONTAINED IN PENDING LEGISLATION Welfare Many of the current welfare reform proposals are funded by curtailing benefits to legal immigrants. Such financing measures would almost completely shift the costs of caring for such persons on to states and municipalities. Do you support curtailing federal benefits to legal immigrants to finance welfare reform? If so, how would you address the costs passed on to local taxpayers? What other suggestions do you have for financing welfare reform? 2. Many of the current welfare reform proposals require the provision of community service jobs where recipients are unable to find a job in the private sector. Local governments are concerned that they will be mandated by the federal government and states to create community service jobs without input from local elected officials and without sufficient funding to pay related costs. Would you favor a local option to decline participation in this WORK program if sufficient funding is not provided? What other suggestions do you have to help local governments deal with this concern? LEGISLATION THAT OFFERS RELIEF FROM CURRENT UNFUNDED MANDATES Superfund It has become clear that Superfund, this country's hazardous waste cleanup law, has not been successful in achieving its desired results - the quick and conscientious clean up of this nation's hazardous waste situs. Moreover, municipalities are currently responsible for millions of dollars in cleanup costs as a result of cleanup activities undertaken as a public service. What relief from liability do you think the Superfund law should offer to cities and towns? Would you favor an exemption from liability for municipalities, or perhaps a cap on liability? CAUTION CONEY MANDATES \ AHEAD i SAMPLE MEDIA MATERIALS for National Unfunded Mandates Week October 24 - 302 1994 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 00) The message was loud and clear. 1 Gov Kirk Fprdn:e and the MMA grabbed front page headlines in the November 3 edition of Nation s Cities Weekly A photograph of the Missrssrpp! governor showing how he terls about unfunded mandates was selected by the NtC to read a story on events on Nationai Unfunded Mandates INUM) Day Oct 2.7 the oho:o was taken uunng the MMA s NUM Uay news Conference The voters in ( your city J should tell the candidates seeking election to Congress that it's time for Washington to stop sending them the bill for laws they create but don't want to pay for, ( spokesperson's title and name ) said today. "We are calling for more accountability in the way federal policies affect ( city name ) taxpayers," said ( name ). "When Washington decides to impose -- but not pay for -- a costly program or requirement, that local governments are directed to carry out, it's like a hidden tax on our community." Such actions, called unfunded federal mandates, have become a costly burden to cities and towns everywhere, according to the National League of Cities. For the past three years in the nationwide NLC survey of city fiscal conditions, budget directors have identified unfunded mandates as one of the top three adverse factors affecting local government finances. This week, ( city) will be joining with hundreds of other communities throughout the United States in calling for an end to unfunded mandates. Continuing a campaign begun last year with a National Unfunded Mandates Day on October 27, the effort is intended to bring about effective and lasting changes in the way laws and regulations are designed in Washington. "It is both deceitful and wrong for Washington lawmakers to think they can solve problems simply by passing their cost along to us," said ( name ). "Our leaders in Washington must begin to set priorities that fit within their available resources, just as our community and other cities must do every year." Along with the growing impact of their costs, unfunded mandates have the effect of distorting local priorities by diverting resources that could have been used for other community needs. (Example of a local project not funded or cut because of mandated activity or cost.) ( over ) On - W "The 1994 elections can help to restore accountability and responsibility in federal decisionmaking if candidates realize how disruptive and burdensome unfunded mandates can be," said ( name). "We want them to know that we don't want to quarrel with the intentions of laws enacted by Congress -- such as assuring a healthful environment and enabling people with disabilities to participate fully in our society. We just want them to understand what it costs and who should pay for carrying out these good intentions." Some mandates, especially in the environmental area, set rigid guidelines that require enormous expenditures. Other mandates, which may appear modest by themselves, can add up to an immense total cost. Time-consuming regulations and paperwork requirements also drain the limited resources of local governments. f Cite example(s) from your community or region, if possible. ) The campaign against unfunded mandates launched last year by the National League of Cities, state municipal leagues and other local government organizations has begun to bring about changes in Washington. Arbitrary standards and procedures established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are being reexamined by Congress to reflect more realistic health concerns. A broad mandate -relief bill that would create a "truth in legislating" process also has gained broad bipartisan support in both the Senate and House of Representatives. "Achieving the objectives of national programs depends upon working together, and it's up to us and our voters io tell that to the candidates in this year's elections," said ( name ). "We want people to know that it's unfair, and in some cases impossible, for local governments to pay for and carry out the costly one -size -fits -all programs that have characterized federal legislation for too long. "The candidates are asking for support from the same voters who gave us their trust and support to look after their interests here in ( city ). We can't always do that if Washington keeps telling us what to do and keeps taking our taxes to pay for programs of its choosing. If our voters and the candidates understand that, then we will be able to stop the buckpassing of unfunded mandates," said ( name 1. Sample News Conference Remarks for Unfunded Mandates Week When the voters of ( your city) cast their ballots in this year's Congressional elections, the pressures that affect our local taxes and services may seem to be the last thing they ought to be thinking about. In fact, however, it is something that should be very much on the minds of our voters on this upcoming Election Day. I am ( we are ) here today to explain why this Is true, not just here in ( city nuns ), but in cities and towns throughout the United States, as well. The fact of the matter is that it's time for Washington to stop sending us -- and our local taxpayers -- the bill for laws they create but don't want to pay for. This is a call ( We are calling) for more accountability in the way federal policies affect ( city name ) taxpayers. When Washington decides to impose -- but not pay for -- a costly program or requirement that local governments are directed to carry out, it's like a hidden tax on our community. These actions are called unfunded federal mandates. They have become a costly burden to cities and towns everywhere. For example, according to a nationwide survey of city finances by the National League of Cities, unfunded mandates are one of the top three adverse factors affecting local government finances. That's not something new, either. It's been like that for the past three years in reports compiled from budget and finance directors in more than 500 cities and towns. This week, ( city) will be joining with hundreds of other communities throughout the United States in calling for an end to unfunded mandates. It is both deceitful and wrong for Washington lawmakers to think they can solve problems simply by passing their cost along to us. Our leaders in Washington must begin to set priorities that fit within their available resources, just as our community and other cities must do every year. This is more than a simple debate over costs. When you are dealing with taxpayers' money, you have respect the value of those funds and set priorities. Unfunded mandates have the effect of distorting local priorities by diverting resources that could be used for other community needs. (Example of a local project not funded or cut because of mandated activity or cost.) The 1994 elections can help to restore accountability and responsibility in federal decisionmaking -- but only if candidates realize how disruptive and burdensome unfunded mandates can be. I over ) S) p In saying this, I ( we ) want our citizens -- as well as the candidates -- to know that the purpose here is not to quarrel with the intentions of laws enacted by Congress -- such as assuring a healthful environment and enabling people with disabilities to participate fully in our society. The issue is to understand what it costs. We want our citizens to be informed about the costs and who should pay for carrying out these good intentions. They can be enormously expensive, especially when using a rigid "one -size -fits -all" approach that ignores real world situations. ( Cite examples) from your community or region, if possible. J This in.ititive against unfunded mandates began in earnest last year as a grassroots local action campaign led by the National League of Cities, state municipal leagues and other local government organizations. It has begun to bring about changes in Washington. Arbitrary standards and procedures established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are being reexamined by Congress to reflect more realistic health concerns. A broad mandate -relief bill that would create a "truth in legislating" process also has gained broad bipartisan support in both the Senate and House of Representatives. The legislation in the Senate (S. 993) and a companion bill in the House (H.R. 4771) provide important safeguards and checkpoints for making sure Congress is being accountable for the mandates in laws or programs they create. I ( we ) believe any responsible candidate running for the House or Senate this year should state his or her position on this legislation and be held to it by our voters and local taxpayers. Achieving the objectives of national programs depends upon working together, and it's up to the local leaders of our communities -- and our voters -- to tell that to the candidates in this year's elections. We want people to know that it's unfair, and in some cases impossible, for local governments to pay for and carry out the costly one -size -fits -all programs that have characterized federal legislation for too long. The candidates are asking for support from the same voters who gave me (us) their trust and support to look after their interests here in ( city ). We can't always do that if Washington keeps telling us what to do and keeps taking our taxes to pay for programs of its choosing. If our voters and the candidates understand that, then we will be able to stop the buckpassing of unfunded mandates. am I "noen Letter" Commentary for Unfunded Mandates Week This is an open letter to the citizens of ( your city ) and to the candidates campaigning in this year's congressional elections. Let's have a spirited and healthy debate over national issues and priorities that Washington should decide, and let's also say something about who's going to pay for all those great ideas. Our city and others throughout the United States are footing the bill for more and more federal laws and regulations that require local governments to bear the cost of carrying out those programs. These actions, called unfunded mandates. can distort the process of allocating local tax revenues and setting local priorities here in f city ). When our voters cast their ballots in this year's Congressional elections, they should tell the candidates that it's time Mr Washington to stop sending us the bill for laws they create but don't want to pay for. Unfunded mandates are like a hidden tax on our community. Our leaders in Washington must begin to set priorities that fit within their available resources, just as our community and other cities must do every year. This is more than a simple debate over costs. When you are dealing with taxpayers' money, you have respect the value of those funds and set priorities. Unfunded mandates can interfere with local priorities by diverting resources that could be used for other community needs. (Example of a local project not funded or cur jecause of mandated activity or cost.) The 1994 elections can help to restoia accountability and responsibility in federal decisionmaking -• but only if candidates realize how disruptive and burdensome unfunded mandates can be. Congress has, in fact, begun to recognize problem and is considering legislation to establish greater accountability in calculating the cost and impact of federal programs. 1 / we ) believe any responsible candidate running for the House or Senate this year should state his or her position on this legislation and be held to it by our voters and local taxpayers. ( over ) CD X, In saying this, I t we ) want our citizens -- as well as the candidates -- to know that our motive is not to quarrel with the intentions of laws enacted by Congress -- such as assuring a healthful environment and enabling people with disabilities to participate fully in our society. The issue is to understand what it costs and who should pay for it. We want our citizens to be informed about the costs and who should pay for carrying out these good intentions. They can be enormously expensive, especially when using a rigid "one -size -fits -all" approach that ignores real world situations. Achieving the objectives of national programs depends upon working together. Our voters and the candidates should know that it's unfair, and in some cases impossible, for local governments to pay for and carry out the costly ' unfunded mandates that have characterized federal legislation for too long. The candidates are asking for support from the same voters who gave me las) their trust and support to look after their interests here in t city ). We can't always do that if Washington keeps telling us what to do and keeps taking our taxes to pay for programs of its choosing. If our voters and the candidates understand that, then we will be able to stop the buckpassing of unfunded mandates. 0 .0 CAtrrMN COMY hIANDA'f'ES AHEAD i EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE LOCAL ACTIVITIES for National Unfunded Mandates Week October 24 - 301 1994 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1301 Pennsylvania AvellUC, N.W. % ashin mn, D.C. 20004 e*nmpl e - iRrs lutivn an Pnfunbrb Whereas, unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments have increased significantly in recent years; Whereas, federal mandates require cities and towns to perform duties without consideration of local circumstances, costs, or capacity, and subject municipalities to civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance: Whereas, federal mandates require compliance regardless of other pressing local needs and priorities affecting the health, welfare, and safety of municipal citizens; Whereas, excessive federal burdens on local governments farce some combination of higher local taxes and fees and.'or reduced local services on citizens and local taxpayers; Whereas, federal mandates are toxo often inflexible, one -size -fits -all requirements that impose unrealistic time frames and specify procedures or facilities where less costly alternatives might be just as effective; Whereas, existing; mandates impose harsh pressures on local budgets and the federal government has imposed a freeze upon funding; to help compensate for any new m:u)dates; Whereas, the cumulative impact of these legislative and regulator) actions directly affect the citizens of our cities and towns; and Whereas, the National League of Cities, following up on last year's successful effort, is continuing its national public ecfucatio n campAgn to help citizens understand and Own reduce the burden and inflexibility of unfunded insulates, including:t National Unfunded Mandates Week, t )ctotkr 24-31), 1994; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the (C:ity.''I'own of•� ) endorses the efforts of the National League of Cities and supports working with NLC to fully inform our citizens .tbout the impact of federal m:u)dates on our government and the pocketbooks of our citizens; Be it further resolved that the (C:ity•'•I'own of ) enclorses organizing and participating in events during the week of October 24-30, 1994: and fill:illy Be it further resolved that the t Oiy "l'mvit of _ ) reso►I%'es to continue our efforts to %+.urk Wilh utert)bet's of our C:ongt'essional delega[ion to educate thein ;trout the impact of federal iiund:ttes and actions accessary to recluse their bUr(Jcn on our citizens. ..:,T_.... .... . _..... ... ....-........ ,..:ro....r.. ........v..a........... ...:.....w ............rM'rw:b .. ..... �a.�. ,e.. .._�+x..e-..rw.��Y,v..i.i - OFFICE OF GLENDA E. HOOD MAYOR October 27, 1993 (ffUg of (ffirluxnbo CITY HALL ONE CITY COMMONS 400 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801-3302 Chris Becker National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, #600 Washington DC 20004 Dear Chris: (407) 246.2221 FAX (407) 246-2842 We had a very successful "NUM" day which I wanted to share with you. Our presentation had a creative twist to it which provided great visual impact. Other cities may want to replicate it. Mayor Hood held a press conference outside of City Hall to educate the public on the impact unfunded federal mandates have on city governments. After surveying our department heads, we learned that 1.7 million dollars a year is spent in personnel costs to comply with unfunded federal mandates. That translates into 52 city employees. To visually demonstrate that impact we had 52 employees, primarily from our Public Works Department stand behind the Mayor. The Mayor then went on to say that if we did not have to have these 52 employees keeping track of our unfunded responsibilities, we could hire 37 additional police officers that would help us meet the mandate from our citizens who want us to continue to provide them with safe streets and neighborhoods. At that point in her speech 37 police officers walk in front of the Mayor. Wow! Say no more. I have enclosed a copy of the Mayor's remarks. I think you will particularly like our example on the water flea. I have also included photographs in case you would like to use them in any follow up stories you are doing on unfunded federal mandates. Also enclosed is our proclamation. I look forward to seeing you in December. Sincerely, Kathleen R. Russell Intergovernmental Relations Official MISSISSIPPI MI-XICIPAL ASSOCIATION PMMW, MAVOW Pitt VI/3111T. OK01.9NA Fan VK3 Pl Morr. MATH J. iD MmAK HATMOU80 Stme Vict Pamper. r. MAyin >.w= bm. RKHLANc At $A.;, 01Ti 1TIYt D11tKn* SUMMARY OF NATIONAL. UNFUNDED MANDATES DAY IN MISSISSIPPI 1. A press conference sponsored by the Mississippi Municipal Association was held at the Stade Capitol. More than 100 city, county; legislative and state officials were in attendance. Speakers included: *Governor ibrk Fordice *House Speaker Tim Ford *Senator Amy Tuck Powell, Chairman of the Senate County Affairs Committee *Mayor Bill Whitt, MMA President *Mayor John Robert Smith of Meridian, presenting cost figures on mandates *Mayor Monty Montgomery of Weir, telling how mandates hurt his town of 525 where he serves without pay *Supervisor Jamie McGowan, President of the Mississippi Association of Supervisors *Mayor Lester Spell, MMA Legislative Chairman Letters of support from our Congressional delegation were also read. The backdrop for the mews conference was an 8 x 8 foot sign with •Unfunded Mandates' in black letters inside a red circle. At the end of the news conference, the Governor and other officials spray painted a red line through the sign to show our symbolic ban on unfunded mandates. 2. A news conference was also held by the City of Meridian. 3. 90 Mississippi municipalities adopted resolutions in support of the day and sent press releases to their media and letters to their legislators and Congressmen. 600 F&ST Aunt STREET • )ACKSON. MS 19:01 •601.353-StU - 1 -SM -323.7641 • FAR 601.133-0433 10) Stressed -out cities Uncle Sam, stop b RlWpmr- By Randall Higgins ftchm. "P t.fts Today is National Unfunded Mandates Day. Unlike most special days, it celebrates nothing. It is sort of like Halloween, though: a nightmare for local politicians who have to find some way to pay for somebody else's ideas. "In plain language, it means local school systems, municipalities and coun- ties must find a way to fund programs seni to them from their state capital or the national capital." said Kelly Snyder, speaking for the Dalton. Ga., school sys- tem. Dalton will be one of 10 sites across Georgia where local political leaders get together today to focus on the problem — a growing list of things they are told they must do with no money provided to pay for it. In Tennessee, there will be meetings today in Chattanooga and five other ci- ties. A University of Tennessee study found that the average Tennessean paid $55.34 last year for unfunded mandates. The study estimates that Congress has forced Tennessee cities to spend a total of at least S2 billion in city taxes to comply with federal mandates. What's an unfunded mandate? When the federal government says local gov- ernments must remove asbestos from public buildings. keep underground stor- age tanks from leaking, test drinking water or provide acct -ss for the handi- capped — that's an unfunJed mandate. The mandates are nothing more than a sneaky way for Congress to raise taxes by making folks at the courthouse do it, the politicians say. "The federal government thinks of all these good ideas, but they don't send any money to do it with. They can't pay for it themselves because of the way they've spent money, so it ends up getting passed down to the cities and counties." said Hamilton County Commissioner Paul Nolan. In Hamilton County. some of the mandates can be funded with money from the general fund, but that source can only go so far, No- lan said. "The only place we can get addi- tional money is from a property tax increase." he said. The Marion Cbunty Commission Passed a resolution Tuesday night calling for a halt to unfunded man- dates. The Hamilton County Com- mission passed a similar resolu- tion last week Other area commis- sions have already done so or will get a chance to at their next meet- ing. "It's real easy to pass a law and let somebody else pay the bill," said Marion County Executive Hal .Boss. "Then we have to go out and say 'hey, folks, we have to raise your property taxes or the federal government will cut off all our funds."' "I don't want to blast legisla- tors," Moss said, "but I want them to realize they are putting us in a difficult situation." Bledsoe County Executive Ed Frazier said he has no quarrel with keeping the environment clean. But legislators must realize, he said. that in rural counties, with little sales taxes to draw on. those regulations are pard for with property taxes. "In Bledsoe County, we feel the taxis are high enough for what we have to offer back to the general public." Frazier said. "Therefore. when state and federal mandates are levied on us, it's like an over- taxing of the people." Perhaps Congress could put some of its own tax money into an escrow account to help pay for some of the mandates it passes. Frazier said. The mandates affect city govern- ments, too. The Athens City Council, at its last meeting, joined a growing list of towns passing resolutions call- ing for a mandate halt. Kay Burton in the city manager's office recalled how one mandate •— to remove asbestos from public buildings — forced the city to bor- row money. That loan was just re- cently paid off, she said. plead0 : filling us O1- Ir�;iQi{,ffawi fait vsii 4. all 11 Mnua Pair person "We don't have a Quarrel with the intention of most federal laws," said Cleveland Mayor Tom Rowland. "It's just that a hand reaching down from Washington to grab our local tax dollars wreaks havoc with our commun- ity's own priorities. We want our citizens to understand we aren't always free to spend our local taxes the way we would like." "Tennessee state government is forbidden by stag law from man- dating unfunded programs to local government. The federal go%ern- ment should shoulder the same re- sponsibility," Rowland said. National Unfunded Mandates Day is a project of the National League of Cities and other national organisations. In Tennes- see. it's headed by the Tennessee Municipal League. They arc asking for support of proposed legislation to at least stop the mandates for a while. if not pay for them. L: S. Sen. Jim Sasser said Tues- day he will introduce a bill to ease thi! burdens. He will sponsor the Federal Mandate Funding Act of 1993. ' Athens tit?,OOD $9.29 _ $106119,367 .$6&37 Cleveland $5,040 .17 i ) lemphis $41,748,001 56111.40 �O(t Rt*. ,- .. 1896,010 532.81 Tullahoma 5346,175 $20.65 "We don't have a Quarrel with the intention of most federal laws," said Cleveland Mayor Tom Rowland. "It's just that a hand reaching down from Washington to grab our local tax dollars wreaks havoc with our commun- ity's own priorities. We want our citizens to understand we aren't always free to spend our local taxes the way we would like." "Tennessee state government is forbidden by stag law from man- dating unfunded programs to local government. The federal go%ern- ment should shoulder the same re- sponsibility," Rowland said. National Unfunded Mandates Day is a project of the National League of Cities and other national organisations. In Tennes- see. it's headed by the Tennessee Municipal League. They arc asking for support of proposed legislation to at least stop the mandates for a while. if not pay for them. L: S. Sen. Jim Sasser said Tues- day he will introduce a bill to ease thi! burdens. He will sponsor the Federal Mandate Funding Act of 1993. X Virginia localities say "Enough already!" on National Unfunded Mandates Day Virginia's local government leaders united against unfunded mandates today, declaring "Enough already!" during an event at Richmond City Hall. Standing shoulder to shoulder next to stacks of regulatiQtsl_the officials spoke against state ana tederal programs that localities are required to implement and pay for. Organized by the Virginia Association of Counties, Virginia Municipal League and Virginia School Boards Association, the news conference was part o: National Unfunded Mandates Day. Also on hand to lend support were the Metro Richmond Chamber of Commerce and the Virginia League of Social Service Executives. National Unfunded Mandates Day, which was observed throughout the country by hundreds of local governments, sought to raise public awareness and understanding of the problem of the federal and state governments imposing but not funding programs that local governments are directed to carry out. The event was sponsored by four national organizations - National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors and International City/ County Management Association. In his welcoming remarks, Richmond Mayor Walter Denney acknowledged that it is rare to see such sweeping agreement among local officials "You inay know that in this region, it sometimes seems that we don't agree on much," he said. "But, as you can see, we are united here today. This is an issue that all of our regional leaders agree on - we cannot afford to keep paying for the free -spending ways of Congress." Wearing lapel buttons declaring "Enough already!", the officials stressed that they do not oppose the goals of federal and state mandates but that localities cannot continue to foot the bill for inflexible programs. "We all agree that clean air, safe drinking water, fair wages and protecting endangered species are commendable national priorities that should be carried out," said Harry G. Daniel, president of the Virginda As;.ociation of Counties and member of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors. "However - and this is a big however - we also believe that the federal government must be willing to pay to support these programs." Daniel compared unfunded federal mandates to someone using his credit card to purchase expensive "gifts" for him. "On a muck larger scale, this is what the federal government is doing to us," he said, but it is the taxpayers who are paying the bill. Virginia Municipal League President john Lemley, who is town manager of Christiansburg, compared unfunded mandates to Halloween. "The feds keep coming to our doors saying 'trick or treat' and we have to put more money in their bags. I think ... the expression should be 'trick and treat.' They trick us with mandates, and we have to treat anyway." The officials said that whenever a locality spends a dollar on a state or federal program that locality must either cut a dollar from its basic services or it must raise taxes. Localities provide basic programs that no one else provides, and if local governments don't supply "crucial services — education, police and fire, health, welfare, buses, public housing — no one else will," Kenney said. "But at the same time, we must pay the bill for the host of other things that Washington thinks would be nice to have. Well, I say send the check along with the checklist." Across Virginia, local governments have taken a stand against unfunded mandates: at least 39 counties, 12 cities and 25 towns have passed anti -mandate resolutions. (A list of these localities, along with a sample resolution, is included in the press packet.) A recent survey by the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Asrzociation of Counties indicated which mandates are most burdensome to Virginia cal governments: the maze of landfill regulations, water requirements like the Safe Drinking Water Act and storrnwater regulations, teacher salary mandates, recycling requirements and dd-11 wetland regulations. How much are local governments spending on unfunded mandates? Henrico County recently estimated that unfunded federal mandates alone cost local taxpayers $11,115,707 in fiscal year 1993. That's equal to two parks, two libraries, 25 police officers and 33 schoolteachers. A survey conducted by Price Waterhouse for the National Association of -ounties estimated that U.S. counties are spt�nding $.1.8 billion each year to comply with ust 12 of the many unfunded federal mandates. (Complete survey information is included in the press packet.) "Let me stress again," Daniel said, "It is not the goals we oppose. What we oppose is twofold: First, the one -size -fits -all mentality of mandates. As many of you know, one -size - fits -all clothing rarely fits anyone well. And, finally, the fact that these goals are important enough for Congress to require us to do but not important enough for them to pay for." Lemley spelled out what local officials want trom the state and federal governments: Flexibility to implement programs "so that we are not subject to the same testing standards that Honolulu and New York City" face because their needs are different. "Local officials believe that if the federal government feels strongly enough about meeting a need, then thev should feel strongly enough to send the money to meet that need," he said. fl Unfunded mandates tax city budgets By- DON PORTER and JON MOO Tn urs SUR wre" SOUTH BEND —1MW govem !scot officials say they'are brad of taking the blame for Al-- that was never their idea in the drat Pte• Unfunded mandates passed ibwn to the local level by the fed- eral, and state cggouvne=eobte am to South Bar ixidgets, ad Mayor Joseph E. Kerman and Rob - ad G Seutter, his Miahawalm 1=fdd sews cozdaenoes. Nedoesdo to mark a new National t is _0i _Vwreatal by localImMandates .Lova o- taeat odkw Bred of talanut the but for picking up the tab for aomab* else's programs. line p ew%mts urclude nwV wish broad pobbcal support — the Clean Air Act. Americans with Dwab ties Act, labor laws and this yNes as - Good verlec registration law — until it comes time to pay up, Cites and counties have felt the l5aeadsl peessu I gow+ing since the 19Eos, when Coagreas elindnated revenue sharing pprro-o- grams that pumped federal doikars into local treasuries. Carrying out prog-arns mandated by Congress and the state is ex- pected to cost about $17 miltion m South Bead dewing the Hari sin Years. Kerman said. sat . At the same timme, revenue to the city Born those two levels of government has des creased by about $20 mitllon a year since 1980, he added In btal awalor, utititp e.'Ustomers already have seen how rates can be affected by federal mandates, Beut- ter said. He pointed to sewage rate iacs+exses of 45 and 73 percent en- acted over the last severd yeeam to meet federal treatment requires meats. And it will get much worse be. to 1995 d current stale and sterni ntiandalea continue as pro• jected, according to Beutter and Wastewater Treatment Plant Man. am Kart Kopec. 'To and the reawaL M01101 runts," Bei NAK "But to ice. with our cnoftvved tact !sign, it's act a states of raisim taxes. So W*. tea been in tae lbrm of user bees." >?bkn* mandated costa bap erste the treatment plat coctW sk Ymcket to more than $►25 mffm a year if actions are oorrect, Kopec said plant's annual 0 erabudget is now abort H mt>CL- "rhe goals orf the mandated pro• are good, but. good inten- _"hi WashUqathe nsa d�" Ur coded am Dew twwa passed at the adonal level but paamd on to the local level for ool- "We 1n load government are at the bottom of the food chain," he added, "We have no recourse but to Wflemeot the things they man. Pwps3gftoTaWhaemWb Remain estimated that it costs the average South Bead household about 473 a year is taxes and user fees to pq formandated but sat Amded sad state Local oRSaais want state and ted - Wal gMMMeats is stop tag on mandates to them maless they an taw landed. Kerma soil. "We don't think that's un- ressomsbte," he said. "ft's tr-* r espon" to do othetwlae." "!bat's the problem caused by these aatremely. expensive man_ dates, If the fedaW sad ataee Sow its don% gf't'e Assistance, the only place you can loom to for fund• ing is henna ratepayers!' Kopec acid. One mandate that could bit Miah- swala hard, be added, Is a pending i5 re%dtemea 11w cities to separate they present combbW storm and aoitaty sewer mains. 91 in eaff % to tows on tha" maadatea issue ars tb&R U.S. Cankmace-of M,gam the Na. tions! Association of Counties. the National Lague of Clam and the meat�aAsm**dloab'! Nowell- meat 1lma e' lining up In stwort it leodation to the Rowse and Senate to rein basalt the W hdded taamdatee. Sea Bkhard Q I.oW. Rte. • coapansw of the Senate measure, aid "load otgoale ate in a bow pW*M thas their congremiaad ctwunkmeerts to judge local needs "Ibis bill would &act the Cow 1P I k real Budget once to die- Wmine MW coats hearted by atata and 10CI = N.a MCA of any measure before Csegttss,' Lugar said -73e bill would thea ex- empt them fto new federal regu- Wien that n MAndaw IN Amooww twee earlww" fin area surer. UnfundedMR.dates cost each of you $35 .W.n~ Federal mandates imposed op cities without federal financial sup• port to pay for them will coat each Lincoln resident about tis in fiscal year 1943-94. Mayor Mike Jobanm said this morning. That conies to more than $T millkwk Johann said during a news confer. ewe at the Lincoln Water System of- fices. ffices. "Our goal today is to try to call at- tention to that." the mayor said. Johann' presentation was one of several in Nebraska and many na- tionwide to raise public awareness of the problems cities face when federal laws are passed but no money is pro- v4ded to help local governments im. plement them. The mayor also spoke of the frus- trations cities face because federal mandates are not flexible enough to adapt to local conditions. For example, the city monitors its water supply for a wide variety of chemicals as required under federal law — including one pineapple farm- ers spray on their crops. The application to Lincoln. Ne- braska. is questionable" said Steve Masters of the city's Public Works Department. Between 1960 and 1985. federal law- makers passed 17 mandates for which the cost was passed on to the cities. Johann said. Between 1989 and 1992. that number jumped to 88. Meanwhile. during the past 12 years. federal funding to cities has been cut by two-thirds. he said. The National League of Cities. U.S. Conference of Mayors and state and local municipal leagues organized today's news conferences to call at- tention to this The most expensive unfunded fed- eral mandates relate to environmen- tal management. Johanna and other city officials said But that's not the only area where federal require- ments hit local budgets hard. The city's Parks and Recreation City officials are not insensitive to the problems the federal legislation is trying to address, Mayor Mike Johanna said. But "the local person is the one paying for it. We don't print the money." Department needs to snake more than $1 million worth of improve- ments to the parks system to meet regulations in the Americans With Disabilities Act. Johann said in fact. the federal deadline for doing the work already has passed. But the only way the city can pay for that work is through property taxes. he said. It it all were to be done in one year, the city's share of the local property tax would have to go up 4 percent. That doesn't even address ADA re- quirements at other local govern- ment properties. he said. The city has budgeted $55.000 in 1993-94 for ADA requirement& of which about half goes to parks. That's pretty wed a drop in the buck- et." Johann said. City officials are not insensitive to the problems the federal legislation is trying to address. he said. But. "the local person is the one paying for it. We don't print the money." South Sioux City Delivers Effective Message Reprinted by permission from the South Sioux City Stas by William Huegerich Unfunded Mandates Day, Oct. 27, was organized to show the tax- payer where a lot of their money is going, according to City Admini- strator Lance Hedquist. South Sioux City is trying to show people how the increasing costs from federal mandates are and will in the future. impact the taxpayers. Hedquist said these mandates have good intentions but are not backed with the needed funding. "Do you want clean water? Do you want clean air? Of course you do." Hedquist said. "But it's got- ten to the point where you can't af- ford to take every pollutant out of the air." lie said that from 1980 to 1992, fede-;al spending on foreign uid grew 177 percent while spending on cities dropped 54 percent. Stormwater Discharge One of these unfunded mandates deals with stormwater discharges. South Sioux City has nine places where water drains into the Missouri River. The city will have to get recording rain gauges in each of these areas to sample the rainfall. Flow meters will be installed at the outlet pipes which are cali- brated and programmed. "When you think a storm is going to happen, you then dispatch people to these locations to take two different samples." Hedquist said. First the city would take a test rod and take a sample out of the water. This sample must be taken immediately to a testing lab to test for bacteria. It must be done within a short period of time or any bacteria would die, according to I ledquist. Next, a flow analysis would be done over a three-hour period. These samples would be put on ice and also taken to a test lab. Final. EFFECTIVE 8 16 9 COMPACTOR HOURS MONDAY THRU SATURDAY OPEN 9:00 AM CLOSE 5:00 PM COMPACTOR FEES 1. AUTOMOBILE 2. PICK-UP W/0 RACK TWO WHEEL TRAILER 3. AND VANS RACK 4. FOUR WHEEL TRAILER S. LARGE APPLIANCES 6. FURNMAE 7. TIRES $2.00 1.m 8.00 10.00 4.00 EACH 4.00 EACm Earl Dye. Supervisor of South Sioux City, stands by a sign listing com- pactor fees necessary to help pay for increased costs of operating the landfill. ly, the equipment would require clean-up, recalibration and routine maintenance. According to Hedquist, only a representative rainfall can count. If it rains too little or too much, the sample wouldn't count. He added that it doesn't matter what the size of the discharge stream is. The same tests are required for a small creek as for the Missouri River. Once a problem is found. Hed- quist said they will probably ask them to treat it. The cost would be huge fuer the labor. equipment and testing laboratory costs according to Hedquist. "We've at least got Congress to delay the implementation and to push the date we have to start but it appears the issue is inevitable," he said. The Federal Government Clean Water Act requires cities to do this testing starting with the largest. Road Construction "They're talking about requiring us to do computer analysis of traf- fic pollutants." Hedquist said. "lWestl 29th Street would not be built today if this rule was in ef- fect." The computer analysis would look at the traffic flow, emissions and alternatives to reduce pollutants. This would delav con- struction as well as add the cost of installing and using tb.• computer modeling package. 141 ♦Ittttt.�SK.\ .�u �u'IP.��. �tP.� �P.w 4%0%t:�ttttac m-1; Transformer Transformers are filled with oil which used to cause them to catch fire easily. An additive called a Poly Chlorinated Biphenol or PCB, was developed to stop these fires. The city was required to add this to all the transformers. According to Hedquist, the federal government later thought PCBs were carcino- genic and said the city had to take them all out again. "We're done now but we've spent over $150.000 getting rid of the PCBs and now what's being said is 'We're not sure that was really the problem we thought it was.' " he said. Hedquist said the federal govern- ment tends to overreact. Once a little problem is found, it has to be taken care of before scientific studies are done. "There is a little risk to living." Hedquist said. "No matter what you do." Landfills "The bottom line is your sanita- tion bill is going to go up or your service is going to drop." lledquist said. He said the Environmental Pro- tection Agency is requiring the same regulations for all landfills regardless of size or location. Liners are required which cost $3.80 per square yard. Compacted soil used to ;-.e the only require- ment with no liners. "1'ou think about acres of land at -1 Oct. 27, National Unfunded Mandates Day $3.80 per yard. you're talking about big bucks." Hedquist said. He said he expects a 20 percent increase in operating costs which is almost entirely from unfunded mandates. Lead and Copper "The city's water is great. We have no lead or copper problems," Hedquist said. "You may have a problem in your house because you may have copper lines or lead solder." The EPA wants to find the houses with the worst problems, generally those built from 1980 to 1986. During those years, some lead was allowed in the solder. Hedquist said because a few houses have problems, they are re- quired to treat the entire city water supply. "Copper is not noted to be a real- ly bad chemical overall," he said. "There's a real question to whether they can't even take it off the list." Problem is Over The EPA has refused to do so up to this point. Hedquist said if people run their water a few seconds before taking a drink, the problem is over. "Most people I know don't take the first swig of water anyway." he said. They are required to take the first drop out of the faucet in the morning for their testing however. Out of the first 36 cities to test. 19 have failed the copper standard so far. Hedquist said in addition to the cost of adjusting the PH level of the water, at least $20,000, there are other potential problems. He said when Milwaukee ad- justed its PH, 300,000 people became sick because a bacteria became a problem with the chemis- try change. Water Treatment Plant Testing "Right now we test for 1 i 1 chemicals and contaminants," Hedquist said. **The 1 IIA has a goal to add 25 chemicals every year to that list plus refining the old ones." He added that one of the tests they are required to do is for it chemical banned in [tie continental United States which is only used as a pesticide for pineapples in Hawaii. "We have to spend all this money and do all this testing when there isn't even a problem per- ceived by the public." Hedquist said. "We expect our cost to triple in the next two years and that's a conservative estimate." Radon Testing will also be required for rad(,n. Hedquist said homes with r --don problems are most likely from cracks in the basement or because of their location, not from the water. If a radon treatment plant were required to treat the water, the cost would be a large burden on the taxpayers. An estimate for a plant with a capacity of 100,000 gallons per day is $250,000 to $300,000 to build, $65.000 to S100,000 for the water mains and $18.000 to $36.000 an- nual operating and maintenance costs. South Sioux City would need a plant significantly larger than that using 4.200.000 gallons of water per day. Requests South Sioux City is requesting three things from the federal government. First, federally passed mandates should be funned by the federal government. - Second, there should be research supporting cost benefits from the mandates. They shouldn't be im- plemented if the systems are below standards. Finally. mandates should not treat all areas the same. The pro- blems and requirements vary from area to area depending on size, location and other factors. ■ !hark Wiltgen, Water Plant Operator of South Sioux Ciry shrugs Council - member Alaxine 1►oskovich hots to run a lab rest. Iron r%ir A'ebrasku Water Operator Excellence Award in 1919-1. 1%41%-1.)Iltl.lt IIII) t ♦I. tilt %Sh % Nit ',It 11• a lit % It %% 11 Annual unfunded mandate costs to the Cite of Greensboro are approximately S11 million. This amount would fund any one of the following: • Costs to hire and train :_0 police officers. Costs to hire and train 44 tirefiehters. • Operations of our recreation centers for a decade. Operations of our branch libraries for more than six years. I • operations of otir regional parks for more than six years, {r annual costs of S11 million plus identified one-time costs of S7.3 million would provide funds for operations of any one of the following: '7 • Parks and Recreation Department for more than one year. • Fire Department for more than one year. Engineering and Inspections Department for three years. • Transportation Department for more than one year. • Libraries for four years. Annual costs of $11 million plus identified one-time costs of $7.3 million would provide funds for the following capital improvement projects: • Culture and Recreation -Recreation Center., Ice Facility. New Slain Library and one branch library. or • Transportation and Public Safety - Multi -modal Ground "transportation Center and five fire stations. 1 WHAT BOISEANS WILL PAY FOR FEDERAL MANDATES IN FY 94 PUBLIC .WORKS., a w a a a a. s .. $ 8,388,000 sludge regulations, water pretreatment, underground storage tank removal, -remediation AIRPORT. 9 an man $ 5,500,000 runway lighting, new signs, increased security, environmental compliancelmonitoringlinspection PARKS .......0a9aasssss..aaaa0aa$11900,000 federal playground standards, ADA, chemical storage standards PERSONNEL.,............. a w mom P$61 Or6l 5 FICA, Fair Labor Standards, Labor Mgmt. Relations Act, Civil Rights Act, Age Discriminalion Act, Drug Free Workplace Act, EEOC Rags, immigration Regs, Equal Pay Act, etc. BUSs■■ssss■ssseen* onss■..••seeassws$385,685 Drug testing, Commercial Drivers License Regs, ADA, etc. POLICE/FIRE/OTHER.......... $ 230,762 HAZMAT Training, ADA, Tracking of habitual offenders, Bidding laws, Surplus sales, Public records laws TOTAL $17,015,062 Beard says Congress needs to learn about unfunded mandates By M. Scott Morris atatt SA Editor My local taxpayer knows the city of Jackson down t have an on- limitod sgu ly,of money to spend. and Mayor Nomts Beard said that a lesson Congressional leaders need to learn. in order to teach that lesson. the National League of Cities and the Alabama League Of untcipalities arc sponsorsnngg "National Unfunded . Mandates Week" from Oct- 24 through Oct. 30, and Oct. 27 was "National Unfunded Mandates Beard said the increase in garbage fees to $12.35 for residential cus- tomers and 30 pert ret hikes for commercial customers aro the result of unfunded mandates. She said the county could no longer afford to operate the landfill. Since 1991, the yearly fee for garr- bage disposal in a landfill has tni- creased from $23,400 a year to S 180.510 a year. Remember, that's just for the landfill," she said. City Administrator Jesse Miller said the environmental regulations passed by the United States En- vironmental Protection Agency (USEPA) through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) dictate safety peoeatidons that a rural county or city cannot realistically meet Miller said landfill regulations in- clude applying two liners in the landfill and protecting the ground water supply from landfill runoff. We're not saying somelhin shouldn't be done about that. Millet said. but the city cannot Af- ford to operate a landfill due to those regulations. Beard said the city has no problem with the regulations, but finding money to implement the regulations is a definite concern. She said cities throughout the na- tion have the same problems, and they've banded together to impress upon Congress the trouble caused when laws are passed that do not contain funding. "We're not going to tell thein how to do it." Beard said. adding that Congress nieeds to took harder before passing costs ono the cities. According to a press release from tdtc NadotW Lc" e'Or Cities- in 1990 the USEPA sdicied that by the year 2000. ci vid towns will have to spend a.:.8 billion sn- ntally just to =that federal envily tel mandates that were then in effect. That cost does sot include regulations passed since then and is equivalent to a 32 per- cent property tax increase for local ts. Wgo sir and Sewer Department Su- perintendent David Dolbeac said, 'Everyday it seems like something new cornea down." The Jackson Water and Sewer Board is considering a bond issue that will provide $l million, and if the issue occurs. nearly $800.000 of the money will be spent tto the city within USEPA re - UNFUNDED !STOP MANDATES TAeboard plans to spend toughly S37S.0W ore the wastewater treat - would include to the and 5400.000 on filler backwash at the water trestmtertt plant. Dolbear said one problem with the mandates is they are applied without regard to region. so the city in togs that can't be found AlaBeard said the National League of Cities is attempting tc have man- dates adjusted for individual regiotas, which means cities would be exempt fnorn u least some amesmy & Millet un- said a•waterypbut is an ex- pansive investment for a city - $5 or $6 million for a town thd'size of Jackson. and unfunded mandates intake it even more difficult for rural citiesto operale water plants. The Water and Sewer Boats is currently considering privatizing the city's water system. partly as a result of =Z`me "We're against poisoning our watet system." Miller said, adding that many of the mandates were in- tended ID benefit people. but if costs continue to interest, so will taxes. Dolbear said at one time the federal govemment provided funds to anpiartettt regulations, but that is no =get case. '?hey have to provide a means of funding these mandates." he said. 71te mayor said the purpose of "National Unfunded Mandates Week" is also to inform local citizens of the problems affecting cities. "We're not fighting against the environment." she said, but the money needed to comply with find.regulations keeps getting harder to Federal government must stop creating unfunded mandates By W.D. Workman III One hundred thirty million dollars — it's enough to pay the salaries of over 600 police officers for six years. It's enough to repave over 3,800 miles of roads. It's enough to fund the total budgets of Greenville County and the cities of Greenville. Greer, Mauldin, Simpsonville, Fountain Inn and Travelers Rest for 14 months. Instead, Greenville County's citizens will spend $130 million to pay the costs of 10 unfunded federal mandates during the years 19911998. Mandates are Iaws, regulations and standards with which local governments must comply. Of course, there is always a cost to achieve compli- ance and most federal mandates do not provide the funding to pay these costs. Unfunded mandates are a national problem, with a total estimated cost of over 5430 billion. They directly affect almost every local government and, therefore. every citizen in our nation. Unfunded federal mandates have become one of the single largest financial burdens on local govern- ments; their cost has outstripped the ability of local governments to pay for them. Unfunded federal mandates have resulted in horror stories across the nation. You hear about cities that are forced to build expensive new facili- ties whose cost far exceeds the total yearly budget for the entire city. You hear of local governments forced to double or triple millage rates in response to requirements over which they have no control. There are government entities that must spend mil- lions of dollars to achieve miniscule and sometimes questionable benefits. Such evidence aside, it is clear the increasing number of federal mandates have forced local governments to raise taxes, in- crease fees, cut services or shift resources away from local priorities. Mandates come in many forms and some are highly technical. The technical nature of mandates is one of the reasons the general public does not know much about the mandates and their impact. Helping the public and particularly national elected officials understand the impact of unfunded federal mandates was the purpose of National Un- funded :Mandates Day on Oct. 71. This was a proj- ect of the National League of Cities, U.S Confer- ence of Mayors, National Association of Counties and other organizations concerned with the viabil- ity of local government. The primary local government entities in Green- ville County joined in this effort. The cities of Greenville, Travelers Rest, !Mauldin, Simpsonville, Fountain Inn and Greer as well as the county of Greenville, the Greenville Water System and West. ern Carolina Regional Sewer Authority joined to calculate the collective cost of unfunded mandates in Greenville County. The impact is substantial. From 1990 until 1998, the primary local governments in Greenville County will spend in excess of =130 million to meet the requirements of the "top 10" unfunded federal mandates. The mandates include: — Underground storage tank remediation — Clean Water Act — Clean Air Act — landfill regulations — Safe Drinking Water Act — Asbestos removal — Lead-based paint removal — Endangered Species Act — Americans with Disabilities Act — Fair Labor Standards Act And Greenville County citizens shoult' realize this list (and price tag) does not reflect spending on these mandates before 1993 or past 1999. Plus, this is only the cost for ten mandates. The total cost of all mandates is even higher. The growth in unfunded federal mandates has become an increasingly significant problem_ for local governments in recent years. The number of mandates has increased substantially while federal funding for local governments has decreased dramatically. C4,ngressional representatives and policymakers in the federal bureaucracy, in re- sponse to the pressure of special interest groups. have enacted legislation and regulations which force local governments to respond to perceived problems. Despite all of the rhetoric about government streamlining, government down -sizing, and govern- ment reengineering, the federal government has pumped out mandates at an astonishing rate. One observer estimated the federal government is producing more than 100 unfunded mandates every 10 years. In most cases, local government leaden have no quarrel with the intentions of the laws and regula- tions enacted by the federal government. In most cases, the issues which the mandates concern should be addressed. Who can argue against clean water, clean air and landfills that don't pollute? The problem is how local governments are forced to address these issues. The federal mandates require local govern- ments to perform duties without consideration of local circumstances, costs or capacity. 'They sub- ject the local governments to civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance. Federal mandates require compliance regard- less of other pressing local needs and prionties af- fecting the health, welfare and safety of citizens. And, the federal mandates are often inflexible, im- posing requirements with unrealistic timeframes and specifying procedures or facilities that are more costly than other strategies that could be as effective. stop unfunded mandates you happen to be at City Hall today. you are likely Ispot a sign posted on the Dors warningg, "Caution — Costly Mandates Aheadl" It is our way of joining with mayors across America to let our citizens and representatives in Washington know what mandates are doing to city budgets and local taxpayers. What is an unfunded mandate? It is a requirement of the federal government for a specific program. The "mandate" means it must be done by a certain deadline with very specific rules about how it will be done. Who pays for federal mandates? You do, as a taxpayer or businessperson, by inc-;, aw 4 local taxes and fees. The federal government adopts legislation or establishes regulations without providing the dollars. It's left to local governments to raise the dollars to pay for the mandates. Mandates are set without considering our local circumstances or capacity to respond and implement them. For example, in the West Texas area, only nine of 55 landfills remain open. Most have closed due to federal mandates of Subtitle D requirements. All these cities have seen or will see a significant increase in the cost of their refuse collection. Mandates set priorities without local input. What this means for our citizens is "spending without representation" because federal and state governments choose how the city of Abilene will spend its resources without regard to our community priorities. Unfunded mandates take away our ability to respond to the needs of our community as we are faced with the difficult choice of raising taxes or cutting important programs that impact the quality of life in this city. .m Mayor McCaleb Guest Columnist How much do unfunded mandates really cost? A lot. Here in Abilene, the cost of mandates for the landfill. water and wastewater in 1993 was $771.900: in 1994 that cost will be $1,331,000. You and I can identify critical priorities in this community that those dollars could be used to address. Another key ;ssue of unfunded mandates is that we do not even have a choice in identifying less costly alternatives. Everyone falls under a "one size fits all" solution. In the case of Abilene's landfill, new regulations require a composite liner, two feet of compacted clay material covered with a synthetic liner sheet, which is designed to deal with worst case situations. These worst case situations include groundwater contamination, but in Abilene's case, we have no groundwater. However. the "cookie cutter" model of regulations does not consider the soil and water characteristics of a landfill liner site. The City Council and I are not apposed to mandates that protect citizens' public health, safety and civil rights. We support national goals to assure clean air, water and a healthy and safe environment. Two mandates that will increase the quality of life for our citizens that we are implementing are the Amerizans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medtcal Leave Act. But even in these examples, adding tleubility and input for local governments could have made a good solution even better. Why should citizens care about unfunded mandates? Your checkbook. Unfunded mandates provide Washington a way to write a blank check on your checkbook, which is passed down through our city budget toyou, through increased fees and taxes. Washington is able to avoid taking the heat that comes with having to pay for these programs. What can citizens do about mandates? You can write or call your representatives in Congress to urge them to: 1. Stop passing legislation that requires our city to spend dollars without input into the decision. 2. Consider what the real cost of implementing and monitoring mandates will be, how it will be paid for and by whom, before voting on legislation. 3. Review existing federal mandates to make them more flexible and provide local governments more input in setting priorities and implementing mandates. 4. Support the Kempthorne-Condit Bill, which would require that mandates imposed by the federal government include dollars to cover the costs. The City Council and staff will continue to alert you when an increased cost is due to an unfunded mandate. Your refuse bill will carry the message, "New refuse rates due to Federal/State mandates." Together, we can get the attention of our representatives in Washington and work to regain our ability to make decisions about our community needs and priorities. Together, we can make a difference' MANDATES AHEAD BACKGRO AILAPMRIAILS for National Unfunded Mandates Week October 24 - 30, 1994 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1301 Pennsylvania AvenLie, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 11 1 WHADDAYA MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY TOOLS? -GET To WORK v wr•W-w- IV a AM a CCv uestions &I'Inswers On Unfunded Mandates NATIONAL LE -AGUE OF CPl'1F.S 1301 Pennsylvania A%- nuc . NAV Washington, D.C. 2O()O-1 What are federal mandates? Federal mandates are requirements placed on local governments by the federal government to perform specified tasks. They are "mandates" because they must be done, and they are "federal" because the national government enacts them. To determine if something is a mandate for your city or town just ask the question: "Must my city do this or risk civil or criminal penalties?" i who pays for federal mandates? A JL * local citizens and businesse, pay for nxost federal I11:u1c1:►tcs through incrcascd local taxes and fees. Most federal mandates are unfunded or unclerfurldecl. This means the federal government adopts the legislation and/or establishes regulatory requirements without appropriating any federal funds to inlplenlent the legislation or regulations. The costs for implementation are left to the local government. ♦ Why are mandates a problem? VFederal mandates are :► prohleni for three reasons- (1) they are iniposed without :onsideratlon of local cirCLI1115CInCes or capacity to implement the federal requirements: (2) they strain already tight budgets forcing increases in local t:►x rates :incl fees to pay for mandates, continue to provide local services. and keep 10t:11 budgets in Ihalance: and (i) they set priorities for local govenunents without local input. Because most mandates require coi11p1i3llce regardless of other pressing local needs. federal mandates often "squeeze out" projects and activities that are local priorities and which could contribute nu)re t() local health, welfare and safety than the specific action or activity dictated by federal ()r re+_ulatioil. Local dollars spent on federal ill.�.Idates is nlolicy that cannot he spent O[I local priorities ♦ Why should citizens care about federal mandates? Federal mandates allow the federal government to write checks on the local government's checkbook. 'they interfere with local decision-making and give authority to remote federal lawmakers and bureaucrats rather than easily accessible local mayors and councilnlenlbers. And, perhaps most importantly, they force local gOvCrnnlents to raise local taxes and fees in order to comply with federal mandates and maintain local services. • What can local leaders do about mandates? Local government leaders must begin to speak out ah<Mt the impact of federal mandates on their government. its budget, and on the pocketbooks of citizens. They must also take reslunsibihty for educating their constituents ahout the impact of federal [nandates on local priorities and local budgets. National organizations representing stale and local governments in Washington are providing inforrtlatlorl Intl resources to help local leaders educate themselves, their constituents, and their Congressional delegations about the impact of federal mandates and the urgent need to create :I better way 0f doing h1ISille�S — a partnership where levels of local government .vork to)getller w :Igrl•e MI prlolrltics Incl ntl•Illods ()t achieving those shared i o nitllitillents. What can citizens do about mandates? Citizens should write Or call their repreaent:uives In o.ol1gleS5 to (11-ge that they: ( 1) step paSSillg legislation that reyulreti I(Wlil IO spend millions opt dollars without :Itty input Intel the (.ICCISion; t?i LonadL•I much rlrcue L-AletI111%. the COST and Inlllact of mandates on local colullIm,itics \\.hcn •,n Iegislatiorl. and ( i) revte�� existing federal luandatcs to make Ihenl Vlore tic•slI)Ic and per11111 grc:ltc r Ioc:II goverlullent au1011OB • in Setting prioritie..S and inll�lelnentatie>n qtr:n�gl:; r-1 1 ♦ How much do federal mandates really cost? IaL * Federal mandates cost individual cities millions of dollars. For example, Columbus, Ohio, will have to spend S16 million to reduce the level of atrizine, a corn herbicide, in its water supply to a level of less than three parts per billion, or the equivalent of one half an aspirin tablet per 16,000 gallons of water. The city of Anchorage will spend $1.5 million to comply with municipal stormwater requirements. The cities of Lewiston and Auburn, Maine, expect to spend $17 million to comply with the federal safe drinking water mandates which will produce virtually no change in the quality or delivery of water. In 1990, the 'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) predicted that by the year 2000. cities and towns will have to spend 512.13 billion annually Just to comply with federal environmental mandates that were then in effect — the equivalent of a 32 percent property tart increase for local governments. Are local governments opposed to ♦ mandates that protect the public health, safety and civil rights of citizens? No. Local elected (4flci:ds are cc,nunlrted to public sen'ices that enhance the health, safety, and welfare (,I their citizens. CiIV c,tficials support and contrlule to develop programs io advance these and other objectives. But local officials are opposed to urlhlnded. inflexible, "one -size• -tits -all" laws and regulations. These laws and regul:ltions impose unrealistic time schedules for compliance, specify the use cit procedures or facilities when less costl\• alternati%•e•s night sen•e as \VL'11. and require far more than underlying laws appear to require Local offid',IJS .ant to concentrate on pert()rmance• not procedures. Unfunded federal mandates cripple the ability of local officials to meet pressing local pri- orities within already tight budgets. Mandates pose one the greatest financial burdens on our notion's cities and towns. Who pays the costs of these mandates? tocol taxpayers, through higher taxes and fees and reduced city services. The costs of non-compliance are criminal and civil penalties — including huge fines against local governments and even imprisonment of local officials. Over the lost five years, the cost of unfunded federal mandates has increased substantially while the funding available from the federal government has decreased dramatically. This year, the federal government has proposed still more mandates, along with increased funding for enforcement actions. Some national leaders just don't get it. And local citizens don't understand why they should have to pay more and get less. As local leaders, we must change these attitudes. No city can afford to fund even the exist- ing federal requirements, let alone those in the pipeline. And we must show our citizens that federal mandates are their problem, too. Every dollar we spend to comply with an irrational or irresponsible mandate is one less dollar we can devote to fighting crime and violence in our communities. The outcry heard throughout the nation lost year on "National Unfunded Mandates Day' was a beginning. In Congress, more than 30 bills have been proposed to offer some relief. We support these bills. We urge immediate action on them. And we will keep up the fight until these mandates stop. This year we are calling for National Unfunded Mandates Week, October 24-30, 1994. This year, even more communities will join in a unified message: enough is enough. City Officials Understand the impact of Unfunded Mandates... FAIR OR POOR CONDITIONS TODAY Moods of unfunded mandates a:�� ,xvsf...•x�.�,Yh, Source. NLC Research Report The State or America's Groes 1994 92% CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE WORSENED IN THE PAST YEAR knpods of unfunded mandates 71'Y. Gangs MLVIM 49% Cable IV rotes and service �]489A CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE DETERIORATED THE MOST IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS Impocts of unfunded mandates _ 39% Violent Gime 32% But Public Comprehension of the issue Remains Low Understand U Sourcc: NLC Research Report "The State o/ America's Cities,' 1994 Do Not Understand Understand Well Understand Somewhat A PRMER ON MANDATES Adapted from "Mandates: Keeptng Cittxena Aware." try Janet M. Kelly; An Iss+w and Opnoru m m by the National t.eagw of Cities Of all the issues that engage local govern- ment officials. none is mote contentious than mandates. Mandates go to the heart of what governing is all about—autonomy and money. Local officials recognize the need for the policies that ensure basic and equal protection for all citizens and am willing to help implement those policies. In return. they generally ask for two things. The first is the ability to implement the policy con- sistent with local nods and conditions. and the second is financial assistance to fund the requirement. Unfunded mandates place additional bur dew on already fiscally stressed local gov- emmcnts. They have also strained the in- tergovernmental relationship. making innovative partnership approaches to pro- viding services and paying for them simul- tanco sly more necessary and more diffi- cult. What is a Mandate? The two most broadly used definitions are based on either coat or penalty. Coat -based definitions begin with sonic variation of the therm "airy statute or rule requiring a local expenditure of funds or restricting lo- cal revenue rates or bases...: ' A weakness of a simple cost -based defi. nition is that it reduces important argu- ments about mandates to money. When the definition is cost -based, discussions will center on whether or not the man- date has a cost and what that cost will be. This is especially troublesome as many mandates require localiues to use their existing resources differently or more intensively. Because of the prolif- eration of mandates. local governments bear very high cumulative costs but very low marginal costs. A cost -based definition might not recognize the bur- den of these mandates at all. An alternative approach is a penalty -based definition. Rather than ask "will it cost money'r' a penalty -based definition asks "must I comply?" The tarter is much easier to answer decisively than the forma. This test for the mandate is whether the locality can legally resist it For instance. some would argue that if a law impacts the private sector as well as lo- cal govemments. it canna be considered a mandate. A penalty -based definition settles that argumtmi in short order. The only dis- advantage is that a definition based on pen- alty tends to reveal the volume of existing mandates. some of which are nes impomnt to the local govemmem However. there is a strong argument to be rude that if you aggregate all the "little" mandates their cost wound ap;nosch if wA exceed the cost of the few 'big" mandates. So Winat? Is this whole issue, as some contend. really all about money? Well. yes and no. Money spent on compliance with federal man- dates is money that cannot be spent on lo- cal priorities. So cost is a central issue. but it is opportunity cost displacement caused by the mandate that chafes --the preclusion of spending the money on programs or ser- vices valued by the local co runty. If local priorities were equivalent to federally mandated prionties, money spent on com- pliance with mandates would not be con- tested In fact, localities willingly accept re- sponsibtbry for programs and services when thele is popular support for them at the local level. So the ma.-idaws issue i.i more accurately about different prioities and the foregone opportunities they crentc. However. the fiscal implications arc em,r- mous. There is the loss of local tax dollars that aught have been applied to other mere pissing and popular uses. Then: are man- dates that linut the ways in which locah- ties raise --avenue, putting some potentially lurcranve ::ad relatively pun fret taxes off liriits. These revenue exclusions and ex- empoons have the cfitsa of forting mcxr in- tensive use of the much hated property tax, Anc-'xr serious and often ignored fiscal consequence of mandates is that of loss of ficxibibry When mandates are procodurr- al--telling the locahry rxA what to do. but Ww to do it --it should ixx tonne as a sur- pnsc Li it Coagress or federal agencies arr tux :lv best Budge of how to nun the bu.i- i..iss of Ictal government Some ioc:d 3ovctnnitms call this "mandator! •nef'f, ciency" --the preclusion by law or rule from taking the most efficient path toward the service or program goal. Not surprising. the administrative routines mandated for a city of 500.000 may not be as woritable for a city of 500. Even seemingly innocuous procedural mandates have chert conse- qucnc s. One iaw requires a social service agency to keep a copy of certain records. A copy is defined by stance in such a way as to prevent the use of computer records or microfiche. alternatives fat less expensive than the maisitertance .of perpe[ copies. Finally, and most critically. the biggest "so what" of mandates is the lona of re- sponsiveriess in local govenntent toward its citizens. Local governments have consis- tently been shown to be more responsive to citizen preferences for taxes and services than the fedem government. Poll respon- dents are far mote likely to say tnaL their krJ government is more spurwve to their needs and is more open to their input than federal government. Lotal officials of- ten rant oaA that they -tc thcu consutu- ents on the sneer, dime with them. worship with Own and hear about problems daily. Governing, for these elected officials. is about the ability to respond to constituent demands or at least to engage constituents with conflicung goals in negotiation and compromise. When mandates preclude the use of local resources toward the essential funk.: n of government, local government loses the trust and the confixictice of its people. All that having been said, it is critical to note that mandates are a necessary part of intergovernmental relations. No locality shuuld have the right to pollute the envi- ronment deny adequate education to chil- dren. deny benefits to eligible residents. deny due process and voting rights to au- zens. or operate a justice system that is not in conformance con:`. tither localina. Man- dates are a neac.!,?ay -nt;ms by which to achieve thea gcRlsc and are i,xh the nght arxd the obligatiori of Congress. However. the probferanon of -Yu idases itas also made it clear that local govenunents. are being saddled with an ever expan twig :cad of rules and reel urements whose cost over time is enormous. Mandate Type 'Vertical Horizontal Legislative Administrative or Regulatory Judicial Constitutional 'l MANDATES GLOSSARY Meaning Applies to one program or activity Applies to many or all programs or activities Enacted by Congress Imposed by agencies empowered to make rules Imposed by the courts Contained or based on the Constitution Active Requires the recipient unit to do something Restrictive Prevents the recipient unit from doing something Traditional Not in law, but custom (presumed enforceable) Direct Order Locality is subject to penalty for noncompliance Condition of Aid• In order to receive a btnefit, must comply Programmatic Require provision of a program, its quantity jr quality Procedural Set forth how a unit implements a program Example Discharge standards for wastewater treatment plant effluents Compliance with provisions of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Most federal mandates fall into Itis category Clean air. water and landfill regulations. They are often "passed through" from federal to state to local The Garcia decision - compensatory time may not be substituted for h3urs worked beyond normal Commerce Clause precludes local regula- tion of truck sizes and weights Testing for broad range of drinking water contaminants Volume cap on Industrial Development Bonds: restrictive definition of eligibility for public purpose municipal bonds Providing police security for visiting government officials Fines and sanctions for noncompliance with ADA requirements Require lead paint testing and abatement in local housing plans to receive federal housing and community develop- ment assistance Locally administered fwd stump program requirements Corrosion control (lead abatement) prucce';.:es for drinking water distnbu- uun s• vans • Because conditions or aid may be resist witnout penalty. Ufcy would not be considered 3 mandate under 3 pcnalry-based definition. CaICL '.acing the Costs of Mandates In considering how to calculate the costs of unfunded mandates, it is important to remember that this is a process that is tied to your budget. Some cities use their budget meetings as an opportunity to identify new state and federal mandates and the impact on the budget, they are able to communicate with the public in real dollars and sense, the costs that are beyond the control of city officials. Others use their utility bills to communicate the portion of costs attributable to state or federal mandates. IyQes of Costs Costs can usually be grouped into four categories when analyzing mandates; (1) marginal, (2) opportunity, (3) total and (4) cumulative costs. (1) Marginal Costs are incremental costs and require no formula. For example, a city can look at an average day for city personnel and estimate what portion of their time will change to comply with the mandate and assign a cost to that change. Example: John Jones works in the public works department and works an eight hour day. A new regulation will require him to devote an estimated time of one hour per day or 12.5% of his time to carry out the new regulations, so 12.5% of his time could be assigned to the mandate. This can be part of the normal budget process although you can never prove a marginal cost. (2) Opportunity Costs represents actions or laws that restrict or diminish the revenue raising capacity of the city, such as additional tax exemptions or the state restricting the amount of business license fees a city can levy. (3) Total Costs are directed to new programs or activity. For instance, in calculating the costs associated with opening a new building, one would need to consider the total costs to open the building after construction. How much for electricity? How much for insurance? How much for overtime if it is open after hours? etc. (4) Cumulative Costs are presented in numerical values with examples given. It's not the one mandate that breaks the back of the city but the cumulative effect of the other twenty, plus the new one. It is the cumulative impact not the individual one when considering this category. Defining what constitutes a mandate is almost as difficult as calculating the cost of the mandate. The broadest definition of a mandate is any action on the part of any unit of the state or federal governments that inhibits the decision-making ability of any unit of local government. The difficulty with such a definition is that may be applied to almost any conceivable situation which renders it not very useful. Calculating the costs of unfunded state and federal mandates on cities and towns will never be an exact science. The dilemma facing those calculating unfunded costs are several, including: (1) Not all local governments agree on what constitutes a mandate; (2) Some local governments believe that "selective" enforcement of mandates exists; (3) Mandates affect local governments differently. In one city a particular mandate may be simply a nuisance; in another it may present a true hardship; (4) The ability to assess adequately the costs associated with mandates varies, due to staffing resources available to a local government; (5) Some mandates are requested by local governments; (6) Some local government officials believe that responsible local governments would self -impose standards or requirements to assure public safety and welfare of the citizens anyway; (7) Many mandates are "pass through" mandates from the federal level to the state government level, making it difficult and often judgmental as to where to assign the mandate. (8) In virtually every local government, there is no historical financial data for mandate tracking. City government has nearly always had functions mandated upon them by the state and federal government through standards, requirements, tax limits, exemptions, rules and regulations. These "mandates' require local government to undertake certain actions or prohibit them from taking certain actions. *Our thanks to the Georgia Municipal League and the City of Columbus, Ohio for their work on developing material used in this section. 2 Identifying the Costs These factors below are the minimum factors to be used in calculating mandated costs. Obviously, a more complex approach can be used but to establish a good base of financial information, the following should be sufficient. DEFINITIONS (1) Personnel! - Wages City dollars paid in connection of the city's full-time, part-time, or temporary work force for wages including over -time and stand by time. Cities should include fringe benefit costs in their estimates (social ), security, insurance, retirement, workers compensation etc.) here or in administrative cost, but not both. (2) Supplies - Any item acquired or used for specific mandates (includes, chemicals, books and subscriptions, tools, and uniforms, vehicle and machine parts. and computer software.). (3) Contractual and Professionai Service - Professional (consultant and contractual services) includes: consulting engineers and other consultants. auditors and surveyors, geologists, archaeologists, etc. (4) Debt Service - For a specific manda•e, bond principal and interest payments, and lease/purchase payments. (For cxample, to construct or modify a water treatment plant to comply with State or EPA regulations). (5) Equipment - Equipment and equipment maintenance required to be purchased, i# ased or rented or required to be modified to comply with the mandate. (Vehicles, computer hardware, furniture and fixtures, and communication equipment. (6) Training and Travel - required for a specific mandate: (a) registration fees (b) travel (c) food (d) lodging lel transportation (f) training materials (including video and audio tapes) (7) Administrative and overhead costs - total administrative costs to comply with a mandate. (a) office supplies (b) photocopy expense (c) telephone (d) utilities 3 (e) postage (f) printing (g) reporting (h) legal notices and reports required by state/federal agencies (i) permit fees (j) special audit costs (k) advertising (1) dues (m) insurance and bonds (n) building/space leasing (o) court costs (p) fringe benefit costs (if not included under Personnel above). 4 Example: How To Calculate The Costs cf Mandates City of: Fiscal Year: Fund: Department: Mandate: Person Completing Form: Date Form Completed: Date Form Received: by Administration 1. Personnel: Wages & Salary: # of hrs. x rate = personnel Jeff Jones: 64 x 6.25 Bob Thomas: 380 x 6.25 Total 400.00 2,375.00 $2,775.00 (Note: Some cities may want to include fringe benefits in this category.) 2. Supplies: Units x Purchase Price Supply Cost 50 gal. of chemicals @ 18.95 gal 947.50 1 riding lawn mower @ 1649.95 1,649.95 Total supply costs 2,597.45 3. Contractual and Professional Services: Contracted Cost for consulting engineer (200 billable hours @ 60.00 hr) $12,000.00 4. Debt Service: Total of all applicable bond payments (principal and interest) for current fiscal year for mandate. $25,000.00 5 5. Equipment: Purchase price of required equipment for mandate. Total Equipment Costs $11,000.00 6. Training and Travel: Required absence from work to attend mandated training. $100.00 John Jones to attend certification training: photocopy expense (A) registration fee $250.00 (8) travel 340ml @ .25 ml 85,00 (C) food 4 meals @ $15 60.00 (D) lodging 2 nights @ $65 130.00 (E) overtime N/A M travel (airline, taxi bus etc.) N/A (G) training materials N/A (includes videos & audio tapes) 50.00 Total Training Costs $525.00 7. Administrative and Overhead Costs: (A) office supplies - paper $100.00 (8) photocopy expense 125,00 (C) telephone 50.00 (0) utilities (1)water 25.00 (2)gas (heat) 50.00 (3)electricity 50.00 (E) postage 75.00 (F) publishing [Audit @ 2.5 a copy (40 copies)] 100.00 legal notices 150.00 (G) rent (900 annual 1/12) 75.00 Total Administrative Costs 800.00 Total costs for mandate (add totals of 1 through 7) 6 $54,697.45 MANDATE COST DETERMINATION WORKSHEET FOR MARGINAL AND TOTAL TYPE COSTS Costs Associated With (Regulation): City Individual Completing Form Title Phone Number Cost Variables (1) Personnel 1993 1994 1995 1996 (2) Supplies l31 Contractual & Professional Services (4) Debt Service 7 1997 s jV ri (d) Equipment 1993 1994 (6) Training & Travel (7) Administrative/ Overhead Annual Total Total Annual Costs 1993-1997 Personnel Training and Travel Supplies Services Uebt Service Operating Equipment Administration and Overhead 8 1995 1996 Grand Total 5 years 1997 How to Calculate Mandated Costs On a City Tax Bill Add up all of the mandated costs attributable to the state that are paid out of the city's General Fund. Calculate what percentage the state mandated costs are of the total General Fund expense. Multiply the percentage in step number (2) by the total tax bill and subtract this number from the total bill. This will give you the state costs. Repeat steps 1 through 3 for federal costs. Local cost will equal the sum of the tax bill minus the state and federal costs. How to Calculate Mandated Costs On a City Utility Bill To calculate the costs of a utility bill, simply use the same method of calculation. Add up all of the mandated costs to the utility funds (water & sewer, gas, electric, sanitation, etc.). Calculate what percentage the state mandated costs are of the total utility fund expense. Multiply the percentage in step number (2) by the total utility bill and subtract this number from the total utility bill. This will give you the state costs. Repeat steps 1 through 3 for federal costs. Local costs will equal the sum of the utility bill minus the state and federal costs. Example: How to Calculate a City Tax Bill Total City Tax Bill 213.11 Total General Fund Expenditures 4,100, 600.00 Total State Costs (Mandates) 672,900.00 % of State Costs (Mandates) 16.4% Total State Costs (Mandates) .164 x 213.11 $34.95 Total Federal Costs (Mandates) 356,100.00 % of Federal Costs (Mandates) 8.7% Total Federal Costs (Mandates) .087 x 213.11 18.54 Total Local Costs $213.11 minus State Mandatcd Costs $34.95 minus Federal Mandated Costs $18.54 Local Costs Without Mandates $159.62 Ott O N 0 U) Q 000000•0u�io ��y 0000008 ow"r O 8� tt�(OQ1cOMa0 N �y 0 � "r CS O Q CTN V �: 0 AL v_ V L3 v 4 (a plid 9 12:2 a) O Z z 2-7 L C cc�� r c?�Fc�:° vi ay 0NCONE 10 Q3 co CV Op v o� GD co 0 imto, c . O M � i Lob' uj eq 0 V) 49-40). uer'} o y U? M if! 1 ♦li L On a �N U�� y: M C � S v a :r y C C7 a _ 4j A Q h v 0 —ZE- E 51v