Mandates in Florida: Myths, Trends, and Facts

Jaclyn A. BunchLeRoy Collins FellowDoctoral Candidate

March 21st, 2012

Legal order, constitutional provision, statutory provision, or administrative regulation, that requires a local government to undertake a specified activity or to provide a service that meets minimum standards (Zimmerman, 1978)

Imposition of a requirement by one level of government that other units of government perform a particular service or perform it in a particular way (Fix and Kenyon, 1990 p.7)

Any legal provision, order, or regulation with the intent to change the activities of a lower tiered government

What is a Mandate

Disadvantages of Mandates Costs• Little incentive for higher tiered governments to control the costs placed

upon localities

• Attribution of blame would be difficult to ascribe

• A single state mandate may not add significantly to municipal expenditures, but a series of mandates may have a burdensome cumulative effect

Preemptions• Reduce the governments' discretionary authority

• May make municipalities less responsive to the needs of citizens

Advantages of Mandates

Shown to have a measurable and positive effect in enhancing plan quality for growth management and other adopted comprehensive plans

Mandates can be effective and aid in development of outcomes when there is goal congruence or saliency and importance within the community in support of the changes

Data Reports on mandates and measures affecting local government as supplied by the Legislative Committee of Intergovernmental Relations (LCIR)

Full reports from 1992 to 2006

Analyzed by:1. Issue addressed2. Substantial impact3. Estimated fiscal cost4. Purpose

Issue Addressed Analyzed by:

1. Governmental service2. Judicial3. Personnel4. Public safety 5. Physical environment 6. Transportation7. Community development 8. Human services 9. Culture and recreation10. Debt services 11. Operating expenses12. Revenue

Substantial Impact Analyzed by:

1. Disadvantageous to the locality• required more work or more time dedicated to a project or program

on behalf of the locality• Ex: Requires participation in a pilot program

2. Advantageous to the locality• required less work or less time dedicated to a project or program on

behalf of locality• Ex: Exemptions from work

3. No Impact• should neither benefit nor harm the locality in a manner of work or

time• Ex: The law was merely definitional

Estimated Fiscal Cost Estimated cost of the mandate as determined by the LCIR and documented in the report

Also recoded as either a gain, loss, or neutral expense to the locality.

Purpose Categorized as follows:

1. Restricts local activities• limit revenue or preempt a previously held power

2. Promotes state priority• state amends, revises, or creates a state program

3. Coordination• any mandate which regarded cooperation or coordination between

the state and localities, localities and other localities, or developers4. Accountability to the state

• specifically mentioned a state office or program and the requirements a locality must fulfill to that office or program

5. Accountability to the public• require procedures which were accountable to taxpayers

Florida in National ContextEffective July 1, 1978, any laws passed by the Florida Legislature that mandate a municipality or county to perform an activity or provide a service or facility that would require additional local expenditures must include an estimate of the total cost and provide a means for financing it.

However a survey by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1989 cited Florida as one of several states who felt the provisions against mandates had little impact.

In 1990, Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment that protects local governments against the imposition of unfunded mandates. The amendment permits local governments to ignore a state law requiring them to spend funds unless: 1) the law was passed by two-thirds vote of both houses and 2) the legislature has declared the legislation fulfills an important state interest. If these two requirements are not met, the state must appropriate sufficient funds to pay for the mandate or provide a new local funding source

Florida in National Context Alaska: Acts necessitating appropriations by a local government do not become effective unless approved by a voter referendum (Art 2, Sec19)

California: Several propositions have required the state to reimburse local government for all costs attributed to state mandates

Hawaii: Constitutional amendment in1978 requires the state to share in the cost of any new mandates

Louisiana: Certain categories of mandates require local government approval or funding by the state (such as employee benefits)

Maine: State must reimburse localities for at least 50% of property tax revenue loss

Pennsylvania: State required to reimburse lost revenue to local government due to exemptions or special tax provisions enacted by the legislature (if they were caused by age, disability, infirmity, or poverty)

Three Myths1. Mandates have been increasing over time

• Overall• Categorical

2. Mandates largely go unfunded

3. Mandates negate local authority with increasing accountability to the state• Distribution of purpose• Trends within accountability to the state category

Myth One: Mandates have been increasing

1. Increasing Mandates?

• Overall

• Categoricalo Disadvantagingo Restrictive

Mandate Frequency over Time 1992-2006

Disadvantaging Mandates Frequency

Disadvantaging Mandates

Restrictive Mandates

Myth two: Mandates largely go unfunded

Rely on LCIR estimates as there is not an independent source

Real costs are rarely analyzed and compiled

Real costs are not updates or submitted yearly

Estimated Cost of Impact 1992-2006

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20060

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Loss

No Impact

Gain

Years

Freq

uenc

y

Myth Three: Mandates negate local authority

Reduce the governments' discretionary authority

May make municipalities less responsive to the needs of citizens

Category of interest: Accountability to the state

Category Definition ExampleRestricts local activities Summary expresses limits on

revenue, requirements for localities to pay, preempts a previously held power

Prohibits higher property assessments

Promotes State Priority Summary expresses amendment to law, creates or establishes a program, revises or defines established rules, roles, and regulations

Creation of a pilot program

Coordination Summary expresses intent to coordinate among state and local, between localities, or with developers.

Rules for concurrent jurisdictionsContracting procedures with developers

Accountability to the State Summary requires procedures accountable to state or state department

Reports must be submitted to parties such as the Governor, cabinet, or Medicaid

Accountability to the Public Summary requires procedures accountability to the public or taxpayers

Requires public postings, open meetings, or provides exceptions to the public at large

Accountability to the State Over Time

ConclusionsMyth One: Mandates have been increasing over time

Data ranging from 1992-2006 in the state of Florida does not conform to this myth.

There is no apparent trend and if one was to utilize the data to make any claim it would be that mandates have been decreasing in frequency since 1998.

ConclusionsMyth Two: Mandates largely go unfunded

The results are inconclusive from the data provided from legislative mandate summaries.

It would appear from these summaries that most legislation is fiscally neutral

ConclusionsMyth Two: Mandates largely go unfunded (Continued)

Real costs vary across localities, even very similar localities, as existing capacity and previous policy choices affect the cost of the new mandate.

Real costs vary over time as other factors that impact the mandate change (e.g., population trends, technology, inflation, and even other mandates).

Preliminary estimates of mandate costs often fail to converge with actual cost data because the implementing regulations are not known at the time of the mandate's passage, or other simplifying assumptions necessary to prepare cost estimates are violated by the reality of implementation.

ConclusionsMyth Three: Mandates negate local authority with increasing accountability to the state

While substantially low in number mandates that require reporting or other forms of accountability to the state seemed to be inconsistent and then been increasing steadily since the turn of the century.

Extending the period of analysis to see if this trend maintains would be of interest

Recommendations1. Florida needs to reinstitute an independent group to recognize and estimate

the cost of statutory mandates on local governments.

2. Florida statute needs to better define key words in the constitutional amendment including terms such as “insignificant fiscal impact”.

3. The independent commission should produce an annual report which includes the cost of individual mandates in addition to an aggregate cost across all mandates.

4. In recognition of the cumulative effect of the mandates, and the difficulty of estimating real costs, the independent commission should conduct analysis of a sample of local government, each fiscal year, to determine the actual fiscal impact of continual mandates.