Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, October 27, 1993 TAG: 9403180024
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By DAVID A. BOWERS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Unfunded mandates are laws, rules, regulations or requirements imposed on a "lower" level of government such as the city by a "higher" level government such as the state or federal government. Unfunded means that local governments must comply with these rules, but little or no money is provided from the federal or state governments to pay the costs associated with the rules. That means local taxpayers, like you and me, foot the bill entirely. Two examples of recent unfunded mandates are:
Removing asbestos in public schools. In 1989, new federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations required all asbestos-containing materials in schools to be monitored, repaired or removed. No funding was provided. In Roanoke alone, the cost to comply will be $4.5 million.
Expansion of the sewage-treatment plant. This topic has been in the news a lot recently as local governments have joined forces to pay for a plant expansion and new sewer lines costing $41.5 million. The expansion is mandated by the state but no funds are available to help pay the costs. The likely result will be that all valley residents will pay higher sewer rates. This is quite a change from when the plant was last expanded and the state and federal governments paid the lion's share of the costs.
And there are some 389 other federal and state mandates that affect local governments in Virginia, including 29 that have been imposed since 1991.
Unfunded mandates are a problem for at Ieast three reasons. First, unfunded mandates are typically imposed without considering whether local governments have the capacity to pay for them, or if they're needed in each locality.
Second, unfunded mandates strain already tight local government budgets, forcing increases in local tax rates and fees.
Third, unfunded mandates set priorities for local governments without local input. Local governments have consistently been shown to be more responsive to citizen preferences for taxes and services than federal or state governments, but mandates take the authority to determine local services away from local governments.
Unfortunately, the situation is getting worse. As the number of mandates continues to grow, their costs present some frightening times ahead. For example, in 1990 the federal Environmental Protection Agency predicted that by the year 2000, local governments nationally will have to spend $12.8 billion annually just to comply with federal environmental mandates that were then in effect. That's the equivalent of a 32 percent property-tax increase for local governments. And this doesn't even take into account the many other unfunded mandates in health and human-service programs, education or public works.
Closer to home, the commonwealth of Virginia is debating how to address a projected $500 million budget deficit that is due primarily to increases in corrections, education, Medicaid and mental-health expenditures. All of these programs are driven by federal- and state-mandated service levels, and now the commonwealth is considering reducing other state aid to local governments to fund these programs.
So should we oppose all mandates?
Certainly not. Many mandates are good and provide services that protect the health, safety and welfare of our citizens. We support these programs.
But even good mandates have a cost. And local officials are opposed to unfunded, inflexible, "one-size-fits-all" laws and regulations that impose unrealistic time schedules for compliance, require specific procedures or facilities when alternatives might serve as well, and require far more than underlying laws appear to require.
State and federal elected representatives should:
Stop passing Iegislation that requires local governments to spend millions of dollars without any input into the decision.
Consider much more carefully the cost and impact of mandates on local communities when voting on Iegislation, and agree up front how to pay for these programs.
Review existing federal and state mandates to make them more flexible and permit local governments to have a say in setting priorities and implementation strategies.
Clearly, there's no such thing as a free lunch. We do end up paying one way or another. But when you consider that for every dollar collected in taxes, 66 cents goes to the federal government, 20 cents goes to the various state governments, and only 14 cents goes to local governments, it's not fair to continue to burden local governments with unfunded mandates. We need to be a part of the decision-making process.
When it comes to federal regulations, if we're going to pick up the tab for lunch, at least let us do the ordering.
David A. Bowers is mayor of the city of Roanoke.
by CNB