Laserfiche WebLink
MANDATES <br />Tht Ltagut opposes any adduional unfundad <br />state mandates and urges ail branches of the <br />federal and sUae governments to adopt a <br />policy which promotes accountability at all <br />levels of government by directly linking the <br />funding responsibility for programs with the <br />level of government creating the program. <br />If this principle of accountability can not be <br />adhered to, the state and federal governments <br />should provide stable revenue sources to <br />compensate for the costs of mandates and <br />help reduce local compliance costs by giving <br />cities greater flexibility in meeting new and <br />existing mandates. In cases where the state <br />and federal government do not provide <br />necessary funding, the League supports <br />legislation which would allow local <br />governments to not comply with mandates <br />that are not funded. <br />The Leujpie also urges the Legislature and <br />Congresss to review, repeal, or revise current <br />mandates. The Legislature and Governor <br />should also e tcourage the newly-created <br />Bocud of Government Innovation and <br />Cooperation to fulfill its responsibility to <br />review mandates for elimination by the <br />Legislature. <br />One of the most serious problems facing cities <br />is the growth in the r*'Tnbcr and cost of <br />federal and state-mandated programs which <br />substitute the judgments of Congress and the <br />Legislature for local budget priorities. These <br />mandates interfere with local decisions <br />regarding city services and force cities to <br />reduce funding for other basic services or to <br />raise taxes. Federal and state policy makers <br />must resist imposing mandates that direct <br />cities to allocate scarce resources without <br />regard for local needs and piorities. <br />The League, therefore, supports legislation <br />which allows noncompliance with new <br />unfunded mandates. The League recommends <br />that only under specific conditions should this <br />noncompliance option not be available. <br />The League also believes that a statement of <br />compelling statewide interest and need for a <br />new mandate should be required both for new <br />laws and for state agency rules. <br />Examples of costly mandates include: <br />comparable worth, binding arbitration, <br />prevailing wage, veteran’s prefer; ice, election <br />requirements, payment of state sales tax, and <br />federal regulations on wastewater treatment, <br />drinking water, and stormwater management. <br />League of Minnesota Cities