[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E130-E131]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



[[Page E130]]
             LOCAL OFFICIALS SPEAK OUT ON UNFUNDED MANDATES

                                 ______


                            HON. CURT WELDON

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 19, 1995

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, one of the high priority 
items for the 104th Congress is resolution of the problem of unfunded 
mandates. Last month, I had the opportunity to meet with local elected 
officials in Pennsylvania to discuss this issue. I found their comments 
and insights revealing.
  Testimony was given by every member of the Delaware County Council, 
including Chairwoman Mary Ann Arty, Paul Mattus, Ward Williams, Wally 
Nunn, and Tom Killion. I also heard from Joseph Blair, president of 
Upland Borough Council; Bruce Dorbian, manager of Marcus Hook Borough; 
Kenneth Hemphill, Upper Darby School District; Thomas Kennedy, mayor of 
Ridley Park; James F. Shields, executive director, Delaware County 
Intermediate Unit; and Thomas J. Bannar, manager of Haverford Township.
  I found their insights and experience very valuable. As we prepare to 
debate this issue on the floor of the House, my colleagues would do 
well to look beyond the statements of inside-the-beltway lobbyists and 
listen to the experience of local elected officials. I have included 
the testimony of several of the participants which I found particularly 
insightful. I urge my colleagues to review their statements to better 
understand how unfunded mandates affect local governments.

         Statement of Wallace H. Nunn, Delaware County Council

       Earlier we identified that Unfunded Mandates occur as the 
     result of passage of legislation, by promulgation of 
     regulations in response to legislative initiatives, through 
     policy decisions by government bureaucrats and as a result of 
     court orders. Each of these has played a part in helping to 
     construct a welfare system that is one of worst bureaucratic 
     nightmares in terms of its size and expense, its red-tape, 
     its lack of coordination through the various state and 
     federal agencies that mandate its operation and its 
     effectiveness. If we view the social welfare system as a 
     chronological continuum of services beginning with Children 
     and Youth Services and running through the various adult 
     services, we note redundant programs due to more than one 
     state and/or federal agency mandating not only the services 
     but the way in which they are provided, with no coordination 
     or even apparent knowledge of the other agency's mandate. 
     This concern is exemplified in the area of Drug and Alcohol 
     (D/A) where the County receives funding through the 
     Department of Health, the Court system and, in some 
     instances, the Department of Public Welfare. While we are 
     able to cooperate internally and to coordinate the provision 
     of some of the services, we nevertheless must maintain 
     complex administrative structures to deal with the plethora 
     of regulations and policies imposed on us. There may be as 
     many as fifteen (15) different programs to deal with 
     specialized aspects of D/A problems. Each of these is 
     governed by its own set of regulations for operation and 
     reporting.
       Many of these regulations that govern our operation are 
     circuitous and address not just the broad policy guidelines 
     but actually stipulate the provision of individual services. 
     For example, in the County Juvenile Detention Home, we are 
     mandated not just to feed and cloth the juveniles but also to 
     supply an evening snack. (Is eating just before bedtime a 
     healthy practice?)
       I have touched on the justice system. Approximately $48.3 
     million of the County Budget is projected to be expended on 
     Administration of Justice. This accounts for over 57% of the 
     approximately $84 million raised in taxes. It also points out 
     the failure of social welfare programs since these programs 
     obviously have not resulted in shaping all of our citizens 
     who are clients of our systems into productive members of our 
     society. While I am not naive enough to think that we can be 
     100% successful in moving people toward productivity, I would 
     like to have the opportunity to design our own programs 
     without interference from the federal and state 
     bureaucracies. Block grants without the punitive strings 
     attached would be a mechanism that could be used to funnel 
     dollars to Counties. We suggest this approach to you.

     Statement of Bruce A. Dorbian, Manager, Borough of Marcus Hook

       On behalf of the Crum and Ridley Creeks Council of 
     Governments I graciously recognize the Honorable U.S. 
     Congressman from the 7th congressional district, W. Curtis 
     Weldon, and the Honorable State Senator from the 26th senator 
     district, Joseph Loeper and members of the county council. 
     thank you for organizing this public hearing on the subject 
     of unfunded mandates and extending to us the opportunity to 
     provide oral and written testimony.
       The Crum and Ridley Creeks Council of Governments is an 
     organization with 11 member municipalities formed to 
     facilitate and develop mutual cooperation and coordination 
     among the participating municipalities. The membership 
     includes the boroughs of Media, Marcus Hook, Rose Valley, 
     Rutledge and Swarthmore and the townships of Edgmont, 
     Middletown, Nether Providence, Newtown, Upper Providence and 
     Concord.
       Whether Federal or State imposed, a mandate is a mandate. 
     The word is feared in the local government community. 
     Mandates can be fatal to the budget process and they occur 
     far too frequently. They are feared because there is usually 
     little notice or preparation, they carry new 
     responsibilities, and seldom little authority or fiscal 
     resources to carry them out.


                           what are mandates?

       They are requirements placed on local government by the 
     Federal and State government to perform specified tasks. They 
     are ``mandates'' because they must be done. The mandate 
     message delivered from Federal and State government is 
     similar to that national advertising campaign theme--``just 
     do it.''


                         who pays for mandates?

       Local citizens and businesses pay for most Federal and 
     State mandates through increased local taxes and fees. Most 
     mandates are unfunded or underfunded. This means the Federal 
     and/or the State government adopts the legislation and 
     establishes regulatory requirements without appropriating any 
     funds to implement the legislation or regulations. The costs 
     for implementation are left to local and county governments.


                      why are mandates a problem?

       Federal and State mandates are a problem for three reasons: 
     (1) they are imposed without consideration of local 
     circumstances or capacity to implement the Federal/State 
     requirements; (2) they strain already tight budgets forcing 
     increases in local tax rates and fees to pay for mandates 
     while we continue to provide local services and keep local 
     budgets in balance; and (3) they set priorities for local 
     government without local input. Because most mandates require 
     compliance regardless of other pressing local needs, Federal 
     and State mandates often ``squeeze out'' projects and 
     activities that are local priorities and which would 
     contribute more to local health, welfare and safety than the 
     specific action or activity dictated by Federal/State laws 
     and regulations. Local dollars spent on Federal and State 
     mandates is money that cannot be spent on local priorities.


   are local governments opposed to mandates that protect the public 
              health, safety and civil rights of citizens?

       No local elected officials are committed to providing 
     public services that enhance the health, safety and welfare 
     of their citizens.
       But local officials are opposed to unfunded, inflexible, 
     ``one-size-fits-all'' laws and regulations. These laws and 
     regulations impose unrealistic time schedules for compliance, 
     specify the use of procedures or facilities when less costly 
     alternatives might serve as well, and require far more than 
     underlying laws appear to require. Local officials want to 
     concentrate on performance, not procedures.


       why should citizens care about federal and state mandates?

       They allow the Federal and State government to write checks 
     on the local government checkbook. They interfere with local 
     decision-making and give authority to remote Federal and 
     State lawmakers and bureaucrats rather than easily accessible 
     local mayors, council members, commissioners and supervisors. 
     And, perhaps most importantly, they force local governments 
     to raise local taxes and fees in order to comply with 
     mandates and maintain local services.
       As municipal mangers, we have day to day, hands-on 
     experience with mandates. They impact virtually every aspect 
     of local government operations. Recent mandates include 
     mandatory recycling, expanded training requirements for 
     municipal police officers, additional pension benefits for 
     police and fire officials, workers compensation enforcement 
     through the local building permit system, agency shop, and 
     public access requirements of the Americans With Disabilities 
     Act. Then there are those that simply become 
     institutionalized in the operations of the municipality and 
     continue to impose costs ten to twenty years after enactment. 
     Public advertising requirements, State and Federal mandatory 
     wage requirements for public works project, minimum wage, to 
     name a few. Whatever the case may be, we know one thing for 
     certain--once a mandate is imposed it is never repealed. One 
     recent national research study ranked Pennsylvania second in 
     the number of new mandates imposed on municipal government.
       The current system allows Federal and State lawmakers and 
     bureaucrats to impose their priorities without considering 
     local budget and service impacts. Local budgets are 
     statutorily required to be balanced, taxing authority is 
     limited, and mandates cannot be passed on to another level of 
     government. We must bring fiscal responsibility to the 
     mandate process in this country and in Pennsylvania.
       The buck has been passed to local government for too long; 
     it is time for the ``bucks'' to be passed on as well.

  Statement of James F. Shields, Executive Director, Delaware County 
                           Intermediate Unit

       It is a pleasure for me to be here today representing the 
     Intermediate Unit, the fifteen public school districts in the 
     county and the Delaware County School Boards' Legislative 
     Council. [[Page E131]] 
       The issue of unfunded mandates has received much attention 
     lately. I want to commend County Council for the leadership 
     you have shown in bringing this issue to the attention of the 
     general public. We can also look at Governor-elect Tom 
     Ridge's campaign pledge in which he states: ``I will fight to 
     give our communities greater control over their schools and 
     tax dollars, free from state micromanagement. I want to 
     provide districts with relief from existing state mandates 
     and stop the flow of new ones to encourage greater local 
     control and help ease the pressure on local property taxes.'' 
     Likewise, the new leadership in Congress has also expressed 
     their intent to focus on this issue. It appears that the 
     issue of unfunded mandates is approaching front-burner status 
     on the political agenda.
       Focusing public attention on unfunded mandates and the 
     impact they have on local school district budgets has also 
     been a priority of Delaware County school districts for the 
     past five years. In the 1991-92 school year, a committee of 
     superintendents and school board members started a process to 
     identify some of the high cost mandates affecting schools. A 
     survey was developed and completed by all school districts 
     that identified and placed a dollar cost on some critical 
     areas. A presentation of the results was made to the Delaware 
     County legislative delegation at the School Boards' Annual 
     Legislative Breakfast held on May 15, 1992. The following is 
     a partial list of the information shared at that time. 
     Although the cost data will have changed since that time, 
     what hasn't changed is the economic impact these mandates 
     have on local school budgets.
       Certification restrictions and staff ratios as applied to 
     Nurses, Dental Hygienists, Librarians ($3,014,750)
       Sabbatical leaves for purposes of study and travel 
     ($4,508,317 over previous five years)
       State requirement to transport nonpublic school students up 
     to ten miles outside local school district boundaries 
     ($6,072,374)
       Use of prevailing wage rate on school construction projects 
     in excess of $25 thousand ($12,329,800 over previous five 
     years and projected for immediate future)
       Asbestos abatement ($17,650,107)
       Underground storage tank inspection and removal 
     ($5,901,000)
       Transportation of Early Intervention students ($302,600)
       The development of Act 178 Professional Development Plans 
     ($668,000)
       Implementation of a Teacher Induction Program ($173,730)
       Special education costs have consistently exceeded the 
     funds available from both state and federal sources. Because 
     of the many due process requirements and the strict 
     limitations on class size along with additional supportive 
     services needed, this is an expensive mandate. In addition, 
     while not required to do so under federal law, Pennsylvania 
     has chosen to include the education of the gifted under state 
     special education rules and regulations. The federal 
     government originally promised to fund 40% of the cost of 
     this law but in actuality the federal share has never 
     exceeded 12%. It must be said that in and of themselves 
     each of the mandates may be considered to serve a noble 
     purpose. However, the cumulative effects of these and all 
     the other mandates imposed on local districts impose a 
     fiscal and human resource cost on schools. Meeting the 
     demands of some of these mandates may take away resources 
     from other areas of the school program deemed important by 
     the local community.
       As a next step in this process, the fifteen Delaware County 
     school districts and the Intermediate Unit have contracted 
     with the Pennsylvania Economy League to identify existing 
     mandates that impact upon the operation of the schools and to 
     assess their economic impact. In addition, the other three 
     suburban intermediate units in Bucks, Chester and Montgomery 
     Counties have likewise expressed an interest in participating 
     and supporting this study.
       In 1982 the Pennsylvania Local Government Commission, after 
     an exhaustive study, identified 6,979 state imposed mandates 
     upon local government units in Pennsylvania. Moreover, the 
     Pennsylvania School Boards Association, representing all 501 
     school districts in the Commonwealth has identified 
     burdensome mandates the Association has targeted for 
     legislative remedy including the following:
       Prohibiting the furlough of staff for economic reasons;
       The requirement to transport nonpublic students up to 10 
     miles outside the district;
       The awarding of tenure after two years of successful 
     teaching;
       The requirement to hire certificated school nurses, dental 
     hygienists and home and school visitors according to a state-
     established pupil ratio;
       Providing full year and split year sabbaticals for travel;
       Permanent certification for teachers and administrators.
       It is clear that now is the time for concerted action by 
     all agencies of local government to ease the financial burden 
     caused by unfunded or partially funded state and federal 
     mandates. On behalf of Mr. Walter Senkow, President of the 
     Intermediate Unit Board of Directors, Mr. James Fahey, 
     Chairman of the School Boards' Legislative Council, and Dr. 
     Roger Place, Chairman of the Superintendents' Advisory 
     Council, I commend County Council and our legislative 
     delegation for sponsoring today's hearing. We stand ready to 
     work cooperatively with you to address these important 
     concerns.

                          ____________________