Mandate Reform

By Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks

For far too long, Albany has lived well beyond its means, funding programs and projects that do too little to help the everyday taxpayers and families of New York state.  This reckless tax-and-spend approach to governing has threatened our economic prosperity by driving businesses, jobs, and young talent away from New York in search of greater opportunities elsewhere.  This spending is forced upon our communities through mandates, which are programs that the state requires be provided by local governments without fully reimbursing them for the corresponding costs.

There are presently nine state mandates that consume 90 percent of the county property tax levy statewide: Medicaid, Public Assistance/Safety Net, Child Welfare, Preschool Special Education, Probation, Early Intervention, Indigent Defense, Youth Detention and pension contributions.

In Monroe County, mandated spending continues to be the single greatest challenge we face when balancing our budget.  State and federal mandates account for a staggering 82-percent of our 2011 budget.  This translates to having local control over only 18-percent of our tax revenue.

Each year, Monroe County enters its budget development process with the express goal of holding the line on property taxes.  In doing so, our budget promotes business growth, job creation, and investment in our local economy by allowing taxpayers the freedom to spend their money in our community, and not on higher taxes.

While taxes have gone up at almost every other level of government in recent years, Monroe is among only four of New York’s 62 counties to not have raised its property tax rate since 2004. Of our five most comparable peer counties – those with large populations like Erie, Nassau, Onondaga, Suffolk, and Westchester – Monroe is the only to not have raised its tax rate over that time. In fact, the tax rate in Monroe County is lower today than it was when I first took office in 2004.

Governor Cuomo’s recent tax cap proposal is a positive first step towards tax relief for counties across New York State by ensuring that all local governments and school districts adhere to a commitment to controlling property taxes as Monroe County has done for the past seven years on our own.

However, meaningful property tax relief will likely remain a dream until statewide mandate reform becomes a reality.  This is why the New York State Association of Counties has identified comprehensive mandate reform as a necessary measure to ensure the success of a property tax cap. As president of the New York State County Executives’ Association and member of the Governor’s Mandate Relief Team, I recently submitted over 200 mandate relief recommendations that would cut property taxes by billions of dollars.

The Mandate Relief Redesign Team Report clearly validates the long-held belief of county government leaders that mandates from Albany are extremely prevalent and costly for local taxpayers.  However, the report does not go nearly far enough to address the serious problems we face in bringing true mandate reform and property tax relief to the hard-working taxpayers of this state.  In fact, out of 231 ideas submitted to the Mandate Relief Team by county government leaders across the state, very few were included in the report.

True property tax relief will only come when the state realizes that there must be wholesale changes in the way we deliver services. It is my hope that this report does not signal the end of mandate reform efforts, but is rather a first step in beginning an immediate dialogue between the state and local government leaders.  Together, we must develop a meaningful plan to reform mandates and reduce property taxes.

County leaders from across the state have taken a proactive approach and stand ready to assist Governor Cuomo and the legislature to bring real mandate reform to fruition, in conjunction with property tax cap legislation.

Without question, New York state has both the spirit and ability to flourish economically but we simply cannot move forward and reach our full potential without mandate reform.  Only then will we be able to shift the conversation from capping the growth of already too-high taxes to providing real property tax relief for our residents.

4 Responses to “Mandate Reform”

1. Michael F. Conners, II says:

   February 16, 2012 at 12:03 am

   Good question and nice blog. The missing piece of the answer is that Counties have no say in the benefit level, eligibility or design of the delivery of the services.

   Governor has to let Counties explore Demonstration Grant Waiver requests to develop data on alternatives.

   We suggested this as a proposal to control costs and improve outcomes in the past but today might be a more favorable climate.

   Just one example would be a proposal to insure a group of Medicaid recipients on the County’s Health Insurance Plan. Naturally, the outcry about benefit level reductions might spur some honest discussions about why Medicaid recipients have better health care coverage than county employees.

   Good job Chris.

   Reply
   • Chris Andreucci - Contributor says:

     February 17, 2012 at 10:02 am

     Mike, great comment. We here at the NYMUNIBLOG agree that the current system of administering the Medicaid program in New York yields the perverse result that county governments are forced to pay for program choices in which they had no opportunity to let their views be heard. We have made a number of posts on this topic recently, see
     http://nymuniblog.com/?p=1773
     http://nymuniblog.com/?p=1902
     http://nymuniblog.com/?p=1883, and believe the time has come for the State to shoulder the Medicaid burden alone. Keep up the great work in Albany County and for those of our readers that want an insider’s perspective of what is going on in Albany County, be sure to check out Mike Conners’ blog on the Times Union web site, linked here: http://blog.timesunion.com/conners/

     Reply
2. Matt Peters says:

   March 7, 2011 at 11:32 am

   Are the mandates for ‘spending’ or for ‘service delivery’? If the state is literally requiring fixed per capita spending on these 9 programs, that’s one issue. But if the county governments have discretion on the costs required to provide mandated services, then that’s a completely different issue. Thus, the real question may not be who provides and pays the costs of the services, but can we afford to provide them at the current cost structure and within current regulations? Is there something preventing county governments from providing these services in a more cost effective manner?

   Reply
   • Chris Andreucci - Contributor says:

     March 9, 2011 at 12:21 pm

     Interesting question, Matt. It has been quite some time since I worked in county government so I hope a current municipal employee chimes in, but I believe that the answer to the question as to whether the mandates are for spending or service delivery, is that they are for both. For example, Medicaid is essentially a cost sharing arrangement where county governments shoulder a portion of the overall tab with no say in the level of services or how those services are provided. On the other hand, some mandates require a local government to provide a specific service and thus would be a service delivery mandate. While it may be simple to allege that a municipality provide these services in a more efficient manner, that is not as easy as it sounds because of the myriad state statutes and regulations governing the provision of those services. Thus, no matter how you cut it, state mandates account for a large portion of a county government’s tax levy and, in my opinion, are in need of substantial revision. This way the level of government that requires the service is also the one that pays for it. See Pat Malgieri’s post from February 22 on this topic.

     Chris Andreucci

     Reply