Mandates in Florida:
Myths, Trends, and Facts
Jaclyn A. Bunch
LeRoy Collins Fellow
Doctoral Candidate
March 21st, 2012
What is a Mandate
 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
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 addressed
2. Substantial impact
3. Estimated fiscal cost
4. Purpose
Issue Addressed
 Analyzed by:
1. Governmental service
2. Judicial
3. Personnel
4. Public safety
5. Physical environment
6. Transportation
7. Community development
8. Human services
9. Culture and recreation
10. Debt services
11. Operating expenses
12. 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 developers
4. 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 Context
Effective 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 Myths
1. 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
•
Categorical
o Disadvantaging
o 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
120
110
100
90
Frequency
80
70
Loss
60
NoImpact
Gain
50
40
30
20
10
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Years
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
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
Restricts local activities
Definition
Summary expresses limits on
revenue, requirements for
localities to pay, preempts a
previously held power
Example
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
jurisdictions
Contracting procedures with
developers
Accountability to the State Summary requires procedures
accountable to state or state
department
Accountability to the Public
Summary requires procedures
accountability to the public or
taxpayers
Reports must be submitted
to parties such as the
Governor, cabinet, or
Medicaid
Requires public postings,
open meetings, or provides
exceptions to the public at
large
Accountability to the State Over Time
Conclusions
Myth 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.
Conclusions
Myth 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
Conclusions
Myth 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.
Conclusions
Myth 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
Recommendations
1. 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.