Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 the passage by Congress of legislation restraining new federal mandates, should help address the <br />2 problem, but other steps are necessary. <br />3 <br />4 Response: <br />5 <br /> <br />6 · Existing unfunded mandates should be reviewed and modified or repealed where <br />7 possible. <br /> <br />8 · No additional statewide mandates should be enacted, unless full funding for the <br />9 mandate is provided by the level of government imposing it or a permanent stable <br />10 revenue source is established. <br /> <br />11 . Cities should not be forced to comply with unfunded mandates. <br /> <br />12 . Cities should be given the greatest flexibility possible in implementing mandates to <br />13 ensure their cost is minimized. <br />14 <br /> <br />15 SD-3. City Costs for Enforcing State and Local Laws (AF) <br />16 <br />17 Issue: Cities experience substantial costs enforcing state and local laws, particularly <br />18 those related to traffic, controlled substances, and incarceration of prisoners. The current method <br />19 in our criminal justice system of recovering costs for law enforcement and prosecution through <br />20 fmes is insufficient to meet the costs incurred by local governments. <br />21 <br />22 Response: The Legislature should review this issue and adopt measures that <br />23 provide for complete reimbursement of the costs incurred by local governments in <br />24 enforcing state and local laws. Solutions that should be considered include the following: <br />25 <br /> <br />26 . Increasing fine amounts. <br /> <br />27 · Removing or modifying county and state surcharges that conflict with cost recovery <br />28 principles. <br /> <br />29 . Requiring the defendant to pay the full costs of enforcement and prosecution as part of <br />30 any sentence. <br />31 <br />32 SD-4. Design-build (AF) <br />33 <br />34 Issue: The standard bid procedure cities are required to use in selecting contractors for <br />35 municipal buildings can be quite costly. Private sector development uses a process known as <br />36 "design-build" in which various firms submit project proposals that include both a design and the <br />37 construction costs for that design. The selection is then based on the total package. By granting <br />38 specific statutory authority to use the design-build alternative to the Metropolitan Sports <br />39 Facilities Commission and state agencies, including the Dept. of Revenue, the Legislature has <br />40 recognized the financial savings it can provide. In documented instances, cities have saved <br />41 taxpayers up to 10 percent of the total project cost by using the design-build alternative. <br />42 <br />43 The design-build process also permits improved project management and oversight. <br />44 However, absent statutory authorization to use this alternative, cities are vulnerable to lawsuits <br />45 from unsuccessful bidders. In addition, the design-build process for playground equipment can <br />46 encourage greater creativity while maintaining cost controls. Special legislation was enacted for <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />