ACIR Minutes - December 13, 2001

I. CALL TO ORDER\ROLL CALL:

The Louisiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations met on December 13, 2001, in Senate Committee Room E.

Chairman Harris addressed the members of the commission and asked that each member introduce themselves.

Commission Counsel, Jerry Guillot addressed members of the commission. He spoke of the commission's overview, briefly reviewing all handout's to members.

Chairman Harris asked each member to sign their Oath of Office (green) form. He also asked each member to review the ACIR Membership list to make sure their information was correct and up-to-date.

MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT

Mayor Ronnie Harris Senator Lambert Boissiere

Mayor Bobbie Simpson Senator Jon Johnson

Representative Dale Erdy Senator Craig Romero

Representative Jane Smith Bill Miller

Representative Sharon Broome Don Hutchinson

E.G. Randolph, Jr.

Lenwood Broussard

Timothy Roussel

Mike Zito

Ms. Johnnye Kennon

Joel Richert

Clarence Savoie

Ellen Rhorer

Blaise Carriere

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Mike Zito to approve April 18, 2000 minutes. Mr. Clarence Savoie seconded the motion. There being no objection the minutes were approved.

Chairman Harris opened the floor for nominations for the position of Chairman. Mayor E.G. Randolph made a motion that Ronnie Harris remain chairman. Motion seconded by Timothy Roussel. There being no objection, the chairman remains the same.

Chairman Harris opened the floor for nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman. Mayor E.G. Randolph made a motion to nominate Mayor Bobby Simpson as Vice-Chairman. Ms. Johnnye Kennon seconded the motion. There being no objection, Mayor Simpson was elected as Vice-Chairman.

Representative Jerry Luke LeBlanc addressed members of the commission. He began by explaining his resolution which provides that ACIR shall conduct a systematic and thorough study of the responsibilities of state and local government to furnish services to citizens and recommend those services that government should provide and the respective responsibilities of state and local government to fund such services.

He further explained that the legislature, the House and Senate, had a number of special committees that met during the 2000 interim and discussed a number of issues that keep popping up as they relate to not only the state budget but local governments, local government needs, school board needs, police jury association needs, municipal association needs, etc. One particular committee in the house, called SCOFA, the Select Committee on Fiscal Affairs, had several meetings to explore the relationship between state and local government. It was the finding of this committee that decided that it was time to conduct an intense diagnosis of where we stand from the state perspective and local perspective, he said. Representative LeBlanc continued saying that the SCOFA finding was that before the state can evaluate an appropriate revenue base to meet its needs, a clear delineation of fiscal responsibilities between state and local government must be established. One of those meetings he said, involved testimony from the gammit of local entities from the state, including Mayor Harris, who had a discussion about ACIR saying that they could probably be the best venue in order to begin a serious look at the relationship between state responsibility, local responsibility and those that have a clear compelling interest that have a joint responsibility between state and local government. He continued saying that based on the report from the SCOFA, he introduced the resolution which in essence called upon ACIR to begin and undertake this new study. In addition to the resolution, Representative LeBlanc passed HB 1063, which modified the commission membership to include some additional legislative/state perspective to have a balanced approach.

Representative LeBlanc said that one of the suggestions from NCSL (National Council of State Legislators), was selecting five principals as a guide to a sorting out process, as to what is a true local responsibility and what is a state responsibility and what are the joint responsibilities:

He further stated that this was just a guideline that SCOFA adopted in their report that would serve as a departure point for what he hopes will be a very energetic look at state and local responsibilities. He also said that there will be some challenges to delineation of state and local responsibilities. One responsibility on the local level is that they pay for the operation of district courts; the state pays salaries he said. There are other local responsibilities that the state pays for which is where debates come from in the areas of tax reform, revenue base and other issues. He feels that one of the fundamental steps, if we are ultimately to have tax reform, is that we reconsider and analyze what is a true local and state responsibility - who is paying for what now, what is the fiscal impact or the costs of providing service and then determine how it is to be paid for.

Chairman Harris thanked Representative LeBlanc and discussed the issue with members. He further said he felt that this meeting would not solve the initial problem but what he is concerned about is how do we address the problem and asked the membership as to how the issue should be approached. He suggested the commission look at the various charges outlined in Representative LeBlanc's resolution and create subcommittees' to look at several issues - i.e. MFP.

Louisiana School Board Association Comments - Mr. Clarence Savoie spoke briefly to members noting that the discussion is how much control the legislature will have on the MFP dollars that the local school boards have to deal with and how much will the local and state responsibility have to be. He feels this is a valid question, as right now in his parish they recently passed a one cent sales tax to help fund teacher pay raises. He noted that to stay in competition with surrounding parishes this was done as they want to attract the brightest and the best. Education he said, is the fuel that drives economic development. Mr. Whitford understands the frustration as they have mandates with no flexibility to change in order to make progress. He feels that all of these issues need to be looked at.

Police Jury Association Comments - Lynwood Broussard spoke briefly to members saying that three to four years ago the Governor created a judicial commission including judges and sheriff's which met one time then it dissolved. He does not want this commission to possibly do the same thing. He noted that judicial issues are killing the police juries and that the subcommittee issue would be easier as each committee would have their own horn. The police jury and the municipal association have packages ready today that clearly identify what their judicial mandates and mandates are and he feels that results can be quick.

Representative Leblanc noted that a target date for a report was 2002 Regular Session which could not be possible, and that he would change the date for prior to the 2003 Regular Session.

Mayor Harris suggested that the commission meet possibly on a monthly basis, however, one month could be utilized for the subcommittees and every other month would be used for the ACIR general meeting. He further asked what would be the makeup of these subcommittees. Members discussed these two suggestions.

Commission Counsel Jerry Guillot commented, noting that with the recent amendment to the statute, we will be roughly in groups of three's - which lends itself to one for each subcommittee. He further said that in terms of the funding side, in particular, the issues he came up with was one dealing with Education & Health Services Issues, Public Works Issues, and another General Services Issues. Under the General Services Issues for example he said, there could be discussion regarding law enforcement, economic development, etc., as a starting point.

Chairman Harris asked if there were no objections, he would like to move the subcommittees in that direction. He noted that by the end of this meeting there would be a clear directive as to meeting dates for subcommittees, what issues to tackle, etc.

V. LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION

Tom Ed McHugh representing LMA addressed members of the committee. He began by saying that they are prepared to address this issue and by listening to the remarks from members and Representative LeBlanc he wanted to shift gears a bit and the idea is intriguing to him that ACIR would approach it on the basis of almost in a philosophical way, as to the separation or definition of responsibilities at the different levels of government and then it would give in his opinion, a much better perspective on how to solve issues. Mr. McHugh said that LMA does have a list of mandates that they have identified both from the municipal government side and the local government side representing both parish and local governments because in their organization there is both. He said that LMA can be a very active participant in this process and they will pledge their staff to ACIR as an organization to help in anyway they can.

John Gallagher representing LMA, briefly reviewed a comprehensive list of mandates that affect local governments and municipalities:

# Fire and Police Civil Service Programs - state statute basically mandates that a civil service system for fire and police officers is required beginning at the population of 7,000 to 250,000. He said that these provisions replete with mandated costs to municipalities, such as funding the system, providing office space, materials and supplies for these civil service boards to function. Also, there are provisions that require such as 52 weeks of sick leave for firefighters and police officers, this includes injuries on or off duty and that these mandates do cost municipalities thousands of dollars each year.

# Publication Requirements - Mr. Gallagher said that throughout the state statues municipalities as well as other local governments, are required to publish items such as minutes, ordinance, requests for bid proposals and so forth in the official journal. Estimates compiled by LMA in 1992 showed that this legislative mandated subsidy costs local governments in the area of over $1 million dollars a year, just in publishing these articles. An alternative that could be considered is to allow local governments to post these items on an appropriate Internet website and delete the publication requirements.

# Coroner's Fees - municipalities as well as parishes are required to pay for tests, autopsies, and expert witness fees by coroners in certain enumerated instances as outlined by the statutes. The coroner's office is a state constitutionally created office and LMA feels that some areas to address this would be to have the state fund the forensic labs (for performing tests) or state funding of coroners.

# Court Costs - Mr. Gallagher stated there are a variety of court costs requirements mandated on municipal courts, including city and mayor's courts. He further outlined more mandates in the areas of court costs, which are required to be imposed upon convictions of municipal ordinances in traffic violations; also including juvenile justice centers, crime labs, crime victims reparation funds, save our wildlife foundation for litter requirements and various others.

# State Fees - Mr. Gallagher noted that state agencies often charge local governments for services rendered by the agencies; which is done mainly through regulatory rulemaking promulgated pursuant to statutory authorizations.

Mr. Gallagher said that LMA's list is an outline of the major mandates they encounter.

Tom Ed McHugh continued saying that another important issue, a policy issue of 2/3rd's vote on sales/use tax exemptions - they have made their pitch and everyone is pretty familiar with the issue. Unlike federal and state government, when they are prepared at the local government level to try and fund an issue they are mandated to go to the public and get them to say yes or no on that tax. If approved, exemptions are placed on those taxes for whatever reason at the state level which in effect takes away revenues that the public have given to them, he said. He further noted that LMA has asked the legislature quite often for relief in this respect.

Lynn Bankston and Carson Killen representing the Police Jury Association addressed members of the commission. Mrs. Bankston reviewed the Police Jury handout saying that they did a survey on the most onerous unfunded mandates and listed them in the order of importance. Some of their top mandates were:

Of the fifteen items listed in their handout thirteen of the items deal with the judicial system, which is a function of the state. What is happening is they are mandated to fund these different offices as they have their own budgets.

Carson Killen addressed members of the commission saying that he would like to give credit to the legislature because they talk about sales tax exemptions and this has always been a big problem for the Police Jury. He briefly spoke of the costs of tax exemptions. Mr. Killen said that the police jury association is excited about this commission and it's make-up of members and they will be available for whatever assistance they can provide. He asked that when the commission talks about mandates keep one thing in mind, that there is a difference in legislative mandates and a legislative unfunded mandate. An unfunded mandate is when the legislature says you have to do it, but we are not going to give you a dime to implement it.

Chairman Harris asked for any comments based on the direction the commission is going as far as the subcommittees.

Mrs. Bankston answered saying that she agreed with Representative LeBlanc, as the over all picture cannot be forgotten - as everyone is fighting for a piece of the pie, everyone needs to come together.

Ron Wascom, Associate Director for the Louisiana School Boards Association addressed members of the commission. He began by saying that the only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history and hopefully this will not be the case in this instance. At the time he became involved in public K-12 education, which was the 60's; prior to the mid 60's public K-12 education -the distinction between what was state responsibility and what was local responsibility was pretty well clearly outlined; as far as the expenditures and the costs of it, the state assumed 100% responsibility for the day to day operation of the schools; particularly the student related costs. Local School boards were given 100% of the responsibility for the construction of the school facilities he said. He noted that they have never received any state funding for the construction of school facilities. A somewhat gray area involved the maintenance of these school facilities; there was some tax authority at the local level for the operation and maintenance of school facilities, but pretty well the instructional aspects was the state's responsibility. The state and the administration back in 1965, wanted to provide a salary increase for school employees particularly teachers. However, they did not wish to take the leadership and raise the necessary taxes in which to do this from a state level. He stated that what they did was to give each local school board the authority to levy up to a 1% sales tax or they gave local government that authority. This was the first venture in supplementing the salaries of teachers beyond the state teachers salary schedule. Mr. Wascom noted that what has happened is that school boards are collecting in excess of one billion dollars annually from sales taxes primarily to supplement the salaries of teachers and other school employees and also to assist in the operation of school facilities. The current picture is somewhat fuzzy as to what the state's responsibility is and what the local responsibility is particularly in regards to salaries of teachers. In his memory, the next significant event, in 1992, was when the legislature authorized a new minimum foundation program (MFP). The old MFP that they operated under for years dealt only with selected items of costs that the state had determined to be the state's responsibility. He continued in stating that the new MFP includes all costs associated with K-12 education with the exception of capital outlay and them attempts to divide this costs between the state and local school boards. The basic division between the state and school boards is 65% state and 35% local school board. He advised members to understand that each school board is not provided 65% of the state's responsibility, it's provided anywhere from 90% in a poor school system to a little as 0% - it is a wide variance as to how much the state provides for each school system.

Mr. Wascom spoke of mandates and referred to their handout saying that since they went to the new MFP with the shared responsibility concept in 1992, it's difficult to say that any particular item is a unfunded mandate because everything was to be thrown into the MFP and then shared generally on the 65-35 basis.

In closing Mr. Wascom stated they stand ready to work in anyway they can to assist.

Chairman Harris stated that one of the things he is hearing loud and clear is that evidently the group has talked about mandates that may have not necessarily have hit the mark as far as getting the attention needed. He suggested talking to the LSU Office of Government Program to get a compilation of all of the mandates that we are talking about so it is not coming from your organization or our's but it is coming from that body that represents this whole commission; this would be the document that the commission would be working from in the subcommittees. He continued that if there is no objection or a better idea to come forward.

Mayor Simpson stated that there are interagency policy demands that dictate that you do things from DOTD to local governments; for example the sewer issue on the sides of state highways, anytime you widen a highway you have to subsurface the sewer and this one costs on a three mile stretch of road in East Baton Rouge Parish added almost three million dollars to a project. Again, this was just a policy decision that required EBR Parish to do this and not a statutory mandate but a policy.

Members briefly discussed this issue along with gray area's dealing with contracts.

Chairman Harris inquired as to how the group would inventory all of these policies?

Blaise Carriere responded stating that starting right now, with examples used, they can go through and list all of the items they are currently doing and are mandated.

Chairman Harris took the opportunity to thank all of the representatives of the associations on the ACIR and department head's that came as well as the state representative in attendance. He further stated that he didn't know if anyone noticed but the President of the Senate, President Hainkel, passed by and he asked him about his designees from the Senate, because they are noticeably absent, and he needs to have them present because their presence at the table and to have them represented in the subcommittees.

Representative Erdy noted that as we were discussing the itemization of mandates from the various organizations, if there could also be a list provided for the itemization of the $2.5 billion dollars that is being spent in various areas.

Chairman Harris responded that he will ask LSU to provide this breakdown with the assistance of the House and Senate staff.

Chairman Harris moved to the next item, subcommittee assignments, when do we meet, and who will be assigned to what committee. He further noted that tradition dictates that we are going to meet from 10:00 to 12:00, if the subcommittees want to straddle the lunch hour it will be up to them. He was wondering if Thursday's would be OK. Possibly the second Thursday of each month.

Thursday's seemed OK with commission members.

Chairman Harris made a motion that subcommittees would meet on the second Thursday's each month alternating between the general ACIR meetings. There being no objection, the meeting schedule passed.

Mr. Guillot reviewed the list of possible subcommittees and advised that committee preferences would be worked out and all members would be advised.

VIII. BELL SOUTH UPDATE

Mr. Tommy Williams representing Bell South addressed members of the commission. He stated that he wanted to tell members about an accomplishment that he feels ACIR played a major role in, as well as a lot of other individuals sitting in the room, in the studying, passing and implementation of the Telecommunications Act that the legislature passed last year. He is happy to report to the commission that as a result of lots of hard work this Act is finally implemented as of July of last year. He feels that this was a win, win situation and everyone won-including local governments. Mr. Williams continued that there was about $26 million dollars that was tied up in escrow and the minute the Governor signed the Act that $26 million dollars was released to the local government entities. Since that time, the Public Service Commission has taken their responsibility as outlined in the language of the Act and have ordered to all of the telecommunications companies that received the benefit of the Act by now paying their property taxes to local government at a 15% rate as opposed to 25% rate, and they have ordered the rate reductions, which are being implemented as of today. The expansion of the state telecommunications tax, to include interstate revenues has taken place and they are working with the Department of Revenue to ensure that those dollars are going into the right location in state government so that as they explain the act the circle is completed and everyone is kept hole and the entire state is better off.

IX. GIS UPDATE

Jerry Guillot, Commission Counsel updated members on the GIS update noting that in 1999 Mr. David Gisclair with the Oilspill Coordinator's Office made a presentation regarding efforts at that point to establish a digitized map for the state and at that time most of southern Louisiana had already been done and the issue was whether or not there would be enough interest, money, ect., to get the rest of the state done. Government Technology Magazine just completed a digital state survey ranking, in the area of governmental information systems or GIS, Louisiana was placed second this past year he said. Mr. Guillot quoted parts of the article saying that "Louisiana is now offering some innovative GIS services including a digital map of the state, developed by multiple agencies in the state and federal and educational private sectors - in addition, to the state's department of transportation, which offers a geomedia work space which can be downloaded to a personal computer." He stated the base map data can then be customized to the user's needs, information includes parish and political boundaries, data on highways, bridges and a GIS CD Rom set. It is noted that the commission had gone on record in support of the completion of the project which has been done he concluded.

Mike Zito made a motion to adjourn. There being no objection the meeting was adjourned.