nysac county mandate report

8/7/2019 NYSAC County Mandate Report

1/32

Refrm Maaes, Rec Css NYSAC Ferar 2011

1

Refrm

Maaes,

Rec

Css

A Preliminary Reportto Governor

Andrew Cuomos

Mandate Relie Team

Submitted by the

New York State

Association o Counties

February 2011


2/32

February 2011 2011 New York State Association of Counties

Refrm

Maaes,

Rec

Css

T h e N e w Y o r k S t a t e

Association o Counties

is a bipartisan municipal

association serving thecounties o New York State

including the City o New York.

Organized in 1925, NYSACs

mission is to represent,

educate and advocate or

member counties and the

thousands o elected and

appointed county oicials

who serve the public.

County Leadership Team

Hon. William J. Ryan (Westchester)President

New York State Association o Counties

Hon. Maggie Brooks (Monroe)President

New York State County Executives Association

Hon. A. Douglas Berwanger (Wyoming)President

New York State Association o County Board Chairs

Charles Nesbit (Orleans)President

New York State Association o County Administrators and Managers

Stephen J. AcquarioExecutive Director


3/32


3

As the administrative arm o State government,

counties are in a position to partner with Governor

Andrew Cuomo to transorm the public servicedelivery process in New York State. We are on theront lines o delivering these services every day,

and as such we know where the system works well,where it breaks down and how to make it moreecient and eective.

NYSAC embraces the Governors call to reducethe State mandates that dominate virtually every

aspect o county government.

Since the creation o Medicaid in 1966 throughthe past ve decades, these mandates have grownannually, and the costs that have been passed

to county property taxpayers have increasedunsustainably.

All o us who labored to compile and produce this

report over the past month recognize that reversing50 years o shiting mandated costs to countyproperty taxpayers will take more than 90 days.

However, the exercise o compiling these mandaterelie ideas is critical to transorming government ina way that cuts costs and reduces the property taxburden or all homeowners and businesses.

Counties are required under State law to implementand nance numerous State mandated health andhuman services programs including Medicaid,

public assistance or adults and amilies, childwelare and preschool special education, amongothers.

In 2010, nine State mandates consume 90 percento the county property tax levy statewide. Thesemandates have been a direct cause o property tax

increases over the past ve decades.

This statutory relationship that connects countiesand the State through these programs is what sets

our mandates apart rom those imposed on otherlocal governments.

Exece Smmar

Our costliest mandates are rooted in the directdelivery o State programs, not in the labor-related mandates that impact other localgovernments.

In the pages that ollow we describe hundredso Mandate reorm ideas that could reducethe cost o government by billions o dollars.

These ideas are organized according to the

nine mandates that consume 90 percent o the

property tax levy statewide, beginning with the

largest mandate, Medicaid.

Our top mandate relie priority is to reormMedicaid in a way that reduces costs or the

State and reinvests these savings or a gradualState takeover o county Medicaid costs. Onlythen can we reduce property taxes and improveNew Yorks economic competitiveness.

The enormity o the state-imposed scal burdenon counties is so severe we remain concerned

that even i a large share o the mandate reormand cost reduction proposals in this documentare implemented, we may still all short o ourmutual goal o reducing property taxes.

We are under no illusions that this task willbe simple or easily accomplished. But, at thesame time, we rmly believe that it must begin

now and continue over the next three years toreturn New York State to its rightul place as aleader in government service and economic

competitiveness.

It is with that sense o urgency that the NewYork State Association o Counties, on behal

o our members who serve the people othis great state, respectully submit theserecommendations. With them, we pledge our

tireless support or this eort and stand readyand willing to work with Governor Cuomo andthe State Legislature to make real mandate relieat long last, a reality.


4/32

Refrm Maae, Rec CssNYSAC Ferar 2011

4

State/Co

unty

Part

nership


5/32


5

MEdiCAid

Background: The Medicaid program that exists in New York today bears little resemblance to the programinitiated by Governor Rockeeller and the State Legislature in the mid-1960s. That program was a simple

healthcare saety net built on the platorm o county services to provide or the health and welare o it

residents. More than our decades later, Medicaid in New York has grown into the nations largest, and moscomplex state system o healthcare unding and nance. County ocials, who once directed Medicaid

resources to meet the needs o their citizens, are now carried away by an avalanche o State and Federa

mandates, rules and paperworkunable to provide any meaningul direction or control. And yet, with the

exception o a cap on the level o cost growth, the county role in nancing this radically dierent program

has remained essentially unchanged.

Priority: Counties believe that now is the time to recognize that Medicaid is a State program, and that thenon-Federal share o its cost is most-appropriately nanced solely at the State level, where virtually al

the capacity or control and direction resides. It cannot be ignored that the current nancing structure

which splits shares between the ederal government, state and counties o New York contributes directly

to the unsustainable size, cost and scope o the program today. For too long, the State Legislature and

Governor have expanded benets, services and coverage o Medicaid to more people knowing ull wel

that the State General Fund would be responsible or unding only a portion o the costs o these many

expansions. This o-budget nancing has built a program that promises to deliver ar more service than

taxpayers have the means to support.

Moreover, we believe that, as part o the Governors Medicaid Re-design initiative and the implementation

o the Federal Aordable Care Act, the resources can be created to support this critical change.

Mandate recommendations: In the nearer term, county ocials rom the across the state have

identied the ollowing specic mandate relie opportunities that would save money, improve service, oboth.

1. First, do no harm. This mainstay o the Hippocratic Oath is especially relevant to todays Medicaid policy

In the context o a property tax cap, counties simply lack the capacity to continue to shoulder increases in

the Medicaid cost burden. The county property tax base is too narrowly distributed to eectively nance

a program the size o Medicaid.

Recommendation: As a prelude to the ull State assumption o costs, implement a hard cap on the countyshare o Medicaid (i.e., eliminate the mandated 3 percent annual county share increase), eective January 1

2012. This will centralize the responsibility o nancing the Medicaid program with the level o governmen

that has decision-making authority over those services, aligning accountability or program design andscope with the scal responsibility or those program decisions. Over time we believe that removing

counties rom the nancing o Medicaid will reduce the overall size, scope and expense o New Yorks

Medicaid program to the net benet o the States taxpayers. Appropriate nancing is a undamental tene

o responsible governing and the lack thereo in New York has delivered a Medicaid program that all agree

is unsustainable.


6/32


6

2. Create a rational and sustainable benet structure and eligibility criteria. New York State must reinven

the benet design and eligibility or Medicaid. This should include a review o optional benets, optiona

populations and income eligibility levels.

3 The State must also make a clear policy decision, once the Aordable Care Act (ACA) is implemented, to

no longer use State resources to pay or health insurance coverage or und health related programs that

the ederal government will ully und. As an example, the ederal government will provide 95 percen

subsidized health insurance coverage or people between 133 percent and 400 percent o the edera

poverty level as a result o this policy New York should end its Medicaid program or any above 133

percent o the ederal poverty level that can attain ederally subsidized health care.

4. The State should determine the cost savings rom modiying or eliminating certain optional benets, i.e

podiatry, optometry, adult dental, etc. This should be done in direct response to the mission o Governo

Cuomos Medicaid Redesign Team, which has been charged with meeting a $2.85 billion scal target in

the SFY 2011-12 budget.

5. Medicaid income eligibility thresholds should also be examined immediately and in the uture. While the

Aordable Care Act does limit the ability o states to change eligibility levels, by our understanding, it doesallow states that are acing decits to modiy eligibility or non-pregnant, non-disabled individuals above

133 percent o the ederal poverty level. New York currently spends more than $550 million in genera

und or this group overall. The Department o Health should provide estimates to the Mandate Relie

Team and Medicaid Redesign Team on potential savings in this area that can be attained immediately and

in the uture when broader eligibility changes are allowed under the Aordable Care Act.

6. The Medicaid benet structure should be altered to mirror what is generally available in the private sector

including adjusting co-pays and deductibles to the maximum amount allowed under ederal law. Othe

reorms to consider should include:

7. Require that generic drugs be prescribed or Medicaid recipients where it is medically possible.

8 Institute amily premiums or Medicaid Managed Care Plans. Specically, in a household o more than one

each person should not be covered by a single plan. As a result multiple premiums are being paid when

in every other health insurance situation there would be one amily plan with one premium paid.

9. Place a cap on the length o treatment or substance and alcohol abuse. Again this would be in line with

most health insurance programs. This would be a signicant cost savings in that the cost or this care is

extremely expensive and there are many clients who end up going in and out o treatment program

multiple times.

10. Review eligibility or nursing home care by tightening restrictions on transer o assets to maximum ederalimits, but especially prohibit setting up annuities to avoid paying or nursing home care.

11. Promote and incentivize the purchase o long term care insurance, so that the health care costs can be

better managed over time and ewer people will shield their assets and get on Medicaid or long term

care.

12. Eliminate Personal Care Aide Level 1 services.


7/32


7

13. Maximize use o Managed Care by ending mandated carve-outs o certain populations and services. The

mandatory use o managed care providers has been a great success in New York. Not only has it saved

money, but its emphasis on prevention and case management has improved the quality o care. Yet, two

State mandates prohibit this approach rom reaching its ull potential. One is the requirement o Provide

Choice, where at least two plans must be available beore enrollment in Managed Care can be mandatory

The second is the carve-out o a variety o specialized medical conditions and services rom the Managed

Care requirement. Counties believe it is time to re-visit both o these restrictions.

14. Eliminate the Provider Choice mandate. In the areas o the State where competitive access to managed

care exists, the State should either submit a ederal waiver to provide managed care through the single

managed care provider model or provide choice by establishing its own preerred provider organization

to be run by the State, similar to the state o Delaware.

15. Re-evaluate the Managed Care exclusions in light o new provider models available and results in othe

states. This includes the expanded use o managed care or the aged, blind and disabled as provider networ

capacity is able. The use o behavioral health managed care should also be expanded, taking advantage

o temporarily available higher ederal matching unds. Also, carving out pharmacy and supplies rom

managed care should end.

16. Put Personal Care under Medicaid Managed Care.

17. End restrictions that lead to the Underutilization o Generic Prescription Drugs in Medicaid. The curren

practice o carving out pharmacy rom managed care and limitations on more aggressive Medicaid

pharmacy management must be implemented. A 2010 report rom the Lewin Group estimates that New

York State could save hundreds o millions o dollars annually by maximizing the use o generic drugs and

implementing better Medicaid pharmacy management techniques.

18. Much o this can be achieved by ending the carve-out o pharmacy and supplies rom managed care.

19. Revisit dispensing ees to encourage generic dispensing.

20. Stabilize the Rate-Setting Process or County Nursing Homes by nalizing the Rebasing State Plan

Amendment, allowing ederally approved intergovernmental transers to occur at the county level. The

State has ailed to implement a two year old law that called or the rebasing o nursing acility costs to

more appropriately recognize the true expenses incurred by nursing homes across the State. Counties

support the enactment o this rebasing methodology, which can be accomplished at no cost to the

State and would help county nursing homes better manage their nances. The nal implementation o

the rebasing rate setting methodology would also allow counties to move orward with ederally-allowed

intergovernmental transers that would bring in hundreds o millions o dollars (potentially annually) to

county nursing acilities without any cost to the State. Governor Cuomos Budget proposes to delay, againthe implementation o this improved reimbursement methodology and we urge reconsideration.

21. Provide incentives/sanctions to redirect urgent but non emergency care away rom emergency rooms, and

support a network o urgent care walk-in clinics. Anyone who has been to a hospital Emergency Room in

recent years knows that they are oten woeully overburdened. One reason is the number o non-emergency

cases that clog their waiting and treatment rooms. Aside rom the risk to the treatment o the critically il

and injured, this practice is an expensive and inecient delivery system or primary healthcareand one

or which Emergency Rooms were not designed.


8/32


8

22. Eliminate non-emergency Emergency Room services as eligible Medicaid services,

23. Enhance incentives/sanctions or Managed Care providers to eliminate such ER visits.

24. Redirect a portion o the savings to increase access to primary care walk-in clinics.

25. Build on successul models or county control o transportation services. Under current State mandates

counties are not currently allowed to mix rides with Medicaid and other people traveling to and/or romthe same locations. So separate arrangements must be made. Working with the New York State Health

Department, a group o counties in the Hudson Valley developed the Hudson Valley Transportation Project

This project demonstrated the easibility and cost savings o coordinating mixed-rides or various county

supported transportation.

26. Eliminate or waive the Freedom o Choice mandate and permit counties to use a capitated reimbursemen

model or transportation services, give counties enhanced authority to enter into more fexible non

emergency transportation agreements with providers, and review easibility o one statewide or regiona

contracts, to handle non-emergency Medicaid transportation services using a ully capitated model with

a waiver rom Freedom o Choice.

27. Simpliy and enhance county capacity to conduct Medicaid audits. County ocials are oten bette

positioned to identiy raud, waste and abuse o the Medicaid system in their localities than the State

Additionally, in many cases, Medicaid providers are also vendors or other county-unded programs and

activities or which they may be subject to audit. While the State Oce o the Medicaid Inspector Genera

(OMIG) allows counties to participate in Medicaid audits, the procedures to do so are cumbersome and do

not adequately refect county costs.

28. Streamline the OMIG county Audit Planning mandates to make them easier to implement and manage.

29. Revise the OMIG cost regulations so that counties can recover the ull cost o audit activities.

30. Reinstate ace-to-ace interviews or reauthorizations. Counties must be allowed to conduct means testing

and require proo o eligibility.

31. Establish county-developed and State-supported methods o directly working with Medicaid recipient

to combat provider raud and abuse and access all private insurances where cost eective.

32. Combat provider raud through personal contacts (phone or ace-to-ace) with recipients to determine

whether billed services were provided and whether there are any questions as to the service being

needed.

33. Restore New York States Compliance with Federal Medicaid Program rules or billing Special Educationpreschool services. New York State has been out o compliance with Federal Medicaid billing practices o

certain services provided in a school-based setting, the Special Education Preschool (3-5 year olds) program

Counties ollowed State practices or billing or these services, but recently the State made retroactiv

adjustments to the billing process that makes it nearly impossible or counties to legally bill or what are

reimbursable services. The State Department o Health and State Education Department should work wit

counties to develop a transition period so these claims can be led and reimbursed.


9/32


9

Miscellaneous Medicaid Actions

34. Government should work toward removing barriers that restrict options or alternatives to nursing home

care. We recommend ending restrictions or the new Nursing Home Without Walls program that has been

closed to program expansion or many years. There is a need to look at the many regulations in the NYS

DOH that have prevented the development o long-term care options in the home and in less expensive

but appropriate community-based settings. These regulations have caused a high price tag. Check someo the home care options oered in the state o Oregon or models.

35. Maximize veterans benets to avoid Medicaid costs. Personnel should reer recipients that are veteran

to the County Veterans or State Veterans service oce. I the veteran is eligible or VA Medical assistance

then they dont need Medicaid.

36. NYS should work with non prots with existing programs such as the Lions Clubs. The Lions Clubs collection

o used eyeglasses and recycled rames could prove to be excellent examples o reusing durable medica

goods.

37. Eliminate the Medicaid prior approval process or non-emergency transportation and personal care aides

This process consumes a great amount o sta time and does not provide any integrity to the process. Most

authorizations are blanket approvals and do nothing to ensure the vendors are billing or actual services

provided, it is truly a ministerial process that does not achieve what might have been the original intended

outcomes. Require Medicaid-unded case managers to perorm representative payee tasks so that loca

districts are not orced to pick up this portion o case management work rom those unded to do it.

38. Streamline and consolidate the State Health Departments operation. It is composed o 46 councils, 6

committees, 17 boards, 5 institutions, 2 task orces and 5 acilities.

39. Eliminate the 90 day requirement Medicaid claiming limit or counties and make the claiming limi

commensurate with Federal Medicaid rules.

PubliC ASSiStAnCE

Background: Public assistance includes a variety o programs in New York but the core Family AssistanceProgram provides time-limited cash assistance and support services to low income amilies to help them

achieve sel-suciency. Support programs can range rom work supports like child care, transportation

assistance, skills development and mentoring; housing assistance; providing inormation on persona

nancial management; emergency services in cases o domestic violence or abuse including shelter and

counseling, among other things. Funding or Family Assistance (TANF) in New York is currently split 50

percent ederal, 25 percent State and 25 percent county and New York City.


10/32


10

In addition, New York also has a Saety Net Program that provides assistance to non-amilies (childless

adult couples, single adults, people that have exceeded their ve year limit on Family Assistance and

others). Cash assistance and other supportive services similar to Family Assistance are provided in this

program. This program is unded 50 percent by the State and 50 percent by counties and New York City

The Governors proposed 2011-2012 budget would change the current 50/50 State/Local distribution o

Saety Net Assistance Program costs to a 30/70 State/Local distribution.

In addition to these major programs, counties are required by the State to administer the ederal ood stamp

program (SNAP), child support enorcement, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programs (LIHEAP) and

other social service programs designed to help low income individuals and amilies achieve sel-suciency

and/or maintain their own saety and well being. New York provides no unding or administrative costs o

Food Stamps and HEAP. There is an open-ended 50 percent ederal unding or Food Stamps administration

and ederal unds or HEAP is cappedsome years it is sucient to cover all costs, other years it covers

hal or less.

Priority: The State should reocus eorts on the overall goal o sel-suciency. State policy and scadecisions should refect this goal. New York State has been on a dangerous trend o removing its sca

involvement in a number o State-mandated public assistance programs. I this is the path the State

pursues, State agencies, as well as their eorts, should be consolidated and reassigned to ensure the bes

and most ecient delivery o services. Reorm eorts should be realigned to ocus on the core mission o

sel-suciency and cut bureaucracy.

Mandate recommendations: In the nearer term, county ocials rom across the State have identiedthe ollowing specic mandate relie opportunities that would save money, improve service, or both.

40 New York State must re-examine the Saety Net Assistance program benets in order to promote greate

sel-suciency.

41. Establish waiting period rom state to state (say 6 months) and rom county to county (say 60 days).

42. Provide any surplus TANF money to local districts to use in serving amilies on the TANF caseload. Too oten

these unds are directed to State contracts that are serving amilies at 200% o poverty but not those at

greatest risk.

43. Allow or work experience in the private sector or saety net individuals.

44. Regulate WIC, ood stamps.

45. New York should consider that single, childless couples without any medical exemptions not be eligible

or cash assistance. This is being done in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, resulting in considerable cost

savings and greater accountability. With greater collaboration between drug and alcohol treatment agencies

providing services to Saety Net single and childless couples cleared or employment but the providers wan

this group to stay in supportive housing at a cost o over $1,000 per month or a single person, considerable

cost savings can be achieved.


11/32


11

46. Restrict benets or continued drug and alcohol abuse or those not participating in rehabilitation, and tie

incentives to completion o programs.

47. Full amily sanctions allowed, with a maximum lietime eligibility just like TANF.

48. Count emergency relie toward the ve year clock.

49. Implement ARC and Head Start-like transportation system that takes adults to structured work site and/oeducational site Mondays through Fridays, while children are transported or daycare/Head Start Mondays

through Fridays.

50. The eligibility standards need to be modied to permit a range o eligibility depending upon the county

and its unique circumstances and conditions. There is a huge disparity between what constitutes a saety

net in New York City and what is needed in more rural counties. The local authorities should be granted

signicant discretion to determine the eligibility and level o benets or their own county. This would also

encourage initiative and creativity by local ocials. It would also enable local legislators to tailor the benets

provided to what the working taxpayers are making themselves, so there is no incentive or individuals to

go on Public Assistance and cease working. This is a current problem in poorer areas.

51. Incorporate healthy ood choices at higher discounts on ood stamp program.

52. Provide more discretion to counties in meeting the work requirements; the departments should be allowed

to determine i an individual is making an eort to either work or is being prepared to work.

53. Unemployed recipients o Public Assistance should volunteer or government agencies to receiv

assistance, i.e. janitorial responsibilities at DSS, landscaping at NYS parks. Anywhere that would save the

State money.

54. Increased unding to counties or investigation and prosecution o raud and abuse.

55. Allow the counties to contract with ARC and Head Start or transportation.

56. New York States articial employment goals vs. local options and lack o real job growth in the economy

should not be reasons or penalizing counties.

57. Increase the assistance to help move clients rom Saety Net to SSI.

58. New York State should provide enhanced technology to better coordinate services across programs and

agencies. The Department o Healths 11/30/10 report on the takeover o Medicaid administration has a

comprehensive section on the inadequacies o the current system and potential benets o a modern

unied sotware system.

59. Enhance the resources or counties to step up their eorts to employ recipients. Assess the value o

disbanding VESID (Vocational and Educational Services to Individuals with Disabilities) and distributing

those resources to counties or workorce investment areas.

60. Eliminate the Automated Finger Imaging System requirement.


12/32


12

61. Consideration should be given to eliminating the six-month utility guarantee requirement or SSI recipient

when we provide an emergency utility payment. This provides an incentive not to pay bills prospectively

even i money is available to such recipients.

62. Allow/incentivize public-private partnerships to provide sheltered or DSS-supervised work in private

settings.

63. Establish/support counties that want to oer public or public-private work options in lieu o PublicAssistance.

64. End direct State contracts in avor o moving unds into local perormance-based contracts. Counties are

in the best position to decide where limited dollars are most needed to provide essential services. They

can hold local not-or-prot agencies to perormance-based outcomes. In recognition o ewer resources

we need more local authority to make choices on how money is spent.

65. The State should remove mandates that control local decisions on TANF spending such as the child welare

spending threshold.

66. The State should purchase an electronic eligibility program or TANF. This program area is ull o complexrules that create hours o work and unavoidable errors.

67. Change the rules o unmarried couples who cohabitatethat one may collect benets and one may wor

and have a ull-time job.

Child WElFARE

Background: Counties administer and und a share o the costs o providing child welare services to

children and amilies in need. These activities include services, interventions and investigations designedto help prevent child abuse and protect childrens welare. Prevention services can cover a wide array o

activities and amily supports. Child protection services are required in more intensive cases and are oten

provided at the direction o the court system.

Cuts to child welare services are short-sighted. The State should recognize that quality preventive service

can dramactically improve outcomes and save money in the long run. Evidence-based preventive service

should be ully supported to reduce the long term costs o amily disruption, institutionalization and

incarceratoin.

Currently, the State unds about 62 percent o the non-ederal share o these services and counties and

New York City cover 38 percent. In recent years the State Legislature and Governor have cut State supportor child welare services and orced counties and New York City to make up the cuts out o local budgets

Over the last two budget cycles the State has cut its share o unding rom about 65 percent o costs down

to 62 percent, shiting about $60 million in costs to counties. These cost shits and cuts have come with

minimal relie rom State mandates in these programs resulting in direct cost increases or local taxpayers

to support State programs.


13/32


13

Priority:The State must end cost shiting in child welare area. The State is simply cutting their commitmento und child prevention and protection services, while eectively requiring counties to increase thei

shares. In many cases, counties have limited fexibility, or none at all in the case o a court order, to provide

these essential services. State eorts to control costs in this program should work toward solutions that

streamline services, increase eciencies, leverage ederal resources and ensure that the program is scall

sustainable or counties and the State. With decreased State unding, there should be a corresponding

reduction and/or consolidation within the overseeing State agency.


68. The State should permit counties to x their own stang and perormance criteria. By permitting loca

fexibility the local leadership would be encouraged to nd ways to be more ecient and to innovate with

new and better models or service.

69. Encourage and increase incentives or permanent adoption.

70. Maintain 62-38 percent child welare nancing ormula or local prevention services/alternatives to Statetraining schools, etc.

71. The reporting and regulatory procedures put enormous burdens upon the Child Protective Services Unit

the entire Department o Social Services, and the County Attorneys Oce. These agencies need to be given

more fexibility to determine what is needed, and how to perorm essential services. That could result in

reduced costs, and increase eciency.

72. Simpliy the investigations required o repeat unounded CPS investigations. Allow caseworkers to pu

their eorts on cases that really need it.

73. Permit county health departments, departments o social services, and oces or the aging to conducuniorm assessments and share the inormation.

74. Counties need greater fexibility in the design o child protection services. Counties should be permitted

greater discretion regarding how to achieve the mission-ocused results. This would reduce the need o

the massive stang in the various departments at the State level, creating savings at both the State and

local levels.

75. County discretion in setting and determining caseload standards.

76. Eliminate acceptance o CPS reports on educational neglect or middle school and high school students

This would reduce caseloads/reports both or the State, county and Family Courts. This would allow ogreater eciencies on all three levels. The Family Assessment Response pilot should be implemented

statewide or educational neglect cases involving middle school and high school students and low leve

CPS cases. This pilot has demonstrated progress, reduces CPS reports/caseloads and improved outcome

or amilies, resulting in greater eciencies and better outcomes.


14/32


14

77. Stop the State Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program rom being implemented on April 1, 2011

Subsidized guardianship requires the same State reimbursement as subsidized adoption. However, the

State is providing no unding and is imagining savings that do not exist. The Foster Care Block Grant is

tapped out and cannot be used to und this new program.

78. Eliminate the cumbersome ormat o the Consolidated Services Plan.

79. Eliminate the Inormal Day Care certication regulation. The process is ull o loopholes that compromisethe integrity o it. It is also labor intensive.

80. Restore child protective/preventive unding to 65 percent.

81. Repeal 390-h o the Social Services law, which requires that in a city having a population o one million

or more, i the social services district seeks to close a child day care center under contract, it shall provide a

least six months written notice to the child day care center and the parents or persons legally responsible

or children enrolled in such centers, prior to the closing.

82. Repeal the New York State Law on medical child support orders, Chapter 215 o the Laws o 2009, which

is now outdated and based on obsolete ederal regulations. Chapter 215 o the Laws o 2009, amendssection 413 o the Family Court Act (FCA) and section 240 o the Domestic Relations Law (DRL), section

416 o the FCA and section 240 o the DRL, section 416(e)(2)(iii) o the FCA and section 240(1)(c)(2)(iii) o the

DRL, section 416() o the FCA and section 240(1)(d) o the DRL, 514 and 545 o the FCA, section 5241(b)(2)

(i) o the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), and section 5241(h) o the CPLR.

83. Pass and sign into law legislation that requires the guardian o a deceased incapacitated person to notiy

the local department o social services within twenty days o such death. S.5883/A.8771 (o 2009).

84. Expand the Services Random Moment Study to include all social services districts, and give each distric

its own quarterly claiming percentages so that local decisions about sta/program allocations are bette

refected in reimbursement claims.

PRESChool SPECiAl EduCAtion

Background: Chapter 23 o the Laws o 1989 established the Preschool Program or Children withHandicapping Conditions-Educational Program as Section 4410 o the Education Law. This law included

a provision to reduce the county scal liability to 25 percent by the 1993-94 school year. Instead, counties

now pay 40.5 percent o the program costs and 100 percent o the costs over the State mandated cap onthe costs or transporting these children to their service providers. Beginning with the Decit Reduction

Act o 1990, the State has reneged on its statutory assurances o increased State scal participation in the

program. The State has consistently resorted to balancing its own budget in part by decreasing the States

portion o these costs.

At the same time that counties share has grown, the total costs or this mandated program have grown

exponentially, rom $96 million in 1989 to over $1 billion in 2010, with the countys 40.5 percent share being

$420 million.


15/32


15

In 2007, the Governor and State Legislature established the Temporary Task Force on Preschool Specia

Education, which recommended that county scal participation be capped and county programmatic and

administrative involvement be eliminated by 2013.

In 2009, a moratorium on Medicaid reimbursement or covered services under the Preschool Supportive

Health Services Program was placed or services delivered on or ater July 1, 2009. This moratorium was

subsequently raised but only allows or the submission o claims or services delivered on or ater Septembe

1, 2009 that meet the new Medicaid billing rules. This action makes it dicult or counties to claim Medicaid

reimbursement or the services during this time period.

The ederal and state law places responsibility or the program with the educational system and give

decision-making authority to school districts, even though counties continue to bear the nancial burden

or service and programmatic decisions.

Priority: The State should implement the recommendations o the Temporary Task Force on PreschooSpecial Education and remove counties rom the scal, contractual and programmatic responsibilities o

the Pre-School Special Education Program by 2013.


85. I counties are not removed rom the scal, contractual and programmatic responsibilities o the program

State Education Department reimbursement to counties must be increased to the 75 percent, which wa

the original percentage o reimbursement promised to counties rom the start.

86. Medicaid should not be applying requirements retroactively or services already claimed or the Preschoo

Supportive Health Services Program since New York State did not make those requirements clear in the

past. Medicaid should publish the requirements in a new Medicaid Handbook, and ensure that they are

clear and consistent moving orward or 2010-11 school year.

87. Limit eligibility to individuals that have greater delays in development.

88. Require some amily nancial participation, based on income. This could be through third party insurance

payments to the county/State.

89. Fee schedule or services.

88. Increase county role in developing and writing Individual Education Plans.

89. Flexibility in implementation, appointment to Special Education Committee as a voting member.

90. I counties are to pay they should have the nal say in services to be provided. I they cannot have the say

the costs should be paid by the school districts who determine the level o services.

91. Counties bear the cost o Pre-K transportation which is a very large portion o their budgets. There is also

a cap on reimbursement or this. Counties should not be responsible to contract with bus companies to


16/32


16

transport Pre-K students when the school districts already transport children. One county pays about $350

per day per bus. Because they are a rural area, sometimes there is only one child per bus.

92. I a county has to stay involved in the program, the school districts should be responsible or transportation

(bus and parent reimbursed)there would be economy o scale because they already have a transportation

system in place and have appropriate personnel to carry out the support unctions or transportation.

93. Transportation guidelines or preschoolers with a disability should be clearly dened - parents MUSTtransport i they are able and be reimbursed at the standard IRS mileage rate.

94. Increase the availability o Universal Pre-K to enable amilies to access nursery school experiences, increase

learning in group settings. This would cut down on number o children in 4410 because there would be

other options.

95. I a county is to be involved in preschool, consider ways to include the county in decisions on IEP amendment

that can be done by agreement between the parent and CPSE chair. This would help to control unnecessary

increase or addition o services.

96. Eliminate the requirement or counties to pay or Administrative Overhead and 4408. Counties have noinput nor control over these expenses. In addition services or 5-21 (4408) should not be the responsibility

o the county.

97. SEIT should be a ee or service. Counties are paying or services not being delivered at a substantia

cost.

98. Provide services to preschoolers or one 12 month period non working parents need to be present and

take part in childs therapy.

99. The preschool program should be centralized per county, not per district to be more ecient, eective

and consistent.

indigEnt dEFEnSE

Background: In 1965, as required by constitutional mandate, New York enacted Article 18-B o the CountyLaw. This law required each county and New York City to establish a plan to provide counsel to indigent

deendants. The law allowed these municipalities to choose among several options to provide such service

including; 1. public deender oce, 2. designation o a legal aid society, 3. adopt a local bar associationplan, or 4. a combination o the above options. The law mandated that each plan provide or investigative

expert and other services necessary or adequate deense. One o the major problems with this system

was that it placed signicant nancial burden on the counties.

Though challenged legally and criticized through reports o the statewide associations and the chie judge

this system is still in place. However, the statewide partial reimbursement mechanism has been changed

or the 2011 scal year. In addition a new oversight body has been created.


17/32


17

Priority: Though a newly implemented reimbursement and oversight mechanism has been put intoplace NYSAC believes that there are still additional statutory and regulatory changes that can be made

to produce county savings. A signicant portion o NYSACs proposals include increased local discretion

in the implementation o indigent deense services. Increased discretion would allow or a higher quality

o services by allowing counties to recognize localized dierences and specialized needs o the indigen

within their locality. In addition, such discretion would also allow or considerable cost savings which would

be passed down to the taxpayer.

Mandate recommendations: County ocials have identied the ollowing specic mandate relieopportunities that would save money and improve service.

100. The rates payable to individual assigned attorneys and others should be subject to local control.

101. Counties should have authority/discretion in determining indigence.

102. Counties should have the authority and/or discretion to implement a confict deender.

103. Stable and predictable unding by the State through ILSF $ or local/county indigent deense activity.

104. Decriminalize the Vehicle and Trac Law Section 511.1(a), Aggravated Unlicensed Operation in the Third

Degree. Make it an inraction so there is no right to counsel at the county expense or this oense.

105. Institute a ling ee o no more than $25 or commencement o an action in Family Court, amending the

CPLR and the FCA to allow or such ees. Provide that these ees are used in the county where they are

generated or indigent deense services.

106. Make arbitration mandatory or rst time lers in Family Court by amending the FCA. This will encourage

parties to work out a solution in a high percentage o cases.

107. Raise standard to receive relie in Family Court on ex parte petitions or custody by amending the FCA.

108. I counsel is required at every arraignment, incarcerations will increase, not decrease. It takes time (24 to 48

hours) to nd and assign an attorney, and or the attorney to get to the arraignment. Many more deendents

will be unnecessarily incarcerated while waiting or their attorney to show up.

109. Require a scal impact statement or legislation impacting indigent deense.

110. Allow the ability to collect expended unds rom uture earnings o ormerly indigent persons.


18/32


18

PRobAtion

Background: Probation services are provided by counties and the City o New York as mandated undeNYS Executive Law. Local probation departments provide services including intake, diversion, investigation

supervision o probationers and other special or related programs. Probation supervision is perormed by

probation ocers to ensure probationers abide by and remain accountable or the conditions set orth bythe court in their sentence. Probation is a rehabilitative service and a critical alternative to the incarceration

program in New York State.

Over the last several decades, State reimbursement to counties or probation has dwindled, leaving countie

to shoulder an increasing share o the costs or this program. In 1989 state reimbursement was 46.5. Ove

the years, it has eroded to the current level o 15 percent, and the Governors budget urther reduces

this to 10 percent, so that a vast majority o costs are now supported by county taxpayers. Meanwhile,

probation ocers are enduring greater caseloads due to the creation o more State programs which have

increased the number o individuals sentenced to probation. These include the ignition interlock monitoring

program created under Leandras Law, and the Rockeeller Drug Law reorms, which changed sentencing

requirements or drug oenders.

Priority: The time is right to reinvest in probation and give counties the resources required to carry oumandated probation programs and services. Since the State continues to decrease unding or probation

counties should be able to charge ees or probation supervision in order to oset the costs o providing

this important public service. See below or a detailed ee proposal.

Mandate relief recommendations: County ocials have identied the ollowing specicmandate relie opportunities that would save money and improve service.

Fee Proposals111. Create a $25 probation registration ee to help oset the continuous reduction in unding or local probation

departments. This additional ee is estimated to generate $1 million in revenue and while this additiona

ee is not insignicant, it does not oset the years o cuts in State aid, and it barely scratches the surace o

actual needs. Accordingly, imposing a $25 probation discharge ee in addition to the proposed probation

registration ee will raise another $1 million towards the restoration o necessary unding or local probation

departments. Imposing such a ee at discharge rom probation will ease collection o the ee because

deendants will have the incentive o leaving probation to encourage payment o the ee and will make

payment o the ee less objectionable. Furthermore, there is plenty o precedent or ees o this nature

most notably, the $50 ee to the Department o Motor Vehicles or restoration o a suspended license.

112. Impose a ee on oenders that take advantage o Electronic Enhancements Benets. Many local probation

departments currently provide deendants with the option o utilizing certain state-o-the-art advancement

in supervision which acilitate compliance with conditions o probation. These include voice recognition

check-in systems, kiosks, and other similar innovations. These innovations provide a benet to the oende

in that they make it more convenient or oenders to comply with their probation requirements. In addition

to the convenience actor, these innovations also make it possible or oenders to maintain employment

and to be productive citizens. Utilizing these services is an option which the deendant may choose i the


19/32


19

deendant nds that these services are benecial in assisting him or her in complying with applicable

conditions o probation. The provision o these services can be costly or local probation departments and

counties should be authorized to charge a ee to recoup costs expended to provide these convenience

services to the deendant. Counties should be given the option o charging a monthly ee or the utilization

o certain electronic enhancements. An individual monthly ee not to exceed $10 could be charged o

each enhancement which the deendant chooses to utilize.

113. Impose an Electronic Monitoring and Alcohol/Drug Testing Fee. Many local probation departments, by

order o the sentencing court, currently place deendants on electronic monitoring which helps to acilitate

compliance with conditions o probation. Probation also provides mandated alcohol/drug testing o

deendants. For electronic monitoring, and drug/alcohol testing, counties should be given the option o

charging a ee not to exceed the actual cost to the county o providing the service.

114. Impose a general supervision ee on all oenders undergoing probation supervision. Currently, oender

convicted o driving while intoxicated oenses can be charged a probation supervision ee o $30 per month

(Section 257-c o the Executive Law). Authorizing a similar probation supervision ee, at local option, to be

assessed against all deendants sentenced to probation, thereby allowing local probation departments to

recoup some o the costs associated with supervising deendants.

115. Impose a Supervision Fee on Sex Oenders and Domestic Violence Oenders. Currently, oenders convicted

o driving while intoxicated oenses can be charged a probation supervision ee o $30 per month (Section

257-c o the Executive Law). Authorizing a similar probation supervision ee, at local option, to be assessed

against deendants convicted o sex oenses or oenses relating to domestic violence, thereby allowing

local probation departments to recoup some o the costs associated with supervising these deendants

Additional State rules and requirements relating to these deendants make this population among the

most costly to supervise. These ees would help oset the additional costs.

116. Reallocate State collected DWI ees to county DWI prevention programs to oset the costs associated with

Leandras Law. I this unding does not become available, repeal the provision regarding county monitoringo ignition interlock devices.

117. Allow an automatic 10 percent surcharge or collection o restitution.

General Fiscal Relie (non-ee)

118. When unding is attached to a new initiative, all counties, regardless o their size, should receive proportionate

reimbursement.

119. Probation should have direct access to any OCFS unding streams when probation is providing the direc

service.

120. Return to the counties one-hal o the ee paid by the oender or taking o their DNA which probation

ocers perorm (currently 100 percent o this ee goes to the State).

121. Pursue the OCA takeover o probation services which will stop the decline o state aid to Probation and

will eventually lead to an increase in State unding or Probation services.


20/32


20

122. Pursue OCA nancial support or probations collaboration in all specialty courts.

123. Reimburse counties or supervision o oenders in the community due to the repeal o the Rockeelle

Drug Laws that reduced the States expense to incarcerate.

Leandras Law

124. Make modications to Leandras Law to ensure that evidence based practice research results are beingimplemented in the decisions made about who should be ordered to install ignition interlock devices

Currently all rst-time oenders who are convicted o DWI must install ignition interlock devices on their

cars even though research shows that only 25 percent o that population will reoend. Ensure that probation

is compensated 100 percent or the extra work they must do or the courts and to monitor the oenders

placed on ignition interlock.

125. Transer responsibility or monitoring oenders who are released rom NYSDOCS with Leandras Law

requirements to Division o Parole.

General Probation Recommendations

126. With reimbursement rates at all-time lows, all the State requirements are a burden. I the State wants to se

standards, probation should be unded more airly. Leandras Law is a perect example o a well-intended

law with no unding and an increasing burden on probation. Drug court is another example o a good

program with no unding or counties. With 14 percent reimbursement the State shouldnt be regulating

Probation except to require counties to provide the service.

127. Legal minimum qualication requirements or probation should be re-evaluated.

128. Increase county fexibility in deciding what programs are needed or each probationer.

129. Discourage mandating probation or people who commit minor, non-violent crimes.

130. Enact a moratorium on all new legislation that impacts the workload o probation without 100 percen

unding being attached up ront.

131. Establish a moratorium on all new policies and guidelines issued by regulatory agencies.

Youth Related Probation Recommendations

132. Fund youth prevention programs that decrease caseload or probation in the long run.

133. Enact time rame or Person in Need o Supervision (PINS) diversion cases. These are presently open

ended.

134. Change laws/regulations to allow or the dissemination o inormation between probation and othe

law enorcement agencies on persons sentenced as Youthul Oenders (YO). Current rules mandate tha

probation not share inormation when a person has YO status.


21/32


21

135. Probation should no longer be a sentencing option or oenders who are in violation o child suppor

payments. Counties have support collection units that are already equipped to oversee payment o suppor

and le violations o the support order. Probation should return to the core ocus o community saety.

Administrative Relie

136. Streamline Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) report process: eliminate the requirement or PSI when a

deendant is to be sentenced to time served, is convicted o a crime that occurred while an inmate in a

state correctional acility, and where the sole purpose is to determine Youth Oender (YO) status.

137. Allow probation the fexibility to use the Probation Ocer Trainee (POT) or Probation Ocer (PO) eligible

civil service list at their discretion.

138. Change laws and regulations to allow or the intrastate transers o people sentenced to Interim Supervision

Currently probation can transer Interim Supervision cases to other states but we cannot transer them to

the next county.

139. Instead o pressuring local probation departments to purchase a data management system as recommended

by the State, these systems should be provided to each county to make the systems uniorm.

140. Eliminate mandated contact requirements or dierential supervision.

Sex Oender Supervision

141. Require anyone arrested or a sex oense as dened by Penal Law Section 130.00-130.96, who is allowed to

plea to a non-sex oense and register as a sex oender in accordance with the New York State Sex Oende

Registration Act, Corrections Law 6-C.

142. Rene and/or eliminate sex oender housing regulations.

143. Remove responsibility o probation or Sex Oender Quarterly address verication.

EARly intERvEntion

Background: The New York State Early Intervention Program (EIP) is part o the national Early InterventionProgram or inants and toddlers with disabilities and their amilies. First created by Congress in 1986

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the EIP is administered by the New York State

Department o Health through the Bureau o Early Intervention. In New York State, the Early Intervention

Program is established in Article 25 o the Public Health Law and has been in eect since July 1, 1993. To be

eligible or services, children must be under three years o age and have a conrmed disability or established

developmental delay, as dened by the State, in one or more o the ollowing areas o development

physical, cognitive, communication, social-emotional, and/or adaptive. There is no income eligibility or

the Early Intervention Program.


22/32


22

Counties are responsible to pay 100 percent o the cost o Early Intervention services in the rst instance

which by statute cannot be claimed, until nine months into the current school year, and requently remains

unreimbursed or more than one year. Legislation designed to close loopholes in existing law and mandate

reimbursement by commercial health insurers or Early Intervention services has been introduced in

successive State legislative sessions, but has been unsuccessul to date.

Counties and the City o New York are billing more than ever beore and in amounts exceeding the amount

billed to Medicaid, but the percentage o recoupment remains low. The most recent data shows a total o

approximately $95.5 million was billed to commercial insurers and only $10.6 million was recouped, the

same 14 percent collection rate as in 2000. These collections rates barely cover the costs o the commercia

insurance billing unctions; however, when the cost o services and billing were considered together, the

return was thirteen cents or every one dollar spent by counties overall.

Priority: All Early Intervention services or children with special needs should be covered by commercial healthinsurers. The Governor and the State Legislature need to require third party health insurance coverage to

ensure that county claims are accepted as medically necessary and paid at the Early Intervention approved

rate. Although 48 percent o the children served are covered by private insurers, those private plans cove

only 2 percent o the cost. This reorm would ensure the scal and programmatic integrity o the programor State and local taxpayers and the growing number o amilies who have children who need these vita

services.

Mandate recommendations: In the nearer term, county ocials rom across the State haveidentied specic mandate relie opportunities that would save money, improve service, or both.

144. Coordinate transportation services with other health and human services programs.

145. Include means testing and require parental contribution.

146. Permit counties to obtain and analyze income and to establish local standards governing contributionsrom amilies.

147. Counties should have control o Individualized Education Plan decisions.

148. Mandate attendance at closest certied program available or Committee on Special Education assignmen

purposes.

149. The county may need to be involved in the administration o this program; however, counties should be

permitted to tailor the program so that it refects the counties economic and societal values and standards

At present counties have very little control; Albany sets one standard that applies on a statewide basis

Our income and wealth levels are very dierent rom most urban or suburban counties. Counties shouldbe permitted to adjust to refect these dierences.

150. Oer insurance, similar to Medicaid, at a sliding scale ee or amilies that are over the income limit o ree

Medicaid but cannot aord an insurance policy.


23/32


23

151. Use a capitation method to reimburse or Service Coordination. This eliminates the minutia o calculating

minutes or reimbursement and allows agencies to mange Service Coordination in a better manner. It

also enables counties to calculate costs or budgeting purposes and should eliminate the building up o

unnecessary units.

152. Require screening as opposed to evaluation or all children reerred to EI who are suspected o having

disability and have no diagnosis. This will provide a more appropriate use o EI qualied personnel and cu

unnecessary cost o MDE.

153. Dene the EI models to ocus on amily training as opposed to therapy. This should result in less service

but more appropriate services based on the intent o EI.

154. The evaluator should not be the service provider. The State should consider evaluation centers, which

would result in more open dialogue related to determination o appropriate services that should result in

ewer services.

155. Dene use o inormed clinical opinion in all developmental areas more clearly. This should be based

on research as opposed to list o quality o statements which have no verication other than opinion

o provider doing evaluation. It would result in elimination o children who do not meet EI standards o

eligibility getting services in EI having an IFSP. There are community options or amilies to access o

children who do not meet eligibility in EI (private insurance, language based nursery schools, library story

hours, etc.).

156. Eliminate the option o children staying in EI past the third birthday. It is very oten done to ensure summe

services or keep service coordination and is oten not appropriate based on the unique needs o the

child. This would result in cost saving as children would not get summer services unless it was absolutely

necessary, and would cut out the cost o Service Coordination.

157. NYSDOH and NYSED should review and reissue the joint memorandum on transition since the process hachanged signicantly in the EI regulations and these changes do not concur with NYSED guidance. Paymen

is made to Service Coordinators to clariy the inconsistencies with parents, CPSE chairs and providers due

to conusion on the issues such as transition conerences, attendance at CPSE meetings, etc.

158. Consider possibility o changing eligibility requirement to requiring a 50 percent developmental delay o

initial eligibility, 33 percent or continued eligibility.

159. Address issue o clinical opinion. Current regulations allow eligibility under clinical opinion.

160. Provide ONLY EIP services that are entitled by the ederal government, that is, Child Find, Evaluation, Service

Coordination and the development o the Individualized Family Services Plan.

161. Allow an initial screening o the reerred child by an Initial Service Coordinator to determine i the child

needs to have a ull multidisciplinary evaluation.

162. Change the service delivery model to a amily training model; that is, allow a primary interventionist to

work with the amily one time a week rather than a disciplinary specic provider. This will decrease the

number o providers needed or one child and will increase provider capacity in dicult to nd proession

such as physical therapists, teachers o the dea, or teachers o the visually impaired.


24/32


24

youth dEtEntion

Background: The States Youth Detention Programs provide care and maintain custody o youth ages

8 through 18 during the court process, including adjudication and disposition by amily and/or criminacourts. Counties pay the State or these services based on a rate set orth by the New York State Oce o

Children and Families (OCFS).

The 2010-11 State Budget contained an unexpected $69 million cost shit to counties or youth acility

chargeback ratesthis is on top o similar cost shits in the prior year.

The Legislature cites the justication or the most recent cost shit on a not-yet-nalized (or released) State

Comptrollers audit about the OCFS youth acilities rates. This audit nds that OCFS has had no statutory

authority to provide annual credits to counties youth acility rates over the last several years using edera

TANF unds as the source o the credit. This credit was provided to counties without their knowledge. As

a result o a State agencys unauthorized use o ederal unds, the State Legislature and Governor recoupedall o the unauthorized State expenditures rom counties in the current budgeta $42 million cost shit

in addition to $27 million or youth acilities past due bills, or a total o $69 million in either county scal

year 2010 or 2011. Going orward, because o the OCFS misuse o unds, counties will receive a reduction

o $6 million annually, in their youth acilities reimbursements.

In addition, the State has consistently raised its per diem rates charged to counties and New York City, even

though the State maintains ewer State-operated youth acilities than they did just a decade ago. Countie

are being charged average daily rates by the State to cover State costs o maintaining and operating hal ul

and completely empty State acilities. The State must end the practice o having county property taxpayer

support the costs o clearly unnecessary State bureaucracy.

Priority: The State should hold counties harmless or poor and illegal management decisions at the Statelevel regarding the rates or youth acilities. The decision by the State to recoup these unds should be

reversed immediately. Additionally, it should be recognized that counties do not place children in these

acilitiesthat is the ull discretion o the amily court judge. Counties are highly successul in using

evidence-based and diversion programs; however, the assumption that counties are the sole controller o

these children is wildly untrue.

Mandate relief recommendations: In the nearer term, county ocials rom across the Statehave identied the olllowing specic mandate relie opportunities that would save money, improve

service, or both.

163. County discretion to determine location o appropriate services or juvenile oenders to best accommodate

county o residence.

164. Close State acilities at every level below the limited secure level. Allow voluntary agencies to assume thi

responsibility.


25/32


25

165. Discontinue detention except or those youth who are harmul to themselves or others. There is no value

putting a marginally bad kid in with other bad kids. We have seen no salvation in detention.

166. Use more restorative practices counseling, addiction services, etc. rather than detention and pair it with

ankle bracelet monitoring, volunteering, etc.

167. Greater role in the discharge process or the county. Counties should have a greater role in discharge. Fund

should be used to provide community-based programs such as mentoring, amily therapy, communityservice, etc.

168. Diversion and alternatives at local level and placement without county involvement and coordination ha

to stop.

169. Continue the 50 percent uncapped State share unding o these services.

170. Re-examine the rate setting methodology.

171. The Youthul Oender status should be eliminated. It used to be when a kid got in trouble, people would

watch the kid, and i he did it again, he would get his hands slapped right then. Now the general publicnever knows i there is a problem kid, and they are constantly blindsided and the kid gets away with it.

PEnSionS

Background: Counties participate in the New York State Public Employees Retirement System, alongwith many other local governments; however, counties have no control over the pension benets awarded

to their own employees. A combination o signicant pension benet enhancements over the last 10

years and poor investment returns the last ew years has led to signicant increases in employer pensioncontributions. For most counties these costs have doubled over the last two years and will double and

possibly triple over the next several years.

In 2009, the cost to counties or their required pension contributions consumed just under 9 percent o

the county property tax levy statewide (outside o NYC). By 2014, State-required contributions or county

pensions will consume nearly 25 percent o the entire county property tax levy statewide, under a recen

Senate passed property tax cap bill. The required contributions and the limit on county property tax

revenue increases to support the cost o this State mandate are unsustainable under this scenario.

Priority: While recent pension reorms under Tier 5 will provide much needed long term relie or locagovernments, related to State mandated pension contributions, signicant additional reorms are requiredat this time to place this program on a scally sustainable path or taxpayers and pension recipients.


26/32


26

Mandate relief recommendations

Promote Long Term Fiscal Sustainability

172. Reorm the State pension system so it more closely mirrors what is available in the private sector

173. Create a Tier VI that eliminates the dened benet or newly hired employees and replaces it with a

dened contribution plan (that allows or fexible employee/employer matching arrangements withinset parameters), or allow new hires the option o dened benet or dened contribution. The employee

option will enhance pension portability or an increasingly mobile workorce, especially in areas o

inormation technology and management/system redesign.

174. Re-evaluate pension return guarantee.

175. Consider a Tier VI wherein employee contributions should be capped no lower than 7.5 percent unless

the total contribution required to the plan is less than 7.5 percent.

176. Once a NYSLRS Dened Contribution Plan is established or all uture participants, provide portability

between it and private plans as well as NYS Teachers Retirement System Plan.

177. Pensions should be based on base salary only, absolutely no overtime should be calculated toward

retirement.

178. Pursue a constitutional amendment to reduce/restore pension benets to pre-2000 levels.

179. Allow Tiers 3, 4, 5 and new 6 to make additional contributions, above restored 3 percent requirement.

180. Restore 3 percent contributions or Tiers 3 and 4 or entire time in State service. Other states with

constitutional guarantees related to pensions have reversed recent benet enhancements successully in

the courts and New York State should also consider this option. Consider a three-year phase-in to restorethis required employee contribution (adding one percent each year or three years).

181. Reduce yearly multiplier pension percentages or uture hires by implementing a 1.67 percent multiplie

throughout entire state service connection.

182. The State should raise the minimum retirement age or new employees to mirror Social Security bene

eligibility.

183. Alow counties to amortize pension costs above currently designated thresholds at no interest, versus the

ve percent rate in current law.

Administrative recommendations

184. Extend the make-up time within which municipalities can contribute to make up losses rom 2008. Having

to do this during a ve-year period when the stock market is not perorming well is totally unreasonable

185. Redene types o investments allowable within the und. Reduce risk where possible.

186. Re-examine the actuarial calculation used to orecast employer pension contributions.

187. NYS sole trustee needs to have a panel o recognized experts (actuaries).


27/32


27

188. Legislation to allow tiers 3, 4, 5 to make additional contributions.

189. Alow counties to amortize pension costs above currently designated thresholds at no interest, versus the

ve percent rate in current law.

othER MAndAtE REliEF idEAS

General Mandate Reform

190. Cap all existing State mandates as o April 1, 2011, particularly the 9 State mandates that consume 90 percen

o the property tax levy statewide. This will encourage and empower the State to reorm these programs

once increased costs are taken over by the State.

191. No new ununded mandates.

192. Give counties permanent authority to determine a local sales tax rate up to a total o 4.5 percent.

193. Create a Consolidated Balance Sheet at the State level as a way to look at the total cost o providingservices to the publicFederal, State and local. Too oten the State makes decisions that will save undin the State budget, but passes those costs to a dierent level o government. The cost o the program istill the same, its just that more o the unding comes rom the property tax, instead o the States genera

und.

194. Force elimination o town/city collection and assessment. This should be a county responsibility and

unction.

195. Repeal Wicks Law in its entirety. Its an anachronism.

196. Counties should be held to actual regional prevailing wages in their communities.

197. Eliminate the requirement to le all county appointments with the Governors Oce.

198. Eliminate the $25 mortgage tax exemption.

199. Electronic recording o land recordsincluding deeds and mortgagesshould be allowed to be submitted

to County Clerks as digitized paper documents and electronic records.

200. Amend requirement or legal notices to be printed in newspapers and allow municipalities to decide on

their own media methodology.

201. Eliminate the mandate requiring counties to make school districts whole or delinquent property taxes

There is no cost to the State and it will lower county property tax levy by hundreds o millions o dollars.

Education

202. Eliminate community college chargebacks or students currently enrolled in high school.


28/32


28

203. Require students to pay community college ees i he/she ails to achieve passing grade.

Elections

204. Counties should have more control over Board o Elections Commissioners and their sta.

205. NY Election Law 3-400 (3)a sets the number o voters per election district at no more than 1150. This is a

vestige born by the capabilities o the old lever machines. We no longer need that limit because the newmachines can handle multitudes o more voters.

206. The county Boards o Election should be able to set the number o voters per Election District, allowing

them to cut back on an already dwindling pool o Election Inspectors that must be employed each year

Inspectors are a major expense or Boards o Election.

Health & Social Services

207. Allow health insurance consortiums to be established between municipalities, counties, and private secto

entities.

208. Stop Department o Health planned implementation o new lead poisoning prevention regulations. The

regulations as currently drated dey common sense in the current scal environment, placing an additiona

ununded mandate on counties and an unrealistic burden on NYS homeowners.

209. OCFS/DSS: Provide or the complete and comprehensive takeover o all local Social Service District operation

and costs by NYS.

210. I State unding or other reimbursement does not keep pace with all costs or mandated public health

expenditures, then the mandates must be removed and counties must be given the ability to limit the

amount o services.

Justice & Corrections

211. Repeal the drug dealer protection act o 2009 which placed tremendous ununded burdens on countie

to deend newly created rights to diversion and sealing o predicate elony convictions.

212. Amend Civil Service Law to allow county sheris to hire State Troopers without a 211 waiver. This will save

on pension and health care costs or counties and can reduce the ranks o the State Police and enable the

State to recruit troopers at a lower salary.

213. Give counties greater authority to determine housing o inmates in county jails.

214. Taylor Law and ability to pay must be reormed to t 21st century reality and public sector scal constraints

or jail stang requirements. Allow fexibility based on inmate population mix and saety perormance.

215. Allow county jails to reuse a parole violator unless or a short-term emergency.

216. Allow a judge to dispense with the need or a personal court appearance by a deendant when a video

teleconerence is deemed appropriate. This will reduce the cost and diculty associated with securely

transporting the deendant to court.


29/32


29

217. Allow jails to house men and women receiving care or treatment in a acility-operated inrmary, provide

that proper separation is maintained. This will eliminate the requirement or duplicative acilities.

218. Create regional revocation centers that can house parole violators and state ready inmates in state prison

slated or closure. This would Get them out o our jails. Lower sta time and cost on our end.

Procurement

219. Allow counties to use best value/low price in procuring services/goods.

220. Modernize procurement: any municipality can buy o any ederal/state/municipal contract.

221. Allow or reverse auctions.

222. Increase procurement bidding thresholds or goods and services rom public works contracts rom $35,000

to $100,000 and purchasing contracts rom $20,000 to $50,000.

Transportation

223. Eliminate the ununded mandate which prohibits local governments rom using their own employees

equipment and materials on repairing road and bridge projects exceeding $100,000 in value. Currently

the projects exceeding this cost must be turned over to private sector contractors. County ocials would

like to see that threshold raised to $250,000.

224. Streamline Right o Way acquisition process to allow municipalities to purchase small parcels (less than 1

acre) using local methodology when State or Federal unding is involved

225. Storm Water Regulationexempt linear road projects.

226. Streamline DOTs Design Development Process or ederal aid projects.

227. Prevailing wage/Wicks Lawset minimum threshold to use when prevailing wage are necessary.

228. Allow municipalities to distribute uel to other municipalities and not-or-prots without subject to sales

tax.

229. Work with our ederal representative to revise Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Mandates. Example

include uniorm process or Right o Way acquisitions, revision o FHWAs Manual on Uniorm Trac Contro

Devices, and uniorm trac sign regulations.

230. Enact the minimum low volume rural road standards.

County 911 Operations

231. Allow counties to use existing State unding streams or investment in 911 inrastructures such as the

continued development/creation o county owned and operated Statewide Master Street Access Guide

(MSAG) or 911 operations. These databases help 911 dispatchers locate callers and connect relevan

inormation, such as caller identity and location. Investment in county MSAGs would yield a recurring

savings in every countys 911 operating budgets and could save millions across all the counties in NYS, e.g

an estimated savings or Monroe County alone is $250,000 per year. This investment would set up New

York counties to be prepared or the advancements o Next Generation 911 (NG-911).


30/32


30


31/32


31


32/32

January 2011 2011 New York State Association of Counties

nysac county mandate report

Documents