2019 State Legislative Priorities - Dubuque County Copyrighted
December 3, 2018
City of Dubuque Consent Items # 7.
ITEM TITLE: 2019 State Legislative Priorities - Dubuque County
SUMMARY: City Manager providing a copy of the Dubuque County
2019 State Legislative Priorities.
SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Dubuque County 2019 Legislative Priorities Supporting Documentation
eLJubuc�ue (�ountc�
G.�OL�I"LL O SGL eN(IG�OM�
�
Dave Balcer COURTHOUSE-720 CENTRAL AVENUE Phone:563-589-4441
da�e.balcer@dubuquecounty.us DUBUQUE,IOWA 52001-7079 F�:563-587-3836
Daryl Klein www dubuquecounty.org
daryl.klein@dubuquecounty.us
Jay Wickham
j ay.wicicham@dubuquecounty.us
Dubuque County Board of Supervisors
2019 Legislative Priorities
Commercial Property Tax Back�ll-Cotmties consistently try to find efficiencies in how they spend
taxpayer resources.From 2013 to 2016 the county budgets in our Urban County Coalition have increased
about 1.6%,while the state's budget during the same period has increased by 18%. The state made a
commitment to backfill the revenue loss that was a result of the reductiou in the commercial and
industrial property tax rates. Iu addition,the changes in the multi residential rates took effect in FY17
(and is not bacicfilled)which will have an additional adverse effect on local revenues. We expect the State
to malce sure it coutinues to follow through on its promise to bacl<fill the property tax loss.
Mental Health Funding=We appreciate that the legislature followed through on the recoinmendatioil of
SF 504 and appoii�ted an interim study cominittee to address the issues of inental health funding. These
issues are simply too important to wait until we have auother funding crisis. While regions worl<through
the process of complying with the directives of SF 504 and HF 2456,tlie legislature should lceep its
promise and discuss permauent funding solutions. I�i addition, we still strongly oppose any transfer of
additional responsibilities from the state to regions without the commitment to provide additional
resources. Without this commitment,the state would be placing an additioual burden on local property
taxes.
We also continue to oppose the ending balance caps that that were implemented in SF 504. We propose
the eliiniization of these year-end caps of the MHDS funds.
Children's Mental gIealth Programs-Regions tulderstand that is does malce sense to have one entity
coordinating the spectrum of inental health care for Iowans, but we strongly oppose any additional
responsibilities for local governments witholrt providiug addit.ional funding. Simply raising the curreiit
mental health levy cap puts an unjustifiable burden on local property tax payers. The state must be a
reliable partner in fiinding any additional responsibilities placed on regions.
Unfunded and Underfunded Mandates-We encourage the Legislature to act to reduce the uistauces of
cost shifting identified aud eliininate the burdens these place on property tax payers. The two areas that
have the largest impact on local property taxes are colocation of state offices (DHS)aud courthouse
maintenance and security, but there are inany others.
• Housiug State Offices at Local Taxpayer Expense —Currently some counties are forced to house a
variety of state agencies (DHS and the Courts, for example) and receive little or no reimbursement
fi•om the State.I�l addition,cotulties are forced to pay for expenses such as postage and of�ce supplies
at local taxpayer's expense. We request that the State no longer require that counties sltbsidize the
local office expenses of state agencies. We would encourage the legislature to pay particular attention
to the docuinent storage requirements of the Department of Human Services,
• Courthouse Security and expenses-Like the housing of state agencies,local taxpayers are bearing the
entire burden of upgrading,modifying, or even replacing aging courthouses. There is a court expense
added to virtually every criminal or civil action but none of this money goes to pay actual courthouse
expenses. We would request that the state allocate a portion of these funds to counties for courthouse
maintenance and security. This is also an area where the state imposes costs on local govermnents by
not moving the agencies to a paperless document storage program lilce it has other state agencies.
• Paper pocument Storage —Publishing Costs —Reduce publishing costs to local governments to
publish meetings and legal notices on-line and require only a summary to be published in local print
outlets. Additionally, allow counties to publish in only one newspaper. We would also encourage the
legislature to provide a more clear definition of proceedings.
EMS Services - We encourage the state to worlc with counties and municipalities to help find ways to
expand emergency medical services and to expand it to essential service designation.Rural Iowans deserve
the same access to emergency services that those in more urban areas enjoy. In many areas of our state it
simply takes too long to respond to a medical ernergency. Additionally, when emergency services are
available,those responding often lack the necessary training to provide advanced lifesaving aid.Where you
live in Iowa should not determine if your chances to live.
Iowa Public Employees Retirement System: Iowa has the most solvent and well funded public
retirement systems in the United States. It has maintained that status with conservative investment
policies and conseNvative growth projection.IPERS is an important and effective recruiting tool to help
government agencies attract talented workers. We would encourage the legislature to carefully consider
the long-term implications to that viability before any changes are made to the current system.
Water Quality-We support the funding of the Iowa Water and Land Legacy fund established by
constitutional amendment. We would also asl<the legislature to look closely at local partnerships that
have been established and are having an effect.These efforts, including watershed management
authorities, should be given the resources they need to make sure the work they are doing can continue.
We believe that any additional solution that is considered should include a shared financial burden
between both urban and rural partners.
Opioid Epidemic-We recognize the spread of opioid-related abuse and deaths, including abuse and
deaths related to the use of heroin and abuse of prescription drugs, and the effects this abuse has on
communities. We encourage the General Assembly to seelc additional measures that mitigate and curb the
abuse of opioids and other injection-drugs. We appreciate the action the legislature took to enhance the
Iowa Prescriptiou Management, a key part of any strategy employed to reduce the use of the abuse of
prescription drugs. We thank the Legislature for beginning to address the opioid crisis during the 2018
session. Though opioid-related deaths in Iowa are down, opioid abuse causes other impacts on Iowa
families including:
• An increase in accessing and using the family courts or DHS services as children are removed from
homes where opioid abuse is present;
• An increase in accessing mental health services and trauma-informed care for children in families
or homes where opioid abuse has been present;
We continue to encourage the Legislature to adequately fund the drug courts.
Tax Credits: Tax credits play a major role in rebuilding communities. While we understand that these
programs should be used judiciously,we believe that the current tax credit programs work(such as
Historic Tax Credit,the Endow Iowa Tax Credit, and the renewable energy tax credits). Any policy that
proposes to change the way these credits currently work should be carefully balanced against the
economic/tourist value if implemented.
Tax Increment Financing: We understand that this is an important tool(and one of the few left)to local
governments to encourage economic development. Should changes be considered,we ask that the
legislatL►re malce counties more active partners in the use of TIFs.
Medicaid reimbursement to County owned facilities: Counties that still have county hospitals are not
receiving the state set rate for RCF services.MCO's are paying the lower negotiated rate(80%). The
counties in our Urban County Coalition that are providing these services did not negotiate this rate and in
the absence of a negotiated rate the MCO's should be required to pay the state rate. The current system of
managed care has failed and the Legislature must acldress the issue by returning to the previous system or
finding other sustainable options.
Restore Full funding for De-categorization: Funding for the Decat Boards is appropriated via 1.)
Legislative Allocation 2.)Transfer of Child Welfare funds from the DHS Service Area Manager 3.)
Transfer of funds from the Chief Juvenile Court Officer. In FY16 the Decat Boards did not receive the
roughly$5 million Transfer of DHS Child Welfare funds.This resulted in a nearly 80%decrease in
fiinding for some Decat Boards and the elimination of many critical programs that help prevent children
and family involvement in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. The Urban County Coalition
urges the Legislature to shift the primary funding for Decategorization away from Child Welfare
Transfers to a comparable increase in annual legislative allocation to allow for improved fiscal planning.
REAP-We encourage the Legislature and the Governor to fully fund the program at the$20 million
leveL
Trail Funding-We believe that these funds should be focused on identifying and addressing the issues
of trail connectivity across our state.
County Bonding-We believe that in matters of public finance,counties should be treated in the same
manner as cities. We support allowing counties the same flexibility in bonding for certain projects that the
cities currently enjoy. We also ask that the limit be raised to a consistent level with cities,currently five
million dollars. In addition,the definitions of essential county purpose have not been updated to address
new challenges faced by counties. We aslc that the following categories be added to essential county
purposes: disaster recovery, disaster mitigation,water quality initiatives, and courthouse improvements
and upgrades.
Emergency Management Agency Funding—The current funding formula does not adequately address
the needs of the urban counties in Iowa. Eliminate the funding cap on urban counties. We also encourage
the State to pass through SO% of the federal funding it receives to counties.
Dig Once Policy-We support the adoption of a Dig Once Policy,which would require any construction
project and/or road construction project by any government entity to inchide funding for engineering and
materials to install conduit that it can then be sold or leased to private sector companies and/or used by
other government entities. The spirit of the Dig Once Policy is not to be a revenue/profit driver for the
entity that installs the conduit,but rather to encourage and stimulate the future deployment of
telecommunications technologies.
Other bene�ts of a Dig Once Policy are: protecting newly and recently paved roads and sidewalks;
enhancing the uniformity of construction; ensuring efficient,non-duplicative placement of infrastructure
in the PROW; reducing overall costs of all underground work in the PROW, both utility- and
telecommunications-related for public and private parties; and facilitating private communications
network deployment by reducing construction costs.