Loading...
CCR2003104. . . COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEGO RESOLUTION #104-2003 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING STATE MANDATE WAIVER FROM 998.04, WIS STATS. WHEREAS, 998.04, Wis. Stats., requires that all cities and villages with a population over 5,000 enforce Wisconsin weights and measures regulations by either establishing a local weight and measure inspection unit or by contracting with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection for inspection services; and WHEREAS, Act 109, the Budget Repair Bill, which became effective July 31, 2002, provides for municipalities to request waivers from state-imposed mandates that do not affect health or safety, which Act was incorporated in 966.0143, Wis. Stats.; and WHEREAS, 998.04, Wis. Stats., mandates that municipalities having a population of more than 5,000 enforce Chapter 98 of the Wisconsin Statutes, which chapter provides a system of weights and measures and requires qualifying municipalities to establish a municipal department of weights and measures to ensure compliance with Chapter 98; and WHEREAS, As an alternative to establishing a municipal department of weights and measures, qualifying municipalities may contract with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, to enforce the provisions of Chapter 98 within the municipality's jurisdiction if said Department agrees to enter into such a contract; and WHEREAS, 966.0143, Wis. Stats., as established by Act 109, requires that the political subdivision requesting a waiver from any state mandate specify in its request for a waiver its reasons for said request; and WHEREAS, The reasons for requesting a waiver from the mandate of 998.04 Wis. Stats., are set forth on the attached Exhibit A. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED That pursuant to 966.0143, Wis. Stats., the City of Muskego hereby requests that the Wisconsin Department of Revenue grant a waiver to the City of Muskego from the requirement of 998.04(1), Wis. Stats., that the City of Muskego establish a municipal department of weights and measures and from 998.04(2), Wis. Stats., from the requirement that the City of Muskego contract with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, to enforce the provisions of Chapter 98. . . . Resolution #104-2003 Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, perform the inspections required by Chapter 98, Wis. Stats., charging a reasonable fee to the business inspected, thereby removing the City of Muskego from the requirements of s98.04, Wis. Stats., including the establishment of a municipal department of weights and measures or contracting with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, for such service, and from any and all other requirements of the state weights and measures program. DATED THIS 22nd DAY OF April ,2003 SPONSORED BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Ald. Rick Petfalski Ald. Nancy C. Salentine Ald. Patrick Patterson This is to certify that this is a true and accurate copy of Resolution #104-2003 which was adopted by the Common Council of the City of Muskego. aÁ:?M~ -Æ,' D~ ~Clerk-Treasurer / 4/03mep . EXHIBIT "A" Mandate Waiver Request Weights & Measures The City of Muskego respectfuily requests a waiver from the Weights and Measures state mandate. Our position is outlined below according to the evaluation criteria the State has established. . 1. Section 98.04 of the Wisconsin Statutes require that ail cities and viilages with a population over 5,000 must enforce the state's weights and measures regulations by either establishing a local weights and measures inspection unit or contracting with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection for inspection services. We are requesting a waiver to seek local relief from this state mandate. This is another example of a state mandate that requires local governments to bear the cost of enforcement. Increasing pressures on local budgets continue and we continue to seek relief where possible. 2. Only cities and viilages with a population greater than 5,000 are required to comply with this state mandate. There are 586 cities and viilages in the state and only 126 with a population over 5,000. In addition there are about 1,200 towns. The vast majority of local governments are not subject to this mandate. For those governments that aren't subject to the mandate, it is our understanding that the State performs these services and does not chargeback the applicable local municipality. Only cities and viilages with a population greater than 5,000 are forced to pay for the costs of this mandate. In addition we feel that if the state does want to continue the program that there is a more efficient organizational structure. Currently the majority of cities and villages subject to this requirement contract with the state for this service. It is not efficient for smail to mid size communities to establish their own department with personnel, equipment etc. as it only takes a few days to a number of weeks to complete inspections depending on the number of businesses subject to the tests in each municipality. Since the State Department of Agriculture is already doing the majority of inspections in the State we feel that a layer of government should be eliminated. The state statutes ailow municipalities to recover the costs of the service from those who receive the services. We feel the state could recover these costs directly from the businesses inspected and remove the middleman - local governments - from the equation. It is reasonable to assume the state only charges local governments for the actual cost of providing these services. The state also tracks the businesses inspected and sends this information to municipalities as backup documentation on a report. We think that it would be more efficient for the state to ailocate and charge their costs directiy to the businesses they inspected. It should not be overly burdensome for the state to do this since the state already compiles the information needed. 3. Monetary and staff resource savings can be expected if this waiver is granted. In 2002 the City of Muskego paid the State $3,120 for their services. Of this total $3,120 was levied on the taxpayers. . . . . Exhibit "An - Mandate Waiver Request -- Weights & Measures Page 2 In November of 2002 the State notified municipalities that the contract rate in 2004 for their services would be increasing from $240/day to $400/day, a 67% increase. We would expect the costs in 2004 to be $5,200 assuming the same number of days will be required to complete inspections. We would expect costs in the remaining waiver years to increase by 5%, as we believe the State will pass on their inspector's wage and benefit increases in their contract rates. The estimated costs for the requested waiver years are as follows: $3,120 in 2003; $5,200 in 2004; $5,460 in 2005; $5,733 in 2006. The State could take the position that the local governments could charge this cost back to the affected businesses under current law. However, the local governments would then incur the cost of additional staff time to invoice businesses or administer a permit system and manage collections. Staff time is valuable and these duties could take time away from other areas. 4. This waiver will enhance the efficiency of municipal operations. Currently municipalities that contract with the State to perform this service are acting solely as a middleman. The State basically administers the program and charges the costs to the municipalities. By eliminating this extra layer of government you will relieve local municipalities from their unnecessary involvement. Examples of some things municipalities are doing that could be eliminated include: follow-up with the State on which businesses were inspected, verifying the business is in the correct municipality on the State's report, the potential staff time involved in administering a permit system or invoicing the businesses inspected. 5. Waukesha County Municipal Executives and its' member communities support this mandate waiver. The member communities include: City of Brookfield, City of Delafield, Village of Elm Grove, Village of Hartland, Village of Menomonee Falls, City of Muskego, City of New Berlin, City of Oconomowoc, City of Pewaukee, Village of Sussex, City of Waukesha. 6. We are nòt aware of any individuals, businesses, organizations or other entities that have expressed opposition to this waiver. 7. We do not feel that this waiver impacts health or safety. We feel this is a consumer protection measure. 8. This waiver will not have an effect on programs or services offered by other municipalities or counties. 9. The resolution of our municipality is attached.