Unshackle Upstate sent a letter to Lawrence Schwartz, Chair of the Mandate Relief Redesign Team (MRRT) and senior advisor to Governor Cuomo, identifying nine recommendations that will help reduce the costly, unfunded mandates that the state imposes on local governments and school districts. For more information, visit: www.unshackleupstate.com

1. May 12, 2011
Lawrence Schwartz, Chair
Governor’s Mandate Relief Redesign Team
Executive Chamber
NYS State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
RE: Mandate relief proposals
Dear Mr. Schwartz:
I write on behalf of Unshackle Upstate, a bipartisan coalition of more than 80 business and trade
organizations representing a growing group of 70,000 companies and employing upwards of 1.5
million people.
We commend Governor Cuomo and his staff for your efforts in the state’s adoption of an on-time
budget that closes the estimated $10 billion deficit without raising taxes or increasing borrowing.
Unshackle Upstate and our member organizations believe that this budget sends a powerful
message that New York is on the road to recovery.
With that important first step taken, we believe that addressing unfunded mandates is an
essential step towards reviving Upstate New York’s economy and creating an economic
environment that enables private sector job creation.
We ask the Mandate Relief Redesign Team to consider the recommendations described below,
which are intended to provide the Governor and the Legislature with the means to address the
myriad of well-meaning, but costly, unfunded mandates the state government has imposed.
This package of proposals represents the first steps toward addressing New York's massive
“unfunded mandate” problem. If they are enacted, New York's local governments and school
districts will be able to move forward on the path toward fiscal responsibility and solvency.

2. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 2
We propose that the Mandate Relief Redesign Team consider the following proposals, each of
which will be described in greater detail:
• Enact the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act;
• Limit the ability of the state to impose future unfunded mandates;
• Authorize local governments to “opt-out” of certain unfunded mandates;
• Require all local government and school district employees and retirees to make minimum
contributions to their health insurance;
• Create a new defined contribution pension tier for all state and local employees;
• Establish and empower the Health Care Quality and Cost Containment Commission;
• Raise the Wicks Law threshold and make it uniform statewide;
• End the state’s “project labor agreement” mandate; and
• Expand Court of Claims jurisdiction to include claims against local governments.
Enact the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
We propose that the Governor advance legislation, modeled on the SAGE Commission, to provide
a vehicle to eliminate existing unfunded mandates.
Under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, the Governor would be authorized to submit to the
Legislature once each legislative session a plan to repeal or revise unfunded mandates, and such
plan would have to be approved or rejected by the Legislature within 30 days of its submission.
Draft legislation that would achieve this is attached as Appendix A.
Limit Future Unfunded Mandates
We support enactment of legislation that would make it more difficult for the state to impose new
unfunded mandates on local governments and school districts.
We support legislation that would:
- define unfunded mandates during the legislative process (before they are acted on by the
Legislature);
- require a public hearing on proposed unfunded mandates so that legislators will
understand the impact of their actions; and
- require a 2/3 super-majority vote of both houses of the Legislature in order for the state to
impose any new unfunded mandates on local governments and school districts.
Similar legislation has been proposed by Assemblywoman Galef and Senator Martins
(A.1592/S.3211). We note that their bill would require only a 3/5 (60%) majority vote in order for

3. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 3
the Legislature to impose any new unfunded mandates. We urge that a higher threshold for new
unfunded mandates be placed into law.
Authorize Local Governments to “Opt-Out” of Certain Unfunded Mandates
We support enactment of legislation that would allow local governments and school districts to
opt-out of the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law.
Allowing local government to “opt out” of the Triborough Amendment would enable local
governments and school districts to freeze salaries when a contract expires. Under current law,
employees get step increases based on their years of service and pay increases based on
educational attainment. We believe that changing the law in this manner will give employee
bargaining units a greater incentive to re-negotiate contracts.
While we continue to support overall repeal of the Triborough Amendment and the Taylor Law as
those laws applies to all public employers in the state, this proposal would provide immediate
relief to those local governments and school districts that choose to opt-out of these unfunded
mandates.
Draft legislation that would achieve this is attached as Appendix B.
Require All Local Government and School District Employees and Retirees to Make Minimum
Contributions to their Health Insurance
We support legislation to establish statewide minimum health care contributions for public
employees -- 10% for individual coverage and 25% for family coverage, as well a 25% contribution
from covered retirees.
This proposal would align public employee health care costs with those of other states and the
private sector by requiring employees and retirees to pay the remainder of the total premium.
This change could save local governments and school districts as thousands of dollars per
employee and retiree.
Create a New Defined Contribution Pension Tier for all State and Local Employees
We support legislation such as S.4524 (Ranzenhofer) that would authorize local governments and
school districts (at local option) to offer an optional retirement program to new employees.
The increasing costs related to retirement system contributions are a growing problem for local
governments and school districts. Local government and school district officials are unable to

4. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 4
effectively plan for future costs because the amount that must be contributed varies from year to
year.
The city of Syracuse, for example, is facing a 40% increase in its pension costs over last year. Many
other municipalities across the state are facing similar or larger increases in their pension costs.
This legislation would allow municipalities to continue to participate in the current defined benefit
program, to offer a choice to employees of either a defined benefit program or a fully portable
defined contribution program, or to elect to offer only the defined contribution program.
Establish and Empower the Health Care Quality and Cost Containment Commission
In 2007 the Legislature created the Health Care Quality and Cost Containment Commission
(Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007, Part L).
The Commission was put in law to conduct a comprehensive review of all currently mandated
benefits and proposed mandates, and to provide an objective cost-benefit analysis of proposed
health insurance benefit mandates prior to legislative action.
The Health Care Quality and Cost Containment Commission does not appear to have met since its
creation in 2007.
We urge the Governor to appoint the members of this Commission as soon as possible. The
creation of this entity can be an important t step toward ensuring that future health care
mandates be fully and appropriately considered before legislative action is taken on them, and will
also provide a forum within which existing health care mandates can be reviewed.
End the “Project Labor Agreement” Mandate
We support legislation such as S.4121 (Ranzenhofer) that would provide that a contractor bidding
on a request for proposal (“RFP”) issued by a state or municipal entity for public work and which
offers an optional project labor agreement (“PLA”) may submit a bid that does not include a PLA.
Further, the RFP must be awarded to the contractor with the low bid regardless of whether a PLA
was included in a contractor's bid proposal.
Legislation of this nature would enable the State and municipalities to save millions of dollars in
project costs since an open, competitive and fair bidding process would ensure the lowest price for
public works projects.

5. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 5
Raise the Wicks Law Threshold and Make it Uniform Statewide
Unshackle Upstate supports the elimination of the onerous Wicks Law mandate for all public
projects. This mandate requires that separate specifications be prepared and separate contracts
be awarded for the plumbing, electrical, and HVAC components of public construction projects
when the total project cost exceeds $3 million in New York City, $1 million in the downstate
suburban counties, and $500,000 in the remainder of the state.
In order to provide immediate mandate reform to local governments and school districts, we
recommend increasing the Wicks Law threshold to $5 million statewide until a full repeal is
possible.
The Wicks Law mandate substantially drives up capital construction costs for schools and local
governments. Increasing the “Wicks Law” threshold will enable local governments and school
districts throughout the state to better manage their capital construction costs.
Draft legislation that would achieve this is attached as Appendix C.
Expand Court of Claims Jurisdiction to Include Claims Against Local Governments
This constitutional amendment would require that all tort claims against local governments and
local government employees be brought before the Court of Claims, where tort claims against the
state are currently heard. Moving the forum for all tort claims made against local governments
and their employees to the Court of Claims will fairly protect the rights of injured individuals while
would providing local governments throughout the state with significant savings at no cost to the
State. Legislation that would achieve this was introduced in 2005 (S2817, Little).
In closing, Unshackle Upstate’s view is that it is critically important that the Governor and
Legislature provide local governments and school districts with real mandate relief this legislative
session.
I am available to discuss these proposals at your convenience, and look forward to the opportunity
to work with you and the Mandate Relief Redesign Team to implement these solutions to provide
real relief from unfunded mandates to local governments.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
Brian Sampson, Executive Director
Unshackle Upstate

6. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 6
APPENDIX A
AN ACT to amend the executive law and the legislative law, in relation to
enacting the unfunded mandate reform act of 2011
Section 1. The executive law is amended by adding a new article 5-A to read as
follows:
ARTICLE 5-A
UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT
Section 75. Short title.
76. Duty of governor to examine agencies; legislative purpose.
77. Definitions.
78. Findings by governor; issuance of unfunded mandate reform plan.
79. Contents of unfunded mandate reform plan.
80. Effective date of unfunded mandate reform plan.
81. Programs and services that shall not be the subject of an
unfunded mandate reform plan.
82. Severability.
§ 75. Short title. This article shall be known and may be cited as the
"unfunded mandate reform act”.
§ 76. Duty of governor to examine unfunded mandates; legislative purpose.
The governor, from time to time, shall examine those mandates imposed by the
state on local governments and school districts that the state does not provide
adequate funding to support, and shall determine which changes are necessary to
reduce the burden of these unfunded mandates on political subdivisions.
§ 77. Definitions. As used in this article, the following terms shall have the
following meanings:
1. "Political subdivision" means any county, city, town, village, school
district or special district.
2. "Assembly" means the New York state assembly.
3. "Governor" means the governor of the state of New York.
4. "Legislature" means the legislature of the state of New York.
5. "Senate" means the New York state senate.
6. “Unfunded mandate” means any program or service requirement imposed by
the state through statute, regulation or other directive that has a direct
financial impact on any political subdivision in excess of ten thousand dollars
per year, or on two or more political subdivisions collectively or on a city
with a population of one million or more in excess of one hundred thousand
dollars per year.
7. "Unfunded mandate reform plan” or "plan" shall mean the bill prepared by
the governor, and submitted to the legislature as a program bill, that contains
the terms and information regarding the repeal or revision of unfunded mandates
upon political subdivisions.
§ 78. Findings by governor; issuance of unfunded mandate reform plan. 1.
Whenever the governor finds it to be in the public interest, he or she may
submit to the legislature an unfunded mandate reform plan.
2. Nothing in this article shall prohibit or limit the authority of the
governor or legislature to repeal, revise or provide funding for unfunded
mandates pursuant to any other lawful process.
A-1

7. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 7
§ 79. Contents of unfunded mandate reform plan. 1. An unfunded mandate reform
plan shall:
(a) set forth as findings in such plan, a description of the nature and
purposes of the unfunded mandate reform plan, together with an explanation of
the advantages that will result from its implementation, including the
anticipated savings and costs associated with each repeal or revision of an
unfunded mandate;
(b) describe in detail other actions, if any, necessary implement that plan;
(c) any preliminary actions which have been taken in implementing the plan;
and
(d) provide a projected timetable for completion of the implementation
process.
§ 80. Effective date of unfunded mandate reform plan. 1. An unfunded mandate
reform plan shall be voted on by each house of the legislature, without
amendment as submitted by the governor, within thirty days after such
submission. The governor may submit only one such plan annually and may amend
that plan one time within such thirty day period. Both houses of the legislature
shall then have thirty days from the submission of such amendment to vote on the
amended unfunded mandate reform plan. Without the consent of both houses of
the legislature, neither a plan nor an amendment may be submitted by the
governor after the thirtieth day of May in any year.
2. Under provisions contained in an unfunded mandate reform plan, a provision
of the plan may be effective at a time later than the date on which the plan
otherwise is effective.
§ 81. Programs and services that shall not be the subject of an unfunded
mandate reform plan. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision in this section to
the contrary, the following categories of programs and services shall not be
considered unfunded mandates:
(a) those which are required to comply with federal laws or rules or to meet
eligibility standards for federal entitlements, so long as such mandates are not
broader than federal eligibility standards;
(b) those which are imposed on both government and non-government entities in
the same or substantially similar circumstances;
(c) those which permit, establish or enable only optional programs or services;
(d) those which repeal, revise, or ease an existing mandate or requirement, or
which reapportion the costs of activities between boards of education, counties
and municipalities;
(e) those which arise from a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(f) those which are enacted after a public hearing, held after public notice
that unfunded mandates will be considered, for which a fiscal impact note as
defined in section 51 of this article is available at the time of the public
hearing and which, in addition to complying with all other requirements with
regard to the enactment of a law, are passed by a two-thirds vote of both the
senate and assembly; and
(g) those which are the result of the passage of a home rule message whereby a
local government requests authority to implement the program or service
specified in the statute, and the statute imposes costs only upon that local
government which requests the authority to impose the program or service.
§ 82. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or part of this article shall be adjudged by any court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or
invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the
clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or part thereof directly
A-2

8. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 8
involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. It
is hereby declared to be the intent of the legislature that this article would
have been enacted even if such invalid provisions had not been included in this
section.
§ 2. The legislative law is amended by adding a new section 54-c to read as
follows:
§ 54-c. Unfunded mandate reform plan. The legislature may by concurrent
resolution prescribe rules for the consideration and disposition of an unfunded
mandate reform plan, as defined in article five-A of the executive law.
§ 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
A-3

9. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 9
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
BILL NUMBER:
SPONSOR:
TITLE OF BILL: AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to enacting the
unfunded mandate reform act of 2011
PURPOSE:
To authorize the Governor to submit to the Legislature once each legislative
session a plan to repeal or revise unfunded mandates, and to require such plan
to be voted on by the Legislature within 30 days of its submission.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 adds a news Executive Law article 5-A, entitled the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act.
This new article authorizes the Governor to submit to the Legislature annually
an unfunded mandate reform plan, which the Legislature must approve or reject
within 30 days of its submission by the Governor.
New Executive Law § 75 sets forth a short title, the Unfunded Mandate Reform
Act.
New Executive Law § 76 states that it is the responsibility of the Governor to
periodically review unfunded mandates imposed by the state on local governments
and school districts.
New Executive Law § 77 defines key terms used in the article, including
“unfunded mandate” and “unfunded mandate reform plan.”
New Executive Law § 78 authorizes the Governor to submit to the Legislature an
unfunded mandate reform plan, and provides that nothing in this article
prohibits or limits the authority of the governor or legislature to repeal,
revise or provide funding for unfunded mandates pursuant to any other lawful
process.
New Executive Law § 79 provides that an unfunded mandate reform plan shall set
forth the Governor’s findings, a description of the unfunded mandates that he or
she proposes to repeal or revise, a projection of the anticipated costs and
savings resulting from the plan, any other pertinent information relating to the
implementation of the plan, and a projected timetable for the plan’s
implementation.
New Executive Law § 80 provides that the Governor may submit an unfunded mandate
reform plan once each year no later than May 30th, and that such plan must be
voted on by the Legislature within 30 days.
A-4

10. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 10
New Executive Law § 81 provides that certain programs and services shall not be
considered unfunded mandates for the purposes of this article. These include
those programs and services:
- that are required to comply with federal laws or rules or to meet eligibility
standards for federal entitlements, so long as such mandates are not broader
than federal eligibility standards;
- that are imposed on both government and non-government entities in the same or
substantially similar circumstances;
- which permit, establish or enable only optional programs or services;
- which stem from failure to comply with previously enacted laws, or rules or
regulations issued pursuant to a law;
- which arise from a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction;
- which arise from an executive order of the governor exercising his or her
emergency powers;
- which implement provisions of the State Constitution;
- which are passed by a two-thirds vote of both the senate and assembly after a
public hearing process; and
- which are requested by a local government.
New Executive Law § 82 is a severability provision.
Section 2 adds a new Legislation Law § 54-c, which authorizes the Legislature to
prescribe rules for the consideration and disposition of an unfunded mandate
reform plan, as defined in Executive Law Article 5-A, by concurrent resolution.
Section 3 is the effective date.
JUSTIFICATIONS:
Modeled on the Spending and Government Efficiency (SAGE) Commission that was
enacted into law as part of the 2011-12 state budget (Chapter 62 of the Laws of
2011, Part E), this legislation creates a similar mechanism that would enable
the Governor to propose the repeal or revision of unfunded mandates that are
imposed on local governments and school districts.
Current and future state budget deficits have forced Albany to cut funding for
education and health care, while local governments and school district face
similar funding problems.
In order to avoid property tax increases, it is critically important that the
Governor and Legislature provide local governments and school districts with
real mandate relief.
This legislation provides a mechanism to enable the Governor to propose and the
Legislature to consider real and substantial unfunded mandate relief to local
governments and school districts.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New bill.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
A-5

11. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 11
No fiscal implications to the state.
LOCAL FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
This legislation could have significant local fiscal implications by enabling
the repeal or revision of unfunded mandates.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately upon enactment.
A-6

12. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 12
APPENDIX B
AN ACT to amend the civil service law, in relation to authorizing local
governments and school district to choose not to be subject to a certain state
law
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do
enact as follows:
Section 1. The civil service law is amended by adding a new section 209-b to
read as follows:
§ 209-b. Collective bargaining; local option.
(1) The legislature hereby gives and grants to every local government and
school district the right, power and authority to opt not to be subject to
paragraph (e) of subdivision 1 of section 209-a of the civil service law.
(2) Any local government or school district may, by resolution duly adopted
and filed with the secretary of state and the state civil service commission,
determine that such local government or school district shall not be subject to
paragraph (e) of subdivision 1 of section 209-a of the civil service law.
(3) Any such resolution adopted by a local government or school district may
be repealed in the same manner as it was adopted, and such repeal shall become
effective upon filing with the secretary of state and the state civil service
commission.
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
B-1

13. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 13
INTRODUCER'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
BILL NUMBER:
SPONSOR:
TITLE:
AN ACT to amend the civil service law, in relation to authorizing local
governments and school district to choose not to be subject to a certain state
law
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To allow local governments and school districts to opt-out of the Triborough
Amendment.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Section 1 adds a new Civil Service Law § 209-b, which authorizes any local
government or school district to “opt out” of the Triborough Amendment by
approving a resolution that effect and filing it with the Secretary of state and
the State Civil Service Commission.
JUSTIFICATION:
The 1982 Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law prohibits a public employer from
altering any provision of an expired labor agreement until a new agreement is
reached. New York is the only state in the nation that imposes such a mandate on
its local governments.
This legislation authorizes local governments to choose to “opt out” of the
state's Triborough Amendment.
Authorizing local governments to “opt out” of the Triborough Amendment would
enable those local governments and school districts that choose to do so to
freeze salaries when a contract expires. Under current law, employees get “step
increases” based on their years of service and pay increases based on
educational attainment.
Giving local governments and school districts will give them greater options in
dealing with employee bargaining units.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New bill.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None to the state. It should provide savings to local government that choose to
“opt out” of the state's “Triborough Amendment” by having the effect of freezing
employee salaries when a contract expires, rather than allowing “step increases”
to go into effect.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately upon enactment.
B-2

14. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 14
APPENDIX C
AN ACT to amend the general municipal law, in relation increasing and making
uniform the project size over which separate contracts on public work are
required
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do
enact as follows:
§ 1. Subdivision 1 of section 101 of the general municipal law, as amended by
section 1 of part MM of chapter 57 of the laws of 2008, is amended to read as
follows:
1. Except as otherwise provided in section two hundred twenty-two of the labor
law, every officer, board or agency of a political subdivision or of any
district therein, charged with the duty of preparing specifications or awarding
or entering into contracts for the erection, construction, reconstruction or
alteration of buildings, when the entire cost of such public work shall exceed
[three] five million dollars [in the counties of the Bronx, Kings, New York,
Queens, and Richmond; one million five hundred thousand dollars in the
counties of Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester; and five hundred thousand dollars
in all other counties within the state,] shall prepare separate specifications
for the following three subdivisions of the work to be performed:
a. Plumbing and gas fitting;
b. Steam heating, hot water heating, ventilating and air conditioning
apparatus; and
c. Electric wiring and standard illuminating fixtures.
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
C-1

15. May 12, 2011 – Letter to Mandate Relief Redesign Team page 15
INTRODUCER'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
BILL NUMBER:
SPONSOR:
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the general municipal law, in relation increasing and making
uniform the project size over which separate contracts on public work are
required
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
This bill amends the Wicks law to increase the threshold to $5 million for all
public construction projects throughout the state.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Section 1 amends §101, subdivision 1 of the General Municipal Law by increasing
and harmonizing the thresholds for public works contracts across the State.
Section 2 sets an immediate effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
State law currently requires that separate specifications be prepared and
separate contracts be awarded for the plumbing, electrical, and HVAC components
of public construction projects when the total project cost exceeds $3 million
in New York City, $1 million in the downstate suburban counties, and $500,000 in
the remainder of the state.
This bill would increase the threshold to $5 million statewide.
The Wicks Law mandate has the effect of substantially driving up capital
construction costs. Increasing the “Wicks Law” threshold will enable local
governments and school districts throughout the state to better manage their
capital construction costs.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
This is a new bill.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None to the state. Should provide savings to local governments by providing
greater flexibility in options for contracting out public construction projects.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Takes effect immediately upon enactment.
C-2