My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Inventory of Federal and State Mandates in Colorado June 1993
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
6001-7000
>
Inventory of Federal and State Mandates in Colorado June 1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2012 11:04:39 AM
Creation date
8/30/2012 9:53:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Inventory of Federal and State Mandates in Colorado June 1993
State
CO
Date
6/1/1993
Title
Inventory of Federal and State Mandates in Colorado June 1993
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Legislation
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
i <br />U <br />penalties for non - compliance. In addition, they may set mandatory minimum <br />standards which preempt regulations by lower levels of government. <br />Condition of Aid - Condition of aid mandates establish program requirements <br />with which a subordinate government must comply in order to obtain financial <br />aid. <br />Optional Activity with Regulations - An optional activity with regulations <br />mandate requires compliance by subordinate governments which choose to <br />participate in an optional activity or program. Such mandates differ from <br />conditions of aid in that participation in the program and compliance with the <br />associated regulations do not usually result in funding. <br />Note: The mandate survey provided respondents with five categories for identifying <br />mandate types. LCS incorporated two of these categories -- "a requirement setting <br />minimum standards" and "a requirement in one area that, if not complied with, will <br />result in penalties or sanctions in another area" -- into the direct order category, as <br />these categories more accurately describe types of direct orders. <br />Study Methodolo <br />Prior to developing the survey instrument, LCS reviewed national publications <br />and mandate studies conducted by organizations within Colorado and other states. A <br />bibliography of these resources is on file with LCS. The survey instrument developed <br />by LCS was patterned after a 1992 survey developed by the Virginia Joint Legislative <br />Audit and Review Commission. <br />LCS compiled departmental survey responses into a spreadsheet listing of federal <br />and state mandates. Results from a LCS statute search were incorporated into the <br />spreadsheet. LCS then prepared a preliminary analysis of the data and submitted the <br />analysis to individual departments for verification and clarification. LCS incorporated <br />any additional departmental responses into the inventory and prepared the final version <br />of the spreadsheet. <br />Study Limitations <br />Multiple interpretations This study faces the problem of multiple interpretations <br />o£ survey definitions. Despite LCS's effort to establish a limited definition of <br />"mandate," survey respondents were not fully consistent in their interpretation of this <br />definition. For example, some respondents did not distinguish between the activities <br />their departments are authorized to perform and those activities they are mandated to <br />iii <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.