In the halls of local governments, most of the talk surrounding Gov. Jerry Brown's state/local realignment strategy this week has centered on the proposed demise of redevelopment agencies – a prospect that has rankled some local officials, who worry that such cuts could stymie local economic development.
But Brown's proposal has also signaled other fundamental changes in the relationship between state and local governments, specifically in the mandate system, in which local governments apply for reimbursements for enacting specialized services that are ordered by state lawmakers.
Brown's budget calls for suspending most mandates not related to public safety or property taxes for at least one year – a move that has been used to save hundreds of millions in other budget cycles. But it also goes one step further, calling for a sweeping review of existing mandates by the Legislature in preparation for next year's budget.
"It does look to be more comprehensive review," said Patrick Whitnell, general counsel for the League of California Cities. "But it's hard to say exactly what that will mean until they get some proposals on the table."
California imposes dozens of mandates on local governments and school districts, from requiring efforts to encourage animal adoption to mandating certain types of disclosures about public meetings. State reimbursements, which are paid to local governments for executing the programs, cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year, making them a popular target for cost-cutting in down budget years.
Critics have long argued that the mandates system is more expensive and burdensome than was originally intended – a contention supported by numerous state audits and reports.
Dozens of audits performed by the State Controller's Office show that local governments have improperly billed the state for millions in reimbursements. In many cases, the amount of money a local agency properly received under a reimbursement program is dwarfed by the amount they received improperly.
For example, Contra Costa County claimed more than $1.1 million between 2002 and 2004 for costs associated with printing and posting public meeting agendas in advance of county meetings. But state auditors found [PDF] last year that all but about $200,000 of those costs were overbilled.
In another case, a 2008 report by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office suggested that a state mandate designed to encourage animal adoptions actually created incentives for animal shelters to euthanize more pets, running completely counter to the purpose of the mandate.
"Specifically, under the mandate’s reimbursement methodology, shelters do not get more state funds if more households adopt animals," the report reads. "Rather, shelters that euthanize the most animals receive the most state funds. Shelters that are the most successful in promoting adoptions receive the least state funds."
Brown's budget plan this year calls for suspending many of the mandates that are not related to public safety or property taxes – a maneuver also used in past administrations. Brown's estimates [PDF] suggest suspending the mandates could save the state upwards of a quarter-billion dollars.
But despite the savings, some public officials have expressed concerns that suspending – or eventually eliminating – some mandates could eliminate key services that some members of the public have come to rely on.
Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, has already proposed a constitutional amendment that would require that certain public meetings provisions that are currently funded by mandate programs would carry on even if the mandate itself is suspended or repealed.
"Californians have a fundamental right to know what their government is doing," Yee said in a statement. "One only needs to look at corruption within the City of Bell to realize that the Brown Act should never be compromised. Our open meeting laws are too important to be made optional every time the state runs short of money."
Despite the suspension, Whitnell, of the League of Cities, said he is not aware of any cities that have not followed the act.
"It's hard once you have a mandate to do something to stop doing it, particularly in areas like the Brown Act," he said.
Other local government officials have also signaled that they are prepared to defend some local mandate programs, even though others have proven irksome.
Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin told the Fresno Bee last week that there are "vital services that need to be continued," she said. "But not all of them are."
Comments
via Twitter