Neil McCormick: State forcing communities to cover price tag on costly mandates

A little-known state commission has quietly begun shifting the responsibility of paying for state-mandated programs to local governments and their ratepayers, disregarding the will of the people. Last week the Sacramento Superior Court reluctantly upheld the new scheme.

For decades, communities throughout California struggled to address the issue of paying for costly mandates imposed by the state Legislature. Tired of the practice of forcing local entities to take on new mandates and raise their fees and taxes to cover the costs, Californians took to the ballot in 1979 and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 4. It placed a new article in the state constitution requiring the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of any new programs or higher levels of service mandated by the states but provided by local governments or districts.

In 2004, voters again expressed their disapproval of the state shifting financial responsibility for its programs onto local governments, passing Proposition 1A with 83.7 percent of the vote. Proposition 1A reaffirmed and expanded the constitution’s mandate provisions, requiring the state to either reimburse local governments for the costs of mandated programs or suspending the requirements of the mandate. The measure also protected local governments from attempts to shift local property tax revenues to state coffers.

Now the state is again refusing to meet its obligations by mandating costly new programs on local governments and denying any reimbursement through the Commission on State Mandates, which was created by the Legislature.

In the recent Superior Court case Paradise Irrigation District v. Commission on State Mandates, the commission sought to reinterpret the constitution and shirk its obligations by denying state reimbursement for costly retrofits it required of numerous local irrigation districts – including Oakdale Irrigation District. In doing so, the Commission on State Mandates placed the financial burden on residents serviced by this district (and others like it), requiring it to raise fees and taxes in order to cover the cost of the state’s demands.

The California Special Districts Association filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of OID and other special districts arguing the commission’s reliance on a previous case, County of Fresno v. State of California, wasn’t valid.

However, the court upheld the commission’s position that local agencies with “sufficient fee authority” could not receive reimbursement of state mandates. Despite Propositions 4 and 1A, it was deemed acceptable to deny reimbursement for costly new mandates so long as the costs can be recovered by raising fees on local residents.

At a time of rising water costs, this decision puts irrigation districts and the people they serve in a bind by forcing them to implement costly programs without reimbursement. It also sets a potentially far-reaching precedent for all local government agencies, including cities, counties and the special districts we represent.

When unfunded mandates are imposed by the state, special districts must find a way to cover the costs. In most cases, that means either raising rates on families, farms and businesses or cutting services to the millions of Californians who depend on them.

This decision could force communities to sacrifice the quality of their services and place vital infrastructure projects on hold so that mandated programs can be accommodated.

While state officials get the credit for implementing their priorities, local governments get the blame and communities get the bill.

This story was originally published February 26, 2016 at 7:54 AM with the headline "Neil McCormick: State forcing communities to cover price tag on costly mandates."