Commentary; Posted: 8/21/02

State mandates need state funding

Don Heinzman

Unfunded mandated programs result in counties having to tax their only revenue source, the property tax. These mandates enacted by state legislators are continuing, and county officials are hoping legislators will at least share part of the costs of these mandates.

An example of an unfounded mandatory law is the new DUI (driving under the influence) law which will require counties to spend more money on prosecutions, jail time, probation and in some cases even hiring another attorney.

In effect, the state legislators have decided against using income tax and sales tax dollars and requiring counties to fund the new expense with property tax dollars.

Most county officials prefer either to have the state provide the dollars for those mandated programs or to share the costs with the county.

It can be argued that the county form of government is an extension of state government and can administer some programs more efficiently at the local level.

County officials are reluctant to criticize state lawmakers, because they realize some of the mandated programs are necessary. The rub, however, is that the county gets blamed for increasing the property taxes to pay for programs that are mandated.

In some cases these expenses are significant. One in particular, is out-of-home placement costs when people must be removed from their homes for all kinds of reasons.

In the case of Isanti County, these costs amount to $1.7 million, which is 7 percent of the countyís total budget.

The new DUI law, which makes four or more drunken driving convictions a felony, requires more of the countiesí resources because it used to be a gross misdemeanor. Anoka County officials estimate this new mandate will result in 120 new cases a year, which will require more court time, more jail time, and hiring a new prosecuting attorney. These new costs will have to be financed through more property taxes.

The Minnesota State Legislature in the last session mandated another law that will affect the county budgets.

Under this law, the county must pay 10 percent of the costs of persons under 65 who are on medical assistance. Anoka County officials, for example, are anticipating a shift of $300,000 from the state to the county.

The State Legislature is strapped for funds, since it is facing a billion-dollar deficit next year, and mandating programs without funding them to the counties is understandable.

County Commissioners, who are elected, however, often are criticized for not holding the line on spending over which they have little control.

The best compromise would be the state to pay a part of the costs of new mandates, rather than having the counties pay the entire expense.

During this campaign season when legislative candidates are running for reelection, they should declare their position on funding programs they mandate to counties to administer.

Top of Page