State should direct money to counties in need, with accountability on how funds are spent
Editor:
In his editorial, “Counties should push back on state mandates that strain taxpayers’ wallets,” Charles Hartway states that the county government should “disavow” mandated programs as an act of civil disobedience.
A mandate is defined as a requirement by New York State that a local government has to carry out. Some examples, Medicaid, Public Assistance/Safety Net, Child Welfare protect/prevention, Pre-School Special Education, Indigent Defense, Probation, Early Intervention, Youth Detention and Pensions.
In looking over the list, the vast majority are received by residents of the county. To the best of my knowledge, county lawmakers do not want to eliminate these programs, they just want the State of New York to fully fund them.
That sounds like a great plan, except that it merely shifts the tax burden to the working class and disincentives fiscal responsibility at the local level.
When county officials purport they have “discretion of less than 10% of the annual budget,” it implies they have no say as to how funds are appropriated. They do have a great deal of discretion, including managing contracts and the hiring of employees. The recent county property acquisitions underscores that point.
The county’s beef regarding these mandated programs has never been about the actual programs, they simply want more money from the state.
Unfortunately increased state funding often creates a perverse incentive for counties to inflate program costs or sustain inefficient systems. Knowing the state will cover the costs, counties may lack the urgency to streamline services, eliminate redundancy, or seek innovative solutions. The state’s broader scope also makes it harder to monitor every funded program effectively, creating fertile ground for waste and mismanagement.
Counties differ significantly in demographics, geography, and needs. What works in urban Erie County may be ineffective or excessive in rural Orleans County. When programs rely solely on state funding, they’re often designed with stricter statewide mandates or stipulations, undermining the flexibility counties need to tailor services to their communities.
Local governments are empowered to address the needs of their constituents through property taxes or sales taxes. If counties rely on the state for funding, it reduces their incentive to optimize local revenue generation. This creates long-term dependence, disempowers local governance, and leaves communities vulnerable if state funding is reduced.
When programs fail or fall short of expectations, it becomes easier for counties and the state to point fingers rather than address systemic issues. This lack of clear responsibility fosters political gridlock, with both levels of government spending more time deflecting blame than improving services.
Rather than advocating for the state to provide open-ended funding, they should work with the state to shift its focus to supporting counties through grants tied to performance metrics and providing technical assistance to help counties administer their own programs. This encourages efficiency, innovation, and accountability at the local level while ensuring state resources are directed to communities in real need.
By fostering local independence and responsibility, New York can ensure county programs serve residents effectively without becoming a financial or administrative quagmire.
Thom Jennings
Oakfield
