Proposing a constitutional amendment allowing a state mandate imposed on a county to have effect only if the state provides for payment to the county of the cost of the mandate.
The implications of HJR89 are significant for the relationship between state and local governments. By establishing a requirement for funding, the bill seeks to enhance the financial stability of counties that must comply with state-imposed mandates. This may prevent the scenario where local governments face budget shortfalls due to unexpected legislative requirements, thereby promoting more sustainable fiscal management at the county level.
HJR89 proposes a constitutional amendment that requires the state to provide funding for any new mandates it imposes on counties. Specifically, the resolution ensures that any mandate effective after January 1, 2012, which necessitates revenue expenditure by a county would only take effect if the state also appropriates funds to cover these costs. This change intends to alleviate the financial burden on local governments, ensuring they are not forced to foot the bill for state mandates without proper compensation.
Discussions surrounding HJR89 may reflect concerns from various stakeholders, especially regarding potential resistance from state lawmakers who may view this as an encroachment on their authority. There could also be worries about legislative gridlock, as the necessity for funding appropriations could complicate or delay the implementation of vital state policies. The bill includes exceptions, such as mandates derived from the state constitution or federal law, which might help mitigate some opposition but could still spark debate over the scope of local government autonomy versus state oversight.