Many of County’s Budget Ills Are Blamed on Cost of Programs Mandated by State

Last year, barely two weeks before the 1985-86 fiscal year ended on June 30, Orange County finally received its money from the state to pay for a job-training program--11 1/2 months late.

That is an extreme example of a common problem.

County officials complain that they are continually ordered by the state to operate costly programs--mostly concerning health care and welfare--without adequate funding. And the money they are given by the state often is delivered so late that it makes planning the county budget a roller-coaster experience.

Just this week, six weeks into the new fiscal year, the county Social Services Agency received state money to operate adoption offices and a day care licensing program. It still has not received money for its foster care program.

All three programs are supposed to be fully funded by the state, but county officials say the funds received from the state will cover only about about 80% of their costs.

As a result, the county had to spend almost $300,000 on those three programs “to subsidize the state,” said Robert A. Griffith, chief deputy director of the Social Services Agency.

“If there were no unfunded state mandates, the counties wouldn’t be having the trouble they are right now,” said Ken Smith, spokesman in Sacramento for the County Supervisors Assn. of California. “Every county in the state is either in trouble now or projecting some trouble in the near future.”

Last week, the legislature held a major hearing on financial problems facing counties across the state and heard “horror story after horror story” of layoffs, closed recreational facilities and cutbacks in health care and police budgets, said Karen Coker, a lobbyist for the Orange County in Sacramento.

Orange County Administrative Officer Larry Parrish also blames the state for most of Orange County’s financial problems. Parrish said he is concerned that when financial analysts review the county’s credit rating, they may complain about the inconsistency of its state funding and the fluctuations that causes in budget forecasts.

Last spring, partly because the county did not know how much it was going to receive from the state for the fiscal year that began July 1, orders were given to department heads to cut their budgets--first by 6%, then 12%, then 22%, then an average of about 5%.

“They (financial analysts) just have to factor in the neurotic California approach to local government,” Parrish said.

“Every year there is this game of where (the state is) going to put (the money) and at the last minute something comes through and we end up looking like jerks because we’ve been jerked around by the state,” he said. “We have to start the (budget) process in April, and I can’t professionally take the risk of saying, ‘Oh, they’ll work it out.’ ”

State Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach) and Smith are convinced that, as bad as things are, the message has finally gotten through to the state’s legislators. Bergeson is a principal author of a legislative package--called “Commitment to Counties”--that is being considered by the legislature.

The legislation would give counties more money for underfunded, state-mandated programs, as well as more money to operate courts and a larger ongoing share of the 6% state sales tax to facilitate long-range budget planning.

“All counties are in trouble generally because they’re depending on state monies and the counties have not been given sufficient money to meet the expanding needs,” Bergeson said. “This would provide a safety net for counties whose caseloads are growing faster than revenues.”