Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fiscal Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors say state‑run IHSS costs are an unfunded mandate; worry about perpetuity of raises
Summary
Board members pressed staff on long‑term budget consequences of any IHSS wage increase, arguing the program was initiated by the state and warning that county general‑fund services could be affected if ongoing obligations are adopted.
Board members questioned how the county would absorb and sustain any wage increases for IHSS providers, calling the program effectively a state‑initiated mandate.
One supervisor said, "it's a state program that was initiated, and I've just seen the cost skyrocket... it's an unfunded mandate," and asked whether the county can cap costs or otherwise avoid perpetual commitments. The Chair asked for confirmation that approving a contract would create an ongoing obligation that could not be unwound, saying, "If we commit dollars today, not knowing what the future is, we're committed in perpetuity?"
Deputy County Administrator Mark Sherry Lawson answered that staff estimated the ongoing cost related to the fact-finder's recommendation as "approximately higher than $7,000" annually and emphasized that unknown future state actions could change the county’s fiscal exposure. Supervisors suggested pursuing state‑level remedies and partnering with unions to seek relief from the Legislature or state agencies rather than meeting the cost entirely from the county general fund.
Why it matters: Supervisors framed the debate in budgetary and program‑authority terms — if the county must fund permanent pay increases for a state‑initiated program, it may need to reallocate general‑fund resources away from other services.
Next steps: Discussion was recorded but no policy change or vote was taken; staff remained available to provide further fiscal and legal analysis.
