Local Autonomy Fine In Theory… Cities, Towns Find The State Not So Eager To Share The Power

The Idaho Legislature has been sending a message to city and county governments: Do as we say, not as we do.

Just as lawmakers and state officials are pushing for more autonomy and less oversight from the federal government, they are refusing to listen to similar requests from the local governments below them.

Some examples:

Lawmakers last year imposed a 3 percent limit on increases in local government budgets. But they increased the state budget 6.7 percent last year, 16.6 percent the year before and 7.7 percent the year before that.

Lawmakers this session killed legislation that would have allowed cities or counties across the state, by a 60 percent vote of the people, to impose local sales taxes. Such a measure could limit the state’s future ability to raise sales taxes statewide, some lawmakers said.

Citizens two years ago voted to allow different forms of county government, by local option, other than the strict three-commissioner system now required by state law. The Legislature last year failed to develop legislation allowing for such changes, and two bills offered this year by an interim committee that studied the issue have run into trouble in the Senate.

“We are one of the most centralized states in the country,” said Jim Weatherby, a Boise State University professor and head of BSU’s public affairs program.

“Our conservatism does not equate to local control.”

Idaho’s major corporations are among the factors driving that, Weatherby said, because “it’s easier for them and their lobbyists to influence decisions at the state level, among one set of elected officials, rather than having to deal with many throughout the state.”

A few legislators are “very straightforward,” said Scott McDonald, executive director of the Association of Idaho Cities. “They don’t want to give up their authority. They don’t mind the feds giving up theirs.”

McDonald said that outlook is changing slowly. He points to a bill introduced this year by House Speaker Mike Simpson that would create an advisory commission on intergovernmental relations to watch over state-local issues year-round.

“For the first time, it creates the forum to talk,” McDonald said, “instead of just reacting to each other’s ideas. I think it’s long overdue.”

The current version of the bill requires the state to provide money whenever it places a new requirement on local governments. It also declares that cities and counties don’t have to comply with new state requirements if their cost to the local agencies exceeds a certain level.

Coeur d’Alene Mayor Al Hassell said that “local government is generally the more efficient way of getting things done.”

Idaho is so diverse, he said, that often what works for one part of the state won’t work for another. Legislators who want uniformity across the state end up opposing anything that doesn’t work for their district, even if it suits the needs of another.

“The result is we have very little local-option authority. We have very little in the ways of raising funds for local needs.”

“Our communities are very limited,” Hassell said.

Weatherby said a nationwide survey some years back ranked Idaho dead last in terms of the authority it gives its local government.

“Officials tend to trust the level of government at which they serve,” he said. “And if it’s a state legislator, they trust the state more than they do either the federal or local governments. Sometimes they don’t really appreciate the double standard.”

BSU’s Survey Research Center has asked Idaho citizens repeatedly which level of government they have the most confidence in and feel returns the most for their tax dollars. “Overwhelmingly, local governments are the most preferred.”

, DataTimes