BILL ANALYSIS
AB 349
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Anna Marie Caballero, Chair
AB 349 (Silva) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUBJECT : State mandates.
SUMMARY : Requires the Director of Finance (DOF) to provide to
the Legislature all proposed statutory changes necessary to
repeal reimbursable state mandates that have been suspended for
three consecutive years in the Governor's Budget. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Defines "suspended reimbursable state mandate" to mean a
statute or executive order that meets both of the following
criteria:
a) Has been determined by the Legislature, the Commission
on State Mandates (Commission), or any court to mandate a
new program or higher level of service requiring the
reimbursement of local agencies, including school
districts; and,
b) Has been specifically identified as being a statute or
executive order for which reimbursement is not provided for
that fiscal year in the Governor's Budget.
2)Requires, on or after January 1, 2012, DOF to provide to the
Legislature all proposed statutory changes necessary to repeal
reimbursable state mandates that have been suspended for three
consecutive years in the Governor's Budget.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, under the California Constitution, the state provide
a subvention of funds whenever it mandates local government to
undertake a new program or higher level of service.
2)Allows local governments to apply to the Commission for
reimbursement of state-mandated local costs.
3)Requires the Governor at each regular session of the
Legislature to submit a budget for the ensuing fiscal year.
AB 349
Page 2
4)Requires DOF to provide to the Legislature, on or before
February 1 of each year, all proposed statutory changes that
are necessary to implement the Governor's Budget.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution
requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school
districts for increased costs if the Legislature passes a law
or the Administration issues an executive order or adopts
regulations. Government Code Sections
17500 et seq., specify the process to determine whether or not a
reimbursable state mandate is created.
2)The Commission serves as a quasi-judicial agency in making the
determination. Local agency or school district claimants
initiate all mandate determinations by filing "test claims"
alleging that a new statute, executive order, or regulation
imposes a new program or higher level of service upon them,
which entitles the claimant to state reimbursement. Once the
Commission hears a test claim and determines the governmental
action constituted a reimbursable state mandate, it then
determines the amount to be subvened for the program.
Following the mandate determination, local agencies and school
districts may file reimbursement claims with the State
Controller to be reimbursed for the state-mandated programs.
The State Controller pays and audits claims, and may reduce
reimbursement claims that are determined to be excessive or
unreasonable. Appeals may be filed asserting incorrect
reductions.
3)The author states there are currently over two dozen
reimbursable state mandates that have been suspended for at
least three years, 10 of which have been suspended for at
least 18 years. The author believes that repealing suspended
mandates would make the law more clear. Local governments
would still have the option of funding any repealed mandate
just as they have the option now of funding suspended
mandates.
4)Article XIII B of the California Constitution is not
AB 349
Page 3
self-executing and requires an appropriation in the annual
Budget Act to provide reimbursement for state mandates. In
Mandel v. Myers (1981)(29 Cal.3d 531), the Supreme Court
stated that, "the separation of powers doctrine has generally
been viewed as prohibiting a court from directly ordering the
Legislature to enact a specific appropriation," (Id., at 540).
Thus, courts are powerless to compel appropriations when the
Legislature is not constitutionally required to do so.
Furthermore, in City of Sacramento v. State Legislature (1986)
(187 Cal. App. 3d 393), the Court of Appeal found that "the
legislative power to enact laws, including appropriations, is
committed exclusively to the legislative department by the
Constitution," (Id., at 398). While Article XIII B of the
California Constitution requires the state to provide a
subvention of funds whenever it mandates a local government
undertake a new program or higher level of service, it does
not require the Legislature to appropriate the necessary funds
in the annual Budget Act.
5)However, under Article XIII B of the California Constitution,
the Legislature can choose to suspend a state mandate, which
means there is no appropriation provided for in the annual
Budget Act and subsequently there is no requirement for the
local agency to comply with the state mandate. The
Legislature cannot choose to suspend a state mandate relating
to schools, community colleges, or local government employee
rights.
6)The Committee may wish to consider whether requiring DOF to
propose statutory language is a viable option for erasing
suspended reimbursable mandates from the books. DOF cannot
introduce legislation, making this statutory requirement
dependent on the Legislature introducing those proposed
statutory changes in a bill. Furthermore, any bill containing
DOF's proposed statutory changes also would need to be passed
by the Legislature. Thus, the goal of AB 349 to remove
suspended reimbursable mandates from the codes is entirely
dependent on a third party to introduce and approve conforming
legislation.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
CA Peace Officers' Association
AB 349
Page 4
CA Police Chiefs Association
CA State Association of Counties
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer R. Klein / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958