BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW
Denise Moreno Ducheny, Chair
Bill No: AB 349
Author: Silva
As Amended: December 15, 2009
Consultant: Brian Annis
Fiscal: Yes
Hearing Date: April 12, 2010
Subject: State mandates.
Summary: This bill requires the Department of Finance,
beginning with the proposed budget for 2012-13, to draft
statutory changes necessary to repeal a mandate that is
proposed for suspension. Additionally, this bill requires -
to the extent practicable - that when the budget act
suspends or defers payment of a mandate, the language in
the budget act shall specifically identify the affected
section of law.
Background: Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution, as amended by Proposition 1A of 2004,
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 that require a local agency to perform a
new or higher level of service. There are several
exemptions to the reimbursement requirement, such as for
laws expanding the definition of crimes.
Article XIII B also provides that certain mandates are
suspended (that is, the local agency is not required to
perform the mandate) in years in which there is no
appropriation provided in the annual Budget Act. The local
agency is not required to comply with a state mandate that
has been suspended. The Legislature cannot suspend a state
mandate relating to schools, community colleges, or local
government employee rights.
Under current law, the mandate reimbursement process takes
three years. In the first year, the local government
incurs costs to implement the mandate which is initially
covered with local funds. In the second year, the local
-1-
government totals the mandate costs for the prior year and
submits a reimbursement claim to the state. In the third
year, the state funds are appropriated in the budget act
and locals receive their reimbursement. When a mandate is
suspended in a particular budget act, repayment of past
claims is deferred for that year and no new state payment
obligations are created because the local government is not
required to perform the activity in that year.
Due to the severity of the budget deficit, the 2009 Budget
Act suspended most non-education local mandates.
Generally, all reimbursable state mandates on local
governments were suspended except those in the following
categories:
Law enforcement and crime victim rights mandates.
Voting procedure mandates (to maintain necessary
uniformity across the state).
Property tax administration mandates (to maintain
necessary fiscal information).
Medi-Cal beneficiary death notices (due to greater
savings from fraud prevention).
Brown Act / open meetings mandate (to maintain
transparency and access to government).
Some of the mandates suspended in 2009-10 were suspended
for the first time. Others have been suspended for
multiple years - some more than a decade.
Proposed Law: This bill requires the Department of
Finance, beginning with the proposed budget for 2012-13, to
draft statutory changes necessary to repeal a mandate that
is proposed for suspension. Additionally, this bill
requires - to the extent practicable - that when the budget
act suspends or defers payment of a mandate, the language
in the budget act shall specifically identify the affected
section of law.
The purpose of the bill is to focus attention on a concern
raised by the author about a significant number of
reimbursable mandates on the books which have not been
funded for several years. The author believes that the
-2-
provisions of this bill would provide additional
information to lawmakers, schools, and local government
officials about what mandates are suspended and which laws
are affected by those suspensions.
Fiscal Effect: This bill would result in minor absorbable
costs to the Department of Finance. Since this bill would
not repeal any mandates, it would not affect mandate costs.
Support:
California State Association of Counties
California Police Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Special Districts Association
City of Costa Mesa
League of California Cities
Opposed:
None on file.
Comments: By requiring the Department of Finance to draft
language to repeal mandates, this bill would create a minor
new workload for the Administration. However, this bill
does not require that those suspended mandates be repealed
and the draft language may not create any benefit if
neither the Administration nor the Legislature supports
repeal. Adding the affected section of law to the budget
act for suspended mandates may provide some additional
level of clarity for local government; however, the budget
act already includes the implementing chapter and year.
-3-