BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 392
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 1, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 392 (Jones-Sawyer) - As Introduced: February 15, 2013
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill changes the allocation method and reporting
requirement for prorated state mandate claims. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Requires the State Controller to determine the most
cost-effective allocation method if $1,000 or less is
appropriated for a state mandated program.
2)Removes reporting requirements for the State Controller to
report prorated claims to the Department of Finance, the
Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the
Chairperson of the Budget Committee in each house of the
Legislature.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor cost savings to the State Controller.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, when an appropriation for
local reimbursements is substantially less than the total
costs claimed, specifically when the appropriation is $1,000
or less, the current payment process is inefficient and
time-consuming and results in payments to local entities that
amount to less than the cost of processing the payment. The
sponsor, the State Controller, points to the Budget Act of
2009 in which $1,000 was appropriated for the Mandate
Reimbursement Process program for school districts. According
to the Controller's office, 795 eligible claims totaling $16.4
AB 392
Page 2
million were approved. After offsetting claims for accounts
receivable owed to the state, the Controller's Office issued
761 warrants ranging from $1 to $6. The sponsor argues that
these small payments still require extensive staff time and
resources expended by both his office and school districts.
2)Background . In 1979, the voters amended the California
Constitution by adding a requirement for the state to
reimburse local governments for the cost of new programs or
higher levels of service mandated by the Legislature or any
state agency. In 1984 the Legislature created the Commission
on State Mandates, a quasi-judicial agency,
as the entity that decides test claims alleging that the
Legislature or a state agency imposed
a reimbursable state-mandated local program. Once the
Commission hears a test claim and determines that the
governmental action constituted a reimbursable state mandate,
it then determines the amount to be allocated 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 Controller pays and audits these claims, and can reduce
reimbursement claims determined to be excessive or
unreasonable. 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. If the appropriation is not sufficient to
reimburse all of the claims approved by the Controller,
current law requires the Controller to prorate claims in
proportion to the dollar amount of approved claims filed
timely and on hand at the time of proration.
3)Application of bill limited . According to the Controller's
office, in practice the distribution of funds when there is an
appropriation of $1,000 or less for a state mandated program
has only been made to school districts and community colleges.
In November 2004, voters approved Proposition 1A, which
requires the Legislature to appropriate funds in the annual
budget to pay outstanding mandate claims, suspend the mandate
or repeal the mandate. Proposition 1A applies to local
governments only and does not include school districts or
community colleges.
AB 392
Page 3
In addition, the deletion of the reporting requirement is not
likely to have a significant impact because Section
17562(b)(1) requires the Controller to report to the
Legislature on mandate reimbursements, including partial
payments.
4)There is no registered opposition to this bill .
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081