BILL ANALYSIS
AB 349
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 349 (Silva) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires, beginning January 1, 1012, the
administration to produce draft trailer bill language with its
January budget proposal that repeals mandates that are proposed
to be suspended for at least the third consecutive year.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor absorbable cost to the Department of Finance (DOF) to
produce trailer bill language repealing mandates.
COMMENTS
1)Background . 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 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.
AB 349
Page 2
2)Rationale . 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 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.
3)Is draft language going to be effective? The bill merely
requires the DOF to include draft language as part of the
January budget proposal package. In order to have an impact,
the language would have to be included in a bill introduced by
a member, adopted by the Legislature, and signed by the
governor. Thus, a question raised by the bill is whether draft
bill language (which is not widely read) is the best mechanism
for focusing attention on the issue, or whether a more
effective means would be to simply require the budget proposal
to include a display of these items.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081