BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2684|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2684
Author: Bock (I)
Amended: 8/14/00 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 4-0, 8/9/00
AYES: Johnston, Monteith, Perata, Rainey
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 11-0, 8/21/00
AYES: Johnston, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Johnson, Karnette,
Kelley, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 5/30/00 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : State-mandated local costs
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill creates a mechanism for allocation of
savings realized in the implementation of state-mandated
local programs. (See Analysis for specifics.)
ANALYSIS : The California Constitution requires the state
government to reimburse local governments for the costs of
new or increased state-mandated local programs. Local
officials file reimbursement claims with the Commission on
State Mandates and, if the commission approves the claims,
the legislature appropriates the necessary funds.
State law requires counties to provide supportive services
so that handicapped children can benefit from special
CONTINUED
AB 2684
Page
2
education (AB 3632, W. Brown, 1984). In 1999-2000, the
state reimbursed counties $38.6 million for these
state-mandated costs. The 1976 Child Abduction and Recovery
program mandates district attorney's to actively assist in
the resolution of child custody problems including
visitation disputes, the enforcement of custody decrees,
and any other order of the court in a child custody
proceeding. In 1999-2000, the state paid $9.9 million to
reimburse their costs.
Local officials often have ideas that would save money, but
the state government does not have an incentive program to
encourage them to implement these good ideas. Recognizing
the cost-saving potential in many state-mandated local
programs, it may be possible to provide incentives for
local agencies to improve efficiency by rewarding them for
cost-saving innovations.
Existing law establishes specified procedures for local
agencies and school districts to file claims with the
Commission on State Mandates for reimbursement of
state-mandated local programs and for payment of those
claims by the Controller.
This bill establishes a Savings Allocation Program. The
program authorizes a city, county, city and county, special
district, or school district when filing a claim, to submit
findings to the Controller identifying savings generated
from the implementation of either of two specified mandated
programs and provides for allocation of the savings by the
Controller, as specified.
This bill requires the Commission on State Mandates to
decide any appeals of the Controller's decision regarding
whether or not a savings has occurred.
This bill requires the Controller to report to the
Legislature on or before January 1, 2006, on any savings
realized through this program, and repeals these provision
on January 1, 2007, unless a later enacted statute extends
or deletes that date.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
AB 2684
Page
3
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/22/00)
California State Association of Counties
California Municipal Business Tax Association
League of California Cities
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/22/00)
California State Controller
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to Senate Local
Government Committee analysis, reducing costs and improving
productivity results in increased efficiency and improved
local programs. By recognizing and rewarding local
agencies' cost saving activities, this bill provides an
incentive that encourages local agencies to come up with
creative and innovative cost saving ideas.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Controller's office
expresses concern as to who is to administer this program.
They state: "All state-mandated cost programs are
administered by the Commission on State Mandates in
conjunction with local governments. Even in the bill it
says the local governments thought there were areas where
they could save costs but there were no incentives to do
so. If we follow the state-mandated costs procedure, the
way that this would work is that the local governments
would work with the Commission on State Mandates to
administer this program. The Controller's office then
would take a look at the savings, audit for the savings,
and then make a determination indeed if the savings had met
the criteria developed by the Commission on State Mandates.
We believe that there are cost savings built into this
program. One, that we reimburse for actual costs only for
specific reimbursable components. Secondly, we do audit
for excessiveness and we do audit for unreasonableness
already. And we do make disallowances if we do believe
that excessive monies have been spent on these programs."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn,
Baldwin, Bates, Battin, Baugh, Bock, Brewer, Briggs,
AB 2684
Page
4
Calderon, Campbell, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Corbett,
Correa, Cox, Cunneen, Davis, Dickerson, Ducheny, Dutra,
Firebaugh, Florez, Floyd, Frusetta, Gallegos, Granlund,
Havice, Honda, House, Jackson, Kaloogian, Keeley, Knox,
Kuehl, Leach, Lempert, Leonard, Longville, Lowenthal,
Machado, Maddox, Maldonado, Margett, Mazzoni, McClintock,
Migden, Nakano, Olberg, Oller, Robert Pacheco, Rod
Pacheco, Papan, Pescetti, Reyes, Romero, Runner, Scott,
Shelley, Steinberg, Strickland, Strom-Martin, Thompson,
Thomson, Torlakson, Villaraigosa, Vincent, Washington,
Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wildman, Wright, Zettel,
Hertzberg
LB:sl 8/22/00 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****