AgdaPkt 2003-09-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

,+ • • MANDATES from page 1 ............................................. Programs that received funding of $1,000 are essentially "deferred ". In essence, this means the obligation continues to perform activities approved for reimbursement by the Commission on State Man- dates, but the payments on claims have been de- ferred. No date is specified for the beginning of the repayment and, as noted above, it has been recom- mended that the deferrals remain through the next fiscal year as well. Some of the deferred funding programs of interest to cities include: Open Meetings Act No- tices and Police Officers Procedural Bill of Rights. Cities will be required to continue operating these programs and should continue to submit claims for repayment. If the program is funded at zero, the mandated activities are effectively "suspended" for the duration of the budget year. This means that cities are not obligated to perform the activities — and that the city will not be reimbursed for any mandated activities they perform during the suspension period. The suspension can be lifted at any point in time that the Legislature reinstates funding for the program. Suspension Adds Confusion to Animal Adoption Requirements One of the suspended programs that may raise the biggest dilemma for cities is the AnimalAdoption mandate Recent action by the State Mandates Commission has declared parts of the so- called Hayden bill to be reimbursable. While the Assembly Special Committee on State Mandates suggested that the Animal Adoption Mandate be deferred, the final budget included a suspension of the mandate. Dan Wall, Director of Intergovernmental Relations for Assembly Speaker Wesson's office and staff to the Assembly Special Committee on State Mandates, recognized that the suspension of this program could raise many questions from local agencies. He identi- fied two possible alternatives to interpreting the suspension: 1) the agencies would be obligated to meet requirements prior to the Hayden bill that enacted the most recent criteria; or 2) all require- ments would be lifted. Wall requested a legal opinion from Legislative Counsel on this particular instance. The response, to quote Wall, was: "..Legislative Counsel has opined that cities and counties are only relieved of the obligation to perform incremental obligation or obliga- tions in the Hayden bill that were judged by the Commission on .hate Mandates to be reimbursable. That means that t ve iocels would still be obliged to perform the requirements which existed prior to the enactment of the Hayden bill. To use a specific example from the Hayden bill as an illustration: the Commission judged the 6 day /4 day holding period to be a reimbursable mandate, and suspension in this instance means that the locals are still obliged to hold the animals for the 72 hour period required prior to the Hayden bill." However, this may not be the end of the Animal Adoption mandate story. At the request of the legisla- ture, the State Auditor is currently reviewing the claims process for the Animal Adoption program. The Attorney General also has some legal action pending on this mandate. The Assembly Special Committee on State Mandates has been reviewing the entire mandate process and, on August 25, voted to take action in the next two weeks on some proposals they have developed. It is unknown at this time if that legislation will include a deferral of the Animal Adop- tion mandate as they had recommended. Final legislative actions should be known within the next few weeks, although results from the legal action on the Animal Adoption mandate may take longer. PUBLIC AGENCIES DROP CALPERS HEALTH COVERAGE Twenty -seven public agencies, including a number of cities, informed the California Public Retirement System (CaIPERS) this week that they will drop out of the statewide system for health insurance and find coverage on their own. The withdrawal of the agencies from the health coverage system comes in response to rapidly increasing rates, signaling an erosion of the health purchasing power of the CaIPERS behemoth, which provides health benefits for more than 1,100 public agencies and schools. The pressure for agencies to pull out of the system is stronger in Southern California, which tends to have younger, and therefore healthier enrollees, and where health care costs are often more competitive. Visit the League's Official Web Site-- www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS /PAGE 5