______________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 


 
 


 
 


 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 State of California
 

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP
 Attorney General
 

OPINION : 

: No. 90-306 

of : 

: August 21, 1990

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP : 

Attorney General : 

: 

RODNEY O. LILYQUIST : 

Deputy Attorney General : 

: 

THE HONORABLE JACK O'CONNELL, MEMBER, CALIFORNIA 

ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on the following question: 

Does the Legislature's limitation upon the number of counties eligible to receive

bond funds for youth shelters for abused and neglected children comply with the conditions set

forth in the bond act approved by the voters. 

CONCLUSION 

The Legislature's limitation upon the number of counties eligible to receive bond

funds for youth shelters for abused and neglected children complies with the conditions set forth

in the bond act approved by the voters. 

ANALYSIS 

Chapter 264 of the Statutes of 1988, known as the County Correctional Facility

Capital Expenditure and Youth Facility Bond Act of 1988 ("bond act"), proposed the addition

of sections 4496-4496.48 to the Penal Code. The legislation was submitted to the voters at the

November 8, 1988, general election as Proposition 86 for ratification in accordance with the

terms of article XVI of the Constitution. The bond act received the requisite electorate approval,

authorizing a total bond issue of $500 million with $410 million designated for county

correctional facilities, $65 million for county juvenile facilities, $15 million for youth centers,

and $10 million for youth shelters. (Pen. Code, § 4496.12.) This opinion is concerned with the

disposition of the $10 million for youth shelters. 

The California Constitution requires the Legislature to submit for voter approval

any law proposing a state general obligation bond issue. Section 1 of article XVI of the 

Constitution provides: 

"The Legislature shall not, in any manner create any debt or debts, liability

or liabilities, which shall, singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or 

1. 90-306 
 


 

liabilities, exceed the sum of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), except

in case of war to repel invasion or suppress insurrection, unless the same shall be

authorized by law for some single object or work to be distinctly specified therein

which law shall provide ways and means, exclusive of loans, for the payment of

the interest of such debt or liability as it falls due, and also to pay and discharge

the principal of such debt or liability within 50 years of the time of the contracting

thereof, and shall be irrepealable until the principal and interest thereon shall be

paid and discharged, and such law may make provision for a sinking fund to pay

the principal of such debt or liability to commence at a time after the incurring of

such debt or liability of not more than a period of one-fourth of the time of

maturity of such debt or liability; but no law shall take effect unless it has been 

passed by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house of the

Legislature and until, at a general election or at a direct primary, it shall have been

submitted to the people and shall have received a majority of all the votes cast for

and against it at such election; and all moneys raised by authority of such law

shall be applied only to the specific object therein stated or to the payment of the 

debt thereby created. Full publicity as to matters to be voted upon by the people

is afforded by the setting out of the complete text of the proposed laws, together

with the arguments for and against them, in the ballot pamphlet mailed to each

elector preceding the election at which they are submitted, and the only

requirement for publication of such law shall be that it be set out at length in

ballot pamphlets which the Secretary of State shall cause to be printed. . . ."

(Emphases added.)1 

Statutes authorizing the issuance of bonds "have a special character, having been

ratified by the voters under article XVI, section 1, of the State Constitution." (Veterans of 

Foreign Wars v. State of California, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d 688, 696.) The Constitution declares 

them to be "irrepealable until the principal and interest thereon shall be paid and discharged."

The purpose of this constitutional provision was explained by the Court of Appeal in the Veterans 

of Foreign Wars case: 

"The constitutional injunction against later repeal of the bond law aims to

prevent the Legislature from making substantial changes in the scheme or design

which induced voter approval." (Id., at p. 693.) 

Thus we must determine whether the action taken by the Legislature regarding the

disposition of the $10 million in bond funds for youth shelters makes a "substantial change" in

the scheme or design of the bond act which induced voter approval. First we will examine the 

bond act to determine the scheme or design for the use of the $10 million in bond funds for youth

shelters. Then we shall examine the action taken by the Legislature regarding disposition of the

bond funds to determine whether it complies with that scheme. The basic authorizing provision

approved by the voters for youth shelter expenditures is Penal Code section 4496.12, subdivision

(b). It states: 

"Moneys in the fund, up to a limit of twenty-five million dollars

($25,000,000), may be available for the purpose of making awards to public or

private nonprofit agencies or joint ventures, or a combination of those entities, for

purpose of purchasing equipment and for acquiring, renovating, or constructing 

1

 Voter approval is also required for local bond issues under the conditions specified in section

18 of article XVI of the Constitution. 

2. 90-306 
 

 


 

youth centers or youth shelters, as may be provided by statute. Fifteen million 

dollars ($15,000,000) shall be available for youth centers and ten million dollars

($10,000,000) shall be available for youth shelters and shall be distributed by the

Department of the Youth Authority. However, any remaining money that has not

been awarded under this subdivision within two years of the effective date of this

title shall be available for both youth centers and youth shelters." (Emphasis 

added.) 

Penal Code section 4496.19 in the bond act provides: 

"Money in the fund [in which the proceeds of the sale of the bonds is

deposited] may only be expended for projects specified in this chapter as allocated

in appropriations made by the Legislature." 

Thus the bond act provides that $25 million of the bond proceeds is to be used for "the purpose

of purchasing equipment and for acquiring, renovating, or constructing youth centers or youth

shelters, as may be provided by statute." This means that the specifics of the expenditure of the

$25 million not spelled out in the bond act may be determined by the Legislature in the form of 

a statute. The bond act provides that $10 million of the $25 million is to be be made available

for youth shelters and that that $10 million "shall be distributed by the Department of the Youth

Authority." Finally the bond act provided that the bond proceeds could not be expended for any

project without an allocation therefore in an appropriation made by the Legislature. Thus the 

design or scheme of the bond act for the $10 million for youth shelters is that the distribution is

to be made by the Youth Authority in the manner determined by the Legislature by statute with

expenditures for any project subject to approriation by the Legislature. The scheme of the bond 

act approved by the voters calls for participation by the Legislature not only in the budget process

but also expressly provides that the Legislature may implement the scheme by a statute spelling

out any particulars not covered in the bond act. The bond act does not say which projects are to

get the bond funds. This is one of the particulars which the bond act leaves for determination by

the Legislature "as may be provided by statute." 

The Legislature acted to implement that part of the bond act providing $25 million

for youth centers and youth shelters by the enactment of Chapter 1535, Statutes of 1988 adding

sections 2010 through 2024 to the Welfare and Institutions Code.2

 Under these statutory

provisions, proposals for the expenditure of funds for youth centers and youth shelters are

submitted to the Department of the Youth Authority ("Department") and must "[d]ocument the

need for the applicant's proposal." (§ 2017.) The Department makes its selections based upon

statutory criteria (§§ 2018-2020) and awards the funds when they are appropriated by the

Legislature (§§ 2010-2011).3

 The awards criteria are based upon "demonstrated overcrowding 

2

 All references hereafter to the Welfare and Institutions Code are by section number only. 

3 In Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Resources Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 801, 816- 817, the court stated: 

"An unconstitutional delegation of power occurs when the Legislature

confers upon an administrative agency the unrestricted authority to make

fundamental policy determinations. [Citations.] To avoid such delegation, the

Legislature must provide an adequate yardstick for the guidance of the administrative

body empowered to execute the law. [Citations.] Underlying these rules is the belief

that the Legislature as the most representative organ of government should settle 

3. 90-306 
 

 

problems" and "demonstrated need for additional youth shelter beds." (§ 2020, subd. (b)(1)(B).)

The recipients of the awards are given various duties and responsibilities, and conditions are

attached to the use of the funds. (§§ 2012-2015.) Of the $10 million available for youth shelters,

at least $7 million may be awarded "to shelters for runaway youths" and at most $3 million for

"shelters for abused and neglected children." (§ 2020, subd. (b)(1).) The maximum amount of 

a each grant is $1 million. (§ 2021.) The provision called into question by the request for this

opinion is section 2020, subdivision (b)(1) which provides: 

"Funding for youth shelters shall be awarded as follows:

 (A) At least 70 percent to shelters for runaway youths.

 (B) A maximum of 30 percent to shelters for abused and neglected children.

Funds allocated for shelters for abused and neglected children shall be prioritized

among no more than three counties of the 1st to 10th class, inclusive, as defined

by Section 28020 of the Government Code. The criteria for selection of these 

counties shall be given to applicants in the following order of priority:

 (i) Counties with existing youth shelters, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section

4496.04 of the Penal Code, with demonstrated overcrowding problems.

 (ii) Counties which have a demonstrated need for additional youth shelter beds

and which have initiated planning and the permit process for construction of a

new shelter." (Emphasis added.)4 

The effect of the statutory restriction to "counties of the 1st to 10th class" is to limit the number

of counties eligible to receive bond funds for shelters for abused and neglected children to the

10 largest counties in the state, with the further restriction that no more than 3 of the eligible 10

counties may receive awards for youth shelters for abused and neglected children.5 The question 

insofar as possible controverted issues of policy and that it must determine crucial

issues whenever it has the time, information and competence to deal with them.

[Citation.]" 

The criteria set forth in sections 2018-2020 meet the test for the delegation of authority by the

Legislature to the Department. Of course, the Legislature also has the "last word" on the projects

to be funded through the exercise of its budget appropriations power. 

4 Penal Code section 4496.04, subdivision (f) states: 

"'Youth shelter' means a facility that provides a variety of services to

homeless minors living on the street or abused and neglected children to assist them

with their immediate survival needs and to help reunite them with their parents or,

as a last alternative, to find a suitable home." 

5

 Government Code section 28020 lists each of California's 58 counties by size of population,

one per classification and largest first. The 10 largest counties are: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego,

Alameda, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Bernardino, Sacramento, Contra Costa and San Mateo. 

The populations specified in the statute as "ascertained and determined" by the Legislature indicate

that the 10 largest counties have 75 percent of the state's total population. 

4. 90-306 

 

presented for resolution is whether this legislative restriction makes a substantial change in the

scheme or design which induced voter approval of the bond act. We conclude that it does not. 

The Legislature may classify counties by population and treat them differently due

to their differing populations. (See Board of Education v. Watson (1966) 63 Cal.2d 829, 833-836

[statute applicable only to Los Angeles County ruled valid; "The Legislature . . . is free to

recognize degrees of harm and to confine its regulation to those classes of cases in which the

need is deemed to be most evident"]; County of Madera v. Gendron (1963) 59 Cal.2d 796, 800- 801 [Legislature's classification of one county in each class based upon population upheld];

Matter of Petition of Burke (1911) 160 Cal. 300, 303 [the mere fact a class to which a statute

applies consists of only one unit or entity does not render the enactment invalid]; Great Lakes 

Properties, Inc. v. City of Rolling Hills Estates (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 525, 533-534 [legislation

classifying governmental entities on the basis of population upheld where the size of the

population bears a reasonable relation to the purposes of the statute].) 

As we noted above the bond act did not designate the youth shelters which were

to receive the bond proceeds. It directed that the bond proceeds were to be used for the purpose

of youth shelters "as may be provided by statute". A statute which designated one or more youth

shelters to receive the funds would have complied with that bond act provision. Instead of 

designating the projects the Legislature chose instead to establish criteria for the selection and

had the Department make the selection using the statutory criteria. We believe the method of 

selecting the projects to receive the bond funds provided by the statute substantially complies

with the scheme and design of the bond act. The Department distributes the funds as provided

by statute (Pen. Code, § 4496.12, subd. (b)) and "as allocated in appropriations made by the

Legislature" (Pen. Code, § 4496.19). 

In summary the Legislature has been given broad authority under the bond act

ratified by the voters to distribute bond funds for youth shelters. We believe that section 2020 

is within the scope of the authority conferred. (See Mills v. S.F. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., supra, 261 Cal.App.2d 666, 669 [use of proceeds of bond issue upheld; "the statutes, the notice

of election and the ballot proposition itself contemplate a broad authority"]; State School Bldg.

Fin. Com. v. Betts, supra, 216 Cal.App.2d 685, 692 ["voters authorized repayment . . . under

conditions just as flexible as those necessarily implied in the phrase `as provided by law'"].) 

In answer to the question presented, therefore, we conclude that the Legislature's

limitation upon the number of counties eligible to receive funds for shelters for abused and

neglected children complies with the conditions set forth in the bond act approved by the voters. 

* * * * * 

5. 90-306