Opinion ID: 1189801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Partial Legislative Suspension of Merger Provisions

Text: (9) The county contends that any preemptive effect of the merger provisions has been nullified by the Legislature's identification of those provisions for suspension of a mandated higher level of county service. Article III B, section 6, of the California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for new programs or higher levels of service mandated by the state. Section 17581 provides: (a) No local agency shall be required to implement or give effect to any statute ..., or portion thereof, during any fiscal year if all of the following apply: [¶] (1) The statute ..., or portion thereof, has been determined by the Legislature, the [Commission on State Mandates], or any court to mandate a new program or higher level of service requiring reimbursement.... [¶] (2) The statute..., or portion thereof, has been specifically identified by the Legislature in the Budget Act for the fiscal year as being one for which reimbursement is not provided.... [¶] (b) ... [I]f a local agency elects to implement or give effect to [the statute], the local agency may assess fees ... not exceed[ing] the costs reasonably borne by the local agency.... The State Budget Acts for the fiscal years 1990-1991, 1991-1992, 1992-1993, and 1993-1994 name Real Property Subdivision Mergers (Ch. 845, Stats. 1983 [enacting §§ 66451.10-66451.21 and 66451.25-66451.31]) as a mandate identified for suspension. [25] It is unclear, however, which of the duties imposed on local agencies by the merger provisions have been officially determined to constitute new services requiring reimbursement. In the statutes enacting the merger provisions, any such determination was expressly disavowed on the ground that the local agency had authority to levy service charges for the mandated level of service. (Stats. 1983, ch. 845, § 5, p. 3103; Stats. 1984, ch. 102, § 6, p. 327.) Some indication of what costs the Legislature declined to reimburse may be found in chapter 59 of the 1993 Statutes, enacted as an urgency measure on June 30, 1993. Section 1 states the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to relieve local entities of the duty to incur unnecessary expenses in certain aspects of the following subjects: [¶] ... [¶] (g) Real property subdivision mergers.... (Stats. 1993, ch. 59, § 1.) Section 23 provides: The Legislature finds and declares that certain state-mandated local programs which in prior years have been suspended through nonappropriation in the state budget should be permanently eliminated and that this is the purpose of this act. ( Id., ch. 59, § 23.) The act amends only one of the merger provisions with which we are concerned here: Section 7 of the legislation amends section 66451.13 to provide that before recording a notice of merger, the local agency may, instead of shall, send the owner by certified mail, and record, a notice of intention to determine status. ( Id., ch. 59, § 7.) [26] These statutes suspending or eliminating some of the mandated services from the merger provisions do not impinge upon the legislative determination in section 66451.11 of the conditions prerequisite to imposition of a parcel merger by a local agency. (See fn. 24, ante. ) Those conditions remain as an implied preemption of any zoning ordinance that purports to require a merger when those conditions have not been met.