County of Sonoma v. Commission on State Mandates (2000)

COUNTY OF SONOMA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, Defendant and Respondent; DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants; COUNTY OF AMADOR et al., Interveners and Respondents.

[Modification of Opinion (84 Cal. App. 4th 1264 ) on denial of petition for rehearing.]

STRANKMAN, P.J..-

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 21, 2000 be modified as follows:

1. On page 14, the following footnote number 14 is added at the end of the first paragraph [84 Cal. App. 4th 1279 , advance report, 2d par., last line], following the words "by the state:"

"14. All constitutional issues preserved by language in the prayer accompanying the first cause of action are discussed."

2. On page 27, the second sentence in the first full paragraph [84 Cal. App. 4th 1290 , advance report, 1st par., lines 3-4], beginning with the words "Proposition 98 did not alter . . . ." is deleted and replaced by the following sentence:

"Proposition 98 did not alter the state's role in education. (Hayes, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 1533.)"

3. On page 27, the sentence in the middle of the first full paragraph, beginning with the words "Budgetary decisions" and the next sentence, beginning with the words "Such decisions" are deleted and replaced with the following two sentences: [86 Cal. App. 4th 25c]

"Budgetary decisions that allocate funds to various agencies of the state or political subdivisions cannot be placed in the category of mandates that require subvention. Such decisions, of necessity, impact different agencies of the state or political subdivisions, with some getting more funds as others get less."

This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.