Roundup: Latest Actions from the Commission on State Mandates and What It Means for Counties
Back to News
Slow but steady; the local mandate reimbursement determination process marches forward. Since our update last week, the Commission on State Mandates posted two new, notable documents to their website for matters pending before the Commission, described below in more detail.
Additionally, the State Controller’s Office (SCO) published the final claiming instructions (linked here) for the recently adopted state-mandated reimbursable program for AB 1416 (Chapter 751, Statutes of 2022), titled the Ballot DISCLOSE Act. Initial reimbursement of costs incurred for compliance with this mandate for the period beginning July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2025, must be filed with the SCO and be delivered or postmarked on or before July 8, 2026.
A complete list of all matters pending before the Commission and recent actions is available on the pending caseload webpage. To receive updates directly from the Commission, subscribe to their email lists.
Questions about the Commission on State Mandates or the state mandate reimbursement process in general? Contact Jessica Sankus, Principal Fiscal and Policy Analyst, at jsankus@counties.org.
REBUTTAL COMMENTS
Local Public Employees: Vacant Positions (25-TC-01)
Recent developments: This week, the Claimant filed rebuttal comments in response to the Department of Finance’s comment letter filed in February that assessed whether AB 2561 (described below) is a reimbursable state-mandated program.
Background: AB 2561 (Chapter 409, Statutes of 2024) requires all local agencies to hold an annual public hearing on the status of vacancies before their governing board (City Council, Board of Supervisors, etc.) at least once per fiscal year, with more extensive reporting requirements for a local agency that has a bargaining unit that experiences a vacancy rate of 20% or more for any period of time. In December 2025, Sacramento County submitted a test claim for reimbursement for costs to comply with AB 2561 with the Commission on State Mandates (linked here). On January 30, the Commission posted the test claim to their website. The public hearing to determine this matter is tentatively scheduled for December 2026.
CLARIFYING COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION
Custody of Minors-Child Abduction and Recovery, CSM-4237
Recent developments: In October 2025, the SCO submitted a letter to the Commission regarding the Custody of Minors – Child Abduction and Recovery Program, requesting that the Commission issue a Statement of Decision about the program and requested to amend the Parameters and Guidelines. This week, the Commission published a response letter that does not appear to address the SCO’s request. Rather, it clarifies that requests made to change the Parameters and Guidelines submitted to the Commission via comment letter in response to the SCO’s letter will not be considered. The Commission instead directs interested parties to file separate, standalone requests for amendments that go beyond the content of the SCO’s letter.
Background: The Custody of Minors – Child Abduction and Recovery Program is one of the first programs to be deemed a reimbursable state mandate after Proposition 4 (1979) required the state to reimburse local governments for the costs to comply with state-mandated programs. Since 1979, the state has reimbursed counties for the state-mandated requirement that county district attorneys’ offices actively assist in the resolution of child custody problems, including visitation disputes, enforcement of custody decrees, and any other court order in child custody proceedings. The SCO is authorized to perform audits of counties’ claims for reimbursement for state-mandated programs to verify the actual amount of the mandated costs, to determine whether costs claimed are supported by appropriate documentation, and to ensure that claims are not unreasonable or excessive (Government Code sections 17558.5, 17561, and 12410).
When the SCO disallows costs previously claimed by counties, the affected county may choose to either remit the disallowed amount to the state, or the SCO offsets (withholds) commensurate amounts from state-mandated costs reimbursements filed by that county in subsequent fiscal years.