Coast Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. Comm'n on State Mandates

• Decision Date: 03 April 2020
• Docket Number: C080349
• Citation: 261 Cal.Rptr.3d 26
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, Defendant and Respondent; Department of Finance, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

261 Cal.Rptr.3d 26

COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, Defendant and Respondent;Department of Finance, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

C080349

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed April 3, 2020

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 1, 2020

Dannis Woliver Kelley, Christian M. Keiner, William B. Tunick, San Francisco, and Chelsea Olson Murphy for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Camille S. Shelton, Sacramento, for Defendant and Respondent.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tamar Pachter, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and P. Patty Li, Deputy Attorney General for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

MAURO, J.

Article XIII B, section 6, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution ( Section 6 ) generally requires state "subvention," i.e., financial aid or reimbursement, when the Legislature or a state agency mandates that a local government entity provide a new program or a higher level of service. ( Hayes v. Commission on State Mandates (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1564, 1577, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 547 ( Hayes ).) The Commission on State Mandates (the Commission) is responsible for determining whether a local entity is entitled to reimbursement from the state pursuant to Section 6. ( City of San Jose v. State of California (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1802, 1807, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 521.) A local entity seeking reimbursement must file a claim with the Commission. ( Id . at pp. 1807-1808, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 521.) Adjudication of the first claim, or test claim, regarding a particular statute or regulation governs subsequent claims based on the same statute or regulation. ( Ibid . )

This case involves claims for subvention by community college districts pertaining to 27 Education Code sections and 141 regulations. The regulations include "minimum conditions" that, if satisfied, entitle the community college districts to receive state financial support. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, former §§ 51000-51027.)¹ As to the minimum conditions, the Commission generally determined that reimbursement from the state is not required because, among other things, the state did not compel the community college districts to comply with the minimum conditions. Coast Community College District, North Orange County Community College District, San Mateo County Community College District, Santa Monica Community College District, and State Center Community College District (the Community Colleges) filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the Commission’s decision. The trial court denied the petition and entered judgment, and the Community Colleges appeal.

We conclude the minimum condition regulations impose requirements on a community college district in connection with underlying programs legally compelled by the state. The Commission suggests the minimum conditions are not legally compelled because the Community Colleges are free to decline state aid, but that argument is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the appellate record.

This conclusion does not end our analysis, however, because the Commission already identified some items for reimbursement, other items are not before us, and for some items it has not been established that remand is otherwise appropriate. Based on a detailed review of the statutes and regulations at issue, we will reverse the judgment with regard to regulations 51000, 51006, 51014, 51016, 51018, 51020, 51025, 54626, subdivision (a), 55825 through 55831, regulation 55760 in cases involving mistake, fraud, bad faith or incompetency, and the Handbook of Accreditation and Policy Manual. Pursuant to the parties’ request, we will direct the trial court to remand the portions of the test claim based on regulations 51006, 51014, 51016, 51018, 51020, 51025, 54626, subdivision (a), 55760, 55825 through 55831, and the Handbook of Accreditation and Policy Manual to the Commission for further determination.

However, we will affirm the judgment with regard to Education Code sections 66738, subdivision (b), 66741, 66743, 78210 through 78218, paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of section 66740, the portion of regulation 51008 dealing with education master plans, regulations 51024, 54626, subdivisions (b) and (c), 55005, 55100, 51012, 55130, 55150, 55170, 55182, 55205 through 55219, 55300, 55316, 55316.5, 55320 through 55322, 55340, 55350, 55500 through 55534, 55600, 55602, 55602.5, 55603, 55605, 55607, 55620, 55630, 55752, 55753, 55753.5, 55758.5, 55761, 55764, 55800.5, 55805, 55806, 55807, 55808, 55809, 58102, 58107, 58108, 59404, the portion of regulation 55000 et seq. relating to community service classes, and pages A-1 to A-54 of the Chancellor’s Program and Course Approval Handbook.

Moreover, we will reject the Community Colleges’ claim with regard to regulations 51002, 51004, 51021, 51022, 51023, 51023.5, 51023.7 and 51027 because the Community Colleges do not dispute that the Commission already approved reimbursement of costs associated with those regulations. We will also reject the Community Colleges’ challenges to the parameters and guidelines. The test claims based on regulation 51008 dealing with capital construction master plans and former regulations 51010 and 51026 were severed and considered in other matters; we will not consider the claim for subvention based on those test claims. In addition, we will direct the trial court to remand the test claim based on Education Code sections 76300 through 76395 and regulation 55763 to the Commission for determination.

BACKGROUND

The Los Rios Community College District submitted a test claim seeking subvention for costs associated with two Education Code sections and 22 regulations relating to requirements to prepare, publish and implement various policies, procedures and notices to students. About a week later, the Santa Monica Community College District submitted a test claim seeking subvention for costs associated with 76 Education Code sections and 160 regulations relating to minimum conditions for state aid.² We will refer to the Los Rios and Santa Monica Community College Districts as the claimants.

The two test claims, which were based in part on the same regulations, were consolidated and denominated the Minimum Conditions for State Aid test claim. The Commission subsequently consolidated a portion of a test claim filed by West Kern Community College District with the Minimum Conditions for State Aid test claim. It also severed the portion of the Minimum Conditions for State Aid test claim relating to prohibition against discrimination in employment and programs for consideration with the test claim filed by West Kern Community College District, which it called the Discrimination Complaint Procedures test claim. In addition, the Commission severed the portion of the Minimum Conditions for State Aid test claim relating to Education Code sections 70902, subdivision (b)(2), 81820, 81821 and 81823 for consideration with a matter it referred to as the Community College Construction test claim.

The Commission adopted a statement of decision for the Minimum Conditions for State Aid test claim and subsequently adopted parameters and guidelines. The Community Colleges filed a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court challenging the statement of decision and the parameters and guidelines. The trial court denied the petition and entered judgment.

DISCUSSION

I

The Community Colleges argue the Commission erred in concluding that Education Code sections 70901, 70901.5 and 70902 and former regulations 51000 through 51027 were not state mandates. They disagree with the Commission’s conclusion that community college districts were not compelled to implement the minimum conditions set forth in former regulations 51000 through 51027.

The state must reimburse a community college district for costs mandated by the state ( Gov. Code, §§ 17519, 17561, subd. (a) ), including increased costs a community college district is required to incur as a result of a statute or regulation mandating a new program or a higher level of service for an existing program. ( Gov. Code, §§ 17514, 17516, 17519 ; Hayes, supra , 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 1581, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 547 ; see City of Sacramento v. State of California (1990) 50 Cal.3d 51, 67, fn. 11, 266 Cal.Rptr. 139, 785 P.2d 522.) A " ‘program’ " carries out "the governmental function of providing services to the public" or refers to "laws which, to implement a state policy, impose unique requirements on local governments and do not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state." ( County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46, 56, 233 Cal.Rptr. 38, 729 P.2d 202.) Whether a statute or regulation imposes a state mandate subject to reimbursement under Section 6 is a question of law which we independently review. ( Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2016) 1 Cal.5th 749, 762, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 44, 378 P.3d 356.) With regard to the minimum conditions challenged in this case, the parties focus on the first aspect of the state mandate analysis, whether the state has legally or practically compelled the community college districts to comply with the minimum conditions. (See Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (Kern High School Dist. ) (2003) 30 Cal.4th 727, 743, 748, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 237, 68 P.3d 1203 ( Kern ).) If we conclude the answer is yes, the parties ask that claims regarding the minimum conditions be remanded back to the Commission for consideration of the remainder of the mandate analysis, whether the minimum conditions involve a new program or higher level of service.

A

Education Code section 70901 delineates the duties and functions of the state Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges (state Board of Governors), the state entity that supervises community college districts. Education Code section 70901, subdivision (b)(6)(A) requires the state Board of Governors...