JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP Attorney General
ANTHONY S. DA VIGO Deputy Attorney General
AGO 84-302
No. 84-302
California Attorney General Opinion
Office of the Attorney General State of California
June 15, 1984
THE
HONORABLE WILLIAM S. BRINER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS
AND RECREATION, has requested an opinion on the following
question:
Is the
Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission required to
review and comment, or to review and approve, proposed
expenditures for grants to cities, counties, and special
districts and for cooperative agreements with federal
agencies?
CONCLUSION
The
Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission is required
to review and approve proposed expenditures for grants to
cities, counties, and special districts and for cooperative
agreements with federal agencies if and only to the extent
that they are capital outlay expenditures.
ANALYSIS
There
is in the Department of Parks and Recreation
("department," post) the Off-Highway Motor
Vehicle Recreation Commission ("commission,"
post). (§ 5090.15.)
[1] The commission is required
to establish policies for the guidance of the director of the
department and for its Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle
Recreation regarding all aspects of the State Vehicular
Recreation Area and Trail System and the Off-Highway Motor
Vehicle Recreation Program. (§ 5090.23.) The division is
responsible for the implementation of the policies of the
commission (§ 5090.33, subd. (a)), the implementation of
all aspects of the program (§ 5090.32, subd. (d)), and
for the management of the Off-Highway Vehicle Fund created
under subdivision (b) of section 38225 of the Vehicle Code
(§ 5090.32, subd. (c)). With respect to that fund,
section 5090.24 provides:
"The commission shall have the following particular
duties and responsibilities:
"......................
"(d) Review and comment annually to the
director on the proposed budget of expenditures from the
fund.
"(e) Review and approve all capital outlay
expenditures from the fund proposed for inclusion in the
budget.
"......................"
(Emphases added.)
A
portion of the monies in the continuously appropriated fund
(§ 5090.61, subd. (a)) are allocated for grants to
cities, counties, and districts (§ 5090.50) and for
expenditure pursuant to cooperative agreements with federal
agencies for joint undertakings (§ 5090.55). The inquiry
presented is whether the commission is required to review and
comment, or to review and approve, proposed expenditures for
grants to cities, counties, and special districts and for
cooperative agreements with federal agencies. Specifically,
is a proposed expenditure from the fund subject to approval
by the commission?
We
begin with the interpretive precept that the various parts of
a statute must be harmonized and construed in the context of
the statutory framework as a whole. (Evans v.
City of Anaheim (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 853, 856; 66
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 17, 23-24 (1983).) Section 5090.24,
subdivision (d), supra, is unambiguous. The
commission is required to comment to the director on
the proposed budget of expenditures from the fund, in its
entirety. This is an annual duty of the commission conjoining
the...
