I believe that what the legislature is doing is creating what is called "an unfunded mandate" which is requiring an agency to do something but not giving it any money with which to do it. I also believe that the state government doesn't appreciate it when the feds do it to them; why should the state agencies appreciate being told to do more with the same amount of money. Anytime a legislature orders someone to do something, even their own agency, they should either pay for the new task or they should decide which other task no longer needs to be done. (I would assume that it is believed that the agencies are doing what they have been told to do and only requesting enough money to do those tasks. If they have slush funds that allow them to continue to do all their required tasks AND any new unfunded mandates that the legislature sticks them with, then those slush funds should be recaptured and used to either reduce the budget deficit or be used to reduce the peoples' taxes.)
The ability of governments to do their jobs and accept new unfunded mandates is what, I believe, Mr. Eyeman has been trying to point out for years. Laws like this help to make taxpayers believe that he is correct about the waste, inefficiency, and slush funds of governments.