Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene Act) , provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of insurers by the Department of Insurance, including health insurers. Existing law makes the violation of a final order by the Insurance Commissioner relating to rates imposed by certain insurers, other than health insurers, subject to assessment of a civil penalty and makes the willful violation by those insurers of specified rate provisions a misdemeanor. Under existing law, no change in premium rates or coverage in a health care service plan or a health insurance policy may become effective without prior written notification of the change to the contractholder or policyholder. Existing law prohibits a plan and insurer during the term of a group plan contract or policy from changing the rate of the premium, copayment, coinsurance, or deductible during specified time periods. This bill would require approval by the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance of an increase in the amount of the premium, copayment, coinsurance obligation, deductible, and other charges under health care service plan contracts or health insurance policies, other than Medicare supplement, dental-only, or vision-only contracts or policies. The bill would require a plan or insurer to submit to the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance, respectively, an application for a rate increase that would be effective on or after January 1, 2012, and would require review of the application in accordance with regulations that each department would be required to adopt no later than January 1, 2012. The bill would subject a rate increase that became effective January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011, inclusive, to review by the appropriate department. The bill would require each department to notify the public of a rate application and would deem the application approved within 60 days of the date of that notice unless the department holds a hearing on the application, as specified. The bill would authorize the initiation of, and intervention in, proceedings relating to rate approvals and the award of advocacy fees and costs in those proceedings in specified circumstances. The bill would require the departments to work together in implementation of these provisions and to take specified actions in order to ensure coordination and consistency in implementation. The bill would authorize each department to assess a charge in connection with its costs associated with a rate application. The bill would direct the deposit of these fees into the respective department's Health Rate Approval Fund, which would be created by the bill, and would make those funds available to each department for those purposes, upon appropriation. The bill would specify that a violation of its provisions is punishable by criminal sanctions under the Knox-Keene Act and under provisions applicable to insurers and, therefore, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law requires that, for private and public works of improvement, and in a public works contract, a prime contractor or subcontractor pay to any subcontractor, not later than 10 days after receipt of each progress payment, unless otherwise agreed to in writing, the respective amount allowed the contractor on account of the work performed by the subcontractors, to the extent of each contractor's interest therein, as prescribed. This bill would, instead, require that those amounts be paid not later than 7 days after receipt of each progress payment. (2) Existing law requires, with regard to a contract entered into on or after January 1, 1995, in order to enforce a claim upon any payment bond given in connection with a public work, that a claimant give the 20-day public works bond preliminary notice, as provided. Existing law further authorizes a claimant, if the 20-day public works preliminary bond notice was not given as prescribed by statute, to enforce a claim by giving written notice to the surety and the bond principal, as provided, within 15 days after recordation of a notice of completion, or if no notice of completion has been recorded, within 75 days after completion of the work of improvement. This bill would, instead, with regard to a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2011, require that the written notice to be given to the surety and the bond principal be given prior to the completion, as defined, of the project, or recordation of a notice of completion, as specified. (3) Existing law authorizes the Department of General Services, or any other department with authority to enter into contracts, to contract with suppliers for goods and services and for public works. Existing law provides that in a contract relating to the construction of a public work of improvement between the public entity and original contractor, the original contractor and a subcontractor, and in a contract between a subcontractor and any subcontractor thereunder, the percentage of retention proceeds withheld cannot exceed the percentage specified in the contract between the public entity and the original contractor. This bill would instead, until January 1, 2015, prohibit retention proceeds from exceeding 5% of the payment, as specified, for those contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2011, between a public entity, as defined, and an original contractor, between an original contractor and a subcontractor, and between all subcontractors thereunder. (4) Existing law contains various provisions relating to contracts for the performance of public works of improvement, including provisions for the payment of progress payments and the disbursing and withholding of retention proceeds. Existing law prohibits progress payments upon these contracts from being made in excess of 95% of the percentage of actual work completed plus a like percentage of the value of material delivered, as specified, and requires the Department of General Services to withhold not less than 5% of the contract price until final completion and acceptance of the project. This bill would instead prohibit progress payments upon these contracts from being made in excess of 100% of the percentage of actual work completed, and would require the Department of General Services to withhold not more than 5% of the contract price until final completion and acceptance of the project, except as specified. (5) The bill would incorporate additional changes made by SB 189 contingent upon the enactment of that bill.
Existing law provides for local health care districts that are authorized to own and operate certain health facilities, including hospitals. Each health care district has specific duties and powers respecting the creation, administration, and maintenance of the districts, including to purchase, receive, take, hold, lease, use, and enjoy property of every kind and description of property within the district. Existing law permits the Sonoma Valley Health Care District, upon the approval of its board of directors, to use a prescribed design-build procedure set forth in a specific code section when assigning contracts for the construction of a building and improvements directly related to a hospital or health facility building at the Sonoma Valley Hospital. Under existing law, that code section would be repealed on January 1, 2011, unless that date is deleted or extended. This bill would also allow the Corcoran District Hospital, upon approval by its board of directors, to use the above-mentioned design-build procedure described in that code section to award contracts for the construction of an outpatient care facility , but would make these provisions inoperative if the project does not meet specified requirements. Existing law requires that, under the existing design-build procedure, a health care district would be required to pay a fee into the continuously appropriated State Public Works Enforcement Fund, the moneys in which are used by the Department of Industrial relations to enforce applicable prevailing wage and labor requirements. Because this bill would authorize additional fees to be paid into a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would constitute an appropriation. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Corcoran District Hospital.
Existing law provides that commencing February 1, 2011, a vendor shall not sell or otherwise transfer ownership of any handgun ammunition without, at the time of delivery, legibly recording specified information regarding the purchaser or transferee, and maintaining the record for a period of not less than 5 years, as specified. Existing law provides that violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. Existing law also provides that the records shall be subject to inspection by any peace officer and certain others, as specified, for purposes of an investigation where access to those records is or may be relevant to that investigation, when seeking information about persons prohibited from owning a firearm or ammunition, or when engaged in ensuring compliance with laws pertaining to firearms or ammunition, as specified. This bill would require the information described above in connection with the transfer of handgun ammunition be legibly or electronically recorded. The bill would provide that commencing February 1, 2011, except for investigatory and enforcement purposes described above, no ammunition vendor shall provide the required information to any 3rd party without the written consent of the purchaser or transferee. The bill would also provide that records may be copied for investigatory or enforcement purposes by any person authorized to inspect those records, as specified, and that copies shall be transmitted to local law enforcement if required by local law. The bill would also provide that any required ammunition records that are no longer required to be maintained shall be destroyed in a manner that protects the privacy of the purchaser or transferee who is the subject of the record. The bill would provide that violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill would provide that commencing February 1, 2011, except for investigatory and enforcement purposes described above, no ammunition vendor shall provide the required information to any 3rd party, or use the information for any purpose other than as is required or authorized by statute or regulation, without the written consent of the purchaser or transferee. The bill would also provide that any required ammunition records that are no longer required to be maintained shall be destroyed in a specified manner. The bill would provide that violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require ammunition vendors, commencing February 1, 2011, to provide written notice to the local police chief, or if the vendor is in an unincorporated area, to the county sheriff, of the vendor's intent to conduct business in the jurisdiction, and to obtain any regulatory or business license required by the jurisdiction for ammunition sellers. A violation of this provision would be a misdemeanor. The bill would also provide that no public agency may make public the information obtained from the record of the ammunition transaction. Existing law requires certain information to be collected by firearms dealers in connection with the transfer of firearms and submitted to the Department of Justice, as specified. This bill would provide that no firearms dealer shall provide the information required by those provisions to any 3rd party, or use the information for any purpose other than as is required or authorized by statute or regulation, without the written consent of the purchaser or transferee, except for purposes of 3rd-party electronic submission to the department. The bill would also provide that any of these records that are no longer required to be maintained, if destroyed, shall be destroyed in a specified manner. Existing law provides that commencing February 1, 2011, the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee. This bill would also provide that handgun ammunition may be purchased over the Internet or through other means of remote ordering if a handgun ammunition vendor in California initially receives the ammunition and processes the transfer, as specified. Existing law defines "handgun ammunition" for most purposes as ammunition principally for use in handguns, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles. This bill would instead define "handgun ammunition" for those purposes as any variety of ammunition of a caliber specified in a list added by this bill, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles, and would provide that "handgun ammunition" does not include blanks or ammunition designed and intended to be used in an "antique firearm," as defined. This bill would incorporate additional amendments to Section 12077 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1810, contingent on the prior enactment of that bill. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law authorize various credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and other tax benefits with respect to the taxes imposed by those laws. This bill would require a taxpayer, as described, doing business in California that claims a business tax incentive, as provided, to submit to the Franchise Tax Board on the original return specified information, including the number of employees employed by the taxpayer in the state. The bill would also require, in cases in which a taxpayer has a disqualifying event resulting in a net decrease in the number of full-time employees for a business tax incentive added by statute on or after January 1, 2011, the business tax incentive to be recaptured, and the taxable amount computed in accordance with specified procedures.
(1) Under the California Disaster Assistance Act the state share may be up to 100% for costs connected with certain events only if the local agency has adopted a local hazard mitigation plan in accordance with specified federal law. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires that a city, county, or city and county general plan contain a safety element for the protection of the community from specified safety risks, and authorizes a city, county, or a city and county to adopt with its safety element a federally specified local hazard mitigation plan that includes specified elements. This bill would eliminate the requirement that adoption of the federally specified local hazard mitigation plan include required specified elements. (2) Existing law authorizes a county board of supervisors to provide by ordinance for the reassessment of property that is damaged or destroyed, without fault on the part of the assessee, by a major misfortune or calamity, upon the application of the assessee or upon the action of the county assessor with the board's approval. With respect to certain counties that have adopted reassessment ordinances and have been declared by the Governor to be in a state of emergency as a result of certain events, existing law provides for state allocations of the estimated amounts of the reductions in property tax revenues resulting in certain fiscal years from reassessments under those ordinances. Existing law also continuously appropriates, without regard to fiscal years, moneys in the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties for purposes of funding these state allocations. This bill would provide for similar state allocations with respect to property tax revenue reductions resulting from a reassessment for damages incurred within the County of Santa Barbara, which was declared by the Governor to be in a state of emergency due to the wildfires that commenced in November 2008 or May 2009, within the Counties of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino, which were declared by the Governor to be in a state of emergency due to the wildfires that commenced in November 2008, within the County of Placer, which was declared by the Governor to be in a state of emergency due to the wildfires that commenced in August 2009, and within the County of Kern, which was declared by the Governor to be in a state of emergency due to the wildfires that commenced in July 2010. By requiring moneys continuously appropriated from the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties to be allocated for the new purpose of reimbursing these counties for these property tax revenue reductions, this bill would make an appropriation. (3) Existing property tax law provides, pursuant to a specified provision of the California Constitution, for a homeowners' property tax exemption in the amount of $7,000 of the full value of a "dwelling," as defined. This bill would also provide that any dwelling that (1) qualified for the exemption prior to August 30, 2009, was damaged or destroyed by the wildfires in the County of Placer, as declared by the Governor to be in a state of emergency in August 2009, and has not changed ownership since August 30, 2009, and (2) qualified for the exemption prior to July 26, 2010, was damaged or destroyed by the wildfires in the County of Kern, as declared by the Governor to be in a state of emergency in July 2010, and has not changed ownership since July 26, 2010, may not be denied the exemption solely on the basis that the dwelling was temporarily damaged or destroyed or was being reconstructed by the owner, or was temporarily uninhabited as a result of restricted access to the property due to wildfires. The California Constitution requires the Legislature, in each fiscal year, to reimburse local governments for the revenue losses incurred by those governments in that fiscal year as a result of the homeowners' property tax exemption. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to make this required reimbursement in the annual Budget Act. By requiring local tax officials to implement new exemption criteria, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. (4) The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law provide for the carryover to specified taxable years of specified losses sustained as a result of certain disasters occurring in California in an area determined by the President of the United States to warrant specified federal assistance, or proclaimed by the Governor to be in a state of emergency. This bill would extend these provisions to losses sustained in the County of Placer as a result of the wildfires that commenced in August 2009 and in the County of Kern as a result of the wildfires that commenced in July 2010. This bill would authorize a taxpayer to make an election to claim a deduction for those losses on the tax return for the preceding year. (5) Existing law requires the auditor of a county which was the subject of the Governor's proclamation of a state of emergency to certify to the Director of Finance an estimate of the total reduction in property tax revenues resulting from the reassessment by the county assessor of those properties that are eligible as a result of disasters, and requires the director to verify the county auditor's estimate and certify that amount to the Controller for allocation to the county. This bill would prohibit, for any fire disaster occurring after January 1, 2010, the Department of Finance from certifying a county auditor's estimate of the total reduction in property tax resulting from the reassessment by the county assessor of eligible properties as a result of those disasters unless the county demonstrates compliance with specified requirements at the time the fire disaster occurred. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law establishes the California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB) to assist the Governor in the development, oversight, and continuous improvement of California's workforce investment system. Existing law establishes the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) that is vested with duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction relating to health planning and research development. Existing law provides for various programs to research the need for, and develop programs to improve, the quality and availability of health workers in the state. This bill would establish the Health Workforce Development Fund consisting of moneys received from federal and private sources, as specified. The bill would authorize the fund to be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for prescribed purposes relating to health workforce development and would require the CWIB and the OSHPD to report specified information to the Legislature annually from April 1, 2012, to April 1, 2016, inclusive. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law generally prohibits the state, or a county, city, district, or other political subdivision, or any public officer or body acting in its official capacity on behalf of any of those entities, from being required to pay any fee for the performance of an official service. Existing law exempts from this provision any fee or charge for official services required pursuant to specified provisions of law relating to water use or water quality. This bill would expand the exemption to other provisions relating to water use, including provisions that require the payment of fees to the State Water Resources Control Board (board) for official services relating to statements of water diversion and use. (2) The California Constitution requires the reasonable and beneficial use of water. Under the public trust doctrine, the board, among other state agencies, is required to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources and to protect the public trust whenever feasible. The board and the California regional water quality control boards (regional boards) are required to set forth water quality objectives in state and regional water quality control plans. Existing law establishes the Water Rights Fund, which consists of various fees and penalties. The moneys in the Water Rights Fund are available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the administration of the board's water rights program. This bill would authorize the board to issue, on its own motion or upon the petition of an interested party, an interim relief order in appropriate circumstances to implement or enforce these and related provisions of law. A person or entity that violates any interim relief order issued by the board would be liable to the board for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each day in which a violation occurs. These funds would be deposited in the Water Rights Fund. (3) Existing law authorizes the board to investigate all streams, stream systems, lakes, or other bodies of water, take testimony relating to the rights to water or the use of water, and ascertain whether water filed upon or attempted to be appropriated is appropriated under the laws of the state. Existing law requires the board to take appropriate actions to prevent waste or the unreasonable use of water. Under existing law, the board makes determinations with regard to the availability of recycled water. This bill would authorize the board, in conducting an investigation or proceeding for these purposes, to order any person or entity that diverts water or uses water to submit, under penalty of perjury, any technical or monitoring report related to the diversion or use of water by that person or entity. By expanding the definition of the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the board, in connection with the investigation or proceeding, to inspect the facilities of any person or entity to determine compliance with specified water use requirements. (4) Existing law authorizes the board, upon the submission of a petition signed by a claimant to water of any stream system requesting a determination of rights among the claimants to that water, to enter an order granting the petition. After granting the petition, the board is required to investigate the stream system to gather information necessary to make a determination of the water rights of that stream system. This bill would authorize the board to initiate a determination of rights under its own motion if after a hearing it finds that the public interest and necessity will be served by a determination of rights. (5) Existing law declares that the diversion or use of water other than as authorized by specified provisions of law is a trespass. Existing law authorizes the administrative imposition of civil liability by the board for a trespass in an amount not to exceed $500 for each day in which the trespass occurs. Moneys generated by the imposition of civil liability under these provisions are deposited in the Water Rights Fund. This bill would provide that a person or entity committing a trespass may be liable in an amount not to exceed the sum of $1,000 for each day in which the trespass occurs and $1,000 for each acre-foot of water diverted or used other than as authorized by those specified provisions of law. (6) Existing law, with certain exceptions, requires each person who, after December 31, 1965, diverts water to file with the board a statement of diversion and use. This bill would establish a rebuttable presumption, in any proceeding before the board in which it is alleged that an appropriative right has ceased or is subject to prescribed action, that no use required to be included in a statement of diversion and use occurred unless that use is included in a statement that is submitted to the board within a specified time period. The bill would require a person who files a statement of diversion and use, and certain petitions involving a change in a water right, to pay an annual fee, for deposit in the Water Rights Fund. The bill would include as recoverable costs, for which the board may be reimbursed from the fund upon appropriation therefor, costs incurred in connection with carrying out requirements relating to the statements of diversion and use and the performance of duties under the public trust doctrine and provisions that require the reasonable use of water. (7) Existing law authorizes the board to issue a cease and desist order against a person who is violating, or threatening to violate, certain requirements, including requirements set forth in a decision or order relating to the unauthorized use of water. Any person who violates a cease and desist order may be liable in an amount not to exceed $1,000 for each day in which the violation occurs. Revenue generated from these penalties is deposited in the Water Rights Fund. This bill would authorize the board to issue a cease and desist order in response to a violation of certain requirements relating to the unauthorized diversion or use of water or of a reporting or monitoring requirement established under a decision, order, or regulation adopted by the board pursuant to various provisions of law, including the public trust doctrine. The bill would increase the civil penalties that apply to a person who violates a cease and desist order by subjecting a violator to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the sum of $2,500 for each day in which the violation occurs and $2,500 for each acre-foot of water diverted or used in violation of the cease and desist order. The bill would impose civil liability, in an amount not to exceed $500 for each day in which a violation occurs, for a failure to comply with various reporting or monitoring requirements, including requirements imposed pursuant to the public trust doctrine. The bill would authorize the board to impose additional civil liability, in an amount not to exceed $500 for each day in which a violation occurs, for the violation of a permit, license, certificate, or registration, or an order or regulation involving the unreasonable use of water. Funds derived from the imposition of these civil penalties would be deposited in the Water Rights Fund. The bill would require the board to adjust for inflation, by January 1 of each year, beginning in 2011, the amounts of civil and administrative liabilities or penalties imposed by the board in water right actions, as specified. The bill would require that, in a proceeding before the board in which it is alleged that an appropriative water right has ceased, or is subject to prescribed action, there would be a rebuttable presumption that no use occurred on or after January 1, 2009, unless that diversion or use was reported to the board within six months after it is required to be filed with the board. (8) Existing law authorizes a local agency whose service area includes a groundwater basin that is not subject to groundwater management to adopt and implement a groundwater management plan pursuant to certain provisions of law. Existing law requires a groundwater management plan to include certain components to qualify as a plan for the purposes of those provisions, including a provision that establishes funding requirements for the construction of certain groundwater projects. This bill would establish a groundwater monitoring program pursuant to which specified entities, in accordance with prescribed procedures, may propose to be designated by the Department of Water Resources as groundwater monitoring entities, as defined, for the purposes of monitoring and reporting with regard to groundwater elevations in all or part of a basin or subbasin, as defined. The bill would require the department to work cooperatively with each monitoring entity to determine the manner in which groundwater elevation information should be reported to the department. The bill would authorize the department to make recommendations for improving an existing monitoring program, require additional monitoring wells under certain circumstances, and require the department, under prescribed circumstances, to perform groundwater monitoring functions for those portions of a basin or a subbasin for which no monitoring entity has agreed to perform those functions under this program. (9) Existing law requires the department to conduct an investigation of the state's groundwater basins and to report its findings to the Governor and the Legislature not later than January 1, 1980. This bill would repeal that provision. The department would be required to conduct an investigation of the state's groundwater basins and to report its findings to the Governor and the Legislature not later than January 1, 2012, and every 5 years thereafter. (10) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (11) These provisions would only become operative if AB 39, AB 49, SB 12, and SB 458 of the 2009–10 Regular Session of the Legislature, relating to water use and resource management, are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2010.
(1) Existing law generally provides that the state, or a county, city, district, or other political subdivision, or any public officer or body acting in its official capacity on behalf of any of those entities, may not be required to pay any fee for the performance of an official service. Existing law exempts from this provision any fee or charge for official services required pursuant to specified provisions of law relating to water use or water quality. This bill would expand the exemption to other provisions relating to water use, including provisions that require the payment of fees to the State Water Resources Control Board (board) for official services relating to statements of water diversion and use. (2) Existing law requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to convene a committee to develop and submit to the Governor and the Legislature, on or before December 31, 2008, recommendations for implementing a specified strategic plan relating to the sustainable management of the Delta. This bill would establish the Delta Stewardship Council as an independent agency of the state. The council would be required to consist of 7 members appointed in a specified manner. The bill would specify the powers of the council. The council would be required to establish a consultation process for the purposes of the act. The bill would require a state or local public agency that proposes to undertake certain proposed actions that will occur within the boundaries of the Delta or the Suisun Marsh to prepare, and submit to the council, a specified written certification of consistency with the Delta Plan, created pursuant to AB 39 of the 2009–10 Regular Session, prior to taking those actions. By imposing these requirements on a local public agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would establish an appeal process by which a person may claim that a proposed action is inconsistent with the Delta Plan, as prescribed. The bill would impose requirements on the Department of Water Resources in connection with the preparation of a specified Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) . The BDCP would only be permitted to be incorporated in the Delta Plan if certain requirements are met. The bill would establish the Delta Independent Science Board, whose members would be selected by the council. The bill would require the Delta Independent Science Board to develop a scientific program relating to the management of the Delta. The bill would require the State Water Resources Control Board to establish an effective system of Delta watershed diversion data collection and public reporting by December 31, 2010. The bill would require the board to develop new instream flow criteria for the Delta ecosystem, as specified. The board would be required to submit those determinations to the council. The bill would require the board, in consultation with the council, to appoint a special master for the Delta, referred to as the Delta Watermaster. The bill would grant specified authority to the Delta Watermaster. (3) The California Bay-Delta Authority Act establishes the California Bay-Delta Authority in the Resources Agency. The act requires the authority and the implementing agencies to carry out programs, projects, and activities necessary to implement the Bay-Delta Program, defined to mean those projects, programs, commitments, and other actions that address the goals and objectives of the CALFED Bay-Delta Programmatic Record of Decision, dated August 28, 2000, or as it may be amended. This bill would repeal that act. The bill would impose requirements on the council in connection with the repeal of that act. (4) These provisions would only become operative if SB 229, SB 458, AB 39, and AB 49 of the 2009–10 Regular Session of the Legislature, relating to water use and resource management, are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2010.
Existing law requires various state agencies to administer programs relating to water supply, water quality, and flood management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Johnston-Baker-Andal-Boatwright Delta Protection Act of 1992 (Delta Protection Act) creates the Delta Protection Commission and requires the commission to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-term resource management plan for specified lands within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Existing law requires the Secretary of the Resources Agency to convene a committee to develop and submit to the Governor and the Legislature, on or before December 31, 2008, recommendations for implementing a specified strategic plan relating to the sustainable management of the Delta. This bill would revise and recast the provisions of the Delta Protection Act to, among other things, reduce the number of commission members to 15 members, as specified. The bill would require the commission to appoint at least one advisory committee consisting of representatives from specified entities to provide input regarding the diverse interests within the Delta. The bill would require the commission to adopt, not later than July 1, 2011, an economic sustainability plan containing specified elements and would require the commission to review and, as determined to be necessary, amend the plan every 5 years. The bill would require the commission to prepare and submit to the Legislature, by July 1, 2010, recommendations on the potential expansion of or change to the primary zone or the Delta. The bill would establish the Delta Investment Fund in the State Treasury. Moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would be required to be expended by the commission to implement the regional economic sustainability plan. The bill would establish in the Natural Resources Agency the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy. The conservancy would be required to act as a primary state agency to implement ecosystem restoration in the Delta and to support efforts that advance environmental protection and the economic well-being of Delta residents. The bill would specify the composition of the conservancy and grant certain authority to the conservancy, including the authority to acquire real property interests from willing sellers or transferors. The conservancy would be required to use conservation easements to accomplish ecosystem restoration whenever feasible. The conservancy would be required to prepare and adopt a strategic plan to achieve the goals of the conservancy. The strategic plan would be required to be consistent with the Delta Plan and certain other plans. The bill would establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy Fund in the State Treasury. Moneys in the fund would be available, upon appropriation, to finance projects, including ecosystem restoration and economic sustainability projects. These provisions would only become operative if AB 39, AB 49, SB 12, and SB 229 of the 2009–10 Regular Session of the Legislature, relating to water use and resource management, are each enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2010.
(1) Existing law requires the Controller to draw warrants on the State Treasury in favor of the county treasurer of each county in each month of each year in prescribed amounts and in a prescribed manner. This bill would revise the schedule pursuant to which the Controller draws these warrants and the amount of the warrants. (2) The Quality Education Investment Act of 2006 authorizes school districts and other local educational agencies to apply to the Superintendent of Public Instruction to receive funding to allocate to elementary and secondary schools and charter schools that are ranked in either decile 1 or 2 on the 2005 API for use in performing various specified measures to improve academic instruction and pupil academic achievement. Three hundred million dollars is appropriated from the General Fund for purposes of the act with $450,000,000, for each of the 2008–09 to 2013–14 fiscal years, inclusive, to be allocated to community colleges and to school districts, and chartering authorities that have eligible schools. This bill would require, commencing with the 2009–10 fiscal year, that the payments of the annual amount not be made sooner than October 8 of the fiscal year. (3) Existing law, the California Prompt Payment Act, requires a state agency that acquires property or services pursuant to a contract with a business to make payment to the person or business on the date required by the contract, or be subject to a late payment penalty. The act provides that the maximum time from state agency receipt of an undisputed invoice to issuance of a warrant for payment is 45 calendar days. The act requires the payment of specified penalties to the claimant if the state agency fails to submit a correct claim schedule to the Controller by the required payment approval date, or if the Controller fails to make a payment within 15 calendar days of receipt of the claim schedule from the state agency, as specified. This bill would require late payment penalties to be paid to the claimant if payment is not issued within 45 calendar days from state agency receipt of an undisputed invoice, but would require the state agency and Controller to pay those penalties only when a payment is not issued within 45 calendar days from state agency receipt of the undisputed invoice, and the state agency fails to submit a correct claim schedule by the required payment approval date, or the Controller fails to make a payment within 15 calendar days of receipt of the claim schedule from the state agency. The bill would define "payment" for purposes of these provisions. (4) The California Lottery Act establishes the State Lottery Fund. The act, an initiative measure, provides that certain provisions may be changed by a bill that furthers the purposes of the act and is passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor. The act, until September 30, 2009, authorizes the Controller to loan moneys in the State Lottery Fund to the General Fund and requires the payment of interest at a specified rate on all moneys loaned to the General Fund. This bill would delete the September 30, 2009, repeal date for those provisions authorizing the loan of moneys from the State Lottery Fund, thereby extending their operation indefinitely. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the California State Lottery Act. (5) Existing law authorizes the Director of Finance, to defer payment of General Fund moneys, in a cumulative amount not to exceed $500,000 annually, appropriated to the University of California in the annual Budget Act, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize the Director of Finance to defer payments of General Fund moneys in July through September 2009 in an amount not to exceed $750,000,000, appropriated to the University of California in the Budget Act of 2009, as specified. The bill would specify the schedule of payments for the amount deferred, as specified. The bill would also authorize the Director of Finance to defer payments of General Fund moneys in July 2009 in an amount not to exceed $290,000,000, appropriated to the California State University in the Budget Act of 2009, as specified. That deferred payment would be made in October 2009. (6) Existing law releases a person from a debt owed to the Franchise Tax Board, under specified conditions, including that the Franchise Tax Board is discharged from collecting the debt which is less than $250. This bill would increase the amount of the debt that the Franchise Tax Board is discharged from collecting to less than $500. (7) Existing law does not require a state agency to collect a tax, license, fee, or money owed to the state, under specified conditions, including that the amount to be collected is $250 or less. This bill would increase that amount to $500 or less. (8) Existing law, the Accounts Receivable Management Act, requires each state agency, department, and office to allocate collection resources by giving highest priority to accounts with the highest expected return. This bill would authorize these state entities to impose a reasonable fee for the actual costs of its collection of past due accounts, and require them to submit an annual report to the Controller of its accounts receivables and discharged accounts. (9) Existing law, pursuant to Article XIXB of the California Constitution, creates the Transportation Investment Fund, which receives a portion of gasoline sales tax revenues that are deposited in the General Fund. Moneys in the Transportation Investment Fund are allocated to various transportation purposes, including the state transportation improvement program, local streets and roads, and mass transportation. Existing law requires the Controller to transfer and apportion these funds on a quarterly basis. This bill would suspend and defer, until May 31, 2010, the quarterly apportionments from the Transportation Investment Fund for local streets and roads that are scheduled to be made in October 2009 and January 2010. The bill would authorize a city or county to temporarily make use of any cash balance in its city or county road fund, including certain transportation bond act funds, for local street and road maintenance, provided that the cash is replaced once the payments from the Transportation Investment Fund are received. (10) Existing law appropriates $540,000,000 from the General Fund to the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges for apportionments to community college districts for expenditure during the 2009–10 fiscal year and defers the disbursal of those funds until July of the 2009–10 fiscal year. Existing law makes an identical appropriation for expenditure during the 2010–11 fiscal year and defers the disbursal of those funds until July of the 2010–11 fiscal year. This bill would increase those appropriations and deferments to $655,000,000 with $57,500,000 of those appropriations and deferments representing the April apportionment and $57,500,000 representing the May apportionment. (11) Existing law defers to July the payment of $115,000,000 of the apportionments to community college districts for each of the months of January and February and $55,000,000 of the apportionments to community college districts for each of the months of March and April. This bill, in addition, would defer to July the payment of $57,500,000 of the apportionments to community college districts for each of the months of April and May. (12) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law requires a revenue limit to be calculated for each county superintendent of schools, adjusted for various factors, and reduced, as specified. Existing law reduces the revenue limit for each county superintendent of schools for the 2008–09 fiscal year by a deficit factor of 7.839%. This bill would increase the deficit factor for each county superintendent of schools for the 2008–09 fiscal year to 11.183%. (2) The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 requires the State Allocation Board to require school districts applying for funds under that act to deposit, into a specified account for ongoing and major maintenance of school buildings, an amount equal to or greater than 3% of the total general fund expenditures of the applicant school district. Existing law, for the 2008–09 to the 2012–13 fiscal years, inclusive, reduces that deposit requirement to an amount equal to or greater than 1% of the total general fund expenditures of the applicant school district. This bill would exempt a school district that maintains its facilities in good repair, as defined, from this 1% requirement. (3) Existing law requires the county superintendent of schools to determine a revenue limit for each school district in the county and requires the amount of the revenue limit to be adjusted for various factors. Existing law reduces the revenue limit for each school district for the 2008–09 fiscal year by a deficit factor of 7.844% and for the 2009–10 fiscal year by a deficit factor of 13.094%. This bill would instead reduce the revenue limit for each school district for the 2008–09 fiscal year by a deficit factor of 11.187% and for the 2009–10 fiscal year by a deficit factor of 17.048%. The bill would set forth a mechanism by which basic aid school districts would assume categorical funding reductions proportionate to the revenue limit reductions implemented for nonbasic aid school districts. (4) Existing law establishes various categorical education programs and appropriates the funding for those programs in the annual Budget Act. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, for the 2008–09 to 2012–13 fiscal years, inclusive, to apportion from the amount provided in the annual Budget Act for specified categorical education programs an amount based on the same relative proportion that the local educational agency received in the 2008–09 fiscal year for those programs and authorizes school districts, for those fiscal years, to use these funds, with specified exceptions, for any educational purpose, to the extent permitted by federal law. Existing law, for those fiscal years, deems local educational agencies that use the authority to use these categorical education program funds for any educational purpose to be in compliance with the program and funding requirements of those categorical education programs, including requirements related to average daily attendance accounting. This bill would base the amount to be received from certain categorical education program budget items to be based on the same relative proportion that the recipient received in the 2007–08 fiscal year for those programs, instead of the 2008–09 fiscal year. The bill would require, for the 2008–09 to 2012–13 fiscal years, inclusive, and for certain calculations that use average daily attendance, that the average daily attendance for specified programs be the same amount used in those calculations for the 2007–08 fiscal year. The bill would declare that changes to these calculations in the California State Lottery Act, an initiative measure, further the purposes of that act, and therefore may be made by an act enacted by a 23 vote of both houses of the Legislature. Existing law requires a school district that receives funding on behalf of a charter school to continue to distribute those funds to those charter schools based on the amounts distributed in the 2008–09 fiscal year and to adjust those amounts, as specified. This bill would clarify that a school district that receives funding on behalf of a charter school is prohibited from redirecting that funding for another purpose, except as specified, and would require the school district to continue to distribute those funds to those charter schools based on the relative proportion that the school district distributed in the 2007–08 fiscal year. The bill would require the Superintendent to apportion from the amount appropriated for the charter school categorical block grant in accordance with the per pupil methodology prescribed by a specified provision of law. Existing law, as a condition of receiving the categorical education program funds that may be used for any educational purpose, requires school districts and county offices of education, at a regularly scheduled, open, public hearing, to take testimony from the public, discuss, and approve or disapprove the proposed use of funding. Existing law, as a condition of transferring those funds to their general funds, requires school districts and county offices of education, at a regularly scheduled, open, public hearing, to take testimony from the public, discuss, and approve or disapprove each transfer and the proposed use of funding, and to report to the State Department of Education, in the existing annual Standardized Accounting System reporting process, the amounts transferred by using the appropriate program code for which the funds were expended. The department is required to collect and provide this information to the appropriate legislative policy and budget committees and the Department of Finance by February 28, 2010. This bill would delete the meeting requirement that is a condition of transferring categorical education program funds to the general fund of a school district or county office of education. The bill would add to the requirement that is a condition of the receipt of categorical education program funds that may be used for any educational purpose, that the governing board make explicit the purposes for which the funds would be used. The bill would require a local educational agency to report expenditures by using the appropriate function codes of the Standardized Accounting System reporting process to indicate the activities for which these funds were expended. The bill would require the department to collect and provide this information to the appropriate legislative policy and budget committees and the Department of Finance by April 15, 2010, and annually thereafter, until 2014. (5) Existing law sets forth the minimum requirements for the professional clear multiple or single subject teacher credential. Among those requirements is the completion of a program of beginning teacher induction. This requirement is contingent on the availability of funds in the annual Budget Act to provide statewide access to eligible beginning teachers. This bill would remove the contingency of this requirement on the availability of funds. (6) Existing law requires the categorical block grant for charter schools for the 2007–08 school year to be $500 per unit of charter school average daily attendance, as determined at the 2nd principal apportionment for the 2007–08 fiscal year, to be adjusted for cost-of-living each fiscal year thereafter, and to be supplemented, as specified, for economic impact aid-eligible pupils. This bill would appropriate $8,267,000 from the General Fund to the State Department of Education for the charter school categorical block grant for the purpose of funding the economic impact aid supplement for the 2008–09 fiscal year. (7) The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires a local educational agency to identify an elementary or secondary school that fails, for 2 consecutive years, to make adequate yearly progress, as defined by the state, for program improvement. The act requires a school that continues to fail to make adequate yearly progress after being identified for program improvement to take additional corrective action or meet specified restructuring requirements. The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 requires the State Department of Education to identify local educational agencies that are in danger of being identified for program improvement pursuant to the No Child Left Behind Act, and to notify those local educational agencies, in writing, of that status. The department also is required to provide those agencies with research-based criteria to conduct a voluntary self-assessment. This bill, for the 2008–09 to 2012–13 fiscal years, inclusive, would prohibit a school, school district, county office of education, or charter school that has been identified for program improvement or corrective action under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 from being required to implement program requirements set forth in the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program or the Administrator Training Program. The bill would prohibit the State Department of Education and the State Board of Education from prohibiting these schools, school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools from utilizing certain categorical program flexibility provisions of law. (8) Existing law establishes the Class Size Reduction Program under which a participating school district or county office of education reduces class size to 20 pupils per class in kindergarten and grades 1 to 3, inclusive. Existing law provides that a local educational agency is eligible to receive program funding only if it was participating in the program as of December 10, 2008 and only for the grade level or levels for which it had applied to receive funding as of that date. This bill would provide instead that, for the 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 fiscal years, that a local educational agency is eligible to receive program funding for the same number of classes for which it had applied to receive program funding as of January 1, 2009, and only for the number of classes reported on the 2008–09 operations application. (9) Existing law establishes the Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program that requires the State Department of Education to apportion funds to school districts and requires the governing board of a school district to use that funding to ensure that each pupil is provided with a standards-aligned textbook or basic instructional materials by the beginning of the first school term that commences no later than 24-months after those materials were adopted by the State Board of Education, except as specified. Existing law exempts, until July 1, 2010, school districts from the 24-month requirement. This bill would provide that the State Department of Education and the State Board of Education are prohibited from prohibiting a school, school district, county office of education, or charter school that has been identified for program improvement or corrective action under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 from implementing the exemption. (10) The Budget Act of 2008 appropriates General Funds to the State Department of Education for implementation of the High Priority Schools Grant Program. This bill would reduce that appropriation by $107,909,000. (11) This bill would reappropriate to the State Department of Education for the 2008–09 fiscal year prescribed amounts or the unexpended balance of specified appropriations made in specified prior Budget Acts to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for juvenile education. (12) The Budget Act of 2008 appropriates from the General Fund $2,995,520,000 for the support of the University of California, $2,910,596,000 for the support of California State University, and $3,649,230,000 to the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. This bill would reduce those appropriations, as specified. (13) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a district deferred maintenance fund for specified maintenance purposes. The State Allocation Board is required to apportion from the State School Deferred Maintenance Fund, to school district an amount equal to $1 for each $1 of local funds up to a specified maximum. To be eligible to receive the state matching funds a school district is required to deposit in its district deferred maintenance fund a specified amount. Existing law authorizes the State Allocation Board to reserve funds in the State School Deferred Maintenance Fund for apportionments to school districts in instances of extreme hardship, as defined. This bill would suspend for the 2008–09 to 2012–13 fiscal years, inclusive, the requirement that a school district deposit the required amount in its district deferred maintenance fund and also suspend the board's authority to reserve funds for apportionments to school districts in instances of extreme hardship. (14) Existing law, for the 2008–09 and 2009–10 fiscal years, authorizes the governing board of a school district or county office of education to use up to 100 percent of the balances, as of June 30, 2008, of restricted accounts in its general fund or cafeteria fund with certain exclusion, including, among others restricted reserves committed for capital outlay, and excluding balances in specified categorical education programs, including, among others the Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant Program, the Instructional Materials Program, and the California High School Exit Exam Intensive Intervention Program. Existing law requires a governing board that elects to use balances in restricted accounts to report to the Superintendent regarding the programs and amounts of restricted balances used and requires the Superintendent to report statewide information and information for each school district and county office of education to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by October 31, 2009. This bill would exclude the use of the ending balance in the cafeteria fund and the balances in the English Learner Acquisition and Development Pilot Program and child development programs, but would authorize the use of balances in the Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant Program, the Instructional Materials Program, and the California High School Exit Exam Intensive Intervention Program and restricted reserves committed for capital outlay. The bill would change the deadline of the date by which the Superintendent is required to report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to April 15, 2010. (15) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
