Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution, and designates air pollution control districts and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. Existing law requires the state board to inventory sources of air pollution within the air basins of the state, determine the kinds and quantity of air pollutants, and monitor air pollutants in cooperation with districts and other agencies. Existing law requires the state board to adopt standards of ambient air quality for each air basin in consideration of the public health, safety, and welfare, including, but not limited to, health, illness, irritation to the senses, aesthetic value, interference with visibility, and effects on the economy. Existing law authorizes these standards to vary from one air basin to another. This bill would require the state board, in consultation with specified entities, to develop, as provided, a response framework that establishes best practices and guidance for addressing fugitive and natural sources of hydrogen sulfide gas and for community preparation and response to hydrogen sulfide exposure events originating from these sources. The bill would require the state board, in developing the response framework, to conduct at least 3 public workshops, including at least one located in the Tijuana River Valley region, at least one located in the Salton Sea region, and at least one selected in consultation with a community that has experienced significant hydrogen sulfide exposure. The bill would require the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to update the acute and chronic reference exposure levels for hydrogen sulfide and to develop additional health guidance values for hydrogen sulfide, if the need is identified by the state board, in consultation with the office, during development of the response framework.
The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to exempt from taxation, in whole or in part, property that is used exclusively for religious, hospital, or charitable purposes, and is owned or held in trust by a nonprofit entity. Pursuant to that authority, existing law provides for a welfare exemption under which property used exclusively for an exempt purpose and owned and operated by specified entities, including foundations, limited liability companies, or corporations meeting certain statutory requirements is exempt from taxation. Existing law also provides that property used exclusively for the preservation of specified natural resources or open-space lands owned or operated by a specified entity meeting specified criteria is deemed to be included within the welfare exemption. Existing law makes that provision operative up to, and including, the lien date in 2027 and repeals that provision on January 1, 2028. This bill would extend the above-described operative date up to, and including, the lien date in 2032 and would extend the corresponding repeal date to January 1, 2033. By imposing additional duties upon local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill would state that it is the intent of the Legislature to apply those requirements to the bill and would set forth specified information relating to those requirements. 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 the statutory provisions noted above. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law generally provides various benefits, including grant programs and tax credits. Existing law, the California Values Act, generally prohibits California law enforcement agencies from using their moneys or personnel for immigration enforcement purposes, except as specified. This bill would prohibit a business entity that is directly invested in, owns, operates, or manages a private detention facility, or that contracts with the federal government for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified, from receiving any state-provided grant or loan, as specified. The bill would also prohibit a disqualified taxpayer, as defined, from receiving any tax credits, except as provided. The bill would define "disqualified taxpayer" to mean a taxpayer that is directly invested in, owns, operates, or manages a private detention facility, or a taxpayer that contracts with a private detention facility or agency engaging in immigration enforcement, as specified. The bill would not apply these provisions to a provider of health care, as defined, that contracts with a private detention facility or agency engaging in immigration enforcement, as specified. The bill would establish the Due Process for All Fund and would require the Controller to transfer each year from the General Fund to the Due Process for All Fund the amount of tax collected that is attributable to business entities being made ineligible for tax credits by this bill. The bill would make moneys in the fund available upon appropriation by the Legislature for immigration-related services and programs. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
Existing property tax law requires the auditor of each county with qualifying cities, as defined, to make certain property tax revenue allocations to those cities in accordance with an established Tax Equity Allocation formula. In any fiscal year in which a qualifying city is to receive a distribution under these provisions, existing law requires the auditor to reduce the actual amount distributed to the qualifying city by the sum of specified amounts, including any amount of property tax revenues that has been exchanged pursuant to specified law between the City of Rancho Mirage and a community services district. This bill would remove the above-described property tax revenues from the reductions to the actual amount distributed. By changing the duties on local officials to administer Tax Equity Allocation, 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 the statutory provisions noted above. By removing the above-described property tax revenues from the reductions to the actual amount distributed, this bill would change the pro rata shares in which ad valorem property tax revenues are allocated among local agencies in a county, within the meaning of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 25.5 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax by a local government upon the approval of 23 of the voters of the local government voting on that tax, and prohibits these entities from imposing an ad valorem tax on real property or a transactions or sales tax on the sale of real property. The Supreme Court of California interpreted this provision and other provisions restricting the authority of local governments to impose, extend, or increase taxes as not restricting the authority of voters to impose taxes via initiative. This measure would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, from imposing, extending, or increasing any special tax, except as provided, unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a 23 vote. The measure would prohibit a local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, from imposing ad valorem taxes on real property, except as provided pursuant to specified constitutional provisions.
Existing law creates the Monterey-Salinas Transit District to include all of the County of Monterey, with specified powers and duties related to public transit service. Existing law prohibits the district from imposing sales or special taxes, but authorizes the district, with the concurrence of a majority of the member jurisdictions represented on the board of directors, to submit a ballot measure for the imposition of those taxes to voters of the district. This bill would prohibit the submission of a measure for the imposition of a sales or special tax to the voters of the district under this authority on or after January 1, 2026. Existing law authorizes various local governmental entities, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use tax, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in the county not exceed 2%. This bill would authorize the Monterey-Salinas Transit District, upon the affirmative vote of at least 23 of the board of directors, to submit to the voters of the district a measure proposing a retail transactions and use tax ordinance in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law. The bill would also separately authorize the district to impose a transactions and use tax for the support of its transportation services at a rate of no more than 0.25% that would, in combination with other transactions and use taxes, exceed the above-described combined rate limit of 2%, if the ordinance proposing the tax is approved by the voters before January 1, 2035, subject to applicable voter approval requirements, as specified. The bill would prohibit a transactions and use tax rate imposed pursuant to this authority from being considered for purposes of that combined rate limit described above.
The Local Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Collection Act, until January 1, 2026, suspends the authority of a city, county, or city and county to impose a utility user tax on the consumption of prepaid communications service and any charge that applies to prepaid mobile telephony service, as defined, on access to communication services or access to local "911" emergency telephone systems, and instead requires those taxes and charges to be applied during the period beginning January 1, 2016, and ending January 1, 2026, under any local ordinance to be at specified rates. The act requires that these local charges imposed by a city, county, or a city and county on prepaid mobile telephony services be collected from the prepaid consumer by a seller at the time of sale, as specified. Existing law requires that all local charges be collected and paid to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law and be deposited into the Local Charges for Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Fund, and be transmitted to the city, county, or city and county, as provided. This bill would extend operation of the act until January 1, 2031. By extending the application of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The act authorizes a consumer to rebut the presumed location of a retail transaction for purposes of the collection of the local charges by filing a claim and declaration under penalty of perjury. By extending the act, this bill would expand the crime of perjury, thereby imposing 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.
Existing sales and use tax laws impose taxes on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. The California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority Act establishes the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority. The act authorizes, until January 1, 2026, the authority to provide financial assistance to a participating party by authorizing exclusions from sales and use tax for certain projects, including those that promote California-based manufacturing, California-based jobs, advanced manufacturing, the reduction of greenhouse gases, or a reduction in air and water pollution or energy consumption. The Sales and Use Tax Law, for the purposes of the taxes imposed pursuant to that law, until January 1, 2026, excludes the lease or transfer of title of tangible personal property constituting one of those projects to any contractor for use in the performance of a construction contract for a participating party that will use that property as an integral part of the approved project. This bill would extend to January 1, 2028, the authorization to provide financial assistance in the form of a sales and use tax exclusion for projects approved by the authority. The bill would add electrical generation facilities using nuclear fusion technology to the types of projects qualifying for this sales and use tax exclusion. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2026, for an applicant that, together with its parent corporation and subsidiaries, employs 500 or more employees, prohibit the authority from approving a project unless the applicant certifies that the applicant and its subcontractors will comply with certain labor requirements. The bill would make other conforming changes. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities and establishes the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency to administer the act. Existing law, the Cannabis Tax Law, imposes an excise tax upon purchasers of cannabis or cannabis products sold in this state at the rate of 15% of the gross receipts of any retail sale by a cannabis retailer, and, as enacted by AUMA, imposed a cultivation tax on all harvested cannabis that entered the commercial market, as specified. Chapter 56 of the Statutes of 2022 (AB 195) amended AUMA to, among other things, discontinue the imposition of the cultivation tax on July 1, 2022. AB 195, beginning in the 2025–26 fiscal year and every 2 years thereafter, requires the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to adjust the cannabis excise tax rate by a percentage that will generate an amount of revenue that would have been collected pursuant to the cultivation tax imposed prior to its discontinuation, as specified, not to exceed 19% of the gross receipts of retail sale. Pursuant to that law, the department increased the cannabis excise tax rate to 19% for the 2025–26 fiscal year. This bill would revise the above-described provisions governing the cannabis excise tax rate. Specifically, the bill, for the period from July 1, 2025, to September 30, 2025, inclusive, would retain the existing cannabis excise tax rate of 19%. For the period from October 1, 2025, to June 30, 2028, inclusive, the bill would decrease the excise tax rate to 15%. Beginning in the 2028–29 fiscal year and every 2 years thereafter, the bill would require the department to adjust the cannabis excise tax rate by a percentage that will generate an amount of revenue that would have been collected pursuant to the cultivation tax imposed prior to its discontinuation, as specified, not to exceed 19%. The bill would also require the DCC, in consultation with the CDTFA and the Legislative Analyst's Office, on or before October 1, 2027, to submit a report to the Legislature that analyzes, among other things, the current and future effect of the Cannabis Tax Law on the regulated cannabis market and recommends options for changes to the Cannabis Tax Law to accomplish the intent of AUMA. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals that the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill also would include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing statutory law, enacted by Proposition 62, as approved by the voters at the November 4, 1986, statewide general election, prohibits a local government or district from imposing any transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within the city, county, or district, except as provided. The California Constitution authorizes cities organized under a charter to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, which supersede inconsistent general laws. Existing law, the Documentary Transfer Tax Act, authorizes the imposition of a tax by a county or city, as provided, with respect to specified instruments that transfer specified interests in real property. This bill would require a legislative body of a city, as specified, before it adopts any transfer tax on the sale of real property, to develop and post on its internet website an analysis that examines, at a minimum, the effect of the proposed transfer tax on, among other things, the production of affordable housing, including affordable housing produced by market-rate housing projects. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
