(1) The California Constitution requires the Governor to submit annually to the Legislature a budget itemizing state expenditures and estimating state revenues and requires the Legislature to pass the Budget Bill by midnight on June 15. This bill would require that the budget submitted by the Governor to the Legislature for the 2013–14 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, as specified in a plan developed by the Department of Finance and distributed to the appropriate committees of the Legislature by August 1, 2012, be developed pursuant to performance-based budgeting, as defined, for each state agency. (2) Under existing law, a state agency for which an appropriation is made is generally required to submit to the Department of Finance for approval a complete and detailed budget setting forth all proposed expenditures and estimated revenues for the ensuing fiscal year. The bill would require the budget of a state agency, as defined, submitted to the department as specified in the plan developed by the department, to utilize performance-based budgeting for all programs, as defined to include those performed not only by state agencies, but by local agencies, contractors, or others that have a material relationship with the state, or its authorities and activities. For those programs not administered by the state, but which confer a benefit that would not otherwise be conferred but for the action of state government, state departments would be required to develop a process for consulting with responsible local agencies, contractors or other responsible entities, and stakeholders to develop information related to performance standards and program performance. The bill would require the department to include specified performance-based budgeting information in the Governor's Budget proposal and to post that information on the department's Internet Web site. Implementation of the requirement to use performance-based budgeting for departments and programs would be contingent on an appropriation of funding for that requirement in the annual Budget Act.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law establishes the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and the State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS) for the purpose of providing pension benefits to their employees. Existing law also establishes the Judges' Retirement System II which provides pension benefits to elected judges and the Legislators' Retirement System which provides pension benefits to elective officers of the state other than judges and to legislative statutory officers. The County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 authorizes counties to establish retirement systems pursuant to its provisions in order to provide pension benefits to county, city, and district employees. The Regents of the University of California have established the University of California Retirement System as a trust for this purpose. Existing law permits members of PERS, STRS, and county, city, and district retirement systems that have adopted specified provisions, to purchase up to 5 years of additional retirement service credit by making specified contributions to the system. Existing law authorizes retirement benefits to be increased. This bill, on and after January 1, 2013, would prohibit a public retirement system from allowing the purchase of additional retirement service credit, as described above. The bill would except from this prohibition an official application to purchase this type of service credit received by the retirement system prior to January 1, 2013. The bill would prohibit any member who does not have at least 5 years of service credit before the operative date of this bill, or any person hired on or after that date, from purchasing additional retirement service credit. This bill would provide that any enhancement to a public retirement system's retirement formula or benefit that is adopted on or after January 1, 2013, would apply only to service performed on or after the operative date of the enhancement, except under specified circumstances. The bill would also provide that, if a change to a member's classification or employment results in an increase in the retirement formula or benefit applicable to that member, the increase would apply only to service performed on or after the operative date of the change. This bill would require a public employer to offer to its employees first hired on or after July 1, 2013, a hybrid pension plan or alternative pension plan option, as specified. The bill would require that each hybrid pension plan be designed with the goal of providing at normal retirement age, based upon a full career in public service of 30 years for safety employees and 35 years for all other public employees, replacement income of 75% of a public employee's final compensation. (2) Existing law provides that any elected public officer who takes public office, or is reelected to public office, on or after January 1, 2006, who is convicted of any specified felony arising directly out of his or her official duties, forfeits all rights and benefits under, and membership in, any public retirement system in which he or she is a member, effective on the date of final conviction, as specified. This bill would require that a public employee, as defined, who is convicted of any state or federal felony for conduct arising out of, or in the performance of, his or her official duties in pursuit of the office or appointment, or in connection with obtaining salary, disability retirement, or service retirement, or other benefits, forfeit retirement benefits earned or accrued from the earliest date of the commission of the felony to the forfeiture date, as specified. The bill would also require any contributions to the public retirement system made by the public employee on or after the earliest date of commission of the felony to be returned, without interest, to the public employee upon the occurrence of a distribution event, as defined, unless otherwise ordered by a court or determined by the pension administrator. The bill would also make related, conforming changes. (3) Existing law defines final compensation for various employment classifications in connection with the benefits provided by the retirement systems. The bill, for the purposes of determining a retirement benefit paid to a person who first becomes a member of a public retirement system on or after January 1, 2013, would require that final compensation be calculated by multiplying the member's years of service credit by a percentage of the member's final compensation based on age at retirement using the member's payrate during a period of at least 36 consecutive months, as specified. (4) Existing state and local public employee retirement systems are funded by investment returns and employer and employee contributions. The California Constitution provides that the retirement board of a public pension or retirement system has the exclusive power to provide for actuarial services in order to ensure the competency of the assets of the system. Existing law, with respect to PERS, requires the Governor to include in the annual Budget Act the contribution rates submitted by the system actuary of the liability on account of employees of the state. This bill would require public employees who contribute to a defined benefit plan or component to contribute at least 12 of the annual actuarially determined normal costs, and would prohibit a public employer from contributing in any fiscal year, in combination with employer contributions, less than the plan normal cost. The bill would also prohibit an employer from paying the member's share of the employee contribution, except as specified. (5) Existing law generally prohibits any person who has been retired from being employed in any capacity with the same public employer unless he or she is first reinstated from retirement, except as authorized. This bill would prohibit a person who retires from a public employer from serving without reinstatement, except during an emergency to prevent stoppage of public business or because the retired employee has skills needed to perform work of limited duration, as specified. (6) The California Constitution prohibits changing the composition of the retirement board of certain public pension systems, including the number, terms, and method of selection and removal of members, unless the change is ratified by a majority vote of the electors of the jurisdiction in which the participants of the pension system are or were prior to retirement, employed. Existing law creates the Board of Administration of PERS for the purpose of governing the system and prescribes the composition of the board. Existing law requires that one member of the board of administration be a member of the State Personnel Board, serving at the pleasure of the State Personnel Board, and that a member representing the public be chosen jointly by the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Committee on Rules. Existing law further requires that an official of a life insurer be appointed to the board of administration by the Governor. This bill would revise the composition of the Board of Administration of PERS. The bill would eliminate the position of the member of the State Personnel Board and would replace that position with the Director of Finance. The bill would add to the board 2 persons, appointed at the pleasure of the Governor, who represent the public, have financial expertise, and are not interested in the system, as specified. The bill would also replace the official of a life insurer, whom the Governor is currently authorized to appoint, with a gubernatorial appointee who has expertise in health insurance and is not interested in the system. (7) The Public Employee's Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) requires the employer contribution, with respect to each employee or annuitant who is in employment or retired from state service, to be adjusted by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act, as specified. Those adjustments are required to be based on the principle that the employer contribution for each employee or annuitant shall be an amount equal to 100% of the weighted average of the health benefit plan premiums for an employee or annuitant enrolled for self-alone, during the benefit year to which the formula is applied, for the 4 health benefit plans that had the largest state enrollment, excluding family members, during the previous year. For each employee or annuitant with enrolled family members, the employer is required to contribute an additional 90% of the weighted average of the additional premiums required for enrollment of those family members, during the benefit year to which the formula is applied, in the 4 health benefit plans that had the largest state enrollment, excluding family members, during the previous year. This bill, for employees first hired on or after January 1, 2013, would limit the employer contribution amount to no greater than the lowest premium formula paid for a current employee enrolled for self-alone health benefit coverage year during the benefit year to which the formula is applied multiplied by the weighted average of the health benefit plan premiums, as specified. The bill would further require an employer, for each enrolled family member of a retired employee, to contribute an additional percentage that is no higher than the lowest premium formula paid for enrolled family members multiplied by the weighted average of the additional health benefit plan premiums required for enrollment of those family members. (8) Under PEMHCA, a state employee is required to have a certain number of years of state service, depending on hiring date and other factors, before he or she may receive any portion of the employer contribution payable for annuitants for postretirement health benefits. This bill would prohibit a state employee who becomes a state member of the system on or after January 1, 2013, from receiving any portion of the employer contribution payable for annuitants unless the person is credited with 15 years of state service at the time of retirement. The bill would further specify that the percentage of the employer contribution payable for postretirement health benefits for an employee shall be based on the number of completed years of credited state service at retirement, with 50% after 15 credited years of service, and 100% after 25 or more years of service. (9) The bill would also declare that ensuring the statewide integrity of local government pension systems and ensuring the sufficiency of local public safety services are matters of statewide concern and not a municipal affair, and that, therefore, all cities, including charter cities, would be subject to the provisions of the bill. The bill would also declare that these provisions apply to the University of California. (10) The bill would delay the operation of its provisions until January 1, 2013, contingent on voter approval of an unspecified Senate Constitutional Amendment by voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide election. (11) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act authorizes the Department of Fish and Game, at the time of approval of a natural community conservation plan, to authorize by permit the taking of any covered species the conservation and management of which is provided for in a natural community conservation plan approved by the department. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes in that taking provision.
(1) Existing law authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into agreements between the department and federal and local governments and other public agencies for the care, maintenance, administration, and control of lands under the jurisdiction of any party to this agreement for the purpose of the state park system, as prescribed. This bill would require the department to post on its Internet Web site, at least 30 days prior to the date the department plans to close all, or a significant portion, of a unit of the state park system to public access, specified information about the proposed park closure, as defined, including information about how to contact the department in writing if an individual or other party is interested in entering into negotiations with the department for a contract or agreement to lease, operate, maintain, or provide concessions at a unit of the state park system that is proposed to be closed. The bill would require the department to respond in writing to any inquiry received in connection with the information provided pursuant to those provisions. (2) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law establishes various public agency retirement systems, including the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) , the State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS) , the Judges' Retirement System II, and various county retirement systems pursuant to the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, among others, and these systems provide defined pension benefits to public employees based on age, service credit, and amount of final compensation. The California Constitution permits a city or county to adopt a charter for purposes of its governance that supersedes general laws of the state in regard to specified subjects, including compensation of city or county employees. The California Constitution also establishes the University of California as a public trust with full powers of organization and government, subject only to specified limitations. Charter cities and the University of California may establish pension plans under their respective independent constitutional authority. These pension systems are funded by employee and employer contributions and investment returns. Existing law provides that public employee pension benefits are a form of deferred compensation, the right to which vests in the employee on contractual principles and is protected from impairment by the California Constitution and the United States Constitution. This measure would require each public retirement system, as defined in statute, to provide one or more hybrid pension plans meeting the requirements of this measure to each public employer that provides its employees a defined benefit pension plan administered by the public retirement system. The measure would require that a hybrid pension plan consist of a defined benefit component and a defined contribution or alternative plan design component, as specified. The measure would require, among other things, that a hybrid pension plan be designed with a goal of providing annually during retirement, based on a full career in public service, as defined, replacement income of 75% of a public employee's final compensation. The measure would require the Director of Finance, on or before January 1, 2013, to establish initial criteria and requirements for one or more hybrid pension plans, as specified. The measure would require, on and after July 1, 2013, each public retirement system to administer, and make available to each public employer that provides a defined benefit pension plan, one or more hybrid pension plans, except as specified, for public employees hired in each member classification in the public retirement system. The measure would require, for public employees hired on and after January 1, 2013, that retirement benefits be limited as provided, with regard to a defined benefit that is calculated with reference to final compensation, as specified, that final compensation be calculated using at least a consecutive 36-month period of service. The measure would establish various other limitations on the retirement benefits offered by public employers to public employees, regardless of the date the employees are hired, to the fullest extent permissible under the United States Constitution. In this regard, the measure would require that any change to a formula or benefit resulting in an increase in a member's pension benefits shall apply only to service performed on and after the operative date of the change and would require that employers and employees make required payments to fund the normal cost of benefits, as specified. The measure would require public employees to contribute at least 12 of the normal costs of any defined benefit plan and would prohibit an employer from paying an employee's required contributions, except as specified. The measure would also prohibit retirement systems from granting any nonqualified service credit, as specified. The measure additionally would require that a public employee, who is convicted of any felony arising from his or her official duties, forfeit retirement benefits based on certain statutes. The measure would limit the amount of service that a retired public employee may perform for public employers. The measure would provide that neither its provisions nor any related statutory provisions apply to, or otherwise restrict, death, survivor, and disability benefits, except as specified. The measure would provide that labor contracts that are in effect on November 7, 2012, and that are in conflict with the measure's provisions remain in effect until the expiration of the contract, at which time the requirements of the measure would apply. The measure would specify that terms used in those provisions are to be defined in a specified statute and would permit the Legislature to amend specified statutes referenced in the measure's provisions by a 23 vote of the membership of each house by a statute that is consistent with and furthers its purposes. The measure would provide that the activities, programs, and levels of service associated with its provisions are not state-mandated local programs requiring a subvention of funds. (2) The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from changing the composition of the retirement board of a public pension or retirement system that included elected employee members as of a specified date, including the number, terms, and method of selection and removal of members, unless the change is ratified by a majority vote of the electors of the jurisdiction in which the participants of the system are, or were, prior to retirement, employed. This measure would require the composition of the retirement board of a public pension or retirement system to be modified, in the manner provided for in a specified statute, and would exempt that modification from ratification by the electors. (3) The measure would require the state to defend the constitutionality of its provisions.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020, and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions. A violation of a regulation adopted by the state board pursuant to the act is subject to specified civil and criminal penalties. Pursuant to the act, the state board adopted a regulation requiring automobile service providers, by September 1, 2010, among other things, to check and inflate vehicle tires to the recommended pressure rating when performing automobile maintenance or repair services. This bill, until January 1, 2017, would require a tire pressure gauge used to meet the requirements of this regulation to be accurate within a range of plus or minus 2 pounds per square inch of pressure (2 psi) . The bill, until January 1, 2017, would authorize automotive service providers to meet the requirements of the regulation without checking and inflating a vehicle's tire if that tire is determined to be an unsafe tire, as defined.
Existing law generally prohibits a city from leasing property that it owns or controls for a period exceeding 55 years, but permits a city to lease property that it owns or controls for a period not to exceed 99 years if specified conditions are met. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
(1) The California Constitution prohibits the annual appropriations subject to limitation, as defined, of any entity of state or local government from exceeding its adjusted annual appropriations limit and provides for the disposition of excess revenues received by the state, as specified. The California Constitution also establishes the Budget Stabilization Account, commonly known as the rainy day fund, in the General Fund, and requires the Controller, no later than September 30 of each year, to transfer from the General Fund to the account a sum equal to 3% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year. This transfer of moneys is not required, unless otherwise directed by the Legislature by statute, in any fiscal year to the extent that the resulting balance in the account would exceed 5% of the General Fund revenue estimate set forth in the Budget Bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, or $8 billion, whichever is greater. This transfer of moneys may also be suspended or reduced for a fiscal year, as specified, by an executive order issued by the Governor. This measure would repeal the existing provisions imposing annual appropriations limits. Commencing in the 2013–14 fiscal year, the measure would instead impose an annual state expenditure limit based on total expenditures in the prior fiscal year, excluding specified amounts allocated to school districts and community college districts to meet a constitutional minimum funding obligation, from General Fund revenues and special fund revenues, adjusted for the percentage change in state population and the percentage change in the cost of living, as specified. The measure would authorize the expenditure limit to be exceeded for an emergency, as defined, declared by the Governor, not including revenue shortfalls, excessive spending, or other similar conditions limiting the ability to fund government operations. The measure would require the Director of Finance to report quarterly on the state's compliance with the expenditure limits for the current fiscal year. This measure would provide for the state expenditure limit discussed above to become permanently inoperative on the date that the Director of Finance determines that (A) the state's Budget Stabilization Account, which the measure would rename as the Budget Stabilization Fund, has a balance at least equal to 10% of the estimate of General Fund revenues, (B) all remaining current and future obligations from state budgetary debt, as defined, have been reduced to zero, and (C) the state is no longer deferring payments, as defined. Upon making this determination, the Director of Finance would be required to so notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. The provisions governing the Budget Stabilization Fund, as modified by this measure, would continue in operation after the state expenditure limit becomes inoperative, as discussed above. This measure would prohibit funds from being deposited into the Budget Stabilization Fund in any fiscal year in which all remaining obligations from state budgetary debt have not been reduced to zero. This measure would also provide that the transfer of moneys from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund is not required in any fiscal year to the extent that the resulting balance in the fund would exceed 10% of the General Fund revenues estimate set forth in the Budget Bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, and would delete the alternative $8 billion limit on the fund. This measure would provide that, apart from a transfer made for the purpose of responding to an emergency declared by the Governor, as defined, or a loan to meet General Fund cash requirements which would be repaid within a fiscal year, the total amount that may be transferred from the Budget Stabilization Fund to the General Fund for any fiscal year shall not exceed the lesser of the shortfall amount for the current fiscal year, as defined, or 50% of the balance of the Budget Stabilization Fund, depending upon specified criteria. In addition, this measure would create in the General Fund the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account and would direct the Controller to transfer, on October 1 of each year beginning in 2013, from the Budget Stabilization Fund to the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account a sum equal to 1.5% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year, except that this transfer would not be made in a fiscal year for which funds were not required to be deposited into the Budget Stabilization Fund, as specified, or for which the Governor issues an executive order to suspend or reduce the transfer of moneys from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund. The measure would permit appropriations to be made from the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account only for capital outlay purposes or to retire bonded indebtedness of the state. After the state expenditure limit described above becomes inoperative, the measure would provide for the calculation of "unanticipated revenues" for each fiscal year, and would authorize those revenues to be used only to meet constitutional school funding obligations, for deposit in the Budget Stabilization Fund, and for other specified purposes, in a specified order of priority. For purposes of this calculation this measure would require the Director of Finance, on or before the May 29 preceding each fiscal year to report to the Legislature and the Governor (A) an estimate of the amount of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances available from the prior fiscal year for the current fiscal year, (B) the revenue forecast amount, as defined, for the current fiscal year, and (C) an estimate of specified General Fund obligations for the public schools. (2) The California Constitution requires that whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse the local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service. For the 2005–06 fiscal year and every subsequent fiscal year, for a mandate for which the costs of a local government claimant have been determined in a preceding fiscal year to be payable by the state pursuant to law, the Legislature is required to either appropriate, in the annual Budget Act, the full payable amount that has not been previously paid, or suspend the operation of the mandate for the fiscal year for which the annual Budget Act is applicable in a manner prescribed by law. This measure would prohibit a claim from being filed for reimbursement for any mandate if the mandate has been in effect for more than 2 years and no claim for that reimbursement was filed in that period. This measure would provide, as to specified mandates, that if the Legislature fails to either appropriate funds or suspend a mandate, any affected local government may commence an action in court for relief for the purpose of securing its rights pursuant to these provisions and, if that relief is granted in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction from which no further review is available, would require the state to provide the same subvention as is required by that court to any other local government that has a substantially similar claim or claims pending against the state. This measure would also provide that any taxpayer shall have standing to bring a legal action against the state for violating any of these provisions, subject to specified criteria. (3) The California Constitution establishes a minimum funding requirement for moneys to be applied by the state for the support of school districts and community college districts based on one of 3 tests in any given fiscal year (Proposition 98) . The first test applies, to the amount of General Fund revenues that may be appropriated pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, the percentage of General Fund revenues that were appropriated for school districts and community college districts in the 1986–87 fiscal year. The 2nd and 3rd tests compute the minimum funding requirement based on the allocations to school districts and community college districts from General Fund proceeds of taxes appropriated pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, adjusted for changes in enrollment, cost of living, or per capita General Fund revenues, in the prior fiscal year. This measure instead would base these computations on the amount of General Fund revenues that may be expended pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, in accordance with the changes to that article discussed above. (4) The California Constitution requires the Governor to submit to the Legislature, within the first 10 days of each calendar year, a proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year containing itemized statements for recommended state expenditures and estimated state revenues. The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from passing, and the Governor from signing, a Budget Bill that would appropriate from the General Fund a total amount that, when combined with all appropriations from the General Fund for that fiscal year made as of the date of the Budget Bill's passage, and the amount of any General Fund moneys transferred to a reserve account, exceeds estimated General Fund revenues for that fiscal year. The estimate of General Fund revenues is required to be set forth in the Budget Bill. This measure would require the Governor, in his or her proposed budget, to identify estimated total state resources available to meet recommended state expenditures and, further, to identify the amount of those resources that are anticipated to be one-time resources. The measure would prohibit passage of a Budget Bill that appropriates an amount that, when combined with prior appropriations and transfers to the reserve account, exceeds the estimate of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances available from the prior fiscal year. The measure would require the estimate of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances to be set forth in the Budget Bill. (5) This measure would state that its provisions are severable.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of professions and vocations by boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs and these boards may require licensees to satisfy continuing education course requirements. This bill would provide, if applicable, that continuing education or competency courses, as specified, that advance or promote labor organizing on behalf of a union, or that advance or promote statutory or regulatory changes, political candidates, political advocacy, or political strategy shall not be considered content relevant to the practice regulated by the board and shall not be acceptable for meeting requirements for licensure renewal. The bill would also prohibit, to the extent applicable, an approved provider from representing that such a continuing education or competency course is acceptable for meeting requirements for licensure renewal and would require a board, subject to specified procedural requirements, to withdraw its approval of a provider that violates that requirement for no less than 5 years, as specified.
The Personal Income Tax Law authorizes various credits against the taxes imposed by that law. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2011, authorize a credit under the Personal Income Tax Law for qualified costs, as defined, paid by a taxpayer for specified fees charged by the Department of Motor Vehicles for a qualified vehicle, as provided. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.