California Bills

This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact changes relating to the Budget Act of 2009.

(1) Existing law establishes the California Emergency Management Agency, which is responsible for the state's emergency and disaster response services for certain manmade disasters and emergencies, including responsibility for activities necessary to prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of emergencies and disasters to people and property. This bill would establish the Local Government Mutual Aid Enhancement Program in the agency, and would require funds, as specified, deposited in the Emergency Response Fund, to be allocated to the program upon appropriation by the Legislature. This bill would require the Secretary of California Emergency Management to allocate funds to specified entities, for the purpose of enhancing or sustaining fire and rescue disaster mutual aid capacity to combat the effect of all hazard disasters, as provided. This bill would also require the secretary, in consultation with specified entities, to develop a strategy, as provided, for the enhancement of mutual aid, and would require each fire and rescue operational area to submit a 3-year strategy for the enhancement of fire and rescue disaster mutual aid, as specified, to the secretary. (2) Existing law provides that the Insurance Commissioner, in cooperation with insurers, the Office of Emergency Services, and other emergency service agencies, shall establish procedures for the coordination of efforts between insurers and their representatives and those of emergency response agencies. This bill would create the Emergency Response Fund in the State Treasury. Insureds would be required to pay a special purpose surcharge on commercial and residential fire and multiperil insurance policies, including policies with combined property and liability coverage, issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2010, as specified. Funds from this surcharge would be available for appropriation by the Legislature to fund emergency activities, as defined, of the California Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and the Military Department. Any balance remaining in the fund at the end of a fiscal year would be retained and carried forward to the next fiscal year. This bill would require insurers collecting the surcharge to make a specified disclosure on the policy declarations page, billing statement, or a separate document accompanying the declarations page or billing statement. This bill would also require the Department of Insurance, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and other state agencies and departments to cooperate and provide information to the California Emergency Management Agency as necessary to implement this act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law provides procedures for the nomination of candidates for elective offices in general law cities. It specifies the procedures for the conduct of the election, the canvass of ballots, and certification of persons elected to office. Related provisions require the holding of a runoff election if no candidate has been elected at the municipal election. Existing law provides that a vacancy in an elective office may be filled by appointment at a special election or at the next regular municipal election. Under existing law, the Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the state and is required to administer the provisions of the Elections Code. This bill would authorize the Secretary of State to approve not more than 12 cities or counties, in total, to conduct a local election using ranked voting if specified conditions are met. The bill would specify requirements for using ranked voting in both a single-candidate election and a multiple-candidate election. The bill would require local elections officials to make certain reports relating to ranked voting elections and would also require those cities and counties to report on the success of conducting those elections to the Legislative Analyst, who would be required to report to the Legislature and make recommendations on the ranked voting elections. The bill would end the authority of cities and counties to adopt ranked voting on January 1, 2019, unless a later statute enacted prior to January 1, 2019, deletes or extends that date, but would allow such elections to be conducted until January 1, 2024.

(1) Existing law authorizes the State Lands Commission to enter into a lease for the extraction of oil or gas from state-owned tide and submerged lands in the California Coastal Sanctuary if the commission determines that those oil and gas deposits are being drained by means of producing wells upon adjacent federal lands and if the lease is in the best interests of the state. This bill would create the Interim Resources Management Board, consisting of the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, the Secretary for Environmental Protection, and the Controller. The bill would authorize the board to consider a lease, lease application, or revised lease application filed. The bill would authorize the board to approve that lease if specified terms and conditions are met. The bill would provide for the repeal of these provisions on January 1, 2011. The bill would set forth related declarations and findings. (2) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on July 1, 2009. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on July 1, 2009, pursuant to the California Constitution.

The Motor Vehicle Fuel License Tax Law imposes a tax of $0.18 per gallon on motor vehicle fuel, commonly referred to as gasoline. The Diesel Fuel Tax Law imposes a tax of $0.18 per gallon on diesel fuel. These revenues, after certain deductions for nonhighway fuel uses, are deposited in the Highway Users Tax Account. Approximately 13 of the revenues in the account are appropriated, to be apportioned by various formulas to cities and counties, and most of the remaining revenues are deposited in the State Highway Account after specified transfers to the Bicycle Transportation Account and the State Parks and Recreation Fund. This bill would require the Controller, if a specified portion of the Highway Users Tax Account is transferred to the Transportation Debt Service Fund, to make certain calculations regarding the amount of funding that has been transferred to the Transportation Debt Service Fund. The bill would, commencing in the 2011–12 fiscal year, and in each fiscal year thereafter for a total of 10 years, continuously appropriate a certain amount of revenues from the General Fund, which would be required to be apportioned to local agencies in a manner that fully restores the funds transferred to the Transportation Debt Service Fund. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on July 1, 2009. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on July 1, 2009, pursuant to the California Constitution. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1) Existing law establishes the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank with specified authority, including the authority to make loans to sponsors in connection with the financing of a project and the authority to engage the services of private consultants to render professional and technical assistance. Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenue to local jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and procedures. Existing property tax law also makes specified reductions to the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue that would otherwise be annually allocated. Existing law generally requires that the revenues not allocated to counties, cities, and special districts as a result of these reductions be transferred to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund in that county for allocation to school districts, community college districts, and the county office of education. This bill would establish within the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank an Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund account (ERAF account) for the purpose of receiving and holding deposits of redevelopment agency transfer payments, as defined, and any interest accruing thereon. The bill would authorize the bank to sell for, and on behalf of, the state all or any portion of ERAF account assets or residual interest to a special purpose trust, which the bill would establish. The net proceeds from the sale of ERAF assets to the special purpose trust would be deposited in the State ERAF Account. The bill would, commencing with the 2009–10 fiscal year, and for each fiscal year thereafter during the time a specified redevelopment agency receives tax revenue from an applicable redevelopment project, require the county auditor to determine the agency transfer payment, as defined, for the agency to be deposited into the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require, on or before March 15 of each fiscal year, the county auditor to transfer the agency transfer payment from the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund to the ERAF account of the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank. The bill would also permit an authorized issuer, as defined, to issue bonds, notes, or other evidence of indebtedness to provide net proceeds to make one or more loans to one or more redevelopment agencies to fund that agency's obligations in the event of a shortfall caused by the obligation to fund the agency transfer payment. The bill would also require the bank, by December 1, 2009, to certify whether proceeds in the amount of at least $7,400,000,000 will be deposited on or before December 31, 2010, in the State ERAF Account. If the bank does not certify that the amount of the proceeds that will be deposited in the State ERAF Account on or before June 30, 2010, will be at least $7,400,000,000, the changes made by the bill would become inoperative on December 1, 2009, or on the date of the certification if the certification is made before December 1, 2009. The bill would authorize the bank to impose a fee upon a redevelopment agency in an amount to offset the reasonably anticipated and ongoing administrative costs of implementing these provisions. The bill would require the fees to be continuously appropriated to the bank for expenditure to implement these provisions. (2) The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the establishment of redevelopment agencies in communities to address the effects of blight in those communities. Existing law requires each agency to prepare or cause to be prepared, and approve, a redevelopment plan for each project area. Existing law requires that a redevelopment plan contain specified limitations, including, but not limited to, a time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness to be paid to finance a redevelopment project, a time line on the effectiveness of a redevelopment plan, and a time line to repay indebtedness. The bill would modify and extend several time limit requirements as they are applied to specific redevelopment plans or plan amendments and, in these instances, require the legislative body to adopt an ordinance conforming the applicable redevelopment plan or amendment to these provisions. (3) The bill would provide its provisions shall become inoperative or will not become operative, as applicable, unless, on or before December 1, 2009, a validation proceeding has been filed by the bank or the special purpose trust and in response to this filing the superior court holds, or upon review the Supreme Court holds, that those provisions are constitutional and that there is no legal bar to the securitization of the payments by redevelopment agencies to the state. The bill would also make the operation of other provisions of law, regarding a fuel tax subvention, and the suspension of Section 25.5 of Article XIII of the California Constitution contingent upon the operation of these specified provisions. The bill would also provide that if the sections amended or added by the act remain operative and in effect after December 1, 2009, the additions and changes to state law proposed by Assembly Bill 26 of the 2009-10 Fourth Extraordinary Session of the Legislature and Senate Bill 26 of the 2009-10 Fourth Extraordinary Session of the Legislature would become inoperative on January 1, 2010. The bill would provide, except as specified, that it become operative on January 1, 2010. (4) The bill would declare that its provisions are interdependent on each other and are therefore not severable. (5) 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. (6) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on July 1, 2009. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on July 1, 2009, pursuant to the California Constitution. (7) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2009.

(1) The Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Law imposes a tax of $0.18 per gallon on motor vehicle fuel, commonly referred to as gasoline. The Diesel Fuel Tax Law imposes a tax of $0.18 per gallon on diesel fuel. These revenues, after certain deductions for nonhighway fuel uses, are deposited in the Highway Users Tax Account. Approximately 13 of the revenues in the account are apportioned by various formulas to cities and counties, and most of the remaining revenues are deposited in the State Highway Account after specified transfers to the Bicycle Transportation Account and the State Parks and Recreation Fund. Under Article XIX of the California Constitution, the portion of fuel tax revenues that is derived from use in motor vehicles upon public streets and highways is restricted for expenditure on street and highway and certain mass transit guideway purposes, and up to 25% of these and other vehicle-related revenues that are available for street and highway purposes may be pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on voter-approved bonds issued for those purposes. This bill would modify the apportionment of fuel tax revenues designated for street and highway and guideway purposes for the 2009–10 and 2010–11 fiscal years. For those years, the bill would provide for 65% of revenues to be deposited in the State Highway Account and 25% to be deposited in the Transportation Debt Service Fund. Of the remaining 10% of revenue, additional fuel tax revenues would be transferred to the Transportation Debt Service Fund in an amount equivalent to 25% of vehicle weight fee revenues for the 2009–10 fiscal year only, certain amounts would be made available to the Bicycle Transportation Account and the State Parks and Recreation Fund, and the remaining revenues would be apportioned to cities and counties by certain formulas. This bill would authorize the Director of Finance to provide a hardship exemption from reduced apportionments for 2009–10 fiscal year to a county or city under certain conditions. The bill would also provide an exemption for specified smaller cities for that fiscal year. The bill would make other related changes. This bill would also authorize the Director of Finance to reimburse the General Fund, from revenues transferred to the Transportation Debt Service Fund from the Highway Users Tax Account, any amount necessary to offset the cost of debt service payments made from the General Fund during any fiscal year for transportation-related general obligation bond expenditures consistent with specified provisions of Article XIX of the California Constitution. The bill would also provide for transfer from the Mass Transportation Fund to the Transportation Debt Service Fund of any amount of the "spillover" gasoline sales tax funds received during the 2009–10 to 2012–13 fiscal years necessary to offset the cost of debt service payments made from the General Fund during any fiscal year for transportation-related general obligation bond expenditures. (2) Existing law authorizes the county recorder to charge certain fees for recording and indexing every instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded. Existing law requires $1 for recording the first page and $1 for each additional page to be available solely to support, maintain, improve, and provide for the full operation for modernized creation, retention, and retrieval of information in the county's system of recorded documents. This bill, for the 2009–10 and 2010–11 fiscal years, would authorize a county to loan the records modernization funds to the county road fund in an amount not to exceed the amount of any revenues from the Highway Users Tax Account diverted from the county in the applicable fiscal year. (3) This bill would make various findings and declarations relative to transportation funding. (4) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on July 1, 2009. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on July 1, 2009, pursuant to the California Constitution.

(1) Existing law sets the fees at $15 or $20 for various court services, including, but not limited to, issuing a writ for the enforcement of an order or judgment, issuing an abstract of judgment, recording or registering any license or certificate, issuing an order of sale, and filing and entering an award under the Workers' Compensation Law. This bill would increase those fees by $10, and would provide that the $10 fee increase shall be transmitted quarterly for deposit in the Trial Court Trust Fund and, commencing July 1, 2011, used by the Judicial Council for implementing and administering the civil representation pilot program described in (5) below. (2) Under existing law, $25 of each specified filing fee in connection with certain civil proceedings is required to be used for services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings. This bill would increase the amount of those filing fees required to be used for services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings to $30. (3) Under existing law, to the extent that a memorandum of understanding for trial court employees designates certain days as unpaid furlough days for employees assigned to regular positions in the superior court, the court may not be in session on those days except as ordered by the presiding judge. This bill, until July 1, 2010, would authorize the Judicial Council to provide that the courts be closed for the transaction of judicial business for one day per month, which would be treated as a holiday, and to adopt court rules to implement these provisions, subject to specified conditions. The bill would authorize a judge or justice to sign a form, to be prepared by the Administrative Office of the Courts, stating that the judge or justice voluntarily agrees to irrevocably waive an amount equal to 4.62% of his or her monthly salary, as specified. The bill also would require a 4.62% reduction in the compensation due to the sheriff for court security services because of the closure of the courts under these provisions, and would, where a memorandum of understanding has been executed, require the court and the sheriff, county, or sheriff and county to negotiate that reduction in good faith and amend the memorandum of understanding accordingly. By imposing additional duties on county officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council to regulate the budget and fiscal management of the trial courts. The Judicial Council is required to adopt rules to provide for reasonable public access to budget allocation and expenditure information at the state and local level, and to adopt rules ensuring that, upon written request, the trial courts provide, in a timely manner, information relating to the administration of the courts, including financial information and other information that affects the wages, hours, and working conditions of trial court employees. This bill would provide that any person shall have the right to obtain specified budget, expenditure, and personnel records of the courts, except as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court that provide public access to nondeliberative or nonadjudicative court records, budget, and management information on or before January 1, 2010. (5) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to provide an annual status report to the chairpersons of the budget committee in each house of the Legislature and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee regarding the California Case Management System and Court Accounting and Reporting System, as specified. Under existing law, the office of the State Chief Information Officer is responsible for the approval and oversight of information technology projects. This bill would provide that the California Case Management System, and all other administrative and infrastructure information technology projects of the Judicial Council or the courts with total costs estimated at more than $5,000,000, shall be subject to the review and recommendations of the office of the State Chief Information Officer, as specified. The bill would require the State Chief Information Officer to submit a copy of those reviews and recommendations to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. (6) The Superior Court Law Enforcement Act of 2002 authorizes the presiding judge of each superior court to contract with a sheriff or marshal for the necessary level of law enforcement services in the courts. Existing law requires the sheriff or marshal and presiding judge of any county to develop a court security plan to be utilized by the court, as specified, and requires the Judicial Council to establish a process for its review of court security plans in the California Rules of Court. Existing law requires the superior court and the sheriff or marshal to enter into a memorandum of understanding specifying the agreed upon level of court security services and their cost and terms of payment, and requires the sheriff or marshal to provide specified information to the courts by April 30 of each year, with actual court security allocations subject to the approval of the Judicial Council. Existing law requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to use the actual salary and benefits costs approved for court law enforcement personnel as of June 30 of each year in determining the annual funding request for the courts that will be presented to the Department of Finance. This bill would provide that the cost of services specified in the memorandum of understanding shall be based on the estimated average cost of salary and benefits for equivalent personnel classifications in that county, not including overtime pay. In calculating the average cost of benefits, the bill would provide that only specified benefits may be included. The bill would require the Administrative Office of the Courts to use the average salary and benefits costs approved for court law enforcement personnel as of June 30 of each year in determining the annual funding request for the courts that will be presented to the Department of Finance. (7) Existing law permits limited use of electronic recording devices in court proceedings under certain circumstances, but prohibits a court from expending funds for electronic recording technology or equipment to make an unofficial record of an action or proceeding or to use that technology or equipment to make the official record of an action or proceeding in any circumstance that is not authorized. Existing law also requires each superior court to report semiannually to the Judicial Council, and the Judicial Council to report semiannually to the Legislature, regarding all purchases and leases of electronic recording equipment that will be used to record superior court proceedings. This bill would prohibit a court from expending funds for or using electronic recording technology or equipment to make an unofficial record of an action or proceeding, including for purposes of judicial notetaking, or to make the official record of an action or proceeding in any circumstance that is not authorized. The bill would authorize a court to use electronic recording equipment for the internal personnel purpose of monitoring judicial officer performance, if notice is provided to litigants that the proceeding may be recorded for that purpose, as specified. The bill would require a court, prior to purchasing or leasing any electronic recording technology or equipment, to obtain advance approval from the Judicial Council. (8) Existing law states the intent of the Legislature to establish a moratorium on increases in filing fees until January 1, 2012. This bill would provide that, due to the economic crisis facing California in the 2009–10 fiscal year, a first paper filing fee increase is included in conjunction with the Budget Act of 2009. This bill would increase those first paper filing fees by $5. (9) Existing law requires the Legislature to make an annual appropriation to the Judicial Council for the general operations of the trial courts based upon the request of the Judicial Council. Existing law requires the annual budget request to include, among other items, a cost-of-living and growth adjustment based on the year-to-year change in the state appropriations limit, and additional funding for the trial courts for costs resulting from the implementation of statutory changes that result in either an increased level of service or a new activity that directly affects the programmatic or operational needs of the courts. This bill would require the Judicial Council to report all approved allocations and reimbursements to the trial courts in each fiscal year, including funding received through augmentations for costs resulting from the implementation of statutory changes, as described above, to the chairs of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Budget and the Judiciary on or before September 30 following the close of each fiscal year. The bill would specify the information to be included in the report, and would require the Administrative Office of the Courts to summarize that information by court and report it to the chairs of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Budget and the Judiciary on or before November 1, 2009, and each November 1 thereafter. The bill would require the trial courts to report to the Judicial Council on or before September 15 of each year all court revenues, expenditures, reserves, and fund balances from the prior fiscal year, as specified, and would require the Judicial Council to summarize and report that information to the chairs of those committees, and to post that information on a public Internet Web site, on or before December 31 of each year. (10) Existing law imposes a fee of $20 upon every conviction for a criminal offense, other than parking offenses, for funding of court security. This bill would increase that court security fee to $30 until July 1, 2011. (11) Existing law authorizes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to contract with providers of emergency health care services. The department is prohibited from reimbursing a noncontracting hospital or provider of ambulance or other emergency or nonemergency response service at a rate that exceeds the reasonable and allowable costs of the hospital or other provider for those services. The department is required to work with the State Department of Health Services in order to establish the costs allowable under these provisions. This bill, instead, would authorize the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to contract with providers of health care services and health care network providers, subject to maximum reimbursement rates, except as specified. The bill would authorize the department to reimburse a noncontract provider of hospital or physician services, or ambulance or any other emergency or nonemergency response service, only at a rate equal to or less than the amount payable under the Medicare Fee Schedule. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to adopt regulations to implement these provisions, and to change the maximum reimbursement rates, as specified. (12) Existing law establishes the Youthful Offender Block Grant Program to enhance the capacity of county departments to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to youthful offenders. Existing law requires the Director of Finance to determine for each fiscal year the total amount of the Youthful Offender Block Grant pursuant to a specified formula and the allocation for each county, and to report those findings to the Controller to make an annual allocation to each county from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund. Existing law requires each county, on or before January 1, 2008, to prepare and submit to the Corrections Standards Authority for approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan for youthful offenders that includes a description of the programs, placements, services, or strategies to be funded by the block grant allocation. This bill instead would require the allocation amount for each county from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund to be allocated in four equal installments, to be paid in September, December, March, and June, pursuant to the existing formula. The bill would require each county, on or before May 1 of each year, to prepare and submit to the Corrections Standards Authority for approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan on its proposed expenditures for the next fiscal year of block grant funds that includes a description of the programs, placements, services, or strategies to be funded by the block grant allocation and other specified information. The bill would require each county receiving block grant funds, by October 1 of each year, to submit an annual report to the authority on its utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year. By increasing the duties of local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the Corrections Standards Authority to develop and provide a format for the Juvenile Justice Development Plan, and would authorize the authority to develop and provide a dual format for counties for the submission together of that plan and the county multiagency juvenile justice plan, as specified. The bill would require the authority to prepare and make available to the public on its Internet Web site summaries of the annual county reports on the utilization of block grant funds, and would require the authority, by March 15th of each year, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report summarizing county utilizations of block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year. (13) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (14) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on July 1, 2009. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on July 1, 2009, pursuant to the California Constitution. (15) 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. (16) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(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) 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. (3) 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. (4) 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 of 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. (5) 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. (6) Existing law requires state excise fuel tax revenues to be deposited in various accounts and to be allocated, in part, for various purposes, including the cost of collection and authorized refunds. Existing law requires the balance of these funds remaining after authorized deductions to be transferred to, and deposited monthly in, the Highway Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax Fund. Existing law provides for annual and monthly apportionment by the Controller of specified revenues in the Highway Users Tax Account to cities, counties, and cities and counties for the transportation purposes authorized by Article XIX of the California Constitution. This bill would require transfers of those revenues from the Highway Users Tax Account to counties or cities that would otherwise be made during certain months of 2009, to instead be deferred and made after January 1, 2010. (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 $703,000,000 with $81,500,000 of those appropriations and deferments representing the April apportionment and $81,500,000 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 $81,500,000 of the apportionments to community college districts for each of the months of April and May. (12) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on July 1, 2009. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on July 1, 2009, pursuant to the California Constitution. (13) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1) Existing law designates the Judicial Council as the entity having full responsibility, jurisdiction, control, and authority over trial court facilities for which title is held by the state, including the acquisition and development of facilities. Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to design, construct, or renovate prison housing units, prison support buildings, and programming space as specified. Existing law authorizes the Director of General Services, when authorized by the Legislature, to use the design-build procurement process for a specific project to contract and procure state office facilities, other buildings, structures, and related facilities. Existing law requires a bidder participating in the process to provide written declarations, subject to misdemeanor penalties. This bill would also authorize the Director of General Services or the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as appropriate, to use the design-build procurement process in contracting and procuring a state office facility or prison facility, and would authorize the Judicial Council to use that same process in contracting and procuring a court facility, but would limit this authorization to 5 total projects, to be approved by the Department of Finance, as specified. The bill would require the Department of General Services, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Judicial Council to submit to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, before January 1, 2014, a report containing a description of each public works project procured through the design-build process, as specified. The bill would require a bidder participating in the process to provide written declarations, subject to misdemeanor penalties, and would thereby impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law sets forth requirements for the solicitation and evaluation of bids and the awarding of contracts by public entities for the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement. Existing law also authorizes specified state agencies, cities, and counties to implement alternative procedures for the awarding of contracts on a design‑build basis. Existing law, until January 1, 2011, authorizes transit operators to enter into a design-build contract, as defined, according to specified procedures. This bill would, until January 1, 2014, allow certain state and local transportation entities, if authorized by the California Transportation Commission, to use a design‑build process for contracting on transportation projects, as specified. The bill would require a transportation entity to implement, or contract with a third-party to implement, a labor compliance program for design-build projects, except as specified. The bill would also require these transportation entities to report to the commission, and the commission to submit a mid-term and a final report to the Legislature, regarding the design-build process as specified. The bill would establish a procedure for submitting bids that includes a requirement that design-build entities provide a statement of qualifications submitted to the transportation entity that is verified under oath. Because a verification under oath is made under penalty of perjury, the bill would, by requiring a verification, create a new crime and thereby impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Under existing law, any work of grading, clearing, demolition, or construction undertaken by a redevelopment agency is required to be done by contract after competitive bidding if the cost of that work exceeds a specified amount. This bill would, until January 1, 2016, authorize a redevelopment agency, with the approval of its duly constituted board in a public hearing, to enter into design-build contracts for projects, as defined, in excess of $1,000,000, in accordance with specified provisions. This bill would authorize up to 10 design-build contracts, would require an agency to apply to the State Public Works Board for authorization to enter a design-build contract, as provided, and would require the State Public Works Board to notify the Legislative Analyst's Office when 10 projects have been approved. This bill would also require an agency using the design-build method to submit a report to the Legislative Analyst's Office, as provided, and for the Legislative Analyst to report to the Legislature before January 1, 2015, on the agency's use of the design-build method, as provided. This bill would require specified information to be verified under oath, thus imposing a state-mandated local program by expanding the scope of existing crime. (4) Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation and regional transportation agencies, as defined, until January 1, 2012, to enter into comprehensive development lease agreements with public and private entities, or consortia of those entities, for certain transportation projects that may charge certain users of those projects tolls and user fees, subject to various terms and requirements. Existing law limits the number of projects authorized pursuant to these provisions to 2 in northern California and 2 in southern California. This bill would extend the authorization for these agreements to January 1, 2017, and would delete the restriction on the number of projects that may be undertaken pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require the projects to be primarily designed to achieve improved mobility, improved operations or safety, and quantifiable air quality benefits. (5) Existing law requires that the negotiated lease agreements be submitted to the Legislature for approval or rejection. Under existing law, the Legislature has 60 legislative days to act after submittal of the agreement and the agreement is deemed approved unless both houses of the Legislature concur in the passage of a resolution rejecting the agreement. Existing law prohibits the Legislature from amending these lease agreements. The bill would eliminate that prohibition and the provision requiring approval or rejection by the Legislature. The bill would require that all lease agreements first be submitted to the California Transportation Commission for approval, then to the Legislature and the Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission, as defined, for review, as specified. The bill would also require the Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission to perform specified acts and would authorize that commission to charge the department and regional transportation agencies a fee for specified services. (6) Existing law authorizes the department and regional transportation agencies to utilize various procurement approaches, including, among other things, acceptance of unsolicited proposals, as specified. This bill would prohibit the department or a regional transportation agency from awarding a contract to an unsolicited bidder without receiving at least one other responsible bid. (7) Under existing law, for these projects, tolls and user fees may not be charged to noncommercial vehicles with 3 or fewer axles. This bill would eliminate that prohibition. (8) Existing law imposes various contract requirements for these projects, including permitting compensation for a leaseholder for losses in toll or fee revenues in certain instances if caused by the construction of supplemental transportation projects, but prohibits the compensation to exceed the reduction in revenues. This bill would prohibit that compensation from exceeding the difference between the reduction in revenues and the amount necessary to cover the costs of debt service, as specified. The bill would additionally require the agreements to include an indemnity agreement, as specified, and to authorize the contracting entity or lessee to utilize the design-build method of procurement for transportation projects, subject to specified conditions. The bill would also require contracting entities or lessees to have specified qualifications. The bill would authorize the department or the regional transportation agency, when evaluating a proposal submitted by a contracting entity or lessee, to award a contract on the basis of the lowest bid or best value, as defined. The bill would provide that the Department of Transportation is the responsible agency for the performance of certain tasks and the preparation of certain documents, relative to projects on the state highway system, where a regional transportation agency is otherwise the sponsor of the project. The bill would state that the department may perform those functions with department employees or with consultants contracted by the department. (9) 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 law gives to the State Air Resources Board the primary responsibility for the control of emissions from motor vehicles. The state board is required to administer the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program to provide grants to offset the incremental cost of projects that reduce covered emissions from covered sources. The state board is required to establish and update grant criteria and guidelines for covered vehicle projects. This bill would require an off-road project that involves farm equipment to be deemed to have a minimum project life of at least 10 years. The bill would authorize a grant to be awarded for those projects involving farm equipment regardless of the time period between the date the application for funding was submitted and the compliance date required by any local, state, or federal statute, regulation, rule, memorandum of agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other legal restriction or legally binding document that requires the change in equipment, vehicle, or operation involved in the project, provided the project is not funded after the date for compliance.