Existing law prescribes various requirements regarding the formation, content, and enforcement of state and local public contracts. Existing law establishes, until January 1, 2027, for contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017, a claim resolution process applicable to any claim by a contractor in connection with a public works project against a public entity, as specified. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "public entity" to include, among others, a city, including a charter city, and county, including a charter county. Existing law imposes various requirements on a public entity in relating to the claim resolution process, including, among other things, conducting a reasonable review of the claim and, within 45 days, providing the claimant a written statement identifying the disputed and undisputed portions of the claim. This bill would repeal the above-described January 1, 2027, repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely. By indefinitely extending the duties of local agencies in relation to the above-specified claim resolution process, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. 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 creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as a local area planning agency for the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law establishes the Public Transit Revenue Measure District, governed by the same board that governs the commission, with jurisdiction extending throughout the boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, and the City and County of San Francisco. Existing law authorizes a retail transactions and use tax applicable to the entire district to be imposed by the board of the district or by a qualified voter initiative for a duration of 14 years, and in specified amounts, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. Existing law establishes specified procedures for that election, including a requirement that the elections officials of the counties where the measure will appear on the ballot mutually agree to use the same letter designation for the measure. This bill would revise those election procedures by, among other things, instead requiring the measure to be identified on the ballot by the designation "Regional Transit Measure" in each county included in the district and by requiring each county elections official in the district to select, from among the submissions of proposed arguments in favor of, and against, the measure, the arguments to be included in the county voter information guide of that county, as specified. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing state sales and use tax laws impose a tax 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. Existing law defines "sale" and "purchase" for these purposes and provides certain exclusions from those definitions. Existing law, until January 1, 2027, excludes the transfer of vested property by a pawnbroker to a person who pledged the property to the pawnbroker as security for a loan, if specified requirements are met, from the definition of "sale" and "purchase," thus excluding that transfer from imposition of sales and use tax. This bill would extend the exclusion of the transfer of vested property by a pawnbroker to the person who pledged it, as described above, until January 1, 2032. Existing law requires a bill authorizing a sales and use tax exemption 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 include that additional information required for the above sales and use tax exclusion. The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law, and existing laws authorize districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, which generally conforms to the Sales and Use Tax Law. Amendments to the Sales and Use Tax Law are automatically incorporated into the local tax laws. Existing law requires the state to reimburse counties and cities for revenue losses caused by the enactment of sales and use tax exemptions. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse any local agencies for sales and use tax revenues lost by them pursuant to this bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law, the Local Agency Public Construction Act, sets forth procedures that a local agency is required to follow when procuring certain services or work. Existing law authorizes certain local agencies to engage in job order contracting, as prescribed. This bill would establish a pilot program to authorize a city to use job order contracting as a procurement method. The bill would impose a $3,000,000 cap on awards under a single job order contract and a $750,000 cap on any single job order. The bill would limit the term of an initial contract to a maximum of 12 months, with extensions as prescribed. The bill would establish various additional procedures and requirements for the use of job order contracting under this authorization. The bill would require the city, on or before January 1, 2030, to submit to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature a report on the use of job order contracting under the bill. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2032.
Existing law establishes the California College Promise, under the administration of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, to provide funding, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to each community college meeting prescribed requirements. Existing law authorizes a community college to use that funding to waive some or all of the fees for 2 academic years for first-time community college students and returning community college students, as defined, who are enrolled in 12 or more semester units or the equivalent, or less for students certified as "full time," as specified, and who complete and submit either a Free Application for Federal Student Aid or a California Dream Act application, except that a student who has previously earned a degree or certificate from a postsecondary educational institution is not eligible for this fee waiver. This bill would prohibit a certificate awarded to a student by a postsecondary educational institution as part of a course sequence leading to an associate degree from making the student ineligible for that fee waiver.
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.
(1) The California Constitution establishes the Budget Stabilization Account and requires the Controller to transfer from the General Fund to the account, no later than October 1 of each fiscal year, a sum equal to 1.5% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for that fiscal year. The Department of Finance is required to report specified information to the Legislature, including (A) an estimate of the amount of General Fund proceeds of taxes that may be appropriated for that fiscal year, (B) an estimate of the portion of that amount that is derived from personal income taxes paid on net capital gains, and (C) the portion of the estimate in (B) that exceeds 8% of the estimate made in (A) . Notwithstanding the requirement for the Controller to transfer 1.5% of General Fund revenues for each fiscal year to the account, for the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2029–30 fiscal year, inclusive, the California Constitution instead requires 50% of that amount and 50% of the amount described in (C) to be transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account. The California Constitution requires the remaining 50% to be appropriated for unfunded liabilities and other specified purposes. Commencing with the 2027–28 fiscal year, this measure would require the Department of Finance to report the sum of the portion of the estimate in (B) that exceeds 8%, but does not exceed 10%, of the estimate in (A) and 150% of the estimate in (B) that exceeds 10% of the estimate in (A) . The measure would require 50% of that sum and 50% of the amount equal to 1.5% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the fiscal year to be transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account each fiscal year until the 2039–40 fiscal year, and it would require the remaining 50% to be appropriated for unfunded liabilities and other specified purposes. The measure would add repayment of federal loans relating to unemployment insurance to the purposes for which the remaining 50% may be appropriated. The California Constitution limits the amount that is required to be transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account for any fiscal year from exceeding an amount that would result in a balance in the account that, when the transfer is made, exceeds 10% of the estimated amount of the General Fund proceeds of taxes for the fiscal year, as specified. This measure would increase that limit to 20% of the estimated amount of the General Fund proceeds of taxes for the fiscal year. (2) The California Constitution creates the Public School System Stabilization Account in the General Fund and requires the Controller to transfer specified amounts from the General Fund to the account. Upon a proclamation by the Governor declaring a budget emergency, the Legislature may suspend or reduce transfers to the Budget Stabilization Account or Public School System Stabilization Account, return funds in the Budget Stabilization Account to the General Fund, and appropriate funds in the Public School System Stabilization Account for the support of school districts and community college districts. The California Constitution defines "budget emergency" for these purposes to mean (A) the existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril, as declared by the Governor, or (B) a determination by the Governor that estimated resources are inadequate to fund General Fund expenditures for the current or ensuing fiscal year at a level equal to the highest amount of total General Fund expenditures estimated at the time of enactment of any of the three most recent Budget Acts. The California Constitution requires the Governor, within the first 10 days of each calendar year, to submit to the Legislature a proposed budget for the fiscal year commencing on July 1 of that calendar year. Under existing statutory law, the Director of Finance is required to submit a revised budget proposal to the Legislature on or before May 14. Under this measure, the revised budget proposal submitted on or before May 14, or any other budgetary revision required to be submitted to the Legislature, would constitute the Governor's proclamation of a budget emergency if the above-described conditions for a budget emergency exist, and if the budgetary revision proposes to suspend or reduce transfers from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Account or Public School System Stabilization Account, return funds in the Budget Stabilization Account to the General Fund, or appropriate money from the Public School System Stabilization Account. (3) The California Constitution prohibits the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the State and of each local government from exceeding the appropriations limit of the entity of government for the prior year, adjusted for the change in the cost of living and the change in population. The California Constitution defines "appropriations subject to limitation" of the State for these purposes. This measure would exclude both of the following from the appropriations subject to limitation of the State commencing with the 2027–28 fiscal year: (A) transfers to the Budget Stabilization Account; and (B) transfers to a General Fund reserve account established by the Legislature known as the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, provided that the amount not subject to limitation may not exceed 10% of the amount of General Fund proceeds of taxes for the applicable fiscal year. Funds withdrawn, transferred, or appropriated from those reserve accounts, if they were not counted previously as appropriations subject to limitation of the State when deposited, would constitute appropriations subject to limitation of the State in the fiscal year in which the withdrawal, transfer, or appropriation occurs.
Under existing law, there are programs providing assistance for, among other things, emergency housing, multifamily housing, farmworker housing, home ownership for very low and low-income households, and downpayment assistance for first-time home buyers. Existing law also authorizes the issuance of bonds in specified amounts pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law and requires that proceeds from the sale of these bonds be used to finance various existing housing programs, capital outlay related to infill development, brownfield cleanup that promotes infill development, and housing-related parks. Existing law, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, authorized, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,000,000,000 to finance various existing housing programs, as well as infill infrastructure financing and affordable housing matching grant programs, as well as financing for a specified program for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. This bill would enact the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, which, if adopted, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $11,250,000,000, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. Of the proceeds from the sale of these bonds, $10,000,000,000 would be used to finance programs to fund affordable rental housing and home ownership programs, including, among others, the Multifamily Housing Program, the CalHome Program, and the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, and $1,250,000,000 would be used to provide additional funding for the above-described program for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans, as provided. This bill would provide for submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, in accordance with specified law. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law provides that in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages, except as provided, is the amount that will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not. This bill, with respect to a civil case, claim, action, or arbitration against a network company, its subsidiary, or an app-based driver, as defined, arising from an automobile accident, would, except as specified, prohibit the maximum recovery of a plaintiff for damages for any medical expense for services rendered by a lien-based provider, as defined, from exceeding the 70th percentile of FAIR Health, Inc.'s billed charges, or the 70th percentile of a comparable commercially recognized billed charges database for the same or similar service in the applicable geographic area at the time the service was rendered. The bill would prohibit certain evidence from being introduced that exceeds the recoverable amount. This bill would provide that if a medical lien, as defined, receivable, or right to payment has been sold or otherwise transferred, the maximum recoverable medical expense damages shall not exceed the total consideration paid or payable in connection with the transaction to acquire the lien, receivable, or right to payment, as provided. The bill would require any agreement relating to the sale or transfer of a medical lien, receivable, or right to payment, and the consideration paid or payable therefor, to be discoverable, and would prohibit an undisclosed lien sale or transfer from being asserted against a defendant, insurer, settlement, judgment, or settlement proceeds. The bill would also require certain medical lien financial relationships and attorney referral information to be discoverable. This bill would make it unlawful for an attorney representing a plaintiff under a contingency fee agreement in a civil claim, action, or arbitration, as described above, to refer a client to a health care provider in which the attorney or a member of the attorney's immediate family has a direct ownership interest. The bill would also make it unlawful for an attorney to fee split or receive other specified compensation in connection with the furnishing of lien-based provider medical treatment for a plaintiff and would make it unlawful for an attorney or law firm to provide specified compensation for referrals of clients to lien-based providers for lien-based treatment. The bill would also make other actions related to the reduction of a medical lien unlawful, as specified. This bill would provide that these provisions are severable. (2) The Passenger Charter-party Carriers' Act defines a transportation network company as an organization, whether a corporation, partnership, sole proprietor, or other form, operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled platform to connect passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle. Existing law requires a transportation network company to conduct, or have a third party conduct, a local and national criminal background check for each participating driver, as specified, and prohibits a transportation network company from contracting with, employing, or retaining a driver if the driver, among other things, is currently registered on the United States Department of Justice National Sex Offender Public website, has been convicted of any of certain terrorism-related or human trafficking felonies or a violent felony or, within the previous 7 years, has been convicted of any misdemeanor assault or battery, any domestic violence offense, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or any of a specified list of felonies. A violation of the act is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both a fine and imprisonment. This bill would additionally prohibit a transportation network company from contracting with, employing, or retaining a driver if the driver has been convicted of specified offenses or, within the previous 7 years, has been convicted of other specified offenses, including driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug. The bill would require the background check to be performed prior to the activation of a driver's account and once annually thereafter, as provided. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to full and equal accommodations in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever, regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. This bill would provide that notwithstanding that act, a transportation network company or charter-party carrier of passengers, as defined, may allow a woman passenger on its online-enabled application or platform or a participating woman driver to indicate a preference to be matched with a woman driver or woman passenger, respectively, and facilitate passenger-driver matches based on such preferences. The bill would make these provisions apply retroactively, as provided. (4) 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, the Documentary Transfer Tax Act, authorizes the imposition of a tax by a county or city and county, as provided, with respect to specified instruments that transfer specified interests in real property. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a local jurisdiction, defined to include a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, from collecting a transfer tax, as defined, levied on the sale or transfer of a real property interest conveyed if the combined transfer tax rate levied by the local jurisdiction exceeds 1.5% of the consideration paid for or value of the real property interest conveyed, except as otherwise provided. The bill would also prohibit a local jurisdiction from levying a transfer tax on the first sale of single-family housing property occurring within 5 years of one or more housing units on the real property being destroyed or made uninhabitable by a natural disaster, as defined. By imposing new duties upon local officials with respect to transfer taxes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. 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.
