This measure would urge President Donald J. Trump to avoid raising the cost of living for American consumers by rescinding the tariffs that he has imposed since taking office in January 2025 and refunding the American people for the costs passed on to them by his tariffs. The measure would also urge the United States Congress to enact a joint resolution to rescind President Trump's tariffs and to oppose all future unilateral and arbitrary tariff increases imposed by President Trump.
Existing property tax law requires the auditor of each county with qualifying cities, as defined, to make certain property tax revenue allocations to those cities in accordance with an established Tax Equity Allocation formula. In any fiscal year in which a qualifying city is to receive a distribution under these provisions, existing law requires the auditor to reduce the actual amount distributed to the qualifying city by the sum of specified amounts, including any amount of property tax revenues that has been exchanged pursuant to specified law between the City of Rancho Mirage and a community services district. This bill would remove the above-described property tax revenues from the reductions to the actual amount distributed. By changing the duties on local officials to administer Tax Equity Allocation, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. By removing the above-described property tax revenues from the reductions to the actual amount distributed, this bill would change the pro rata shares in which ad valorem property tax revenues are allocated among local agencies in a county, within the meaning of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 25.5 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
The Planning and Zoning law requires each planning agency to prepare and the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city that includes specified elements, including a housing element. The law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to designate jurisdictions as prohousing, as specified. The law requires that jurisdictions that have adopted a housing element that has been found by the department to be in substantial compliance with specified requirements and that have been designated as prohousing based on their adoption of prohousing local policies, as defined, be awarded additional points or preference in the scoring of program applications for certain programs. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to designate a proposed enhanced infrastructure financing district to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits to the district or the surrounding community, including, among other things, the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of very low, low, and moderate income for rent or purchase, as specified. Existing law authorizes an infrastructure financing plan to contain a provision for the division of taxes levied upon taxable property in the area included within the district, and authorizes the public financing authority of the district to issue bonds, as provided. This bill would authorize a city or county that is designated as prohousing to establish a prohousing enhanced infrastructure financing district if certain requirements are met, as specified. The bill would prescribe requirements applicable to those districts. The bill would expand the definition of "prohousing local policies" for purposes of the above-described provisions to include the establishment of one of these districts, and would require that the jurisdiction that established, and projects located within, a district receive enhanced points or preference than the baseline provided to other prohousing jurisdictions.
The Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act, an initiative approved by the voters as Proposition 98 at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, amended the California Constitution to, among other things, set forth a formula for computing the minimum amount of revenues that the state is required to appropriate for the support of school districts and community college districts in any given fiscal year. The California Constitution creates the Public School System Stabilization Account in the General Fund and requires the Controller to transfer, pursuant to a schedule provided by the Director of Finance, a specified amount from the General Fund to the account in each fiscal year, except as provided. The California Constitution generally prohibits the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the state and each local government from exceeding the appropriations limit of the entity of government for the prior fiscal year, adjusted for the change in the cost of living and the change in population. The California Constitution defines "appropriations subject to limitation" for these purposes. Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula (LCFF) , as specified. Under existing law, school districts that do not receive an apportionment of state funds under the LCFF because their local revenues exceed the amount calculated pursuant to the LCFF are considered "basic aid school districts" or "excess tax entities." This measure would establish the Equalization Reserve Account in the General Fund. The measure would require the Controller, in any fiscal year in which there is an increase over the preceding fiscal year in the minimum amount of revenues the state is required to appropriate for the support of school districts and community college districts, to transfer from the General Fund to the Equalization Reserve Account an amount equal to the total amount transferred from the General Fund to the Public School System Stabilization Account in that fiscal year, as provided. The measure would require interest earned on funds in the Equalization Reserve Account to be deposited in the account and would require the Legislature, in each fiscal year, to allocate at least 80% of that interest to increase per-pupil funding in non-basic aid school districts. The measure would define non-basic aid school districts as school districts that received an apportionment of state funds under the LCFF in any of the preceding 3 fiscal years. The measure would authorize the Legislature to suspend the required transfers from the General Fund in any fiscal year in which average per-pupil funding in non-basic aid school districts equals or exceeds the average per-pupil funding in basic aid school districts. The measure would prohibit the allocation of funds transferred to the account from the General Fund. The measure would exclude funds transferred to or allocated from the account from computations of the minimum amount of revenues that the state is required to appropriate for the support of school districts and community college districts, from the moneys allocated for purposes of meeting that minimum funding obligation, and from the total annual state appropriations subject to the limitation described above.
This measure would urge President Donald J. Trump and Congress to protect and maintain the historic investments made possible by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
The electors of a county may propose an ordinance to the county board of supervisors by submitting an initiative petition containing signatures by registered voters in the county in an amount equal to 10% of the number of votes cast within the county for all candidates for Governor at the preceding gubernatorial election. If the county elections official certifies that an initiative petition has been signed by at least that number of voters, the county board of supervisors is required to either adopt the ordinance or submit it to the voters at the next statewide election occurring not less than 88 days later. This bill would require any Fresno County initiative petition that has been certified as sufficient by the Fresno County Registrar of Voters on or before July 8, 2026, to be submitted, without alteration, to the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Fresno. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides for the establishment of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, with specified powers and duties related to the operation of public transit services serving the County of Santa Cruz. Existing law, among other things, authorizes the board of directors of the district to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law by an ordinance approved by the electors voting on the measure at a special election called by the board of directors for that purpose. This bill would also authorize those special taxes to be imposed by a qualified voter initiative. The bill would require the special election for a tax measure proposed by the board of directors or a qualified voter initiative to be consolidated with a statewide general election by the board of supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz and would require the tax measure to be submitted to the voters in accordance with specified elections provisions. The bill would also require the county elections official for the County of Santa Cruz to serve as the elections official of the district for purposes of administering the ballot measure process and any election for purposes of specified provisions of law. To the extent that the bill would impose additional duties on a county elections official, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws, including numerous motion picture credits. Existing law, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, allows a motion picture credit (motion picture credit 4.0) to be allocated by the California Film Commission on or after July 1, 2025, and before July 1, 2030, in an amount equal to 20% or 25% of qualified expenditures for the production of a qualified motion picture in this state, and limits the aggregate amount of the credit that may be allocated for a fiscal year to $330,000,000, as specified. Existing law requires the California Film Commission to certify a credit amount equal to 96 percent of the total credit allocated to a qualified taxpayer, unless the qualified taxpayer chooses to submit a diversity workplan and the California Film Commission determines that the qualified taxpayer has met or made a good-faith effort to meet the diversity goals in its diversity workplan, as specified. This bill, for motion picture credit 4.0, if a qualified taxpayer chooses to submit a diversity workplan, would remove the good faith effort standard, and instead would require the California Film Commission to determine whether the qualified taxpayer met the diversity goals in its diversity workplan, as provided. The bill would also correct erroneous cross-references in those provisions. Existing law also allows a credit for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2032, in an amount equal to 20% or 25%, or as modified, of qualified expenditures paid or incurred during the taxable year by a qualified motion picture produced in this state at a certified studio construction project. Existing law defines a qualified motion picture for these purposes in the same manner as the motion picture credit and additionally requires that the qualified motion picture provide a diversity workplan that is approved by the commission. Existing law requires the California Film Commission to increase a qualified motion picture applicant's credit percentage by 4 percentage points if the applicant has met or made a good faith effort to meet the diversity goals in its diversity workplan. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, would remove the good faith effort standard, and instead would allow the California Film Commission to increase a qualified motion picture applicant's credit percentage by 4 percentage points if the applicant has met the diversity goals in its diversity workplan. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law prescribes the procedures by which a proposed ordinance may be submitted to the governing board of a district by an initiative measure. These procedures do not apply to specified districts, including a district formed under a law that does not provide a procedure for elections. This bill would authorize the voters of any district that has authority to impose a transactions and use tax for transportation purposes to impose a retail transactions and use tax by an initiative measure. The bill would prohibit the initiative tax from exceeding the maximum authorized rate for a tax imposed by an ordinance enacted by the governing body of the district, and the bill would require the initiative measure to contain all spending limitations and substantive accountability standards applicable to a tax imposed by an ordinance enacted by the governing body. To the extent the bill would increase the duties of county elections officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, until January 1, 2031, authorizes the State Air Resources Board to adopt a regulation establishing a system of market-based declining aggregate emissions limits for sources or categories of sources that emit greenhouse gases (market-based compliance mechanism) that meets certain requirements. Existing law establishes the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the state board from the auction or sales of allowances as a part of a market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited into the fund and requires the Legislature to appropriate moneys in the fund for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the state, as provided. Existing law, the California Climate Crisis Act, declares that it is the policy of the state both to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net-negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85% below the 1990 levels. This bill would enact the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 and would establish the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Program to be administered by the California Environmental Protection Agency to require fossil fuel polluters to pay their fair share of the damage caused by greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere during the covered period, which the bill would define as the time period between the 1990 and 2024 calendar years, inclusive, resulting from the extraction, production, refining, sale, or combustion of fossil fuels or petroleum products, to relieve a portion of the burden to address cost borne by current and future California taxpayers. The bill would require the agency, within 90 days of the effective date of the act, to determine and publish a list of responsible parties, which the bill would define as an entity with a majority ownership interest in a business engaged in extracting or refining fossil fuels that, during the covered period, did business in the state or otherwise had sufficient contact with the state, and is determined by the agency to be responsible for more than 1,000,000,000 metric tons of covered fossil fuel emissions, as defined, in aggregate globally, during the covered period. This bill would require the agency, within one year of the effective date of the act, to conduct and complete a climate cost study to, among other things, quantify the total damage amount, which the bill would define as all past and future climate harms and damages to the state from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2045, inclusive. The bill would require the agency to update the climate cost study, not less frequently than every 5 years, through January 1, 2045, as provided. The bill would require the agency, within 60 days of the completion of the climate cost study, to determine and assess, as provided, a cost recovery demand for each responsible party listed, which represents the responsible party's proportionate share of the total damage amount. The bill would require responsible parties to pay their cost recovery demand, as provided. The bill would require the collected cost recovery demands to be deposited in the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund, which the bill would create in the State Treasury. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require moneys in the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund be expended for, among other things, qualifying expenditures, which the bill would define to include expenditures for projects and programs to mitigate, adapt, or respond to the damages and costs caused to the state from climate change. The bill would require the agency to determine the initial implementation costs for the act, as provided, and would require the agency to assess an amount allocated equitably among responsible parties to cover those costs. This bill would require the Director of Finance, within 45 days of the effective date of the act, to perform an initial assessment of the reasonable and appropriate initial implementation costs that will be incurred by the agency. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
