The Personal Income Tax Law, in modified conformity with federal income tax law, excludes from the gross income distributions to a beneficiary of, and earnings by a contributor to, a qualified tuition program, which includes a Golden State Scholarshare College Savings Trust, if specified conditions are met. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2028, would allow under that law a deduction against gross income in the amount equal to the monetary contribution made by a qualified taxpayer, as defined, to the California qualified tuition program established pursuant to the Golden State Scholarshare Trust Act, not to exceed $5,000 per beneficiary per taxable year. The bill would require, with exceptions, in the case of any distribution in excess of qualified higher education expenses, as defined, that the aggregate amount of the deduction allowed that reduced the qualified taxpayer's gross income in any taxable year be added to the gross income of the qualified taxpayer in the taxable year of the distribution, as provided. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax deduction to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax deduction will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. The bill would make specified findings detailing the goals, purposes, and objectives of the above-described tax deduction, performance indicators for determining whether the deduction meets those goals, purposes, and objectives, and data collection requirements. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area, including the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Under existing law, the Bay Area Toll Authority is responsible for the administration of the toll revenues from the state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to collect tolls, operate, maintain, and provide rehabilitation of the state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area and to be responsible for the design and construction of improvements on those bridges in accordance with programming and scheduling requirements adopted by the Bay Area Toll Authority. This bill would require the department and the authority, if they develop a project to open the 3rd lane on the westbound level of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to motor vehicle traffic, to consider operating the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in a specified manner.
The Emergency Services Act establishes in state government, within the office of the Governor, the Office of Emergency Services and makes the office responsible for the state's emergency and disaster response services for natural, technological, or man-made disasters and emergencies, as specified. This bill would enact the Emergency Fairgrounds Communications Grant Act and would require, on or before January 1, 2025, the office to establish a grant program to provide fairgrounds with grant funding for the purpose of building and upgrading communication and internet infrastructure on fairgrounds. The bill would require the office to establish standards to determine the awarding of grant funding that award funding based on a fairground's need for internet capabilities in order to service an emergency response operation. The bill would authorize the office to prioritize the order of grant disbursements based on prescribed criteria. The bill would also require the office to consult with the Department of Technology and the Department of Food and Agriculture to coordinate the statewide building and upgrading of communication and internet infrastructure on fairgrounds. The bill would provide that the program is operative only upon an appropriation by the Legislature for its purposes.
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law requires the department to establish the Medically Tailored Meals Pilot Program and the Short-Term Medically Tailored Meals Intervention Services Program, to operate in specified counties and during limited periods for the purpose of providing medically tailored meal intervention services to eligible Medi-Cal beneficiaries with certain health conditions, including congestive heart failure, cancer, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or renal disease. Existing law, subject to implementation of the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) initiative, authorizes a Medi-Cal managed care plan to elect to cover community supports approved by the department as cost effective and medically appropriate in a comprehensive risk contract that are in lieu of applicable Medi-Cal state plan services. Under existing law, community supports that the department is authorized to approve include, among other things, medically supportive food and nutrition services, including medically tailored meals. This bill would make medically supportive food and nutrition interventions, as defined, a covered benefit under the Medi-Cal program, upon issuance of final guidance by the department. The bill would require medically supportive food and nutrition interventions to be covered when determined to be medically necessary by a health care provider or health care plan, as specified. In order to qualify for coverage under the Medi-Cal program, the bill would require a patient to be offered at least 3 of 6 specified medically supportive food and nutrition interventions and for the interventions to be provided for a minimum duration of 12 weeks, as specified. The bill would only provide coverage for nutrition support interventions when paired with the provision of food through one of the 3 offered interventions. The bill would require a health care provider to match the acuity of a patient's condition to the intensity and duration of the medically supportive food and nutrition intervention and include culturally appropriate foods whenever possible. The bill would establish a medically supportive food and nutrition benefit advisory workgroup to advise the department in developing final guidance related to eligible populations, the duration and dosage of medically supportive food and nutrition interventions, the ratesetting process, determination of permitted providers, and continuing education for health care providers, as specified. The bill would require the workgroup to include certain stakeholders knowledgeable in medically supportive food and nutrition interventions and stakeholders from Medi-Cal consumer advocacy organizations. The bill would require the workgroup to meet at least quarterly and would require the department to issue final guidance on or before July 1, 2026. The bill would also include findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the need for medically supportive food and nutrition intervention coverage under the Medi-Cal program.
The Personal Income Tax Law allows various credits against the taxes imposed by that law. This bill would allow a credit against those taxes for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2029, to a qualified taxpayer, as defined, in an amount equal to 40% of the taxpayer's qualified expenses, as defined, not to exceed $400 per taxable year, or $2,000 cumulatively. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax credit to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax credit will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. The bill would also include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing 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. Those laws provide various exemptions from those taxes. This bill, beginning January 1, 2024, and until January 1, 2029, would exempt from those taxes the gross receipts from the sale in this state of, and the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, zero-emission public transportation ferries, as defined, sold to a public agency, as specified. Existing law requires a bill that would authorize a new tax expenditure under the Sales and Use Tax Law to identify specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax expenditure will achieve, and detailed performance indicators and data collection requirements for determining whether the tax expenditure achieves these goals, purposes, and objectives. The bill would provide findings and declarations relating to the goals of the exemption for zero-emission public transportation ferries. Existing law imposes or dedicates certain state sales and use tax rates for local funding, including through the Local Revenue Fund 2011. This bill would specify that this exemption does not apply to those state sales and use tax rates imposed or dedicated for local government funding, including those rates for which revenues are deposited into the Local Revenue Fund 2011. 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. This bill would specify that this exemption does not apply to local sales and use taxes or transactions and use taxes. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including residential property insurance. The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 103, as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, prohibits specified insurance rates from being approved or remaining in effect that are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the act. In considering whether a rate is excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory, existing law requires the Insurance Commissioner to consider whether the rate mathematically reflects the insurance company's investment income. Existing law authorizes the provisions of Proposition 103 to be amended by a statute that furthers the purposes of the act and is enacted by the Legislature with a 23 vote. For insureds 65 years of age or older, this bill would limit an increase in their yearly premium for a policy of residential property insurance by no more than 25 percent for insured property located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone, as identified by the State Fire Marshal, as specified, and allow only one premium increase in a 5-year period. The bill would allow the increased premium to be paid over a 3-year period as part of the insured's residential property insurance premium payments. Because the bill would limit the commissioner's discretion to approve a rate increase, the bill would amend Proposition 103 and thus require a 23 vote. The bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes of the act. Existing law prohibits an insurer from canceling or refusing to renew a policy of residential property insurance for a property located in a ZIP Code within or adjacent to a fire perimeter for one year after the declaration of a state of emergency if the cancellation or nonrenewal is based solely on the fact that the insured structure is located in an area in which a wildfire has occurred. This bill would additionally prohibit an insurer from canceling or refusing to renew a policy of residential property insurance based solely on the fact that the insured property is located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone, as identified by the State Fire Marshal, if the insured is 65 years of age or older.
(1) Existing law prohibits a person subject to a protective order, as defined, from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition while that protective order is in effect. Existing law makes a violation of that prohibition with regard to purchasing or receiving a firearm or ammunition punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or 2 or 3 years, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine. Existing law makes a violation of that prohibition with regard to owning or possessing a firearm or ammunition punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine. After notice and hearing, this bill would, for protective orders, as specified, issued on or after July 1, 2024, prohibit a person subject to the protective order from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition within 3 years after the expiration of the order and make a violation of these provision a crime. The bill would require a court, if they find that the person willfully violated that prohibition within 3 years after the expiration of the order, to impose the maximum fine allowed under existing law. (2) Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon various grounds, including when the property or things to be seized include a firearm, if the prohibited firearm is possessed, owned, in the custody of, or controlled by a person against whom a specified protective order has been issued, and the person is served with the order and fails to relinquish the firearm as required by law. This bill would expand the grounds for the search warrant to include a person who is subject to any civil or criminal protective order that includes a prohibition on owning, possessing, or having custody or control of a firearm. (3) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to provide notice on all protective orders issued within the state and requires a restraining order requiring a person to relinquish a firearm or ammunition to state on its face that the respondent is prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition while the protective order is in effect. This bill would require the Judicial Council to also include a statement in the notice that the firearm and ammunition prohibition extends for 3 years after the expiration of the protective order that is issued on or after July 1, 2024. The bill would require a restraining order to include a similar statement. By creating new crimes, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 establishes a procedure for the Public Utilities Commission to issue state franchises for the provision of video service, defined as video programming services, cable service, or open-video system service, except any video programming provided by a commercial mobile service provider, as defined in federal law, or video programming provided as part of, and via, a service that enables users to access content, information, email, or other services offered over the public internet. The act provides that the holder of a state franchise is not a public utility as a result of providing video services and that the act does not authorize the commission to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of video service, except as explicitly set forth in the act. The act establishes a state franchise fee to be remitted to a local entity based on the franchiseholder's gross revenues, as defined, derived from the provision of cable or video service within that jurisdiction. The act prohibits a cable operator or video service provider that has been granted a state franchise from discriminating against, or denying access to service to, any group of potential residential subscribers because of the income of the residents in the local area in which the group resides, as specified. The act limits the maximum amount of a penalty that a local entity is authorized to assess on a holder of a state franchise for a material breach of certain customer service and consumer protection standards, as specified. This bill would revise and recast the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 to, among other things, rename the act as the Digital Equity in Video Franchising Act of 2023, require the commission to conduct any hearings and issue a state franchise or a reject each application for a state franchise not more than 120 days after the commission has deemed the application complete, and extend deadlines related to the commission's review of applications for state franchises. This bill would establish a policy of the state that subscribers and potential subscribers of a state video franchiseholder should benefit from equal access, as defined, to video service within the franchise service area, and expand the prohibition on certain cable operators or video service providers from discriminating against, or denying access to service to, any group of potential residential subscribers to include denial of equal access, as specified. The bill would require the commission to enforce customer service requirements for a holder of a state franchise and would increase the maximum amount of a penalty that a local entity is authorized to assess on a holder of a state franchise for a material breach of certain customer service and consumer protection standards, as specified. Under existing law, a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because a violation of a commission action implementing this bill's requirements would be a crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, governs relocations, terminations, and mass layoffs. Existing law prohibits an employer from ordering a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives prescribed written notice of the order to specified entities, including the local workforce investment board and the chief elected official of each city and county government within which the termination, relocation, or mass layoff occurs. Existing law exempts certain types of employment from the act, including seasonal employment where the employees were hired with the understanding that their employment was seasonal and temporary (seasonal employment exemption) . Existing law makes an employer who fails to give notice as required liable to each employee entitled to notice who lost their employment for prescribed compensation, calculated for the period of the employer's violation, up to a maximum of 60 days, or 12 the number of days that the employee was employed by the employer, whichever period is smaller. Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to enforce specified provisions of existing law, as prescribed. Existing law defines terms for its purposes, including definitions for the terms "employer" and "employee." Existing law defines "mass layoff" for purposes of the act to mean a layoff during any 30-day period of 50 or more employees at a covered establishment, and defines "covered establishment" as an industrial or commercial facility that employs, or has employed within the preceding 12 months, 75 or more persons. This bill would require the prescribed notice 75 days before the order takes effect, and would make a conforming change to the calculation of employer liability. The bill would modify the requirement for notice to the local workforce investment board and the chief elected official of each city and county government within which the termination, relocation, or mass layoff occurs to apply only to a termination, relocation, or mass layoff that impacts 50 or more employees at a single location. The bill would require a labor contractor to remit to the employee the payment provided to the client employer in the full amount calculated, as specified, for a violation of the notice requirement, and would define a "labor contractor" for purposes of the act. This bill would additionally require for the application of the seasonal employment exemption that the season be complete. The bill would also exempt from the act employees who are employed by a labor contractor to fulfill the needs of a temporary project with a defined end date and are laid off because of the completion of the temporary employment contract, as specified. This bill would include within the term "employer" a client employer of a labor contractor. The bill would include within the term "employee" a person employed by a labor contractor and performing labor with the client employer for at least 6 months of the 12 months and for at least 60 hours preceding the date on which notice is required. The bill would revise the definition of "covered establishment" to instead mean a place of employment that employs, or has employed within the preceding 12 months, 75 or more persons, and would specify that a "covered establishment" may be a single location or a group of locations, as specified. The bill would revise the definition of "mass layoff" to also include employees reporting to a covered establishment. This bill would prohibit an employer from utilizing compliance with the act in connection with a severance agreement and waiver of an employee's right to claims. The bill would provide that any general release, waiver of claims, or nondisparagement or nondisclosure agreement that is made a condition of the payment of amounts for which the employer is liable is void as a matter of law and against public policy. The bill would prohibit an employer who is required to give notice from offering an employee a separate agreement that includes a general release, waiver of claims, or nondisparagement or nondisclosure agreement, unless the agreement is offered in exchange for reasonable consideration that is in addition to anything of value to which the individual already is entitled and includes a statement to this effect, as specified. The bill would provide that any agreement in violation of this prohibition is void as a matter of law and against public policy, and would make an employer who violates this provision subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation.