Existing federal law establishes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) , known in California as CalFresh, under which supplemental nutrition assistance benefits allocated to the state by the federal government are distributed to eligible individuals by each county. Existing federal law limits a participant who is an able-bodied adult without dependents (ABAWD) to 3 months of CalFresh benefits in a 3-year period unless that participant has met work participation requirements or is otherwise exempt. Existing federal law authorizes a waiver of that time limit upon the request of a state if it is determined that the area in which the individuals reside has an unemployment rate of over 10% or does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide employment for the individuals. Existing state law requires the State Department of Social Services, to the extent permitted by federal law, to annually seek a federal waiver of the time limit. Existing federal law also authorizes a state to provide, in each fiscal year, a discretionary exemption from the 3-month time limit for covered individuals, to the extent that the average monthly number of exemptions in effect during a fiscal year does not exceed 12% of the number of covered individuals in the state. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to establish the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) , and, operative on the date that the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) has been updated to perform the necessary automation, requires the department to use state funds appropriated for the program to provide nutritional benefits to households and to individuals 55 years of age or older, as specified, that are ineligible for CalFresh benefits solely due to their immigration status. This bill would require the department, with appropriated state funds, to establish the California Antihunger Response (CARE) to provide food assistance benefits to a person who has been determined ineligible for CalFresh benefits, or for whom CalFresh benefits have been discontinued as a result of the ABAWD time limit, and who also is ineligible for the discretionary exemption described above. The bill would require the person to receive CARE benefits in the same amount that they would have received under the CalFresh program if the ABAWD time limit did not make them ineligible. The bill would require the issuance of CARE benefits through the state-administered and state-funded electronic benefits transfer system, as specified. Under the bill, the CARE benefit would only be available during a period of time in which a statewide time limit waiver is not granted by the federal government, and in that case, the CARE benefit would only be applicable in those areas that are not granted an area time limit waiver by the federal government. The bill would require the CARE benefit to be operable one year after the above-mentioned CFAP provisions become operative. The bill would require the department to develop, in consultation with specified entities, and to issue, guidance to maximize the use of discretionary exemptions from the 3-month time limit available under federal law and guidance relating to SNAP and CalFresh. The bill would authorize the guidance to include redistribution of the discretionary exemptions between counties, as specified. The bill would require the guidance to be issued no later than April 1, 2023, and to remain operative until the CARE benefit is operative, by which date the bill would require the department to issue new guidance to maximize the use of discretionary exemptions available under federal law, as well as the CARE benefit. To the extent that the bill would expand eligibility for county-administered benefits through the establishment of the CARE program, 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing sales and use tax laws impose taxes 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. The Sales and Use Tax Law provides various exemptions from those taxes, including a partial exemption from those taxes, on and after July 1, 2014, and before July 1, 2030, for the gross receipts from the sale of, and the storage, use, or other consumption of, qualified tangible personal property purchased by a qualified person for purchases not exceeding $200,000,000, for use primarily in manufacturing, processing, refining, fabricating, or recycling of tangible personal property, as specified; qualified tangible personal property purchased for use by a qualified person to be used primarily in research and development, as provided; qualified tangible personal property purchased for use by a qualified person to be used primarily to maintain, repair, measure, or test any qualified tangible personal property, as provided; and qualified tangible personal property purchased by a contractor purchasing that property for use in the performance of a construction contract for the qualified person, that will use that property as an integral part of specified processes. Existing law, on and after January 1, 2018, and before July 1, 2030, additionally exempts from those taxes the sale of, and the storage, use, or other consumption of, qualified tangible personal property purchased for use by a qualified person to be used primarily in the generation or production, as defined, or storage and distribution, as defined, of electric power. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2028, make this a full exemption for purchases not exceeding $200,000,000. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2028, and would revert to the above-described partial exemption on that date. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure 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 require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to submit a report to the Legislature on the exemption and would provide findings and declarations relating to the goals of the exemption. 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.
(1) Existing law, the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Demonstration Project Act of 2002, known as Laura's Law, requires each county to offer specified mental health programs, unless a county or group of counties opts out by a resolution passed by the governing body, as specified. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for short-term and longer-term involuntary treatment and conservatorships for people who are determined to be gravely disabled. This bill, contingent upon the State Department of Health Care Services developing an allocation to provide financial assistance to counties, would enact the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which would authorize specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. The bill would require the Counties of Glenn, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne and the City and County of San Francisco to implement the program commencing October 1, 2023, and the remaining counties to commence no later than December 1, 2024. The bill would require the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use in filing a CARE process petition and would specify the process by which the petition is filed and reviewed, including requiring the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury, and to contain specified information, including the facts that support the petitioner's assertion that the respondent meets the CARE criteria. The bill would also specify the schedule of review hearings required if the respondent is ordered to comply with an up to one-year CARE plan by the court. The bill would make the hearings in a CARE Act proceeding confidential and not open to the public, thereby limiting public access to a meeting of a public body. The bill would authorize the CARE plan to be extended once, for up to one year, and would prescribe the requirements for the graduation plan. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing additional duties on the county behavioral health agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the court to appoint counsel for the respondent, unless the respondent has retained their own counsel. The bill would require the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission at the State Bar to provide funding to qualified legal services projects to provide legal counsel in CARE Act proceedings, as specified. The bill would authorize the respondent to have a supporter, as defined. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to provide optional training and technical resources for volunteer supporters on the CARE process, community services and supports, supported decisionmaking, and other topics, as prescribed. This bill would require the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within that agency, to engage an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures for the CARE Act and to convene a workgroup to provide coordination and support among relevant state and local partners and other stakeholders throughout the phases of county implementation of the CARE Act. The bill also would require the State Department of Health Care Services to provide training and technical assistance to county behavioral health agencies to implement the act and to provide training to counsel, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council, in consultation with the department and others, to provide training to judges regarding the CARE process, as specified. This bill would authorize the court, at any time during the CARE process, if it finds the county or other local government entity not complying with court orders, to report that finding to the presiding judge of the superior court or their designee. If the presiding judge or their designee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the local government has substantially failed to comply with the CARE process, the presiding judge may impose a fine of up to $1,000 per day and, if the court finds persistent noncompliance, to appoint a special master to secure court-ordered care for the respondent at the county's cost. The bill would establish the CARE Act Accountability Fund in the State Treasury to receive the fines collected under the Act, which would, upon appropriation, be allocated and distributed by the department to the local government entity that paid the fines to serve individuals who have schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness, criminal justice involvement, hospitalization, or conservatorship. This bill would require the department, in consultation with the Judicial Council, to develop an annual reporting schedule for the submission of CARE Act data from the trial courts and would require the Judicial Council to aggregate the data and submit it to the department. The bill would require the department, in consultation with various other entities, to develop an annual CARE Act report and would require county behavioral health agencies and other local governmental entities to provide the department with specified information for that report. The bill would require an independent, research-based entity retained by the department to develop an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the CARE Act and would require the department to produce a preliminary and final report based on that evaluation. By increasing the duties of a local agency, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would exempt a county or an employee or agent of a county from civil or criminal liability for any action by a respondent in the CARE process, except when an act or omission constitutes gross negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. Existing law, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) , an initiative measure enacted by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 2, 2004, statewide general election, establishes the Mental Health Services Fund (MHSF) , a continuously appropriated fund, to fund various county mental health programs, including children's mental health care, adult and older adult mental health care, prevention and early intervention programs, and innovative programs. This bill would clarify that MHSA funds may be used to provide services to individuals under a CARE agreement or a CARE plan. (2) Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires health care service plans and insurers to provide coverage for medically necessary treatment of mental health and substance use disorders. Violation of the Knox-Keene Act by a health care service plan is a crime. This bill would require health care service plans and insurers to cover the cost of developing an evaluation for CARE process services and the provision of all health care services for an enrollee or insured when required or recommended for the person pursuant to a CARE plan, as specified, without cost sharing, except for prescription drugs, and regardless of whether the services are provided by an in-network or out-of-network provider. Because a violation of this requirement by a health care service plan would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated and by which the defendant receives treatment, with the goal of returning the defendant to competency. Existing law suspends a criminal action pending restoration to competency. This bill, for a misdemeanor defendant who has been determined to be incompetent to stand trial, would authorize the court to refer the defendant to the CARE process. (4) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (5) This bill would state that its provisions are severable. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1370.01 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1223 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1223 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
This measure would proclaim the month of September 2022 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.
This measure would designate a specified portion of State Highway Route 44, near Oak Run in the County of Shasta, as the Stan Statham Memorial Highway. This measure would request the Department of Transportation to determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering that cost, to erect those signs.
This measure would designate the East End Complex-Block 171 in Sacramento as the Mario Obledo Building, and would request the Department of General Services to determine the cost of erecting appropriate plaques and markers showing the designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources, to cover that cost to erect signage.
This measure would urge the United States Congress to amend the United States Social Security Administration's index of earnings to ensure that a decline in aggregate wages due to COVID-19 does not result in decreased benefits.
This measure would request that the Department of Transportation remove the "The Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway" designation from the portion of Interstate 10 in the state, as well as any signage and markers memorializing that designation, and advise the Federal Highway Administration of the state's action.
This measure would, among other things, on the first anniversary of the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, urge the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol to uncover the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the attack, and honor the individuals who died or were injured as a result of the attack.
This measure would urge the United States Secretary of Education to establish and submit to the United States Congress for approval a monthly student loan payment plan for federal student loans, based on the personal savings rate as published by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis.