This measure would recognize the week of April 18, 2010, through April 24, 2010, as Crime Victims' Rights Week.
Existing law grants to various local entities the right, title, and interest of the State of California in and to certain tidelands and submerged lands in trust generally for purposes of commerce, navigation, and fisheries, and for other public trust purposes. This bill would require each local trustee of granted public trust lands, as defined, to give management priority to, and take all reasonable actions that are necessary for, the preparation of a sea level action plan for all of its legislatively granted public trust lands. The bill would require a local trustee to prepare the plan by July 1, 2012, and submit the plan to the Natural Resources Agency, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, and the State Lands Commission. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, an assessment of the impact of sea level rise on granted public trust lands, an estimate of the financial cost of this impact, and strategies to prevent or mitigate damage to development and infrastructure and to protect and enhance habitat. This bill would require the State Lands Commission to exempt a local trustee of granted public trust lands from the requirement to prepare a sea level action plan or grant a deadline extension, if the revenues derived from its granted public trust lands and assets or funding to it from sources such as the Ocean Protection Council are not sufficient to pay for the cost of developing the plan.
This measure would proclaim the month of May to be Women Veterans Recognition Month.
Under existing law, any taxing agency or instrumentality of the state may file a petition and prosecute to completion bankruptcy proceedings permitted under the laws of the United States. This bill would provide that a local public entity may only file under federal bankruptcy law with the approval of the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission, except as specified. The bill would also provide an alternative procedure for a local entity to file under federal bankruptcy law by submitting specific analyses regarding its financial position to the State Auditor who would be required to audit the analyses and financial position of the local entity. The bill would make the local public entity responsible for the costs of the audit, as specified. The public entity would be authorized to file a petition under federal bankruptcy law after the State Auditor has notified the public entity of completion of its audit work and made public the findings of that audit.
Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes on the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges. This bill would impose a tax on and after January 1, 2010, upon any producer for the privilege of severing oil from the earth or water in this state for sale, transport, consumption, storage, profit, or use, as provided, at the rate of 10% of the gross value of each barrel of oil severed. The tax would be administered by the State Board of Equalization and would be collected pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Fee Collection Procedures Law. The bill would require the board to deposit all revenues, less refunds, collected pursuant to these provisions into the General Fund. Because this bill would expand the scope of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, it 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. This bill would result in a change in state taxes for the purpose of increasing state revenues 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.
(1) Existing law requires that a person, other than a nonimmigrant alien, as defined, who has attended high school in California for 3 or more years, who has graduated from a California high school or attained the equivalent thereof, who has registered at or attends an accredited institution of higher education in California not earlier than the fall semester or quarter of the 2001–02 academic year, and who, if he or she is an alien without lawful immigration status, has filed a prescribed affidavit, is exempt from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges and the California State University. This bill would enact the California Dream Act of 2010. The bill, as of July 1, 2011, would exempt a person who has attended, for 3 or more years, at least one of which shall have been in a high school, and graduated from, secondary school in California from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges and the California State University. Under the bill, persons attending and graduating from California technical schools and adult schools, as well as high schools, would be included within the scope of this provision. (2) The Donahoe Higher Education Act sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's public and independent segments of higher education, and their respective institutions of higher education. Provisions of the act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make a provision applicable. In any action in which a state court finds that a specified law, or any similar provision adopted by the regents, is unlawful, existing law authorizes the court to order the administering entity that is the subject of the lawsuit to terminate any waiver awarded under that statute or action, as equitable relief, prohibits the award of money damages, tuition refund or waiver, or other retroactive relief, and provides that the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California are immune from the imposition of any award of money damages, tuition refund or waiver, or other retroactive relief in a lawsuit. This bill would amend the Donahoe Higher Education Act, as of July 1, 2011, to require the Trustees of the California State University and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and to request the regents, to establish procedures and forms that enable persons who are exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the provision described in (1) above, or who meet equivalent requirements adopted by the regents, to apply for, and participate in, all student aid programs administered by these segments to the full extent permitted by federal law, except as provided. This provision would apply to the University of California only if the regents, by appropriate resolution, act to make it applicable. If a state court finds that this provision, or a similar provision adopted by the regents, is unlawful, this bill would provide that the same limitations described above would apply. This bill would further provide that, on and after January 1, 2011, a student attending the California State University, the California Community Colleges, or the University of California who is exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the provision described above would be eligible to receive a scholarship derived from nonstate funds received, for the purpose of scholarships, by the segment at which he or she is a student. Existing federal law requires that a state may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is eligible for any state or local public benefit for which that alien would otherwise be ineligible under a specified federal law only through enactment of a state law that affirmatively provides for that eligibility. This bill would find and declare that the amendments to the Donahoe Higher Education Act described above are state laws within the meaning of this federal provision. (3) Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Existing law authorizes the establishment of community college districts under the administration of community college governing boards, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction, for prescribed fees, at community college campuses throughout the state. Existing law authorizes the waiver of these fees for, among others, students who are eligible under income standards established by the board of governors. This bill, as of July 1, 2011, would require community college districts to waive the fees of persons who are exempt from nonresident tuition under the provision described in (1) above, and who otherwise qualify for a waiver under this provision, under regulations and procedures adopted by the board of governors. Because the bill would impose new duties on community college districts with respect to determining eligibility for fee waivers, the bill would constitute a state-mandated local program. (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, 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.
Existing law does not provide a system of universal health care coverage for California residents. Existing law provides for the creation of various programs to provide health care services to persons who have limited incomes and meet various eligibility requirements. These programs include the Healthy Families Program administered by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, and the Medi‑Cal program administered by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law provides for the regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and health insurers by the Department of Insurance. This bill would establish the California Healthcare System to be administered by the newly created California Healthcare Agency under the control of a Healthcare Commissioner appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate. The bill would make all California residents eligible for specified health care benefits under the California Healthcare System, which would, on a single-payer basis, negotiate for or set fees for health care services provided through the system and pay claims for those services. The bill would provide that a resident of the state with a household income, as specified, at or below 200% of the federal poverty level would be eligible for the type of benefits provided under the Medi-Cal program. The bill would require the commissioner to seek all necessary waivers, exemptions, agreements, or legislation to allow various existing federal, state, and local health care payments to be paid to the California Healthcare System, which would then assume responsibility for all benefits and services previously paid for with those funds. The bill would create the Healthcare Policy Board to establish policy on medical issues and various other matters relating to the system. The bill would create the Office of Patient Advocacy within the agency to represent the interests of health care consumers relative to the system. The bill would create within the agency the Office of Health Planning to plan for the health care needs of the population, and the Office of Health Care Quality, headed by a chief medical officer, to support the delivery of high quality care and promote provider and patient satisfaction. The bill would create the Office of Inspector General for the California Healthcare System within the Attorney General's office, which would have various oversight powers. The bill would prohibit health care service plan contracts or health insurance policies from being issued for services covered by the California Healthcare System. The bill would create the Healthcare Fund and the Payments Board to administer the finances of the California Healthcare System. The bill would create the California Healthcare Premium Commission (Premium Commission) to determine the cost of the California Healthcare System and to develop a premium structure for the system that complies with specified standards. The bill would require the Premium Commission to recommend a premium structure to the Governor and the Legislature on or before January 1, 2013, and to make a draft recommendation to the Governor, the Legislature, and the public 90 days before submitting its final premium structure recommendation. The bill would specify that only its provisions relating to the Premium Commission would become operative on January 1, 2011, with its remaining provisions becoming operative on the date the Secretary of California Health and Human Services notifies the Legislature, as specified, that sufficient funding exists to implement the California Healthcare System. The bill would require that system to be operative within 2 years of that date and would provide for various transition processes for that period. The bill would extend the application of certain insurance fraud laws to providers of services and products under the system, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by revising the definition of a crime. The bill would enact other related provisions relative to budgeting, regional entities, federal preemption, subrogation, collective bargaining agreements, compensation of health care providers, conflict of interest, patient grievances, independent medical review, and associated matters. 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.
(1) Existing law requires that a child be admitted to kindergarten at the beginning of a school year, or at any time later in the same year if the child will have his or her 5th birthday on or before December 2 of that school year. An elementary school is required to admit a child to the first grade during the first month of a school year if the child will have his or her 6th birthday on or before December 2 of that school year. This bill would change the required birthday for admission to kindergarten to September 1 commencing with the 2012–13 school year, and for admission to first grade to September 1 commencing with the 2013–14 school year. The bill, commencing with the 2012–13 school year, would authorize a child who will have his or her 5th birthday between September 1 and December 2 to be admitted to a transitional kindergarten program, as defined, that is maintained by the school district and would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to allocate to a school district that maintains a transitional kindergarten program an amount equal to the revenue limit amount that the district would have received for the attendance of these pupils if they would have been eligible to attend kindergarten that year pursuant to the law governing admission to kindergarten as it read on January 1, 2012. To the extent those changes establish new administrative duties on the governing boards of school districts in implementing the changes, they would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) 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.
This measure would memorialize the Legislature's support of legislation currently pending in the United States Congress that would protect the Pacific Coast from new offshore oil drilling. This measure would also memorialize the Legislature's opposition to the proposed expansion of oil and gas drilling off the Pacific Coast and any federal energy policies and legislation that would weaken California's role in energy siting decisions due to those policies.
The Davis‑Stirling Common Interest Development Act defines and regulates common interest developments and authorizes a homeowners' association that manages the development to levy assessments to fulfill its obligations. The act provides that a regular or special assessment of the association, fees, reasonable costs of collection, attorney's fees, late charges, and interest, as specified, are a debt of the owner of the separate interest at the time the assessment or other sums are levied. Existing law provides that payments made by a homeowner to reduce the debt shall first be applied to the assessments owed, and may only be applied to fees, reasonable costs of collection, attorney's fees, late charges, and interest only after the assessments owed are paid in full. This bill would clarify that the provisions that set forth the order in which payments are to be allocated apply to any agent of the homeowners' association and to any 3rd party assigned to collect payment for purposes of collection of the debt. This bill would provide that a homeowner may not waive the right to have payments allocated in the order specified. This bill would also require the homeowners' association and its agent to accept partial payments of the debt if the partial payments comply with the terms of a written agreement. Existing law requires a homeowners' association, if requested by a homeowner, to meet with the board in special session, within 45 days of the request, to discuss a payment plan. Existing law provides that if there is no special session scheduled within the 45-day period, that the board may designate a committee to meet with the homeowner to discuss a payment plan within that time period. This bill would only allow the board to designate a committee to meet with the homeowner if the homeowner authorizes the designation of that committee, and, if the homeowner does not authorize the designation of the committee, would require the meeting to discuss a payment plan to take place at the next regularly scheduled board meeting. This bill would authorize either an owner or the association to have counsel present at the meeting, subject to the requirement that the other party is notified of the counsel's presence at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. If there are minutes of an executive meeting concerning the payment plan, this bill would authorize the owner to request a copy of the portion of those minutes that relate to the payment plan. This bill would require all payment plans to be made in writing and would require that a copy of an executed contract for a payment plan be sent to the owner within 7 days following the execution of the contract. This bill would also provide that, if the association contracts with an agent to collect payments made by the owner, that agent would be subject to the provisions of the act.
