Existing law establishes the California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB) , and requires the board to establish a committee known as the Green Collar Jobs Council (GCJC) , comprised of specified members, and requires the GCJC to perform certain functions and duties, including the development of a strategic initiative, relating to the training and development of a skilled workforce to meet the needs of California's emerging green economy. This bill would authorize the CWIB to accept any revenues, moneys, grants, goods, or services from federal and state entities, philanthropic organizations, and other sources, to be used for purposes relating to the administration and implementation of the strategic initiative. The bill would require that all moneys and revenues received pursuant to those provisions be deposited into the Green Collar Jobs Account, which the bill would create in the State Treasury, and, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would authorize the Employment Development Department to expend those moneys and revenues for purposes related to the administration and implementation of the strategic initiative, and for the award of workforce training grants implementing the strategic initiative. The bill would require the GCJC to consult with appropriate state and local agencies to identify opportunities to coordinate the award of grant and green workforce training funds received by the state under the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or any other funding sources.
Sponsored bills
(1) The federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) , provides $4.3 billion for the State Incentive Grant Fund (Race to the Top Fund) , which is a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward states that are implementing specified educational objectives. The ARRA requires a Governor to apply on behalf of a state seeking a Race to the Top grant, and requires the application to include specified information. The United States Secretary of Education has issued regulations and guidelines regarding state eligibility under the Race to the Top program. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature, as well as findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the Race to the Top program. This bill would authorize the Superintendent of Public Instruction to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a local educational agency that is consistent with the requirements established by the bill and the regulations and guidelines for the Race to the Top program. This bill would require the state plan or plans submitted to the United States Secretary of Education for the Race to the Top program to meet specified substantive and procedural requirements. The bill would also require the Department of Finance to provide appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature with a copy of the plan or plans within 10 days of submission to the United States Secretary of Education for the Race to the Top program. The Department of Finance, in conjunction with the Superintendent, would, within 30 days of receipt of any federal Race to the Top program funds, and prior to their allocation, be required to develop and submit to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature an expenditure plan, as specified. This bill would require the Superintendent, on or before January 1, 2011, to contract with an independent evaluator relating to the implementation of the state plan to be submitted in application for a Race to the Top Fund competitive grant award. This bill would require the Superintendent, on or before September 1, 2010, to convene a working group consisting of specified members to develop parameters of the evaluation and make specified recommendations relating to the selection of the independent evaluator. This bill would require the Superintendent, on or before June 1, 2014, to provide the final evaluation to the Legislature, the Governor, and the state board, and authorize the department to use federal Race to the Top program funds for this evaluation. This bill would provide that the evaluation provisions shall become inoperative on July 1, 2014, and as of January 1, 2015, are repealed unless a later enacted statute becomes operative, as specified. (2) The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 requires the Superintendent, with approval of the state board, to develop the Academic Performance Index (API) , consisting of a variety of indicators, to be used to measure the performance of schools. Existing law requires the Superintendent to develop, and the state board to adopt, expected annual percentage growth targets for all schools based on their API baseline score and prescribes a minimum percentage growth target of 5% annually. The act also establishes the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (IIUSP) . Schools that score below the 50th percentile on certain achievement tests are invited to participate in the program and are provided program funding. Twenty-four months after receiving IIUSP funding, a school that fails to meet its growth targets each year, but demonstrates significant growth, as determined by the state board, continues to participate in the program for an additional year and to receive funding. If a school fails to meet its growth targets each year and does not demonstrate significant growth, it is deemed a state-monitored school and the Superintendent is required to take specified actions with regard to the school. This bill would require the Superintendent to apportion federal Race to the Top program funds pursuant to a specified expenditure plan for low-achieving schools. The bill, commencing with the 2011–12 fiscal year, would require the Superintendent to apportion block grant funds based on the number of certificated personnel employed in eligible school districts that have one or more schools under their jurisdiction and charter schools, that are low-achieving, as defined. School districts and charter schools that receive funds pursuant to these provisions would be required to expend the funds for specified purposes relating to professional development for teachers, administrators, and schoolsite staff. School districts and charter schools receiving funds also would be required to annually report specified information to the State Department of Education relating to the expenditure of these funds. This bill would require the Superintendent to establish a list of persistently lowest-achieving schools, as defined, according to specified criteria. The bill, except as specified, would require the governing board of a school district, county office of education, or charter school to implement, for any school identified by the Superintendent as persistently lowest-achieving, one of four interventions for turning around lowest-achieving schools described in federal regulations and guidelines for the Race to the Top program, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a persistently lowest-achieving school implementing specified intervention models to participate in a school-to-school partnership program by working with a mentor school that has successfully transitioned from a low-achieving school to a higher-achieving school. The regional consortia authorized under a specified statute would, using specified federal funds, be required to provide, in collaboration with the department, at a minimum, technical assistance and support to local educational agencies with one or more persistently lowest-achieving schools to assist with the implementation of the duties specified for any of the 4 interventions. This bill would require the governing board of a local educational agency, with regard to any school identified as low-achieving, as defined, but not identified as persistently lowest-achieving, as defined, which continues to fail to make adequate yearly progress under the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act after one full school year, and where at least one-half of the parents or guardians of pupils attending the school and the elementary or middle schools that normally matriculate into a middle or high school, as applicable, sign a petition requesting the local educational agency to implement a strategy to reform that school, to (a) place that request as an item on the agenda of a regularly scheduled public hearing no later than 90 days following receipt of that request, (b) hear that agenda item at that regularly scheduled meeting, and (c) allow public testimony and comment on that agenda item. (3) Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to develop and adopt objective evaluation and assessment guidelines for certificated employees. This bill would require each participating local educational agency that executes a memorandum of understanding with the State of California pursuant to the federal Race to the Top program to have in place or establish a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation system for its school principals. (4) Existing law requires the Controller, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the State Department of Education, to develop a plan to review and report on financial and compliance audits. Existing law requires the Controller to propose the content of an audit guide and authorizes a supplement to the audit guide to be suggested in the audit year to address issues resulting from new legislation in that year that changes the conditions of apportionment. Existing law requires the Controller to submit the proposed content of the audit guide and any supplement to the Education Audits Appeal Panel for review and possible amendment, and requires the Education Audits Appeal Panel to adopt the audit guide and any supplement pursuant to the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. This bill would require the Controller to propose, and the Education Audits Appeal Panel to adopt, a charter school supplement to the audit guide in order to provide guidance to auditors regarding which sections of the school district and county office audit guide apply to charter schools and to create specific guidance related to the unique nature of charter schools. The bill also would make conforming changes. The Charter Schools Act of 1992 (Charter Schools Act) authorizes any one or more persons to submit a petition to the governing board of a school district to establish a charter school that operates independently from the existing school district structure as a method of accomplishing specified goals. The act limits the maximum number of charter schools authorized to operate in the state each year, as specified. This bill would delete that numerical limitation. The Charter Schools Act specifies the procedures for the submission, review, and approval or denial of a petition to establish a standard or countywide charter school. The act authorizes the governing board of a school district to deny a charter petition only if the board makes written factual findings that support certain facts regarding the petition. This bill, in addition, would authorize a governing board to deny a petition to establish a standard or countywide charter school if it makes a written factual finding that other charter schools in operation for at least 3 consecutive years and operated by the petitioner have met any of the following criteria: (A) the charter school has demonstrated academic achievement equivalent to a persistently lowest-achieving school, as specified; (B) the charter schoolcompleted its first renewal cycle and was not renewed by the authorizing entity, the county board of education, or the state board, as applicable; or C) the school has had its charter revoked, and the charter was not restored by the county board of education or the state board, as applicable. The Charter Schools Act limits the duration of charters to a period not to exceed 5 years and authorizes the chartering authority to grant one or more subsequent renewals for an additional period of 5 years. The act specifies the criteria a charter school is required to meet in order to receive a renewal of its charter. Commencing January 1, 2005, or after a charter school has been in operation for 4 years, whichever date occurs later, the act requires a charter school to meet at least one of several specified criteria prior to receiving a charter renewal, including a determination by the entity that granted the charter that the academic performance of the charter school is at least equal to the academic performance of the public schools that the charter school pupils would otherwise have been required to attend, as well as the academic performance of the schools in the school district in which the charter school is located, taking into account the composition of the pupil population that is served at the charter school. This bill would delete that criterion and replace it with a criterion relating to attaining positive growth on the charter school's API score. The bill would require a chartering authority, consistent with the federal Race to the Top guidelines, to consider the degree to which a charter school serves pupil populations that are similar to local district pupil populations, especially relative to high-need pupils. The bill would prohibit a chartering authority from granting a renewal of a charter school for longer than a 3-year period if that charter school is in program improvement or if a charter school is in year 5 of program improvement, except as specified. The Charter Schools Act requires a charter petition to include a reasonably comprehensive description of the manner in which annual, independent financial audits will be conducted. The act requires a charter school to transmit a copy of its annual, independent financial audit report for the preceding fiscal year to its chartering entity, the Controller, the county superintendent of schools of the county in which the charter school is sited, except as specified, and the department by December 15 of each year. This bill would require the Controller, by December 31 of each fiscal year, to publish a directory of certified public accountants and public accountants deemed by the Controller to be qualified to conduct audits of charter schools. The bill would require each audit of a charter school to be conducted by a certified public accountant or public accountant selected by the charter school from the directory. The bill would specify that it is unlawful for a public accounting firm to provide audit services to a charter school if the lead audit partner, or coordinating audit partner, having primary responsibility for the audit, or the audit partner responsible for reviewing the audit, has performed audit services for that charter school in each of the 6 previous fiscal years, except as provided. (5) Existing law, the Leroy Greene California Assessment of Academic Achievement Act (hereafter the Greene Act) , requires the Superintendent to design and implement a statewide pupil assessment program, and requires school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education to administer to each of its pupils in grades 2 to 11, inclusive, certain achievement tests, including a standards-based achievement test pursuant to the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program. This bill would require the Superintendent to develop recommendations for the reauthorization of the statewide pupil assessment program that include a plan for transitioning to a system of high-quality assessments, as defined. This bill would require the advisory committee that is established to advise the Superintendent and the state board on specified matters relating to the Public School Performance Accountability Program to make recommendations by January 1, 2011, to the Legislature, the Governor, and the state board on, among other things, the establishment of a methodology of generating a measurement of group and individual academic performance growth by utilizing individual pupil results from a longitudinally valid achievement assessment system, as specified. The Greene Act requires the Superintendent to adopt statewide content and performance standards in the core curriculum areas of reading, writing, mathematics, history/social science, and science, as specified. The Greene Act authorizes the state board to modify any proposed content standards or performance standards prior to adoption, and to adopt content and performance standards in individual core curriculum areas as those standards are submitted to the state board. This bill would eliminate this authority and instead require the Superintendent, to develop a set of academic content standards in language arts and mathematics. The standards would be required to meet specified criteria. The Superintendent, on or before August 2, 2010, would be required to present these standards to the state board, and to present to the Governor, and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, specified information relating to these standards. The state board, on or before September 1, 2010, would be required to adopt or reject the standards, as specified. The bill would require the Superintendent to participate in the Common Core State Standards Initiative consortium sponsored by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers or any associated or related interstate collaboration to jointly develop common high-quality standards or assessments aligned with the common set of standards. The bill also would make conforming changes. Existing law makes certain provisions of that act inoperative on July 1, 2011, and repeals all of the act's provisions on January 1, 2012. The bill would make the act inoperative on July 1, 2012, and would repeal the act as of January 1, 2013, except specified provisions, which would become inoperative on July 1, 2016, and would be repealed as of January 1, 2017. By extending the time period during which school districts are required to perform various duties related to the administration of achievement tests, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) 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 requires various state agencies to administer programs relating to water supply, water quality, and flood management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Johnston-Baker-Andal-Boatwright Delta Protection Act of 1992 (Delta Protection Act) creates the Delta Protection Commission and requires the commission to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-term resource management plan for specified lands within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) . This bill would revise and recast the provisions of the Delta Protection Act to, among other things, reduce the number of commission members, as specified. The bill would require the commission to appoint at least one advisory committee consisting of representatives from specified entities to provide input regarding the diverse interests within the Delta. The bill would require the commission to adopt, not later than July 1, 2011, an economic sustainability plan containing specified elements and would require the commission to review and, as determined to be necessary, amend the plan every 5 years. The bill would require the commission to prepare and submit to the Legislature, by July 1, 2010, recommendations on the potential expansion of or change to the primary zone of the Delta. The bill would establish the Delta Investment Fund in the State Treasury. Moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would be required to be expended by the commission to implement the regional economic sustainability plan. The bill would establish in the Natural Resources Agency the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy. The conservancy would be required to act as a primary state agency to implement ecosystem restoration in the Delta and to support efforts that advance environmental protection and the economic well-being of Delta residents. The bill would specify the composition of the conservancy and grant certain authority to the conservancy, including the authority to acquire real property interests from willing sellers or transferors. The conservancy would be required to use conservation easements to accomplish ecosystem restoration whenever feasible. The conservancy would be required to prepare and adopt a strategic plan to achieve the goals of the conservancy. The strategic plan would be required to be consistent with certain plans. The bill would establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy Fund in the State Treasury. Moneys in the fund would be available, upon appropriation, to finance projects, including ecosystem restoration and economic sustainability projects.
(1) Existing law generally prohibits the state, or a county, city, district, or other political subdivision, or any public officer or body acting in its official capacity on behalf of any of those entities, from being required to pay any fee for the performance of an official service. Existing law exempts from this provision any fee or charge for official services required pursuant to specified provisions of law relating to water use or water quality. This bill would expand the exemption to other provisions relating to water use, including provisions that require the payment of fees to the State Water Resources Control Board for official services relating to statements of water diversion and use. (2) Existing law authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board to investigate all streams, stream systems, lakes, or other bodies of water, take testimony relating to the rights to water or the use of water, and ascertain whether water filed upon or attempted to be appropriated is appropriated under the laws of the state. Existing law requires the board to take appropriate actions to prevent waste or the unreasonable use of water. Under existing law, the board makes determinations with regard to the availability of recycled water. This bill would authorize the board, in conducting an investigation or proceeding for these purposes, to order any person or entity that diverts water or uses water to submit any technical or monitoring report related to the diversion or use of water by that person or entity. The bill would authorize the board, in connection with the investigation or proceeding, to inspect the facilities of any person or entity to determine compliance with specified water use requirements. (3) Existing law authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board, upon the submission of a petition signed by a claimant to water of any stream system requesting a determination of rights among the claimants to that water, to enter an order granting the petition. After granting the petition, the board is required to investigate the stream system to gather information necessary to make a determination of the water rights of that stream system. This bill would authorize the board to initiate a determination of rights under its own motion if after a hearing it finds, based on substantial evidence, that the public interest and necessity will be served by a determination of rights. (4) Existing law declares that the diversion or use of water other than as authorized by specified provisions of law is a trespass. Existing law authorizes the administrative imposition of civil liability by the board for a trespass in an amount not to exceed $500 for each day in which the trespass occurs. Moneys generated by the imposition of civil liability under these provisions are deposited in the Water Rights Fund. This bill would provide that a person or entity committing a trespass may be liable in an amount not to exceed the sum of $1,000 or $5,000 for each day in which the trespass occurs, as specified, or the highest market value of the water, whichever is the greater amount. The moneys would be required to be deposited in the Water Rights Fund, as specified. The bill would establish the Water Rights Protection Subaccount in the Water Rights Fund. Specified penalties would be required to be deposited in the subaccount. The bill would state legislative intent regarding the expenditure of the moneys in the subaccount. (5) Existing law, with certain exceptions, requires each person who diverts water after December 31, 1965, to file with the State Water Resources Control Board a prescribed statement of diversion and use. Existing law requires a statement to include specified information, including, on and after January 1, 2012, monthly records of water diversions. The bill would establish a rebuttable presumption, in any proceeding before the board in which it is alleged that an appropriative right has ceased or is subject to prescribed action, that no use required to be included in a statement of diversion and use occurred unless that use is included in a statement that is submitted to the board within a specified time period. The bill would require a person who files a statement of diversion and use, and certain petitions involving a change in a water right, to pay an annual fee, for deposit in the Water Rights Fund. The bill would include as recoverable costs, for which the board may be reimbursed from the fund upon appropriation therefor, costs incurred in connection with carrying out requirements relating to the statements of diversion and use and the performance of duties under the public trust doctrine and provisions that require the reasonable use of water. (6) Existing law authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board to issue a cease and desist order against a person who is violating, or threatening to violate, certain requirements, including requirements set forth in a decision or order relating to the unauthorized use of water. Any person who violates a cease and desist order may be liable in an amount not to exceed $1,000 for each day in which the violation occurs. Revenue generated from these penalties is deposited in the Water Rights Fund. This bill would increase, as specified, the civil penalties that apply to a person who violates a cease and desist order. The bill would impose civil liability, in an amount not to exceed $500 for each day in which a violation occurs, for a failure to comply with various reporting or monitoring requirements, including requirements imposed pursuant to the public trust doctrine. The bill would authorize the board to impose additional civil liability, in an amount not to exceed $500 for each day in which a violation occurs, for the violation of a permit, license, certificate, or registration, or an order or regulation involving the unreasonable use of water. Funds derived from the imposition of these civil penalties would be deposited in the Water Rights Fund, as specified. The bill would require that, in a proceeding before the board in which it is alleged that an appropriative water right has ceased, or is subject to prescribed action, there would be a rebuttable presumption that no use occurred on or after January 1, 2009, unless that diversion or use was reported to the board within 6 months after it is required to be filed with the board. (7) The Budget Act of 2009 made appropriations for the support of the State Water Resources Control Board for the 2009–10 fiscal year, with certain payments from the Water Rights Fund. This bill would amend and supplement the Budget Act of 2009 by making an additional appropriation from the fund to support water rights enforcement. The bill would, commencing with the 2010–11 fiscal year, continuously appropriate $3,750,000 on an annual basis only from fee revenue in the fund to the board for the purpose of funding permanent water right enforcement positions.
(1) Existing law requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to convene a committee to develop and submit to the Governor and the Legislature, on or before December 31, 2008, recommendations for implementing a specified strategic plan relating to the sustainable management of the Delta. This bill would enact the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009. The bill would establish the Delta Stewardship Council as an independent agency of the state. The council would be required to consist of 7 members appointed in a specified manner. The bill would specify the powers of the council. The bill would require the council, on or before January 1, 2012, to develop, adopt, and commence implementation of a comprehensive management plan for the Delta (Delta Plan) , meeting specified requirements. The bill would require a state or local public agency that proposes to undertake certain proposed actions that will occur within the boundaries of the Delta or the Suisun Marsh to prepare, and submit to the council, a specified written certification of consistency with the Delta Plan prior to taking those actions. By imposing these requirements on a local public agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would establish an appeal process by which a person may claim that a proposed action is inconsistent with the Delta Plan, as prescribed. The bill would impose requirements on the Department of Water Resources in connection with the preparation of a specified Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) . The BDCP would only be permitted to be incorporated in the Delta Plan if certain requirements are met. The bill would establish the Delta Independent Science Board, whose members would be appointed by the council. The bill would require the Delta Independent Science Board to develop a scientific program relating to the management of the Delta. The bill would require the State Water Resources Control Board to establish an effective system of Delta watershed diversion data collection and public reporting by December 31, 2010. The bill would require the board to develop new flow criteria for the Delta ecosystem, as specified. The board would be required to submit those determinations to the council. The bill would require the board, in consultation with the council, to appoint a special master for the Delta, referred to as the Delta Watermaster. The bill would grant specified authority to the Delta Watermaster. (2) The California Bay-Delta Authority Act establishes the California Bay-Delta Authority in the Resources Agency. The act requires the authority and the implementing agencies to carry out programs, projects, and activities necessary to implement the Bay-Delta Program, defined to mean those projects, programs, commitments, and other actions that address the goals and objectives of the CALFED Bay-Delta Programmatic Record of Decision, dated August 28, 2000, or as it may be amended. This bill would repeal that act. The bill would impose requirements on the council in connection with the repeal of that act. (3) Existing law, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, an initiative bond act approved by the voters at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,388,000,000, of which $1,000,000,000 is made available to the Department of Water Resources, upon appropriation therefor, to meet the long term water needs of the state. Eligible projects are required to implement integrated regional water management plans and include fisheries restoration and protection projects. A portion of these funds may be expended directly or granted by the department to address multiregional needs or issues of statewide significance. This bill would appropriate $28,000,000 of these funds to the Department of Water Resources for the department to expend, as specified, on the Two-Gates Fish Protection Demonstration Program managed by the United States Bureau of Reclamation. The bill would make a statement of legislative intent to finance the activities of the Delta Stewardship Council and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy from funds made available pursuant to the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006 and the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Bond Act of 2006. (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. (5) This bill would take effect only if AB 8, AB 10, and AB 11 of the 2009–10 7th Extraordinary Session of the Legislature are enacted and become effective.
(1) Existing law authorizes a local agency whose service area includes a groundwater basin that is not subject to groundwater management to adopt and implement a groundwater management plan pursuant to certain provisions of law. Existing law requires a groundwater management plan to include certain components to qualify as a plan for the purposes of those provisions, including a provision that establishes funding requirements for the construction of certain groundwater projects. This bill would establish a groundwater monitoring program pursuant to which specified entities, in accordance with prescribed procedures, may propose to be designated by the Department of Water Resources as groundwater monitoring entities, as defined, for the purposes of monitoring and reporting with regard to groundwater elevations in all or part of a basin or subbasin, as defined. The bill would require the department to work cooperatively with each monitoring entity to determine the manner in which groundwater elevation information should be reported to the department. The bill would authorize the department to make recommendations for improving an existing monitoring program, and to require additional monitoring wells under certain circumstances. If the department makes a specified determination with regard to a basin or subbasin, the department would be required to notify the counties within which that basin or subbasin is located. Upon such notification, the counties would be required to take certain action related to groundwater monitoring, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. Under certain circumstances, specified entities with authority to assume groundwater monitoring functions with regard to a basin or subbasin would not be eligible for a water grant or loan awarded or administered by the state, unless certain actions occur. (2) Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to conduct an investigation of the state's groundwater basins and to report its findings to the Governor and the Legislature not later than January 1, 1980. This bill would repeal that provision. The department would be required to conduct an investigation of the state's groundwater basins and to report its findings to the Governor and the Legislature not later than January 1, 2012, and every 5 years thereafter. (3) 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.
Under existing law, the Department of Community Services and Development is authorized to apply for, administer, and oversee federal block grant funds and to perform various functions, including promulgating regulations, negotiating and executing contracts necessary or convenient for the exercise of its responsibilities, powers, and functions, and ensuring that federal and state standards of programmatic performance and fiscal accountability are met. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to ensure that any economic stimulus moneys received pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 from the federal government are directed to programs and projects that provide the greatest economic benefit to the state, while maintaining and advancing the state's long-term policy goals. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on December 19, 2008. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on December 19, 2008, pursuant to the California Constitution.
(1) Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission, the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) , and the Department of Water Resources to undertake various programs related to energy and water conservation. This bill would require that any moneys received by the state pursuant to the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that are directed for energy-related activities, programs, or projects, be administered by the state's energy and water agencies, and provide that those activities, programs, or projects should adhere to the principle of accountability while also adhering to existing state policies to promote energy efficiency, promote water conservation, promote the development and use of renewable energy resources, protect the environment, and provide green job training. (2) Existing law requires the Energy Commission to administer funds allocated to and received by the state pursuant to the federal Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Existing law provides that not more than 5% of the funds received is to be expended for administrative expenses. This bill would additionally require the Energy Commission to administer funds allocated and received by the state pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and would increase the amount expended for administration expenses for these 2 purposes to not more than 10%. The bill would authorize the Energy Commission to adopt guidelines governing the awarding, eligibility, and administration of those federal funds. (3) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on December 19, 2008. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on December 19, 2008, pursuant to the California Constitution.
Existing law establishes a comprehensive statewide domestic violence program in the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) and requires the agency to provide financial and technical assistance to local domestic violence centers. Existing law requires the Maternal and Child Health Branch of the State Department of Public Health to administer a comprehensive shelter-based services grant program to battered women's shelters, as prescribed. This bill would, among other things, require Cal EMA to administer the above-described grant program. This bill would require the Department of Finance, upon the enactment of this bill, to transfer $16,300,000 from the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Fund to the General Fund as a loan. The bill would require the full amount of the loan to be repaid, with interest at the rate earned by the Pooled Money Investment Account at the time of the transfer, on or before June 30, 2013. The bill would appropriate $16,300,000 from the General Fund to Cal EMA for the purpose of funding the above-described comprehensive shelter-based services grant program to shelters for victims of domestic violence. This bill would require grantees funded under the above-described grant program, during the 2008–09 fiscal year, to be funded by Cal EMA for a period of one fiscal year, retroactively, commencing July 1, 2009. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on December 19, 2008. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on December 19, 2008, pursuant to the California Constitution. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, authorizes the issuance of $19.925 billion of general obligation bonds for various transportation purposes. Existing law designates the state agency responsible for programming bond funds under the act as the administrative agency for those purposes. This bill would authorize a regional or local agency that is a lead agency for a project or project component for which bond funding has been programmed or otherwise approved by the administrative agency or is otherwise targeted to be available, as specified, to apply to the administrative agency for a letter of no prejudice that would make the regional or local agency eligible to be subsequently reimbursed from bond funds for expenditures of funds under its control for the project or project component under certain conditions, as specified. Existing law requires the California Transportation Commission to establish the funding shares for applicants for funds from the State-Local Partnership Account in the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Fund of 2006. This bill would require the commission, prior to the commencement of each funding cycle, to calculate the amount of bond funds designated to be deposited in the account that have not been appropriated and would require the commission to establish projected targets for the distribution of those funds for purposes of planning projects for which letters of no prejudice may be issued, as specified.