Asm. Anthony Rendon

Under existing law, a mutual water company is defined as a corporation organized for or engaged in the business of selling, distributing, supplying, or delivering water for irrigation or domestic purposes that provides in its articles or bylaws that the water shall be sold, distributed, supplied, or delivered only to owners of its shares, as specified. (1) Existing law requires each board member of a mutual water company that operates a public water system to complete a training course regarding the duties of board members of mutual water companies, as specified. This bill would require a board member to repeat this training course every 6 years. (2) Existing law permits a mutual water company that is not a public utility to levy assessments upon its shares, unless otherwise provided in its articles or bylaws. This bill would also permit the board of directors of a mutual water company, if authorized by its articles or bylaws, to record a notice of lien against a shareholder's property if the shareholder has not timely paid any rate, charge, or assessment arising from, or related to, water services provided by the mutual water company to the shareholder's property and if the shareholder was given at least 20 days' notice of the lien. (3) Existing law, the California Public Records Act, provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency that retains those records, and that every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. The Ralph M. Brown Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. This bill would enact the Mutual Water Company Open Meeting Act, which would apply to mutual water companies, and would permit an eligible person to attend a meeting of a mutual water company, as those terms are defined, and to speak during the meeting, except as provided. The bill would also require the board of the mutual water company that operates a public water system to adopt, in an open meeting, an annual budget on or before the start of each fiscal year. The bill would require the board of a mutual water company that operates a public water system to contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to conduct an annual review of the financial records and reports of the mutual water company, as specified. The bill would also require the board of directors of a mutual water company that operates a public water system to make specified documents available to an eligible person, as defined, upon payment of fees covering the direct costs of duplication, as specified. (4) Existing law declares that water is a valuable natural resource in California and should be managed to ensure the availability of sufficient supplies to meet the state's agricultural, domestic, industrial, and environmental needs. Existing law declares that local agencies can realize efficiencies by coordinating and integrating their assets and seeking mutual solutions to water management issues. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to encourage collaboration among mutual water companies that operate public water systems in the City of Maywood to create a public agency that can consolidate drinking water services for the people and business of that city. The Budget Act of 2011 appropriated $7,500,000 from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Fund of 2006 to the Department of Public Health for the provision of grants to public agencies, as specified, to improve drinking water infrastructure in communities served by mutual water companies in the Cities of Maywood and Santa Ana. This bill would limit the use of this appropriation to providing grants to the Water Replenishment District of Southern California for water quality improvement projects for the benefit of the City of Maywood, subject to specified conditions.

The Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act establishes a trial court employee personnel system that provides authority to hire trial court personnel, regulates the classification and compensation of trial court employees, labor relations, and personnel files, and requires each trial court to establish a system of employment selection and advancement and an employment protection system. Existing law authorizes state agencies to use personal services contracts to achieve cost savings if specified standards are satisfied, including, among other things, the contract does not cause the displacement of civil service employees and the contract is awarded through a publicized, competitive bidding process. The State Personnel Board is required to review a proposed contract upon the request of an employee organization for compliance with those standards. This bill, until January 1, 2020, would establish specified standards if a trial court intends to enter into a new contract, or renew or extend an existing contract, for any services that are currently or customarily performed by that trial court's employees. Among other things, the bill would require the trial court to clearly demonstrate that the contract will result in actual overall cost savings to the trial court for the duration of the entire contract as compared with the trial court's actual costs of providing the same services. The bill would require a contract for services in excess of $100,000 annually to include specific, measurable performance standards and provisions for audits on performance and cost savings, as specified. This bill would provide that these standards apply to any contract entered into, renewed, or extended after the effective date of this measure. The bill would provide that its provisions do not apply to a contract under specified circumstances, including when services are incidental to a contract for the purchase or lease of real or personal property. This bill would require each trial court to provide a report by February 1, 2014, to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the chairpersons of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Assembly Judiciary Committee if the trial court entered into a contract between July 1, 2013, and the effective date of this measure for services that were provided or are customarily provided by its trial court employees if the contract has a term extending beyond March 31, 2014. This report would be required to include specified information relating to these contracts, including an analysis of whether the contract resulted in the displacement of trial court employees. The bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

The Child Care and Development Services Act, administered by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, establishes a system of child care and development services for children from infancy to 13 years of age and their parents, including a full range of supervision, health, and support services through full- and part-time programs. Existing law requires the Superintendent to administer general child care and development programs, as specified. This bill would enact the California Partnership for Infants and Toddlers Act of 2013, and would require the Superintendent, by March 1, 2014, to apply to the California Children and Families Commission for funding from the moneys received by the commission pursuant to the California Children and Families Program. The bill would continuously appropriate these moneys to the Superintendent, who would be required to expend those moneys by making supplemental grants available to qualifying general child care and development infant and toddler contracting agencies that serve infants and toddlers from birth to 3 years of age for purposes of offering to enrolled children and families support services, as specified. The Superintendent, in consultation with the California Children and Families Commission, would be required to determine the agencies and support services that qualify for funding and establish standards to ensure quality child care. The bill would require the Superintendent, by March 1, 2017, to submit a report to the Legislature evaluating the act.

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 establish the California Postsecondary Education Commission for, among other purposes, the collection of data pertinent to the planning and coordination of the higher education system. Existing law establishes the California Distance Learning Policy, which sets forth the guiding goal and principles for the utilization of technology in California postsecondary education. This bill would establish the California Postsecondary Online Education Task Force, to consist of 15 members to be selected, as specified, on or before March 31, 2014. This bill would require the task force to evaluate and collect data on specified topics, and to submit a report on or before January 1, 2016, and every 2 years thereafter, to the Legislature with information obtained in its examination of those topics and recommendations of innovative online education methods.

(1) Existing law requires the Controller to annually compile and publish reports of the financial transactions of each county, city, and school district within the state, together with other matters he or she deems of public interest. This bill would change the definition of a special district subject to the reporting requirements of the Controller to include a public entity, agency, or board provided for by a joint powers agreement that is separate from the parties to the agreement and is responsible for the administration of the agreement. (2) Existing law provides that if the county, city, or district reports, including redevelopment agency reports, are not made in a specified manner, or there is reason to believe that the report is false, the Controller is required to appoint a qualified accountant to make an investigation and to obtain the information required for the annual report of financial transactions. Existing law provides that if a similar investigation is made of any county, city, or district for 2 successive years, then a copy of the results of those investigations shall be transmitted to the grand jury of the county investigated or in which the local agency investigated is situated. Existing law requires any costs incurred by the Controller in carrying out those audits to be paid by the local agency. This bill would also, until January 1, 2019, authorize the Controller to perform an audit or investigation of any county, city, special district, or community redevelopment agency, if the Controller has made findings, supported by documentation, that the local agency is not complying with the financial requirements in state law, state grant agreements, local charters, or local ordinances and require the Controller to prepare a report of the results of the audit or investigation and to file a copy with the local legislative body, as specified. This bill would require that if the results of those audits determine that the financial report filed by the local agency did not contain false, incomplete, or incorrect information, then the Controller shall waive the costs of the investigation, and would authorize the Controller to establish a payment program, as specified, to assist a local agency to pay for any costs that cannot be waived. (3) Existing law provides that an officer of a local agency who fails or refuses to make and file his or her financial report within 20 days after receipt of a written notice of the failure from the Controller forfeits to the state a specified amount depending on the amount of total revenue of that local agency. Existing law raises these amounts in the case of a community redevelopment agency and a joint powers agency that issues conduit revenue bonds in the 2nd and 3rd consecutive year. This bill would raise the forfeiture amounts for all local agencies, as specified. The bill would double these fines if the agency fails to submit the report to the Controller for 2 consecutive years, and would triple the fines if the agency fails to submit the report to the Controller for 3 consecutive years. This bill would increase penalties for an agency that fails to submit a report, as specified. This bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive, and conforming changes.