Asm. Travis Allen

Existing law, the State Contract Act, authorizes a state agency, following a noticed hearing, to suspend a person from bidding on or being awarded a public works or services contract with the agency or from being a subcontractor at any tier if the person, or a specified other person associated with that person, has been convicted of specified violations, including fraud and bribery, in connection with a public works contract with a public entity, as provided, for a period of 3 years following the date of conviction. This bill would additionally authorize a state agency to suspend a person for 3 years from bidding on, or being awarded, a public works or services contract if that person or specified other person has been certified by the President of the United States Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives under specified federal law as having failed to give testimony, produce papers, or answer any pertinent question when summoned as a witness by the authority of the United States Congress.

The California Emergency Services Act, among other things, establishes the Office of Emergency Services within the office of the Governor, under the charge of a Director of Emergency Services appointed by the Governor. The act and other existing law set forth the duties and authority of the office and the director with respect to specified emergency preparedness, mitigation, and response activities within the state. Existing law requires the director to establish a Curriculum Development Advisory Committee to advise the office on the development of course curricula including criteria for terrorism awareness curriculum content to meet the training needs of state and local emergency response personnel and volunteers. Existing law requires this basic terrorism awareness training to include, among other things, an overview of conventional, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, threat and hazard recognition, and gathering, verifying, assessing, and communicating incident information. Existing law requires every agency responsible for development of terrorism awareness training and every agency that employs or uses first responders to give a high priority to the completion of that training. This bill would require the Office of Emergency Services to create an antiterrorism task force. The bill would require the task force to share information with federal law enforcement agencies.

Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law, known as the Donahoe Higher Education Act, among other things, sets forth the missions and functions of these 3 segments. This bill would express legislative findings and declarations relating to the costs of public postsecondary education. The bill would require that the amount of tuition charged to eligible students of the California State University, and the amount of the enrollment fee charged to eligible students of the California Community Colleges, not be increased from the amounts that were charged as of December 31, 2016, until the completion of the 2019–20 academic year. Notwithstanding this provision, the bill would not be operative in a fiscal year for which the Governor has issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency pursuant to a specified provision of the California Constitution. The bill would define "eligible students" as students exempt from payment of nonresident tuition either because they are California residents, as defined, or are exempted from payment of nonresident tuition pursuant to any of several specified provisions of existing law. The bill would also urge the regents to adopt policies that are consistent with this provision.

The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 65 at the November 4, 1986, statewide general election (Proposition 65) , prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without giving a specified warning, or from knowingly discharging or releasing such a chemical into water, or into or onto land and passing into any source of drinking water, except as specified. The act imposes civil penalties upon persons who violate those prohibitions, and provides for the enforcement of those prohibitions by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or specified city attorneys or prosecutors. The act also provides for enforcement by an action brought by any person in the public interest, if that private action is commenced more than 60 days after the person has given notice of the violation that is the subject of the action to the Attorney General and the district attorney, the city attorney, or the prosecutor in whose jurisdiction the violation is alleged to have occurred, and to the alleged violator. If the notice made by a person bringing an action in the public interest alleges a violation of the act's warning requirement, existing law requires that the notice include a certificate of merit stating that the person executing the certificate has consulted with one or more persons with relevant and appropriate experience or expertise who has reviewed facts, studies, or other data regarding the exposure to the listed chemical that is the subject of the action, and that, based on that information, the person believes there is a reasonable and meritorious case for the private action. Existing law requires factual information sufficient to establish the basis of the certificate of merit to be attached to the certificate of merit that is served on the Attorney General. This bill would require the same factual information sufficient to establish the basis of the certificate of merit to be attached to the certificate of merit that is served on the alleged violator. Existing law authorizes the trial court, upon the motion of the alleged violator or the court's own motion, to review the basis for the certificate of merit upon conclusion of an action brought in the public interest and, as part of that review, requires the information in the certificate of merit to be disclosed to the court in an in-camera proceeding at which the moving party is not present. Existing law deems the action to be frivolous if the court finds in that review that there is no credible factual basis for the certified belief that an exposure to a listed chemical has occurred or was threatened. Existing law provides that, except when the trial court reviews the basis for the certificate of merit, the basis for the certificate is not discoverable. This bill would repeal the prohibition on the moving party being present at the in-camera proceeding and would make the basis for the certificate of merit discoverable. The bill would also authorize a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to a defendant who has prevailed in a final determination of the action. Proposition 65 provides that it may be amended by a statute, passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature, to further its purposes. This bill would find and declare that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 65.

Existing sales and use tax laws impose taxes on retailers measured by 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, measured by sales price. Those laws partially exempt from those taxes, for a specified period, the gross receipts from the sale of, and the storage, use, or other consumption of, specified tangible personal property purchased for use by a qualified person, as defined, to be used primarily in manufacturing or other processes, and in research and development. On and after July 1, 2014, tangible personal property with a useful life of one or more years, as defined by reference to state income or franchise taxes, is deemed to have a useful life of one or more years for purposes of the exemption. This bill would define "useful life" for periods on and after July 1, 2014, to also include tangible personal property that is expensed for state income or franchise tax purposes and that has a physical useful life of one or more years. The bill, with respect to property with a useful life of one or more years as redefined by this bill, would require the State Board of Equalization to cancel any notice of determination and any related penalties and interest and would prohibit the board from issuing any notice of determination with respect to the purchase or sale of that property. The bill would authorize a qualified person to offset the amount of sales tax reimbursement or use tax paid against any sales and use tax imposed on the qualified person when a qualified person has paid sales tax reimbursement or use tax on purchases of qualified tangible personal property that has a useful life of one or more years, as redefined by the bill, as provided. The bill, beginning on and after January 1, 2018, and before July 1, 2026, would additionally exempt from those taxes special purpose buildings and foundations used for the generation or production or storage and distribution, as defined, of electric power and qualified tangible personal property purchased for used by a qualified person to be used primarily in the generation or production or storage and distribution of electric power or purchased for use by a contractor for the qualified person, as specified. The bill, on and after January 1, 2018, would expand the definition of qualified person to include, among others, a person primarily engaged in the business of electric power generation. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would improve the state's sales and use tax incentives to promote a stronger California economy by securing a greater share of the high-paying, high-skilled jobs in manufacturing and research and development.

Existing law, with certain exceptions, establishes 8 hours as a day's work and a 40-hour workweek, and requires payment of prescribed overtime compensation for additional hours worked. Existing law authorizes the adoption by 23 of employees in a work unit of alternative workweek schedules providing for workdays no longer than 10 hours within a 40-hour workweek. This bill would establish an overtime exemption for an employee-selected holiday season flexible work schedule. The exemption would allow during the holiday season, as defined, at the request of an individual nonexempt employee working in the retail industry, and upon employer approval, an employee-selected flexible work schedule providing for workdays up to 10 hours per day within a 40-hour workweek. The employer would be obligated to pay overtime based on the employee's regular rate of pay, as prescribed, for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek or over 10 hours in a workday, whichever is greater. The bill would establish requirements for the termination of an agreed-upon schedule. The bill would except from its provisions employees covered by collective bargaining and public employees, as specified. The bill would require the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement in the Department of Industrial Relations to enforce this provision and adopt or revise regulations as necessary.

Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law provides for a schedule of benefits provided under the Medi-Cal program, which includes certain dental services that are referred to as Denti-Cal. Existing law, the California Healthcare, Research, and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016, or Proposition 56, which was approved by voters at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, increases taxes imposed on distributors of cigarettes and tobacco products and allocates a specified percentage of those revenues to the department to increase funding for existing health care programs under the Medi-Cal program. Existing law establishes the Healthcare Treatment Fund for this purpose. This bill would require the department, for the 2017–18 fiscal year, to double Denti-Cal provider reimbursement rates for the 15 most common prevention, treatment, and oral evaluation services based on the average rates per service established in the 2015–16 fiscal year. The bill would appropriate for the 2017–18 fiscal year such an amount as may be necessary to double the reimbursement rates from the Healthcare Treatment Fund to the department, as specified.

(1) Existing law provides various sources of funding for transportation purposes, including funding for the state highway system and the local street and road system. These funding sources include, among others, fuel excise taxes, commercial vehicle weight fees, local transactions and use taxes, and federal funds. Existing law imposes certain registration fees on vehicles, with revenues from these fees deposited in the Motor Vehicle Account and used to fund the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of the California Highway Patrol. Existing law provides for the monthly transfer of excess balances in the Motor Vehicle Account to the State Highway Account. This bill would create the Traffic Relief and Road Improvement Program to address traffic congestion and deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system. The bill would provide for the deposit of various existing sources of revenue in the Traffic Relief and Road Improvement Account, which the bill would create in the State Transportation Fund, including revenues attributable to the sales and use tax on motor vehicles, revenues attributable to automobile and motor vehicle insurance policies from the insurer gross premiums tax, revenues from certain diesel fuel sales and use taxes, revenues from certain vehicle registration fees, and certain miscellaneous State Highway Account revenues. This bill would continuously appropriate the revenues in the account, after deductions for administration, with 40% of the revenues to be allocated to the Department of Transportation for maintenance of the state highway system or for purposes of the State Highway Operation and Protection Program, 40% of the revenues to be apportioned by the Controller to cities and counties for road purposes pursuant to a specified formula, and 20% to fund projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program that create measurable reductions in traffic congestion. The bill would require the California Transportation Commission to adopt performance criteria and metrics for expenditure of certain of these revenues, and would impose various requirements on cities and counties in order to receive apportionments. The bill would also require the department to implement efficiency measures with the goal of generating $100,000,000 annually in savings at the department and to propose, from the identified savings, an appropriation to be included in the annual Budget Act of up to $100,000,000 from the State Highway Account for expenditure on the Active Transportation Program. (2) Article XXII of the California Constitution provides that the State of California and all other governmental entities shall be allowed the choice to contract for architectural and engineering services for all public works of improvement as an alternative to the employment of civil service employees to perform those services. This bill would require the Department of Transportation to increase its annual use of contract staff resources so that 20% of its capital outlay staff consists of contract resources by the 2020–21 fiscal year. (3) Article XIX of the California Constitution requires gasoline excise tax revenues from motor vehicles traveling upon public streets and highways to be deposited in the Highway Users Tax Account, for allocation to city, county, and state transportation purposes. Existing law generally provides for statutory allocation of gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to other modes of transportation, including aviation, boats, agricultural vehicles, and off-highway vehicles, to particular accounts and funds for expenditure on purposes associated with those other modes, except that a specified portion of these gasoline excise tax revenues is deposited in the General Fund. Expenditure of the gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to those other modes is not restricted by Article XIX of the California Constitution. This bill, commencing January 1, 2018, would instead transfer to the Highway Users Tax Account for allocation to state and local transportation purposes under a specified formula most of the gasoline excise tax revenues currently being deposited in the General Fund that are attributable to boats, agricultural vehicles, and off-highway vehicles. Because that account is continuously appropriated, the bill would make an appropriation. The bill would also delete a monthly transfer to the General Fund of $833,000 in gasoline excise taxes attributable to off-highway vehicles, thereby retaining those revenues for off-highway vehicle programs. (4) Existing law imposes weight fees on the registration of commercial motor vehicles and provides for the deposit of net weight fee revenues into the State Highway Account. Existing law provides for the transfer of certain weight fee revenues from the State Highway Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund to reimburse the General Fund for payment of debt service on general obligation bonds issued for certain transportation purposes. Existing law also provides for the transfer of specified weight fee revenues to the Transportation Bond Direct Payment Account for direct payment of debt service on designated bonds, which are defined to be certain transportation general obligation bonds issued pursuant to Proposition 1B of 2006. Existing law also provides for loans of weight fee revenues to the General Fund to the extent the revenues are not needed for bond debt service purposes, with the loans to be repaid when the revenues are later needed for those purposes, as specified. This bill would repeal these provisions, thereby eliminating the use of the weight fee revenues for transportation general obligation bond debt service and retaining those revenues in the State Highway Account. The bill would make other conforming changes in that regard. (5) Article XIX of the California Constitution restricts the expenditure of revenues from taxes imposed by the state on fuels used in motor vehicles upon public streets and highways to street and highway and certain mass transit purposes. Existing law requires certain miscellaneous revenues deposited in the State Highway Account that are not restricted as to expenditure by Article XIX of the California Constitution to be transferred to the Transportation Debt Service Fund in the State Transportation Fund, as specified, and requires the Controller to transfer from the fund to the General Fund an amount of those revenues necessary to offset the current year debt service made from the General Fund on general obligation transportation bonds issued pursuant to Proposition 116 of 1990. This bill would delete the transfer of these miscellaneous revenues to the Transportation Debt Service Fund, and would instead require the miscellaneous revenues to be transferred to the Traffic Relief and Road Improvement Account for expenditure pursuant to (1) above. (6) Existing law provides for the deposit of all moneys received by the Department of Motor Vehicles into the Motor Vehicle Account in the State Transportation Fund, which includes some miscellaneous revenues that are not restricted by Article XIX of the California Constitution. Item 2740-011-0044 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2016, in that regard, requires the Controller to transfer those miscellaneous revenues from the Motor Vehicle Account to the General Fund and estimates the amount of those revenues in the 2015–16 fiscal year at $78,592,000. This bill would repeal the above-referenced item of the Budget Act of 2016. The bill would require the Controller to transfer, from the General Fund to the Motor Vehicle Account, an amount equal to all revenues previously transferred from that account to the General Fund pursuant to this item. The bill, commencing in the 2016–17 fiscal year, would require all revenues in the Motor Vehicle Account that are not protected by Article XIX of the California Constitution to be allocated, upon appropriation, to the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of the California Highway Patrol, as specified. (7) Existing law provides for loans of revenues from various transportation funds and accounts to the General Fund, with various repayment dates specified. This bill would require specified loans with a repayment date of January 1, 2018, or later to instead be repaid by December 31, 2017. The bill would require the funds repaid to the State Highway Account to be allocated between state and local government transportation purposes pursuant to a specified formula. (8) Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the State Air Resources Board from the auction or sale of allowances as part of a market-based compliance mechanism relative to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Existing law continuously appropriates 60% of the annual proceeds of the fund to various transportation and housing programs. Existing law, beyond the sales and use tax rate generally applicable, imposes an additional sales and use tax on diesel fuel at the rate of 1.75%, subject to certain exemptions, and provides for the net revenues collected from the additional tax to be transferred to the Public Transportation Account. Existing law continuously appropriates these revenues to the Controller for allocation by formula to transportation agencies for public transit purposes under the State Transit Assistance Program. Existing law provides for an increase of $8 in the smog abatement fee on new motor vehicles initially exempt from the smog check program, and provides for an increase of $3 in the basic vehicle registration fee, with revenues from these fee increases deposited, as specified, in the Air Quality Improvement Fund, the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Fund, and the Enhanced Fleet Modernization Subaccount for expenditure on certain air quality programs. This bill would require equivalent amounts of revenue to be made available for the above purposes from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to the extent revenues are available after funding existing programs, and would require the specified diesel sales and use tax revenues and increases in vehicle registration fees to instead be transferred to the Traffic Relief and Road Improvement Account for expenditure pursuant to (1) above. The bill, beyond the backfill required for the Public Transportation Account, would additionally provide for an additional transfer from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to the Public Transportation Account, as specified. The bill would exempt funds transferred from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to the Public Transportation Account from statutory restrictions and limitations otherwise applicable to expenditures from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as specified. (9) Existing law establishes in state government the Transportation Agency, which includes various departments and state entities, including the California Transportation Commission. Existing law vests the California Transportation Commission with specified powers, duties, and functions relative to transportation matters. Existing law requires the commission to retain independent authority to perform the duties and functions prescribed to it under any provision of law. This bill would exclude the California Transportation Commission from the Transportation Agency, establish it as an independent entity in state government, and require it to act in an independent oversight role. The bill would also make conforming changes. (10) Existing law creates various state agencies, including the Department of Transportation, the High-Speed Rail Authority, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the State Air Resources Board, with specified powers and duties. Existing law provides for the allocation of state transportation funds to various transportation purposes. This bill would create the Office of the Transportation Inspector General in state government, as an independent office that would not be a subdivision of any other government entity, to ensure that all of the above-referenced state agencies and all other state agencies expending state transportation funds are operating efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with federal and state laws. The bill would provide for the Governor to appoint the Transportation Inspector General for a 6-year term, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and would provide that the Transportation Inspector General may not be removed from office during the term except for good cause. The bill would specify the duties and responsibilities of the Transportation Inspector General, which would include an annual audit of state transportation megaprojects, as defined, in consultation with the California State Auditor, and would require an annual report to the Legislature and Governor. (11) Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to prepare the State Highway Operation and Protection Program every other year for the expenditure of transportation capital improvement funds for projects that are necessary to preserve and protect the state highway system, excluding projects that add new traffic lanes. The program is required to be based on an asset management plan, as specified. Existing law requires the department to specify, for each project in the program the capital and support budget and projected delivery date for various components of the project. Existing law provides for the California Transportation Commission to review and adopt the program, and authorizes the commission to decline and adopt the program if it determines that the program is not sufficiently consistent with the asset management plan. The bill would require the commission, as part of its review of the program, to hold at least one hearing in northern California and one hearing in southern California regarding the proposed program. The bill would require the department to submit any change to a programmed project as an amendment to the commission for its approval. This bill, on and after February 1, 2018, would also require the commission to make an allocation of all capital and support costs for each project in the program, and would require the department to submit a supplemental project allocation request to the commission for each project that experiences cost increases above the amounts in its allocation. The bill would require the commission to establish guidelines to provide exceptions to the requirement for a supplemental project allocation requirement that the commission determines are necessary to ensure that projects are not unnecessarily delayed. (12) Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation and regional transportation agencies, as defined, to enter into comprehensive development lease agreements with public and private entities, or consortia of those entities, for certain transportation projects that may charge certain users of those projects tolls and user fees, subject to various terms and requirements. These arrangements are commonly known as public-private partnerships. Existing law provides that a lease agreement may not be entered into under these provisions on or after January 1, 2017. This bill would authorize lease agreements under these provisions to be entered into until January 1, 2030. The bill would include the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority within the definition of regional transportation agency for this these purposes. The bill would make other revisions to these provisions. (13) The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B) created the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund and provided for allocation by the California Transportation Commission of $2 billion in bond funds for infrastructure improvements on highway and rail corridors that have a high volume of freight movement and for specified categories of projects eligible to receive these funds. Existing law continues the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund in existence in order to receive revenues from sources other than the bond act for these purposes. This bill would require revenues apportioned to the state from the national highway freight program established by the federal Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act to be allocated for trade corridor improvement projects approved pursuant to these provisions. Existing law requires the commission, in determining projects eligible for funding, to consult various state freight and regional infrastructure and goods movement plans and the statewide port master plan. This bill would revise the list of plans to be consulted by the commission when determining eligible projects for funding. The bill would also expand eligible projects to include, among others, rail landside access improvements, landside freight access improvements to airports, and certain capital and operational improvements. (14) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment, with certain exceptions. This bill would provide that CEQA does not apply to a project, or the issuance of a permit for a project, that consists of the inspection, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, replacement, or removal of existing transportation infrastructure, as specified, or to the addition of an auxiliary lane or bikeway to existing transportation infrastructure under certain conditions. (15) Existing law requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed revisions to guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts for projects within transit priority areas that promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Existing law authorizes the office to adopt guidelines to establish alternative metrics to the metrics used for traffic levels of service for transportation impacts outside transit priority areas. This bill would eliminate the authority of the office to adopt guidelines establishing alternative metrics for transportation impacts outside transit priority areas. (16) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.