Asm. Cottie Petrie-Norris

Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires every city, county, and city and county to administratively approve an application to install electric vehicle charging stations and hydrogen-fueling stations through the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each city, county, and city and county to adopt an ordinance that creates an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. Existing law authorizes a city, county, or city and county developing an ordinance to refer to the recommendations contained in the most current version of the "Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Permitting Checklist," as specified. Existing law requires a city, county, and city and county, in developing the expedited permitting process, to adopt a checklist of all requirements with which electric vehicle charging stations must comply to be eligible for expedited review. For these purposes, existing law defines "hydrogen-fueling station" to mean the equipment used to store and dispense hydrogen fuel to vehicles according to industry codes and standards that is open to the public. Existing law requires a hydrogen-fueling station to meet certain requirements, including any rules established by the State Air Resources Board, Energy Commission, or Department of Food and Agriculture regarding safety, reliability, weights, and measures. This bill would modify the definition of "hydrogen-fueling station" to mean the equipment and structural design components necessary to ensure the safety of the fueling station, including hydrogen-refueling canopies, that are used to store and dispense hydrogen fuel to vehicles according to industry codes and standards that are open to the public. This bill would modify the requirements a hydrogen-fueling station must meet to include all applicable state laws and regulations pertaining to hydrogen fueling, including any rules established by the State Air Resources Board, Energy Commission, or Department of Food and Agriculture regarding safety, reliability, weights, and measures. This bill would require every city, county, or city and county to adopt an ordinance that creates an expedited, streamlined permitting process for certain hydrogen-fueling stations, as specified. This bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county developing an ordinance to refer to the recommendations contained in the most current version of the "Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Guidebook" or the "Hydrogen Station Permitting Guidebook," as specified. The bill would require a city, county, and city and county, in developing the expedited permitting process, to adopt a checklist of all requirements with which hydrogen-fueling stations must comply to be eligible for expedited review. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county with a population of 250,000 or more residents to comply with these provisions on or before September 30, 2025, and would require a city, county, or city and county with a population of fewer than 250,000 residents to comply with these provisions by September 30, 2028. By imposing additional duties on cities, counties, and cities and counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would repeal these provisions, except with regard to a city, county, or city and county being authorized to refer to the recommendations contained in the most current version of the "Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Guidebook," on January 1, 2030. 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.

Existing law prohibits a person subject to a protective order, as defined, from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition while that protective order is in effect and makes a willful and knowing violation of a protective order a crime. Existing law requires the court, when issuing the order with both parties present, to inform the parties of this information and to order the restrained person to relinquish any firearm or ammunition in the person's immediate possession or control or subject to their immediate possession or control. Existing law specifies the means of relinquishment if the law enforcement officer serving the protective order does not request the immediate surrender of the firearm or ammunition, including, surrender to law enforcement, or by selling the firearm or ammunition to a licensed gun dealer. Existing law requires a court to order the restrained person to relinquish firearms or ammunition and to notify the parties of how any firearms or ammunition still in the restrained party's possession are to be relinquished and how to submit a receipt to the court. Existing law authorizes the court to grant an exemption from the relinquishment order for a particular firearm or ammunition if the respondent can show that the firearm or ammunition is a necessary condition of continued employment and the person cannot be reassigned, as specified, and only authorizes possession on the job or traveling to and from employment. If the person is a peace officer who carries a firearm or ammunition as a condition of employment and the peace officer's personal safety depends on the ability to carry a firearm or ammunition, the court may exempt them from the relinquishment order, on duty or off, if the court finds that the peace officer does not pose a threat of harm. Existing law requires, prior to making this finding, that the court require a mandatory psychological evaluation of the peace officer and authorizes the court to require the peace officer to enter into counseling or other remedial treatment program to deal with any propensity for domestic violence. This bill would revise the peace officer exemption to authorize a court to allow a peace officer to carry a specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition if the peace officer is required, as a condition of continued employment, to carry that firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition, as specified, if they cannot be reassigned, and if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence, in writing or on the record, that the peace officer's personal safety depends on the ability to carry that specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition outside of scheduled work hours and they do not pose an additional threat of harm to a protected party or the public, as specified. The bill would require the mandatory psychological evaluation of the peace officer to be conducted by a mental health professional with domestic violence expertise and would require the court to consider the results of that evaluation. This bill would authorize an exemption from the relinquishment requirement, only during scheduled working hours, for a nonpeace officer who is required to carry a specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition as a condition of continued employment, as specified, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence, in writing or on the record, that the respondent does not pose an additional threat of harm to a protected party or the public by having access to the specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition. The bill would authorize the court to order a psychological evaluation by a licensed mental health professional with domestic violence expertise to make this finding. The bill would require the court, if an exemption is granted during the pendency of a temporary restraining order and the court subsequently issues a restraining order on the same application, to review and make a finding regarding the appropriateness of the granted exemption, as provided. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 6389 of the Family Code proposed by SB 899 to be operative only if this bill and SB 899 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law defines a "hate crime" as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, in consultation with specified subject-matter experts, to develop a course of instruction that trains law enforcement on, among other things, indicators of hate crimes and techniques, responses to hate crime waves against certain groups, including Arab and Islamic communities, and methods to handle incidents of hate crimes in a noncombative manner. This bill would require instruction to include identifying when a gun violence restraining order is appropriate to prevent a hate crime and the procedure for seeking a gun violence restraining order. The bill would additionally require instruction on responses to hate crime waves against specified groups, including the LGBTQ and Jewish communities. Existing law allows a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having custody or control of any firearms or ammunition if the person poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to themselves or another by having custody or control of a firearm or ammunition. Existing law establishes a civil restraining order process to accomplish that purpose, including authorizing the issuance of an ex parte order, as specified. Existing law requires specified law enforcement agencies to develop, adopt, and implement policies and standards relating to gun violence restraining orders. Existing law requires these policies to include, among other things, standards and procedures for requesting and serving an ex parte gun violence restraining order or procedures on the responsibility of officers to attend gun violence restraining order hearings. This bill would revise the above-described policies and standards to include, among other things, an officer's obligation to diligently participate in the evidence presentation process at hearings and the procedure for storing firearms surrendered in compliance with a gun violence restraining order. The bill would require law enforcement agencies, as specified, to make information about the standards and policies available to all officers. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law prohibits a person subject to specified protective orders from owning a firearm or ammunition. Existing law requires a person subject to those orders to relinquish any firearms or ammunition they own. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would require the court, when issuing those orders, to provide the person subject to the order with information on how any firearms or ammunition still in their possession are to be relinquished, as specified. The bill would require the court to review the file to determine whether the receipt has been filed and inquire as to whether the person has complied with the requirement. The bill would require violations of the firearms or ammunition prohibition to be reported to the prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction where the order has been issued within 2 business days of the court hearing unless the restrained party provides a receipt showing compliance at a subsequent hearing or by direct filing with the clerk of the court. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would also require the court, at a noticed hearing relating to these orders, to consider information presented that the restrained person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition. The bill would authorize the court, upon making this finding, to set a review hearing, as specified, to determine whether the person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition in violation of the above provisions. Existing law requires specified protective orders related to domestic violence to be served on the respondent at the request of the petitioner, whether or not the respondent has been taken into custody, by a law enforcement officer who is present at the scene of reported domestic violence involving the parties to the proceeding or who receives a request from the petitioner to provide service of the order. Existing law requires the petitioner to provide the officer with an endorsed copy of the order and proof of service that the officer is then required to complete and transmit to the issuing court, as specified. If the law enforcement officer determines that a protective order has been issued but not served, existing law requires the office to immediately notify the respondent of the terms of the order and where a written copy of the order can be obtained, and to enforce the order at that time. Existing law prohibits a fee from being charged to the petitioner for service of those orders. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would similarly require a peace officer, as defined, upon the request of a petitioner, to serve and enforce specified protective orders related to, among other things, elder or dependent adult abuse, harassment, workplace violence, or violence in postsecondary educational institutions, on a respondent, whether or not the respondent has been taken into custody. The bill would similarly prohibit the imposition of a fee on a petitioner for service of these orders. By expanding the duties of local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of a child and establishes factors to be considered in rebutting that presumption, including that the perpetrator is restrained by a domestic violence prevention order and has, or has not, complied with that order. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would additionally establish, as a factor to be considered, whether the perpetrator is restrained by any other protective order and has, or has not, complied with that order. Commencing January 1, 2026, the bill would, for specified protective orders if the respondent declines to relinquish possession of a firearm or ammunition based on the assertion of the right against self-incrimination, authorize the court to grant use immunity for the relinquishment of the firearm. Existing law authorizes the court, as part of a relinquishment order, to grant an exemption from certain relinquishment requirements if the respondent can show that a firearm is necessary as a condition of continued employment and their employer is unable to reassign the respondent to a position where the firearm is unnecessary. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would revise the relinquishment process and would instead authorize the court to grant an exemption if the respondent is not precluded from owning, possessing, controlling, or purchasing a firearm and ammunition under state or federal law and specified conditions, depending on whether the respondent is a peace officer, are met. Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law also specifies the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, among other grounds, that the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person prohibited from owning that firearm due to a domestic violence restraining order, as specified. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would additionally allow a search warrant to be issued for, among other things, ammunition that a person is prohibited from owning due to a domestic violence restraining order, and for a firearm or ammunition that a person is prohibited from owning due to other specified temporary restraining orders or injunctions. Existing law, the Safety For All Act of 2016, approved by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, requires any person selling specified amounts of ammunition to be licensed as an ammunition vendor. Existing law exempts specified transfers of ammunition from these provisions. Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act. This bill would amend Proposition 63 to exempt the sale of ammunition to a licensed ammunition vendor by a person required to relinquish that ammunition due to specified protective orders. The bill would make additional conforming and clarifying changes, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 6389 of the Family Code proposed by AB 2759 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2759 are enacted and this bill is enacted last, and would also incorporate additional changes to Section 1524 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1002 to become operative only if this bill and SB 1002 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law prohibits a person who has been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted to a designated facility, or who has been certified for intensive treatment after having been admitted to a designated facility, because the person is a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental health disorder, from owning a firearm, as specified. Existing law also prohibits a person who has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness, or who has been adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender, a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of committing specified crimes, a person found by a court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial, or a person who has been placed under conservatorship by a court because the person is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism from purchasing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, or having possession, custody, or control of a firearm or any other deadly weapon. A violation of these prohibitions is a crime. This bill would, among other things, expand those prohibitions to also prohibit the ownership, possession, custody, or control of ammunition. The bill would require a person subject to the prohibition because they are a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental health disorder to relinquish a firearm, other deadly weapon, or ammunition they own, possess, or control within 72 hours of discharge from a facility, as specified, and would require a person subject to the prohibition because they are a person who has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness, or who has been adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender, or a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of committing specified crimes, to relinquish to law enforcement a firearm, other deadly weapon, or ammunition in their custody or control within 14 days of the court order finding the person to be a person as described. By expanding the application of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law also specifies the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, among other grounds, when the property or things to be seized include a firearm or other deadly weapon that is owned by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of specified individuals. This bill would additionally authorize a search warrant to be issued on the grounds that the property to be seized includes ammunition and is owned by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of specified individuals. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1524 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 899 to be operative only if this bill and SB 899 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 2629 and SB 1025 to be operative only if this bill and one or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.

Existing law requires the destruction of certain firearms, in the possession of a law enforcement agency, that have been confiscated, seized, abandoned, unclaimed, or surrendered. This bill would specify that destruction of a firearm means destroying the firearm in its entirety by smelting, shredding, crushing, or cutting all parts of the firearm, including any attachments. The bill would also require every law enforcement agency, as defined, to develop and maintain a written policy regarding the destruction of firearms and shall make that policy available on its internet website. The bill would exempt from the requirements to destroy a weapon pursuant to the bill's provisions law enforcement agencies that have existing contracts prior to November 1, 2024, with another person or entity for the destruction of firearms if the law enforcement agency would have to breach its existing contract with the other person or entity. By requiring local law enforcement agencies to follow specified requirements for destruction and to create and maintain a written policy on firearm destruction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires certain officers who possess firearms that were exhibits in a criminal proceeding that were left unclaimed for at least 180 days to destroy the firearm, as specified. This bill would exempt firearms that were stolen or used without the prior knowledge of their lawful owner and that are possessed by a public administrator, public guardian, or public conservator in the performance of their duties as the personal representative of a decedent's estate, or in the performance of the duties of a conservator or guardian over a person or their estate. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 18005 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 2739 and AB 2842 to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law generally regulates the possession of firearms, including imposing storage requirements to prevent children from gaining access to firearms. This bill would, beginning on January 1, 2026, require a person who possesses a firearm in a residence to keep the firearm securely stored when the firearm is not being carried or readily controlled by the person or another lawful authorized user. For purposes of these provisions, a firearm is securely stored if the firearm is maintained within, locked by, or disabled using a certified firearm safety device or secure gun safe that meets specified standards. The bill would make a first and 2nd violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a 3rd or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt unloaded antique firearms, as defined, or firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to seek to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor or a felony if a person keeps a firearm within any premises that are under the person's custody or control and the person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian, and the child obtains access to the firearm and causes injury, other than great bodily injury, or death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person, or carries that firearm off-premises, as defined, to a public place or a school. Existing law exempts a person from the above provisions if the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises. This bill would remove these exemptions. 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.

Existing law establishes the Foster Youth Services Coordinating Program, under the administration of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, to provide supplemental funding to county offices of education, or a consortium of county offices of education, to coordinate and ensure that local educational agencies within its jurisdiction are providing services to foster youth pupils pursuant to a foster youth services coordinating plan with the purpose of ensuring positive educational outcomes. The program authorizes a county office of education, or a consortium of county offices of education, to apply to the Superintendent for grant funding to operate an education-based foster youth services coordinating program. If sufficient funds are available, existing law requires each foster youth services coordinating program to identify at least one person as the foster youth educational services coordinator, who is responsible for facilitating educational support, as specified, to any pupil in foster care residing or attending school in the county or consortium of counties. As a condition of receiving funds, existing law requires a foster youth services coordinating program to develop and implement a foster youth services plan that includes, among other things, authorization of a school district, when specified conditions apply, to enter into a temporary agreement with the foster youth services coordinating program to provide tutoring, mentoring, and counseling services to pupils, as provided. This bill instead would authorize a foster youth services coordinating program to provide tutoring, mentoring, and counseling services to a foster youth pupil, if a foster youth educational services coordinator determines, as specified, that the foster youth services coordinator is unable to secure those services provided by the foster youth pupil's school district and if those services are established as needed and identified by the foster youth educational services coordinator. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 42921 of the Education Code proposed by AB 3223 to be operative only if this bill and AB 3223 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law establishes the family conciliation court, which may be implemented by the superior court in each county, to provide means for the reconciliation of spouses and the amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies. In each county in which a family conciliation court is established, the superior court may appoint one supervising counselor of conciliation and one secretary to assist the family conciliation court in disposing of its business and carrying out its functions. Existing law defines an "evaluator" for purposes of family reconciliation court proceedings to include a supervising or associate counselor, a mediator, a court-connected or private child custody evaluator, or a court-appointed investigator or evaluator, as described. Existing law requires an evaluator to participate in specified training requirements, including 16 hours of advanced training within a 12-month period. Existing law requires 12 hours of that advanced training to include, among other topics, the unique issues in a family and psychological assessment in a domestic violence case, such as the nature and extent of domestic violence, and the relationship of gender, class, race, culture, and sexual orientation to domestic violence, and the influence of alcohol and drug use and abuse on the incidence of domestic violence. This bill would require the risks associated with access to firearms and ways to reduce those risks to be included on the list of issues in a family and psychological assessment in a domestic violence case for purposes of the advanced training.

Existing law, the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law, and existing laws authorize districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, which generally conforms to the Sales and Use Tax Law. Exemptions from state sales and use taxes are automatically incorporated into the local tax laws. Existing law, the Sales and Use Tax Law, imposes state taxes on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. The Sales and Use Tax Law provides various exemptions from those taxes, including a partial exemption from those taxes, on and after July 1, 2014, and before July 1, 2030, for the gross receipts from the sale of, and the storage, use, or other consumption of, qualified tangible personal property, as defined, that is, among other things, purchased by a qualified person for use primarily in manufacturing, processing, refining, fabricating, or recycling of tangible personal property, as specified, or purchased for use by a qualified person to be used primarily in research and development. Existing law prohibits the exemption described above from applying with respect to any tax levied by a county, city, or district pursuant to, or in accordance with, the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the Transactions and Use Tax Law, sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the Sales and Use Tax Law, and sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the California Constitution. The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws. This bill would allow, for a taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2025, and before January 1, 2030, a credit against those taxes to a taxpayer in an amount equal to the amount of tax reimbursement paid during the taxable year for sales tax on gross receipts that would be exempt from taxation under the Sales and Use Tax Law pursuant to the sales and use tax exemption described above but for the provision that prohibits that exemption from applying with respect to any tax levied by a county, city, or district pursuant to, or in accordance with, the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the Transactions and Use Tax Law, sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the Sales and Use Tax Law, and sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the California Constitution. This bill would also allow for a taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2025, and before January 1, 2030, a similar tax credit against those taxes to a taxpayer in an amount equal to the amount of use tax paid during the taxable year for storage, use, or other consumption that would be exempt from taxation under the Sales and Use Tax Law pursuant to the sales and use tax exemption described above but for the provision that prohibits that exemption from applying with respect to any tax levied by a county, city, or district pursuant to, or in accordance with, the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the Transactions and Use Tax Law, sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the Sales and Use Tax Law, and sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the California Constitution. This bill would require, on or before May 14, 2025, and annually thereafter, the Department of Finance to provide to the legislative budget committees an estimate of the amount of revenue that would not be realized if the credits described above were allowed for that taxable year and would provide that those credits are allowed only for taxable years for which the Legislature appropriates money in the Budget Act for the administration of those credits. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax credit to contain, among other things, specific goals that the tax credit will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill would make specified findings detailing the goal of the above-described tax credit, performance indicators for determining whether the credit meets that goal, and data collection requirements. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.