(1) Existing law establishes a low-income housing tax credit program pursuant to which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) provides procedures and requirements for the allocation, in modified conformity with federal law, of state insurance, personal income, and corporation tax credit amounts to qualified low-income housing projects that have been allocated, or qualify for, a federal low-income housing tax credit, and farmworker housing. Existing law limits the total annual amount of the state low-income housing credit for which a federal low-income housing credit is required to the sum of $70,000,000, as increased by any percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the preceding calendar year, any unused credit for the preceding calendar years, and the amount of housing credit ceiling returned in the calendar year, and authorizes CTCAC, for calendar years beginning in 2020, to allocate an additional $500,000,000 to specified low-income housing projects and, for calendar years beginning in 2021, requires this additional amount only to be available for allocation pursuant to an authorization in the annual Budget Act or related legislation, and specified regulatory action by CTCAC. This bill would remove the requirement that, beginning in the 2021 calendar year, the above-described additional $500,000,000 allocation only be available pursuant to an authorization in the annual Budget Act or related legislation, and specified regulatory action by CTCAC. (2) This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009, which, among other things, provides for student protections and regulatory oversight of private postsecondary schools in the state. The act prohibits certain types of conduct by regulated institutions, including offering to compensate a student to act as an agent of the institution for the purposes of enrollment or recruitment of students, except as specified, and compensating an employee involved in recruitment and enrollment on the basis of commission, quota, bonus, or a similar method, also with exceptions. This bill would define financial aid for the purposes of the act. The bill would prohibit an institution from providing, directly or indirectly, certain financial incentives to any person, including a student, engaged in student recruitment or admission activities, engaged in awarding financial aid directly to a student, or engaged in the sales of any educational materials directly to a student, if that financial incentive is contingent upon quotas or the success of securing enrollments, admissions, awarding financial aid to a student, or sales of educational materials directly to a student.
(1) Under the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986, the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1988, and the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of June 1992, the issuance, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, of bonds in an amount not to exceed $400,000,000, $600,000,000, and $900,000,000, respectively, and the expenditure of the revenues therefrom, were authorized for the purpose of aid to the University of California and the California State University for, among other things, the construction and equipping of educational facilities, as specified. Existing law establishes the Higher Education Facilities Finance Committee to administer those acts, and to authorize the issuance and sale of bonds to the extent necessary to fund the education facilities construction apportionments expressly authorized by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. More recently, the Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998, the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002, the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004, and the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006 authorized the issuance of bonds and the expenditure of revenues therefrom for the University of California and the California State University, as well as for the California Community Colleges and public elementary and secondary schools. This bill would enact the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 2020, which, upon approval by the state electorate, would authorize the issuance of state general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000,000, with one-half of the amount designated for the University of California and the Hastings College of the Law and the other half designated for the California State University, for purposes similar to those specified in the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986, the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1988, and the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of June 1992, to be issued and sold in a manner similar to that provided under those acts. The bill would require that any request for funds from the bonds issued pursuant to the bond act enacted by this bill be accompanied by the 5-year capital outlay plan of the particular university or college and include a schedule that prioritizes the seismic retrofitting needed to significantly reduce seismic hazards in buildings identified as high priority by the university or college, as specified. (2) This bill would provide for the submission of the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 2020 to the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election, as specified.
Existing law, the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009, provides, among other things, for student protections and regulatory oversight of private postsecondary institutions in the state. The act is enforced by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education within the Department of Consumer Affairs. The act exempts an institution from its application if any of a list of specific criteria are met. Existing law requires an out-of-state private postsecondary educational institution to comply with specified requirements, including providing the bureau evidence of the institution's accreditation. This bill would define nonprofit corporation and public institution of higher education specially for purposes of the act. The bill would specify that only an institution of higher education meeting the act's definition of nonprofit corporation or public institution of higher education is exempt from the requirements imposed on an out-of-state private postsecondary educational institution. The bill would prohibit the bureau from verifying the exemption of, or contracting to handle complaints for, a nonprofit institution that operated as a for-profit institution during any period on or after January 1, 2010, unless the Attorney General makes certain determinations. Under existing law, the act specifies conduct by regulated institutions that, if undertaken, is a crime. Because this bill would extend the application of those criminal provisions, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) , an initiative measure enacted by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 2, 2004, statewide general election, establishes the continuously appropriated Mental Health Services Fund to fund various county mental health programs. The MHSA established the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, which is funded with moneys from the Mental Health Services Fund and which is required to review county plans relating to mental health services and to create specified reports on the use of MHSA moneys. Existing law requires counties to create plans for innovative programs, funds for which may be expanded upon approval by the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. Existing law authorizes the act to be amended by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature if the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act. Existing law authorizes the Legislature to add provisions to the act to clarify procedures and terms of the act by majority vote. This bill would clarify that the planning process for innovative programs is to be completed in collaboration with stakeholders and is to comply with open meetings laws. This bill would require the commission, in consultation with specified state, local, and private entities, to develop a strategy for the collection, organization, and public reporting of information on mental health funding, mental health programs, services, and strategies, funded by the Mental Health Services Act or other sources, and mental health outcomes, as specified. By authorizing a new use of MHSA moneys, this bill would amend the act. By requiring additional actions from local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the commission to make the information available as prescribed to the public and policymakers. The bill would authorize the commission, subject to available funding, to develop an innovation challenge and utilize one or more hackathons, open coding initiatives, or other approaches to an effective strategy to collect, display, and make publicly available relevant information to support the intent of these provisions. This bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, the Department of Finance, and any other state agency, to provide the commission with the information necessary to support the implementation of the reporting requirements. The bill would require an agency that cannot provide information to the commission as needed, to provide a written explanation to the commission and the relevant policy committees of the Senate and the Assembly explaining why the information cannot be provided and what authority, resources, or policy and practice changes are needed to accomplish the reporting goals. The bill would require the commission to make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature relating to the adequacy of various reporting requirements. Existing law requires each county mental health program to prepare and submit a 3-year program and expenditure plan, and annual updates, as specified, to the commission and the State Department of Health Care Services within 30 days after adoption. Existing law requires counties to demonstrate a partnership with constituents and stakeholders throughout the planning process that includes meaningful stakeholder involvement on mental health policy, program planning, and implementation, monitoring, quality improvement, evaluation, and budget allocations. This bill would require the 3-year plans to include certification by the county behavioral health director that the county has undertaken a rigorous community planning process with meaningful stakeholder involvement and would clarify that every meeting at which planning activities are undertaken for those plans is required to comply with open meeting laws. The bill would define the term "meaningful stakeholder involvement" for these purposes to include stakeholder input at all stages of the planning process, stakeholder training, training of county employees in involving stakeholders in the planning process, and the provision of services and incentives to promote stakeholder involvement, including, but not limited to, payment for transportation and childcare, and other processes to promote access to direct participation in the planning process. By requiring new duties of the county behavioral health director, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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, the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, establishes the requirements for the formation and operation of a nonprofit public benefit corporation and provides that a corporation is subject at all times to examination by the Attorney General. Existing law generally requires a corporation to give written notice to the Attorney General before it sells, leases, conveys, exchanges, transfers, or disposes of its assets, except as specified. Existing law provides specific procedures for health facilities and additionally requires these facilities to obtain the consent of the Attorney General prior to entering into a specified agreement or transaction. This bill would require a nonprofit corporation that operates or controls a private postsecondary educational institution to obtain the Attorney General's consent before entering into certain agreements or transactions, including an agreement or transaction to sell or convey its assets to, or to transfer control, responsibility, or governance of a material amount of its assets to, a for-profit corporation or mutual benefit corporation. The bill would require the Attorney General to consider specified factors in consenting to, giving conditional consent to, or not consenting to, the agreement or transaction, and would authorize the Attorney General to contract with experts, consultants, and state agencies, including the Bureau for Postsecondary Education, to receive advice in reviewing the agreement or transactions that are subject to the above-specified provisions. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, as a condition of approving the agreement or transaction, to transfer assets from the proceeds of the sale or transaction to the Student Tuition Recovery Fund, a continuously appropriated fund. By authorizing the deposit of additional moneys into a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation.
Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Board of Trustees of the California State University, as one of the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in California. Existing law requires the trustees to take action in open session on an executive compensation proposal concerning the Chancellor of the California State University, the president of an individual campus, a vice chancellor, the treasurer, the assistant treasurer, the general counsel, or the trustees' secretary. This bill would require, for any proposed increase to the compensation of the specified executive officers, or change to policies and procedures relating to the compensation of those executive officers, that the board include the proposed increase, or change to policies and procedures, and related information as an informational item on a meeting agenda, with a public vote at the subsequent, consecutive, quarterly meeting. The bill would prohibit an increase of compensation for an executive officer in a year in which tuition is increased. Existing law requires the California State University to report biennially to the Legislature and the Department of Finance on the total costs of education at the university on a systemwide and campus-by-campus basis, as specified. This bill would require the chancellor's office to require each campus to annually prepare a comparison of the campus' budget to its actual spending levels, including a summary report of its expenditures of state appropriations received for the academic year and to submit 2 years of comparisons and summary reports to the chancellor's office on or before January 15, 2022, and biennially thereafter. The bill would require the chancellor's office to compile the campus-based reports into a systemwide report submitted to the Legislature and Department of Finance on or before March 31, 2022, and biennially thereafter.
Existing law requires specified categories of law enforcement officers to meet training standards pursuant to courses of training certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Existing law requires the commission to implement a course or courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in California in the handling of domestic violence complaints and also to develop guidelines for law enforcement response to domestic violence. Existing law also requires the commission to adopt rules establishing minimum standards relating to the recruitment and training of local public safety dispatchers having a primary responsibility for providing dispatching services for local law enforcement agencies. This bill would require the commission to develop and implement, on or before January 1, 2021, a course of training regarding gun violence restraining orders. The bill would require the course to be incorporated into the course or courses of basic training for law enforcement officers on or before January 1, 2021, and would require the course or courses to include specified topics, including the process of filing a petition for gun violence restraining orders and situational training to assist officers in identifying when a gun violence restraining order is appropriate. The bill would authorize law enforcement officers, administrators, and executives to participate in supplementary training that includes these topics.
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and 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 establishes a schedule of benefits under the Medi-Cal program, which includes outpatient prescription drugs, subject to utilization controls and the Medi-Cal list of contract drugs. This bill would provide that comprehensive medication management (CMM) services, as defined, are covered under the Medi-Cal program, and would require CMM services to include, among other specified functions, the development of a care plan in collaboration with the beneficiary and the beneficiary's health care providers to address identified medication therapy problems. The bill would require CMM services to be offered to a beneficiary who is referred by a physician and surgeon as having a medical condition that could benefit from the provision of CMM services and who meets one or more of specified criteria, including being prescribed 8 or more prescription drugs or biologics, collectively by multiple prescribers, to treat or prevent 2 or more chronic medical conditions. The bill would require the department to establish reimbursement rates and rate billing codes for CMM services provided by a licensed pharmacist. The bill would require a pharmacist who initiates, adjusts, or discontinues medication in the course of providing CMM services to do so pursuant to established policies, procedures, or protocols described in existing provisions regulating pharmacists.