Sen. Anthony Cannella

This measure would designate February 27, 2012, as California Day of Remembrance for the Massacres of Armenians in Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku, and would call upon the people of California to use vigilance to promote greater tolerance in Azerbaijan and ensure the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict while protecting the security of the Armenians in the Nagorno Karabakh Republic.

Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to conduct assessments of all inmates that include, but are not limited to, data regarding the inmate's history of substance abuse, medical and mental health, education, family background, criminal activity, and social functioning. Existing law requires that these assessments be used to place inmates in programs that will aid in their reentry to society and that will most likely reduce their chances of reoffending. This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that provision.

Existing law requires a local publicly owned electric utility that sells electricity at retail to 75,000 or more customers to adopt and implement a tariff for electricity purchased from an electric generation facility meeting certain size, deliverability, and interconnection requirements and to consider certain factors. Existing law requires the local publicly owned electric utility to make the tariff available to owners and operators of an electric generation facility within the service territory of the utility, upon request, on a first-come-first-served basis, until the utility meets its proportionate share of a statewide cap of 750 megawatts cumulative rated generation capacity served under the feed-in tariffs adopted pursuant to the above-described requirements. Existing law provides that the electricity purchased from an electric generation facility counts toward meeting the local publicly owned electric utility's renewables portfolio standard annual procurement targets. This bill would move these requirements to that portion of the Public Utilities Code concerning the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. The bill would make other technical and nonsubstantive changes.

(1) The California Constitution prohibits the annual appropriations subject to limitation, as defined, of any entity of state or local government from exceeding its adjusted annual appropriations limit and provides for the disposition of excess revenues received by the state, as specified. The California Constitution also establishes the Budget Stabilization Account, commonly known as the rainy day fund, in the General Fund, and requires the Controller, no later than September 30 of each year, to transfer from the General Fund to the account a sum equal to 3% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year. This transfer of moneys is not required, unless otherwise directed by the Legislature by statute, in any fiscal year to the extent that the resulting balance in the account would exceed 5% of the General Fund revenue estimate set forth in the Budget Bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, or $8 billion, whichever is greater. This transfer of moneys may also be suspended or reduced for a fiscal year, as specified, by an executive order issued by the Governor. This measure would repeal the existing provisions imposing annual appropriations limits. Commencing in the 2013–14 fiscal year, the measure would instead impose an annual state expenditure limit based on total expenditures in the prior fiscal year, excluding specified amounts allocated to school districts and community college districts to meet a constitutional minimum funding obligation, from General Fund revenues and special fund revenues, adjusted for the percentage change in state population and the percentage change in the cost of living, as specified. The measure would authorize the expenditure limit to be exceeded for an emergency, as defined, declared by the Governor, not including revenue shortfalls, excessive spending, or other similar conditions limiting the ability to fund government operations. The measure would require the Director of Finance to report quarterly on the state's compliance with the expenditure limits for the current fiscal year. This measure would provide for the state expenditure limit discussed above to become permanently inoperative on the date that the Director of Finance determines that (A) the state's Budget Stabilization Account, which the measure would rename as the Budget Stabilization Fund, has a balance at least equal to 10% of the estimate of General Fund revenues, (B) all remaining current and future obligations from state budgetary debt, as defined, have been reduced to zero, and (C) the state is no longer deferring payments, as defined. Upon making this determination, the Director of Finance would be required to so notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. The provisions governing the Budget Stabilization Fund, as modified by this measure, would continue in operation after the state expenditure limit becomes inoperative, as discussed above. This measure would prohibit funds from being deposited into the Budget Stabilization Fund in any fiscal year in which all remaining obligations from state budgetary debt have not been reduced to zero. This measure would also provide that the transfer of moneys from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund is not required in any fiscal year to the extent that the resulting balance in the fund would exceed 10% of the General Fund revenues estimate set forth in the Budget Bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, and would delete the alternative $8 billion limit on the fund. This measure would provide that, apart from a transfer made for the purpose of responding to an emergency declared by the Governor, as defined, or a loan to meet General Fund cash requirements which would be repaid within a fiscal year, the total amount that may be transferred from the Budget Stabilization Fund to the General Fund for any fiscal year shall not exceed the lesser of the shortfall amount for the current fiscal year, as defined, or 50% of the balance of the Budget Stabilization Fund, depending upon specified criteria. In addition, this measure would create in the General Fund the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account and would direct the Controller to transfer, on October 1 of each year beginning in 2013, from the Budget Stabilization Fund to the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account a sum equal to 1.5% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year, except that this transfer would not be made in a fiscal year for which funds were not required to be deposited into the Budget Stabilization Fund, as specified, or for which the Governor issues an executive order to suspend or reduce the transfer of moneys from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund. The measure would permit appropriations to be made from the Supplemental Budget Stabilization Account only for capital outlay purposes or to retire bonded indebtedness of the state. After the state expenditure limit described above becomes inoperative, the measure would provide for the calculation of "unanticipated revenues" for each fiscal year, and would authorize those revenues to be used only to meet constitutional school funding obligations, for deposit in the Budget Stabilization Fund, and for other specified purposes, in a specified order of priority. For purposes of this calculation this measure would require the Director of Finance, on or before the May 29 preceding each fiscal year to report to the Legislature and the Governor (A) an estimate of the amount of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances available from the prior fiscal year for the current fiscal year, (B) the revenue forecast amount, as defined, for the current fiscal year, and (C) an estimate of specified General Fund obligations for the public schools. (2) The California Constitution requires that whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse the local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service. For the 2005–06 fiscal year and every subsequent fiscal year, for a mandate for which the costs of a local government claimant have been determined in a preceding fiscal year to be payable by the state pursuant to law, the Legislature is required to either appropriate, in the annual Budget Act, the full payable amount that has not been previously paid, or suspend the operation of the mandate for the fiscal year for which the annual Budget Act is applicable in a manner prescribed by law. This measure would prohibit a claim from being filed for reimbursement for any mandate if the mandate has been in effect for more than 2 years and no claim for that reimbursement was filed in that period. This measure would provide, as to specified mandates, that if the Legislature fails to either appropriate funds or suspend a mandate, any affected local government may commence an action in court for relief for the purpose of securing its rights pursuant to these provisions and, if that relief is granted in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction from which no further review is available, would require the state to provide the same subvention as is required by that court to any other local government that has a substantially similar claim or claims pending against the state. This measure would also provide that any taxpayer shall have standing to bring a legal action against the state for violating any of these provisions, subject to specified criteria. (3) The California Constitution establishes a minimum funding requirement for moneys to be applied by the state for the support of school districts and community college districts based on one of 3 tests in any given fiscal year (Proposition 98) . The first test applies, to the amount of General Fund revenues that may be appropriated pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, the percentage of General Fund revenues that were appropriated for school districts and community college districts in the 1986–87 fiscal year. The 2nd and 3rd tests compute the minimum funding requirement based on the allocations to school districts and community college districts from General Fund proceeds of taxes appropriated pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, adjusted for changes in enrollment, cost of living, or per capita General Fund revenues, in the prior fiscal year. This measure instead would base these computations on the amount of General Fund revenues that may be expended pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, in accordance with the changes to that article discussed above. (4) The California Constitution requires the Governor to submit to the Legislature, within the first 10 days of each calendar year, a proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year containing itemized statements for recommended state expenditures and estimated state revenues. The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from passing, and the Governor from signing, a Budget Bill that would appropriate from the General Fund a total amount that, when combined with all appropriations from the General Fund for that fiscal year made as of the date of the Budget Bill's passage, and the amount of any General Fund moneys transferred to a reserve account, exceeds estimated General Fund revenues for that fiscal year. The estimate of General Fund revenues is required to be set forth in the Budget Bill. This measure would require the Governor, in his or her proposed budget, to identify estimated total state resources available to meet recommended state expenditures and, further, to identify the amount of those resources that are anticipated to be one-time resources. The measure would prohibit passage of a Budget Bill that appropriates an amount that, when combined with prior appropriations and transfers to the reserve account, exceeds the estimate of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances available from the prior fiscal year. The measure would require the estimate of General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances to be set forth in the Budget Bill. (5) This measure would state that its provisions are severable.

Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenues to local jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and procedures, and generally requires that each jurisdiction be allocated an amount equal to the total of the amount of revenue allocated to that jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year, subject to certain modifications, and that jurisdiction's portion of the annual tax increment, as defined. Existing law requires, for purposes of property tax revenue allocations for the 2011–12 and 2012–13 fiscal years, the county auditor for a county for which a negative sum was calculated pursuant to a specified former statute, in reducing the amount of property tax revenue otherwise allocated to the county by an amount attributable to that negative sum, to apply a reduction amount equal to the reduction amount determined for specified fiscal years. This bill would instead require, for the 2010–11 fiscal year, the county auditor for a county for which a negative sum was calculated as described above, to increase the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenues deemed allocated to the county in the immediately preceding fiscal year by an amount equal to the absolute value of the negative sum calculated for the county, and the proportional share of any growth in assessed valuations of property attributable to that negative sum through the 2009–10 fiscal year. This bill would also require, for the 2011–12 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, the amount of property tax revenue deemed allocated to a county in the immediately preceding fiscal year include the full amount of any increase implemented by the auditor, as so described, in that fiscal year, and would require that amount to be reduced from the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue deemed allocated to the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. By imposing new duties in the annual allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues, the 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 these statutory provisions. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct audits, as specified by statute, on internal controls, and to provide those audits to the inspector general. The bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.

Existing law requires the Adjutant General to perform various duties with regard to the National Guard as are prescribed in the Military and Veterans Code and any additional duties that are consistent with the regulations and customs of the federal military organizations, as specified. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

Under existing law, the Division of Recycling within the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery administers the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. This bill would make a conforming change to the act's statement of legislative intent with regard to that authority.

Existing law, as amended by initiative, provides that any person who participates in any criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity and who promotes felonious criminal conduct shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years. This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to these provisions.

(1) The Administrative Procedure Act governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies and for the review of those regulatory actions by the Office of Administrative Law. The act requires that state agencies proposing to adopt, amend, or repeal any administrative regulation assess the potential for adverse economic impact on California business enterprises and individuals, as specified. This bill would require the standardized economic assessment to consider additional factors, such as the benefits of the regulation and the extent to which it will achieve regulatory and statutory objectives. The bill would require agencies preparing the economic assessment to request a review of the assessment by the University of California, and to include any review by the university with the assessment. The bill would require the Department of Finance to adopt regulations, on or before June 30, 2013, to guide agencies in conducting the standardized economic assessments, as specified. This bill, commencing January 1, 2014, would make the standardized economic assessment requirements applicable only to a proposed regulation that the agency has concluded may have an economic impact of more than $50,000,000. (2) The act requires an agency that seeks to adopt a regulation to issue a notice of proposed action that contains prescribed information, including an informative digest that includes, among other things, a policy statement overview explaining the broad objectives of the regulation. This bill would also require the policy statement to explain the specific benefits anticipated by the regulation and evaluate whether the proposed regulation is inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations. (3) The act requires an agency to prepare and submit to the office with an adopted regulation a final statement of reasons that includes, among other things, a determination that no alternative considered by the regulation would be more effective, or equally effective and less burdensome, than the regulation, and an explanation setting forth reasons for rejecting alternatives that would lessen the adverse economic impact of the regulation. This bill would require this determination to be based, in part, on the economic impact assessment, if an assessment is required. The bill would also require that the economic impact assessment be included in the final statement of reasons as supporting information for an explanation for rejecting alternatives that would lessen the adverse economic impact of the regulation. (4) The act establishes a procedure for a priority review of existing regulations by the office, pursuant to a request by specified committees of the Legislature, to determine if a regulation continues to meet prescribed standards. This bill would authorize any interested person to petition an agency to perform an economic analysis on an existing regulation. The bill would require the agency to conduct the analysis, except in specified circumstances. (5) The act requires the office to approve, or disapprove and return to the agency, all regulations adopted pursuant to the act using specified standards. The act requires the office to return a regulation to the agency in specified circumstances, including failure to comply with the requirement to assess the economic impact of the proposed regulation. This bill would provide, for purposes of that provision, that noncompliance includes failing to complete an economic impact assessment, if one is required, as specified. The bill would specify additional criteria that would require the return of a proposed regulation, as specified. (6) The act exempts the Public Utilities Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission from specified provisions of the act. This bill would revise the exemptions and require these entities to comply with specified requirements regarding the performance of the economic analysis. (7) Existing law authorizes the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to appoint a Legislative Analyst, who has specified duties. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst to prepare a benefit-cost analysis, as specified, of proposed legislation that he or she has identified as having a potential cost to the California economy of more than $50,000,000 in one year, or that would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health or safety.