The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property, defined as the county assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill and, thereafter, the appraised value of the property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership occurs after the 1975 assessment, subject to an annual inflation adjustment not to exceed 2%. Existing property tax law provides that the purchase or transfer of the principal residence, and the first $1,000,000 of other real property, of a transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, is not a "purchase" or "change in ownership" for purposes of determining the "full cash value" of property for taxation. Existing provisions of the California Constitution, adopted as Proposition 19 by the voters at the November 3, 2020, general election, beginning on and after February 16, 2021, exclude from the terms "purchase" and "change in ownership" for purposes of determining the "full cash value" of property the purchase or transfer of a family home or family farm, as those terms are defined, of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, as specified. In the case of a transfer of a family home, existing law requires that the property continue as the family home of the transferee. Existing law authorizes, if certain conditions are fulfilled, the new taxable value, defined as the base year value determined as provided above plus any inflation adjustment, of the purchased or transferred family home or family farm to be the sum of (1) the taxable value of the property, subject to adjustment, as determined as of the date immediately prior to the transfer or purchase, and (2) a portion, if any, of the assessed value of the property, as specified. In the case of property tax benefits provided to a family home under these provisions, existing law requires the transferee to claim the homeowner's or disabled veteran's exemption within one year of the transfer. This bill would implement these newly adopted constitutional provisions, as provided. The bill would require that the principal residence transferred be the principal residence of the transferor, and that it become the principal residence of the transferee within one year of the transfer. The bill would require, in order to claim the exclusion, that a claim be filed with the assessor. Because the bill would require county assessors to provide new services in relation to family farms, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to prescribe a form for claiming eligibility for the exclusion to be filed as provided. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to adopt emergency regulations in order to implement these provisions, as provided. The bill would also provide that a claim filed under this section is not a public document and is not subject to public inspection, except to specified parties. Existing property tax law authorizes, pursuant to constitutional authorization, a person over 55 years of age, or any severely and permanently disabled person, who resides in property eligible for the homeowners' exemption to transfer the base year value of the property to a replacement dwelling, subject to certain conditions and limitations. Existing provisions of the California Constitution, adopted as Proposition 19, beginning on and after April 1, 2021, instead authorizes an owner who is over 55 years of age, severely disabled, or a victim of a wildfire or natural disaster to transfer the taxable value, defined as the base year value determined as provided above plus any inflation adjustment, of a primary residence eligible for either the homeowner's exemption or the disabled veteran's exemption to a replacement primary residence located anywhere in this state, regardless of the value of the replacement primary residence, that is purchased or newly constructed as that person's principal residence within 2 years of the sale of the original primary residence. Under the California Constitution, a person who is 55 years of age or severely disabled may transfer the taxable value of their primary residence up to 3 times. The California Constitution requires that a person seeking to transfer the taxable value of a primary residence under these provisions file an application, containing specified information, with the assessor of the county in which the replacement primary residence is located. This bill, in accordance with the above-described constitutional provisions, on and after April 1, 2021, would authorize any person who is over 55 years of age, any severely and permanently disabled person, or a victim of wildfire or natural disaster who resides in property that is eligible for the homeowner's exemption or the disabled veteran's exemption to transfer the taxable value of that property to a replacement dwelling that is purchased or newly constructed as a principal residence within 2 years of the sale of the original property, as provided. The bill would require that any claim be filed within 3 years of the date that the replacement dwelling was purchased or the new construction of the replacement dwelling was completed. The bill would limit a person to 3 transfers of taxable value under these provisions, except with respect to claims filed by victims of wildfire or natural disaster, and would require each county assessor to report quarterly to the State Board of Equalization specified information regarding all approved claims. By adding to the duties of local tax officials with respect to the transfer of the taxable value of real property, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to adopt emergency regulations in order to implement these provisions, as provided. The bill would also provide that a claim filed under this section is not a public document and is not subject to public inspection, except to specified parties. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, commonly referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development within the city or county with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct, among other options, specified percentages of units for moderate-income or, lower, or very low income households and meets other requirements. Existing law requires the developer and the city or county to ensure that the initial occupant of a for-sale unit that qualified the developer for the award of the density bonus is a person or family of very low, low, or moderate income. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to notify a city or county, and authorizes the department to notify the Attorney General, that the city or county has taken an action that violates specified provisions of law, including the Density Bonus Law. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General to seek all remedies available under law. Existing property tax law establishes a welfare exemption under which property is exempt from taxation if the property is owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation that is organized and operated for the purpose of building and rehabilitating single-family or multifamily residences for sale, as provided, at cost to low-income families. This bill, instead, would require the developer and the city or county to ensure that (1) a for-sale unit that qualified the developer for the award of the density bonus is initially occupied by a person or family of the required income, offered at an affordable housing cost, as defined, and includes an equity sharing agreement, as specified, or (2) a qualified nonprofit housing organization that is receiving the above-described welfare exemption purchases the unit pursuant to a specified recorded contract that includes an affordability restriction, an equity sharing agreement, as specified, and a repurchase option that requires a subsequent purchaser that desires to sell or convey the property to first offer the nonprofit corporation the opportunity to repurchase the property. By imposing these requirements on local agencies with respect to density bonuses, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a city, county, or city and county to adopt an ordinance that specifies how it will implement the Density Bonus Law. Existing law provides incentive and concession calculations, and provides an exemption from the calculations, as adjusted in 2020, for a city, county, or city and county that has adopted an ordinance or a housing program, or both an ordinance and a housing program, that incentivizes the development of affordable housing that allows for density bonuses that exceed the density bonuses required by the Density Bonus Law, as provided. This bill would update cross references in those provisions. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by SB 290 to be operative only if this bill and SB 290 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 vests with the Labor Commissioner the authority to hear employee complaints regarding the payment of wages and other employment-related issues. Existing law imposes various civil penalties for violations of state law, including on employers for failure to pay minimum wage, on successors to judgment debtors, on persons who do not hold a valid state contractor's license and employ workers to perform services for which a license is required, and on persons who violate provisions relating to minor employees. Existing law permits the commissioner to, as an alternative to a judgment lien, create a lien on real property to recover amounts due under final orders in favor of an employee named in the order. This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to create, as an alternative to a judgment lien, a lien on real property to secure amounts due to the commissioner under any final citation, findings, or decision, as provided. The bill would require the commissioner, among other things, to include specified information on the certificate of lien to be recorded on the relevant party's real property and to issue a certificate of release once the amount due, including any interest and costs, has been paid.
Existing law, the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, authorizes an aggrieved employee to bring a civil action to recover specified civil penalties that would otherwise be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees for the violation of certain provisions affecting employees. The act requires the employee to follow prescribed procedures before bringing an action and establishes alternate procedures for specific categories of violations. The act requires, except as provided, that 75% of the civil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees be distributed to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for enforcement of labor laws and for education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities, and 25% be distributed to the aggrieved employees. Existing law requires a person or entity that employs one or more janitors or otherwise engages by contract, subcontract, or franchise agreement for the provision of janitorial services, as specified, to register with the Labor Commissioner as a property service employer annually and prohibits them from conducting business without a registration. This bill would except from the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 a janitorial employee, as defined, represented by a labor organization that has represented janitors before January 1, 2021, and employed by a janitorial contractor who registered with the commissioner as a property service employer in calendar year 2020, with respect to work performed under a valid collective bargaining agreement in effect any time before July 1, 2028, that contains certain provisions, including, among others, a grievance and binding arbitration procedure to redress violations that authorizes the arbitrator to award otherwise available remedies. The bill would require a janitorial contractor who has entered into an agreement as prescribed to share, within 60 days of entering the agreement, specified information about the agreement with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The bill would specify that its provisions do not apply to existing cases filed before the effective date of the bill and does not prevent a janitorial employee from filing certain actions. The bill would authorize the exception until the collective bargaining agreement expires or until July 1, 2028, whichever is earlier, and would repeal the bill's provisions on July 1, 2028.
Existing law makes garment manufacturers liable for guaranteeing payment of wages to employees of their contractors. This bill would expand the definition of garment manufacturing to include dyeing, altering a garment's design, and affixing a label to a garment. The bill would prohibit any employee engaged in the performance of garment manufacturing to be paid by the piece or unit, or by the piece rate, except as specified. The bill would impose compensatory damages of $200 per employee against a garment manufacturer or contractor, payable to the employee, for each pay period in which each employee is paid by the piece rate. This bill would define "brand guarantor" for purposes of these provisions as a person contracting for the performance of garment manufacturing, as specified, regardless of whether the person with whom they contract performs manufacturing operations or hires a contractor or subcontractor to perform manufacturing operations. This bill would specify that a garment manufacturer, contractor, or brand guarantor who contracts with another person for the performance of garment manufacturing operations shares joint and several liability with any manufacturer and contractor for the full amount of unpaid wages, and any other compensation, including interest, due to any and all employees who performed manufacturing operations for any violation, attorney's fees, and civil penalties, as specified. The bill would also make garment manufacturers and contractors liable for the full amount of damages and penalties for any violation, as specified. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption in a claim filed with the Labor Commissioner to recover unpaid wages and associated penalties, if an employee has provided the Labor Commissioner with labels or other information that the commissioner finds credible relating to the identity of any brand guarantor or garment manufacturer that the brand guarantor or garment manufacturer is liable with the contractor for any amounts found to be due to the employee. The bill would also give the Labor Commissioner authority to enforce these provisions by issuing a stop order or a citation. Existing law requires every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing to keep certain records for 3 years, including, among other things, contract worksheets indicating the price per unit agreed to between the contractor and manufacturer. This bill would also require every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing and brand guarantors to keep all contracts, invoices, purchase orders, work orders, style or cut sheets, and any other documentation pursuant to which garment manufacturing work was, or is being, performed for 4 years. Existing law requires the commissioner to deposit $75 of each garment manufacturer's registration fee into one separate account to be disbursed by the commissioner only to persons determined by the commissioner to have been damaged by the failure to pay wages and benefits by a garment manufacturer, contractor, or subcontractor. This bill would instead require these funds to be disbursed by the commissioner only to persons determined by the commissioner to have been damaged by the failure to pay wages and benefits by a garment manufacturer, brand guarantor, or contractor. Existing law precludes any employer, or other person or entity, who may be liable for a violation of any provision of the Labor Code from introducing as evidence, in an administrative proceeding contesting a citation or writ proceeding under specified provisions, books, documents, or records that are not provided pursuant to a duly served written request by the Labor Commissioner within the time the Labor Commissioner requests those books, documents, or records be produced, as specified. This bill would expand those provisions to also preclude the introduction of records not provided to the Labor Commissioner, as specified, in an administrative proceeding under the provisions described above relating to the payment of wages for the performance of garment manufacturing.
Existing federal law sets forth policies and procedures governing the acquisition of land by the United States in trust status for specified individuals and tribes. Existing federal law requires the Secretary of the Interior to notify the state and local governments having regulatory jurisdiction over the land to be acquired, and authorizes the state or local government to provide written comments as to the acquisition's potential impacts on regulatory jurisdiction, real property taxes, and special assessments. Existing law enumerates powers and duties common to cities, counties, and other agencies. This bill would encourage state and local governments, as defined, to work cooperatively with tribes in their fee-to-trust applications for purposes of regaining ancestral lands, and to support tribes in their nongaming fee-to-trust applications. The bill would prohibit local governments from adopting or enforcing a resolution or ordinance that would prevent the local government from conducting a fair evaluation of a fee-to-trust application by a federally recognized tribe based on the merits of the application. The bill would require a local government that opposes an application to (1) request, by certified mail to the tribe, within 10 days of the notice of the application from the federal government, information on the economic benefits to the local government from both the project that is the subject of the application, if applicable, and the tribe's economic contribution to the local jurisdiction in the last 5 years, and (2) if the tribe provides the information within 10 days of the local government's request, to include that information in any opposition letter or other document submitted to the federal government, as specified. By requiring additional duties by local governments, 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 designates state holidays, including, among others, the 4th Friday in September, known as "Native American Day," and the 2nd Monday in October, known as "Columbus Day." Existing law adopts those state holidays as judicial holidays, with certain exceptions, including Native American Day. This bill would remove Native American Day from the list of holidays that are excluded from designation as a judicial holiday. The bill would add Columbus Day to the list of excluded judicial holidays.
Existing law provides for various memorials and monuments on the grounds of the State Capitol. Existing law requires the Department of Finance, subject to the approval of the Capitol Building and Planning Commission, to acquire and do all acts necessary to erect and maintain a monument to Father Junípero Serra on the grounds of the State Capitol. Existing law requires the Department of General Services to maintain state buildings and grounds. This bill would delete the requirement relating to the monument to Father Junípero Serra. The bill would authorize tribal nations in the Sacramento, California, region, in consultation with the Department of General Services, to plan, construct, and maintain a monument to the California Native people of the Sacramento, California, region on the grounds of the State Capitol. The bill would require the tribal nations to submit the plan for the monument to the Joint Rules Committee for its review and approval. The bill would prohibit the tribal nations from beginning construction of the monument until the Joint Rules Committee approves and adopts the plan and the Joint Rules Committee and the Department of Finance determine that sufficient private funding is available to construct and maintain the monument. The bill would require the planning, construction, and maintenance of the monument to be funded exclusively through private funding from the tribal nations in the Sacramento, California, region.
Existing law authorizes a pupil to wear traditional tribal regalia or recognized objects of religious or cultural significance as an adornment at school graduation ceremonies. Existing law prohibits that authorization from limiting a local educational agency's discretion and authority to prohibit an item that is likely to cause a substantial disruption of, or material interference with, the ceremony. This bill would establish a 10-member task force, convened by the State Department of Education, to gather certain information and develop recommendations for best practices, protocols, proposed legislation, and other policies that will address how to comprehensively implement all aspects of existing law related to wearing traditional tribal regalia or recognized objects of religious or cultural significance as an adornment at school graduation ceremonies. The bill would require the task force, on or before April 1, 2023, to submit a report to the Legislature on that information and those recommendations. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2024.
(1) Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, establishes the California Coastal Commission and provides for planning and regulation of development in the coastal zone, as defined. The act requires the commission, within 90 days after January 1, 1977, to adopt, after public hearing, procedures for the preparation, submission, approval, appeal, certification, and amendment of a local coastal program, including a common methodology for the preparation of, and the determination of the scope of, the local coastal programs, as provided. This bill would also include, as part of the procedures the commission is required to adopt, recommendations and guidelines for the identification, assessment, minimization, and mitigation of sea level rise within each local coastal program, as provided. The bill would delete the timeframe specified above by which the commission is required to adopt these procedures. The bill would require the commission to take into account the effects of sea level rise in coastal resource planning and management policies and activities, as provided. In addition, the bill would require state and regional agencies to identify, assess, and, to the extent feasible and consistent with their statutory authorities, avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of sea level rise. To the extent that a regional agency is a local public agency, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The act makes legislative findings and declarations relating to the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone. This bill would add, as part of those goals, the goal of anticipating, assessing, planning for, and, to the extent feasible, avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating the adverse environmental and economic effects of sea level rise within the coastal zone. (2) Existing law requires the Natural Resources Agency, in collaboration with the Ocean Protection Council, to create and post on an internet website a Planning for Sea Level Rise Database describing steps being taken throughout the state to prepare for, and adapt to, sea level rise. This bill would create within the council the California Sea Level Rise State and Regional Support Collaborative. The bill would require the collaborative, among other things, to provide state and regional information to the public and support to local, regional, and other state agencies for the identification, assessment, planning, and, where feasible, the mitigation of the adverse environmental, social, and economic effects of sea level rise, as provided. The bill would require, upon appropriation in the annual Budget Act, the collaborative to expend no more than $100,000,000 annually from appropriate bond funds and other sources for the purpose of making grants to local and regional governments to update local and regional land use plans to take into account sea level rise and for directly related investments to implement those plans, as provided. The bill would require the Secretary for Environmental Protection and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, as part of the adoption of the annual Budget Act, to annually appear before the budget committees of both houses of the Legislature regarding the implementation of the above provisions. (3) Existing law establishes the Environmental Justice Small Grant Program under the jurisdiction of the California Environmental Protection Agency, with the purpose to provide grants to eligible community groups that are located in areas adversely affected by environmental pollution and hazards and that are involved in work to address environmental justice issues. Existing law authorizes the Secretary for Environmental Protection to expend up to $1,500,000 per year for purposes of this grant program. This bill would instead authorize the secretary to expend up to $2,000,000 per year for purposes of the grant program and would require up to $500,000 of that money to be expended by the secretary for grants to organizations working to address and mitigate the effects of sea level rise in disadvantaged communities, as defined, impacted by sea level rise. (4) 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.