This measure would urge the Congress of the United States and the federal administration to work with the Governor and the Legislature of the State of California to, among other things, provide federal loan guarantees, flexibility with respect to certain programs, and certain funding levels for vital programs, as specified.
This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2009. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on July 1, 2009. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on July 1, 2009, pursuant to the California Constitution.
This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2009. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on July 1, 2009. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on July 1, 2009, pursuant to the California Constitution.
(1) Existing law establishes the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank with specified authority, including the authority to make loans to sponsors in connection with the financing of a project and the authority to engage the services of private consultants to render professional and technical assistance. Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenue to local jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and procedures. Existing property tax law also makes specified reductions to the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue that would otherwise be annually allocated. Existing law generally requires that the revenues not allocated to counties, cities, and special districts as a result of these reductions be transferred to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund in that county for allocation to school districts, community college districts, and the county office of education. This bill would establish within the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank an Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund account (ERAF account) for the purpose of receiving and holding deposits of redevelopment agency transfer payments, as defined, and any interest accruing thereon. The bill would authorize the bank to sell for, and on behalf of, the state all or any portion of ERAF account assets or residual interest to a special purpose trust, which the bill would establish. The net proceeds from the sale of ERAF assets to the special purpose trust would be deposited in the State ERAF Account. The bill would, commencing with the 2009–10 fiscal year, and for each fiscal year thereafter during the time a specified redevelopment agency receives tax revenue from an applicable redevelopment project, require the county auditor to determine the agency transfer payment, as defined, for the agency to be deposited into the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require, on or before March 15 of each fiscal year, the county auditor to transfer the agency transfer payment from the county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund to the ERAF account of the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank. The bill would also permit an authorized issuer, as defined, to issue bonds, notes, or other evidence of indebtedness to provide net proceeds to make one or more loans to one or more redevelopment agencies to fund that agency's obligations in the event of a shortfall caused by the obligation to fund the agency transfer payment. The bill would also require the bank, by December 1, 2009, to certify whether proceeds in the amount of at least $7,400,000,000 will be deposited on or before December 31, 2010, in the State ERAF Account. If the bank does not certify that the amount of the proceeds that will be deposited in the State ERAF Account on or before June 30, 2010, will be at least $7,400,000,000, the changes made by the bill would become inoperative on December 1, 2009, or on the date of the certification if the certification is made before December 1, 2009. The bill would authorize the bank to impose a fee upon a redevelopment agency in an amount to offset the reasonably anticipated and ongoing administrative costs of implementing these provisions. The bill would require the fees to be continuously appropriated to the bank for expenditure to implement these provisions. (2) The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the establishment of redevelopment agencies in communities to address the effects of blight in those communities. Existing law requires each agency to prepare or cause to be prepared, and approve, a redevelopment plan for each project area. Existing law requires that a redevelopment plan contain specified limitations, including, but not limited to, a time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness to be paid to finance a redevelopment project, a time line on the effectiveness of a redevelopment plan, and a time line to repay indebtedness. The bill would modify and extend several time limit requirements as they are applied to specific redevelopment plans or plan amendments and, in these instances, require the legislative body to adopt an ordinance conforming the applicable redevelopment plan or amendment to these provisions. (3) The bill would provide its provisions shall become inoperative or will not become operative, as applicable, unless, on or before December 1, 2009, a validation proceeding has been filed by the bank or the special purpose trust and in response to this filing the superior court holds, or upon review the Supreme Court holds, that those provisions are constitutional and that there is no legal bar to the securitization of the payments by redevelopment agencies to the state. The bill would also make the operation of other provisions of law, regarding a fuel tax subvention, and the suspension of Section 25.5 of Article XIII of the California Constitution contingent upon the operation of these specified provisions. The bill would also provide that if the sections amended or added by the act remain operative and in effect after December 1, 2009, the additions and changes to state law proposed by Assembly Bill 26 of the 2009-10 Fourth Extraordinary Session of the Legislature and Senate Bill 26 of the 2009-10 Fourth Extraordinary Session of the Legislature would become inoperative on January 1, 2010. The bill would provide, except as specified, that it become operative on January 1, 2010. (4) The bill would declare that its provisions are interdependent on each other and are therefore not severable. (5) 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. (6) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on July 1, 2009. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on July 1, 2009, pursuant to the California Constitution. (7) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2009.
(1) Existing law sets the fees at $15 or $20 for various court services, including, but not limited to, issuing a writ for the enforcement of an order or judgment, issuing an abstract of judgment, recording or registering any license or certificate, issuing an order of sale, and filing and entering an award under the Workers' Compensation Law. This bill would increase those fees by $10, and would provide that the $10 fee increase shall be transmitted quarterly for deposit in the Trial Court Trust Fund and, commencing July 1, 2011, used by the Judicial Council for implementing and administering the civil representation pilot program described in (5) below. (2) Under existing law, $25 of each specified filing fee in connection with certain civil proceedings is required to be used for services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings. This bill would increase the amount of those filing fees required to be used for services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings to $30. (3) Under existing law, to the extent that a memorandum of understanding for trial court employees designates certain days as unpaid furlough days for employees assigned to regular positions in the superior court, the court may not be in session on those days except as ordered by the presiding judge. This bill, until July 1, 2010, would authorize the Judicial Council to provide that the courts be closed for the transaction of judicial business for one day per month, which would be treated as a holiday, and to adopt court rules to implement these provisions, subject to specified conditions. The bill would authorize a judge or justice to sign a form, to be prepared by the Administrative Office of the Courts, stating that the judge or justice voluntarily agrees to irrevocably waive an amount equal to 4.62% of his or her monthly salary, as specified. The bill also would require a 4.62% reduction in the compensation due to the sheriff for court security services because of the closure of the courts under these provisions, and would, where a memorandum of understanding has been executed, require the court and the sheriff, county, or sheriff and county to negotiate that reduction in good faith and amend the memorandum of understanding accordingly. By imposing additional duties on county officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council to regulate the budget and fiscal management of the trial courts. The Judicial Council is required to adopt rules to provide for reasonable public access to budget allocation and expenditure information at the state and local level, and to adopt rules ensuring that, upon written request, the trial courts provide, in a timely manner, information relating to the administration of the courts, including financial information and other information that affects the wages, hours, and working conditions of trial court employees. This bill would provide that any person shall have the right to obtain specified budget, expenditure, and personnel records of the courts, except as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court that provide public access to nondeliberative or nonadjudicative court records, budget, and management information on or before January 1, 2010. (5) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to provide an annual status report to the chairpersons of the budget committee in each house of the Legislature and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee regarding the California Case Management System and Court Accounting and Reporting System, as specified. Under existing law, the office of the State Chief Information Officer is responsible for the approval and oversight of information technology projects. This bill would provide that the California Case Management System, and all other administrative and infrastructure information technology projects of the Judicial Council or the courts with total costs estimated at more than $5,000,000, shall be subject to the review and recommendations of the office of the State Chief Information Officer, as specified. The bill would require the State Chief Information Officer to submit a copy of those reviews and recommendations to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. (6) The Superior Court Law Enforcement Act of 2002 authorizes the presiding judge of each superior court to contract with a sheriff or marshal for the necessary level of law enforcement services in the courts. Existing law requires the sheriff or marshal and presiding judge of any county to develop a court security plan to be utilized by the court, as specified, and requires the Judicial Council to establish a process for its review of court security plans in the California Rules of Court. Existing law requires the superior court and the sheriff or marshal to enter into a memorandum of understanding specifying the agreed upon level of court security services and their cost and terms of payment, and requires the sheriff or marshal to provide specified information to the courts by April 30 of each year, with actual court security allocations subject to the approval of the Judicial Council. Existing law requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to use the actual salary and benefits costs approved for court law enforcement personnel as of June 30 of each year in determining the annual funding request for the courts that will be presented to the Department of Finance. This bill would provide that the cost of services specified in the memorandum of understanding shall be based on the estimated average cost of salary and benefits for equivalent personnel classifications in that county, not including overtime pay. In calculating the average cost of benefits, the bill would provide that only specified benefits may be included. The bill would require the Administrative Office of the Courts to use the average salary and benefits costs approved for court law enforcement personnel as of June 30 of each year in determining the annual funding request for the courts that will be presented to the Department of Finance. (7) Existing law permits limited use of electronic recording devices in court proceedings under certain circumstances, but prohibits a court from expending funds for electronic recording technology or equipment to make an unofficial record of an action or proceeding or to use that technology or equipment to make the official record of an action or proceeding in any circumstance that is not authorized. Existing law also requires each superior court to report semiannually to the Judicial Council, and the Judicial Council to report semiannually to the Legislature, regarding all purchases and leases of electronic recording equipment that will be used to record superior court proceedings. This bill would prohibit a court from expending funds for or using electronic recording technology or equipment to make an unofficial record of an action or proceeding, including for purposes of judicial notetaking, or to make the official record of an action or proceeding in any circumstance that is not authorized. The bill would authorize a court to use electronic recording equipment for the internal personnel purpose of monitoring judicial officer performance, if notice is provided to litigants that the proceeding may be recorded for that purpose, as specified. The bill would require a court, prior to purchasing or leasing any electronic recording technology or equipment, to obtain advance approval from the Judicial Council. (8) Existing law states the intent of the Legislature to establish a moratorium on increases in filing fees until January 1, 2012. This bill would provide that, due to the economic crisis facing California in the 2009–10 fiscal year, a first paper filing fee increase is included in conjunction with the Budget Act of 2009. This bill would increase those first paper filing fees by $5. (9) Existing law requires the Legislature to make an annual appropriation to the Judicial Council for the general operations of the trial courts based upon the request of the Judicial Council. Existing law requires the annual budget request to include, among other items, a cost-of-living and growth adjustment based on the year-to-year change in the state appropriations limit, and additional funding for the trial courts for costs resulting from the implementation of statutory changes that result in either an increased level of service or a new activity that directly affects the programmatic or operational needs of the courts. This bill would require the Judicial Council to report all approved allocations and reimbursements to the trial courts in each fiscal year, including funding received through augmentations for costs resulting from the implementation of statutory changes, as described above, to the chairs of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Budget and the Judiciary on or before September 30 following the close of each fiscal year. The bill would specify the information to be included in the report, and would require the Administrative Office of the Courts to summarize that information by court and report it to the chairs of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Budget and the Judiciary on or before November 1, 2009, and each November 1 thereafter. The bill would require the trial courts to report to the Judicial Council on or before September 15 of each year all court revenues, expenditures, reserves, and fund balances from the prior fiscal year, as specified, and would require the Judicial Council to summarize and report that information to the chairs of those committees, and to post that information on a public Internet Web site, on or before December 31 of each year. (10) Existing law imposes a fee of $20 upon every conviction for a criminal offense, other than parking offenses, for funding of court security. This bill would increase that court security fee to $30 until July 1, 2011. (11) Existing law authorizes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to contract with providers of emergency health care services. The department is prohibited from reimbursing a noncontracting hospital or provider of ambulance or other emergency or nonemergency response service at a rate that exceeds the reasonable and allowable costs of the hospital or other provider for those services. The department is required to work with the State Department of Health Services in order to establish the costs allowable under these provisions. This bill, instead, would authorize the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to contract with providers of health care services and health care network providers, subject to maximum reimbursement rates, except as specified. The bill would authorize the department to reimburse a noncontract provider of hospital or physician services, or ambulance or any other emergency or nonemergency response service, only at a rate equal to or less than the amount payable under the Medicare Fee Schedule. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to adopt regulations to implement these provisions, and to change the maximum reimbursement rates, as specified. (12) Existing law establishes the Youthful Offender Block Grant Program to enhance the capacity of county departments to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to youthful offenders. Existing law requires the Director of Finance to determine for each fiscal year the total amount of the Youthful Offender Block Grant pursuant to a specified formula and the allocation for each county, and to report those findings to the Controller to make an annual allocation to each county from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund. Existing law requires each county, on or before January 1, 2008, to prepare and submit to the Corrections Standards Authority for approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan for youthful offenders that includes a description of the programs, placements, services, or strategies to be funded by the block grant allocation. This bill instead would require the allocation amount for each county from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund to be allocated in four equal installments, to be paid in September, December, March, and June, pursuant to the existing formula. The bill would require each county, on or before May 1 of each year, to prepare and submit to the Corrections Standards Authority for approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan on its proposed expenditures for the next fiscal year of block grant funds that includes a description of the programs, placements, services, or strategies to be funded by the block grant allocation and other specified information. The bill would require each county receiving block grant funds, by October 1 of each year, to submit an annual report to the authority on its utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year. By increasing the duties of local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the Corrections Standards Authority to develop and provide a format for the Juvenile Justice Development Plan, and would authorize the authority to develop and provide a dual format for counties for the submission together of that plan and the county multiagency juvenile justice plan, as specified. The bill would require the authority to prepare and make available to the public on its Internet Web site summaries of the annual county reports on the utilization of block grant funds, and would require the authority, by March 15th of each year, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report summarizing county utilizations of block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year. (13) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (14) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on July 1, 2009. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on July 1, 2009, pursuant to the California Constitution. (15) 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. (16) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law requires the Controller to draw warrants on the State Treasury in favor of the county treasurer of each county in each month of each year in prescribed amounts and in a prescribed manner. This bill would revise the schedule pursuant to which the Controller draws these warrants and the amount of the warrants. (2) Existing law, the California Prompt Payment Act, requires a state agency that acquires property or services pursuant to a contract with a business to make payment to the person or business on the date required by the contract, or be subject to a late payment penalty. The act provides that the maximum time from state agency receipt of an undisputed invoice to issuance of a warrant for payment is 45 calendar days. The act requires the payment of specified penalties to the claimant if the state agency fails to submit a correct claim schedule to the Controller by the required payment approval date, or if the Controller fails to make a payment within 15 calendar days of receipt of the claim schedule from the state agency, as specified. This bill would require late payment penalties to be paid to the claimant if payment is not issued within 45 calendar days from state agency receipt of an undisputed invoice, but would require the state agency and Controller to pay those penalties only when a payment is not issued within 45 calendar days from state agency receipt of the undisputed invoice, and the state agency fails to submit a correct claim schedule by the required payment approval date, or the Controller fails to make a payment within 15 calendar days of receipt of the claim schedule from the state agency. The bill would define "payment" for purposes of these provisions. (3) The California Lottery Act establishes the State Lottery Fund. The act, an initiative measure, provides that certain provisions may be changed by a bill that furthers the purposes of the act and is passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor. The act, until September 30, 2009, authorizes the Controller to loan moneys in the State Lottery Fund to the General Fund and requires the payment of interest at a specified rate on all moneys loaned to the General Fund. This bill would delete the September 30, 2009, repeal date for those provisions authorizing the loan of moneys from the State Lottery Fund, thereby extending their operation indefinitely. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the California State Lottery Act. (4) Existing law authorizes the Director of Finance, to defer payment of General Fund moneys, in a cumulative amount not to exceed $500,000 annually, appropriated to the University of California in the annual Budget Act, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize the Director of Finance to defer payments of General Fund moneys in July through September of 2009 in an amount not to exceed $750,000,000, appropriated to the University of California in the Budget Act of 2009, as specified. The bill would specify the schedule of payments for the amount deferred, as specified. The bill would also authorize the Director of Finance to defer payments of General Fund moneys in July 2009 in an amount not to exceed $290,000,000, appropriated to the California State University in the Budget Act of 2009, as specified. That deferred payment would be made in October 2009. (5) Existing law releases a person from a debt owed to the Franchise Tax Board, under specified conditions, including that the Franchise Tax Board is discharged from collecting the debt which is less than $250. This bill would increase the amount of the debt that the Franchise Tax Board is discharged from collecting to less than $500. (6) Existing law requires state excise fuel tax revenues to be deposited in various accounts and to be allocated, in part, for various purposes, including the cost of collection and authorized refunds. Existing law requires the balance of these funds remaining after authorized deductions to be transferred to, and deposited monthly in, the Highway Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax Fund. Existing law provides for annual and monthly apportionment by the Controller of specified revenues in the Highway Users Tax Account to cities, counties, and cities and counties for the transportation purposes authorized by Article XIX of the California Constitution. This bill would require transfers of those revenues from the Highway Users Tax Account to counties or cities that would otherwise be made during certain months of 2009, to instead be deferred and made after January 1, 2010. (7) Existing law does not require a state agency to collect a tax, license, fee, or money owed to the state, under specified conditions, including that the amount to be collected is $250 or less. This bill would increase that amount to $500 or less. (8) Existing law, the Accounts Receivable Management Act, requires each state agency, department, and office to allocate collection resources by giving highest priority to accounts with the highest expected return. This bill would authorize these state entities to impose a reasonable fee for the actual costs of its collection of past due accounts, and require them to submit an annual report to the Controller of its accounts receivables and discharged accounts. (9) Existing law, pursuant to Article XIXB of the California Constitution, creates the Transportation Investment Fund, which receives a portion of gasoline sales tax revenues that are deposited in the General Fund. Moneys in the Transportation Investment Fund are allocated to various transportation purposes, including the state transportation improvement program, local streets and roads, and mass transportation. Existing law requires the Controller to transfer and apportion these funds on a quarterly basis. This bill would suspend and defer, until May 31, 2010, the quarterly apportionments from the Transportation Investment Fund for local streets and roads that are scheduled to be made in October 2009 and January 2010. The bill would authorize a city or county to temporarily make use of any cash balance in its city or county road fund, including certain transportation bond act funds, for local street and road maintenance, provided that the cash is replaced once the payments from the Transportation Investment Fund are received. (10) Existing law appropriates $540,000,000 from the General Fund to the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges for apportionments to community college districts for expenditure during the 2009–10 fiscal year and defers the disbursal of those funds until July of the 2009–10 fiscal year. Existing law makes an identical appropriation for expenditure during the 2010–11 fiscal year and defers the disbursal of those funds until July of the 2010–11 fiscal year. This bill would increase those appropriations and deferments to $703,000,000 with $81,500,000 of those appropriations and deferments representing the April apportionment and $81,500,000 representing the May apportionment. (11) Existing law defers to July the payment of $115,000,000 of the apportionments to community college districts for each of the months of January and February and $55,000,000 of the apportionments to community college districts for each of the months of March and April. This bill, in addition, would defer to July the payment of $81,500,000 of the apportionments to community college districts for each of the months of April and May. (12) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on July 1, 2009. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on July 1, 2009, pursuant to the California Constitution. (13) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
This measure would declare the week of June 29 through July 5, 2009, Yellow Ribbon Week to show support for military families and for troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This measure would acknowledge the history of the Chinese in California, recognize the contributions made to the State of California by Chinese Americans and Chinese immigrants, and express regret for past discriminatory laws and constitutional provisions which resulted in the persecution of Chinese living in California.
This measure would proclaim the month of May 2009 as Motorcycle Awareness Month.
This measure would designate that January 19, 2009, be observed as the official memorial of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birth, and commemorate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Civil Rights Movement in changing public policy in California and in the United States of America.
