The California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, approved by the voters as Proposition 68 at the June 5, 2018, statewide primary direct election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,100,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a drought, water, parks, climate, coastal protection, and outdoor access for all program. This bill would enact the Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2020, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,510,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for a wildfire prevention, safe drinking water, drought preparation, and flood protection program. This bill would provide for the submission of these provisions to the voters at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, 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 requires the department to implement managed mental health care for Medi-Cal beneficiaries through contracts with mental health plans, and requires mental health plans to be governed by various guidelines, including a requirement that a mental health plan assess the cultural competency needs of the program. Existing law requires mental health plan reviews to be conducted by an external quality review organization (EQRO) on an annual basis, and requires those reviews to include specific data for Medi-Cal eligible minor and nonminor dependents in foster care, such as the number of Medi-Cal eligible minor and nonminor dependents in foster care served each year. This bill would require each mental health plan to prepare a cultural competence plan to address specified matters, including mental health disparities in access, utilization, and outcomes by various categories, such as race, ethnicity, and immigration status. The bill would require a mental health plan to convene a committee for the purpose of reviewing and approving the cultural competence plan, to annually update its cultural competence plan and progress, to post this material on its internet website, and to submit its cultural competence plan to the department every 3 years for technical assistance and implementation feedback. The bill would require the department to develop at least 8 statewide mental health disparities reduction targets, to post the cultural competence plan submitted by each mental health plan to its internet website, and to consult with the Office of Health Equity to review and implement county assessments and statewide performance on mental health disparities reductions. The bill would require the department to direct the EQRO to develop a protocol for monitoring performance of each mental health plan, and to report on identified matters, including statewide progress related to the mental health disparities reduction targets. The bill would require the EQRO to publish specified information in the annual detailed technical report, such as recommendations for statewide strategies to reduce mental health disparities. The bill would require the mental health plan to meet specified mental health disparities reduction targets or make year-over-year improvements toward meeting the targets.
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, including various mental health services. Existing federal law authorizes, at the option of the state, preventive services, as defined, that are recommended by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts. This bill would require the department to establish, no later than January 1, 2021, a violence intervention pilot program at a minimum of 9 sites, including at least one site in 9 specified counties, and would require the department to consult with identified stakeholders, such as professionals in the community violence intervention field, for purposes of establishing the pilot program. The bill would require the department to provide violence preventive services that are rendered by a qualified violence prevention professional to a Medi-Cal beneficiary who meets identified criteria, including that the beneficiary has received medical treatment for a violent injury. The bill would require the department to approve one or more training and certification programs for violence prevention professionals, and would require an entity that employs or contracts with a qualified violence prevention professional to maintain specified documentation on, and to ensure compliance by, that professional. The bill would require the department to seek any federal approvals necessary to implement these requirements, and would condition the department's implementation of these provisions to the extent that federal financial participation is available and not otherwise jeopardized, and any necessary federal approvals have been obtained. The bill would make its provisions inoperative 5 calendar years following the date upon which violence preventive services are able to be provided and billed pursuant to the bill, as specified. The bill would require the department to issue, at least one calendar year prior to the inoperative date, a report to the Legislature on the implementation of the violence intervention pilot program, and the demonstrated impact of violence preventive services.
Existing law, the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-Vasconcellos Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A and B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission, and establishes eligibility requirements for awards under these programs for participating students attending qualifying institutions. Existing law specifies the amounts of the maximum Cal Grant A and B awards for students attending private nonprofit postsecondary institutions of higher education and private for-profit postsecondary educational institutions that are regionally accredited, as specified. Beginning with the 2020–21 award year, the maximum tuition award is either $9,084 or $8,056, depending upon whether the number of new unduplicated transfer students accepted by private nonprofit postsecondary educational institutions who have been given associate degree for transfer commitments, as defined, in the prior award year meet and exceed specified targets. This bill would change, in accordance with a prescribed formula, the maximum Cal Grant award for tuition for a new recipient attending an independent institution of higher education, commencing with the 2020–21 award year. This bill would provide that the award amount for a student attending an independent institution of higher education may be determined in the annual Budget Act if the independent institutions of higher education, as a group, do not accept the specified number of transfer students who have been given associate degree for transfer commitments.
Existing law dissolved redevelopment agencies and community development agencies as of February 1, 2012, and provides for the designation of successor agencies that are required to wind down the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies. Existing law requires the Department of Finance to issue a finding of completion to a successor agency upon confirmation by the county auditor-controller that specified payments have been fully made by the successor agency. Existing law requires any successor agency that has been issued a finding of completion to use bond proceeds derived from bonds issued on or after January 1, 2011, in excess of the amounts needed to satisfy approved enforceable obligations, in a manner consistent with the original bond covenants, subject to certain requirements, including a requirement that no more than 5% of the proceeds derived from the bonds be expended, unless the successor agency has an approved Last and Final Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule, in which case the agency is authorized to expend no more than 20% of the proceeds derived from the bonds, subject to specified adjustments. Existing law requires remaining bond proceeds that cannot be spent pursuant to those requirements to be used at the earliest possible date to defease the bonds or to purchase those same outstanding bonds on the open market for cancellation. This bill, notwithstanding the requirement that the remaining bond proceeds be used to defease the bonds or to purchase those same outstanding bonds on the open market for cancellation, would authorize the successor agency in the City of Glendale to use the remaining bond proceeds for the purposes of predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing, as defined, so long as those proceeds are used in a manner consistent with any original bond covenant. The bill, if the remaining bond proceeds are used for these purposes, would require the Last and Final Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule to be adjusted to allow for the allocation of revenues from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund to the successor agency for purposes of paying the remaining principal and interest on the bonds. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 34191.4 of the Health and Safety Code made by AB 411 that would become operative if both this bill and AB 411 are enacted and this bill is chaptered last. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Glendale.
Existing law, the Donahoe Higher Education Act, designates the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in this state. These segments are the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. A provision of the act applies to the University of California only to the extent that the regents, by resolution, make that provision applicable. Existing provisions of the act require the governing bodies of the 3 public postsecondary segments, with appropriate consultation with the academic senates of the respective segments, to develop, maintain, and disseminate a common core curriculum in general education courses for the purposes of transfer. Existing law provides that a student who earns an associate degree for transfer from a community college is eligible to transfer into a California State University baccalaureate program when the student meets specified requirements. Existing law recognizes that the University of California has been working with the California Community Colleges to seek improvements to the transfer process and states the intent of the Legislature that the University of California consider various viable pathways to transfer, including the development of an associate degree for transfer granted by community college districts, as part of this endeavor. This bill would require the governing board of each community college district to direct the appropriate officials at their respective campuses to (1) identify those students who have completed an associate degree for transfer, (2) notify those students of their completion of the degree requirements, (3) automatically award those students the degree, and (4) add those students to an identification system at the end of each academic year that the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges would be required to maintain and that would be accessible electronically by the California State University, the University of California, and independent institutions of higher education, as defined. The bill would authorize a student to affirmatively exercise an option to not receive an associate degree for transfer or to not be included in the identification system. These provisions would be implemented in full commencing with the fall term of the 2020–21 academic year. By placing additional duties upon a community college district, 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 the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law imposes an annual minimum franchise tax of $800, except as provided, on every corporation incorporated in this state, qualified to transact intrastate business in this state, or doing business in this state, and an annual tax in an amount equal to the minimum franchise tax on every limited partnership, limited liability partnership, and limited liability company doing business in this state, as specified. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2025, would reduce the minimum franchise tax, as provided, based on the gross receipts during the taxable year of the corporation, but would continue to impose the current amount of the annual tax on corporations described above whose gross receipts exceed $15,000,000 and on every limited partnership, limited liability partnership, and limited liability company doing business in this state. The bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to submit an annual report to the Legislature regarding the reduction of the minimum franchise tax, as provided. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 17941 and 23153 of the Revenue and Taxation Code proposed by AB 308 to be operative only under specified circumstances, including that this bill is enacted last. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law consolidated within the State Department of Health Care Services all substance use disorder functions and programs from the former State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. The existing Adolescent Alcohol and Drug Treatment and Recovery Program Act of 1998, which authorized the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to establish community-based nonresidential and residential recovery programs to intervene and treat the problems of alcohol and other drug use among youth, became inoperative on July 1, 2013. This bill would repeal those inoperative provisions and would enact the Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults Substance Use Disorder Treatment Act. The bill would require the department to convene an expert panel as part of an existing advisory body or workgroup, on or before January 1, 2021, to advise the department solely on the development of youth substance use disorder (SUD) treatment quality standards, as specified. The bill would authorize the department, on or before July 1, 2022, to adopt emergency regulations to establish youth SUD treatment quality standards, as specified. The bill would require each county to designate a single public agency that is responsible for administering the provision of youth SUD treatment services within that county. The bill would require the county agency to, among other things, ensure, in conjunction with the county office of education and other local education agencies, that all programs in the county providing youth SUD treatment services or services for the prevention of youth substance use disorder are providing coordinated services. By requiring additional duties of local governments, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would additionally define youth SUD treatment services as including any publicly funded direct services intended to treat substance use disorders for individuals from birth to 26 years of age, inclusive. The bill would require a public agency or private entity that provides youth SUD treatment services after January 1, 2023, to comply with the standards adopted by the department. The bill would, after July 1, 2023, require youth SUD programs, as defined, to be certified in accordance with the regulations adopted by the department. The bill would prohibit a county from contracting to provide youth SUD treatment services with an entity that does not comply with these provisions. The bill would require the department to report to the Legislature regarding the standards on or before January 1, 2024, and annually thereafter. 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 requires the governing board of any school district to give diligent care to the health and physical development of pupils and authorizes the governing board of a school district to employ properly certified persons for the work. Existing law requires a school of a school district or county office of education and a charter school to notify pupils and parents or guardians of pupils no less than twice during the school year on how to initiate access to available pupil mental health services on campus or in the community, or both, as provided. This bill, contingent on an appropriation made for these purposes, would require the State Department of Education to identify an evidence-based training program for a local educational agency to use to train classified and certificated school employees having direct contact with pupils on youth mental and behavioral health, as specified. The bill would define a local educational agency for purposes of these provisions to mean a county office of education, school district, state special school, or charter school that serves pupils in any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive. The bill would require a local educational agency, on or before January 1, 2023, to certify to the department that at least 10% of its classified employees and at least 10% of its certificated employees having direct contact with pupils at each schoolsite, or at least 2 classified employees and at least 2 certificated employees having direct contact with pupils at each schoolsite, whichever is greater, have received the youth mental and behavioral health training identified by the department. To the extent this bill, if implemented, would impose additional duties on local educational agencies, 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 the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires local educational agencies to identify, locate, and assess individuals with exceptional needs and to provide those pupils with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, with special education and related services as reflected in an individualized education program. Existing law requires a local educational agency to initiate and conduct meetings for purposes of developing, reviewing, and revising the individualized education program of each individual with exceptional needs in accordance with federal law. Existing law requires the local educational agency to take any action necessary to ensure that the parent of the individual with exceptional needs understands the proceedings at a meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents with deafness or whose native language is a language other than English. Existing law defines "parent" for purposes of these provisions to mean a biological or adoptive parent, a foster parent, a guardian generally authorized to act as the child's parent or authorized to make educational decisions for the child, an individual acting in the place of a biological or adoptive parent, or a surrogate parent, as specified. Existing law requires that a person who meets the definition of "parent," except for a surrogate parent, be determined to be the "parent" for purposes of these provisions if there is a judicial decree or order identifying that person, as specified. This bill would revise the definition of "parent" to specify that it also includes the educational rights holder and the conservator of a child. The bill would instead require that a person who meets the definition of "parent," including all categories of people included in that definition, be determined to be the "parent" for purposes of these provisions if there is a judicial decree or order identifying that person, as specified. The bill would instead require a local educational agency to take any action necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings during the planning process for the individualized education program, including during the individualized education program team meeting. The bill would require this action to include, as applicable, communicating in the parent's native language, or in another mode of communication used by the parent, arranging for an interpreter, providing translation services, and providing alternative communication services, as specified. The bill would require a local educational agency, upon request by a pupil's parent, to translate into the native language of the parent, or into another mode of communication used by the parent, the pupil's completed individualized education program, any revisions to the individualized education program, and certain documents discussed at an individualized education program team meeting. The bill would require, for a parent whose native language is one of the 8 most commonly spoken languages, as provided, excluding English, in a local educational agency, that the completed individualized education program and any revisions to the individualized education program be translated within 30 calendar days of that meeting or within 30 calendar days of a later request. The bill would require the documents to be translated by a qualified translator, as defined. The bill would require the State Department of Education to revise its notice of procedural safeguards, in English and in the primary languages for which the department has developed translated versions, to inform parents of their right to request the translation of these documents. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law defines "local educational agency" for purposes of special education programs to include, among others, a nonprofit charter school participating as a member of a special education local plan area. The bill would revise the definition of "local educational agency" for purposes of special education programs to include, among others, a charter school participating as a member of a special education local plan area. To the extent that this revision would impose duties on additional charter schools, 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 the statutory provisions noted above.