Existing law requires the California Law Revision Commission to study, and limits the commission to studying, topics approved by resolution of the Legislature. Existing law requires the commission to examine statutes to discover defects and recommend reforms. This bill would establish the California Institute for Criminal Justice Policy and would require the institute to consult with certain entities, as specified, in order to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of, and to develop a ranking of, the effectiveness of crime prevention programs, rehabilitation programs, and recidivism reduction programs located in California. The bill would also authorized the institute to conduct additional research at the request of the Legislature. This bill would request the University of California to house the institute. The bill would become operative after a determination by the Director of Finance that sufficient private funds have been deposited with the state to fully support the startup and operational activities of the institute for one year, would be inoperative until funding is made available in the annual Budget Act, and would be repealed as of January 1, 2018.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for the formation of a library district, upon application of the taxpayers and residents of a unified school district, in accordance with specified procedures, and further provides that the library district shall be governed by the governing board of the unified school district. Existing law, notwithstanding those provisions, authorizes the governing board of the Banning Unified School District in the County of Riverside to provide, by resolution, that the Banning Unified School District Library District be governed by a separate governing board, as specified. The bill would require the Board of Supervisors of the County of Solano, within 60 days after the filling of the resolution with the County Clerk of the County of Solano, to appoint the initial governing board of the new library district. By imposing new duties on the Solano County Board of Supervisors, the bill would constitute a state-mandated local program. This bill would also authorize the governing board of the Dixon Unified School District to provide, by resolution, that the Dixon Unified School District Library District shall be governed by a separate governing board, as specified. This bill would state the findings and declarations of the Legislature as to the necessity of a special law with respect to the Dixon Unified School District. 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.
The California Constitution prohibits a bill other than the Budget Bill from being heard or acted on by a committee or either house of the Legislature until the 31st day after the bill is introduced, unless the house dispenses with this requirement by rollcall vote entered in the journal, 34 of the membership concurring. This measure would add an additional exception to this 31-day waiting period by authorizing a committee to hear or act on a bill if the bill, in the form to be considered by the committee, has been in print and published on the Internet for at least 15 days. Existing provisions of the California Constitution prohibit either house of the Legislature from passing a bill until the bill with amendments has been printed and distributed to the Members. This measure would also prohibit either house of the Legislature from passing a bill until the bill, in the form to be voted on, has been made available to the public, in print and published on the Internet, for at least 72 hours preceding the vote. This requirement would not apply to specified urgency bills upon the submission by the Governor to the Legislature of a written statement that it is necessary to dispense with the requirement to address a state of emergency declared by the Governor.
Existing law authorizes the Department of General Services, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and various local agencies to use the design-build procurement process for specified public works under different laws. Existing law also authorizes the formation of special districts, including the Marin Healthcare District and the San Diego Unified Port District. This bill would repeal those authorizations, and enact provisions that would authorize, until January 1, 2025, the Department of General Services, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and those local agencies, as defined, to use the design-build procurement process for specified public works. The bill would authorize, until January 1, 2025, the Marin Healthcare District to use the design-build process when contracting for the construction of a building and improvements directly related to a hospital or health facility building at the Marin General Hospital, and would authorize the San Diego Unified Port District to use the design-build procurement process for the construction of a building or buildings and improvements directly related to the construction of a building or buildings that exceed $1,000,000. The bill would require specified information to be verified under penalty of perjury. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Marin Healthcare District and for the San Diego Unified Port District. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law prohibits a person from furnishing a BB device, defined to include a spot marker gun, to a minor without the permission of the minor's parent or guardian, and prohibits selling a BB device to a minor. Violation of either of these prohibitions is a crime. Existing law defines a BB device as any instrument that expels a projectile, such as a BB or pellet, that does not exceed 6 millimeters in caliber. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2016, delete the 6 millimeter restriction from the definition of a BB device. By including a device that expels a BB or pellet that exceeds 6 millimeters in caliber within the definition of a BB device, this bill would expand the scope of existing crimes, and impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law generally prohibits anyone from purchasing, selling, manufacturing, shipping, transporting, distributing, or receiving an imitation firearm. A person is liable for a civil fine of not more than $10,000 for a violation of this prohibition. Existing law excludes all BB devices from the definition of imitation firearm for these purposes. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2016, make BB devices that expel a projectile, such as a BB or a pellet, that is 6 millimeters or 8 millimeters in caliber subject to that prohibition unless the devices meet specified coloration requirements, and would exclude spot marker guns that expel a projectile larger than 10 millimeters in caliber from the prohibition. Existing law, for purposes of regulating imitation firearms, adopts coloration and construction schemes prescribed by federal law. Existing law includes a cross-reference to those federal provisions. This bill would delete the cross-reference to the federal provisions. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes a legislative body of a city, defined to mean a city or a city and county, to establish an infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, to finance specified public facilities upon approval by 23 of the voters. Existing law authorizes an infrastructure financing district to fund infrastructure projects through tax increment financing, pursuant to the infrastructure financing plan and the agreement of affected taxing entities, as defined. Existing law requires an infrastructure financing plan to include the date on which an infrastructure financing district will cease to exist, that may not be more than 30 years from the date on which the ordinance forming the district is adopted. This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of a city or a county, defined to include a city and county, to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, upon approval by 55% of the voters; to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance, including, but not limited to, brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation; the development of projects on a former military base; the repayment of the transfer of funds to a military base reuse authority; the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of low and moderate income for rent or purchase; the acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use; transit priority projects; and projects to implement a sustainable communities strategy. The bill would also authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to utilize any powers under the Polanco Redevelopment Act. This bill would require the legislative body to establish a public financing authority, defined as the governing board of the enhanced infrastructure financing authority, comprised of members of the legislative body of the participating entities and of the public, prior to the adoption of a resolution to form an enhanced infrastructure district and infrastructure financing plan. This bill would require proceedings for the establishment of a district to be instituted by the adoption of a resolution of intention that, among other things, states the boundaries of the district, the type of public facilities and development proposed to be financed or assisted by the district, and the need for the district and the goals the district proposes to achieve. If the resolution is adopted by the legislative body after a public hearing, the bill would prohibit the public financing authority from implementing the infrastructure financing plan until specified events occur. This bill would authorize the public financing authority to initiate proceedings to issue bonds, and would require the proposal to issue bonds to be submitted to qualified electors of the proposed district, as specified. By requiring electors to make specified declarations on ballots under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand circumstances under which a person may be convicted of a crime and thereby, would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to fund infrastructure projects through tax increment financing, pursuant to the infrastructure financing plan and the agreement of affected taxing entities, as defined. This bill would authorize the creation of an infrastructure financing district for up to 45 years from the date on which the issuance of bonds is approved, as specified. This bill would require an infrastructure financing district to contract for the performance of an independent financial and performance audit every 2 years, as specified. This bill would authorize a city, county, or special district that contains territory within the boundaries of an infrastructure financing district, upon approval of its governing body, to loan moneys to the infrastructure financing district to fund the activities described in the infrastructure financing plan, as specified. This bill would authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to finance a project or portion of a project that is located in, or overlaps with, a redevelopment project area or former redevelopment project area, as specified. This bill would prohibit a city or county that created a redevelopment agency from creating a district until specified conditions related to the wind down of the former redevelopment agency have been satisfied. This bill would provide that any debt or obligation of an enhanced infrastructure financing district is subordinate to an enforceable obligation of a former redevelopment agency. This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of the city forming an enhanced infrastructure financing district to choose to dedicate any portion of its net available revenue, as defined, to the enhanced infrastructure financing district through the infrastructure financing plan, as specified. 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.
(1) Existing law, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, provides the authority and procedures for the initiation, conduct, and completion of changes of organization and reorganization of cities and districts. The act requires a local agency or school district that initiates proceedings for a change of local government organization or reorganization by submitting a resolution of application to a local agency formation commission to also submit a plan for providing services within the affected territory, as specified. This bill would instead require, if a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization is submitted to a local commission, that the applicant submit a plan for providing services within the affected territory that, until January 1, 2025, in the case of a change of organization or reorganization initiated by a local agency that includes a disadvantaged, unincorporated community, authorizes a local agency to include in its resolution of application an annexation development plan to improve or upgrade structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other infrastructure to serve the disadvantaged, unincorporated community. This bill would authorize the local agency formation commission to approve the proposal to include the formation of a special district or reorganization of a special district, as specified. This bill would require an annexation plan to include certain information. (2) Existing law requires a county auditor, in the case of a jurisdictional change caused by the formation of a district, to adjust the allocation of property tax revenue pursuant to the agreement of local agencies whose service area or service responsibility would be altered by the jurisdictional change, as specified. This bill would, until January 1, 2025, authorize a local agency that files a resolution of application for change of organization, and one or more other local agencies that will improve or upgrade structures to serve a disadvantaged, unincorporated community, to agree on an annexation development plan for financing services and structures that may provide that taxes, levied upon taxable property in the area included within the territory each year by or for the benefit of the local agency and one or more other local agencies that consent to the plan, be divided as specified. This bill would require the plan to include a date on which that division of taxes shall terminate, and would allow the plan to provide for the issuance of indebtedness, as specified. The bill would prohibit any plan developed under these provisions from including any portion of a redevelopment project area, as specified, or resulting in a reduction of property tax revenues to school entities.
Under existing law, a person between the ages of 6 and 18 years who is not exempted by law is subject to compulsory full-time education. Existing law excludes a child under 6 years of age from the public schools, subject to specified exceptions. Existing law requires a school district maintaining a kindergarten to admit a child who will have his or her 5th birthday on or before certain specified dates during that school year. Existing law also requires that a child who will have his or her 6th birthday on or before specified dates be admitted to the first grade of an elementary school. This bill, beginning with the 2016–17 school year, would require a child to have completed one year of kindergarten before he or she may be admitted to the first grade, thereby imposing 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.
Existing law establishes state hospitals for the care, treatment, and education of mentally disordered persons. These hospitals are under the jurisdiction of the State Department of State Hospitals, which is authorized by existing law to adopt regulations regarding the conduct and management of these facilities. Existing law requires each state hospital to develop an incident reporting procedure that can be used to, at a minimum, develop reports of patient assaults on employees and assist the hospital in identifying risks of patient assaults on employees. Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of health facilities, including acute psychiatric hospitals, by the State Department of Public Health. A violation of these provisions is a crime. This bill would, commencing July 1, 2015, and subject to available funding, authorize the State Department of State Hospitals to establish and maintain pilot enhanced treatment programs (ETPs) , as defined, for the treatment of patients who are at high risk of most dangerous behavior, as defined, and when safe treatment is not possible in a standard treatment environment. The bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health to approve, on or after July 1, 2015, an ETP, which meets specified requirements and regulations, as a supplemental service for an acute psychiatric hospital that submits a completed application and is operated by the State Department of State Hospitals. The bill would authorize a state hospital psychiatrist or psychologist to refer a patient to an ETP for temporary placement and risk assessment upon a determination that the patient may be at high risk for most dangerous behavior. The bill would require the forensic needs assessment panel (FNAP) to conduct a placement evaluation to determine whether the patient clinically requires ETP placement and ETP treatment can meet the identified needs of the patient. The bill would also require a forensic needs assessment team (FNAT) psychologist to perform an in-depth violence risk assessment and make a treatment plan upon the patient's admission to an ETP. The bill would require the FNAP to conduct a treatment placement meeting with specified individuals prior to the expiration of 90 days from the date of placement in the ETP to determine whether the patient may return to a standard treatment environment or the patient clinically requires continued ETP treatment. If the FNAP determines that the patient clinically requires continued ETP treatment, the bill would require the FNAP to certify the patient for further ETP treatment for one year, subject to FNAP reviews at least every 90 days, as specified. The bill would require the FNAP to conduct another treatment placement meeting prior to the expiration of the one-year certification of ETP placement to determine whether the patient may return to a standard treatment environment or be certified for further ETP treatment for another year. The bill would also require, if the FNAP determines that the patient requires continued ETP placement, that the patient's case be referred to a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist outside of the State Department of State Hospitals for independent review, that a hearing be conducted, and notice given, as specified. The bill would require the State Department of State Hospitals to monitor the ETPs, evaluate outcomes, and report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature. Because this bill would create a new crime, it imposes a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law provides that school districts offering kindergarten may maintain kindergarten classes at different schoolsites for different lengths of time. This bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to provide the Legislature no later than July 1, 2017, with an evaluation of kindergarten program implementation in the state, including part-day and full-day kindergarten programs, as specified. The bill would make these provisions operative only upon an appropriation by the Legislature for these purposes. The bill would require a local educational agency, commencing with the 2015–16 school year, to provide an annual report to the State Department of Education that contains information on the type of kindergarten program offered by the local educational agency, as provided, in a manner determined by the department. By expanding the duties of a local educational agency, the bill would create 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.