(1) Existing federal law provides for allocation of federal funds through the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program to eligible states. Existing law provides for the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, under which, through a combination of state and county funds and federal funds received through the TANF program, each county provides cash assistance and other benefits to qualified low-income families. For purposes of determining eligibility under the CalWORKs program, and for computing the amount of aid payment, existing law requires that families be grouped into assistance units, as specified. Existing law requires an assistance unit to include the eligible parents of the eligible child and the eligible siblings of the eligible child when those persons reside in the same home as the eligible child, except as specified. This bill would, commencing November 1, 2018, prohibit the inclusion of a stepsibling or half-sibling for whom child support payments are received, as specified, in the number of needy persons in the same family for purposes of determining the maximum aid payment under the CalWORKs program and for no other purpose, if certain conditions are met, including, among others, that the parent or caretaker relative for the assistance unit has requested that exclusion in writing. The bill would require each county welfare department to notify CalWORKs applicants and recipients of these provisions, in writing, as specified. The bill would require both the State Department of Social Services and the Department of Child Support Services to each seek all appropriate federal waivers for the implementation of these provisions as necessary. By increasing the duties of counties administering the CalWORKs program, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Under existing law, the income of the natural or adoptive parent, the spouse of the natural or adoptive parent, and the sibling of an eligible child, living in the same home with an eligible child is considered available, in addition to the income of an applicant for or recipient of aid under the CalWORKs program, for purposes of eligibility determination and grant computation under certain social services programs, including the CalWORKs program. This bill, with respect to the income of the sibling of an eligible child, would, commencing November 1, 2018, instead provide that the income is considered available unless the sibling is not included in the number of needy persons used to calculate the maximum aid payment pursuant to the provisions described in paragraph (1) above. The bill would prohibit income through child support for a child not included in the number of needy persons used to calculate the maximum aid payment from being considered available to any member of the assistance unit. By increasing the duties of counties administering the CalWORKs program, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) This bill would authorize the State Department of Social Services to implement and administer the above-described provisions through all-county letters or similar instructions until regulations are adopted, and would require the department to adopt emergency regulations and final regulations, as specified. (4) Existing law continuously appropriates moneys from the General Fund to defray a portion of county costs under the CalWORKs program. This bill would instead provide that the continuous appropriation would not be made for purposes of implementing the bill. (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, 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires each school district or county superintendent of schools maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to provide one nutritionally adequate free or reduced-price meal for each needy pupil during each schoolday, except as specified. Existing law authorizes a school district or county office of education to use funds made available through any applicable federal or state program or to use its own funds to provide the required meals. This bill would enact the Child Hunger Prevention and Fair Treatment Act of 2017. The act would require certain local educational agencies, as defined, that provide school meals through the federal National School Lunch Program or the federal School Breakfast Program to ensure that a pupil whose parent or guardian has unpaid school meal fees is not shamed, treated differently, or served a meal that differs from what a pupil whose parent or guardian does not have unpaid school meal fees would receive under that local educational agency's policy. The act would prohibit school personnel and volunteers at a local educational agency that serves nutritionally adequate meals to pupils during the instructional day from allowing any disciplinary action that is taken against a pupil to result in the denial or delay of a nutritionally adequate meal to that pupil. The act would require a local educational agency to notify a parent or guardian of the negative balance of a pupil's school meal account no later than 10 days after the pupil's school meal account has reached a negative balance. The act would require a local educational agency, before sending this notification to the parent or guardian, to exhaust all options and methods to directly certify the pupil for free or reduced-price meals. The act would require a local educational agency to reimburse school meal fees paid by a pupil's parent or guardian when fees were paid or unpaid fees debt accrued when a pupil would have been determined to be eligible for free or reduced-price school meals. To the extent that these provisions would place additional requirements 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 the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole hearing for offenders sentenced to state prison who committed specified crimes when they were under 23 years of age. Existing law, as added by initiative statute, imposes a term of confinement in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole or, at the discretion of the court, 25 years to life, on a defendant who was 16 years of age or older and under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime for which he or she was found guilty of murder in the first degree, if specified special circumstances have been found true. Existing case law prohibits a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense from being sentenced to life in prison without parole absent consideration of the juvenile's special circumstances in light of the principles and purposes of juvenile sentencing. This bill would make a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed before the person had attained 18 years of age and for which a life sentence without the possibility of parole has been imposed eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 25th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing. The bill would require the board to complete, by July 1, 2020, all hearings for individuals who are or will be entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing by these provisions before July 1, 2020. The bill would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 3051 and 4801 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1308 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1308 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law imposes on a person convicted of a violation of, or of conspiracy to violate, specified crimes relating to controlled substances a sentence enhancement to include a full, separate, and consecutive 3-year term for each prior conviction of, or for each prior conviction of conspiracy to violate, specified controlled substances crimes, including possession for sale and purchase for sale of opiates, opium derivatives, and hallucinogenic substances. This bill would instead limit the above sentence enhancement to only be based on each prior conviction of, or on each prior conviction of conspiracy to violate, the crime of using a minor in the commission of offenses involving specified controlled substances.
Existing law requires that a person who personally uses a firearm in the commission of a felony be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 3, 4, or 10 years. Existing law requires that a person who personally uses an assault weapon or a machinegun in the commission of a felony be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 6, or 10 years. Existing law requires a person who personally uses a firearm to commit certain specified felonies to be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years, or for 20 years if he or she discharged the firearm, or for 25 years to life if he or she discharges the firearm and proximately causes great bodily harm. Existing law prohibits the court from striking an allegation or finding that would make a crime punishable pursuant to these provisions. This bill would delete the prohibition on striking an allegation or finding and, instead, would allow a court, in the interest of justice and at the time of sentencing or resentencing, to strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by the above provisions of law.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act generally prohibits a manufacturer, winegrower, distiller, bottler, or wholesaler, among other licensees, or agents of these licensees, from paying a retailer for advertising. The act creates a variety of exceptions from this prohibition, including permitting specified licensees to purchase advertising space and time from, or on behalf of, an on-sale retail licensee that is an owner, manager, or major tenant of certain stadiums, parks, entertainment complexes, and arenas, subject to specified conditions. Existing law requires the purchase of advertising space or time in this context to be conducted pursuant to a written contract with the on-sale licensee, with a specified exception. Existing law makes it a crime for an on-sale licensee to coerce certain licensees to purchase advertising space or time, as specified. This bill would expand the exceptions described above to allow beer manufacturers, winegrowers, distilled spirits rectifiers, distilled spirits manufacturers, or distilled spirits manufacturer's agents to purchase advertising space and time from, or on behalf of, on-sale retail licensees, as described above, at a specified stadium and venue located in the City of Inglewood and a specified outdoor stadium of at least 70,000 seats in Los Angeles County. By expanding the definition of a crime, this 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 City of Inglewood. 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 incorporate additional changes to Section 25503.6 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by SB 664 and AB 1724 to be operative only if this bill and SB 664, this bill and AB 1724, or all 3 bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(1) Existing law provides that the board of supervisors of any county may authorize the correctional administrator to offer a program under which inmates committed to a county jail or other county correctional facility or granted probation, or inmates participating in a work furlough program, may voluntarily participate or involuntarily be placed in a home detention program during their sentence in lieu of confinement in a county jail or other county correctional facility or program. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors to prescribe a program administrative fee and an application fee for this program. This bill would make those fees payable only by adult participants of that home detention program who are over 21 years of age and under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. (2) Existing law provides that upon conviction of certain offenses involving controlled substances, or upon a finding that a minor is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court by reason of committing one of those certain offenses, the court, when recommended by the probation officer, shall require, as a condition of probation, that the defendant or the minor not use or be under the influence of any controlled substance and submit to drug and substance abuse testing as directed by the probation officer, unless the court makes a finding that this condition would not serve the interests of justice. Existing law requires the court to order the defendant or the minor to pay a reasonable fee, not to exceed the actual cost of the testing, if the defendant or the minor is required to submit to testing and has the financial ability to pay all or part of those costs. This bill would instead require the court to order a defendant to pay that reasonable fee only if the defendant is an adult who is over 21 years of age and under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The bill would also delete the provision requiring the court to charge the minor that reasonable fee. (3) Existing law requires specified orders providing for the care and custody of a ward, dependent child, or other minor person, as specified, to direct that the whole expense of support and maintenance of the minor, up to the amount of $20 per month, be paid from the county treasury. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of each county to establish a maximum amount that the court may order the county to pay for that support and maintenance and authorizes the court to direct that an amount up to that maximum amount be paid. This bill, for purposes of a ward, a minor person concerning whom a petition has been filed to declare the person a ward of the juvenile court, or a minor who is the subject of a certain program of supervision undertaken by the probation department and who is temporarily placed out of his or her home, as specified, would delete the $20 maximum on support and maintenance payments and delete the authorization of the county board of supervisors to establish a maximum amount that the court may order the county to pay. (4) Existing law generally imposes liability on a parent, spouse, or other person liable for the support of a ward, dependent child, or other minor person, as applicable, for certain costs, including the reasonable costs of transporting the minor to a juvenile facility and for the costs of the minor's food, shelter, and care at the juvenile facility when the minor has been held in temporary custody, as specified, and certain other circumstances are applicable; the reasonable costs of supporting the minor when he or she is placed, detained in, or committed to, any institution or other place pursuant to specified provisions of law or pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; the cost of an alcohol or drug education program as designated by the court; the cost, to the county or the court, of the legal services rendered to the minor by an attorney pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; the cost of probation supervision, home supervision, or electronic surveillance of the minor, pursuant to the order of the juvenile court; the cost of a service program administered by an agency upon delivery or referral of the minor by an officer; the cost of specified services rendered to the minor in lieu of a petition being filed to adjudge the minor a ward of the juvenile court; and other related costs. Existing law authorizes the probation department and the child welfare services department in a county to create a jointly written protocol, as specified, to allow the 2 departments to jointly assess and produce a recommendation that the child be designated as a dual status child, allowing the child to be simultaneously a dependent child and a ward of the court. This bill, for purposes of a minor who is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court, who is placed on probation without being adjudged a ward, who is the subject of a petition that has been filed to adjudge the minor a ward, or who is the subject of a certain program of supervision undertaken by the probation department, as applicable, would repeal the above-described provisions imposing liability for the specified costs and would make other conforming changes. The bill would specify that those provisions apply to a minor who is designated as a dual status child, for purposes of the dependency jurisdiction only and not for purposes of the delinquency jurisdiction. (5) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a minor who, while under the supervision of a probation officer, removes his or her electronic monitor without authority and who, for more than 48 hours, violates the terms and conditions of his or her probation relating to the proper use of the electronic monitor. Existing law provides, if an electronic monitor is damaged or discarded while in the possession of the minor, that restitution for the cost of replacing the unit may be ordered as part of the punishment. Existing law requires that this liability be limited by the financial ability of the person or persons ordered to pay the restitution and requires that the person or persons, upon request, be entitled to an evaluation and determination of ability to pay under specified provisions. This bill would remove the requirement that a request be made in order for the person or persons to be entitled to the evaluation and determination described above. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 903.45 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 976 to be operative only if this bill and AB 976 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. Existing law requires the PUC, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) , the State Air Resources Board (state board) , electrical corporations, and the motor vehicle industry, to evaluate policies to develop infrastructure sufficient to overcome any barriers to the widespread deployment and use of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles and, by July 1, 2011, to adopt rules that address specified related issues. Existing law requires the PUC, in cooperation with the Energy Commission, the state board, air quality management districts and air pollution control districts, electrical and gas corporations, and the motor vehicle industry, to evaluate and implement policies to promote the development of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate the use of electric power and natural gas to fuel low-emission vehicles. Existing law, enacted as part of the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, requires the PUC, in consultation with the Energy Commission and state board, to direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, achieve the goals set forth in the Charge Ahead California Initiative, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This bill would authorize an electrical corporation to file with the PUC, by July 30, 2018, a pilot program proposal for the installation of vehicle charging stations at school facilities and other educational institutions, giving priority to school facilities and other educational institutions located in disadvantaged communities, as defined. The bill would require the PUC to review, modify if appropriate, and decide whether to approve a pilot program proposal filed by an electrical corporation by December 31, 2018. The bill would provide that a school district, county office of education, private school, or other educational institution choosing to participate in the pilot program would have authority to establish guidelines for use of the charging stations installed pursuant to the approved pilot program, including use of these charging stations by faculty, students, and parents before, during, and after school hours at those times that the school facilities or other educational institutions are operated for purposes of providing education or school-related activities, and by others present for those activities. The bill would require that construction and maintenance of the charging stations and infrastructure be managed in coordination with the school district, county office of education, private school, or other educational institution. The bill would require that the approved pilot program include a reasonable mechanism for cost recovery by the electrical corporation if the PUC makes specified findings. The bill would require that a school facility or other educational institution receiving charging stations pursuant to the approved pilot program participate in a time-variant rate approved by the PUC and would authorize the school district, county office of education, private school, or other educational institution to require users of the charging stations to pay electricity costs. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill are within the act and require action by the PUC to implement their requirements, a violation of which would be a crime, these provisions would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. 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.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. Existing law requires the PUC, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) , the State Air Resources Board (state board) , electrical corporations, and the motor vehicle industry, to evaluate policies to develop infrastructure sufficient to overcome any barriers to the widespread deployment and use of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles and, by July 1, 2011, to adopt rules that address specified issues. Existing law requires the PUC, in cooperation with the Energy Commission, the state board, air quality management districts and air pollution control districts, electrical and gas corporations, and the motor vehicle industry, to evaluate and implement policies to promote the development of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate the use of electric power and natural gas to fuel low-emission vehicles. Existing law, enacted as part of the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, requires the PUC, in consultation with the Energy Commission and state board, to direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, achieve the goals set forth in the Charge Ahead California Initiative, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Existing law vests with the Department of Parks and Recreation control over the state park system, and requires the department to take various actions to develop, operate, and maintain units of the state park system. This bill would authorize an electrical corporation, in consultation with the department, PUC, Energy Commission, and state board, to file with the PUC, by July 30, 2018, a pilot program proposal for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations at state parks and beaches within its service territory. The bill would require the PUC to review, modify if appropriate, and decide whether to approve a pilot program proposal filed by an electrical corporation by December 31, 2018. The bill would require the department to determine which state parks or beaches are suitable for charging stations. The bill would require that the approved pilot program include a reasonable mechanism for cost recovery by the electrical corporation if the PUC makes specified findings. The bill would require an electrical corporation to prioritize in its proposal those state parks and beaches that serve residents of disadvantaged communities, as defined. The bill would require that state parks and beaches receiving charging stations pursuant to the approved pilot program participate in a time-variant rate approved by the PUC. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill are within the act and require action by the PUC to implement its requirements, a violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. 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 the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the school districts. Existing law provides for appeal to the county board of education if the governing board of either school district fails to approve a request within a specified time period or the governing board fails or refuses to enter into an agreement. Existing law requires the county board of education, within 30 calendar days after the appeal is filed, to determine whether the pupil should be permitted to attend the school in which the pupil desires to attend unless the county board of education is located in a class 1 or class 2 county, as defined, in which case the county board of education, until July 1, 2018, is required to make this determination within 40 schooldays. This bill, in regard to appeals in a class 1 or class 2 county, would instead require the county board of education in a class 1 county, until July 1, 2023, to make the determination within 60 calendar days and the county board of education in a class 2 county, until July 1, 2019, to make the determination within 45 calendar days.