Existing law creates the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund, as a continuously appropriated fund, for the purpose of funding a list of transportation projects specified in statute. Existing law provided for the transfer of specified amounts from the General Fund to the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund, beginning in the 2000–01 fiscal year. Existing law also provided for the transfer of a portion of the sales tax on gasoline to the Transportation Investment Fund subsequent to voter approval on March 5, 2002, of Article XIXB of the California Constitution, which thereafter dedicated those sales tax revenues to specified transportation purposes. Existing law required a portion of the revenues in the Transportation Investment Fund to be transferred to the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. Existing law provides for loans of revenues from various transportation funds and accounts to the General Fund, including loans from the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund, with various repayment dates. This bill would acknowledge, as of June 30, 2015, $879,000,000 in outstanding loans of certain transportation revenues, and would require this amount to be repaid from the General Fund by June 30, 2016, to the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund for allocation to the Traffic Congestion Relief Program, the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund, the Public Transportation Account, and the State Highway Account, as specified. The bill would thereby make an appropriation. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation by the State Department of Public Health of general acute care hospitals and other health facilities. Existing law defines health facility as a facility, place, or building that is organized, maintained, and operated for the diagnosis, care, prevention, and treatment of human illness, as specified. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to that provision.
Existing law, the Optometry Practice Act, creates the State Board of Optometry, which licenses optometrists and regulates their practice. Existing law provides that the State Board of Optometry is required, by regulation, to establish educational and examination requirements for licensure to ensure the competence of optometrists to practice. Existing law requires an applicant for licensure to submit an application that is provided under oath and to pay a prescribed fee. All fees are deposited in the Optometry Fund, which is continuously appropriated to the board to administer the act. Any violation of the act is a crime. Existing law authorizes the board to permit a graduate of a foreign university who meets specified requirements to take the examinations for an optometrist license. This bill would revise the license examination requirements for a graduate of a foreign university to, among other things, require submission of an application and payment of a prescribed fee. This bill would also authorize the board to issue a license to a graduate of a foreign university who meets specified requirements, including requirements that the applicant have permission to take the examinations for an optometrist license, submit an application on a form approved by the board, and pay a prescribed fee for an application for licensure. By increasing the amount of moneys deposited into a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation. Because the application would be required to be provided under oath, this bill would expand the scope of an existing crime and 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report, as defined, on a project that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. The act also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA exempts specified projects from its provisions. This bill would exempt from the requirements of CEQA a project for the resurfacing of a city or county park, as specified.
Existing law, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, establishes the sole and exclusive authority and procedure for the initiation, conduct, and completion of changes of organization and reorganization for cities and districts. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to the above-described law.
Existing law, the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of child day care facilities, as defined, by the State Department of Social Services. Existing law requires that the maximum licensed capacity for those facilities be based on 35 square feet of indoor activity space per child. This bill would exempt those facilities from the 35 square footage requirement if the facility is located in an office building.
Existing property tax law provides, pursuant to the authority of a specified provision of the California Constitution, for a homeowners' exemption in the amount of $7,000 of the full value of a "dwelling," as defined, and authorizes the Legislature to increase this exemption. This bill, beginning with the lien date for the 2016–17 fiscal year, would increase the homeowners' exemption from $7,000 to $25,000 of the full value of a dwelling. This bill would also require, for the 2017–18 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, the county assessor to adjust the amount of the homeowners' exemption by the percentage change in the House Price Index for California for the first 3 quarters of the prior calendar year, as specified. The California Constitution requires the Legislature, whenever it increases the homeowners' property tax exemption, to provide a comparable increase in benefits to qualified renters. The Personal Income Tax Law authorizes various credits against the taxes imposed by that law, including a credit for qualified renters in the amount of $120 for married couples filing joint returns, heads of household, and surviving spouses if adjusted gross income is $50,000 or less, and in the amount of $60 for other individuals if adjusted gross income is $25,000 or less. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to annually adjust for inflation these adjusted gross income amounts. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2016, increase this credit for a qualified renter to $428 for married couples filing joint returns, heads of household, and surviving spouses if adjusted gross income is $50,000 or less, as adjusted for inflation, and to an amount equal to $214 for other individuals if adjusted gross income is $25,000 or less, as adjusted for inflation. The bill would also require, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2017, the Franchise Tax Board to annually adjust for inflation, based upon the California Consumer Price Index, the amount of these credits. The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to the renters' credit. The California Constitution requires the Legislature, in each fiscal year, to reimburse local governments for the revenue losses incurred by those governments in that fiscal year as a result of the homeowners' property tax exemption. 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. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
(1) Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, and the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law appropriates funding, in the annual Budget Act and in other statutes, from the state General Fund for the support of these segments. Existing law also authorizes these segments to require their students to pay mandatory systemwide fees and tuition, among other costs, for matriculation at these institutions. Proposition 30, known as the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, was approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election and, among other things, increases personal income tax and sales and use tax rates and provides revenue for public elementary and secondary schools and community colleges. This bill would express a finding and declaration of the Legislature, and express the intent of the Legislature, relating to the enactment of Proposition 30 by the voters and to the provision of funding to the California State University, the University of California, and the California Community Colleges. The bill, from the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2018–19 fiscal year, inclusive, would prohibit mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the California State University from exceeding the level of the mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the California State University for the 2014–15 fiscal year. The bill, from the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2018–19 fiscal year, inclusive, would prohibit the mandatory systemwide fees charged to students of the California Community Colleges from increasing beyond the level of the mandatory systemwide fees charged to students of the California Community Colleges for the 2014–15 fiscal year. The bill, from the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2018–19 fiscal year, inclusive, would prohibit the mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the University of California from exceeding the level of the mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the University of California for the 2014–15 fiscal year. (2) Existing law prohibits a campus of the California State University, or the Chancellor of the California State University, or both, from approving a student success fee before January 1, 2016. Existing law requires, during the 2014–15 fiscal year, the chancellor to conduct a review of the California State University Student Fee Policy relating to student success fees and to recommend to the Trustees of the California State University changes to the fee policy. This bill, commencing with the 2015–16 fiscal year, would prohibit the imposition of a student success fee at a campus of a segment of public postsecondary education unless the student success fee is approved by a favorable vote of 2 3 "?> a majority of those students voting at an election of the student body held at that campus within the preceding 48 months. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Optometry Practice Act provides for the licensure and regulation of the practice of optometry by the State Board of Optometry, and makes a violation of the act a crime. The act requires each licensed optometrist, before engaging in the practice of optometry, to notify the board in writing of the address or addresses where he or she is to engage in the practice of optometry and of any changes in his or her place of practice. Under existing law, all moneys collected pursuant to the act, except where otherwise provided, are deposited in the Optometry Fund and continuously appropriated to the board to carry out the act. This bill would define "mobile optometric facility" as mobile optometric equipment, including, but not limited to, a trailer or van that may be moved. The bill would limit ownership of a mobile optometric facility to a nonprofit or charitable organization, a governmental agency, or a school, as specified. The bill would require a mobile optometric facility, while providing services, to have access to, among other things, sufficient lighting around the perimeter of the work site from which the mobile optometric facility provides those services. The bill would require an owner of a mobile optometric facility to be responsible for certain things, including, but not limited to, maintaining the mobile optometric facility in good repair and in a clean and sanitary manner. The bill would also require the optometrist or owner of a mobile optometric facility to maintain and disclose patient records as specified. The bill would make these provisions operative on January 1, 2017. This bill would require the board, by January 1, 2017, to promulgate regulations establishing a registry for mobile optometric facilities and shall set a registration fee at an amount not to exceed the costs of administration. Because this bill would increase those moneys deposited in a continuously appropriated fund, it would make an appropriation. Because a violation of the act is a crime, this bill would expand the scope of an existing crime and would therefore 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to take specified actions related to housing that include, among other things, investigations of housing and community development in the state. This bill would require the department to take these actions. Existing law requires fees charged by a local agency for specified purposes, including zoning variances, zoning changes, use permits, building inspections, building permits, the processing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and planning services, to not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of this cost is submitted to, and approved by, 23 of the electors. This bill would require, by January 1, 2017, and every 5 years thereafter, the department to conduct a statewide survey of cities and counties to determine the total amount of fees and charges imposed on new home construction by local jurisdictions and submit the survey to specified committees of the Legislature.