2021-22 SESSION
SENATE THIRD READING PACKET MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2021
JONAS AUSTIN Director
OFFICE OF SENATE FLOOR ANALYSES 651-1520
SENATE THIRD READING PACKET
Attached are analyses of bills on the Daily File for Monday, April 26, 2021.
Note Measure Author Location SB 33 Cortese Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 48 Limón Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 52 Dodd Senate Bills - Third Reading File RA SB 84 Hurtado Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 103 Dodd Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 107 Wiener Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 258 Laird Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 263 Rubio Senate Bills - Third Reading File + SB 272 Laird Consent Calendar First Legislative Day SB 283 Gonzalez Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 294 Leyva Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 297 Durazo Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 298 Dodd Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 303 Borgeas Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 319 Melendez Senate Bills - Third Reading File + SB 323 Caballero Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 326 Pan Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 361 Umberg Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 374 Min Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 386 Umberg Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 391 Min Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 417 Dodd Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 427 Eggman Senate Bills - Third Reading File + SB 447 Laird Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 455 Leyva Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 484 Archuleta Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 489 Laird Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 520 Wilk Senate Bills - Third Reading File RA SB 534 Jones Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 539 Hertzberg Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 548 Eggman Senate Bills - Third Reading File + SB 549 Jones Consent Calendar First Legislative Day SB 584 Jones Senate Bills - Third Reading File + SB 657 Ochoa Bogh Consent Calendar First Legislative Day SB 688 Wieckowski Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 721 Hueso Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 768 Glazer Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 779 Becker Senate Bills - Third Reading File SB 816 Committee on Governmental Consent Calendar Second Legislative Day Organization SB 818 Committee on Governmental Senate Bills - Third Reading File Organization SCR 4 Umberg Senate Bills - Third Reading File SCR 18 Cortese Senate Bills - Third Reading File SCR 23 Archuleta Senate Bills - Third Reading File SCR 30 Dahle Senate Bills - Third Reading File SCR 31 Newman Senate Bills - Third Reading File + ADDS RA Revised Analysis * Analysis pending
Note Measure Author Location SCR 32 Gonzalez Senate Bills - Third Reading File SCR 33 Archuleta Senate Bills - Third Reading File SCR 34 Archuleta Senate Bills - Third Reading File SCR 37 Archuleta Senate Bills - Third Reading File SJR 1 Allen Senate Bills - Third Reading File SR 20 Archuleta Senate Bills - Third Reading File SR 21 Pan Senate Bills - Third Reading File SR 23 Durazo Senate Bills - Third Reading File SR 24 Umberg Senate Bills - Third Reading File SR 27 Limón Senate Bills - Third Reading File SR 28 Rubio Senate Bills - Third Reading File SR 29 Archuleta Senate Bills - Third Reading File AB 79 Committee on Budget Assembly Bills - Third Reading File AB 84 Committee on Budget Assembly Bills - Third Reading File AB 213 Committee on Budget Assembly Bills - Third Reading File ACR 35 Chau Assembly Bills - Third Reading File ACR 39 Holden Assembly Bills - Third Reading File ACR 48 Rodriguez Assembly Bills - Third Reading File ACR 49 Choi Assembly Bills - Third Reading File ACR 50 Reyes Assembly Bills - Third Reading File ACR 56 Gabriel Assembly Bills - Third Reading File ACR 63 Salas Assembly Bills - Third Reading File
+ ADDS RA Revised Analysis * Analysis pending SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 33 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 33 Author: Cortese (D) Amended: 4/7/21 Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/5/21 AYES: Cortese, Ochoa Bogh, Durazo, Laird, Newman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Apprenticeship: annual report: task force
SOURCE: California State Council of Laborers
DIGEST: This bill requires the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to convene the Construction Apprenticeship Advancement Task Force (Task Force) to study the recruitment and retention of and barriers to entry of minority, underrepresented, and disadvantaged populations in the State of California, for purposes of ensuring apprenticeship opportunities are more inclusive of those populations. This bill requires the Task Force to promote apprenticeship for all populations throughout the state and to report to the Legislature as specified.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Provides a framework for promoting and developing apprenticeship training through the California Apprenticeship Council (CAC) and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) within DIR. DAS enforces apprenticeship standards for, among other things, working conditions, classroom instruction and the specific skills required for state certification as a journeyperson in an apprenticeable occupation. (Labor Code §3070-3098)
2) Defines an “apprenticeable occupation” as one for which the Chief of DAS has approved an apprenticeship program, which may include, but is not limited to,
SB 33 Page 2
the building and construction trades, firefighting, and other public sector services. (Labor Code §§3075 & 3075.1)
3) Creates, within the DAS, the Interagency Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship (IACA), which must provide advice and guidance to the Administrator of Apprenticeship and Chief of DAS on the development and administration of standards governing pre-apprenticeship, certification, and on- the-job training and retraining programs outside the building and construction trades and firefighters. (Labor Code §3071.5)
4) Finds and declares that it is the intent of the Legislature that the DIR encourages participation of women and ethnic minorities in apprenticeship programs. (Labor Code §3073.3)
5) Requires DAS, CAC, and IACA to annually report through the Director of DIR to the Legislature and the public on their activities. The annual report is required to contain information and analyses pertaining to all of the following:
a) The number of individuals, including numbers of women and minorities, registered in apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship, and other programs administered pursuant to this chapter in the state for the current year and in each of the previous five years.
b) For construction trade and firefighter apprenticeship programs, the report contains demographic data detailing the racial, ethnic, and gender makeup of program participants for the annual reporting period.
c) The number and percentage of participants, including numbers and percentages of minorities and women, registered in each program having five or more participants, and the percentage of those participants who have completed their programs successfully in the current year and in each of the previous five years.
d) Remedial actions taken by the division to assist those programs having difficulty in achieving affirmative action goals or having very low completion rates.
e) The number of disputed issues with respect to individual apprenticeship or other agreements submitted to the Administrator of Apprenticeship for determination and the number of those issues resolved by the administrator or the council on appeal.
SB 33 Page 3
f) The number of apprenticeship and other program applications received by the division, the number approved, the number denied and the reason for those denials, the number being reviewed, and deficiencies, if any, with respect to those program applications being reviewed.
g) The number of apprenticeship programs, approved by DAS, that are disapproved by the CAC, and the reasons for those disapprovals.
h) The number of apprenticeship programs receiving reimbursement for related and supplemental instruction pursuant to Section 8152 or 79149.3 of the Education Code including the amounts reimbursed to each program, as reported to the DAS by the Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges.
i) The number of apprenticeship programs receiving reimbursement as part of the budget formula developed pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 84750.5 of the Education Code or its successor section, as described in Section 79149.1 of the Education Code including the amounts reimbursed to each program, as reported to the DAS by the Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges.
j) Any apprenticeship standards or regulations that were proposed or adopted in the previous year.
6) Establishes the California Workforce Development Board (CWDB) as the body responsible for assisting the Governor in the development, oversight, and continuous improvement of California’s workforce investment system. (Unemployment Insurance Code 14010 et seq).
7) Authorizes the CWDB to develop guidelines for public agencies receiving Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds to participate in, invest in, or partner with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship construction training programs. (Streets and Highway Code §2038).
8) Authorizes and funds the CWDB to establish a pre-apprenticeship grant program to prepare women, minority participants, disadvantaged youth, and the formerly incarcerated to enroll in construction apprenticeship programs (Streets and Highway Code §§2032 & 2038).
9) Requires that the CWDB and each Local Workforce Development Board ensure that programs and services funded by the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 and directed to apprenticeable occupations are
SB 33 Page 4
conducted in coordination with apprenticeship programs approved by DAS, as specified. (Unemployment Insurance Code §14230).
This bill:
1) Requires the Director of DIR, on or before September 1, 2022 to convene a task force to promote apprenticeship for all populations throughout the state, to be known as the Construction Apprenticeship Advancement Task Force.
2) Requires the Director of DIR to appoint the following members to the Task Force:
a) The Chief of DAS or their designee.
b) An employee representative of the chairperson of the CAC or their designee.
c) An employer representative of the chairperson of the CAC or their designee.
d) The chairperson of the CWDB or their designee.
3) Requires the Task Force to study the recruitment, retention, and barriers to entry of women and other minority, underrepresented, and disadvantaged populations in the State of California for purposes of ensuring apprenticeship opportunities are more inclusive of those populations. In conducting the study, the Task Force shall consult with organizations with experience in working to diversify representation in apprenticeship programs, as well as educational entities involved in apprenticeship, including both K–12 and community college programs.
4) Requires the membership of the Task Force to work jointly to issue a joint report to the Legislature by January 1, 2023, and by that date annually thereafter, that details best practices to promote apprenticeship for all populations throughout the state.
5) Requires the DAS, CAC, and IACA to include in the annual report provided pursuant to Labor Code Section 3073.5, information regarding outreach activities to recruit and retain apprentices from disadvantaged communities and underserved subgroups.
Comments Need for this bill? According to the author, “SB 33 creates the Construction Apprenticeship Task Force to study the recruitment, retention, and barriers to entry of minority, underrepresented, and disadvantaged populations in the State of
SB 33 Page 5
California for purposes of ensuring apprenticeship opportunities are more inclusive of those populations. The bill requires the task force to provide a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2023, and by that date annually thereafter, that details best practices to promote apprenticeship for all populations throughout the state. With the growing demand of a skilled and trained workforce in the construction industry along with local hire requirements, the Task Force may serve as resource to help contractors fulfill those obligations, while partnering with apprenticeship programs, community based organizations, schools, and other potential stake holders . . . The Task Force would be an asset in assisting and educating other organizations about California Registered Apprenticeship programs.”
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/19/21)
California State Council of Laborers (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the California State Council of Laborers, who is the sponsor of this bill, “Construction unions and contractors working in California cannot find enough skilled labor to fill the gaps left by retiring baby boomers. Factors creating the shortage include decreased support for technical and vocational educational training and the fact that many workers are frankly unaware of the opportunity to earn a middle-class income working in the construction industry. Without action, labor shortages likely will become worse due to a retirement wave that is expected to hit the industry. Roughly 40 percent of the construction workforce in California is 45 years of age or older. That means thousands of construction workers will be approaching retirement within the next 10 years. In California, women only make up 9% of the construction industry. This gap between men and women is notably more pronounced on jobsites, where only one of every 100 female construction professionals work in the field. The labor shortage, combined with California’s continued need for infrastructure, housing, and other construction investment, means that we absolutely need women to join the industry and rise the ranks within the construction workforce. Infrastructure and capital development projects can create unprecedented economic opportunity—a chance to lessen inequities in income, earnings, assets, and wealth that have defined California’s sociodemographic profiles for decades. It is important we bring the construction industry and state leaders together to create a task force and develop best practices to address equity in the construction industry.
SB 33 Page 6
The Laborers have recently embarked on a statewide recruitment campaign aimed at attracting women and minorities to work in the heavy construction industry. Combined with the efforts of both unions and contractors we see the task force as pivotal in developing best practices, providing oversight for monitoring outcomes and reporting progress and challenges to the public. SB 33 will help bridge the opportunity gap and connect unemployed, underemployed, disadvantaged, disaffected, and hard-to- employ citizens to family-supporting job opportunities through the billions of dollars that are spent on infrastructure projects in California.
Prepared by: Daniel Rounds / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556 4/21/21 14:44:21
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 48 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 48 Author: Limón (D), et al. Amended: 3/9/21 Vote: 21
SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 11-1, 3/8/21 AYES: Roth, Melendez, Archuleta, Bates, Becker, Dodd, Eggman, Leyva, Min, Newman, Ochoa Bogh NOES: Jones NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado, Pan
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires certain healthcare providers to complete continuing education (CE) on the special care needs of patients with dementia.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Authorizes the Medical Board of California (MBC) to establish CE standards for courses that serve to maintain, develop, or increase the knowledge, skills, and professional performance that a physician uses to provide care, or to improve the quality of care provided to patients, which must include cultural and linguistic competency. (BPC § 2190.1)
2) Requires, after January 1, 2022, all continuing medical education (CME) to contain curriculum that includes the understanding of implicit bias. (BPC § 2190.1 (d)(1))
SB 48 Page 2
3) Requires all general internists and family physicians who have a patient population of which over 25 percent are 65 years of age or older to complete at least 20 percent of all mandatory CME hours in a course in the field of geriatric medicine or the care of older patients. (BPC § 2190.3)
4) Requires the MBC, in determining its CE requirements, to consider including a course in various specified topics. (BPC § 2191)
5) Authorizes the Physician Assistant Board (PAB) to require a licensed physician assistant (PA) to complete CE as a condition of license renewal, which may not exceed 50 hours every two years. (BPC § 3524.5)
This bill:
1) States legislative intent to enact legislation to ensure that individuals living with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease receive a timely diagnosis through, among other things, the training of medical providers and leveraging available federal resources.
2) Requires all general internists and family physicians to complete at least four hours of mandatory CE on the special care needs of patients with dementia.
3) Requires PAB to adopt regulations to require each person renewing their license, as a condition of license renewal, to complete at least four hours of CE on the special care needs of patients with dementia.
Background
CME for Physicians. All physicians and surgeons licensed by the MBC must complete a minimum of 50 hours of approved CME during each two-year license renewal cycle. This requirement can be met by taking a variety of approved CE courses. Upon renewal, physicians are required to self-certify under penalty of perjury that they have met each of the CME requirements, that they have met the conditions exempting them from all or part of the requirements, or that they hold a permanent CME waiver. MBC is authorized to audit a random sample of physicians who have reported compliance with the CME requirements for verification purposes.
Approved CME consists of courses or programs designated by the American Medical Association or the Institute for Medical Quality/California Medical Association related to patient care, community health or public health, preventive
SB 48 Page 3 medicine, quality assurance or improvement, risk management, health facility standards, the legal aspects of clinical medicine, bioethics, professional ethics or improvement of the physician-patient relationship. The only specifically required courses are a one-time, 12-hour training in pain management and the treatment of terminally ill patients, and a requirement that general internists and family physicians whose patient populations are over 25% 65 years of age and older must take at least 20% of their continuing education in the field of geriatric medicine. Otherwise, physician and surgeons have the discretion to select what courses to take to meet their education requirements.
Continuing Education for PAs. PAB requires CE as a condition of license renewal for PAs pursuant to regulations it adopted in 16 C.C.R. § 1399.617. To meet their CE requirements, a PA must either be certified by the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants at the time of the renewal, or must complete 50 hours of Category 1 (preapproved) medical education every two years immediately preceding the expiration date of your license.
Category 1 medical education courses must be preapproved by the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American Medical Association, the American Osteopathic Association Council on Continuing Medical Education, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), or a state medical society recognized by the ACCME.
Dementia. According to the World Health Organization, dementia is a syndrome, usually of a chronic or progressive nature, in which there is deterioration in cognitive function (i.e. the ability to process thought) beyond what might be expected from normal ageing. It affects memory, thinking, orientation, comprehension, calculation, learning capacity, language, and judgement. Consciousness is not affected. The impairment in cognitive function is commonly accompanied, and occasionally preceded, by deterioration in emotional control, social behavior, or motivation. Dementia results from a variety of diseases and injuries that primarily or secondarily affect the brain, such as Alzheimer's disease or stroke.
An Alzheimer's Association 2020 Special Report notes that primary care physicians see a growing issue presented by dementia, and feel unprepared. Specifically, 9 in 10 primary care physicians (87%) expect to see an increase in people living with dementia during the next five years; half (50%) say the medical profession is not prepared to meet this demand; nearly 2 in 5 (39%) report they are
SB 48 Page 4 never or only sometimes comfortable making a diagnosis of Alzheimer's or other dementias; 22% of all primary care providers had no residency training in dementia diagnosis and care; of the 78% who did undergo training, 65% reported that the amount was very little; more than half (55%) say there are not enough dementia care specialists in their area to meet patient demand, a problem more common in rural areas.
Comments
The author notes, in specifying the need for this bill, that “Our only way to ensure everyone in California can receive a timely and accurate diagnosis of dementia is to ensure that primary care providers are given the training they need to identify, diagnose, and help individuals and families begin the care planning process.” However, this bill does not apply CE and CME requirements to all licensed health care practitioners who provide primary care. It is unclear why health care providers like osteopathic physicians and surgeons, who are subject to CME requirements and have the exact same privileges as MBC licensed physicians, including diagnosing and treating patients, are not included in the list of providers the bill requires enhanced CE and CME for. PAs currently practice according to practice agreement with a physician but nurse practitioners (NPs) were recently authorized to practice independently through AB 890 (Wood[, Chapter 265]) last year. Given that NPs provide primary care services and may specialize in adult gerontology care and likely treat patient populations that include older Californians, they too may benefit from learning more about the “special care needs of patients with dementia.”
While a primary care visit may be the first step in a dementia diagnosis, providers beyond those listed in this bill are certainly part of the team of health care practitioners who interact with aging Californians. Psychologists and other mental health care providers may also play a role in determining whether a patient is suffering from dementia. Similarly, if the goal for the bill is to provide appropriate care to patients with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, beyond just a diagnosis, there is a wide range of providers who might benefit from added training about this unique patient population, including nurses and licensed vocational nurses.
This bill is drafted as an amendment to a section of current law that requires named physician specialties who have a patient population of which over 25 percent are 65 years of age or older to complete at least 20 percent of all mandatory CME hours in a course in the field of geriatric medicine or the care of older patients. MBC typically does not differentiate practice authority or requirements based on
SB 48 Page 5 physician specialty. CE and CME in California law are required as part of health provider licensure. Physicians still have to undergo additional work and demonstrate continued competency in a particular specialty practice if they are certified by a national specialty board. If the goal is for the same general internists and family physicians who treat patients 65 or older to take added CME in the special care needs of patients with dementia, the bill should be amended to clarify that it is limited to these specialists.
MBC does not have a position on this bill but notes that “Physicians may serve a diverse patient population and should have the flexibility to choose the CME most appropriate to their practice. Mandating, by statute, CME on a certain topic may lead to future pressures to do so on other matters, potentially ‘crowding out’ the other CME needs that physicians face as they serve their particular patient population. Further, such a requirement would potentially create a significant demand for these courses, and unintentionally provide new opportunities for those who simply seek to sell their therapies to physicians.”
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/22/21)
AARP Alzheimer's Association State Policy Office Biogen California Alliance for Retired Americans California Assisted Living Association California Long-term Care Ombudsman Association California Senior Legislature Justice in Aging
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/22/21)
California Academy of Family Physicians Physician Assistant Board
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters write that as our state ages, and incidents of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease increase exponentially, we must insure that our medical personnel and social workers have training to identify and address these challenges. The California Senior Legislature writes that “It is apparent that increased education requirements will be beneficial to some of the most vulnerable in our State.”
SB 48 Page 6
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Academy of Family Physicians (CAFP) is opposed to this bill and requests that it be amended to conform to existing statutory language authorizing MBC to determine CME requirements. CAFP states that the organization “shares the author’s goal of ensuring that patients suffering from Alzheimer’s and Dementia receive appropriate and timely care, but SB 48 will not achieve this goal as currently drafted. Continuing medical education curriculum should be developed by demonstrated clinical need and research, not dictated by statute. Furthermore, physicians should complete courses necessary to best meet the needs of their specific patient panel, setting, and practice. While each physician tailors their education to their patient population, the most appropriate entity to determine overall physician educational requirements is the Medical Board of California…California’s recently released Master Plan for Aging states that only about five percent of providers have geriatric training. Included in the small percentage of providers who have already participated in this training are family physicians. As part of a family physician’s residency training, they must complete, at a minimum, 100 hours or 125 encounters with geriatric patients across a continuum of sites. Evidence does not show that family physicians are providing inadequate care and that four additional hours of continuing medical education in this area will improve health outcomes.”
The Physician Assistant Board notes that PAs practice all across the spectrum and only a small population interact with patients who may have dementia. PAB is requesting that this bill be amended to only impose new CE requirements on PA licensees who practice in a specialty where dementia would be a common finding, such as geriatric, internal medicine, or primary care.
Prepared by: Sarah Mason / B., P. & E.D. / 3/24/21 15:18:46
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 52 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 52 Author: Dodd (D), et al. Amended: 4/12/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 13-0, 3/9/21 AYES: Dodd, Nielsen, Allen, Archuleta, Borgeas, Bradford, Glazer, Hueso, Jones, Melendez, Portantino, Rubio, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Becker
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: State of emergency: local emergency: sudden and severe energy shortage: planned power outage
SOURCE: Napa County Board of Supervisors
DIGEST: This bill defines a “deenergization event” as a planned power outage, as specified, and includes a deenergization event in the list of conditions constituting a local emergency, with prescribed limitations.
Senate Floor Amendments of 4/12/21 include a “deenergization event” in the list of conditions constituting a local emergency with prescribed limitations, and specify that a deenergization event does not include any planned outages in connection with regular utility work.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) within the office of the Governor and makes OES responsible for the state’s emergency and disaster response services for natural, technological, or manmade disasters and emergencies.
SB 52 Page 2
2) Authorizes the Governor to proclaim a state of emergency and local officials and local governments to proclaim a local emergency, when specified conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property exist, and authorizes the Governor or the appropriate local government to exercise certain powers in response to that emergency.
3) Defines “state of emergency” and “local emergency” to mean a duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state or territorial limits of a local government caused by, among other things, a sudden and severe energy shortage.
4) Defines “sudden and severe energy shortage” to mean a rapid, unforeseen shortage of energy, resulting from, but not limited to, events such as an embargo, sabotage, or natural disasters, and which has statewide, regional, or local impact.
This bill:
1) Defines “deenergization event” to mean a planned power outage, undertaken by an electrical corporation, as defined, to reduce the risk of wildfires caused by utility equipment, as specified. A deenergization event commences when an electrical corporation provides notice to any state agency or political subdivision of the potential need to initiate a planned deenergization of the electrical grid, and ceases when the electrical corporation restores electrical services to all deenergized customers, or at such time as the electrical corporation cancels the deenergization event for some or all of its affected customers, and rescinds the notice of the potential need to initiate the deenergization event. A deenergization event does not include any planned outages in connection with regular utility work.
2) Adds a deenergization event to the list of conditions constituting a local emergency.
3) Specifies that a local emergency proclaimed as a result of a deenergization event does not trigger the electric utility obligations set forth by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Decision 19-07-015 or its successor decisions as related to deenergization events.
4) Specifies that a local emergency proclaimed as a results of a deenergization event does not alter the electric utilities’ CPUC-approved cost-recovery mechanisms for their own costs associated with deenergization events.
SB 52 Page 3
Comments Purpose of the bill. According to the author’s office, “in an era of climate change and enhanced wildfire prevention, public safety power shutoffs (PSPS) have become an all too frequent event. A PSPS has very significant impacts on various activities and populations in an effected region/county, including sustaining the needs of medically vulnerable residents, and continued and uninterrupted operations of critical public services (water, wastewater, traffic control, police and fire protection, etc.). In order for public services to continue, and in order to ensure vulnerable populations are protected, counties open emergency operation centers to coordinate and oversee the maintenance of public safety health and welfare. Activation of county emergency operation centers is expensive and a drain on county funds.”
Further, the author’s office states that, “currently, the Emergency Services Act recognizes a loss of electrical power as an emergency, but limits that definition of a loss of power to a sudden, unplanned event. Given the fact that a loss of power pursuant to a PSPS is planned, it is necessary to broaden the definition of a loss of power in the Emergency Services Act. In this manner, counties will be able to seek reimbursement for the costs incurred by running the emergency operation centers.”
California Emergency Services Act. The California Emergency Services Act (ESA) was enacted in 1970, and established OES within the Governor’s Office. Under the ESA, OES is charged with coordinating statewide emergency preparedness; post emergency recovery and mitigation efforts; and the development, review, approval, and integration of emergency plans.
The ESA gives the Governor authority to proclaim a state of emergency in an area affected or likely to be affected when: (1) conditions of disaster or extreme peril exist; (2) the Governor is requested to do so upon request from a designated local government official; or (3) the Governor finds that local authority is inadequate to cope with the emergency. Local governments may also issue local emergency proclamations, which is a prerequisite for requesting the Governor’s Proclamation of a State of Emergency.
Specifically, the ESA defines a “local emergency” as the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a county, city and county, or city, caused by conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, cyberterrorism, sudden and severe energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or disease, the Governor’s warning of an earthquake or volcanic prediction, or an
SB 52 Page 4 earthquake, or other conditions, other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of that political subdivision and require the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat, or with respect to regulated energy utilities, a sudden and severe energy shortage that requires extraordinary measures beyond the authority vested in the CPUC.
California wildfire and electric utility infrastructure. Electrical equipment, including downed power lines, arcing, and conductor contact with trees and grass, can act as an ignition source. Risks for wildfires also increased in recent years with the extended drought and bark beetle infestation that has increased tree mortalities and, as a result, increased the fuel, and risk for wildfires. In recent years, California has experienced a number of catastrophic wildfires, including several that ignited by electrical utility infrastructure, including the 2007 Witch Fire in San Diego County, the 2015 Butte Fire, several of the 2017 fires that ravaged the state, and the brutally deadly Camp Fire in 2018. The current top six largest California wildfires have all occurred within the last two and a half years and their causes remain under investigation.
Deenergizing electric lines. Generally, electric utilities attempt to maintain power and ensure continued reliability of the flow of power. However, as recent catastrophic fires have demonstrated, the risk of fire caused by electric utility infrastructure can pose a great risk, perhaps greater than the risks of turning off the power to certain circuits. As a safety consideration, electric utilities have the ability and authority to deenergize electric lines in order to prevent harm or threats of harm, commonly referred to as PSPS. However, deenergizing electric lines can result in the loss of power to households, businesses, traffic signals, communication systems, critical facilities, water treatment facilities, emergency services and others. Therefore, efforts to deenergize electric lines must consider the potential harm of the energized lines causing a wildfire against the safety hazards associated with eliminating electricity to the areas served by the line(s).
Recent history with PSPS. Although there is some history with PSPSs, their use as a tool to prevent sparking fires is a more recent development that has expanded and grown in-use due to California’s recent experience with catastrophic wildfires ignited by utility infrastructure. The practice began by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) after several electric utility infrastructure ignited catastrophic fires in 2007. Proactive power shutoffs were one of the many measures SDG&E implemented to reduce the risk of fire ignited by its infrastructure.
SB 52 Page 5
PSPS in September and October 2019. At the end of September 2019, under high- speed Diablo wind conditions, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) sent PSPS notifications to a widespread region of its service territory and ultimately shutdown power to 76,000 customers in the North Bay and Sierra Foothill areas. This was the first back-to-back power shutoff event for PG&E in the same geographic area. These power shutoffs set the stage for continued PSPS activity throughout the month of October, as there were additional multiple proactive power shutoff events throughout the month within the service territories of each of the three large electric investor owned utilities (IOUs). In some cases, especially in the PG&E territory, these events bled into each other. As a result, customers experienced extended days with loss of power, as the utility did not have enough time to complete inspections of the deenergized electric lines before the initiation of the next PSPS event. In total, over two million California residents endured the loss of power in communities located in about 40 of the state’s 58 counties.
Declaring an emergency. This bill specifies that a PSPS by an IOU would be considered a qualifying condition to declare a local emergency. The deenergization events in the fall of 2019 proved to be an extraordinary burden on local and state governments who were forced to scramble with their own resources to respond to the events. By allowing proactive power shutoffs to be an eligible condition to declare a local emergency, local governments could benefit by allowing them to recoup costs that they might bear during these events. These costs could be substantial. However, there is hope that the events of last fall will not be repeated. Nonetheless, local governments are valid in their concerns that local and state government resources could be impacted, once again, in future events.
CPUC Decision 19-07-015. In 2019, the CPUC adopted an emergency disaster relief program for electric, natural gas, water, and sewer utility customers under the CPUC’s jurisdiction. The emergency disaster relief program is designed to ensure that California utility customers who experience a housing or financial crisis due to a disaster, keep vital utility services and receive financial support in the wake of a disaster. The emergency disaster relief program is implemented upon a Governor of California’s state of emergency declaration or a Presidential State of Emergency declaration, when a disaster has either resulted in the loss or disruption of the delivery or receipt of utility service and/or resulted in the degradation of the quality of utility service. The mandated customer protections remain in effect from the date of the Governor’s state of emergency declaration or a Presidential state of emergency declaration, and conclude no sooner than 12 months from the date of the original emergency declaration, or as appropriately determined by OES.
SB 52 Page 6
Related/Prior Legislation AB 1403 (Levine, 2021) would include a “deenergization event,” as defined as a planned power outage, within those conditions constituting a state of emergency and local emergency. (Pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee)
SB 468 (Dodd, 2021) includes an electromagnetic pulse attack among the conditions constituting a state of emergency or local emergency. (Pending in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee)
SB 532 (Dodd, Chapter 557, Statutes of 2018) added “cyberattacks” to the list of conditions that are named in the ESA that may be cited to support the proclamation of a state of emergency or local emergency.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/14/21)
Napa County Board of Supervisors (source) California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS California Fire Chiefs Association City of Pleasanton City of Thousand Oaks Disability Rights California Fire Districts Association of California League of California Cities Rural County Representatives of California Solano County Water Agency
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/12/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Napa County Board of Supervisors writes in support of this bill stating that, “[w]hile the intent of a PSPS is to limit the threat of wildfires during specific weather conditions, these events trigger many activities required by local agencies to protect public health and safety for the duration of the event. These activities are coordinated through and by local Emergency Operation Centers (EOCs). Often, the local EOC is activated as soon as a utility company issues a notice of possible PSPS, and remains active until power is restored and/or the notice is rescinded. EOCs are expensive to operate. Current law allows local agencies to recover some costs if the emergency is covered by the ESA. However,
SB 52 Page 7 it is unclear whether an EOC activation caused by a PSPS announcement is covered by the ESA. SB 52 will make that clear.”
Prepared by: Brian Duke / G.O. / (916) 651-1530 4/14/21 19:38:22
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 84 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 84 Author: Hurtado (D) Amended: 3/23/21 Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-1, 3/16/21 AYES: Laird, Allen, Eggman, Hertzberg, Hueso, Limón, Stern NOES: Grove NO VOTE RECORDED: Jones
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Oil and gas wells: hazardous or idle-deserted wells and facilities
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill revises and enhances the legislative reporting requirements of the California Geologic Energy Management Division’s idle oil and gas well program and related matters.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) in the Department of Conservation (department). CalGEM’s leader is the State Oil and Gas Supervisor (supervisor).
2) Classifies oil and gas wells based upon their use.
a) An idle well is a well that is not in use, and has not been in use for at least 24 consecutive months, as specified. (Public Resources Code (PRC) §3008) b) An idle well that has no operator or other responsible party to pay for its costs become an “idle-deserted” or “orphan” well which is then the
SB 84 Page 2
responsibility of the state to formally shutdown and remove (i.e. plug and abandon). (PRC §3251, §3206.3)
c) Long-term idle wells are those wells that have been idle for at least 8 years. (PRC §3008)
3) Holds the current operator, or the previous operator, as provided, of an orphan well that produced oil, gas, or other hydrocarbons or was used for injection, responsible for the proper plugging and abandonment of the well or the decommissioning of idle-deserted production facilities. (PRC §3237)
4) Authorizes the supervisor to order the plugging and abandonment, or decommissioning of an idle-deserted well or facility, as specified. (PRC §3251, §3255)
5) Requires an operator either file with the supervisor certain annual idle well fees per well that increase the longer the well has been idle, or file an idle well management plan with the supervisor that eliminates between 4% - 6% of the long-term idle wells each year. Failure to pay idle well fees or file a plan is sufficient evidence for the well to be considered legally deserted.
6) Phases in the requirement that each operator of an oil or gas well submit a report to the supervisor that demonstrates the operator’s total liability to plug and abandon all wells and to decommission all related production facilities, as specified. Initial reports will be filed starting July 1, 2022, as specified, and there are periodic ongoing reporting requirements thereafter. (PRC §3205.7)
7) Requires the department or the supervisor to provide certain reports to the Legislature regarding idle and long-term idle wells.
a) Starting July 1, 2019 and annually through July 1, 2026, the supervisor shall submit a comprehensive report to the Legislature on the status of idle and long-term idle wells for the preceding calendar year, as specified. (PRC §3206.3)
b) On April 1, 2021, the department is required to issue a report to the Legislature that includes the number of hazardous wells and facilities, idle- deserted wells and deserted facilities remaining, the estimated costs of abandoning and decommissioning those wells and facilities and related information, among other things. (PRC §3258) c) On October 1, 2023, the department is required to provide an update to the April 1, 2021 report that describes the total costs, average costs and number
SB 84 Page 3
of wells and facilities addressed, projects completed, and other related information. (PRC §3258)
This bill revises and enhances the legislative reporting requirements of CalGEM’s idle well program, and related matters. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires that if the location of hazardous wells and facilities, idle-deserted wells, and deserted facilities is not included in the April 1, 2021 report that it be provided separately by CalGEM by April 1, 2022.
2) Requires that the location of and certain information about hazardous wells and facilities, idle-deserted wells, and deserted facilities be including in the report update due October 1, 2023, as specified.
3) Requires, from July 1, 2022 to July 1, 2026, that the idle well program report due annually identify wells that meet certain criteria. These criteria are:
a) The well is registered to an operator;
b) The well has met the definition of an idle well in the previous three years; and
c) No idle well fee has been paid for the well or the well is not part of a valid idle well management plan, as specified.
4) Requires the supervisor to provide information about the process the supervisor has established to determine that the current operator or previous operator(s), as applicable, do not have the financial resources to fully cover the cost of plugging and abandoning the well or the decommissioning of deserted production facilities to certain legislative committees by July 1, 2022, as specified.
5) Makes numerous relevant legislative findings, and technical changes to law.
Background
California is a major oil and gas producing state. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the state was 7th and 14th for oil and natural gas production, respectively, among the 50 states in 2020. Production was about 135M barrels. As of 2018, roughly 80% of the state’s active wells are located in Kern County, and produced collectively about 70% of both the state’s oil and natural gas.
SB 84 Page 4
There are approximately 125,000 active or idle oil and gas wells in the state (2021 data). Active wells are those currently in use that either produce or inject fluids related to hydrocarbon production. Wells are often expensive to drill and to seal (“plug and abandon”). Therefore, operators may prefer to keep wells idle – sometimes for extended periods of time. Idle wells are more likely to become orphan wells. Orphan wells are likely to not be maintained consistently, and emissions from wells that fail or are failing may be hazardous to the surrounding environment, and public health and safety. The age of the state’s oil and gas fields and the intensive efforts needed to produce oil and gas from them make oil and associated gas relatively expensive to produce in the state compared to other locations.
Over the last few years, multiple bills have substantially revised and updated several outdated elements of state law governing oil and gas operations. For example, the law regarding idle and orphan wells and the requirements regarding indemnity bonds for wells changed considerably.
In November 2019, the state’s oil and gas regulator, the Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), released the first annual idle well report for the 2018 calendar year. In 2018, there was a significant increase in the plugging and abandonment of idle and long-term idle wells (about 1,346 total, defined below) as intended by the recent changes to idle well law. However, at the end of 2018, over 29,000 idle wells remained, including about 17,575 long-term idle wells. CalGEM’s web-site currently states that there are 35,000 idle wells in the state, but it is not known at what date this was observed.
The 2018 idle well report also states that as many as 957 operators may have deserted about 2,555 idle wells. Given the large number of operators and wells to be assessed, CalGEM has a considerable backlog of work to do to try to find any potential responsible particles to pay for the plugging and abandonment of these wells. Initially, CalGEM prioritized 14 operators responsible for 35 wells for assessment.
In a related effort, and at CalGEM’s request, the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) investigated the status of the state’s oil and gas wells in order to estimate the potential cost to the state should the wells become orphaned. The CCST report was released in January 2020. The CCST report suggested that there were about 5,540 wells that were either likely to be orphaned or at high risk of becoming orphaned soon. The potential liability to the state was estimated to be roughly $500 million net for these two categories alone. While there are indemnity
SB 84 Page 5 bonds in place for many of these wells, the sum of the bond amounts is much less than the likely costs to plug and abandon the wells.
Comments
Enhanced transparency. The changes to the reports proposed by this bill and the disclosure language will help to provide further transparency to the public about oil and gas operations and related regulatory efforts in the state.
Overdue reports. The April 1, 2021 legislative report referred to in this bill is overdue as are other legislative reports due from CalGEM.
Opposition still? Amendments taken by the author before the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee removed the provision that opponents of the bill in a single opposition sign-on letter objected to. Not every organization has yet removed its opposition.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/22/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/22/21)
Greenpeace
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “[r]ural and underserved communities in California, and the Southern Central Valley continue to be neglected when it comes to environmental protection, jobs, and most of all, public health. The California Council on Science and Technology reported that there are over 100,000 active and idle oil and gas wells in California. This includes 5,540 wells that may have no viable operator or are at high risk of becoming orphaned in the near future. SB 84 requires CalGEM to prioritize the public health of our communities while requiring CalGEM to recover any costs of cleanup and capping from current or prior owners of those wells. These idle and orphaned wells can
SB 84 Page 6 release toxic emissions to the surrounding communities creating health concerns for our children and families within that area.”
Prepared by: Katharine Moore / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116 4/23/21 8:12:09
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 103 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 103 Author: Dodd (D) Amended: 3/16/21 Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/15/21 AYES: Glazer, Nielsen, Hertzberg, Leyva, Newman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act
SOURCE: California Commission on Uniform State Laws
DIGEST: This bill provides for the automatic removal and replacement of a presidential elector who does not cast their electoral vote for the candidates for President or Vice President of the United States that the elector pledged to support as a candidate for elector, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal law:
1) Establishes the Electoral College, which consists of presidential electors from each state who meet in their respective states every four years to elect the President and Vice President of the United States.
2) Requires each state to appoint, in a manner that the legislature of the state directs, a number of presidential electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the state is entitled in Congress.
Existing state law:
1) Provides that the voters choose the state’s presidential electors.
SB 103 Page 2
2) Requires that each political party, following its own procedures codified in state law as specified, submit to the Secretary of State (SOS) a certified list of its nominated candidates to serve as presidential electors. Provides that, instead of the names of the elector candidates, the names of the party’s candidates for President and Vice President shall be printed on the ballot.
3) Provides that a presidential elector candidate may be nominated by a means other than a primary election. Provides that a group of candidates supporting an unaffiliated presidential ticket may file a nomination paper with the SOS which names the candidates for President and Vice President that the group pledges to vote for, as specified. Provides that, instead of the names of that group of presidential elector candidates, the names of the candidates for President and Vice President the group pledged to vote for shall be printed on the ballot.
4) Provides that a group of individuals may file a declaration of write-in candidacy for presidential electors with the SOS which names the candidates for President and Vice President that the group pledges to vote for, as specified. Provides that only those write-in votes naming candidates for President and Vice President that a qualifying group pledged to vote for shall be counted.
5) Provides that, no later than the 32nd day following the presidential general election, the SOS shall analyze the votes given for presidential electors and certify to the Governor the names of the proper number of persons having the highest number of votes.
6) Requires that elected presidential electors assemble at the State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following their election to vote, by separate ballot, for President and Vice President.
7) Provides that, if an elector dies or is absent, the remaining electors shall elect a citizen of this state as a replacement elector.
8) Requires electors to vote for their political party’s nominees as President and Vice President, if both candidates are alive.
9) Compensates each presidential elector $10 and mileage reimbursement.
SB 103 Page 3
10) Provides, generally, that a person who willfully neglects or refuses to perform a duty imposed upon them by a state law relating to elections, or who in the person’s official capacity knowingly and fraudulently acts in violation or contravention of that law, is guilty of a crime punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to three years, or both.
This bill:
1) Requires that the Green Party, Democratic Party, Republican Party, American Independent Party, and Peace and Freedom Party nominate an alternate elector for each presidential elector nominated by that political party, as specified, and that each political party submit its list of alternate elector nominees along with its list of elector nominees to the SOS.
2) Requires that a group of elector candidates supporting an unaffiliated presidential ticket or a write-in presidential ticket include in their nomination papers declarations by individuals who will serve as alternate electors for each elector candidate, as specified.
3) Enacts the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act (UFPEA), which does all of the following:
a) Provides that, except as specified, this state’s electors are the winning elector nominees under the laws of this state.
b) Requires that each elector nominee and alternate elector nominee of a political party or an unaffiliated presidential candidate execute a pledge agreeing to mark their ballots for that party’s nominee or that candidate, respectively. Requires that these pledges be submitted to the SOS along with the names of the elector nominees and alternates.
c) Provides that if a presidential or vice presidential candidate dies or withdraws as a candidate before the meeting of electors, the pledge described above applies either to the successor candidate for that office nominated by the political party in accordance with the party's rules or, in the case of an unaffiliated presidential ticket, the successor candidate for that office nominated by the group of elector nominees of the candidate.
d) Requires the Governor certify this state’s electors, as specified.
SB 103 Page 4 e) Provides that the SOS presides over the meeting of electors. f) Provides that the position of an elector not present to vote is vacant. Requires the SOS to fill any vacant elector position with a substitute elector as follows:
i) If the alternate elector for the vacant position is present to vote, by appointing that alternate.
ii) If the alternate elector is not present to vote, by appointing an elector chosen by lot from among the other alternate electors present to vote.
iii) If there are no alternate electors present to vote, by appointing any immediately available individual who is qualified to serve as an elector and chosen by a plurality vote of the remaining electors, with a tie broken by lot.
iv) If all elector and alternate elector positions are vacant, by appointing a single presidential elector, who may select other qualified individuals to serve as electors, as specified. g) Requires a substitute elector, who was not previously an alternate, to execute a pledge agreeing to mark their ballots for President and Vice President consistent with the pledge of the individual the substitute replaced. h) Provides that, at the time designated for elector voting and after all vacant positions have been filled, electors shall cast their ballot for President and Vice President using the following procedure:
i) Provides that the SOS shall provide electors with a presidential and vice presidential ballot which the elector shall mark with the elector’s votes, sign, and present to the SOS, as specified.
ii) Provides that the SOS shall examine the presented ballots and only accept as cast all ballots of electors whose votes are consistent with their pledges.
iii) Provides that an elector who refuses to present a ballot, presents an unmarked ballot, or presents a ballot marked in violation of the
SB 103 Page 5
elector’s pledge vacates the office of elector. Provides that the vacancy shall be filled with a substitute elector.
iv) Provides that the SOS shall distribute ballots to a substitute elector and repeat the process of examining ballots, declaring and filling vacant positions as required, and recording appropriately completed ballots from the substituted electors, until all of the state’s electoral votes have been cast and recorded.
i) Requires the SOS to prepare and transmit to the President of the United States Senate and other officials as required a certificate of the vote.
j) Provides that, in applying and construing the UFPEA, consideration shall be given to the need for uniformity of the law among enacting states.
4) Provides that alternate electors receive the same compensation as electors.
5) Provides that the criminal penalties for failing to perform a duty relating to elections do not apply to a violation of the UFPEA and certain other provisions.
Background
The Electoral College. When Californians mark their ballots for President and Vice President, they are actually casting their votes for a slate of presidential elector candidates selected by the political party that nominated that presidential ticket. (Or, in the case of an independent presidential ticket not affiliated with a political party, for a slate of elector candidates that has pledged to vote for that ticket.) This is because, under the United States Constitution, presidential electors, not the voters, directly elect the President and Vice President. Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives that the state is entitled to in Congress.
Electors convene by state, vote separately for President and Vice President, then submit their votes to the President of the Senate, where the votes are counted in a joint session of Congress. If a candidate for President or Vice President receives a majority of the vote, that candidate is elected. Currently, there are 538 electors, so a minimum of 270 votes is required to elect a President and Vice President. If no candidate reaches that threshold for one or both offices, then the House of Representatives, voting by state delegation and with each state receiving one vote, elects the President, and the Senate, voting normally, elects the Vice President.
SB 103 Page 6
Faithless Electors. There is no federal constitutional requirement that presidential electors vote according to their party’s (or their state’s voters’) wishes. However, because parties have a strong incentive to vet their elector nominees, so-called “faithless electors” who abstain or vote for someone other than their party’s presidential ticket have been a rarity in American history. Over 59 presidential elections, with more than 24,000 electoral votes cast, only 90 electors did not vote for their party’s presidential nominee and 75 electors (often the same electors) did not vote for their party’s vice presidential nominee.
According to a FairVote analysis of faithless electors’ presidential votes, “more than two-thirds of deviant votes (63) were votes cast for another candidate due to the death of the nominee. Of the remaining 27 deviant votes, 24 were cast for another candidate, three of which were cancelled or retracted due to the operation of state law; and only one cast for the opposite party’s nominee in a close election. The final three deviant votes consist of one abstention, one abnormal vote (switching the presidential and vice presidential nominees) and one apparent accident.”
So far, faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a presidential election. However, there have been narrowly-won presidential contests where even a small number of faithless electors could have changed the result or pushed the decision to Congress. In 2000, for example, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by receiving just one more electoral vote than the 270 he needed to win an outright majority.
State Laws Requiring Faithful Voting, Including the UFPEA. A majority of states have passed laws requiring presidential electors to vote for their party’s presidential ticket. According to an analysis by FairVote, 33 states require an elector to vote for their party’s nominee. These laws are of three general types:
Pledge States: Most states (16) require that electors vote for their party’s nominee or pledge to do so but do not provide for any penalty or any mechanism to prevent an elector from casting a faithless vote.
Penalty States: Five states, including California, penalize with a fine or imprisonment an elector for voting against their party’s presidential ticket.
SB 103 Page 7
Removal States: Fourteen states prevent faithless voting from occurring by automatically cancelling an attempted deviant vote and by removing the faithless elector and replacing them with a substitute elector.
SB 103 would repeal penalties for faithless voting and instead enact the UFPEA, which provides for the removal and replacement of faithless electors. The UFPEA is a model law drafted by the Uniform Law Commission, which has been adopted in six states: Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and Washington.
Constitutionality. In 2020, the United States Supreme Court upheld two state law approaches to deterring or preventing faithless voting, including one similar to current California law and one similar to SB 103. In Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316 (2020), the Supreme Court upheld a Washington law fining presidential electors for violating a pledge to support their party’s nominee. In a companion case, Colorado Department of State v. Baca, 140 S. Ct. 2316 (2020), the Court also upheld the constitutionality of a Colorado law which automatically nullified a faithless elector’s vote and replaced them with an alternate elector.
National Popular Vote. In 2011, California ratified the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote. Under the Agreement, each signatory state agrees to award all its Electoral College votes to the presidential ticket that wins the national popular vote, regardless of whether that ticket also won the popular vote in that state. The Agreement only goes into effect once states cumulatively possessing a majority of the Electoral College vote have signed on. In this way, the Agreement ensures that the winner of the national popular vote will also win the Electoral College vote that decides the presidency. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 15 states have ratified the Agreement, possessing 196 out of the 270 necessary electoral votes.
The UFPEA does not conflict with the Agreement, should it go into effect. The UFPEA binds presidential electors to voting for the presidential ticket that they had pledged to support as candidates, but it does not determine which slate of electors are selected to represent a state. With the Agreement activated, California would be required to select the slate of elector candidates pledged to the presidential ticket that won the national popular vote, regardless of state returns. The UFPEA would then ensure those electors voted faithfully for that ticket.
Comments
According to the author, the 2020 presidential election brought into sharp focus the ways in which the Electoral College system could potentially be manipulated by so
SB 103 Page 8 called “faithless electors.” Faithless electors are presidential electors who do not adhere to their obligation to vote faithfully for their parties’ candidates and in doing so, threaten the underpinnings of our democracy. While 33 states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring electors to uphold their voting pledges, many do not have any enforcement mechanism and a majority have no way to make sure electors faithfully comply, including California. SB 103 will ensure the state’s presidential electors cast ballots for candidates who won the popular vote and do not instead switch candidates or abstain from voting.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 459 (Hill, Chapter 188, Statutes of 2011) ratified the National Popular Vote Agreement, discussed above.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/6/21)
California Commission on Uniform State Laws (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/6/21)
None received
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT: In a letter supporting SB 103, the California Commission on Uniform State Laws stated, in part, the following:
UFPEA addresses the rare but historically persistent problem of presidential electors who do not adhere to their obligations to vote faithfully for their parties’ candidates. While the occasional “faithless” elector has not changed the outcome of a presidential election, that is not always a certainty. This is particularly true where a close Electoral College count is possible. … Senate Bill 103 would change existing California law to ensure that faithless electors are replaced rather than merely punished. … Adoption of UFPEA in all the states would ensure the orderly operations of Electoral College voting throughout the country.
Prepared by: Nicolas Heidorn / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106 4/7/21 16:04:09
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 107 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 107 Author: Wiener (D), et al. Amended: 2/18/21 Vote: 21
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 4-0, 3/9/21 AYES: Hurtado, Jones, Cortese, Pan
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: CalFresh
SOURCE: AARP California California Association of Food Banks Nourish California SF-Marin Food Bank
DIGEST: This bill requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to develop a CalFresh user-centered application for seniors 60 years of age or older and for people with disabilities who are eligible to be enrolled in the Elderly Simplified Application Project (ESAP). It gives an individual the option to apply, report, and recertify for CalFresh in person, by mail, online, or by telephone, and permits an individual to complete the interview requirement and client signature by telephone, as specified.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes, under federal law, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to promote the general welfare and to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the nation’s population by raising the levels of nutrition among low-income households. (7 United States Code [USC] Section 2011 et seq.)
SB 107 Page 2
2) Establishes, in California statute, the CalFresh program to administer the provision of federal SNAP benefits to families and individuals meeting specified criteria. (WIC 18900 et seq.)
3) Requires each county welfare department to, if appropriate, exempt a household from complying with face-to-face interview requirements for purposes of determining eligibility at initial application and recertification, as specified. (WIC 18901.10)
4) Requires all CalFresh households to be assigned certification periods that are the maximum number of months allowable under federal law for the household type or, on a case-by-case basis only, a shorter certification period is required by the household’s individual circumstances. (WIC 18910.1)
5) Exempts CalFresh households in which all adult members are elderly or disabled and in which the household has no earned income from being assigned midyear certification periods that align with Medi-Cal reporting requirements. (WIC 18910(b))
This bill:
1) Makes a series of legislative findings and declarations regarding food insecurity among low-income Californians and states legislative intent to maximize the impact of federal safety net funding to reduce poverty, fight hunger, and improve health by simplifying enrollment and maintaining access to CalFresh for all eligible, low-income Californians.
2) Requires CDSS to participate in all elements of ESAP, which is a demonstration project operated by the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in order to increase client access and retention within CalFresh,
3) Requires CDSS to, on or before January 1, 2023, develop a CalFresh user- centered application that minimizes the burdens of the overall enrollment process for seniors 60 years of age or older and for people with disabilities who are eligible to be enrolled in ESAP.
4) Requires that an individual shall have the option to apply, report, and recertify for CalFresh in person, by mail, online, or by telephone, and shall have the option to complete the interview and the required client signature by telephone, to the extent permitted under federal law.
SB 107 Page 3
5) Permits counties to implement any method of telephonic signature or electronic signature, in compliance with state and federal program requirements, that is supported by county business practices and available technology.
6) Requires CDSS to work with counties, representatives of the statewide automated welfare system (SAWS) consortia, recognized exclusive representatives of eligibility workers, and advocates for CalFresh participants, to develop and execute a plan of support for counties that have not already implemented a telephone-based application and renewal process, and to provide technical assistance and resources.
7) Requires the results of the planning effort, including, but not limited to, the resources identified as necessary for counties to implement telephone signatures, to be reported to the Legislature during the 2022-23 Budget hearings.
8) Requires, to the extent permitted under federal law, the application process to satisfy both of the following criteria:
a) Include simple, user-friendly language and instructions that incorporate user testing with CalFresh applicants, participants, eligibility workers, and application assisters; and
b) Require the eligibility, enrollment, and retention system to offer an applicant or recipient assistance with their application, required reporting, or recertification for the CalFresh program in person, over the telephone, and online, and in a manner that is accessible to individuals with disabilities and those who have limited English proficiency.
9) Requires counties currently using the Consortium IV (C-IV) or LEADER Replacement System of the SAWS to comply with the telephone signature requirements beginning on or before January 1, 2023, and counties currently using the Welfare Client Data System of SAWS to comply beginning on or before January 1, 2024.
Background CalFresh
CalFresh, California’s version of federal SNAP, provides monthly food benefits to qualified low-income individuals and families to assist with the purchase of the food they need to maintain adequate nutrition levels. With 2.38 million households (and over 4.44 million people) receiving benefits, CalFresh is the largest nutrition
SB 107 Page 4 assistance program in California. The program is administered by CDSS at the state level and California’s 58 counties are responsible for administering CalFresh at the local level. CalFresh benefits are 100 percent federally funded and national income eligibility standards and benefit levels are established by the federal government.
For most households, monthly gross income must be at or below 200 percent of federal poverty level (FPL), which amounts to $3,620 for a family of three, in order to be eligible for CalFresh. The Governor’s proposed budget for 2021/22 estimates the average CalFresh household will receive about $270 per month and the average CalFresh benefit per person will be about $125 per month.
Historically, California’s CalFresh participation rate has been at or near the lowest in the nation, with only about 70 percent of eligible recipients enrolled in CalFresh. This means about 30 percent of those eligible are not receiving CalFresh. While numerous factors contribute to California’s low take up rate, two commonly cited reasons for low enrollment are the complicated enrollment and recertification processes, especially for people who are elderly or disabled. Additional barriers to senior participation in CalFresh include social and linguistic isolation, lack of knowledge about the benefit, confusion about eligibility requirements, and difficulty filling out an application.
COVID-19 Impact and Response
On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a statewide State of Emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was followed by a series of executive orders and instructions intended to reduce exposure to the coronavirus, including a statewide stay at home order for non-essential workers and implementing social distancing. While the stay at home order has been lifted, less restrictive containment measures that limit exposure to the virus are still in place. The economic repercussions of COVID-19 containment measures have been immediate, persistent and widespread. Federal and state efforts to tamp down those effects have included payments for nutrition assistance for children, maximizing monthly CalFresh payments, extended unemployment payments, eviction moratoriums and more.
As a result of these economic repercussions, applications for public assistance and unemployment benefits spiked. Over eight million Californians have submitted initial unemployment claims since March 2020. CalFresh enrollment has increased by about 500,000 households since 2019. Similarly, food banks and senior meal programs saw significant increase in need for food assistance. The U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey shows that 23 percent of Californians reported food
SB 107 Page 5 insecurity during the April through July 2020 survey period.
In response, CDSS moved to create flexibility within CalFresh and other public assistance programs to allow newly eligible persons to quickly receive benefits and to ease requirements for people already receiving benefits so that services may continue uninterrupted while county offices were closed or operating under reduced hours during the stay at home order. One such program change was the federal waiver of telephone signature requirements, which was announced on April 2, 2020. Under this waiver, applicants may verbally attest to the information provided on the application and county welfare offices may document the attestation in the case record. This waiver may only applied at initial application and recertification interviews. It has been extended during the COVID-19 pandemic on a month-by-month basis.
Options for Completing CalFresh Enrollment and Recertification
In order to enroll in CalFresh, one must submit an application and any required supporting documentation of earnings and expenses, complete an interview with an employee of the County Welfare Department, and signed the required forms. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Californians in every county could apply for CalFresh in person, by mail and online, but only 21 of 58 counties permitted “telephonic/electronic” signature for applications and reports. In the remaining 37 counties, applicants could complete the required interview by phone, but then had to receive, sign, and return the application to the County Welfare Department.
Federal authority to use electronic signatures was granted with passage of the 2008 Farm Bill (P.L. 110-234), which authorized a state agency to establish a system by which an applicant household may sign an application through a recorded verbal assent over the telephone. Under current law, California counties have the option, but are not required, to provide electronic signatures for CalFresh. CDSS has issued guidance to counties on how to implement electronic signatures, should a county choose to do so.
Flexibilities permitted due to the COVID-19 pandemic currently allow the 37 California counties that did not have telephonic/electronic signature capacity to implement emergency workarounds to provide remote services. Those workarounds are possible due to expanded flexibility provided through temporary federal waivers, which are approved by USDA Food and Nutrition Service on a temporary, month-by-month basis. While there may be efforts to sustain electronic signatures for CalFresh program after the federal waiver expires and before SAWS is fully implemented, nothing has been secured as of the hearing of this bill. Thus, residents of 37 California counties could be forced to return to being required to
SB 107 Page 6 submit written signatures on their application forms.
Elderly Simplified Application Project (ESAP)
ESAP is a federal demonstration project intended to increase SNAP participation and streamline enrollment among households composed solely of elderly (60 years of age or older) or disabled members with no earned income. Several federal rules may be waived under ESAP in order to make it easier for elderly or disabled households with no earned income to obtain SNAP benefits. California began participating in ESAP in 2017 and CDSS has obtained waivers from FNS that permitted the state to waive the recertification interview requirement for elderly or disabled households with no earned income; make use of data matching to reduce client-provided verifications for elderly or disabled households with no earned income; extended the certification period to 36 months for elderly or disabled households with no earned income; and waive the requirement to contact the household at least once every 12 months, thereby eliminating the need to send and collect an Eligibility Status Report (SAR 7). The SAR 7 waiver is contingent on automation and estimated to be implemented in 2022.
According to the state’s most recent annual ESAP report, 226,786 ESAP households were enrolled in CalFresh in federal fiscal year 2020. Of those, zero were denied CalFresh benefits, which appears to indicate clear need for food assistance within the targeted population. Since implementation, about 600,000 households have been certified under ESAP. This bill’s sponsor estimates that more than one million more are currently eligible for ESAP.
The only element of ESAP that California has not adopted is the simplified application form. This bill requires CDSS to implement a simplified application for elderly and disabled households that are eligible for ESAP, which does not require a federal waiver. The current CalFresh application is 18 pages long and contains questions that can be irrelevant to elderly or disabled households with no earned income. Advocates assert that the 18-page application can be intimidating to this population and cite it as a factor affecting the state’s low participation rate.
While many government programs are moving to online services, stakeholders report that low-income older adults want the option of completing a paper CalFresh application. This is because many lack reliable internet access and/or do not feel comfortable sharing personal information online.
SB 107 Page 7
Comments According to the author, “SB 107 seeks to break the cycle of hunger, poor health, and poverty by ensuring that all low-income Californians, and especially older adults and people with disabilities, have efficient and equitable access to CalFresh.” Specifically, SB 107 simplifies the CalFresh application for many older adults and people with disabilities and ensures all applicants and participants can complete the application and certification processes by phone. “The COVID- 19 pandemic has only exacerbated the number of people facing food insecurity, with millions of Californians struggling to meet their basic food needs,” the author states. “By easing the burden of enrolling in CalFresh benefits” we can ensure those in need can live hunger free, per the author.
There is statewide interest in making this change, as the State’s Master Plan for Aging calls for simplifying CalFresh and continuing to “streamline older and disabled adult enrollment, renewal, and online shopping in CalFresh, as allowable.”
Plans are underway to reconfigure the counties’ technology system (known as SAWS), which will facilitate telephonic signatures throughout the state. However, that rollout is not projected to be complete until 2023. Also of note, is the often fluid timeline for statewide IT projects. As the bill moves forward, it might be necessary to amend the bill to reflect current timelines.
Related/Prior Legislation SB 882 (Wiener, 2020) would have required CDSS to expand its participation in the federal ESAP by developing a user-centered application for seniors and waiving the semi-annual reporting for ESAP households. The bill also would have given an individual the option to apply, report, and recertify for CalFresh in person, by mail, online, or by telephone and permitted an individual to complete the interview requirement and client signature by telephone. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 285 (Wiener, 2019) would have required CDSS to set statewide goals for CalFresh participation and to collaborate with stakeholders to increase CalFresh enrollment, participation and retention rates. The bill also would have required an individual to have the option to apply, report and recertify for CalFresh in person, by mail, online or by telephone, and to complete the interview and the required client signature by telephone, by specified dates. The bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 107 Page 8
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/23/21)
AARP California (co-source) California Association of Food Banks (co-source) Nourish California (co-source) SF-Marin Food Bank (co-source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/23/21)
None received
Prepared by: Taryn Smith / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524 3/24/21 15:18:48
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 258 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 258 Author: Laird (D) Introduced: 1/26/21 Vote: 21
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 3-0, 3/9/21 AYES: Hurtado, Cortese, Pan NO VOTE RECORDED: Jones
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Aging
SOURCE: Equality California Los Angeles LGBT Center
DIGEST: This bill adds human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status to the list of noneconomic factors that restrict an individual’s ability to perform normal daily tasks or that threaten capacity to live independently, in the context of greatest social need for services under the Older Californians Act (OCA).
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes, in federal law, the Older Americans Act (OAA), which promotes the well-being of Americans 60 years old and above through services and programs designed to meet the specific needs of older citizens. Services provided under the OAA include home-delivered and communal meals; family caregiver support; health services; home assistance for the elderly; job training and volunteer opportunities; and protections from elder abuse, among others. (42 U.S. Code 3001, et seq.)
2) Defines in federal law greatest social need to mean the need caused by non- economic factors, which include: physical and mental disabilities; language
SB 258 Page 2
barriers; and cultural, social, or geographical isolation, including isolation caused by racial or ethnic status, which restricts the ability of an individual to perform normal daily tasks or threatens the capacity of the individual to live independently. (42 USC 3002 (24))
3) Establishes, with the Mello-Granlund Older Californians Act, the California Department of Aging (CDA) and states that the mission of the department is to provide leadership to the Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) in developing systems of home and community-based services that maintain individuals in their own homes or least-restrictive homelike environments. (WIC 9000 et seq.)
4) Requires the CDA, in allocating specified state and federal funding to older individuals, to ensure that priority consideration is given to elderly individuals identified as in greatest economic or social need. (WIC 9111)
5) Defines “greatest economic need” as meaning the need resulting from an income level at or below the poverty threshold established by the Bureau of the Census. (WIC 9014)
6) Defines “greatest social need” as meaning the need caused by noneconomic factors that include physical or mental disabilities, language barriers, cultural or social isolation, including that caused by racial and ethnic status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, that restrict an individual’s ability to perform normal daily tasks or that threaten his or her capacity to live independently. (WIC 9015)
This bill:
1) Adds HIV status to the list of noneconomic factors that restrict an individual’s ability to perform normal daily tasks or that threaten capacity to live independently, in the context of greatest social need for services under the OCA.
2) Makes technical and non-substantive changes.
Comments SB 258 updates California’s definition of greatest social need to include cultural or social isolation caused by HIV status in order to make programs and services designed for older adults more readily available to those living with HIV. According to the author, “SB 258 provides California with the opportunity to continue leading the nation by ensuring that older adults living with HIV have the resources they need to age in place with dignity. This important legislation would
SB 258 Page 3 ensure California’s legislature joins health and advocacy organizations in recognizing the critical role supportive aging services play in our continued fight against HIV/AIDS.”
Services for California’s Older Adults. CDA administers programs that serve older adults, adults with disabilities, family caregivers, and residents in long-term care facilities throughout the state. It administers funds allocated under the federal OAA, the state OCA, and through the Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) program.
CDA contracts with and provides leadership and direction to the 33 AAAs operating in California. AAAs play a key role in planning, developing, coordinating and delivering a wide range of services and supports to consumers in their local planning service areas. They directly manage federal- and state-funded services that help older adults find employment; support older and disabled individuals to live as independently as possible in the community; promote healthy aging and community involvement; and assist family members as caregivers. They function as a community link at the local level for development of home and community based services provided under the department’s programs.
Services provided by AAAs, or through their contracts with community providers, include: home adaptation funding; provision of assistive devices; support groups; nutrition programs, including congregate nutrition programs and home delivered meal programs; disease prevention and health promotion programs; family caregiver support programs, including training and education; and supportive services programs.
CDA provides technical assistance to AAAs and shares strategies found to be effective in establishing relationships within target groups who are either in greatest economic need or social need of assistance. CDA also develops guidance, identifies promising practices, and provides technical assistance on effective strategies to better serve specific groups that have historically been underserved.
Greatest Economic or Social Need. Existing law requires CDA, in allocating specified state and federal funding to older individuals, to ensure that priority consideration is given to elderly individuals identified as having the greatest economic or social need. Greatest social need is currently defined as meaning the need caused by noneconomic factors, that include physical and mental disabilities, language barriers, cultural or social isolation, including that caused by racial and ethnic status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, that restrict an individual’s ability to perform normal daily tasks or that threaten his or her capacity to live independently.
SB 258 Page 4
CDA’s State Plan on Aging for the years 2017-2021 notes that efforts have been made to address the unique needs and experiences of California’s LGBTQ senior population. Despite these efforts, the plan notes that “lifelong fears or experiences of discrimination have caused some of these older adults to remain invisible, preferring to go without much-needed social, health, and mental health services.” This suggests that more could be done to ensure California’s LGBTQ seniors are receiving the supports and services they need. Recognizing the growing unique needs of the LGBTQ community, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression were added to the definition of greatest social need in 2018.
This bill proposes to include older adults living with HIV to the list of people with greatest social need. Recent advancements in HIV treatment allow people living with HIV taking antiretroviral therapy to keep the virus suppressed and live long and healthy lives. For this reason, the number of older people living with HIV is increasing. According to a 2018 California HIV Surveillance Report published by the California Department of Public Health, over half of the people living with HIV in California are now aged 50 years or older. The same report shows that 15 percent of newly diagnosed HIV patients were age 50 and older in 2018.
A 2020 report by SAGE’s HIV and Aging Policy Action Coalition identified several unique challenges and barriers to services experienced by older adults living with HIV. Specifically, older people with HIV are more likely than their HIV-negative counterparts to have multiple comorbidities, including certain cancers, cardiovascular disease, fractures, and hepatitis C. Older people with HIV face a number of behavioral health challenges in addition to physical illnesses, including depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders. Older people with HIV also reportedly experience greater levels of social isolation and loneliness. According to the sponsors, current medical and social service systems are largely unprepared to address the unique needs of this population.
Older people with HIV are likely to need government and community-based services due to multiple comorbidities, behavioral health issues and limited social support. However, older people with HIV report significant barriers to accessing the services they need. According to the Research on Older Adults with HIV 2.0 San Francisco Study, leading barriers include a perception that services are not available, difficult to find or hard to access, or are not free/too costly. Other barriers to obtaining services were the perception that service providers are unhelpful, and the sense that service providers might be biased against people with HIV.
SB 258 Page 5
Master Plan for Aging. California is projected to be home to 10.8 million people age 60 and older in 2030. This is nearly twice as many people age 60 and older as there were in 2010. Additionally, by 2030 one out of every four Californians will be older adults. The state is making efforts to meet the needs of this growing population, and recognizes the importance of meeting the needs of the LGBTQ community.
In January 2021, the Newsom Administration published its Master Plan for Aging, which is intended to be a 10-year blue-print for state government, local government, the private sector, and philanthropy to prepare the state for the coming demographic changes and “continue California’s leadership in aging, disability, and equity.” The Master Plan for Aging outlines five goals, 23 strategies, and over 100 initiatives. Goal Three is somewhat related to this bill in that it addresses “inclusion and equity, not isolation,” and reads, “we will have lifelong opportunities for work, volunteering, engagement, and leadership and will be protected from isolation, discrimination, abuse, neglect, and exploitation.” Within this goal is a strategy to implement an anti-ageism and equity campaign for the public, employers, and entertainment industry, including equity by age, race, ethnicity, language, citizenship status, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, family status, disability, dementia/cognitive status, and income.
Related/Prior Legislation AB 2719 (Irwin, Chapter 202, Statutes of 2018) added sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to the definition of communities to be considered for programs and services administered through CDA.
SB 219 (Wiener, Chapter 483, Statutes of 2017) created an LGBT Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights to prohibit discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status.
AB 959 (Chiu, Chapter 565, Statutes of 2015) required CDA to collect demographic data from LGBTQ individuals to assess health and welfare disparities specific to the elderly LGBTQ community.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/20/21)
Equality California (co-source) Los Angeles LGBT Center (co-source) Advisory Council to the Napa/Solano Area Agency on Aging AIDS Healthcare Foundation
SB 258 Page 6
Aids Legal Referral Panel American Academy of HIV Medicine California/Hawaii Steering Committee American Civil Liberties Union Northern California/Southern California/San Diego and Imperial Counties APLA Health California Alliance for Retired Americans California Department of Insurance California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network Centerlink: the Community of LGBT Centers Coachman Moore & Associates, INC Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley Desert Aids Project East Bay Getting to Zero Harm Reduction Coalition Harm Reduction Services Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club Let's Kick Ass (AIDS Survivor Syndrome) Palm Springs Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce LSS of Northern California LYRIC Marty's Place Affordable Housing Corporation Positive Women's Network-USA Pozabilities Project Open Hand SAGE San Francisco Aids Foundation The San Diego LGBT Community Center UCSF Alliance Health Project
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/20/21)
None received
Prepared by: Taryn Smith / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524 4/21/21 14:44:22 **** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 263 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 263 Author: Rubio (D), et al. Introduced: 1/27/21 Vote: 21
SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 12-1, 3/8/21 AYES: Roth, Archuleta, Bates, Becker, Dodd, Eggman, Hurtado, Leyva, Min, Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Pan NOES: Jones NO VOTE RECORDED: Melendez
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Real estate licensees: continuing education: implicit bias training
SOURCE: California Association of Realtors
DIGEST: This bill requires the Department of Real Estate (DRE) to include an interactive participatory component within its three-hour course in fair housing, as part of its requirement for licensees to complete 45 hours of continuing education (CE). This bill also requires a licensee, as part of the licensee’s necessary 45 hours of CE, to successfully complete a two-hour course in implicit bias training.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes the DRE. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 10004 et seq.)
2) Requires the DRE Commissioner adopt regulations on a definition of basic requirements for continuing education of 45 clock hours of attendance at approved educational courses, seminars, workshops, or conferences, or their equivalent, achieved during a four-year period preceding license renewal, a basis and method for qualifying educational programs. (BPC § 10170.5 (a))
SB 263 Page 2
3) Requires that a real estate license not be renewed unless the applicant successfully completes 45 hours of CE, including all of the following (BPC § 10170.5 (a)):
a) Three-hour course in ethics, professional conduct, and legal aspects of real estate (BPC § 10170.5 (a)(1));
b) Three-hour course in agency relationships and duties in a real estate brokerage practice, including instruction in the disclosures to be made and the confidences to be kept in the various agency relationships between licensees and parties to real estate transactions (BPC § 10170.5 (a)(2));
c) Three-hour course in trust fund accounting and handling (BPC § 10170.5 (a)(3));
d) Three-hour course in fair housing (BPC § 10170.5 (a)(4));
e) Three-hour course in risk management, including but not limited to principles, practices, and procedures calculated to avoid errors and omissions in the practice of real estate licensed activities (BPC § 10170.5 (a)(5));
f) Requires licensees to complete a three-hour course in management of real estate offices and supervision of real estate licensed activities, as defined (BPC § 10170.5 (a)(6));
g) Requires that 18 of the CE hours related to consumer protection shall include, but not be limited to, being related to forms of real estate financing relevant to serving consumers in the marketplace, land use regulation and control, pertinent consumer disclosures, agency relationships, capital formation for real estate development, fair practices in real estate, appraisal and valuation techniques, landlord-tenant relationships, energy conservation, environmental regulation and consideration, taxation as it relates to consumer decisions in real estate transactions, probate and similar disposition of real property, governmental programs such as revenue bond activities, redevelopment, and related programs, business opportunities, mineral, oil, and gas conveyancing, and California law that relates to managing community associations that own, operate, and maintain property within common interest developments, including, but not limited to, management, maintenance, and financial matters addressed in the Davis- Stirling Common Interest Development Act. (BPC § 10170.5 (a)(7))
SB 263 Page 3
h) Other courses and programs that will enable a licensee to achieve a high level of competence in serving the objectives of consumers who may engage the services of licensees to secure the transfer, financing, or similar objectives with respect to real property, including organizational and management techniques, including relevant information to assist a salesperson or broker in understanding how to be effectively supervised by a responsible broker or branch manager, that will significantly contribute to this goal. (BPC § 10170.5 (a)(8))
4) Requires that a real estate license shall not be renewed unless the DRE Commissioner finds the applicant has completed 45 hours of CEs over a four- year period, including an eight-hour survey course on the subjects listed above. (BPC § 10170.5 (a)(8)(b))
5) Establishes “successful completion” of a course as passing a final examination. (BPC § 10170.5 (a)(8)(d))
This bill requires a three-hour course in fair housing that shall include an interactive participatory component that allows a licensee to experience role-play situations as both a consumer and a professional licensee. This bill also requires that applicants complete a two-hour course in implicit bias training that includes both a component regarding the impact of implicit bias, explicit bias, and systemic bias on consumers historical and social impacts of those biases and; actionable steps licensees can take to recognize and address their own implicit biases. Finally, this bill changes the eight-hour survey course described above to a nine-hour survey course.
Background Continuing Education for Real Estate Licensees. Real estate brokers and salespersons must currently complete 45 hours of CE by attending educational courses, seminars, workshops, or conferences, or their equivalent, within a four- year period preceding license renewal application. Within those 45 hours, licensees must complete an eight-hour survey course on topics including: ethics, professional conduct, and legal aspects of real estate; agency relationships and duties in a real estate brokerage practice; trust fund accounting and handling; fair housing; risk management; and management of real estate offices and supervision of real estate licensed activities, among other topics. DRE does not create or provide any courses through the department. DRE merely approves CE courses on a permissive basis.
SB 263 Page 4
Implicit Bias and Professions. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “implicit bias” can be described as “a term of art referring to relatively unconscious and relatively automatic features of prejudiced judgment and social behavior.” In her 2019 book Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do, Dr. Jennifer L. Eberhardt explains that “implicit bias is not a new way of calling someone a racist. In fact, you don’t have to be a racist at all to be influenced by it. Implicit bias is a kind of distorting lens that’s a product of both the architecture of our brain and the disparities in our society.” Dr. Eberhardt goes on to describe how “bias is not limited to one domain of life. It is not limited to one profession, one race, or one country. It is also not limited to one stereotypic association.”
In December 2015, the American Journal of Public Health published a systematic review titled Implicit Racial/Ethnic Bias Among Health Care Professionals and Its Influence on Health Care Outcomes. The review concluded that “most health care providers appear to have implicit bias in terms of positive attitudes toward whites and negative attitudes toward people of color.” Additional studies have been published suggesting that implicit bias in regards to gender, sexual orientation and identity, and other characteristic has resulted in inconsistent diagnoses and courses of treatment being provided to patients based on their demographic. These trends take into account not only the characteristics of the person being treated, but those of the licensed professional in correlation to that patient.
Implicit Bias in Real Estate: Long Island Undercover Investigation, the National Association of Realtors Workshop, and New York State Legislature Response. In December of 2019, Newsday published the results of a three-year, undercover investigation in Long Island by Newsday that found evidence of unequal treatment of Long Island residents—19% of the time against Asian Americans, 39% of the time against Hispanic Americans, and 41% of the time against Black Americans. Among other findings, the report states that real estate agents frequently directed white customers to areas with the highest white representation, and minority customers to more integrated areas. In response to this, in 2020 the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the Perception Institute in New York developed a 50-minute, online training workshop to help members avoid implicit bias. In February 2021, the New York State Senate introduced 11 bills aimed at addressing bias and providing implicit bias training for real estate agents.
Implicit Bias in Real Estate: California. The author provides a number of statistics to illustrate the need for implicit bias training in the real estate profession in California. According to a 2020 report by the Greenlining Institute, in California Black homeownership rate in California was only 35% and the Latino
SB 263 Page 5 homeownership rate in California was only 42%. California’s overall homeownership rate was calculated at 54.8% in 2017. In a 2018 study, the Brookings Institute found that similar homes in neighborhoods with similar amenities are worth 17.1% less in the Los Angeles area and 27.1% less in the San Francisco Bay area if these homes are located in Black-majority neighborhoods than if they are located in other neighborhoods.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/22/21)
California Association of Realtors (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/22/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the California Association of Realtors, “Very few people will admit they display biases in their personal or professional lives, however, studies show that all people suffer from different unconscious biases that affect our decision making processes. These biases are deeply ingrained into brain functions and difficult to overcome as we do not consciously recognize them. They become especially problematic when professionals display them in the course of their business dealings. Unfortunately, when displayed in the real estate industry, unconscious bias can and does lead to the exacerbation of housing discrimination in our state. Although it is far from perfect, one of the best ways that has been found to ameliorate the effects of biases is the process of examining biases through focused training. These trainings also often offer specific strategies for overcoming bias.”
Prepared by: Dana Shaker / B., P. & E.D. / 3/24/21 15:18:49
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 272 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
CONSENT
Bill No: SB 272 Author: Laird (D), et al. Amended: 3/10/21 Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 8-0, 4/13/21 AYES: Laird, Jones, Allen, Eggman, Grove, Hertzberg, Limón, Stern NO VOTE RECORDED: Hueso
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/20/21 AYES: Umberg, Borgeas, Caballero, Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Jones, Laird, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener
SUBJECT: State government: gender-neutral terms: California Conservation Corps
SOURCE: California Department of Insurance
DIGEST: This bill increases the age of eligibility to enroll in a local corps from 18-25 to 18-26; and makes changes to specified codes to use gender-neutral language.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes the California Conservation Corps (CCC) in the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to administer the state’s conservation corps program.
2) Provides for the formation of certified community conservation corps, defined to mean a nonprofit public benefit corporation, as defined, or an agency operated by a city, county, or city and county, that is certified by the CCC as meeting specified criteria, including:
SB 272 Page 2
a) A community conservation corps consists of supervised work crews of young men and women who serve for one year, with the possibility of extension. Corps members engage in recycling and litter abatement projects, and natural resource management projects, as specified, among others.
b) The corps’ program is based upon a highly disciplined work experience that includes an educational component. The educational component includes enrollment in a vocational education program, public or charter high school, or postsecondary community college.
c) A community conservation corps consists of an average annual enrollment of not less than 50 corps members between 18 and 25 years of age.
3) Enacts provisions related to public resources, including forestry.
4) Regulates the business of insurance in this state.
5) Places the Department of the California Highway Patrol under the control of a civil executive officer known as the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol who is appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, as specified.
This bill:
1) Increases the age of eligibility to enroll in a local corps from 18-25 to 18-26.
2) Makes changes to specified codes to use gender-neutral language.
Background
There are 14 state-certified community conservation corps (local corps) in California. Their mission is to preserve and protect the environment and provide job skills training and educational opportunities to young adults. They are community-based organizations that engage young adults in service projects addressing recreation, conservation, disaster response, and community needs. Through a term of service that could last from a few months to a year, corps members gain a high school diploma or GED, life skills, paid work experience, and job training. Each local corps works with or operates a charter school to provide educational services and help corps members connect to college and vocational education programs.
SB 272 Page 3
Gender neutral changes. This bill is consistent with ACR 260 (Low, Resolution Chapter 190, Statutes of 2018) which encouraged the Legislature to engage in a coordinated effort to revise existing statutes and introduce new legislation with inclusive language by using gender-neutral pronouns or reusing nouns to avoid the use of gendered pronouns. That resolution found that “the use of the pronouns ‘he’ or ‘she’ for individuals is not inclusive of all transgender people, nonbinary people who may not ascribe to a particular or fixed gender, or people who otherwise use different pronouns.”
There are a number of universities, states, and other nations that now recognize a nonbinary gender and are taking steps to redraft their rules and laws to be more inclusive and avoid the use of gendered pronouns. In addition, the scientific literature suggests that gender-neutral language can help achieve more than symbolic change; for example, by contributing to the reduction of gender stereotyping and discrimination, and helping to reshape cultural norms.
Why raise the age of eligibility for local corps to 26? Capping enrollment for certified local corps at 25 years of age generally made sense for previous generations because that met the demand at the time for the local corps’ services and provided important benefits to the young adults and society. More recently, the local corps and their charter school partners have noted that, on average, it is taking young adults more time to complete their educations and become established in jobs and careers than previous generations. This is especially true for the populations served by the local corps, many of whom are at risk youth who have dropped out of the school system and struggle to find job opportunities that provide a living wage and other benefits. The local corps have noted that authorization to serve 26-year olds would capture a significant proportion of this group while retaining the local corps’ foundational mission of serving young adults.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/22/21)
California Department of Insurance (source) California State Controller Betty Yee Office of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis American Civil Liberties Union California Action American Council of Life Insurers Association of California Life & Health Insurance Companies Democratic Women of Monterey County
SB 272 Page 4
Equality California Sacramento LGBT Community Center
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/22/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “While California has lead on efforts to promote diversity, equity, and equality, our laws have not kept pace. It’s time we change archaic references within state law that are future forward and adequately represent those who dedicate themselves to our state.”
Prepared by: Catherine Baxter / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116 4/23/21 10:53:09
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 283 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 283 Author: Gonzalez (D) Amended: 3/10/21 Vote: 21
SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE: 12-0, 4/8/21 AYES: Rubio, Jones, Archuleta, Bates, Borgeas, Dodd, Glazer, Hueso, Hurtado, Melendez, Portantino, Roth
SUBJECT: Life and disability income insurance: HIV tests
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill prohibits, on and after January 1, 2023, a life or disability insurance insurer from considering an applicant’s occupation in determining whether to require an HIV test; from limiting benefits payable for a loss caused by or contributed to by HIV or AIDS; and clarifies the length of time that one may be imprisoned for a misdemeanor conviction for willful, negligent, or malicious disclosure of HIV test results to a third party.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Imposes, until December 31, 2022, a duty on life insurers and disability income insurers to avoid making or permitting unfair distinctions between individuals of the same class in the underwriting of life or disability income insurance for the risks of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and AIDS-related conditions (ARC). Life and disability income insurers may direct applicants to test for HIV of the insurer. (Ins. Code § 799)
2) Establishes, until December 31, 2022, mandatory and uniform minimum standards for assessing AIDS and ARC risks for determining insurability which are deemed to be sufficiently reliable to be used for life and
SB 283 Page 2
disability income insurance risk classification and underwriting purposes. (Ins. Code § 799)
3) Requires strict confidentiality in the maintenance of personal information obtained through testing, and requires informed consent before any insurer tests for HIV. (Ins. Code § 799)
4) Permits, until December 31, 2022, a life or disability income insurer to deny an application or enrollment request on the basis of positive test results from the ELISA test (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) and the Western Blot Assay, which detect antibodies to HIV. (Ins. Code § 799.01 - .02)
5) Forbids an insurer from testing for HIV for the purpose of determining insurability other than in accordance with the informed consent, counseling, and privacy protection provisions, and unless the insurer pays for the test. (Ins. Code § 799.03 - .04)
6) Imposes a civil penalty of $5,000 to $10,000 for willful, malicious, or negligent disclosure of HIV antibody test results to any third party, except pursuant to written authorization or informed consent. If the negligent or willful disclosure results in economic, bodily, or psychological harm to the subject of the test, disclosure is punishable by misdemeanor imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by both. (Ins. Code § 799.10)
7) Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2023, a life or disability income insurer from declining a life or disability income insurance application or enrollment solely based on a positive HIV test. (Ins. Code § 799.02)
8) Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2023, a life or disability income insurer from considering the marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender expression, race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, living arrangements, beneficiary designation, or ZIP Codes in determining whether to require an HIV test of an applicant. (Ins. Code § 799.05)
SB 283 Page 3
This bill:
1) Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2023, a life or disability insurance insurer from considering an applicant’s occupation in determining whether to require an HIV test.
2) Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2023, a life or disability income insurer from limiting benefits payable for a loss caused by or contributed to by HIV or AIDS, unless the limit is the result of underwriting the risk at the time the insured submitted their application or enrollment request.
3) Clarifies that the misdemeanor for willful, negligent, or malicious disclosure of HIV test results to a third party is punishable by imprisonment for a period not to exceed 364 days, conforming the Equal Insurance HIV Act to the requirements of Penal Code Section 18.5.
4) Makes other technical changes to the Equal Insurance HIV Act.
Background In 2020, the Equal Insurance HIV Act (SB 1255, Committee on Insurance, Chapter 184, Statutes of 2020) was signed into law, ending a 30-year-old law that allowed for discrimination of insurance applicants based solely on their HIV status. When HIV underwriting laws were enacted, treatment and services for someone who tested HIV-positive was severely limited and significantly reduced their life expectancy. Today, with access to quality health care, advancements in HIV testing and treatment, many who learn they are HIV-positive can expect to live a full life.
SB 283 prohibits an insurer from considering an applicant’s occupation in determining whether to require an HIV test; clarifies that limiting benefits payable for a loss caused or contributed to by HIV is allowed if it was part of the original underwriting risk; and conforms the Equal Insurance HIV Act’s imprisonment penalty to the requirements of Penal Code Section 18.5.
Change to Criminal Penalty. Effective on and after January 1, 2023, the Equal Insurance HIV Act would impose criminal penalties, including imprisonment in a county jail for a period “not to exceed one year.” However, under Penal Code Section 18.5, every offense which is prescribed by any law of the state to be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail up to or not exceeding one year shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed 364 days.
SB 283 Page 4
SB 283 makes a small change to the Equal Insurance HIV Act to be consistent with the provisions under Penal Code Section 18.5.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/13/21)
California Department of Insurance Equality California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/13/21)
None received
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT: The California Department of Insurance writes in support, “Senate Bill 283 would strengthen the Equal Insurance HIV Act of 2020 (Act) by clarifying and making technical changes to the provisions set forth in the Act, which prohibit an insurer from declining an insurance application or enrollment solely based on a positive HIV test. Specifically, SB 283 would prohibit an insurer from 1) considering an applicant’s occupation in determining whether to require an HIV test; and 2) limiting benefits payable for a loss caused or contributed by HIV. Insurance application denials have been based on outdated survival statistic bias that allows discrimination against individuals who are HIV- positive based on test results only, not considering other health and wellness factors. HIV positive individuals are living longer, healthier lives than before, their need for life and disability income insurance is imperative in order for them to protect themselves and their loved ones.”
Prepared by: Brian Flemmer / INS. / (916) 651-4110 4/14/21 15:45:45
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 294 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 294 Author: Leyva (D), et al. Introduced: 2/2/21 Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 3/8/21 AYES: Cortese, Durazo, Laird, Newman NOES: Ochoa Bogh
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Public retirement: leave of absence: service credit
SOURCE: California Federation of Teachers California Labor Federation California Teachers Association
DIGEST: This bill removes the cap that limits public school employees on a compensated leave from their school employer to serve as an elected union officer to 12 years of service credit that they may earn toward their public employee pension for their union service.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Requires school employers to grant any employee a leave of absence without loss of compensation to service as an elected officer of a public employee organization and requires the organization to reimburse the school employer, as specified (Education Code §§ 44987, 45210, 87768.5, and 88210).
2) Entitles an elected officer of an employee organization that is on a compensated leave of absence to the retirement service credit, compensation earnable, interest, and additional earnings credits that otherwise would have been due had
SB 294 Page 2
the person not been on the compensated leave of absence, as specified (ED §§ 22711 and Government Code § 20906.
3) Limits the maximum amount of service credit that the school employee can earn for the compensated leave to 12 years (ED §§ 22711, 44987, 45210, 87768.5, 88210 and GC § 20906).
This bill removes the 12 years restriction on service credit the school employee can earn so that the employee can continue to earn retirement service credit for the time the person is on the compensated leave of absence serving as an elected officer of a school employee organization.
Comments Need for this bill? According to the author,
Educators and community college employees are the only public employees that have a cap of 12 years on the maximum amount of service credit that they can earn for their pension while on leave to represent their union. All other public employee unions do not have a cap placed on their service. By removing the service cap, SB 294 will ensure that employees who work for school districts and community colleges have the same opportunities to represent their union as every other public employee in California.
Related/Prior Legislation SB 1085 (Skinner, Chapter 893, Statutes of 2018) provided compensated leaves of absence for non-school public employees for their service as union officials, as specified. The bill generally equalized treatment of non-school with school employees with respect to leaves of absences, and established that non-school public employees earn full service credit during the leave of absence, as specified.
AB 1203 (Mendoza, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2012) expanded union-paid leaves of absences for classified school employees who are representatives of employee organizations, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/22/21) California Federation of Teachers (co-source) California Labor Federation (co-source)
SB 294 Page 3
California Teachers Association (co-source) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Orange County Employees Association Service Employees Union International
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/22/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the California Teachers Association,
While all other public employees – police, firefighters, nurses - have no cap on the maximum amount of service credit that they can receive for their pension, education employees are limited in fulfilling their duties as a union officer. This limit unfairly singles out education employees, harming the ability of elected leaders to take a leave of absence to represent their union without losing benefits during their time of service.
According to the California Labor Federation,
This bill creates parity between educators and other public employees, so that all elected union leaders may take a leave of absence to represent their union without losing hard-earned benefits during their time of service.
Prepared by: Glenn Miles / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556 3/24/21 15:18:51
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 297 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 297 Author: Durazo (D) Amended: 3/25/21 Vote: 21
SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 14-0, 3/8/21 AYES: Roth, Melendez, Archuleta, Bates, Becker, Dodd, Eggman, Hurtado, Jones, Leyva, Min, Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Pan
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 3/23/21 AYES: Umberg, Borgeas, Caballero, Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Jones, Laird, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Subsurface installations: penalties
SOURCE: Utility Workers of America
DIGEST: This bill increases penalties for operators or excavators who cause damage to a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline subsurface installation in which the damage results in the escape of any flammable, toxic or corrosive gas or liquid, as specified.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes the Dig Safe Board to investigate violations, develop excavation safety standards, and coordinate both education and outreach programs. (Government Code (GC) § 4216.12)
2) Defines a “subsurface installation” to mean any underground pipeline, conduit, duct, wire, or other structure, except nonpressurized sewerlines, nonpressurized storm drains, or other nonpressurized drain lines. (GC § 4216(s))
SB 297 Page 2
3) States that any operator or excavator who negligently violates any of the provisions of the dig safe laws, as specified, is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000. (Government Code (GC) § 4216.6(a)(1))
4) States that any operator or excavator who knowingly and willfully violates any of the provisions of the dig safe laws, as specified, is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $50,000. (GC § 4216.(a)(2))
5) Establishes the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) under the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) to license and regulate contractors and home improvement salespersons. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 7000 et seq.)
6) Permits specified provisions of the dig safe laws to be enforced by the Registrar of Contractors. (GC § 4216.6(c)(1))
This bill subjects any operator or excavator who knowingly and willfully violates any of the provisions of the dig safe laws, and subsequently damages a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline subsurface installation, which the damage results in the escape of any flammable, toxic, or corrosive gas or liquid to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000.
Background California Underground Facilities Safe Excavation Board. SB 661 (Hill, Chapter 809, Statutes of 2016) established the “safe dig act” and the Dig Safe Board. The purpose of that bill was to update California’s excavation safety laws and practices and establish the centralized authority to enforce those laws. The enactment of SB 661 followed other legislation and trends aimed at reducing incidents at digs, whereby injuries or death were the result of workers not realizing they were digging into lines. The Dig Safe Board (under the Office of the State Fire Marshall) investigates accidents, develops excavation safety standards, and coordinates education and outreach programs. The Board is required to meet annually to address education and outreach issues related to safe excavation practices (GC § 4216.17). In addition, the Board is required to develop standards relevant to safety practices in excavating around subsurface installations and procedures and guidance in encouraging those practices.
Call Before you Dig. Current law requires an individual or entity wishing to perform an excavation and dig, drill, or bore below the ground to inform the regional notification center of a planned excavation, so owners of underground facilities in the area can mark their facilities and prevent excavators from
SB 297 Page 3 damaging their property. Once an excavator contacts a regional notification (“one- call” or “811”) center, and one or more utility operators mark the location of their facilities with paint, flags, or by other means, it is the excavator’s responsibility to determine the exact location of the facilities that may be damaged in the course of digging as specified in the dig safe act.
When the Dig Safe Act was enacted into statute, provisions were added to the GC to allow the appropriate entities to take action against violators of the act. Specifically, GC Section 4216.6(c) specifies that the provisions of the act may also be enforced by: 1) the CSLB; 2) Public Utilities Commission; 3) Office of State Fire Marshall; and 4) local governing board for violations for the licensees or professionals which each of those entities has oversight of. As recently amended, this bill adds a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000, against an excavator or operator if they damage a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline subsurface installation, in which the damage results in the escape of any flammable, toxic, or corrosive gas or liquid.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/20/21)
Utility Workers of America (source) California Chapters of the National Electrical Contractors Association California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO California Legislative Conference of Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry San Diego Gas and Electric Sempra Energy Utilities Southern California Gas Company United Contractors Western Line Constructors
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/20/21)
California Landscape Contractors Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Utility Workers of America writes in support, “Too many contractors and excavators are ignoring or intentionally defying the 811 dig alert requirements. The dig alert program requires individuals to contact the Regional Notification Center to first determine that there is no subsurface gas infrastructure before starting and excavation project. When they do not do that, there is the possibility that they could damage or puncture a subsurface gas line we know that tragedies can occur when that happens.”
SB 297 Page 4
The California Chapters of the National Electrical Contractors Association, the California Legislative Council of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry, the United Contractors, and the Western Line Constructors write in support and note, “SB 297 makes a common-sense change that will not only save lives, but will further prevent costly damage to infrastructure that carries dangerous gas or liquids and potential emergencies that may ensue as the result of that damage.”
Sempra Energy Utilities, Southern California Gas Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric write in support and note, “Damaging underground infrastructure can have catastrophic and even fatal consequences for all those near an excavation. In fact, every six minutes an underground utility line somewhere in the country is damaged because someone did not call 811, the national “Call Before You Dig” phone number.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Landscape Contractors Association writes in opposition and notes, “CLCA understands the need to have clear rules and regulations governing subsurface excavations to avoid collateral damage of gas lines and other infrastructure. [This] bill though would double current civil penalties and does not differentiate penalties for contractors and non- contractors among other provisions.”
Prepared by: Elissa Silva / B., P. & E.D. / 916-651-4104 4/21/21 16:23:44
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 298 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 298 Author: Dodd (D) Amended: 3/25/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 13-0, 3/9/21 AYES: Dodd, Nielsen, Allen, Archuleta, Borgeas, Bradford, Glazer, Hueso, Jones, Melendez, Portantino, Rubio, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Becker
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Brewpub-restaurant licenses: exchange for bona fide public eating place license
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill authorizes any person that has a brewpub-restaurant license to exchange that license for a bona fide public eating place license subject to the approval of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), as specified.
Senate Floor Amendments of 3/25/21 clarify that the exchange of a brewpub- restaurant license for a bona fide public eating place license does not count towards that county’s alcohol license limit.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes the Department of ABC and grants it exclusive authority to administer the provisions of the ABC Act in accordance with laws enacted by the Legislature. This involves licensing individuals and businesses associated with the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages in this state and the collection of license fees.
SB 298 Page 2
2) Authorizes the issuance of a brewpub-restaurant license, also known as a Type 75 license, as a form of an on-sale retail license, to persons or entities who manufacture no less than 100 barrels and not more than 5,000 barrels of beer annually on the licensed premises, subject to specific conditions.
3) Authorizes the issuance of an on-sale general eating-place license, or Type 47 license, which authorizes the consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption on the licensed premise. The licensee is required to operate and maintain the license premises as a bona fide eating place, which must include suitable kitchen facilities.
4) Authorizes a person who has an on-sale license issued for a bona fide public eating place, typically a restaurant, to exchange their license for a public premises license, typically a bar. Any person who has a license issued for a public premise is similarly allowed to exchange their license for a license for an on-sale bona fide public eating place license.
5) Authorizes a person who has any on-sale general license to exchange his or her license for a special on-sale general license and any person who has a special on-sale general license to exchange his or her license for an on-sale general license.
6) Requires a brewpub-restaurant licensee to offer for sale beer brewed by the licensee to consumers for consumption on the premise or off-premises in a bona fide manner.
7) Defines a “bona fide public eating place” to mean a place which is regularly and in a bona fide manner used and kept open for the serving of meals and which has suitable kitchen facilities connected therewith. The facility must contain conveniences for cooking and assortment of foods, which may be required for ordinary meals, the kitchen of which must be kept in sanitary condition with the proper amount of refrigeration for the keeping of food on said premise and must comply with all the regulations of the local department of health.
This bill:
1) Authorizes any person that has a brewpub-restaurant license to exchange that license for a bona fide public eating place license subject to the approval of the Department of ABC.
SB 298 Page 3
2) Prohibits a license issued under this bill from being sold or transferred for a price greater than the fee paid by the seller or transferor.
3) Provides that the exchange may be made at any time upon the approval of the department.
4) Establishes an exchange fee of $100. The fee may be adjusted by the department pursuant to current law.
5) Provides that the provisions of this bill only applies to a person that has held a brewpub-restaurant licenses as of December 31, 2019.
6) Requires the owner of a brewpub-restaurant license who exchanges a license shall be required to pay the fee required for a new permanent license.
7) Authorizes the Department of ABC to designate a licenses issued pursuant to this bill as an on-sale general license for special use and provides that such a designation shall not alter any license privileges or restrictions otherwise established under this bill.
8) Provides that the exchange of a brewpub-restaurant license for bona fide public eating place license shall not count towards the county’s alcohol license limit.
Background Brewpub-restaurant license. The brewpub-restaurant license, also known as a Type 75 license, authorizes the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption at a bona fide eating-place, in essence requiring the facility to be a restaurant. The licensee is required to produce no less than 100 barrels (a barrel contains 31 gallons) of beer, but is restricted to a maximum of 5,000 barrels of beer per year.
In 2018, SB 1283 (Bradford, Chapter 736, Statutes of 2018) made several changes to the brewpub-restaurant license after concerns were raised by some in the alcohol industry as well as regulators that some Type 75 licensees were using loopholes in the license to, in essence, obtain privileges of a Type 47 license, without fulfilling the intended requirements of a Type 75 license.
As such, SB 1283 made a number of changes to the Type 75 license to provide the Department of ABC with the adequate tools needed to enforce state law and ensure that the license was not being used simply for the privilege of operating a restaurant. Specifically, SB 1283 specified that the current limitations that limit
SB 298 Page 4 the number of licensed premises to one per 2,000 residents shall apply to a brewpub-restaurant license. This meant that moving forward, brewpub-restaurant licenses would not be used as a loophole to circumvent state law.
Additionally, the bill required that the beer produced by the licensee be offered to consumers in a bona fide manner after concerns were raised that some licensees were simply throwing their product down the drain. There are currently 151 brewpub-restaurant licenses in California. This includes 22 in Napa County, 21 in the County of San Francisco and 19 in Sonoma County.
Type 47 alcohol license. An on-sale general eating-place license, or Type 47 license, authorizes the consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption on the licensed premise. The licensee is required to operate and maintain the licensed premises as a bona fide eating place, which must include suitable kitchen facilities. The licensee must make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on the premises. Generally, this means that the business must generate at least 51% of all gross sales from food. As such, a Type 47 license is one of the most common types of liquor licenses for restaurants in California.
Existing law provides for a limitation on the number of new on-sale general licenses that may be issued in a given year by the Department of ABC based on the population growth of the county in which the licensed premises are located. The ratio is one on-sale general license for each 2,000 residents. For example, if a county grows by 10,000 people in a given year, the Department ABC will issue five new licenses in that county.
If the Department of ABC receives more applications than there are licenses available, a public drawing is held. To participate in such a drawing, an applicant must have been a resident of California for at least 90 days prior to the date of the scheduled drawing. Successful drawing participants are notified that they have 90 days to complete a formal application for their specific premises. The cost of these licenses is currently $15,835.
Individuals seeking to open a full-service restaurant with a bar or cocktail menu who fail to obtain a liquor license through this process typically must locate an existing licensed owner willing to sell their license. Usually, that is done by contacting a liquor license broker. The cost of obtaining a license on the secondary market is driven by supply and demand and can reach upwards of $400,000 in certain counties.
SB 298 Page 5
Related/Prior Legislation AB 2459 (Bigelow, Chapter 53, Statutes of 2020) authorized the Department of ABC to issue up to 10 additional new original on-sale general licenses in Mariposa County and up to 10 additional new original on-sale general licenses per year in Napa County for a period of five years.
SB 21 (Dodd, Chapter 362, Statutes of 2019) lowered the required minimum brewing production of a brewpub-restaurant licensee from 200 barrels per year to 100 barrels per year.
SB 352 (Dodd, 2019) would have authorized the Department of ABC, in counties that have reached its limit of on-sale general licenses, to issue up to 10 additional new original on-sale general licenses for bona fide eating places following the year the limit is reached. (Held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File)
SB 1283 (Bradford, Chapter 736, Statutes of 2018) authorized a brewpub- restaurant licensee to label, bottle package, or refill any container with beer produced on their licensed premises and to sell that beer for consumption off the premises. Additionally, the bill increased the minimum brewing production from 100 barrels of beer annually to 200 barrels of beer annually.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/5/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/5/21)
Alcohol Justice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author’s office, “over the years, the brewpub-restaurant license has resulted in confusion and frustration among many in the alcohol industry because of the belief that some owners of the license are simply brewing the minimum amount of beer in order to obtain an alcohol restaurant license. As a result, in 2018 Governor Brown signed SB 1283 which ensured that moving forward a holder of a brewpub-restaurant license would not be used to simply open up a restaurant without having an interest in brewing beer. Unfortunately, there’s still a number of brewpub-restaurant licensees that obtained their license prior to the changes made by SB 1283 that have no interest in brewing beer.”
SB 298 Page 6
The author’s office further states that, “having these licensees operate under a brewpub-restaurant license rather than an alcohol restaurant makes little sense. Not only are these business owners required to waste valuable time and resources but the Department of ABC is also wasting limited resources ensuring that these licensees remain complaint. SB 298 allows the holder of a brewpub-restaurant license the opportunity to exchange their license for an alcohol restaurant license. This bill represents a fair compromise. It allows these businesses, who have invested heavily in our communities, the ability to finally operate under the appropriate license, while also ensuring that they do not profit from the sale of their alcohol restaurant license in the future.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to Alcohol Justice, “when brewpub licenses were created the regulatory bar was lowered and the result as reported by ABC was flagrant violation by a majority of the Type 75 licensees investigated. They were not making the beer they were required to make yet profited by having the equivalent of a full-service liquor license for a fraction of the normal costs. This bill does nothing but make that illegal operation legal by removing the requirement to produce beer for a simple $100 dollar fee.”
Prepared by: Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530 4/7/21 15:15:11
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 303 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 303 Author: Borgeas (R), et al. Introduced: 2/3/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/11/21 AYES: McGuire, Nielsen, Durazo, Hertzberg, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Property taxation: transfer of base year value: disaster relief
SOURCE: Calaveras County Assessor Leslie K. Davis
DIGEST: This bill extends from five to seven years the time period for a taxpayer affected by a disaster to transfer their base year value to a replacement property.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Provides that all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by the Constitution or federal law (California Constitution, Article XIII).
2) Limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at 1% of full cash value, and directs assessors to set assessed values at 1975 market value levels and only reappraise property thereafter if there is new construction or a change in ownership (California Constitution, Article XIIIA, as added by Proposition 13, 1978).
3) Sets, generally, a property’s value as its sales price when the taxpayer purchases it, or when there is no sales price, at its fair market value, which becomes its “base year value.”
SB 303 Page 2
4) Allows taxpayers to continue to pay property taxes at the factored base year value of their previous home (or other property types where the law allows) and not on the value of their newly purchased or constructed home in specified circumstances, including:
a) When their property is damaged by a major misfortune or calamity and located in an area the Governor declared to be in a state of disaster (Proposition 50, 1986).
b) To other counties when their property is damaged by a major misfortune or calamity and located in an area declared to be in a state of disaster by the Governor when the county enacts an ordinance allowing the transfer (Proposition 171, 1993)
5) Implements Proposition 50 to allow base year value transfers when:
a) The damaged property sustains physical damages amounting to more than 50% of its full cash value immediately prior to the disaster;
b) The replacement property is located in the same county as the damaged property and is acquired or newly constructed within five years after the disaster;
c) The replacement property is comparable to the damaged property in size, utility, and function. For example, a residential property can be replacement property for a damaged residence, but not for a commercial, agricultural, or industrial property;
d) The market value of the replacement property does not exceed 120% of the fair market value of the replaced property in its pre-damaged condition. Property owners can still receive the disaster relief in cases where the value of the replacement property exceeds the 120% limitation, but any amount over this threshold is assessed at full market value and added to the transferred base year value; and,
e) The buyer of the replacement property was the owner of the damaged property at the time of damage.
This bill: 1) Extends by two years the time period for a taxpayer affected by a disaster declared by the Governor to transfer their base year value to a new residence if the property meets either of the following conditions:
SB 303 Page 3
a) The last day to transfer their base year value was on or after March 4, 2020, but on or before the COVID-19 emergency termination date, or
b) The property was substantially damaged or destroyed on or after March 4, 2020, but on or before the COVID-19 emergency termination date.
2) Applies the determination of base year values retroactive to the 2015-16 fiscal year.
3) Contains a legislative finding stating that this retroactive treatment does not constitute a gift of public funds for a specific public purpose.
4) Defines two terms, including “COVID-19 emergency termination date” as the date the Governor proclaims the termination of the emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic that was declared on March 4, 2020, pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act.
Background California wildfires. The 2020 California wildfire season set new records for destruction. By the end of the year, nearly 10,000 fires had burned over 4.2 million acres, more than 4% of the state's roughly 100 million acres of land, making 2020 the largest wildfire season recorded in California's modern history. The 2020 season was worse than the terrible 2018 wildfire season, which eclipsed 2017 as the most destructive and deadliest year for wildfires in California. The 2018 Mendocino Complex Fire alone burned 459,123 acres to become the largest fire in California history at the time. However, California's August Complex fire in 2020 smashed that record, exceeding one million acres burnt. Recent wildfires are not only destructive, but deadly: the Camp Fire in November 2018 caused the deaths of 86 people and destroyed nearly 19,000 structures.
COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is an ongoing, widespread outbreak of the disease caused by a strain of the coronavirus. On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued a mandatory “stay-at- home” order to protect the health of Californians. In April 2020, California’s unemployment rate rose to a record high 15.5 percent in April as the state’s employers lost 2,344,700 nonfarm payroll jobs, according to the Employment Development Department. According to Federal Reserve Bank Chair Jerome Powell, 40 percent of households earning less than $40,000 annually lost their jobs in March 2020.
SB 303 Page 4
Reconstructing a home or business property destroyed by a disaster such as a wildfire is difficult and time consuming: debris and dead trees must be cleared, building and other permits acquired, contractors and other construction workers hired, materials purchased, and construction completed. Disaster victims unaccustomed to completing these tasks are further frustrated as each seeks to procure labor and materials in the same market, squeezing prices and causing construction delays. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in lost jobs and closed businesses, plus difficulty finding qualified construction labor, especially in rural areas disproportionately affected by wildfires where construction labor can be hard to find.
Flexible deadline. Over time, the Legislature has extended the deadline for taxpayers to purchase or newly construct a replacement property to apply a base year value transfer under Proposition 50, often in response to wildfires. The Legislature initially set it at two years when implementing Proposition 50 in 1986, and then extended it to three years after the Oakland Hills fire (AB 1824, Lee, Chapter 1024, Statutes of 1993). In 2006, the Legislature further extended the deadline from three to five years for disasters occurring on or after July 1, 2003 (AB 1890, Mountjoy, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2006). Four years later, the Legislature allowed the San Diego County Board of Supervisors to extend the deadline two additional years for property substantially damaged or destroyed by the 2003 Cedar Fire (AB 157, Anderson, Chapter 341, Statutes of 2010).
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/7/21)
Calaveras County Assessor Leslie K. Davis (source) California Assessors’ Association Lake County Assessor-Recorder Richard Ford
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/7/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “California has seen an unprecedented number of wildfires over the years that have destroyed many homes throughout the state. This has left countless residents displaced and in a fight against the clock to meet the five year deadline allowed to acquire or construct a replacement property and qualify for a transfer of their base year value. At a time when these displaced residents were beginning to put their lives back together following these devastating wildfires, the COVID-19 pandemic hit bringing critical
SB 303 Page 5 sectors of the government and economy to a grinding halt. Due to delays as a results of the strains on the system and the COVID-19 pandemic, some residents were not able to meet their deadline. SB 303 would relieve some of the pressure put on these residents by extending the deadline by two years to allow additional time to rebuild or acquire a replacement property.”
Prepared by: Colin Grinnell / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119 4/7/21 15:15:13
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 319 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 319 Author: Melendez (R) Introduced: 2/4/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/8/21 AYES: McGuire, Nielsen, Durazo, Hertzberg, Wiener
SUBJECT: Land use: development fees: audit
SOURCE: Desert Valleys Builders Association
DIGEST: This bill requires local agencies that do not comply with impact fee annual report requirements for three years to include each year they did not comply with these requirements in requested audits.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Allows local governments to require applicants for development projects to pay fees to mitigate the project’s effects, known as mitigation fees.
2) Requires, under the Mitigation Fee Act, local officials that are establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approving a development project to:
a) Identify the fee's purpose.
b) Identify the fee's use, including the public facilities to be financed.
c) Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the development. d) Determine a reasonable relationship between the public facility's need and the development.
SB 319 Page 2
e) Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's amount and the cost of the public facility.
f) Hold at least one open and public meeting prior to levying a new fee or increasing an existing one;
g) Adopt capital improvement plans;
h) Deposit and spend the fees within five years of collecting them; and
i) Refund fees or make specific findings on when and how the fees will be spent for construction, if the fees aren’t spent within five years of collection.
3) Requires local agencies to deposit mitigation fees to fund a capital improvement associated with a development in a separate account or fund.
4) Requires local agencies that impose mitigation fees to produce an annual report within 180 days of the end of the fiscal year that includes:
a) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund;
b) The amount of the fee;
c) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
d) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned;
e) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
f) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence;
g) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund; and
h) The amount of refunds of fees unspent after five years.
5) Allows any person to request an independent audit of how the fees have been collected and spent, as long as the fund has not been audited in the past 12 months.
SB 319 Page 3
6) Requires the requestor of an audit to deposit the estimated cost of the fee with the local agency whose fund is being audited and pay the reasonable costs of the audit.
7) Requires a local agency that does not produce the required annual report on mitigation fees following the establishment, increase, or imposition of a fee, but requires payment of that fee in connection with the approval of a development project for three consecutive years, to pay the cost of an audit requested under the Mitigation Fee Act, and prohibits the local agency from requiring a deposit for a requested audit.
This bill requires a local agency who does not submit their impact fee annual reports for three consecutive years to audit each consecutive year the local agency did not submit its annual report.
Comments 1) Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 319 will close a loop hole in the Mitigation Fee Act. This district bill creates more transparency by requiring an agency to provide all obligatory annual reports to ensure public funds are used appropriately.”
2) Tightening the screws. SB 1202 (Stone, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2018) provided a stronger incentive to local governments to complete impact fee annual reports by requiring them to pay the costs of requested audits if they have not filed annual reports for at least three years. SB 319 goes one step farther, and says that if a local agency has not filed the report for at least three years, the audit must cover each consecutive year the local agency was out of compliance. On the one hand, this increases local agencies’ incentive to comply with the annual report requirements. On the other hand, it remains unclear how many local agencies statewide do not comply with the existing requirements and their reasons for noncompliance. Is the value of this additional information worth the additional cost to local agencies? If a local agency is concerned about this additional cost, they could avoid incurring those costs by complying with existing law.
3) Ongoing litigation. Who completes audits, and what information those audits contain, have been the subject of litigation between the Desert Valleys Builders Association (DVBA) and the City of Coachella. According to the court filings in this case, the Court has to answer: (1) which auditor the City should work with to ensure the audit’s independence, and (2) how many years the audit DVBA requested should cover since it is unclear in existing law. It remains
SB 319 Page 4
uncertain when a final resolution will come from the Court. According to the sponsors of the legislation, other local agencies may also not be completing their required annual reports, and having this statute in place clarifies audit requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/12/21)
Desert Valleys Builders Association (source) California Association of Realtors California Building Industries Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/12/21)
None received
Prepared by: Jonathan Peterson / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119 4/14/21 14:38:52
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 323 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 323 Author: Caballero (D), et al. Amended: 3/17/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 3/25/21 AYES: McGuire, Durazo, Hertzberg, Wiener NOES: Nielsen
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 10-0, 4/20/21 AYES: Umberg, Caballero, Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Jones, Laird, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener NO VOTE RECORDED: Borgeas
SUBJECT: Local government: water or sewer service: legal actions
SOURCE: Association of California Water Agencies
DIGEST: This bill establishes a 120-day statute of limitations for water and sewer rates.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Imposes, pursuant to Proposition 218 (1996) and Proposition 26 (201), constitutional limits on local officials’ ability to impose, increase, and extend fees, including property-related fees.
2) Requires local governments that want to charge a new property-related fee or increase an existing one to:
a) Identify the parcels to be charged; b) Calculate the fee for each parcel;
SB 323 Page 2
c) Notify the parcels’ owners in writing about the fee, the reason for imposing or increasing it, the basis for calculating the fee, and the date of a public hearing on the proposed fee; d) Hold a public hearing to consider and count protests at least 45 days after mailing the notice; and e) Abandon the fees if a majority of the parcels’ owners protest.
3) Prohibits new or increased property-related fees from exceeding the proportional cost of service to each parcel.
4) Establishes the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act to add statutory detail to Proposition 218’s requirements.
5) Exempts various charges from some or all of Proposition 218’s requirements including to:
a) Exclude fees for electric and gas service from the definition of property- related fees; b) Establish development fees as a separate category of charge not subject to Proposition 218’s requirements on fees or taxes; and c) Exempt fees for sewer, water, or refuse collection services from Proposition 218’s voter approval requirements. However, all the other procedural requirements in Proposition 218 and the Omnibus Implementation Act apply to fees for water, sewer, and refuse collection services.
6) Establishes procedures for “validating” public agency actions through judicial review.
7) Limits the period of time from the date of an alleged offense for an entity to initiate legal action, known as a “statute of limitations.”
8) Establishes a 120-day statute of limitations for challenging an ordinance, resolution, or motion that sets rates for electric service, establishing water or sewer connection fees and capacity charges, or setting the cost of zoning and building permits.
This bill:
1) Establishes a 120-day statute of limitations for any lawsuit that challenges an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting a fee or charge for water or sewer service, starting from the effective date of the fee or charge.
SB 323 Page 3
2) Provides that this 120-day period only applies to fees or charges adopted by local agencies after January 1, 2022.
3) Requires challenges to be brought under the existing statutes for validation suits, except that the 120-day time period in this bill applies to any action initiated under this bill.
4) Provides that this bill does not apply to any fee or charge for water or sewer service for which another statute establishes a specific time and procedure for bringing a judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a fee or charge of that type.
Background Water rates have been fertile ground for lawsuits since voters approved Proposition 218 in 1996. In February 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against 81 water agencies throughout the state alleging that their practice of charging ratepayers for the costs associated with supplying water for fire protection violates Proposition 218. This case prompted legislative action to clarify that fire hydrants and the water provided by them are a component of water service (SB 1386, Moorlach, Chapter 240, Statutes of 2020). Some ordinances under the class action lawsuit date back to 2016, meaning that the plaintiffs didn’t initiate litigation until four years after the rates were adopted in some cases. The Association of California Water Agencies wants the Legislature to establish a statute of limitations for water and sewer rates.
Comments 1) Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “The COVID-19 pandemic has put strain on many essential businesses, including ones that the public depends on for basic needs. Public utilities, such as water and sewer service providers, have experienced a reduction in the number of consumers who are able to pay for their services. Yet because of Governor Newsom’s Executive Order prohibiting water shutoffs, water agencies have continued to service every customer regardless of their ability to pay, which has made water districts’ revenue and financial planning more unpredictable. In light of this new financial strain, another long standing issue comes into focus that needs to be addressed- the lack of a time line for rate challenges. Other utility agencies, such as electricity, have a 120-day statute of limitations for challenges to rates or charges that have been in effect for decades. This is because lawsuits arising years after rates were adopted create unstable funding for the agency. This statute of limitations has not been extended to water agencies yet, and the
SB 323 Page 4
inability to plan for such claims effects funding necessary to supply safe drinking water, upgrade and improve aging infrastructure, and operate effectively. That is why I have introduced SB 323, which would require an interested party to bring an action within 120 days after the local water agency adopts the new rate. By allowing customers to bring challenges within a reasonable – but limited – period of time, this proposal would balance the interests of ratepayers with those of public water and sewer agencies and end the current piecemeal character of existing law.”
2) No time like the present. Proposition 218 established constitutional protections for ratepayers to ensure that they aren’t overcharged for the services that they receive. SB 323 limits the time period that taxpayers have challenge the validity and constitutionality of rates to 120 days. Opponents of this bill argue that this time period is too short to adequately ensure that ratepayers’ constitutional rights are protected: if the 120-day deadline passes with no lawsuit, potentially unconstitutional water and sewer rates could be enshrined for years, and residents who move into a district might be subject to these rates without ever having the opportunity to dispute them. Other interested parties believe that more notice of the statute of limitations should be provided. On the other hand, the California Supreme Court found that because of the extensive fiscal analysis and public review requirements on connection fees and capacity charges, “…a diligent plaintiff should be able to discover, within the statutory period, whether a cause of action exists.” (Utility Cost Management v. Indian Wells Valley Water District, 26 Cal. 4th 1185.) SB 323 proposes to add the same 120-day statute of limitations to water rates. Should ratepayers have a longer time to dispute water and sewer rates?
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/23/21)
Association of California Water Agencies (source) Alameda County Water District Amador Water Agency Aromas Water District Bella Vista Water District Bodega Bay Public Utility District Brooktrails Township Community Services District California Association of Sanitation Agencies California Municipal Utilities Association California Special Districts Association
SB 323 Page 5
Calleguas Municipal Water District City of Fountain Valley City of Garden Grove City of Hayward City of La Habra City of Oceanside City of Riverside City of Roseville City of Sacramento City of Santa Ana City of Santa Monica City of Santa Rosa City of Shasta Lake City of Torrance City of Tracy City of Watsonville Coachella Valley Water District Corcoran Irrigation District County of Riverside Cucamonga Valley Water District Desert Water Agency Diablo Water District East Orange County Water District Eastern Municipal Water District El Dorado Irrigation District El Toro Water District Elk Grove Water District Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Foothill Municipal Water District Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Helix Water District Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Humboldt Community Services District Indian Wells Valley Water District Inland Empire Utilities Agency Irvine Ranch Water District Kings River Conservation District Las Virgenes Municipal Water District League of California Cities
SB 323 Page 6
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Mariana Ranchos County Water District Marin Water Mckinleyville Community Services District Mercy Springs Water District Mid-Peninsula Water District Modesto Irrigation District Monte Vista Water District Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Municipal Water District of Orange County North Coast County Water District North Marin Water District Olivenhain Municipal Water District Otay Water District Panoche Water District Pine Grove Community Services District Princeton Codora Glenn Irrigation District Provident Irrigation District Public Water Agencies Group Rainbow Municipal Water District Rancho California Water District Reclamation District #1500 Regional Water Authority Root Creek Water District Sacramento Suburban Water District San Bernardino Municipal Water Department San Diego County Water Authority San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Juan Water District Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency Santa Margarita Water District Scotts Valley Water District Sonoma County Water Agency South San Joaquin Irrigation District South Tahoe Public Utility District Southern California Water Coalition Stege Sanitary District Tahoe City Public Utility District
SB 323 Page 7
Tehama Colusa Canal Authority Trabuco Canyon Water District Tuolumne Utilities District United Water Conservation District Valley Center Municipal Water District Vista Irrigation District Walnut Valley Water District West County Wastewater District Western Municipal Water District Westlands Water District
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/23/21)
Consumer Attorneys of California Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119 4/23/21 10:53:10
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 326 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 326 Author: Pan (D), et al. Introduced: 2/5/21 Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 11-0, 3/10/21 AYES: Pan, Melendez, Eggman, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Leyva, Limón, Roth, Rubio, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Health care coverage: federal health care reforms
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill deletes provisions in law that would make health plan preexisting condition protections, premium rating limitations and other antidiscrimination requirements inoperative if specified provisions of the Affordable Care Act are repealed or amended to no longer apply.
ANALYSIS: Existing federal law:
1) Establishes, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), among many other provisions, a prohibition against discriminatory health insurance premium rates, a guarantee of coverage issuance and renewability in the individual and small group markets, a prohibition on preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status, coverage for essential health benefits, coverage for individuals participating in approved clinical trials, a prohibition on lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of benefits per enrollee, a prohibition on rescissions once an enrollee is covered, coverage for preventive services without cost-sharing, and extension of dependent coverage until the dependent is 26 years old. [42 U.S.C. 300gg, et seq.]
2) Requires all individuals with access to affordable coverage to purchase minimum essential coverage (MEC) or pay a penalty. Exempts from this
SB 326 Page 2
coverage mandate individuals not lawfully present in the U.S., religious objectors and incarcerated individuals. Additional exemptions are allowed for taxpayers with income below the filing threshold, members of Indian tribes, those granted a hardship waiver and individuals who were not covered for less than three months of the year. [42 U.S.C. 18091]
Existing state law:
1) Establishes the Department of Managed Health Care to regulate health plans under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene Act) and California Department of Insurance to regulate health insurance. [HSC §1340, et seq. and INS §106, et seq.]
2) Prohibits a health plan for group or individual coverage from imposing any preexisting condition provision or waivered condition provision upon any enrollee, and makes this provision inoperative if, the federal requirement to have MEC is repealed or amended to no longer apply to the individual market, 12 months after the date of that repeal or amendments, as specified. [HSC §1357.51 and HSC §1399.849]
3) Requires health plans to fairly and affirmatively offer, market, and sell all of a plan’s small employer health care service plan contracts to all small employers in each service area, or all of the health plan’s contracts that are sold in the individual market to all individuals and dependents in which the plan provides or arranges for the provision of health care services, and prohibits contracts with rules associated with health status factors, as specified. Makes these provisions inoperative if specified federal law becomes inoperative 12 months after the repeal date, in which case other provisions of California law will become operative, as specified. [HSC §1357.503 and HSC §1399.849]
4) Establishes premium rate requirements based on federal law for small employer health plans and health plans for individuals based on age (rates cannot vary by more than three to one for individuals 21 and older), geographic regions, as specified, individual or families, and prohibits rates from changing less than 12 months, as specified. Makes these provisions inoperative if specified federal law is repealed 12 months after the repeal date of the federal law and makes specified provisions of California law operative, as specified. [HSC §1357.512 and HSC §1399.855] 5) Requires an individual or small group health plan contract to include coverage for essential health benefits pursuant to the ACA and as outlined in California
SB 326 Page 3
law. Requires these provisions to be implemented only to the extent essential health benefits are required pursuant to the ACA. [HSC §1367.005]
6) Requires a California resident, for each month beginning on or after January 1, 2020, to be enrolled in and maintain MEC for that month, except as provided. [GOV §100705]
This bill:
1) Deletes a provision of law that would make preexisting condition protections for health plan enrollees inoperative 12 months after the date of the federal repeal of that provision under the ACA.
2) Deletes provisions of law that would make requirements on health plans to offer, market and sell health plans to small employers and individuals without regard to health status inoperative 12 months after the federal repeal of that provision under the ACA.
3) Deletes provisions of law that would make limits on factors that health plans can use to establish premium rates for small businesses and individuals inoperative 12 months after the federal repeal of that revision under the ACA.
4) Deletes a provision of law that requires health plans to cover essential health benefits only to the extent required pursuant to the ACA.
Background In 2012, the California Legislature approved AB 1461 (Monning) and SB 961 (Ed Hernandez), which would have established insurance market rules for individual purchasers. Both bills were vetoed by then Governor Brown because a provision to link or "tie back" state law to federal law was viewed as insufficient. As a result, Covered California had to initiate its first Qualified Health Plan solicitation process based on assumptions of what might be the individual market rules in California.
On January 24, 2013, Governor Brown issued a proclamation to convene the Legislature in Extraordinary Session to consider and act upon legislation necessary to implement the ACA in the areas of: 1) California's private health insurance market, rules and regulations governing the individual and small group market; 2) California's Medi-Cal program and changes necessary to implement federal law; and, 3) options that allow low-cost health coverage through Covered California to be provided to individuals who have income up to 200% of the federal poverty level. ABX1-2 (Pan, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2013, First Extraordinary Session) and SBX1-2 (Hernandez, Chapter 2, Statutes of 2013, First Extraordinary Session)
SB 326 Page 4 address the first of the three areas identified in the Governor's proclamation. The ACA insurance market rules established through the legislation apply to health insurance sold through Covered California as well as insurance products sold in the commercial market outside of Covered California, and were needed to be put in place for state regulatory enforcement purposes.
ACA litigation. Since its passage, the ACA has been challenged multiple times in the courts and Congress. More recently, in Texas v. Azar, 18 state attorneys general, led by the state of Texas, and two individuals filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the individual coverage mandate. The plaintiffs argued that the entire ACA should fall as a result of Congressional action in 2017 that made the ACA coverage penalty amount zero. This position was also supported by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Trump administration. The Biden administration has dropped DOJ’s support. Associated with an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling, plaintiffs in Texas argued that with no penalty on the coverage mandate there is no longer an exercise of federal taxing power, and the entire ACA should be struck down. A federal district court agreed. A federal appeals court ruled the coverage mandate requirement unconstitutional and remanded the question of severability to the lower court. California, 20 other state attorneys general, the Governor of Kentucky, and the U.S. House of Representatives appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which heard California v. Texas, on November 10, 2020. A decision is expected sometime in June of 2021.
Comments Author’s statement. The author states that over 10 years after the passage of the ACA, with several years of successful implementation in California, it is time to remove unnecessary ties of California law to the repeal of federal law. Early in the implementation stages of the ACA, some parties raised concerns about the structural changes the ACA would have on health insurance markets. Also because of repeated challenges in the courts, state legislation that was enacted to implement the ACA in California contained provisions that tied the state law to specific federal requirements of the ACA, so that if the ACA were repealed at the federal level, there would also be a repeal (12 months later) of the state law. These “tiebacks” are not necessary and should be removed from California law.
Related/Prior Legislation AB 493 (Wood, 2021) is a companion measure which deletes the same tiebacks that apply to insurance policies. AB 493 is pending in the Senate Rules Committee.
SB 326 Page 5
SB 406 (Committee on Health, Chapter 302, Statutes of 2020) rewrote existing laws that require health plan contracts and health insurance policies to cover preventive services without cost sharing, and, prohibit annual and lifetime limits, by deleting federal statutory citations and replacing those citations with the actual federal provisions that impose those requirements.
ABX1-2 (Pan, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2013, First Extraordinary Session) and SBX1-2 (Hernandez, Chapter 2, Statutes of 2013, First Extraordinary Session) established health insurance market reforms contained in the ACA specific to individual purchasers, such as prohibiting health plans and insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions; and made conforming changes to small employer health insurance laws resulting from final federal regulations.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/20/21)
California Immigrant Policy Center County Health Executives Association of California Health Access California Western Center on Law and Poverty
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/20/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Health Access California writes that this bill will ensure that these consumer protections remain in place even if federal law were to be repealed. Currently, if federal law were to change, plans could drastically alter their methodology for determining premiums, opening the door for discrimination or unfair pricing based on health status, pre-existing conditions, tobacco use or other factors. This bill eliminates the reliance of California law on federal law, both because of national experience and because California has enacted its own individual mandate. Whatever happens to the federal law, the consumer protections California has enacted, which are better than federal law, would remain in place.
Prepared by: Teri Boughton / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111 4/21/21 16:25:52 **** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 361 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 361 Author: Umberg (D) Introduced: 2/10/21 Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 10-1, 4/6/21 AYES: Umberg, Borgeas, Caballero, Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Jones, Laird, Stern, Wiener NOES: Wieckowski
SUBJECT: Electronic transactions: motor vehicle finance
SOURCE: California New Car Dealers Association
DIGEST: This bill authorizes sellers of motor vehicles to offer buyers entering into a conditional sale or lease contract for the purchase or lease of a vehicle the option of signing their respective contracts electronically.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which generally authorizes the transaction of business, commerce, and contracts by electronic means. (Civ. Code § 1633.1 et seq.) UETA does not apply to transactions that are subject to certain laws, such as laws governing the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary trusts. (Civ. Code § 1633.3(a).)
2) Provides a series of specific transactions to which UETA does not apply. Among these exemptions are those transactions described in the Automobile Sales Finance Act and the Vehicle Leasing Act. (Civ. Code § 1633.3(c).)
3) Establishes, in federal law, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN), which generally provides for the transmission of electronic signatures, but does not apply to a contract or other record that is governed by: (a) a statute, regulation, or other rule of law governing the
SB 361 Page 2
creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary trusts; (b) a state statute, regulation, or other rule of law governing adoption, divorce, or other matters of family law; or (c) the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State, as specified. (15 U.S.C. §§ 7001, 7003(a).)
4) Excludes from the application of E-SIGN the following specific transactions: (a) court orders or notices, or official court documents (including briefs, pleadings, and other writings) required to be executed in connection with court proceedings; (b) any notice of (1) the cancellation or termination of utility services (including water, heat, and power), (2) default, acceleration, repossession, foreclosure, or eviction, or the right to cure, under a credit agreement secured by, or a rental agreement for, a primary residence of an individual, (3) the cancellation or termination of health insurance or benefits or life insurance benefits (excluding annuities), or (4) recall of a product, or material failure of a product, that risks endangering health or safety; or (c) any document required to accompany any transportation or handling of hazardous materials, pesticides, or other toxic or dangerous materials. (15 U.S.C. § 7003(b).)
5) Establishes the Rees-Levering Act, which sets forth requirements with regard to disclosures required in a conditional sale contract for the sale of a motor vehicle, including specified disclosures regarding finance charges, and sets forth the permissible fees and charges in an automobile conditional sale contract for the sale of a motor vehicle. (Civ. Code § 2982.)
6) Establishes the Vehicle Leasing Act, which sets forth requirements with regard to terms and disclosures required in a lease contract for a motor vehicle. (Civ. Code § 2985.7.)
This bill strikes those provisions exempting motor vehicle conditional sales contracts and lease contracts from the scope of transactions governed by UETA.
Background Executive Summary
The UETA generally authorizes the transaction of business, commerce, and contracts by electronic means. (Civ. Code § 1633.1.) UETA does not apply to transactions that are subject to certain laws, such as laws governing the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary trusts. (Civ. Code § 1633.3(a).) UETA further lists a series of specific transactions that it does not apply to. Among
SB 361 Page 3 the transactions exempted are the purchase and lease of motor vehicles. (Civ. Code § 1633.3(c).)
This bill eliminates the exclusion of conditional sale and lease contracts for motor vehicles from UETA. This bill is sponsored by the California New Car Dealers Association. It is supported by car dealers and technology companies involved in the automotive sales industry. The National Association of Consumer Advocates and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (CARS) are opposed to this bill. The California Attorney General’s Office has also written in with concerns about this bill.
Electronic transactions
In 1999, with the passage of SB 820 (Sher, Chapter 428, Statutes of 1999), California enacted the UETA, which was based on a model law to set rules by which electronic commerce may be conducted across the country proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. One of the motivating factors for enacting a law validating electronic records was the Statute of Frauds, which requires that certain contracts be in writing. In California, the Statute of Frauds is codified at Section 1624 of the Civil Code, which expressly states that certain contracts are invalid (i.e., unenforceable) unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent. Such contracts include, for example: an agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from its making; an agreement for a lease lasting for a period longer than one year; an agreement for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; or specified contracts, promises, undertakings, or commitments to loan money or to grant or extend credit, in an amount greater than $100,000.
Subsequent to UETA’s passage, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN) was enacted at the federal level. E-SIGN generally provides for the transmission of electronic signatures, but contains a number of exemptions. However, it does allow for vehicle sales to be conducted electronically.
UETA provides that a record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form, that a contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation, and that an electronic record or signature satisfies a requirement in the law that a record be in writing or a signature be affixed or if a law provides consequences if there is no record or signature.
SB 361 Page 4
UETA, however, does not apply to all contracts. For example, expressly excluded from UETA are: transactions that are subject to a law governing the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary trusts; specified transactions in the Uniform Commercial Code that were specifically drafted in consideration of electronic records; and transactions subject to a law that requires that specifically identifiable text or disclosures in a record or a portion of a record be separately signed or initialed, such as real estate transactions. Also specifically excluded from UETA are conditional sale contracts for the purchase of a motor vehicle (Civ. Code § 2981, et seq.) and contracts to lease a motor vehicle (Civ. Code § 2985.7).
The Attorney General’s Office details the benefits of this model:
Under UETA, California car sales and leases must proceed via signed paper contracts. This means that a paper copy is provided to consumers and they are allowed a moment of calm reflection prior to signing. It provides an opportunity for consumers to appreciate the complexity of the transaction, focus on particular terms and conditions, and view such terms and conditions in the context of the complex multi-page document. For some consumers, it provides an opportunity to leave with the contract and seek the advice of others.
This bill eliminates the exclusion of conditional sale and lease contracts for motor vehicles from UETA, paving the way for vehicle sales and leases to be conducted electronically. Electronic transactions provide a level of convenience for all parties involved and have become a part of consumers’ everyday lives. However, the purchase of a vehicle is often one of a person’s biggest purchases and concerns have been raised in the past about whether this transition to electronic transactions for these high-end purchases is wise and whether additional protections need to be tied into such a change.
Comments Stated intent of the bill. According to the author:
SB 361 would align California and federal law and modernize the vehicle retailing process by striking the prohibition in CalUETA barring e-signatures in vehicle sales and lease transactions. SB 361 is necessary to allow dealers to meet the needs of consumers in a retail environment that is becoming increasingly digital. Furthermore, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, dealers are increasingly transacting with consumers fully online and delivering cars to the customer’s home. Lastly, electronic documents are more secure than paper documents, and mitigates against the amount of paper being needlessly wasted with respect to the environment as well. With almost 2 million new car sales
SB 361 Page 5
and 4 million used car sales transactions in California each year, SB 361 provides necessary clean-up to CalUETA, thereby making the provisions of the act applicable to conditional sale and lease contracts for motor vehicles. SB 361 therefore, facilitates a pathway forward for dealers to be included in the robust retail economy that a myriad of businesses are operating in today.
The California New Car Dealers Association, the sponsor of this bill, writes: “SB 361 provides necessary clean-up to CalUETA, which is now over 20 years old. The digital retailing landscape has changed dramatically since the original law was signed in 1999.”
Consumer protection concerns
Various consumer organizations have opposed measures that attempted to remove this exemption in the past. Both AB 380 (Dababneh, 2017) and AB 1743 (Dababneh, 2016) sought to do just that. Opponents argued that allowing automobile sale and lease contracts to be entered into electronically will undermine the effect mandatory disclosures have in such contracts, and will harm the ability of consumers to read and understand what they are signing. Purchasing an automobile is often a stressful and confusing experience for consumers. Having paper contracts to read and review provides consumers with some space to contemplate these large purchases. Consumer groups have asserted in the past that this may disappear if electronic contracting is adopted in this industry, especially where customers feel pressure to scroll quickly through an electronic document without reading or understanding its contents.
CARS writes in opposition to this bill and raises concerns about current practices among auto dealers who have already been engaging in e-contracting. It provides several recommendations for amendments to this bill, including provisions that require the contract and any legally binding documents to be on the consumer’s own device and that establish a presumption that a consumer’s version of the electronically-signed contract is valid where there is any discrepancy between the seller’s and buyer’s versions.
In addition to removing vehicle sales and leasing from UETA’s list of exemptions, AB 380 and AB 1743 both included additional consumer protections to mitigate some of these concerns. This included provisions that required sellers to sign a consent form to opt in to electronically completing the transaction. The form would be separate from the sales or lease contract and would disclose the rights of the consumer so that the consumer was better informed before making the decision to sign electronically. As this bill moves through the process, the author may wish to
SB 361 Page 6 consider whether any of these protections, including those suggested by opposition should be included to protect consumers.
The Attorney General’s Office also expresses concerns as it believes “UETA’s exception for auto transactions continues to serve the important consumer protection purpose that the Legislature originally intended and has reinforced as recently as 2017.” It writes:
SB 361 would authorize auto dealers to consummate transactions electronically such that consumers likely would never see the full version of the contract before signing. In many cases, consumers would be asked to “sign” on an unfamiliar computer monitor or touchscreen at the auto dealer’s office without ever reading the many terms and conditions to which the consumer is being prompted to agree. Under such circumstances, we are concerned the odds that consumers will enter into transactions without being aware of the contractual terms is greatly increased, as is the opportunity for fraud and consumer abuse.
In our experience, these concerns about misleading electronic transactions are neither hypothetical nor speculative. In fact, our office has prosecuted cases involving precisely this conduct. For instance, just this month, our office announced a settlement with the retailer Curacao for conduct related to the use of electronic monitors for reviewing contractual terms. Specifically, Curacao sales agents, among other things, tacked on unwanted “add-ons” to the contracts of consumers prior to getting their authorization via a small electronic monitor. These add-ons included warranties, accessories, and additional fees. These were all added without consumers’ knowledge or consent and were obscured both by the complicated nature of the financing transaction and the limited visual provided by an electronic monitor. . . .
Although electronic transactions are more prevalent than when UETA was enacted, the consumer’s interaction with a new car dealer, the high-stakes and often high-pressure nature of the car-buying experience, and the potential for fraud remain unchanged. In our view, any purported advantages of convenience or record-keeping come at the expense of protections for consumers, and are far outweighed by the risk of abuse.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SB 361 Page 7
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/8/21)
California New Car Dealers Association (source) California Credit Union League Californians Against Waste Cox Automotive, Inc. Ford Motor Company Roadster TrueCar, Inc. Vitu
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/8/21)
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety National Association of Consumer Advocates
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Cox Automotive, Inc. writes in support of the bill, “Cox Auto is committed to serving the needs of California’s drivers. Our Dealertrack Registration and Titling Solutions (“RTS”) business is a First-Line Service Provider in the California Department of Motor Vehicles Business Partner Automation Program. RTS facilitates the electronic registration and titling of vehicles operated in California by providing software to automotive dealers and registration services to the California motoring public and out-of-state fleet lease and rental companies. And our Dealertrack Collateral Management Services (“CMS”) business provides comprehensive vehicle title administration services to financial institutions operating in California and nationwide. CMS holds over 15 million motor vehicle paper titles and manages over 20 million electronic titles in our Sacramento vault for many of the largest financial institutions.
“Much has changed since the Legislature adopted CalUETA 22 years ago, including the utilization of electronic documents in many facets of our life. Electronic documents incorporate enhanced security features that paper- based documents cannot replicate. Additionally, electronic signatures can be authenticated using available technologies like encryption and blockchain. Electronic contracting also provides enhanced privacy because the customer’s data and related documents, including credit applications, are securely stored electronically and cannot be easily accessed.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) writes in opposition to the bill, “SB 361 seeks to amend UETA to allow car dealerships to obtain an e-signature instead of a ‘wet ink’ signature. Removal of the ‘wet ink’ exception means consumers may be given
SB 361 Page 8 even less opportunity than they already have to review the contract terms before signing. Instead, a small electronic tablet would be presented to the consumer, limiting the consumer’s ability to scroll through and read all contract sections.
“If UETA is amended as proposed in SB 361, NACA members predict a huge uptick in consumer fraud concerning car dealerships. Many car dealerships would take advantage of this rule to limit consumers’ ability to review vehicle sales and lease contracts before they sign, leading to even greater incidents of illicit activity and abuse. Such cases may involve non- disclosure of serious safety defects, undisclosed recalls, or salvaged titles.”
Prepared by: Christian Kurpiewski / JUD. / (916) 651-4113 4/9/21 13:59:59
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 374 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 374 Author: Min (D) and Rubio (D), et al. Amended: 4/20/21 Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 3/23/21 AYES: Umberg, Borgeas, Caballero, Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Jones, Laird, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Protective orders: reproductive coercion
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill provides that reproductive coercion is a form of domestic violence for which a restraining order may be granted under the Domestic Violence Protection Act.
Senate Floor Amendments of 4/20/21 replace “excessively” with “unreasonably” and add a co-author.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes the Domestic Violence Protection Act ([DVPA] Fam. Code § 6200 et seq.),1 which sets forth procedural and substantive requirements for the issuance of a protective order to enjoin, among other things, specific acts of abuse. (§§ 6218, 6300 et seq.)
2) Defines “abuse” to include physical injury, assault, and psychological abuse, including disturbing the peace of the other party, which is conduct that, based on the totality of the circumstances, destroys the mental or emotional calm of
1 All further statutory references are to the Family Code, unless otherwise specified.
SB 374 Page 2
the other party. (§§ 6203, 6320(a), (c).) Such conduct includes coercive control, which is a pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty. (§ 6320(c).) Provides examples of coercive control, including isolating the person, depriving them of necessities, controlling, regulating or monitoring them, or using force, threats or intimidation, as specified. (Id.)
3) Incorporates the DVPA’s definition of abuse for purposes of child custody and visitation determinations (§§ 3011(a)(2)(A), 3030(c)(2) & 3044(d)(1)), the statute of limitations for recovery of damages suffered as a result of domestic violence (Code Civ. Proc. § 340.15), the admissibility of expert testimony regarding intimate partner battering and its effects (Evid. Code § 1107(a), (c)), and the admissibility of evidence of a defendant’s prior acts of domestic violence in a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of an offense involving domestic violence (Evid. Code § 1109(a), (d)(3)).
4) Provides that an intentional violation of a domestic violence restraining order is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 273.6.)
This bill:
1) Adds “reproductive coercion” as an additional example of coercive control for purposes of the definition “abuse” under the DVPA.
2) Defines reproductive coercion as controlling the reproductive autonomy of another through force, threat of force, or intimidation, which may include unreasonably pressuring the other party to become pregnant, deliberately interfering with contraception use or access to reproductive health information, or using coercive tactics to control, or attempt to control, pregnancy outcomes.
Background The DVPA seeks to prevent acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse, and to provide for a separation of persons involved in domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable them to seek a resolution. The DVPA’s “protective purpose is broad both in its stated intent and its breadth of persons protected,” (Caldwell v. Coppola (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 859, 863), and courts are required to construe it broadly in order to accomplish the statute’s purpose (In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1498 [Nadkarni]). The act enables a party to seek a “protective order,” also known as a restraining order, which may be
SB 374 Page 3 issued to protect a petitioner who presents “reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.” (§ 6300; see § 6218.)
Victims of domestic violence who need immediate protection may seek a temporary restraining order, which may be decided ex parte (without notice to the respondent) and generally must be issued or denied the same court day the petition is filed. (See §§ 241, 6320 et seq.) Because the restrained party would not have had the opportunity to defend their interests, ex parte orders are short in duration. If a noticed hearing is not held within 21 days (or 25 if the court finds good cause), a temporary restraining order is no longer enforceable, unless a court grants a continuance. (§§ 242 & 245.) The respondent must be personally served with a copy of the petition, the temporary restraining order, if any, and the notice of the hearing on the petition, at least five days before the hearing. (§ 243.) After a duly noticed hearing, the court is authorized to extend the original temporary restraining order for up to five years, which may then be renewed. (§§ 6302, 6340, 6345.) Additionally, a protective order may be issued in a judgement entered in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, or in a parentage action. (§ 6360.)
The linchpin of this scheme is Section 6203’s definition of “abuse,” which encompasses assault, physical injury, and psychological abuse. Section 6203 incorporates section 6320, which enumerates several forms of abuse, including “stalking, threatening, … harassing, telephoning, … contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party.” (§ 6320(a).) Courts have construed this latter phrase broadly in protecting survivors from mental abuse. (See McCord v. Smith (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 358 [showing up at victim’s house, interfering with her financial matters, sending her threatening text messages]; Nadkarni, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at 1499 [accessing and disclosing a person’s private emails]; Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140 [continuing to contact a person electronically and in person despite their request to stop]; In re Marriage of Evilsizor & Sweeney (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1416 [downloading and disseminating text messages]; Rodriguez v. Menjivar (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 816 [acts of isolation and control, threats].)
Such conduct generally can be categorized as a long-recognized form of domestic abuse known as “coercive control”—“an ongoing strategy of isolation of the victim from friends, family and children; control of access to resources such as transportation, money and food; and control of access to employment and
SB 374 Page 4 education,”2 the effect of which is to “strip away a sense of self, entrapping the victim in a world of confusion, contradiction, and fear.”3 This form of psychological abuse increases the trauma of physical and sexual abuse, and can independently cause long-term damage to a victim’s mental health, including “depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation, low-self-esteem, and difficulty trusting others.”4 Additionally, “[s]ubtle psychological abuse is more harmful than either overt psychological abuse or direct aggression.”5
Last session, California expressly recognized coercive control as a form of domestic violence in SB 1141 (Rubio, Chapter 248, Statutes of 2020). Building on the precedents described above, the bill defined “disturbing the peace of the other party” to include “conduct that, based on the totality of the circumstances, destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party,”6 which in turn includes coercive control, “a pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty.” (§ 6320(c).)
This bill adds “reproductive coercion” as an additional example of coercive control for purposes of the definition “abuse” under the DVPA. This bill defines reproductive coercion as controlling the reproductive autonomy of another through force, threat of force, or intimidation, which may include unreasonably pressuring the other party to become pregnant, deliberately interfering with contraception use or access to reproductive health information, or using coercive tactics to control, or attempt to control, pregnancy outcomes.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/20/21)
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence California Women’s Law Center Family Violence Appellate Project Los Angeles County Bar Association—Family Law Section NARAL Pro-Choice California
2 Candel, Kristy, Protecting the Invisible Victim: Incorporating Coercive Control in Domestic Violence Statues (Jan. 2016) Student Note, 54 Fam. Ct. Rev. 112, 114-115. 3 Id. at 115. 4 Facts about Domestic Violence and Psychological Abuse, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/domestic_violence_and_psychological_abuse_ncadv.pdf (as of Mar. 12, 2021). 5 Id. 6 “‘[T]he plain meaning of the phrase ‘disturbing the peace of the other party’ in section 6320 may be properly understood as conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party.’” (N.T. v. H.T. (2019) 34 Cal. App. 5th 595, 602.)
SB 374 Page 5
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California University of California, Irvine School of Law Domestic Violence Clinic
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/20/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
The author writes:
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, reports of domestic violence in California have surged, highlighting the need for the law to remedy multiple forms of domestic violence. Now, more than ever, we must update our legal system so that it adequately addresses the real challenges experienced by domestic violence survivors. Despite changes in recent years to update our laws in California, our codes do not yet recognize the significant role that reproductive coercion plays in domestic violence, and how these types of abuse endanger the lives and freedom of survivors. SB 374 will provide critical clarity to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) by adding reproductive coercion. Although the term reproductive coercion may be unfamiliar to some, this abusive behavior is far more common than many realize. Research shows us that many survivors of abuse also experience reproductive coercion, which includes, but is not limited to, interference with contraception use and pregnancy outcomes. We also know that reproductive coercion has a wide array of consequences for victimized individuals. Consequences include unintended pregnancies, coerced or late-term abortions, increased sexually transmitted infections, and increased levels of depression, substance abuse, and suicidality. By recognizing these actions as abuse and stating clearly that control over your reproductive decisions are central to your autonomy, safety and security, SB 374 DVPA will help survivors seeking justice and protection.
The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence states:
Reproductive coercion is experienced by many domestic violence survivors. According to a 2010 study, approximately 20% of women age 16-29 seeking care at five family planning clinics in Northern California who had a history of domestic violence and abuse also experienced pregnancy coercion, and 15% reported birth control sabotage. An August 2019 study of 550 sexually active high school females found that nearly one in eight had experienced reproductive coercion in the past three months. Consequences of reproductive coercion include unintended pregnancies, increased sexually transmitted infections,
SB 374 Page 6
interference with reproductive health decisions, and increased levels of depression, substance abuse, and suicidality.
Prepared by: Josh Tosney / JUD. / (916) 651-4113 4/21/21 15:12:14
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 386 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 386 Author: Umberg (D) Introduced: 2/11/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 12-0, 3/9/21 AYES: Dodd, Nielsen, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Borgeas, Bradford, Hueso, Jones, Portantino, Rubio, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Glazer, Melendez
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Tied-house restrictions: advertising: mixed-use district
SOURCE: ocV!BE Sports & Entertainment
DIGEST: This bill authorizes specified alcohol licensees to sponsor events, and to purchase advertising space and time from, or on behalf of, an on-sale licensee that is the owner or operator of a mixed-use district located in Orange county (ocV!BE).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and grants it exclusive authority to administer the provisions of the ABC Act in accordance with laws enacted by the Legislature. This involves licensing individuals and businesses associated with the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages and the collection of license fees for this purpose.
2) Separates the alcoholic beverage industry into three component parts, or tiers, of the manufacturer (including breweries, wineries, and distilleries), wholesaler, and retailer (both on-sale and off-sale). This is referred to as the “tied-house”
SB 386 Page 2
law or “three-tier” system. Generally, other than exceptions granted by the Legislature, the holder of one type of license is not permitted to do business as another type of licensee within the “three-tier” system.
3) Prohibits, in general, a manufacturer, winegrower, manufacturer's agent, rectifier, distiller, bottler, importer, or wholesaler, or any officer, director or agent of any such person from owning, directly or indirectly, any interest in any on-sale license.
4) Prohibits, in general, a manufacturer, winegrower, distiller, bottler, or wholesaler, among other licensees, or agents of these licensees, from paying a retailer for advertising.
5) Provides a variety of exceptions from the advertising 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.
This bill:
1) Deletes the current tied-house exception for the Honda Center and instead authorizes specified licensees to sponsor events, and to purchase advertising space and time from, or on behalf of, an on-sale licensee that is the owner or operator of a mixed-use district located in Orange county (ocV!BE).
2) Requires that the owner of the operator’s advertising rights of ocV!BE to have its principal place of business in Orange County.
3) Provides that the advertising space or time is purchased only in connection with daily activities, retail, dining, entertainment, and events conducted on the grounds of the ocV!BE.
4) Requires any on-sale licensee, operating at a venue on the grounds of ocV!BE to serve other brands of alcohol in addition to any brand being advertised.
5) Provides that an agreement for the sponsorship, of for the purchase of advertising space and time shall not be conditioned, in any way, on the purchase, sale, or distribution of any alcoholic beverage manufactured or distributed by the sponsoring or advertising licensee.
SB 386 Page 3
6) Requires any sponsorship of events or purchase of advertising space or time to be conducted pursuant to a written contract.
7) Provides that any licensee who, through coercion or other illegal means, induces, directly or indirectly, a holder of a wholesaler’s license to fulfill those contractual obligations entered into pursuant to the provisions of this bill, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine in an amount equal to the entire value of the advertising space or time, plus $10,000, or both. The licensee is also subject to the revocation of their license.
8) Makes legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for Orange County.
Background
Purpose of the bill. According to the author’s office, “SB 386 will allow the owners of the master- planned, mixed use development in Anaheim, to expand the existing sponsorship tied-house exemption they have at the Honda Center to the full 95-acre development. These additional opportunities for advertising and sponsorship throughout this development will provide vital revenue and a financing for the mixed-used development. The bill does not change the type of advertising or sponsorship the owners of the development, and the Honda Center may do, but rather it simply expands the privileges throughout the new development. This expanded revenue opportunity is important because the development is privately funded and will not use any taxpayer dollars.”
According to the author’s office, “the new mixed-use development is valuable to Orange County and will provide a variety of amenities such as hotels, entertainment venues, restaurants, affordable housing, office space, and open space for tourists and locals. Additionally, this is an opportunity to combat our states housing crisis by dedicating affordable housing units on the mixed-use district. SB 386 is an important part of bringing this development to fruition in my community.” ocV!BE. ocV!BE is a proposed 95-acre, mixed use development set to be completed in 2024 in the City of Anaheim. The development will include two hotels, office space, multiple live entertainment venues, residential (including
SB 386 Page 4 affordable housing), and 20 acres of parks and open space. The site will surround the existing Honda Center, home of to the Anaheim Ducks.
According to the ocV!BE website, the first phase of the project will create over 10,000 construction jobs and over 3,000 permanent jobs upon completion. Prior to completion, the project will result in more than $2 billion in one-time economic impact and more than $400 million in annual recurring economic impact.
Tied-house laws. Tied-house laws generally prohibit suppliers and retailers from sharing common owners and legally restrict alcohol beverage suppliers’ ability to gain control over retailers through indirect means. The original policy rationale for this body of law was to: (1) promote the state’s interest in an orderly market; (2) prohibit the vertical integration and dominance by a single producer in the marketplace; (3) prohibit commercial bribery and to protect the public from predatory marketing practices; and (4) discourage and/or prevent the intemperate use of alcoholic beverages.
These provisions prohibit a manufacturer from paying for advertising space at any facility where the facility is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. Over the years, numerous exceptions to this prohibition have been added to a number of stadiums, parks, entertainment complexes, and arenas. Some examples are Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, Oakland Coliseum in Oakland, Arrowhead Pond Arena in Anaheim, Kern County Arena in Bakersfield, the National Orange Show Events Center in San Bernardino, Auto Club Speedway, (formerly California Speedway) in Fontana, Grizzly Stadium in Fresno, Raley Field in West Sacramento, HP Pavilion in San Jose, StubHub Center (formerly the Home Depot Center) in Carson, and numerous other venues.
Currently, the Honda Center enjoys one of these exceptions. This bill would delete that exception and instead allow for a similar privilege for the entire ocV!BE development. This bill also expands on the current exception for the Honda Center which requires that the advertising space or time be purchased only in connection with events being held at the arena. Under SB 386 the purchase of advertising space or time would be allowed to be purchased in connections with daily activities, retail, dining entertainment, and events conducted on the grounds of ocV!BE. The author’s office states that an expansion of the tied-house exception is “needed because the project is privately financed and is counting on the revenue from the sale of this advertising and sponsorship.”
SB 386 Page 5
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 2000 (Kalra, Chapter 483, Statutes of 2018) extended an existing exception in the ABC Act pertaining to the general prohibition against advertising arrangements between retail, wholesale, and manufacturer licensees to include an outdoor professional sports stadium with a fixed seating capacity of at least 3,000 seats located in the City of San Jose (San Jose Municipal Stadium – minor league baseball San Jose Giants), and an outdoor professional sports stadium with a fixed seating capacity of at least 15,000 seats located in the City of San Jose (Avaya Stadium – San Jose Earthquakes).
AB 2146 (Gloria, Chapter 487, Statutes of 2018) extended an existing exception in the ABC Act pertaining to the general prohibition against advertising arrangements between retail, wholesale, and manufacturer licensees to include an outdoor stadium with a fixed seating capacity of at least 43,000 seats located in the City of San Diego (Petco Park – San Diego Padres).
SB 664 (Dodd, Chapter 486, Statutes of 2017) extended an existing exception in the ABC Act pertaining to the general prohibition against advertising arrangements between retail, wholesale, and manufacturer licensees to include an outdoor stadium (AT&T Park – the home of the San Francisco Giants) and an indoor arena (Chase Center – the home of the Golden State Warriors) with specified seating capacities located in the City and County of San Francisco.
AB 1724 (Jones-Sawyer, Chapter 478, Statutes of 2017), among other things, extended an existing exception in the ABC Act pertaining to the general prohibition against advertising arrangements between retail, wholesale, and manufacturer licensees to include a specified outdoor stadium located in the City of Los Angeles (Banc of California Stadium, the future home of the Los Angeles Football Club).
SB 582 (Bradford, Chapter 672, Statutes of 2017) allows 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 at a specified stadium (The Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park) and performance venue located in the City of Inglewood.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SB 386 Page 6
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/5/21) ocV!BE Sports & Entertainment (source) Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce Orange County Business Council Straub Distributing Company
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/5/21)
Alcohol Justice California Beer and Beverage Distributors California State Outdoor Advertising Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to ocV!BE Sports & Entertainment, “SB 386 will expand the sponsorship and advertising rights that the operators of Honda Center currently have to include the entire new development area. The advertising and sponsorship revenue are important to the financing of this major new development in Anaheim. SB 386 is a narrowly crafted measure to only apply to the owners of ocV!BE.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California Beer and Beverage Distributors, “California, like other states, has allowed for narrowly crafted exceptions for sports stadiums, arenas, and large performing arts venues that are often publicly funded. Unlike these, SB 386 would enact a sweeping exception that would tap the alcohol industry for the purchase of advertising for such things as ‘daily activities, retail, and dining’ to name a few of the questionable categories eligible for advertising payments listed in the bill. The bill does not even define ‘daily activities.’ Under the bill, alcohol beverage signage could become ubiquitous throughout the community. Will there be alcohol advertising placed on everything from elevator doors to park equipment?”
Prepared by: Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530 4/5/21 9:38:32
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 391 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 391 Author: Min (D) Amended: 4/13/21 Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 6-0, 3/18/21 AYES: Wiener, Caballero, Cortese, McGuire, Ochoa Bogh, Skinner NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Umberg, Wieckowski
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 10-1, 4/6/21 AYES: Umberg, Borgeas, Caballero, Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Jones, Laird, Stern, Wiener NOES: Wieckowski
SUBJECT: Common interest developments: emergency powers and procedures
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill authorizes common interest development (CID) boards to meet by teleconference, without identifying a physical location where CID members may attend, in an area affected by a disaster or emergency, as specified.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes, within the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, rules and regulations governing the operation of a CID and the respective rights and duties of a homeowners association (HOA) and its members. Requires the governing documents of a CID, and any amendments to the governing documents, to be adopted through HOA elections in accordance with specified procedures. 2) Provides that if an HOA is required to deliver a document by “individual delivery” or “individual notice,” it may deliver the document by mail or
SB 391 Page 2
overnight delivery; it may deliver the document by email, fax, or other electronic means if the recipient has consented in writing. [CIV 4040]
3) Provides that if an HOA is required to deliver a document by “general delivery” or “general notice,” it may deliver the document by any method provided for in individual delivery or notice; or by including it in a billing statement, newsletter, or other document; or by posting the document in a prominent location that is accessible to all members, as specified; or by television broadcast if the association broadcasts television programming. However, an HOA must provide all general notices by individual delivery if a member requests it. [CIV 4045]
4) Authorizes an HOA president, or any two directors, to call an emergency board meeting without notice if there are circumstances, that could not reasonably have been foreseen, that require immediate attention and possible action by the board and which of necessity make it impracticable to provide notice. [CIV 4923]
5) Authorizes an HOA board to hold an emergency board meeting using electronic transmission if all directors consent in writing (including by email) to that action, and if the written consent is filed with the minutes of the board meeting. [CIV 4910]
6) Requires an HOA to provide notice of the time and place of a board meeting at least four days before a meeting, except for an emergency board meeting in 5) above. Requires an HOA to provide notice of the time and place of a non- emergency board meeting that is held solely in executive session, at least two days before the meeting. Requires an HOA to provide notice of a board meeting by general delivery. [CIV 4920]
7) Provides that any HOA member may attend a board meeting, except for executive session. Provides that any HOA member is entitled to attend a teleconference meeting, which shall be audible to the members in a location specified in the meeting notice. [CIV 4925]
8) Provides that other than the meeting to count the votes, an HOA election may be conducted entirely by mail unless otherwise specified in the governing documents. [CIV 5155] 9) Requires all votes to be counted and tabulated by the elections inspector in public at a properly notice open meeting of the board or members, as specified.
SB 391 Page 3
Any candidate or other HOA member may witness the counting and tabulation of votes. [CIV 5120]
This bill:
1) Authorizes HOA boards to meet by teleconference, without identifying a physical location where HOA members may attend, in an area affected by one or more of the following circumstances:
a) A state of disaster or emergency has been declared by the federal government.
b) A state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor.
c) A local emergency has been proclaimed by a local governing body or official.
2) Authorizes a board meeting or member meeting to be conducted entirely by teleconference, without any physical location being held open for the attendance of any director or member, if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
a) Notice of the first meeting shall be delivered by members by individual delivery.
b) The notice for each meeting shall include all of the following:
i) Clear technical instructions on how to participate by teleconference.
ii) The telephone number and email address of an individual who can provide technical assistance with the teleconference process, both before and during the meeting.
iii) A reminder that the member may request individual delivery of meeting notices, with instructions on how to do so.
c) Every director and member has the same ability to participate in the meeting that would exist if the meeting were held in person.
d) Any vote of the directors shall be conducted by a roll call vote.
SB 391 Page 4
e) Any person entitled to participate in the meeting shall be given the option of participating by telephone.
3) Provides that if, as a result of a disaster or emergency, mail delivery or retrieval is not possible at an HOA address, then the HOA shall send the notice of the first meeting to an email address provided by the member.
4) Provides that this bill shall not apply to a meeting where ballots are counted unless all of the following conditions are met:
a) The disaster or emergency makes it unsafe or impossible for people to gather in person in order to count and tabulate votes.
b) The meeting at which ballots are to be counted and tabulated is conducted by videoconference.
c) The camera is placed in a location such that members can witness the inspection of elections counting and tabulating the votes.
Background
A CID is a form of real estate in which each homeowner has an exclusive interest in a unit or lot and a shared or undivided interest in common-area property. Condominiums, planned unit developments, stock cooperatives, community apartments, and many resident-owned mobilehome parks all fall under the umbrella of CIDs. There are more than 50,000 CIDs in California comprising over 4.8 million housing units, or approximately one-quarter of the state’s housing stock. CIDs are governed by HOAs. The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act provides the legal framework under which CIDs are established and operate. In addition to the requirements of the Act, each CID is governed according to the recorded declarations, bylaws, and operating rules of the association, collectively referred to as the governing documents.
Comments
1) Author’s statement. “As we navigate natural disasters such as catastrophic wildfires and mudslides as well as other emergencies, we must expand emergency powers so that Common Interest Developments (CIDs) can safely and effectively work during emergencies. By expanding the Davis-Stirling Act to include these emergency powers, SB 391 will ensure that, even in the midst
SB 391 Page 5
of extraordinary circumstances, CIDs can safely and effectively conduct business in a way that is transparent and accessible. Whether you work in local government, own a small company, or volunteer on a school board, being able to adapt during natural disasters to continue to conduct business remotely is crucial. As we have seen through the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to remove obstacles preventing organizations from safely meeting during emergencies. CIDs, which are the fastest growing form of housing in the world, are no exception to this.”
2) HOA Meetings. Existing law provides that any HOA member may attend a board meeting, at a physical location specified in the meeting notice, except for executive session. However, existing law authorizes emergency board meetings under certain circumstances, and authorizes these emergency meetings to be conducted using electronic transmission under certain circumstances. Any HOA member may attend a teleconference meeting, which shall be audible at a location specified in the meeting notice. Notice of the time and place of a board meeting must be provided at least four days in advance, except for an emergency board meeting. This bill authorizes an HOA board to conduct a teleconference meeting under certain circumstances without providing a physical location at which members could listen to the meeting.
3) General versus individual notices. Existing law requires HOAs to deliver some documents, such as notices of board meetings, by “general delivery” or “general notice;” this includes methods such as putting it in a newsletter or billing notice or posting it in a prominent location. Other documents must be provided by “individual delivery” or “individual notice,” such as by mail or email. However, an HOA member must provide all notices by individual delivery if a member requests it. Emergency meetings authorized under this bill would fall under the general delivery requirement.
4) California Law Revision Commission. The California Law Revision Commission is an independent state agency that assists the Legislature and Governor by examining California law and recommending needed reforms. When the Commission makes preliminary decisions on how to reform a law, it issues a tentative recommendation soliciting public comment. After considering public input, the Commission typically makes a final recommendation, which is delivered to the Legislature and Governor and then published. Over 90% of the Commission’s recommendations have been enacted into law, affecting more than 22,500 sections of the state’s statutory
SB 391 Page 6
codes. This bill is based on a November 2020 recommendation by the Commission.
5) Opposition concerns. Opponents state several concerns:
a) No requirement for individual meeting notice. This bill provides for only “general delivery” of a notice for an emergency electronic meeting, unless an HOA member has already opted for individual notice. The author states that if HOA members want individual notice, they can opt in. Opponents state that this places the burden on the homeowner; moreover, there may not even be a physical location at which to post a notice if the subdivision has been destroyed by a disaster such as a fire. It seems reasonable to expect that some HOA members who have been disengaged, might want to opt in after a disaster, but are unsure how to do so. Nevertheless, if homes have been destroyed, requiring individual delivery to the physical address is not practical.
To address these concerns, this bill was amended in the Senate Housing and Judiciary Committees to require an HOA to provide notice of the first meeting by individual delivery; require the first notice to include specified information such as how to participate by teleconference and how to opt in to individual delivery going forward; and to require an HOA, if mail delivery or retrieval is not possible, to send individual notice of the first meeting to an email address provided by the member.
b) No requirement for a physical location for ballot counting. Existing law lays out a number of requirements for HOA elections. This includes a requirement that all votes be counted and tabulated by the elections inspector in public, at a properly noticed open meeting, so that any candidate or member may witness it. This bill as introduced would instead have allowed ballot counting and tabulation to be conducted via teleconference, in order to provide members access to elections while lessening the burden on the HOA in difficult circumstances. Opponents expressed concern that some members may only have call-in access and therefore not be able to witness the vote counting. Since it is common for Internet access to be impacted by a disaster, it seems feasible that many members would participate in emergency electronic meetings by phone. Moreover, since elections only happen occasionally, requiring a physical location for ballot counting would not seem to be overly burdensome.
SB 391 Page 7
To address these concerns, this bill was amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee to exempt ballot counting unless the disaster or emergency makes in-person gathering unsafe, the meeting at which the ballots are to be counted is conducted by videoconference, and the camera is placed in a location that enables members to witness the counting.
c) No requirement to record meetings. This bill does not require HOAs to record emergency electronic meetings for the record. Existing law does not require any HOA meetings, whether electronic or in person, to be recorded. The author states that since the intent of this bill is to facilitate meetings in difficult circumstances after a disaster, a requirement to record meetings would be onerous. Opponents state that if an emergency electronic meeting provided essential information such as how to obtain permits from the city to rebuild, a homeowner would have no way to access that information if they could not attend the meeting and it wasn’t recorded.
d) No enforcement mechanism. Existing law provides rules for enforcement of HOA meetings rules in court. As currently written, however, this bill does not fall under those rules. The author stated that in order to fast-track this bill, enforcement would be addressed in future legislation. Opponents state that this bill should be amended to include the existing enforcement provisions of the Open Meetings Act.
To address this concern, this bill was amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee to specify that the civil remedies available under existing law shall also be available to address violations of this bill.
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 392 (Archuleta, 2021) authorizes an HOA, when it is required to provide documents by individual delivery or individual notice, to provide them by email, as specified. The bill will be heard in Senate Housing Committee on April 15, 2021.
SB 261 (Roth, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2018) provided that an HOA member may consent by email to receive HOA documents by electronic means. Also reduced the notice requirement of a proposed rule change by an HOA board from 30 days to 28 days. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SB 391 Page 8
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/13/21)
California Association of Community Managers California Association of Realtors Community Associations Institute - California Legislative Action Committee
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/13/21)
California Alliance for Retired Americans Center for California Homeowner Association Law Habitat for Humanity California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters state that teleconference meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic have actually increased participation. Supporters state that this bill provides clear direction to HOAs going forward in a way that protects the safety of members and enhances access and transparency.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents object to this bill’s lack of a requirement to record emergency electronic meetings for the record. Opponents state that if an emergency electronic meeting provided essential information such as how to obtain permits from the city to rebuild, a homeowner would have no way to access that information if they could not attend the meeting and it was not recorded.
Prepared by: Erin Riches / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124 4/14/21 15:48:44
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 417 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 417 Author: Dodd (D) Introduced: 2/12/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 14-0, 3/23/21 AYES: Dodd, Nielsen, Allen, Becker, Borgeas, Bradford, Glazer, Hueso, Jones, Kamlager, Melendez, Portantino, Rubio, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Archuleta
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Alcoholic beverages: import
SOURCE: American Airlines
DIGEST: This bill allows an air common carrier to truck in alcoholic beverages from outside of the state and not be deemed an importer for purposes of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Act) when those alcoholic beverages are used exclusively for the sale and serving of those alcoholic beverages on the air common carrier’s airplanes, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and grants it exclusive authority to administer the provisions of the ABC Act in accordance with laws enacted by the Legislature. This involves licensing individuals and businesses associated with the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages and the collection of license fees for this purpose.
2) Separates the alcoholic beverage industry into three component parts, or tiers, of the manufacturer (including breweries, wineries, and distilleries), wholesaler,
SB 417 Page 2
and retailer (both on-sale and off-sale). This is referred to as the “tied-house” law or “three-tier” system. Generally, other than exceptions granted by the Legislature, the holder of one type of license is not permitted to do business as another type of licensee within the “three-tier” system.
3) Permits alcoholic beverages to be brought into this state for delivery or use within the state only by common carriers and only when the alcoholic beverages are consigned to a licensed importer, as specified. A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor.
4) Prohibits a railroad, sleeping car, dining car, boat, or steamship company or air common carrier carrying passengers from being deemed an importer or made subject to an importer’s license when the purpose is for the sale on the trains, cars, boats, or airplanes exclusively to passengers or employees who are not on duty.
5) Allows an adult passenger on board a chartered airplane, on a flight that commences and terminates in the continental United States, to bring one quart of alcoholic beverages into this State for household or personal use. No person shall bring in more than one quart of alcoholic beverages during any calendar year.
This bill:
1) Allows an air common carrier to purchase all or a portion of its alcoholic beverages inventory outside of the state and to bring those alcoholic beverages by truck into the state for the purpose of sale or service within the state on the air common carrier’s airplanes without the need to obtain an importer’s license.
2) Clarifies that a railroad, sleeping car, dining car, boat, steamship company, or air common carrier carrying interstate or foreign passengers on trains, boats, or airplanes are not subject to an importers license when they bring in alcoholic beverages into the state for the sole purpose of service exclusively to passengers or employees not on duty on those trains, boats, or airplanes on which the alcoholic beverages were brought into the state.
Background
Purpose of the bill. According to the author’s office, “this bill simply expands on a current provision in law by allowing airlines the ability to truck in alcohol from out
SB 417 Page 3 of state without the need to obtain an alcohol importer’s license. While current law already includes an exception for airlines not having to obtain an importer’s license, current law requires those alcoholic beverages to be brought into the state on those same airplanes that the alcohol is served. This creates a logistical nightmare for airlines. This bill will solve that issue by allowing airlines the ability to truck in alcohol from out of state without having to obtain an importer’s license. This would only be allowed when that alcohol is used exclusively for consumption on those airplanes operated by that specific airline.”
Changes to Current Law. Under current law, railroads, boats, and air common carriers are not required to obtain an importer’s license for the alcoholic beverages that they sell within the state as long as those alcoholic beverages are exclusively for the consumption of passengers or employees on those trains, cars, boats, or airplanes in which those alcoholic beverages were brought into the state. This means that all of the alcoholic beverages that are sold in airplanes in the state have to be brought in to the state on those very same airplanes that the alcohol is being served to customers. Given the logistical complexity of air travel, supporters of the bill argue that this oftentimes creates problems for airlines to plan the path of alcoholic beverages so that it ends up on “the correct flight, at the correct place, at the correct time, when it will be needed.”
This bill expands on that exception by allowing air common carriers to purchase their alcoholic beverage inventory outside of the state and to truck those alcoholic beverages into the state for the sole purpose of sale or service to passengers or employees who are not on duty on the air common carrier’s airplanes. This bill clearly states that this exception only applies if those alcoholic beverages are sold or served to customers or employees on those air common carrier’s airplanes. If that alcohol were to be served to anyone not on the air common carrier’s airplane, including customers or employees, the air common carrier would be in violation of the ABC Act. This would authorize the Department of ABC to seize those alcoholic beverages, and the air common carrier could be charged with a misdemeanor.
In addition, this bill clarifies that trains, cars, boats, or airplanes companies can also serve those alcoholic beverages to customers and employees who are not on duty on those same train, cards, boats, or airplanes that brought those alcoholic beverages into the State.
List of Licensed Importers. The Department of ABC currently issues eight different types of importer licenses that allows holders of the license to import
SB 417 Page 4 alcoholic beverages into the State. The two most commonly issued importers license are a Type 10, Beer and Wine Importer’s license, and a Type 13, Distilled Spirits Importer’s license.
A Type 10 license allows the holder of the license to become an importer of beer and wine. A common situation that would require someone to obtain a Type 10 license would be where an out-of-state vendor imports beer or wine in its own name and uses services of a licensed public warehouse for importation, storage and distribution of beer and wine to authorized licensees.
Similarly, a Type 13 license authorizes the person holding the license to become an importer of distilled spirits. A common situation requiring the holding of this license is where an out-of-state vendor imports distilled spirits in its own name and uses the services of a licensed public warehouse for importation, storage, and distribution of distilled spirits to authorized licensees.
There are currently 3,302 importer licenses in operation in California.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 840 (Dahle, Chapter 355, Statutes of 2019) authorized the Department of ABC to create an issue a special on-sale general license to a person who owns or operates a facility that is partially located in the County of Placer and partially located in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada (Cal Neva Resort & Casino). The bill also authorized persons to import alcoholic beverages into California from the State of Nevada only within the facility for personal use and not for resale.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/5/21)
American Airlines (source) Airlines for America
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/5/21)
Alcohol Justice California Beer and Beverage Distributors Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to American Airlines, “due to logistical complexity of flights and stocking alcohol, it is oftentimes difficult to
SB 417 Page 5 plan the path of alcohol so that it ends up on the correct flight, at the correct place, at the correct time, when it will be needed. Furthermore, due to decrease in flights as a result of the pandemic, it is not practical logistical solution to have alcohol only brought into the state on aircraft to meet demand onboard fleet aircraft. The bill does not pose a significant risk of loss of revenue to alcohol distributors, or state tax revenues, in California.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California Beer and Beverage Distributors, “in effect, SB 417 would make the air carrier, an alcohol beverage retailer and in-state retail licensee, its own importer of alcoholic beverages for what it sells and serves on its airplanes in the State. The bill would effectively eliminate the need for air carriers to purchase alcohol beverages produced outside of California from California wholesalers resulting in a significant bypass of the State's long-established three-tier regulatory system for alcoholic beverages, which has long been recognized by both the California legislature and federal and California state courts as an important state interest to be supported in legislation.”
Prepared by: Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530 4/7/21 15:19:40
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 427 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 427 Author: Eggman (D) Amended: 4/12/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/8/21 AYES: McGuire, Nielsen, Durazo, Hertzberg, Wiener
SUBJECT: Water theft: enhanced penalties
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill allows local agencies that provide water services to adopt an ordinance with enhanced penalties for water theft of up to $3,000.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Allows a local agency’s legislative body to make any violation of any of its ordinances subject to an administrative fine or penalty, as an alternative to civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms.
2) Provides that a violation of an ordinance is a misdemeanor unless by ordinance, it is made an infraction. In general, every ordinance violation that is determined to be an infraction is punishable by:
a) A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation.
b) A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
c) A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
SB 427 Page 2
3) Establishes higher limits for a violation of local building and safety codes determined to be an infraction, punishable by:
a) A fine not exceeding $130 for a first violation.
b) A fine not exceeding $700 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
c) A fine not exceeding $1,300 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
d) A fine not exceeding $2,500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within two years of the first violation if the property is a commercial property that has an existing building at the time of the violation and the violation is due to failure by the owner to remove visible refuse or failure to prohibit unauthorized use of the property.
4) Allows counties and cities to impose fines and penalties through civil or criminal proceedings. These fines and penalties are limited to $1,000 per violation and six months of imprisonment.
5) Establishes water theft as a misdemeanor. A person can be found guilty of water theft if they commit any of the following actions without paying for utility services:
a) Diverts or causes to be diverted utility services, by any means.
b) Prevents any utility meter, or other device used in determining the charge for utility services, from accurately performing its measuring function by tampering or by any other means.
c) Tampers with any property owned by or used by the utility to provide utility services.
d) Makes or causes to be made any connection with or reconnection with property owned or used by the utility to provide utility services without the authorization or consent of the utility.
e) Uses or receives the direct benefit of all or a portion of utility services with knowledge or reason to believe that the diversion, tampering, or unauthorized connection existed at the time of that use, or that the use or receipt was otherwise without the authorization or consent of the utility.
SB 427 Page 3
f) If the total value of all utility services stolen is more than $950, or if the defendant has previously been convicted of the same offense or similar offense, then the violation is punishable with up to one year of imprisonment.
This bill:
1) Authorizes the legislative body of a local agency that provides water services to adopt an ordinance that prohibits water theft, and to increase the administrative fine or penalty in excess of the existing limitations for local building and safety code violations.
2) Allows water agencies to penalize water theft that is committed via meter tampering as follows:
a) A fine not exceeding $130 for a first violation.
b) A fine not exceeding $700 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.
c) A fine not exceeding $1,300 for the third violation and each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.
3) Allows water agencies to impose enhanced fines for all other forms of water theft as follows:
a) A fine not exceeding $1,000 for a first violation.
b) A fine not exceeding $2,000 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
c) A fine not exceeding $3,000 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
4) Requires that the local agency adopt an ordinance that sets forth the administrative procedure that governs the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review of the administrative fines or penalties.
5) Requires a local agency to establish a process for granting a hardship waiver to reduce the amount of the fine imposed for water theft on parties who can demonstrate an undue financial burden.
SB 427 Page 4
Background Water theft. Water theft from public water systems can pose serious public health and safety concerns, particularly through cross contamination of drinking water systems when non-potable sources, water that is not of drinking water quality, are connected to a water system. Water theft is commonly committed either by meter tampering, bypassing a meter at a residence, or by connecting to a fire hydrant to steal water for construction purposes. According to some water agencies, there are processes in place to permit purchase of construction water for use in water trucks and to penalize water theft, but multiple water agencies have produced evidence of illegal water connections and have reported that contractors opt to pay the fines instead of going through the permitting process.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/14/21)
Association of California Water Agencies Regional Water Authority
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/14/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “SB 427 aims to protect the health and safety of communities and their water systems. It grants authority to water agencies to increase the penalties for water theft in order to more closely match the potential fines with the risk posed to health and safety by illegal connections. As typically carried out water theft poses a serious public health and safety risk and an economic risk to communities. During water theft, contamination can occur when non-potable sources are illegally connected to a drinking water system. All it takes is one illegal connection to contaminate the water source and cause it to be unsafe for people to use. The bill also requires the agency to allow for hardship waivers and to establish an administrative review process if they wish to enact these enhanced penalties. Having these protections in place will ensure that the new authority granted by this bill is balanced with new guardrails. Protecting the safety of water systems is a crucial issue, and this bill does that without allowing for excessively punitive fines relative to the ability to pay.”
Prepared by: Jaleel Baker / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119 4/14/21 14:48:54 **** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 447 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 447 Author: Laird (D) Amended: 4/22/21 Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 9-2, 4/20/21 AYES: Umberg, Caballero, Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Laird, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener NOES: Borgeas, Jones
SUBJECT: Civil actions: decedent’s cause of action
SOURCE: Consumer Attorneys of California Consumer Federation of California
DIGEST: This bill authorizes a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in an action or proceeding on the decedent’s cause of action.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Provides that a cause of action that survives the death of the person entitled to commence an action or proceeding passes to the decedent’s successor in interest, and an action may be commenced by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest. (Code Civ. Proc. § 377.30.)
2) Requires a court to allow, on motion after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest. (Code Civ. Proc. § 377.31.)
3) Limits the damages recoverable, in an action or proceeding by a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest on the decedent’s cause of
SB 447 Page 2
action, to the loss or damage that the decedent sustained or incurred before death, including any penalties or punitive or exemplary damages that the decedent would have been entitled to recover had the decedent lived, and does not include damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 377.34.)
4) Applies the above provisions to the commencement of an action or proceeding the decedent was entitled to commence, and to the continuation of an action or proceeding commenced by the decedent. (Code Civ. Proc. § 377.35.)
5) Provides that, except as otherwise provided by statute, a cause of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death, but survives subject to the applicable limitations period. (Code Civ. Proc. § 377.20.)
6) Establishes a cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another (“wrongful death action”) that may be asserted by any of the following persons or by the decedent’s personal representative on their behalf:
a) The decedent’s surviving spouse; b) Domestic partner; c) Children, and issue of deceased children; d) If there is no surviving issue of the decedent, the persons, including the surviving spouse or domestic partner, who would be entitled to the property of the decedent by intestate succession; e) The putative spouse, children of the putative spouse, stepchildren, or parents, if they were dependent on the decedent; and f) A minor, whether or not otherwise qualified, if, at the time of the decedent’s death, the minor resided for the previous 180 days in the decedent’s household and was dependent on the decedent for one–half or more of the minor’s support. (Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60.)
7) Provides that any part of the estate of a decedent not effectively disposed of by will passes to the decedent’s heirs as prescribed in the Probate Code. (Prob. Code § 6400 et seq.)
8) Provides that where physical abuse, abandonment, or neglect of an elder or dependent adult is proven by clear and convincing evidence and the defendant has been found guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice, in addition to all other remedies otherwise provided by law, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, as specified, and damages for pre-death
SB 447 Page 3
pain and suffering up to $250,000. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657; Civ. Code § 3333.2.)
This bill authorizes a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in an action or proceeding on the decedent’s cause of action. The change only applies to causes of action that accrue before January 1, 2026.
Background Section 377.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is California’s survival statute. It provides that a cause of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death. Section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure limits the damages that can be recovered in these survival actions or proceedings, which are brought by a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest on the decedent’s cause of action. The damages recoverable in such actions are the loss or damage that the decedent sustained or incurred before death, including any penalties or punitive or exemplary damages that the decedent would have been entitled to recover had the decedent lived. However, Section 377.34 specifically excludes any damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement. This bill removes the restriction on recovering pain, suffering, and disfigurement damages in a survival action and aligns it with a majority of the states in this country.
The bill is co-sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California and the Consumer Federation of California. It is supported by Equal Rights Advocates, the Coalition for Humane Immigrants’ Rights, consumer groups, and various labor organizations, including the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council. It is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, California Defense Counsel, the California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, and various insurance company associations.
Allowing a Decedent’s Representative to Collect Pain and Suffering Damages
Liability has the primary effect of ensuring that some measure of recourse exists for those persons injured by the unlawful, negligent, or willful acts of others; the risk of that liability has the primary effect of ensuring parties act reasonably to avoid harm to those to whom they owe a duty. For instance, as a general rule, California law provides that persons are responsible, not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person, except so far as the
SB 447 Page 4 latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon themselves. (Civ. Code § 1714(a).)
At common law, an individual’s causes of action for personal torts were extinguished with the death of the injured party or the tortfeasor, following the Latin expression actio personalis moritur cum persona, i.e., a personal action dies with the person concerned.1 As documented by multiple opinions by the California Supreme Court: “After at least a half century of debate and many unsuccessful legislative initiatives, California’s first statute providing for the survival of personal tort actions was enacted in 1949.”2 This initial “survival action” applied only to causes of action for personal injury.
In 1961, then-Senator, and later Justice James A. Cobey introduced SB 202 (Cobey, Chapter 657, Statutes of 1961). The bill was prepared by the California Law Revision Commission in the wake of its report, Recommendation and Study Relating to Survival of Actions (Oct. 1960) 3 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1961) (“the Report”). Three main recommendations were made to overhaul the statute and were included in SB 202. The first urged the expansion of the survival statute to include actions for personal torts that do not involve physical injury, including invasion of privacy, defamation, and malicious prosecution.3 The second recommendation was that the survival statute should allow recovery of punitive damages that the decedent would have been entitled to, reasoning “[t]he object of awarding such damages being to punish the wrongdoer, it would be particularly inappropriate to permit him to escape such punishment in a case in which he killed rather than only injured his victim.”4 Both of these recommendations were included in the final bill that was signed into law by Governor Edmund G. Brown.
Relevant here, the third recommendation faced considerable difference of opinion. It urged the Legislature to “discontinue the provision in the 1949 survivorship legislation precluding the estate of the deceased plaintiff from recovering damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement.”5 A study accompanying the Report disagreed, arguing:
[D]amages should not be awarded for the deceased’s pain and suffering, bodily disfigurement or loss of a member of his body. Such injuries are strictly to the person of the deceased and, in and of themselves, do not lessen the value of his estate and are not of such a transmissible nature that they should be made the
1 Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 293. 2 Id. at 297; see also County of L.A. v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 292 3 Sullivan, at 298-299; Report at F-6. 4 Sullivan, at 299; Report at F-7. 5 County of L.A. v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th at 296.
SB 447 Page 5
basis of legal liability or an award of compensatory damages after the victim’s death.6
However, the California Law Revision Commission made its case and addressed this argument and other concerns involving the change:
The provision in the 1949 survival legislation that damages may not be allowed to the estate of the deceased plaintiff for “pain, suffering or disfigurement” should also be discontinued. One reason advanced in support of this limitation is that the victim’s death and consequent inability to testify renders it difficult and speculative to award damages for such highly personal injuries. The Commission believes, however, that while it may be more difficult to establish the amount of damages in such a case the victim’s death should not automatically preclude recovery. Other competent testimony relating to the decedent’s pain, suffering or disfigurement will be available in many cases. The argument has also been made that the purpose of awarding such damages is to compensate the victim for pain and suffering which he himself has sustained and that when he is dead the object of such damages is lost and his heirs receive a windfall. This argument suggests that the primary reason for providing for survival of actions is to compensate the survivors for a loss to or diminution in the expectancy which they had in the decedent’s estate. The Commission does not agree. Causes of action should survive because they exist and could have been enforced by or against the decedent and because, if they do not survive, the death of a victim produces a windfall for the wrongdoer. Under this view it is inconsistent to disallow elements of damages intended to compensate the decedent for his injury merely because of the fortuitous intervention of the death of either party.7
Ultimately, Senator Cobey included the provision in SB 202. However, “[t]he Senate amended the bill at the request of the insurance companies to restore [the] provision of the existing law that prevents the recovery of damages for pain, suffering and disfigurement by the representative of a deceased victim.”8 A contemporaneous letter from the California Law Revision Commission also highlights that the amendment was proposed by representatives of the insurance industry and that it “was apparent at the hearing that extensive lobbying had been accomplished by the insurance industry prior to the hearing.”9
6 Ibid. (discussing the history of survival action legislation and the accompanying Report and study). 7 Report at F-7. 8 Senator James Cobey, letter to Governor Edmund G. Brown, May 31, 1961. 9 John H. DeMoully, Executive Secretary with the California Law Revision Commission, letter to Commissioners, April 14, 1961.
SB 447 Page 6
The relevant statutes were later reenacted in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 377.20 authorizes the survival action, providing that a cause of action is not lost by reason of the person’s death, but survives subject to the applicable limitations period, except as otherwise provided by statute. Section 377.34 lays out the remedies available in such actions:
In an action or proceeding by a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest on the decedent’s cause of action, the damages recoverable are limited to the loss or damage that the decedent sustained or incurred before death, including any penalties or punitive or exemplary damages that the decedent would have been entitled to recover had the decedent lived, and do not include damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement.
Revising California’s Survival Statutes
Sixty years later, this bill seeks to carry out the final recommendation asserted by the California Law Revision Commission. It discontinues the provision in Section 377.34 that precludes the recovery of damages for pain, suffering, and disfigurement. The same justifications for the change continue to hold weight. Foremost, that if a cause of action for such damages does not survive, it results in “a windfall for the wrongdoer.”
The author and sponsors emphasize a point made by the Commission that the recovery of a certain remedy should not be foreclosed “merely because of the fortuitous intervention of the death of either party.” The Legislature recently passed SB 645 (Monning, Chapter 212, Statutes of 2019). That bill tightened the limits on the length of deposition testimony in cases involving plaintiffs dying of mesothelioma or silicosis in order to address the perverse incentive that exists for defendants to prolong such litigation as much as possible to secure the windfall that comes if the plaintiff dies before judgment is entered.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/23/21)
Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source) Consumer Federation of California (co-source) Asbestos Workers Local 16 Retirees Club California Alliance for Retired Americans California Employment Lawyers Association California Nurses Association California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
SB 447 Page 7
Choice in Aging Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Consumer Watchdog Courage California District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California Equal Rights Advocates State Building and Construction Trades Council of California United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Western Center on Law and Poverty 31 individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/23/21)
6Beds, Inc. American Academy of Pediatrics, California American Property Casualty Insurance Association California Assisted Living Association California Association of Health Facilities California Association of Joint Powers Authority California Building Industry Association California Business Properties Association California Chamber of Commerce California Defense Counsel California Manufacturers & Technology Association California Medical Association California Retailers Association California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery Civil Justice Association of California Cooperative of American Physicians LeadingAge California National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies Personal Insurance Federation of California The Doctors Company
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Consumer Attorneys of California, a co- sponsor of this bill, write in support: “Current law creates a perverse incentive for defendants to delay cases and harass ill or injured plaintiffs in the hopes that the plaintiff will die before trial, allowing the wrongdoer to avoid paying any damages for the human suffering they have caused. That is unjustifiably cruel, and punishes surviving families as they mourn the loss of a loved one. It is especially devastating when the plaintiff is elderly, a child, a stay-at-home parent, disabled,
SB 447 Page 8 lower income, or anyone else whose damages are not primarily based on how much they earn.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Writing in opposition, the California Defense Counsel argue: “Some proponents of SB 477 have argued that a defendant should not “escape” the payment of noneconomic damages due to the fortuity of the plaintiff’s death before judgment. But that rationale, which advocates for a rule that provides extra-compensatory damages to heirs who did not experience the plaintiff’s noneconomic damages, smacks of punishment without the protections built into the punitive damages statute. A defendant who is merely negligent cannot, [by] definition, be deterred by liability exposure expanded beyond the amount necessary for just compensation, because that defendant acted unintentionally. The defendant is “punished” in the sense of having to make the estate of the deceased plaintiff whole in a survival action and to make the surviving spouse, children and or parents whole for their own economic and non-economic losses in a wrongful death action. But further punishment in the form envisioned in SB 447 without any clear and convincing evidence of malice or oppression is bad public policy.”
Prepared by: Christian Kurpiewski / JUD. / (916) 651-4113 4/23/21 13:48:40
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 455 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 455 Author: Leyva (D) Amended: 2/25/21 Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 11-0, 3/24/21 AYES: Pan, Melendez, Eggman, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Leyva, Limón, Roth, Rubio, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: California Health Benefit Exchange
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill extends the Covered California Executive Board emergency regulation authority until January 1, 2027, and authorizes the Office of Administrative Law to approve more than two readoptions of an emergency regulation until January 1, 2032.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes Covered California as an independent entity in state government not affiliated with any state agency or department, governed by a five member board. Requires the Covered California Executive Board to establish and use a competitive process to select participating carriers and other contractors. [GOV §100500 -100522]
2) Authorizes the Covered California Executive Board, with respect to individual coverage made available through Covered California, to collect premiums and assist in administration of subsidies. [GOV §100504]
SB 455 Page 2
3) Authorizes the Covered California Executive Board to adopt necessary rules and regulations, as necessary, and until January 1, 2022, to adopt emergency regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, except those implementing staff and contractor fingerprinting requirements, as specified. [GOV §100504]
4) Requires the adoption of emergency regulations to be deemed to be an emergency and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, or general welfare. [GOV §100504]
5) Requires any emergency regulation adopted be repealed by operation of law unless the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the regulation is promulgated by the Covered California Executive Board, as specified, within five years of the initial adoption of the emergency regulation. Authorizes, until January 1, 2027, the Office of Administrative Law to approve more than two readoptions of an emergency regulation adopted by the Covered California Executive Board. [GOV §100504]
6) Requires extensions of emergency regulations to apply to any regulations adopted prior to January 1, 2019. [GOV §100504]
This bill:
1) Authorizes the Covered California Executive Board, until January 1, 2027 to adopt emergency regulations, except those implementing staff and contractor fingerprinting requirements, as specified, and until January 1, 2032, authorizes the Office of Administrative Law to approve more than two readoptions of an emergency regulation pursuant to this bill.
2) Requires extensions of emergency regulations to also apply to any regulations adopted prior to January 1, 2022.
Comments
1) Author’s statement. According to the author, Covered California is unique among most state agencies as it is an independent entity in state government and governed by a Board of Directors appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate President Pro Tempore. Proposed regulations must be approved by the board. As such, since 2012, Covered California has engaged in a public process that includes robust stakeholder engagement when proposing and adopting any regulatory changes. Given the ever-changing
SB 455 Page 3
landscape for health care and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), prior extensions of Covered California’s emergency rulemaking authority have been enacted to give Covered California the flexibility needed to comply with changes to federal and state laws and regulations. Most recently, SB 1245 (Levya, Chapter 417, Statutes of 2018) extended Covered California’s emergency rulemaking until January 1, 2022. This bill would extend Covered California’s emergency rulemaking until January 1, 2027.
2) Implementation of the ACA. Under the ACA, most people are required by law to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty. The ACA also established a federal health benefit exchange and authorized states to establish state based health benefit exchanges where Americans can purchase individual and small group health insurance. Qualified individuals can also obtain premium subsidies and cost sharing reductions to help offset the expense of health insurance purchased through an exchange. California created a state based health insurance exchange, called Covered California. An individual is exempt from the ACA insurance penalty if he or she lacks access to affordable coverage. The 2017 federal tax overhaul law makes the tax penalty zero beginning in 2019.
3) ACA litigation. Since its passage, the ACA has been challenged multiple times in the courts and Congress. More recently, in Texas v. Azar, 18 state attorneys general, led by the state of Texas, and two individuals filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the individual coverage mandate. The plaintiffs argued that the entire ACA should fall as a result of Congressional action in 2017 that made the ACA coverage penalty amount zero. This position was also supported by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Trump administration. The Biden administration has dropped DOJ’s support. Associated with an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling, plaintiffs in Texas argued that with no penalty on the coverage mandate there is no longer an exercise of federal taxing power, and the entire ACA should be struck down. A federal district court agreed. A federal appeals court ruled the coverage mandate requirement unconstitutional and remanded the question of severability to the lower court. California, 20 other state attorneys general, the governor of Kentucky, and the U.S. House of Representatives appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which heard California v. Texas, on November 10, 2020. A decision is expected sometime in June of 2021.
SB 455 Page 4
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 1245 (Leyva, Chapter 417, Statutes of 2018) extended the Covered California Executive Board’s emergency regulation authority until January 1, 2022, the authority for the Office of Administrative Law to approve more than two readoptions until January 1, 2027, and required the regulation to be discussed by the Covered California Executive Board during at least one properly noticed board meeting prior to the board meeting at which the board adopts the regulation.
SB 75 (Committee on Budget & Fiscal Review, Chapter 18, Statutes of 2015) extended the authority of the Covered California Executive Board to adopt emergency regulations until January 1, 2017, and continued to require any emergency regulation adopted by the board to be repealed by operation of law, except as specified. Additionally, authorized the board to allow more than two readoptions of those emergency regulations until January 1, 2020, and allowed the emergency regulations adopted by the board to remain in effort for two years, as specified.
SB 857 (Committee on Budget & Fiscal Review, Chapter 31, Statutes of 2014) authorized the Covered California Executive Board more than two readoptions of emergency regulations until January 1, 2017 and authorized emergency regulations to remain in effect for two years, as specified.
SB 900 (Alquist, Chapter 659, Statutes of 2010) and AB 1602 (Perez, Chapter 655, Statutes of 2010) established Covered California and authorized the Covered California Executive Board to adopt rules and regulations as necessary, including emergency regulations until January 1, 2016.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
Prepared by: Kimberly Chen / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111 4/21/21 15:12:15
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 484 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 484 Author: Archuleta (D) Amended: 3/15/21 Vote: 21
SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 11-0, 3/8/21 AYES: Roth, Melendez, Archuleta, Bates, Becker, Dodd, Hurtado, Jones, Leyva, Min, Ochoa Bogh NO VOTE RECORDED: Eggman, Newman, Pan
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Home inspections: sewer lateral repairs
SOURCE: HomeGuard
DIGEST: This bill exempts a licensed plumbing contractor, upon meeting certain conditions, from provisions relating to a home inspection, which prohibits repairs to a structure on which the inspector or the inspector’s company has prepared a home inspection.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Defines a “home inspection” as a noninvasive, physical examination, performed for a fee in connection with a transfer, as specified, of real property, of the mechanical, electrical, or plumbing systems or the structural and essential components of a residential dwelling of one to four units designed to identify material defects in those systems, structures and components. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 7195(a)(1))
2) Defines a “home inspection report” as a written report prepared for a fee and issued after a home inspection and clearly describes and identifies the inspected systems, structures, or components of the dwelling, any material defects
SB 484 Page 2
identified, and any recommendations regarding the conditions observed or recommendations for evaluation by appropriate person. (BPC § 7195(c))
3) Defines a “home inspector” as any individual who performs a home inspection. (BPC § 7195(d))
4) States that it is the duty of a home inspector who is not licensed as a general contractor, structural pest control operator, architect, or registered professional engineer to conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise. (BPC § 7196.1)
5) States that it is an unfair business practice for a home inspector, a company that employs a home inspector, or a company that is controlled by a company that also has a financial interest in a company employing a home inspector to do any of the following:
a) Perform or offer to perform, for an additional fee, any repairs to a structure on which the home inspector or the home inspector’s company has prepared a home inspection report in the past 12 months;
b) Inspect for a fee any property in which the home inspector or the home inspector’s company has any financial interest in the transfer of the property;
c) Offer or deliver any compensation, inducement, or reward to the owner of the inspected property, the broker, or agent for the referral of any business to the inspector or the inspection company; and,
d) Accept an engagement to make an inspection or to prepare a report in which the employment itself or the fee payable for the inspection is contingent upon the conclusions of the report, pre-established findings, or the close of escrow.
6) States that 5) above does not prohibit a structural pest control operator from performing repairs because of a structural pest control inspection.
7) Authorizes a roofing contractor who holds a C-39 license to perform repairs pursuant to the contractor’s inspection of a roof for the specific purpose of providing a roof certification if all of the following conditions are met:
a) Different employees perform the home inspection and the roof inspection;
SB 484 Page 3
b) The roof inspection is ordered prior to, or at the same time as the home inspection, or the roof inspection is completed before the commencement of the home inspection; and,
c) The consumer is provided a consumer disclosure before he or she authorizes the home inspection that includes all of the following:
i) The same company performs the roof inspection and roof repairs will perform the home inspection on the same property;
ii) Any repairs authorized by the consumer are for the repairs identified in the roofing contractor’s roof inspection report and no repairs identified in the home inspection report are authorized or allowed as specified in the roof inspection, and, the consumer has the right to seek a second opinion. (BPC § 7197(d))
This bill authorizes a contractor who holds a C-36 license, as specified, to perform repairs pursuant to the inspection of a sewer lateral pipe connecting a residence or business to a sewer system if the consumer is provided a consumer disclosure before authorizing the home inspection that includes all of the following notifications:
1) The same company that performs the sewer inspection and the sewer repairs will perform the home inspection on the same property;
2) Any repairs that are authorized by the consumer are for the repairs identified in the sewer lateral inspection report and no repairs identified in the home inspection are authorized or allowed except as specified in the sewer lateral inspection; and,
3) The consumer has the right to seek a second opinion.
Background
Home inspectors. Licensure is not required for home inspectors in California. However, home inspectors may hold a license in other professional capacities including contractors, architects, engineers, and structural pest control operators. Existing law establishes a standard of care for home inspectors, defines terms related to paid home inspections, mandates specified information be included in a home inspection report, and prohibits home inspections in which the inspector has
SB 484 Page 4 a financial interest, among other things. There are private, voluntary certification programs for home inspectors; however, certification is not required, only compliance with specified industry standards.
A home inspection report is intended to identify and describe the inspected systems, structures, or components of a dwelling, including any material defects identified and recommendations regarding the conditions observed, or any recommendations for evaluation by the appropriate persons. However, there are no requirements on the specifics to be included in the report, other than pool safety features. A home inspection, if requested by the client, can include an inspection of energy efficiency items. There is currently no requirement for purchasers of real property (one to four unit dwellings) to obtain a home inspection.
Current law, (BPC § 7197(a)), states that it is an unfair business practice for a home inspector, a company that employs the inspector, or a company that is controlled by a company that also has a financial interest in a company employing a home inspector, to perform or offer to perform, for an additional fee, any repairs to a structure on which the inspector or the inspector’s company has prepared a home inspection report in the last 12 months.
The intent of the home inspector law, established under SB 258 (O'Connell, Chapter 338, Statutes of 1995), was "to assure that consumers of home inspection services can rely upon the competence of home inspectors." The sponsors of SB 258, noted at that time "unfair business practices" listed under the home inspector law were meant to assure prospective buyers that "the inspection will be untainted by an inspector's interest in kickbacks from agents, financial interests in the property, or repair work generated by the inspection." This bill provides an exemption to that provision by allowing a home inspection provider to provide the inspection of a sewer lateral system, and make the necessary repairs if certain disclosures are provided, and the appropriate C-36 licensee completes the repairs.
Sewer lateral inspections. According to information on the sponsor’s website, a sewer lateral is the underground pipe that connects a residence to the municipal sewer line. Generally, it is at least 4 inches in diameter. The sponsor’s website further notes that they will offer a sewer lateral inspection in conjunction with a home inspection. This bill permits a home inspection entity to provide both the inspection of the sewer lateral system and conduct the repairs of the sewer lateral (as long as a licensed contractor makes the repairs) and specific disclosures are provided to the consumer seeking the inspection.
SB 484 Page 5
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/22/21)
HomeGuard
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/22/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: HomeGuard writes in support, “[This bill] protects consumers through required disclosures with allowing them to choose a licensed plumbing contractor to conduct a sewer lateral inspection and make any repairs, even if the plumber’s company has performed a home inspection on the same property.”
Prepared by: Elissa Silva / B., P. & E.D. / 916-651-4104 3/24/21 15:18:55
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 489 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 489 Author: Laird (D) Amended: 3/24/21 Vote: 21
SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/18/21 AYES: Borgeas, Hurtado, Caballero, Eggman, Glazer
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Pest control: Agricultural Pest Control Advisory Committee
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill increases the public members on the Agricultural Pest Control Advisory Committee within the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) from one to two members.
ANALYSIS: Existing law created the Agricultural Pest Control Advisory Committee within the Department of Pesticide Regulation to advise the director in all matters concerning licensing, certification, and regulation of persons and firms licensed or certified for pest control operations. Existing law sets forth the composition of the advisory committee, including one member representing the general public. [Food and Ag Code 12042]
This bill increases the number of members representing the general public from one to two.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/21/21)
Consumer Watchdog
SB 489 Page 2
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/21/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author:
SB 489 ensures greater transparency of pesticide use in business, consumer, and commercial affairs. Increasing consumer representation on the Agricultural Pest Control Advisory Committee (APCAC) is vital to empowering consumer voices in the committee’s recommendations to the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Similarly, in 2008, I introduced the Invasive Pest Planning Act, AB 2763, which aimed to put in place a pest planning process that prevents the kind of public fear and confusion experienced with the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). With SB 489, transparency about environmental related issues is addressed. The bill will ensure that the APCAC’s board decisions, recommendations, and advisory include diverse perspectives and appropriately represent the public on issues that affect all Californians.
Consumer Watchdog wrote in support stating an additional public member on the Agricultural Pest Control Advisory Committee would “increase representation of consumer interests, which benefits all Californians.”
Prepared by: Reichel Everhart / AGRI. / 916-651-1508 4/21/21 15:12:17
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 520 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 520 Author: Wilk (R), et al. Amended: 3/17/21 Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 3/16/21 AYES: Laird, Jones, Allen, Eggman, Grove, Hertzberg, Hueso, Limón, Stern
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/5/21 AYES: Portantino, Bates, Bradford, Jones, Kamlager, Laird, Wieckowski
SUBJECT: Water resources: permit to appropriate: application procedure
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to issue a new notice and provide an opportunity for protests, or alternatively to hold a hearing or proceeding, on a permit application for specified projects.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes a process for publication, posting, and mailing of public notices of applications to appropriate water. Requires that notices be published and posted, as specified, and mailed to interested persons. Authorizes the SWRCB to cancel an application for failure to comply with notice publication and posting requirements.
2) Authorizes any interested person to file a written protest to an application to appropriate water within the time allowed in the notice of application, or within such further time as the SWRCB for good cause shown may allow. 3) Requires a protestant and the applicant to make a good faith effort to resolve the protest within 180 days from the date on which protests are required to be filed, or within such additional time as the SWRCB for good cause may allow.
SB 520 Page 2
Authorizes the SWRCB to request additional information and to cancel a protest if the information is not provided.
4) Sets forth procedures for hearings on protested applications for appropriation. Authorizes the SWRCB to grant or refuse to grant a permit and reject an application after a hearing. No hearing is necessary on an unprotested application, or if undisputed facts support the permit and there is no disputed issue of material fact, unless the board elects to hold a hearing.
This bill:
1) Requires the SWRCB to issue a new notice and provide an opportunity for protests before rendering a final determination if the board has not rendered a final determination on an application for a permit to appropriate water within 30 years from the date the application was filed.
2) Provides, however, that the notice and opportunity for protests is not required if any of the following apply:
a) The application is canceled or denied.
b) A notice and opportunity for protests has been provided within five years prior to the board rendering a final approval.
c) The applicant is a public entity.
Background
Generally, the SWRCB processes water right applications or petitions based on the date they were received. However, given the large number of pending water right applications and petitions, the SWRCB gives priority to projects that meet specific “importance” and “demonstrated progress” criteria.
The importance criteria includes such things as the proposed application is for a project that:
Is of regional or statewide significance; Assists a community in obtaining safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water; Addresses critical aquifer overdraft or subsidence, or other undesirable results identified by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act; and Will enhance conditions for fish and wildlife, etc.
SB 520 Page 3
The demonstrated progress criteria include such things as:
The applicant has consulted with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and other agencies with permitting or jurisdictional authority, and the Division of Water Rights has documentation of the agencies’ approval or support for the proposed application or petition. The proposed application is consistent with the principles of the Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Coastal Streams. Review under the California Environmental Quality Act is substantially completed and the applicant has agreed to proposed mitigation measures or project modifications.
It’s All About CEMEX. CEMEX is a large mining company headquartered in Mexico.
In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) awarded CEMEX predecessor Transit Mixed Concrete Co. a pair of back-to-back 10-year contracts allowing the company to mine up to 56 million tons of sand and gravel on 490 acres near the junction of Agua Dulce Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road.
A formal mining plan had to be prepared and subjected to federal and county environmental review. The process took a decade, during which time little Transit Mixed was acquired by a bigger company, Houston-based Southdown Inc., which, in turn, was acquired by an even bigger company, the Mexican mining conglomerate CEMEX.
The federal government signed off on its environmental review in August 2000, and the Interior Board of Land Appeals affirmed the findings in January 2002. The county completed its review in 2004.
The two mining contracts were to run from 2000 to 2010, and from 2010 to 2020. The mining never started.
Instead, CEMEX has been battling the City of Santa Clarita, the BLM, and others in the courts, Congress, and other venues.
The two mining contracts have since expired, the second one expiring on July 31, 2020. Still, litigation continues.
SB 520 Page 4
Comments Current Status of CEMEX Application. According to SWRCB staff, “The CEMEX application is currently on hold due to its need for a new contract from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). CEMEX is proposing to conduct mining activities on BLM land and to divert water as part of the mining operations. CEMEX must have a contract with BLM to do so. In 2015, BLM decided to cancel the CEMEX mining contract that was set to expire in July 2020. In 2019, the federal Interior Board of Land Appeals issued a decision allowing the contract to expire as scheduled.
“Despite these challenges, CEMEX continues to pursue a new contract from BLM and has not withdrawn its water right application. Due to limited staff resources, on November 20, 2019, the State Water Board notified CEMEX that its water right application would be moved from a pending to a holding status until the federal contract issues are resolved.”
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, “To the extent that federal contract issues are resolved for the existing project that meets the criteria of this bill, unknown but likely minor costs for the SWRCB to issue a new notice and provide an opportunity for protests, to hold a hearing, or to conduct a proceeding.”
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/5/21)
City of Santa Clarita
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/5/21)
CEMEX Inc.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “It is critical that the Board, as it relates to long-standing water appropriation applications, allow for the opportunity for a public hearing to consider current environmental circumstances. There are applications from the 1980’s and 1990’s that are pending a final determination from the Board and have not given the public an opportunity to comment, in some cases, for more than three decades.
“I have an entire generation of constituents that have not had the opportunity to participate in the Board’s protest proceedings to express concerns regarding an application related to a large-scale mining project that poses significant impacts to their community’s water supply and overall quality of life.
SB 520 Page 5
“SB 520 significantly improves the Board’s processes in fully vetting long- standing appropriation applications by enabling the Board to be in possession of the most current information prior to considering whether to issue a water appropriation permit.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to CEMEX, “I am writing to express CEMEX’s strong opposition to SB 520. This measure represents yet another effort to erect artificial and objectionable roadblocks designed to deny CEMEX the right to fulfill important federal mining contracts to operate its aggregate extraction project in an area of Los Angeles County outside of the city of Santa Clarita. Further, SB520 appears to be a bill of attainder as it applies to, and was specifically targeted for, a single project. The Soledad Canyon project is located in an area designated by the California Department of Conservation as a "Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource" with less than five years of permitted reserves, vital to supporting the housing and infrastructure needs of the Los Angeles Basin.
“Absent the Soledad Canyon project, the Los Angeles Basin will need to obtain aggregates from more distant locations. As noted by the California Department of Conservation, “increased aggregate haul distances not only increase the cost of the aggregate to the consumer, but also increase environmental and societal impacts such as increased fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution, traffic congestion and road maintenance.” This legislation has the potential to cause economic harm on every California citizen that would be felt through rising prices for housing, roads, and every other consumer end-use product that relies on aggregate materials.
“Pursuant to SB 520, the Soledad Canyon project would be subject to yet another multi-year long delay for no good reason other than to throw another roadblock in front of this much-needed aggregate site. The quest for endless delay driven by the City of Santa Clarita, who is not a project approving agency themselves, would not just be detrimental to CEMEX and this aggregate project, but to California as a whole by setting a dangerous political precedent for any project, past, present, or future, that is subject to the rigorous permitting requirements that already exist in California.”
Prepared by: Dennis O'Connor / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116 4/7/21 15:19:46
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 534 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 534 Author: Jones (R) Amended: 3/22/21 Vote: 21
SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 14-0, 4/5/21 AYES: Roth, Melendez, Archuleta, Bates, Becker, Dodd, Eggman, Hurtado, Jones, Leyva, Min, Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Pan
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/19/21 AYES: Portantino, Bates, Bradford, Jones, Kamlager, Laird, Wieckowski
SUBJECT: Dental hygienists
SOURCE: Dental Hygiene Board of California
DIGEST: This bill makes a number of revisions and changes to the operations of Registered Dental Hygienists (RDHs), Registered Dental Hygienists in Alternative Practice (RDHAPs), and the Dental Hygiene Board of California (DHB).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes DHB under the Department of Consumer Affairs, consisting of nine members, with responsibility for licensing and regulating dental hygienists. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) §§ 1900 et seq.)
2) Authorizes an RDH licensed in another state to teach in a dental hygiene college, and practice dental hygiene in a discipline at a dental hygiene college, without a California license, if the person has a special permit issued by the DHB, and satisfies specified requirements. (BPC §1902.3)
SB 534 Page 2
3) Permits the DHB to grant an RDH license to an out-of-state applicant who has not taken a clinical examination before the DHB, if the applicant submits specified information to the DHB. (BPC §1917.1(a))
4) Permits an RDHAP to operate a mobile dental hygiene clinic provided by the licensee’s property and casualty insurer as a temporary substitute site for the practice registered by the licensee, as specified, if the licensee’s registered place of practice has been rendered and remains unusable due to loss or calamity, and the licensee’s insurer registers the mobile dental hygiene clinic with the dental hygiene board in compliance, as specified.
5) Authorizes an RDHAP to perform all the functions that may be performed by a registered dental assistant (RDA), as specified. (BPC § 1926)
6) Requires the DHB to grant or renew approval of only those education programs that continuously maintain a high-quality standard of instruction and, where appropriate, meet the minimum standards set by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association or an equivalent body. (BPC § 1941(a))
7) Authorizes the DHB to discipline a licensee by placing the licensee on probation under various terms and conditions, as specified. (BPC § 1951)
This bill:
1) Specifies that the DHB-permit issued to a licensed RDH from another state, to teach in a dental hygiene school in California, is to remain valid for four years, and is not renewable.
2) Requires a licensed RDH from another state to furnish satisfactory evidence of having successfully completed a course in periodontal soft-tissue curettage local anesthesia, and nitrous oxide-oxygen analgesia approved by the DHB, if teaching during clinical practice settings.
3) Requires an applicant for a permit to teach in California without a California- issued RDH license to comply with specified fingerprint requirements.
4) Extends the term of the general or public health dentist ember one of the RDH board members. States that no more than three members’ terms can expire in any given year. Makes a board member who is appointed to fill an unexpired
SB 534 Page 3
term, eligible to serve two complete consecutive terms.
5) Requires, additionally, an applicant who has not taken a clinical examination before the DHB to submit satisfactory evidence of having successfully completed a course or education and training in local anesthesia, nitrous oxide- oxygen analgesia, and periodontal soft-tissue curettage approved by the DHB.
6) Revises the authorization requirements for an RDHAP to operate a mobile dental hygiene clinic, in specified settings, by deleting the requirement that the mobile dental hygiene clinic is a temporary substitute site as provided by the RDHAP’s property and casualty insurer, and that the RDHAP’s place of practice has been rendered unusable due to loss or calamity.
7) Authorizes the DHB to conduct announced and unannounced reviews and inspections of a mobile dental hygiene clinic to ensure continued compliance.|
8) States that it is unprofessional conduct if a mobile dental hygiene clinic is found to be noncompliant with any of the necessary licensure requirements, and the RDHAP may be placed on probation with terms, issued a citation and a fine, or have the mobile dental hygiene clinic registration withdrawn if compliance is not demonstrated within reasonable timelines, as established by the dental hygiene board.
9) States the DHB, by itself or through an authorized representative, may issue a citation containing fines and orders of abatement to the RDHAP for any violation of the statutes pertaining to operating a mobile clinic or any regulations adopted thereunder, and specifies that any fine be deposited in the Dental Hygiene Fund.
10) Replaces the term “place of practice” with physical facility for an RDHAP, and requires an RDHAP who does not have a physical facility, to notify the Executive Officer (EO) of the DHB.
11) Requires a RDHAP who utilizes portable equipment to practice dental hygiene to register with the EO of the DHB, on forms prescribed by the DHB, the RDHAP’s physical facility where the portable equipment is maintained.
12) Permits the DHB to conduct announced and unannounced reviews and inspections of an RDHAP’s physical facilities and equipment, as specified, to
SB 534 Page 4
ensure continued compliance with the requirements for continued approval.
13) States that it is unprofessional conduct if an RDHAP’s physical facility or equipment is found to be noncompliant with any requirements necessary for licensure and an RDHAP may be placed on probation with terms, issued a citation and fine, or have the owned physical facility registration withdrawn if compliance is not demonstrated within reasonable timelines as established by the DHB.
14) Authorizes the DHB by itself or through an authorized representative, to issue a citation containing fines and orders or abatement to the RDHAP for any violation of the practice authorized for an RDHAP, operation of mobile clinic, or requirements for operating more than one office, as specified, and any fines collected be deposited into the Dental Hygiene Fund.
15) Adds knowingly making a statement or signing a certificate or other document that falsely represents the existence or nonexistence of a fact directly or indirectly related to the practice of dental hygiene to the list of items that may be considered unprofessional conduct.
16) Adds remedial education to the list of probationary terms and conditions.
17) Makes other technical and minor changes.
Background
Registered Dental Hygienists and the Dental Hygiene Board. The DHB regulates three categories of mid-level dental professionals: RDH, RDHAP, and registered dental hygienists in extended functions (RDHEF).
An RDH is a dental professional authorized to perform all duties assigned to dental assistants (DAs) and RDAs, and those additionally enumerated in statute and regulation, under the supervision of a licensed dentist.
An RDHAP may perform all the functions of a DA, RDA, and RDH under general supervision, and certain RDH duties independently, if prescribed by a dentist or physician and under other qualifying conditions.
SB 534 Page 5
An RDHEF may perform all the functions of a DA, RDA, and RDH under general supervision, and other procedures specified in regulation under the direct supervision of a dentist.
The DHB is also responsible for approving and overseeing RDH, RDHAP, and RDHEF educational programs. Dental hygiene does not include diagnosis or comprehensive treatment planning, placing or removal of permanent restorations, surgery, prescribing medication, or administering anesthesia or conscious sedation.
Board Membership. When the DHCC transitioned from a committee to a stand- alone board in 2018, committee members transitioned as well. The DHB reviewed term dates for its current board membership, and noticed that five current board members are going to term out at the same time. As such, the DHB is proposing a unique solution, which would grant two board members an additional term on the DHB to ensure that five members are not departing at the same time. This bill allows the general or public health dentist member and one of the RDH-members to have an extended term.
Out of State Teachers. BPC § 1902.3 permits RDHs licensed in other states to teach in California without holding a California-state license if they meet specified qualifications including, evidence of having a pending contract with a California dental hygiene school, graduation from a school approved by the DHB, and taking and passing a DHB-administered California Law and Ethics Examination, among others. Current law permits these persons to teach indefinitely in California without obtaining a California license, as this permit does not expire. The DHB notes that unlimited teaching in California was not the intent, and the permit should expire after a specified timeframe. This bill specifies that this permit expires after four years and is non-renewable. In addition, this bill requires persons who teach in California to have the appropriate qualifications for the coursework they are teaching, and conform the same fingerprint-background check requirements for in-state licensees for out-of-state licensees teaching in California.
Mobile Clinics. Current law permits RDHAPs to operate mobile clinics under specified conditions. However, current law does not require or authorize the DHB to inspect or review these clinics, nor does existing law specifically permit the DHB to take action against a licensee for violations of the practice act related to operating a mobile clinic. This bill allows for a continual operation of mobile clinics and provides the DHB with greater oversight over these facilities.
SB 534 Page 6
Unprofessional Conduct and Probationary Terms. BPC § 1951 authorizes the DHB to place a licensee on probation. As part of those probationary terms, the DHB may require a licensee to obtain additional training or pass an examination; however, current law does not specify that the training be a remedial course or that it be approved by the DHB. This bill remedies that. Current law does not specify that providing false documentation of records is unprofessional conduct, and this bill includes it.
Licensure without Examination. The DHB permits licensure of RDHs who are licensed out of state, but have not taken a clinical examination by the DHB. However, current law does not require the applicant to meet coursework or education and training in local anesthesia, nitrous oxide-oxygen analgesia, and periodontal soft tissue curettage approved by the DHB. This is currently required for all other potential licensees, and the DHB is seeking clarification to ensure this is required of all licensees in California.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Dental Hygiene Board of California anticipates ongoing costs of up to $143,000 (State Dental Hygiene Fund). Costs include resources needed to conduct inspections at mobile dental hygiene clinics, existing portable dental hygiene equipment, and brick and mortar dental hygiene clinics.
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/19/21)
Dental Hygiene Board of California (source) California Dental Hygienists Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Dental Hygienists Association and the Dental Hygiene Board of California writes in support and notes that, this bill enhances and assists the DHB to maintain current and necessary oversight of the Dental Hygiene profession.
Prepared by: Elissa Silva / B., P. & E.D. / 916-651-4104 4/21/21 15:12:18
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 539 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 539 Author: Hertzberg (D), et al. Introduced: 2/18/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/3/21 AYES: McGuire, Nielsen, Durazo, Hertzberg, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Property taxation: intergenerational transfers of real property: base year value transfers
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill enacts two new sections of property tax law to assist implementation of Proposition 19 (2020).
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Provides that all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by the Constitution or federal law (California Constitution, Article XIII).
2) Limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at 1% of full cash value, and directs assessors to set assessed values at 1975 market value levels and only reappraise property thereafter if there is new construction or a change in ownership (California Constitution, Article XIIIA, as added by Proposition 13, 1978).
3) Sets, generally, a property’s value as its sales price when the taxpayer purchases it, or when there is no sales price, at its fair market value, which becomes its “base year value.
SB 539 Page 2
4) Allows taxpayers to continue to pay property taxes at the factored base year value of their previous home (or other property types where the law allows) and not on the value of their newly purchased or constructed home, including:
a) When their property is damaged by a major misfortune or calamity and located in an area the Governor declared to be in a state of disaster (Proposition 50, 1986).
b) Homeowners over the age of 55 within the same county under specified circumstances (Proposition 60, 1986), and to other counties who enact an ordinance allowing the transfers (Proposition 90, 1988).
c) Disabled individuals regardless of age under the same requirements as Proposition 60 and 90.
d) To other counties when their property is damaged by a major misfortune or calamity and located in an area declared to be in a state of disaster by the Governor when the county enacts an ordinance allowing the transfer (Proposition 171, 1993)
e) Qualified contaminated property (Proposition 1, 1998).
5) Excluded, until recently, from change in ownership transfers of property from parents to children (Proposition 58, 1986)), which voters extended to grandchildren ten years later, so long as the grandparent is deceased (Proposition 193, 1996).
a) Applied the exclusion to all inherited primary residences, regardless of value or number of transfers.
b) Applied to up to $1 million in aggregate value of all other types of property, such as second homes or business properties.
6) Enacts the Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfire or Natural Disasters Act (ACA 11, Mullin, Resolution Chapter 31, Statutes of 2020; Proposition 19, 2020). Among other provisions, the Act:
a) Allows disabled taxpayers and those over the age of 55, as well as a victim of a wildfire or other natural disaster to transfer base year values to properties of greater value and across county lines regardless of whether the accepting county enacted an ordinance, so long as the replacement property
SB 539 Page 3
is purchased or constructed within two years of the date the original property is sold, or damaged or destroyed by a disaster, and further provides that:
i) If the replacement property is of equal or lesser value of the original property, its taxable value is equal to that of the original property.
ii) If the replacement property is of greater value of the original property, its taxable value is equal to that of the replacement property, plus the difference in value between the sales price of the original property and the sales price of the replacement property is subsequently added to the base year value. For example, if the original property has a base year value of $230,000 sells for $500,000, and the taxpayer purchases a $750,000 replacement property, its new base year value is $480,000 ($750,000 – $500,000 = $250,000 + $230,000 = $480,000).
iii) Disabled taxpayers or those over 55 can have three transfers.
iv) Taxpayers must file an application with the assessor to claim a transfer with contents identical to the application for current transfers.
v) Its provisions apply beginning April 1, 2021. b) Effective February 15, 2021, repeals the parent-child, grandparent- grandchild exclusion for up to $1 million in aggregate value of all other types of property that is not the principal residence entirely. c) Effective February 15, 2021, limits the parent-child and grandparent- grandchild exclusion from change in ownership of a principal residence only if the property continues as the primary residence of the transferee by:
i) Stating that even if the property continues as the primary residence of the transferee, the exclusion can only reduce assessed value by $1 million.
ii) Directing the State Board of Equalization (BOE) to adjust the $1 million exclusion amount annually for inflation beginning on February 16, 2023.
iii) Providing that the capped exclusion applies to family farms, as defined.
iv) Requiring the transferee to claim the homeowners’ or disabled veterans’ exemption at the time of transfer to apply the exclusion. However, a transferee can file a claim to apply the exclusion up to one year after the purchase or transfer, and receive a refund of previous taxes paid or owed between the transfer date and the date they file the claim.
SB 539 Page 4
d) Allocates any additional revenues or savings to the state to the California Fire Response Fund and the County Revenue Protection Fund, and continuously appropriate moneys to those purposes, as specified.
e) Directs counties to annually determine the gain for each county and each local agency within the county by adding the additional revenues from reassessments of original residents of outgoing transfers authorized by the Act, then subtracting revenue decrease resulting from incoming transfers from other counties, and then adding revenue resulting from the Act’s changes to the parent-child and grandparent-grandchild exclusion from change in ownership.
f) Requires the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to determine each eligible local agency’s aggregate gain every three years, based on the amounts determined by the counties, and provide reimbursements.
This bill:
1) Provides statutory detail for taxpayers to claim base year value transfers under Proposition 19, including:
a) Stating that any person over the age of 55 or any severely and permanently disabled person who resides in a property eligible for the homeowners’ or disabled veteran’s exemption can transfer their base year value to any newly constructed or purchased dwelling that becomes their primary residence eligible for the homeowners’ or disabled veteran’s exemption.
b) Providing that the assessor can only grant the transfer so long as the replacement property is purchased or constructed within two years of the sale or transfer of the original property, and only after the original property is sold.
c) Limiting transfers to three per taxpayer.
d) Directing assessors to report quarterly to the BOE information from claims granted so it can ensure that taxpayers cannot claim more than three transfers; BOE can require names and social security numbers of claimants, and assessors can provide this information in the form of data processing media or other media compatible with their recordkeeping and auditing procedures.
SB 539 Page 5
e) Requiring the taxpayer to own and reside in both the original property as well as the replacement one to claim a transfer.
f) Clarifying that taxpayers can claim a transfer when they either sold the original property or purchased or constructed the replacement property before Proposition 19’s effective date of April 1st, but not both.
g) Stating that the portion of land on which the replacement home is situated constitutes a part of the replacement for purposes of the transfer.
2) Implements Proposition 19’s limitations on parent-child/grandparent-grandchild change in ownership exclusions by:
a) Stating that the exclusion only applies when the real property that is transferred or sold is the principal residence of an “eligible transferor,” defined as a grandparent, parent, grandchild, or child, of an eligible transferee. In the case of a grandparent-grandchild transfer, all parents who qualify as children of the grandparents, except stepparents, must be deceased for the exclusion to apply.
b) Applying its exclusion to family farms, and additionally clarifies that a family farm need not be the taxpayer’s principal residence for the exclusion to apply.
c) Requiring the real property to become the principal residence of the transferee within one year of the transfer for the exclusion to apply.
d) Directing assessors to remove the exclusion on the date an eligible transferee is no longer eligible for either the homeowners’ or disabled veterans’ exemption.
e) Requiring taxpayers to file a claim with the assessor to claim a Proposition 19 exclusion.
f) Similar to other records, providing that the claim forms are not public documents, and can only be inspected by the transferee and the transferor or their spouse, the transferee’s or the transferor’s legal representative, the trustee or the transferor’s trust, and the executor or administrator of the transferee’s or transferor’s estate. g) Setting forth a method for assessors to determine the new base year value for a principal residence or family farm excluded from change in ownership to apply Proposition 19’s capped $1 million exclusion. For example, a family
SB 539 Page 6
home has a factored base year value of $300,000 and a fair market value of $1.5 million. The $300,000 value is added to the $1 million exclusion cap to equal $1,300,000; the difference between this figure and the home’s fair market value is then added to the factored base year value to equal its current taxable value of $500,000.
h) Importing definitions from the current exclusion into its new one, including definitions for “children,” “full cash value,” “grandchild or grandchildren,” “real property,” and “transfer,” as well as specific definitions found in Proposition 19, including “family farm,” as well as defining “family home” by reference to the definition of “principal residence.”
i) Defining “eligible transferee.”
j) Stating that if the assessor sends a notification of eligibility of the exclusion to a taxpayer, the taxpayer must file the claim within 45 days. After 45 days, the assessor may send a second notice, indicating that the property will be reassessed if a claim is not filed within 60 days of the date of the second notice, which must also state whether a processing fee will be charged. A taxpayer may continue to file a claim after the second notice, but the assessor may charge a processing fee up to $175 collected with the claim with approval from the board of supervisors.
k) Allowing BOE to issue emergency regulations subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and create claim forms and instructions necessary to implement the exclusion, as well as Proposition 19 generally.
3) Makes legislative findings and declarations necessary to ensure claim forms taxpayers use to claim an exclusion are not public records.
Background The Act added four new sections to the California Constitution, but was not accompanied by a legislative bill that set forth the statutory guidance necessary for the BOE, and assessors to implement its provisions uniformly across the state. Many of the Act’s terms and requirements are unclear, or conflict with other parts of state law. After voters approved Proposition 19 in November, BOE and Assessors began identifying gaps the initiative created in property tax laws and BOE rules that needed to be filled to ensure effective and uniform implementation in all of California’s 58 counties. SB 539 adds many needed provisions to state law, and grants BOE emergency regulation authority necessary for it to conform its current rules, or add new ones, to effectively implement the initiative.
SB 539 Page 7
SB 539 addresses some, but not all, of the issues where statutory change would assist assessors implement Proposition 19. Among others, some outstanding issues include:
Does "family farm" refer to the appraisal unit as a whole, which might include multiple assessor parcel numbers, some of which may not be in cultivation?
What happens when a transferee ceases residing in the family home due to unforeseen circumstances such as a military deployment or overseas employment?
Whether a transferee can add a joint tenant while maintaining the exclusion.
Whether additional provisions should be added to the base year value transfer section similar to sections allowing other transfers to:
o Allow transfers to apply to co-owners and joint tenants, as well as owners of manufactured housing, cooperative housing, and floating homes.
o Specify the process for assessors to determine a home’s new base year value when the taxpayer applies a Proposition 19 transfer, including when the replacement property’s home is of greater value than the original one.
o Require the taxpayer to file a claim to apply a transfer, with appropriate documentation including a certification of disability if applicable.
o Permit a claim to be filed after the standard deadline for a base year value transfer, and set forth a methodology for calculating the property’s value accounting for the late-filed claim.
o Providing that claims for base year value transfers are not public records.
o Adding definitions used in other base year value transfer laws.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/10/21)
California Assessors’ Association California Association of Realtors California Professional Firefighters California State Association of Counties Urban Counties of California
SB 539 Page 8
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/10/21)
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “Last November at the ballot box, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 19, which significantly changed Constitutional rules for property tax assessment transfers in order to correct unfair tax loopholes, provide housing relief for millions of seniors and working families, and generate needed revenue for fire protection and emergency response. Importantly, the measure also creates record homeownership opportunities for renters and new homeowners statewide as tens of thousands of homes will become available for the first time in decades. However, Proposition 19 did leave a number of unanswered questions critical to its proper implementation and administration. SB 539 makes several clarifying changes in relevant statutory provisions to eliminate confusion and ensure Proposition 19 is consistently implemented throughout California so the benefits of the measure can be realized immediately.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, “While we welcome this attempt by the Legislature, California Assessors’ Association and the State Board of Equalization to clarify some of the ambiguities contained in Proposition 19 that even the BOE and CAA themselves expressed difficulty in interpreting, HJTA requires further clarification before it can support SB 539. When SB 539 states, ‘The transfer is required to be of a principal residence of the transferor, and become the principal residence of the transferee within one year of the transfer,’ it seems to exclude transferees who are already residing in the transferor’s home. To prevent confusion, we propose it be amended. Also, subdivision (1) excludes from reappraisal ‘a purchase or transfer between parents and their children’ (plural). What happens when, for example, a parent transfers his principal residence to all three of his children, and only one moves into the home pursuant to an agreement among the siblings that they will all continue as co-owners, but the resident sibling will pay rent to the others? Is the Assessor allowed to reappraise two-thirds of the home’s value? The bill does not say. Since Prop. 19 is ambiguous on this point, and ambiguities are supposed to be resolved in favor of the taxpayer, HJTA believes that SB 539 should be amended to further clarify this as well.”
Prepared by: Colin Grinnell / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119 3/10/21 15:06:33 **** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 548 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 548 Author: Eggman (D), et al. Amended: 4/5/21 Vote: 21
SENATE TRANPSORTAITON COMMITTEE: 4/13/21 AYES: Gonzalez, Bates, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, McGuire, Melendez, Min, Newman, Rubio, Skinner, Umberg, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Wieckowski
SUBJECT: Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority: transit connectivity
SOURCE: Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority
DIGEST: This bill clarifies the Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Regional Rail Authority (Authority) is a rail transit district and the project being developed by the Authority to connect the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system and the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) commuter rail service is not required to be located in the Tri-Valley region.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Creates the Authority for purposes of planning, developing, and delivering cost- effective and responsive transit connectivity, between the BART and ACE in the Tri-Valley region.
2) Grants the all powers necessary for the planning, design, development, and construction of the connection between BART and ACE.
3) Exempts, generally, the state, a city, a county, a rapid transit district, or a rail transit district whose board of directors is appointed by public bodies, from complying with applicable local building and zoning ordinances.
SB 548 Page 2
This bill:
1) Eliminates the requirement for the Authority to create a connection between BART and ACE specifically within the Tri-Valley region.
2) Clarifies that the Authority was created for the purposes of operating, in addition to, planning, developing, and delivering the transit connection.
3) Clarifies the Authority is a “rail transit district” for the purposes of exemption from applicable local building and zoning ordinances.
Comments 1) Purpose. According to the author, “the Valley Link project is a project of significant importance that will improve connectivity within the Northern California Megaregion, connecting housing, people, and jobs. This bill follows up on the enabling legislation (AB 758) passed in 2017 and is needed to help pursue project implementation that is fast, cost-effective and responsive to the goals of the communities that Valley Link will serve.”
2) Valley Super Commuters. The Altamont Pass serves as the commuter corridor connecting the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area. The I-580 is the freeway connector and ranks as of one of the most congested freeways in the Northern California mega-region during peak hours due to high volume of regional and interregional commuter, freight, and recreational traffic. Additionally, San Joaquin County, and other counties in the San Joaquin Valley are some of the fastest growing in the state. Since 1990, the number of people commuting daily from the northern San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area has nearly tripled, growing from 32,000 to over 90,000 commuters. The Bay Area Council estimates that congestion will increase an additional 75% between 2016 and 2040. Currently, the ACE commuter train system provides an alternative to driving, bringing commuters from the northern San Joaquin Valley, such as the cities of Stockton, Lathrop, and Tracy, to the Bay Area. ACE carries nearly 3,000 commuters daily one way or 6,000 daily round trips.
3) No real transit connection. Although the ACE commuter service and BART both serve the Tri-Valley region, there is no direct transit connection between the two systems. This connection has long been a priority for the local governments and businesses, and greater Bay Area region planners. In 2016, local officials created the Altamont Regional Rail Working Group to focus on potential BART to ACE linkages to better connect the Bay Area to the Central Valley region. The Working Group was made up of local officials from the area
SB 548 Page 3
communities, and representatives from BART and ACE. Additionally, both BART and ACE were exploring ways to connect their respective systems near Livermore, including conducting environmental reviews and dedicating funding to the project effort.
4) Valley Link. As a direct follow on to the Working Group, AB 758 (Eggman, Chapter 747, Statutes of 2017) established the Authority, with the mandate to plan and deliver cost-effective and responsive transit connectivity between the BART and ACE in the Tri-Valley that meets the goals and objectives of the communities it will serve. AB 758 created a Board of Directors structure, made up of local officials from the affected communities and BART and ACE. The bill vested the Authority with powers necessary for planning, acquiring, leasing, developing, jointly developing, owning, controlling, using, jointly using, disposing of, designing, procuring, and constructing facilities to achieve transit connectivity. First, AB 758 required the development of a project feasibility report to outline how this could be achieved. The final report, adopted by the Authority Board of Directors in October 2019, identifies a proposed project, the so-called Valley Link, which is currently undergoing further design and environmental review. In fact, the public comment period for the draft environmental Impact Report closed in January 2021, with Board of Directors consideration of final certification expected in May 2021.
Specifically, the proposed project is a new 42-mile, seven-station passenger rail project that will connect the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station in Alameda County to the planned ACE North Lathrop Station in San Joaquin County utilizing existing transportation rights-of-way where feasible. Stations would be located at Dublin/Pleasanton (BART Intermodal), Isabel (Livermore), Greenville (Livermore), Mountain House (San Joaquin County), Downtown Tracy Station (Tracy), River Islands Station (Lathrop), and North Lathrop Station (ACE Intermodal).
The project would provide regular service throughout the day in both directions with timed connections with both BART and ACE services. The overall travel time from North Lathrop to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station would be approximately 61 to 65 minutes depending on direction of travel. The 2040 service plan includes 12-minute peak period headways with more limited service on the weekend, carrying an estimated 33,000 daily riders. The total project is estimated to cost between $2.7 to $3.4 billion, and the Authority has identified $708 million in funding. It is anticipated that the Valley Link service would be operated by ACE.
SB 548 Page 4
5) SB 548 clarifies various provisions of the Authority’s enabling statute. Specifically, AB 758 implied that there is a requirement for the Authority to create a connection between BART and ACE within the Tri-Valley. As the proposed project would connect the systems in the San Joaquin Valley, the bill eliminated the specific references to the Tri-Valley. The bill also clarified that the Authority is deemed a rail transit district for the purposes of exemption from applicable local building and zoning ordinances. Regional transit agencies are generally exempt from these ordinances. The Sonoma-Marin Area Rapid Transit District (SMART), BART, San Diego Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS), and Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) are examples of other rail transit or rapid transit districts in the state.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/13/21)
Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority (source) Bay Area Council City of Dublin City of Lathrop City of Livermore City of Manteca City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon City of Tracy Dublin Chamber of Commerce Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce San Joaquin County Supervisor Robert Rickman San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Town of Danville
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/13/21)
Train Riders Association of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Writing in support, the City of Livermore states, “An estimated 93,400 Bay Area workers living in Northern San Joaquin County, commute daily through the Altamont, with the number expected to increase substantially over the next two decades. The Valley Link passenger rail project
SB 548 Page 5 being planned by the Authority will promote equity by serving communities and households with some of our state's highest poverty rates - with stations in San Joaquin County all within areas designated as disadvantaged or within or near low- income communities. During construction, Valley Link will create more than 22,000 jobs with an economic impact of $4.85 billion. When operational it will support 400 jobs per year with labor income of over $19 million per year and $69 million in business sales annually. The project will provide an estimated 33,000 daily riders in 2040 - a reduction of 99.4 million vehicle miles traveled per year and 32,220 to 42,650 metric tons of GHG emissions. In short, Valley Link is urgently needed, now more than ever, and we urge the advancement of SB 548 to expedite its delivery.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Writing in opposition, the Train Riders Association of California state, “We write to Oppose what appears to us to be an effort to create yet another transit operator in Northern California. The Bay Area already has far too many operators, which leads to massive failure to provide a customer-friendly transit network.”
Prepared by: Melissa White / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121 4/14/21 14:48:55
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 549 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
CONSENT
Bill No: SB 549 Author: Jones (R) Introduced: 2/18/21 Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/5/21 AYES: Cortese, Ochoa Bogh, Durazo, Laird, Newman
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/20/21 AYES: Hurtado, Jones, Cortese, Kamlager, Pan
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Social workers: essential workers
SOURCE: National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter SEIU California
DIGEST: This bill requires social workers, if they are deemed essential workers during a state of emergency declared by the Governor, as provided, to receive emergency materials, including, but not limited to personal protective equipment, medicines, and any and all other health and safety equipment and gear necessary to fulfill their critical work. This bill takes effect immediately as an urgency statute.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Defines “state of emergency” to mean the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, cyberterrorism, sudden and severe energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or disease, the Governor’s warning of an earthquake or volcanic prediction, or an earthquake, or other conditions. (Government Code (GOV) 8558)
SB 549 Page 2
2) Empowers the Governor to make, amend or rescind orders and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of an Emergency Services Act. These orders and regulations shall have the force of law. (GOV 8567)
3) Establishes Executive Order N-33-20, which among other things, ordered California residents to shelter-in-place to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Further declares that workers within 16 federally identified “Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers” are ordered to continue working. (Executive Order N- 33-20)
This bill:
1) Makes the following legislative findings and declarations:
a) Social workers provide valuable services to the state’s most needy citizens;
b) Because of the important services provided by social workers, they should be considered as part of the state’s critical workforce;
c) It is necessary to protect California’s most vulnerable populations, especially during a state of emergency; and
d) The Legislature finds and declares it necessary to protect the health and safety of social workers, and the adults, children, and families to whom they provide services.
2) Requires that, if social workers are deemed essential workers during a state of emergency declared by the Governor, social workers must be included in the top tier of essential workers who are eligible to receive emergency materials, including, but not limited to, personal protective equipment, medicines, and any and all other health and safety equipment and gear necessary to fulfill their critical work.
3) Includes an urgency provision related to social workers services being necessary to protect vulnerable populations during the ongoing crisis, as well as during a future crisis, and, therefore would take effect immediately.
Comments Need for this bill? According to the author, “Social workers provide a voice for those who are often unable to speak for themselves, safeguarding their well-being and ensuring they receive necessary support. Crucially, the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns have prevented social workers from conducting on-site
SB 549 Page 3 visits with scarce health and safety equipment, challenging their ability to adequately care for these individuals. Despite being declared ‘essential workers,’ social workers are not being prioritized as such to receive this equipment. SB 549 guarantees social workers are treated as the essential workers they are, prioritizing and enabling them to be eligible to receive emergency materials like personal protective equipment (PPE) and all other health and safety equipment necessary to fulfill their work. This bill includes an urgency clause to ensure social workers can get back to their regular work as soon as possible.”
State Response to COVID-19 and Impacts on Safety Net Services
On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency to help the state prepare for the broader spread of COVID-19, as well make additional resources available and formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments. Then, on March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20, creating a statewide stay at home order to protect the health and well-being of all Californians and to establish consistency across the state in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19. Since May 4, 2020, with the issuance of Executive Order N-60-20, local jurisdictions around the state have been making various efforts to gradually reopen as provided for by state guidance.
In California, a variety of the state’s social safety net programs are administered by the 58 individual counties, meaning each county organizes and operates its own program of child protection, CalFresh, CalWORKs, and other programs, based on local needs and resources while complying with state and federal regulations. Thus, counties are the primary government entity that interacts directly with the children and families utilizing the state’s social services programs. It is California’s counties, either directly or through providers, who are responsible for ensuring children and families have the interventions and services needed to protect the wellbeing of the children and help families address the issues of child abuse and neglect. The counties are also responsible for helping individuals apply for CalFresh and CalWORKs, processing the resulting applications and recertification’s, and administering the programming associated with CalWORKs and CalFresh employment and training.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, counties have been placed in the difficult position of balancing the needs, health and safety of children and families along with the health and safety of their county social workers and other staff. Counties have had to balance their role within the child welfare system and other safety net programs with COVID-related fears and concerns of the families they serve, their
SB 549 Page 4 caregivers, social workers and other county employees. In response, state and federal guidance was issued to address challenges resulting from the inability to safely conduct business as usual during the pandemic. However, these flexibilities did not eliminate the need for social workers to continue interacting with the public, and serving as essential frontline workers.
Essential Workers
In accordance with Executive Order N-33-20, discussed above, the State Public Health officer designated a list of workers within the Healthcare/Public Health sphere as essential. This designation meant that they fell within the federally identified “essential critical infrastructure workers” that were needed to continue going to work during the declared state of emergency and resulting stay-at-home order. This designation allowed social workers to continue providing crucial services to some of the most vulnerable members of our communities. Depending on the specific type of services the social worker provides, and given the flexibilities mentioned above, some county social workers were able to modify their work to remote methods while others needed to continue providing in-person support and services.
According to stakeholders, a year later, difficulties for social workers continue. There has been confusion caused by a lack of consistency between federal and state lists of “essential workers.” This has impacted social workers ability to access personal protective equipment and, more recently, doses of the COVID-19 vaccine – both of which have had determinations regarding access made on a county by county level. SB 549 clarifies that social workers are eligible for emergency materials if they are deemed to be “essential workers” due to the declaration of state of emergency and would place them in the top tier of essential workers.
Related/Prior Legislation SB 1159 (Hill, Chapter 85, Statutes of 2020) created a rebuttable presumption that illness or death related to COVID-19 (novel coronavirus) is an occupational injury and therefore eligible for workers’ compensation benefits.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/23/21)
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter (co-source) SEIU California (co-source)
SB 549 Page 5
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/23/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: SEIU California, a sponsor of this bill, writes in support:
“Our county social workers were deemed essential from day one of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well they should have been—the work they do is life altering and at times life saving. However, they were never prioritized as being in the “top tier” of essential workers for purposes of PPE distribution, and were often required to continue in-person engagement SB 549 (Jones) Page 3 of 3 with the public in enclosed spaces with multiple family members. To this end, we have had social workers fall ill and die due to work-related exposure during the course of the pandemic. Our social workers work with our most vulnerable populations, abused and neglected children, adults in need of protection, and those with immunocompromising health conditions and/or physical disabilities. They love their jobs, and are dedicated to the populations they serve; but throughout the pandemic they have been put in untenable situations where their health and safety, and the health and safety of the families to which they return, have been put in jeopardy.”
Prepared by: Jake Ferrera / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556 4/23/21 13:48:41
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 584 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 584 Author: Jones (R) Introduced: 2/18/21 Vote: 21
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/23/21 AYES: Hurtado, Jones, Cortese, Kamlager, Pan
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Resource Family Approval Program
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires existing mandatory training for resource families to also include information on providing care and supervision to children who have been victims of child labor trafficking, as provided.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes a state and local system of child welfare services, including foster care, for children who have been adjudged by the court to be at risk of abuse and neglect or to have been abused or neglected, as specified. (WIC 202)
2) Establishes a system of juvenile dependency for children for specified reasons, and designates that a child who meets certain criteria is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and may be adjudged as a dependent child of the court, as specified. (WIC 300 et seq.)
3) Provides that a child who is sexually trafficked or receives food or shelter in exchange for the performance of certain sexual acts, as specified, shall be known as a commercially sexually exploited child. (WIC 300(b)(2))
SB 584 Page 2
4) Establishes the “Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC) Program” administered by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) in order to create a multidisciplinary team approach to case management, service planning, and provision of services to commercially sexually exploited youth. (WIC 16524.7 et seq.)
5) Requires CDSS to, no later than April 1, 2017, report certain information to the Legislature related to the CSEC Program, including the participating counties, the number of victims served by each county, and the types of services provided, among others. (WIC 16524.10)
6) Requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to implement policies and procedures related to the identification and provision of services to victims, under the CSEC program, as specified. (WIC 16501.35)
7) Defines a “resource family” as an individual or family that has successfully met both the home environment assessment standards and permanency assessment criteria, necessary for providing care for a child placed by a public or private child placement agency by court order, or voluntarily placed by a parent or legal guardian. (WIC 16519.5(c)(1))
8) Requires a resource family to demonstrate an understanding of the needs of the child and the role of the resource family, financial stability, and an ability and willingness to provide a family setting that promotes normal childhood experiences, that services the needs of the child, as specified. (WIC 16519.5(c)(1)(A))
9) Requires counties to ensure that resource families complete a minimum of eight hours of care-giver training annually, to be comprised of various topics, as specified. Further requires the training include the knowledge and skills relating to the reasonable and prudent parent standard for the participation of the child in age or developmentally appropriate activities, as specified. (WIC 1522.44; WIC 16519.5(g)(14); 42 USC 671(a)(24))
10) Requires counties ensure that resource family applicants complete a minimum of 12 hours of preapproval caregiver training on topics including, but not limited to: the effects of trauma; grief and loss; child abuse and neglect; child development and behavior; information on providing care and supervision to children who have been commercially sexually exploited, which may be limited to the provision of an informational pamphlet addressing the needs of victims of commercial sexual exploitation; health issues in foster care;
SB 584 Page 3
permanency; the well-being and education needs of children; and, cultural sensitivity. (WIC 16519.5(g)(13))
11) Requires resource families that care for children who are 10 years of age or older attend, within 12 months of approval as a resource family, a training on understanding how to use best practices for providing care and supervision to children that have been commercially sexually exploited. Further requires the training be survivor informed, culturally relevant and appropriate, and address issues relating to stigma, while also addressing all of the following topics: recognizing indictors of commercial sexual exploitation; harm reduction; trauma-informed care; available county and state resources; perspectives of individuals or families who have experiences with commercial sexual exploitation. (WIC 16519.5(g)(15)
12) Permits a county to require a resource family or applicant to receive relevant specialized training for the purpose of preparing the resource family to meet the needs of a particular child in care. This may include, but is not limited to: understanding how to use best practices for providing care and supervision to commercially sexually exploited children; understanding how to use best practices for providing care and supervision to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children; understanding the requirements and best practices regarding psychotropic medications; understanding the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, its historical significance, the rights of children covered by the act, and the best interest of Indian children, including the role of the caregiver in supporting culturally appropriate, child-centered practices that respect Native American history, culture, retention of tribal membership, and connection to the tribal community and traditions; understanding how to use best practices for providing care and supervision to nonminor dependents; understanding how to use best practices for providing care and supervision to children with special health care needs; and/or understanding the different permanency options and the services and benefits associated with the options. (WIC 16519.5(h))
13) Provides that any person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services is guilty of human trafficking and shall be punished, as specified. (PEN 236.1(a))
14) States that any person who causes or persuades, or attempts to cause or persuade, a person who is a minor to engage in a commercial sex act, with the intent to effect a violation of specified sex offenses, is guilty of human trafficking and shall be punished as specified. (PEN 236.1(c)(1)-(2))
SB 584 Page 4
This bill:
1) Adds information on providing care and supervision to victims of labor child trafficking to the topics resource family applicants must be trained on during their 12 hours of pre-approval training. Provides that for the purposes of pre- approval training, the information provided may include, but not be limited to, informational pamphlets addressing the identification of victims and the provision of existing resources, as provided.
2) Updates existing training for all resource families providing care to a child over the age of 10 on understanding how to use best practices for providing care and supervision to children who have been commercially sexually exploited to also include training on best practices for providing care and supervision to children who have been victims of child labor trafficking.
3) Adds understanding how to use best practices for providing care and supervision to victims of child labor trafficking to the specialized training a resource family may be required to receive to meet the needs of a particular child in their care.
4) Makes other technical and conforming changes.
Comments According to the author, “labor trafficking represents a significant portion of human trafficking in California, and child labor trafficking specifically proves to be a troubling issue. Tragically, children in the foster care system are particularly at risk of child labor trafficking.” The author references AB 865 (Reyes, Chapter 810, Statutes of 2019) which created training requirements for resource families on how to best care for and meet the needs of children who have experienced commercial sexual exploitation. As introduced, AB 865 also included requirements for training on the needs of child victims of labor trafficking, but these did not remain in the bill that was signed into law. Therefore, the author states, “SB 584 will address the deficiency in current law by requiring resource family training to include child labor trafficking, in addition to the existing training on commercially sexually exploited children.”
Child Welfare Services (CWS). The CWS system is an essential component of the state’s safety net. Social workers in each county who receive reports of abuse or neglect, investigate and resolve those reports. When a case is substantiated, a family is either provided with services to ensure a child’s well-being and avoid court involvement, or a child is removed and placed into foster care. In 2019, the
SB 584 Page 5 state’s child welfare agencies received 477,614 reports of abuse or neglect. Of these, 69,652 reports contained allegations that were substantiated and 28,646 children were removed from their homes and placed into foster care via the CWS system. As of October 1, 2020, there were 60,045 children in California’s CWS system.
Resource Family Training Requirements. In California, a resource family is a caregiver who provides out-of-home care for children in foster care. A resource family may be related to the child, have a familiar or mentoring relationship or have no previous relationship to the child. The Resource Family Approval (RFA) program includes comprehensive training requirements for resource family applicants and for those approved as resource families to ensure caregivers possess the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to serve children placed in their care. The state gives counties and foster family agencies the flexibility to decide how caregiver trainings are provided, as long as other requirements are met. This means counties and foster family agencies may decide if trainings are offered in-person, online, through attending local community college course, or in other ways.
Applicants are required to complete 12 hours of preapproval caregiver training on variety of topics, including, but not limited to, an overview of the child protective and probation systems; the effects of trauma on child development; positive discipline; the importance of self-esteem; health issues in foster care; the cultural needs of children; and information on providing care and supervision to children who have been commercially sexually exploited, which may be limited to the provision of an informational pamphlet addressing the needs of victims of commercial sexual exploitation. Additionally, prior to approval, applicants must have an understanding of a youth’s needs and development, effective parenting skills or knowledge about parenting, and an ability to act as a reasonable and prudent parent in day-to-day decision making.
The RFA program also requires approved resource families complete a minimum of eight hours of caregiver training annually. This ongoing training requirement may be on a variety of topics, but a portion of the eight hours must cover a resource family’s responsibility to act as a reasonable and prudent parent, as defined, and their responsibility to provide a family setting that promotes normal childhood experiences and serves the needs of the child. Additionally, the RFA program requires that resource families providing care for children who are 10 years of age or older attend, within 12 months of their approval as a resource family, a training on understanding how to use the best practices for providing care and supervision to children who have been commercially sexually exploited. This training is required to be survivor informed, culturally relevant and appropriate,
SB 584 Page 6 and to address issues relating to stigma. These training requirements were added by AB 865 (Reyes, Chapter 810, Statutes of 2019).
The RFA program also provides for specialized training to a particular resource family to prepare that family for meeting the needs of a particular child in care. Existing law provides that this training may include, but is not limited to, training on topics such as understanding how to use the best practices for providing care and supervision to children who are commercially sexually exploited; understanding the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and the best interests of Indian children; understanding how to use best practices for providing care and supervision to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children; and understanding the requirements and best practices regarding psychotropic medications.
This bill adds information on providing care and supervision to children who have been victims of child labor trafficking to existing resource family training requirements. It mimics the structure in existing law for training that provides information on providing care and supervision to children who have been commercially sexually exploited, another form of human trafficking.
Commercially Sexually Exploited Children. Federal and state law deem children under the age of 18 who are induced to engage in a commercial sex act victims of sex trafficking. It is estimated that 50-80 percent of CSEC victims have been involved in the child welfare system.1 As a result, there have been various ongoing efforts within California’s CWS system to address the commercial sexual exploitation of children and to meet the needs of children victimized by it. For example, the CDSS Child Trafficking Response Unit began in November 2014. Additionally, SB 855 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 29, Statutes of 2014) clarified that a child who is sexually trafficked and whose parent or guardian has failed or is unable to protect them can be served through the CWS system as a victim of abuse and neglect. Furthermore, SB 1322 (Mitchell, Chapter 654, Statutes of 2016) decriminalized prostitution for minors under 18 years of age citing the fact that minors cannot legally consent to sex, and as such, cannot engage in prostitution. As a result, minors who are victims of sex trafficking are now able to receive services and supports through the child welfare system.
As discussed above, there are also training requirements for all resource families who provide care to children 10 years of age or older related to the needs of CSEC, as well as individualized training for resource families caring for a child victim of sex trafficking related to the specific needs of that child. Also, in partnership with
1https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_pract ice/vol_32/july-2013/child-sex-traffickers-target-california-foster-children0/
SB 584 Page 7
CDSS, the California Social Work Education Center and the Public Child Welfare Training Academy developed the CSEC Awareness training module, a free online course designed to provide a broad overview of human trafficking, including sex trafficking and labor trafficking, and information regarding ongoing research on the topic. This is available to all resource families.
Labor Trafficking. Trafficking can occur in the form of labor exploitation, such as domestic servitude, restaurant or janitorial work, sweatshop factory work, and agricultural work. While child employment is permissible under certain circumstances, trafficking occurs when an employer causes the child to believe that they have no other choice but to continue with the work. Many of the children who are victims of labor trafficking are also victims of other crimes, such as sexual abuse, child pornography, and child abuse or neglect. In 2016, approximately 9 percent of California labor trafficking victims had a foster care history, and according to the National Foster Youth Institute, 60 percent of all child sex trafficking victims have histories in the child welfare system.2
Related/Prior Legislation AB 865 (Reyes, Chapter 810, Statutes of 2019) required information related to CSEC be provided to resource family applicants during the preapproval caregiver training process. Further required counties to ensure that resource families that care for children who are 10 years of age or older attend, within 12 months of approval as a resource family, training on best practices for providing care to children who have been trafficked, and prohibits a resource family from being required to complete the training again, except in certain circumstances, as specified.
AB 507 (Rubio, Chapter 705, Statutes of 2017) permitted counties to require resource families to receive additional relevant specialized training, among other things.
SB 1322 (Mitchell, Chapter 654, Statutes of 2016) decriminalized prostitution for individuals under 18 years of age.
SB 794 (Senate Human Services Committee, Chapter 425, Statutes of 2015) implemented provisions of the federal Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, including conforming state with federal law in the areas of sex trafficking prevention and data collection, and the state’s reasonable and prudent standards, among other things.
2 Ibid.
SB 584 Page 8
SB 855 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 29, Statutes of 2014) created the CSEC Program within CDSS to further address the needs of the CSEC population.
AB 2035 (Chesbro, 2014) would have placed any minor who is a victim of human trafficking, including both labor trafficking and sex trafficking, within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and made that child a dependent of the court. The bill was vetoed by the Governor.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/20/21)
California Alternative Payment Program Association Center for Public Interest Law/Children’s Advocacy Institute University of San Diego Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking Crime Survivors Resource Center Hadassah Southern California Little Hoover Commission The Thumbprint Project Foundation
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/20/21)
None received
Prepared by: Marisa Shea / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524 4/21/21 15:18:15
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 657 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
CONSENT
Bill No: SB 657 Author: Ochoa Bogh (R), et al. Amended: 4/22/21 Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/5/21 AYES: Cortese, Ochoa Bogh, Durazo, Laird, Newman
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/20/21 AYES: Umberg, Borgeas, Caballero, Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Jones, Laird, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Employment: electronic documents
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill allows employers, in any instance the employer is required to physically post information, to additionally distribute that information to employees by email with the document or documents attached. Additionally, this bill clarifies that email distribution or relevant documents pursuant to the proposed statute does not alter the employer’s obligation to physically display the required posting.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Requires an employer to provide a notice to each current employee, by posting in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment- related information to the employee, of any inspections of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records conducted by an immigration agency within 72 hours of receiving notice of the inspection.
SB 657 Page 2
Requires that written notice shall also be given within 72 hours to the employee’s authorized representative, if any. (Labor Code §90.2).
2) Requires and employer to post a notice specifying the regular pay days and the time and place of payment. (Labor Code §207).
3) Requires an employer to post a notice containing pertinent information regarding safety rules and regulations. Requires that the notice contain the address and telephone number of the nearest Cal-OSHA office; a clear explanation of an employee’s right to report any unsafe working conditions; the right to request a safety inspection by the division for unsafe conditions; the right to refuse to work under conditions which endanger life or health; the right to receive information under the Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act; further requires that employers post the posting and notice requirements of employers and Cal-OSHA; establishes that Cal-OSHA may require the posting of any other information Cal-OSHA deems necessary. Establishes that Cal-OSHA may further promulgate regulations on the content and the required location and number of notices which must be posted by employers. (Labor Code §6328).
4) Requires an employer to post and keep posted in a conspicuous location frequented by employees, and where the notice may be easily read by employees during the hours of the workday, a notice that states the name of the current compensation insurance carrier of the employer, or when such is the fact, that the employer is self-insured, and who is responsible for claims adjustment. Further establishes that he form and content of the required notice shall be prescribed by the administrative director of the Division of Worker’s Compensation, after consultation with the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation, and shall advise employees that all injuries should be reported to their employer. Further requires that the notice shall be easily understandable and shall include the following information:
a) How to get emergency medical treatment, if needed. b) The kinds of events, injuries, and illnesses covered by workers’ compensation. c) The injured employee’s right to receive medical care. d) The rights of the employee to select and change the treating physician under specified conditions.
SB 657 Page 3
e) The rights of the employee to receive temporary disability indemnity, permanent disability indemnity, supplemental job displacement, and death benefits, as appropriate. f) To whom injuries should be reported. g) The existence of time limits for the employer to be notified of an occupational injury. h) The protections against retaliation for filing a claim. i) The Internet Web site address and contact information that employees may use to obtain further information about the workers’ compensation claims process and an injured employee’s rights and obligations, including the location and telephone number of the nearest information and assistance officer. j) That failure of an employer to provide the notice required by this section shall automatically permit the employee to be treated by his or her personal physician with respect to an injury occurring during that failure. (Labor Code §3550).
5) Requires an employer to prominently display a list of employees’ rights and responsibilities under the whistleblower laws, including the telephone number of the whistleblower hotline. (Labor Code §1102.8).
6) Requires farm labor contractors to prominently display at the site where the work is to be performed and on all vehicles used by the farm labor contractor or his or her employees or agents for the transportation of employees the rate of compensation the licensee is paying to his or her employees for their services, printed in both English and Spanish (Labor Code §1695).
7) Requires the awarding body of contract for public works to make available through various means of access and notification, the prevailing wage rates for relevant job classifications. (Labor Code §1773).
This bill:
1) Allows employers, in any instance the employer is required to physically post information, to additionally distribute that information to employees by email with the document or documents attached.
2) Establishes that email distribution pursuant to the proposed statute does not alter the employer’s obligation to physically display the required posting.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SB 657 Page 4
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/23/21)
Acclamation Insurance Management Services Allied Managed Care California Association for Health Services At Home California Chamber of Commerce California Food Producers California Hotel & Lodging Association California State Council of SHRM Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses Family Business Association of California Flasher Barricade Association Fremont Chamber of Commerce Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce Housing Contractors of California Lodi Chamber of Commerce Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce Murrieta Wildomar Chamber of Commerce National Federation of Independent Business New Livable California Dba Livable California North Orange County Chamber of Commerce Oceanside Chamber of Commerce Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce Southwest California Legislative Council Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce Western Electrical Contractors Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/23/21)
None received
SB 657 Page 5
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the California Chamber of Commerce, SB 657 will make it easier for telecommuting employees to receive required notices from their employer.
During the current COVID-19 crisis, many employers have considered offering employees the opportunity to work from home in the midst of shelter-in-place and stay-at-home orders. Where such telecommuting is possible, it allows employees to remain working and earning income, even during a pandemic or other disruption. With near-record unemployment, we should be doing everything possible to maximize opportunities for employers to allow telecommuting so that workers can continue to be employed and support themselves and their families.
These changes will be necessary even beyond the current pandemic. A recent survey of employers indicated that 52% will be offering telecommuting until the pandemic subsides, and 30% plan to allow employees to work remotely on an ongoing basis.
Unfortunately, current law has not kept pace with the flexibility and technology that allows remote work, and fails to distinguish an employee working remotely from an employee working at the employer’s place of business. As a result, employers presently must meet certain requirements that were imposed without consideration of a remote workforce and cause legal uncertainties. Those uncertainties discourage employers from allowing employees to work from home because employers cannot properly assess the risks and potential liabilities associated with allowing employees to work from home. If an employer is unwilling to offer remote work (where appropriate) due to these legal uncertainties, employers are faced with the choice of either (1) instructing the employee to report to the worksite (which may raise concerns about increased exposure), or (2) lay-off the employee, neither of which are good outcomes.
Therefore, SB 657 seeks to clarify certain issues and remove barriers from employers agreeing to allow telecommuting. It clarifies that workplace notices and posters can be provided electronically to employees working from home.
Prepared by: Daniel Rounds / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556 4/23/21 13:52:01
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 688 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 688 Author: Wieckowski (D) Amended: 3/25/21 Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 9-2, 4/6/21 AYES: Umberg, Caballero, Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Laird, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener NOES: Borgeas, Jones
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Civil actions: judgments by confession
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill makes confessions of judgment entered into on or after January 1, 2022, unenforceable.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Provides, in federal regulations, that it is an unfair act or practice for a lender or retail installment seller, in connection with the extension of credit to consumers in or affecting commerce, to directly or indirectly take or receive from a consumer an obligation that constitutes or contains a cognovit or confession of judgment. (16 C.F.R. § 444.2.)
2) Permits a judgment by confession to be entered without action either for money due or to become due, or to secure any person against contingent liability on behalf of the defendant, or both, in the manner prescribed. Such judgment may be entered in any superior court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1132(a).)
3) Provides that a judgment by confession shall be entered only if an attorney independently representing the defendant signs a certificate that the attorney has
SB 688 Page 2
examined the proposed judgment and has advised the defendant with respect to the waiver of rights and defenses under the confession of judgment procedure and has advised the defendant to utilize the confession of judgment procedure. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1132(b).)
4) Requires the above certificate to be filed with the filing of a statement in writing, signed by the defendant and verified by their oath, to the following effect:
a) It must authorize the entry of judgment for a specified sum;
b) If it be for money due, or to become due, it must state concisely the facts out of which it arose, and show that the sum confessed therefor is justly due, or to become due; and
c) If it be for the purpose of securing the plaintiff against a contingent liability, it must state concisely the facts constituting the liability, and show that the sum confessed therefor does not exceed the same. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1132(b), 1133.)
This bill:
1) Provides that a confession of judgment is unenforceable and may not be entered in any superior court unless entered before January 1, 2022.
2) Repeals Sections 133 and 1134 of the Code of Civil Procedure and deletes various references to confessions of judgments and the relevant statutes.
Background California currently permits a judgment by confession to be entered without action either for money due or to become due, or to secure any person against contingent liability on behalf of the defendant, or both. Such a “confession of judgment” therefore provides a creditor or other contractual party with a method to enter judgment against another party without notice and without providing that party with the opportunity to assert relevant defenses.
Such devices have been outlawed or severely restricted in other states, including recent legislation in New York that sought to curb creditors’ abuse of confessions of judgment. Federal Trade Commission regulations declare it an unfair act or practice for an extension of credit to consumers to include a confession of judgment. California already specifically prohibits use of confessions of judgment in various contexts, but this bill finally eliminates their use wholesale.
SB 688 Page 3
This bill is author sponsored. There is no known support or opposition.
A Brief History of Confessions of Judgment
A “confession of judgment” or “cognovit” clause is a device by which a debtor or a party to a contract agrees that if it later defaults or breaches the contract, the creditor or other party is permitted to summarily obtain a legal judgment that it may enforce against the defaulting or breaching party’s assets. This judgment is generally without action, and therefore without judicial involvement, and becomes immediately enforceable. A party agreeing to such a clause is therefore waiving foundational procedural rights such as the right to notice of the judgment and to assert any defenses to the other party’s claims. A report from the Congressional Research Service has described this tool:
Creditors laud confessions of judgment as an efficient means to collect assets from recalcitrant debtors, as they enable creditors to avoid the “costly and time-consuming” litigation process. Others, however, maintain that confessions of judgment undesirably permit creditors to collect money and assets that they otherwise could not collect if the debtor retained the ability to assert meritorious legal defenses against the creditors’ claims.1
Confessions of judgment have an infamous history of questionable uses and for being challenged on due process grounds. Former United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun put a fine point on it:
The cognovit is the ancient legal device by which the debtor consents in advance to the holder's obtaining a judgment without notice or hearing, and possibly even with the appearance, on the debtor's behalf, of an attorney designated by the holder. It was known at least as far back as Blackstone's time. In a case applying Ohio law, it was said that the purpose of the cognovit is "to permit the note holder to obtain judgment without a trial of possible defenses which the signers of the notes might assert." And long ago the cognovit method was described by the Chief Justice of New Jersey as "the loosest way of binding a man's property that ever was devised in any civilized country." Mr. Dickens noted it with obvious disfavor. The cognovit has been the subject of comment, much of it critical.2
The California Supreme Court has also weighed in on such devices:
1 Kevin M. Lewis, Agreeing in Advance to Lose? Legal Considerations in Regulating Confessions of Judgment (June 13, 2019) Congressional Research Service, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10239/4 [as of Mar. 21, 2021]. 2 D. H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co. (1972) 405 U.S. 174, 176-177, internal citations omitted.
SB 688 Page 4
When an extension of credit is secured by a confession of judgment it puts at the disposal of the creditor the most drastic of enforcement proceedings. A confession of judgment forecloses the presentation of any possible defense or controversy for judicial resolution; to the contrary it is a personal admission of a debt obligation upon which the court places its primatur. Because the very nature of the confession of judgment is apt to encourage the filing of fraudulent claims against debtors, a majority of states have enacted legislation either banning or restricting its use.3
Although the United States Supreme Court has held that such clauses are not per se unconstitutional, the California Supreme Court has noted that “sad experience has shown that the confession of judgment procedure lends itself to overreaching, deception, and abuse.”4 The court explained the relevant constitutional requirements: “Under the due process clause of the federal Constitution, a court may enter judgment against a defendant only if the record shows that either (a) the defendant has received notice and an opportunity to be heard, or (b) the defendant has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights.”5 The court then struck down an earlier confession of judgment statute as “constitutionally defective”:
Because the California statutes provide insufficient safeguards to assure that the debtor in fact executed a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver, and because the debtor's opportunity to seek post-judgment relief does not cure the unconstitutionality of a judgment entered without a valid waiver, we conclude that the confession of judgment procedure established in sections 1132 through 1134 violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 6
Eliminating Confessions of Judgment
Revised Section 1132 provides: “A judgment by confession may be entered without action either for money due or to become due, or to secure any person against contingent liability on behalf of the defendant, or both, in the manner prescribed by this chapter. Such judgment may be entered in any superior court.” However, it requires that the judgment be entered only if “an attorney independently representing the defendant signs a certificate that the attorney has examined the proposed judgment and has advised the defendant with respect to the waiver of rights and defenses under the confession of judgment procedure and has advised the defendant to utilize the confession of judgment procedure.” The
3 Hulland v. State Bar of California (1972) 8 Cal.3d 440, 449. 4 Isbell v. County of Sonoma (1978) 21 Cal.3d 61, 71. 5 Id. at 64. 6 Id. at 65-66.
SB 688 Page 5 certificate must be filed with a statement in writing and signed by the defendant that authorizes the entry of judgment for a specific amount and includes details about the sum due.
This bill provides that a judgment by confession is unenforceable and may not be entered in any superior court. This applies to judgements of confession filed on or after January 1, 2022. This bill also removes various references to confessions of judgment elsewhere in the law.
California law already prohibits use of confessions of judgments in various contexts.7 The change joins California with various other states that outlaw the procedural device, including Massachusetts,8 Alabama,9 and Indiana,10 where procuring a cognovit note is a misdemeanor.
Comments According to the author:
SB 688 strikes confessions of judgment from California law. No one – whether an individual or small business owner – should be subject to such contractual language in order to secure a loan. A confession of judgment effectively permits a creditor – who typically is the drafter of the contract and sets terms – to unilaterally decide that an obligor has breached the contract, bypass the court, and go directly to collections: seizing assets, levying accounts, and garnishing wages.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/20/21)
None received
7 See, e.g., Financial Code § 18440 (“An industrial loan company shall not take any confession of judgment . . . at the time of making the loan.”); Civil Code § 1689.12 (making certain confessions of judgment in connection with home solicitation contracts void and unenforceable). 8 ALM GL ch. 231, § 13A: “Any stipulation in a contract, promissory note or other instrument, or in any memorandum or writing relating thereto, whereby a party thereto agrees to confess judgment in any action which may be brought thereon or authorizes or agrees to authorize another person to confess judgment as aforesaid shall be void and any judgment by confession taken in pursuance of such a stipulation shall be set aside or vacated on motion of the defendant.” 9 Code of Ala. § 8-9-11: “All agreements, contracts, or stipulations to confess judgment in any of the courts of this state, to be sued in any county other than that fixed by the venue statutes of this state, or to authorize another to confess judgment in any of the courts of this state made before the commencement of the action in which such judgments are so confessed shall be void, and all judgments by such unlawful confession, or otherwise taken or had in violation of this section, shall be set aside and annulled on motion if made within six months after the entry of such judgment.” 10 Ind. Code Ann. § 34-54-4-1.
SB 688 Page 6
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/20/21)
None received
Prepared by: Christian Kurpiewski / JUD. / (916) 651-4113 4/21/21 16:33:52
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 721 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 721 Author: Hueso (D), et al. Amended: 4/12/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 13-0, 3/9/21 AYES: Dodd, Nielsen, Allen, Archuleta, Borgeas, Bradford, Glazer, Hueso, Jones, Melendez, Portantino, Rubio, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Becker
SUBJECT: California Farmworker Day
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill designates August 26 of each year as California Farmworker Day, and requires the Governor to annually proclaim August 26 as California Farmworker Day.
Senate Floor Amendments of 4/12/21 change the date that would be designated as California Farmworker Day from August 9 of each year to August 26 of each year and add coauthors.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Designates particular days each year as having special significance and encourages all public schools and educational institutions to observe those days and conduct suitable commemorative exercises on those days. These days include:
a) The second Wednesday in May as “Day of the Teacher.” b) April 21 as “John Muir Day.” c) April 6 as “California Poppy Day.” d) May 22 as “Harvey Milk Day.” e) March 30 as “Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day.”
SB 721 Page 2
f) January 30 as “Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution.” g) February 6 as “Ronald Reagan Day.” h) January 23 as “Ed Roberts Day.” i) October 25 as “Larry Itliong Day.” j) April 10 as “Dolores Huerta Day.”
2) Requires the Governor to proclaim various days in honor of a person, status, or event. These days include:
a) September 28 as “Cabrillo Day.” b) January 15 as “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Day.” c) March 7 as “Arbor Day.” d) February 19 as “A Day of Remembrance: Japanese American Evacuation.” e) Fourth Friday in September as “Native American Day.” f) First Sunday in October as “Stepparents Day.” g) April 21 as “John Muir Day.” h) March 30 as “Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day.” i) December 7 as “Pearl Harbor Day.” j) March 31 as “Cesar Chavez Day.” k) Month of February as “Black History Month.” l) Third Saturday in June as “Juneteenth National Freedom Day: A Day of Observance.” m) April 24 as “California Day of Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide.” n) May 22 as “Harvey Milk Day.” o) January 30 as “Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution.” p) February 6 as “Ronald Reagan Day.” q) January 23 as “Ed Roberts Day.” r) October 25 as “Larry Itliong Day.” s) First Friday in May as “Space Day.” t) The day of the astronomical Northward equinox, which usually occurs on March 20 or the following day as “Nowrūz Day.”
This bill:
1) Designates August 26 of each year as California Farmworker Day.
2) Requires the Governor to annually proclaim August 26 as California Farmworker Day. 3) Makes various legislative findings.
SB 721 Page 3
Comments Purpose of the bill. According to the author’s office, “farmworkers are foundational to California’s economy. The skilled labor they provide in our agricultural sector maintains a $50 billion industry, and yet the inequities that continue to exist in farmworker communities highlight how their contributions to the state are continuously overlooked. By establishing and declaring August 9th as ‘California Farmworker Day’ to honor farmworkers and their skilled contributions, we can shift the conversation to focus on how we can continue to value farmworkers and eliminate the inequities that they experience.”
Farmworkers in California. With approximately $50 billion in agricultural annual revenue, California is the leading agricultural state in the United States. California produces more than 350 commodities; including about one-third of the nation’s vegetables and nearly two-thirds of the nation’s fruits and nuts.
According to the Center for Farmworker Families, between one-third to one-half of all farmworkers in the United States reside in California, or approximately 500,000-800,000 farmworkers. The Salinas Valley, the “Salad Bowl of the Nation,” employs more than 50,000 farmworkers. Approximately 75% of all farmworkers in California are undocumented. Roughly, one-third of them are women.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, agriculture is considered one of the most dangerous industries in the nation. Common injuries involve exposure to the elements, health-related symptoms related to pesticide exposure in both farmworkers and their children, and farm equipment injuries. Even though farmworkers work in one of the most dangerous industries, they receive very little benefits and protections.
The danger faced by farmworkers has only gotten worse because of the Covid-19 Pandemic. A recent study by the UC Berkeley School of Public Health found that approximately 13% of farmworkers in their study tested positive. However, based on seropositive test, the study suggested that 20% of all farmworkers had an earlier infection. Unfortunately, many farmworkers, even if they were to become sick, do not have homes with adequate space to isolate. Even worse, the study found that a large number of farmworkers reported working while symptomatic because of a lack of paycheck, fear of being fired from their job, or because their employer told them to come to work.
SB 721 Page 4
Related/Prior Legislation AB 2644 (Reyes, Chapter 130, Statutes of 2018) required the Governor to annually proclaim April 10 as Dolores Huerta Day, set apart that date as a date having special significance, and encouraged all public schools and educational institutions to conduct exercises remembering the life of Dolores Huerta.
AB 7 (Bonta, Chapter 29, Statutes of 2015) required the Governor to annually proclaim October 25 as Larry Itliong Day, designated that date each year as having special significance, and encouraged all public schools and educational institutions to conduct exercises remembering the life of Larry Itliong and the contributions he made to the state.
AB 2269 (Swanson, Chapter 584, Statutes of 2012) deemed the month of May to be Labor History Month, and encouraged school districts to commemorate the month with appropriate educational exercises, as specified.
SB 1373 (Torres, Chapter 1011, Statutes of 1994) required the Governor to annually proclaim March 31 as Cesar Chavez Day, and included March 31, known as Cesar Chavez Day, in the list of state holidays.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/12/21)
Brawley Union High School District City of Brawley La Cooperativa Campesina Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/12/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to La Cooperativa Campesina, “Farmworkers are vital to California. They contribute the skilled labor necessary to feed Californians daily while overcoming the difficulties that come with their jobs. Despite continuously serving in their labor, farmworkers’ benefits to the state, the nation, and the globe often go unrecognized. That is why it is necessary to
SB 721 Page 5 designate August [26th] as ‘California Farmworker Day’ in order to honor their contributions to California.”
Prepared by: Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530 4/14/21 14:48:56
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 768 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 768 Author: Glazer (D), et al. Amended: 3/25/21 Vote: 21
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/23/21 AYES: Hurtado, Jones, Cortese, Kamlager, Pan
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: CalWORKs: postsecondary education
SOURCE: Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations
DIGEST: This bill expands provisions of existing California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) law to allow students of a nonprofit postsecondary education institutions to receive a standard payment for books and college supplies and make other existing program rules applicable to these students, as specified, among other changes.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Establishes the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which permits states to implement the program under a state plan. (42 USC 601 et seq.)
2) Establishes in state law the CalWORKs program to provide cash assistance and other social services for low-income families through TANF. Under CalWORKs, each county provides assistance through a combination of state, county and federal TANF funds. (WIC 11120 et seq.) 3) Requires, generally, a recipient of CalWORKs benefits to participate in welfare-to-work (WTW) activities as a condition of eligibility for aid. (WIC 11320 et. seq.)
SB 768 Page 2
4) Mandates the sequence of employment-related activities a CalWORKs participant must engage in subsequent to the receipt of aid, unless otherwise exempted. Further requires that recipients shall, and applicants may, at the option of the county and with consent of the applicant, receive orientation to the WTW program. (WIC 11320.1)
5) Requires that a person who satisfies specified criteria be entitled to receive the standard payment for books and college supplies subject to the participant completing an assessment that is conducted only for the purposes of identifying any barriers, such as domestic violence, substance abuse, or a learning disability, that the participant may have. Additionally, specifies the participant shall not be required to complete job club to be eligible. (11322.84(a))
6) Provides that the standard payment for books and college supplies is available to a recipient attending a publicly funded postsecondary educational institution full time and making satisfactory progress at that institution, and a recipient attending a publicly funded postsecondary educational institution part time and who is meeting the hourly participation rates based on the number of academic units and the hours of study time required for those academic units, as specified. Further requires the county to assist recipients in meeting required hours, as specified. (WIC 11322.84(b))
7) Provides that a recipient attending a publicly funded postsecondary education institution and making satisfactory progress at that institution shall not be subject to WTW requirements. (WIC 11322.84(b))(2))
8) Requires a recipient who is attending a publicly funded postsecondary educational institution to provide verification that they are making satisfactory progress at the beginning of each term when that information is available from the institution the recipient attends. (WIC 11322.84(c))
9) Requires the definition of “full time,” “part time,” and “making satisfactory progress” to be determined according to the rules and regulations of the publicly funded postsecondary educational institution that the individual attends. (WIC 11322.84(d))
10) Requires a CalWORKs applicant or recipient to participate in WTW activities for 24 cumulative months, as specified, unless they are otherwise exempt. (WIC 11322.85)
SB 768 Page 3
11) Requires necessary supportive services to be available to every WTW participant in order to participate in an assigned program activity or to accept employment, to include childcare, diaper costs, transportation costs, ancillary expenses, which include the cost of books, tools, clothing specifically required for the job, fees, and other necessary costs and personal counseling, as specified. (WIC 11323.2)
12) Requires that a CalWORKs eligible individual who provides the county evidence that the individual is participating in an educational activity full time and making satisfactory progress at a publicly funded postsecondary educational institution, as specified, shall receive a payment of $500 for each semester or $350 for each quarter, and a CalWORKs eligible individual who provides the county evidence that the individual is participating in an educational activity part time at a postsecondary educational institution, as specified, shall receive a payment of $250 for each semester or $175 for each quarter for the purpose of paying costs associated with attending the postsecondary educational institution 10 days before the beginning of the academic semester or quarter. (WIC 11323.21)
13) Permits any student who, at the time he or she is required to participate in WTW, is enrolled in any undergraduate degree or certificate program that leads to employment may continue in that program if he or she is making satisfactory progress in that program, the county determines that continuing in the program is likely to lead to self-supporting employment for that recipient, and the welfare-to-work plan reflects that determination. (WIC 11325.23)
This bill:
1) Expands provisions of existing CalWORKs law to allow students of a nonprofit postsecondary education institution to receive a standard payment for books and college supplies and makes other existing program rules applicable to these students, as specified.
2) Prohibits a person who satisfies specified criteria to be entitled to receive the standard payment for books and college supplies from being be required to participate in CalWORKs orientation and appraisal.
3) Changes the hourly participation rates so that they are based on instructional hours instead of academic units. 4) Defines “instructional hour” to mean class time of 50 minutes.
SB 768 Page 4
5) Provides that a summer session shall be deemed to be a quarter for purposes of the standard payment for books and college supplies.
6) Provides that any student who does not meet requirements for standard payment for books and college supplies at the time the student is required to participate in WTW and who is enrolled any undergraduate degree or certificate program that leads to employment may continue in that program if the student is making satisfactory progress in that program, the county determines that continuing in the program is likely to lead to self-supporting employment for that recipient, and the welfare-to-work plan reflects that determination.
7) Permits the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to implement provisions of the bill with All-County Letters or similar written instructions from the department until regulations are adopted.
8) Makes technical non-substantive changes.
Comments According to the author, “student parents on CalWORKs face an uphill battle in attaining college education. Last year, this Legislature passed SB 1232, making it easier for these hardworking students to maintain their benefits and succeed in higher education by ensuring they were not penalized for enrolling in school rather than working. Further, SB 1232 ensured these students had access to the funds they needed to purchase textbooks and necessary supplies. This year’s bill simply clarifies that CalWORKs students who attend private, not-for-profit, secondary education institutions are also eligible for funds. Further, it clarifies that the benefits apply to all instructional hours, including summer sessions. Finally, this bill excludes students who qualify for CalWORKS under these provisions from SIP requirements.”
Education, Employment, and Earnings
As the chart below shows, educational attainment has a direct impact on earnings. Educational attainment is also associated with lower unemployment and less strain on the social safety net, as well as higher tax revenue and greater civic participation.
SB 768 Page 5
CalWORKs. As the state’s largest anti-poverty program, CalWORKs provides temporary cash assistance aimed at moving children out of poverty and helping qualified low income families meet their basic needs, such as rent, clothing, utility bills, food and other items needed to ensure children are cared for at home and safely remain with their families. In addition to cash assistance, adult CalWORKs recipients are provided education, employment and training services designed to help remove barriers to work and promote self-sufficiency. These services are typically outlined in a WTW plan.
In order to be eligible for CalWORKs, families must meet income and asset tests that are based on family size and county of residence. For example, a family of three living in a higher cost-of-living region could qualify to receive CalWORKs benefits if their monthly adjusted income is no more than $1,453. The same family living in a lower cost-of-living region would qualify if their monthly adjusted income is no more than $1,379. As of October 2020, the maximum monthly grant amount for a non-exempt family of three, if the family has no other income and lives in a high-cost county, is $878. The same family living in a lower cost-of- living county would be eligible for up to $834 per month. However, the average monthly CalWORKs benefit is $583. More than 482,400 families are projected to receive CalWORKs benefits in Fiscal Year 2021-22. Sequence of Employment-Related Services. After a person has been determined to be eligible for the CalWORKs program, the sequence of employment-related services starts with orientation and appraisal. After orientation and appraisal,
SB 768 Page 6 recipients may be required to participate in job search and job club; family stabilization; substance abuse, mental health, or domestic violence services, whichever is appropriate. However, the county may determine that the recipient should skip these activities and go straight to assessment. Upon referral to assessment, participants work with the county welfare department to develop and agree on WTW plans that are based on participants’ unique skills and needs.
CalWORKs for College Students. CalWORKs recipients are typically required to enroll in WTW activities 20-30 hours per week in order to receive full CalWORKs benefits. Failure to meet WTW requirements may cause the families’ CalWORKs cash benefits to be reduced. These hourly WTW requirements apply to CalWORKs recipients who are enrolled in college, unless they meet the requirement for the standard allowance as provided in SB 1232 (Glazer, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2020). Prior to passage of SB 1232, there were two ways a CalWORKs recipient could attend college: (1) under the self-initiated program (SIP) (discussed below); and (2) as assigned in the WTW plan after orientation and appraisal, job club and assessment. SB 1232 provided a carve-out for college students who meet the requirement for the standard payment in WIC 11322.84. Per SB 1232, CalWORKs recipients who are also students attending a publicly funded postsecondary education institution and who meet specified attendance criteria are not required to complete job club or to participate in WTW activities. Additionally, assessments for such students are required to be conducted only for the purpose of identifying any barriers, such as domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health, learning disability, or other barriers that the participant may have, as specified. SB 1232 also allowed these students to receive funds to purchase books prior to the beginning of their academic term.
Under the CalWORKs SIP, prior to passage of SB 1232, any college student who, at the time the student is initially required to participate in WTW activities, is enrolled in any undergraduate degree or certificate program that leads to employment may continue in that program if:
The student is making satisfactory progress in the program;
The county determines that continuing in the program is likely to lead to self- supporting employment for the student; and
The WTW plan reflects that determination. Unlike the students who meet criteria for the standard allowance, SIP does not waive job club or other WTW requirements. Additionally, the standard allowance is not available to SIP participants.
SB 768 Page 7
Related/Prior Legislation SB 1232 (Glazer, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2020) required that CalWORKs eligible individuals participating in a full time or part time educational activity at a publicly funded postsecondary educational institution receive a standard payment for books and college supplies of $175 to $500 per semester or quarter, as specified. The bill exempted such applicants or recipients from participating in specified work activities and revises applicable assessment requirements.
SB 374 (Glazer, 2019) would have required that a CalWORKs eligible individual participating in an educational activity full time and making satisfactory progress, as specified, receive a standard allowance of $500; be deemed to be meeting all WTW requirements, including the hourly participation requirements; be entitled to advance payments for allowance or reimbursement and other necessary supportive services, as specified; and is entitled to an extension of the 24-month cumulative participation period, as specified. Thebill was held in Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 79 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 11, Statutes of 2020) authorized moving to a single 60-month CalWORKs time limit and eliminated the 24-month limitation on WTW activities, effective May 1, 2022, or when CDSS notifies the Legislature that all necessary automation changes are complete. AB 79 also made other conforming changes to program statute to reflect the 60-month time limit.
AB 227 (Mayes, 2017) would have created the CalWORKs Educational Opportunity and Attainment Program to offer education grants and stipends to eligible CalWORKs participants who complete certain educational programs. It did not pass out of the Senate Human Services Committee.
AB 1994 (Lopez, 2016) would have created the CalED program to provide a one- time $500 supplement to eligible CalWORKs participants upon successful completion of a high school equivalency examination. It was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 2448 (Burke, 2016) would have changed CalWORKs requirements regarding permissible welfare-to-work activities to facilitate a recipient’s completion of a high school equivalency program. It was vetoed by the Governor.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes SUPPORT: (Verified 4/20/21)
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations (source)
SB 768 Page 8
Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities California Alternative Payment Program Association National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/20/21)
None received
Prepared by: Taryn Smith / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524 4/21/21 16:35:59
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 779 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 779 Author: Becker (D) Amended: 4/7/21 Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/5/21 AYES: Cortese, Ochoa Bogh, Durazo, Laird, Newman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: California Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act: earn and learn programs
SOURCE: Jewish Vocational Services Roberts Enterprise Development Fund
DIGEST: This bill amends the definition of “earn and learn” programs, and specifically, the definition of “transitional and subsidized jobs” under the California Workforce and Innovation Opportunity Act. This bill further adds to the California Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act a definition of “employment social enterprise” and clarifies that for purposes of the Act the definition of “worker cooperative” has the same meaning as it does in in Section 12253.5 of the Corporations Code.
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Sets forth the principles by which workforce programs in the state should operate, including all of the following:
a) Workforce investment programs and services shall be responsive to the needs of employers, workers, and students
b) State and local workforce development boards are encouraged to collaborate with other public and private institutions, as specified
SB 779 Page 2
c) Workforce investment programs and services shall be data driven and evidence based when setting priorities, investing resources, and adopting practices.
d) Workforce investment programs and services shall develop strong partnerships with the private sector, ensuring industry involvement in needs assessment, planning, and program evaluation.
e) Workforce investment programs and services shall be outcome oriented and accountable, measuring results for program participants, including, but not limited to, outcomes related to program completion, employment, and earnings.
f) Programs and services shall be accessible to employers, the self-employed, workers, and students who may benefit from their operation, including individuals with employment barriers, such as persons with economic, physical, or other barriers to employment. (Unemployment Insurance Code §14000)
2) Establishes the California Workforce Development Board (CWDB) as the body responsible for assisting the Governor in the development, oversight, and continuous improvement of California’s workforce investment system. (Unemployment Insurance Code §14010 et seq).
3) Defines “earn and learn” job training programs to include, but not be limited to, programs that do either of the following:
a) Combine applied learning in a workplace setting with compensation allowing workers or students to gain work experience and secure a wage as they develop skills and competencies directly relevant to the occupation or career for which they are preparing.
b) Bring together classroom instruction with on-the-job training to combine both formal instruction and actual paid work experience. (Unemployment Insurance Code §14005(q))
4) Establishes that “earn and learn” programs include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Apprenticeships. b) Preapprenticeships.
SB 779 Page 3
c) Incumbent worker training.
d) Transitional and subsidized employment, particularly for individuals with barriers to employment.
e) Paid internships and externships.
f) Project-based compensated learning. (Unemployment Insurance Code §14005(q))
5) Defines a worker cooperative or employee cooperative to mean a corporation that includes a class of worker-members who are natural persons whose patronage consists of labor contributed to or other work performed for the corporation. Election to be organized as a worker cooperative or an employment cooperative does not create a presumption that workers are employees of the corporation for any purposes. At least 51 percent of the workers shall be worker-members or candidates. (Corporations Code §12253.5).
This bill:
1) Amends the definition of “earn and learn” programs, and specifically, the definition of “transitional and subsidized jobs” under the California Workforce and Innovation Opportunity Act, to mean “Transitional jobs” as defined by the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act on January 1, 2021, and “subsidized employment” including, but not limited to, subsidized employment provided by an employment social enterprise or a worker cooperative, particularly for individuals with barriers to employment.
2) Adds to the California Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act a definition of “Employment social enterprise” that means a nonprofit or for-profit organization that meets all of the following requirements:
a) Is organized as a social purpose corporation or a benefit corporation, or as an organization incorporated within a larger organization.
b) Demonstrates evidence of a mission to provide and to access employment and social supports with on-the-job and life skills training to a direct labor force comprised of individuals with a “barrier to employment,” as that phrase is defined in Section 3102 of Title 29 of the United States Code, as that section read on January 1, 2021.
SB 779 Page 4
c) Is evidence-based and utilizes data-driven policies in implementing procedures and measuring outcomes.
d) Produces or assembles goods or provides services, or a combination of both.
3) Clarifies that for purposes of the California Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act the definition of “worker cooperative” has the same meaning as it does in in Section 12253.5 of the Corporations Code.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/20/21)
Jewish Vocational Services (co-source) Roberts Enterprise Development Fund (co-source) Anti-Recidivism Coalition California Association of Local Conservation Corps Center for Employment Opportunities Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto Council of California Goodwill Industries Downtown Women's Center Homeward Bound of Marin Juma Ventures Los Angeles Conservation Corps Rancho Cielo Youth Campus Root & Rebound Sonoma County Black Coalition The Chrysalis Center Tipping Point Community Young Women's Freedom Center
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/20/21)
California Workforce Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Roberts Enterprise Development Fund (REDF), co-sponsors of the bill, “this measure will bolster job training efforts as the state recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic by modernizing the existing workforce structure and meeting the needs of those overcoming workforce barriers. The bill adds into the Labor/UI Code additional models that can be considered when funding ‘earn and learn’ programs. These models include employment social enterprises (ESEs) and worker cooperatives. SB 779 streamlines the current Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
SB 779 Page 5 language by placing definitions of these new models within the code sections that address ‘earn and learn’ programs. ESEs are businesses that offer employment with a specific social mission: to provide income, training, and supportive services to those overcoming workforce barriers so that they can fully participate in the economy. Since 1997, REDF has provided capital and advisory services to about 90 ESEs in California, which have provided training and employment to over 27,000 people statewide – over 12,000 from 2018 to 2020 alone. ESEs help government spending go further while improving lives and strengthening families and communities. Independent research verifies that the on-the-job experience that ESEs provide their employees more than doubles job retention and significantly increases wages and total incomes. Nationally, this is a vibrant, growing field, and nonprofit ESEs are joined by for-profit companies increasingly establishing ‘second chance’ hiring and related initiatives . . . REDF has identified over 150 ESEs in California. Examples of ESEs include:
Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO), a national organization that employs formerly incarcerated individuals in work crews that provide supplemental indoor/outdoor maintenance and neighborhood beautification services to more than 40 customers throughout California and nine other states. Homeboy Industries, which provides job training and employment to gang- affiliated and formerly incarcerated individuals in a variety of employment social enterprises in Los Angeles. Homeboy’s innovative supports, such as prison and gang-identifying tattoo removal, have been recognized internationally. Neighborhood Industries, which operates thrift stores, recycles material, and provides transitional employment for people facing barriers to work in Fresno.
. . . . SB 779 amends the list of ‘earn and learn’ programs by specifying that an ‘earn and learn’ program includes transitional jobs, as described in the federal WIOA, and subsidized employment, as provided by an ESE, or a worker cooperative, particularly for individuals with barriers to employment, namely, justice-involved persons”.
According to Jewish Vocational Services, also co-sponsors of this bill, “Worker cooperatives allow small businesses to expand without hiring full-time staff and allowing staff to receive training and benefits while working through the Cooperative that is recognized as the employer of record. These benefits include health insurance, UI, and Workers Compensation coverage. Trainees can buy into
SB 779 Page 6 the Cooperative after working 100 hours and as shareholders, receive a share of profits distributed at the end of the year. At the federal and state levels, there is a growing need to address the pandemic’s effects. New models that prioritize employing individuals who are overcoming barriers to work and recognize emerging models of work within the gig economy, provide benefits and stability for all workers, and offer entrepreneurial opportunities. These new models acknowledge that subsidized and transitional employment are needed to address barriers to employment and as workers migrate to new opportunities.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California Workforce Association, “This bill amends the list of “earn and learn” programs under allowable activities for WIOA funding to include transitional jobs that are provided by an ESE. This inclusion is duplicative and unnecessary, as both transitional jobs and earn and learn programs are already engaged in job training and employment strategies allowed by Federal law and regulations and funded through LWDBs using both WIOA and local funds, including organizations referenced in this measure’s fact sheet. To reiterate, SB 779 adds statutory language around activities that are already allowable under State and Federal law, and utilized consistently by workforce development practitioners.
“Transitional Employment is a useful and important workforce development tool for communities that have been impacted by systemic discrimination, the pandemic, and other barriers. This is why CWA was supportive and proud to see the State of California submit to the US Department of Labor a waiver that increases the percentage of WIOA funding a LWDB can use from their Adult and Dislocated Worker funds from 10% to 30%. As that waiver was only submitted in July of 2020, implementation of flexibility takes time, and SB 779 does not wait to see if this expanded percentage helps address the challenges SB 779 seeks to solve. More time is needed to see if administrative and policy changes are effective in increasing funding going to transitional employment.”
Prepared by: Daniel Rounds / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556 4/21/21 15:22:45
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 816 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
CONSENT
Bill No: SB 816 Author: Committee on Governmental Organization Amended: 4/6/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 15-0, 4/20/21 AYES: Dodd, Nielsen, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Borgeas, Bradford, Glazer, Hueso, Jones, Kamlager, Melendez, Portantino, Rubio, Wilk
SUBJECT: Master Mutual Aid Agreement: tribes
SOURCE: Pala Band of Mission Indians
DIGEST: This bill adds federally recognized California Indian tribes to the definition of the Master Mutual Aid Agreement (MMAA).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Grants, under the California Emergency Services Act (Act), the Governor certain powers to be exercise in accordance with the State Emergency Plan and programs for the mitigation of the effects of an emergency.
2) Establishes the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) within the office of the Governor and makes OES responsible for the state’s emergency and disaster response services for natural, technological, or manmade disasters and emergencies.
3) Requires, during a state of war emergency, or state of emergency when the need arises for outside aid in any county, city and county, or city, aid to be rendered in accordance with approved emergency plans.
SB 816 Page 2
4) Authorizes state agencies and political subdivisions to exercise mutual aid powers in accordance with the MMAA and local ordinances, resolutions, agreements, or plans.
5) Defines the “Master Mutual Aid Agreement” to mean the California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, made and entered into by and between the State of California, its various departments and agencies, the various political subdivisions of the state.
This bill:
1) Adds federally recognized Indian tribes to the definition of the MMAA.
2) Includes various legislative findings.
Background
Purpose of the bill. According to the author’s office, “by adding Federally recognized Indian tribes to the definition of the MMAA, this bill will allow tribal fire agencies the ability to recoup costs incurred while responding to federal fires throughout the State of California. As we are all aware, the fire season in California has unfortunately become a yearlong event requiring the assistance of every available resource. This bill will ensure that tribal fire agencies, who have played a key role in fighting wildfires throughout the state continue to provide this vital service.”
Master Mutual Aid Agreement. California law defines the Master Mutual Aid Agreement to mean the California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Aid Agreement. The MMAA was signed into law by Governor Earl Warren in 1950. The parties to the agreement consist of the State of California, including its various departments and agencies, and all of its political subdivisions, municipal corporations, and other public agencies. Because tribal government are not political subdivisions of the State of California, they are currently not parties to the MMAA.
The overall intent of the MMAA is that all of the parties which sign it will make available to the other parties the resources and facilities needed to prevent and combat the effects that may result from such disasters as floor, fire, earthquake, disease, war, sabotage, and riot. The types of resources can include, firefighting
SB 816 Page 3 equipment, police, medical and health, and any other type of equipment necessary for the response of any emergency.
The MMAA provides that each party will develop a plan that provides for the effective mobilization of all of its resources and facilities to cope with any type of man-made or natural disasters. In addition, each party agrees to furnish resources and facilities, as well as render services, to each and every other party to the agreement, so as to prevent and combat any type of disaster. This agreement also binds the parties to comply with the provisions of any mutual aid agreements into which the State of California enters with other states and the Federal Government.
California Fire Assistance Agreement. The California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA) outlines the negotiated reimbursement terms and conditions for local fire agency responses through the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Aid System. It allows the State of California and the Federal Fire Agencies to utilize local government firefighting personnel and equipment and emergency assistance to the State of California and to Federal Fire Agencies.
For nearly two decades, the CFAA has outlined the terms and conditions in which tribal fire agencies may respond under the CFAA. In each iteration of the CFAA, the agreement has contained language prohibiting federal signatory agencies from reimbursing tribal fire agencies under the CFAA. However, several years ago an informal process was implemented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to provide reimbursement to tribal fire agencies for federal fire responses. OES facilitated this process by passing through invoices to the BIA for payment. This informal process allowed tribal fire agencies to submit their reimbursement claims for federal fire responses.
Unfortunately, during one of the most recent CFAA negotiations, the BIA stated that they would no longer be the responsible reimbursement party for federal fire responses under the CFAA and tribal fire agencies should bill the requesting federal fire agency who holds jurisdictional responsibility. Subsequently, federal agencies took the position that tribal fire agency reimbursement for federal fire responses through the CFAA would require the tribal fire agencies to become signatory to the MMAA. This decision dramatically impacted the ability of tribal fire agencies to respond to disasters as they would no longer have the ability to recoup costs incurred while responding to federal fires. This was because tribal governments are not signatories to the MMAA.
SB 816 Page 4
While the BIA took the position that, “the Stafford Act creates a rebuttable presumption that tribes are in fact local governments and should be treated as such,” tribal fire agencies are part of a sovereign nation. They are not a political subdivision of the State of California, and therefore, cannot be parties to the MMAA. In order to fix that issue, this bill adds Federally recognize Indian tribes to the definition of the MMAA allowing tribal fire agencies the ability to recoup costs incurred while responding to federal fired throughout California.
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 370 (Dodd, 2021) authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to make grants to, reimburse, or enter into contracts or other agreements with public and private entities, including nonprofit organizations, and federally recognized Indian Tribes for the use of the funds from the Big Game Management Account to carry out the provisions of this bill. (Pending in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/20/21)
Pala Band of Mission Indians (source) California Nations Indian Gaming Association California Professional Firefighters California Tribal Business Alliance
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/20/21)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Pala Band of Mission Indians, “like the Pala Band, many California Indian tribes play a vital role in delivering valuable emergency response services on tribal lands and beyond, ensuring critically needed fire protection, rescue, paramedic and other emergency response services to hundreds of thousands of California’s citizens. Despite many years of acting as equal partners with the state and local agencies in providing emergency response, state law fails to treat us as equal partners for these purposes. SB 816 will amend the ESA to clarify that the state may contract with federally recognized
SB 816 Page 5
Indian tribes under the MMAA. This critical legislation is necessary to ensure that the tribes are treated as equal partners in the state’s overall emergency response infrastructure.”
Prepared by: Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530 4/21/21 15:22:47
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 818 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 818 Author: Committee on Governmental Organization Introduced: 3/3/21 Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 14-0, 3/23/21 AYES: Dodd, Nielsen, Allen, Becker, Borgeas, Bradford, Glazer, Hueso, Jones, Kamlager, Melendez, Portantino, Rubio, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Archuleta
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/5/21 AYES: Portantino, Bates, Bradford, Jones, Kamlager, Laird, Wieckowski
SUBJECT: California State Lottery
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires the Director of the California State Lottery (Lottery), on or before August 1, 2022, to conduct a study to determine the optimal prize payout rate to maximize the amount of funding allocated to public education and requires the Director to recalculate the optimal prize payout rate at least once every five years. In addition, the bill requires the California State Lottery Commission (Commission), beginning with the 2023-24 fiscal year, and consistent with the above formula, to use the optimal prize payout rate to set the lottery’s budget each year.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Authorizes, under the California State Lottery Act of 1984 (Act), the Lottery and provides for its operation and administration by the Commission and the Director.
SB 818 Page 2
2) Requires that no less than 87% of the total annual revenues of the Lottery be returned to the public in the form of prizes and net revenues to benefit public education, as specified, and requires at least 50% of annual lottery revenues to be returned to the public in the form of prizes.
3) Requires that revenues of the Lottery shall be allocated as to maximize the amount of funding allocated to public education.
4) Establishes the Commission, which consists of five members, and requires the Commission to promote and ensure integrity, security, honesty, and fairness in the operation of the Lottery.
5) Requires the Controller to conduct quarterly and annual post-audits of all accounts and transactions of the Commission and other special post-audits, as the Controller deems necessary.
This bill:
1) Requires the Director, on or before August 1, 2022, to conduct a study to determine the optimal prize payout rate to maximize the amount of funding allocated to public education each year by the Lottery.
2) Requires the Commission, commencing with the 2023-24 fiscal year, to use the optimal prize payout rate to set the lottery’s budget each fiscal year.
Background
Purpose of the bill. According to the author’s office, “this bill simply implements some of the suggestions that were detailed in last year’s Auditor’s report, which detailed the Lottery’s failure in ensuring that they were using up-to-date information to determine the optimal prize payout. By requiring that the Lottery conduct a study every five years to determine the optimal prize payout, we will ensure that the maximum amount of money goes to our public schools.”
California State Auditor Report. In February 2020, the California State Auditor (Auditor) released a report titled “The Lottery Has Not Ensured That It Maximizes Funding for Education,” which found that the Lottery could not demonstrate that its current prize payout rate was optimal for maximizing funding for education. In addition, the Auditor found that the last study that the Lottery had conducted on the
SB 818 Page 3 optimal prize payout rate was 10 years old and the Lottery had not adhered to that study when planning its most recent budgets.
Without accurate and up-to-date information about the optimal prize payout rate, the Auditor determined that the Lottery could not demonstrate that it was maximizing funding for education.
California State Lottery. The California State Lottery was created by a ballot measure, Proposition 37, which was approved by 58% of voters on Nov. 6, 1984. The Act gave the Lottery a clear mission to provide supplemental funding to California public education on all levels from kindergarten through higher education, plus several specialized schools. The Act specifies that the Lottery shall be operated and administered by a commission appointed by the Governor. The Legislature has the authority to amend the Act by a two-thirds majority, if the amendments further the purposes of the Act.
On April 8, 2010, the Legislature amended the Act with AB 142 (Hayashi, Chapter 13, Statutes of 2010). The bill required the Lottery to return at least 87% of revenues to the public in the form of prizes and contributions to education, and established a cap of 13% of revenues as the amount the Lottery may spend on operating expenses. Prior to AB 142, the Lottery was required to return, 50% of revenues to the public in the form of prizes; at least 34% to public education; and allocate no more than 16% to administrative costs. The bill required the State Controller to review the amount of revenue that was allocated to public education at the end of each year for five years. If the total amount of revenue to public education fell short of the amount allocated in the last full fiscal year prior to the enactment of the bill, the bill included a provision that would have repealed the change. Such a drop never happened; the change in allocation has resulted in significant more money for public education in California.
The Act also establishes the Commission, which consists of five members appointed by the Governor with the consent of the California Senate. The Commission is required to promote and ensure integrity, security, honesty, and fairness in the operation and administration of the Lottery. It is also responsible for approving the Lottery’s budget and business plans. In addition, the Act requires the Commission to promulgate regulations that specify the types of games the Lottery can conduct and to establish a system for paying prizes.
SB 818 Page 4
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 891 (Chang, 2020) would have specified that revenues of the Lottery are to be allocated so as to ensure that the relationship between increases in the net revenues of the Lottery and increase in funding allocated to public education is directly proportional. In addition, the bill would have appropriated $36 million from the Lottery Fund to the California State Controller for allocation to public education in order to cover the shortfall in allocation form the Lottery Fund for the 2017-18 fiscal year. (Never Heard in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee)
SB 1442 (Chang, 2020) would, among other things, have required the Director, on or before August 1, 2021, to conduct a study to determine the optimal prize payout to maximize the amount of funding allocated to public education each year by the Lottery and would have required the Director to recalculate the optimal prize payout rate at least once every five years. (Never Heard in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee)
SB 675 (Chang, 2019) would have required the transfer of between $50 and $100 million from the State Lottery Fund to the State Department of Education to administer a grant program promoting the teaching of computer science courses in public secondary schools. (Never Heard in Senate Governmental Organization Committee)
AB 1464 (Gray, 2019) would have required the State Controller to, every three years, conduct an audit of the Commission administrative operating expenses for the prior fiscal year. (Held in the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File)
SB 619 (Bradford, 2017) would have allowed a business that is not a lottery game retailer to purchase lottery tickets from an authorized lottery retailer on behalf of individuals who order those tickets through the Internet Web site or mobile application operated by that business. (Never heard in Senate Governmental Organization Committee)
AB 1428 (Gray, 2016) would have allowed the public to know how Lottery funds were distributed and spent by designated school districts. (Held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File)
AB 363 (Hayashi, Chapter 56, Statutes of 2011) extended the due date from December 31 to April 1 for each of the next five years on the State Controller’s
SB 818 Page 5 reporting requirements on the Commission’s efforts to boost income for public education.
AB 142 (Hayashi, Chapter 13, Statutes of 2010) modified the allocation formula of the Act and allowed the Lottery to modify the allocation formula if the Controller determined that revenues allocated to the benefit of public education is less than what would have been allocated if the law were not changed.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Lottery anticipates ongoing costs of $60,000 (State Lottery Fund) every five years to recalculate the optimal prize payout rate. Costs include the procurement of a contractor to complete the independent study and marginal staff time to provide data to the contractor.
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/5/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/5/21)
None received
Prepared by: Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530 4/7/21 15:22:26
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SCR 4 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCR 4 Author: Umberg (D), et al. Amended: 4/12/21 Vote: 21
SUBJECT: King Hùng Vương Commemorative Day
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution proclaims April 21, 2021, as King Hùng Vương Commemorative Day and recognizes it as a day of cultural festivals commemorating the roots of Vietnamese Americans in California.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) The festival King Hùng Vương Commemorative Day is a Vietnamese traditional holiday commemorating the merits of founding the nation of Vietnam by the Hung Vuong kings.
2) The commemoration is held annually on the 10th day of March of the lunar calendar at King Hung Temple, Viet Tri City, Phu Tho Province, Northern Vietnam, as well as everywhere in Vietnam. Since 1975, Vietnamese communities around the world celebrate this holiday every year.
3) According to legend, Lac Long Quan and Au Co are considered to be the ancestors of the Vietnamese, the parents of the Hung Kings. Over the 18 terms of the Hung Vuong Kingdom, according to historians, the Kingdom led multiple defensive wars against foreign aggression and cemented the national patriotism and pride of sovereign Vietnam.
4) The Hung Vuong period is a very important period in the history of Vietnam. It was this period that built a foundation of Vietnam today, as well as the cultural foundation of Vietnam and the patriotic traditions of the Vietnamese. 5) King Hùng Vương Commemorative Day not only highlights national pride but also reminds us to thoroughly understand and promote national identity and
SCR 4 Page 2
ancestral origins, ensuring that future generations appreciate the merits of generations of national heroes and their ancestors.
6) After the Vietnam War ended in 1975, millions of Vietnamese people escaped from Vietnam and settled in free, democratic countries, including more than 580,000 Vietnamese living in California.
7) Over the past 40 years, Vietnamese communities have rapidly formed and developed, contributing to the diversity of culture, economy, education, politics, military, and more. King Hùng Vương Commemorative Day is one of the most monumental annual festivals, bringing forth the many historical and cultural characteristics of the Vietnamese community.
8) The festival King Hùng Vương Commemorative Day is organized by Vietnamese local associations, recreating historical traditional images, teaching young Vietnamese Americans about their roots, culture, and the history of Vietnam. At the same time, the festival contributes to building diversity in California.
This resolution recognizes April 21, 2021, which is the 10th of March in the lunar calendar, as King Hùng Vương Commemorative Day and recognizes it as a day of cultural festivals commemorating the roots of Vietnamese Americans in California.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/13/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/13/21)
None received
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/14/21 15:20:33
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SCR 18 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCR 18 Author: Cortese (D) Introduced: 3/8/21 Vote: 21
SUBJECT: Compassionate California
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution declares California to be the first Compassionate State in the United States of America.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) The Charter for Compassion was unveiled at the United Nations in 2009, and carries forth the vision of creating a global civil society that adheres to the “golden rule,” to treat others as we would like to be treated.
2) The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical, and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and put another there, and to honor the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity, and respect.
3) It is also necessary in both public and private life to consistently and empathetically refrain from inflicting pain, acting or speaking violently out of spite or self-interest toward any other being or group of beings, to impoverish, exploit, or deny basic rights to anyone, or to incite hatred by denigrating others, even our enemies, because these acts deny our common humanity.
4) There is a growing network of Compassionate Communities that have affirmed the Charter for Compassion with their local governments, including three countries and over 100 cities, counties, or states, spread across 50 countries globally, with more than 300 international cities and communities actively organizing to create a compassionate action plan.
SCR 18 Page 2
5) Research demonstrates that practicing compassion produces positive benefits in all sectors of civic and community life, including business, education, safety, public health, and economic, physical, mental, and spiritual well-being.
6) The state is blessed with and grateful for its 12 local governments that have already adopted the Charter for Compassion, and the 42 compassionate communities in the state organized through Compassionate California; and the state is likewise grateful for its 28 sister states around the world.
7) Adoption of the Charter for Compassion is supported by thousands of state residents who organize across the state through Compassionate California, and the Legislature which recognizes the need to encourage, affirm, and promote our continuous efforts to be the most compassionate state in the United States.
8) The state, along with its 58 counties and 482 cities, regularly empowers and supports compassionate programs and nonprofit services to improve the lives of all California residents and treat them with dignity, with emphasis on supportive services to child and youth programs, the elderly, the disabled, the homeless, veterans, immigrants, vulnerable and protected populations such as those defined by race, ethnicity, religion, culture, gender, sexual orientation and identity, nativity, native language, and related issues, workers, and small businesses.
9) The state hopes to serve as a model for other states in our republic — a state of compassion where anyone who wishes to live in acceptance of others can also find refuge in an environment where cultural differences are treated with respect and dignity.
This resolution declares California to be the first Compassionate State in the United States of America and calls upon other Americans to join us in recognizing that compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological, and religious boundaries, and also recognize that compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity.
Related/Prior Legislation ACR 108 (Chu, 2019-20 Session), which died in the Assembly, would have declared California to be the first Compassionate State in the United States of America. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SCR 18 Page 3
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/15/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/15/21)
None received
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520 3/17/21 15:03:44
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SCR 23 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCR 23 Author: Archuleta (D) Introduced: 3/11/21 Vote: 21
SUBJECT: National Military Appreciation Month
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution honors the service members who have served and are serving in our nation’s military, and recognizes the month of May 2021 as National Military Appreciation Month.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) National Military Appreciation Month began with a simple idea—to gather America around its military family to honor, remember, recognize, and appreciate those who serve and have served all while knowing its history.
2) Throughout our country’s history, generations of service members have answered the call to leave their families, their jobs, and put their futures and even their lives on the line to valiantly defend our nation and its inalienable rights. For many service members, that sacrifice has ended in permanent injury or death, yet their spirit remains in the continued preservation of our freedoms and the promise of liberty.
3) The purpose of this important resolution is to let our service members know that those they protect dedicate an entire month to honor, remember, and appreciate their patriotism and their families’ dedication. This very important month honors, remembers, recognizes, and appreciates all military personnel, the service members who have served throughout our history, all who now serve in uniform, and their families, and those Americans who have given their lives in defense of the freedoms we all enjoy today.
4) National Military Appreciation Month recognizes those on active duty in all branches of the service, the National Guard and Reserves, retirees, veterans, and
SCR 23 Page 2
all of their families — well over 90 million Americans. Let us celebrate them just as we celebrate the other important entities that make up this wonderful country of ours.
5) California boasts more than 30 major defense installations, incorporating all military services, more than double any other state, and California’s diverse network of training ranges are a national treasure that cannot be replicated or replaced. Each California military base, accounting for over 128,373 active- duty personnel stationed in the state, has unique, important military value, and is making critical contributions to national security for today and the future. Over 18,751 Californians serve in the Air and Army National Guard and 37,416 Californians serve in United States Army Reserve, United States Marine Corps Reserve, United States Air Force Reserve, United States Navy Reserve, and United States Coast Guard Reserve.
6) Our military continues to play a major role in the development of our country, as chronicled through a history of unbending honor, dedication to duty, and genuine love of country.
7) This month is necessary to remind us of the sacrifices of the service members who have answered the call to serve and the history we, as Americans, have been privileged to participate in throughout more than 245 years. Through appropriate means, federal, state, and local governments, and private sector entities are invited to participate in this special month and to encourage everyone to sponsor and participate in programs via multiple venues, giving the nation a time and place upon which to focus, draw attention, and express our appreciation and thanks to our military family.
8) The observance of events recognizing the contributions of the Armed Forces is a tangible and highly effective way of sustaining morale and improving the quality of life for service members and their families.
This resolution honors the service members who have served and are serving in our nation’s military, and recognizes the month of May 2021 as National Military Appreciation Month.
Related/Prior Legislation SCR 48 (Archuleta, Resolution Chapter 80, Statutes of 2019) recognized the month of May 2019 as National Military Appreciation Month.
SCR 23 Page 3
SCR 144 (Fuller, Resolution Chapter 102, Statutes of 2018) recognized the month of May 2018 as National Military Appreciation Month.
SCR 53 (Fuller, Resolution Chapter 152, Statutes of 2017) recognized the month of May 2017 as National Military Appreciation Month.
SCR 113 (Fuller, Resolution Chapter 108, Statutes of 2016) recognized the month of May 2016 as National Military Appreciation Month.
SCR 47 (Fuller, Resolution Chapter 59, Statutes of 2015) recognized the month of May 2015 as National Military Appreciation Month.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/24/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/24/21)
None received
Prepared by: Jonas Austin / SFA / (916) 651-1520 3/24/21 15:55:59
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SCR 30 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCR 30 Author: Dahle (R) Introduced: 3/25/21 Vote: 21
SUBJECT: Cystinuria Awareness Day
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution recognizes and proclaims June 24, 2021, as Cystinuria Awareness Day to promote awareness of Cystinuria and to show support for California medical research centers that take an active role in the fight against the disease.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) Cystinuria occurs in individuals when a rare genetic defect prevents the body from regulating amino acid concentrations, leading to elevated levels of cystine and the formation of cystine stones in the kidney, ureter, and bladder.
2) The majority of Cystinuria patients start to suffer from chronic cystine stone formation before 20 years of age. Cystinuria patients often endure episodes of debilitating pain known as renal colic, nausea, vomiting, and recurrent urinary tract infections. Cystinuria patients may suffer from life-threatening complications, such as hypertension, renal insufficiency, end-stage renal disease, and the need for a kidney transplant. The majority of Cystinuria patients will require numerous stone removal procedures and surgeries, and those forming recurrent stones will develop some form of chronic kidney disease in their lifetime.
3) There is no cure for Cystinuria, treatment options significantly reduce medically necessary surgeries, and some patients can live a stone-free life.
4) Cystinuria can be diagnosed from analysis of a 24-hour urine test; and detection may be improved by increased education and screening, as many patients do not receive a diagnosis until after enduring one or more stone episodes. Early diagnosis is important to the long-term management of Cystinuria.
SCR 30 Page 2
5) One in every 10,000 Americans is believed to be genetically at risk for Cystinuria and there are 42 known cases of Cystinuria in California.
6) Kidney stone experts cited the economic burden in the United States due to lost worker productivity, treatment, and the care of individuals of working age with kidney stones to be $5.3 billion in 2000.
7) Well-supported research funding for Cystinuria will lead to improved screening and treatment and improved quality of life, and will expedite the development of a cure. Steps should be taken to promote awareness and research of Cystinuria and to disseminate information on the importance of early diagnosis and management of Cystinuria.
This resolution recognizes and proclaims June 24, 2021, as Cystinuria Awareness Day to promote awareness of Cystinuria and to show support for California medical research centers that take an active role in the fight against this devastating disease; and calls on the people of California, interest groups, and affected persons to observe Cystinuria Awareness Day.
Comments According to the author, “The American Urological Association recognizes Cystinuria as the most common monogenic kidney stone disorder. There are 42 known cases of Cystinuria disorder in California. SCR 30 will designate June 24th as Cystinuria Awareness Day to bring attention to this disorder which affects one in every 10,000 Americans. Well supported research funding for Cystinuria will lead to improved screening and treatment, improved quality of life, and expedite the development of a cure. The Legislature should encourage steps to promote awareness and show support for California medical research centers taking an active role in the fight against this devastating disease.”
Related/Prior Legislation SCR 87 (Dahle, 2020) would have recognized and proclaimed June 24, 2020, as Cystinuria Awareness Day. The resolution died in the Assembly.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/7/21) None received
SCR 30 Page 3
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/7/21)
None received
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/7/21 15:10:42
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SCR 31 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCR 31 Author: Newman (D) Introduced: 4/5/21 Vote: 21
SUBJECT: Arab American Heritage Month
SOURCE: Arab American Civic Council
DIGEST: This resolution proclaims the month of April 2021 as Arab American Heritage Month.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) The State of California proudly boasts the largest population of Arab Americans in the country, with a population of approximately 800,000 Californians of Arab heritage and descent.
2) For more than a century, Arab Americans have been making valuable contributions to almost every aspect of American society, including medicine, law, business, technology, government, and culture.
3) The history of Arab Americans in American life often remains neglected or defaced by misunderstanding, bigotry, and anti-Arab hate in the form of crimes and speech.
4) Issues currently affecting Arab Americans, such as civil rights abuses, harmful stereotyping, harassment, and bullying, must be combated by education and awareness.
5) Arab Americans join all Americans in the desire to see a peaceful and diverse society, where every individual is treated equally and feels safe.
This resolution celebrates the countless contributions that Arab Americans have made to American society and the State of California, proclaims the month of April 2021 to be Arab American Heritage Month in California, and encourages all residents of this state to join in this special observance.
SCR 31 Page 2
Related/Prior Legislation SCR 22 (Chang, Resolution Chapter 38, Statutes of 2019) proclaimed the month of April 2019 as Arab American Heritage Month.
SCR 123 (Newman, Resolution Chapter 71, Statutes of 2018) proclaimed the month of April 2018 as Arab American Heritage Month.
SCR 42 (Newman, Resolution Chapter 79, Statutes of 2017) proclaimed the month of April 2017 as Arab American Heritage Month.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/12/21)
Arab American Civic Council (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/12/21)
None received
Prepared by: Karen Chow / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/14/21 15:20:34
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SCR 32 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCR 32 Author: Gonzalez (D) Introduced: 4/5/21 Vote: 21
SUBJECT: Distracted Driving Awareness Month
SOURCE: AAA of Southern California
DIGEST: This resolution proclaims April 2021 as Distracted Driving Awareness Month in California and calls upon residents, government agencies, business leaders, hospitals, schools, and public and private institutions within the state to promote awareness of the distracted driving problem and to support programs and policies to reduce the incidence of distracted driving.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) Distracted driving is defined as any activity that could divert a person’s attention away from the primary task of driving.
2) Distracted driving takes three primary forms:
a) Visual distraction: tasks that require the driver to look away from the roadway to visually obtain information.
b) Manual distraction: tasks that require the driver to take a hand off the steering wheel and manipulate a device.
c) Cognitive distraction: tasks that are defined as the mental workload associated with a task that involves thinking about something other than the task of driving.
3) The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Research found that even though 97 percent of drivers nationwide say texting and emailing while driving is a serious threat to their safety, nearly one-half admit to having read a text or email while driving in the last 30 days.
SCR 32 Page 2
4) A 2020 statewide traffic safety survey conducted by the California Office of Traffic Safety similarly reported that more than 75 percent of Californians surveyed thought texting on a cell phone while driving posed the biggest safety problem on California roadways.
5) Text messaging creates a crash risk 23 times worse than driving while not distracted. In 2019, 3,142 people were killed nationwide in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers.
6) Engaging in visual-manual subtasks, such as reaching for a phone, dialing, and texting, associated with the use of handheld phones and other portable devices increased the risk of getting into a road departure crash by three times and odds of rear-ending a vehicle by more than a multiple of seven.
This resolution proclaims April 2021 as Distracted Driving Awareness Month in California and calls upon residents, government agencies, business leaders, hospitals, schools, and public and private institutions within the state to promote awareness of the distracted driving problem and to support programs and policies to reduce the incidence of distracted driving.
Related/Prior Legislation ACR 77 (Frazier, Resolution Chapter 62, Statutes of 2019) proclaimed April 2019 as Distracted Driving Awareness Month in California.
ACR 211 (Frazier, Resolution Chapter 54, Statutes of 2018) proclaimed April 2018 as Distracted Driving Awareness Month in California.
ACR 65 (Frazier, Resolution Chapter 59, Statutes of 2017) proclaimed April 2017 as Distracted Driving Awareness Month.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/12/21)
AAA of Southern California (source)
SCR 32 Page 3
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/12/21)
None received
Prepared by: Jonas Austin / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/14/21 15:20:35
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SCR 33 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCR 33 Author: Archuleta (D) Introduced: 4/8/21 Vote: 21
SUBJECT: Food Allergy Awareness Week
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution declares the week of May 10 to May 16, 2021, inclusive, as Food Allergy Awareness Week and requests that the Governor issue a proclamation to observe the week with appropriate understanding and awareness of food allergies and anaphylaxis.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) As many as 32,000,000 Americans have food allergies and nearly 6,000,000 are children under the age of 18.
2) Research shows that the prevalence of food allergies is increasing among children and adults.
3) Nine foods cause the majority of all food allergy reactions in the United States: shellfish, fish, milk, eggs, tree nuts, peanuts, soy, wheat, and sesame.
4) Symptoms of a food allergy reaction can range from mild to severe, such as anaphylaxis.
5) Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death.
6) Food allergies result in more than 200,000 emergency room visits in the United States each year. Reactions typically occur when an individual unknowingly eats a food containing an ingredient to which they are allergic.
SCR 33 Page 2
7) The number of food allergy reactions requiring emergency treatment is up sharply over the past decade, with a 377 percent rise in insurance claim lines with diagnoses of anaphylactic food reactions between 2007 and 2016.
8) Food Allergy Research and Education is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of life and the health of individuals with food allergies, and in providing them hope through the promise of new treatments.
This resolution proclaims May 10, 2021, to May 16, 2021, inclusive, as Food Allergy Awareness Week and requests that the Governor issue a proclamation calling on the people of the great State of California to observe the week with appropriate understanding and awareness of food allergies and anaphylaxis.
Related/Prior Legislation The following are the most recent measures relative to Food Allergy Awareness Week:
ACR 232 (Baker, Resolution Chapter 97, Statutes of 2018). ACR 55 (Baker, Resolution Chapter 67, Statutes of 2017).
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/21/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/21/21)
None received
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/21/21 15:22:48
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SCR 34 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCR 34 Author: Archuleta (D) Introduced: 4/8/21 Vote: 21
SUBJECT: Veterans’ Home of California
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution acknowledges the Department of Veterans Affairs staff for their service to California’s veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on California, disproportionately affecting aged and disabled individuals for nearly a year.
2) While the large number of nursing home deaths have been the greatest horror of the COVID-19 crisis across the country, the long-term care system operated by California’s Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) has experienced a tiny fraction of these most tragic outcomes.
3) Weeks before the Governor’s stay-at-home order, in spring 2020, CalVet enacted in its Veterans’ Home of California facilities an ambitious action plan designed to aggressively ward off the virus and safeguard California’s veterans under their care. CalVet leaders adapted this plan over the course of the pandemic to include a rigorous program of testing, contact tracing, screening, and stocking of personal protective equipment.
4) The leaders of the Veterans’ Home of California established designated isolation areas at each facility and established protocols for specialized care and infection containment when necessary.
5) CalVet’s success in limiting the impacts of the virus within its system and the staff’s continued devotion to their mission sets these homes apart from other health care facilities across the state and nation.
SCR 34 Page 2
This resolution:
1) Recognizes the staff at all levels in the Veterans’ Home of California facilities for their hard work and dedication. The staff have been second to none in their commitment to provide quality care and have saved the lives of countless veterans during the pandemic.
2) Thanks CalVet staff in all divisions for continuing to fulfil their sacred mission to honor and serve all California veterans through administering clinical care, providing housing assistance, offering home loans, and connecting veterans with their earned benefits through education and advocacy even in times of crisis.
3) Honors the tireless efforts of CalVet’s employees to protect the health, safety, and prosperity of California’s veterans.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/21/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/21/21)
None received
Prepared by: Karen Chow / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/21/21 15:22:49
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SCR 37 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCR 37 Author: Archuleta (D), et al. Introduced: 4/13/21 Vote: 21
SUBJECT: Latino Veterans Day
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution proclaims September 20, 2021, as Latino Veterans Day.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) The history of California veterans of Latino descent abounds with acts of heroism and exhibits a heritage of valor that has brought honor and earned the gratitude of our country.
2) As early as 1863, the United States government authorized the military commander in California to raise four companies of native Mexican American Californians in order to take advantage of their extraordinary horsemanship.
3) Several thousand Latino volunteers, mostly from the southwestern United States, fought with distinction in the United States Army during the Spanish- American War.
4) Discrimination, racism, and language barriers meant that many Latinos were relegated to menial jobs or served in segregated units. A number of Mexican American cavalry militias chased bandits and guarded trains and border crossings for the Union during the Civil War.
5) The bravery of countless Latinos in World Wars I and II and the conflicts of Korea and Vietnam is consistent with the greatest acts of heroism known in our history, as exemplified by the 20th and the 515th Coast Artillery Battalions, which were comprised of a majority of Latinos, many of whom were from California, who fought to the bitter end at Bataan in World War II.
SCR 37 Page 2
6) The 65th Infantry Regiment, “the Borinqueneers” from Puerto Rico, served valiantly in both World War II and Korea. Fighting as a segregated unit from 1950 to 1952, the regiment participated in some of the fiercest battles of the Korean War, and its toughness, courage, and loyalty earned the admiration of many who had preciously harbored reservations about Puerto Rican soldiers based on lack of previous fighting experience and negative stereotypes, including Brigadier General William W. Harris, whose experience eventually led him to regard the regiment as “the best damn soldiers that I had ever seen”.
7) Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm provided another opportunity for Latinos to serve their country. Approximately 20,000 Latino servicemen and women participated in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
8) Today, Latinos make up approximately 14 percent of America’s fighting force. Since the beginning of this century, Latinos have been among the boots on the ground in antiterrorism operations.
9) Latino veterans, both men and women, have shown and continue to show a superb dedication to the United States, evidenced by the award of 60 Congressional Medals of Honor, the greatest number received by any ethnic group.
This resolution proclaims September 20, 2021, as Latino Veterans Day.
Related/Prior Legislation SCR 80 (Archuleta, 2020) would have proclaimed September 20, 2020, as Latino Veterans Day. The resolution died in the Assembly.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/21/21 15:22:51
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SJR 1 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SJR 1 Author: Allen (D) Introduced: 2/18/21 Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 4-2, 3/24/21 AYES: Leyva, Cortese, Glazer, Pan NOES: Ochoa Bogh, Dahle NO VOTE RECORDED: McGuire
SUBJECT: Student loan debt
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution urges the President of the United States to protect student loan borrowers by taking executive action to cancel $50,000 of student loan debt per borrower.
ANALYSIS: Existing federal law provides for student loans through the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, administered by the Federal Student Aid Office within the U.S. Department of Education (USDE). These include:
1) Direct Subsidized Loans. These are needs-based loans that cover the difference between a student's resources and the cost of attending a college or university, the amount of loan is dependent on the level of need, dependent status, and year in college. The federal government pays the interest while the student is attending the college or university and subsidizes the interest throughout the life of the loan.
2) Direct Unsubsidized Loans. Not based on financial need, these loans generally cover the difference between other financial aid received and the total cost of attending college. Loans are made to eligible undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. The student is responsible for paying the interest during all periods. Federal government sets the interest rates and fees.
SJR 1 Page 2
3) Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS). These are available to creditworthy parents of dependent students. These are not need-based and are federally guaranteed. In addition, these types of loans have been expanded for graduate or professional degree students. The borrower is responsible for paying the interest on PLUS loans during all periods, starting from the date the loan is first disbursed.
4) Direct Consolidation Loans. Allow for consolidation of multiple federal education loan into one loan with a fixed interest rate at no cost.
This resolution:
1) Resolves that the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, urge the President of the U.S. to protect student loan borrowers by taking executive action to cancel $50,000 of student loan debt per borrower.
2) Makes a number of findings related to student loan debt including:
a) The U.S. is facing historic public health and economic crises caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
b) Student loan debt in the U.S. has increase more than 100 percent over the last 10 years.
c) The Federal Reserve estimates that in 2020, over 45 million people owed more than $1.7 trillion in student loans, up from $845 billion 2010.
d) The USDE reports that as of June 2020, roughly one in five borrowers with federal student loans were in default.
e) More than three million California borrowers owe $147 billion in student loan debt.
f) The average California borrower owes $38,530 in student loans, and over 500,000 California borrowers are behind on their student loan payments.
g) The increasing cost of higher education has created an unprecedented financial burden that represents a major drag on the economy, and has caused a generation to postpone traditional life milestones.
h) In 2019, the Assembly announced a new Select Committee on Student Debt, making California the first state in the nation to create a legislative committee focused on the problems facing millions of borrowers struggling under historic student debt.
SJR 1 Page 3
i) In March 2020, the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act put into place a pause on federal student loan payments and interest, which has since been extended through September 2021.
j) Democrats in the U.S. House of Representative and U.S. Senate have introduced resolutions urging President Biden to broadly forgive up to $50,000 of federal student debt per borrower through executive action.
Comments 1) Need for this resolution. According to the author, “In California alone, over more than 3 million California borrowers owe $147 billion in student loan debt, and the average California borrower owes $38,530 in student loans. Over 500,000 California borrowers are behind on their student loan payments. These debts not only limit people’s ability to participate in the economy, but they also set folks behind on investing in their future. This kind of debt has been shown to lead to increased stress and has a toll on mental health.
“Though there is currently a federal tax deduction for interest paid on student loan debt, there is little relief for those struggling with high student loan debt. While California mirrors this federal deduction, there are no forms of relief for those with high student loan debt in the state.”
2) Student loan debt. According to The Institute for College Access and Success (TICAS) and its Project on Student Debt, 62 percent of seniors who graduated from public and private nonprofit colleges in 2019 had student loan debt, with an average nationally of $28,950 per borrower. TICAS reports that the share of graduates with debt declined very slightly (less than 1%) from the 2018 average of 29,200. TICAS also reports that average debt in California is $21,485 at public and private non-profit colleges and that about 47 percent of students graduate with debt, ranking California fourth lowest nationally. For-profit colleges are not included in the state averages because few of these colleges report relevant debt data. The report notes, although student loan debt is slowing, the public health crisis has already reshaped the higher education landscape in important ways and has placed profound financial pressures on states, colleges, and students that could already be making college less affordable and increase reliance on student debt.
3) Existing loan forgiveness programs. The USDE provides a variety of student loan forgiveness programs. These include the following:
SJR 1 Page 4
a) The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program. Forgives the remaining balance on Direct Loans after a student makes 120 qualifying monthly payments under a qualifying repayment plan while working full- time for a qualifying employer. A qualifying employer can include Government organizations at any level (federal, state, local, or tribal), tax- exempt Section 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organizations and other types of not- for-profit organizations that provide certain types of qualifying public services. Serving in a full-time AmeriCorps or Peace Corps position also counts as qualifying employment for the PSLF Program. b) Temporary Expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The program allows a borrower to seek reconsideration for loan forgiveness, if a PSLF application was denied due to some or all of the payments not made on a qualifying repayment plan for PSLF. c) Teacher Loan Forgiveness. A loan recipient can qualify for as much as $17,500 of subsidized or unsubsidized loan forgiveness for teaching full- time in a low-income elementary or secondary school or educational service agency for five consecutive years. d) Closed School Discharge. Discharges federal student loans for students whose school closes while enrolled or soon after withdrawing from the school. Eligible borrowers are eligible for a 100 percent discharge of subsidized and unsubsidized federal loans.
This resolution additionally urges the cancelation of $50,000 of student loan debt per borrower.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/24/21)
California Faculty Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/24/21)
None received
Prepared by: Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. / (916) 651-4105 3/24/21 15:32:41
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SR 20 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SR 20 Author: Archuleta (D) Introduced: 3/15/21 Vote: Majority
SUBJECT: Tardive Dyskinesia Awareness Week
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution proclaims the week of May 2, 2021, as Tardive Dyskinesia Awareness Week, and encourages everyone in the United States to become better informed about, and aware of, Tardive Dyskinesia.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) Many people with serious, chronic mental illness, such as schizophrenia and other schizoaffective disorders, bipolar disorder, or severe depression, require treatment with medications that work as dopamine receptor blocking agents (DRBAs), including antipsychotics; and while ongoing treatment with these medications can be very helpful, and even lifesaving, for many people, it can also lead to Tardive Dyskinesia (TD).
2) TD is a movement disorder that is characterized by random, involuntary, and uncontrolled movements of different muscles in the face, trunk, and extremities. In some cases, people may experience movement of the arms, legs, fingers, and toes. In some case, it may affect the tongue, lips, and jaw. In other cases, symptoms may include swaying movements of the trunk or hips and may impact the muscles associated with walking, speech, eating, and breathing. Patients suffering from TD often suffer embarrassment due to abnormal and involuntary movements, which leads them to withdraw from society and increasingly isolate themselves as the disease progresses.
3) TD can develop months, years, or decades after a person starts taking DRBAs, and even after they have discontinued use of those medications. Not everyone who takes a DRBA develops TD, but if it develops it is often permanent. It is estimated that over 500,000 Americans suffer from TD. According to the
SR 20 Page 2
National Alliance for Mental Illness, one in every four patients receiving long- term treatment with an antipsychotic medication will experience TD.
4) Common risk factors for TD include advanced age and alcoholism or other substance abuse disorders. Postmenopausal women and people with a mood disorder are also at higher risk of developing TD. Studies suggest that overall risk of developing TD is between 10 and 30 percent.
5) Years of difficult and challenging research have resulted in recent scientific breakthroughs, with two new treatments for TD approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration.
6) TD is often unrecognized and patients suffering from the illness are commonly misdiagnosed. Regular screening for TD in patients taking DRBA medications is recommended by the American Psychiatric Association.
This resolution proclaims the week of May 2, 2021, as Tardive Dyskinesia Awareness Week, and encourages everyone in the United States to become better informed about, and aware of, Tardive Dyskinesia.
Related/Prior Legislation The following are the most recent measures proclaiming Tardive Dyskinesia Awareness Week:
HR 19 (Mullin, 2021) is pending action in the Assembly. SR 73 (Archuleta, 2020) was adopted by the Senate on June 11, 2020. HR 80 (Mullin, 2020) died in the Assembly Rules Committee. SR 35 (Archuleta, 2019) was adopted by the Senate on May 6, 2019. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/22/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/22/21)
None received
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520 3/24/21 15:56:00
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SR 21 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SR 21 Author: Pan (D) Introduced: 3/15/21 Vote: Majority
SUBJECT: Mosquito Awareness Week
SOURCE: Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California
DIGEST: This resolution declares that the week of April 18 to April 24, 2021, inclusive, be designated as Mosquito Awareness Week.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) The United States Environmental Protection Agency recognizes that mosquito- borne diseases are currently among the world’s leading causes of illness and death.
2) Excess numbers of mosquitoes and other vectors spread diseases, reduce the enjoyment of both public and private outdoor living spaces, reduce property values, hinder outdoor work, reduce livestock productivity, and have a negative impact on the environment.
3) Adequately funded mosquito and vector control, disease surveillance, and public awareness programs, coupled with best management practices on public and private lands, are the best ways to prevent outbreaks of West Nile virus and other diseases borne by mosquitoes and other vectors.
4) Professional mosquito and vector control, based on scientific research, has made great advances in safely reducing mosquito and vector populations and the diseases they transmit.
5) Established mosquito-borne and vector-borne diseases such as plague, Lyme disease, flea-borne typhus, and encephalitis, and new and emerging vector- borne diseases such as hantavirus, arenavirus, babesiosis, and ehrlichiosis cause illness and sometimes death every year in California.
SR 21 Page 2
6) Mosquito and vector control districts throughout California work closely with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department of Public Health to reduce pesticide risks to humans, animals, and the environment while protecting human health from mosquito-borne and vector- borne diseases and nuisances.
7) Best management practices, emphasizing nonchemical approaches, have been developed to guide mosquito control that can significantly reduce mosquito populations for new developments and on state and private lands.
8) The public’s awareness of the health benefits associated with safe, professionally applied mosquito and vector control methods will support these efforts, as well as motivate the state and the public to eliminate mosquito and vector breeding sites on public and private property.
9) Educational programs have been developed to include schools, civic groups, private industry, and government agencies in order to meet the public’s need for information about West Nile virus, other diseases, and mosquito and vector biology and control.
10) Public awareness can result in action to provide adequate funding for existing mosquito and vector control agencies, or to create control agencies in areas where there are no existing controls.
11) Mosquito Awareness Week will increase the public’s awareness of the threat of Zika, West Nile virus, and other diseases, and the activities of the various mosquito vector research and control agencies working to minimize the health threat within California, and will highlight the educational programs currently available.
12) The Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California has designated the week of April 18 to April 24, 2021, inclusive, as the West Nile Virus and Mosquito and Vector Control Awareness Week in California.
This resolution declares that the week of April 18 to April 24, 2021, inclusive, be designated as Mosquito Awareness Week.
Related/Prior Legislation SR 33 (Stern, 2019) declared that the week of April 21 to April 27, 2019, inclusive, be designated as Mosquito Awareness Week. The resolution was adopted by the Senate.
SR 21 Page 3
ACR 51 (Gipson, Resolution Chapter 53, Statutes of 2017) designated April 16, 2017, to April 22, 2017, inclusive, as Mosquito Awareness Week.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/24/21)
Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/24/21)
None received
Prepared by: Karen Chow / SFA / (916) 651-1520 3/24/21 15:56:01
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SR 23 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SR 23 Author: Durazo (D) Introduced: 3/17/21 Vote: Majority
SUBJECT: Cinco de Mayo Week
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution declares May 2, 2021, through May 8, 2021, as Cinco de Mayo Week; and urges all Californians to join in celebrating Cinco de Mayo, the historic day when the Mexican people defeated the French army at the Batalla de Puebla, and to recognize the Latino noncombatants in California who freely gave their votes and resources to defend free institutions, and the Latinos of California who fought to defend the freedom of the United States in every armed conflict from the Spanish American War to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) Cinco de Mayo, or the fifth of May, is memorialized as a significant date in the history of California and Mexico in recognition of the courage of the Mexican people, who defeated a better trained and equipped army at the “Batalla de Puebla”.
2) Since the beginning of the American Civil War, Latinos in California have shown their support for the institutions of freedom and democracy by joining the forces of the United States Army, Cavalry, and Navy, risking their lives to defend free institutions. The American Civil War, making it impossible for the U.S. to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, provided an opportunity for Napoléon III, the Emperor of France, to establish a monarchy in Mexico, thereby attempting to destroy democratic institutions that derive their power from the consent of the governed. 3) Latinos, including Californians, also offered their support and risked their lives in Mexico to defend freedom and democracy in that country by joining the
SR 23 Page 2
armed forces of that sister republic; and those who were unable to travel to Mexico to physically defend free institutions freely offered their support to President Benito Juárez by organizing over 122 Juntas Patrióticas Mexicanas within California to raise funds that were sent every month from California to Mexico to defray the costs of war in that country.
4) Latino resilience ensured the eventual triumph of Union forces, and were it not for Mexico’s triumph at the Batalla de Puebla, the deterrence of possible French support for Confederate troops may not have occurred and the outcome of the Civil War may have been dramatically altered.
5) Cinco de Mayo offers an opportunity to reflect on the courage and achievements not only of the Mexican forces at Puebla, but also on the courage and achievements of Latinos here in California.
6) Cinco de Mayo serves to remind us that the foundation of any nation and our state is its people, in their spirit and courage in the face of adversity, in the strength of their drive to achieve self-determination, and in their willingness to sacrifice even life itself in the pursuit of freedom and liberty.
7) Latinos in California have challenged the frontiers of social and economic justice, thereby improving the working conditions and lives of countless Californians.
8) Achievements by Latinos in America and California include contributions to all facets of our community.
This resolution declares May 2, 2021, through May 8, 2021, as Cinco de Mayo Week; and urges all Californians to join in celebrating Cinco de Mayo, the historic day when the Mexican people defeated the French army at the Batalla de Puebla, and to recognize the Latino noncombatants in California who freely gave their votes and resources to defend free institutions, and the Latinos of California who fought to defend the freedom of the United States in every armed conflict from the Spanish American War to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Related/Prior Legislation The following are the most recent measures celebrating Cinco de Mayo and declaring Cinco de Mayo Week:
HR 23 (Rivas, 2019) was adopted by the Assembly on May 6, 2019. HR 104 (Carrillo, 2018) was adopted by the Assembly on May 7, 2018.
SR 23 Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/24/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/24/21)
None received
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520 3/24/21 15:56:03
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SR 24 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SR 24 Author: Umberg (D) Introduced: 4/5/21 Vote: Majority
SUBJECT: Crime Victims’ Rights Week
SOURCE: Crime Victims Action Alliance
DIGEST: This resolution recognizes the week of April 18, 2021, through April 24, 2021, inclusive, as Crime Victims’ Rights Week in California.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) Violent crime continues to exist in California, and crime in one part of the state, or crime against one person, affects our entire sense of well-being. All Californians are affected by crime, not just the victims of violent crime. The most effective aid that can be provided to victims of crime is to prevent crime from happening in the first place.
2) Since 1981, National Crime Victims’ Rights Week has raised awareness of the special needs of crime victims. This year, the theme for this week is “Support Victims. Build Trust. Engage Communities.” The 2021 theme for National Crime Victims’ Rights Week emphasizes the importance of leveraging community support to help victims of crime.
3) The respect for and protection of victims’ rights within the legal process is one of the most critical components of an effective criminal justice system. Victims and witnesses of crime require special attention to ensure that they are thoroughly informed about, and effectively participate in, the criminal justice system.
4) To the maximum extent allowed by law, victims of violent crime should receive compensation for their losses. 5) Each day thousands of victims and witnesses receive assistance from victim support organizations, victim-witness assistance centers, private service
SR 24 Page 2
providers, and state and local governments. The criminal justice system in this state must persist in its effort to better coordinate and improve the quality of services provided to victims and witnesses.
6) California has been an innovator in the victims’ rights movement, establishing the first crime victim compensation program in the nation in 1965, Women’s Advocates and Haven House in Pasadena established the first shelters for battered women in the nation in 1976, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving was founded in 1980 with the establishment of a chapter in Sacramento.
7) California citizens enshrined victims’ rights in the California Constitution in 1982 through the passage of Proposition 8, the Victims’ Bill of Rights. California citizens reaffirmed and afforded additional rights to victims in the California Constitution and in California law in 2008 through the passage of Proposition 9, the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law.
8) Each year, the observance of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week focuses on the problems confronting victims of crime and the services available to support these victims. The remembrances observed during National Crime Victims’ Rights Week promote awareness of victims’ issues and acknowledge the combined efforts of citizens, the government, and the criminal justice system to improve victims’ services in California.
This resolution recognizes the week of April 18, 2021, through April 24, 2021, inclusive, as Crime Victims’ Rights Week in California.
Related/Prior Legislation The following are the most recent measures recognizing Crime Victims’ Rights Week:
ACR 167 (Ramos, 2020) died in the Assembly. SCR 118 (Newman, Resolution Chapter 55, Statutes of 2018). ACR 39 (Cooper, Resolution Chapter 38, Statutes of 2017).
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/12/21)
Crime Victims Action Alliance (source)
SR 24 Page 3
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/12/21)
None received
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/14/21 15:20:36
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SR 27 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SR 27 Author: Limón (D) Introduced: 4/12/21 Vote: Majority
SUBJECT: Financial Capability Month
SOURCE: California Credit Union League
DIGEST: This resolution recognizes and declares the month of April 2021, as Financial Capability Month.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) The Legislature passed AB 2546 (Calderon, Chapter 616, Statutes of 2016), which helps make financial literacy in the classroom a reality for California’s schoolage children.
2) The State Department of Education acknowledges that young people need to be equipped with the skills and knowledge that allow them to be savvy consumers and competent managers of their own finances.
3) A lack of financial capability has real consequences for individuals, including lower savings rates, poor credit, and less wealth overall.
4) The International Review of Economics Education published a paper titled “The Features and Effectiveness of the Keys to Financial Success Curriculum”, which found one-semester financial literacy programs taught by trained teachers were found to increase high school students’ financial knowledge by 61 percent, and was most effective in improving knowledge in the areas that the students were most deficient.
5) A study from Montana State University found that high school financial education leads to better financial aid decisions once these students reach college, increases subsidized borrowing at advantageous federal rates, and decreases use of more costly forms of borrowing, including credit cards and private loans.
SR 27 Page 2
6) Financial literacy rates directly affect the financial health of individuals, families, communities, and the country.
This resolution recognizes and declares the month of April 2021, as Financial Capability Month, in order to raise public awareness about the need for increased financial capability.
Related/Prior Legislation AB 2546 (Calderon, Chapter 616, Statutes of 2016) required that, when the history-social science curriculum framework is revised after January 1, 2017, the Instructional Quality Commission consider including specified content on financial literacy.
ACR 39 (Dababneh, Resolution Chapter 34, Statutes of 2015) declared the month of April 2015 as Financial Aid and Literacy Month, with the theme of “Prosperity Through Education,” to raise public awareness about the continuing need for increased financial literacy.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/19/21)
California Credit Union League (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
Prepared by: Karen Chow / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/21/21 15:22:52
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SR 28 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SR 28 Author: Rubio (D), et al. Introduced: 4/15/21 Vote: Majority
SUBJECT: Sexual assault
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution designates the month of April 2021 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and recognizes April 28, 2021, as Denim Day in California and encourages everyone to wear jeans on that day to help communicate the message that there is no excuse for, and never an invitation to commit, rape.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) People of all genders and ages are victims of sexual assault. It is estimated that nearly one in two women and one in five men experience sexual violence other than rape throughout their lifetime.
2) There are over 22 million survivors of rape throughout the United States with two million of those rape survivors currently living in California.
3) It is our responsibility to support all rape survivors by treating them with dignity, compassion, and respect; and it is important to recognize the strength, courage, and challenges of the victims and survivors of sexual assault and their families and friends as they struggle to cope with the reality of sexual assault.
4) It is crucial to hold perpetrators responsible for sexual attacks, and to prevent sexual violence at every opportunity.
5) In 1998, the Italian Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man who sexually assaulted an 18-year-old woman after the court determined that, “because the victim wore very, very tight jeans, she had to help him remove them, and by removing the jeans it was no longer rape but consensual sex”. Enraged by the court decision, within a matter of hours the women in the Italian Parliament protested by wearing jeans to work.
SR 28 Page 2
6) Nations and states throughout the world have followed the lead of the Italian Parliament by designating their own “Denim Day” to raise public awareness about rape and sexual assault.
7) Harmful attitudes about rape and sexual assault allow these crimes to persist and allow survivors to be revictimized through victim-blaming attitudes and some unresponsive government systems.
8) California is a national leader within the judicial, criminal justice, medical, rape crisis, and health communities in promoting victim-centered approaches to victims of crime.
This resolution designates the month of April 2021 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and recognizes April 28, 2021, as Denim Day in California and encourages everyone to wear jeans on that day to help communicate the message that there is no excuse for, and never an invitation to commit, rape.
Related/Prior Legislation SCR 39 (Rubio, 2020) would have designated April 2019 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, would designate April 26, 2019, as Denim Day California, and would have encouraged everyone to wear jeans on that day to help communicate the message that there is no excuse for, and never an invitation to commit, rape. The resolution passed the Senate but died at the Assembly Desk.
ACR 67 (B. Rubio, Resolution Chapter 57, Statutes of 2019) designated the month of April 2019 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and recognized April 24, 2019, as Denim Day in California.
SR 104 (Jackson, 2018) recognized the month of April 2018 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month; recognized April 25, 2018, as Denim Day California; and encouraged everyone to wear jeans on that day to help communicate the message that there is no excuse for, and never an invitation to commit, rape. The resolution was adopted by the Senate on April 26, 2018.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
SR 28 Page 3
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
Prepared by: Jonas Austin / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/21/21 15:22:54
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SR 29 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SR 29 Author: Archuleta (D), Atkins (D), Portantino (D) and Wilk (R), et al. Introduced: 4/15/21 Vote: Majority
SUBJECT: Commemoration of the Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution designates the year of 2021 as “State of California Year of Commemoration of the Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915- 1923” and in doing so, intends, through the enactment of legislation, that the Armenian Genocide is properly commemorated and taught to its citizens and visitors through statewide educational and cultural events; and designates the month of April 2021 as “State of California Month of Commemoration of the 106th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923”.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) The Armenian nation was subjected to a systematic and premeditated genocide officially beginning on April 24, 1915, at the hands of the Young Turk Government of the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1919 and continued at the hands of the Kemalist Movement of Turkey from 1920-1923 whereby over 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children were slaughtered or marched to their deaths in an effort to annihilate the Armenian nation in the first genocide of modern times, while thousands of surviving Armenian women and children were forcibly converted and Islamized, and hundreds of thousands more were subjected to ethnic cleansing during the period of the modern Republic of Turkey from 1924-1937.
2) During the genocides of the Christians living in the Ottoman Empire and surrounding regions, in addition to the 1.5 million men, women, and children of Armenian descent, hundreds of thousands of Assyrians, Greeks, and other Christians lost their lives at the hands of the Ottoman Turkish Empire and the
SR 29 Page 2
Republic of Turkey, constituting one of the most atrocious violations of human rights in the history of the world.
3) These crimes against humanity also had the consequence of permanently removing all traces of the Armenians and other targeted people from their historic homelands of more than four millennia, and enriching the perpetrators with the lands and other property of the victims of these crimes, including the usurpation of several thousand churches.
4) Unlike other people and governments that have admitted and denounced the abuses and crimes of predecessor regimes, and despite the Turkish government’s earlier admissions and the overwhelming proof of genocidal intent, the Republic of Turkey inexplicably and adamantly has denied the occurrence of the crimes against humanity committed by the Ottoman and Young Turk rulers for many years, and continues to do so more than a century since the first crimes constituting genocide occurred. Those denials compound the grief of the few remaining survivors and deprive the surviving Armenian nation of its individual and collective ancestral lands, property, cultural heritage, financial assets, and population growth.
5) The Republic of Turkey has escalated its international campaign of Armenian Genocide denial, maintained its blockade of Armenia, and increased its pressure on the small but growing movement in Turkey acknowledging the Armenian Genocide and seeking justice for this systematic campaign of destruction of millions of Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and other Christians upon their biblical-era homelands.
6) There is continued concern about the welfare of Christians in the Republic of Turkey, their right to worship and practice freely, and the legal status and condition of thousands of ancient Armenian churches, monasteries, cemeteries, and other historical and cultural structures, sites, and antiquities in the Republic of Turkey.
7) Every person should be made aware and educated about the Armenian Genocide and other crimes against humanity.
8) California is home to the largest Armenian American population in the United States, and Armenians living in California have enriched our state through their leadership and contributions. 9) Armenians in the State of California and throughout the world have not been provided with justice for the crimes perpetrated against the Armenian nation
SR 29 Page 3
despite the fact that over a century has passed since the crimes were first committed. The Armenian people in California and throughout the world remain resolved and their spirit continues to thrive more than a century after their near annihilation.
This resolution designates the year of 2021 as “State of California Year of Commemoration of the Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923” and in doing so, intends, through the enactment of legislation, that the Armenian Genocide is properly commemorated and taught to its citizens and visitors through statewide educational and cultural events; and designates the month of April 2021 as “State of California Month of Commemoration of the 106th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923”.
Related/Prior Legislation The following are the most recent measures relative to the commemoration of the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide:
SR 31 (Borgeas, 2019) – adopted by Senate. AJR 16 (Rivas, Resolution Chapter 150, Statutes of 2019). SR 107 (Portantino, 2018) – adopted by the Senate. AJR 37 (Friedman, Resolution Chapter 75, Statutes of 2018). SR 29 (Portantino, 2017) – adopted by the Senate. AJR 3 (Nazarian, Resolution Chapter 56, Statutes of 2017).
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/21/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/21/21)
None received
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/21/21 15:22:55
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE AB 79 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 79 Author: Committee on Budget Amended: 4/8/21 in Senate Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SENATE BUDGET & FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: 16-0, 4/12/21 AYES: Skinner, Nielsen, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Eggman, Kamlager, Laird, McGuire, Min, Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Pan, Stern, Wieckowski NO VOTE RECORDED: Grove, Melendez
SUBJECT: Budget Act of 2020
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill is a Budget Bill Jr. associated with Budget Act of 2020.
ANALYSIS: This bill includes various budget bill amendments, including:
1) Wildfire Prevention and Resiliency Early Action Plan. Includes a total of $536 million ($411 million General Fund and $125 million Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF)) in early action (current year, 2020-21) to address wildfire prevention and resilience issues. This plan includes:
a) Resilient Wildlands. $283 million as follows:
i) $155 million to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) for the Forest Health Program. This program provides grants to undertake projects to improve forest health, including forest fuels reduction, prescribed fire, pest management, reforestation, biomass utilization, and conservation easements. ii) $10 million to CalFire for the Forest Improvement Program for Small Landowners. This program is designed to assist small timberland
AB 79 Page 2
owners — those with 20,000 to 50,000 acres — manage their lands for forest health and wildfire resilience. iii) $8 million to CalFire for the Forest Legacy & Reforestation Nursery. The Forest Legacy Program funds conservation grants and easements with private landowners to protect forest land from conversion to non- forest uses, as well as supports management practices that promote forest health and wildfire reliance through the terms of the easement agreements. The reforestation nursery provides seedlings of native tree species for re-planting post wildfires. This nursery assists small, non- industrial landowners recover their forests. iv) $10 million to CalFire for the Urban Forestry Program, which provides grants to local governments and nonprofits for projects that include the planting of trees or other vegetation, improve the long-term management of urban forests, or better utilize wood waste. v) $1 million to CalFire for tribal engagement. CalFire proposes to initiate a one-time effort within its Forest Health Program to provide resources for forest health projects on tribal lands. vi) $30 million for stewardship of state-owned lands — $15 million each to the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Fish and Wildlife to perform wildfire reduction activities, such as thinning vegetation and implementing controlled burns; and help restore lands recently burned. vii) $20 million for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy A portion of this funding will be used for planning efforts consistent with the Watershed Improvement Program. Funds will also be used to support projects with a focus on large landscape level benefits, as well as protection of critical infrastructure and the wildland-urban interface areas. viii) $1 million for the Tahoe Conservancy for forest management projects. ix) $48 million to four conservancies ($12 million each), including the State Coastal Conservancy, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, San Diego River Conservancy, and the San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers & Mountains, for wildfire prevention and resiliency projects.
AB 79 Page 3 b) Wildfire Fuel Breaks. $198 million as follows:
i) $10 million for CalFire Unit fire prevention projects, such as forest thinning, prescribed fire, establishing or maintaining fuel breaks, and removal of fuels near roads or other critical infrastructure.
ii) $123 million to CalFire for the Fire Prevention Grant Program, which aims to reduce wildfire risk to homes and communities, as well as reducing carbon emissions from forest fires.
iii) $15 million to CalFire for prescribed fire and hand crews that work on vegetation management projects, including prescribed fires and forest thinning.
iv) $50 million to the Department of Conservation for the Regional Forest & Fire Capacity Program, which provides block grants to regional and statewide entities to engage with communities, develop project priority plans, prepare projects to be shovel-ready, and implement demonstration projects. These efforts are intended to support regional capacity to develop and implement projects that improve forest health and fire resilience. c) Community Hardening. $27 million as follows:
i) $25 million to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and CalFire for home hardening, which includes implementation of a wildfire mitigation assistance pilot program to increase the adoption of fire resistant retrofits that improve the survival of structures in wildfires through education and a grant program supporting retrofits for low- income homeowners in high-risk areas of the state.
ii) $2 million to CalFire for defensible space inspectors in the State Responsibility Area lands to ensure that structures are in compliance with state defensible space requirements. d) Science-Based Management. $3 million to CalFire for ecological monitoring, research, and adaptive management. Some projects are implemented by CalFire while others are contracted with university or other researchers.
AB 79 Page 4
e) Forestry Sector Economic Stimulus. $25 million as follows:
i) $16 million to IBank for the Climate Catalyst Fund, which is a revolving loan fund established to finance climate-related projects.
ii) $6 million to CalFire and the Workforce Development Board for workforce development. CalFire reports that a small portion of its Forest Health Program currently coordinates with other state and private entities to support the expansion of professional training programs and businesses related to the removal and reuse of woody biomass. This proposal would expand on these efforts and create a new Wood Products and Bioenergy Program.
iii) $3 million to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to create a Woods Products Market Development Program intended to help develop a sustainable private market for woody biomass. This program has several specific deliverables including: (1) completing a framework to align the state’s wood utilization policies and priorities in 2021, (2) developing new long-term wood feedstock pilot projects, (3) partnering with Ibank to develop a focused market strategy, (4) executing an innovation competition, and (5) developing a statewide wood products workforce assessment.
2) Technical Assistance Program for Underserved Farmers. Includes $3.35 million General Fund in 2020-21 to the California Department of Food and Agriculture to fund a technical assistance and micro-grant program for small, mid-sized, and underserved farmers in California.
3) Child Welfare Services. Extends the Department of Social Service’s authority to implement COVID-19 supports related to child welfare services, until June 30, 2021. The department’s authority to issue these supports ended on December 31, 2020.
4) Emergency Child Care Bridge Program. Authorizes one-time $525 stipends to providers in the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for foster youth. This provider type was not included in the current budget year's childcare stipend payments passed earlier this year.
5) In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS). Increases General Fund Loan authority for the IHSS program.
6) Foster Care Reentry. Makes $270,000 available for costs associated with reentry to foster care for any individual who attained 21 years of age while in
AB 79 Page 5
extended foster care on or after January 27, 2020, in alignment with recent federal changes.
7) Early Education Statewide Data System. Moves $9.2 million in federal funds from local assistance to state operations to align with the Department of Education’s use of these funds for a statewide data system for early education.
8) Lunch-at-the-Library Program. Appropriates $800,000 to enable the California State Library to provide grants to local libraries to support the Lunch-at-the- Library Program during the summer of 2021.
9) Makes various technical change and clarifying changes to items related to the Department of Education.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, this bill has a net impact of approximately $701.4 million all funds. This includes appropriations for the Wildfire Prevention and Resiliency Early Action Plan of $411 million General Fund and $125 million GGRF.
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/9/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/9/21)
None received
Prepared by: Joanne Roy and Renita Polk / B. & F.R. / 916-651-4103 4/14/21 14:38:47
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE AB 84 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 84 Author: Committee on Budget Amended: 4/8/21 in Senate Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SENATE BUDGET & FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: 13-3, 4/12/21 AYES: Skinner, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman, Kamlager, Laird, McGuire, Min, Newman, Pan, Stern, Wieckowski NOES: Nielsen, Dahle, Ochoa Bogh NO VOTE RECORDED: Grove, Melendez
SUBJECT: Employment: rehiring and retention: displaced workers
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill makes various statutory changes to implement rehiring rights for hospitality workers who were laid off for reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
ANALYSIS: This bill:
1) Defines, for purposes of its requirements, the following terms, among others:
a) “Enterprise” means a hotel, private club, event center, airport hospitality operation, airport service provider, or the provision of building service to office, retail, or other commercial buildings. b) “Employer” means a person, including a corporate officer or executive, who owns or operates an enterprise and employs or exercises control over wages, hours or working conditions of an employee. c) “Building service” means janitorial, building maintenance, or security services.
AB 84 Page 2
d) “Private club” means a private, membership-based business or nonprofit organization that operates a building or complex of buildings containing at least 50 guest rooms or suites, as specified. e) “Airport hospitality operation” means a business that prepares, delivers, inspects and provides any other service in connection with preparation of food or beverage for the aircraft crew or passengers at the airport, or provides food and beverage, retail or other consumer goods or services to the public at the airport. f) “Airport service provider” means a business that performs, under contract with a passenger air carrier, airport facility management or authority, functions on a property of the airport that relates to air transportation of persons, mail, or property, including the loading and unloading of property on an aircraft, assistance to passengers as defined by federal law, security, airport ticketing and check-in functions, ground handling of aircraft, cleaning and sanitization of aircraft, and waste removal. g) “Event center” means a publicly or privately-owned structure of more than 50,000 square feet or 1,000 seats that is used for the purposes of public performances, sporting events, business meetings, or similar events, and includes concert halls, stadiums, sports arenas, racetracks, coliseums, and convention centers. The term “event center” also includes any contracted, leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the event center’s purpose, as specified. h) “Hotel” means a residential building that is designated or used for lodging and other related services for the public, and containing 50 or more guest rooms, as specified. “Hotel” also includes any contracted, leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the building’s purpose, or providing services at the building. i) “Employee” means an individual who in a particular week performs at least two hours of work for an employer. j) “Laid-off employee” means any employee who was employed by the employer for 6 months or more in the 12 months preceding January 1, 2020, and whose most recent separation was due to reasons related to the COVID- 19 pandemic, including a public health directive, government shutdown order, lack of business, reduction in force or other economic, nondisciplinary reason due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Recall Rights
2) Requires an employer, within five days of establishing a position, to offer its laid-off employees in writing and by email and text message, as specified, all
AB 84 Page 3
job positions that become available after the effective date of this bill for which the laid-off employees are qualified.
3) Specifies that a laid off-employee is qualified for a position if the employee held the same or similar position at the enterprise at the time of the employee’s most recent layoff with the employer.
4) Requires the employer to offer positions to laid-off employees in an order of preference corresponding to the qualification guidelines above, and if more than one employee is entitled to preference for a position, the employer must offer the position to the laid-off employee with the greatest length of service based on the employee’s date of hire.
5) Provides that a laid-off employee who is offered a position at least five business days to accept or decline the offer. The bill also authorizes the employer to make simultaneous, conditional offers of employment to laid-off employees, with a final offer conditioned on application of preference system, as specified.
6) Requires an employer to retain specified employee records for at least three years from the date of the written layoff notice for each employee. These records are: the employee’s full legal name, job classification at the time of the layoff, the employees hire date, various contact information, and a copy of the written layoff notice provided to the employee and all records of communications between the employer and the employee regarding offers of employment made to the employee pursuant to this section.
7) Requires an employer that declines to recall a laid-off employee citing lack of qualifications, and instead hires someone other than a laid-off employee, to provide the laid-off employee a written notice within 30 days, including the length of service with employer of those hired in lieu of that recall, along with reasons for the decision.
8) Specifies that these requirements also apply in any of the following circumstances:
a) The ownership of the employer changed after the separation from employment of a laid-off employee but the enterprise is conducting the same or similar operations as before the COVID-19 state of emergency.
AB 84 Page 4
b) The form of organization of the employer changed after the COVID-19 state of emergency. c) Substantially all of the assets of the employer were acquired by another entity which conducts the same or similar operations using substantially the same assets. d) The employer relocates the operations at which a laid-off employee was employed before the state of emergency to a different location.
Enforcement
9) Specifies that no employer shall refuse to employ, terminate, reduce compensation or take any adverse action against a laid-off employee seeking to enforce their rights, participate in proceedings or otherwise asserting their rights under this bill, as specified.
10) Specifies that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this bill.
11) Authorizes a laid off employee to file a complaint with the DLSE for violations associated with this bill, and may be award any or all of the following:
a) Hiring and reinstatement rights pursuant to this bill, b) Front or back pay for each day a violation continues, to be calculated as specified, and c) Value of benefits the laid-off employee would have received under the employer’s benefit plan.
12) Specifies that no criminal penalties shall be imposed for violations of this bill.
13) Specifies that any employer or agent of the employer who violates the provisions of this bill shall be subject to a civil penalty of $100 for each employee whose rights are violated, and $500 in liquidated damages, per employee, for each day the rights of the employee are violated until the violation is cured. Specifies that these funds shall be recovered by the Labor Commissioner, deposited into the Labor and Workforce Development Fund, and paid to the employee as compensatory damages.
14) Specifies that the Labor Commissioner enforce the provisions of this bill, including investigating an alleged violation abd ordering temporary relief to mitigate the violation pending the completion of full investigation or hearing,
AB 84 Page 5
through procedures set by existing law, as specified, including the issuance of a citation against the employer and by filing a civil action. If a citation is issued, the procedures for issuing, contesting and enforcing judgements for citation and civil penalties issued by the Labor Commissioner shall the same as established by existing law, as specified.
15) Authorizes the DLSE to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations, and issue determinations and interpretations, consistent with and necessary for the implementation of this bill.
16) Clarifies that nothing prohibits a local government agency from enacting ordinances that impose greater standards than, or establish additional enforcement provisions to, those prescribed by this bill.
17) Provides that all of these provisions, or any part of, may be waived in a valid collective bargaining agreement, but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in that agreement in clear and unambiguous terms.
18) Specifies that these provisions are severable. If any provision or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect.
19) Specifies that the provisions of this bill shall remain in effect until December 31, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, this bill appropriates $6 million from the Labor and Workforce Development Fund for staffing resources to implement and enforce the provisions of this bill.
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/12/21)
None received
AB 84 Page 6
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/12/21)
None received
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
Prepared by: Anita Lee / B. & F.R. / 916-651-4103 4/14/21 14:38:48
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE AB 213 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 213 Author: Committee on Budget Amended: 4/8/21 in Senate Vote: 21
SENATE BUDGET & FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: 14-0, 4/12/21 AYES: Skinner, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman, Kamlager, Laird, McGuire, Min, Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Pan, Stern, Wieckowski NO VOTE RECORDED: Nielsen, Dahle, Grove, Melendez
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Not relevant
SUBJECT: Public social services
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill provides for statutory cleanup necessary to implement the Golden State Grant Program and other changes to help implement COVID-19 supports in safety net programs.
ANALYSIS: This bill makes statutory changes to implement the Golden State Grant Program:
1) Allows the one-time grant payments made under the Golden State Program to SSI/SSP recipients to be paid as a one-time increase of $600 to the individual’s SSP benefits.
2) Exempts the Department of Social Services from requirements to contract with the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue the one-time increase.
3) Continues authorization for eligibility interviews for the Cash Assistance Program for Aged, Blind, and Disabled Immigrants (CAPI) to be conducted electronically through the end of the state of emergency declared on March 4, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
AB 213 Page 2
4) Continues authorization for CAPI application and redetermination forms to be submitted by telephone, email, or fax through the end of the state of emergency declared on March 4, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
5) Authorizes the Department of Social Services to use lists of persons receiving public social services to notify program recipients of their potential eligibility for other benefits and services not administered by the department.
6) Suspends the 365-day limitation on payments to emergency caregivers that have applied for resource family approval and an application for the Emergency Assistance Program through June 30, 2021.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, this bill appropriates $1.2 million from the General Fund to the Department of Social Services to implement provisions relating to foster care replacement during the COVID-19 emergency.
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/9/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/9/21)
None received
Prepared by: Renita Polk / B. & F.R. / 916-651-4103 4/14/21 14:38:48
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE ACR 35 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: ACR 35 Author: Chau (D), et al. Introduced: 3/1/21 Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 4/8/21 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: World Autism Awareness Day
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution designates April 2, 2021, as World Autism Awareness Day and encourages residents of the state to show support for autism awareness.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network declares that approximately one in 54 children have been identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
2) ASD is a lifelong developmental disability that results from a neurological disorder that affects the functioning of the brain, and affects children in many countries irrespective of gender, race, or socioeconomic status.
3) ASD is typically characterized by impairments in social interaction, problems with verbal and nonverbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior, interests, and activities.
4) ASD is a lifelong disability that manifests itself during the first three or four years of life.
5) April 2, 2021, is the 14th anniversary of the first day proclaimed as World Autism Awareness Day. This resolution designates April 2, 2021, as World Autism Awareness Day and encourages residents of the state to show support for autism awareness.
ACR 35 Page 2
Related/Prior Legislation ACR 188 (Chau, 2020) would have recognized and proclaimed April 2, 2020, as World Autism Awareness Day. The resolution died at the Assembly Desk.
SCR 40 (Hueso, Resolution Chapter 65, Statutes of 2019) designated April 2019 as Autism Awareness Month.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 4/8/21 AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Cooper, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Daly, Davies, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Lorena Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Lee, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nguyen, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Seyarto, Smith, Stone, Ting, Valladares, Villapudua, Voepel, Waldron, Ward, Wicks, Rendon NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooley, Holden, Mullin, Wood
Prepared by: Karen Chow / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/21/21 14:42:39
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE ACR 39 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: ACR 39 Author: Holden (D), et al. Amended: 3/18/21 in Assembly Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 4/8/21 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Roxie’s Wish: Drowning Prevention Week for Children
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution proclaims every 3rd week of May “Roxie’s Wish: Drowning Prevention Week for Children” in order to encourage counties, cities, and school districts to support national goals relating to drowning prevention.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drowning is the leading cause of unintentional death in the United States among children one through four years of age and the second leading cause of unintentional death in the United States among children 5 through 14 years of age.
2) Drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury or death in the United States, and every day, approximately 10 individuals die from unintentional drowning, 2 of whom are children 14 years of age or younger.
3) According to the State Department of Developmental Services, more than 700 children require state-funded medical care due to drowning.
4) Black and Latino children drown at a rate of more than five times the rate of drowning of White children.
5) Unintentional drowning deaths that occur each year, especially of children under five years of age, can be prevented by teaching children to swim, by using barriers and other devices that aid in preventing access to areas where
ACR 39 Page 2
drowning could occur, and especially by providing constant adult supervision without distraction.
6) Each public pool and spa in California should be in compliance with the Swimming Pool Safety Act (Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 115920) of Chapter 5 of Part 10 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code) that was signed into law in 1996.
This resolution proclaims every 3rd week of May “Roxie’s Wish: Drowning Prevention Week for Children” in order to encourage counties, cities, and school districts to support national goals relating to drowning prevention.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 4/8/21 AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Cooper, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Daly, Davies, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Lorena Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Lee, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nguyen, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Seyarto, Smith, Stone, Ting, Valladares, Villapudua, Voepel, Waldron, Ward, Wicks, Rendon NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooley, Holden, Mullin, Wood
Prepared by: Jonas Austin / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/21/21 16:32:07
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE ACR 48 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: ACR 48 Author: Rodriguez (D), et al. Introduced: 3/16/21 Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 3/25/21 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: American Red Cross Month
SOURCE: American Red Cross
DIGEST: This resolution proclaims March 2021 as American Red Cross Month and dedicates it to all those who continue to advance the noble legacy of the organization’s founder; and encourages all Californians to reach out, support the organization’s humanitarian mission, and join in their commitment to care for people in need.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) March is American Red Cross Month, a special time to honor the kindness of our neighbors who aid families in need every day in California, across the United States, and around the world. Their dedication touches millions of lives each year as they carry out the organization’s 140-year-old mission of preventing and alleviating suffering.
2) During the trying times of the COVID-19 pandemic, people have stepped up to help others in need, whether it was responding to this past year’s record- breaking disasters across the country or rolling up their sleeves to give blood when our country faced a severe blood shortage.
3) Here in California, local families have relied on American Red Cross volunteers for comfort and hope while coping with over 3,000 local disasters. Last year, 25,000 California volunteers assisted with small and large disasters, such as the devastating wildfires. Volunteers also helped over 5,000 people affected by
ACR 48 Page 2
home fires in the state by addressing their urgent needs, including food, lodging, and recovery support.
4) California volunteers have supported local families in other ways too. Last year, almost 400,000 people enrolled in training classes that taught lifesaving skills, such as first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), water safety, and caregiving. The American Red Cross provided services to military members, veterans, retirees, and their families. Over 45,000 cases were open to assist in various ways.
5) Every two seconds, someone in the United States needs blood. In California, the American Red Cross collects over 330,000 units of red blood cells each year. In addition, over 130,000 units of platelets are collected each year to help treat trauma and cancer patients. Blood products are also essential for surgeries and chronic illnesses.
6) Nearly 200 years since the birth of American Red Cross founder Clara Barton, this lifesaving work is vital to strengthening our community’s resilience.
This resolution proclaims the month of March 2021 as American Red Cross Month and dedicates it to all those who continue to advance Clara Barton’s noble legacy; and encourages all Californians to reach out, support the organization’s humanitarian mission, and join in their commitment to care for people in need.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/12/21)
American Red Cross (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/12/21)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 3/25/21 AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Daly, Davies, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Lorena Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Lee, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas,
ACR 48 Page 3
Santiago, Seyarto, Smith, Stone, Ting, Valladares, Villapudua, Voepel, Waldron, Ward, Wicks, Wood, Rendon NO VOTE RECORDED: Fong, Mullin, Nguyen, Quirk
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/14/21 15:20:31
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE ACR 49 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: ACR 49 Author: Choi (R), et al. Introduced: 3/17/21 Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 3/25/21 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Arts Education Month
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution proclaims March 2021 as Arts Education Month and encourages all educational communities to celebrate the arts with meaningful pupil activities and programs that demonstrate learning and understanding in the visual and performing arts.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) Arts education, which includes dance, music, theater, and the visual arts, is an essential part of basic education for all pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to provide for balanced learning and to develop the full potential of their minds.
2) Through well-planned instruction and activities in the arts, children develop initiative, creative ability, self-expression, self-reflection, thinking skills, discipline, a heightened appreciation of beauty, and cross-cultural understanding.
3) Experience in the arts develops insights and abilities central to the experience of life, and are collectively one of the most important repositories of culture.
4) These celebrations give California schools a unique opportunity to focus on the value of the arts for all pupils, foster cross-cultural understanding, give recognition to the state’s outstanding young artists, focus on careers in the arts available to California pupils, and enhance public support for this important part of the curriculum.
ACR 49 Page 2
This resolution proclaims the month of March 2021 as Arts Education Month and encourages all educational communities to celebrate the arts with meaningful pupil activities and programs that demonstrate learning and understanding in the visual and performing arts.
Related/Prior Legislation ACR 170 (Kamlager, Resolution Chapter 27, Statutes of 2020) proclaimed March 2020 as Arts Education Month.
SCR 24 (Leyva, Resolution Chapter 47, Statutes of 2019) proclaimed March 2019 to be Arts Education Month.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/12/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/12/21)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 3/25/21 AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Daly, Davies, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Lorena Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Lee, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Seyarto, Smith, Stone, Ting, Valladares, Villapudua, Voepel, Waldron, Ward, Wicks, Wood, Rendon NO VOTE RECORDED: Fong, Mullin, Nguyen, Quirk
Prepared by: Karen Chow / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/14/21 15:20:32
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE ACR 50 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: ACR 50 Author: Reyes (D) and Bonta (D), et al. Introduced: 3/18/21 Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Read and adopted, 4/12/21
SUBJECT: Ramadan
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution acknowledges the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and expresses the Legislature’s respect to Muslims across California and throughout the world on this occasion.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) Islam is one of the world’s major religions and part of our shared human heritage.
2) From the early days of the pioneers to our present day leaders, Muslim Americans have played a significant role in the history of this state’s economic, cultural, spiritual, and political development.
3) There are approximately one million Muslim Americans across this state, contributing to its economy, social fabric, and multicultural and pluralistic traditions.
4) The Muslim residents of this state, with their hard work and contributions to medicine, science, information technology, education, police, military, and many other fields, have benefited from and enriched the state’s open, tolerant, and economically vibrant environment. 5) Ramadan is a time to reflect spiritually, build communally, and aid those in need and marks an annual spiritual renewal for each individual, a reason to celebrate and express gratitude in this month.
ACR 50 Page 2
6) Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the ninth month of the Muslim calendar year.
7) The observance of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan commences at dusk on April 12, 2021, and continues for one lunar month, from sunrise to sunset each day.
This resolution acknowledges the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and expresses the Legislature’s respect to Muslims across California and throughout the world on this occasion.
Comments According to the author, “As the most diverse state in the nation, ACR-50 is critical in respecting and celebrating California's Muslim community. This resolution proves our commitment to the 1 million Muslim people living in California, who contribute to our economy, social fabric, and multicultural and tolerant community.”
Related/Prior Legislation The following are the most recent measures acknowledging Ramadan:
SR 85 (Pan, 2020) died in the Senate Rules Committee. ACR 85 (Reyes, Resolution Chapter 81, Statutes of 2019) . ACR 233 (Reyes, Resolution Chapter 98, Statutes of 2018). FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/21/21 14:42:40
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE ACR 56 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: ACR 56 Author: Gabriel (D), Bauer-Kahan (D), Berman (D), Bloom (D), Friedman (D), Levine (D), Medina (D), Nazarian (D), Blanca Rubio (D) and Ward (D), et al. Introduced: 3/23/21 Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Read and adopted, 4/8/21
SUBJECT: California Holocaust Memorial Day
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution proclaims April 8, 2021, as California Holocaust Memorial Day, and urges all Californians to observe this day of remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust in an appropriate manner.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) The Holocaust was a tragedy of proportions the world had never before witnessed.
2) More than 70 years have passed since the tragic events that we now refer to as the Holocaust transpired, in which the dictatorship of Nazi Germany murdered six million Jews as part of a systematic program of genocide known as “The Final Solution to the Jewish Question”.
3) Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust, but they were not alone. Five million other people were murdered in Nazi concentration camps as part of a carefully orchestrated, state-sponsored program of cultural, social, and political annihilation under the Nazi regime.
4) We must always remind ourselves of the horrible events of the Holocaust and remain vigilant against antisemitism, racism, hatred, persecution, and tyranny of all forms lest these atrocities be repeated.
ACR 56 Page 2
5) In recent years, public displays of antisemitism and antisemitic incidents have increase dramatically in California and around the world.
6) The United States Holocaust Memorial Council recognizes the Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust, including Holocaust Remembrance Day, known as Yom Hashoah.
This resolution proclaims April 8, 2021, as “California Holocaust Memorial Day,” and that Californians are urged to observe this day of remembrance for victims of the Holocaust in an appropriate manner.
Related/Prior Legislation SCR 41 (Allen, Resolution Chapter 68, Statutes of 2019) proclaimed April 29, 2019, as California Holocaust Memorial Day.
ACR 54 (Grabriel, Resolution Chapter 59, Statutes of 2019) proclaimed April 29, 2019, as California Holocaust Memorial Day.
ACR 207 (Friedman, Resolution Chapter 73, Statutes of 2018) proclaimed April 16, 2018, as California Holocaust Memorial Day.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
Prepared by: Karen Chow / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/21/21 14:42:41
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE ACR 63 Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: ACR 63 Author: Salas (D), et al. Introduced: 4/5/21 Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Read and adopted, 4/12/21
SUBJECT: California Public Safety Telecommunicators Week
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution designates the week of April 11, 2021, to April 17, 2021, inclusive, as California Public Safety Telecommunicators Week.
ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1) When an emergency occurs, the prompt response of public safety personnel is critical to the protection of life and preservation of property. Thousands of dedicated public safety dispatchers serve the citizens of the State of California on a daily basis by answering emergency and nonemergency calls for assistance and coordinating public safety field units.
2) Public safety communications professionals work under challenging and stressful circumstances and dedicate their lives and careers to helping others. These professionals measure their success in the lives that are saved by the 9– 1–1 system each and every day.
3) Effective January 1, 2021, AB 1945 (Salas, Chapter 68 of the Statutes of 2020) recognized public safety dispatchers as first responders in the State of California.
4) California Public Safety Telecommunicators Week will recognize all public safety dispatchers who are an integral part of California's first responder team, who work 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and serve as the first critical contact our citizens have with emergency services.
ACR 63 Page 2
This resolution designates the week of April 11, 2021, to April 17, 2021, inclusive, as California Public Safety Telecommunicators Week.
Comments
According to the author,
California depends on the incredible work of our public safety telecommunicators who are the first to respond during a crisis and the last voice we hear on the phone. I am proud to author ACR 63, which will recognize the week of April 11 through April 17, 2021 to be California Public Safety Telecommunicators Week, to honor and recognize the importance of California's public safety communications professionals and commend them for their continued service to our state.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/19/21)
None received
Prepared by: Jonas Austin / SFA / (916) 651-1520 4/21/21 14:42:38
**** END ****