HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 05012014 - Legislation Cte Agenda Pkt
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
May 1, 2014
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. APPROVE the Records of Action for the February 24 and April 3, 2014 meetings of
the Legislation Committee.
4. RECEIVE the report on State Budget Priorities of the California State Association of
Counties (CSAC).
5. CONSIDER recommending a position of "support" on AB 2393 , as introduced
(Levine): Vehicle registration fees, to the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by the
Sheriff’s Office.
6. CONSIDER recommending a position of "support" on AB 2381, as introduced
(Bonilla): Private parking facilities, to the Board of Supervisors.
7. CONSIDER recommending a position of "support" on SB 1455, as amended
(DeSaulnier): California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library
Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2016, to the Board of Supervisors, as
recommended by the County Librarian.
8. CONSIDER recommending a position of "support" on SB 1341, as amended
(Mitchell): Medi-Cal: Statewide Automated Welfare System, to the Board of
Supervisors, as recommended by the Director of Employment and Human Services.
9. CONSIDER recommending a position of "support" on AB 2228 as introduced
(Cooley): Crisis nurseries, to the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by the
Director of Employment and Human Services.
10. CONSIDER recommending a position of "support" on SB 899 as introduced (Mitchell)
1 of 74
10. CONSIDER recommending a position of "support" on SB 899 as introduced (Mitchell)
CalWORKs: eligibility, to the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by the Director
of Employment and Human Services.
11.The next meeting is currently scheduled for June 5, 2014.
12.Adjourn
The Legislation Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities
planning to attend Legislation Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least
72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Legislation Committee less than 96
hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Lara DeLaney, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1097, Fax (925) 646-1353
lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us
2 of 74
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:05/01/2014
Subject:Record of Action
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: None
Referral Name: Record of Action
Presenter: L. DeLaney/925-335-1097 Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
Records of Action for February 24, 2014 and April 3, 2014.
Referral Update:
Records of Action for the February 24, 2014 and April 3, 2014 meetings are attached.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE the Records of Action for the Legislation Committee meetings of February 24, 2014
and April 3, 2014.
Attachments
Feb. 24, 2014 RoA
April 3, 2014 RoA
3 of 74
LEGISLATION
COMMITTEE
February 24, 2014
2:30 to 4:00 PM.
651 Pine Street, Room 108, Martinez
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Attendees: Vana Tran
Cece Sellgren
Ryan Hernandez
Gayle Israel
Nathan Johnson
1. Introductions
2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
None.
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
3. RECOMMEND support of the Resolution to the Board of Supervisors.
The Committee voted to recommend a position of "support" to the Board of Supervisors. The
Committee asked staff to follow-up on additional information related to the Delta Trail and the Bay
Trail and recommended that cities include this in their GP updates.
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
4. CONSIDER recommending a position of "Support" to the Board of Supervisors.
The Committee voted to recommend a position of "support" to the Board of Supervisors.
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
5.
The Committee voted to recommend a position of "support" to the Board of Supervisors.
Page 1 of 3Minutes
4/24/2014http://64.166.146.155/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=270&id=&mode=External&r...
4 of 74
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
6. Comments for consideration from Flood Control District consultant: "The state made a
policy change requiring 200 year level of protection for urban and urbanizing areas
within the area of the Sacramento River/San Joaquin River drainage. Any time a policy
change is made, there needs to be a reasonable period of time during a transition to
implement the change. The question here is what is the appropriate transition period.
From a "what's best for society" perspective, it is not prudent to add homes to an
unprotected floodplain. However, according to San Joaquin County's project financing
plan, development fees are needed to pay the local match for a federally or state funded
flood control project. So, there are cities that do not have 200 year level of protection and
will not unless these projects are built. It's a chicken and egg situation because they need
development to pay for the protection, yet the development will be unprotected until the
developer fees are collected.
The problem is that it may be difficult to get federal funding appropriated for a levee
improvement project, and if the state is funding the project, those funds would come from
bond proceeds, which may or may not be available. It takes many years to get federal
appropriations for project, and once the appropriation is made, many more years to get
Army Corps of Engineers' approval. Likewise, it can take many years to work through
the state system for state funding.
There is protection in the process, however. In this case, they strengthened the process
by requiring a report to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board each year on the status
of their flood protection system. However, there is no teeth to enforce the policy if the
goals and objectives are not achieved in a reasonable time. For example, if development
is approved year after year with no advancements in a flood protection project, there is no
recourse to stop further development. If the process was strengthened to include some
enforcement to stop development in the future, then there would be protection in the
process.
It may not be reasonable to put together a flood protection project in the San Joaquin
Valley without more time and funding flexibility. A framework that allows additional
time and funding flexibility is reasonable but probably should have some enforcement
authority to contain the situation if things do not work out."
The Committee took no action on this bill. Directed staff to continue to monitor the bill.
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
7.
The Committee voted to recommend a position of "support" on this proposition to the
Board of Supervisors.
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Page 2 of 3Minutes
4/24/2014http://64.166.146.155/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=270&id=&mode=External&r...
5 of 74
For Additional Information Contact: Lara DeLaney, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1097, Fax (925) 646-1353
lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us
Passed
8. The Legislation Committee may wish to consider recommending a position to the Board
of Supervisors on any of these bills, or may request that staff provide additional
information about a bill prior to taking action.
The Committee took no action on this item.
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
9. ACCEPT the report and request additional information, as needed.
The Committee took no action on this item.
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
10. This item is presented for information/discussion only.
11. The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, April 3, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. in
Room 101.
12. Adjourn
The Legislation Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Legislation
Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority
of members of the Legislation Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street,
10th floor, during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
Page 3 of 3Minutes
4/24/2014http://64.166.146.155/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=270&id=&mode=External&r...
6 of 74
LEGISLATION
COMMITTEE
April 3, 2014
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Stephen Kowalewski, Public Works
Leigh Chavez, Public Works
Ryan Hernandez, Conservation and Development
John Kopchik, Conservation and Development
Sean Casey, First 5
Camilla Rand, Community Services Bureau
John F. Jones, Contra Costa Child Care Council
Philip Kader, Probation
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
1. Introductions
2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
None.
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
3. Staff recommends that the Legislation Committee consider recommending a position of
"support" to the Board of Supervisors on AB 1799 (Gordon).
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend a position of "support."
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
4. CONSIDER recommending a position of "support" on SB 1300 (Hancock):Refineries:
turnarounds, to the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by staff.
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend a position of "support."
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
Page 1 of 3Minutes
4/24/2014http://64.166.146.155/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=283&id=&mode=External&r...
7 of 74
5. CONSIDER recommending a position of "oppose" on SB 979, as amended, (Beall):
Local public employee organizations: differences: factfinding panel, to the Board of
Supervisors, as recommended by the County Finance Director.
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend a position of "oppose."
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
6. CONSIDER recommending a position to the Board of Supervisors or directing staff to
"watch" SB 837 (Steinberg): Schools: transitional kindergarten.
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend a position of "watch."
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
7. CONSIDER providing direction to staff on developing a position for Board of
Supervisors' consideration regarding the various Water Bond proposals in development at
the Legislature.
The Committee provided direction to staff.
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
8. CONSIDER recommending a letter of support from the Board of Supervisors for the
Delta Conservancy funding in the amount of $6M for FY 14-15, as recommended by
staff.
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the Board support a letter of support.
AYES: Chair Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
9. The Legislation Committee may consider recommending a position to the Board of
Supervisors on any of the bills of interest, or may request staff to provide additional
information about a bill.
10. The next meeting is currently scheduled for May 2, 2013.
The Committee noted the date of the next meeting is May 1, 2014.
11. Adjourn
The Legislation Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Legislation
Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Page 2 of 3Minutes
4/24/2014http://64.166.146.155/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=283&id=&mode=External&r...
8 of 74
For Additional Information Contact: Lara DeLaney, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1097, Fax (925) 646-1353
lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority
of members of the Legislation Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street,
10th floor, during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
Page 3 of 3Minutes
4/24/2014http://64.166.146.155/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=283&id=&mode=External&r...
9 of 74
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:05/01/2014
Subject:CSAC Weighs in on State Budget Priorities
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2014-21
Referral Name: State Budget Priorities
Presenter: Lara DeLaney/Cathy Christian Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
The Legislation Committee regularly receives information about the State Budget and discusses
its impact on Contra Costa County.
Referral Update:
As the release of the Governor’s May Revision to his initial Budget proposal nears, the State’s
revenues continue to surpass expectations – coming in at over $1 billion beyond the Governor’s
January projections. If this trend holds, the surplus could be as high as $7 billion. While nearly
half of the expected surplus will automatically be directed to schools under the Proposition 98
guarantee, there promises to be an impassioned debate between the Governor and Legislature
over the remaining surplus revenues as the June 15th constitutional deadline for budget adoption
approaches.
The Governor intends to direct the remaining surplus towards a rainy day fund, spending down
the wall of debt, and other one-time program expenditures. The Department of Finance is
diligently working to ensure the plan fully realizes the Governor’s vision of fiscal prudence.
There appears to be some support from the Legislature to direct funds for the same three general
purposes as the Governor; however, we know there will be continued pressure to increase
expenditures on programs, particularly in areas that were cut deeply during the recession.
(On April 16, the Governor called a Special Session of the Legislature to focus on replacing the
Rainy Day fund slated for the November 2014 ballot. The Governor is proposing to change ACA
4 (which the Legislature approved for the November 2014 ballot) with the intent of stabilizing the
volatility of capital gains revenue, providing a reserve for schools during future downturns, and
providing more flexibility to pay down long-term state liabilities. Under the Governor’s
Proclamation, the Special Session will begin on April 24.)
CSAC is poised to influence those debates and is requesting the Governor and Legislature to
10 of 74
CSAC is poised to influence those debates and is requesting the Governor and Legislature to
invest in three specific ways that will assist counties in meeting our ongoing obligations
associated with the 2011 public safety realignment and implementation of the Affordable Care
Act. All three of our budget requests will assist counties in meeting goals shared by the state
associated with these recent reforms. We are requesting $87 million to smooth the projected
2014-15 drop in 2011 public safety realignment funding; $100 million for supportive services
(mental health and substance use disorder treatment, employment and housing services) for the
criminal justice population; and an accelerated repayment for mandates owed counties, cities and
special districts to the tune of about $900 million, of which 60 percent is owed to counties.
In 2011, counties partnered with the Governor in an effort to assist the state with prison
overcrowding, to reduce state costs, and to seek innovative ways to reduce criminal activity with a
focus on rehabilitation of the criminal justice populations in California. In the third year of the
far-reaching reforms in the correctional system, counties remain focused on public safety and the
delivery of critical services and continue to invest in programs related to recidivism reduction. In
order to succeed, individuals need timely access to mental health and substance use services as
well, as job training and housing. All three of our budget priorities provide much-needed
resources to meet these critical objectives.
CSAC will be working with counties in the coming weeks to aid in advocacy efforts on these
important requests.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE the report on State Budget Priorities of the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC) and provide direction to staff, as needed.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
11 of 74
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:05/01/2014
Subject:AB 2393, as introduced (Levine): Vehicle registration fees
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2014-15
Referral Name: AB 2393, as introduced (Levine): Vehicle registration fees
Presenter: Dave Spinelli Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
Supervisor Piepho has requested that AB 2393 be to the agenda and that input be solicited from
the Sheriff’s Office and DA on its implementation for Contra Costa County.
Referral Update:
SUBJECT: Vehicle registration surcharge: fingerprint identification
SUMMARY: Authorizes an increase in the vehicle registration fee used to fund fingerprint
identification programs. Specifically, this bill:
1) Authorizes, for counties that have imposed a vehicle registration fee for fingerprint
identification programs, the fee to be increased from $1 to $2 (and from $2 to $4 for commercial
vehicles).
2) For counties that have not imposed a $1 vehicle registration fee for fingerprint identification
programs, authorizes imposition of a $2 fee (and a $4 fee for commercial vehicles).
EXISTING LAW:
1) Authorizes a county board of supervisors to impose a $1 vehicle registration fee for purposes of
funding fingerprint identification programs; for counties that opt to impose this fee, commercial
vehicles in the county pay a $2 vehicle registration fee for the same purpose.
2) Requires participating counties to make findings as to the purpose of, and the need for,
imposing the additional vehicle registration fee.
3) Requires the resulting fee revenues to be continuously appropriated, without regard to fiscal
years, for disbursement to each participating county based upon the number of registered vehicles
in those counties.
4) Requires fee revenues allocated to a county to be expended exclusively to fund programs that12 of 74
4) Requires fee revenues allocated to a county to be expended exclusively to fund programs that
enhance the capacity of local law enforcement to provide automated mobile and fixed location
fingerprint identification of individuals who may be involved in vehicle-related crimes (e.g.,
driving under the influence) and other crimes committed while operating a motor vehicle.
5) Requires every participating county to issue a fiscal year-end report to the California State
Controller summarizing the data on its fingerprint identification program, including total revenues
received by the county; total expenditures and funds encumbered; unexpended or unencumbered
fee revenues; estimated annual cost of the purchase, operation, and maintenance of automated
mobile and fixed location fingerprint equipment, related infrastructure, law enforcement
enhancement programs, and personnel; and a description of how the use of the funds benefits the
motoring public.
6) Suspends for one year the fee in any county that fails to submit this report or that has
unexpended or unencumbered fee revenue at the close of the fiscal year in which fee revenue was
received.
7) Imposes, or authorizes the imposition of, a number of other vehicle registration fees, including:
a) $43 basic registration fee to cover costs related to the regulation of vehicles;
b) $3 additional basic registration fee, $2 of which is for programs to reduce vehicle emissions
and $1 of which is for programs to encourage the voluntary retirement of passenger vehicles and
light-duty and medium-duty trucks that are high polluters;
c) $24 California Highway Patrol (CHP) fee to pay for additional CHP officers;
d) Vehicle license fee (VLF) based on the value of the vehicle. The VLF is an in-lieu property tax
and revenue collected is returned to cities and counties;
e) $20 smog abatement fee for newer model-year vehicles;
f) Various fees collected on behalf of local districts or counties. These fees may include:
i) Up to $4 for vehicles registered in San Mateo County for purposes related to traffic congestion
and stormwater pollution management;
ii) $4 for vehicles registered in San Francisco to fund programs to provide public transit;
iii) $1 for freeway service patrol programs;
iv) Between $2 and $19 for programs to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles;
v) $1 for programs aimed at deterring vehicle theft and prosecuting driving-under-the-influence
violations; and,
vi) $1 for vehicle abatement activities.
Commercial vehicles are subject to many of these same fees in addition to others, such as fees
related to cargo theft deterrence and to gross vehicle weight.
13 of 74
COMMENTS: The Department of Justice (DOJ) started the fingerprint identification program,
known as Cal-ID, in the late 1980s to provide a way to verify the identity of persons placed under
arrest and to assist law enforcement agencies in other ways, such as identifying human remains
and identifying possible criminal suspects, using fingerprint evidence gathered at crime scenes.
Limited funding for the technology and equipment hampered implementation of Cal-ID. As a
result, the Legislature passed SB 720 (Lockyer), Chapter 587, Statutes of 1997, authorizing
counties to impose a $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations in the county and to use the money for
the Cal-ID program. SB 720 limited the duration of the program to five years. Subsequent
legislation extended authorization for the program twice: AB 879 (Keeley), Chapter 986, Statutes
of 2002, extended the program until 2006 and added reporting requirements, and AB 857 (Bass),
Chapter 470, Statutes of 2005, extended the program until January 2012. Finally, AB 674
(Bonilla), Chapter 205, Statutes of 2011, repealed the sunset date entirely.
According to the sponsors, the Cal-ID program has been a statewide success. They contend it has
saved DOJ countless hours of manually scanning inked fingerprint cards. Further, local law
enforcement officials assert that since the original legislation, advances in biometric science and
technology have developed to the point that law enforcement can now send and receive from the
field identification needed to authenticate individuals using not only fingerprints but also retinal
scans, facial scans, palm-prints, and thumbprints. These advancements offer significant benefits to
law enforcement, such as the ability to:
1) Authenticate individuals remotely and avoid unnecessary transfers to a booking facility;
2) Rapidly identify dangerous individuals;
3) Confirm instances of mistaken identities; and,
4) View a driver's license photograph from the field.
Although the program has been extended indefinitely, the author points out that the $1 vehicle
registration fee has not changed since the inception of the program 17 years ago. This bill is
intended to restore some of the lost purchasing power of the original $1 fee as well as to allow
law enforcement to take advantage of advances in technology.
Writing in opposition to AB 2393, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argues that the fee
increase proposed in this bill runs afoul of Constitutional provisions governing the imposition of
special taxes, namely that imposition of such a tax requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate.
To this point, AB 2393 is a majority vote measure in the Legislature because it does not directly
result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax. Instead, this bill delegates to county boards of supervisors
the authority to impose a vehicle registrations fee. Ultimately, county counsels will have to
determine the appropriate vote threshold at the county level, where a two-thirds vote of the
electorate may be required.
Previous legislation: SB 720 (Lockyer), Chapter 587, Statutes of 1997, originally authorized the
imposition of a $1 fee for the automated fingerprinting systems, until January 2003.
AB 879 (Keeley), Chapter 986, Statutes of 2002, extended the program until 2006 (and added
reporting requirements).
14 of 74
AB 857 (Bass), Chapter 470, Statutes of 2005, extended the program until January 2012.
AB 674 (Bonilla), Chapter 205, Statutes of 2011, extended the program indefinitely.
Double referral: This bill is double-referred to the Local Government Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California State Sheriffs' Association (sponsor)
California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors
Kern County Sheriff
Yolo County Sheriff
Opposition
California Car Clubs
California Taxpayers Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Analysis Prepared by: Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ADOPT a position of "support" on AB 2393, as introduced (Levine): Vehicle registration fees, as
recommended by the Sheriff’s Office.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Unknown impact on Contra Costa County. However, the bill authorizes an increase in the vehicle
registration fees used to fund fingerprint identification programs.
Attachments
Bill Text AB 2393
15 of 74
california legislature—2013–14 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2393
Introduced by Assembly Member Levine
February 21, 2014
An act to amend Section 9250.19 of the Vehicle Code, relating to
vehicle registration fees, and making an appropriation therefor.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2393, as introduced, Levine. Vehicle registration fees.
Existing law authorizes a county, upon the adoption of a resolution
by its board of supervisors, to impose a fee of $1 on all motor vehicles,
except as provided, in addition to other fees imposed for the registration
of a vehicle. Existing law requires registered owners of a commercial
vehicle in a county that has so imposed that $1 fee to pay an additional
$2 fee. Existing law requires the county, after deducting administrative
costs, to pay those fees to the Controller quarterly. Existing law
continuously appropriates the money generated by these fees to the
Controller for disbursement to each county that has adopted a resolution
as described above, and limits the expenditure of the money so disbursed
to certain purposes related to law enforcement.
This bill would additionally authorize a county, that has adopted the
resolution to impose the $1 fee, to increase that fee to $2 in the same
manner that it imposed the initial $1 fee. The bill would alternatively
authorize a county that has not adopted a $1 fee to impose an initial $2
fee in the same manner that it is authorized to impose a $1 fee. If a
county imposes a $2 fee pursuant to these provisions, the bill would
increase the additional $2 fee on commercial vehicles to $4. The bill
would require the county to submit resolutions to increase fees pursuant
99
16 of 74
to these provisions to the Department of Motor Vehicles at least 6
months prior to the operative date of the fee increase.
This bill makes an appropriation by authorizing a county to increase
the amount of fees that are continuously appropriated to the Controller.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 9250.19 of the Vehicle Code is amended
line 2 to read:
line 3 9250.19. (a) (1) In addition to any other fees specified in this
line 4 code and the Revenue and Taxation Code, upon the adoption of a
line 5 resolution pursuant to this subdivision by any county board of
line 6 supervisors, a fee of one dollar ($1) shall be paid at the time of
line 7 registration, renewal, or supplemental application for apportioned
line 8 registration pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 8050)
line 9 of Chapter 4 of every vehicle, except vehicles described in
line 10 subdivision (a) of Section 5014.1, registered to an address within
line 11 that county except those expressly exempted from payment of
line 12 registration fees. The fees, after deduction of the administrative
line 13 costs incurred by the department in carrying out this section, shall
line 14 be paid quarterly to the Controller.
line 15 (2) (A) If a county has adopted a resolution to impose a
line 16 one-dollar ($1) fee pursuant to paragraph (1), the county may
line 17 increase the fee specified in paragraph (1) to two dollars ($2) in
line 18 the same manner as the imposition of the initial fee pursuant to
line 19 paragraph (1). The two dollars ($2) shall be paid at the time of
line 20 registration or renewal of registration of a vehicle, and quarterly
line 21 to the Controller, as provided in paragraph (1).
line 22 (B) If a county has not adopted a resolution to impose a
line 23 one-dollar ($1) fee pursuant to paragraph (1), the county may
line 24 instead adopt a fee of two dollars ($2) in the manner prescribed
line 25 in paragraph (1).
line 26 (C) A resolution to impose a fee of two dollars ($2) pursuant
line 27 to subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be submitted to the department
line 28 at least six months prior to the operative date of the fee increase.
line 29 (2)
line 30 (3) In addition to the one-dollar ($1) service fee, and upon the
line 31 implementation of the permanent trailer identification plate
99
— 2 —AB 2393
17 of 74
line 1 program, and as part of the Commercial Vehicle Registration Act
line 2 of 2001, all commercial motor vehicles subject to Section 9400.1
line 3 registered to an owner with an address in the county that
line 4 established a service authority under this section, shall pay an
line 5 additional service fee of two dollars ($2).
line 6 (4) (A) If a county imposes a service fee of two dollars ($2) by
line 7 adopting a resolution pursuant to subparagraph (A), the fee
line 8 specified in paragraph (3) shall be increased to four dollars ($4).
line 9 The four dollars ($4) shall be paid at the time of registration or
line 10 renewal of registration of a vehicle, and quarterly to the Controller
line 11 as provided in paragraph (1).
line 12 (B) A resolution to increase the additional service fee from two
line 13 dollars ($2) to four dollars ($4) pursuant to subparagraph (A)
line 14 shall be submitted to the department at least six months prior to
line 15 the operative date of the fee increase.
line 16 (3)
line 17 (5) A resolution adopted pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) shall
line 18 include findings as to the purpose of, and the need for, imposing
line 19 the additional registration fee.
line 20 (b) Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code,
line 21 the money paid to the Controller pursuant to subdivision (a) is
line 22 continuously appropriated, without regard to fiscal years, for
line 23 disbursement by the Controller to each county that has adopted a
line 24 resolution pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon the number of
line 25 vehicles registered, or whose registration is renewed, to an address
line 26 within that county, or supplemental application for apportioned
line 27 registration, and for the administrative costs of the Controller
line 28 incurred under this section.
line 29 (c) Money allocated to a county pursuant to subdivision (b)
line 30 shall be expended exclusively to fund programs that enhance the
line 31 capacity of local law enforcement to provide automated mobile
line 32 and fixed location fingerprint identification of individuals who
line 33 may be involved in driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs
line 34 in violation of Section 23152 or 23153, or vehicular manslaughter
line 35 in violation of Section 191.5 of the Penal Code or subdivision (c)
line 36 of Section 192 of the Penal Code, or any combination of those and
line 37 other vehicle-related crimes, and other crimes committed while
line 38 operating a motor vehicle.
line 39 (d) The data from a program funded pursuant to subdivision (c)
line 40 shall be made available by the local law enforcement agency to a
99
AB 2393— 3 — 18 of 74
line 1 local public agency that is required by law to obtain a criminal
line 2 history background of persons as a condition of employment with
line 3 that local public agency. A local law enforcement agency that
line 4 provides the data may charge a fee to cover its actual costs in
line 5 providing that data.
line 6 (e) (1) Money collected pursuant to this section shall not be
line 7 used to offset a reduction in any other source of funds for the
line 8 purposes authorized under this section.
line 9 (2) Funds collected pursuant to this section, upon
line 10 recommendation of local or regional Remote Access Network
line 11 Boards to the board of supervisors, shall be used exclusively for
line 12 the purchase, by competitive bidding procedures, and the operation
line 13 of equipment that is compatible with the Department of Justice’s
line 14 Cal-ID master plan, as described in Section 11112.2 of the Penal
line 15 Code, and the equipment shall interface in a manner that is in
line 16 compliance with the requirement described in the Criminal Justice
line 17 Information Services, Electronic Fingerprint Transmission
line 18 Specification, prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
line 19 dated August 24, 1995.
line 20 (f) Every county that has authorized the collection of the fee
line 21 pursuant to subdivision (a) shall issue a fiscal yearend report to
line 22 the Controller on or before November 1 of each year, summarizing
line 23 all of the following with respect to those fees:
line 24 (1) The total revenues received by the county for the fiscal year.
line 25 (2) The total expenditures and encumbered funds by the county
line 26 for the fiscal year. For purposes of this subdivision, “encumbered
line 27 funds” means funding that is scheduled to be spent pursuant to a
line 28 determined schedule and for an identified purchase consistent with
line 29 this section.
line 30 (3) Any unexpended or unencumbered fee revenues for the
line 31 county for the fiscal year.
line 32 (4) The estimated annual cost of the purchase, operation, and
line 33 maintenance of automated mobile and fixed location fingerprint
line 34 equipment, related infrastructure, law enforcement enhancement
line 35 programs, and personnel created or utilized in accordance with
line 36 this section for the fiscal year. The listing shall detail the make
line 37 and model number of the equipment, and include a succinct
line 38 description of the related infrastructure items, law enforcement
line 39 enhancement programs, and the classification or title of any
line 40 personnel.
99
— 4 —AB 2393
19 of 74
line 1 (5) How the use of the funds benefits the motoring public.
line 2 (g) For each county that fails to submit the report required
line 3 pursuant to subdivision (f) by November 1 of each year, the
line 4 Controller shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles to
line 5 suspend the fee for that county imposed pursuant to subdivision
line 6 (a) for one year.
line 7 (h) If any funds received by a county pursuant to subdivision
line 8 (a) are not expended or encumbered in accordance with this section
line 9 by the close of the fiscal year in which the funds were received,
line 10 the Controller shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles to
line 11 suspend the fee for that county imposed pursuant to subdivision
line 12 (a) for one year. For purposes of this subdivision, “encumbered
line 13 funds” means funding that is scheduled to be spent pursuant to a
line 14 determined schedule and for an identified purchase consistent with
line 15 this section.
O
99
AB 2393— 5 — 20 of 74
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:05/01/2014
Subject:AB 2381, as introduced (Bonilla): Private parking facilities
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2014-16
Referral Name: AB 2381, as introduced (Bonilla): Private parking facilities
Presenter: L. DeLaney/925-335-1097 Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
Support for AB 2381 was requested by Assembly Member Bonilla's office.
Referral Update:
SUBJECT: Private parking facilities.
Current Status: 04/23/2014: From ASSEMBLY Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Do
pass as amended
SUMMARY: Allows cities or counties to authorize, via ordinance or resolution, operators of
privately owned and maintained off-street parking facilities to regulate unauthorized parking.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Allows any city or county, by ordinance or resolution, to find and declare that there are
privately owned and maintained offstreet parking facilities as described in the ordinance or
resolution within the city or county that are generally held open for use of the public for purposes
of vehicular parking, and that specified traffic laws apply to such facilities, including those related
to basic speed law, reckless driving, speed contests and exhibitions of speed.
2) Prohibits any ordinance or resolution described above from applying to any offstreet parking
facility unless the owner or operator posts specified notices that the parking facility is subject to
public traffic regulations and control.
3) Prohibits any ordinance or resolution described above from being enacted without a public
hearing and 10 days prior written notice to the owner and operator of the privately owned and
maintained offstreet parking facility involved.
4) Outlines the requirements for, and limitations on, the removal of vehicles parked on private
property, as specified (Vehicle Code section 22658).
21 of 74
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose of this bill. This bill clarifies that a city or a county may enact an ordinance that
allows the owners or operators of privately owned and maintained off-street parking facilities to
regulate parking in their facilities. This bill is sponsored by the Walnut Creek Downtown
Association.
2) Author's statement. According to the author, "Some cities and counties have ordinances
authorizing private parking lot operators to regulate private lots and enforce parking violations
through the use of invoices. Parking ordinances outline consumer protections and strict
requirements of property owners. Ordinances specify signage, penalty amount, dispute resolution,
and compliance requirements, and are adopted only with a vote of the city council or county
board of supervisors. However, state law does not explicitly prescribe whether or not private
companies can enforce meter limits in private parking lots, even when local jurisdictions
authorize a company's ability to do so. Clarity is needed in state law to protect all parties."
3) Background. In December of 2011, the Attorney General issued an opinion that was sought to
answer four questions:
a) Does California Vehicle Code section 22658, or any other state law, authorize private property
owners to issue parking citations imposing monetary sanctions to the owners of vehicles parked
on their property?
b) May private property owners acquire, by means of issuing a written warning or posting
signage, the right to issue parking citations imposing monetary sanctions to the owners of vehicles
parked on their property?
c) May persons who tow and impound vehicles under Vehicle Code section 22658 require
payment of parking citations that have been issued by private property owners, in addition to the
towing and storage charges?
d) What rights or remedies are available to the owners of vehicles that have received parking
citations imposing monetary sanctions issued by private property owners?
The opinion concluded that:
a) Neither California Vehicle Code section 22658, nor any other state law, authorizes private
property owners to issue parking citations imposing monetary sanctions to the owners of vehicles
parked on their property.
b) Absent statutory authorization, private property owners may not acquire, by means of issuing a
written warning or posting signage, the right to issue parking citations imposing monetary
sanctions to the owners of vehicles parked on their property.
c) Persons who tow and impound vehicles under Vehicle Code section 22658 may not require
payment of parking citations that have been issued by private property owners.
d) Owners of vehicles who have received parking citations imposing monetary sanctions issued
by private property owners or their agents do not have rights or remedies per se, but the citations
22 of 74
are unenforceable against the vehicle owners.
Subsequent to this opinion, a class action case was filed in August of 2012 alleging that the
opinion, together with various provisions of the Vehicle Code, preclude local governments in
California from enacting ordinances allowing the private issuance of invoices for parking fees.
The case involved a private parking operator, Regional Parking Corporation, doing business
pursuant to a Walnut Creek ordinance governing private parking lots.
In its order after hearing this case, the Contra Costa Superior Court noted that, "The Opinion is
silent on the question of whether a local government ordinance would be sufficient 'statutory
authorization' to allow a private property owner to issue parking citations. California courts
interpret the term 'statute' to include municipal ordinances...Thus, the Court reads the Opinion as
including ordinances as potential statutory authorization for the private issuance of citations."
The Court then considered a question not addressed in the opinion: whether a local government
can enact an ordinance allowing for private property owners to issue citations, or whether any
such ordinance would necessarily be preempted by state law. The Court found that, "Because the
Vehicle Code for the most part does not address the regulation of private parking, the Court also
finds that there is no implied preemption of the Ordinance. What little state law there is on the
topic of private parking expressly provides for the possibility of local regulation thereof...There is
no statutory scheme fully occupying the field so as to impliedly preempt local regulation.
"Nor is the plaintiff persuasive in arguing that because the City of Walnut Creek cannot contract
with private parties to issue citations for public parking violations, it cannot authorize private
parties to impose fees for unauthorized parking on their own property...Although local
governments are restricted from contracting out the performance of their public functions - such
as the enforcement of public parking laws - the issuance of invoices for unauthorized parking on
private property is not such a public function."
This bill will clarify, in state statute, that cities and counties have the authority to enact ordinances
allowing operators of privately owned and maintained off-street parking facilities to regulate
unauthorized parking in their facilities.
Arguments in support. The Walnut Creek Downtown Association, sponsor of this bill, states,
"(T)he validity of the Walnut Creek ordinance has been put into question by an Attorney General
legal opinion which states that California statute must authorize such an ordinance. This opinion,
while not binding, has had the unfortunate consequence of discouraging other cities from
adopting ordinances that would benefit their downtown business associations, local merchants
and customers. AB 2381 will provide clarity to the matter by addressing the Attorney General
opinion and clearly stating that such ordinances are valid."
Arguments in opposition. None on file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Walnut Creek Downtown Association [SPONSOR]
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.23 of 74
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
California Business Properties Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
City of Walnut Creek
International Council of Shopping Centers
League of California Cities
Mayor Timothy M. Flaherty, City of Pleasant Hill
National Federation of Independent Business
Regional Parking, Inc.
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends that the Legislation Committee consider recommending a position of "support"
to the Board of Supervisors on AB 2381.
Attachments
AB 2381 Fact Sheet
AB 2381 Sample Support Letter
24 of 74
AB 2381: Clarifying Parking Enforcement
Jurisdictions
Summary:
AB 2381 will enable cities and counties to adopt
parking ordinances that best facilitates economic
activity in their jurisdictions. Specifically, this bill
clarifies cities and counties ability to authorize the
regulation of private parking facilities by their
owners and managers.
Background:
In California, many parking lots are privately
owned and operated. In the City of Walnut Creek,
70% of downtown parking spaces are privately
owned. Parking lot owners hire private parking lot
operators to manage their parking facilities. At the
direction of local jurisdictions, professional parking
mangers analyze traffic flow patterns and parking
tendencies to develop parking plans that meet the
needs of local businesses.
Parking ordinances are detailed and specify among
other things, requirements for signage, dispute
resolutions, and penalty amounts. City and county
governments review proposals before adopting
ordinances authorizing privately owned facilities to
be regulated by their operators.
Metered parking is often recommended by parking
lot managers and adopted by local governments for
private parking lots. Metered parking is used to
create turnover and help increase retail sales.
Especially in high traffic areas with a prevalence of
businesses, adequate parking turnover ensures
customers are able to access retail stores and add to
the economic activity of a given locale.
Need for legislation:
Some cities and counties have ordinances
authorizing private parking lot operators to regulate
their lots and enforce parking violations through the
use of invoices. However, state law does not
prescribe whether or not private companies can
enforce meter limits in private parking lots, even
when local jurisdictions authorize a company’s
ability to do so. Clarity is needed to protect all
parties and maintain existing parking enforcement
policies.
This bill:
Specifically, this bill:
allows cities and counties to authorize
private parking companies the ability to
manage private parking lots under the
conditions and criteria deemed appropriate
by the local jurisdiction
Support:
Walnut Creek Downtown Business Association
(sponsor)
Contact:
Iván Carrillo
Office of Assemblywoman Susan A. Bonilla
916-319-2014
ivan.carrillo@asm.ca.gov
25 of 74
Date
The Honorable Katcho Achadjian
Chair, Assembly Local Government Committee
1020 N Street, Room 157
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 2381 (Bonilla) -- Support
Dear Assemblymember Achadjian:
On behalf of <Name of organization>, I write in support of AB 2381 which would clarify that state law
allows cities and counties to adopt ordinances that would allow private property owners to regulate and
enforce parking rules on their properties.
<Name of organization> works with community partners, businesses, and residents to promote and
enhance local business vitality. It is important for property owners and their merchant tenants to have the
ability to manage their lots so there are adequate numbers of open spaces for customers to park. The City
of Walnut Creek has adopted a city ordinance to allow private property owners to meter their lots and
enforce time limits on those meters. However, the validity of the Walnut Creek ordinance has been put
into question by an Attorney General legal opinion which states that California statute must authorize
such an ordinance. This opinion, while not binding, has had the unfortunate consequence of discouraging
other cities and counties from adopting ordinances that would benefit their downtown business
associations, local merchants, and customers. AB 2381 will provide clarity to the matter by addressing the
Attorney General opinion and clearly stating that such ordinances are valid.
<Name of Organization> supports AB 2319 because it provides cities and business owners the tools to
better manage parking in privately-owned lots.
Sincerely,
< Name and Position>
cc: Assemblywoman Susan A. Bonilla
Members, Assembly Local Government Committee
26 of 74
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:05/01/2014
Subject:SB 1455, as amended (DeSaulnier): California Reading and Literacy
Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of
2016
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2014-17
Referral Name: SB 1455, as amended (DeSaulnier): Library Bond 2014
Presenter: L. DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
A request for a position of "support" for SB 1455 was received by Jessica Hudson, County
Librarian, by Senator DeSaulnier's office.
Referral Update:
SUBJECT: California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and
Renovation Bond Act of 2014.
Current Status: 04/09/2014: In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE.
Committee: Senate Governance and Finance Committee
Hearing: 04/30/2014 9:30 am, Room 112
SUMMARY
This bill enacts the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library
Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2014 to be submitted to the voters at the 2014
statewide primary election. If approved by the voters, the Act would authorize the issuance of an
unspecified amount in general obligation bonds for public library construction and renovation.
BACKGROUND
In 1988, the voters approved $75 million in state general obligation bonds under the California
Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 1988 to establish a grant fund for the
acquisition, construction, remodeling, or rehabilitation of public library facilities.
In 2000, the voters approved $350 million in state general obligation bonds under the California
Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of
27 of 74
Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of
2000 (Proposition 14) for the purpose of financing public library construction and renovation.
These funds have been fully expended.
In June of 2006, the voters rejected Proposition 81, a $600 million state general obligation bond
measure, with approximately 53% of voters voting against it. Proposition 81, similar to the
California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation
Bond Act of 2000, would have provided financing for public library construction and renovation.
However, the measure would have given priority to projects that were deemed "Outstanding" for
Proposition 14 funds but not funded in the third application cycle.
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1) Places a general obligation bond measure for an unspecified amount on the 2014 statewide
general election ballot to finance a public library construction and renovation program utilizing a
competitive grant process.
2) Authorizes the California Public Library Construction Board to adopt rules, regulations, and
policies for the bond program and review grant applications.
3) Requires recipients to provide matching funds in an amount equal to 35 percent of the costs of
the project and limits state funding available to a maximum of $30 million per project.
4) Establishes criteria and procedures for the allocation of grant funds.
5) Specifies intent of the Legislature that the State Librarian and the Bond Board develop an
application process that is sufficiently streamlined to decrease application costs and incentivize a
high number of library applicants to participate.
COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill: According to the author's office, public libraries are a vital part of the
educational system. They provide resources and services for all residents of California, including
preschoolers and K-12 and college-aged students. Libraries are offering essential public services
such as online homework tutoring, computer-based resume building, job search programs, and
literacy tutoring. The author's office indicates that in new communities, residents are demanding
library facilities, and in older communities, many libraries are inadequate and are in need of
rehabilitation or seismic retrofit upgrade. Additionally, several libraries lack the physical
infrastructure to allow them to benefit from modern broadband technology upgrades.
2) Proposition 14. In March 2000, voters approved Proposition 14, a $350 million library bond
measure. Due to high demand, the California Public Library Construction and Renovation Board
was forced to deny approximately 75 percent of all applications due to lack of additional bond
funding. The chart below shows the Proposition 14 grants awarded and projects funded by the
California Public Construction and Renovation Board in each cycle.
Project Applications Grant Awards Cycle # Projects State Funds Requested Projects State Funds
Allocated Cycle 1 61 $530,430,815 17 $145,395,447 Cycle 2 66 $547,149,519 16 $108,157,632
Cycle 3 72 $586,692,442 12 $80,588,293 Total Funded: 45 $334,141,372 Sq Ft.: $1,503,471
28 of 74
Avg. State Grant: $7,425,364
3) Needs assessment. A 2007 needs assessment, conducted by the California State Library,
indicated there were more than 662 public library projects that need to be built or renovated from
the 2007 fiscal year through the 2016 fiscal year, totaling over $8 billion. The State Library does
not expect to complete a comprehensive update of this needs assessment at this point in time.
However, the author's office estimates that the current need for statewide public library
construction, renovation, and retrofit still exceeds well over $4 billion. The California Library
Association acknowledges that the 2007 needs assessment has likely changed, but they still
anticipate the overall need to be significant, likely in excess of $7 billion.
4) The state's funding priorities. In 2006, Proposition 81 would have required that priority be
given to eligible projects that were not funded in the third application cycle of the 2000 bond
program, effectively earmarking 50% of the $600 million of the funds that would have been
available. This bill does not require that such priority be given to projects that were not funded in
the 2000 bond program. Consequently, representatives of some of the unfunded library projects
from 2000 may argue that this bill forces them to "lose their place in line" and start over in the
planning process. However, rising construction costs and new building codes could effectively
make the old applications outdated and support the argument that the new bond program should
begin with a level playing field.
5) Infrastructure Bonds. The Legislative Analyst Office recently released its review of the 2014
California Five-Year Infrastructure Plan and raised many issues worth consideration. These issues
include the state's long-term policy and infrastructure goals and how the state should prioritize
competing needs for capital facilities, including transportation, K-12 education, higher education,
and water resources.
The annual debt-service cost to the General Fund is estimated to be $5.6 billion in the 2014-15
fiscal year and expected to rise to approximately $5.8 billion in 2017-18. This bill would increase
the annual debt-service cost to the General Fund, however the exact impact is unknown.
6) Amendments. As previously mentioned, the State Library will not be completing a
comprehensive needs assessment on the construction needs for public libraries. Many will argue
that the needs for both renovation and new construction are significant, especially considering the
number of qualified applications that went unfunded from Proposition 14. But it has been over a
decade since the state has provided resources for library construction and based on the widely
differing estimates provided by the author and the California Library Association, we do not have
sufficient data that demonstrates the current overall need for library construction. Therefore, staff
recommends that the bill be amended to require the State Library to conduct a comprehensive
needs assessment on the renovation of existing public libraries and construction for new public
libraries, to be reported to the Governor as well as the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of
both houses of the Legislature. Staff also recommends that the bill be amended to place the
proposed bond measure on the 2016 statewide general election ballot instead of the 2014 ballot, to
allow for sufficient time for the needs assessment to be completed and provided to the
Legislature.
7) Prior legislation. This bill is similar to SB 156 (Simitian) in 2007, which would have submitted
a measure to voters at the 2008 statewide primary election and authorize the issuance of $4 billion
in general obligation bonds for public library construction and renovation. This bill was held in
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
29 of 74
SB 1161 (Alpert), Chapter 698, 2004, placed the California Reading and Literacy Improvement
and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 81) on the June
2006 ballot, which failed passage with 52.7% of voters voting against the initiative.
SUPPORT
California Library Association
Letters from individuals
OPPOSITION
None on file.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
The County Librarian, Jessica Hudson, recommends that the Legislation Committee consider
recommending a position of "support" to the Board of Supervisors on SB 1455.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Senate Bill 1455 authorizes the sale of an unspecified amount of bonds, for voters to consider on
the November, 2014 ballot.
Attachments
SB 1455 Bill Text
30 of 74
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2014
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 26, 2014
SENATE BILL No. 1455
Introduced by Senator DeSaulnier
February 21, 2014
An act to add Chapter 12.5 (commencing with Section 20020) to Part
11 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code, relating to financing
a public library construction and renovation program by providing the
funds necessary therefor through an election for the issuance and sale
of bonds of the State of California, and by providing for the handling
and disposition of those funds.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 1455, as amended, DeSaulnier. California Reading and Literacy
Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond
Act of 2014. 2016.
Existing law establishes the California Library Construction and
Renovation Bond Act of 1988 and the California Reading and Literacy
Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond
Act of 2000. Existing law authorizes the issuance of bonds, pursuant
to the State General Obligation Bond Law, in the amount of $72,405,000
in the 1988 bond act and in the amount of $350,000,000 in the 2000
bond act, for the purpose of financing library construction and
renovation.
This bill would enact the California Reading and Literacy
Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond
Act of 2014, 2016, for submission to the voters at the 2014 2016
statewide general election. The bill, if approved by the voters, would
authorize the issuance, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond
97
31 of 74
Law, of an unspecified amount of bonds for the purpose of financing
library construction and renovation pursuant to a program administered
by the State Librarian. The bill would require the State Librarian to
prepare a comprehensive assessment on the statewide need for the new
construction, renovation, and rehabilitation of public libraries and to
submit a report to the Governor, the Department of Finance, the
Legislative Analyst, and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees
of the Legislature on or before August 15, 2015.
Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 12.5 (commencing with Section 20020)
line 2 is added to Part 11 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code,
line 3 to read:
line 4
line 5 Chapter 12.5. California Reading and Literacy
line 6 Improvement and Public Library Construction and
line 7 Renovation Bond Act of 2014 2016
line 8
line 9 Article 1. General Provisions
line 10
line 11 20020. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the
line 12 California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library
line 13 Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2014. 2016.
line 14 20021. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
line 15 (a) Reading and literacy skills are fundamental to success in
line 16 our economy and our society.
line 17 (b) Public libraries are a vital part of the educational system.
line 18 They provide resources and services for all residents of California,
line 19 including preschoolers, out-of-school adults, senior citizens, at-risk
line 20 youth, and those attending schools at all levels.
line 21 (c) In many cases, libraries serve as a community’s only public
line 22 point of access to resources for learning and by extension,
line 23 self-sufficiency.
line 24 (d) The construction and renovation of public library facilities
line 25 is necessary to expand access to reading and literacy programs in
line 26 the state public education system and to expand access to public
line 27 library services for all residents of California.
97
— 2 —SB 1455
32 of 74
line 1 (e) The need for library facilities continues to grow. A 2007
line 2 needs assessment compiled by the California State Library found
line 3 that there is a need for over eight billion dollars ($8,000,000,000)
line 4 in public library funding.
line 5 (f) In March 2000, California voters approved a bond measure
line 6 of three hundred fifty million dollars ($350,000,000) for library
line 7 construction and renovation.
line 8 (g) Due to the overwhelming response by applicants, the
line 9 California Public Library Construction and Renovation Board was
line 10 forced to deny approximately 75 percent of all applications due to
line 11 lack of additional bond funding.
line 12 20022. As used in this chapter, the following terms have the
line 13 following meanings:
line 14 (a) “Board” means the California Public Library Construction
line 15 and Renovation Board of 2014 2016 established pursuant to Section
line 16 20023.
line 17 (b) “Committee” means the California Library Construction
line 18 and Renovation Finance Committee established pursuant to Section
line 19 19972 and continued in existence pursuant to Section 20038 for
line 20 purposes of this chapter.
line 21 (c) “Fund” means the California Public Library Construction
line 22 and Renovation Fund of 2014 2016 established pursuant to Section
line 23 20024.
line 24 20023. (a) The California Public Library Construction and
line 25 Renovation Board of 2014 2016 is hereby established.
line 26 (b) The board is comprised of the State Librarian, the Treasurer,
line 27 the Director of Finance, an Assembly Member appointed by the
line 28 Speaker of the Assembly, a Senator appointed by the Senate
line 29 Committee on Rules, and two members appointed by the Governor.
line 30 (c) Legislative members of the board shall meet with, and
line 31 participate in, the work of the board to the extent that their
line 32 participation is not incompatible with their duties as Members of
line 33 the Legislature. For the purpose of this chapter, Members of the
line 34 Legislature who are members of the board constitute a joint
line 35 legislative committee on the subject matter of this chapter.
line 36
line 37 Article 2. Program Provisions
line 38
line 39 20024. The proceeds of bonds issued and sold pursuant to this
line 40 chapter shall be deposited in the California Public Library
97
SB 1455— 3 — 33 of 74
line 1 Construction and Renovation Fund of 2014, 2016, which is hereby
line 2 established.
line 3 20025. All moneys deposited in the fund, except as provided
line 4 in Section 20048, are continuously appropriated to the State
line 5 Librarian, notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code,
line 6 and are available for grants to any city, county, city and county,
line 7 or library district that is authorized at the time of the project
line 8 application to own and maintain a public library facility for the
line 9 purposes set forth in Section 20026.
line 10 20026. The grant funds authorized pursuant to Section 20025
line 11 and the matching funds provided pursuant to Section 20031 shall
line 12 be used by the recipient for any of the following purposes:
line 13 (a) Acquisition or construction of new facilities or additions to
line 14 existing public library facilities.
line 15 (b) Acquisition of land necessary for purposes of subdivision
line 16 (a).
line 17 (c) Remodeling or rehabilitation of existing public library
line 18 facilities or of other facilities for the purpose of their conversion
line 19 to public library facilities. All remodeling and rehabilitation
line 20 projects funded with grants authorized pursuant to this chapter
line 21 shall include necessary upgrading of electrical and
line 22 telecommunications systems to accommodate Internet and similar
line 23 computer technology.
line 24 (d) Procurement or installation, or both, of furnishings and
line 25 equipment required to make a facility fully operable if the
line 26 procurement or installation is part of a construction or remodeling
line 27 project funded pursuant to this chapter.
line 28 (e) Payment of fees charged by architects, engineers, and other
line 29 professionals, whose services are required to plan or execute a
line 30 project authorized pursuant to this chapter.
line 31 (f) Service charges if the services in question are required by
line 32 the applicant jurisdiction to be provided by a public works or
line 33 similar department, or by other departments providing professional
line 34 services if the costs are billed directly to the project pursuant to
line 35 this chapter.
line 36 20027. Grant funds authorized pursuant to Section 20025, or
line 37 matching funds provided pursuant to Section 20031, shall not be
line 38 used by a recipient for any of the following purposes:
line 39 (a) Books and other library materials.
97
— 4 —SB 1455
34 of 74
line 1 (b) Administrative costs of the project, including, but not limited
line 2 to, the costs of any of the following:
line 3 (1) Preparation of the grant application.
line 4 (2) Procurement of matching funds.
line 5 (3) Conduct of an election for obtaining voter approval of the
line 6 project.
line 7 (c) Except as set forth in this chapter, including, but not limited
line 8 to, Section 20046, interest or other carrying charges for financing
line 9 the project, including, but not limited to, costs of loans or
line 10 lease-purchase agreements in excess of the direct costs of any of
line 11 the authorized purposes specified in Section 20026.
line 12 (d) Ongoing operating expenses for the facility, its personnel,
line 13 supplies, or any other library operations.
line 14 20028. All construction contracts for projects funded in part
line 15 through grants awarded pursuant to this chapter shall be awarded
line 16 through competitive bidding pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with
line 17 Section 20100) of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code.
line 18 20029. This chapter shall be administered by the State
line 19 Librarian. The board shall adopt rules, regulations, and policies
line 20 for implementation of this chapter.
line 21 20030. A city, county, city and county, or library district may
line 22 apply to the State Librarian for a grant pursuant to this chapter as
line 23 follows:
line 24 (a) Each application shall be for a project for a purpose
line 25 authorized by Section 20026.
line 26 (b) An application shall not be submitted for a project for which
line 27 construction bids already have been advertised.
line 28 (c) The applicant shall request not less than five hundred
line 29 thousand dollars ($500,000) per project.
line 30 20031. (a) Each grant recipient shall provide matching funds
line 31 from any available source in an amount equal to 35 percent of the
line 32 costs of the project. The remaining 65 percent of the costs of the
line 33 project, up to a maximum of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000)
line 34 per project, shall be provided through allocations from the fund.
line 35 (b) Qualifying matching funds shall be cash expenditures in the
line 36 categories specified in Section 20026 that are made not earlier
line 37 than five years before the submission of the application to the State
line 38 Librarian. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), in-kind
line 39 expenditures do not qualify as matching funds.
97
SB 1455— 5 — 35 of 74
line 1 (c) Land donated or otherwise acquired for use as a site for the
line 2 facility, including, but not limited to, land purchased more than
line 3 five years before the submission of the application to the State
line 4 Librarian, may count towards the required 35 percent local fund
line 5 contribution at its appraised value as of the date of the application.
line 6 This subdivision does not apply to land acquired with funds
line 7 authorized pursuant to Part 68 (commencing with Section 100400),
line 8 Part 68.1 (commencing with Section 100600), Part 68.2
line 9 (commencing with Section 100800), or Part 69 (commencing with
line 10 Section 101000), of Division 14 of Title 3.
line 11 (d) Expenditures for payment of architect fees for plans and
line 12 drawings for library renovation and new construction, including,
line 13 but not limited to, plans and drawings purchased more than five
line 14 years before the submission of the application to the State
line 15 Librarian, may count towards the required 35 percent local funds
line 16 contribution.
line 17 20032. (a) The estimated costs of a project for which an
line 18 application is submitted shall be consistent with normal public
line 19 construction costs in the geographic area of the applicant.
line 20 (b) An applicant wishing to construct a project having costs that
line 21 exceed normal public construction costs in the area may apply for
line 22 a grant in an amount not to exceed 65 percent of the normal costs
line 23 up to a maximum of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) per project
line 24 if the applicant certifies that it is capable of financing the remainder
line 25 of the project costs from other sources.
line 26 20033. (a) After an application is approved by the board and
line 27 included in the request of the State Librarian to the committee, the
line 28 amount of the funding to be provided to the applicant shall not be
line 29 increased. Actual changes in project costs are the responsibility
line 30 of the applicant. If the amount of funding that is provided is greater
line 31 than the cost of the project, the applicant shall return that amount
line 32 of funding that exceeds the cost of the project to the fund. If an
line 33 applicant is awarded funding by the board, but decides not to
line 34 proceed with the project, the applicant shall return all of the funding
line 35 to the fund.
line 36 (b) If the State Librarian determines that a grant recipient has
line 37 not complied with the terms of its grant award or its grant award
line 38 agreement with the California State Library, the board may
line 39 withdraw a grant award and award the funds previously granted
line 40 to the recipient to other eligible applicants. The State Librarian
97
— 6 —SB 1455
36 of 74
line 1 shall notify the affected grant recipient at least 90 days before a
line 2 board meeting where the withdrawal of a grant award will be
line 3 considered.
line 4 20034. (a) In reviewing applications, the board shall consider
line 5 all of the following factors:
line 6 (1) The needs of urban, suburban, and rural areas.
line 7 (2) The age and condition of existing library facilities within
line 8 an area.
line 9 (3) The degree to which existing library facilities are inadequate
line 10 in meeting the needs of the residents in the library service area.
line 11 (4) The degree to which the proposed project responds to the
line 12 needs of the residents in the library service area.
line 13 (5) The degree to which the library integrates appropriate
line 14 electronic technologies into the proposed project.
line 15 (6) The financial commitment of the local agency submitting
line 16 the application to open, operate, and maintain the proposed library
line 17 project upon its completion.
line 18 (b) If, after an application has been submitted, material changes
line 19 occur that would alter the evaluation of an application, the State
line 20 Librarian may accept an additional written statement from the
line 21 applicant for consideration by the board.
line 22 (c) It is the intent of the Legislature that the State Librarian and
line 23 the board develop an application process that is sufficiently
line 24 streamlined to decrease application costs and provide incentives
line 25 for a high number of library applicants to participate.
line 26 20035. (a) A facility, or a part of a facility, acquired,
line 27 constructed, remodeled, or rehabilitated with grants received
line 28 pursuant to this chapter shall be dedicated to public library direct
line 29 service use for a period of at least 20 years following completion
line 30 of the project.
line 31 (b) The financial interest that the state may have in the land or
line 32 facility, or both, resulting from the funding of a project under this
line 33 chapter, as described in subdivision (a), may be transferred by the
line 34 State Librarian through an exchange for a replacement site and
line 35 facility acquired or constructed for the purpose of providing public
line 36 library direct service.
line 37 (c) If the facility, or a part of the facility, acquired, constructed,
line 38 remodeled, or rehabilitated with grants received pursuant to this
line 39 chapter ceases to be used for public library direct service before
line 40 the expiration of the period specified in subdivision (a), the board
97
SB 1455— 7 — 37 of 74
line 1 shall be entitled to recover from the grant recipient, or the successor
line 2 of the recipient, an amount that bears the same ratio to the value
line 3 of the facility, or appropriate part of the value of the facility, at
line 4 the time it ceased to be used for public library direct service, as
line 5 the amount of the original grant bore to the original cost of the
line 6 facility, or to an appropriate part of the facility. For purposes of
line 7 this subdivision, the value of the facility, or appropriate part of the
line 8 facility, shall be determined by the mutual agreement of the board
line 9 and the grant recipient or successor, or through an action brought
line 10 for that purpose in the superior court.
line 11 (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (f) of Section 16724 of the
line 12 Government Code, any money recovered pursuant to subdivision
line 13 (c) shall be deposited in the fund, and shall be available for the
line 14 purpose of awarding grants for other projects.
line 15
line 16 Article 3. Fiscal Provisions
line 17
line 18 20036. Bonds in the total amount not to exceed ____ dollars
line 19 ($____), exclusive of refunding bonds issued in accordance with
line 20 Section 20044, or so much of refunding bonds as is necessary,
line 21 may be issued and sold for deposit in the fund to be used in
line 22 accordance with, and for carrying out the purposes expressed in,
line 23 this chapter, including all acts amendatory of this chapter and
line 24 supplementary to this chapter, and to be used to reimburse the
line 25 General Obligation Bond Expense Revolving Fund pursuant to
line 26 Section 16724.5 of the Government Code. The bonds, when sold,
line 27 shall be and constitute a valid and binding obligation of the State
line 28 of California, and the full faith and credit of the State of California
line 29 is hereby pledged for the punctual payment of both principal and
line 30 interest on bonds as the principal and interest become due and
line 31 payable.
line 32 20037. The bonds authorized by this chapter shall be prepared,
line 33 executed, issued, sold, paid, and redeemed as provided in the State
line 34 General Obligation Bond Law (Chapter 4 (commencing with
line 35 Section 16720) of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government
line 36 Code), and all of the provisions of that law apply to the bonds and
line 37 to this chapter and are hereby incorporated in this chapter as though
line 38 set forth in full in this chapter, except Section 16727 of the
line 39 Government Code to the extent that it may be inconsistent with
line 40 this chapter.
97
— 8 —SB 1455
38 of 74
line 1 20038. (a) For purposes of this chapter, the California Library
line 2 Construction and Renovation Finance Committee established
line 3 pursuant to Section 19972 is continued in existence and is the
line 4 “committee” as that term is used in the State General Obligation
line 5 Bond Law for purposes of this chapter.
line 6 (b) For purposes of the State General Obligation Bond Law, the
line 7 California Public Library Construction and Renovation Board of
line 8 2014 2016 established pursuant to Section 20023 is designated the
line 9 board.
line 10 20039. The committee shall determine whether or not it is
line 11 necessary or desirable to issue bonds authorized pursuant to this
line 12 chapter in order to carry out the actions specified in this chapter,
line 13 including all acts amendatory of this chapter and supplementary
line 14 to this chapter, and, if so, the amount of bonds to be issued and
line 15 sold. Successive issues of bonds may be authorized and sold to
line 16 carry out those actions progressively, and it is not necessary that
line 17 all of the bonds authorized to be issued be sold at any one time.
line 18 20040. There shall be collected each year and in the same
line 19 manner and at the same time as other state revenue is collected,
line 20 in addition to the ordinary revenues of the state, a sum in an amount
line 21 required to pay the principal of, and interest on, the bonds each
line 22 year. It is the duty of all officers charged by law with any duty in
line 23 regard to the collection of the revenue to do and perform each and
line 24 every act that is necessary to collect that additional sum.
line 25 20041. Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government
line 26 Code, there is hereby appropriated from the General Fund in the
line 27 State Treasury, for purposes of this chapter, an amount that will
line 28 equal the total of the following:
line 29 (a) The sum annually necessary to pay the principal of, and
line 30 interest on, bonds issued and sold pursuant to this chapter, as the
line 31 principal and interest become due and payable.
line 32 (b) The sum necessary to carry out Section 20042, appropriated
line 33 without regard to fiscal years.
line 34 20042. For purposes of carrying out this chapter, the Director
line 35 of Finance may authorize the withdrawal from the General Fund
line 36 of an amount or amounts not to exceed the amount of the unsold
line 37 bonds that have been authorized to be sold for purposes of carrying
line 38 out this chapter. Amounts withdrawn shall be deposited in the
line 39 fund. Money made available under this section shall be returned
line 40 to the General Fund, with interest at the rate earned by the money
97
SB 1455— 9 — 39 of 74
line 1 in the Pooled Money Investment Account during the time the
line 2 money was withdrawn from the General Fund pursuant to this
line 3 section, from money received from the sale of bonds for purposes
line 4 of carrying out this chapter.
line 5 20043. The board may request the Pooled Money Investment
line 6 Board to make a loan from the Pooled Money Investment Account
line 7 or any other approved form of interim financing, in accordance
line 8 with Section 16312 of the Government Code, for purposes of
line 9 carrying out this chapter. The amount of the request shall not
line 10 exceed the amount of the unsold bonds that the committee, by
line 11 resolution, has authorized to be sold for purposes of carrying out
line 12 this chapter. The board shall execute any documents required by
line 13 the Pooled Money Investment Board to obtain and repay the loan.
line 14 Any amounts loaned shall be deposited in the fund to be allocated
line 15 by the board in accordance with this chapter.
line 16 20044. Bonds issued and sold pursuant to this chapter may be
line 17 refunded by the issuance of refunding bonds in accordance with
line 18 Article 6 (commencing with Section 16780) of Chapter 4 of Part
line 19 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Approval by
line 20 the electors of the state for the issuance of bonds under this chapter
line 21 shall include the approval of the issuance of any bonds issued to
line 22 refund bonds originally issued or previously issued refunding
line 23 bonds.
line 24 20045. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter,
line 25 or of the State General Obligation Bond Law, if the Treasurer sells
line 26 bonds pursuant to this chapter that include a bond counsel opinion
line 27 to the effect that the interest on the bonds is excluded from gross
line 28 income for federal tax purposes, subject to designated conditions,
line 29 the Treasurer may maintain separate accounts for the investment
line 30 of bond proceeds and for the investment earnings on those
line 31 proceeds. The Treasurer may use or direct the use of those proceeds
line 32 or earnings to pay a rebate, penalty, or other payment required
line 33 under federal law or take any other action with respect to the
line 34 investment and use of those bond proceeds required or desirable
line 35 under federal law to maintain the tax-exempt status of those bonds
line 36 and to obtain any other advantage under federal law on behalf of
line 37 the funds of this state.
line 38 20046. All money deposited in the fund that is derived from
line 39 premium and accrued interest on bonds sold pursuant to this chapter
97
— 10 —SB 1455
40 of 74
line 1 shall be reserved in the fund and shall be available for transfer to
line 2 the General Fund as a credit to expenditures for bond interest.
line 3 20047. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that,
line 4 inasmuch as the proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by
line 5 this chapter are not “proceeds of taxes” as that term is used in
line 6 Article XIII B of the California Constitution, the disbursement of
line 7 these proceeds is not subject to the limitations imposed by that
line 8 article.
line 9 20048. Amounts deposited in the fund pursuant to this chapter
line 10 may be appropriated in the annual Budget Act to the State Librarian
line 11 for the actual amount of office, personnel, and other customary
line 12 and usual expenses incurred in the direct administration of grant
line 13 projects pursuant to this chapter, including, but not limited to,
line 14 expenses incurred by the State Librarian in providing technical
line 15 assistance to an applicant for a grant under this chapter.
line 16 SEC. 2. (a) Section 1 of this act shall take effect upon the
line 17 adoption by the voters of the California Reading and Literacy
line 18 Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation
line 19 Bond Act of 2014, 2016, as set forth in Section 1 of this act.
line 20 (b) Section 1 of this act shall be submitted to the voters at the
line 21 2014 2016 statewide general election in accordance with provisions
line 22 of the Elections Code and the Government Code governing
line 23 submission of statewide measures to voters.
line 24 SEC. 3. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, all ballots of the
line 25 election shall have printed on the ballot and in a square of the
line 26 ballot, the words: “California Reading and Literacy Improvement
line 27 and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of
line 28 2014” 2016” and in the same square under those words, the
line 29 following in 8-point type: “This act provides for a bond issue in
line 30 an amount not to exceed a total of ____ dollars ($____) to provide
line 31 funds for the construction and renovation of public library facilities
line 32 in order to expand access to reading and literacy programs in
line 33 California’s public education system and to expand access to public
line 34 library services for all residents of California.” Opposite the square,
line 35 there shall be left spaces in which the voters may place a cross in
line 36 the manner required by law to indicate whether they vote for or
line 37 against the act.
line 38 (b) If the voting in the election is done by means of voting
line 39 machines used pursuant to law in the manner that carries out the
line 40 intent of this section, the use of the voting machines and the
97
SB 1455— 11 — 41 of 74
line 1 expression of the voters’ choice by means of the voting machines
line 2 are in compliance with this section.
line 3 SEC. 4. The State Librarian shall prepare a comprehensive
line 4 assessment on the statewide need for the new construction,
line 5 renovation, and rehabilitation of public libraries, and submit a
line 6 report to the Governor, the Department of Finance, the Legislative
line 7 Analyst, and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the
line 8 Legislature on or before August 15, 2015.
O
97
— 12 —SB 1455
42 of 74
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:05/01/2014
Subject:SB 1341, as amended (Mitchell): Medi-Cal: Statewide Automated Welfare
System
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2014-18
Referral Name: SB 1341, as amended (Mitchell): Medi-Cal: Statewide Automated Welfare
System
Presenter: Kathy Gallagher Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
This bill was referred to the Legislation Committee by Employment and Human Services.
Referral Update:
SB 1341, as amended, Mitchell. Medi-Cal: Statewide Automated Welfare System. Existing law
provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health
Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The
Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid Program provisions.
Existing law requires the Office of Systems Integration in the State Department of Social Services
to implement a statewide automated welfare system for 6 specified public assistance programs,
including Medi-Cal. This bill would require the Statewide Automated Welfare System to be the
system of record for Medi-Cal and to contain all Medi-Cal eligibility rules and case management
functionality. The bill would, notwithstanding this provision, authorize the California Healthcare
Eligibility, Enrollment, and Retention System (CalHEERS) to house the business rules necessary
for an eligibility determination to be made, as specified, pursuant to the federal Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act. The bill would, if the department exercises that authority, require
CalHEERS to make the business rules available to the Statewide Automated Welfare System
consortia to determine Medi-Cal eligibility. The bill would specify, effective January 1, 2016, the
manner in which the functionality to create and send notices of action for the Medi-Cal and
premium tax credit programs would be implemented, including a requirement that the Statewide
Automated Welfare System be used to generate noticing language and notice of action
documents. Vote Required: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local
Program: NO Immediate Effect NO Urgency: NO Tax Levy: NO Election: NO Usual Current
Expenses: NO Budget Bill: NO Prop 25 Trailer Bill: NO
Current Status: 04/07/2014: From SENATE Committee on HEALTH with author's
amendments. In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on HEALTH.
Committee: Senate Health Committee 43 of 74
Committee: Senate Health Committee
Hearing: 04/30/2014 1:30 pm, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
The Director of EHSD recommends that the Legislation Committee consider recommending a
position of "support" to the Board of Supervisors on SB 1341.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Unknown.
Attachments
SB 1341 Bill Text
44 of 74
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 7, 2014
SENATE BILL No. 1341
Introduced by Senator Mitchell
February 21, 2014
An act to amend Section 10823 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
relating to Medi-Cal.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 1341, as amended, Mitchell. Medi-Cal: Statewide Automated
Welfare System.
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is
administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under
which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services.
The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal
Medicaid Program provisions. Existing law requires the Office of
Systems Integration in the State Department of Social Services to
implement a statewide automated welfare system for 6 specified public
assistance programs, including Medi-Cal.
This bill would require the Statewide Automated Welfare System to
be the system of record for Medi-Cal and to contain all Medi-Cal
eligibility rules and case management functionality. The bill would,
notwithstanding this provision, authorize the California Healthcare
Eligibility, Enrollment, and Retention System (CalHEERS) to house
the business rules necessary for an eligibility determination to be made,
as specified, pursuant to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act. The bill would would, if the department exercises that
authority, require CalHEERS to make the business rules available to
the Statewide Automated Welfare System consortia to determine
Medi-Cal eligibility. The bill would require the Statewide Automated
98
45 of 74
Welfare System to house the functionality to create and send Notices
of Action for the Medi-Cal program, as specified, no later than January
1, 2016. specify, effective January 1, 2016, the manner in which the
functionality to create and send notices of action for the Medi-Cal and
premium tax credit programs would be implemented, including a
requirement that the Statewide Automated Welfare System be used to
generate noticing language and notice of action documents.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 10823 of the Welfare and Institutions
line 2 Code, as amended by Section 9 of Chapter 13 of the First
line 3 Extraordinary Session of the Statutes of 2011, is amended to read:
line 4 10823. (a) (1) The Office of Systems Integration shall
line 5 implement a statewide automated welfare system for the following
line 6 public assistance programs:
line 7 (A) The CalWORKs program.
line 8 (B) CalFresh.
line 9 (C) The Medi-Cal program.
line 10 (D) The foster care program.
line 11 (E) The refugee program.
line 12 (F) County medical services programs.
line 13 (2) Statewide implementation of the statewide automated welfare
line 14 system for the programs listed in paragraph (1) shall be achieved
line 15 through no more than four county consortia, including the Interim
line 16 Statewide Automated Welfare System Consortium, and the Los
line 17 Angeles Eligibility, Automated Determination, Evaluation, and
line 18 Reporting System.
line 19 (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the Office of Systems
line 20 Integration shall migrate the 35 counties that currently use the
line 21 Interim Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) into the
line 22 C-IV system within the following timeline:
line 23 (A) Complete Migration System Test and begin User Acceptance
line 24 Testing on or before June 30, 2009.
line 25 (B) Complete implementation in at least five counties by
line 26 February 28, 2010.
line 27 (C) Complete implementation in at least 14 additional counties
line 28 on or before May 31, 2010.
98
— 2 —SB 1341
46 of 74
line 1 (D) Complete implementation in all 35 counties on or before
line 2 August 31, 2010.
line 3 (E) Decommission the Interim Statewide Automated Welfare
line 4 System on or before January 31, 2011.
line 5 (4) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the Office of Systems
line 6 Integration shall oversee the migration of the 39 counties
line 7 composing the C-IV Consortium into a system jointly designed
line 8 by the 39 counties plus Los Angeles County under the LEADER
line 9 Replacement System contract. This migration shall result in a new
line 10 consortium to replace the LEADER and C-IV Consortia.
line 11 (5) The consortia and the state shall take any action necessary
line 12 to ensure that the current SAWS maintenance and operations
line 13 agreements are extended for the LEADER and C-IV Consortia,
line 14 pending the completion of the LEADER Replacement System and
line 15 migration of the C-IV Consortium as set forth in paragraph (4),
line 16 and for the continuation of the Welfare Client Data System
line 17 Consortium.
line 18 (6) Each SAWS consortium shall provide a seat on its governing
line 19 body for a representative of the state and shall allow for the
line 20 stationing of state staff at the project site.
line 21 (b) Nothing in subdivision (a) transfers program policy
line 22 responsibilities related to the public assistance programs specified
line 23 in subdivision (a) from the State Department of Social Services
line 24 or the State Department of Health Care Services to the Office of
line 25 Systems Integration.
line 26 (c) (1) On February 1 of each year, the Office of Systems
line 27 Integration shall provide an annual report to the appropriate
line 28 committees of the Legislature on the statewide automated welfare
line 29 system implemented under this section. The report shall address
line 30 the progress of state and consortia activities and any significant
line 31 schedule, budget, or functionality changes in the project.
line 32 (2) The report provided pursuant to this subdivision in 2012
line 33 shall also include the projected timeline and key milestones for
line 34 the development of the LEADER Replacement System and of the
line 35 new consortium described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a).
line 36 (d) Notwithstanding any other law, the Statewide Automated
line 37 Welfare System consortia shall have the authority to expend within
line 38 approved annual state budgets for each system as follows:
98
SB 1341— 3 — 47 of 74
line 1 (1) Make changes within any line item, provided that the change
line 2 does not create additional project costs in the current or in a future
line 3 budget year.
line 4 (2) Make a change of up to one hundred thousand dollars
line 5 ($100,000) or 10 percent of the total for the line item from which
line 6 the funds are derived, whichever is greater, between line items
line 7 with notice to the Office of Systems Integration, provided that the
line 8 change does not create additional project costs in the current or in
line 9 a future budget year.
line 10 (3) Make requests to the Office of Systems Integration for
line 11 changes between line items of greater than one hundred thousand
line 12 dollars ($100,000) or 10 percent of the total for the line item from
line 13 which the funds are derived, which do not increase the total cost
line 14 in the current or a future budget year. The Office of Systems
line 15 Integration shall take action to approve or deny the request within
line 16 10 days.
line 17 (e) (1) The Statewide Automated Welfare System shall be the
line 18 system of record for Medi-Cal and shall contain all Medi-Cal
line 19 eligibility rules and case management functionality.
line 20 (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the business rules necessary
line 21 for an eligibility determination to be made under the Modified
line 22 Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) rules pursuant to the federal
line 23 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148)
line 24 may be housed in the California Healthcare Eligibility, Enrollment,
line 25 and Retention System developed pursuant to Section 15926,
line 26 hereafter referred to as CalHEERS. The If the department exercises
line 27 that authority, the business rules contained in CalHEERS shall be
line 28 made available as a service to the Statewide Automated Welfare
line 29 System consortia consortia, through an automated interface, in
line 30 order for the consortia to determine eligibility for Medi-Cal under
line 31 the MAGI rules.
line 32 (3) The functionality to create and send Notices of Action for
line 33 the Medi-Cal program, including notices related to MAGI-based
line 34 eligibility, shall be housed within the Statewide Automated Welfare
line 35 System. This paragraph shall be implemented no later than January
line 36 1, 2016.
line 37 (3) Effective January 1, 2016, the functionality to create and
line 38 send notices of action for Medi-Cal and premium tax credit
line 39 programs, as described in Section 36B of Title 26 of the United
line 40 States Code, shall be implemented consistent with the following:
98
— 4 —SB 1341
48 of 74
line 1 (A) Except as specified in subparagraphs (B) and (C), the
line 2 Statewide Automated Welfare System shall be used to generate
line 3 noticing language and notice of action documents and to send
line 4 notice of action documents for all Medi-Cal programs, including,
line 5 but not limited to, MAGI and Non-MAGI based programs.
line 6 (B) If the department exercises its authority pursuant to
line 7 paragraph (2), CalHEERS shall be used to generate noticing
line 8 language for the premium tax credit program, including, but not
line 9 limited to, Medi-Cal denial noticing language related to tax subsidy
line 10 approvals, and shall be used to generate and send notice of action
line 11 documents for the premium tax credit only program.
line 12 (C) If the department exercises its authority pursuant to
line 13 paragraph (2), in any mixed eligibility cases that include an
line 14 approval or approvals for MAGI Medi-Cal eligibility
line 15 determinations, non-MAGI Medi-Cal eligibility determinations,
line 16 or both, and premium tax credit approvals, the Statewide
line 17 Automated Welfare System shall be used to combine the noticing
line 18 language for Medi-Cal programs generated by the Statewide
line 19 Automated Welfare System and the noticing language for the
line 20 premium tax credit program generated by CalHEERS into one
line 21 notice, and the Statewide Automated Welfare System shall be used
line 22 to send the document, as one combined notice, for all programs.
O
98
SB 1341— 5 — 49 of 74
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 9.
Meeting Date:05/01/2014
Subject:AB 2228 as introduced (Cooley): Crisis nurseries
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2014-19
Referral Name: AB 2228 as introduced (Cooley): Crisis nurseries
Presenter: Kathy Gallagher Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
This bill was referred to the Legislation Committee by the Director of Employment and Human
Services.
Referral Update:
AB 2228, as introduced, Cooley. Crisis nurseries.
Current Status: 03/06/2014: To ASSEMBLY Committee on HUMAN SERVICES.
Committee: Assembly Human Services Committee
Hearing: 04/29/2014 1:30 pm, State Capitol Room 437 Existing law provides for the licensure and
regulation by the State Department of Social Services of crisis nurseries, as defined. Violation of
these provisions is a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes crisis nurseries to provide care and
supervision for children under 6 years of age who are voluntarily placed by a parent or legal
50 of 74
supervision for children under 6 years of age who are voluntarily placed by a parent or legal
guardian due to a family crisis for no more than 30 days. Existing law provides that a maximum
licensed capacity for a crisis nursery program is 14 children. Existing law authorizes a crisis
nursery to provide child day care services for children under 6 years of age at the same site as a
crisis nursery, but provides that a child is prohibited from receiving more than 30 calendar days
of child day care services at the crisis nursery in a 6-month period unless the department issues an
exception. Existing law requires the department to allow the use of fully trained and qualified
volunteers as caregivers in a crisis nursery subject to specified conditions. This bill would provide
that the maximum licensed capacity of 14 children applies to overnight crisis nursery programs.
The bill would instead provide that a crisis nursery may provide crisis day respite services and
that the maximum licensed capacity for crisis day respite shall be based on 35 square feet of
indoor activity space per child, as prescribed. This bill would require that the licensee designate at
least one lead caregiver, as described, to be present at the crisis nursery at all times when children
are present, would require the licensee to develop, maintain, and implement a written staff
training plan, as specified, and would require a crisis nursery to have at least one caregiver at all
times who has completed training pediatric first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The bill
would modify the requirements relating to the use of volunteers to be counted in the staff-to-child
ratios in a crisis nursery, as specified, and would prescribe requirements relating to when a child
has a health condition that requires medication. By expanding the scope of crime, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to
reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory
provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no
reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no.
Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER recommending a position of "support" on AB 2228 as introduced (Cooley): Crisis
nurseries, to the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by the Director of Employment and
Human Services.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for
certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a
specified reason.
Attachments
AB 2228 Bill Text
51 of 74
california legislature—2013–14 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2228
Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley
February 20, 2014
An act to amend Sections 1516 and 1526.8 of the Health and Safety
Code, relating to crisis nurseries.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2228, as introduced, Cooley. Crisis nurseries.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation by the State
Department of Social Services of crisis nurseries, as defined. Violation
of these provisions is a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes crisis
nurseries to provide care and supervision for children under 6 years of
age who are voluntarily placed by a parent or legal guardian due to a
family crisis for no more than 30 days.
Existing law provides that a maximum licensed capacity for a crisis
nursery program is 14 children. Existing law authorizes a crisis nursery
to provide child day care services for children under 6 years of age at
the same site as a crisis nursery, but provides that a child is prohibited
from receiving more than 30 calendar days of child day care services
at the crisis nursery in a 6-month period unless the department issues
an exception. Existing law requires the department to allow the use of
fully trained and qualified volunteers as caregivers in a crisis nursery
subject to specified conditions.
This bill would provide that the maximum licensed capacity of 14
children applies to overnight crisis nursery programs. The bill would
instead provide that a crisis nursery may provide crisis day respite
services and that the maximum licensed capacity for crisis day respite
99
52 of 74
shall be based on 35 square feet of indoor activity space per child, as
prescribed.
This bill would require that the licensee designate at least one lead
caregiver, as described, to be present at the crisis nursery at all times
when children are present, would require the licensee to develop,
maintain, and implement a written staff training plan, as specified, and
would require a crisis nursery to have at least one caregiver at all times
who has completed training pediatric first aid and cardiopulmonary
resuscitation. The bill would modify the requirements relating to the
use of volunteers to be counted in the staff-to-child ratios in a crisis
nursery, as specified, and would prescribe requirements relating to when
a child has a health condition that requires medication.
By expanding the scope of crime, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 1516 of the Health and Safety Code is
line 2 amended to read:
line 3 1516. (a) For purposes of this chapter, “crisis nursery” means
line 4 a facility licensed by the department to provide short-term, 24-hour
line 5 nonmedical residential care and supervision for children under six
line 6 years of age, who are voluntarily placed for temporary care by a
line 7 parent or legal guardian due to a family crisis or stressful situation
line 8 for no more than 30 days.
line 9 (b) A crisis nursery shall be organized and operated on a
line 10 nonprofit basis by either a private nonprofit corporation or a
line 11 nonprofit public benefit corporation.
line 12 (c) “Voluntary placement,” for purposes of this section, means
line 13 a child, who is not receiving Aid to Families with Dependent
line 14 Children-Foster Care, placed by a parent or legal guardian who
line 15 retains physical custody of, and remains responsible for, the care
line 16 of his or her children who are placed for temporary emergency
99
— 2 —AB 2228
53 of 74
line 1 care, as described in subdivision (a). Voluntary placement does
line 2 not include placement of a child who has been removed from the
line 3 care and custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and placed
line 4 in foster care by a child welfare services agency.
line 5 (d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the maximum
line 6 licensed capacity for a an overnight crisis nursery program shall
line 7 be 14 children.
line 8 (2) A facility licensed on or before January 1, 2004, as a group
line 9 home for children under the age of six years of age with a licensed
line 10 capacity greater than 14 children, but less than 21 children, that
line 11 provides crisis nursery services shall be allowed to retain its
line 12 capacity if issued a crisis nursery license until there is a change in
line 13 the licensee’s program, location, or client population.
line 14 (e) Each crisis nursery shall collect and maintain information,
line 15 in a format specified by the department, indicating the total number
line 16 of children placed in the program, the length of stay for each child,
line 17 the reasons given for the use of the crisis nursery, and the age of
line 18 each child. This information shall be made available to the
line 19 department upon request.
line 20 (f) (1) Notwithstanding Section 1596.80, a crisis nursery may
line 21 provide child day care crisis day respite services for children under
line 22 the age of six years of age at the same site as the crisis nursery. A
line 23 child may not receive child day care services at a crisis nursery
line 24 for more than 30 calendar days in a six-month period unless the
line 25 department issues an exception. A child who is receiving child
line 26 day care services shall be counted in the licensed capacity.
line 27 (2) The maximum licensed capacity for crisis day respite shall
line 28 be based on 35 square feet of indoor activity space per child.
line 29 Bedrooms, bathrooms, halls, offices, isolation areas,
line 30 food-preparation areas, and storage places shall not be included
line 31 in the calculation of indoor activity space. Floor area under tables,
line 32 desks, chairs, and other equipment intended for use as part of
line 33 children’s activities shall be included in the calculation of indoor
line 34 space.
line 35 (g) Exceptions to group home licensing regulations pursuant to
line 36 subdivision (c) of Section 84200 of Title 22 of the California Code
line 37 of Regulations, in effect on August 1, 2004, for county-operated
line 38 or county-contracted emergency shelter care facilities that care for
line 39 children under the age of six years of age for no more than 30 days,
line 40 shall be contained in regulations for crisis nurseries.
99
AB 2228— 3 — 54 of 74
line 1 (h) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2012.
line 2 SEC. 2. Section 1526.8 of the Health and Safety Code is
line 3 amended to read:
line 4 1526.8. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature that the department
line 5 develop modified staffing levels and requirements for crisis
line 6 nurseries, provided that the health, safety, and well-being of the
line 7 children in care are protected and maintained.
line 8 (1) At all times, at least one caregiver shall have completed
line 9 training in pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and
line 10 pediatric first aid. Completion of training shall be demonstrated
line 11 by current and valid pediatric CPR and pediatric first aid cards
line 12 issued by the American Red Cross, the American Heart
line 13 Association, or by a training program that has been approved by
line 14 the Emergency Medical Services Authority pursuant to Section
line 15 1797.191.
line 16 (2) The licensee shall develop, maintain, and implement a
line 17 written staff training plan for the orientation, continuing education,
line 18 on-the-job training and development, supervision, and evaluation
line 19 of all lead caregivers, caregivers, and volunteers. The licensee
line 20 shall incorporate the training plan in the crisis nursery plan of
line 21 operation.
line 22 (3) The licensee shall designate at least one lead caregiver to
line 23 be present at the crisis nursery at all times when children are
line 24 present. The lead caregiver shall have one of the following
line 25 education and experience qualifications:
line 26 (A) Completion of 12 postsecondary semester units or equivalent
line 27 quarter units, with a passing grade, as determined by the
line 28 institution, in classes with a focus on early childhood education,
line 29 child development, or child health at an accredited college or
line 30 university, as determined by the department, and six months of
line 31 work experience in a licensed group home, licensed infant care
line 32 center, or comparable group child care program or family day
line 33 care. At least three semester units, or equivalent quarter units, or
line 34 equivalent experience shall include coursework or experience in
line 35 the care of infants.
line 36 (B) A current and valid Child Development Associate (CDA)
line 37 credential, with the appropriate age level endorsement issued by
line 38 the CDA National Credentialing Program, and at least six months
line 39 of on-the-job training or work experience in a licensed child care
line 40 center or comparable group child care program.
99
— 4 —AB 2228
55 of 74
line 1 (C) A current and valid Child Development Associate Teacher
line 2 Permit issued by the California Commission on Teacher
line 3 Credentialing pursuant to Sections 80105 to 80116, inclusive, of
line 4 Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations.
line 5 (4) Lead caregivers shall have a minimum of 24 hours of
line 6 training and orientation before working with children. One year
line 7 experience in a supervisory position in a child care or group care
line 8 facility may substitute for 16 hours of training and orientation.
line 9 The written staff training plan shall require the lead caregiver to
line 10 receive and document a minimum of 20 hours of annual training
line 11 directly related to the functions of his or her position.
line 12 (5) Caregiver staff shall complete a minimum of 24 hours of
line 13 initial training within the first 90 days of employment, which may
line 14 include first aid and CPR and shall be included in the written staff
line 15 training plan. Eight hours of training shall be completed before
line 16 the caregiver staff are responsible for children, left alone with
line 17 children, and counted in the staff-to-child ratios described in
line 18 subdivision (c). A maximum of four hours of training may be
line 19 satisfied by job shadowing.
line 20 (b) The department shall allow the use of fully trained and
line 21 qualified volunteers as caregivers in a crisis nursery, subject to the
line 22 following conditions:
line 23 (1) Volunteers shall be fingerprinted for the purpose of
line 24 conducting a criminal record review as specified in subdivision
line 25 (b) of Section 1522.
line 26 (2) Volunteers shall complete a child abuse central index check
line 27 as specified in Section 1522.1.
line 28 (3) Volunteers shall be in good physical health and be tested
line 29 for tuberculosis not more than one year prior to, or seven days
line 30 after, initial presence in the facility.
line 31 (4) Prior to assuming the duties and responsibilities of a crisis
line 32 caregiver or being counted in the staff-to-child ratio, volunteers
line 33 shall complete at least eight five hours of initial training divided
line 34 as follows:
line 35 (A) Four Two hours of crisis nursery job shadowing.
line 36 (B) Two hours One hour of review of community care licensing
line 37 regulations.
line 38 (C) Two hours of review of the crisis nursery program, including
line 39 the facility mission statement, goals and objectives, child guidance
line 40 techniques, and special needs of the client population they serve.
99
AB 2228— 5 — 56 of 74
line 1 (5) Within 90 days, volunteers who are included in the
line 2 staff-to-child ratios shall complete at least 20 hours of training
line 3 divided as follows:
line 4 (A) Twelve hours of pediatric first aid and pediatric
line 5 cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
line 6 (B) Eight hours of child care health and safety issues.
line 7 (5) Within 90 days, volunteers who are included in the
line 8 staff-to-child ratios shall complete at least eight hours of training
line 9 covering child care health and safety issues, trauma informed
line 10 care, the importance of family and sibling relationships,
line 11 temperaments of children, self-regulation skills and techniques,
line 12 and program child guidance techniques.
line 13 (6) Volunteers who meet the requirements of paragraphs (1),
line 14 (2), and (3), but who have not completed the training specified in
line 15 paragraph (4) or (5) may assist a fully trained and qualified staff
line 16 person in performing child care duties. However, these volunteers
line 17 shall not be left alone with children, shall always be under the
line 18 direct supervision and observation of a fully trained and qualified
line 19 staff person, and shall not be counted in meeting the minimum
line 20 staff-to-child ratio requirements, except that volunteers may
line 21 supervise napping children without being under the direct
line 22 supervision of staff.
line 23 (c) The department shall allow the use of fully trained and
line 24 qualified volunteers to be counted in the staff-to-child ratio in a
line 25 crisis nursery subject to the following conditions:
line 26 (1) The volunteers have fulfilled the requirements in paragraphs
line 27 (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (b).
line 28 (2) There shall be at least one fully qualified and employed staff
line 29 person on site at all times.
line 30 (3) (A) There shall be at least one employed staff or volunteer
line 31 caregiver for each group of three children, or fraction thereof, six
line 32 preschool age children, or fraction thereof, and one employed staff
line 33 or volunteer caregiver for each group of four infants, or fraction
line 34 thereof, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
line 35 (B) There shall be at least one paid caregiver or volunteer
line 36 caregiver for each group of four six children, or fraction thereof,
line 37 from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.
line 38 (C) There shall be at least one employed staff person present
line 39 for every volunteer caregiver used by the crisis nursery for the
line 40 purpose of meeting the minimum caregiver staffing requirements.
99
— 6 —AB 2228
57 of 74
line 1 (d) There shall be at least one staff person or volunteer caregiver
line 2 awake at all times from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.
line 3 (e) (1) When a child has a health condition that requires
line 4 prescription medication, the licensee shall ensure that the caregiver
line 5 does all of the following:
line 6 (A) Assists children with the taking of the medication as needed.
line 7 (B) Ensures that instructions are followed as outlined by the
line 8 appropriate medical professional.
line 9 (C) Stores the medication as instructed in the original container
line 10 with the original unaltered label in a locked and safe area that is
line 11 not accessible to children.
line 12 (D) Administers the medication as directed on the label or as
line 13 advised by the physician in writing.
line 14 (2) Nonprescription medications may be administered without
line 15 approval or instructions from the child’s physician if all of the
line 16 following conditions are met:
line 17 (A) Nonprescription medications are administered in accordance
line 18 with the product label directions on the nonprescription medication
line 19 containers.
line 20 (B) For each nonprescription medication, the licensee obtains,
line 21 in writing, approval and instructions from the child’s authorized
line 22 representative for the administration of the medication to the child.
line 23 This documentation shall be kept in the child’s record. The
line 24 instructions from the child’s authorized representative shall not
line 25 conflict with the product label directions on the nonprescription
line 26 medication container.
line 27 (3) The licensee shall develop and implement a written plan to
line 28 record the administration of the prescription and nonprescription
line 29 medications and to inform the child’s authorized representative
line 30 daily, for day care, and upon discharge for overnight care, when
line 31 the medications have been given.
line 32 (4) When no longer needed by the child, or when the child
line 33 withdraws from the center, all medications shall be returned to
line 34 the child’s authorized representative or disposed of after an attempt
line 35 to reach the authorized representative.
line 36 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 37 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because
line 38 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
line 39 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
line 40 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
99
AB 2228— 7 — 58 of 74
line 1 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
line 2 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
line 3 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California
line 4 Constitution.
O
99
— 8 —AB 2228
59 of 74
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 10.
Meeting Date:05/01/2014
Subject:SB 899 as introduced (Mitchell) CalWORKs: eligibility
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2014-20
Referral Name: SB 899 as introduced (Mitchell) CalWORKs: eligibility
Presenter: Kathy Gallagher Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
This bill was referred to the Legislation Committee by the Employment and Human Services
Department.
Referral Update:
SUBJECT
CalWORKs: eligibility
Current Status: 04/08/2014: From SENATE Committee on HUMAN SERVICES: Do pass to Committee on
APPROPRIATIONS.
Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee
Hearing: 04/28/2014 10:00 am, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
SUMMARY
This bill deletes California's Maximum Family Grant rule, which prohibits CalWORKs payments
from being made on behalf of children who were conceived after a family begins receiving aid
except in cases of rape, incest or contraception failure, as specified. This bill also prohibits an
applicant or recipient from being required to share confidential medical information as a
condition of aid eligibility or from being required to use a specific type of contraception as a
condition of aid eligibility.
ABSTRACT
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in federal law,
which permits each state to implement the program under its own state plan. (42 USC Section
601 et seq.)
2) Establishes in state law the CalWORKs program to provide cash assistance and other social
services for low-income families through the TANF program. Under CalWORKs, each county
60 of 74
provides assistance through a combination of state, county and federal TANF funds. (WIC 10530)
3) Establishes guidelines for determining a family's maximum aid payment, including all eligible
family members, as well as the level of aid to be paid, as specified. (WIC 11450)
4) Prohibits an increase in aid based on an increase in the number of needy persons in a family
due to the birth of an additional child, if the family has received aid continuously for the 10
months prior to the birth of the child, as specified. (WIC 11450.04 (a))
5) Exempts this prohibition in the following circumstances:
a. Any child who was conceived as a result of an act of rape, as defined in Sections 261 and 262
of the Penal Code, if the rape was reported to a law enforcement agency, medical or mental health
professional or social services agency prior to, or within three months after, the birth of the child.
b. Any child who was conceived as a result of an incestuous relationship if the relationship was
reported to a medical or mental health professional or a law enforcement agency or social services
agency prior to, or within three months after, the birth of the child or if paternity has been
established.
c. Any child who was conceived as a result of contraceptive failure if the parent was using an
intrauterine device, a Norplant, or the sterilization of either parent.
d. If the family does not receive aid for two consecutive months during the 10-months prior to the
child's birth.
e. Children born on or before November 1, 1995.
f. If the family did not receive aid for 24 consecutive months while the child was living with the
family.
g. Any child conceived when either parent was a non-needy caretaker relative.
h. Any child who is no longer living in the same home with either parent. (WIC 11450.04 (b) et
seq.)
6) Requires that 100 percent of any child support payment received for a child who is born under
the maximum family grant (MFG) cap - and therefore is not the recipient of aid - be paid to the
family. Additionally, prohibits any such child support payment from being counted as income for
the purpose of calculating CalWORKs benefits. (WIC 11450.04 (e))
7) Requires each county welfare department (CWD) to notify recipients of the MFG provisions in
writing at the time of application and recertification, as specified. (WIC 11450.04 (f))
8) Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to seek appropriate federal
waivers to implement the maximum family aid limit and associated conditions, as specified, and
directs CDSS to implement the rule on the date the waiver is received by declaration of the
department's director. (WIC 11450.04 (g))
This bill:
61 of 74
1) Makes uncodified legislative findings and declarations that:
a. Scientific research has demonstrated that young children living in deep poverty experience
lifelong cognitive impairments limiting their ability to be prepared for and succeed in school.
b. Academic research has documented an increase in missed days of school and an increase in
visits to hospital emergency rooms by children who live in deep poverty.
c. The Maximum Family Grant rule was adopted to limit the amount of time a family could
receive assistance and to limit the amount of assistance received. The rule was passed before
implementation of welfare reform. At the time the rule was adopted, there was no limit on the
length of time a family could receive aid, no work requirements and the benefits provided were
approximately 80 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL).
d. Since the rule's implementation, lifetime limits on aid and work requirements have been
enacted in order to receive a maximum benefit of approximately 40 percent of the FPL.
e. The MFG rule makes poor children poorer, reducing the income of families with infants to less
than 30 percent of the FPL.
f. This legislation is necessary to protect infants born to families receiving CalWORKs from
experiencing lifelong cognitive impairments due to the toxic stress of deep poverty and to ready
those children for participation in California's public school system.
g. This legislation is necessary to protect the reproductive and privacy rights of all applicants for,
and recipients of, aid under the CalWORKs program.
2) Prohibits an applicant for, or recipient of, CalWORKs aid from being required as a condition
of eligibility to do any of the following:
a. Divulge that any member of the assistance unit is a victim of rape or incest.
b. Share confidential medical records related to any member of the assistance unit's rape or incest.
c. Use contraception, choose a particular method of contraception, or divulge the method of
contraception that any member of the assistance unit uses.
3) Prohibits an applicant for or recipient of CalWORKs benefits from being denied aid, or denied
an increase in the maximum aid payment, for a child born into the family during a period in which
the family is receiving aid.
4) Specifies that no increased benefit will be paid for any month prior to January 1, 2015, as a
result of repealing the prior statute.
5) Repeals WIC 11450.04, which establishes and defines the maximum family grant rule,
including exclusions for families in which a mother reports she is a victim of rape or incest or in
instances where specified methods of contraception fail, among other provisions.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Purpose of the bill
62 of 74
The author states that as a result of California's MFG policy, women are forced to make decisions
about the types of birth control they can use if they are receiving public benefits. Women who are
raped are required to report sensitive and highly personal information to a welfare caseworker in
order for their babies to receive aid, according to the author. Some families chose to refuse
assistance (and become very poor) for the last three months of a pregnancy rather than lose the
grant for the new baby - which is less than $200 a month - but will help pay for diapers and
wipes, according to the author.
The author states that this kind of desperation is unconscionable to force upon poor women,
especially considering the fact that the maximum grant is only approximately $608 per month for
a family of three - or just enough to put a family at about 38% of the federal poverty line.
CalWORKs
The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids program (CalWORKs) provides
monthly income assistance and employment-related services intended to move children out of
poverty and to help families meet basic needs. Federal funding for CalWORKs comes from the
TANF block grant.
According to data from CDSS, as of December 2013, 549,464 families relied on CalWORKs,
including more than one million children. Nearly half of the children are under age six. About 6
percent of families (and 13.4 percent of children) receiving CalWORKs benefits in California are
subject to the MFG rule, which prohibits a county from including in a family's aid any benefit for
a child born more than 10 months after a family entered the CalWORKs program. For a family of
three, in which the MFG baby would become the third member of the assistance unit, the loss in
grant is $123 per month - the difference between a maximum of $515 per month for a family of
two to a maximum grant of $638 per month for a family of three in 2014.[1]
Maximum Family Grant rule
In 1992, against the backdrop of a debate about whether "intergenerational welfare" was
encouraging women to avoid work and have additional children, New Jersey passed the nation's
first statewide family cap policy. The policy prohibited additional benefits from being provided to
a family for children born after the family began receiving welfare benefits. The policy, which
was soon copied by other states, came amid a national conversation that would become the basis
for the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA),
which established a 60-month time-limit on benefits in most cases, and emphasized integrating
parents into the workforce as part of the program.
Prior to the passage of PRWORA, states needed waivers to implement family cap policies, which
required rigorous evaluations of whether the policies achieved their intended goals. AB 473
(Brulte, Chapter 196, Statutes of 1994) created California's MFG rule as part of budget trailer bill,
and required California to obtain a federal waiver to be able to implement the new MFG rule, as
the rule was inconsistent with existing federal regulations. California's waiver application was
approved in August of 1996, however waiver approval coincided with the passage of PRWORA,
which granted states flexibility to implement their own policies without need for a waiver, and
California proceeded with the MFG policy without implementing the waiver. California's MFG
policy has not been amended since its original enactment.
The MFG legislation was based on the belief that increasing welfare grants for children born into
63 of 74
AFDC families may incentivize families to have additional children for the explicit purpose of
increasing their monthly grant. By limiting the grant amount, policymakers argued that families
would be dissuaded from having additional children. In a heated floor debate in July 1994, in
which the bill's author argued that the MFG would "encourage the transition to self-sufficiency,"
then-Assemblyman John Burton questioned whether this move would achieve the intended goal.
"Welfare reform is getting people off of welfare and into a productive role in society with a job,
not starving some kid who happens to be born into a family that is on AFDC," Burton argued.
How the MFG rule works
California's MFG rule prohibits CalWORKs aid payments, with certain exceptions, for a child that
is born into a family that has been receiving aid for 10 or more continuous months, or for longer
than the gestational period of the new baby. If the family is not receiving aid for two or more
months during the 10-month period preceding the birth of the child, the new child becomes
eligible for aid in the CalWORKs benefit calculation. Additionally, the MFG rule does not apply
if a family returns to CalWORKs after a break of two or more years during which the family did
not receive any aid, provided aided children are still younger than 18 years old.
Exceptions to the MFG rule
California's statute permits exceptions to the MFG rule for incidents in which a child was born as a
result of rape or incest, as long as the mother of the child can document that she reported the
crime to law enforcement or a mental health professional or social services agency. The report
must have been made prior to the child's birth or within three months after the child was born.
Similarly, state law permits an exception to the MFG rule if the child is born as a result of the
failure of one of three types of contraceptives specified in statute:
An intrauterine device, Norplant (which was discontinued for use in the United States in 2002
amid questions about its effectiveness and lawsuits over its side-effects), Sterilization of either
parent.
Other states
Beginning in the early 1990s, 24 states implemented family cap rules. Today, just 17 states still
have family cap rules in place, including California. In 2002 and 2003, Maryland and Illinois
repealed their policies and were followed by Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas and
Maryland.[2]
Effect on fertility rates
A number of research studies on the effects of the family cap across the country have concluded
that the cap had little to no effect on fertility rates.[3]
However, the U.S. General Accounting Office noted in its 2001 examination of the issue that
most states implemented family caps as part of their welfare reforms designed to provide
incentives for women to reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births and to encourage
self-sufficiency. Specifically, the study noted that "Due to limitations of the existing research, we
cannot conclude that family cap policies reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock births, affect the
number of abortions, or change the size of the TANF caseload." It did note, however, that the
64 of 74
family cap was effective in reducing the amount that states were paying to families who qualified
for benefits, estimating that families were generally receiving about 20 percent less in cash
assistance each month - from $20 less in Wyoming to $121 less in California.[4]
A 2013 report issued by the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at UC Berkeley School of
Law concluded that "by driving families deeper into poverty, the MFG rule threatens access to
housing, food security and general health of the poorest children. A cutoff from public assistance
has also been linked to other physical, mental and social detriments for children born into capped
families."[5]
Effects of deep poverty on children
Numerous studies have correlated the effects of deep childhood poverty with poor health and
outcomes including low birth weight, lead poisoning, child mortality and hospitalization. Other
studies have drawn correlations between deep poverty and academic struggles such as repeated
grades, being a high school dropout and having a learning disability.[6]
A 2011 article in the journal Developmental Psychology[7] estimated that a $1,000 increase in
annual income - less than $100 per month - equates to an increase in achievement by young
children of 5 to 6 percent of a standard deviation. In 2000, researchers noted in the journal Child
Development that family caps and sanctions appear to disproportionately affect families with very
young children who are most susceptible to adverse effects of deep poverty and recommended
policy considerations focus on avoiding fiscal sanctions to those families.
"Recent research suggests that economic deprivation is most harmful to a child's chances
for achievement when it occurs early in the child's life. Economic logic suggests that policies
aimed at preventing either economic deprivation itself or its effects are likely to constitute
profitable social investments in the twenty-first century." [8]
Additionally, a number of researchers building on a 1997 study conducted by the Centers for
Disease Control and Kaiser Permanente in San Diego, have correlated adverse childhood
experiences - or ACES - and chronic health conditions in adulthood.[9]
Related legislation
AB 271 (Mitchell) 2013, was substantially similar to this bill. It was held in the Senate
Appropriations committee.
AB 22 (Lieber) 2007, was substantially similar to this bill. It was held in the Assembly
Appropriations committee.
AB 473 (Brulte, Chapter 196, Statutes of 1994) created California's maximum family grant
(MFG) rule and required California to obtain a federal waiver to implement it.
POSITIONS
Support:
9to5 National Association of Working Women
65 of 74
American Association of University Women
ACCESS Women's Health Justice
ACT for Women and Girls
Alameda County Community Food Bank
American Civil Liberties Union of California
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Asian Law Alliance
Bay Area Legal Aid
Beyond Emancipation
Black Women for Wellness
Calaveras Health and Human Services Agency
California Association of Food Banks
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Church Impact
California Food Policy Advocates
California Hunger Action Coalition
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Partnership
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California Reinvestment Coalition
Center for Law and Social Policy
Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice, UC Berkeley School of Law
Child and Family Policy Institute of California
Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles
Children's Defense Fund-California
66 of 74
Citizens for Choice
City and County of San Francisco
Coalition for Women and Children
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc.
Community Food and Justice Coalition
County Welfare Directors Association of California
Cuyamaca College
East Bay Community Law Center
East Bay Refugee Forum
Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Forward Together
G.O.A.L.S. for Women, Inc.
Guam Communications Network
Hunger Action Los Angeles
John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes
Justice Now
Korean Community Center for the East Bay
League of Women Voters of California
Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Legal Services of Northern California
LIUNA Locals 777&792
March of Dimes California Chapter
NARAL Pro-Choice California
National Center for Lesbian Rights
67 of 74
National Center for Youth Law
National Council of Jewish Women California State Policy Advocates
The National Health Law Program
National Organization for Women - Orange County
National Women's Political Caucus of California
Parent Voices
Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project of Los Angeles
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest
Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo Counties
Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific Action Fund
Physicians for Reproductive Health
Public Interest Law Project
Poor Magazine/ Prensa Pobre/ PNN
San Diego Hunger Coalition
San Francisco Living Wage Coalition
San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services
Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network
Shelter Partnership
St. Anthony's Foundation
Street Level Health Project
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Veterans Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Vision y Compromiso
Western Center on Law and Poverty
68 of 74
Western Regional Advocacy Project
W.O.M.A.N., Inc.
The Women's Foundation of California 2 individuals
Oppose: None received.
[1] California Department of Social Services, Maximum Aid payment table
[2] Welfare Rules Database, Urban Institute and "Bringing Families out of Cap'tivity: The Need
to Repeal the CalWORKs Maximum Family Grant Rule," UC Berkeley School of Law, April
2013 [3] Dyer, Wendy and Robert W. Fairlie, "Do Family Caps Reduce Out-of-Wedlock Births?"
Economic Growth Center, Yale University, December 2003.
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, "More Research Needed on TANF Family Caps and Other
Policies for Reducing Out-of-Wedlock Births," September 2001, p 2-3.
[5] "Bringing Families out of Cap'tivity: The Need to Repeal the CalWORKs Maximum Family
Grant Rule," UC Berkeley School of Law, April 2013 [6] Duncan, Greg and Jeanne
Brooks-Gunn, "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development," Child Development,
February 2000.
[7] Duncan, Greg, et al, "Does Money Really Matter? Estimating Impacts of Family Income on
Young Children's Achievement With Data From Random-Assignment Experiments,"
Developmental Psychology, 2011, Vol. 47, No. 5, 1263-1279
[8] Ibid
[9] http://www.cdc.gov/ace/
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER recommending a position of "support" on SB 899 as introduced (Mitchell)
CalWORKs: eligibility, to the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by the Director of
Employment and Human Services.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
FISCAL IMPACT
This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee. A similar version of this bill, AB 271
(Mitchell), 2013, was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. That analysis, which
assumed 13.4 percent of all children on the CalWORKs caseload are impacted by the MFG rule,
estimated a $220 million first-year cost and potential annual costs of $4 million to $8 million.
Attachments
SB 899 Bill Text
69 of 74
SENATE BILL No. 899
Introduced by Senator Mitchell
(Coauthors: Senators Beall, Evans, Hancock, Hill, and Liu)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Buchanan, Dickinson,
Garcia, Gonzalez, Lowenthal, Pan, Skinner, and Yamada)
January 14, 2014
An act to add Section 11270.5 to, and to repeal Section 11450.04 of,
the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to CalWORKs.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 899, as introduced, Mitchell. CalWORKs: eligibility.
Existing law requires each county to provide cash assistance and other
social services to needy families through the California Work
Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program using
federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant
program, state, and county funds. Under existing law, for purposes of
determining a family’s maximum aid payment under the CalWORKs
program, the number of needy persons in the same family is not
increased for any child born into a family that has received aid under
the CalWORKs program continuously for the 10 months prior to the
birth of the child, with specified exceptions.
This bill would repeal that exclusion for purposes of determining the
family’s maximum aid payment and would expressly prohibit the denial
of aid or denial of an increase in the maximum aid payment if a child,
on whose behalf aid or an increase in aid is being requested, was born
into an applicant’s or recipient’s family while the applicant’s or
recipient’s family was receiving aid under the CalWORKs program.
The bill would specify that an applicant or recipient is not entitled to
an increased benefit payment for any month prior to January 1, 2015,
as a result of the repeal of that exclusion or the enactment of that express
99
70 of 74
prohibition. The bill would also prohibit the department from
conditioning an applicant’s or recipient’s eligibility for aid on the
applicant’s or recipient’s disclosure of information regarding rape,
incest, or contraception, as specified, or the applicant’s or recipient’s
use of contraception. The bill would make related findings and
declarations.
Existing law continuously appropriates moneys from the General
Fund to defray a portion of county aid grant costs under the CalWORKs
program.
This bill would declare that no appropriation would be made for
purposes of the bill.
To the extent that this bill affects eligibility under the CalWORKs
program, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory
provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
line 2 following:
line 3 (a) Scientific research has demonstrated that young children
line 4 living in deep poverty experience lifelong cognitive impairments
line 5 limiting their ability to be prepared for, and succeed in, school.
line 6 (b) Academic research has documented an increase in missed
line 7 days of school and an increase in visits to hospital emergency
line 8 rooms by children who live in deep poverty.
line 9 (c) The Maximum Family Grant rule was adopted to limit the
line 10 length of time a family could receive basic needs assistance, and
line 11 to limit the amount of assistance a family could receive, through
line 12 the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program
line 13 before the implementation of welfare reform. At the time the rule
line 14 was adopted, there was no limit on the length of time a family
99
— 2 —SB 899
71 of 74
line 1 could receive aid, no work requirements, and the benefits provided
line 2 were approximately 80 percent of the federal poverty level.
line 3 (d) Since the implementation of the Maximum Family Grant
line 4 rule, AFDC has been replaced with the California Work
line 5 Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Act (CalWORKs), which
line 6 imposes lifetime limits on aid and requires adult CalWORKs
line 7 participants to meet work requirements in order to receive a
line 8 maximum benefit of approximately 40 percent of the federal
line 9 poverty level.
line 10 (e) The Maximum Family Grant rule makes poor children
line 11 poorer, reducing the income of families with infants to below 30
line 12 percent of the federal poverty level.
line 13 (f) This act is necessary to protect infants born to families
line 14 receiving CalWORKs from experiencing lifelong cognitive
line 15 impairments due to the toxic stress of deep poverty and to ready
line 16 those children for participation in California’s public school
line 17 system.
line 18 (g) This act is also necessary to protect the reproductive and
line 19 privacy rights of all applicants for, and recipients of, aid under
line 20 CalWORKs.
line 21 SEC. 2. Section 11270.5 is added to the Welfare and
line 22 Institutions Code, immediately following Section 11270, to read:
line 23 11270.5. (a) An applicant for or recipient of aid under this
line 24 chapter shall not be required as a condition of eligibility to do any
line 25 of the following:
line 26 (1) Divulge that any member of the assistance unit is a victim
line 27 of rape or incest.
line 28 (2) Share confidential medical records related to any member
line 29 of the assistance unit’s rape or incest.
line 30 (3) Use contraception, choose a particular method of
line 31 contraception, or divulge the method of contraception any member
line 32 of the assistance unit uses.
line 33 (b) An applicant for or recipient of aid under this chapter shall
line 34 not be denied aid, nor denied an increase in the maximum aid
line 35 payment, for a child born into the applicant’s or recipient’s family
line 36 during a period in which the applicant’s or recipient’s family was
line 37 receiving aid under this chapter.
line 38 (c) An applicant for or recipient of aid under this chapter shall
line 39 not be entitled to an increased benefit payment for any month prior
line 40 to January 1, 2015, as a result of the repeal of former Section
99
SB 899— 3 — 72 of 74
line 1 11450.04 (as added by Section 1 of Chapter 196 of the Statutes of
line 2 1994) or the enactment of this section.
line 3 SEC. 3. Section 11450.04 of the Welfare and Institutions Code
line 4 is repealed.
line 5 11450.04. (a) For purposes of determining the maximum aid
line 6 payment specified in subdivision (a) of Section 11450 and for no
line 7 other purpose, the number of needy persons in the same family
line 8 shall not be increased for any child born into a family that has
line 9 received aid under this chapter continuously for the 10 months
line 10 prior to the birth of the child. For purposes of this section, aid shall
line 11 be considered continuous unless the family does not receive aid
line 12 during two consecutive months. This subdivision shall not apply
line 13 to applicants for, or recipients of, aid unless notification is provided
line 14 pursuant to this section.
line 15 (b) This section shall not apply with respect to any of the
line 16 following children:
line 17 (1) Any child who was conceived as a result of an act of rape,
line 18 as defined in Sections 261 and 262 of the Penal Code, if the rape
line 19 was reported to a law enforcement agency, medical or mental
line 20 health professional or social services agency prior to, or within
line 21 three months after, the birth of the child.
line 22 (2) Any child who was conceived as a result of an incestuous
line 23 relationship if the relationship was reported to a medical or mental
line 24 health professional or a law enforcement agency or social services
line 25 agency prior to, or within three months after, the birth of the child,
line 26 or if paternity has been established.
line 27 (3) Any child who was conceived as a result of contraceptive
line 28 failure if the parent was using an intrauterine device, a Norplant,
line 29 or the sterilization of either parent.
line 30 (c) This section shall not apply to any child born on or before
line 31 November 1, 1995.
line 32 (d) (1) This section shall not apply to any child to whom it
line 33 would otherwise apply if the family has not received aid for 24
line 34 consecutive months while the child was living with the family.
line 35 (2) This section shall not apply to any child conceived when
line 36 either parent was a nonneedy caretaker relative.
line 37 (3) This section shall not apply to any child who is no longer
line 38 living in the same home with either parent.
line 39 (e) One hundred percent of any child support payment received
line 40 for a child born into the family, but for whom the maximum aid
99
— 4 —SB 899
73 of 74
line 1 payment is not increased pursuant to this section, shall be paid to
line 2 the assistance unit. Any such child support payment shall not be
line 3 considered as income to the family for the purpose of calculating
line 4 the amount of aid for which the family is eligible under this article.
line 5 (f) Commencing January 1, 1995, each county welfare
line 6 department shall notify applicants for assistance under this chapter,
line 7 in writing, of the provisions of this section. The notification shall
line 8 also be provided to recipients of aid under this chapter, in writing,
line 9 at the time of recertification, or sooner. The notification required
line 10 by this section shall set forth the provisions of this section and
line 11 shall state explicitly the impact these provisions would have on
line 12 the future aid to the assistance unit. This section shall not apply
line 13 to any recipient’s child earlier than 12 months after the mailing of
line 14 an informational notice as required by this subdivision.
line 15 (g) (1) The department shall seek all appropriate federal waivers
line 16 for the implementation of this section.
line 17 (2) The department shall implement this section commencing
line 18 on the date the Director of Social Services executes a declaration,
line 19 that shall be retained by the director, stating that the administrative
line 20 actions required by paragraph (1) as a condition of implementation
line 21 of this section have been taken by the United States Secretary of
line 22 Health and Human Services.
line 23 (h) Subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, shall become operative
line 24 on January 1, 1995.
line 25 SEC. 4. No appropriation pursuant to Section 15200 of the
line 26 Welfare and Institutions Code shall be made for the purposes of
line 27 this act.
line 28 SEC. 5. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
line 29 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
line 30 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
line 31 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
line 32 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
O
99
SB 899— 5 — 74 of 74