HomeMy WebLinkAboutLegislative Rvw Cmte - Ltrs of Support and Opposition � 1
CITY OF PALM DESERT �
_ l
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: APPROVE THE PALM DESERT LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE LETTERS OF
OPPOSITION AND SUPPORT TO VARIOUS PROPOSED
LEGISLATION.
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
DATE: Aprii 10, 2014
CONTENTS: 1. Proposed Legislation Texts
2. Draft Correspondence
Recommendation
By Minute Motion, approve the recommended letters of support for AB 1521 (Fox), AB 1896
(Perez), AB 2415 (Ting), SB 69 (Roth), SB 270 (Padilla, De Leon, and Lara) and a letter of
opposition for House Resolution No. 29 (Gomez).
Committee Recommendation
At their March 2014 meetings, the Palm Desert Legislative Review Committee
recommended that the City Council approve letters of support for AB 1521 (Fox), AB 1896
(Perez), AB 2415 (Ting), SB 69 (Roth), SB 270 (Padilla, De Leon, and Lara) and a letter of
opposition for House Resolution No. 29 (Gomez).
Backaround
At their March 2014 meetings, the Palm Desert Legislative Review Committee
recommended that the City of Palm Desert send correspondence indicating its position on
the following proposed legislation:
LETTER OF OPPOSITION
House Resolution No. 29 (Gomez)-OPPOSE
The Assembly House Resolution 29 (Gomez) states that the Assembly opposes
"outsourcing of public services and assets." The resolution is aimed at restricting local
government's ability to contract out for services.
The resolution includes a clause that local cities should familiarize themselves with, "The
Taxpayer Empowerment Agenda," which is also linked to a group called, "In the Public
Interest," which is a project of an organization called, The Partnership for Working Families.
The League of California Cities is concerned by the sheer number of websites and affiliated
organizations linked to this resolution.
This resolution does not have the force of law, but legislators that are asked to vote on this
are committing themselves to a pledge to vote on such future bills. Not only is this resolution
harmful in its content but this resolution is designed to frame future votes before legislators
know the details of actual legislation and local impacts.
Staff Report: Propose Legislation
April 10, 2014
Page2of3
LETTERS OF SUPPORT
AB 1521 (Fox) 8� SB 69 (Roth) -SUPPORT
The state Vehicle License Fee has been a significant source of general purpose revenue to
cities since 1935 when it was established in lieu of the taxation of motor vehicles in the local
property tax system. The VLF-for-Property-Tax swap of 2004 reduced city VLF allocations
by about 90% and compensated with new property tax share, but the swap does not
provide compensating "property tax in lieu of VLF" (PTIL-VLF) for (1) new cities
incorporating after 2004, or (2) for annexations to cities where there is pre-existing
development.
A61602 (2006) established special allocations from city VLF to mitigate this problem but
these funds were deleted in 2011 when the Legislature took all city VLF revenues to fund
state law enforcement grants which had previously been funded by the State.
These measures will provide new1 cities and annexations with PTIL-VLF like other cities.
For a new city incorporating after 2004 (including the four existing new cities in Riverside
County), a formula in statute will establish a base year PTIL-VLF. In subsequent years the
amount will be adjusted according to the same rules applied to other cities. For a city
annexing inhabited area, the added assessed valuation in the annexed area will be included
in the annual calculation of a city's growth in PTIL-VLF.
AB 1896 (Perez)-SUPPORT
Existing law, the County Water District Law, governs the operations of the Coachella Valley
Water District. Existing law prohibits a person or local public agency from using, within the
DistricYs service area, water from any source that is suitable for potable domestic use for
non-potable uses for cemeteries, parks, highway landscaped areas, new industrial facilities,
and golf course irrigation, if the board of directors of the district determines that suitable
non-potable water is available. This bill would add the use of potable domestic water for
homeowner's association facilities as a prohibited use if the District determines that suitable
non-potable water is available.
AB 2415 (Ting)- SUPPORT
Existing law requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission to administer programs to provide financial assistance to local governments
undertaking energy conservation projects. This bill would require the Commission to
develop and administer an electric vehicle charging station matching grant program to
provide financial assistance to cities and counties for the installation of electric vehicle
charging stations at public on-street parking locations.
SB 270 (Padilla, De Leon, and Lara)-SUPPORT
This biN, as of July 1, 20�5, would prohibit stores that have a specified amount of sales in
dollars or retail floor space from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer, with
specified exceptions. The bill would also prohibit those stores from selling or distributing a
recycled paper bag at the point of sale unless the store makes that bag available for
purchase for not less than $0.10.
Staff Report: Propose Legislation
April 10, 2014
Page 3 of 3
The bill would also allow those stores, on or after July 1, 2015, to distribute compostable
bags at the point of sale only in jurisdictions that meet specified requirements and at a cost
of not less than $0.10. The bill would require these stores to meet other specified
requirements on and after July 1, 2015, regarding providing reusable grocery bags to
customers, including distributing those bags only at a cost of not less than $0.10.
The bill, on and after July 1, 2016, would additionally impose these prohibitions and
requirements on convenience food stores, foodmarts, and entities engaged in the sale of a
limited line of goods, or goods intended to be consumed off premises, and that hold a
specified license with regard to alcoholic beverages.
The bill would require, on and after July 1, 2015, a reusable grocery bag sold by certain
stores to a customer at the point of sale to be made by a certified reusable grocery bag
producer and to meet specified requirements with regard to the bag's durability, material,
labeling, heavy metal content, and, with regard to reusable grocery bags made from
reusable plastic film on and after January 1, 2016, recycled material content.
Fiscal Analvsis
There is no fiscal impact related to the City's opposition or support of these bills.
Submitted By: �
CT�6'Y COUNCIL ACTI('�1!'
Steph n Y. A n, Risk M n ger ` �x,`���'��� �* -- €�`'�i��n
12[�,CI:IVF�D (, �'!1�?12
ApprovaL n'iEET[NC DATF ��C' ���/
AYi:S:��i'1 �ITNQ(n_�_�1iF�1� �ir'h�r Ta��✓�P�
Nors: 1�1r;r��
C�� A[3SEl�1T: NG�1E
n M. Wohl uth, City Manager . TAIN:-ti�t��'
VERIFIED BY: ' �c
Original on File with City Clcrlc's O tice
�Removed for separate consideration, then APPROVED
� as amended: strengthened letter of opposition for
House Resolution No. 29 (Gomez) , plus a letter to
adjacent 56th District Assemblyman V. Manuel Perez
to express displeasure for his support of H.R. 29,
which will ultimately have a significant, negative
financial impact on the City of Pa1m Desert and,
in turn, his District.
AIVIENDED 1N ASSEMBLY MARCH 13, 2014
CAI.IFORNIA I.EGISI.ATURE-2013-14 REGULAR SESSION
House Resolution No. 29
Introduced by Assembly Member Gomez
February 4, 2014
House Resolution No. 29—Relative to outsourcing public services.
1 WHEREAS, Public services and assets are the fabric that binds
2 our communities together. They are also a ladder to the middle
3 class; and
4 WHEREAS, Faced with severe budget problems in the wakc
5 of the Great Recession,state and local governments across America
6 are handing over control of public services and assets to
7 corporations that promise to operate them better, faster, and
� cheaper; and
9 WHEREAS, Outsourcing these services and assets often fails
10 to kcep these promises, and too often it undermincs transparcncy,
11 accountability, and shared prosperity and competition - the
12 underpinnings of democracy itself; and
13 WHEREAS, Outsourcing means that taxpayers have less say
14 over how future tax dollars are spent and have no ability to vote
15 out executives who make decisions that could harm the public
16 interest; and
17 WHEREAS, Outsourcing means taxpayers are often
l8 contractually limited to a single for-profit corporation; and
19 WHEREAS, Outsourcing frequently means that wages and
20 benefits for public service workers fall and thc local economy
21 suffers while corporate profits rise. T'�� "-M�-:��� �'�a�-�`:�� �`
22 , The Center
9R
HR29 —2—
l ,for American Progress Action Fund has found that of the 5.4
2 million people working for federal service contractors in 2008, an
3 estimated 80 percent earned below the living wage for their city
4 or region. For-profit corporations are three times more likely than
5 the public sector to employ workers at poverty-threshold wages;
6 and two million private sector employees working for federal
7 contractors earn less than $12 an hour - too little to support a
8 family. That is more low wage workers than are employed by
9 McDonald's and Wa1Mart combined; and
10 WHEREAS,Outsourcing means that taxpayers often no longer
11 know how their tax dollars are being spent. Meetings and records
12 that used to be open to the public can become proprietary
13 information when corporations take over; and
14 WHEREAS,The Taxpayer Empowerment Agenda is one model
15 that may help ensure transparcncy, accountability, shared
16 prosperity,and competition in the operation of public services and
17 assets; and
18 WHEREAS, Planks in the Taxpaycr Empowerment Agenda
19 would require governments to post information about their
20 contracts online and require contractors to open their books to the
21 public, ensure that governments have the capacity to adequately
22 oversee contracts, to cancel contracts that fail to dcliver on their
23 promises, prohibit law breaking companies from getting
24 government contracts, require contractors to pay their employees
25 living wages and benefits,require competitive bidding on contracts
26 that guarantee company profits at the expense of taxpayers�
27 .
28 ' , ' .; and
29 WHEREAS, Recent polling shows that taxpayers oppose the
30 outsourcing of public services and assets to for-profit companies
31 and support these common sense controls to ensure that their
32 interests are protected; now, therefore, bc it
33 Resolved by the Assembly of the Stute of Culiforniu, That the
34 Assembly opposes outsourcing of public services and assets,which
35 harms transparency, accountability, shared prosperity, and
36 competition,and supports processes that give public service�s
37 workef•s the opportunity to develop their own plan on how to
38 deliver cost-effective, high-quality services; and be it further
98
-3— HR 29
1 Kesolved, That the Assembly urges local officials to become
2 familiar with the provisions of the Taxpayer Empowerment
3 Agenda; and be it further
4 Resolved, That the Assembly intends to introduce and advocate
5 for responsible outsourcing legislation.-; and be it,further
6 Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies
7 of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.
O
98
ACTION ALERT!!
House Resolution (HR) 29 (Gomez). Pledges Affecting Future Legislation.
OPPOSE
Background
The Assembly House Resolution 29 (Gomez) states that the Assembly opposes "outsourcing of public services
and assets." The resolution is aimed at restricting local government's ability to contract out for services.The
resolution includes a clause that local cities should familiarize themselves with, "The Taxpayer Empowerment
Agenda,"which is also linked to a group called, "In the Public Interest," which is a project of an organization
called,The Partnershiq for Workin� Families.The sheer number of websites and affiliated organizations linked to
this resolution raises a number of red flags. The attached documents are from the Public Interest website and
can be found HERE with even more information.
This resolution does not have the force of law, but le�islators that are asked to vote on this are committin�
themselves to a pled�e to vote on such future bills. Not onlv is this resolution harmful in its content but this
resolution is desi�ned to frame future votes before le�islators know the details of actual le�islation and local
impacts.
Quick Facts for HR 29(Gomez):
Recently introduced HR 29,which contains resolved clauses stating legislative opposition to "outsourcing
public services and assets," is aimed at restricting local ability to contract out for services,threatening the
very mission of local governments to provide vital local services in an efficient and economical way.Taxpayers
rely on their local officials to wisely invest their hard-earned money. Contracting with other local agencies to
utilize public employees for a variety of services, and contracting for specific services or expertise is a long-
standing option that local governments have used effectively for many years.
HR 29 attempts to lock legislators into votes without the real details to make an informed decision. While HR
29 does not have the force of law, it asks legislators to pledge to oppose outsourcing of public services and
assets then later refers to legislation that the "Assembly intends to introduce and advocate for." Such efforts to
frame future votes before legislators know the details of actual legislation and local impacts undermine the
democratic process and representative government, because legislators lose the opportunity to make an
informed decision about the specific impacts of legislation.
Retaining flexibility in how to deliver quality services to residents is pertinent to quality of life in California.
Local governments have a long history of addressing service delivery challenges with creativity, self-reliance and
innovation. In the late 1800's, California cities banded together to share strategies over road rollers and the
electric light. Since then, unique local challenges and limited budgets continue to fuel innovative efforts to
obtain expertise and provide high quality services. Many services are provided by city employees,while others
such as refuse collection, construction, and specialized services are provided on a contract basis. Law
enforcement services may also be provided via contract with the sheriff and fire and park services by a special
district.
HR 29 is unfavorable for California's business climate.At a time when many businesses are leaving the state
and devastating local communities, efforts to close off opportunities for innovation and cost-effective service
delivery options will only discourage a healthy business climate. This is not to mention that in the end, less
competition from innovative companies and providers will ultimately mean a decrease in the quality of services
provided to residents.
ACTION:
This resolution will be heard on April 2"d in Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security
Committee at 10:00 a.m.
1) Please CALL your Assembly Member TODAY. All Assembly Members need to be called however a special
effort must be made to those members who sit on the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and
Social Security Committee (committee roster included below).
2J Cities and businesses who partner/contract with our cities should SEND LETTERS of opposition to the
author, Assembly Member Jimmy Gomez, copy the office of Assembly Speaker lohn Perez (these already
included in sample letter)and your Assembly Member. Please send IettersASAP as the committee
meets early next week.
3) Send City Officials to the hearin�on April 2"d to testifv how HR 29 threatens the mission of local
governments to provide vital local services in an efficient and economical way.
Find all le�islator contact information here
ASSEMBLY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY
Chief Consultant: Karon Green. Secretary:Wendy Burke. 1020 N Street, Room 153. Phone:(916)319-3957. Fax: (916)
319-2956. REPUBLICAN CAUCUS:Terry Mast-319-3900
Member District Party Room Phone Fax
Allen.Travis(Vice-Chair) 72 R 5126 916 319 2072 916 319 2172
Bonta, Rob(Chair) 18 D 6025 916 319 2018 916 319 2118
Harkev. Diane 73 R 4116 916 319 2073 916 319 2173
Jones-Savwer, Reqinald 59 D 4164 916 319 2059 916 319 2159
Rendon.Anthonv 63 D 2136 916 319 2063 916 319 2163
Ridley-Thomas.Sebastian 54 D 3149 916 319 2054 916 319 2154
Wieckowski.Bob 25 D 4016 916 319 2025 916 319 2125
Talking Points:
• HR 29 threatens the mission of local governments to provide vital local services in an efficient and
economical way.
• This resolution can be very harmful in that it's designed to frame future votes before legislators know the
details of actual legislation and local impacts. It undermines the democratic process by restricting votes on
legislation that may have dire consequences for local governments and the business climate.
• My city and all California cities need to retain ftexibility in how we deliver quality services to residents. Less
competition from innovative service providers will ultimately mean a decrease in the quality of services
provided to residents.
• Legislators should avoid voting for such blanket measures when they don't have the details. Many contracts
for services are with other local agencies; other contracts deliver specific expertise that can assist a
community. Offer examples of how this f/exibility benefits your community.
• Cities continue to face difficult budget conditions,which have been compounded by recent state takeaways
including the loss of redevelopment and expanding pension and retiree health care obligations. This builds
upon existing constitutional limitations on local agencies to raise additional revenue. Local agencies are in
no position to have their flexibility further curtailed.
• Threatening fair market practices,and hence economic growth, is irresponsible at a time when many
businesses are leaving the state.
April 10, 2014
Assembly Member Jimmy Gomez
State Capitol, Room 2176
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: (916) 319-2151
RE: HR 29 (Gomez) Pledges Affecting Future Legislation-NOTIC OF OPPOSITION
Dear Assembly Member Gomez:
The City of Palm Desert regrets to inform you that it has reviewed your HR 29 and has taken an
oppose position on this measure.
We have grave concerns about this resolution considering, in its resolved clauses, it would have
legislators take a form of a pledge that would potentially restrict their votes on future legislation
consistent with the political agenda of an outside national organization. Such efforts undermine
the democratic process and representative government, because legislators lose the
opportunity to make an informed decision about the specific impacts of legislation.
Local governments like Palm Desert have a long history of addressing service delivery
challenges with creativity, self-reliance and innovation. Local elected officials are held
accountable for these carefully thought out financial decisions. Cities continue to face difficult
budget conditions, which have been compounded by recent state takeaways including the loss
of redevelopment and expanding pension and retiree health care obligations. This builds upon
existing constitutional limitations on local agencies to raise additional revenue. Thus, local
agencies are in no position to have their flexibility further curtailed.
For the reasons stated above, the city of Palm Desert respectfully opposes this resolution, and
urges legislators to preserve their flexibility to make informed decisions on specific legislation.
Sincerely,
VAN G. TANNER
MAYOR
cc: City Council
The Honorable Brian Nestande, California State Assembly, (760) 6740184
Erin Sasse, League of California Cities, esasseCa�cacities.org
Anthony Gonsalves, Gonsalves and Sons, aonsalves(a�caonsalvi.com
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance
CALIFORNIA LEGISLA'1'URE-2013-14 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1521
Introduced by Assembly Member Fox
January 16, 2014
An act to amend Section 97.70 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,
relating to local govern�nent finance,and declaring the urgency thereof,
to take effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S llIGESI'
AB 1521, as introduced, Fox. Local government finance: property
tax revenue allocations: vehicle license fee adjustments.
�,xisting property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal
year,to allocate properry tax revenue to local jurisdictions in accordance
with specified formulas and procedures, and generally provides that
each jurisdiction shall be allocated an amount equal to the total of thc
amount of revenue allocated to that jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year,
subject to certain modifications, and that jurisdiction's portion of the
annual tax increment, as defined.
Existing property tax law also requires that, for purposes of
determining property tax revenue allocations in each county for the
1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal years,the amounts of property tax revenue
deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year to the county,cities,and special
districts be reduced in accordance with certain formulas. It requires that
the revenues not allocated to the county, cities, and special districts as
a result of these reductions be transferred to the Educational Revenue
Augmcntation Fund in that county for allocation to school districts,
community collcgc districts, and the county office of education.
Beginning with the 2004—OS fiscal year and for cach fiscal year
thereafter, existing law requires that each city, county, and city and
99
AB 1521 —2—
county receive additional property tax revenues in the form of a vehicle
license fee adjustment amount, as defined, from a vehicle license fee
property tax compensation fund that exists in each county treasury.
Existing ]aw requires that these additional allocations be funded from
ad valorem property tax revenues otherwise required to be allocated to
educational entities.
This bill would modify these reduction and transfer provisions, for
the 2014-15 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter,by providing
for a vehicle license fee adjustment amount calculated on the basis of
changes in assessed valuation.
By imposing additional duties upon local tax officials with respect
to the allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school dish-icts for certain costs mandated t�y the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
dctermines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be madc pursuant to these statutory
provisions.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgcncy statute.
Vote: z/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of Cal�ornia do enact as follows:
1 S�,CTION 1. Section 97.70 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
2 is amended to read:
3 97.70. Notwithstanding any other law, for the 2004—OS fiscal
4 year and for each fiscal year thereafter, all of the following apply:
5 (a) (1) (A) The auditor shall reducc the total amount of ad
6 valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be
7 allocated to a county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
8 by the countywide vehicle license fee adjustment amount.
9 (B) It; for the fiscal year, after complying with Section 97.68
10 there is not enough ad valorem property tax revenue that is
11 otherwise required to be allocated to a county Educational Revenue
12 Augmentation Fund for the auditor to complete the allocation
13 reduction required by subparagraph (A), the auditor shall
99
-3— AB 1521
1 additionally reduce the total amount of ad valorem property tax
2 revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to all school
3 districts and community college districts in the county for that
4 flscal year by an amount equal to the difference between the
5 countywide vehicle license fee adjustment amount and the amount
6 of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to
7 be allocated to the county Educational Revenue Augmentation
8 Fund for that fiscal year. This reduction for each school district
9 and community college district in the county shall be the percentage
10 share of the total reduction that is equal to the proportion that the
1 1 total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise
12 required to be allocated to the school district or community college
13 district bears to the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue
14 that is otherwise required to be allocated to all school districts and
15 community college districts in a county. For purposes of this
16 subparagraph,"school districts"and"community college districts"
17 do not include any districts that are excess tax school entities, as
18 defined in Section 95.
19 (2) The countywide vehicle license fee adjustment amount shall
20 be allocated to the Vehicle License Fee Property Tax Compensation
21 Fund that shall be established in the treasury of each county.
22 (b) (1) The auditor shall allocate moneys in the Vehicic Liccnse
23 Fee Property Tax Compcnsation Fund according to the following:
24 (A) Each city in the county shall receive its vehicle license fee
25 adjustment amount.
26 (B) Each county and city and county shall receive its vehicle
27 license fee adjustment amount.
28 (2) The auditor shall allocate one-half of the amount specified
29 in paragraph (1) on or before January 31 of each fiscal year, and
30 the other one-half on or before May 31 of each fiscal year.
31 (c) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
32 (1) "Vehicle license fee adjustment amount" for a particular
33 city, county, or a city and county means, subject to an adjustment
34 under paragraph (2) and Section 97.71, all of the following:
35 (A) For the 2004—OS fiscal year, an amount equal to the
36 difference between the f'ollowing two amounts:
37 (i) The estimated total amount of revenue that would have been
38 deposited to the credit of the Motor Vehicle License Fee Account
39 in the Transportation Tax Fund, including any amounts that would
40 have been certified to the Controller by the auditor of the County
99
AB 1521 —4—
1 of Ventura under subdivision (j) of Section 98.02, as that section
2 read on January 1, 2004, for distribution under the law as it read
3 on January 1, 2004, to the county, city and county, or city for the
4 2004-OS fiscal year if the fee otherwise due under the Vehicle
5 License Fee Law(Pt. 5 (commencing with Section 10701) of Div.
6 2) was 2 percent of the market value of a vehicle, as specified in
7 �ee�ie� Sections 10752 and 10752.1 as those sections read on
8 January l, 2004.
9 (ii) The estimated total amount of revenue that is required to be
10 distributed from the Motor Vehicle License Fee Account in the
11 Transportation Tax Fund to the county, city and county, and each
12 city in the county for the 2004-OS fiscal year under Section 11005,
13 as that section read on the operative date of the act that amended
14 this clause.
I5 (B) (i) Subject to an adjustment under clause (ii), for the
16 2005-06 fiscal year, the sum of the following two amounts:
17 (I) The difference between the following two amounts:
18 �
19 (iu) The actual total amount of revenue that would havc been
20 deposited to the credit of the Motor Vehicle License Fee Account
21 in the Transportation Tax Fund, including any amounts that would
22 have becn ccrtified to the Controller by the auditor of thc County
23 of Vcntura under subdivision (j) of Section 98.02, as that section
24 read on January 1, 2004, for distribution under the law as it read
25 on January 1, 2004, to the county, city and county, or city for the
26 2004-OS fiscal year if the fee otherwise due under the Vehicle
27 License Fee Law (Part 5 (commencing with Section 10701) of
28 Division 2) was 2 percent of the market value of a vehicle, as
29 specified in Sections 10752 and 10752.1 as those sections read on
30 January 1, 2004.
31 (�
32 (ib) The actual total amount of revenue that was distributed
33 from the Motor Vchicic License Fee Account in the Transportation
34 Tax Fund to the county,city and county,and each city in the county
35 for the 2004-OS fiscal year under Section 11005, as that section
36 read on the operative date of the act that amended this
37 s�-s�e}�mse subsubclause.
38 (II) The product of the following two amounts:
39 (�
40 (ia) The amount described in subclause (I).
99
-5— AB 1521
1 FH-�}
2 (ib) The percentage change from the prior fiscal year to the
3 current fiscal year in gross taxable asscssed valuation within the
4 jurisdiction of the entity, as reflected in the equalized assessment
5 roll for those fiscal years. For the first fiscal year for which a
6 change in a city's jurisdictional boundaries first applies, the
7 percentage change in gross taxable assessed valuation from the
8 prior fiscal year to the current fiscal year shall be calculated solely
9 on the basis of the city's previous jurisdictronal boundaries,without
10 regard to the change in that city's jurisdictional boundaries. For
11 each following fiscal year, the percentage change in gross taxable
12 assessed valuation from the prior fiscal year to the current fiscal
13 year shall be calculated on the basis of the city's cunent
14 jurisdictional boundaries.
15 (ii) The amount dcscribed in clause (i) shall bc adjusted as
16 follows:
17 (1) [f the amount described in subclause (I) of clause (i) for a
18 particular city,county,or city and county is greater than the amount
19 described in subparagraph (A) for that city, county, or city and
20 county, the amount described in clause (i) shall be increased by
21 an amount equal to this difference.
22 (II) If the amount described in subclause (I) of clause (i) for a
23 particular city, county, or city and county is less than the amount
24 described in subparagraph (A) for that city, county, or ciry and
25 county, the amount described in clause (i) shall be decreased by
26 an amount equal to this dii�erence.
27 (C) For the 2006--07 fiscal
28 '��year, to the 2013-14 fiscal year, inclusive, the sum of
29 the following two amounts:
30 (i) The vehicle license fee adjustment amount for the prior fiscal
31 year, if Section 97.71 and clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) did not
32 apply for that fiscal year, for that city,county, and city and county.
33 (ii) The product of the following two amounts:
34 (I) The amount described in clause (i).
35 (II) The percentage change from the prior fiscal year to the
36 current fiscal year in gross taxable assessed vatuation within the
37 jurisdiction of the entity, as reflected in the equalized assessment
38 roll for those fiscal years. For the first fiscal year for which a
39 change in a city's jurisdictional boundaries first applies, the
40 percentage change in gross taxable assessed valuation from the
99
AB 1521 —6—
1 prior fiscal year to the current fiscal year shall be calculated solely
2 on the basis of the city's previous jurisdicrional boundaries,without
3 regard to thc change in that city's jurisdictional boundaries. For
4 each following fiscal year,the percentage change in gross taxable
5 assessed valuation from the prior fiscal year to the current fiscal
6 ycar shall be calculated on the basis of the city's current
7 jurisdictional boundarics.
8 (D) For the 2014—IS fiscal year, the sum of the,following two
9 amounts:
10 (i) The amount deSCY1�7C'd in clause (i) of subparugruph (B) if�
11 Section 97.71 and c/ause (ii) of subparagraph (B) did not apply
12 ,for that fiscal year,for that city, county, and city and counry.
13 (ii) The product of�the following two amounts:
14 (I) The amount de.scribed in clause (i).
15 (II) The percentage chunge from the 2004—OS fiscal year to the
16 2014—I S fiscal year, inclu.sive, in gross tczxable assessed valuation
17 within the jurisdicti��n of the entity, us rejlected in the equalized
18 ussessment roll for those fiscul yeurs.
19 (F.) For the 2015-16,fiscal yeur und euch fiscul yeur thereufter,
20 the sum of the following two amounts:
21 (i) The vehicle license fee adjustment umount for the prior fiscal
22 yeur.
23 (ii) The product of the following two umount.s:
24 (1) The amount described in clause (i).
25 (II) The percentage chun�e fr�m the immediately preceding
26 fisca! year to the current fiscal year in gross taxable assessed
27 valuatinn within the jurisdiction of the entity, as reffected in the
28 equalized assessment rnll f'or thoseJiscal year.s.
29 (2) ' . , The vehicle license fee
30 adjustment amount that is determined under subparagraph (C) of
31 paragraph (1)for the 2013-14 fcscul year, subparagraph (D) nf
32 paragruph (1).for lhe 2014-1 S.fiscal year, and subparagraph (E)
33 of�parugruph (1)for the 2015-16 fiscul year, for thc County of
34 6rai�e Orunge, shall be increased by fifty-three million dollars
35 ($53,000,000). For th� �^�� 2016-17 fiscal year and each
36 fiscal year thereafter, the calculation of the vehicle license fee
37 adjustment amount for the County of Orange under subparagraph
38 (�}(E)of paragraph(1)shall be based on a prior fiscal year amount
39 that reflects the full amount of this one-time increase of fifty-three
40 million dollars ($53,000,000).
99
-7— AB 1521
1 (3) "Countywide vehicle license fee adjustment amount"means,
2 for any fiscal year, the total sum of the amounts described in
3 paragraphs (1) and (2) for a county or city and county, and each
4 city in the county.
5 (4) On or before June 30 of each fiscal year, the auditor shall
6 report to the Controller the vehicle license fee adjustment amount
7 for the county and each city in the county for that fiscal year.
8 (d) For thc 2005-06 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter,
9 the amounts determined under subdivision (a) of Section 96.1, or
10 any successor to that provision, shall not reflect, for a preceding
11 fisca] year, any portion of any allocation required by this section.
12 (e) For purposes of Section 15 of Article XI of the California
13 Constitution, the allocations from a Vehicle License Fee Property
14 Tax Compensation Fund constitute successor taxes that are
15 otherwise required to be allocated to counties and cities, and as
16 successor taxes,the obligation to make those transfers as required
17 by this section shall not be extinguished nor disregarded in any
18 manner that adversely af�'ects the security of, or the ability of, a
19 county or city to pay the principal and interest on any debts or
20 obligations that were funded or secured by that city's or county's
21 allocated share of motor vehicle license fee revenues.
22 (� This section shall not be construcd to do any of the following:
23 (1) Reduce any allocations of excess, additional, or rcmaining
24 funds that would otherwise have been allocated to county
25 superintendents of schools,cities, counties,and cities and counties
26 pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of
27 subdivision(d)of Sections 97.2 and 97.3 orArticle 4(commencing
28 with Section 98)had this section not been enacted.The allocations
29 required by this section shall be adjusted to comply with this
30 paragraph.
31 (2) Require an increased ad valorem property tax revenue
32 allocation or increased tax inerement allocation to a community
33 redevelopment agency.
34 (3) Alter the manner in which ad valorem property tax revenue
35 growth from fiscal year to fiscal year is otherwise determined or
36 allocated in a county.
37 (4) Reduce ad valorem property tax revenue allocations required
38 under Article 4 (commencing with Section 98).
39 (g) Tax exchange or revenue sharing agreements, entered into
40 prior to the operative date of this section, between local agencies
99
AB 1521 —8—
1 or between local agencies and nonlocal agencies are deemed to be
2 modified to account for the reduced vehicle license fee revenues
3 resulting from the act that added this section. These agreements
4 are modified in that these reduced revenues are, in kind and in lieu
5 thereof, replaced with ad valorem property tax revenue from a
6 Vehicle License Fee Property Tax Compensation Fund or an
7 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund.
8 SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
9 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
10 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
11 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
12 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
13 SEC. 3. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the
14 immediate preservation of the public peace,health,or safety within
15 the meaning of Articie IV of the Constitution and shall go into
16 immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
17 In order to provide timely fiscal relief to preserve the public
18 peace, health, and safety in incorporated citics and cities that
19 annexed inhabited areas that lost revenuc as a result of thc passage
20 of Senate Bill 89 of the 2011-12 Regular Session (Chapter 35 of
21 the Statutes of 2011), it is necessary that this act take effect
22 immediately.
O
99
AMENDED 1N ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 28, 2013
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 24, 2013
AM�,NDED IN SENAT�; MAY 8, 2013
AMENDED 1N SENATE APRIL 25, 2013
SENATE BILL No. 69
Introduced by . ' Senators Roth and Emmerson
• , � > > �
. . > >
January 10, 2013
n� ,.� .,�. ,. _a c,.,..:,...,, n�c�n � nnnoc �a c�nc� ,.r �,. ,. �a
• � , � �
�
� ��:�_.. i nnn� c n���o n���o i n���o � n���o � n���o n n���o n i
. . , � • � • � • � • , • �
4"�'�4�.''�3$:4�4�'"-�^�4�43, 4�''��sr, ��3�3�4�,
���o�T'"��, 4''�-�;42��42'"�-'�4�23a3z
n���o c� n���o c ����o � n���o �c n���o o ����o n n���o nc
. , . , . , . , . , . , . ,
4�'"�'�4�'"-�-r''�4�"�.�4�'"-�-r^�42�3�4�3, ����o ����
4'"�T4�,�0.���3�9, 4��4(}-'��,'�4-�-�, 4�.'�4'.���43T
• , , � , , ,
�-4�89�---�^�;�;38��3-�--�41$z.'' ,�41�.'t9�-4z��4�c
4�H84:33, , , ��-e�-�e �a-��en= ''`�,���oT
4'"�'�4�'"�''�4'"��T4`"�.^�^�4z''��T ����:o��
4�''�-��.`?-TZ�3�933, �� . , t�ts-��a�t�e�c,�
, �
. ,
94
SB 69 —2—
� . A
)
, . An act to amend Section 97.70 of the
Revenue and Taxution Code, relating to local government finance.
LF,GISLATIVE COUNSEI.'S DiGEST
SB 69, as amended, � Roth. .
ro��Lvcal government finance: property tax revenue allocation:
vehicle licen.se fee adjustments.
Existing property tax law reyuires the cnunty auditor, in each_fiscal
yeur, to allocate property tax revenue to local .jurisdictions in
accordance with spec�ed.formulas and prncedures, and generally
prnvides that each jurisdiction shall he allocated an amount equal to
the total of the amount of revenue allocated to that jurisdiction in the
prio��fiscal year, subject to certain modi�cations, and that jurisdictinn:s
portion of the unnuul tczx increment, us defined.
Existing property tux luw also requires thut, for purposes of
determining property tux revenue u/locations in each counry for the
1992-93 and 1993-94fiscal years, the amounts of'property tczx revenue
deemed u/located in the privrfiscul yeur to the c��unry, cities, und speciul
districts be reduced in ucco�clunce with certain formulus. It reyuires
that the revenues not allocated to the counry, cities, and special districts
us u resull of these reducti�ns be transf'erred to lh�Educati�nal Revenue
Augmentation Fund in that county.for allocation to school districts,
community college districts, and the county�fJice of education.
Beginning with the 2004—OS.fiscal year und f'or each.fiscal yea��
thereafter, ezisting law requires that each city, county, and city and
county receive additional property tax revenues in the form of a vehicle
license,fee adjustment amount, as defcned,,frnm a Vehicle License Fee
Property Tax Cnmpensation h'und that exists in each county treasury.
F.xisting law requires thut these additivnal ullocutions be funded from
ad vulorem property tax revenues otherwise required to be ullocuted
lo educutional entities.
This bill would modify these reduction and transfer provisivns,for
the 2013-14 fiscal year and for each fiscu!ycar thereafter, by providing
.for a vehicle license.fee udjustment amount culculated on the basis of
chunges in assessed valuation. This bill would al.so modify these
reduction and trun.rfer provisions,f'or the 2013-14.fiscal year and.for
94
-3— SB 69
each .fiscul year thereafter, by providing for a vehicle license fee
adjustment amount for certain cities incorporating uf'ter a spec�ed
date, as provided
By imposing additionul duties upon local tax o�cial.s with respect
to the allocation of ad vulorem property tax revenues, this bill would
impose a stute-munduted locul program.
The Culifornia Constitutivn reyuires the state to reimburse locul
agencies and.rchool districts for certuin costs manduted by the state.
Statutory provisions establish proeedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contain.s costs mandated by the stute,
��eimbursement,for thnse cn.rt.s shall be made pur.suant to these statutory
prnvi.sions.
. ,
, ,
, � � ,
� ,
� ,
�
, •
, , ,
�
, . .
, �
as--4�eer€re�
�
�
, •
,
,
, ,
• , ,
94
SB69 —4—
, •, �
, , •
,
��
r,.�,.
��
� , �
> > �
,
, •
�
� •
, .. .
, . , . ,
��
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people�rthe State of Culiforniu do enact us fo/lows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 97.70 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
2 is amended to read:
94
-5— SB 69
1 97.70. Notwithstanding any other law, for the
2 2004�5 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, all of the
3 following apply:
4 (a) (1) (A) The auditor shall reduce the total amount of ad
5 valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be
6 allocated to a county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
7 by the countywide vehicle license fee adjustment amount.
8 (B) If, for the fiscal year, after complying with Section 97.68
9 there is not enough ad valorem property tax revenue that is
10 otherwise required to be allocated to a county Educational Revenue
11 Augmentation Fund for the auditor to complete the allocation
12 reduction required by subparagraph (A), the auditor shall
13 additionally reduce the total amount of ad valorem property tax
14 revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to all school
15 districts and community college districts in the county for that
16 fiscal year by an amount equal to the difference between the
l 7 countywide vehicle license fee adjustment amount and the amount
18 of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to
19 be allocated to the county Educational Revenue Augmentation
20 Fund for that fiscal ycar. This reduction for cach school district
21 and community college district in the county shall be the percentage
22 share of the total reduction that is equal to the proportion that thc
23 total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise
24 required to be allocated to the school district or community college
25 district bears to the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue
26 that is otherwise required to be allocated to all school districts and
27 community college districts in a county. For purposes of this
28 subparagraph,"school districts"and"community college districts"
29 do not include any districts that are excess tax school entities, as
30 defined in Section 95.
31 (2) The countywide vehicle license fee adjustment amount shall
32 be allocated to thc Vehicle License Fee Property Tax Compensation
33 Fund that shall be established in the treasury of each county.
34 (b) (1) The auditor shall allocate moneys in the Vehicle License
35 Fee Property Tax Compensation Fund according to the following:
36 (A) Each city in the county shall receive its vehicle license fee
37 adjustment amount.
38 (B) Each county and city and county shall receive its vehicle
39 license fee adjustment amount.
��a
SB 69 —6—
1 (2) The auditor shall allocate one-half of the amount specified
2 in paragraph (1) on or before January 31 of each fiscal year, and
3 the other one-half on or before May 31 of each fiscal year.
4 (c) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
5 (1) "Vehicle license fee adjustment amount" for a particular
6 city, county, or a city and county means, subject to an adjustment
7 under paragraph (2) and Section 97.71, all of the following:
S (A) For the 2004—OS fiscal year, an amount equal to the
9 difference between the following two amounts:
10 (i) The estimated total amount of revenue that would have been
11 deposited to the credit of the Motor Vehicle License Fee Account
12 in the Transportation Tax Fund, including any amounts that would
13 have been certified to the Controller by the auditor of the County
14 of Ventura under subdivision (j) of Section 98.02, as that section
15 read on January l, 2004, for distribution undcr the law as it read
16 on January I, 2004, to the county, city and county, or city for the
17 2004—OS fiscal year if the fee otherwise due under the Vehicle
18 License Fee Law{F� (Part 5 (commcncing with Scction 10701)
19 of�Division 2)was 2 percent of the markct valuc of a vehicle,
20 as specified in�ee�ie� Sections 10752 and 10752.1 as those
21 sections read on January ], 2004.
22 (ii) The estimated total amount of revenue that is rcquired to be
23 distributed from the Motor Vehicle License Fec Account in the
24 Transportation Tax Fund to the county, city and county, and each
25 city in the county for the 2004—OS fiscal year under Section 11005,
26 as that section read on the operative date of the act that amended
27 this clause.
28 (B) (i) Subject to an adjusrinent under clause (ii), for the
29 2005-06 fiscal year, the sum of the following two amounts:
30 (I) The difference between the following two amounts:
3l (�a�
32 (ia) The actual total amount of revenue that would have been
33 deposited to the credit of the Motor Vehicle License Fee Account
34 in the Transportation Tax Fund, including any amounts that would
35 have been certified to the Controller by the auditor of the County
36 of Ventura under subdivision (j) of Section 98.02, as that section
37 read on January 1, 2004, for distribution under the law as it read
38 on January l, 2004, to the county, city and county, or city for the
39 2004-OS fiscal year if the fee otherwise due under the Vehicle
40 License Fee Law (Part 5 (commencing with Section 10701) of
94
-7— SB 69
1 Division 2) was 2 percent of the market value of a vehicle, as
2 specified in Sections 10752 and 10752.1 as those sections read on
3 January l, 2004.
4 (�bj
5 (ib) The actual total amount of revenue that was distributed
6 from the Motor Vehicle License Fee Account in the Transportation
7 Tax Fund to the county,city and county,and each city in the county
8 for the 2004—OS fiscal year undcr Section 1 ]005, as that section
9 read on the operative date of the act that amended this
10 . subsubclause.
1 1 (II) The product of the following two amounts:
12 �H�a�j
13 (ia) The amount described in subclause (I).
14 �
I S (ib) The percentage change from the prior fiscal year to the
16 current fiscal year in gross taxable assessed valuation within the
17 jurisdiction of the entity, as reflected in the equalized assessment
18 roll for those fiscal years. For the first fiscal year for which a
19 change in a city's jurisdictional boundarics first applics, thc
20 percentage changc in gross taxable assessed valuation from the
21 prior fiscal year to the current fiscal year shall be calculated solely
22 on the basis of the city's previous jurisdictional boundaries,without
23 regard to the change in that city's jurisdictional boundarics. For
24 each following fiscal year, the percentage change in gross taxable
25 assessed valuation from the prior fiscal year to the current fiscal
26 year shall be calculated on the basis of the city's current
27 jurisdictional boundaries.
28 (ii) The amount described in clause (i) shall be adjusted as
29 f'ollows:
30 (I) If the amount described in subclause (I) of clause (i) for a
31 particular city,county,or city and county is greater than the amount
32 described in subparagraph (A) for that city, county, or city and
33 county, the amount described in clause (i) shall be incrcascd by
34 an amount equal to this difference.
35 (II) If the amount described in subclause (I) of clause (i) for a
36 particular city, county, or city and county is less than the amount
37 described in subparagraph (A) for that city, county, or city and
38 county, the amount described in clause (i) shall be decreased by
39 an amount equal to this difference.
94
SB69 —8—
1 (C) For the 200C}--07 fiscal year ��a `- ���` tn the 2012-13
2 fiscal�ea�-Ek�year, inclusive, the sum of the following two
3 amounts:
4 (i) The vehicle license fec adjustment amount for the prior fiscal
5 year, if Section 97.71 and clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) did not
6 apply for that fiscal year,for that city,county,and city and county.
7 (ii) The product of the following two amounts:
8 (I) The amount described in clause (i).
9 (II) The percentage change from the prior fiscal year to the
10 current fiscal year in gross taxable assessed valuation within the
11 jurisdiction of the entity, as reflected in the equalized assessment
12 roll for those fiscal years. For the first fiscal year for which a
13 change in a city's jurisdictional boundaries first applies, the
14 percentage change in gross taxable assessed valuation from the
15 prior fiscal year to the current fiscal year shall be calculated solely
16 on the basis of the city's previous jurisdictional boundaries,without
17 regard to thc change in that city's jurisdictional boundaries. For
18 cach following fiscal year, the percentage changc in gross taxablc
19 assessed valuation from the prior fiscal year to the current fiscal
20 year shall be calculated on the basis of the city's current
21 jurisdictional boundaries.
22 (D) For the 2013-14 fiscu/ yeur, the vehicle license ,fee
23 udjustment umount shull be equul to the sum of the following two
24 amounts:
25 (i) The amount described in cluuse (i) of subparagraph (B) if
26 Section 97.71 and clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) did not apply
27 for that.fiscal year,,for that city, county, and city and county.
28 (ii) The product�f the following two amounts:
29 (1) The amount described in clause (i).
30 (11) The percentage change from the 2004—OS.fiscal year to the
31 2013-14 fiscal year, inclusive, in gross taxafile assessed valuation
32 within the jurisdiction nf the entiry, as reflected in the equalized
33 assessment roll for ihose fiscul yeurs.
34 (E) For the 2014-1 S fisca/year and each fiscul year lhereufter,
35 the sum of the follnwing two amounts:
36 (i) The vehic%license fee adjustment umount,for fhe prior fi.scal
37 year.
38 (ii) The product of the fo!lowing two amounts:
39 (I) The amount described in clause (i).
��a
-9— SB 69
1 (II) The percentage chunge from the immediately preceding
2 ,fiscal year to the current,fiscal year in gross taxable assessed
3 valuation within the jurisdictinn of the entity, as reflected in the
4 equulized assessment roll for those fiscal yeurs.
5 (2) Notwithstanding purugraph (1), "vehicle license fee
6 udjustment umount,"for the 2013-14 fiscul year and each fiscul
7 yeur thereufter for a city incorporuting after Junuury 1, 2004,
8 means the following:
9 (A) For the 2013-14 fiscal year, or the fir.st year of
10 incorporation of the city, whichever is later, the yuotient derived
11 ,from the following fraction:
12 (i) The numeratnr is the product q�'the following two amounts:
13 (1) The sum of the mnst recent vehicle license.fee adjustment
14 umounts determined for ull cities in the county incorporated prinr
15 to 2005.
16 (11) The population of the incorporating city.
17 (ii) The denominator is the sum of the populations nf all cities
18 in the counry.
19 (B) For euch fiscul year thereafler, the sum vf the following two
20 amounts:
21 (i) The vehicle license,fee adjustment umount for the prior fiscal
22 year.
23 (ii) The product of the following two umounts:
24 (I) The amount described in clause (i).
25 (11) The percentage change from the prior fiscal year to the
26 currerrt fiscal year in gross tcz.rable assessed valuation within the
27 jurisdiction of the entity, a.s reflected in the equalized assessment
28 roll for those,fiscal years.
29 (�
30 (3) "Countywide vehicle license fee adjustment amount"means,
31 for any fiscal year, the total sum of the amounts described in
32 paragraphs (1) and (2), for a county or city and
33 county, and each city in the county.
34 (3-�
35 (4) On or before June 30 of each fiscal year, the auditor shall
36 report to the Controller the vehicle license fee adjustment amount
37 for the county and each city in the county for that fiscal year.
38 (d) For the 2005-06 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter,
39 the amounts determined under subdivision (a) of Section 96.1, or
94
SB69 — 10—
1 any successor to that provision, shall not reflect, for a preceding
2 fiscal year, any portion of any allocation required by this section.
3 (e) For purposes of Section 15 of Article XI of the California
4 Constitution, the allocations from a Vehicle License Fee Property
5 Tax Compensation Fund constitute successor taxes that are
6 otherwise required to be allocatcd to counties and cities, and as
7 successor taxes,the obligation to make thosc transfers as required
8 by this section shall not be extinguished nor disregarded in any
9 manner that adversely affects the security of, or the ability of, a
10 county or city to pay the principal and interest on any debts or
11 obligations that were funded or secured by that city's or county's
12 allocated share of motor vehicle license fee revenues.
13 (� This section shall not be construed to do any of the following:
14 (1) Reduce any allocations of excess, additional, or remaining
I S funds that would otherwise have been allocated to county
16 superintendents of schools,cities,counties,and cities and counties
17 pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of
I 8 subdivision(d)of Sections 97.2 and 97.3 orArticle 4(commencing
19 with Section 98)had this section not becn enacted.The allocations
20 rcquired by this section shall be adjusted to comply with this
21 paragraph.
22 (2) Require an increased ad valorcm property tax revenue
23 allocation or increased tax increment allocation to a community
24 redevelopment agency.
25 (3) Alter the manner in which ad valorem property tax revenue
26 growth from fiscal year to fiscal year is otherwise determined or
27 allocated in a county.
28 (4) Reduce ad valorem property tax revenue allocations required
29 under Article 4 (commencing with Section 98).
30 (g) Tax exchange or revenue sharing agreements, entered into
31 prior to the operative date of this section, between local agencies
32 or between local agencies and nonlocal agencies are deemed to be
33 modified to account for the rcduced vehicle license fee revenues
34 resulting from the act that added this section. These agreements
35 are modified in that these reduced revenues are, in kind and in lieu
36 thereof; replaced with ad valorem property tax revenue from a
37 Vehicle License Fee Property Tax Compensation Fund or an
38 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund.
39 SEC. 2. If�the Commission on State Mandutes determines that
40 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbur.rement to
94
- 11 — SB69
1 local agencies and school district.r fnr those costs shal/ be mude
2 pur.suant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
3 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
4 .
5 €e�}et�ittg�
6 ,
7 ,
g � , ,
9 ,
10 .
11
12 .
13 .
14 . .
15 � , �
16 .
17 , ,
18 , ' ,
19 ,
20 ' ,
21 , .
22
23 , � ,
24 , .
25
26 .
27
28
29 ' , ,
30 . .
31 . .
32 Ji.r � r..,..:,.� i c�� ,.r��.,. na..,.,.�:,.� r,.a,. �a,.a ��
33 �ea��
34 . ,
35
36
37 , , .
38 , ,
39 . ,
94
January 11,2014
Ca(rforv�raCityFiv�av�ce.Cov►n
SB56(Roth) and AB1521(Fox): Remedy for City Incorporations and
Annexations From Impacts of 5B89(2011j and VtF-Property Tax Swap
Problem/Background
The state Vehicle License Fee has been a significant source of general purpose revenue to cities since 1935 when it was
established in lieu of the taxation of motor vehicles in the local property tax system. Section 15 of Article XI of the
California Constitution requires that these revenues be allocated among cities and counties.
The VLF-for-Property-7ax swap of 2004 reduced city VLF allocations by about 90%and compensated with new property
tax share, but the swap does not provide compensating"property tax in lieu of VLF"(PTIL-VLF)for
• new cities incorporating after 2004 or for
• annexations to cities where there is pre-existing development.
AB1602(2006) established special allocations from city VLF to mitigate this problem but these funds were deleted in
2011 when the Legislature took all city VLF revenues to fund state law enforcement grants which had previously been
funded by the State.
Remedy: Property Tax In Lieu of VLF for New Cities and Annexations
5656(Roth) and A81521(Fox) will provide newl cities and annexations with PTIL-VLF like other cities. For a new city
incorporating after 2004(including the four existing new cities in Riverside County), a formula in statute will establish a
base year PTIL-VLF. In subsequent years the amount will be adjusted according to the same rules applied to other
cities. For a city annexing inhabited area, the added assessed valuation in the annexed area will be included in the
annual calculation of a c+ty's growth in PTIL-VLF.
Important Points
✓ These changes will have no effect on realignment or state law enforcement grant funding.
✓ The proposal will remove the substantial negative fiscal effects on city incorporation of the 2004 VLF Swap and the
2011 SB89 VLF shift. It will also restore funds to the cities that incorporated since 2004.
✓ This is not new money for cities. The proposal will restore funds that
• existed for new cities and annexations prior to 2004,
• were omitted in the VLF-for-Property-Tax swap of 2004,
• were restored with a special allocation from the VLF in 2006(A81602 Laird)
• were wiped out when city VLF funds were taken to pay state law enforcement grants previously funded by
the state general fund (5889-2011).
mjg
1 Incorporations and annexations after 2004—the year of the VLF-Property-Tax swap.
� . - , . , , .
April 10, 2014
The Honorable Senator Richard Roth
State Capitol, Room 4034
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 69 (Roth) Incorporations and Annexations-Notice of Support
Dear Senator Roth:
The City of is pleased to support your measure SB 69 (Roth), which would restore funding
stability to recently incorporated cities and cities that annexed inhabited territory, and
establish a foundation to support sustainable and compact growth policies.
The affected cities are experiencing a loss of funds used to provide services to annexed
areas since 2011 when the state swept all city vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues to fund
law enforcement grants that previously had been funded by the state. Recently
incorporated cities, such as Jurupa Valley, were particularly harmed. But there are also
major future state policy costs to be considered when future incorporations and the
annexation of inhabited county incorporated territory no longer make fiscal sense.
City development patterns are urban and dense and are regulated by Local Agency
Formation Commission's (LAFCO) policies. LAFCO is charged with steering future
development away from sensitive habitats and prime farmland. New incorporations must
be approved by LAFCO as well as local voters; once incorporated, future annexations to
the city's urban boundary must be approved by LAFCO. In contrast, county development
patterns are typically less dense and not regulated by LAFCO.
SB 69 allows affected cities to participate in the funding solution that was provided to all
cities and counties at the time of the 2004 VLF-property tax swap, where local agencies
were able to swap dollar-for-dollar these amounts. While the VLF-property tax swap solved
one problem, it created another in that it contained no provisions that recognized that cities
would annex inhabited areas (an activity supported by various state policies) or that future
incorporations would occur in a state with continued population growth. A solution was
developed with AB 1602 of 2006 using some remaining VLF funds, but that was swept
away with the state's actions in approving SB 89 in 2011.
This measure resolves this problem in a permanent way with a statutory formula that
provides cities incorporated since 2004 and inhabited annexations with shares of property
tax in lieu of the amount of vehicle license fee revenue they would have received in the
prior VLF-property tax swap. In future years, the amount will be adjusted according to the
same rules applied to other cities.
SB 69 Support Letter
April 10, 2014
Page 2 of 2
Besides addressing the fiscal harm that occurred to cities with the passage of SB 89, this
solution also provides long-term policy benefits to the state. State policies for achieving
sustainability, greenhouse gas reduction, smart growth, infill and transit-oriented development
and preserving farmland and open space have staked much on the role and success of cities.
The fiscal costs of this solution are minor compared to the policy costs of not supporting city-
centered compact growth.
We appreciate your leadership on this important matter. If you have any questions, or if we can
be of any assistance, please contact Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager, at (760) 346-0611.
Sincerely,
VAN G. TANNER
MAYOR
cc: City Council
The Honorable Brian Nestande, California State Assembly, (760) 674-0184
Erin Sasse, League of Califomia Cities, esasse(a�cacities.orq
Anthony Gonsalves, Gonsalves and Sons, gonsalvesCa�gonsalvi.com
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance
April 10, 2014
The Honorable Assembly Member Steve Fox
State Capitoi, Room 3132
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1521 (Fox) Annexations-Notice of Support
Dear Assembly Member Fox:
The City of Palm Desert is pleased to support your measure AB 1521, which would restore
funding stability to cities that annex inhabited territory, and re-establish a foundation that
supports sustainable and compact growth policies.
Since 2011, the affected cities are experiencing a loss of funds used to provide services to
annexed areas when the state, with the passage of SB 89 of 2011, swept all city vehicle license
fee (VLF) revenues to fund law enforcement grants that previously had been funded by the
state. Included in the revenues swept up by S689 were special allocations provided to these
annexing cities to mitigate an effect of the VLF Swap of 2004.
Since 1933, cities and counties had received portions of the VLF that was allocated to them on
a per-capita basis. This revenue was important to support annexations of existing
unincorporated islands and areas adjacent to cities. Services to the annexed areas could be
funded with the additional VLF revenue that came with each new resident. While the additional
VLF revenue did not offset all service delivery costs associated with an annexation, it helped
tremendously in ensuring that annexations could "pencil ouY' for cities.
In the late 1990's the Legislature destabilized this long-time source of local revenue by crafting
a proposal that reduced the amounts paid by vehicle owners by two-thirds and promising to
backfill local revenue losses with a dollar-for-dollar General Fund allocation to local
governments. The promises to "backfill" these revenues quickly became mired in legislative
politics when General Fund revenues declined several years later. Ultimately, a solution was
reached in 2004 with the enactment of the VLF-property tax swap (VLF Swap).
While the 2004 VLF Swap stabilized funding for existing cities and counties by giving them
permanent shares of additional property tax in exchange for lost shares of VLF, it also created
two major future policy problems that have the effect of undercutting city compact growth
patterns:
(1) The VLF Swap failed to adjust for the future growth of the state; when cities annexed
inhabited areas or incorporated there were no allocations of property tax shares to offset
the VLF revenues those communities would have received in prior years; thus the
incentives to annex inhabited areas were gone
(2) Prior to legislative action with the VLF, cities had three diverse revenues sources: sales
tax, property tax and the VLF. After the VLF Swap, cities had only sales tax and
property tax, with only a minor amount of VLF. The prior VLF-incentive that rewarded
the annexation of more people into a city was gone. A solution was developed with AB
1602 in 2006, but that was swept away with the state's actions in approving SB 89,
which passed the legislature in a matter of hours with no public hearings.
AB 1521 Support Letter
April 10, 2014
Page 2 of 2
AB 1521 resolves the annexation aspect of this problem in a permanent way through a statutory
formula that provides cities that annexed inhabited areas since 2004 with additional shares of
property tax in lieu of the amount of vehicle license fee revenue they would have received prior
to the VLF-property tax swap. In the future, these amounts will be adjusted according to the
same rules applied to other cities. SB 69 (Roth) contains a similar solution that also assists
incorporations that were affected by the enactment of SB 89.
Besides addressing tf�e fiscal harm that occurred to cities with the passage of SB 89, this
solution also provides long-term policy benefits to the state in two areas: (1) It supports state
Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCO) policies. LAFCO is charged with steering
future city development away from sensitive habitats and prime farmland. Future annexations
to a city's urban boundary must be approved by LAFCO. In contrast, county development
patterns are typically less dense and not regulated by LAFCO. (2) State policies for achieving
sustainability, greenhouse gas reduction, smart growth, infill and transit-oriented development
and preserving farmland and open space have staked much on the role and success of cities.
State compact growth policy objectives will suffer over the long term if cities lose incentives that
support annexation of inhabited areas.
We appreciate your leadership on this important matter. The fiscal costs of this solution are
minor compared to the policy costs of not supporting city-centered compact growth. If you have
any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please contact Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager,
at (760) 346-0611.
Sincerely,
VAN G. TANNER
MAYOR
cc: City Council
The Honorable Brian Nestande, California State Assembly, (760) 674-0184
Erin Sasse, League of California Cities, esasseCa�cacities.org
Anthony Gonsalves, Gonsalves and Sons, qonsalvesCa�gonsalvi.com
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-2013-14 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1896
Introduced by Assembly Member V. Manuel Perez
February 19, 2014
An act to amend Sections 32601 and 32602 of the Water Code,
relating to water.
LEGISLA'I'IVE COUNSEL'S llIGEST
AB 1896, as introduced, V. Manuel Perez. Coachella Valley Water
District: nonpotable water use.
Existing law, the County Water Uistrict Law, governs the operations
of the Coachella Valley Water Uistrict. Existing law prohibits a person
or local public agency from using, within the district's service area,
water from any source that is suitable for potable domestic use for
nonpotable uses for cemeteries, parks, highway landscaped areas, new
industrial facilities, and golf course irrigation if the board of directors
of the district determines that suitable nonpotable water is available, as
specified, and other requirements are met.
This bill would add the use of potable domestic water for
homeowner's association facilities as a prohibited use if the board of
directors of the district determines that suitable nonpotable water is
available.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the
necessity of a special statute for the Coachella Valley Water District.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
99
AB 1896 —2—
The people of the.State of Cal fornia do enact as follows:
1 SECT(ON 1. Section 32601 of the Watcr Code is amended to
2 read:
3 32601. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
4 use of potable domestic water for nonpotable uses for cemeteries,
5 parks, highway landscaped areas, new industrial facilitics,
6 homeowner's association fucilities, and golf course irrigation is a
7 waste and an unreasonable use of the water within the meaning of
8 Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution,if nonpotable
9 water, including recycled water, is available under all of the
10 following conditions as determined by the board, after notice to
11 any person or local public agency that may be ordered to use
12 nonpotable water or to cease using potable water and a hearing
13 held by the board if requested by the person or local public agcncy:
14 (1) The board determines that the source of nonpotable water
15 is of adequate quality for the proposed use and is available for that
16 use. In determining adequate quality, the board shall consider all
17 relevant factors, including, but not limitcd to, food and employee
18 safety,and level and types of specific constituents in the nonpotable
19 water affecting the use, on a user-by-user basis. ln addition, the
20 board shall consider the effect of the use of nonpotable water in
21 lieu of potable water on the generation of hazardous waste and on
22 the quality of wastewater discharges subject to permit.
23 (2) The board detennines that the nonpotable water may be
24 furnished for the proposed use at a reasonable cost to the user. In
25 determining reasonable cost, the board shall consider all relevant
26 factors, including, but not limited to, the present and projected
27 costs of supplying,delivering,and treating potable domestic water
28 for the proposed use and the present and projected costs of
29 supplying and delivering nonpotable water for that use, and finds
30 that the cost of supplying the nonpotable water is comparable to,
31 or icss than, the cost of supplying potable domestic water.
32 (3) The State Department of Public Health determines that the
33 use of nonpotable water from the proposed source will not be
34 detrimental to public health.
35 (4) The California regional water quality control board
36 detennines that the use of nonpotable water from the proposed
37 source will comply with any applicable water quality control plan.
99
—3— AB 1896
1 (5) The board determines that the use of nonpotable water for
2 the proposed use will not adversely af�'ect groundwater rights,will
3 not degrade water quality,and is determined not to be injurious to
4 plant life, fish, and wildlife.
5 (b) In making the determination described in subdivision (a),
6 the board shall consider the impact of the cost and quality of the
7 nonpotable water on each individual user.
8 (c) The board may requirc a person or public agency to furnish
9 information that the board determines to be relevant to making the
10 determinations described in subdivision (a).
11 SEC. 2. Section 32602 of the Water Code is amended to read:
12 32602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,but subject
13 to the other requirements of this part, no person or local public
14 agency shall use water within the district's service area from any
15 source that is suitable for potable domestic use for nonpotable uses
16 for cemcteries, parks, highway landscaped areas, new industrial
17 facilities, homeowner's assnciation fucilitie.s, and golf course
18 irrigation, if the board, in accordance with Section 32601,
19 determines that suitable nonpotable water is available.
20 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that a special law
21 is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable
22 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California
23 Constitution because of the unique circumstances in the servicc
24 area of the Coachella Valley Water District.
O
99
April 10, 2014
The Honorable V. Manuel Perez
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0056
Re: AB 1896 (Perez)-Notice of Support
Dear Assemblymember Perez:
The City of Palm Desert strongly supports your measure AB 1896, which would add the use of
potable domestic water for homeowner's association facilities, as a prohibited use, if the
Coachella Valley Water District Board of Directors determines that suitable non-potable water is
available.
The City of Palm Desert is proactive in enacting, promoting, and encouraging environmental
sustainability. AB 1896 is a step in the right direction and aims to protect and preserve our
Valley's precious water supply.
Thank you again for your recognition of this important environmental issue. Please let us know if
you have any questions, or if we can be of additional assistance by contacting Stephen Y.
Aryan, Risk Manager, at (760) 776-6326.
Sincerely,
VAN G. TANNER
MAYOR
cc: City Council
The Honorable Brian Nestande, California State Assembly, (760) 674-0184
Erin Sasse, League of California Cities, esasse@cacities.orQ
Anthony Gonsalves, Gonsalves and Sons, gonsalves(c�qonsalvi.com
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance
CALIFORNIA LEGISLA'I'UItE-201j-14 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2415
Introduced by Assembly Member Ting
February 21, 2014
An act to add Chapter 5.10 (commencing with Section 25499) to
Division 15 of the Public Resources Code, relating to energy.
L�GISLA'CIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2415, as introduced, Ting. Energy: electric vehicle charging
station: matching grants.
Existing law requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission to administer programs to provide financial
assistance to local governments undertaking energy conservation
projects.
This bill would require the commission to develop and administer an
electric vehicle charging station matching grant program to providc
financial assistance to cities, counties, and a city and county for the
installation of electric vehicle charging stations at public on-street
parking locations.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. riscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The penp/e of the State of Calif'ornia do enact us follows:
1 SECTION 1. Chapter 5.10(commencing with Section 25499)
2 is added to Division 15 of the Public Resources Code, to read:
99
AB 2415 —2—
] CHAPTER S.1 O. ELECTRIC VF.HiCLE CHARGING STATIONS
2
3 25499. For the purposes of this chapter,"eligiblc cntity"means
4 a city, county, or city and county.
5 25499.1. (a) The commission shall dcvelop and administer an
6 electric vehicle charging station matching grant program to provide
7 matching grants to eligible entities for the installation of electric
8 vehicle charging stations at public on-street parking locations.
9 (b) To be eligible for financial assistance,an eligible entity shall
10 demonstrate it has allocated funds or has identified private sector
11 funding to pay for the installation of the electric vehicle charging
12 station.
O
99
April 2, 2014
The Honorable Phil Ting
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0019
Re: AB 2415 (Ting)-Notice of Support
Dear Assemblymember Ting:
The City of Palm Desert strongly supports your measure AB 2415, which would develop and
administer an electric vehicle charging station matching grant program. Such financial
assistance for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations is directed for public on-street
parking locations.
The City of Palm Desert has historically been proactive in constructing and promoting such charging
stations as part of our sustainability efforts. AB 2415 is a step in the right direction, but we respectfully
request you consider an amendment that would strengthen this legislation's effectiveness. Many smaller
communities do not have significant on-street public parking, as is typically available in larger urban
areas. By including off-street public parking and public easement locations, more communities would
benefit from this bill.
Thank you again for your recognition of this important environmental issue and consideration of our
request. Please let us know if you have any questions or need any additional information by contacting
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager, at (760) 776-6326.
Sincerely,
VAN G. TANNER
MAYOR
cc: City Council
The Honorable Brian Nestande, California State Assembly, (760) 674-0184
Erin Sasse, League of California Cities, esasseCa�cacities.ora
Anthony Gonsalves, Gonsalves and Sons, qonsalves(cr�.gonsalvi.com
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 27, 2014
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY FEBRUARY 6, 2014
SENATE BILL No. 270
Introduced by Senators Padilla, De Leon, and Lara
February 14, 2013
An act to add Chapter 5.3 (commcncing with Scction 42280) to Part
3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, relating to solid waste,
and making an appropriation therefor.
LEGISLATIVE COUNS�.L'S DIGEST
SB 270, as amended, Padilla. Solid waste: single-use carryout bags.
(1) Existing law, until 2020, requires an operator of a store, as
defined, to establish an at-store recycling program that provides to
customers the opportunity to return clean plastic carryout bags to that
store.
This bill,as ofJuly l,2015,would prohibit stores that have a specified
amount of sales in dollars or retail floor space from providing a
single-use carryout bag to a customer, with specified exceptions. The
bill would also prohibit�s�e�e those stores from selling or distributing
a recycled paper bag at the point of sale unless the store makes that bag
available for purchase for not less than$0.10.The bill would also allow
s�tei�—a-�ere those stores, on or after July 1, 2015, to distribute
compostable bags at the point of sale only in jurisdictions that meet
specified requirements and at a cost of not less than $0.10. The bill
would require these stores to meet other specified requirements on and
after July 1, 2015, regarding providing reusable grocery bags to
customers, including distributing those bags only at a cost of not less
than $0.10.
97
SB270 —2—
The bill, on and after July l, 2016, would additionally impose these
prohibitions and requirements on convenience food stores, foodmarts,
and entities engagcd in the sale of a limited line of goods, or goods
intended to be consumed off premises,and that hold a specified license
with regard to alcoholic beverages.
The bill would allow a retail establishment to voluntarily comply with
these requirements, if the retail establishment notifies the��en�
dcpartment. The bill would
reyuire the department to post on its Internet Web site, organized by
county, the name and physical locativn of each retail establishment
that hus elected to comp/y with these reyuirements.
The bill would require the operator of a store that has a specified
amount of sales in dollars or retail floor , '
space and a retail establishment that voluntarily complies with the
requirements of this hill tn comply with bnth the existing ,
� , ,
�
at-store
recycling program requirements und the reyuirements of this bill.
Thc bil] would
re yuire, on and after July 1,2015,u reusuble grocery bug sold by certuin
stores to a customer at the point of sale tu be made by a cert�ed
reusuble grocery bag produc•er and to meet specified requirements with
regard to the bag's durability, material, labeling, heavy metal content,
and, with regard to reusable grocery bags made from reusable plastic
,film on and after January 1, 2016, recycled material content. The bill
would impose these requirements as of July 1, 2016, on the stores that
are othcrwise subject to the bill's requirements.
The bill would prohibit a producer of reusable �rocery bags made
from-sp � , ' , reusable plastic,film from selling or distributing
thosc bags on and after January 1,2016, unless the producer is certified
by u 3rc�purry
certification entity, us specified, and would require a supplier of'
postconsumer recycled material to the reusable grocery bag producer
to be cert�ed by a 3rd-party cert�cation entity.The bill would require
97
-3— SB 270
a reusuble grocery bag producer and a supplier of postconsumer
recycled muteriul to a producer to provide proof of cert�cation to the
department. The bill would require the department to provide a system
to receive proofs af certifcculion online.
The department would be authorized to suspend or revoke a
certification under specified circumstances and would be required to
publish on its Internet Web site a list of certified reusable grocery bag
producers and�upp�ters-tmc�.supplier.s, reusable grocery bags that comply
with the requirements of the�bill, and 3rd-parry cert�catinn entities
recognized by the department. The bill would require the department
to establish a certification fee schedule to cover the department's costs
to implement these certification requirements,which a reusable grocery
bag producer or supplier
�e-� providing proof to the depurtment of certifrcution would be
required to pay. The bill would also require a reusable grocery bag
producer to submit specified laboratory test results to the department.
The bill would authorize a person to object to a cert�cation of a
reusable grocery bug prvducer or supplier of�postconsumer recycled
muteriul and would uuthorize u person to,file un action for review of
that cert�cation in the superior court vf'u county that has jurisdiction
over the reusable groc.�ery bag prvducer or supplaer.
,
, ,
, . .
The bill would allow a city, county, or city and county, or the state
to impose civil penalties-€a�-a on a person or entiry that knows or
reusonab/y should have known it is in violation of the bill's
, reguirements. The bill would require
these civil penalties to be paid to the of�ice of the city attorney, city
prosecutor, district attorney, or Attorney General, whichever office
brought the action, and would allow the penalties collected by the
Attorney General to be expended by the Attorney General, upon
97
SB 270 —4—
appropriation by the Legislature, to enforce the bill's provisions.�ke
, •
The bill would declare that it occupies the whole field of the regulation
of reusable grocery bags, single-use carryout bags, and recycled paper
bags provided by a store and would prohibit a local public agency from
enforcing or implementing an ordinance,resolution,regulation,or rule,
or uny umendment thereto, adoptcd on or aftcr September 1, 2014,
relating to those bags, against a store unless expressly authorized. The
bill would allow a local public agency that has adopted such an
ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule prior to September 1, 2014,
to continue to enforce and implement that ordinance, resolution,
regulation, or rule, and would preempt any amendments to that
ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule, except that the bill would
allow� the local public agency to adopt or amend an ordinance,
resolution,regulation,or rule��increasing the price for a recycled
paper bag, compostable bag, or reusable grocery bag to no less than a
speciFed amount.
(2) The California lntegrated Waste Management Act of 1989 creates
thc Recycling Market Dcvclopment Revolving Loan Subaccount in the
intcgrated Waste Management Account and continuously appropriates
the funds deposited in the subaccount to the department for making
loans for the purposes of the Recycling Market Development Revolving
Loan Program. Existing law makes thc provisions regarding the loan
program, the creation of the subaccount, and expenditures therefrom
inoperative on July 1, 2021, and repeals them as ofJanuary 1, 2022.
This bill would appropriate $2,000,000 from the Recycling Market
Development Revolving Loan Subaccount in the Integrated Waste
Management Account tc� the department for the purposes of providing
loans and grants for the creation and retention of jobs and economic
activity in California for the manufacture and recycling of plastic
reusable grocery bags that use recycled content.The bill would require
a recipient of a grant to agree, as a condition of receiving a grant, to
take specificd actions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
97
—5— SB 270
The Penple of�the State of Califnrnia do enact as follows:
1 SECTION l. Chapter 5.3 (commencing with Section 42280)
2 is added to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, to
3 rcad:
4
S CHAPTER 5.3. SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAGS
6
7 Article 1. Definitions
8
9 42280. (a) "Department"means the Deparhnent of Resources
10 Recycling and Recovery.
11 (b) "Postconsumer recycled material" means a material that
12 would otherwise be destined for solid waste disposal, having
13 completed its intended end use and product life cycle.
14 Postconsumer recycled material does not include materials and
15 byproducts generated from, and commonly reused within, an
16 original manufacturing and fabrication process.
17 (c) "Recycled paper bag"means a paper carryout bag provided
18 by a store to a customer at the point of sale that meets all of the
19 following requirements:
20 (1) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), contains a
21 minimum of 40 percent postconsumer recycled materials.
22 (B) An eight pound or smaller recycled paper bag shall contain
23 a minimum of 20 percent postconsumer recycled material.
24 (2) Is accepted for recycling in curbside programs in a majority
25 of households that have access to curbside recycling programs in
26 the state.
27 (3) Has printed on the bag the name of the manufacturer, the
28 country where the bag was manufactured, and the minimum
29 percentage of postconsumer content.
30 (d) "Reusable grocery bag" means a bag that is provided by a
31 store to a customer at the point of sale that meets the requirements
32 of Section 42281.
33 (e) (1) "Reusable grocery bag producer" means a person or
34 entity that does any of the following:
35 (A) Manufactures reusable grocery bags for sale or distribution
36 to a store.
37 (B) Imports reusable grocery bags into this state, for sale or
38 distribution to a store.
97
SB 270 —6—
1 (C) Sells or distributes reusable bags to a store.
2 (2) "Reusable grocery bag producer" does not include a store,
3 with rcgard to a reusable grocery bag for which there is a
4 manufacturer or importer, as specified in subparagraph (A)or(B)
5 of paragraph (1).
6 (� "Reusable plastic .film" means u continuous sheet of
7 po/yethylene with u thickness of not less than 2.25 mils meusured
8 according to American Society of Testing und A�laterials (ASTM)
9 Slandard D6988, or un alternative methodology approved bv the
l0 department.
11 (#�
12 (g) (1) "Single-use carryout bag"means a bag made of plastic,
13 paper, or other material that is provided by a store to a customer
14 at the point of sale and that is not a recycled paper bag or a reusable
15 grocery bag that meets the requirements of Section 42281.
16 (2) A single-use carryout bag does not include either of the
17 following:
18 (A) A bag provided by a pharmacy pursuant to Chapter 9
19 (commcncing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business
20 and Professions Code to a customer purchasing a prescription
21 medication.
22 (B) A nonhandled bag used to protect a purchased itcm from
23 damaging or contaminating other purchased items when placcd in
24 a recycled paper bag, a reusable grocery bag, or a compostable
25 plastic bag.
26 (C) A bug provided to contuin an unwrapped food item.
27 (D) A nonhandled hag that i.s designed tn he pluced over article.s
28 of clothing on u hunger.
29 (-g�
30 (h) "Storc" means a retail establishment that meets any of the
31 following requirements:
32 (1) A full-line, self-service retail store with gross annual sales
33 of two cnillion dollars($2,000,000) or more that sells a line of dry
34 groccries, canned goods, or nonfood items, and some perishable
35 items.
36 (2) Has at least 10,000 square feet of�retail space that generates
37 sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales
38 and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of
39 Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code)and has a pharmacy
97
—�— sg 2�0
1 licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 (coinmencing with Section 4000)
2 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.
3 (3) Is a convenience food store, foodmart, or other entity that
4 is engaged in the retail sale of a limited line of goods, generally
5 including milk,bread,soda,and snack foods,and that holds a Type
6 20 or Type 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic
7 Beverage Control.
8 (4) Is a convenience food store, foodmart, or other entity that
9 is engaged in the retail sale of goods intended to be consumed off
10 the premises, and that holds a Type 20 or Type 21 license issued
11 by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
12 (5) Is not otherwise subject to paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), if
13 the retail establishment voluntarily agrees to comply with the
14 requirements imposed upon a store pursuant to this chapter,notifies
15 the dcpartment of its intent to comply with the requircments
16 imposed upon a store pursuant to this chapter, and�s
17 complies with the reyuirements
18 established pursuant to Section 42284.
19
20 Article 2. Reusable Grocery Bags
21
22 42281. (a) On and after July 1, 2015, a store, as defined in
23 paragraph (1) or(2) of subdivision�g-j (h) of Section 42280, may
24 sell or distribute a reusable grocery bag to a customer at the point
25 of sale only if the reusable bag�tee�s is made by a producer
26 cert�ed pursuant to this article and meets all of the following
27 requirements:
28 (1) Has a handle and is designed for at least 125��;�;s-�4-b�g
29 . .
30 ,
31 .
32 , ,
33 ,
34 „� ,....... � �� _.,.:,,.
35
36 ' ,
37 �e�e�e� uses, as provided in this article.
38 (2) Has a volume capacity of at least 15 liters.
39 (3) Is machine washable or made from a material that can be
40 cleaned and disinfected.
97
SB 270 —8—
1 (4) Has printed on the bag, or on a tag attached to the bag that
2 is not intended to be removed, and in a manner visible to the
3 consumer, all of the following information:
4 (A) The name of the manufacturer.
5 (B) The country where the bag was manufactured.
6 (C) A statement that the bag is a reusable bag and designed for
7 at least 125 uses.
8 (D) �s�tteEie�t�lf the bug is eligible for recycling in the stute,
9 instructions to return the bag to the store for recycling or to another
10 appropriate recycling ' , ' � location. lfrecyclable
11 in the state, the bag shall include the chasing arrows recycling>
12 symbnl nr the term "recyclable,"consistent with the Federal Trade
13 Commission Guidelines use of that term, as updated.
14 (5) Does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal
15 in toxic amounts. This requircment shall not affect any authority
16 of the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Articic
17 14 (commencing with Section 25251) of Chapter 6.5 of Division
18 20 of the Health and Safety Code and,notwithstanding subdivision
19 (c)of Section 25257.1 of the Health and Safety Code,thc rcusable
20 grocery bag shall not be considered as a product category already
21 regulated or subject to regulation.
22 (6) Complies with Section 260.12 of Part 260 of Title 16 of thc
23 Code of Fcderal Regulations rclated to recyclablc claims if the
24 reusable grocery bag producer makes a claim that the reusable
25 grocery bag is recyclable.
26 (b) (1) In addition to the requirements in subdivision (a), a
27 reusable grocery bag made from
� , ,
28 ' , reusable plastic film shall meet all of the
29 following requirements:
30 (+�
31 (A) On and after January l, 2016, it shall be made from a
32 minimum of 20 percent postconsumer recycled��material.
33 (�
34 (B) On and after January l, 2020, it shull be made from a
35 minimum of 40 percent postconsumer recycled material.
36
37 .
38 (C) It shal!be recyclable in this state, and accepted for return
39 at stores suhject to the at-store recycling progrum (Chapter S.l
40 (cnmmencing with Section 42250))for recyclin�.
97
—9— SB 270
1 �
2 (D) �rlt shall have, in addition to the information required to
3 be printed on the bag or on a tag, pursuant to paragraph (4) of
4 subdivision (a), a statement that the bag is made partly or wholly
5 from postconsumer recycled material,as applicable,�and
6 stating the upplicuble percentage.
7 (F,) It shall be capuble of currying 22 pounds for 125 uses or
8 more and be ut least 2.25 mils thick.
9 (2) A reusafile grocery bag made.from reusable plastic.film that
10 meets the spec�cativns of the American Sociery of Testing and
11 Muterials (ASTM) International Standard Specification for
12 Compostable Plastics D6400, as updated, is not required tn meet
13 the requirements of subparagraph (A)or(B) of paragraph (1), but
14 shall be labeled in accnrdance with the applicable state law
15 regarding cnmpostable plastics.
16 (c) In addition to the reyuirements of subdivision(a), a reusable
17 grocery bag that is not made of reusable plastic film and that is
18 mude from uny other nuturul or synthetic fabric, including, but
19 not limited to, woven or nonwoven nylon, polypropylene,
20 polyethylene-terephthalate, o� ryvek, shudl sutis�y ull of the
21 following:
22 (1) It sha!l be sewn.
23 (2) It shull be cupuble�f currying 22 pouncl.s 125 times over u
24 distance of�175 feet.
25 (3) It.shall have a minimum fabric weight of at/eust 80 grams
26 per syuure meter.
27
28 .
29 ,
30 , ',
31 , ,
32
33 .
34 (d) On and after July 1, 2016, a store as defined in paragraph
35 (3) or (4) of subdivision� (h) of Section 42280, shall comply
36 with the requirements of this section.
37 42281.5. (a) On and after January 1, 2016, a producer of
38 , , reusable
39 grocery bags made from reusahle plastic.fi/m shall not sell or
40 distribute a reusable grocery bag in this state unless the producer
97
SB 270 — 10—
1 is certified . .
2
3 .
4
5 .,
6 , ,
7 c��`:�" ^''�'o,,"�`' by a third purty cerlificution entity pursuunt
8 to Section 42282. A producer shull prvvide proof of cert�cution
9 to the department demonstrating that the retrsable grocery bags
10 produeed by the prr�ducer comply with the provisions of�this article.
11 The proof of certification shall include all of the following:
12 (1) Names, locations, and contact information of all sources o�'
13 postconsumer recycled materia/ and suppliers of postconsumer
14 recycled material. . ,
15 . .
16 that have been certified pursuant to
17 ��-is�e�-(-b�Sectinn 42282.
18 (2) Quantity and dates of postconsumcr recycled material
19 purchases by the reusable grocery bag producer.
20 (3) Any other information that the department may require to
21 enable verification of the information provided in the��►�eat�er�
22 proof of certificution.
23 (b) A supplier of postconsumer recycled material to a reusahle
24 grocery bag producer , ,
25
26 .
27 shall be certified pur.suant
28 to Section 42282 and shall provide information regarding the
29 methods of collecting and processinb the postconsumer recycled
30 ' , ' muterial to a third-purty cert�catlon entity.
31 The information shall include all of the following:
32 (1) How the postconsumer recycled material is obtained.
33 (2) , � Information demonstruting
34 that all postcorrsumer recycled muterial is cleuned using washing
35 eyuipment specifically designed for that purpose, including the
36 name of the maker, model, description, photographs, and exact
37 locations of the equipment.
38 (3) Any other information that the department or certifrcation
39 entity may require to enable verification of the information
40 provided ' by the supplier.
97
-11 — SB 270
1
2 ,
3 , � ,
4
5 ,
6 ,
7 ,
S
9 F.. ..,...�:�,.,.�:,.� ..��:�,.
10
11
12
13 , ' ' ,
14 . .
15 . � , �
16 .
17 ..
18 ,
19 .
20
21
22
23 ' , �
24 � ,
25 .
26 ,
27 .
2 8 a�iet�ierr.
29 ,
30 . � , . �
31 ' . .
32 .
33 '
34 � ,
35
36
37
38 , � ,
39 � ,
40 . . .
97
SB 270 —l2—
1
2 .
3 , ,
4
5 . ,
6
7 .
� � ,
9
10 , ' ,
11
12 .
13
14 .
15 42282. (a) On a schedule und in a manner determined by the
16 depurlment, a reusable grocery bag producer and a supplier of
17 postconsumer recycled material shall provide to the depurtment
18 proof of cert�cution conducted by u thircl-purry certification entiry
19 for euch type of reusuble grocery bug thut is manufuctured,
20 imported, sold, or disrributed in the state and provided to u store
21 ,for sale or distribution, at the point of sale, that meets all the
22 app/icuble requirements of this article. The proof of cert�cation
23 shall be uccompunied by u cert�cution fee, estublished pursuant
24 to Section 42282.1.
25 (b) A thirc!-party ceri�calion entity� shull be an independeni,
26 accredited(ISO/IEC 17025) laborutory that is recognized by the
27 department.
28 (c) For a reusable grocery bag producer, a third-party
29 cert�cation entity shal! certify that the producer's reusable
30 grocery bags meet the minimum 125-use reyuirement using one
31 nf the following standards:
32 (1) The EcnLogo ATP-001 standard.s for durahility, as thvse
33 stundards existed on November 7, 1995.
34 (2) For u reusuble grocery bag mude from reusable plasttc film,
35 the Reusable Bag Test Method, developed by Dr. Joseph Greene
36 of the California State University, Chico, us that test method existed
37 on Apri117, 2012.
38 (3) An ulternative compliunce methodolo�ry npproved by the
39 department.
97
-13— SB 270
1 (d) For a supplier of postconsumer recycled content, a
2 third-party cert�catinn entity shall cert� that the .rupplier has
3 complied with subdivision (b) of Sectinn 42281.5.
4 (e) The department.shull provide u system to receive proof.s�f
5 cert�cation online.
6 (� On and ufter July 1, 2016, the depurtment shall publish a
7 list on its Interaet Web site that includes all of the following.•
8 (1) The name, location, and appropriate contact infnrmalion
9 of cert�ec!reusahle grocery bag producers.
10 (2) The reusable grocery bags that are in compliance with this
ll article.
12 (3) A list of�third-parry cert�catinn entities that are recognized
13 hy the department, including the Department of�Mechanical and
14 Mechatronic Engineering and Sustainable Manufacturing of�the
15 Califorrria State Universiry, Chico, which shall be recognized us
16 a thi�d party certification entity.
17 (4) A list of certified suppliers �J� postconsumer recycled
18 muteriul.
19 (g) , A reusable groccry bag
20 producer shall submit laboratory test results����
�
21 to the department
22 confirming that the reusable grocery bag meets the requirements
23 of`'��`:�- ^''''°' this article for each type of rcusable grocery bag
24 that is manufactured,imported,sold,or distributed in the state and
25 provided to a store for sale or distribution.
26 �
27 (h) The department may test any reusable grocery bag
28 manufactured by a reusable grocery bag producer and provided to
29 a store for sale or distribution for compliance with this article and
30 the regulations adopted pursuant to this article.
31 (t�
32 (i) The department may inspect and audit a certified reusable
33 grocery bag producer subject to this article to ensure continuing
34 compliance with Section 42281.All costs associated with the audit
35 shall be paid by the reusable grocery bag producer.
36 (�
37 (j) The department may enter into an agreement with other state
38 entities that conduct inspections to provide necessary enforce�nent
39 of this article.
97
SB 270 —14—
1 (k) (I) A per.son may object to the cert�cation of�a reusable
2 grocery bag nroducer or a supplier nf postcon.sumer recycled
3 materiul.
4 (2) The depurtment shall uccept nhjections pursuant to
5 puragraph (1) and other public comments and may respond to
6 these in writing.
7 (3) A person objecting to a cert�cution pursuant to this
8 subdivision may file an action for revzew of that certification in
9 the superior court of a county that has jurisdiction over the
10 reusable grocery bug pro�ucer or postcortsumer recycled material
1 1 supplier. The court may make it.s own inclependent findings on
12 whether the department, in accepting the pro�f of cert�catinn,
13 obtained ver�ed evidence of� compliance, and may conSIL�L'Y
14 evidence thut was not suhmitted to the depurtment.
15 (l) The depurtment may suspend or revoke a cert�cation nf a
16 ►eusable grocery bag producer or supplier of poslconsumer
17 recycled material i f the department finds there is evidence thut the
18 reusuble grocery bug.s distributed by the producer do not comply
19 with the requirements of this urticle, or thut the supplier �f
20 postconsumer recycled materiul does not comply with the
21 requirements of this urticle.
22 42282.1. (a) A reusable grocery bag producer or supplier oJ�
23 postconsumer recycled muteriul shall submit the fee established
24 pursuant to subdivision (b) to the department when�Htr�-a�
25 a���te�ten-€a�providing prvof of�certification pursuant to Sections
26 42281.S arrd 42282.
27 (b) The department shall establish a certification fee schedule
28 that will generate fee revenues sufficient to cover, but not exceed,
29 the department's reasonable costs to implement and enforce the
30 cert�cation provisions of this article.The department may expend
31 the fees collected pursuant to this section, upon appropriation by
32 thc Lcgislature, to carry out this article.
33 . . ,
34
35
36 .
37
38 ' , , .
39 , ,
40 ,
97
-15— SB 270
1 , ,
2 . .
3
4 ,.r.�_.�.,. ,.�,._,. _ ��:�,.,.�:,._ �r�w� . ��,.�:�_
5 . .
6 .
7 ,
8 .
9 ,
10 ,
11 .
12
13 Article 3. Single-Use Carryout Bags
14
15 42283. (a) �xcept as provided in .
16 subdivision (e), on and after July I, 2015, a store, as defined in
17 paragraph (1) or(2) of subdivision{�j (h) of Section 42280, shall
18 not provide a single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of
19 salc.
20 (b) (1) On and after July 1, 2015, a�e store, as de�ned in
21 paragraph (1) or(2) vf subdivision (h) of Section 42280, shall not
22 sell or distributc a reusable grocery bag at the point of sale except
23 as provided in this subdivision.
24 (2) On and after July 1, 2015, a�e store, as defined in
25 pnrugraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 42280, may
26 make available for purchase at the point of sale a reusable grocery
27 bag that meets the requirements of Section 42281.
28 (3) On and after July l, 2015, a-s�re stor�e, us defined in
29 paragraph(1)or(2)ofsubdivision(h)nfSection 42280,that makes
30 reusable grocery bags available for purchase pursuant to paragraph
31 (2) shall not sell the reusable grocery bag for less than ten cents
32 ($0.10) in order to ensure that the cost of providing a reusable
33 grocery bag is not subsidi�ed by a customer who does not require
34 that bag.
35 (c) (1) On and after July 1, 2015, a�e store, as defined in
36 paragraph (1) ur(2) of subdivision (h) of Section 42280, shall not
37 sell or distribute a recycled paper bag except as provided in this
38 subdivision.
39 (2) A�e store, as deJined in paragraph (I) or (2) of
40 subdivisinn(h)of Section 42280, may make available for purchase
97
S B 270 — 16—
1 a recycled paper bag. On and after July 1,2015,the store shall not
2 sell a recycled paper bag for less than ten cents($0.10) in order to
3 ensure that the cost of providing a recycled paper bag is not
4 subsidized by a consumer who does not require that bag.
5 (d) Notwithstanding any other law, on and after July l, 2015,
6 a�e store, us defined in paragruph (1) or(2) of subdivision (h)
7 of Section 42280, that makes reusable grocery bags or recycled
8 paper bags available for purchasc at the point of sale shall provide
9 a customer participating in the California Special Supplemental
10 Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to
11 Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275)of Chapter 1 of Part
12 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code and a customer
13 participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to
14 Chapter 10(commencing with Section 15500)of Part 3 of Division
15 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code with a reusable grocery bag
16 or a recycled paper bag at no cost at the point of sale.
17 (c) On and after July 1, 2015, a-�ere store, as defined in
18 puragruph (1) or (2) �f subdivision (h) of Section 42280, may
19 distribute a compostable bag at the point of sale,if the compostablc
20 bag is provided to the consumer at the cost specified pursuant to
21 paragraph (2), the compostable bag, at a minimum, meets the
22 Amcrican Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM)Internutionul
23 Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics D6400, us
24 updatec� and in the jurisdiction where the compostable bag is sold
25 and in the jurisdiction where the store is located, both of the
26 following requirements are met:
27 (1) A majority of the residential households in the jurisdiction
28 have access to curbside collection of foodwaste for composting.
29 (2) The governinb authority for the jurisdiction has voted to
30 allow stores in the jurisdiction to sell to�consumers at the point
31 of sale a compostable bag at a cost not less than the actual cost of
32 the bag,which the Legislature hereby finds to bc not less than ten
33 ccnts ($0.10) per bag.
34 (� A�e store, as deftned in parugraph (1) or (2) of
35 subdivision (h) of Section 42280, shall not require a customer to
36 use,purchase, or accept a single-use carryout bag, recycted paper
37 bag, compostable bag, or reusable grocery bag as a condition of
38 sale of any product.
39 42283.5. On and after July 1, 2016, a store, as defined in
40 paragraph (3) or(4) of subdivision{� (h) of Section 42280, shall
97
—l7— SB 270
1 comply with the same requirements of Section 42283 that are
2 imposed upon a store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of
3 subdivision�(h) of Section��42280.
4 42283.6. (a) The operator of a store, as defined in paragraph
5 (1)or(2)of subdivision{g�(h)of Section "�'`1On,.�.,.ii :.. ..aa:�:�_
,
6 .
7 ,
8
9 , , ,
10 ' ' , , '
11
12 �e-feHe�42280, sha11 be subject tn the provisions o�'both the
13 at-store recycling prngram (Chapter S.1 (commencing with Section
14 42250)) and the provisions oJ�thi.s chapter:
15 (b) A store that voluntarily agrees to comply with the prnvisions
16 of this article pursuant to subdivision (h) of.Section 42280, shall
17 also comply with the provisions of the at-store recycling program
18 (Chapter S.1 (commencing with Section 42250)).
19 , ,
20
21 , ' ,
22 , "
23 7)CTl ii)AT T!l A 7]A 11TT/'�T71ATiT�T!'� C�T/1DL' L`!1D 11L'!�`V/'�T TAT!"�»
24
25 ' , ,
26
27 , ,
28
29 , ,
30
31 , , .
32 ' '
33 ,
34
35 ^rvr�m�T
36
37
38
39 see�ie�r.
97
SB 270 —18—
1 .
2
3 . .
4 . .
5
6 '
7 .
8 , ,
9
10 42284. (a) A retail establishment not spec�cally reyuired to
11 comply with the reyuirements of this chapter is encouraged to
12 reduce its distribution of single-u.se pla.stic carryout bags.
13 (b) Pursuant to the provi.sions of�subdivision (h) of.Section
14 42280, any retail estahl ishment that is not a `:store,"that prnvides
15 the department with the written notice as.specified in (c), shull be
16 regulated as a `:store",for the purposes of this chapter.
17 (c) The written notice shall be dated und signed by an authorized
18 representutive of the retail estublishment, und shall include the
19 nume und physical address of u/1 retail locution.s covered by the
20 notice. The depurtment shull ucknowledge receipt of�the notice in
21 writing and shall spec� the date zhe retail establishment will be
22 reguluted us u "store," which sha11 not be less than 30 days ufter
23 the date of the depurtment's ucknowledgment. The depurtment
24 shall post on its Internet Web site, organized by county, the name
25 and physical location or locutions of'each retail estublishment
26 that hus elected to be regulated as a "store."
27
28 Article 4. Enforcement
29
30 42285. (a) . , A city, a
31 county, a city and county, or the state may impose civil liability
32 on u person or entity that knowningly violated this chupter, or
33 reusonably should huve known thut it violuted this chupter, in the
34 amount of five hundred dollars($500)for the first violation of this
35 chapter, one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the second violation,
36 and two thousand dollars ($2,000) for the third and subsequent
37 violations.
38 (b) Any civil penalties collected pursuant to subdivision (a)
39 shall be paid to the office of the city attorney, city prosecutor,
40 district attorney, or Attorney General, whichever ofTice brought
97
- 19— SB 270
1 the action. The penalties collected pursuant to this section by the
2 Attorney General may be expended by the Attorney General,upon
3 appropriation by the Legislature, to cnforce this chapter.
4 . . . .
5 .
6
^7 ^1 ,.CT:..:,.:,.« ^7 ,.F�l... D..,.:.....,.,. ,....,7 n..,.F,,..:,.«., !"�,.,7,.
8
9 Article 5. Preemption
10
11 42287. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), this chapter
12 is a matter of statewide interest and concern and is applicable
13 uniformly throughout the state.Accordingly,this chapter occupies
14 the whole field of regulation of reusable grocery bags, single-use
15 carryout bags, and recycled paper bags, as defined in this�e�
16 chapter,provided by a store, as defined in this chapter.
17 (b) On and after January 1, 2015, a city, county, or other local
18 public agency shall not enforce, or otherwise implement, an
19 ordinance, resolution, rcgulation, or rule, or uny umendment
20 the�eto, adopted on or aftcr Scptcmber l,2014,relating to reusablc
21 grocery bags, single-use carryout bags, or recycled paper bags,
22 against a store, as defincd in this chapter, unless expressly
23 authorized by this chapter.
24 (c) A city,county,or other local public agency that has adopted,
25 prior to September ], 2014, an ordinance, resolution, regulation,
26 or rule relating to reusable grocery bags,single-use carryout bags,
27 or recycled paper bags may continue to enforce and implement
28 that ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule that was in effect
29 before that date. Any amendments to that ordinance, resolution,
30 regulation, or rulc on or after January l, 2015, shall be subject to
31 subdivision (b), except-a� the city, county, or other local public
32 agency may adopt or amend an ordinance, resolution, regulation,
33 or rul to increase the amount that a store shall charge
34 with regard to a recycled paper bag, compostable bag, or reusable
35 grocery bag to no le.rs thun the amount specified in Section 42283.
36
37 Article 6. Financial Provisions
38
39 42288. (a) Notwithstanding Section 42023.2, the sum of two
40 million dollars ($2,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the
97
SB 270 —20—
1 Recycling Market Uevelopment Revolving Loan Subaccount in
2 the Integrated Waste Management Account to the deparhnent for
3 the purposes of providing loans and grants for the creation and
4 retention of jobs and economic activity in this state for the
5 manufacture and recycling of plastic reusable grocery bags that
6 use recycicd content, including postconsumer recycled material.
7 (b) The department shall expend the funds appropriated pursuant
8 to this section to provide loans and grants for both of thc following:
9 (1) Development and conversion of machinery and facilities for
10 the manufacture of single-use plastic bags into machinery and
11 facilities for the manufacturer of durable reusable grocery bags
12 that, at a minimum, meet the requirements of Section 42281.
13 (2) Development of equipment for the manufacture of reusable
14 grocery bags,that,at a minimum,meet the requirements of Section
15 42281.
16 (c) A recipient of a grant authorized by this section shall agree,
17 as a condition of receiving a grant, to retain and retrain existing
18 cmployees for the manufacturing of reusable grocery bags that, at
19 a minimum, meet the requirements of Section 42281.
O
97
April 2, 2014
The Honorable Alex Padilla
State Capitol, Room 4038
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB 270 (Padilla, de Leon, and Lara) Single-Use Grocery Bags Bill - Support
Dear Senator Padilla:
The City of Palm Desert strongly supports your measure SB 270 that was co-authored by Senators de
Leon and Lara, which will reduce bag pollution and waste by restricting single-use plastic grocery bags
and placing a ten cent minimum charge on paper and reusable bags.
Plastic bags are a costly, environmentally damaging, and easily preventable source of litter and pollution.
Light and aerodynamic, plastic bags are uniquely litter-prone even when properly disposed of, and pose
a serious threat to the riparian and marine environment and wildlife.
There is no free bag. Single use plastic bags are costly to both consumers and taxpayers. The more than
13 billion single use plastic bags distributed by California grocers cost over$200 million annually. The
costs of these one-time use products are passed on to consumers in the form of higher grocery prices.
The economic and environmental costs of single-use plastic bags simply outweigh any short-term
benefit. Phasing out single use plastic bags will reduce plastic pollution and the costs associated with it.
Thank you again for your recognition of this important environmental issue through your introduction of
SB 270. Please let us know if you have any questions or need any additional information by contacting
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager, at(760) 776-6326.
Sincerely,
VAN G. TANNER
MAYOR
cc: City Council
The Honorable Kevin de Leon, California State Senate, (916) 327-8817
The Honorable Ricardo Lara, California State Senate, (916) 651-4933
The Honorable Brian Nestande, California State Assembly, (760) 674-0184
Erin Sasse, League of California Cities, esasse(a�cacities.org
Anthony Gonsalves, Gonsalves and Sons, gonsalvesCc�gonsalvi.com
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance