AB 232: Hospitals: seismic safety.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2015-10-07
Existing law, the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983, establishes, under the jurisdiction of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, a program of seismic safety building standards for certain hospitals constructed on and after March 7, 1973.
Existing law provides that, after January 1, 2008, a general acute care hospital building that is determined to be a potential risk of collapse or to pose significant loss of life in the event of seismic activity be used only for nonacute care hospital purposes, except that the office may grant a 5-year extension under prescribed circumstances. Existing law also allows the office to grant an additional 2-year extension in specified circumstances.
This bill would authorize a critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi to submit a seismic safety extension application, notwithstanding specified deadlines that are earlier than the effective date of this bill, and would require the application to include a timetable, as specified.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Tehachapi.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983, establishes, under the jurisdiction of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, a program of seismic safety building standards for certain hospitals constructed on and after March 7, 1973.
Existing law provides that, after January 1, 2008, a general acute care hospital building that is determined to be a potential risk of collapse or to pose significant loss of life in the event of seismic activity be used only for nonacute care hospital purposes, except that the office may grant a 5-year extension under prescribed circumstances. Existing law also allows the office to grant an additional 2-year extension in specified circumstances.
This bill would authorize a critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi to submit a seismic safety extension application, notwithstanding specified deadlines that are earlier than the effective date of this bill, and would require the application to include a timetable, as specified.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Tehachapi.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983, establishes, under the jurisdiction of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, a program of seismic safety building standards for certain hospitals constructed on and after March 7, 1973.
Existing law provides that, after January 1, 2008, a general acute care hospital building that is determined to be a potential risk of collapse or to pose significant loss of life in the event of seismic activity be used only for nonacute care hospital purposes, except that the office may grant a 5-year extension under prescribed circumstances. Existing law also allows the office to grant an additional 2-year extension in specified circumstances.
This bill would authorize a critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi to submit a seismic safety extension application, notwithstanding specified deadlines that are earlier than the effective date of this bill, and would require the application to include a timetable, as specified.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Tehachapi.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1)Existing law, the Petroleum Industry Information Reporting Act of 1980, requires refiners, among others, to provide periodic reports to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission containing designated information regarding petroleum supplies and price, including monthly California weighted average prices and sales volumes for specified motor fuels and oils, as specified. Existing law authorizes any person required to submit this information to request that specific information be held in confidence. The act requires the commission to gather, analyze, and interpret the reported information related to the supply and price of petroleum products and to publish at the end of each preceding quarter a summary, analysis, and interpretation of that information.
This bill would instead require each refiner to report monthly to the commission daily prices and sales volumes at all locations in California for those specified motor fuels and oils and also the occurrence of all turnarounds, as defined, and all unplanned shutdowns, as specified. This information would not be subject to confidentiality provisions and would be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
The bill would require a refiner, on or before January 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, to submit information to the commission regarding planned turnarounds for all refinery process units and plants for the following calendar year. On the date of a planned turnaround, the bill would require the commission to verify that a refiner has the amount of gasoline inventory that was previously reported to the commission and to report any discrepancy to the Attorney General and the Legislature. The bill would require a refiner to report to the commission within 24 hours of any undisclosed turnaround or unplanned shutdown and would require this report to contain specified information and be signed under penalty of perjury by an officer or director of the entity that owns the refinery. The bill would also require a refiner to report to the commission its quarterly profits from operations and the amount of annual taxes paid, as provided. The bill would require each refiner and major marketer, as defined, to report to the commission within 24 hours regarding purchases, sales, or exchanges of petroleum products measuring 2,500 barrels or more, as specified. The information submitted pursuant to these provisions would be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
This bill would require the commission to publish on its Internet Web site specified information reported by a refiner, including the information described above, and aggregated information on gasoline exports, as specified. The bill would authorize the commission to charge refiners a reasonable fee to cover certain of the commissions costs under the bill, to be deposited into the Energy Resources Programs Account and continuously appropriated to the commission for those purposes.
Commencing on January 1, 2017, this bill would require every refiner to submit an annual inventory supply plan to the commission for review and approval. The bill would authorize the commission to require a refiner to revise its inventory supply plan or maintenance schedule in certain circumstances. The bill would require this inventory supply plan to be signed under penalty of perjury by an officer or director of the entity that owns the refinery. The bill would require the commission to impose an administrative fine, as provided, on a refiner that fails to submit and obtain approval of an inventory supply plan, fails to revise an inventory supply plan as directed by the commission, or fails to follow its approved plan. The information submitted pursuant to these provisions would be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
Because the bill would expand the crime of perjury, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)Existing law makes it unlawful for certain refiners, distributors, manufacturers, and transporters of motor vehicle fuels or oils engaged in business in this state, either directly or indirectly, to engage in price discrimination, as specified. Existing law authorizes any person injured by a violation of these provisions to bring an action to recover treble damages and attorneys fees.
This bill would, in addition, make it unlawful for any refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter of motor vehicle fuels or oils engaged in business in this state, either directly or indirectly, to knowingly engage in any act, practice, or course of business, to distort or attempt to distort, the market conditions of any motor vehicle fuels or oils, or to intentionally fail to state a material fact that distorts or is likely to distort those market conditions at a time of heightened demand. In addition to any award of damages, the bill would require a violation of these provisions to be punished by disgorgement of all moneys, property, and any proceeds derived directly or indirectly from the prohibited conduct, which would be paid by order of the court to the state and deposited into the General Fund.
(3)Existing law requires every petroleum refinery employer to, every September 15, submit to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health a full schedule for the following calendar year of planned turnarounds, as defined.
Existing law, except as specified, prohibits the division from releasing to the public any information submitted to the division pursuant to these provisions that is designated as a trade secret, as defined. Existing law requires the division to notify a petroleum refinery employer in writing of a request for the release of information to the public that includes information that the petroleum refinery employer has notified the division is a trade secret, as provided. Existing law authorizes an employer to seek a court order prohibiting public disclosure. Existing law establishes misdemeanor penalties for knowingly and willfully disclosing these trade secrets.
This bill would repeal the latter provisions dealing with trade secrets.
(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(5)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1)Existing law, the Petroleum Industry Information Reporting Act of 1980, requires refiners, among others, to provide periodic reports to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission containing designated information regarding petroleum supplies and price, including monthly California weighted average prices and sales volumes for specified motor fuels and oils, as specified. Existing law authorizes any person required to submit this information to request that specific information be held in confidence. The act requires the commission to gather, analyze, and interpret the reported information related to the supply and price of petroleum products and to publish at the end of each preceding quarter a summary, analysis, and interpretation of that information.
This bill would instead require each refiner to report monthly to the commission daily prices and sales volumes at all locations in California for those specified motor fuels and oils and also the occurrence of all turnarounds, as defined, and all unplanned shutdowns, as specified. This information would not be subject to confidentiality provisions and would be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
The bill would require a refiner, on or before January 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, to submit information to the commission regarding planned turnarounds for all refinery process units and plants for the following calendar year. On the date of a planned turnaround, the bill would require the commission to verify that a refiner has the amount of gasoline inventory that was previously reported to the commission and to report any discrepancy to the Attorney General and the Legislature. The bill would require a refiner to report to the commission within 24 hours of any undisclosed turnaround or unplanned shutdown and would require this report to contain specified information and be signed under penalty of perjury by an officer or director of the entity that owns the refinery. The bill would also require a refiner to report to the commission its quarterly profits from operations and the amount of annual taxes paid, as provided. The bill would require each refiner and major marketer, as defined, to report to the commission within 24 hours regarding purchases, sales, or exchanges of petroleum products measuring 2,500 barrels or more, as specified. The information submitted pursuant to these provisions would be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
This bill would require the commission to publish on its Internet Web site specified information reported by a refiner, including the information described above, and aggregated information on gasoline exports, as specified. The bill would authorize the commission to charge refiners a reasonable fee to cover certain of the commissions costs under the bill, to be deposited into the Energy Resources Programs Account and continuously appropriated to the commission for those purposes.
Commencing on January 1, 2017, this bill would require every refiner to submit an annual inventory supply plan to the commission for review and approval. The bill would authorize the commission to require a refiner to revise its inventory supply plan or maintenance schedule in certain circumstances. The bill would require this inventory supply plan to be signed under penalty of perjury by an officer or director of the entity that owns the refinery. The bill would require the commission to impose an administrative fine, as provided, on a refiner that fails to submit and obtain approval of an inventory supply plan, fails to revise an inventory supply plan as directed by the commission, or fails to follow its approved plan. The information submitted pursuant to these provisions would be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
Because the bill would expand the crime of perjury, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)Existing law makes it unlawful for certain refiners, distributors, manufacturers, and transporters of motor vehicle fuels or oils engaged in business in this state, either directly or indirectly, to engage in price discrimination, as specified. Existing law authorizes any person injured by a violation of these provisions to bring an action to recover treble damages and attorneys fees.
This bill would, in addition, make it unlawful for any refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter of motor vehicle fuels or oils engaged in business in this state, either directly or indirectly, to knowingly engage in any act, practice, or course of business, to distort or attempt to distort, the market conditions of any motor vehicle fuels or oils, or to intentionally fail to state a material fact that distorts or is likely to distort those market conditions at a time of heightened demand. In addition to any award of damages, the bill would require a violation of these provisions to be punished by disgorgement of all moneys, property, and any proceeds derived directly or indirectly from the prohibited conduct, which would be paid by order of the court to the state and deposited into the General Fund.
(3)Existing law requires every petroleum refinery employer to, every September 15, submit to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health a full schedule for the following calendar year of planned turnarounds, as defined.
Existing law, except as specified, prohibits the division from releasing to the public any information submitted to the division pursuant to these provisions that is designated as a trade secret, as defined. Existing law requires the division to notify a petroleum refinery employer in writing of a request for the release of information to the public that includes information that the petroleum refinery employer has notified the division is a trade secret, as provided. Existing law authorizes an employer to seek a court order prohibiting public disclosure. Existing law establishes misdemeanor penalties for knowingly and willfully disclosing these trade secrets.
This bill would repeal the latter provisions dealing with trade secrets.
(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(5)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires the state to have the primary financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires in areas that the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has determined are state responsibility areas, as defined. Existing law requires that a fire prevention fee be charged on each habitable structure on a parcel that is within a state responsibility area. Existing law requires that the fee be collected annually by the State Board of Equalization in accordance with specified procedures, and specifies that the annual fee shall be due and payable 30 days from the date of assessment by the state board. Existing law authorizes a petition for redetermination of the fee to be filed within 30 days after service of a notice of determination, as specified.
This bill would, for a period of 5 years, extend the time when the annual fire prevention fee is due and payable from 30 to 60 days from the date of assessment by the State Board of Equalization and authorize the petition for redetermination to be filed within 60 days after service of the notice of determination, as specified.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires the state to have the primary financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires in areas that the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has determined are state responsibility areas, as defined. Existing law requires that a fire prevention fee be charged on each habitable structure on a parcel that is within a state responsibility area. Existing law requires that the fee be collected annually by the State Board of Equalization in accordance with specified procedures, and specifies that the annual fee shall be due and payable 30 days from the date of assessment by the state board. Existing law authorizes a petition for redetermination of the fee to be filed within 30 days after service of a notice of determination, as specified.
This bill would, for a period of 5 years, extend the time when the annual fire prevention fee is due and payable from 30 to 60 days from the date of assessment by the State Board of Equalization and authorize the petition for redetermination to be filed within 60 days after service of the notice of determination, as specified.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into agreements with an agency of the United States, a city, county, district, or other public agency, or any combination thereof, for the care, maintenance, administration, and control by a party to the agreement of lands under the jurisdiction of a party to the agreement, for the purpose of the state park system. Existing law prohibits the department from entering into an operating lease or agreement, or amendment, unless one of 2 conditions are met including if, following enactment of the annual Budget Act, the State Public Works Board determines, among other things, that the proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, could not have been presented to the Legislature for review during the annual budget process, as provided. In those circumstances existing law authorizes the board to review and approve the proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, no earlier than 20 days after it has provided written notification to the chairpersons of certain legislative committees, as provided.
This bill would instead authorize the board to review and approve a proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, no earlier than 30 days after it has provided written notification to the chairpersons of those legislative committees, as provided.
Existing law authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into agreements with an agency of the United States, a city, county, district, or other public agency, or any combination thereof, for the care, maintenance, administration, and control by a party to the agreement of lands under the jurisdiction of a party to the agreement, for the purpose of the state park system. Existing law prohibits the department from entering into an operating lease or agreement, or amendment, unless one of 2 conditions are met including if, following enactment of the annual Budget Act, the State Public Works Board determines, among other things, that the proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, could not have been presented to the Legislature for review during the annual budget process, as provided. In those circumstances existing law authorizes the board to review and approve the proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, no earlier than 20 days after it has provided written notification to the chairpersons of certain legislative committees, as provided.
This bill would instead authorize the board to review and approve a proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, no earlier than 30 days after it has provided written notification to the chairpersons of those legislative committees, as provided.
(a)(1)After January 1, 2008, a general acute care hospital building that is determined to be a potential risk of collapse or pose significant loss of life shall only be used for nonacute care hospital purposes, unless an extension of this deadline has been granted and either of the following occurs before the end of the extension:
(A)A replacement building has been constructed and a certificate of occupancy has been granted by the office for the replacement building.
(B)A retrofit has been performed on the building and a construction final has been obtained by the office.
(2)An extension of the deadline may be granted by the office upon a demonstration by the owner that compliance will result in a loss of health care capacity that may not be provided by other general acute care hospitals within a reasonable proximity. In its request for an extension of the deadline, a hospital shall state why the hospital is unable to comply with the January 1, 2008, deadline requirement.
(3)Prior to granting an extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline pursuant to this section, the office shall do all of the following:
(A)Provide public notice of a hospitals request for an extension of the deadline. The notice, at a minimum, shall be posted on the offices Internet Web site, and shall include the facilitys name and identification number, the status of the request, and the beginning and ending dates of the comment period, and shall advise the public of the opportunity to submit public comments pursuant to subparagraph (C). The office shall also provide notice of all requests for the deadline extension directly to interested parties upon request of the interested parties.
(B)Provide copies of extension requests to interested parties within 10 working days to allow interested parties to review and provide comment within the 45-day comment period. The copies shall include those records that are available to the public pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(C)Allow the public to submit written comments on the extension proposal for a period of not less than 45 days from the date of the public notice.
(b)(1)It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this subdivision, to facilitate the process of having more hospital buildings in substantial compliance with this chapter and to take nonconforming general acute care hospital inpatient buildings out of service more quickly.
(2)The functional contiguous grouping of hospital buildings of a general acute care hospital, each of which provides, as the primary source, one or more of the hospitals eight basic services as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1250, may receive a five-year extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline specified in subdivision (a) of this section pursuant to this subdivision for both structural and nonstructural requirements. A functional contiguous grouping refers to buildings containing one or more basic hospital services that are either attached or connected in a way that is acceptable to the State Department of Health Care Services. These buildings may be either on the existing site or a new site.
(3)To receive the five-year extension, a single building containing all of the basic services or at least one building within the contiguous grouping of hospital buildings shall have obtained a building permit prior to 1973 and this building shall be evaluated and classified as a nonconforming, Structural Performance Category-1 (SPC-1) building. The classification shall be submitted to and accepted by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. The identified hospital building shall be exempt from the requirement in subdivision (a) until January 1, 2013, if the hospital agrees that the basic service or services that were provided in that building shall be provided, on or before January 1, 2013, as follows:
(A)Moved into an existing conforming Structural Performance Category-3 (SPC-3), Structural Performance Category-4 (SPC-4), or Structural Performance Category-5 (SPC-5) and Non-Structural Performance Category-4 (NPC-4) or Non-Structural Performance Category-5 (NPC-5) building.
(B)Relocated to a newly built compliant SPC-5 and NPC-4 or NPC-5 building.
(C)Continued in the building if the building is retrofitted to a SPC-5 and NPC-4 or NPC-5 building.
(4)A five-year extension is also provided to a post-1973 building if the hospital owner informs the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development that the building is classified as SPC-1, SPC-3, or SPC-4 and will be closed to general acute care inpatient service use by January 1, 2013. The basic services in the building shall be relocated into a SPC-5 and NPC-4 or NPC-5 building by January 1, 2013.
(5)SPC-1 buildings, other than the building identified in paragraph (3) or (4), in the contiguous grouping of hospital buildings shall also be exempt from the requirement in subdivision (a) until January 1, 2013. However, on or before January 1, 2013, at a minimum, each of these buildings shall be retrofitted to a SPC-2 and NPC-3 building, or no longer be used for general acute care hospital inpatient services.
(c)On or before March 1, 2001, the office shall establish a schedule of interim work progress deadlines that hospitals shall be required to meet to be eligible for the extension specified in subdivision (b). To receive this extension, the hospital building or buildings shall meet the year 2002 nonstructural requirements.
(d)A hospital building that is eligible for an extension pursuant to this section shall meet the January 1, 2030, nonstructural and structural deadline requirements if the building is to be used for general acute care inpatient services after January 1, 2030.
(e)Upon compliance with subdivision (b), the hospital shall be issued a written notice of compliance by the office. The office shall send a written notice of violation to hospital owners that fail to comply with this section. The office shall make copies of these notices available on its Internet Web site.
(f)(1)A hospital that has received an extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) may request an additional extension of up to two years for a hospital building that it owns or operates and that meets the criteria specified in paragraph (2), (3), or (5).
(2)The office may grant the additional extension if the hospital building subject to the extension meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The hospital building is under construction at the time of the request for extension under this subdivision and the purpose of the construction is to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) to allow the use of the building as a general acute care hospital building after the extension deadline granted by the office pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b).
(B)The hospital building plans were submitted to the office and were deemed ready for review by the office at least four years prior to the applicable deadline for the building. The hospital shall indicate, upon submission of its plans, the SPC-1 building or buildings that will be retrofitted or replaced to meet the requirements of this section as a result of the project.
(C)The hospital received a building permit for the construction described in subparagraph (A) at least two years prior to the applicable deadline for the building.
(D)The hospital submitted a construction timeline at least two years prior to the applicable deadline for the building demonstrating the hospitals intent to meet the applicable deadline. The timeline shall include all of the following:
(i)The projected construction start date.
(ii)The projected construction completion date.
(iii)Identification of the contractor.
(E)The hospital is making reasonable progress toward meeting the timeline set forth in subparagraph (D), but factors beyond the hospitals control make it impossible for the hospital to meet the deadline.
(3)The office may grant the additional extension if the hospital building subject to the extension meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The hospital building is owned by a health care district that has, as owner, received the extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline, but where the hospital is operated by an unaffiliated third-party lessee pursuant to a facility lease that extends at least through December 31, 2009. The district shall file a declaration with the office with a request for an extension stating that, as of the date of the filing, the district has lacked, and continues to lack, unrestricted access to the subject hospital building for seismic planning purposes during the term of the lease, and that the district is under contract with the county to maintain hospital services when the hospital comes under district control. The office shall not grant the extension if an unaffiliated third-party lessee will operate the hospital beyond December 31, 2010.
(B)The hospital building plans were submitted to the office and were deemed ready for review by the office at least four years prior to the applicable deadline for the building. The hospital shall indicate, upon submission of its plans, the SPC-1 building or buildings that will be retrofitted or replaced to meet the requirements of this section as a result of the project.
(C)The hospital received a building permit for the construction described in subparagraph (B) by December 31, 2011.
(D)The hospital submitted, by December 31, 2011, a construction timeline for the building demonstrating the hospitals intent and ability to meet the deadline of December 31, 2014. The timeline shall include all of the following:
(i)The projected construction start date.
(ii)The projected construction completion date.
(iii)Identification of the contractor.
(E)The hospital building is under construction at the time of the request for the extension, the purpose of the construction is to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) to allow the use of the building as a general acute care hospital building after the extension deadline granted by the office pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), and the hospital is making reasonable progress toward meeting the timeline set forth in subparagraph (D).
(F)The hospital granted an extension pursuant to this paragraph shall submit an additional status report to the office, equivalent to that required by subdivision (c) of Section 130061, no later than June 30, 2013.
(4)An extension granted pursuant to paragraph (3) shall be applicable only to the health care district applicant and its affiliated hospital while the hospital is operated by the district or an entity under the control of the district.
(5)The office may grant the additional extension if the hospital building subject to the extension meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The hospital owner submitted to the office, prior to June 30, 2009, a request for review using current computer modeling utilized by the office and based upon software developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), referred to as Hazards US, and the building was deemed SPC-1 after that review.
(B)The hospital building plans for the building are submitted to the office and deemed ready for review by the office prior to July 1, 2010. The hospital shall indicate, upon submission of its plans, the SPC-1 building or buildings that shall be retrofitted or replaced to meet the requirements of this section as a result of the project.
(C)The hospital receives a building permit from the office for the construction described in subparagraph (B) prior to January 1, 2012.
(D)The hospital submits, prior to January 1, 2012, a construction timeline for the building demonstrating the hospitals intent and ability to meet the applicable deadline. The timeline shall include all of the following:
(i)The projected construction start date.
(ii)The projected construction completion date.
(iii)Identification of the contractor.
(E)The hospital building is under construction at the time of the request for the extension, the purpose of the construction is to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) to allow the use of the building as a general acute care hospital building after the extension deadline granted by the office pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), and the hospital is making reasonable progress toward meeting the timeline set forth in subparagraph (D).
(F)The hospital owner completes construction such that the hospital meets all criteria to enable the office to issue a certificate of occupancy by the applicable deadline for the building.
(6)A hospital located in the County of Sacramento, San Mateo, or Santa Barbara or the City of San Jose or the City of Willits that has received an additional extension pursuant to paragraph (2) or (5) may request an additional extension until September 1, 2015, to obtain either a certificate of occupancy from the office for a replacement building, or a construction final from the office for a building on which a retrofit has been performed.
(7)A hospital denied an extension pursuant to this subdivision may appeal the denial to the Hospital Building Safety Board.
(8)The office may revoke an extension granted pursuant to this subdivision for any hospital building where the work of construction is abandoned or suspended for a period of at least one year, unless the hospital demonstrates in a public document that the abandonment or suspension was caused by factors beyond its control.
(g)(1)Notwithstanding subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (f), and Sections 130061.5 and 130064, a hospital that has received an extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) also may request an additional extension of up to seven years for a hospital building that it owns or operates. The office may grant the extension subject to the hospital meeting the milestones set forth in paragraph (2).
(2)The hospital building subject to the extension shall meet all of the following milestones, unless the hospital building is reclassified as SPC-2 or higher as a result of its Hazards US score:
(A)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than September 30, 2012, a letter of intent stating whether it intends to rebuild, replace, or retrofit the building, or remove all general acute care beds and services from the building, and the amount of time necessary to complete the construction.
(B)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than September 30, 2012, a schedule detailing why the requested extension is necessary, and specifically how the hospital intends to meet the requested deadline.
(C)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than September 30, 2012, an application ready for review seeking structural reassessment of each of its SPC-1 buildings using current computer modeling based upon software developed by FEMA, referred to as Hazards US.
(D)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than January 1, 2015, plans ready for review consistent with the letter of intent submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) and the schedule submitted pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(E)The hospital owner submits a financial report to the office at the time the plans are submitted pursuant to subparagraph (D). The report shall demonstrate the hospital owners financial capacity to implement the construction plans submitted pursuant to subparagraph (D).
(F)The hospital owner receives a building permit consistent with the letter of intent submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) and the schedule submitted pursuant to subparagraph (B), no later than July 1, 2018.
(3)To evaluate public safety and determine whether to grant an extension of the deadline, the office shall consider the structural integrity of the hospitals SPC-1 buildings based on its Hazards US scores, community access to essential hospital services, and the hospital owners financial capacity to meet the deadline as determined by either a bond rating of BBB or below or the financial report on the hospital owners financial capacity submitted pursuant to subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2). The criteria contained in this paragraph shall be considered by the office in its determination of the length of an extension or whether an extension should be granted.
(4)The extension or subsequent adjustments granted pursuant to this subdivision may not exceed the amount of time that is reasonably necessary to complete the construction specified in paragraph (2).
(5)If the circumstances underlying the request for extension submitted to the office pursuant to paragraph (2) change, the hospital owner shall notify the office as soon as practicable, but in no event later than six months after the hospital owner discovered the change of circumstances. The office may adjust the length of the extension granted pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) as necessary, but in no event longer than the period specified in paragraph (1).
(6)A hospital denied an extension pursuant to this subdivision may appeal the denial to the Hospital Building Safety Board.
(7)The office may revoke an extension granted pursuant to this subdivision for any hospital building when it is determined that any information submitted pursuant to this section was falsified, or if the hospital failed to meet a milestone set forth in paragraph (2), or where the work of construction is abandoned or suspended for a period of at least six months, unless the hospital demonstrates in a publicly available document that the abandonment or suspension was caused by factors beyond its control.
(8)Regulatory submissions made by the office to the California Building Standards Commission to implement this section shall be deemed to be emergency regulations and shall be adopted as emergency regulations.
(9)The hospital owner that applies for an extension pursuant to this subdivision shall pay the office an additional fee, to be determined by the office, sufficient to cover the additional reasonable costs incurred by the office for maintaining the additional reporting requirements established under this section, including, but not limited to, the costs of reviewing and verifying the extension documentation submitted pursuant to this subdivision. This additional fee shall not include any cost for review of the plans or other duties related to receiving a building or occupancy permit.
(10)This subdivision shall become operative on the date that the State Department of Health Care Services receives all necessary federal approvals for a 201112 fiscal year hospital quality assurance fee program that includes three hundred twenty million dollars ($320,000,000) in fee revenue to pay for health care coverage for children, which is made available as a result of the legislative enactment of a 201112 fiscal year hospital quality assurance fee program.
(h)A critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi may submit a seismic safety extension application pursuant to subdivision (g), notwithstanding deadlines in that subdivision that are earlier than the effective date of the act that added this subdivision. The submitted application shall include a timetable as required pursuant to subdivision (g).
SEC. 2.The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the special circumstances in the City of Tehachapi relating to access to critical health care services.
SEC. 3.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
To prevent the loss of hospital licensure and Medicaid and Medicare funding that would lead to closure of a critical access hospital and a loss of access to health care in the City of Tehachapi, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.
(a)(1)After January 1, 2008, a general acute care hospital building that is determined to be a potential risk of collapse or pose significant loss of life shall only be used for nonacute care hospital purposes, unless an extension of this deadline has been granted and either of the following occurs before the end of the extension:
(A)A replacement building has been constructed and a certificate of occupancy has been granted by the office for the replacement building.
(B)A retrofit has been performed on the building and a construction final has been obtained by the office.
(2)An extension of the deadline may be granted by the office upon a demonstration by the owner that compliance will result in a loss of health care capacity that may not be provided by other general acute care hospitals within a reasonable proximity. In its request for an extension of the deadline, a hospital shall state why the hospital is unable to comply with the January 1, 2008, deadline requirement.
(3)Prior to granting an extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline pursuant to this section, the office shall do all of the following:
(A)Provide public notice of a hospitals request for an extension of the deadline. The notice, at a minimum, shall be posted on the offices Internet Web site, and shall include the facilitys name and identification number, the status of the request, and the beginning and ending dates of the comment period, and shall advise the public of the opportunity to submit public comments pursuant to subparagraph (C). The office shall also provide notice of all requests for the deadline extension directly to interested parties upon request of the interested parties.
(B)Provide copies of extension requests to interested parties within 10 working days to allow interested parties to review and provide comment within the 45-day comment period. The copies shall include those records that are available to the public pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(C)Allow the public to submit written comments on the extension proposal for a period of not less than 45 days from the date of the public notice.
(b)(1)It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this subdivision, to facilitate the process of having more hospital buildings in substantial compliance with this chapter and to take nonconforming general acute care hospital inpatient buildings out of service more quickly.
(2)The functional contiguous grouping of hospital buildings of a general acute care hospital, each of which provides, as the primary source, one or more of the hospitals eight basic services as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1250, may receive a five-year extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline specified in subdivision (a) of this section pursuant to this subdivision for both structural and nonstructural requirements. A functional contiguous grouping refers to buildings containing one or more basic hospital services that are either attached or connected in a way that is acceptable to the State Department of Health Care Services. These buildings may be either on the existing site or a new site.
(3)To receive the five-year extension, a single building containing all of the basic services or at least one building within the contiguous grouping of hospital buildings shall have obtained a building permit prior to 1973 and this building shall be evaluated and classified as a nonconforming, Structural Performance Category-1 (SPC-1) building. The classification shall be submitted to and accepted by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. The identified hospital building shall be exempt from the requirement in subdivision (a) until January 1, 2013, if the hospital agrees that the basic service or services that were provided in that building shall be provided, on or before January 1, 2013, as follows:
(A)Moved into an existing conforming Structural Performance Category-3 (SPC-3), Structural Performance Category-4 (SPC-4), or Structural Performance Category-5 (SPC-5) and Non-Structural Performance Category-4 (NPC-4) or Non-Structural Performance Category-5 (NPC-5) building.
(B)Relocated to a newly built compliant SPC-5 and NPC-4 or NPC-5 building.
(C)Continued in the building if the building is retrofitted to a SPC-5 and NPC-4 or NPC-5 building.
(4)A five-year extension is also provided to a post-1973 building if the hospital owner informs the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development that the building is classified as SPC-1, SPC-3, or SPC-4 and will be closed to general acute care inpatient service use by January 1, 2013. The basic services in the building shall be relocated into a SPC-5 and NPC-4 or NPC-5 building by January 1, 2013.
(5)SPC-1 buildings, other than the building identified in paragraph (3) or (4), in the contiguous grouping of hospital buildings shall also be exempt from the requirement in subdivision (a) until January 1, 2013. However, on or before January 1, 2013, at a minimum, each of these buildings shall be retrofitted to a SPC-2 and NPC-3 building, or no longer be used for general acute care hospital inpatient services.
(c)On or before March 1, 2001, the office shall establish a schedule of interim work progress deadlines that hospitals shall be required to meet to be eligible for the extension specified in subdivision (b). To receive this extension, the hospital building or buildings shall meet the year 2002 nonstructural requirements.
(d)A hospital building that is eligible for an extension pursuant to this section shall meet the January 1, 2030, nonstructural and structural deadline requirements if the building is to be used for general acute care inpatient services after January 1, 2030.
(e)Upon compliance with subdivision (b), the hospital shall be issued a written notice of compliance by the office. The office shall send a written notice of violation to hospital owners that fail to comply with this section. The office shall make copies of these notices available on its Internet Web site.
(f)(1)A hospital that has received an extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) may request an additional extension of up to two years for a hospital building that it owns or operates and that meets the criteria specified in paragraph (2), (3), or (5).
(2)The office may grant the additional extension if the hospital building subject to the extension meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The hospital building is under construction at the time of the request for extension under this subdivision and the purpose of the construction is to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) to allow the use of the building as a general acute care hospital building after the extension deadline granted by the office pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b).
(B)The hospital building plans were submitted to the office and were deemed ready for review by the office at least four years prior to the applicable deadline for the building. The hospital shall indicate, upon submission of its plans, the SPC-1 building or buildings that will be retrofitted or replaced to meet the requirements of this section as a result of the project.
(C)The hospital received a building permit for the construction described in subparagraph (A) at least two years prior to the applicable deadline for the building.
(D)The hospital submitted a construction timeline at least two years prior to the applicable deadline for the building demonstrating the hospitals intent to meet the applicable deadline. The timeline shall include all of the following:
(i)The projected construction start date.
(ii)The projected construction completion date.
(iii)Identification of the contractor.
(E)The hospital is making reasonable progress toward meeting the timeline set forth in subparagraph (D), but factors beyond the hospitals control make it impossible for the hospital to meet the deadline.
(3)The office may grant the additional extension if the hospital building subject to the extension meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The hospital building is owned by a health care district that has, as owner, received the extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline, but where the hospital is operated by an unaffiliated third-party lessee pursuant to a facility lease that extends at least through December 31, 2009. The district shall file a declaration with the office with a request for an extension stating that, as of the date of the filing, the district has lacked, and continues to lack, unrestricted access to the subject hospital building for seismic planning purposes during the term of the lease, and that the district is under contract with the county to maintain hospital services when the hospital comes under district control. The office shall not grant the extension if an unaffiliated third-party lessee will operate the hospital beyond December 31, 2010.
(B)The hospital building plans were submitted to the office and were deemed ready for review by the office at least four years prior to the applicable deadline for the building. The hospital shall indicate, upon submission of its plans, the SPC-1 building or buildings that will be retrofitted or replaced to meet the requirements of this section as a result of the project.
(C)The hospital received a building permit for the construction described in subparagraph (B) by December 31, 2011.
(D)The hospital submitted, by December 31, 2011, a construction timeline for the building demonstrating the hospitals intent and ability to meet the deadline of December 31, 2014. The timeline shall include all of the following:
(i)The projected construction start date.
(ii)The projected construction completion date.
(iii)Identification of the contractor.
(E)The hospital building is under construction at the time of the request for the extension, the purpose of the construction is to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) to allow the use of the building as a general acute care hospital building after the extension deadline granted by the office pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), and the hospital is making reasonable progress toward meeting the timeline set forth in subparagraph (D).
(F)The hospital granted an extension pursuant to this paragraph shall submit an additional status report to the office, equivalent to that required by subdivision (c) of Section 130061, no later than June 30, 2013.
(4)An extension granted pursuant to paragraph (3) shall be applicable only to the health care district applicant and its affiliated hospital while the hospital is operated by the district or an entity under the control of the district.
(5)The office may grant the additional extension if the hospital building subject to the extension meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The hospital owner submitted to the office, prior to June 30, 2009, a request for review using current computer modeling utilized by the office and based upon software developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), referred to as Hazards US, and the building was deemed SPC-1 after that review.
(B)The hospital building plans for the building are submitted to the office and deemed ready for review by the office prior to July 1, 2010. The hospital shall indicate, upon submission of its plans, the SPC-1 building or buildings that shall be retrofitted or replaced to meet the requirements of this section as a result of the project.
(C)The hospital receives a building permit from the office for the construction described in subparagraph (B) prior to January 1, 2012.
(D)The hospital submits, prior to January 1, 2012, a construction timeline for the building demonstrating the hospitals intent and ability to meet the applicable deadline. The timeline shall include all of the following:
(i)The projected construction start date.
(ii)The projected construction completion date.
(iii)Identification of the contractor.
(E)The hospital building is under construction at the time of the request for the extension, the purpose of the construction is to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) to allow the use of the building as a general acute care hospital building after the extension deadline granted by the office pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), and the hospital is making reasonable progress toward meeting the timeline set forth in subparagraph (D).
(F)The hospital owner completes construction such that the hospital meets all criteria to enable the office to issue a certificate of occupancy by the applicable deadline for the building.
(6)A hospital located in the County of Sacramento, San Mateo, or Santa Barbara or the City of San Jose or the City of Willits that has received an additional extension pursuant to paragraph (2) or (5) may request an additional extension until September 1, 2015, to obtain either a certificate of occupancy from the office for a replacement building, or a construction final from the office for a building on which a retrofit has been performed.
(7)A hospital denied an extension pursuant to this subdivision may appeal the denial to the Hospital Building Safety Board.
(8)The office may revoke an extension granted pursuant to this subdivision for any hospital building where the work of construction is abandoned or suspended for a period of at least one year, unless the hospital demonstrates in a public document that the abandonment or suspension was caused by factors beyond its control.
(g)(1)Notwithstanding subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (f), and Sections 130061.5 and 130064, a hospital that has received an extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) also may request an additional extension of up to seven years for a hospital building that it owns or operates. The office may grant the extension subject to the hospital meeting the milestones set forth in paragraph (2).
(2)The hospital building subject to the extension shall meet all of the following milestones, unless the hospital building is reclassified as SPC-2 or higher as a result of its Hazards US score:
(A)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than September 30, 2012, a letter of intent stating whether it intends to rebuild, replace, or retrofit the building, or remove all general acute care beds and services from the building, and the amount of time necessary to complete the construction.
(B)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than September 30, 2012, a schedule detailing why the requested extension is necessary, and specifically how the hospital intends to meet the requested deadline.
(C)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than September 30, 2012, an application ready for review seeking structural reassessment of each of its SPC-1 buildings using current computer modeling based upon software developed by FEMA, referred to as Hazards US.
(D)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than January 1, 2015, plans ready for review consistent with the letter of intent submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) and the schedule submitted pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(E)The hospital owner submits a financial report to the office at the time the plans are submitted pursuant to subparagraph (D). The report shall demonstrate the hospital owners financial capacity to implement the construction plans submitted pursuant to subparagraph (D).
(F)The hospital owner receives a building permit consistent with the letter of intent submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) and the schedule submitted pursuant to subparagraph (B), no later than July 1, 2018.
(3)To evaluate public safety and determine whether to grant an extension of the deadline, the office shall consider the structural integrity of the hospitals SPC-1 buildings based on its Hazards US scores, community access to essential hospital services, and the hospital owners financial capacity to meet the deadline as determined by either a bond rating of BBB or below or the financial report on the hospital owners financial capacity submitted pursuant to subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2). The criteria contained in this paragraph shall be considered by the office in its determination of the length of an extension or whether an extension should be granted.
(4)The extension or subsequent adjustments granted pursuant to this subdivision may not exceed the amount of time that is reasonably necessary to complete the construction specified in paragraph (2).
(5)If the circumstances underlying the request for extension submitted to the office pursuant to paragraph (2) change, the hospital owner shall notify the office as soon as practicable, but in no event later than six months after the hospital owner discovered the change of circumstances. The office may adjust the length of the extension granted pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) as necessary, but in no event longer than the period specified in paragraph (1).
(6)A hospital denied an extension pursuant to this subdivision may appeal the denial to the Hospital Building Safety Board.
(7)The office may revoke an extension granted pursuant to this subdivision for any hospital building when it is determined that any information submitted pursuant to this section was falsified, or if the hospital failed to meet a milestone set forth in paragraph (2), or where the work of construction is abandoned or suspended for a period of at least six months, unless the hospital demonstrates in a publicly available document that the abandonment or suspension was caused by factors beyond its control.
(8)Regulatory submissions made by the office to the California Building Standards Commission to implement this section shall be deemed to be emergency regulations and shall be adopted as emergency regulations.
(9)The hospital owner that applies for an extension pursuant to this subdivision shall pay the office an additional fee, to be determined by the office, sufficient to cover the additional reasonable costs incurred by the office for maintaining the additional reporting requirements established under this section, including, but not limited to, the costs of reviewing and verifying the extension documentation submitted pursuant to this subdivision. This additional fee shall not include any cost for review of the plans or other duties related to receiving a building or occupancy permit.
(10)This subdivision shall become operative on the date that the State Department of Health Care Services receives all necessary federal approvals for a 201112 fiscal year hospital quality assurance fee program that includes three hundred twenty million dollars ($320,000,000) in fee revenue to pay for health care coverage for children, which is made available as a result of the legislative enactment of a 201112 fiscal year hospital quality assurance fee program.
(h)A critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi may submit a seismic safety extension application pursuant to subdivision (g), notwithstanding deadlines in that subdivision that are earlier than the effective date of the act that added this subdivision. The submitted application shall include a timetable as required pursuant to subdivision (g).
SEC. 2.The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the special circumstances in the City of Tehachapi relating to access to critical health care services.
SEC. 3.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
To prevent the loss of hospital licensure and Medicaid and Medicare funding that would lead to closure of a critical access hospital and a loss of access to health care in the City of Tehachapi, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.
(a)(1)After January 1, 2008, any a general acute care hospital building that is determined to be a potential risk of collapse or pose significant loss of life shall only be used for nonacute care hospital purposes, unless an extension of this deadline has been granted and either of the following occurs before the end of the extension:
(A)A replacement building has been constructed and a certificate of occupancy has been granted by the office for the replacement building.
(B)A retrofit has been performed on the building and a construction final has been obtained by the office.
(2)An extension of the deadline may be granted by the office upon a demonstration by the owner that compliance will result in a loss of health care capacity that may not be provided by other general acute care hospitals within a reasonable proximity. In its request for an extension of the deadline, a hospital shall state why the hospital is unable to comply with the January 1, 2008, deadline requirement.
(3)Prior to granting an extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline pursuant to this section, the office shall do all of the following:
(A)Provide public notice of a hospitals request for an extension of the deadline. The notice, at a minimum, shall be posted on the offices Internet Web site, and shall include the facilitys name and identification number, the status of the request, and the beginning and ending dates of the comment period, and shall advise the public of the opportunity to submit public comments pursuant to subparagraph (C). The office shall also provide notice of all requests for the deadline extension directly to interested parties upon request of the interested parties.
(B)Provide copies of extension requests to interested parties within 10 working days to allow interested parties to review and provide comment within the 45-day comment period. The copies shall include those records that are available to the public pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(C)Allow the public to submit written comments on the extension proposal for a period of not less than 45 days from the date of the public notice.
(b)(1)It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this subdivision, to facilitate the process of having more hospital buildings in substantial compliance with this chapter and to take nonconforming general acute care hospital inpatient buildings out of service more quickly.
(2)The functional contiguous grouping of hospital buildings of a general acute care hospital, each of which provides, as the primary source, one or more of the hospitals eight basic services as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1250, may receive a five-year extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline specified in subdivision (a) of this section pursuant to this subdivision for both structural and nonstructural requirements. A functional contiguous grouping refers to buildings containing one or more basic hospital services that are either attached or connected in a way that is acceptable to the State Department of Health Care Services. These buildings may be either on the existing site or a new site.
(3)To receive the five-year extension, a single building containing all of the basic services or at least one building within the contiguous grouping of hospital buildings shall have obtained a building permit prior to 1973 and this building shall be evaluated and classified as a nonconforming, Structural Performance Category-1 (SPC-1) building. The classification shall be submitted to and accepted by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. The identified hospital building shall be exempt from the requirement in subdivision (a) until January 1, 2013, if the hospital agrees that the basic service or services that were provided in that building shall be provided, on or before January 1, 2013, as follows:
(A)Moved into an existing conforming Structural Performance Category-3 (SPC-3), Structural Performance Category-4 (SPC-4), or Structural Performance Category-5 (SPC-5) and Non-Structural Performance Category-4 (NPC-4) or Non-Structural Performance Category-5 (NPC-5) building.
(B)Relocated to a newly built compliant SPC-5 and NPC-4 or NPC-5 building.
(C)Continued in the building if the building is retrofitted to a SPC-5 and NPC-4 or NPC-5 building.
(4)A five-year extension is also provided to a post-1973 building if the hospital owner informs the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development that the building is classified as SPC-1, SPC-3, or SPC-4 and will be closed to general acute care inpatient service use by January 1, 2013. The basic services in the building shall be relocated into a SPC-5 and NPC-4 or NPC-5 building by January 1, 2013.
(5)SPC-1 buildings, other than the building identified in paragraph (3) or (4), in the contiguous grouping of hospital buildings shall also be exempt from the requirement in subdivision (a) until January 1, 2013. However, on or before January 1, 2013, at a minimum, each of these buildings shall be retrofitted to a SPC-2 and NPC-3 building, or no longer be used for general acute care hospital inpatient services.
(c)On or before March 1, 2001, the office shall establish a schedule of interim work progress deadlines that hospitals shall be required to meet to be eligible for the extension specified in subdivision (b). To receive this extension, the hospital building or buildings shall meet the year 2002 nonstructural requirements.
(d)A hospital building that is eligible for an extension pursuant to this section shall meet the January 1, 2030, nonstructural and structural deadline requirements if the building is to be used for general acute care inpatient services after January 1, 2030.
(e)Upon compliance with subdivision (b), the hospital shall be issued a written notice of compliance by the office. The office shall send a written notice of violation to hospital owners that fail to comply with this section. The office shall make copies of these notices available on its Internet Web site.
(f)(1)A hospital that has received an extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) may request an additional extension of up to two years for a hospital building that it owns or operates and that meets the criteria specified in paragraph (2), (3), or (5).
(2)The office may grant the additional extension if the hospital building subject to the extension meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The hospital building is under construction at the time of the request for extension under this subdivision and the purpose of the construction is to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) to allow the use of the building as a general acute care hospital building after the extension deadline granted by the office pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b).
(B)The hospital building plans were submitted to the office and were deemed ready for review by the office at least four years prior to the applicable deadline for the building. The hospital shall indicate, upon submission of its plans, the SPC-1 building or buildings that will be retrofitted or replaced to meet the requirements of this section as a result of the project.
(C)The hospital received a building permit for the construction described in subparagraph (A) at least two years prior to the applicable deadline for the building.
(D)The hospital submitted a construction timeline at least two years prior to the applicable deadline for the building demonstrating the hospitals intent to meet the applicable deadline. The timeline shall include all of the following:
(i)The projected construction start date.
(ii)The projected construction completion date.
(iii)Identification of the contractor.
(E)The hospital is making reasonable progress toward meeting the timeline set forth in subparagraph (D), but factors beyond the hospitals control make it impossible for the hospital to meet the deadline.
(3)The office may grant the additional extension if the hospital building subject to the extension meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The hospital building is owned by a health care district that has, as owner, received the extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline, but where the hospital is operated by an unaffiliated third-party lessee pursuant to a facility lease that extends at least through December 31, 2009. The district shall file a declaration with the office with a request for an extension stating that, as of the date of the filing, the district has lacked, and continues to lack, unrestricted access to the subject hospital building for seismic planning purposes during the term of the lease, and that the district is under contract with the county to maintain hospital services when the hospital comes under district control. The office shall not grant the extension if an unaffiliated third-party lessee will operate the hospital beyond December 31, 2010.
(B)The hospital building plans were submitted to the office and were deemed ready for review by the office at least four years prior to the applicable deadline for the building. The hospital shall indicate, upon submission of its plans, the SPC-1 building or buildings that will be retrofitted or replaced to meet the requirements of this section as a result of the project.
(C)The hospital received a building permit for the construction described in subparagraph (B) by December 31, 2011.
(D)The hospital submitted, by December 31, 2011, a construction timeline for the building demonstrating the hospitals intent and ability to meet the deadline of December 31, 2014. The timeline shall include all of the following:
(i)The projected construction start date.
(ii)The projected construction completion date.
(iii)Identification of the contractor.
(E)The hospital building is under construction at the time of the request for the extension, the purpose of the construction is to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) to allow the use of the building as a general acute care hospital building after the extension deadline granted by the office pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), and the hospital is making reasonable progress toward meeting the timeline set forth in subparagraph (D).
(F)The hospital granted an extension pursuant to this paragraph shall submit an additional status report to the office, equivalent to that required by subdivision (c) of Section 130061, no later than June 30, 2013.
(4)An extension granted pursuant to paragraph (3) shall be applicable only to the health care district applicant and its affiliated hospital while the hospital is operated by the district or an entity under the control of the district.
(5)The office may grant the additional extension if the hospital building subject to the extension meets all of the following criteria:
(A)The hospital owner submitted to the office, prior to June 30, 2009, a request for review using current computer modeling utilized by the office and based upon software developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), referred to as Hazards US, and the building was deemed SPC-1 after that review.
(B)The hospital building plans for the building are submitted to the office and deemed ready for review by the office prior to July 1, 2010. The hospital shall indicate, upon submission of its plans, the SPC-1 building or buildings that shall be retrofitted or replaced to meet the requirements of this section as a result of the project.
(C)The hospital receives a building permit from the office for the construction described in subparagraph (B) prior to January 1, 2012.
(D)The hospital submits, prior to January 1, 2012, a construction timeline for the building demonstrating the hospitals intent and ability to meet the applicable deadline. The timeline shall include all of the following:
(i)The projected construction start date.
(ii)The projected construction completion date.
(iii)Identification of the contractor.
(E)The hospital building is under construction at the time of the request for the extension, the purpose of the construction is to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) to allow the use of the building as a general acute care hospital building after the extension deadline granted by the office pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), and the hospital is making reasonable progress toward meeting the timeline set forth in subparagraph (D).
(F)The hospital owner completes construction such that the hospital meets all criteria to enable the office to issue a certificate of occupancy by the applicable deadline for the building.
(6)A hospital located in the County of Sacramento, San Mateo, or Santa Barbara or the City of San Jose or the City of Willits that has received an additional extension pursuant to paragraph (2) or (5) may request an additional extension until September 1, 2015, to obtain either a certificate of occupancy from the office for a replacement building, or a construction final from the office for a building on which a retrofit has been performed.
(7)A hospital denied an extension pursuant to this subdivision may appeal the denial to the Hospital Building Safety Board.
(8)The office may revoke an extension granted pursuant to this subdivision for any hospital building where the work of construction is abandoned or suspended for a period of at least one year, unless the hospital demonstrates in a public document that the abandonment or suspension was caused by factors beyond its control.
(g)(1)Notwithstanding subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (f), and Sections 130061.5 and 130064, a hospital that has received an extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) also may request an additional extension of up to seven years for a hospital building that it owns or operates. The office may grant the extension subject to the hospital meeting the milestones set forth in paragraph (2).
(2)The hospital building subject to the extension shall meet all of the following milestones, unless the hospital building is reclassified as SPC-2 or higher as a result of its Hazards US score:
(A)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than September 30, 2012, a letter of intent stating whether it intends to rebuild, replace, or retrofit the building, or remove all general acute care beds and services from the building, and the amount of time necessary to complete the construction.
(B)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than September 30, 2012, a schedule detailing why the requested extension is necessary, and specifically how the hospital intends to meet the requested deadline.
(C)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than September 30, 2012, an application ready for review seeking structural reassessment of each of its SPC-1 buildings using current computer modeling based upon software developed by FEMA, referred to as Hazards US.
(D)The hospital owner submits to the office, no later than January 1, 2015, plans ready for review consistent with the letter of intent submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) and the schedule submitted pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(E)The hospital owner submits a financial report to the office at the time the plans are submitted pursuant to subparagraph (D). The report shall demonstrate the hospital owners financial capacity to implement the construction plans submitted pursuant to subparagraph (D).
(F)The hospital owner receives a building permit consistent with the letter of intent submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) and the schedule submitted pursuant to subparagraph (B), no later than July 1, 2018.
(3)To evaluate public safety and determine whether to grant an extension of the deadline, the office shall consider the structural integrity of the hospitals SPC-1 buildings based on its Hazards US scores, community access to essential hospital services, and the hospital owners financial capacity to meet the deadline as determined by either a bond rating of BBB or below or the financial report on the hospital owners financial capacity submitted pursuant to subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2). The criteria contained in this paragraph shall be considered by the office in its determination of the length of an extension or whether an extension should be granted.
(4)The extension or subsequent adjustments granted pursuant to this subdivision may not exceed the amount of time that is reasonably necessary to complete the construction specified in paragraph (2).
(5)If the circumstances underlying the request for extension submitted to the office pursuant to paragraph (2) change, the hospital owner shall notify the office as soon as practicable, but in no event later than six months after the hospital owner discovered the change of circumstances. The office may adjust the length of the extension granted pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) as necessary, but in no event longer than the period specified in paragraph (1).
(6)A hospital denied an extension pursuant to this subdivision may appeal the denial to the Hospital Building Safety Board.
(7)The office may revoke an extension granted pursuant to this subdivision for any hospital building when it is determined that any information submitted pursuant to this section was falsified, or if the hospital failed to meet a milestone set forth in paragraph (2), or where the work of construction is abandoned or suspended for a period of at least six months, unless the hospital demonstrates in a publicly available document that the abandonment or suspension was caused by factors beyond its control.
(8)Regulatory submissions made by the office to the California Building Standards Commission to implement this section shall be deemed to be emergency regulations and shall be adopted as emergency regulations.
(9)The hospital owner that applies for an extension pursuant to this subdivision shall pay the office an additional fee, to be determined by the office, sufficient to cover the additional reasonable costs incurred by the office for maintaining the additional reporting requirements established under this section, including, but not limited to, the costs of reviewing and verifying the extension documentation submitted pursuant to this subdivision. This additional fee shall not include any cost for review of the plans or other duties related to receiving a building or occupancy permit.
(10)This subdivision shall become operative on the date that the State Department of Health Care Services receives all necessary federal approvals for a 201112 fiscal year hospital quality assurance fee program that includes three hundred twenty million dollars ($320,000,000) in fee revenue to pay for health care coverage for children, which is made available as a result of the legislative enactment of a 201112 fiscal year hospital quality assurance fee program.
(h)A critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi may submit a seismic safety extension application pursuant to subdivision (g), notwithstanding deadlines in that subdivision that are earlier than the effective date of the act that added this subdivision. The submitted application shall include a timetable as required pursuant to subdivision (g).
SEC. 2.The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the special circumstances in the City of Tehachapi relating to access to critical health care services.
SEC. 3.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
To prevent the loss of hospital licensure and Medicaid and Medicare funding that would lead to closure of a critical access hospital and a loss of access to health care in the City of Tehachapi, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.
SECTION 1.This act shall be known and may be cited as the Open the Books Act of 2016.
SEC. 2.Section 21204 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:21204.(a)Notwithstanding Section 21201, it shall be unlawful for any refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter of motor vehicle fuels or oils engaged in business in this state, either directly or indirectly, to do either of the following:
(1)Knowingly engage in any act, practice, or course of business, including the making of any untrue statement of material fact, for purposes of distorting, or attempting to distort, the market conditions of any motor vehicle fuels or oils.
(2)Intentionally fail to state a material fact that under the circumstances renders a statement made by the refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter misleading, provided that the omission distorts or is likely to distort market conditions for any motor vehicle fuels or oils.
(b)This section shall be liberally construed to apply to acts that, among other things, are taken for the purpose of manipulating, or attempting to manipulate, the price of motor vehicle fuels or oils, including, but not limited to, unnecessarily reducing the supply or availability of those products at a time of heightened demand.
(c)Any person injured by a violation of this section may bring an action for the recovery of damages pursuant to Section 21202.
(d)In addition to any award of damages, a violation of this section shall be punished by disgorgement of all moneys, property or property interests, and any proceeds traceable thereto, that were derived directly or indirectly from conduct prohibited by this section, or acquired or maintained directly or indirectly through conduct prohibited by this section. All moneys and proceeds from property ordered disgorged pursuant to this subdivision shall be paid by order of the court to the state and deposited into the General Fund.
SEC. 3.Section 7873 of the Labor Code is repealed.SEC. 4.Section 25354 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:25354.(a)Each refiner and major marketer shall submit information each month to the commission in the form and to the extent that the commission prescribes pursuant to this section. The information shall be submitted within 30 days after the end of each monthly reporting period and shall include the following:
(1) (A) Refiners shall report, for each of their refineries, feedstock inputs, origin of petroleum receipts, imports of finished petroleum products and blendstocks, by type, including the source of those imports, exports of finished petroleum products and blendstocks, by type, including the destination of those exports, refinery outputs, refinery stocks, and finished product supply and distribution, including all gasoline sold unbranded by the refiner, blender, or importer.
(B)Refiners shall also report, for each of their refineries, the occurrence of all turnarounds within the meaning of Section 7872 of the Labor Code and all unplanned shutdowns. The information reported pursuant to this paragraph shall include any changes to the information reported pursuant to Section 25355, including any changes to the scope or duration of any turnaround or unplanned shutdown and an explanation of the cause or causes of the change.
(2)Major marketers shall report on petroleum product receipts and the sources of these receipts, inventories of finished petroleum products and blendstocks, by type, distributions through branded and unbranded distribution networks, and exports of finished petroleum products and blendstocks, by type, from the state.
(b)Each major oil producer, refiner, marketer, oil transporter, and oil storer shall annually submit information to the commission in the form and to the extent that the commission prescribes pursuant to this section. The information shall be submitted within 30 days after the end of each reporting period, and shall include the following:
(1)Major oil transporters shall report on petroleum by reporting the capacities of each major transportation system, the amount transported by each system, and inventories thereof. The commission may prescribe rules and regulations that exclude pipeline and transportation modes operated entirely on property owned by major oil transporters from the reporting requirements of this section if the data or information is not needed to fulfill the purposes of this chapter. The provision of the information shall not be construed to increase or decrease any authority the Public Utilities Commission may otherwise have.
(2)Major oil storers shall report on storage capacity, inventories, receipts and distributions, and methods of transportation of receipts and distributions.
(3)Major oil producers shall, with respect to thermally enhanced oil recovery operations, report annually by designated oil field, the monthly use, as fuel, of crude oil and natural gas.
(4)Refiners shall report on facility capacity, and utilization and method of transportation of refinery receipts and distributions.
(5)Major oil marketers shall report on facility capacity and methods of transportation of receipts and distributions.
(c)Each person required to report pursuant to subdivision (a) shall submit a projection each month of the information to be submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) for the quarter following the month in which the information is submitted to the commission.
(d)In addition to the data required under subdivision (a), each integrated oil refiner (produces, refines, transports, and markets in interstate commerce) who supplies more than 500 branded retail outlets in California shall submit to the commission an annual industry forecast for Petroleum Administration for Defense, District V (covering Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii). The forecast shall include the information to be submitted under subdivision (a), and shall be submitted by March 15 of each year. The commission may require California-specific forecasts. However, those forecasts shall be required only if the commission finds them necessary to carry out its responsibilities.
(e)The commission may by order or regulation modify the reporting period as to any individual item of information setting forth in the order or regulation its reason for so doing.
(f)The commission may request additional information as necessary to perform its responsibilities under this chapter.
(g)Any person required to submit information or data under this chapter, instead, may submit a report made to any other governmental agency, if:
(1)The alternate report contains all of the information or data required by specific request under this chapter.
(2)The person clearly identifies the specific request to which the alternate report is responsive.
(h)Each refiner shall submit to the commission, within 30 days after the end of each monthly reporting period, all of the following information in the form and to the extent that the commission prescribes:
(1) Daily prices and sales volumes at all locations in California for finished leaded regular, unleaded regular, and premium motor gasoline sold through company-operated retail outlets, to other end-users, and to wholesale customers, including, but not limited to, the dealer tank wagon price or rack zone pricing.
(2) Daily prices and sales volumes at all locations in California for residential sales, commercial and institutional sales, industrial sales, sales through company-operated retail outlets, sales to other end-users, and wholesale sales of No. 2 diesel fuel and No. 2 fuel oil.
(3) Daily prices and sales volumes at all locations in California for retail sales and wholesale sales of No. 1 distillate, kerosene, finished aviation gasoline, kerosene-type jet fuel, No. 4 fuel oil, residual fuel oil with 1 percent or less sulfur, residual fuel oil with greater than 1 percent sulfur and consumer grade propane.
(i)(1) An oil refiner, oil producer, petroleum product transporter, petroleum product marketer, petroleum product pipeline operator, and terminal operator, as designated by the commission, shall submit a weekly report in the form and extent as the commission prescribes pursuant to this section. The commission may determine the form and extent necessary by order or by regulation.
(2)A report may include any of the following information:
(A)Receipts and inventory levels of crude oil and petroleum products at each refinery and terminal location.
(B)Amount of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, blending components, and other petroleum products imported and exported.
(C)Amount of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, blending components, and other petroleum products transported intrastate by marine vessel.
(D)Amount of crude oil imported, including information identifying the source of the crude oil.
(E)The regional average of invoiced retailer buying price. This subparagraph does not either preclude or augment the current authority of the commission to collect additional data under subdivision (f).
(3)This subdivision is intended to clarify the commissions existing authority under subdivision (f) to collect specific information. This subdivision does not either preclude or augment the existing authority of the commission to collect information.
(j)Notwithstanding Section 25364 or any other law, information reported under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) or under subdivision (h) shall be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
SEC. 5.Section 25355 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:25355.(a)On or before January 1, 2017, and on or before January 1 annually thereafter, a refiner shall submit to the commission information on both of the following in the form and to the extent that the commission prescribes:
(1)A full schedule of all planned turnarounds for all refinery process units or plants for the following calendar year and a description of the scope and expected duration of each turnaround.
(2)The amount of gasoline inventory anticipated in advance of each planned turnaround at each refinery process unit or plant.
(b)A refiner shall report to the commission within 24 hours of any turnaround not previously disclosed under subdivision (a) or any unplanned shutdown that occurs in a refinery process unit or plant. The report shall be in the form that the commission prescribes and shall include a description of the refinery process unit or plant involved in the shutdown, the expected duration of the shutdown, and the reasons for the shutdown. The report shall be signed under penalty of perjury by an officer or director of the entity that owns the refinery.
(c)For purposes of this section, turnaround has the same meaning as defined in Section 7872 of the Labor Code.
(d)Notwithstanding any other law, information reported under this section shall be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
SEC. 6.Section 25359 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:25359.(a)Notwithstanding any law, each refiner shall report to the commission, within seven days of the refiners most recent quarterly report to shareholders, in the form and to the extent the commission prescribes, the amount of profits the refiner generated from the operations of its refineries operating in this state during the period covered by the quarterly report to shareholders.
(b)Notwithstanding any other law, each refiner shall report to the commission, within seven days of each annual report by the refiner to shareholders, in the form and to the extent the commission prescribes, the amount of taxes the refiner paid to this state in the most recent tax year.
(c)Notwithstanding any other law, information reported under this section shall be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
SEC. 7.Section 25360 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:25360.(a)Notwithstanding any law, each refiner and major marketer shall report to the commission information regarding all purchases, sales, or exchanges of petroleum products measuring 2,500 barrels or above in this state within 24 hours of each transaction. For each transaction of this type, the refiner or major marketer shall submit to the commission all of the following information in the form and to the extent that the commission prescribes:
(1)The type of product traded.
(2)All parties involved in the transaction.
(3)The location of the product at the time of transaction.
(4)The terms of the transaction.
(5)The means of transportation.
(b)Notwithstanding any other law, information reported under this section shall be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
(c)For purposes of this section, and notwithstanding Section 25126, major marketer means a person who sells at least 2,500 barrels of oil per calendar year, or a person who sells an amount less than 2,500 barrels of oil per calendar year that the commission determines has a major effect on energy supplies.
SEC. 8.Section 25361 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:25361.(a)Notwithstanding Section 25364 or any other law, the commission shall publish on its Internet Web site the information submitted pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 25354, and Sections 25355, 25359, and 25360.
(b)The commission shall publish on its Internet Web site on a monthly basis both of the following:
(1)Aggregated information on gasoline exports, including the destination of those exports.
(2)Information submitted pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 25354 in the aggregate and in detail by refinery.
(c)On the date of a planned turnaround, the commission shall verify that a refiner has the amount of gasoline inventory that was reported pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 25355. The commission shall report any discrepancy between the reported amount and actual amount of gasoline inventory to the Attorney General and to the Legislature.
(d)The commission may charge and collect from refiners a reasonable fee to cover the cost of performing its duties required by this section. Moneys received by the commission pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in the Energy Resources Programs Account and, notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, are continuously appropriated for expenditure by the commission for purposes of performing those duties.
SEC. 9.Section 25367 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:25367.(a)Commencing on January 1, 2017, and each year thereafter, every refiner shall submit an annual inventory supply plan to the commission for review and approval. The plan shall be in the form and contain the information required by the commission and, at a minimum, shall include all of the following:
(1)A description of how the refiner will ensure a sufficient inventory to meet anticipated demand, based on the previous years consumption, including through reserves, imports, trades, or other arrangements that will allow the necessary supply to come to market.
(2)The minimum working inventory the refiner plans to keep on hand, averaged on a monthly basis for each month of the year, which will comport with demand projection and production schedules.
(3)A crisis plan detailing the refiners planned response for dealing with unplanned outages at each of its refineries, and including a contingency production, import, strategic inventory, or trading plan to ensure adequate supplies to meet monthly demand.
(b)The commission shall only approve a refiners inventory supply plan if the commission is satisfied that the plan sets forth sufficient arrangements to ensure a sufficient inventory to meet annual demand. The commission may, at any time, require a refiner to revise its inventory supply plan or maintenance schedule if the commission determines that the contents of the plan or schedule do not provide adequate arrangements to ensure a sufficient inventory or production to meet demand.
(c)The commission shall, upon notice and hearing consistent with due process, impose an administrative fine on a refiner that fails to submit and obtain approval of an inventory supply plan as required by this section, fails to revise an inventory supply plan as directed by the commission, or fails to follow its approved plan. The amount of the administrative fine shall be not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) and not more than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per day during which the refiner operates without an approved inventory supply plan or does not follow its approved plan. In assessing the fine, the commission shall take into account the intentionality and severity of the refiners action.
(d)The inventory supply plan submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be signed under penalty of perjury by an officer or director of the entity that owns the refiner.
(e)Notwithstanding any other law, information reported under this section shall be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
SEC. 10.The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SEC. 11.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SEC. 12.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to provide consumers transparency at a time when oil prices are at an historic low and the difference between those prices and gas prices is at an historic high, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the Open the Books Act of 2016.
SEC. 2.Section 21204 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:21204.(a)Notwithstanding Section 21201, it shall be unlawful for any refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter of motor vehicle fuels or oils engaged in business in this state, either directly or indirectly, to do either of the following:
(1)Knowingly engage in any act, practice, or course of business, including the making of any untrue statement of material fact, for purposes of distorting, or attempting to distort, the market conditions of any motor vehicle fuels or oils.
(2)Intentionally fail to state a material fact that under the circumstances renders a statement made by the refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter misleading, provided that the omission distorts or is likely to distort market conditions for any motor vehicle fuels or oils.
(b)This section shall be liberally construed to apply to acts that, among other things, are taken for the purpose of manipulating, or attempting to manipulate, the price of motor vehicle fuels or oils, including, but not limited to, unnecessarily reducing the supply or availability of those products at a time of heightened demand.
(c)Any person injured by a violation of this section may bring an action for the recovery of damages pursuant to Section 21202.
(d)In addition to any award of damages, a violation of this section shall be punished by disgorgement of all moneys, property or property interests, and any proceeds traceable thereto, that were derived directly or indirectly from conduct prohibited by this section, or acquired or maintained directly or indirectly through conduct prohibited by this section. All moneys and proceeds from property ordered disgorged pursuant to this subdivision shall be paid by order of the court to the state and deposited into the General Fund.
SEC. 3.Section 7873 of the Labor Code is repealed.7873.(a)As used in this section, trade secret means a trade secret as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 6254.7 of the Government Code or Section 1061 of the Evidence Code, and shall include the schedule submitted to the division pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 7872 of this code, and the scheduling, duration, layout, configuration, and type of work to be performed during a turnaround. Upon completion of a turnaround, the scheduling and duration of that turnaround shall no longer be considered a trade secret. The wages, hours, benefits, job classifications, and training standards for employees performing work for petroleum refinery employers is not a trade secret.
(b)(1)If a petroleum refinery employer believes that information submitted to the division pursuant to Section 7872 may involve the release of a trade secret, the petroleum refinery employer shall nevertheless provide this information to the division. The petroleum refinery employer may, at the time of submission, identify all or a portion of the information submitted to the division as trade secret and, to the extent feasible, segregate records designated as trade secret from the other records.
(2)Subject to subdivisions (c), (d), and (e), the division shall not release to the public any information designated as a trade secret by the petroleum refinery employer pursuant to paragraph (1).
(c)(1)Upon the receipt of a request for the release of information to the public that includes information that the petroleum refinery employer has notified the division is a trade secret pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the division shall notify the petroleum refinery employer in writing of the request by certified mail, return receipt requested.
(2)The division shall release the requested information to the public, unless both of the following occur:
(A)Within 30 days of receipt of the notice of the request for information, the refinery petroleum employer files an action in an appropriate court for a declaratory judgment that the information is subject to protection under subdivision (b) and promptly notifies the division of that action.
(B)Within 120 days of receipt of the notice of the request for information, the refinery petroleum employer obtains an order prohibiting disclosure of the information to the public and promptly notifies the division of that action.
(3)This subdivision shall not be construed to allow a petroleum refinery employer to refuse to disclose the information required pursuant to this section to the division.
(d)(1)Except as provided in subdivision (c), any information that has been designated as a trade secret by a petroleum refinery employer shall not be released to any member of the public, except that such information may be disclosed to other officers or employees of the division when relevant in any proceeding of the division.
(2)If the person requesting the release of the information or the petroleum refinery employer files an action to order or prohibit disclosure of trade secret information, the person instituting the proceeding shall name the person or the petroleum refinery employer as a real party in interest.
(A)The petroleum refinery employer filing an action pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) shall provide notice of the action to the person requesting the release of the information at the same time that the defendant in the action is served.
(B)The person filing an action to compel the release of information that includes information that the petroleum refinery employer has notified the division is a trade secret pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) shall provide notice of the action to the petroleum refinery employer that submitted the information at the same time that the defendant in the action is served.
(3)The court shall award costs and reasonable attorneys fees to the party that prevails in litigation filed pursuant to this section. The public agency shall not bear the court costs for any party named in litigation filed pursuant to this section.
(e)This section shall not be construed to prohibit the exchange of trade secrets between local, state, or federal public agencies or state officials when those trade secrets are relevant and reasonably necessary to the exercise of their authority.
(f)An officer or employee of the division who, by virtue of that employment or official position, has possession of, or has access to, trade secret information, and who, knowing that disclosure of the information to the general public is prohibited by this section, knowingly and willfully discloses the information in any manner to a person he or she knows is not entitled to receive it, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A contractor with the division and an employee of the contractor, who has been furnished information as authorized by this section, shall be considered an employee of the division for purposes of this section.
SEC. 4.Section 25354 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:25354.(a)Each refiner and major marketer shall submit information each month to the commission in such the form and to the extent as that the commission prescribes pursuant to this section. The information shall be submitted within 30 days after the end of each monthly reporting period and shall include the following:
(1) (A) Refiners shall report, for each of their refineries, feedstock inputs, origin of petroleum receipts, imports of finished petroleum products and blendstocks, by type, including the source of those imports, exports of finished petroleum products and blendstocks, by type, including the destination of those exports, refinery outputs, refinery stocks, and finished product supply and distribution, including all gasoline sold unbranded by the refiner, blender, or importer.
(B)Refiners shall also report, for each of their refineries, the occurrence of all turnarounds within the meaning of Section 7872 of the Labor Code and all unplanned shutdowns. The information reported pursuant to this paragraph shall include any changes to the information reported pursuant to Section 25355, including any changes to the scope or duration of any turnaround or unplanned shutdown and an explanation of the cause or causes of the change.
(2)Major marketers shall report on petroleum product receipts and the sources of these receipts, inventories of finished petroleum products and blendstocks, by type, distributions through branded and unbranded distribution networks, and exports of finished petroleum products and blendstocks, by type, from the state.
(b)Each major oil producer, refiner, marketer, oil transporter, and oil storer shall annually submit information to the commission in such the form and to the extent as that the commission prescribes pursuant to this section. The information shall be submitted within 30 days after the end of each reporting period, and shall include the following:
(1)Major oil transporters shall report on petroleum by reporting the capacities of each major transportation system, the amount transported by each system, and inventories thereof. The commission may prescribe rules and regulations that exclude pipeline and transportation modes operated entirely on property owned by major oil transporters from the reporting requirements of this section if the data or information is not needed to fulfill the purposes of this chapter. The provision of the information shall not be construed to increase or decrease any authority the Public Utilities Commission may otherwise have.
(2)Major oil storers shall report on storage capacity, inventories, receipts and distributions, and methods of transportation of receipts and distributions.
(3)Major oil producers shall, with respect to thermally enhanced oil recovery operations, report annually by designated oil field, the monthly use, as fuel, of crude oil and natural gas.
(4)Refiners shall report on facility capacity, and utilization and method of transportation of refinery receipts and distributions.
(5)Major oil marketers shall report on facility capacity and methods of transportation of receipts and distributions.
(c)Each person required to report pursuant to subdivision (a) shall submit a projection each month of the information to be submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) for the quarter following the month in which the information is submitted to the commission.
(d)In addition to the data required under subdivision (a), each integrated oil refiner (produces, refines, transports, and markets in interstate commerce) who supplies more than 500 branded retail outlets in California shall submit to the commission an annual industry forecast for Petroleum Administration for Defense, District V (covering Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii). The forecast shall include the information to be submitted under subdivision (a), and shall be submitted by March 15 of each year. The commission may require California-specific forecasts. However, those forecasts shall be required only if the commission finds them necessary to carry out its responsibilities.
(e)The commission may by order or regulation modify the reporting period as to any individual item of information setting forth in the order or regulation its reason for so doing.
(f)The commission may request additional information as necessary to perform its responsibilities under this chapter.
(g)Any person required to submit information or data under this chapter, in lieu thereof, instead, may submit a report made to any other governmental agency, if:
(1)The alternate report or reports contain contains all of the information or data required by specific request under this chapter.
(2)The person clearly identifies the specific request to which the alternate report is responsive.
(h)Each refiner shall submit to the commission, within 30 days after the end of each monthly reporting period, all of the following information in such the form and to the extent as that the commission prescribes:
(1) Monthly California weighted average Daily prices and sales volumes of at all locations in California for finished leaded regular, unleaded regular, and premium motor gasoline sold through company-operated retail outlets, to other end-users, and to wholesale customers. customers, including, but not limited to, the dealer tank wagon price or rack zone pricing.
(2) Monthly California weighted average Daily prices and sales volumes at all locations in California for residential sales, commercial and institutional sales, industrial sales, sales through company-operated retail outlets, sales to other end-users, and wholesale sales of No. 2 diesel fuel and No. 2 fuel oil.
(3) Monthly California weighted average Daily prices and sales volumes at all locations in California for retail sales and wholesale sales of No. 1 distillate, kerosene, finished aviation gasoline, kerosene-type jet fuel, No. 4 fuel oil, residual fuel oil with 1 percent or less sulfur, residual fuel oil with greater than 1 percent sulfur and consumer grade propane.
(i)(1) Beginning the first week after the effective date of the act that added this subdivision, and each week thereafter, an An oil refiner, oil producer, petroleum product transporter, petroleum product marketer, petroleum product pipeline operator, and terminal operator, as designated by the commission, shall submit a weekly report in the form and extent as the commission prescribes pursuant to this section. The commission may determine the form and extent necessary by order or by regulation.
(2)A report may include any of the following information:
(A)Receipts and inventory levels of crude oil and petroleum products at each refinery and terminal location.
(B)Amount of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, blending components, and other petroleum products imported and exported.
(C)Amount of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, blending components, and other petroleum products transported intrastate by marine vessel.
(D)Amount of crude oil imported, including information identifying the source of the crude oil.
(E)The regional average of invoiced retailer buying price. This subparagraph does not either preclude or augment the current authority of the commission to collect additional data under subdivision (f).
(3)This subdivision is intended to clarify the commissions existing authority under subdivision (f) to collect specific information. This subdivision does not either preclude or augment the existing authority of the commission to collect information.
(j)Notwithstanding Section 25364 or any other law, information reported under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) or under subdivision (h) shall be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
SEC. 5.Section 25355 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:25355.(a)On or before January 1, 2017, and on or before January 1 annually thereafter, a refiner shall submit to the commission information on both of the following in the form and to the extent that the commission prescribes:
(1)A full schedule of all planned turnarounds for all refinery process units or plants for the following calendar year and a description of the scope and expected duration of each turnaround.
(2)The amount of gasoline inventory anticipated in advance of each planned turnaround at each refinery process unit or plant.
(b)A refiner shall report to the commission within 24 hours of any turnaround not previously disclosed under subdivision (a) or any unplanned shutdown that occurs in a refinery process unit or plant. The report shall be in the form that the commission prescribes and shall include a description of the refinery process unit or plant involved in the shutdown, the expected duration of the shutdown, and the reasons for the shutdown. The report shall be signed under penalty of perjury by an officer or director of the entity that owns the refinery.
(c)For purposes of this section, turnaround has the same meaning as defined in Section 7872 of the Labor Code.
(d)Notwithstanding any other law, information reported under this section shall be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
SEC. 6.Section 25359 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:25359.(a)Notwithstanding any law, each refiner shall report to the commission, within seven days of the refiners most recent quarterly report to shareholders, in the form and to the extent the commission prescribes, the amount of profits the refiner generated from the operations of its refineries operating in this state during the period covered by the quarterly report to shareholders.
(b)Notwithstanding any other law, each refiner shall report to the commission, within seven days of each annual report by the refiner to shareholders, in the form and to the extent the commission prescribes, the amount of taxes the refiner paid to this state in the most recent tax year.
(c)Notwithstanding any other law, information reported under this section shall be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
SEC. 7.Section 25360 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:25360.(a)Notwithstanding any law, each refiner and major marketer shall report to the commission information regarding all purchases, sales, or exchanges of petroleum products measuring 2,500 barrels or above in this state within 24 hours of each transaction. For each transaction of this type, the refiner or major marketer shall submit to the commission all of the following information in the form and to the extent that the commission prescribes:
(1)The type of product traded.
(2)All parties involved in the transaction.
(3)The location of the product at the time of transaction.
(4)The terms of the transaction.
(5)The means of transportation.
(b)Notwithstanding any other law, information reported under this section shall be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
(c)For purposes of this section, and notwithstanding Section 25126, major marketer means a person who sells at least 2,500 barrels of oil per calendar year, or a person who sells an amount less than 2,500 barrels of oil per calendar year that the commission determines has a major effect on energy supplies.
SEC. 8.Section 25361 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:25361.(a)Notwithstanding Section 25364 or any other law, the commission shall publish on its Internet Web site the information submitted pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 25354, and Sections 25355, 25359, and 25360.
(b)The commission shall publish on its Internet Web site on a monthly basis both of the following:
(1)Aggregated information on gasoline exports, including the destination of those exports.
(2)Information submitted pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 25354 in the aggregate and in detail by refinery.
(c)On the date of a planned turnaround, the commission shall verify that a refiner has the amount of gasoline inventory that was reported pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 25355. The commission shall report any discrepancy between the reported amount and actual amount of gasoline inventory to the Attorney General and to the Legislature.
(d)The commission may charge and collect from refiners a reasonable fee to cover the cost of performing its duties required by this section. Moneys received by the commission pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in the Energy Resources Programs Account and, notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, are continuously appropriated for expenditure by the commission for purposes of performing those duties.
SEC. 9.Section 25367 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:25367.(a)Commencing on January 1, 2017, and each year thereafter, every refiner shall submit an annual inventory supply plan to the commission for review and approval. The plan shall be in the form and contain the information required by the commission and, at a minimum, shall include all of the following:
(1)A description of how the refiner will ensure a sufficient inventory to meet anticipated demand, based on the previous years consumption, including through reserves, imports, trades, or other arrangements that will allow the necessary supply to come to market.
(2)The minimum working inventory the refiner plans to keep on hand, averaged on a monthly basis for each month of the year, which will comport with demand projection and production schedules.
(3)A crisis plan detailing the refiners planned response for dealing with unplanned outages at each of its refineries, and including a contingency production, import, strategic inventory, or trading plan to ensure adequate supplies to meet monthly demand.
(b)The commission shall only approve a refiners inventory supply plan if the commission is satisfied that the plan sets forth sufficient arrangements to ensure a sufficient inventory to meet annual demand. The commission may, at any time, require a refiner to revise its inventory supply plan or maintenance schedule if the commission determines that the contents of the plan or schedule do not provide adequate arrangements to ensure a sufficient inventory or production to meet demand.
(c)The commission shall, upon notice and hearing consistent with due process, impose an administrative fine on a refiner that fails to submit and obtain approval of an inventory supply plan as required by this section, fails to revise an inventory supply plan as directed by the commission, or fails to follow its approved plan. The amount of the administrative fine shall be not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) and not more than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per day during which the refiner operates without an approved inventory supply plan or does not follow its approved plan. In assessing the fine, the commission shall take into account the intentionality and severity of the refiners action.
(d)The inventory supply plan submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be signed under penalty of perjury by an officer or director of the entity that owns the refiner.
(e)Notwithstanding any other law, information reported under this section shall be subject to public disclosure within 24 hours of receipt by the commission.
SEC. 10.The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SEC. 11.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SEC. 12.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to provide consumers transparency at a time when oil prices are at an historic low and the difference between those prices and gas prices is at an historic high, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
SECTION 1.Section 4213 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:4213.(a)(1)The fire prevention fee imposed pursuant to Section 4212 shall be collected annually by the State Board of Equalization in accordance with the Fee Collection Procedures Law (Part 30 (commencing with Section 55001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code).
(2)Notwithstanding the appeal provisions in the Fee Collection Procedures Law, a determination by the department that a person is required to pay a fire prevention fee, or a determination by the department regarding the amount of that fee, is subject to review under Article 2 (commencing with Section 4220) and is not subject to a petition for redetermination by the State Board of Equalization.
(3)(A)Notwithstanding the refund provisions in the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the State Board of Equalization shall not accept any claim for refund that is based on the assertion that a determination by the department improperly or erroneously calculated the amount of the fire prevention fee, or incorrectly determined that the person is subject to that fee, unless that determination has been set aside by the department or a court reviewing the determination of the department.
(B)If the department or a reviewing court determines that a person is entitled to a refund of all or part of the fire prevention fee, the person shall make a claim to the State Board of Equalization pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 55221) of Part 30 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(b)The annual fire prevention fee shall be due and payable 60 days from the date of assessment by the State Board of Equalization.
(c) On or before each January 1, the department shall annually transmit to the State Board of Equalization the appropriate name and address of each person who is liable for the fire prevention fee and the amount of the fee to be assessed, as authorized by this article, and at the same time the department shall provide to the State Board of Equalization a contact telephone number for the board to be printed on the bill to respond to questions about the fee.
(d)If in any given fiscal year there are sufficient amounts of money in the State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund created pursuant to Section 4214 to finance the costs of the programs under subdivision (d) of Section 4214 for that fiscal year, the fee may not be collected that fiscal year.
(e)This section shall become inoperative on the date that is five years after the effective date of the act adding this subdivision, and, as of January 1, 2021, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed.
SEC. 2.Section 4213 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:4213.(a)(1)The fire prevention fee imposed pursuant to Section 4212 shall be collected annually by the State Board of Equalization in accordance with the Fee Collection Procedures Law (Part 30 (commencing with Section 55001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code).
(2)Notwithstanding the appeal provisions in the Fee Collection Procedures Law, a determination by the department that a person is required to pay a fire prevention fee, or a determination by the department regarding the amount of that fee, is subject to review under Article 2 (commencing with Section 4220) and is not subject to a petition for redetermination by the State Board of Equalization.
(3)(A)Notwithstanding the refund provisions in the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the State Board of Equalization shall not accept any claim for refund that is based on the assertion that a determination by the department improperly or erroneously calculated the amount of the fire prevention fee, or incorrectly determined that the person is subject to that fee, unless that determination has been set aside by the department or a court reviewing the determination of the department.
(B)If the department or a reviewing court determines that a person is entitled to a refund of all or part of the fire prevention fee, the person shall make a claim to the State Board of Equalization pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 55221) of Part 30 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(b)The annual fire prevention fee shall be due and payable 30 days from the date of assessment by the State Board of Equalization.
(c)On or before each January 1, the department shall annually transmit to the State Board of Equalization the appropriate name and address of each person who is liable for the fire prevention fee and the amount of the fee to be assessed, as authorized by this article, and at the same time the department shall provide to the State Board of Equalization a contact telephone number for the board to be printed on the bill to respond to questions about the fee.
(d)If in any given fiscal year there are sufficient amounts of money in the State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund created pursuant to Section 4214 to finance the costs of the programs under subdivision (d) of Section 4214 for that fiscal year, the fee may not be collected that fiscal year.
(e)This section shall become operative on the date that is five years after the effective date of the act adding this section.
SEC. 3.Section 4220 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:4220.(a)A person from whom the fire prevention fee is determined to be due under this chapter may petition for a redetermination of whether this chapter applies to that person within 60 days after service upon him or her of a notice of the determination. If a petition for redetermination is not filed within the 60-day period, the amount determined to be due becomes final at the expiration of the 60-day period.
(b)This section shall become inoperative on the date that is five years after the effective date of the act adding this subdivision, and, as of January 1, 2021, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed.
SEC. 4.Section 4220 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:4220.(a)A person from whom the fire prevention fee is determined to be due under this chapter may petition for a redetermination of whether this chapter applies to that person within 30 days after service upon him or her of a notice of the determination. If a petition for redetermination is not filed within the 30-day period, the amount determined to be due becomes final at the expiration of the 30-day period.
(b)This section shall become operative on the date that is five years after the effective date of the act adding this section.
SEC. 5.Section 4222 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:4222.If a petition for redetermination of the application of this chapter is filed within the period specified in subdivision (a) of Section 4220, the department shall reconsider whether the fee is due and make a determination in writing. The department may eliminate the fee based on a determination that this chapter does not apply to the person who filed the petition.
SEC. 6.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure a smooth beginning for the 2016 fire prevention fee collection period and to provide relief at the earliest possible time to the rural property owners that this act seeks to assist, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
(a)(1)Commencing with the 201112 fiscal year, the The fire prevention fee imposed pursuant to Section 4212 shall be collected annually by the State Board of Equalization in accordance with the Fee Collection Procedures Law (Part 30 (commencing with Section 55001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code).
(2)Notwithstanding the appeal provisions in the Fee Collection Procedures Law, a determination by the department that a person is required to pay a fire prevention fee, or a determination by the department regarding the amount of that fee, is subject to review under Article 2 (commencing with Section 4220) and is not subject to a petition for redetermination by the State Board of Equalization.
(3)(A)Notwithstanding the refund provisions in the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the State Board of Equalization shall not accept any claim for refund that is based on the assertion that a determination by the department improperly or erroneously calculated the amount of the fire prevention fee, or incorrectly determined that the person is subject to that fee, unless that determination has been set aside by the department or a court reviewing the determination of the department.
(B)If it is determined by the department or a reviewing court determines that a person is entitled to a refund of all or part of the fire prevention fee, the person shall make a claim to the State Board of Equalization pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 55221) of Part 30 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(b)The annual fire prevention fee shall be due and payable 30 60 days from the date of assessment by the State Board of Equalization.
(c) On or before each January 1, the department shall annually transmit to the State Board of Equalization the appropriate name and address of each person who is liable for the fire prevention fee and the amount of the fee to be assessed, as authorized by this article, and at the same time the department shall provide to the State Board of Equalization a contact telephone number for the board to be printed on the bill to respond to questions about the fee.
(d)Commencing with the 201213 fiscal year, if If in any given fiscal year there are sufficient amounts of money in the State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund created pursuant to Section 4214 to finance the costs of the programs under subdivision (d) of Section 4214 for that fiscal year, the fee may not be collected that fiscal year.
(e)This section shall become inoperative on the date that is five years after the effective date of the act adding this subdivision, and, as of January 1, 2021, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed.
SEC. 2.Section 4213 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:4213.(a)(1)The fire prevention fee imposed pursuant to Section 4212 shall be collected annually by the State Board of Equalization in accordance with the Fee Collection Procedures Law (Part 30 (commencing with Section 55001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code).
(2)Notwithstanding the appeal provisions in the Fee Collection Procedures Law, a determination by the department that a person is required to pay a fire prevention fee, or a determination by the department regarding the amount of that fee, is subject to review under Article 2 (commencing with Section 4220) and is not subject to a petition for redetermination by the State Board of Equalization.
(3)(A)Notwithstanding the refund provisions in the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the State Board of Equalization shall not accept any claim for refund that is based on the assertion that a determination by the department improperly or erroneously calculated the amount of the fire prevention fee, or incorrectly determined that the person is subject to that fee, unless that determination has been set aside by the department or a court reviewing the determination of the department.
(B)If the department or a reviewing court determines that a person is entitled to a refund of all or part of the fire prevention fee, the person shall make a claim to the State Board of Equalization pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 55221) of Part 30 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(b)The annual fire prevention fee shall be due and payable 30 days from the date of assessment by the State Board of Equalization.
(c)On or before each January 1, the department shall annually transmit to the State Board of Equalization the appropriate name and address of each person who is liable for the fire prevention fee and the amount of the fee to be assessed, as authorized by this article, and at the same time the department shall provide to the State Board of Equalization a contact telephone number for the board to be printed on the bill to respond to questions about the fee.
(d)If in any given fiscal year there are sufficient amounts of money in the State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund created pursuant to Section 4214 to finance the costs of the programs under subdivision (d) of Section 4214 for that fiscal year, the fee may not be collected that fiscal year.
(e)This section shall become operative on the date that is five years after the effective date of the act adding this section.
SEC. 3.Section 4220 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:4220.(a)A person from whom the fire prevention fee is determined to be due under this chapter may petition for a redetermination of whether this chapter applies to that person within 30 60 days after service upon him or her of a notice of the determination. If a petition for redetermination is not filed within the 30-day 60-day period, the amount determined to be due becomes final at the expiration of the 30-day 60-day period.
(b)This section shall become inoperative on the date that is five years after the effective date of the act adding this subdivision, and, as of January 1, 2021, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed.
SEC. 4.Section 4220 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:4220.(a)A person from whom the fire prevention fee is determined to be due under this chapter may petition for a redetermination of whether this chapter applies to that person within 30 days after service upon him or her of a notice of the determination. If a petition for redetermination is not filed within the 30-day period, the amount determined to be due becomes final at the expiration of the 30-day period.
(b)This section shall become operative on the date that is five years after the effective date of the act adding this section.
SEC. 5.Section 4222 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:4222.If a petition for redetermination of the application of this chapter is filed within the 30-day period, period specified in subdivision (a) of Section 4220, the department shall reconsider whether the fee is due and make a determination in writing. The department may eliminate the fee based on a determination that this chapter does not apply to the person who filed the petition.
SEC. 6.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure a smooth beginning for the 2016 fire prevention fee collection period and to provide relief at the earliest possible time to the rural property owners that this act seeks to assist, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
SECTION 1.Section 5080.40 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:5080.40.(a)An operating lease or agreement shall not be entered into, or amended, pursuant to this article unless one of the following occurs:
(1)The Legislature reviews the lease or agreement, or amendment, as part of the annual budget process.
(2)Following enactment of the annual Budget Act, the State Public Works Board determines that the proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, could not have been presented to the Legislature for review during the annual budget process, or that the proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, was reviewed during the annual budget process but it is necessary to revise the terms of the lease or agreement, or amendment, in a material respect, and the State Public Works Board determines that it is adverse to the interests of the public to defer that review to the next annual budget process. Upon making its determination, the State Public Works Board may review and approve the proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, or any revision thereof, no earlier than 30 days after providing written notification to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chairperson of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, and the Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review of the intended action. An action taken by the State Public Works Board pursuant to this paragraph shall be reported to the Legislature in the next Governors Budget.
(b)The department shall include with the proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, sufficient documentation to enable the Legislature or the State Public Works Board, as the case may be, to evaluate fully the estimated operating costs and revenues and all terms upon which the lease or agreement, or amendment, is proposed to be entered into. Specifically, the documentation shall identify both of the following:
(1)Any anticipated costs to the state for operation or development under the lease or agreement, or amendment, and the anticipated state share of total operation and development costs.
(2)The anticipated annual revenues, net of operation costs, for the unit and the states share of these revenues.
(c)Leases or agreements shall be exempt from subdivisions (a) and (b) when all of the following conditions exist:
(1)The lease or agreement involves operation of only a portion of a unit of the state park system.
(2)The term of the lease or agreement is for a period of 20 years or less.
(3)The leases or agreements impact to the unit, including concessions revenue, will not exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in annual gross revenue generated on the property.
(4)The lease or agreement does not involve a significant change in state operational funding or staffing levels, and does not include present or future state expenditures for development of the unit.
(d)An amendment to an existing lease or agreement shall be exempt from subdivisions (a) and (b) when all of the following conditions exist:
(1)The amendment involves operation of only a portion of a unit of the state park system.
(2)The amendments impact to the unit will not exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in annual gross revenue generated on the property.
(3)The amendment does not involve a significant change in state operational funding or staffing levels, and does not include present or future state expenditures for development of the unit.
(a)No An operating lease or agreement shall not be entered into, or amended, pursuant to this article unless one of the following has occurred: occurs:
(1)The Legislature has reviewed reviews the lease or agreement, or amendment, as part of the annual budget process or the requirements of paragraph (2) have been met.
(2)Following enactment of the annual Budget Act, the State Public Works Board determines that the proposed lease or agreement or amendment agreement, or amendment, could not have been presented to the Legislature for review during the annual budget process, or that the proposed lease or agreement or amendment agreement, or amendment, was reviewed during the annual budget process but it is necessary to revise the terms of the lease or agreement or amendment agreement, or amendment, in a material respect, and the State Public Works Board determines that it is adverse to the interests of the public to defer that review to the next annual budget process. Upon making its determination, the State Public Works Board may review and approve the proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, or any revision thereof, not sooner no earlier than 20 30 days after the board has provided providing written notification to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chairperson of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee on Appropriations, and the Chairperson of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review of the intended action. All actions An action taken by the State Public Works Board pursuant to this paragraph shall be reported to the Legislature in the next Governors Budget.
(b)The department shall include with the proposed lease or agreement or amendment agreement, or amendment, sufficient documentation to enable the Legislature or the State Public Works Board, as the case may be, to evaluate fully the estimated operating costs and revenues and all terms upon which the lease or agreement or amendment agreement, or amendment, is proposed to be entered into. Specifically, the documentation shall identify both of the following:
(1)Any anticipated costs to the state for operation or development under the lease or agreement or amendment agreement, or amendment, and the anticipated state share of total operation and development costs.
(2)The anticipated annual revenues, net of operation costs, for the unit and the states share of these revenues.
(c)Leases or agreements shall be exempt from subdivisions (a) and (b) when all of the following conditions exist:
(1)The lease or agreement involves operation of only a portion of a unit of the state park system.
(2)The term of the lease or agreement is for a period of 20 years or less.
(3)The leases or agreements impact to the unit, including concessions revenue, will not exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in annual gross revenue generated on the property.
(4)The lease or agreement involves no does not involve a significant change in state operational funding or staffing levels, and does not include present or future state expenditures for development of the unit.
(d)Amendments An amendment to an existing leases lease or agreements agreement shall be exempt from subdivisions (a) and (b) when all of the following conditions exist:
(1)The amendment involves operation of only a portion of a unit of the state park system.
(2)The amendments impact to the unit will not exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in annual gross revenue generated on the property.
(3)The amendment involves no does not involve a significant change in state operational funding or staffing levels, and does not include present or future state expenditures for development of the unit.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2015 | Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Page 3174.) |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. (Ayes 27. Noes 6. Page 2646.) |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. (Ayes 27. Noes 6.) |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH. |
| Sep 10, 2015 | From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8. |
| Sep 10, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (September 10). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Sep 10, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (September 10). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Sep 10, 2015 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. |
| Sep 10, 2015 | Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Sep 10, 2015 | Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2711.). |
| Sep 11, 2015 | Assembly Rule 63 suspended. |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Joint Rule 61(a) suspended. (Ayes 27. Noes 6. Page 2645.) |
| Sep 11, 2015 | From committee: That the Senate amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (September 11). |
| Sep 11, 2015 | Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. |
| Sep 11, 2015 | Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 3134.) |
| Sep 11, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. |
| Sep 11, 2015 | Urgency clause adopted. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Sep 11, 2015 | Urgency clause adopted. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 3179.). |
| Sep 11, 2015 | Urgency clause adopted. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0.). |
| Sep 23, 2015 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Oct 7, 2015 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Oct 7, 2015 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 555, Statutes of 2015. |
| Jul 6, 2015 | From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to consent calendar. |
| Feb 5, 2015 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 7. |
| Feb 17, 2015 | Referred to Com. on W., P., & W. |
| Apr 28, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (April 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| May 6, 2015 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 6). |
| May 7, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 14, 2015 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 14, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| May 14, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 80. Noes 0. Page 1436.) |
| May 28, 2015 | Referred to Com. on N.R. & W. |
| Jun 24, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Feb 4, 2015 | Read first time. To print. |
| Jul 7, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| Jul 9, 2015 | From Consent Calendar. |
| Jul 9, 2015 | Ordered to third reading. |
| Jul 14, 2015 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Jul 15, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Jul 16, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(c). |
| Aug 31, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Sep 4, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Joint Rule 61 suspended. (Ayes 27. Noes 6.) |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2015 | AB 232 OBERNOLTE Concurrence - Urgency Added | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 11, 2015 | With recommendation: That Senate amendments be concurred in. | Assembly Standing Committee on Health |
Passed |
|
| Sep 10, 2015 | W/O REF. TO FILE AB232 Obernolte By Fuller Urgency Clause | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 10, 2015 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Health |
Passed |
|
| Jun 23, 2015 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water |
Passed |
|
| May 14, 2015 | AB 232 ALLEN Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 6, 2015 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 28, 2015 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| Adventist Health | ** Support | Sep 10, 2015 |
| Association of California Healthcare Districts | ** Support | Sep 10, 2015 |
| California Hospital Association | ** Support | Sep 10, 2015 |
| Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District | ** Support | Sep 10, 2015 |
AB 232
Page 5
(Without Reference to File)
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 232
(Obernolte)
As Amended September 4, 2015
2/3 vote. Urgency
ASSEMBLY: |
|
(May 14, 2015) |
SENATE: |
40-0 |
(September 10, 2015) |
(vote not relevant)
COMMITTEE VOTE: |
15-0 |
(September 11, 2015) |
RECOMMENDATION: |
concur |
(Health)
Original Committee Reference: W., P., & W.
SUMMARY: Authorizes a critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi to submit an application to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), which, if approved, would extend the hospital's seismic compliance deadline to 2020. Contains an urgency clause to ensure that the provisions of this bill go into immediate effect upon enactment.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill and instead:
Permit a critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi to submit a seismic safety extension application, pursuant to specified provisions of existing law that allow an extension of the deadline until up to January 1, 2020.
Require the application submitted pursuant to 1) above, to include a timetable, as required under existing law, detailing how the hospital intends to meet the requested deadline.
EXISTING STATE LAW:
Establishes the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983 (Alquist Act), to ensure that hospital buildings be designed and constructed to resist the forces generated by earthquakes and requires OSHPD to propose building standards for earthquake resistance and to provide independent review of the design and construction of hospital buildings.
Requires hospitals to evaluate and rate all their general acute care hospital buildings for seismic resistance.
Provides the ability for hospitals to request and receive a delay in their January 1, 2008, seismic compliance deadline if the hospital can demonstrate that compliance will result in a loss of health care capacity that may not be provided by another hospital within a reasonable distance. Requires the requesting hospital to state why it cannot comply with the deadline.
Requires OSHPD, prior to granting an extension of the 2008 deadline, to:
Provide public notice of a hospital's request for an extension which includes the facility's name, identification number, the status of the request, and the beginning and ending dates of the public comment period, as well as provide copies of extension requests to interested parties within 10 working days; and,
Allow the public to submit written comments on the extension proposal for at least 45 days from the date of the public notice.
Allows hospitals that have received extensions to January 1, 2013, of the January 1, 2008, seismic deadline, for their SPC-1 buildings, to request an additional extension of up to seven years. Establishes a deadline of September 30, 2012, to apply for this extension.
Requires OSHPD to notify the Department of Public Health (DPH), of the hospital owners that have received a written notice of violation for failure to comply with seismic safety requirements. Requires DPH, unless the hospital places its license in voluntary suspense, to suspend or refuse to renew the license of a hospital that has received a notice of violation from OSHPD because of its failure to comply with either of those requirements.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW: Establishes the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program to permit states to designate certain health facilities to be critical access hospitals. Requires critical access hospitals to meet certain criteria, including that the facility be a rural public or nonprofit hospital that is located more than a 35-mile drive from any other hospital or is certified by the state as being a necessary provider of health care services to residents in the area.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill extended from 20 days to 30 days, the time period the Legislature has to review a proposed state park lease agreement before it can be approved by the State Public Works Board.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS: According to the author The Tehachapi Valley Health Care District (TVHD) set out to comply with the state's seismic mandate by building a brand new hospital which is currently under construction. However, in the interim, the hospital must retrofit existing buildings in order to remain operational and to ensure continued access to critical health care services. The author notes that under the current seismic mandate, this hospital will be unable to continue operating in its existing hospital buildings beyond January 1, 2016. The author contends that if the hospital is not be granted an extension to this deadline, the consequences are severe - including loss of hospital licensure and the exclusion from federal participation in Medicaid and Medicare. The author concludes passage of this bill will not only prevent closure of this hospital, and will also ensure that residents in this district will continue to have access to critical health care services that are so needed in this small rural community.
Hospital seismic safety requirements. The Alquist Act establishes a seismic safety building standards program under OSHPD's jurisdiction for hospitals built on or after March 7, 1973. The Alquist Act was initiated because of the loss of life incurred due to the collapse of hospitals during the Sylmar earthquake of 1971. Approximately 470 general acute care hospital facilities comprised of 2,673 hospital buildings are impacted by the provisions of the Alquist Act. Hospitals built in accordance with the standards of the Alquist Act resisted the January 1994 Northridge earthquake with minimal structural damage, while several facilities built prior to the Alquist Act experienced major structural damage and had to be evacuated.
One of the main provisions of the Alquist Act was the development, via regulation, of earthquake or seismic performance categories, specifically the Structural Performance Categories (SPCs). These include seismic performance categories for new and existing general acute care hospital facilities at various levels, i.e., from those capable of providing services to the public after a seismic event (SPC-5) to those at significant risk of collapse (SPC-1) and that represent a danger to the public.
Each general acute care hospital facility must be at certain SPC levels by specified timeframes. For example, in the initial law all general acute care hospital facility buildings must be at the SPC-2 (do not significantly jeopardize life, but may not be repairable or functional following strong ground motion) by January 1, 2008, to be in compliance with the regulations, however, provisions were made to allow this deadline to be extended to January 1, 2013, if compliance with the 2008 deadline would result in a diminished capacity of healthcare services to the community. The next deadline is the January 1, 2030 deadline for hospitals to remain operational following an earthquake, and at that time SPC-2 buildings will no longer be permitted, and all building will have to at least meet SPC-3, and in many cases, SPC-4 or SPC-5 (the highest rating). According to OSPHD, only about 10% of remaining hospital buildings are still classified as SPC-1.
The following are the Alquist Act deadline extensions that are relevant to Tehachapi Hospital and this bill:
SB 306 (Ducheny), Chapter 642, Statutes of 2007, permitted a hospital owner to comply with seismic safety deadlines and requirements in current law by replacing all of its buildings subject to seismic retrofit by January 1, 2020, rather than retrofitting to SPC-2 by 2013 and replacing them by 2030, if the hospital meets several conditions and OSHPD certifies that the hospital owner lacks the financial capacity to meet seismic standards, as defined. Among the conditions a hospital must meet to be eligible for this extension are that it maintains a contract to provide Medi-Cal services, maintains a basic emergency room, and is either in an underserved area, serves an underserved community, is an essential provider of Medi-Cal services, or is a heavy provider of services to Medi-Cal and indigent patients. Eighteen hospitals have qualified for extensions to 2020 under this authority. Tehachapi Hospital applied for an extension under SB 306, but the application was denied by OSHPD due to financial criteria.
SB 608 (Alquist), Chapter 623, Statutes of 2010, provided for an extension of hospital seismic deadlines, for hospitals that have already received the five-year extension to January 1, 2013, of up to three years for hospitals that document that a local planning delay will cause them to miss the January 1, 2013, deadline. Tehachapi Hospital was approved for an extension under SB 608 for the maximum of three years, to January 1, 2016. This is the deadline currently facing Tehachapi Hospital.
SB 90 (Steinberg), Chapter 19, Statutes of 2011, allowed a hospital to seek an extension for seismic compliance for its SPC-1 buildings of up to seven years based on the following elements: the structural integrity of the building, the loss of essential hospital services to the community if the hospital closed, and financial hardship. The deadline for submitting an application under SB 90 was September 30, 2012. A hospital applying under SB 90, as part of its application, was required to specify whether it intended to rebuild, replace, or retrofit the building, and the amount of time necessary to complete the construction. Additionally, a hospital seeking an SB 90 extension was required to submit to OSHPD, as part of its application, a structural reassessment, known as a HAZUS assessment, for each of its SPC-1 buildings. Tehachapi Hospital initially submitted an application for an extension under SB 90 in 2012, but withdrew the application because it intended to build a new facility rather than retrofit their existing building to SPC-2 standards.
Tehachapi Hospital. Tehachapi Hospital is operated by the TVHD, and is licensed as a 24-bed general acute care hospital, of which 19 beds are classified as "swing" beds, meaning they can also be used for long-term skilled nursing care. Tehachapi Hospital is located in the City of Tehachapi, which is about 35 miles southeast of Bakersfield. The nearest hospital is Kern Medical Center in Bakersfield, 38 miles away. Tehachapi Hospital is designated by DPH as a critical access hospital, which under federal Medicare law means they are eligible to receive cost-based reimbursement from Medicare, and is intended to reduce hospital closures in rural areas. As discussed above, Tehachapi Hospital was granted extensions from the original January 1, 2008, deadline to bring their SPC-1 buildings into SPC-2 compliance. Under its SB 608 extension, they have until January 1, 2016, to bring their SPC-1 buildings into compliance, or stop providing services as a general acute care hospital.
According to OSHPD, in March of 2012, Tehachapi Hospital applied for an extension under SB 90, which would have provided for an extension of up to seven years beyond the 2013 deadline, or as late as January 1, 2020. Because this application did not include the required HAZUS assessment, OSHPD issued a letter to Tehachapi informing the hospital that their application was in jeopardy of being denied without the HAZUS assessment. Rather than complete a HAZUS assessment, Tehachapi Hospital withdrew their request for an SB 90 extension in June of 2012.
According to TVHD, the reason the hospital withdrew its SB 90 application was because it was planning on building a new hospital, and because it planned to have this building completed before their current deadline, determined that an SB 90 extension was unnecessary. However the hospital encountered both financial and design challenges as well as construction delays and the project is now approximately 18 months behind schedule, beyond the January 1, 2016 deadline.
Construction on the new hospital is expected to be finished by the end of May 2016, and after inspections, setting up the new hospital, and achieving licensure, the new Tehachapi Hospital is expected to be operational by sometime in November of 2016.
The Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD) is the sponsor of this bill and states without the authority granted in this bill Tehachapi Hospital will be unable to continue operating in its existing hospital as of January 1, 2016. ACHD notes as a rural critical access hospital serving a remote rural community located west of the Mojave Desert in the Tehachapi Mountains, the hospital faces a greater disadvantage than larger, urban hospitals and has faced both financial and design challenges. ACHD states the TVHD is in the midst of constructing the new hospital which is approximately 50% complete and until recently believed they were on track to meet the seismic deadlines in statute; however the TVHD now faces an 18-month project delay, threatening continued access to critical health care services in this underserved community.
Adventist Health, the California Hospital Association, and the District Hospital Leadership Forum all note this bill will provide an exception for TVHD to resubmit its seismic safety extension application and acceptable plan to OSHPD in compliance with retrofit deadlines established under current law, and this solution will provide the hospital with adequate time to retrofit the appropriate buildings and allow the hospital to remain operational until the new hospital is complete.
Analysis Prepared by: Lara Flynn / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0002411
AB 232
Page 6
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 232
(Obernolte)
As Amended September 4, 2015
2/3 vote. Urgency
ASSEMBLY: |
|
(May 14, 2015) |
SENATE: |
40-0 |
(September 10, 2015) |
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: W., P., & W.
SUMMARY: Authorizes a critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi to submit an application to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), which, if approved, would extend the hospital's seismic compliance deadline to 2020. Contains an urgency clause to ensure that the provisions of this bill go into immediate effect upon enactment.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill and instead:
Permit a critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi to submit a seismic safety extension application, pursuant to specified provisions of existing law that allow an extension of the deadline until up to January 1, 2020.
Require the application submitted pursuant to 1) above to include a timetable, as required under existing law, detailing how the hospital intends to meet the requested deadline.
EXISTING STATE LAW:
Establishes the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983 (Alquist Act), to ensure that hospital buildings be designed and constructed to resist the forces generated by earthquakes and requires OSHPD to propose building standards for earthquake resistance and to provide independent review of the design and construction of hospital buildings.
Requires hospitals to evaluate and rate all their general acute care hospital buildings for seismic resistance.
Provides the ability for hospitals to request and receive a delay in their January 1, 2008, seismic compliance deadline if the hospital can demonstrate that compliance will result in a loss of health care capacity that may not be provided by another hospital within a reasonable distance. Requires the requesting hospital to state why it cannot comply with the deadline.
Requires OSHPD, prior to granting an extension of the 2008 deadline, to:
Provide public notice of a hospital's request for an extension which includes the facility's name, identification number, the status of the request, and the beginning and ending dates of the public comment period, as well as provide copies of extension requests to interested parties within 10 working days; and,
Allow the public to submit written comments on the extension proposal for at least 45 days from the date of the public notice.
Allows hospitals that have received extensions to January 1, 2013, of the January 1, 2008 seismic deadline, for their SPC-1 buildings, to request an additional extension of up to seven years. Establishes a deadline of September 30, 2012, to apply for this extension.
Requires OSHPD to notify the Department of Public Health (DPH), of the hospital owners that have received a written notice of violation for failure to comply with seismic safety requirements. Requires DPH, unless the hospital places its license in voluntary suspense, to suspend or refuse to renew the license of a hospital that has received a notice of violation from OSHPD because of its failure to comply with either of those requirements.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW: Establishes the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program to permit states to designate certain health facilities to be critical access hospitals. Requires critical access hospitals to meet certain criteria, including that the facility be a rural public or nonprofit hospital that is located more than a 35-mile drive from any other hospital or is certified by the state as being a necessary provider of health care services to residents in the area.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill extended from 20 days to 30 days, the time period the Legislature has to review a proposed state park lease agreement before it can be approved by the State Public Works Board.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
Purpose of this Bill. According to the author The Tehachapi Valley Health Care District (TVHD) set out to comply with the state's seismic mandate by building a brand new hospital which is currently under construction. However, in the interim, the hospital must retrofit existing buildings in order to remain operational and to ensure continued access to critical health care services. The author notes that under the current seismic mandate, this hospital will be unable to continue operating in its existing hospital buildings beyond January 1, 2016. The author contends that if the hospital is not be granted an extension to this deadline, the consequences are severe - including loss of hospital licensure and the exclusion from federal participation in Medicaid and Medicare. The author concludes passage of this bill will not only prevent closure of this hospital, and will also ensure that residents in this district will continue to have access to critical health care services that are so needed in this small rural community.
Background.
Hospital seismic safety requirements. The Alquist Act establishes a seismic safety building standards program under OSHPD's jurisdiction for hospitals built on or after March 7, 1973. The Alquist Act was initiated because of the loss of life incurred due to the collapse of hospitals during the Sylmar earthquake of 1971. Approximately 470 general acute care hospital facilities comprised of 2,673 hospital buildings are impacted by the provisions of the Alquist Act. Hospitals built in accordance with the standards of the Alquist Act resisted the January 1994 Northridge earthquake with minimal structural damage, while several facilities built prior to the Alquist Act experienced major structural damage and had to be evacuated.
One of the main provisions of the Alquist Act was the development, via regulation, of earthquake or seismic performance categories, specifically the Structural Performance Categories (SPCs). These include seismic performance categories for new and existing general acute care hospital facilities at various levels, i.e., from those capable of providing services to the public after a seismic event (SPC-5) to those at significant risk of collapse (SPC-1) and that represent a danger to the public.
Each general acute care hospital facility must be at certain SPC levels by specified timeframes. For example, in the initial law all general acute care hospital facility buildings must be at the SPC-2 (do not significantly jeopardize life, but may not be repairable or functional following strong ground motion) by January 1, 2008, to be in compliance with the regulations, however, provisions were made to allow this deadline to be extended to January 1, 2013, if compliance with the 2008 deadline would result in a diminished capacity of healthcare services to the community. The next deadline is the January 1, 2030 deadline for hospitals to remain operational following an earthquake, and at that time SPC-2 buildings will no longer be permitted, and all building will have to at least meet SPC-3, and in many cases, SPC-4 or SPC-5 (the highest rating). According to OSPHD, only about 10% of remaining hospital buildings are still classified as SPC-1.
The following are the Alquist Act deadline extensions that are relevant to Tehachapi Hospital and this bill:
SB 306 (Ducheny), Chapter 642, Statutes of 2007, permitted a hospital owner to comply with seismic safety deadlines and requirements in current law by replacing all of its buildings subject to seismic retrofit by January 1, 2020, rather than retrofitting to SPC-2 by 2013 and replacing them by 2030, if the hospital meets several conditions and OSHPD certifies that the hospital owner lacks the financial capacity to meet seismic standards, as defined. Among the conditions a hospital must meet to be eligible for this extension are that it maintains a contract to provide Medi-Cal services, maintains a basic emergency room, and is either in an underserved area, serves an underserved community, is an essential provider of Medi-Cal services, or is a heavy provider of services to Medi-Cal and indigent patients. Eighteen hospitals have qualified for extensions to 2020 under this authority. Tehachapi Hospital applied for an extension under SB 306, but the application was denied by OSHPD due to financial criteria.
SB 608 (Alquist), Chapter 623, Statutes of 2010, provided for an extension of hospital seismic deadlines, for hospitals that have already received the five-year extension to January 1, 2013, of up to three years for hospitals that document that a local planning delay will cause them to miss the January 1, 2013 deadline. Tehachapi Hospital was approved for an extension under SB 608 for the maximum of three years, to January 1, 2016. This is the deadline currently facing Tehachapi Hospital.
SB 90 (Steinberg), Chapter 19, Statutes of 2011, allowed a hospital to seek an extension for seismic compliance for its SPC-1 buildings of up to seven years based on the following elements: the structural integrity of the building, the loss of essential hospital services to the community if the hospital closed, and financial hardship. The deadline for submitting an application under SB 90 was September 30, 2012. A hospital applying under SB 90, as part of its application, was required to specify whether it intended to rebuild, replace, or retrofit the building, and the amount of time necessary to complete the construction. Additionally, a hospital seeking an SB 90 extension was required to submit to OSHPD, as part of its application, a structural reassessment, known as a HAZUS assessment, for each of its SPC-1 buildings. Tehachapi Hospital initially submitted an application for an extension under SB 90 in 2012, but withdrew the application because it intended to build a new facility rather than retrofit their existing building to SPC-2 standards.
Tehachapi Hospital. Tehachapi Hospital is operated by the TVHD, and is licensed as a 24-bed general acute care hospital, of which 19 beds are classified as "swing" beds, meaning they can also be used for long-term skilled nursing care. Tehachapi Hospital is located in the City of Tehachapi, which is about 35 miles southeast of Bakersfield. The nearest hospital is Kern Medical Center in Bakersfield, 38 miles away. Tehachapi Hospital is designated by DPH as a critical access hospital, which under federal Medicare law means they are eligible to receive cost-based reimbursement from Medicare, and is intended to reduce hospital closures in rural areas. As discussed above, Tehachapi Hospital was granted extensions from the original January 1, 2008 deadline to bring their SPC-1 buildings into SPC-2 compliance. Under its SB 608 extension, they have until January 1, 2016 to bring their SPC-1 buildings into compliance, or stop providing services as a general acute care hospital.
According to OSHPD, in March of 2012, Tehachapi Hospital applied for an extension under SB 90, which would have provided for an extension of up to seven years beyond the 2013 deadline, or as late as January 1, 2020. Because this application did not include the required HAZUS assessment, OSHPD issued a letter to Tehachapi informing the hospital that their application was in jeopardy of being denied without the HAZUS assessment. Rather than complete a HAZUS assessment, Tehachapi Hospital withdrew their request for an SB 90 extension in June of 2012.
According to TVHD, the reason the hospital withdrew its SB 90 application was because it was planning on building a new hospital, and because it planned to have this building completed before their current deadline, determined that an SB 90 extension was unnecessary. However the hospital encountered both financial and design challenges as well as construction delays and the project is now approximately 18 months behind schedule, beyond the January 1, 2016 deadline.
Construction on the new hospital is expected to be finished by the end of May 2016, and after inspections, setting up the new hospital, and achieving licensure, the new Tehachapi Hospital is expected to be operational by sometime in November of 2016.
Support. The Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD) is the sponsor of this bill and states without the authority granted in this bill Tehachapi Hospital will be unable to continue operating in its existing hospital as of January 1, 2016. ACHD notes as a rural critical access hospital serving a remote rural community located west of the Mojave Desert in the Tehachapi Mountains, the hospital faces a greater disadvantage than larger, urban hospitals and has faced both financial and design challenges. ACHD states the TVHD is in the midst of constructing the new hospital which is approximately 50% complete and until recently believed they were on track to meet the seismic deadlines in statute; however the TVHD now faces an 18-month project delay, threatening continued access to critical health care services in this underserved community.
Adventist Health, the California Hospital Association, and the District Hospital Leadership Forum all note this bill will provide an exception for TVHD to resubmit its seismic safety extension application and acceptable plan to OSHPD in compliance with retrofit deadlines established under current law, and this solution will provide the hospital with adequate time to retrofit the appropriate buildings and allow the hospital to remain operational until the new hospital is complete.
Related Legislation. AB 81 (Wood), Chapter 63, Statutes of 2015, permits a hospital in the City of Willits to request an eight-month deadline extension of a seismic safety requirement that hospitals be rebuilt or retrofitted to be capable of withstanding an earthquake, which it is currently required to meet by January 1, 2015, so that this hospital could have until September 1, 2015, to meet this seismic safety requirement.
Previous Legislation.
AB 2557 (Pan), Chapter 821, Statutes of 2014, permitted hospitals located in the Counties of Sacramento, San Mateo, or Santa Barbara, or the City of San Jose, that had received an additional extension of the January 1, 2008, seismic safety requirements under specified provisions of existing law to January 1, 2015, to request an additional extension until September 1, 2015, in order to obtain either a certificate of occupancy or a construction final from OSHPD.
SB 90 allowed a hospital that had already received an extension to January 1, 2013, to seek an extension for seismic compliance for its SPC-1 buildings of up to seven additional years, if the hospital meets several interim deadlines and requirements. Required OSHPD, in deciding whether to grant the extension and in deciding how long the extension should be, to base its decision on the following elements: the structural integrity of the building, the loss of essential hospital services to the community if the hospital closed, and financial hardship.
SB 608 provided for an extension of hospital seismic deadlines of up to three years for hospitals that document that a local planning delay will cause them to miss the January 1, 2013 deadline. Permitted OSHPD to grant an additional extension of up to two years, beyond the three years, for projects that do not provide acute care services and meet other criteria regarding life support systems and structural risk.
SB 499 (Ducheny), Chapter 601, Statutes of 2009, required all general acute care hospitals that have SPC-1 buildings to report to OSHPD by November 1, 2010, and annually thereafter, on the status of their compliance with the seismic safety deadlines.
SB 306 amended the Alquist Act to permit hospitals to delay compliance with the July 1, 2008 seismic retro deadline, and the 2013 extension, to the year 2020, by filing a declaration with OSHPD that the owner lacks financial capacity to comply with the law.
SB 1661 (Cox), Chapter 679, Statutes of 2006, authorized an extension of up to an additional two years for hospitals that had already received extensions of the January 1, 2008 seismic safety compliance deadline if specified criteria were met, and required specified hospital reports to be posted on the OSHPD Web site.
This bill was substantially amended in the Senate and the Assembly-approved provisions of this bill were deleted. This bill, as amended in the Senate is inconsistent with Assembly actions.
Analysis Prepared by: Lara Flynn / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0002397
AB 232 (Obernolte) Page 6 of 6
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Senator Ed Hernandez, O.D., Chair
BILL NO: AB 232
AUTHOR: |
Obernolte |
||
VERSION: |
September 4, 2015 |
||
HEARING DATE: |
September 10, 2015 |
|
|
CONSULTANT: |
Vince Marchand |
||
PURSUANT TO SENATE RULE 29.10
SUBJECT: Hospitals: seismic safety.
SUMMARY:
Permits a critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi to submit a seismic safety extension application, pursuant to specified provisions of existing law that allow an extension up to January 1, 2020, notwithstanding a deadline of September 2012 to apply for this extension.
Existing state law:
Establishes, under the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983 (Alquist Act), timelines for hospital compliance with seismic safety standards, including a requirement that buildings posing a significant risk of collapse and a danger to the public (referred to as SPC -1 buildings) be rebuilt or retrofitted to be capable of withstanding an earthquake, or removed from acute care service, by January 1, 2008, and a requirement that hospital buildings be capable of continued operation after an earthquake by January 1, 2030.
Permits the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) to grant an extension of up to five years to the 2008 deadline, which would be January 1, 2013, for hospitals for which compliance will result in a loss of health care capacity, as defined.
Permits OSHPD to grant various further extensions beyond the initial five year extension in 2) above, under various eligibility requirements, with January 1, 2020, being the final permissible extension for SPC-1 buildings allowed under any of the various extensions.
Requires owners of general acute care hospital buildings that are classified as SPC-1 buildings to submit reports to OSHPD annually describing the status of each building in complying with the January 1, 2013, deadline.
Allows OSHPD to utilize computer modeling based on HAZUS, which is a seismic risks analysis tool, for purposes of determining the structural performance category of general acute care hospital buildings.
Existing federal law:
Establishes the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program to permit states to designate certain health facilities to be critical access hospitals. Requires critical access hospitals to meet specified criteria, including that the facility be a rural public or nonprofit hospital that is located more than a 35-mile drive from any other hospital or is certified by the state as being a necessary provider of health care services to residents in the area.
Requires critical access hospitals to receive reasonable cost-based reimbursement for their services from Medicare.
This bill:
Permits a critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi to submit a seismic safety extension application, pursuant to specified provisions of existing law that allow an extension of the deadline until up to January 1, 2020, notwithstanding deadlines in those provisions of existing law that are earlier than the effective date of this bill, including the September 2012 deadline to submit an application.
Requires the application submitted pursuant to 1) above to include a timetable, as required under existing law, detailing how the hospital intends to meet the requested deadline.
Contains an urgency clause so that the bill will take effect immediately, in order to prevent the loss of hospital licensure and Medicaid and Medicare Funding that would lead to closure of a critical access hospital and a loss of access to health care in the City of Tehachapi.
FISCAL EFFECT:
This version of the bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.
COMMENTS:
Author’s statement. According to the author, this bill would assist a small critical access hospital serving a remote rural community located in the Tehachapi Mountains. The next closest hospital is more than 38 miles away. Tehachapi Hospital has set out to comply with the state’s seismic mandate by building a brand new hospital. The new Tehachapi Hospital is currently under construction. However, in the interim, the hospital must retrofit existing buildings in order to remain operational and to ensure continued access to critical health care services. The author states that under the current seismic mandate, this hospital will be unable to continue operating in its existing hospital buildings beyond January 1, 2016. Should the hospital not be granted an extension to this deadline, the consequences are severe - including loss of hospital licensure and the exclusion from federal participation in Medicaid and Medicare. According to the author, this bill would provide an exception for Tehachapi Hospital to resubmit their seismic safety extension application to OSHPD in accordance with laws that would provide an extension through January 1, 2020, for them to retrofit their existing buildings.
Hospital seismic requirements. Following the 1971 San Fernando Valley earthquake, California enacted the Alquist Act, which mandated that all new hospital construction meet stringent seismic safety standards. In 1994, after the Northridge earthquake, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 1953 (Alquist, Chapter 740, Statutes of 1994) which required OSHPD to establish earthquake performance categories for hospitals, and established a January 1, 2008, deadline by which general acute care hospitals must be retrofitted or replaced so that they do not pose a risk of collapse in the event of an earthquake, and a January 1, 2030, deadline by which they must be capable of remaining operational following an earthquake. Hospital buildings are categorized under a structural performance category (SPC) rating system, whereby buildings with a relatively high probability of collapse are designated as SPC-1, and these are the buildings subject to the original January 1, 2008 deadline and its various extensions. Current law allowed most hospitals to qualify for an extension of the 2008 deadline, with hospitals able to request extensions in one-year increments up to a maximum of five years after January 1, 2008. Therefore, practically speaking, the real initial deadline for hospitals to retrofit or replace SPC-1 buildings was January 1, 2013.
In addition to this five-year extension, the Legislature has passed additional bills allowing hospitals to extend the deadlines for retrofitting or replacing SPC-1 buildings beyond the 2013 deadline, with the very latest of the extensions ending on January 1, 2020. After January 1, 2020, all SPC-1 buildings will either have been removed from service, or brought up to at least SPC-2 status. The next deadline is the January 1, 2030 deadline for hospitals to remain operational following an earthquake, and at that time SPC-2 buildings will no longer be permitted, and all buildings will have to at least meet SPC-3, and in many cases, SPC-4 or SPC-5 (the highest rating). According to OSHPD, only about 10 percent of remaining hospital buildings are still classified as SPC-1.
The following are the Alquist Act deadline extensions that are relevant to Tehachapi Hospital and this bill:
SB 306 (Ducheny, Chapter 642, Statutes of 2007) permitted a hospital owner to comply with seismic safety deadlines and requirements in current law by replacing all of its buildings subject to seismic retrofit by January 1, 2020, rather than retrofitting to SPC-2 by 2013 and replacing them by 2030, if the hospital meets several conditions and OSHPD certifies that the hospital owner lacks the financial capacity to meet seismic standards, as defined. Among the conditions a hospital must meet to be eligible for this extension are that it maintains a contract to provide Medi-Cal services, maintains a basic emergency room, and is either in an underserved area, serves an underserved community, is an essential provider of Medi-Cal services, or is a heavy provider of services to Medi-Cal and indigent patients. Eighteen hospitals have qualified for extensions to 2020 under this authority. Tehachapi Hospital applied for an extension under SB 306, but the application was denied by OSHPD due to financial criteria.
SB 608 (Alquist, Chapter 623, Statutes of 2010) provided for an extension of hospital seismic deadlines, for hospitals that have already received the five year extension to January 1, 2013, of up to three years for hospitals that document that a local planning delay will cause them to miss the January 1, 2013 deadline. Tehachapi Hospital was approved for an extension under SB 608 for the maximum of three years, to January 1, 2016. This is the deadline currently facing Tehachapi Hospital.
SB 90 (Steinberg, Chapter 19, Statutes of 2011) allowed a hospital to seek an extension for seismic compliance for its SPC-1 buildings of up to seven years based on the following elements: the structural integrity of the building, the loss of essential hospital services to the community if the hospital closed, and financial hardship. The deadline for submitting an application under SB 90 was September 30, 2012. A hospital applying under SB 90, as part of its application, was required to specify whether it intended to rebuild, replace, or retrofit the building, and the amount of time necessary to complete the construction. Additionally, a hospital seeking an SB 90 extension was required to submit to OSHPD, as part of its application, a structural reassessment, known as a HAZUS assessment, for each of its SPC-1 buildings. Tehachapi Hospital initially submitted an application for an extension under SB 90 in 2012, but withdrew the application because it intended to build a new facility rather than retrofit their existing building to SPC-2 standards.
Background on Tehachapi Hospital. Tehachapi Hospital is operated by the Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District, and is licensed as a 24-bed general acute care hospital, of which 19 beds are classified as “swing” beds, and can be used for long-term skilled nursing care. Tehachapi Hospital is located in the City of Tehachapi, which is about 35 miles southeast of Bakersfield. The nearest hospital is Kern Medical Center in Bakersfield, 38 miles away. Tehachapi Hospital is designated by the Department of Public Health as a critical access hospital, which under federal Medicare law means they are eligible to receive cost-based reimbursement from Medicare, and is intended to reduce hospital closures in rural areas. As discussed above, Tehachapi Hospital was granted extensions from the original January 1, 2008, deadline to bring their SPC-1 buildings into SPC-2 compliance. Under its SB 608 extension, they have until January 1, 2016 to bring their SPC-1 buildings into compliance, or stop providing services as a general acute care hospital.
According to OSHPD, in March of 2012, Tehachapi Hospital applied for an extension under SB 90, which would have provided for an extension of up to 7 years beyond the 2013 deadline, or as late as January 1, 2020. Because this application did not include the required HAZUS assessment, OSHPD issued a letter to Tehachapi informing the hospital that their application was in jeopardy of being denied without the HAZUS assessment. Rather than complete a HAZUS assessment, Tehachapi Hospital withdrew their request for an SB 90 extension in June of 2012.
According to Tehachapi Hospital, the reason it withdrew its SB 90 application was because it was planning on building a new hospital. Because Tehachapi Hospital planned to have this building completed by their current deadline, the hospital determined that an SB 90 extension was unnecessary. However, Tehachapi Hospital states that in the ensuing years, it has had construction delays, and inconsistent leadership. The hospital is on its third Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in the last year and a half. According to the current CEO, the new hospital construction, while behind schedule by more than a year, is moving forward, and the health care district is on much firmer financial footing as well. Construction on the new hospital is expected to be finished by the end of May 2016, and after inspections, setting up the new hospital, and achieving licensure, the new Tehachapi Hospital is expected to be operational by sometime in November of 2016.
In addition to completing the new building, the CEO of Tehachapi Hospital states that it is continuing with efforts to retrofit the existing hospital to meet SPC-2 standards, so that even once the new hospital is up and running, the existing building can continue to be used to provide non-acute care services.
Prior legislation. AB 2557 (Pan, Chapter 821, Statutes of 2014) permitted hospitals located in the Counties of Sacramento, San Mateo, or Santa Barbara, or the City of San Jose, that had received an additional extension of the January 1, 2008, seismic safety requirements under specified provisions of existing law to January 1, 2015, to request an additional extension until September 1, 2015, in order to obtain either a certificate of occupancy or a construction final from OSHPD.
SB 90 (Steinberg, Chapter 19, Statutes of 2011) allowed a hospital that had already received an extension to January 1, 2013, to seek an extension for seismic compliance for its SPC-1 buildings of up to seven additional years, if the hospital meets several interim deadlines and requirements. Required OSHPD, in deciding whether to grant the extension and in deciding how long the extension should be, to base its decision on the following elements: the structural integrity of the building, the loss of essential hospital services to the community if the hospital closed, and financial hardship.
SB 608 (Alquist, Chapter 623, Statutes of 2010) provided for an extension of hospital seismic deadlines of up to three years for hospitals that document that a local planning delay will cause them to miss the January 1, 2013 deadline. Permitted OSHPD to grant an additional extension of up to two years, beyond the three years, for projects that do not provide acute care services and meet other criteria regarding life support systems and structural risk, as specified.
SB 499 (Ducheny, Chapter 601, Statutes of 2009) required all general acute care hospitals that have SPC-1 buildings to report to OSHPD by November 1, 2010, and annually thereafter, on the status of their compliance with the seismic safety deadlines.
SB 306 (Ducheny, Chapter 642, Statues of 2007) amended the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act to permit hospitals to delay compliance with the July 1, 2008, seismic retro deadline, and the 2013 extension, to the year 2020, by filing a declaration with OSHPD that the owner lacks financial capacity to comply with the law.
SB 1661 (Cox, Chapter 679, Statutes of 2006) authorized an extension of up to an additional two years for hospitals that had already received extensions of the January 1, 2008, seismic safety compliance deadline if specified criteria were met, and required specified hospital reports to be posted on the OSHPD Web site.
Support. This bill is sponsored by the Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD), which states that without the authority granted by this bill, Tehachapi Hospital will be unable to continue operating in its existing hospital as of January 1, 2016. ACHD states that as a critical access hospital serving a remote rural community located west of the Mojave Desert in the Tehachapi Mountains, Tehachapi Hospital faces a greater disadvantage than larger, urban hospitals and has faced both financial and design challenges. Tehachapi Hospital planned to comply with the state’s seismic mandate by building a new hospital, and is in the midst of constructing this hospital, which is more than 50 percent completed. ACHD states that this bill will ensure that Tehachapi Hospital can continue to provide critical health care services to a very rural and underserved community. This bill is supported by the Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District (TVHD), which states that under SB 90, hospitals were allowed to apply for an extension through January 1, 2020. According to TVHD, although its hospital meets the criteria for this extension, it is unable to take advantage of the time frame established under this law because they failed to submit an application, believing that construction of the new hospital would be complete by January 1, 2016. TVHD states that this bill would provide an exception for TVHD to resubmit the seismic safety extension application and acceptable plan to OSHPD in compliance with the 2020 deadline established under SB 90. Adventist Health states in support that ensuring that a hospital’s structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems can remain operational following an earthquake is a very complex and expensive process, and this bill will provide the hospital with adequate time to retrofit the appropriate buildings and allow Tehachapi Hospital to remain operational until the new hospital is built.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: Association of California Healthcare Districts (sponsor)
Adventist Health
California Hospital Association
Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District
Oppose: None received
-- END --
AB 232
Page 8
|
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 232
Amended: 9/4/15 in Senate
PRIOR SENATE VOTE NOT RELEVANT
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 9-0, 9/10/15
AYES: Hernandez, Nguyen, Hall, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Pan, Roth, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Not relevant
SUBJECT: Hospitals: seismic safety
SOURCE: Association of California Healthcare Districts
DIGEST: This bill permits a critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi to submit a seismic safety extension application, pursuant to specified provisions of existing law that allow an extension up to January 1, 2020, notwithstanding a deadline of September 2012 to apply for this extension.
Existing federal law:
Establishes the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program to permit states to designate certain health facilities to be critical access hospitals. Requires critical access hospitals to meet specified criteria, including that the facility be a rural public or nonprofit hospital that is located more than a 35-mile drive from any other hospital or is certified by the state as being a necessary provider of health care services to residents in the area.
Requires critical access hospitals to receive reasonable cost-based reimbursement for their services from Medicare.
Existing state law:
Establishes, under the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983 (Alquist Act), timelines for hospital compliance with seismic safety standards, including a requirement that buildings posing a significant risk of collapse and a danger to the public (referred to as SPC -1 buildings) be rebuilt or retrofitted to be capable of withstanding an earthquake, or removed from acute care service, by January 1, 2008, and a requirement that hospital buildings be capable of continued operation after an earthquake by January 1, 2030.
Permits the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) to grant an extension of up to five years to the 2008 deadline, which would be January 1, 2013, for hospitals for which compliance will result in a loss of health care capacity, as defined.
Permits OSHPD to grant various further extensions beyond the initial five year extension in 2) above, under various eligibility requirements, with January 1, 2020, being the final permissible extension for SPC-1 buildings allowed under any of the various extensions.
Requires owners of general acute care hospital buildings that are classified as SPC-1 buildings to submit reports to OSHPD annually describing the status of each building in complying with the January 1, 2013, deadline.
Allows OSHPD to utilize computer modeling based on HAZUS, which is a seismic risks analysis tool, for purposes of determining the structural performance category of general acute care hospital buildings.
This bill:
Permits a critical access hospital located in the City of Tehachapi to submit a seismic safety extension application, pursuant to specified provisions of existing law that allow an extension of the deadline until up to January 1, 2020, notwithstanding deadlines in those provisions of existing law that are earlier than the effective date of this bill, including the September 2012 deadline to submit an application.
Requires the application submitted pursuant to 1) above to include a timetable, as required under existing law, detailing how the hospital intends to meet the requested deadline.
Contains an urgency clause so that this bill will take effect immediately, in order to prevent the loss of hospital licensure and Medicaid and Medicare Funding that would lead to closure of a critical access hospital and a loss of access to health care in the City of Tehachapi.
Comments
Author’s statement. According to the author, this bill assists a small critical access hospital serving a remote rural community located in the Tehachapi Mountains. The next closest hospital is more than 38 miles away. Tehachapi Hospital has set out to comply with the state’s seismic mandate by building a brand new hospital. The new Tehachapi Hospital is currently under construction. However, in the interim, the hospital must retrofit existing buildings in order to remain operational and to ensure continued access to critical health care services. The author states that under the current seismic mandate, this hospital will be unable to continue operating in its existing hospital buildings beyond January 1, 2016. Should the hospital not be granted an extension to this deadline, the consequences are severe - including loss of hospital licensure and the exclusion from federal participation in Medicaid and Medicare. According to the author, this bill provides an exception for Tehachapi Hospital to resubmit their seismic safety extension application to OSHPD in accordance with laws that would provide an extension through January 1, 2020, for them to retrofit their existing buildings.
Hospital seismic requirements. Following the 1971 San Fernando Valley earthquake, California enacted the Alquist Act, which mandated that all new hospital construction meet stringent seismic safety standards. In 1994, after the Northridge earthquake, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 1953 (Alquist, Chapter 740, Statutes of 1994) which required OSHPD to establish earthquake performance categories for hospitals, and established a January 1, 2008, deadline by which general acute care hospitals must be retrofitted or replaced so that they do not pose a risk of collapse in the event of an earthquake, and a January 1, 2030, deadline by which they must be capable of remaining operational following an earthquake. Hospital buildings are categorized under a structural performance category (SPC) rating system, whereby buildings with a relatively high probability of collapse are designated as SPC-1, and these are the buildings subject to the original January 1, 2008 deadline and its various extensions. Current law allowed most hospitals to qualify for an extension of the 2008 deadline, with hospitals able to request extensions in one-year increments up to a maximum of five years after January 1, 2008. Therefore, practically speaking, the real initial deadline for hospitals to retrofit or replace SPC-1 buildings was January 1, 2013.
In addition to this five-year extension, the Legislature has passed additional bills allowing hospitals to extend the deadlines for retrofitting or replacing SPC-1 buildings beyond the 2013 deadline, with the very latest of the extensions ending on January 1, 2020. After January 1, 2020, all SPC-1 buildings will either have been removed from service, or brought up to at least SPC-2 status. The next deadline is the January 1, 2030 deadline for hospitals to remain operational following an earthquake, and at that time SPC-2 buildings will no longer be permitted, and all buildings will have to at least meet SPC-3, and in many cases, SPC-4 or SPC-5 (the highest rating). According to OSHPD, only about 10 percent of remaining hospital buildings are still classified as SPC-1.
The following are the Alquist Act deadline extensions that are relevant to Tehachapi Hospital and this bill:
SB 306 (Ducheny, Chapter 642, Statutes of 2007) permitted a hospital owner to comply with seismic safety deadlines and requirements in current law by replacing all of its buildings subject to seismic retrofit by January 1, 2020, rather than retrofitting to SPC-2 by 2013 and replacing them by 2030, if the hospital meets several conditions and OSHPD certifies that the hospital owner lacks the financial capacity to meet seismic standards, as defined. Among the conditions a hospital must meet to be eligible for this extension are that it maintains a contract to provide Medi-Cal services, maintains a basic emergency room, and is either in an underserved area, serves an underserved community, is an essential provider of Medi-Cal services, or is a heavy provider of services to Medi-Cal and indigent patients. Eighteen hospitals have qualified for extensions to 2020 under this authority. Tehachapi Hospital applied for an extension under SB 306, but the application was denied by OSHPD due to financial criteria.
SB 608 (Alquist, Chapter 623, Statutes of 2010) provided for an extension of hospital seismic deadlines, for hospitals that have already received the five year extension to January 1, 2013, of up to three years for hospitals that document that a local planning delay will cause them to miss the January 1, 2013 deadline. Tehachapi Hospital was approved for an extension under SB 608 for the maximum of three years, to January 1, 2016. This is the deadline currently facing Tehachapi Hospital.
SB 90 (Steinberg, Chapter 19, Statutes of 2011) allowed a hospital to seek an extension for seismic compliance for its SPC-1 buildings of up to seven years based on the following elements: the structural integrity of the building, the loss of essential hospital services to the community if the hospital closed, and financial hardship. The deadline for submitting an application under SB 90 was September 30, 2012. A hospital applying under SB 90, as part of its application, was required to specify whether it intended to rebuild, replace, or retrofit the building, and the amount of time necessary to complete the construction. Additionally, a hospital seeking an SB 90 extension was required to submit to OSHPD, as part of its application, a structural reassessment, known as a HAZUS assessment, for each of its SPC-1 buildings. Tehachapi Hospital initially submitted an application for an extension under SB 90 in 2012, but withdrew the application because it intended to build a new facility rather than retrofit their existing building to SPC-2 standards.
Background on Tehachapi Hospital. Tehachapi Hospital is operated by the Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District, and is licensed as a 24-bed general acute care hospital, of which 19 beds are classified as “swing” beds, and can be used for long-term skilled nursing care. Tehachapi Hospital is located in the City of Tehachapi, which is about 35 miles southeast of Bakersfield. The nearest hospital is Kern Medical Center in Bakersfield, 38 miles away. Tehachapi Hospital is designated by the Department of Public Health as a critical access hospital, which under federal Medicare law means they are eligible to receive cost-based reimbursement from Medicare, and is intended to reduce hospital closures in rural areas. As discussed above, Tehachapi Hospital was granted extensions from the original January 1, 2008, deadline to bring their SPC-1 buildings into SPC-2 compliance. Under its SB 608 extension, they have until January 1, 2016 to bring their SPC-1 buildings into compliance, or stop providing services as a general acute care hospital.
According to OSHPD, in March of 2012, Tehachapi Hospital applied for an extension under SB 90, which would have provided for an extension of up to 7 years beyond the 2013 deadline, or as late as January 1, 2020. Because this application did not include the required HAZUS assessment, OSHPD issued a letter to Tehachapi informing the hospital that their application was in jeopardy of being denied without the HAZUS assessment. Rather than complete a HAZUS assessment, Tehachapi Hospital withdrew their request for an SB 90 extension in June of 2012.
According to Tehachapi Hospital, the reason it withdrew its SB 90 application was because it was planning on building a new hospital. Because Tehachapi Hospital planned to have this building completed by their current deadline, the hospital determined that an SB 90 extension was unnecessary. However, Tehachapi Hospital states that in the ensuing years, it has had construction delays, and inconsistent leadership. The hospital is on its third Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in the last year and a half. According to the current CEO, the new hospital construction, while behind schedule by more than a year, is moving forward, and the health care district is on much firmer financial footing as well. Construction on the new hospital is expected to be finished by the end of May 2016, and after inspections, setting up the new hospital, and achieving licensure, the new Tehachapi Hospital is expected to be operational by sometime in November of 2016.
In addition to completing the new building, the CEO of Tehachapi Hospital states that it is continuing with efforts to retrofit the existing hospital to meet SPC-2 standards, so that even once the new hospital is up and running, the existing building can continue to be used to provide non-acute care services.
Prior Legislation
AB
2557 (Pan, Chapter 821, Statutes of 2014) permitted hospitals located
in the Counties of Sacramento, San Mateo, or Santa Barbara, or the
City of San Jose, that had received an additional extension of the
January 1, 2008, seismic safety requirements under specified
provisions of existing law to January 1, 2015, to request an
additional extension until September 1, 2015, in order to obtain
either a certificate of occupancy or a construction final from OSHPD.
SB 90 (Steinberg, Chapter 19, Statutes of 2011) allowed a
hospital that had already received an extension to January 1, 2013,
to seek an extension for seismic compliance for its SPC-1 buildings
of up to seven additional years, if the hospital meets several
interim deadlines and requirements. Required OSHPD, in deciding
whether to grant the extension and in deciding how long the extension
should be, to base its decision on the following elements: the
structural integrity of the building, the loss of essential hospital
services to the community if the hospital closed, and financial
hardship.
SB 608 (Alquist, Chapter 623, Statutes of 2010) provided for an extension of hospital seismic deadlines of up to three years for hospitals that document that a local planning delay will cause them to miss the January 1, 2013 deadline. Permitted OSHPD to grant an additional extension of up to two years, beyond the three years, for projects that do not provide acute care services and meet other criteria regarding life support systems and structural risk, as specified.
SB 499 (Ducheny, Chapter 601, Statutes of 2009) required all general acute care hospitals that have SPC-1 buildings to report to OSHPD by November 1, 2010, and annually thereafter, on the status of their compliance with the seismic safety deadlines.
SB 306 (Ducheny, Chapter 642, Statues of 2007) amended the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act to permit hospitals to delay compliance with the July 1, 2008, seismic retro deadline, and the 2013 extension, to the year 2020, by filing a declaration with OSHPD that the owner lacks financial capacity to comply with the law.
SB 1661 (Cox, Chapter 679, Statutes of 2006) authorized an extension of up to an additional two years for hospitals that had already received extensions of the January 1, 2008, seismic safety compliance deadline if specified criteria were met, and required specified hospital reports to be posted on the OSHPD Web site.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
Association of California Healthcare Districts (source)
Adventist Health
California Hospital Association
Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/10/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD), which states that without the authority granted by this bill, Tehachapi Hospital will be unable to continue operating in its existing hospital as of January 1, 2016. ACHD states that as a critical access hospital serving a remote rural community located west of the Mojave Desert in the Tehachapi Mountains, Tehachapi Hospital faces a greater disadvantage than larger, urban hospitals and has faced both financial and design challenges. Tehachapi Hospital planned to comply with the state’s seismic mandate by building a new hospital, and is in the midst of constructing this hospital, which is more than 50 percent completed. ACHD states that this bill will ensure that Tehachapi Hospital can continue to provide critical health care services to a very rural and underserved community. This bill is supported by the Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District (TVHD), which states that under SB 90, hospitals were allowed to apply for an extension through January 1, 2020. According to TVHD, although its hospital meets the criteria for this extension, it is unable to take advantage of the time frame established under this law because they failed to submit an application, believing that construction of the new hospital would be complete by January 1, 2016. TVHD states that this bill would provide an exception for TVHD to resubmit the seismic safety extension application and acceptable plan to OSHPD in compliance with the 2020 deadline established under SB 90. Adventist Health states in support that ensuring that a hospital’s structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems can remain operational following an earthquake is a very complex and expensive process, and this bill will provide the hospital with adequate time to retrofit the appropriate buildings and allow Tehachapi Hospital to remain operational until the new hospital is built.
Prepared by: Vince Marchand / HEALTH /
9/10/15 19:10:19
**** END ****
AB 232
Page 3
|
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 232
Introduced: 2/4/15
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/23/15
AYES: Pavley, Stone, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Vidak, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 5/14/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Parks and monuments: operating leases or agreements
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the State Public Works Board (Board) to review and approve a proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, no earlier than 30 days after it has provided written notification to the chairpersons of those legislative committees, as provided.
Existing Law:
Authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to enter into an operating or lease agreement with another public agency for the care, maintenance, administration, and control, of lands for the purpose of the state park system.
Prohibits an operating lease or agreement between DPR and another public agency from being entered into or amended unless one of the following occurs:
The Legislature reviews the lease, agreement or amendment as part of the annual budget process, or
Following enactment of the annual Budget Act, the Board does all of the following:
Determines that the proposed lease or agreement could not have been presented to the Legislature for review during the annual budget process, and it would be adverse to the public interest to defer the review until the next budget process;
Reviews and approves the lease or agreement not sooner than 20 days after the board provides written notification to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chairperson of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, and the Chairperson of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.
Reports the action to the Legislature in the next Governor's Budget.
This bill:
Extends from 20 days to 30 days the time period the Legislature has to review a proposed state park operating lease, agreement or amendment before it can be approved by the Board.
Makes other technical corrections to update this code section.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
None received
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author indicates he has introduced this bill to provide more time for public review of lease agreements for state parks.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 5/14/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
Prepared by: William Craven / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116
7/9/15 10:54:53
**** END ****
AB 232
Page 3
|
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 |
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 232
Introduced: 2/4/15
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/23/15
AYES: Pavley, Stone, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Vidak, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 5/14/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Parks and monuments: operating leases or agreements
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the State Public Works Board (Board) to review and approve a proposed lease or agreement, or amendment, no earlier than 30 days after it has provided written notification to the chairpersons of those legislative committees, as provided.
Existing Law:
Authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to enter into an operating or lease agreement with another public agency for the care, maintenance, administration, and control, of lands for the purpose of the state park system.
Prohibits an operating lease or agreement between DPR and another public agency from being entered into or amended unless one of the following occurs:
The Legislature reviews the lease, agreement or amendment as part of the annual budget process, or
Following enactment of the annual Budget Act, the Board does all of the following:
Determines that the proposed lease or agreement could not have been presented to the Legislature for review during the annual budget process, and it would be adverse to the public interest to defer the review until the next budget process;
Reviews and approves the lease or agreement not sooner than 20 days after the board provides written notification to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chairperson of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, and the Chairperson of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.
Reports the action to the Legislature in the next Governor's Budget.
This bill:
Extends from 20 days to 30 days the time period the Legislature has to review a proposed state park operating lease, agreement or amendment before it can be approved by the Board.
Makes other technical corrections to update this code section.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
None received
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author indicates he has introduced this bill to provide more time for public review of lease agreements for state parks.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 5/14/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
Prepared by: William Craven / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116
7/8/15 15:42:25
**** END ****
AB 232 (Travis Allen) Page 2 of 2
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 232 Hearing Date: July 14, 2015
Author: |
Travis Allen |
|
|
Version: |
February 4, 2015 Introduced |
||
Urgency: |
No |
Fiscal: |
Yes |
Consultant: |
William Craven |
||
Subject: Parks and monuments: operating leases or agreements.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to enter into an operating or lease agreement with another public agency for the care, maintenance, administration, and control, of lands for the purpose of the state park system.
Prohibits an operating lease or agreement between DPR and another public agency from being entered into or amended unless one of the following occurs:
The Legislature reviews the lease, agreement or amendment as part of the annual budget process, or
Following enactment of the annual Budget Act, the State Public Works Board does all of the following:
Determines that the proposed lease or agreement could not have been presented to the Legislature for review during the annual budget process, and it would be adverse to the public interest to defer the review until the next budget process;
Reviews and approves the lease or agreement not sooner than 20 days after the board provides written notification to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chairperson of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, and the Chairperson of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.
Reports the action to the Legislature in the next Governor's Budget.
PROPOSED LAW
Specifically, this bill:
Extends from 20 days to 30 days the time period the Legislature has to review a proposed state park operating lease, agreement or amendment before it can be approved by the State Public Works Board;
Makes other technical corrections to update this code section.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author indicates he has introduced this bill to provide more time for public review of lease agreements for state parks.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.
COMMENTS
Current law requires that operating agreements and lease agreements between DPR and other public agencies be approved by the Legislature as part of the annual budget process. The statute provides an alternative process for approval of a lease agreement by the State Public Works Board (Board), when proposed agreements are proposed after the budget has been enacted and the Board determines that it is not in the interest of the public to wait for the agreement to be approved the following year. In that case, the Board must provide the Legislature with 20 day notice before approving the proposed agreement. This bill would extend the legislative notice requirement to 30 days. This bill also makes technical changes to update this code section to reflect the Legislature's current standing committees.
SUPPORT
None Received
OPPOSITION
None Received
-- END --
AB 232
Page 2
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 232
(Travis Allen)
As Introduced February 4, 2015
Majority vote
Committee |
Votes |
Ayes |
Noes |
Water |
15-0 |
Levine, Bigelow, Dababneh, Dahle, Dodd, Beth Gaines, Cristina Garcia, Gomez, Harper, Lopez, Mathis, Medina, Rendon, Salas, Williams |
|
Appropriations |
17-0 |
Gomez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Chang, Daly, Eggman, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Holden, Jones, Quirk, Rendon, Wagner, Weber, Wood |
|
SUMMARY: Extends from 20 days to 30 days the time period the Legislature has to review a proposed state park lease agreement before it can be approved by the State Public Works Board. Specifically, this bill:
Extends from 20 days to 30 days the time period the Legislature has to review a proposed state park operating lease, agreement or amendment before it can be approved by the State Public Works Board;
Makes other technical corrections to update this code section.
EXISTING LAW:
Authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to enter into an operating or lease agreement with another public agency for the care, maintenance, administration, and control, of lands for the purpose of the state park system.
Prohibits an operating lease or agreement between DPR and another public agency from being entered into or amended unless one of the following occurs:
The Legislature reviews the lease, agreement or amendment as part of the annual budget process, or
Following enactment of the annual Budget Act, the State Public Works Board does all of the following:
Determines that the proposed lease or agreement could not have been presented to the Legislature for review during the annual budget process, and it would be adverse to the public interest to defer the review until the next budget process;
Reviews and approves the lease or agreement not sooner than 20 days after the board provides written notification to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chairperson of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, and the Chairperson of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.
Reports the action to the Legislature in the next Governor's Budget.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no additional state costs.
COMMENTS: The author indicates he has introduced this bill to provide more time for public review of lease agreements for state parks. The current law requires that operating agreements and lease agreements between DPR and other public agencies be approved by the Legislature as part of the annual budget process. The statute provides an alternative process for approval of a lease agreement by the State Public Works Board (Board), when proposed agreements are proposed after the budget has been enacted and the Board determines that it is not in the interest of the public to wait for the agreement to be approved the following year. In that case, the Board must provide the Legislature with 20 day notice before approving the proposed agreement. This bill would extend the legislative notice requirement to 30 days. This bill also makes technical changes to update this code section to reflect the Legislature's current standing committees.
Analysis Prepared by: Diane Colborn / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0000298
AB 232
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB 232
(Travis Allen) – As Introduced February 4, 2015
Policy Committee: |
Water, Parks and Wildlife |
Vote: |
15 - 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY:
This bill extends the time period the Legislature has to review a proposed state park lease agreement before it can be approved by the State Public Works Board from 20 to 30 days.
FISCAL EFFECT:
No additional state costs.
COMMENTS:
Rationale. Current law requires operating and lease agreements between the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and other public agencies to be approved by the Legislature as part of the annual budget process.
The law provides an alternative process for approval by the State Public Works Board, when agreements are proposed after the budget has been enacted if the Board determines it is not in the interest of the public to wait for the agreement to be approved the following year. In that case, the Board must provide the Legislature with 20 day notice before approving the proposed agreement.
This bill allows the Legislature more time to review proposals.
Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Discussed in Hearing
2MIN
Assembly Floor
5MIN
Senate Floor
54SEC
Assembly Floor
1MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations
Bill Co-Author(s):
