AB 138 — California Community Health Fund.
Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Existing law provides for various programs that prevent disease and promote health, including the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program that provides, until July 1, 2020, additional benefits to residents of prioritized disadvantaged communities to purchase safe drinking water. Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes of the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges and establishes criminal penalties for specified acts, including making it a misdemeanor to knowingly or willfully file a false return and making it a felony to willfully evade or attempt to evade or defeat the payment of a fee. This bill, subject to specified exemptions, would impose a fee on every distributor, as defined, for the privilege of distributing bottled sugary drinks and concentrate in the state, at a rate of $0.02 per fluid ounce and for the privilege of distributing syrups and powders concentrate in this state, either as concentrate or as sweetened beverages derived from that concentrate, at the rate of $0.02 per fluid ounce of sweetened beverage to be produced from concentrate. The bill would require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to administer and collect the fee pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law, to register the distributors upon whom the fee is imposed, and would authorize the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to promulgate and enforce regulations related to administration of the fee. The bill would require the fees to be deposited into the California Community Health Fund, created by the bill. The bill would require moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be allocated to specified entities, including the State Department of Public Health, the State Department of Health Care Services, the State Department of Social Services, and the State Department of Education, to promote health equity, to reduce health disparities, to improve oral health, and to prevent the leading causes of illness, injury, and premature death. The bill would authorize state departments to award competitive grants to local organizations in support of the bill's objectives, and would authorize the State Department of Social Services to prioritize the revenues that it receives from the California Community Health Fund to fund the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to coordinate with the State Water Resources Control Board for purposes of conducting any activities related to the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program and that are funded by the California Community Health Fund. The bill would extend the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program to July 1, 2025, and would repeal those provisions on January 1, 2026. Because the bill would expand the application of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the consumption of sweetened beverages, diabetes, childhood obesity, and dental disease. 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. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII   A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
Bill Text
- Amended 04/11/19 - Amended Assembly Current pdf April 11, 2019
- Amended 03/25/19 - Amended Assembly pdf March 25, 2019
- Introduced 12/07/18 - Introduced pdf December 07, 2018
- AB138 View text html
Action History
-
From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
-
Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
-
Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. (Ayes 8. Noes 6.) (April 9). Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.
-
Referred to Coms. on HEALTH and REV. & TAX.
-
Read first time.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee January 7.
-
Introduced. To print.
Sponsors
- Bloom · Primary
- Chiu · Cosponsor
- McCarty · Cosponsor
- Nazarian · Cosponsor
- Buffy Wicks · Cosponsor
- Monning · Cosponsor
- Scott D. Wiener · Cosponsor
- Mia Bonta · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 7 co-sponsors · 114 not signed on · 2 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Bloom
Co-sponsors (7)
- Chiu
- McCarty
- Nazarian
- Wicks, Buffy Democratic
- Monning
- Wiener, Scott D. Democratic
- Bonta, Mia Democratic
Not signed on (114)
114 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 114 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 8 | 6 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 53% | 40% | 0% | 7% |
How each member voted (15)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Burke | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Yea |
| Nazarian | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Nay |
| Rodriguez | — | Nay |
| Bigelow | — | Nay |
| Waldron | — | Nay |
| Mayes | — | Not Voting |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Limón, Monique | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Nay |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Nay |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 138 do?
- Existing law provides for various programs that prevent disease and promote health, including the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program that provides, until July 1, 2020, additional benefits to residents of prioritized disadvantaged communities to purchase safe drinking water. Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes of the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges and establishes criminal penalties for specified acts, including making it a misdemeanor to knowingly or willfully file a false return and making it a felony to willfully evade or attempt to evade or defeat the payment of a fee. This bill, subject to specified exemptions, would impose a fee on every distributor, as defined, for the privilege of distributing bottled sugary drinks and concentrate in the state, at a rate of $0.02 per fluid ounce and for the privilege of distributing syrups and powders concentrate in this state, either as concentrate or as sweetened beverages derived from that concentrate, at the rate of $0.02 per fluid ounce of sweetened beverage to be produced from concentrate. The bill would require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to administer and collect the fee pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law, to register the distributors upon whom the fee is imposed, and would authorize the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to promulgate and enforce regulations related to administration of the fee. The bill would require the fees to be deposited into the California Community Health Fund, created by the bill. The bill would require moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be allocated to specified entities, including the State Department of Public Health, the State Department of Health Care Services, the State Department of Social Services, and the State Department of Education, to promote health equity, to reduce health disparities, to improve oral health, and to prevent the leading causes of illness, injury, and premature death. The bill would authorize state departments to award competitive grants to local organizations in support of the bill's objectives, and would authorize the State Department of Social Services to prioritize the revenues that it receives from the California Community Health Fund to fund the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to coordinate with the State Water Resources Control Board for purposes of conducting any activities related to the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program and that are funded by the California Community Health Fund. The bill would extend the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program to July 1, 2025, and would repeal those provisions on January 1, 2026. Because the bill would expand the application of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the consumption of sweetened beverages, diabetes, childhood obesity, and dental disease. 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. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII   A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
- Who sponsors AB 138?
- AB 138 is sponsored by Bloom, Chiu, McCarty, Nazarian, Wicks, Buffy (Democratic), Monning, Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), and Bonta, Mia (Democratic).
- What is the current status of AB 138?
- This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track AB 138?
- Track AB 138 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 138
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 138
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →