BILL ANALYSIS
AB 282
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 282 (Transportation Committee) - As Introduced: February
12, 2009
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:12-0 (Consent)
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill makes several noncontroversial modifications to
transportation-related statutes, including:
1)Requiring interest earnings from the investment of specified
Proposition 1B (Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air
Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006) funds earmarked
to cities and counties to be subject to the same restrictions
as the bond proceeds themselves.
2)Conforming the Public Utilities Code to the Government Code in
regard to the time by which transit operators must file annual
reports with the Controller's office.
3)Clarifying that organ donors may limit the use of their
donations strictly for research purposes.
FISCAL EFFECT
No direct state fiscal effect.
The Prop 1B interest provision could result in substantial
redirection, potentially in the millions of dollars annually
AB 282
Page 2
statewide for the next few years, of city and county
expenditures of interest earned on Prop 1B bond proceeds
allocated for local transportation projects.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The Assembly Transportation Committee annually
authors an "omnibus bill," combining various technical
statutory fixes regarding transportation issues brought to the
committee by agencies and individuals. AB 3064 of 2008, which
was last year's omnibus measure, was one of numerous bills
summarily vetoed by the governor without a stated objection.
(AB 3064 passed this committee 17-0 and passed the Assembly
floor 78-0.) AB 282 contains many, but not all of the
provisions that were included in AB 3064.
2)Interest Provision . This provision, requested by the State
Controller, adds language to the statute governing allocation
and use of $2 billion worth of Prop 1B bond proceeds earmarked
for local street and road improvement, congestion relief, and
traffic safety projects. While bond proceeds allocated to
cities and counties must be spent on eligible transportation
projects, the statute is silent regarding how cities and
counties may spend interest earned on the bond proceeds
allocated to them. The controller is concerned that "local
agencies may argue that the law does not require that related
earnings from investments be restricted for the same purposes
as the principal (invested funds)."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081