BILL ANALYSIS
SB 974
Page A
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE ECONOMY
V. Manuel Perez, Chair
SB 974 (Steinberg) - As Amended: June 15, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 21-16
SUBJECT : Career Technical Education Credit and the California
Enterprise Zone Program
SUMMARY : Establishes a new Career Pathways Investment Credit,
administered by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), to
qualifying business entities that partner with local
education agency (LEA) programs to develop and support career
pathway programs, as specified. Funding for the credit is
provided by eliminating a portion of an existing enterprise zone
hiring credit. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes a number of findings, including, but not limited to, how
California's deep recession requires a timely response and
strategic investments in order to educate and prepare the
workforce for the next stage in the state's economic growth.
2)Provides legislative intent that, among other things, the
Legislature shall evaluate the state's tax expenditures as
rigorously as it evaluates the state's spending programs and
establish fiscal incentives that encourage California businesses
to enter into partnership with schools to connect pupils and
teachers to real-world experiences that strengthen middle and
high school education statewide.
3)Establishes and authorizes the reservation and allocation of up
to $78 million in tax credits in calendar year 2011 and $100
million in credits for 2012, and each calendar year thereafter,
as adjusted by the Franchise Tax Board to reflect inflation or
deflation. Credits may be reserved for up to five calendar
years per application. The amount reserved in any calendar year
is limited to 50% of the qualified expenditures, as defined.
Value of any unallocated credits from a prior year may be rolled
forward. Allocation of credits only occurs after the Department
of Education audits and verifies that the qualified expenditures
have been made in the manner consistent with what was
represented in the application.
4)Requires the SPI to annually provide Franchise Tax Board (FTB)
SB 974
Page B
with a list of qualified tax payers for whom the career pathways
credits are reserved or allocated.
5)Authorizes the SPI to charge a fee for the submission of an
application for allocation and reservation of the credit, as
specified. Fees are required to be deposited in the Career
Pathways Investment Credit Fund, which is established in this
bill. Loans are authorized to cover administration of the
program until sufficient fees are collected.
6)Requires the SPI to establish procedures for reserving and
auditing the Career Pathways Investment Credit that, at a
minimum, do the following:
a) Provide credit reservation only to applicants that agree
to enter into an enforceable contract or memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the Department of Education, as
specified.
b) Implement a reserve criteria that awards applicants that
demonstrate that either the applicant or the LEA meets the
following criteria:
i) The effectiveness of the career pathways program
toward preparing students for productive, high-wage
employment in growing or high need-sectors of the
California economy. Cost effectiveness criteria includes,
completion rates, high school graduation rates, percentages
of students attaining an industry certification,
percentages of students transitioning successfully to
postsecondary education and employment and earnings after
high school.
ii) The level of the applicant's investment in, oversight
of and ability to leverage and sustain current career
pathways programs and current career technical education
programs.
7)Requires that the application include, at a minimum:
a) A copy of the contract or MOU between the applicant and
the LEA that includes a clear and comprehensive plan for each
middle school or high school program that creates career
pathways and the budget for the career pathways investment
program over the period for which the applicant is applying
for credits;
SB 974
Page C
b) Details regarding the strength and relevance of the
education plan to the needs of industry for qualified
technical employees;
c) Projections of program enrollment; and
d) The method by which accountability for program participant
enrollments and outcomes will be maintained.
8)Sets certain priorities for allocating credits including:
a) Requiring priority allocation in each of the following
circumstances:
i) The applicant has entered into an MOU or contract with
LEA that is located in a community with an unemployment
rate above the statewide average, as specified, and has
high school graduation rate lower than the statewide
average.
ii) The applicant has entered into an MOU or contract with
LEA that provides for a private to public funding ratio
that exceeds the minimum one-for-one public to private
dollars.
iii) The applicant has entered into an MOU or contract with
LEA that is articulated with postsecondary certificate and
degree programs in the region.
iv) The applicant is not seeking tax credits for existing
activities.
b) Specifying that to the maximum extent practical and
consistent with the above priorities, give priority to
applicants serving socioeconomically diverse populations and
on a geographically equitable basis.
c) Providing that priority not be given on the basis of date
the application is submitted, unless necessary to allocate
credits where two or more applicants have the same rating.
9)Defines a qualified expenditure to include the following:
i) Purchase of equipment or instructional materials;
SB 974
Page D
ii) Authorizing employees to provide instruction, in
partnership with credentialed teachers employed by the
school district at the school site;
iii) Providing paid jobs or internships;
iv) Offering teacher externships; and
v) Making contributions to programs administered by
postsecondary institutions that provide support for middle
or high school programs that create career pathways.
10)Defines a qualified tax payer as an applicant that receives an
allocation pursuant to the requirements above and who is either
a sole owner, if an individual, partners, if the tax payer is in
a partnership; or a shareholder if the tax payer is an "S"
corporation; or a tax payer subject to the corporate tax code.
11)Authorizes a tax payer to carry forward any unused credits
until the credit is exhausted. Conversely, if the taxpayer
fails to meet the requirements of this bill, the credit is
disallowed, and assessed and collected until the requirements
are satisfied. A disallowed credit would be treated as a math
error, as specified.
12)Eliminates the ability of businesses located in an enterprise
zone from qualifying an employee for the enterprise hiring
credit based on them living in a targeted employment area (TEA).
13)Reduces the time from four years to 42 days for the businesses
located in an enterprise zone to obtain certification of its
worker as a qualified worker under the hiring credit.
Applications for certification are required to be submitted
within 28 days of the employee being hired.
14)Makes other technical changes to the enterprise zone hiring
credit.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Purpose of enterprise zone program : Establishes the California
Enterprise Zone Program, administered by California Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to stimulate business
and industrial growth in depressed areas of the state.
Legislative intent states that it is in the economic interest of
SB 974
Page E
the state to have one strong, combined, and business-friendly
incentive program to help attract business and industry to the
state, to help retain and expand existing state business and
industry, and to create increased job opportunities for all
Californians. A maximum of 42 enterprise zones are authorized
at any one time. Designations are for a period of 15 years, as
specified.
1)Hiring Credit : Authorizes an income tax credit for businesses
in an enterprise zone that hire certain "qualified employees."
Among other qualifying criteria, which are described in (6) and
(7) below, the qualified employee must be certified that he or
she meets meet one of nearly a dozen categories of eligible
individuals, including living within a TEA.
2)Purpose of the TEA : Specifies that the purpose of a "targeted
employment area" is to encourage businesses in an enterprise
zone to hire eligible local residents. A TEA may include, but
is not required to include, all or part of the boundaries of the
enterprise zone. Further, the TEA does not need to encompass
all eligible areas, but may include only those areas that the
local government determines have residents who are in the most
need of this employment targeting.
3)Definition of a TEA : Defines a TEA to mean an area within a
city, county, or city and county that is composed solely of
those census tracts designated by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development as having at least 51% of its residents of
low- or moderate-income levels, using either the most recent
U.S. Department of Census data available at the time of the
original enterprise zone application or the most recent census
data available at the time the targeted employment area is
designated to determine eligibility.
4)Update of TEA : Requires local governments to update the
boundaries of their TEA's to reflect new census data within 180
days of the data becoming available.
5)Definition of a qualified employee : Limits the enterprise zone
hiring credit to be awarded to only those employees that meet
the following requirements:
a) The employee provides service to an employer where at
least 90% of those services within a taxable year are
directly related to the conduct of a taxpayers business or
trade located in an enterprise zone;
SB 974
Page F
b) The employee performs at least 50% of his/her service for
the taxpayer during the taxable year in an enterprise zone;
c) The employee is hired after the date of the enterprise
zone designation; and
d) The employer has received a voucher for the employee that
certifies that the employee, immediately preceding employment
with this employer, met one of 12 eligibility categories.
The employee was or is:
i) A resident of a TEA, as specified;
ii) Eligible for services under the federal Job Training
Partnership Act, or its successor;
iii) Eligible to be a voluntary or mandatory registrant
under Greater Avenues for Independence Act of 1985, or its
successor;
iv) An economically disadvantaged individual 14 years or
older;
v) A dislocated worker, as specified;
vi) A disabled individual who is eligible for, enrolled
in, or has completed a state rehabilitation plan;
vii) A service-connected disabled veteran, veteran of
Vietnam, or veteran who has been recently separated from
military service;
viii) An ex-offender, as specified;
ix) Eligible to receive specified social services
benefits, including Federal Supplemental Security Income
benefits, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food
stamps, or state and local general assistance;
x) A member of a federally recognized Indian tribe, band,
or other group of Native American descent; or
xi) A member of a targeted group, as defined by the
Internal Revenue Service for the purposes of the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), which includes a qualified
SB 974
Page G
IV-A recipient, a qualified veteran, a qualified ex-felon,
a high-risk youth, a vocational rehabilitation referral, a
qualified summer youth employee, a qualified food stamp
recipient, a qualified Supplemental Security Income
recipient, or a long-term family assistance recipient.
6)Further Hiring Credit Requirements : Requires "qualified
employees" to be retained in employment for a minimum of 270
days (approximately 9 months) in order to qualify for hiring
credit vouchering. The value of the hiring credit incentive
totals 50% of the employee's wages in the first year, 40% in the
second, 30% in the third, 20% in the fourth, and 10% in the
fifth year. Although employees can be paid more, the maximum
wage rate used to calculate the credit is 150% of minimum wage.
Aircraft manufacturers in Long Beach may calculate the credit
based on 202% of minimum wage. The hiring credit may only be
applied to offset tax liability attributable to revenues
received from activities located within the EZ where the
employee is primarily working. While not every employer is able
to fully utilize the maximum value of the credit, it could be as
high as $37,700 over five years.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee
analysis, this measure is revenue neutral. Reductions to the
hiring credit correspond to the estimated loss in state revenues
attributable to the new career technical education credit. The
estimated start-up costs for the FTB and the Board of Equalization
(BOE) are expected to be covered through a newly authorized fee.
COMMENTS :
1)Author's purpose : "SB 974 authorizes the Career Pathways
Investment Tax Credit for businesses that partner with public
schools to build "career pathway" programs that connect learning
to real-world experience and keep students engaged and on track
to graduation, further education and productive careers.
SB 974 funds the new the credit by enacting two long overdue
reforms to the Enterprise Zone program: first, this bill
eliminates the practice of "retrovouchering" enterprise zone
hiring credits; and second, this bill repeals the Targeted
Employment Area (TEA) criterion for the hiring credit
eligibility. Retroactive credits, by definition, simply provide
bonuses for past actions, but do not encourage businesses to
increase employment in future years and thus do not promote job
creation. TEA boundaries typically include parts of Enterprise
SB 974
Page H
Zones but also other areas, and do not need to be updated, even
if robust economic growth has occurred and parts of the TEA are
no longer economically distressed. TEA residency allows
employers to claim tax credits based solely on where a worker
lives and not on any objective measure of whether that
individual faces a barrier to employment.
Thus, SB 974 reflects author's priorities in tax policy: first,
that we pay for any new tax credits or expenditure that we
authorize - which is essential, given our budget situation - and
second, that we critically evaluate the tax credit programs we
already have on the books, to make sure that they are maximizing
the program benefits of our tax credits."
2)Policy questions : To the extent that this measure proposes to
limit one tax expenditure in order to establish another, SB 974
raises the following two central policy questions.
a) First, what is the equity proposition for removing $100
million in tax credit authority from businesses located in
some of the poorest areas of the state (enterprise zones) in
order to finance a new credit for businesses located in all
areas of the state?
b) Second, what is the appropriate balance between supporting
the direct hiring of workers and the preparation of the
state's future workforce?
3)California's current and future economy: California is one of
the largest and most diversified economies in the world, with a
state gross domestic product of over $1.8 trillion in 2008. The
efforts of its 38 million people resulted in having the eighth
largest economy in the world, ahead of such countries as Spain
($1.4 trillion), Canada ($1.3 trillion), and Brazil ($1.3
trillion).
Historically, the state's businesses and workers have played
significant roles in the global marketplace. Some of
California's strongest economic qualities include its strategic
west coast location; its economically diverse regional
economies; its access to a wide variety of venture and other
private capital; its broad base of small- and medium-sized
businesses; its culture of innovation and entrepreneurship; and
its large, ethnically diverse population, representing both a
ready workforce and significant consumer base.
SB 974
Page I
The chart above, prepared by the California Employment
Development Department, provides detail on California's largest
industry sectors in 2008 including the total number of jobs and
percentage of state employment.
Businesses in this century face increasing challenges to
maintaining global and domestic competitiveness, including
providing a skilled workforce to support the changing needs of
commerce and maintaining cost-effective productivity in the face
of lower safety and wage standards in emerging foreign markets.
Workers and communities are being affected from both the direct
and indirect impact of loss of jobs and, in some instances, the
potential shift of entire industry sub-sectors out of
California, as in the 18,800 jobs at-risk with the closure of
NUMMI automotive assembly plant in May 2010.
In 2008, 14.6% of the population lived in a household with an
annual income below the federal poverty line of $22,000. This
reflects a statistically significant increase from 2007 when
12.7% of Californians were reported to be living in poverty.
The chart to the left further illustrates the change in job
growth between certain industry sectors and the relevance of
those shifts to worker wage rates since the beginning of the
century.
Significant drops in consumer spending during the recession have
also led to greater workforce reductions and business
bankruptcies across the state. For much of 2009, the number of
unemployed workers rose 40,000 to 60,000 per month, and the year
ended with 2.25 million people officially identified as
unemployed (excludes those that have stopped looking for work,
among others). In May 2010 the seasonally adjusted state
unemployment rate was 12.4%, a slight improvement over April's
unemployment rate of 12.5%, but still representing 2.28 million
unemployed California workers. Within the state, however,
unemployment ranges from 27.5% in Imperial County and Sutter
County at 20% to Marin County with 7.9% and Santa Barbara at
8.3% unemployment.
While some economists believe California may have emerged from
the recession, there is little disagreement among economic
forecasters that unemployment in the state is expected to remain
above double digits throughout 2010, 2011 and into the first
quarter of 2012. Jobs are expected to recover to their
SB 974
Page J
pre-recession peak in the first half of 2013; however,
unemployment rates are likely to remain above 8% in the state
through much of 2014.
In designing an economic recovery strategy, public policy makers
are challenged in providing sufficient support to particularly
economically troubled areas, such as those designated as
enterprise zones, and the need to prepare the next generation of
workers and entrepreneurs. This bill poses the policy question
in a very direct manner by proposing to limit enterprise zone
credits and replace them with new career technology credits. Is
policy best served pursuing one to the detriment of the other?
4)Career pathways to prosperity and self sufficiency :
California's future is dependent upon the state's education
system in delivering a quality workforce that supports its
current and emerging industries. While California cannot
reasonably compete as the cheapest place to do businesses, the
state has historically held a comparative advantage over other
states and nations based on quality and productivity of its
workforce and entrepreneurial environment.
Maintaining this advantage, however, is challenging and many
policy makers believe that fundamental change needs to occur
within the state's education and workforce training framework.
Increasing concerns regarding high school drop out rates,
student academic achievement and changing demographics are just
some of the drivers of a renewed push toward greater integration
of career tech/work-based learning programs and college
preparation.
Implementation of SB 974 would offer a new tax credit for
businesses that make meaningful contributions, also known as
qualified contributions, to programs that can demonstrate they
meet certain criteria and conditions, such as having systems for
measuring the program's success in assisting students prepare
for high-wage employment in growing or high-need industry
sectors.
Approved programs could be delivered through a variety of
educational delivery systems including high schools, regional
occupation centers, California Partnership Academies and other
career academies, alternative education programs and adult
education programs. The distinguishing quality of these
programs is that they integrate academic and technical learning.
Eligible programs must include core academic courses that
SB 974
Page K
replicate real world work environments, while remaining aligned
with the State Board of Education's approved career technical
education standards.
The author's office provided multiple examples of programs that
could potentially qualify as an eligible LEA partner under this
bill. Below are four of those examples.
a) The Central County Occupational Center (San Jose, CA), in
existence for 40 years, is one of the largest centers in
California. In 2009, the Center served about 2,200 students
in the day program and 600 in the evening program. It is
part of the Metropolitan Education District, a joint powers
agency created by six school districts to provide CTE and
Adult Ed in central Santa Clara County.
b) The AYES/NATEF Auto Program at Ontario High School
(Ontario, CA) is a thriving program at a Title I school. It
has solid local dealership support and strong academic
reinforcement. The program is comprised of a district
operated ROP and the Baldy View ROP. The program provides a
pathway into Chaffey College with articulated college credit
for high school students.
c) Arthur A. Benjamin Health Professions High School
(Sacramento, CA) opened fall 2005 with a mission "to provide
students with an outstanding education, rich with relevant
academic, application and leadership experiences" - using
healthcare as a theme. Partners provide key resources to
the school from internships to collegiate mentors that are
currently enrolled in post-secondary healthcare programs.
Current partners include Kaiser, Mercy, Shriners, Sutter,
U.C. Davis Medical Center, Sacramento State, U.C. Davis,
Stanford University and the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation.
d) The Coachella Valley Economic Partnership's Career
Pathways Initiative, established in 2005, partners more than
250 industry, economic development and education
professionals along with students across nine cities in the
Coachella Valley of eastern Riverside County. Its objective
is to transform teaching and learning for 70,000 PreK-12th
grade students; empower educators to engage students in
perfecting critical thinking and communication skills through
real-world, rigorous, inquiry-based learning; and partner
employers in developing their next-generation talent
SB 974
Page L
pipeline.
Research demonstrates that work-based learning increases
outcomes both in helping to keep students in school and in
longer term outcomes that extend beyond school. As an example,
in Career Academies: A Proven Strategy to Prepare High School
Students for college and Careers (February 2010), the report
found conclusive evidence that career academies were effective
in improving outcomes for students citing a number of academic
studies including the following:
High school drop out rates in academies averaged 7 to 8%
over the three years, which is about half the rate in the
general population of California students (Dayton 1997).
Academy 10th graders were more likely to have passed both
sections of the California High School Exit Examination;
Academy 12th graders were more likely to graduate at the end
of the year; and Academy graduates were more likely to have
completed the 15 "A to G" courses required for admission to
the University of California or California State University
(Bradby and others 2007).
Academy graduates were at least as likely to be enrolled in
post secondary education as their non-academy schoolmates one
or two years after high schools. However, at the same time,
they also had more hours of paid employment (Stern, Raby and
Dayton 1992).
The James Irvine Foundation funded a broader study, "Work-Based
Learning in California, Opportunities and Models for Expansion"
( November 2009), which closely examined the key elements and
conditions of using a multiple pathways model to increase the
number of low-income students in California who complete high
school on time and attain a post secondary credential by age 25.
Their model uses the same basic elements required in SB 974 of
academics linked to real world work experiences. Their research
found that combining a student's career interest with practical
job preparation, supported by related academic work, contributed
to higher graduation rates, increased college enrollment and
higher earning potential.
1)The California Enterprise Zone Program : Existing law authorizes
the creation of up to 42 enterprise zones based on a statutory
list of criteria related to poverty and economic dislocation.
The EZ program is based on the economic principle that targeting
SB 974
Page M
significant incentives to lower income communities allows these
communities to more effectively compete for new businesses and
retain existing businesses, which results in increased tax
revenues, less reliance on social services, and lower public
safety costs. Residents and businesses also directly benefit
from these more sustainable economic conditions through improved
neighborhoods, business expansion, and job creation.
Enterprise zones are located in portions of 54 Assembly
Districts and 35 Senate Districts. They range in size from one
square mile to 70 square miles and in geographic locations
ranging from Eureka and Shasta Valley near the Oregon border to
San Diego and Calexico along the Mexican border.
Under the enterprise zone program, businesses and other entities
located within the area are eligible for a variety of local and
state incentives. In its application, a prospective enterprise
zone is required to identify specific local government
incentives that will be made available to businesses located in
the proposed enterprise zone. The local incentives can, among
other things, include writing down the costs of development,
funding related infrastructure improvements, providing job
training to prospective employees, or establishing streamlined
processes for obtaining permits.
The state also offers a number of incentives, including tax
credits, special tax provisions, priority notification in the
sale of state surplus lands, access to certain Brownfield
clean-up programs, and preferential treatment for state
contracts. Below is a chart comparing the state tax incentives
offered to businesses located in an enterprise zone and other
geographically targeted economic development areas (G-TEDA).
------------------------------------------------------------
| Comparison of State Tax Benefits by Targeted Area |
------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+------+---------+---------+----------+----------|
| |Hiring|Longer |Sales |Accelerate|Lender |
| | |NOL<1> |and Use |d |Interest |
| |Credit|Carry- |Tax |Depreciati|Deduction |
| | |Forward |Credit |on | |
| | |Period | | | |
|-----------+------+---------+---------+----------+----------|
|Enterprise | X | X | X | X | X |
-----------------------------
<1> NOL= Net Operating Loss
SB 974
Page N
|Zone | | | | | |
|-----------+------+---------+---------+----------+----------|
|Manufacturi| X | | | | |
|ng | | | | | |
|Enhancement| | | | | |
| Zone | | | | | |
|-----------+------+---------+---------+----------+----------|
|Targeted | X | X | X | X | |
|Tax Area | | | | | |
|-----------+------+---------+---------+----------+----------|
|Local | X | X | X | X | |
|Agency | | | | | |
|Military | | | | | |
|Base | | | | | |
|Recovery | | | | | |
|Area | | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
|Source: Legislative Analyst's Office |
------------------------------------------------------------
FTB reported that in 2007 - the most current data available -
$481 million in G-TEDA credits and deductions were claimed
through corporate and personal income tax (PIT) returns.
Additionally, FTB reports hundreds of millions in carryover
credits have been earned by businesses located in G-TEDAs, but
have not been claimed. Below is a chart that displays the
dollar amount of G-TEDA incentives claimed through each of the
tax incentives.
------------------------------------------------------------
| Claimed G-TEDA Incentives 2004 to 2007 |
------------------------------------------------------------
|----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
| | | | | |
|----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|Hiring and Sales Tax | $349,127| $362,620| $385,677| $430,934|
|Credit | | | | |
|----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|NOL Deductions | $72,326| $74,024| $126,106| $207,993|
|----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|Tax Impact | $5,171| $5,966| $11,351| $15,807|
|----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|Net Interest | $432,867| $490,129| $517,310| $520,372|
SB 974
Page O
|Deductions | | | | |
|----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|Tax Impact | $29,103| $32,395| $34,156| $34,438|
|----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|Business Expense | $4,387| $4,770| $4,463| $5,136|
|Deductions | | | | |
|----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|Tax Impact | $222| $200| $188| $197|
|----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|Total Tax Impact | $383,624| $401,181| $431,371| $481,376|
--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
|Data Provided by the Franchise Tax Board |
|11/9/09 |
| |
------------------------------------------------------------
Across the U.S., 37 other states have G-TEDA type programs.
Economic developers have testified that the G-TEDA programs are
among the state's last remaining marketing tools for attracting
new businesses and investment to California. Others, however,
remain unconvinced and have suggested that this level of tax
expenditure could be better spent elsewhere.
2)Assessments of the California Enterprise Zone Program :
Measurement of the success and failure of the enterprise zone
and the other G-TEDA programs has been central to the debate on
whether to expand or limit, as in the case of this measure, the
enterprise zone program. Complicating the matter is that much
of the discussion around the relative successes or failures of
the G-TEDA programs and individual areas is anecdotal. The
academic attempts to assess the state's G-TEDA programs have
produced mixed results. Some of the variance among study
findings can be attributed to the limited access to good data
sets. Research generally requires the development of a set of
assumptions in order to undertake the study. The assumptions
made in the case of the G-TEDAs have, however, left most, if not
all, of the methodological approaches open to debate. Moreover,
the problems in assessing the G-TEDA programs have been further
complicated by a lack of consensus on why the programs were
established and what objectives are trying to be achieved.
Responding to the differing reports, HCD commissioned its own
study in 2006, which looked at the impact of the program on
neighborhood poverty, income, rents, and vacancy rates. The
report showed that, on average, within enterprise zones between
SB 974
Page P
1990 and 2000:
a) Poverty rates declined 7.35% more than the rest of the
state;
b) Unemployment rates declined 1.2% more than the rest of the
state;
c) Household incomes increased 7.1% more than the rest of the
state; and
d) Wage and salary income increased 3.5% more than the rest of
the state.
Since HCD's 2006 report, two additional reports have been
released. One report also found favorable impacts of the
enterprise zone program and another found the program lacking in
its ability to stimulate jobs.
In November 2008 and later revised and re-released in March
2009, economists from the University of Southern California
(USC) released a report with findings consistent to the HCD
report. The USC study found that federal empowerment zone,
federal enterprise communities, and state enterprise zones have
"positive, statistically significant impacts on local labor
markets in terms of the unemployment rate, the poverty rate, the
fraction with wage and salary income, and employment."
The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released its
study of the enterprise zone program in June 2009, looking at
whether the EZ program had been successful in creating more jobs
than would have otherwise been established without the zone.
The main finding of the report was that, "Enterprise zones have
no statistically significant effect on either business creation
or employment growth rates."
The PPIC report also noted that the effects of the program
differed between zones, appearing to have a greater effect on
job creation in zones with lesser amounts of manufacturing and
those where the administrators spent greater amount of time on
marketing and outreach activities. The report further stated
that PPIC encouraged a more critical evaluation of the program
overall and on individual zones using both employment and other
metrics such as poverty, unemployment, and property values.
It is important to note, however, that while the USC and PPIC
SB 974
Page Q
reports discussed above were released in 2008 and 2009, the
business development data used to form the statistical analyses
are from 2004 and earlier. This date is significant, as both
HCD and the Legislature approved significant reforms to the
program in 2006 (discussed below), thus drawing into question
whether either of the studies accurately reflect the impact of
the enterprise zone program today.
3)Oversight hearings drive reforms : While the G-TEDA programs
have been around for decades, it was not until the winter of
2005 that the first comprehensive legislative oversight hearings
were held. Following the hearings, publication of a final
report and work group meetings, lead by the Assembly Committee
on Jobs, Economic Development and the Economy (JEDE),
legislation was negotiated and approved by the Senate and
Assembly floors on 40-0 and 77-0 votes [AB 1550 (Arambula and
Karnette), Chapter 718, Statutes of 2006].
G-TEDA issues again came to the forefront of the committee's
agenda in 2009 and JEDE initiated a thorough examination of how
the prior reforms were progressing and what additional areas
were in need of improvement. During the course of its 2009
review, JEDE held three public hearings, met with a variety of
stakeholder groups, and produced an expanded white paper that
details the structure and activities of the G-TEDA program in
California, as well as in other states. In addition to the
authors of the USC and PPIC reports, speakers included economic
development practioners, researchers, nonprofits, local
governments, labor, and business leaders.
At the first hearing, witnesses provided a general overview of
the G-TEDA programs including presentations on the most recent
program evaluation studies. The second hearing focused on how
the G-TEDA programs help the state's innovation-based industries
- especially those in the manufacturing area. At the third
hearing, presentations were arranged around three topics:
workforce training, small business development, and models for
measuring success.
A final report was issued by JEDE in January 2010 which included
summaries of each of the hearings, a comparative review of how
California's program stacked up against other state's enterprise
zone programs, and a list of the 100 recommendations developed
over the course of the hearings. The JEDE report made five key
findings, including the need for more structure and
accountability mechanisms within the tax incentives and the need
SB 974
Page R
to better link workforce development into the overall G-TEDA
framework.
In February of 2010 Speaker John A. P?rez asked JEDE Chairman V.
Manuel P?rez to convene a working group to review the final
report and develop a comprehensive set of reforms to the
enterprise zone program. The work group has been meeting
several times a month since March 2010. Members include
representatives from Democratic and Republican policy and fiscal
staff from both houses, labor organizations, business lobbyists,
and local government representatives and associations. Key
program revisions under discussion include:
a) Increasing accountability of the program;
b) Better targeting of tax incentives to low and moderate
income households;
c) Reforms to structure of the hiring credit; and
d) Increased integration of the enterprise zone program with
other state and local community development programs,
including public programs that support workforce development
and job placement.
This effort has captured the interest of the broad set of
enterprise zone stakeholders including local governments, labor
and the business community. Concerns have been raised that
adoption of SB 974 could derail these larger programmatic reform
discussions. Given the complexity of the program and the work
that has already been undertaken, the committee may wish to
consider whether the enterprise zone portions of this bill
should be removed and those issues be raised within the larger
context of the reform discussions.
4)Examining the enterprise zone hiring credit : Existing law
authorizes the establishment of a TEA as a means for encouraging
businesses within an enterprise zone to hire new workers that
live in and around the zone. TEAs are designated based on the
most current U.S. Census data and can include areas both within
and adjacent to the zone.
The TEA is an especially important component to a
geographically-based program because it is the only category of
the 13 eligible employee categories that directly links the
people in and near the enterprise zone community with the hiring
SB 974
Page S
credit. Another indicator of its importance is its high
frequency of use. Well over half of the hiring credit
certificates, more commonly called vouchers, use the TEA
designation for qualifying employees.
The high usage of the TEA designation is related to a number of
factors. One of the most significant advantages of the TEA over
qualifying an employee under the other criteria is the
employer's ability to more easily access the appropriate
documentation for submitting the certificate application. As an
example, to demonstrate that an employee qualifies as a resident
of a TEA, an employer has the option of submitting a copy of the
employee's driver's license or state identification card.
By contrast, in order to demonstrate that an employee qualifies
for the other eligibility categories, employers have to ask
employees to provide them with copies of sometimes very personal
documents, such as bankruptcy documents, physician's statements,
letters from parole officers, and public assistance records.
Some employers have voiced concerns about asking an employee
questions regarding his or her personal history, as it could be
perceived as violating the employee's right to privacy.
Further clouding an accurate understanding of which employees
are being advantaged by the program is the fact that an employer
certifies an employee based on a single category of eligibility
- not multiple categories of worker eligibility. This means
that to the extent that an employee is living in a TEA, is a
Vietnam Veteran, a member of a federally recognized tribe, was
unemployed and receiving assistance at the local One-Stop Career
Centers at the time of employment in a company located in an
enterprise zone, the current data system only registers that
employee meets one category of eligibility - most likely that
being the employee lives in a TEA.
Beyond making the request for the documentation, employers face
challenges in accessing the documentation. The chart below,
prepared as an example from the San Diego Enterprise Zone,
illustrates some of the timeframes and different entities to
which an employer would have to apply to receive the
documentation necessary to submit a hiring credit certificate to
the zone administrator for certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------
| Example of Hiring Credit Documentation Time |
SB 974
Page T
---------------------------------------------------------------
|----------+--------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Enterprise|Required |Agency |Timeframe to |
| Zone |Document | |Obtain |
|Eligibilit| | |Documentation |
|y | | | |
|Category | | | |
|----------+--------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Low |Income |state Employment | At a minimum |
|Income |Verification |Development |30 to 60 days |
|Dislocated| |Department | |
| Worker | | | |
|----------+--------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Previously|Award letter |County |3 to 4 weeks |
| on | | | |
|Public | | | |
|Assistance| | | |
| | | | |
|----------+--------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Veterans |DD14 or |Federal |In some cases up |
| |verification |Department of |to 6 months |
| |letter |Veterans Affairs |(based on San |
| | | |Diego's |
| | | |experience) |
| | | | |
|----------+--------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Ex-Offende|Agency |Background check |30-60 days |
|r |confirmation |through private | |
| |letter or |agency or | |
| |print |multi-agency | |
| |out, if |(County) | |
| |available |database | |
|----------+--------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Eligible |Certificate |state Employment |Best case |
|for Work | |Development |scenario is 5 |
|Opportunit| |Department |months. However, |
|y Tax | | |it can take |
|Credit | | |upwards of 9 |
| | | |months to a year |
| | | |depending on the |
| | | |department's |
| | | |workload. All |
| | | |certificates are |
| | | |issued from a |
| | | |single central |
| | | |office |
SB 974
Page U
| | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
|Source: San Diego Enterprise Zone, June |
|2010 |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------
5)Proposed changes to the hiring credit : SB 974 proposes to limit
the time to apply and receive certification of the employee's
eligibility to 28 and 42 days, respectively. This alternative
timeline is based on the federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit
(WOTC) which has a 28-day timeline for submitting a
certification application to the Employment Development
Department (EDD).
The comparison of the state and federal programs is, however,
not well matched. As an example, under the federal credit the
business has no meaningful documentation requirement as is
required under state law. The business is only required to ask
a job applicant to sign a waiver that gives EDD permission to
check on whether the employee's background qualifies the
employer for a hiring credit. EDD then has the responsibility
for researching and verifying eligibility. Another difference
between the two systems is that under the federal credit,
submission of the certification application is free.
State law, however, permits the local zone and requires the
state to charge a fee on every voucher. Local fees range from a
nominal cost to $100 per certificate application. The state
charges a fee of $8 per certificate application, however,
pursuant to current budget discussions the fee is expected to be
increased to $15 resulting in 100% of HCD costs associated with
the program being covered. Given the level of fees per
employee, some businesses choose to not apply for a certificate
until they know that both the employee is eligible and that the
credit is needed to apply to their tax return. Existing law
allows tax payers, in general, to apply a hiring credit on an
initial or amended return.
Another timing issue is that state law requires that an employee
has worked at least 50% of the time in the zone during the year
and that 90% of his/her work be directly related to the
business's trade in the zone. For companies with multiple
locations or for an employee that works out of the office, it is
not until the close of the tax year that eligibility can be
SB 974
Page V
established. Another related state law requires that employees
be retained in the job for not less than nine months. These
requirements suggest that employers are unable to know which
employees can meet the qualifications for credit eligibility
until the close of the calendar year.
The ease of the WOTC federal application process has perhaps also
led to a very inefficient program, from an administrative
standpoint. In 2009, 125,777 requests for certification were
made to EDD; 43,223 certifications were issued and 50,292 were
denied. Local enterprise zone administrators say that the state
program, requiring both documentation and fees prior to
submission of the certification application, results in a much
higher certificate approval rate and less waste of staff time
reviewing applications.
Opposition to the current certificate process states that
convenience and cost to the business should be a minor
consideration in the administration and structure of the hiring
credit. The public, who is foregoing state revenues, must be
confident that state tax expenditures are spent effectively and
achieve identifiable public benefits. In determining an
appropriate timing for certifying an employee for a hiring
credit, opponents of the current process state that employers
need to be timely in their certificate application.
The JEDE-led work group on enterprise zone reform has been
discussing a number of proposals to reform this process that
improve public accountability without rendering a credit that
fails to encourage a business to hire people in impacted
neighborhoods or others who face barriers to employment.
6)Issues related to administrative structure : Establishing a new
credit can be very challenging. Below are a few issues the
author may wish to address as measure moves to its next
committee.
a) Offer pre-certification of qualifying career pathway
programs. This bill limits the credit to only be available
to those businesses that enter into an MOU with a LEA that
administers or proposes to administer a career pathway
programs that meets certain criteria. Most businesses would
have a difficult time knowing which LEAs were associated with
such programs and it may be more appropriate that the LEA be
held more statutorily responsible for those areas of the
career pathways programs that lie almost exclusively within
SB 974
Page W
their control.
b) Clarify eligibility, threshold and priority rating and
ranking criteria. Several sets of amendments have
potentially weakened the clarity of each of these elements.
Having these core elements more directly spelled out in the
bill will help the SPI in implementing the measure.
c) Standardize or create models for the MOU between the
businesses and the LEA. Significant detail is required in
the MOU between the business and the LEA. Offering
flexibility can sometimes drive up the administrative costs
for the Department of Education. Standardization could also
encourage other LEAs to more broadly market the program to
neighborhood businesses.
7)Related legislation : The following is a list of related
legislation.
a) AB 121 (Maze) and AB 2709 (Maze) - Hiring Credit
Eligibility for Former Foster Youth : These bills would have
established a separate category of employee eligibility under
the California Enterprise Zone Program's hiring income tax
credit program to include a person who was a former foster
care recipient. Status: Held in Assembly Committee on
Revenue and Taxation during the 2007-08 Session.
b) AB 579 (Swanson) - LAMBRA Code Update : This bill would
have extended the official term of the designation of a
LAMBRA from eight to 15 years, except that the term may be
for 20 years if the Department of Housing and Community
Development determined that certain conditions existed in
year five. Status: Held in Assembly Committee on
Appropriations during the 2007-08 legislative session.
c) AB 1139 (John A. P?rez) - Enterprise Zone Hiring Credit :
This bill proposed to make four changes to the G-TEDA
programs including:
i) Establishing a two-tier hiring credit - one funding
level for jobs with health care and another for those
without;
ii) Requiring applications for hiring credit certification
to be submitted to the certifying agency within 21 days of
the commencement of employment;
SB 974
Page X
iii) Removing the targeted employment areas as an eligible
category for the issuance of hiring credits; and
iv) Requiring annual reporting from tax payers who have
vouchered an employee under the hiring credit.
Status: Held in JEDE in December 2010.
d) AB 1159 (V. Manuel P?rez) - Enhancement of Sales and Use
Credit for Cleantech Projects : This bill would have
established the California Cleantech Advantage Act of 2008
providing a targeted incentive to strengthen California's
competitive edge in the leading emerging clean technologies.
Status: Held in Assembly Appropriations in May 2010.
e) AB 1550 (Arambula) - Final Enterprise Zone Reform Act from
2005-06 Session : This bill made a number of significant
changes to the management and oversight of the G-TEDA
programs. This bill is the result of extensive oversight
hearings by JEDE and Revenue and Taxation, as well as
extended discussions with stakeholder groups. Status:
Signed by the Governor, Chapter 718, Statutes of 2006.
f) AB 1766 (Dymally) - Initial Enterprise Reform Act from
2005-06 Session : This bill would have made a number of
significant changes to the G-TEDA Programs including
streamlining the selection criteria, authorizing
noncontiguous zones, extending certain zone designations, and
tightening up of the TEA. Status: Held on the Senate Floor
in the 2005-06 Session.
g) AB 2044 (Caballero) - Cap on Enterprise Zone Credits :
This bill places annual caps on certain EZ related tax
credits and increases the basis for calculating the hiring
credit from 150% of minimum wage to 250%. Status: Author
chose to not pursue her own bill and is a joint author on AB
2476 (V. Manuel P?rez and Caballero).
h) AB 2589 (Runner) - Aggregate Credits to Offset Tax
Liability within Zones : This bill would have authorized a
business to use credits generated in an EZ to offset taxes
attributable to the business from any EZ. Status: Held in
the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation during the
2005-06 Session.
SB 974
Page Y
i) AB 2476 (V. Manuel P?rez) - Reform of TEA : This bill
would have tightened the criteria for designating a TEA for
the purposes of establishing one of thirteen worker
eligibility criteria under the EZ hiring tax credit
requirements. Status: Held in the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations in May 2010.
j) SB 1008 (Ducheny) - Initial Enterprise Reform Act from
2005-06 Session: This bill would have made a number of
significant changes to the G-TEDA programs including
streamlining the selection criteria, authorizing
noncontiguous zones, extending certain zone designations, and
tightening up of the TEA. Status: Held in the Assembly
Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy
during the 2005-06 Session.
aa) SB 341 (Lowenthal) - EZ CEQA Reform : This bill expanded
the ways in which a local government applying for an EZ
designation after October 1, 2007, may meet the requirements
of California Environmental Quality Act and eliminates the
ability of these jurisdictions to limit subsequent
environmental reviews based on the contents of the initial
CEQA documents. Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter
643, Statutes of 2007.
bb) SB 763 (Lowenthal) - Voucher Fees : This bill expanded
HCD's fee authority for the purpose of offsetting the cost of
administering the geographically-targeted economic
development area programs. Status: Signed by the Governor,
Chapter 634, Statutes of 2006.
8)Double Referral : The Assembly Committee on Rules has referred
this measure to JEDE and the Assembly Committee on Revenue and
Taxation (R&T). Should SB 974 pass JEDE, it will be referred to
R&T for further consideration.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Association School Business Officials
Clovis Unified School District
Los Angeles Unified School District
Metropolitan Education District
Metzer Farms
San Diego Unified School District
SB 974
Page Z
California Catholic Conference Inc.
Opposition
SB 974
Page A
--------------------
|7-Eleven Franchise |
|Owners of San Diego |
|--------------------|
|Ace Hardware, Long |
|Beach |
|--------------------|
|ACE Parking |
|--------------------|
|All American |
|Plastics, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Aloha Restaurants, |
|Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Amazon Consultants |
|--------------------|
|American Capital |
|and Money Centers |
|--------------------|
|American National |
|Investments, Inc |
|--------------------|
|Anderson & Doig |
|Structural |
|Engineers |
|--------------------|
|Apex Advisors, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Atlas |
|Transportation, LLC |
|--------------------|
|Atomic PR |
|--------------------|
|Baja Mex Currency |
|Services, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Barbosa Cabinets, |
|Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Basic Urban Kitchen |
|--------------------|
|BikeBandit.com |
|--------------------|
SB 974
Page B
|Blum and Clark |
|Accounting Firm |
|--------------------|
|Brawley Chamber of |
|Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Brawley, City of |
|--------------------|
|C&I Tax Consultants |
|--------------------|
|C&M Motors, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Caf? 222 |
|--------------------|
|Caf? Sevilla, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Cal Tax Group, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|California |
|Advocates, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|California |
|Aerospace |
|Technology |
|Association |
|--------------------|
|California |
|Association of |
|Enterprise Zones |
|--------------------|
|California Bankers |
|Association |
|--------------------|
|California Business |
|Properties |
|Association |
|--------------------|
|California Chamber |
|of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|California |
|Employment |
|Opportunity Network |
|--------------------|
|California Grocers |
SB 974
Page C
|Association |
|--------------------|
|California |
|Independent Grocers |
|Association |
|--------------------|
|California |
|Manufacturers and |
|Technology |
|Association |
|--------------------|
|California |
|Retailers |
|Association |
|--------------------|
|California Space |
|Authority |
|--------------------|
|California |
|Taxpayers |
|Association |
|Carbon Tech Bio |
|Fuel & Bio |
|Generation |
|--------------------|
|Caterpiller Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Ceedub Construction |
|--------------------|
|Central California |
|Economic |
|Development |
|Corporation |
|--------------------|
|Chabin Concept's |
|--------------------|
|Chambers of |
|Commerce Alliance |
|of Ventura & Santa |
|Barbara Counties |
|--------------------|
|Chula Vista, City |
|of |
|--------------------|
|Chung and Company, |
SB 974
Page D
|LLC |
|--------------------|
|CIBA Property |
|Management |
|--------------------|
|Cinder Block, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|City of Coalinga |
|--------------------|
|City of Eureka |
|Enterprise Zone |
|--------------------|
|City of Oroville |
|--------------------|
|City of Porterville |
|--------------------|
|Citymark |
|Development, LLC |
|--------------------|
|Clovis Chamber of |
|Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Clovis, City of |
|--------------------|
|Commercial |
|Transport Concepts, |
|Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Community Bank of |
|the Bay |
|--------------------|
|Compete Consulting, |
|LLC |
|--------------------|
|Contractors |
|Wardrobe, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|County of Riverside |
|--------------------|
|Courtney Tires, |
|Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Cowbay Star |
|--------------------|
|Cozad Trailer |
SB 974
Page E
|Sales, LLC |
|--------------------|
|Custom Woodworking |
|Products |
|--------------------|
|CustomEyes |
|Optometry |
|--------------------|
|Dairy Institute of |
|California |
|--------------------|
|Dallo Enterprises, |
|Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Dana Point Chamber |
|of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Del Monte Foods |
|--------------------|
|Dillard's Inc. |
|E & E Industries |
|--------------------|
|Dos Amigos |
|Distribution. Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Easy Cash Community |
|Pawn Centers |
|--------------------|
|Economic |
|Development |
|Corporation of |
|Oxnard |
|--------------------|
|Economic |
|Development |
|Corporation serving |
|Fresno County |
|--------------------|
|Edgwater Grill |
|--------------------|
|El Centro Chamber |
|of Commerce & |
|Visitors Bureau |
|--------------------|
|Evapco West |
SB 974
Page F
|--------------------|
|Exeter, City of |
|--------------------|
|EZ Tax Credits, LLC |
|--------------------|
|Gateway Metro |
|Center LLC |
|--------------------|
|Gatto, Pope & |
|Walwick, LLP |
|--------------------|
|General Dynamics |
|NASSCO |
|--------------------|
|Geological Technics |
|Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Golden Image Window |
|Coverings |
|Gonzales, City of |
|--------------------|
|Gourmet Fresh Pasta |
| |
|--------------------|
|Greater Fresno Area |
|Chamber of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Grocery Outlet |
|--------------------|
|Harbor House |
|Restaurant |
|--------------------|
|Hassard Bonningtn |
|LLP |
|--------------------|
|HP Hood LLC |
|--------------------|
|Indio Chamber of |
|Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Integrated Marine |
|Services, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Interactive, Inc. |
|--------------------|
SB 974
Page G
|International Paper |
|--------------------|
|International Surf |
|Ventures, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Jaylahn, LLC |
|--------------------|
|Jillison & Roberts |
|--------------------|
|Kieran Label Corp. |
|--------------------|
|Kings County |
|Economic |
|Development |
|Corporation |
|--------------------|
|Kuhler Associates |
|--------------------|
|Leauge of |
|California Cities |
|Lemoore, City of |
|--------------------|
|Lindsay, City of |
|--------------------|
|Long Beach Area |
|Chamber of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Long Beach Sierra |
|Associates |
|--------------------|
|Los Angeles Area |
|Chamber of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Los Angeles Cold |
|Storage Company |
|--------------------|
|Lost Coast Brewery |
|& Caf? |
|--------------------|
|Marcus & Millichap |
|--------------------|
|Marine Service |
|Commercial Diving |
|--------------------|
|Marza Consulting |
SB 974
Page H
|--------------------|
|Mascarro Concrete |
|Construction Inc. |
|--------------------|
|MD&CD, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Means and |
|Associates |
|--------------------|
|Mejia's Ranchero, |
|Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Merced County |
|--------------------|
|Metal Supply Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Michael L. Dworkin |
|and Associates |
|--------------------|
|MIRA California USA |
|Center, LLC |
|--------------------|
|Mission Caf? |
|--------------------|
|Modesto Chamber of |
|Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Molina Healthcare |
|of California |
|--------------------|
|Monterey County |
|Board of |
|Supervisors |
|--------------------|
|Multimodal Esquer |
|--------------------|
|National City |
|Chamber of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|National City, City |
|of |
|--------------------|
|National Federation |
|of Independent |
|Business |
SB 974
Page I
|--------------------|
|National Mechanical |
|Services |
|--------------------|
|National Tax Credit |
|Group, LLC |
|--------------------|
|Noble & Company, |
|LLC |
|--------------------|
|Nor-Cal Foods, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Oakland |
|Metropolitan |
|Chamber of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|O'Brothers |
|Restaurant |
|--------------------|
|Orange County |
|Business Council |
|--------------------|
|Otay Mesa Chamber |
|of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Overhead Door |
|--------------------|
|Oxnard Chamber of |
|Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Pacific Business |
|Centers |
|--------------------|
|Pacific Credits |
|Group |
|--------------------|
|Pacific Gas & |
|Electric |
|--------------------|
|Pacific Lift and |
|Equipment |
|--------------------|
|Pacific Real Estate |
|--------------------|
|Palm Desert Chamber |
SB 974
Page J
|of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Paramount Windows |
|and Doors |
|--------------------|
|Parlier, City of |
|--------------------|
|Pasadena Enterprise |
|Zone |
|--------------------|
|Paul Mitchell |
|Partner Schools |
|--------------------|
|Paul, Hastings, |
|Janofsky & Walker, |
|LLP |
|--------------------|
|Peppertree |
|Distributors, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Peterson, Slater, |
|Osborne Accountacy |
|Corporation |
|--------------------|
|Pier Caf? |
|Pierson & |
|Associates |
|--------------------|
|PJ's Desert |
|Trophies & Gifts ad |
|McDowell Awards |
|--------------------|
|Porterville Chamber |
|of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Portfolio Realty |
|Management, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Professional |
|Solutions Group LLC |
|--------------------|
|Proper Gastropub |
|--------------------|
|Rainbow Mart |
|--------------------|
SB 974
Page K
|Reginal Economic |
|Association Leaders |
|Coalition |
|--------------------|
|Regional Economic |
|Association Leaders |
|of California |
|--------------------|
|Riverview Systems |
|Group, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|SA Recycling |
|Salinas, City of |
|--------------------|
|Salinas Valley |
|Enterprise Zone |
|--------------------|
|San Diego Desserts |
|--------------------|
|San Diego Pretzel |
|Co. |
|--------------------|
|San Diego Regional |
|Chamber of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|San Diego Workforce |
|Partnership |
|--------------------|
|San Francisco |
|Center for Economic |
|Development |
|--------------------|
|San Gabriel Valley |
|Economic |
|Partnership |
|--------------------|
|San Jose, City of |
|--------------------|
|San Ysidro Chamber |
|of Commerce |
|--------------------|
|Sandicast |
|--------------------|
|SC Design, Inc. |
|--------------------|
SB 974
Page L
|Seat Advisors, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Selma, City of |
|--------------------|
|Sempra Energy |
|--------------------|
|Seraplex |
|Biologicals |
|--------------------|
|Sfparty |
|--------------------|
|Side Bar |
|Silver Eagle |
|Construction |
|--------------------|
|Sixth Avenue Bistro |
|--------------------|
|Skilled Healthcare |
|LLC |
|--------------------|
|Small Business |
|California |
|--------------------|
|Sofia Hotel |
|Soledad, City of |
|--------------------|
|South County |
|Economic |
|Development Council |
|--------------------|
|Southwest Airlines |
|--------------------|
|Stingaree San Diego |
|--------------------|
|Stockton, City of |
|--------------------|
|Summit Bank |
|--------------------|
|Tactical Assault |
|Gear |
|--------------------|
|Taft, City of |
|--------------------|
|Targeted Management |
|Company, Inc. |
SB 974
Page M
|--------------------|
|Teasdale Quality |
|Foods |
|--------------------|
|Tenacore Holdings |
|Inc. |
|--------------------|
|The Enterprise Zone |
|Co. |
|--------------------|
|The Fleetwood |
|--------------------|
|The Incentives |
|Group |
|--------------------|
|The Kebab Shop |
|--------------------|
|The Tin Fish |
|--------------------|
|The Walt Disney |
|Company |
|--------------------|
|Tilted Kilt |
|--------------------|
|Tittle & Company, |
|LLP |
|--------------------|
|Tooth Fairy Dental |
|Group |
|--------------------|
|Troll Systems |
|Corporation |
|--------------------|
|TUFF Acoustical and |
|Thermal |
|--------------------|
|Ultimate Beauty |
|Companies |
|--------------------|
|Unity Forest |
|Products |
|--------------------|
|Urban Industries |
|Embroidery |
|--------------------|
SB 974
Page N
|Valley Industry & |
|Commerce |
|Association |
|--------------------|
|Vermont Outlet, |
|Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Visalia, City of |
|--------------------|
|Walton Management |
|Services, Inc. |
|--------------------|
|Waterfront Bar and |
|Grill |
|--------------------|
|Watsonville, City |
|of |
|--------------------|
|Weir Floway, Inc |
|--------------------|
|Western Growers |
|Association |
|--------------------|
|Wincentive |
|Corporation |
|--------------------|
|Windsor Mortgage |
|and Capital |
|--------------------|
|Watsonville, City |
|of |
|--------------------|
|Wine Institute |
|--------------------|
|Wine Steals |
|--------------------|
|World Wide |
|Petroleum |
|--------------------|
|WW Wholesale |
|--------------------|
|Yreka Chamber of |
|Commerce |
| |
--------------------
SB 974
Page O
Analysis Prepared by : Toni Symonds / J., E.D. & E. / (916)
319-2090