BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 283
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 283 (Bloom) - As Introduced: February 11, 2013
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:11-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill intends, as is currently provided for K-12 schools,
that automatic adjustments in GF apportionments be provided to
the California Community Colleges (CCC) to the extent actual
property tax revenues to the CCC differ from the amount of such
revenues estimated in the annual Budget Act. [In order to
effectuate a backfill mechanism, the bill would require certain
technical amendments.]
FISCAL EFFECT
Unknown GF (Proposition 98) costs, potentially in the tens of
millions, in years when actual CCC property tax revenues are
lower than expected and are automatically "backfilled," assuming
the Legislature would not otherwise take an action to provide a
backfill.
COMMENTS
1)Background . As part of the annual CCC budget proposal, the
state estimates how much local property tax revenue will be
available statewide to the CCC. For individual districts,
state General Fund revenues will be adjusted upward or
downward from the budgeted level to compensate for any surplus
or shortfall in actual tax receipts. However, if the
systemwide level of local property tax revenue turns out to be
lower than budgeted, the shortfall is proportionally spread
across all districts. In some years, the Legislature provides
a augmentation to the CCC to backfill this shortfall. In other
years, no augmentation is provided and the districts must
absorb the shortfall.
AB 283
Page 2
2)Purpose . According to the author, "Community college districts
should have the same level of protection against fiscal
uncertainty and financial loss as K-12 school districts. The
current lack of protection diminishes colleges' ability to
adequately meet the educational needs of their students and
communities."
3)Prior Legislation . Numerous bills have sought to establish a
statutory CCC property tax backfill, but none have been
successful, largely due to fiscal concerns:
a) AB 2591 (Furutani), 2012, which provided for automatic
adjustments based on shortfalls/surpluses in property taxes
and CCC student fee revenues, was held on this committee's
Suspense File.
b) AB 285 (Furutani), 2011, which was identical to this
bill, was held on this committee's Suspense File.
c) AB 551 (Furutani), 2009, was held on Suspense in this
committee, subsequently amended to be a study bill, then
held in Senate Rules.
d) AB 2277 (Eng), 2008, which would have provided for the
one-time transfer of funds to compensate for un-received
property tax revenues, was held on Suspense in this
committee.
e) AB 1402 (Blakeslee), 2005, was held on Suspense in this
committee and subsequently amended to address a different
subject.
f) AB 1417 (Pacheco), 2004, was held on Suspense in Senate
Appropriations and subsequently amended to require a study
of CCC funding.
g) SB 990 (McPherson), 2000, was held on Suspense in Senate
Appropriations.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 283
Page 3