BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 716
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 716 (Quirk-Silva)
As Amended April 2, 2013
Majority vote
HOUSING 5-2 BUDGET 16-9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Torres, Atkins, Brown, |Ayes:|Blumenfield, Bloom, |
| |Chau, Mullin | |Bonilla, Campos, Chesbro, |
| | | |Daly, Dickinson, Gordon, |
| | | |Jones-Sawyer, Mitchell, |
| | | |Mullin, Muratsuchi, |
| | | |Nazarian, Skinner, Stone, |
| | | |Ting |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Beth Gaines, Maienschein |Nays:|Gorell, Ch�vez, Harkey, |
| | | |Mansoor, Melendez, |
| | | |Morrell, Nestande, |
| | | |Patterson, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Expands the Five-Year Infrastructure plan that is
submitted as part of the budget to include housing and
priorities for the coordination of investment and requires the
Strategic Growth Council to hold a public hearing on the bill
prior to its submission to the Legislature. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Expands the definition of infrastructure for the purposes of
the state's five-year infrastructure plan to include housing.
2)Requires the five-year infrastructure plan to set out
priorities for coordination of investment.
3)Requires the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to hold a public
hearing on the five-year infrastructure plan and submit
comments to the Legislature prior to the Governor submitting
the plan to the Legislature.
4)Requires the SGC's comments to identify how the plan
components improve air and water quality, improve natural
resource protection, increase the availability of affordable
AB 716
Page 2
housing, improve transportation, meet the goals of the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32
(N��ez), Chapter 488), encourage sustainable land use
planning, and revitalize urban and community centers in a
sustainable manner.
FISCAL EFFECT : Possibly small, absorbable costs associated with
the SGC's role in reviewing, hearing, and commenting on this
bill.
COMMENTS : In the 14 years since AB 1473 (Hertzberg), Chapter
606, Statutes of 1999, was chaptered, the Five-Year
Infrastructure Plan has only been produced five times, the last
time in 2008. The Department of Finance reports that it expects
to release a 2013 edition as part of the May Revision budget
package.
The Five-Year Infrastructure Plan's title implies that the
document is a comprehensive vision for the State's priorities,
but the document itself is more of an overall infrastructure
needs assessment, which aggregates the State's needs in every
policy area. Most of the content in the 2008 Five-Year
infrastructure plan was devoted to two distinct sections.
First, the plan contained a litany of various infrastructure
needs for every state department, with a heavy emphasis on state
properties. This section was followed by a discussion about
various options to finance and program maintenance and
infrastructure needs, including a comparison of bond financing
versus pay-as-you-go funding. Second, due to the passage of
several bonds propositions in 2006, the 2008 plan placed a heavy
emphasis on how the projected needs matched with the newly
approved bond funds.
In recent years, the budget discussions have evolved to include
a longer-term outlook on the State's fiscal health. One of the
central themes of the Governor Brown's budget is the "Wall of
Debt," a framework in which the Governor describes various debts
and liabilities. In addition, in 2011 the Legislature adopted
SB 15 (DeSaulnier), Chapter 737, to require both the budget and
the May Revision to contain a five-year projection of revenues
and expenditures. Finally, the 2012 budget focused upon solving
the structural deficit that had historically persisted in the
State. While there has been a great deal of discussion about
State liabilities in the last few years, there has not been much
AB 716
Page 3
discussion about State assets, which is essentially our
infrastructure and property. Thus, the 2013 edition of the
Five-Year Infrastructure plan will be important in informing the
budget process and planning for future years. Due to the
State's prolonged period of poor fiscal health, the maintenance
on State properties has been deferred and it is anticipated that
this plan will provide an updated picture of the overall
condition of State properties. Additionally, with the
exhaustion of various infrastructure bonds balances projected in
the near-future, this plan will provide some ideas regarding the
Administration's approach for future infrastructure financing.
This bill attempts to align future five-year infrastructure
plans with the State's stated priorities for land-use, carbon
emission reduction, and other priorities involving State
infrastructure. The bill also expands the definition of
infrastructure to include housing needs. Previous legislation,
AB 857 (Wiggins), Chapter 1016, Statutes of 2002, (Government
Code Section 13102) attempted to use the infrastructure plan as
a mechanism to align state planning and priorities for funding
projects.
This previous attempt to align the State's vision for
macro-level planning in the Five-Year Infrastructure Plan was
not successful. In the 2008, the Department of Finance complied
with the provisions of AB 857 by including a paragraph under
each department that explained how the department's needs
matched the priorities outlined in the plan. For example, under
the $4.2 billion of deficiencies for California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the report stated, "The
CDCR plan is consistent with the state's planning priorities and
is focused on rehabilitating and improving existing
infrastructure and promoting infill development. The CDCR's
individual projects are evaluated for their effect on the
environment and projects are modified to minimize negative
effects on a case-by-case basis."
Such responses became essentially a boilerplate field that was
filled in for every department, rather than the focused
discussion envisioned by AB 857 when it was passed in 2002.
This bill could end up setting up a similar requirement, which
would undermine its value.
One alternative would be to request the SGC provide a separate
AB 716
Page 4
report that outlines the goals of State infrastructure. For
example, in 2007 and 2008, the Schwarzenegger Administration
issued a separate report, the "Strategic Growth Plan" which
reflected the administration's vision for infrastructure
planning at a more macroscopic level. During these years, the
introduction to the Five-Year Infrastructure stated this plan
was part of the "larger vision" of the Strategic Growth Plan. A
"larger vision" document might be more appropriate in achieving
the analysis and useful comments envisioned by this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Christian Griffith / BUDGET / (916)
319-2099
FN: 0000547