BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: SB 594 HEARING: 4/24/13
AUTHOR: Steinberg FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/18/13 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Grinnell
CALIFORNIA CAREER PATHWAYS INVESTMENT
Enacts several forms of financial assistance to aid
investment in career pathways programs.
Background and Existing Law
California provides various tax credits designed to provide
incentives for taxpayers that incur certain expenses, such
as child adoption, or to influence behavior, including
business practices and decisions, such as research and
development credits and Geographically Targeted Economic
Development Area credits. The Legislature typically enacts
such tax incentives to encourage taxpayers to do something,
but for the tax credit, they would not otherwise do.
The California Constitution requires counties, cities, and
school districts to get voter approval for long-term debt.
Counties, cities, school districts, community college
districts, and some special districts can issue general
obligation (GO) bonds, secured by ad valorem property tax
revenues, with 2/3-voter approval, and implemented in
statute in the Government Code.
State law allows public agencies to buy and sell property.
Public agencies have used this authority to enter into
various forms of lease transactions, including certificates
of participation and sale-leasebacks, among others. State
law applies specific laws to school and community college
districts when leasing property.
Additionally, state law authorizes public agencies to use
certain vehicles to issue lease-revenue bonds (LRBs), where
investors provide cash to the issuer to build a project,
which in turn produces revenues to repay bond investors.
As LRBs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the
issuing agency, the amount issued generally doesn't count
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 2
against the California Constitution's debt limit so long as
the payments are genuine payments for leasing the facility,
and the LRBs don't function like a purchasing obligation
for the city (Article XVI, Section 18). However, ratings
agencies include LRBs whenever assessing an issuer's
overall creditworthiness. Additionally, LRBs do not
require approval by voters.
Currently, state law restricts the following agencies to
issue lease revenue bonds:
The State Public Works Board, upon the Legislature
enacting a statute such as AB 900 (Solorio, 2007).
The state commonly issues LRBs.
Joint Powers Agencies, which are collaborations of
public agencies, and can include the State Public
Works Board.
Nonprofit public benefit corporations.
Now-defunct redevelopment agencies.
In a lease-revenue bond transaction, the JPA, nonprofit
agency, or redevelopment agency issues a bond backed by the
city's commitment to lease a facility, and then uses the
proceeds to build the facility, which can be a fire
station, convention center, or office building, among
others. The city makes lease payments to the issuer, who
then sends them onto the bondholder until the bond is
redeemed. The interest rate of the bond generally reflects
the credit quality of the city that commits to make lease
payments. Lease revenue bonds are usually tax exempt,
although whenever bond funds are used for purposes other
than capital projects they may be deemed taxable when the
use falls outside the "public activity" restriction in
federal law.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 594 has six major parts: the California Career
Pathways Investment Committee, LRBs, Workforce Development
Bonds, the Career Pathways Investment Trust Funds, the
California Career Pathways State Revolving Fund, and the
Career Pathway Investment Credit, among other provisions.
I. California Career Pathways Investment Committee.
Senate Bill 594 creates the California Career Pathways
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 3
Investment Committee, composed of the following:
The Chancellor of the California Community
Colleges, who serves as Chair,
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction,
The Chair of the California Workforce Investment
Board, or his or her designee.
One appointee of the Senate Committee on Rules to
represent the business community, who will serve a
four-year term, and
One appointee of the Speaker of the Assembly, who
will serve a four-year term.
The committee allocates funds from the Career Pathways
Revolving Fund and Career Pathways Investment Credits to
local educational entities, community college districts,
and applicants. The committee also creates application
forms and procedures, as well as sets criteria and
guidelines for evaluating applications for financial
assistance.
The committee shall allocate financial assistance based on
the following priorities:
Local educational agencies and community colleges
that serve areas that have an unemployment rate above
the statewide average, as measured by the Employment
Development Department, or a high school graduation
rate lower than the statewide average, as measured by
the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data
System.
Local educational agencies and community colleges
that include in their applications significant amount
of private funding support.
Local educational agencies and community colleges
that include in their applications articulated
pathways connecting high school and postsecondary
certificate and degree programs in their region,
Local educational agencies and community colleges
that are not seeking state funding for existing
activities. However, priority shall be given to
applicants that seek to expand or augment existing
investments in career pathways programs.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Chancellor of
the Community
Colleges and the California Workforce Investment Board
shall enter into a memorandum of understanding to allocate
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 4
staff resources to the committee. The costs to these
entities shall be offset by fees charged to applicants for
Career Pathways Tax Credits.
The Committee can grant financial assistance, which is any
combination of tax credits, grants, loans, and workforce
development "bonds."
II. Lease Revenue Bonds. SB 594 allows local education
agencies or community college districts to issue lease
revenue bonds secured by the lease of any of its property,
or enter into other arrangements to lease or loan
agreements not subject to California's Constitutional debt
limit. The measure exempts school districts from any law
that may restrict them from entering into agreements or
execute any other documents necessary to carry out the
purposes of the bill, such as restrictions on rental
payments exceeding a percentage of the value of taxable
property, number of years on the lease, and wage payments.
The local education agency or community college district
may enter into contracts or agreements with banks,
insurers, or other financial institutions that it
determines are necessary and desirable to improve the
security and desirability of the lease revenue bonds.
III. Trust Funds. The measure creates a Career Pathways
Investment Trust Fund in each local education agency or
community college district to finance program and
administrative costs resulting from operating career
pathways programs. The trust fund may accept money from
any source, including property tax resulting from the
dissolution of assets formerly held by now-defunct
redevelopment agencies. The trust fund is administered by
each local education agency or community college district.
The administering agency shall use moneys in the fund for
qualified expenditures, administrative costs, as well as
grants, loans, and program costs with career pathways
programs.
IV. Workforce Development "Bonds." SB 594 allows the
Committee to issue workforce investment "bonds" to
applicants that have entered into a memorandum of
understanding with a local education agency. The measure
defines them as contracts between the Committee and an
applicant who agrees to provide capital to fund a career
pathways program jointly operated by the applicant and a
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 5
school district of community college district, or a
consortium of school districts and community college
districts. Proceeds from the "sale," or amounts delivered
from the applicant to the school district under the terms
of the contract, may vary according to the measured level
of performance, and may be used for specified purposes in
the bill, including:
Career pathways program operation,
Development of rigorous and career-relevant
curriculum,
Paid internships,
Post-high school financial aid for college,
Licensing and credentialing programs,
Wage subsidies for full-time employment for pupils
who successfully complete a career pathways program.
The bill requires the committee to develop performance
criteria for determining financial returns to private
investors in workforce development "bonds," including, but
not limited to:
High school graduation.
Completion of post-secondary programs that
culminate in a certificate or degree.
Attainment of industry-recognized credentials that
are valued in high-growth, high-need or emerging
economic sectors.
Provision of high school pupil and community
college student internships.
Provision of paid summer jobs for high school
pupils and community college students.
Provision of high school teacher and community
college faculty externships.
Provision of scholarships or other financial
assistance for students pursuing post-secondary
education or training in a relevant career pathway.
Offers of paid employment or apprenticeship to high
school pupils or college students who are program
participants or graduates.
V. Revolving Fund. The bill creates the California
Career Pathways State Revolving Fund, a continuously
appropriated fund without regard to fiscal years that
constitutes the sole source of funds for the program. The
measure states that the state has no liability or
obligation beyond the extent to which money is provided
under the program. Within the Fund, SB 594 creates the
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 6
Career Pathways Financing Account to repay workforce
investment "bonds," a Career Pathways Grant Account to fund
grants, and a Career Pathways Loan Account to make loans.
VI. Career Pathways Investment Tax Credit. The bill
enacts tax credits against the Personal Income Tax and the
Corporation Tax in an amount equal to the amount the
Committee allocates to a taxpayer. Taxpayers can carry
forward credits until exhausted. The committee can
allocate Career Pathways Investment Tax Credits in an
amount authorized in the Budget Act for that calendar year.
The Committee can allocate credits that taxpayers can use
for five calendar years as long as authorized amounts don't
exceed amount authorized in the Budget Act. The bill
directs the Committee to give priority to applications
where:
Applicants have entered into contracts or
memorandums of understanding with local educational
agencies, community colleges, or workforce investment
boards in:
o Communities with unemployment rates above
the statewide average,
o High school graduation rates below the
statewide average,
o Proportions of private funding support
that exceed a one-to-one match,
o Not seeking tax credits for existing
activities, except for those that seek to expand
or augment existing investments in career
pathways programs,
To the maximum extent practicable, the Committee
shall give priority when allocating tax credits to
applicants that seek to expand or augment existing
career pathways program investments.
The Committee shall not give priority to applicants
by virtue of the date of application except to break a
tie between two applicants with the same rating.
The applicant must enter into an enforceable contract or
memorandum of understanding with the Committee to comply
with the bill. The contract or memorandum of understanding
shall provide for legal action to obtain specific
performance or monetary damage for breach of contract. The
contract shall also provide for periodic audits.
The Committee shall also adopt criteria that awards credits
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 7
to applicants that demonstrate that either it or the local
education agency, community college, or workforce
investment board that consider:
The effectiveness of the career pathway program
toward preparing students for productive, high-wage
employment in growing or high-need sectors of the
California economy, including:
o Pathway completion rates,
o High school or community college
graduation rates,
o Percentage of students transitioning
successfully to postsecondary education or
apprenticeship,
o Employment and earnings after high
school,
The level of the applicant's investment, oversight,
and ability to leverage and sustain current career
pathways applications.
The Committee shall also develop and provide forms to
applicants. The amount of credit reserved for a calendar
year shall not exceed 50% of the applicant's estimated
expenditures. The Committee shall report to FTB once each
year regarding the identity of the taxpayers to whom they
allocate credits. The Committee may consult with the
Treasurer or the Tax Credit Allocation Committee regarding
allocation, of credits, and they must aid the Committee
upon request. The Committee shall also adopt audit
requirements.
VII. Funding. The bill expresses legislative intent to
appropriate $250 million from the General Fund in 2013-14
to the Career Pathways State Revolving Fund, and says that
the source of funds may include Proposition 98
apportionments and offsetting budget savings resulting from
reforms to the Enterprise Zone Program and the New Jobs Tax
Credit. The measure states legislative intent to reduce
allocations of tax credits for the New Jobs Tax Credit from
$400 million to $300 million (ABx3 15 (Krekorian,
2009)/SBx3 15 (Calderon, 2009), and to authorize $100
million in Career Pathways Investment Tax Credit, effective
January 1, 2014.
VIII. Findings and definitions. The measure makes other
legislative findings and declarations supporting its
provisions. The bill also defines many terms, including
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 8
"applicant," "authentic application," "budget," "career
pathways investment trust fund," "career pathways
programs," "career pathways state revolving fund,"
"committee," "qualified expenditures," and "workforce
development bond,"
State Revenue Impact
Franchise Tax Board was unable to determine the costs of
the 2/2/13 of the bill due to unresolved implementation
issues.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . California is blessed with a
wealth of natural resources, but the most precious resource
of all is our young people. Our young hold the key to the
future of California - whether California will produce the
high skill, wage jobs of the 21st century, or fall behind.
Presently, our students abandon middle and high schools at
the rate of 140,000 a year -- a number equivalent to the
population of Pasadena, or Elk Grove, or all of Napa
County. One in five students who started ninth grade four
years ago have dropped out. In the most definitive measure
of the achievement gap, Latino students drop out at twice
the rate of white students; African American students at
nearly three times the rate of white students.
The outlook for dropouts is bleak: A third of those who
dropped out of 10th grade in 2004 were neither back in
school nor working four years later. Just one in 5
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 9
returned to school to earn a diploma, and even fewer earned
a GED.
At the same time an unacceptable number of young people are
dropping out of school, California is faced with a shortage
of skilled workers in high-growth sectors such as
biotechnology research and development, engineering and
construction, advanced manufacturing, health sciences and
nursing.
We can do a better job preparing our students for the
fastest growing occupations are ones that require
scientific, technical, engineering or math skills.
Investing more in public-private partnerships will enhance
the human capital of our workforce and lead to wage and
employment growth.
SB 594 seeks to move public education in California toward
the closer integration of rigorous academic preparation
with work-based learning opportunities in key growing
sectors of the state's economy. The goal of this effort is
to reduce the dropout rate in California while preparing
our workforce for the high skill, high wage jobs of the
21st century.
2. Throwing the book . SB 594 deploys an unprecedented
combination of incentives to draw corporate investment into
career pathways programs: allowing the Committee to
allocate workforce development "bonds," up to $100 million
in tax credits, as well as grants and loans, and
authorizing local agencies to directly issue lease revenue
bonds. When contemplating this degree of state assistance,
the Committee should consider why the lack of corporate
funding in career pathways education programs is
sufficiently compelling to justify the use of these tools,
but not for other state needs, like hiring teachers, police
officers, or other steps to reduce general unemployment?
Also, the Committee should think about whether the current
programs are scalable, or whether more money will actually
lead to more facilities and better education outcomes. Why
do companies currently decide to partner with local
agencies to create career pathways programs? Will this mix
of incentives necessarily lead to more of them, or will
firms simply be able to increase their internal rate of
return on an investment in its future workforce that it
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 10
would have made without SB 594's financial assistance and
tax credits? The Committee may wish to consider whether
career pathways programs merit the unique mix of tools SB
594 authorizes, and whether they will truly change
decision-making.
3. Building the future . Currently, taxpayers invest in
these programs because they enhance the future labor pool
from which they will draw, resulting in the attendant
public benefit of providing superior education and helping
enhance California's competitive advantage of an educated
workforce. SB 594 complements the existing investments in
these programs by granting a tax credit, and allowing other
forms of financial assistance, likely leading to increased
investment in career pathways programs. According to the
Senate Education Committee's analysis of a similar bill, SB
974 (Steinberg, 2009), "Regional Occupational Centers and
Programs (CROCP) conducted by the School Improvement
Research Group at the University of California, Riverside
and funded by the CDE, ROCP students improve their high
school grade point averages at a greater rate than
comparison students, enroll in post-secondary education in
large numbers, earn higher wages than comparison group
peers, have more success in securing raises and promotions
on the job, prefer ROCP classes over other subjects, and
question the value and relevance of many of their high
school courses. A 2010 study conducted by the Career
Academy Support Network finds that, after more than four
decades of development and three decades of evaluation,
career academies (small learning communities that provide a
college-preparatory curriculum with a career-related theme)
have been effective in improving outcomes for students
during and after high school and declares them a proven
strategy to prepare high school students for college and
careers."
4. Not so fast ? SB 594 allows local educational agencies
and community college districts to directly issue lease
revenue bonds to build career pathways programs, an
authority currently restricted only to the state, and to
local agencies who enter into lease-lease back arrangements
with either JPAs, nonprofit public benefit corporations, or
redevelopment agencies. However, this may not be the time
to allow local agencies new borrowing authority. First,
the Assembly recently passed AB 182 (Buchanan), which
significantly restricts school district bond issuance in
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 11
response to school districts issuing bonds with 30 years of
deferred principle and interest payments and twelve to one
debt to principal ratios. The Committee will hear the bill
this year. Second, school districts are filing lawsuits
against potentially unsavory financial advisors: the
Willits Unified School District is suing Caldwell Flores
Winters, Inc., stating it had been "duped" into overpaying
the firm hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lastly, ratings
agencies have departed from the traditional one notch
difference between a California issuer's general obligation
bonds and lease revenue bonds, stating that because lease
revenue bonds are not directly secured by additional taxes,
repayment is less certain given recent fiscal stress and
municipal bankruptcies. Additionally, lease revenue bond
transactions are highly complex, and could lead to taxable
bonds given SB 594's potential to use lease revenue bond
proceeds for non-capital projects. Leaving aside the
bill's lack of detail on the bonds, is now the time to
allow school districts and community college districts a
new, complex borrowing mechanism? The Committee may wish
to consider removing the measure's lease revenue bond
authorization.
5. This word . SB 594 authorizes the Committee to issue or
sell workforce development "bonds." However, they're not
bonds: they aren't publicly traded, can't be sold from one
person to another, don't require a financing team or bond
opinions, and don't set forth a method of repayment.
Instead, they're pay-for-performance contracts, where the
applicant agrees to provide funds to the Committee to pay
for career pathways programs, and the Committee repays the
applicant based on the performance of the program. SB 594
even defines these bonds as contracts. To prevent
confusion, the Committee may wish to consider amending SB
594 to delete workforce development bonds, and instead
authorize it to enter into contracts with specified
contents.
6. Begging the question . SB 594 authorizes new tax
credits to draw corporate investment into career pathways
programs, but contains intent language to limit or reform
two others, the New Jobs Tax Credit and Enterprise Zone
Credits, to pay for it. Added in 2009, taxpayers have only
claimed $155 million of the $400 million in New Jobs
Credits set aside. The Enterprise Zone Program, with
academically demonstrated ineffectiveness at job creation,
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 12
and profiteering by accounting firms, contingency fee tax
credit consultants, and tax attorneys, has been slated for
elimination in the past by the Governor, and for reform
this year by the Governor and SB 434 (Hill). Why will SB
594's credits achieve its intended goals when the New Jobs
Credit and the Enterprise Zone Credit don't? What about it
will create success where others fail? The Committee way
wish to consider whether tax credits are the right tool to
use to accomplish public policy goals when considering
limiting their use for some purposes whilst simultaneously
allowing them for SB 594's aims.
7. Right focus ? SB 594 deploys new financing mechanisms
and tax credits in the hopes of improving the quality of
California's workforce. However, the measure doesn't
require any firm receiving financial assistance or tax
credits to hire career pathway program participants.
Additionally, the state's economy and workforce needs
change rapidly, so many of the skills needed yesterday
aren't needed today; manufacturing jobs and unskilled labor
has moved from California to lower cost jurisdictions in
recent years. What guarantee exists that if SB 594 is
enacted, jobs will be available for career pathways
graduates? The Committee may wish to consider whether SB
594 presents a risk for a sunk cost, where the state has
invested in training for skills that its economy doesn't
ultimately need.
8. Not so public ? By offering unprecedented financial
assistance tools to draw in corporate investment, SB 594
concedes that not enough career pathway programs exist to
provide sufficient training for today's students to be
ready for tomorrow's economy. SB 594 assumes that the
current system of public funding and governance has not
sufficiently prepared these students, and more is needed.
However, as public education has traditionally been a
public responsibility, to what extent will corporate
funding change the curriculum or practices currently under
control of the State and local school boards? The measure
also allows charter schools, already under less public
control, equal funding footing with other schools so long
as both meet the criteria for funding. The Committee may
wish to consider whether SB 594 creates a desirable balance
between public and corporate funding of public education.
9. Best intentions . SB 594 doesn't actually change the
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 13
New Jobs Credit or Enterprise Zone tax credits; instead, it
states legislative intent to limit those programs and use
the resulting revenues to fund its programs. As such, the
measure is not keyed a 2/3 vote as a tax increase for the
purposes of Section Three of Article XIIIA of the
California Constitution. However, the measure doesn't
actually allocate any funds for its purposes.
10. Cleaning up . SB 594 requires several elements not
currently in the bill:
Committee Powers:
The measure doesn't grant basic powers to the
Committee enjoyed by most similar bodies, such as the
power to enter into contracts, buy and sell property,
sue and be sued in its own name, to hire employees or
an executive director, to design a seal and alter it
at its will, and enact regulations pursuant to the
Administrative Procedures Act, among others.
Are the memorandums of understanding necessary to
qualify for workforce development "bonds" enforceable
contracts? If so, this should be clarified so that
both parties enter into the MOU understanding that
either has recourse to courts to enforce performance
of the contract. If not, one can expect fewer
businesses to supply funds to districts without the
certainty of contractually-bound repayment.
Why are enforceable contracts with provision for
legal action and programmatic audits required for tax
credits (Page 13, lines 10 through 18), but not for
workforce development "bonds?"
Is the list of items eligible for funding from the
Local Pathways Investment Funds inclusive, exclusive,
or advisory?
Why should the Senate Committee on Rules designee
be restricted to a member of the "business community,"
but not the Speaker of the Assembly appointment?
Additionally, applicants should have to demonstrate
tangible commitments of private funding support
instead of only including it in their application.
Why should the Committee develop performance
criteria to assess the financial returns to private
investors of workforce development bonds? Shouldn't
they be assessing the returns of the program to the
State, and leave the investor's assessment of his or
her o returns to the investor?
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 14
Lease Revenue Bonds:
The measure doesn't provide many mechanics
necessary for lease revenue bonds: maximum terms and
interest rates, bidding procedures, caps on issuance
as a percentage of debt of total debt, property value,
or revenues, among others.
The measure needs a process for repaying lease
revenue bondholders, specification of the purposes for
which these bonds may be issued, and requirements for
public hearings where resolutions are enacted calling
for the sale of bonds, among others.
Workforce Development Bonds:
Under the current bill, local educational agencies
and community college districts can spend proceeds
from the sale of bonds/payments made from applicants
to the Committee pursuant to the contract for whatever
purpose they want to. Shouldn't the proceeds from
sale/ payments made from applicant to the Committee
pursuant to the bond/contract then transferred to the
local educational agency or community college district
be required to be spent on the bill's uses, not only
allowed to?
The notwithstanding clause in the Lease Revenue
Bond authorization may exempt local education agencies
and community college districts from any law that
binds them when making agreements or executing
documents, such as prohibitions on board members
benefitting financially from contracts and the Fair
Political Practices Act.
Tax Credits:
The measure needs a process for the Committee to
certify amounts on the tax credit awarded, and a clear
assignment of responsibility for doing so to the
Committee.
The measure should disallow as a business expense
deduction any cost for which the Committee compensates
the taxpayer with a tax credit.
Criteria:
On page 9, line 38 through page 10, line 17, and
again on page 12, line 22 through page 13, line 9, the
bill isn't clear whether the criteria for allocation
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 15
is comprehensive, meaning priority is given to
applicants that meet all criteria; ordered, where the
Commission should prioritize applications meeting the
first criterion, then those meeting the second
criterion, and so on, or if applications meeting any
one criterion are prioritized over those that don't.
Why should the committee apply one set of criteria
when prioritizing tax credit awards, but a different
one when allocating other financial assistance?
The tax credit allocation criteria reference
employment measures from the United States Census,
which isn't the agency's appropriate title, but more
importantly, doesn't measure unemployment. The bill
should instead use unemployment as measured by the
Employment Development Department as it does when
setting priorities for the Committee to allocate
financial assistance.
The measure also contains several technical issues that
require clarification or amendment:
"Significant" (Page 10, line 7), "articulated,"
(Page 10, line 10), "rigorous," (Page 7, line 38),
"career-relevant," (Page 7, line 39), require
definition.
Criterion (4) on Page 10, lines 13 through 17, and
(d) on page 12, line 39, may be contradictory unless
clarified. What's the difference between not applying
for existing activities and expanding or augmenting
existing investments in career pathways programs?
Is the legislative intent to appropriate $100
million for Career Pathways Investment credits part of
the overall $250 million General Fund appropriation to
the Career Pathways State Revolving Fund, or in
addition to it?
Intent sections should be combined.
Definitions not in alphabetic order.
The bill often uses the terms "school district,"
"community college district," and "local educational
entity," interchangeably. The measure should be
consistent in its terms to prevent confusion.
The bill also often uses the terms "business
entities," "applicants," "business partners," "private
funding support," interchangeably.
The bill uses the terms "performance targets" and
"performance criteria" interchangeably.
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 16
Workforce Development "Bonds" are created in a
definition as part of the bill's section containing
definitions. While the "bonds" are no more than
contracts, should the Committee choose not to
eliminate reference to them, the bill should create a
separate section of law to authorize its use instead
of grafting it into a definitional subdivision.
How do the "priority in allocating tax credits"
criteria on Page 12, line 22 through page 13, line 9,
interact with the "criteria that awards credits to
applicants that demonstrate" criteria on Page 13,
lines 19 through 38?
The metrics stated in the bill for the Committee to
use when assessing financial returns to private
entities are better measures of whether the program is
working, not its financial return to business
entities.
Instead of referring to "financial returns" to
applicants, the measure should be more accurate and
instead to discuss "repayments made by the Committee
to the applicant pursuant to the bond/contract"
The measure states that the "financial returns" may
vary pursuant to the level of performance. As such,
the Committee can sell bonds/enter into contracts that
aren't repaid according to the program's success. Why
isn't this requirement mandatory?
The measure doesn't specify how lease revenue bonds
will be repaid.
On page 12, line 18, substitute "taxable" for
"calendar"
Insert (1) on Page 12, line 39, after (D).
Delete the reference on Page 12, line 34, as
subdivision (e) doesn't have a paragraph (1).
Support and Opposition (04/22/13)
Support : America's Edge, Bay Area Council, California
Association of Regional Occupational Programs and Centers,
California Chamber of Commerce, Metropolitan Education
District, Sacramento City Unified School District, San
Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools,
San Francisco Unified School District, Silicon Valley
Leadership Group, Southwest California Legislative Council,
United Way of California
SB 594 (Steinberg) - 4/18/13 -- Page 17
Opposition : None received.