BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2841
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 5, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ECONOMY
Eduardo Garcia, Chair
AB 2841
(Travis Allen) - As Introduced February 19, 2016
SUBJECT: State infrastructure financing for seaports
SUMMARY: Establishes a process by which a harbor agency can monetize
the future financial value of installing and operating a port using
technology and processes that result in zero and near zero emissions.
This valuation would be used to establish the amount of a state
appropriation that would be used by the harbor agency to pay for part
or all of those improvements. Specifically, this bill:
1)Includes legislative intent that states, among other things, the
following:
a) The primary purpose of this act is to help finance the
infrastructure necessary to support the introduction and expanded
use of zero-emission and near-zero-emission equipment at
California's public port facilities.
b) The statewide interest in the need to continually invest in
California's public port infrastructure is predicated on the fact
that California's public seaports and the international trade
AB 2841
Page 2
they facilitate are critical components of the state economy.
c) The state's public ports and port infrastructure facilities
support the export and import of cargo to or from distribution,
manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, processing, transloading,
and warehousing sites in California. As such, these facilities
are essential to the growth of the state's economic well-being
and the ability of businesses and workers associated with
trade-related industries to continue to compete cost-effectively
on a regional, national, and global scale.
d) Given the statewide significance of the ports' economic
importance, the cost of infrastructure upgrades/replacement, and
the state's interest in reducing mobile source emissions from the
freight sector and supply chain, the state has a paramount
interest in creating incentives that will precipitate early
investment by the industry in the newest generation of
zero-emission and near-zero-emission equipment at marine
terminals and port facilities.
2)The Legislature further finds and declares, among other things, the
following:
a) It is equitable and in the public interest to provide
alternative procedures for financing public works and services
needed to support new commercial, environmental, and industrial
development in the state's seaports and harbors that would
AB 2841
Page 3
generate significant new employment opportunities and economic
development, increase state and local tax revenues, enhance
seaport competitiveness in the international trade community,
reduce congestion and delay in the supply chain, and result in
improved environmental quality.
b) Except as authorized in this bill, seaports and harbors in
California generally do not levy or expend any funds generated by
local taxes, as most of their operations are funded directly
through fees, tariffs, leases, and other revenue the seaports and
harbors generate from their users and tenants, in addition to the
occasional state or federal grant.
c) There is significant opportunity for development and
investment in our state's seaports and harbors and in their
transition to operations that are characterized by the use of new
zero-emission and near-zero-emission equipment and supporting
infrastructure. However, the state lacks the public
infrastructure funding necessary to support all of the new
development and investment that are demanded.
d) In addition to a lack of public infrastructure funding, the
state's waterfronts have infrastructure and environmental needs
that cannot be met by private investment alone, and therefore
creative public financing mechanisms need to be developed.
AB 2841
Page 4
e) The absence of practical and equitable methods for state
financing of public works, like the development of seaport
infrastructure that is a matter of statewide significance, leads
to a declining standard of seaport infrastructure, a failure to
construct new public structures and facilities needed to support
new commercial and industrial development in our seaports and
harbors, increased congestion, and a lack of tools to facilitate
environmental improvements, including the transition to
zero-emission and near-zero-emission equipment and supporting
infrastructure.
3)Specifies that the Legislature further finds and declares, among
other things, the following:
a) The ability to capture future tax increment revenues to
finance needed seaport and harbor infrastructure projects will
provide direct benefits to the state.
b) A seaport frequently generates large state tax benefits
directly and indirectly as a result of the economic activity that
is generated from its maritime operations and other economic
development efforts.
c) Investments by a seaport and its industry partners in
environmental improvements generate long-term state benefits and
reduction in public costs with respect to the reduction of
greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants, projected public health
impacts, and overall improvements in the quality of life of
Californians.
AB 2841
Page 5
d) The potential for increases in state tax revenues and
decreases in costs to the state that will result from the
improvement of seaport and harbor infrastructure and investment
in environmental improvements should be incentivized and
leveraged through state financing, whenever possible, which
supports the state's significant interest in the successful
operation of its seaports and harbors.
e) Specifies that it is the further intent of the Legislature,
that seaport infrastructure financing be developed pursuant to
bill in a manner that improves public port assets,
infrastructure, and operations and achieves the public goals of
improving the state's waterborne commerce, enhancing economic
prosperity, and financing the costs of environmental mitigation
and improvement.
4)Authorizes a harbor agency to prepare a proposed financing plan for
a project to be submitted to the I-Bank, as specified. The bill
requires the legislative body of the project sponsor to adopt
findings, by resolution, as those required for funding from the
Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF), as well as including the
following information:
a) The type of infrastructure development or equipment purchase
to be financed through the proceeds of the proposed financing;
AB 2841
Page 6
b) The state fiscal and economic impacts forecast, as specified
in number 5;
c) A finding that the project to be financed is consistent with
the state tidelands trust and the terms and conditions of any
grant of trust lands to the harbor agency, if the harbor agency
is acting on granted lands. A copy of this finding is required to
be forwarded by the harbor agency to the State Lands Commission;
and
d) A finding that the project to be financed is consistent with
its charter and the statewide interests in the operation of
harbors and port, if the harbor agency was formed pursuant to
this code.
5)Requires a harbor agency to adopt a resolution which sets forth
estimates of the state fiscal and economic impacts that will result
from the project. The resolution is to be based on an economic
impact report which the harbor agency obtains from a third-party
economist, as specified. The content of the resolution is required
to include, but not be limited to:
a) The total direct and indirect state tax revenues generated by
the impact of the infrastructure development or equipment
purchase to be financed through the bank;
b) The total direct and indirect state general fund and special
fund expenditure savings generated by the impact of the
AB 2841
Page 7
infrastructure development or equipment purchase to be financed
through the bank;
c) The total local tax and user fee revenues generated by the
infrastructure development or equipment purchase to be financed
through the bank; and
d) The total jobs created by the infrastructure development or
equipment purchase to be financed through the bank, including the
specific impact of the financing on the employment of California
residents.
6)Prohibits the I-Bank from requiring a harbor agency to prepare a
report or adopt a resolution except at its discretion prior to
submission of a proposed financing plan for a project.
7)Requires the I-Bank to consider each submitted proposed financing
plan and either approve, require a modification of, or deny the
proposed financing. When considering approval of financing for a
project, the I-Bank is directed to:
a) Review the proposed financing plan for the project; and
b) Review the methodology and projections made in the economic
impact report, which have become the basis of the resolution
AB 2841
Page 8
submitted as the financing plan.
8)Requires the I-Bank to approve financing for a project if, after
conducting its own evaluation of a harbor agency's methodology, it
can make the finding that the execution of the project is more
likely than not to result in the outcomes projected by the harbor
agency.
9)Prohibits the I-Bank to approve financing for a project if the State
Lands Commission objects to a finding made by a harbor agency in its
resolution, as specified.
10)Requires, for any project approved, that the I-Bank submit a
request to the Assembly Budget Committee and the Senate Committee on
Budget and Fiscal Review for an appropriation in the following
fiscal year in an amount equal to or less than the total estimated
state tax revenues and state general fund savings approved by the
I-Bank.
11)Limits the I-Bank from underwriting the project financing to only
those instances where there has been an appropriation by the
Legislature of funds for that purpose.
12)Requires the harbor agency to reimburse the administrative expenses
or direct operating expenses that are incurred by the I-Bank as the
direct result of the consideration, review, and processing of the
proposed financing of a project.
AB 2841
Page 9
13)Provides that to the extent there are conflicts between a provision
of this bill [contained within Chapter 4. The State Infrastructure
Financing for Seaports] and any provision of the seaport
infrastructure financing district, the provisions of this bill shall
prevail.
14)Provides that all permanent fixtures and capital improvements to
the real property of a harbor agency that administers public trust
tidelands financed through this bill are to be a trust asset once
completed. Fixtures and improvements are exempted from this
requirement if they are otherwise agreed to be nonpermanent in a
lease between the harbor agency and a private tenant.
15)Provides that nothing in this chapter prohibits a harbor agency
from submitting a proposed financing plan for a project on behalf of
a tenant or for the purchase of equipment to be owned and operated
by a tenant, if the assets are owned, maintained, and used
exclusively in California and, upon the cessation of the lease,
ownership and control of the assets shall revert to the harbor
agency on terms enforceable by contract between the harbor agency
and the tenant.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes cities and counties to create infrastructure financing
districts (IFDs) and issue bonds to pay for community scale public
works: highways, transit, water systems, sewer projects, flood
control, child care facilities, libraries, parks, and solid waste
facilities. To repay the bonds, IFDs can divert property tax
increment revenues, which are revenues generated from increases in
property values within the IFD above property values in the
AB 2841
Page 10
base-year when the IFD was formed. However, IFDs can't divert
property tax increment revenues from schools
2)Authorizes cities and counties to create Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFDs), which augment the tax increment
financing powers that are available to local government under the
IFD statutes. City or county officials can create an EIFD, which is
governed by a public finance authority, to finance public capital
facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance
that provide significant benefits to the district or the surrounding
community
3)Authorizes cities and counties to establish Seaport Infrastructure
Financing Districts, which is similar to an EIFD, for the purpose of
financing port or harbor infrastructure, including any capital
improvement that improves environmental quality, if the
improvement's primary or predominant use directly benefits a port or
harbor..
4)Establishes the I-Bank within the Governor's Office of Business and
Economic Development (GO-Biz) and authorizes it to undertake a
variety of infrastructure related financial activities including,
but not limited to, the administration of a revolving loan fund,
oversight of the Small Business Finance Center, and the issuance of
tax-exempt and taxable revenue bonds.
5)Requires, prior to the submittal of a project to the I-Bank for
consideration, the legislative body of the project sponsor to make
specified findings, by resolution, on each of the following:
a) The project is consistent with the general plan of both the
city and county, or city and county in the case of San Francisco,
or only the county for projects in unincorporated areas in which
the project is located.
AB 2841
Page 11
b) The proposed financing is appropriate for the specific
project.
c) The project facilitates effective and efficient use of
existing and future public resources so as to promote both
economic development and conservation of natural resources. The
project develops and enhances public infrastructure in a manner
that will attract, create, and sustain long-term employment
opportunities.
d) The project is consistent with the criteria, priorities, and
guidelines for the selection of projects adopted of the I-Bank.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
POLICY ISSUE FRAME
While trade related industries play a primary role in California's
economy, this important source of jobs and state GDP also results in
significant environmental impacts. The state is currently in the
process of developing a plan to transition the state's logistic and
goods movement network to zero and near zero emissions. Research
shows that the state's ports and transportation sector have already
made substantial progress toward reducing emissions. Achieving this
next level of emission reductions, however, will require a reasonable
means to finance and deploy clean and zero emission technologies at a
much broader scale than today.
This transition is particularly challenging in that it will require
AB 2841
Page 12
operational and technology changes across a wide array of highly
interdependent transportation, logistic, manufacturing, and related
business and publically-owned enterprises. The timing and technology
shifts will need to be coordinated and provide for interoperability or
the production and movement of goods will be jeopardized. Public
resources, like California's seaports, play a crucial role in this
transition and cannot afford to lag in adaption and upgrade of
facilities.
This measure provides an innovative method for financing key
infrastructure and operational improvements. The analysis includes
background on the state's efforts toward a more sustainable freight
movement strategy, costs of the proposed actions, mechanics of the
economic impact report, and the importance of trade to the California
economy. Amendments are discussed in Comments #5 and #6.
COMMENTS:
1)Author Purpose: According to the author, "AB 2841 creates a new
public financing program to encourage future investments in
infrastructure at California's public seaports to be administered by
the state Infrastructure Bank. Incentivizing these infrastructure
improvements will lower operating expenses, which in turn will help
to preserve our ports' economic competitive position or usher in new
the use of clean technologies sooner than otherwise feasible."
2)Moving toward a Sustainable Freight Plan: In July 2015, Governor
Brown issued Executive Order B-32-15 which called for the
development of an integrated plan to improve freight efficiency,
transition to zero-emission technologies, and increase
competitiveness of California's freight system. The mandated new
action plan, referred to as the California Sustainable Freight
Action Plan, is due by July 2016 and is required to identify state
policies, programs, and investments that can be made in order to
achieve these zero-emission targets.
AB 2841
Page 13
According to an Air Resources Board (ARB) policy-related document, a
key step toward California achieving its air quality, climate, and
sustainability goals, is transiting to a zero emission
transportation system. While the state's freight transport system
serves as an economic engine, it also accounts for about half of
toxic diesel particulate matter (diesel PM), 45% of the emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOx) that form ozone and fine particulate matter in
the atmosphere, and 6% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in
California.
Addressing these environmental challenges will require policy and
financial solutions that include trucks, ships, locomotives,
aircraft, harborcraft, and all types of equipment used to move
freight at seaports, airports, railyards, warehouses and
distribution centers. This more efficient, zero and near zero
emission freight system will demand both new equipment and fuels,
but also new transportation infrastructure, communications, and
industry operating practices. New technologies will also play an
important role in increasing system efficiency, including
computerized logistics systems and technologies to physically move
containers and trucks.
Current financing options call for substantial new investments in
public and private funds, as well as new regulatory and other
programs to encourage and mandate zero emission and other clean
technology development and deployment. The scale of the currently
proposed public funds appears to be nowhere near the anticipated
costs. It is also problematic for public and private entities to
take on significant new debt or make expenditures for activities
that result in no new revenues and potentially result in lower
revenues in the short-run.
Chart 1 displays the estimated capital and operational expenditures
AB 2841
Page 14
for the container terminals at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach,
and Oakland in order to achieve the zero and near zero emission
goals. This data is from a technical memorandum prepared by Moffatt
and Nichol, which was developed at the behest of the Pacific
Merchant Shipping Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Chart 1 - Capital and Operational Costs for Los Angeles, Long Beach, |
| and Oakland Ports |
| |
| |
| Achieving Zero and Near Zero Emissions |
| |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Action | Term | Funding | Increased |
| | | | Funding |
| | | | |
| | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Zero/Near Zero Emission Technology Capital Cost Comparison |
| |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Replacement of current | Over 30 |$7 billion | -- |
|conventional terminal operating | years | | |
|equipment and associated | | | |
|infrastructure in the normal | | | |
|course of business | | | |
AB 2841
Page 15
| | | | |
| | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Replacement of current equipment | Not Set | $23 | $16 |
|with zero emission or near zero | | billion | billion |
|emission equipment and supporting | | | |
|infrastructure. | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-----------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Replacement of current equipment | Not Set | $35 | $28 |
|with electrified high-density | | billion | billion |
|stacking equipment and supporting | | | |
|infrastructure. | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Zero/Near Emission Technology Operational Expenditure Comparison |
| |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Operational Expenditures to | Over 30 | $239 | -- |
|maintain and operate current | years | billion | |
|conventional terminal equipment | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Maintenance and operation costs | Not Set | $284 | $45 |
|for zero and near zero emission | | billion | billion |
|electrification equipment. | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-----------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Maintenance and operation costs | Not set | $260 | $21 |
|for zero and near zero emission | | billion | billion |
|electrification equipment. | | | |
| | | | |
AB 2841
Page 16
| | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Moffatt and Nichol on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping |
| Association|
| |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
State agencies and departments assisting the development of the
California Sustainable Freight Action Plan include the: California
State Transportation Agency; California Environmental Protection
Agency; Natural Resources Agency California Air Resources Board;
California Department of Transportation; California Energy
Commission; and the Governor's Office of Business and Economic
Development. Meetings and other outreach events are scheduled by
the various state entities for this Spring.
It will be challenging to develop and successfully implement a
California Sustainable Freight Action Plan that can achieve the dual
mandates of transitioning to zero-emission technologies, while also
increasing competitiveness of California's freight system. AB 2841
could be an innovative tool for front-loading the financing and
provide the needed foundation from which other elements of the
state's transportation and logistics networks could transition.
3)Economic Impact Report: The central feature of the AB 2841 process
is the development of the economic impact report. This is the
document that establishes project valuation. After reviewing the
AB 2841
Page 17
econmic impact report, the I-Bank will be asked to certify the
future economic value to the state for the specified development
project and/or equipment purchase to be placed into service. This
economic value becomes the basis for a state appropriation.
Key elements of the future economic value is based on the amount of
direct and indirect:
State tax revenues generated by the project or equipment
upgrade;
General Fund and Special Fund savings which accrue to the
state;
Local taxes and user fee revenues generated by the project or
equipment upgrade; and
Jobs created in the development and use of the infrastructure
and equipment purchase.
The bill requires that the econmic impact analysis be prepared by a
third-party economist, who uses a nationally recognized methodology.
Prior to the submittal to the I-Bank, the economic impact report and
methodology are required to be peer reviewed by an independent
party.
1)Profile of California's Trade Dominated Economy: California is home
to over 39 million people, providing the state with one of the most
diverse populations in the world, often comprising the single
largest concentration of nationals outside their native country. In
2014, this diverse group of business owners and workers produced
$2.3 trillion in goods and services; $174.1 billion of which were
exported to over 220 countries around the world.
AB 2841
Page 18
If California were a country, its 2014 GDP would place it 8th among
nations, ranking as follows: United States ($17.41 trillion), China
($10.38 trillion), Japan ($4.61 trillion), Germany ($3.86 trillion),
France ($2.84 trillion), Brazil ($2.35 trillion), California ($2.31
trillion); Italy ($2.14 trillion), India ($2.05 trillion), and
Russia ($1.85 trillion). The Department of Finance will not release
2015 GDP for California until June 2016, so for comparisons 2014
data is being used.
Historically, a number of factors have contributed to California's
significant positon within the global marketplace, including its
strategic west coast location, the size of its consumer base, the
strength of its dominant industry sectors, its economically diverse
regional economies, its skilled workforce, and its culture of
innovation and entrepreneurship, particularly in the area of
technology. California's 29 million working age individuals
comprise the single largest workforce in the nation, are
comparatively younger, and have an educational achievement level
above the national average.
Many policy makers and economists describe California as having not
a single economy, but having a highly integrated network of a dozen
or so regional economies. While biotech has a comparative advantage
in some regions, information technology drives growth in others.
This economic diversity contributed to California's ability to
aggressively move out of the recession, ranking number two in the
nation by Business Insider for fastest growing economy in the nation
in August 2014 and being named as having the fourth best overall
economy in March 2015.
AB 2841
Page 19
Chart 1 displays information from the U.S. Census Bureau on
California's private industry sectors based on its contribution to
the state's GDP. In 2014, the finance and insurance sector
provided the largest economic contribution to the state's overall
GDP, $484 billion of the $2.3 trillion. Firms in this industry
sector include entities that raise funds, pool risk, and facilitate
financial transactions including real estate.
Chart 2, developed using data provided by the California Employment
Development Department, shows California's largest industry sectors
based on employment. In 2014, the trade, transportation, and
utilities sector was largest, employing 2.8 million (18.4% of
California jobs). Jobs in this sector also support employment in
other industry sectors including Manufacturing (8.1%), Professional
Services (15.6%), and Financial Activities (5.0%).
Many of the jobs associated with these major industry sectors are
also associated with high wages. Manufacturing is considered the
"gold standard" for jobs because of its high wages, inclusion of
small businesses within its global supply chains, and having a high
multiplier effect on related jobs. The Milken Institute estimates
that for every job created in manufacturing, 2.5 jobs are created in
other sectors. In some industry sectors, such as electronic
computer manufacturing, the multiplier effect is 16:1.
AB 2841
Page 20
Advances in transportation and communication technologies are
encouraging the development of previously undeveloped markets and
expanding multinational business opportunities for California firms.
Today, four of California's top five exports include component
parts, which leave the state to be assembled and/or partially
assembled before returning.
These trade related industry sectors comprise a majority of what EDD
has designated as the state's "economic base" sectors, which include
professional services, manufacturing, and transportation, among
others. Employment in these economic base industries represents
37.3% of the state's total employment, and employment growth within
these sectors grew at twice the pace of the overall state economy
between 2010 to 2012.
2)Suggested Amendments: Committee staff have worked with the author
and the sponsor on amendments to clarify the purposes of the bill.
Amendments will be presented at the hearing, which do the following:
Clarify that the role of the I-Bank is to establish a project
valuation for the purpose of appropriating funds to allow the
harbor agency, including their tenants, to undertake
infrastructure projects and make equipment purchases that support
the operation of the port in a manner that results in zero
emission and near-zero emissions.
AB 2841
Page 21
Clarify the requirements of the economic impact report and
peer review.
Modify the appropriation process by having the I-Bank refer
the valuation to the Department of Finance for inclusion in the
Governor's proposed budget for the following fiscal year. The
current bill has the I-Bank providing notice to the Legislature.
Address technical issues raised by the State Lands Commission.
1)Applying an Equity Application Analysis: The Assembly Committee on
Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy held a hearing in
November 2015 to consider the growing income inequality and to
examine ways in which the state could support a more inclusive
economy. One of the primary recommendations from the hearing was
the application of an Equity Analysis, on new programs and major
state expenditures. At this stage in the bill process, it is
difficult to fully assess its equity impacts. Committee staff will
continue to monitor the bill and provide an Equity Application
Analysis when it goes to the Assembly Floor. The bill would,
however, be strengthened if public health impacts, particularly
those in the very low-income neighborhoods immediately adjacent to
the ports, were considered in the economic impact report.
2)Related Legislation: Below is a list of the related bills.
a) AB 2 (Alejo and E. Garcia) Community Revitalization and
Investment Authorities: This bill authorizes the establishment of
a Community Revitalization and Investment Authority and use of
the property tax increment revenues to finance economic
development and affordable housing programs within a specified
community revitalization and investment area. Eligible areas are
limited to those that have an annual median household income that
is less than 80% of the statewide annual median income and meet
three of the following four conditions:
AB 2841
Page 22
i) Nonseasonal unemployment that is at least 3% higher than
the statewide median, as defined by a specified labor market
report;
ii) Crimes rates that are 5% higher than the statewide median
crime rate, as defined by a specified Department of Justice
report;
iii) Deteriorated or inadequate infrastructure; and
iv) Deteriorated commercial or residential structures.
Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 319, Statutes of 2015
b) SB 63 (Hall) Seaport Infrastructure Districts: This bill
authorizes cities and counties to establish Seaport
Infrastructure Financing Districts and allows these districts to
finance certain port or harbor facilities, as specified. Status:
Signed by the Governor, Chapter 793, Statutes of 2015.
c) SB 628 (Beall) Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts:
This bill authorizes local officials to create Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), which augment the tax
increment financing powers that are available to local government
under the IFD statutes. City or county officials can create an
EIFD, which is governed by a public finance authority, to finance
public capital facilities or other specified projects of
communitywide significance that provide significant benefits to
the district or the surrounding community. Status: Signed by
the Governor, Chapter 785, Statutes of 2014.
d) SB 308 (Seymour) Infrastructure Financing Districts: This
bill authorizes cities and counties to create infrastructure
financing districts (IFDs) and issue bonds to pay for community
scale public works: highways, transit, water systems, sewer
projects, flood control, child care facilities, libraries, parks,
AB 2841
Page 23
and solid waste facilities. To repay the bonds, IFDs can divert
property tax increment revenues, which are revenues generated
from increases in property values within the IFD above property
values in the base-year when the IFD was formed. However, IFDs
can't divert property tax increment revenues from schools.
Signed by the Governor, Chapter 1575, Statutes of 1990.
7)Double Referral: This measure has been double referred to the
Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy
and the Assembly Committee on Local Government (LG). Should this
measure pass JEDE, it will be referred to LG for further policy
consideration.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (sponsor)
Opposition
None Received
Analysis Prepared by:Toni Symonds / J., E.D., & E. / (916) 319-2090
AB 2841
Page 24