BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2052
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2052 (Hayashi) - As Introduced: February 18, 2010
Policy Committee: Business and
Professions Vote: 11-0 (Consent)
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Requires the Department of General Services (DGS) to establish
a program to centralize the sale of state surplus personal
property using the best available technology, including, but
not limited to, the Internet.
2)Requires DGS to recover its costs through a surcharge on each
item sold.
FISCAL EFFECT
Little fiscal impact, as DGS reports it has already centralized
and employed an online auction site through a contract with a
vendor for disposition of state surplus assets. The department
indicates that, as a fee-for-service agency, it already has the
authority to cover its costs. The department also indicates
that it has not seen significant saving in warehousing,
shipping, and handling costs.
Revenues from state surplus personal property sales totaled
about $550,000 in 2004-05 and $860,000 in 2006-07, and exceeded
$1 million in 2007-08. The department states that revenues have
been down recently due to reductions in state purchases of new
property such as furnishings. The department's recent emphasis
has been on disposing of surplus vehicles.
AB 2052
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Background and Purpose . In 2004, the final report of the
California Performance Review (CPR) recommended the state
pursue innovative techniques to improve the sale of state
surplus property (e.g., office equipment) to increase
efficiency and revenues. DGS-one of the major sellers of such
property-receives about 16,000 shipments each year, with each
shipment containing anywhere from 1 up to 200 different items.
The traditional method for disposing of such property has been
through public warehouse sales. It is believed that broadening
the customer base through the use of the Internet could
produce more sales and revenue.
2)Prior Legislation . In 2007, AB 240 (Eng), which was
substantially similar to this bill, passed the Assembly 78-1
but was never heard in the Senate. In 2005, AB 302 (Negrete
McLeod), which was substantially similar to this bill, passed
the Assembly but was subsequently amended in the Senate to
address an unrelated issue.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081