BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2663
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 28, 2010

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                  AB 2663 (Lowenthal) - As Amended:  April 22, 2010 

          Policy Committee:                              Local  
          GovernmentVote:8-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires the state to delay the transfer, borrowing,  
          or suspension of various local funds from cities and counties  
          that have fiscal years coinciding with the federal government  
          until their fiscal years commence on October 1. The bill applies  
          to:

          1)The borrowing, transfer, or suspension of property tax  
            revenues, allocated in accordance with subdivision (a) of  
            Section 1 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution  
            (relating to local property taxes).

          2)The borrowing, transfer, or suspension of revenues from the  
            Highway Users Tax Account (relating to excise taxes  
            apportioned for local streets and roads).

          3)The borrowing, transfer, or suspension of revenues from the  
            Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) allocated pursuant to  
            subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIX B of the  
            California Constitution (Proposition 42 funds relating to  
            sales taxes on motor vehicle fuels).

          4)The borrowing, transfer, or suspension of funds allocated to a  
            redevelopment agency pursuant to subdivision of Section 16 of  
            Article XVI of the California Constitution.

           FISCAL EFFECT
           
          1)No impacts in 2010-11, since the bill would not take effect  
            until January 1, 2011. In future years, the impacts would  
            depend on the extent and timing of borrowing and transfers  








                                                                  AB 2663
                                                                  Page  2

            from local governments included in the state budget.

             a)   As an illustration, the five cities that currently use a  
               federal fiscal year account for about 2% of total property  
               tax payments and population in California. If the state  
               were to suspend $1 billion from all local sources on July  
               1, this bill would result in the delay of $20 million in  
               payments, translating into $250,000 in interest costs.

          2)This bill could result in potentially larger revenue delays to  
            the state (ranging into the millions of dollars) unless it is  
            amended to clarify that delayed payments are due within the  
            state's fiscal year.

          3)Minor administrative costs to the state to determine the  
            amount of borrowed funds that would be delayed, and set up  
            alternative payment schedules for the local agencies involved.

           COMMENTS
           
           1)Background  . In recent years, the state has relied on  
            borrowing, suspensions and transfers from multiple sources,  
            including local governments, to address its major budget  
            shortfalls. The 2009-10 budget includes, for example, includes  
            transfers of property tax increment revenues from  
            redevelopment agencies and a loan of property taxes from  
            cities, counties, and special districts.

            According to the author, there are five local governments in  
            California that operate on a federal fiscal year - the cities  
            of Long Beach, Huntington Beach, Inglewood, El Segundo and  
            South Lake Tahoe. The federal fiscal year runs from October 1  
            through September 30, three months later than the fiscal year  
            period used by the state and most local governments.

           2)Rationale  . This bill is intended to provide relief to local  
            governments that use a federal fiscal year. The author notes  
            that "for the five cities on the federal fiscal year, the  
            state's borrowing comes at the end of their budget cycles -  
            when they are least able to adapt to borrowing, placing an  
            undue financial burden on those cities."  The bill would allow  
            these local governments to delay the payments to the state the  
            beginning of their following fiscal year, when they are in a  
            better position to plan and accommodate it.
           








                                                                  AB 2663
                                                                  Page  3

           3)Clarifying amendments needed  . The bill is silent on the  
            question of when the delayed portion of the amount suspended,  
            loaned, or transferred is due. This omission could be  
            significant when, for example, transfers are scheduled on a  
            monthly or quarterly basis. Absent amendments clarifying that  
            any payments that are delayed until October 1 must be made (in  
            addition to regularly scheduled payments) prior the June 30  
            conclusion of the state's fiscal year, the bill could have  
            much larger impacts on the state.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081