BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
2663 (Lowenthal)
Hearing Date: 08/02/2010 Amended: 06/22/2010
Consultant: Mark McKenzie Policy Vote: L Gov 5-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 2663 would require the state to delay any
transfer of local funds from cities that function under a
federal fiscal year until October 1, but would require all
transfers to be complete by June 30 of the same fiscal year.
Specifically, this bill would delay the transfer, suspension, or
borrowing of property tax revenues, Highway Users Tax Account
(HUTA) revenues, specified Transportation Investment Fund
revenues (Proposition 42 gas taxes), and redevelopment agency
funds.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
Loss of Interest potential revenue loss of up to
$200General
(see staff comments)
Cash flow impact potential 3 month delay of cash
receiptsVarious
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
California's fiscal year begins on July 1, but the federal
fiscal year begins on October 1. The following five California
cities budget according to the federal fiscal year: Long Beach,
Huntington Beach, Inglewood, El Segundo, and South Lake Tahoe.
In recent years, the state has relied on borrowing, suspensions,
and transfers from multiple sources, including local
governments, to address major budget and cash flow shortfalls.
The 2009-10 Budget Act, for example, transferred $1.7 billion in
redevelopment funds and suspended Proposition 1A to borrow $1.9
billion in local property tax revenues.
AB 2663 would delay any future state transfer, borrowing, or
suspension of specified local government revenues until October
1 for the five cities that operate under the a federal fiscal
year, but would require the full year's worth of revenues to be
transferred by the end of the state fiscal year on June 30.
This bill is intended to provide relief to five federal fiscal
year cities, by allowing them to delay payments to the state
until the beginning of their fiscal year. The delay in payments
would represent a shift of the burden from these five cities to
the state, who would otherwise benefit from having
interest-earning cash on hand or available for state payments.
The magnitude of the fiscal impact of this bill would depend
upon the amount and timing of any state transfer, borrowing, or
suspension of local revenues. If the bill resulted in a future
three-month delay of payment to the state, there would be a
corresponding disruption of General Fund cash flow and a loss of
interest. The actual impact could range from minimal to several
hundred thousand dollars, depending on the amount transferred,
borrowed, or suspended and the applicable interest rate. If a
simple 5% interest rate applied, there would be a loss of
$125,000 in interest for every $10 million transfer from these
five cities.