BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                AB 750
                                                                Page  1

        CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
        AB 750 (Hueso)
        As Amended  August 15, 2011
        Majority vote
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |ASSEMBLY:  |50-24|(June 1, 2011)  |SENATE: |23-15|(September 8,  |
        |           |     |                |        |     |2011)          |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          
         Original Committee Reference:   J., E.D. & E.
         
         SUMMARY  :  Establishes a 13-member Investment Trust Blue Ribbon 
        Task Force (Task Force) for the purpose of considering and issuing 
        its recommendation of the viability of establishing the California 
        Investment Trust (Trust) by December 2012.   

         The Senate amendments  :

        1)Reduce the number of appointments the Senate Rules Committee and 
          the Speaker of the Assembly make to the Task Force from two to 
          one.  In addition, the bill reduces the number of appointments 
          made by the Governor to the Task Force from five to three.

        2)Add flexibility to Task Force appointment process.

        3)Require that the selection of Task Force staff to be made by at 
          least a two-thirds vote of the membership.

        4)Specify that the report shall represent the views of a majority 
          of the Task Force members, although the private entity selected 
          to staff the Task Force may include their own findings in the 
          report.

        5)Expand and change the required elements of the report including, 
          but not limited to, considering whether the Trust should be 
          created as a new entity or as a modification to an existing 
          state entity.  

         AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill:

        1)Required the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and 
          Housing Agency (BTH) to convene a Task Force comprised of 
          appointees of the Governor, Senate Rules Committee, the Speaker 
          of the Assembly, as well as the State Controller, State 








                                                                AB 750
                                                                Page  2

          Treasurer, and Secretary of the Business, Transportation and 
          Housing.  

        2)Provided that the purpose of the Task Force is to consider the 
          viability of establishing the Trust, which would serve as, among 
          other things, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds, 
          and to report to the Legislature on its findings and 
          recommendations by December 2012.   

        3)Authorized the Task Force to consult with stakeholders and 
          establish an advisory committee.  Advisory committee members are 
          not entitled to expense reimbursement for their participation.

         FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
        implementation of this bill will result in unknown costs which 
        could be as high as several hundred thousand dollars.   

         COMMENTS  :  This bill proposes to convene a Task Force to assess 
        the viability of establishing a state bank that receives deposits 
        of state moneys for the purpose of, among other things, spurring 
        greater private economic activity and to reduce the cost of 
        managing the state's funds. 

        This measure is one of several similar measures introduced this 
        year in legislatures across the nation.  Modeled after the nearly 
        100-year old Bank of North Dakota (BND), legislators from states 
        such as Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Maine and Maryland have 
        introduced bills to either establish state banks or study the 
        establishment of a state bank.  Common themes among the reasons 
        stated for the establishment of the banks include the need to 
        support economic development, provide stability to the local 
        financial sectors, and to generate additional revenues for the 
        state General Fund.  Particularly attractive about the state bank 
        model is its potential to help fill key access to capital gaps for 
        entities such as small business start-ups and microenterprises. 

        The two central challenges in establishing a state bank are the 
        source of its initial capitalization and the role of the state 
        bank within the context of other public and private financial 
        institutions.  Below is a chart which illustrates the range of 
        models that have been considered by other states in 2011 and which 
        would be part of the larger discussion by the Task Force.


         ---------------------------------------------------------------- 








                                                                AB 750
                                                                Page  3

        |      Comparison of State Bank Models in 2011 Legislation       |
         ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |--------------+-----------+----------+-------------+------------|
        |              | Hawaii    |  Maine   |   Oregon    | Washington |
        |--------------+-----------+----------+-------------+------------|
        |Bank Board or |Director   |5         |Governor     |Governor,   |
        |Executive     |of Finance |Governor  |(chair),     |Lt.         |
        |Committee     |(chair),   |appointees|Treasurer,   |Governor    |
        |              |10         |          |Commissioner |and         |
        |              |Governor   |          |of the       |Treasurer   |
        |              |appointees |          |Bureau of    |            |
        |              |           |          |Labor and    |            |
        |              |           |          |Industries   |            |
        |--------------+-----------+----------+-------------+------------|
        |Source of     |All State  |State     |All Public   |Any Source, |
        |Deposits      |Moneys     |Funds     |Funds and    |but all     |
        |              |plus       |          |Any Source   |State Funds |
        |              |Private    |          |             |by June 30, |
        |              |Deposits   |          |             |2015        |
        |--------------+-----------+----------+-------------+------------|
        |Loan Types    |Based on   |Loans to  |Loans to     |Loans in    |
        |              |Adopted    |Banks and |Banks and    |the Public  |
        |              |Rules      |participat|Participation|Interest    |
        |              |           |ion loans | Loans       |and subject |
        |              |           |          |             |to          |
        |              |           |          |             |Commission  |
        |              |           |          |             |rules       |
        |--------------+-----------+----------+-------------+------------|
        |Profits       |Not Stated |Determined|Determined   |Determined  |
        |Returned to   |           | by the   |by the Board |by the      |
        |State         |           |Board     |with advice  |Commission  |
        |              |           |          |from         |            |
        |              |           |          |Advisory     |            |
        |              |           |          |Board        |            |
        |--------------+-----------+----------+-------------+------------|
        |Audit         |State      |Quarterly |Quarterly    |Quarterly   |
        |              |Commissione|examinatio|audit by     |Report and  |
        |              |r of       |n by      |State        |Annual      |
        |              |Financial  |State     |Department   |Report to   |
        |              |Institution|Bureau of |of Consumer  |State       |
        |              |s          |Financial |and Business |Commission  |
        |              |           |Institutio|Services and |            |
        |              |           |ns and    |Secretary of |            |
        |              |           |audit     |State Audit  |            |
        |              |           |every 2   |every 2      |            |








                                                                AB 750
                                                                Page  4

        |              |           |years     |years        |            |
        |--------------+-----------+----------+-------------+------------|
        |Backed by     |Yes        |Not       |Yes          |Yes         |
        |Full Faith    |           |Stated    |             |            |
        |and Credit of |           |          |             |            |
        |the State     |           |          |             |            |
         ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
         ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Compiled from information provided on Web site of the Center    |
        |for State Innovation 4/19/11                                    |
        |                                                                |
         ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
         

        Analysis Prepared by  :    Toni Symonds / J., E.D. & E. / (916) 
        319-2090 
                                                               FN: 0002860