BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2728
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 7, 2014

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                  Mike Gatto, Chair

              AB 2728 (Perea and Linder) - As Amended:  April 24, 2014 

          Policy Committee:                               
          TransportationVote:15-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  

          This bill, until January 1, 2019, prohibits the use of truck  
          weight fee revenues to pay debt service on transportation  
          general obligation bonds.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          The Governor's budget estimates that $1.062 billion would be  
          transferred from truck weight fee revenues in 2014-15 to cover  
          debt service on transportation bonds. Enactment of this bill,  
          which would become effective January 1, 2015, would instead  
          require the General Fund to cover approximately one-half this  
          amount in 2014-15. Future General Fund debt service costs would  
          depend on debt service schedules for previously issued  
          transportation bonds and newly issued bonds, but will likely  
          exceed $1 billion for 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and will exceed  
          $500 million from July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, after  
          which the provisions of this bill would sunset.

          In contrast to this General Fund impact, a like amount of  
          additional revenue will be made available from truck weight fees  
          to fund transportation programs pursuant to current funding  
          formulas.

           COMMENTS  
           
          1)Background  . The use of weight fees to pay for debt service is  
            part of a larger budgetary and statutory arrangement referred  
            to as the gas tax swap. ABX8 6 (Committee on Budget)/Statutes  
            of 2010 enacted the original gas tax swap, which eliminated  
            the sales tax on gasoline and replaced it with an increase in  








                                                                  AB 2728
                                                                  Page  2

            gasoline excise tax designed to generate an equivalent amount  
            of revenue. Later in 2010, voters approved Proposition 22,  
            which prohibits excise tax revenues from being used to pay  
            debt service on transportation bonds. Subsequently, a  
            reconstituted gas tax swap, AB 105 (Committee on  
            Budget)/Statutes of 2012, directed weight fee revenue rather  
            than excise tax revenue to provide General Fund relief for  
            debt service on transportation bonds.

           2)Purpose  . According to the author, in the three years since the  
            gas tax swap was enacted, the economy has improved and voters  
            approved Proposition 30 (2012) which temporarily increased  
            sales and income taxes thereby boosting General Fund revenues.  
             The author believes it is now appropriate to recapture truck  
            weight fee revenue and use it to fix the state's roadway  
            system.  The bill has a 2019 sunset date, which coincides with  
            the sunset date of Proposition 30.

            Funding for maintenance and repair of the state highway system  
            comes from federal and state taxes on gasoline and diesel  
            fuel. Revenue from these sources is declining because of  
            reduced fuel consumption and funding shortfalls in the Federal  
            Highway Trust Fund.  The estimated funding available for state  
            highway preservation is $1.8 billion annually, while the  
            estimated need for rehabilitation and reconstruction of the  
            state highway system is about $7 billion annually. Additional  
            funding is needed for state highway improvements and local  
            streets and roads.

           3)Budget Issue  . Notwithstanding the significant need for  
            additional transportation funding and the merits of this bill,  
            this issue should be considered in the budget process, where  
            competing needs for the General Fund can be weighed against  
            each other to establish the Legislature's funding priorities.  
            Also, it should be noted that the financing of transportation  
            programs with bonds allows for a significant, though  
            temporary, expansion of those program through debt issuance,  
            thus it is not inappropriate to use ongoing  
            transportation-derived revenues to retire that debt.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 












                                                                  AB 2728
                                                                  Page  3