Government Finance and Operations update 8/22/14
AB 2028 (Mullin/Hill) – Support
Chapter No. 209, Statutes of 2014
AB 2028, by Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, authorizes San Mateo County to conduct special elections entirely by mail. This approach provides an opportunity to improve voter participation and save money.
Special elections have embarrassingly low voter turnout. The 2013 special elections were particularly poor in turnout, with turnout rates in single digits in some of the later elections.
Special elections are also costly, especially when they cannot be consolidated with other elections. County election officials conduct these elections in the same way as other statewide elections, with the parallel process of polling places and poll workers run alongside the increasingly popular mail ballots.
CSAC is very interested in exploring new approaches to elections that will result in lower costs to counties and improved voter participation. AB 2028 promises progress on both.
The Governor signed AB 2028 and its provisions become law on January 1.
SB 69 (Roth) – Support
As Amended on June 16, 2014
SB 69, by Senator Richard Roth, would provide a “Vehicle License Fee Adjustment Amount” for newly incorporated cities, providing immediate financial assistance to the four newly incorporated cities in Riverside County.
The Assembly passed SB 69 on Wednesday, and the Senate followed suit on Thursday. The bill now goes to the Governor.
AB 2292 (Bonta) – Support
As Amended on June 11, 2014
AB 2292, by Assembly Member Rob Bonta, would allow infrastructure financing districts to finance public capital facilities or projects that include broadband.
The Assembly passed AB 2292 on Monday, 66-11. The bill now goes to the Governor.
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs)
The Governor and legislative leaders have reached a compromise on a key component of the Governor’s budget proposal. We expect that language to create Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) will be amended into a bill and heard next week. Counties will recall that the Governor had proposed the concept of EIFDs in his January budget proposal and May Revision, building on the existing infrastructure financing statutes. IFDs, like redevelopment agencies (RDAs), are financing tools that rely on tax increment financing. Unlike redevelopment, they cannot utilize schools’ property tax shares and require the consent of any other taxing entities before their property taxes can be diverted. An IFD can therefore use the tax increment of only some—or even one—of the local taxing entities.
The proposed EIFDs are available to finance transit priority projects, infill, affordable housing, military base reuse, and environmental mitigation. While the proposed bill does not include a voter requirement for formation of the EIFD, if the EIFD issues bonds, voters within the district must approve by at least 55%.
While the vehicle has not yet been identified, we anticipate that the bill will be heard early next week in order to be approved before the Legislature adjourns for the year on August 31. CSAC has previously taken a “support” position on the