Laserfiche WebLink
SB 33 Senate Bill-Bill Analysis Page 7 of 7 <br /> SB 33 <br /> Page 9 <br /> financing. Additionally, the bill authorizes tax increment <br /> financing for the rehabilitation of upgrades to existing <br /> facilities, which the author notes will "further local <br /> flexibility and opportunity." <br /> This bill is substantially similar to SB 214 (Wolk) of 2012, <br /> which was vetoed by Governor Brown, with the following veto <br /> message: <br /> Expanding the scope of infrastructure financing <br /> districts is premature. This measure would likely <br /> cause cities to focus their efforts on using the new <br /> tools provided by the measure instead of winding down <br /> redevelopment. This would prevent the state from <br /> achieving the General Fund savings assumed in this <br /> year's budget. <br /> Support arguments: Supporters argue that this bill gives local <br /> officials a rigorous, flexible financing tool that does not <br /> impact K-14 education or the state's General Fund, and local <br /> officials need, and should be given, the flexibility to do their <br /> job: to determine local priorities and the most appropriate <br /> local financing mechanism to achieve those priorities. <br /> Opposition arguments: CalTax argues that eliminating voter <br /> approval for infrastructure financing removes the people from <br /> the decisions process of what their communities will look like, <br /> how bonds are issued, and how property tax revenues are spent. <br /> Analysis Prepared by Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) <br /> 319-3958 <br /> FN: 0001918 <br /> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_33_ofa_20130829_170827_asm_floor.html 7/3/2014 <br />