EZ Policy Blog

Last month I reported on a movement to combine the Imperial Valley and Calexico Enterprise Zones into a single regional zone for Imperial County. That proposal, apparently, is not without controversy.

From the <em>Tribune Weekly Chronicle:

The Calexico City Council will hear recommendations about the possible new Imperial County Enterprise Zone.

The Calexico County Enterprise Zone and the Imperial Valley Enterprise Zone in Brawley have discussed the possibility of merging into one zone that would include all seven cities and the unincorporated areas of the Imperial County. If approved, the Imperial Valley EDC could end up being the manager of the County Enterprise Zone.

The CCEZ is composed of the City of Calexico, Imperial County, and Imperial Irrigation District as designated by the State of California in 2006. The agencies contribute approximately $60,000 each towards the annual administrative cost. CCEZ Manager Daniel Fitzgerald told the council that John Nunn, State of California Enterprise Zone Manager, encouraged Imperial County to apply as one zone as this would free up one zone in the State that could be awarded to another jurisdiction. Fitzgerald said if he is given direction by the council to bring information for the deliberation of the Council to accept this merger or not. Deadline to apply for this new designation is August 18, 2010.

Councilman John Moreno said to be opposed to have one designation since El Centro has Imperial Valley Mall and other businesses that create tax revenue for the City. Moreno said Calexico could lose its competitiveness in bringing new industry if there is a valley wide enterprise zone. Moreno made a motion to deny this countywide EZ with Mayor Ouzan seconding the motion. Councilman Daniel Romero said that he had reservations about this countywide designation but after meeting with Daniel Fitzgerald he thinks that a regional effort will be good for the valley. He said that there will be a lot of impact and asked to have all the information presented to the Council before taking a final decision

Councilman Moreno agreed with Romero to have all the information be given to the Council and then vote on the resolution. Moreno said he doesn’t support the Countywide Zoning but agreed to give direction to the CCEZ Manager do research about the pros and cons of this initiative.

Here is a press release from the City of West Sacramento:

CONTACTS: Ernesto Lucero, City of West Sacramento
916-617-4539

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO RECEIVES
ENTERPRISE ZONE DESIGNATION

West Sacramento, Calif., March 2, 2010 – The City of West Sacramento today announced that it has received final designation as an Enterprise Zone by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The West Sacramento Enterprise Zone extends throughout the majority of the City and includes portions of the Clarksburg area. The zone has been granted designation until January 2023.

“This is an important step in our continuing efforts to strengthen and diversify our City’s economy,” said Christopher Cabaldon, West Sacramento Mayor. “The tax benefits and other financial incentives that this program provides are an important tool for encouraging the type of business and job growth we want to see here.”

The California Enterprise Zone program provides special state and local incentives to encourage business investment and promote job creation in economically distressed communities. There are currently 42 Enterprise Zones in California.

Businesses located within a California Enterprise Zone are eligible for substantial State tax and financial benefits, including a hiring tax credit, sales and use tax credit, increased expense deductions, and preference for state contracts.

The City expects a substantial number of businesses to take advantage of the Enterprise Zone benefits. Businesses can receive more information about the benefits of locating in West Sacramento online at www.cityofwestsacramento.org.

California communities receive these designations from the State of California through a competitive process. While Zones have similar goals for improving the economic vitality of their communities, each is unique in the local incentives and special assistance they provide to the businesses located within the zone boundaries.

From SanDiego.com:

By Eilene Zimmerman

Grappling with a $20 billion deficit isn’t easy. The California Legislature has put just about everything on the chopping block, including Medi-Cal, college and university funding, public education and prisons. So it’s not a huge surprise that the latest suggestion from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office is to cut the California Enterprise Zone program.

An Enterprise Zone is a defined geographic area that is economically disadvantaged, and businesses that locate there qualify for a variety of financial breaks, like tax credits on the wages paid to new employees, a tax credit for sales taxes on purchases of manufacturing equipment, exemption from certain city fees and more.

San Diego’s first Enterprise Zone was established in 1986. It eventually became two different Enterprise Zones—the Metropolitan Enterprise Zone and the South Bay Enterprise Zone. In 2006, the two were merged and enlarged to become the San Diego Regional Enterprise Zone, expanding beyond the city limits to include parts of Chula Vista and National City.

What that’s meant to the region is some 25,000 jobs in economically depressed communities and more than $1 billion in investment, says San Diego city councilmember Todd Gloria.

“In my district, it’s been helpful in attracting and retaining businesses in communities like North Park and City Heights,” says Gloria. “The tax benefits are significant.”
Cutting funding of the Enterprise Zone program wouldn’t mean redrawing boundaries to make the zone smaller but would instead lessen the incentives that get new businesses to locate within these communities in the first place. Gloria says one of the biggest benefits of new business is that they employ locals who live in the neighborhood.

“We want to continue to have those jobs during a period like this, when there is really high unemployment,” he says.

There are benefits even beyond jobs. Putting new businesses in an economically disadvantaged or blighted community helps restore that community, allowing for redevelopment and renewal.

“If they cut incentives for businesses in Enterprise Zones, what is left for people in these communities who want to be working, supporting their families?” asks Gloria. “What happens to urban renewal?”

Ruben Barrales, president and CEO of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, understands that state legislators are between a rock and a hard place. But Barrales also finds it ironic that in the worst recession in modern history—where unemployment in the state exceeds 12 percent—the government is considering cutting a program that helps create jobs in areas where economic stagnation hits hardest.

“These are businesses that often provide jobs for blue collar workers in San Diego, and we are losing a lot of those jobs generally anyway,” says Barrales. “Anything we can do during this recession to help small businesses and manufacturers stay in business and hire people is a benefit to the region’s economy.”

Barrales hasn’t given up hope. Does he expect Enterprise Zone cuts when a budget fix is finally agreed upon?

“That’s the $1 billion question,” he says. “My expectation is that the process will drag out until the summer. We need a budget fix that the Assembly and Senate can agree on, and one that the governor will also sign. I hope they won’t cut the program; it would be taking a short-sighted view of the future.”
Instead, says Barrales, legislators should take the long view: that the tax incentives that enable businesses to employ people now is better for California’s long-term prospects than any short-term fix.

About the author: Eilene Zimmerman is a journalist based in San Diego who writes about a variety of topics, including business, social and political issues and family life. Her work has been published in national magazines and newspapers including The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Christian Science Monitor, FORTUNE Small Business, CNNMoney.com, CBS MoneyWatch.com, Wired, Harper’s, Salon.com, Slate.com, Psychology Today and others. She blogs at www.trueslant.com.

Here is a link to the proposed agenda for the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee hearing on Enterprise Zones scheduled for March 10.

Here’s the speech:

Check it out. Very nice.

Assembly Member V. Manuel Perez shared some of his thoughts on jobs, the economy and bills he is sponsoring with KXO Radio News in Imperial Valley. It’s particularly interesting to see how he articulates his intention regarding Enterprise Zone legislation AB 2476:

Assemblyman Perez Shares thoughts on the economic recovery.

We’re all familiar with the saying that ‘government doesn’t create jobs, businesses create jobs,’ and it’s quite true. The fact of the matter is that we in the Legislature have a limited set of tools at our disposal to help businesses create and retain jobs. And with limited state resources, we need to be creative. One thing we can do is to help businesses access credit. When last year’s budget froze the state program that provides small businesses with gap financing, I jointly authored a bill to get the program reinstated. I’ve also just introduced AB 2437 for a revolving loan fund that provides a gap financing mechanism for manufacturers that create and retain jobs in California.

Another thing we must do is build infrastructure. These are critical investments in our state’s future that also provide much needed jobs. A bill I authored last fall helps California leverage $3.2 billion in federal recovery bond authority. A third task at hand is workforce development. Making sure businesses have an educated and skilled workforce is critical. There are millions of federal dollars available to our counties to help assess and retrain displaced workers – we need to align those dollars to the fields and industries that are looking for workers so businesses don’t go looking elsewhere when they could be hiring Californians. I have authored AB 2628 to do just that. A fourth area is common sense regulatory reforms so that businesses aren’t burdened by red tape. AB 978 calls for the development of an online, one-stop application for businesses to apply for state licenses.

Finally, we cannot overlook the state’s Enterprise Zone program. I spent a lot of time last year facilitating a hearing process to examine many aspects of this program, and I appreciate the efforts of stakeholders to participate in the dialogue. Last month, I introduced AB 2476 to serve as a vehicle for statutory reforms to the program. As the bill currently reads, it makes changes to the eligibility criteria for Targeted Employment Areas. I see this measure as a starting point and look forward to ongoing and productive discussions as we refine the bill language and make an important program even better.

Here is the March 2010 edition of the FTB’s “Tax News” newsletter.

A colleague brought to my attention “The Business Relocation Coach” blog which claims as its mission, “to help businesses relocate and expand facilities in highly beneficial ways. This blog is maintained by JV Executive Consulting, inc., which helps design the smoothest relocation to the most desirable location that meets business goals. An experienced team serves a diverse set of clients through executive coaching for transition, relocation studies, site selection, incentives negotiation and government affairs.”

On Monday, Business Relocation Coach posted an article called, “California’s Hostile Business Climate: 100 ‘Moving-Out-of-State’ Events” in which he explains

Apparently, No state agency keeps track of enterprises that move out of California or which companies elect to expand in other states even though they are headquartered here. That lack of knowledge is quite convenient for elected officials who deny that state’s anti-business attitudes and policies hurt commercial enterprises. Hence, without a central repository, it’s difficult to determine how many jobs are lost specifically because of California’s unfriendly business environment.

In this blog, I’ve attempted to note facility moves and disinvestments in California on a catch-as-catch can basis based on incomplete media reports. Below is a roundup of activity that I’ve been able to find since I started this blog in July, 2009. This imperfect and incomplete list of 100 moving-out-of-state events is the “tip of the iceberg” about the loss of commercial enterprises in California.

Just some random examples:

Alza Corp. in 2007 eliminated about 600 jobs in drug R&D while also exiting its Mountain View, Calif., HQ. At the time the company said that its 1,200-person Vacaville facility will continue to operate. But the Vacaville Reporter on Oct. 23, 2009 revealed that the plant is being offered for sale by J&J, its parent company. It’s unclear if more layoffs are in the facility’s future.

Audix Corporation relocated from Redwood City, Calif., and to accommodate growth moved to a 78,000-square-foot facility in Wilson, Oregon.

Buck Knives after 62 years in San Diego moved to Post Falls, Idaho.

EMRISE Corp. completed its HQ move from Rancho Cucamonga to Eatontown, NJ, in May 2009. The company said the move “will result in additional annualized cost savings of approximately $1 million and facilitate improvements in operating efficiency. . . . The cost savings associated with relocating our corporate headquarters will start immediately. . . The aggregate total of these expense reductions will increase our profitability and cash flow in this and succeeding years and, over time, substantially improve our ability to further reduce our long term debt.”

Facebook, based in Palo Alto, will expand in a major way in Oregon by locating a custom data center in Prineville. It will be a 147,000-square-foot facility costing $180 million and will employ 200 workers during construction and another 35 full-time once operating in 2011.

He has 100 of these examples. The list was also featured in the Orange County Register.

As an aside, regarding the point about no government agency keeping track of businesses that leave the State, take a look at the campaign website for Damon Dunn, running for California Secretary of State. Under “Solutions,” Dunn wants to address this problem:

The Secretary of State is responsible for all the business filings in California. As Secretary of State, I will use my business experience to evaluate which companies are leaving the state and why. I will then report my findings to the Legislature as part of a package of reforms that will lead to job growth in California.

California, like every other state government, has been looking for solutions to problems that have developed as a result of the economic recession.

The Secretary of State’s office needs to be using the information it holds to be an advocate for jobs in the state. I will use my office to focus attention on the businesses that are being stolen from California by Texas, Utah, and other western states. When the Governors of other states are personally calling business leaders in California asking them to expand outside of California we are not competitive in economic development as a state.

One of the criticisms of the Enterprise Zone that tends to be repeated with some frequency is that even though the targeted incentives may help attract industries that could locate anywhere, retailers would be in the locations they are in regardless of any incentives. I recently spent some time with some smaller grocery proprietors who specifically choose to go into difficult and impoverished neighborhoods where the larger chains will not locate. For them, the Enterprise Zone tax credits make the difference that enables them to bear the increased costs of security and loss through theft which are barriers for other retailers.

I came across the following article published a few months ago in the Christian Science Monitor which highlights the significant challenges grocers face opening facilities in areas with the characteristics of Enterprise Zones, and the serious consequences to the local population as a result of reduced access to the food:

East L.A. resident Olga Perez has to take two buses to a store about eight miles away to get fresh fruits and vegetables, or decent cuts of meat, for her family.

“The only thing I can get at my corner store are spoiled or expired,” explains Ms. Perez, a dental assistant and single mother who lives in a two-bedroom apartment with two daughters and a granddaughter.

The round trip costs her $5 and limits what she can carry home. “I can only get so much milk and when I get home the eggs are cracked and the bread is smashed,” she says.

And because she works until 6:30 p.m. most nights, Perez doesn’t often have the time to make the trip and get home in time to cook for her family. Her solution: “Open a can of ravioli or make hot dogs,” but that sometimes keeps her daughter and granddaughter up at night, complaining of insomnia and stomach aches.

It’s a situation the Alliance for Healthy and Responsible Grocery Stores, a city-wide coalition of 25 community, faith-based and environmental organizations, is trying to change. They formed a Blue Ribbon Commission in early 2007 to address the chronic absence of quality grocery stores in several L.A. neighborhoods including East L.A. and South Central – and are now trying to draw such stores to these underserved areas.

It’s a real problem, says Cheryl Resnik, assistant professor of clinical physical therapy at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, which abuts Perez’s neighborhood.

Many of her students come to class either malnourished or jittery from sugar in sodas and fast food, she says.

“We were teaching them how to eat better, but then we realized they don’t have access to the kind of food they need,” says Ms. Resnik, who runs a free clinic. “The only thing they have are mom-and-pop liquor stores with candy bars and cupcakes.”

The dearth of decent grocery stores plagues urban areas across the US including Philadelphia, Chicago, and Houston – contributing to childhood obesity, say health experts, which affects a higher proportion of Hispanic and Black youth.

“Children in these low-income ‘food desert’ communities don’t have enough healthy options and it’s hurting them in a very dramatic way,” says Resnik. She says her free clinic had to buy a 500 lb.-capacity scale, when they found three teenagers under 15 exceeded the 250 lb. limit of the regular scale.

In L.A., the “food desert” problem was exacerbated by the Rodney King riots of 1992, when huge areas of the city burned, says Pastor William Campbell of Mt. Gilead Baptist Church. Many businesses including grocery stores did not return to the troubled neighborhoods.

He cites a California Budget Project study that puts the number of grocery stores at 3.6 per 100,000 residents in East and South L.A. compared with 12.4 per 100,000 people in West Los Angeles, which includes the neighborhoods of Brentwood, Westwood, Pacific Palisades, and Malibu.

East L.A. had one of the worst ratios of full service supermarkets to residents of any community in the county, found a 2002 study by Occidental College in L.A.

Top grocery chains say the high cost and low availability of land keeps them away from these neighborhoods. Full service supermarkets are required to have 50,000 sq. ft. buildings and four acres of parking. The long permit process in California is also a deterrent.

“It’s hard to develop a plan for a large grocery because the building costs and estimates can change significantly over the course of the permit process,” says Dave Heylen, vice president of communications for the California Grocers Association, which represents 6,000 stores in California. The Association says it is working with city officials to overcome legal barriers to new grocery stores.

The grocery industry has divided the city into “haves” and “have nots,” says Elliot Petty of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, a member of the Alliance for Healthy and Responsible Grocery Stores.

“Everyone, rich or poor, spends money on eating – but if you live in a wealthier community you have more options,” says Mr. Petty. “There just needs be a spotlight put on this to develop the political will to change it.”

Introduced by Assembly Member V. Manuel Perez, chair of the Assembly Jobs Committee, AB 2476 would make two significant changes to the way future Targeted Employment Areas are designated.

(B) For an area designated on or after January 1, 2011, or for a targeted employment area designated before January 1, 2011, following the release of 2010 census data, subject to the deadline in paragraph (5), means an area within a city, county, or city and county that is composed solely of those census block groups designated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development as having at least 61 percent of its residents as low- or moderate income levels, using the most recent census data available at the time the targeted employment area is designated to determine that eligibility.

Very similar to the previously reported SBx8 59, SBx8 63 would create a hiring tax credit modeled after the federal WOTC, but only for “qualified veterans”:

For purposes of this section, “qualified veteran” means a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who has been honorably discharged from service within the five calendar years preceding employment by the taxpayer, who received unemployment compensation within California for not less than four weeks within the 12 calendar months preceding the date of employment by the taxpayer, and who is employed by the taxpayer for at least 120 hours during the taxable year in which the credit is claimed.

The Senate Rev. & Tax. hearing on the Enterprise Zone program which was scheduled for Feb. 24th has been changed to March 10th. It will still be at 1:30 in room 3191.

Assembly Member Sandre Swanson from Oakland has introduced AB 1973 which would create a new hiring tax credit for businesses that employ ex-offenders.

SECTION 1. Section 17053.76 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:

17053.76. (a) (1) For each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2010, there shall be allowed a credit against the “net tax,” as defined in Section 17039, an amount as described in paragraph (2), per each qualified employee employed by the taxpayer during the taxable year.

(2) (A) Twenty percent of the gross salary for each qualified employee employed by the taxpayer, not to exceed $5,000, for the first year of employment.
(B) Twenty percent of the gross salary for each qualified employee employed by the taxpayer, not to exceed $5,000, for the second year
of employment.

(b) The credit under subdivision (a) shall be allowed only with respect to the first year of employment if the qualified employee is employed by the taxpayer for 12 consecutive months from the date of employment and only with respect to the second year of employment if the qualified employee is employed by the taxpayer for 24 consecutive months from the date of employment.

(c) For purposes of this section, “qualified employee” means an individual who is an ex-offender employed by the taxpayer in a part-time or full-time position. “Qualified employee” shall not include an ex-offender who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code, or the equivalent in another state or territory, under military law, or under federal law, or was convicted of a serious or violent felony.

(d) Any deduction or credit otherwise allowed under this part for the salaries paid or incurred by the taxpayer upon which the credit is based shall be reduced by the amount of the credit.

(e) If the credit allowed by this section exceeds the “net tax,” the excess may be carried over to reduce the “net tax” in the following year, and succeeding years if necessary, until the credit is exhausted.

As part of the Republican’s job package, Senator Dutton has introduced SBx8 59, a tax credit for new hires closely modeled on the federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit.

SECTION 1. Section 17053.76 is added to the Revenue and Taxation
Code, to read:

17053.76. (a) For each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2010, there shall be allowed a credit against the “net tax,” as defined in Section 17039, an amount equal to the sum of the following percentages of wages paid or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable year to each qualified employee of the taxpayer:

(1) Twenty-five percent for each qualified employee employed by the qualified taxpayer for at least 120 hours, but less than 400 hours, during the taxable year.
(2) Forty percent for each qualified employee employed by the qualified taxpayer for at least 400 hours during the taxable year.
(b) The credit under subdivision (a) shall be allowed only with respect to the first six thousand dollars ($6,000) of wages paid or incurred during the taxable year to each qualified employee.
(c) For purposes of this section, all of the following definitions apply:
(1) “Qualified employee” means an individual who is any of the following, as documented by the Employment Development Department:
(A) A recipient of CalWORKs benefits.
(B) A parolee.
(C) A veteran, as defined in Section 980 of the Military and Veterans Code.
(D) Eligible for receipt of unemployment insurance benefits or currently receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
(E) A person on probation.
(2) “Qualified taxpayer” means a taxpayer that is a person or entity engaged in a trade or business within California that has its
principal office located in California.

From the Republican Caucus Web Site:

Stop California Jobs from Fleeing

While the Democrat so-called jobs proposal fall silent on addressing the hemorrhaging of California jobs, Senate Republicans continue to introduce meaningful measures.

Implementation of AB 32, Cap-and-Trade (SB 8x 49 Dutton)
Puts a halt to the state version of cap-and-trade – an idea that was scrapped on Capitol Hill — which would result in a staggering $143 billion “Air Tax” that would cripple our state’s economy. All Californians want clean air and water, but California cannot afford to embark on a cap and trade system alone.

Homebuyer Tax Credit (SB 8x 21 Ashburn)
A $10,000 per homebuyer tax credit will go towards the purchase of new and existing homes. The new home buyer tax credit was the most successful jobs bill the legislature passed last year. SB 8X 21 will continue that success and double the number of jobs created and make possible homeownership for thousands of Californians.

Capital Gains Tax Reduction (SB 8x 43 Dutton)
Spurs investment and employment in California by cutting the long term capital gains rates in half.

R&D Tax Credit (SB 8x 44 Dutton)
Aligns California’s research and development tax credit rate with that of the federal government’s, helping to encourage innovation and investment, and the creation of high paying jobs.

Health Savings Account (SB 8x 47 Dutton)
Increases state tax deductions for contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), thereby encouraging long-term savings for health care expenses and providing an opportunity for more families to have affordable health insurance.

Energy Commission Regulations (SB 8x 68 Huff)
The California Energy Commission needs a check on its power. It must be overseen by the full legislature and, furthermore, any new regulations need to wait until California’s unemployment rate is maintained at 5.1% or lower for 3 consecutive months.

Work Opportunity Tax Credit (SB 8x 59 Dutton)
Gives employers tax credits for hiring people off historically high welfare rolls, helping get Californians back to work while reducing California’s public assistance obligation.

Restore California’s Competitive Job Creation Climate

Unlike the Senate Democrats misplaced priorities as it relates to California’s desperate need for new jobs, Senate Republicans continue their focus on creating jobs by removing legislative and regulatory burdens, not publicly funded employment programs.

Jobs Protection Act (SB 8x 60 Harman)
Requires a fiscal impact analysis, a hearing and legislative approval before bills affecting business costs become law.

Out of State Health Plans (SB 8x 65 Huff)
Permits out of state healthcare plans and insurers to offer their services in California, offering competition, reigning in costs and making healthcare more affordable for everyone.

CEQA Exemptions (SB 8x 56 Hollingsworth)
Streamlines the infrastructure project permitting process, allowing shovel ready projects to start quickly and put Californians back to work.

K-12 contracting (SB 8x 61 Huff)
Gets rid of antiquated policies that limit the ability to hire the best, most cost efficient person for non-instructional jobs – such as transportation, landscaping and maintenance – allowing schools to do what is most important — teach our children.

Improve Small Business Access to Capital (SB 8x 51 Dutton)
Simplifies the business tax code to get cash flowing back to small businesses, assisting companies in their efforts to expand and hire new workers.

Manufacturers, R&D Sales and Use Tax Exemption (SB 8x 58 Dutton)
Exempts manufacturing and research and development equipment from sales and use taxes, helping California – notorious for taxing its businesses out of state — become economically competitive once again.

Veterans Hiring Tax Credit (SB 8x 63 Denham)
Provides a tax credit to private sector employers who hire veterans. There are thousands of veterans returning home to California and this measure will incentives the private sector to hire them.

Initiate Regulatory Review and Relief

Meals and Rest Periods (SB 8x 70 Dutton)
Allows more flexible and appropriate standards for employers and employees to schedule mandatory breaks throughout a shift.

New Car Sales Tax Reduction (SB 8x 46 Hollingsworth)
Allows a person trading in their used car to reduce the principle cost of a new vehicle, saving the buyer in taxes and helping the dealer sell more cars and stimulate the economy.

Eliminate Corporate Penalty (SB 8x 54 Hollingsworth)
Eliminates the existing million dollar penalty for companies that underestimate their corporate tax liability, giving companies more money to invest or expand by not having to overestimate their taxes as a precaution.

Salesperson Licensing Reform (SB 8x 67 Huff)
Allows owners of multiple car dealerships to share staff, providing their employees more opportunities to sell cars at any one dealership in an industry that has been decimated by the recession.

Delay On-Road/In-Use Diesel Regulations (SB 8x 57 Cox)
Delays the costly new diesel engine regulations enacted by The California Air Resources Board that have had an onerous effect on all transportation sectors. Delaying these regulations will help keep these small businesses keep their doors open and workers employed.

Flexible Workweek (SB 8x 66 Cox)
Allows employers to offer flexible work weeks, giving their employees the opportunity to spend more time with their families and employers more flexibility in scheduling their workers.

Systematic Review of Regulations (SB 8x 48 Dutton)
Regulations are strangling our businesses and stifling growth. Requires a review of all regulations to determine which ones are cost effective and requiring those that are not to be repealed or amended. Overregulation is strangling our businesses and stifling growth, reducing and simplifying the regulatory burden will help jump start our struggling economy.

Third-party Analysis of Economic Impact of ARB Regulations (SB 50 8x Dutton)
Requires an objective third-party to analyze the economic impact of Air Resource Board (ARB) regulations. Time after time, ARB studies have proven to be seriously flawed. This would ensure that real economic analyses are completed.

Create Full Employment Act for Entrepreneurs, Not Attorneys

Repeal of the Sue Your Boss Law (SB 8x 64 Hollingsworth)
Repeals the Private Attorneys General Act, which takes the responsibility of investigating employer misdeeds out of the hands of the Labor commission or the Attorney General and puts it into the hands of ambulance chasing lawyers. Repealing this law will lower overall costs and prevent further frivolous lawsuits.

Tort Reform (SB 8x 69 Huff)
Prevents innocent sellers from being frivolously sued for selling faulty goods they did not manufacture.

Senate Republicans agree that job creation is the number one priority. These job creation bills should be considered during the 8th Extraordinary session to expedite economic recovery as quickly as possible.

In an appearance at the Sacramento Press Club, the Sacramento Bee quotes Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg as saying that he “does not plan to pursue a general tax hike this year.” However, the article goes on to say that Steinberg thinks Democrats will try to reduce “corporate tax benefits” as a means of closing the budget gap.

SBx8 52 is the same as SBx6 1, creating a new Enterprise Zone in Fremont involving the NUMMI facility plus an additional 10 new zones which may be chosen from the previous application round (in which there happened to be 10 applicants who were not awarded new zones).

AB 2044 introduced by Assembly Member Caballero:

The Enterprise Zone Act provides for the designation of enterprise zones by the Department of Community Housing and Development, based on the department’s approval of applications from a city, county, or city and county with a geographic area meeting certain criteria.

Existing law provides that specified entities within a designated enterprise zone may receive regulatory, tax, and other incentives for private investment and employment.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to evaluate and rank enterprise zones. The bill also state the intent of the Legislature that any cost savings that may subsequently result from any legislative action taken based on that evaluation and ranking be used to fund approved infrastructure projects not being funded by existing bonds.

This is a “spot” bill, or a bill simply stating some kind of intent without all of the details worked out. Boy is this one vague. It sounds like there is some anticipation that if the Enterprise Zones are “ranked” some will be ranked low. The bill goes on to talk about “cost savings” generated as a result of the ranking, but since there is no way to generate new revenues simply by the act of ranking, it must be contemplating doing something like canceling zones based on this unspecified ranking system.

Since tomorrow (2/19) is the deadline to submit new legislation there are a lot of things popping up today.

For example, SB 1086:

Existing law authorizes the Franchise Tax Board, as part of its administrative duties with respect to the collection of taxes, to furnish specified taxpayer information. Existing law generally provides that all taxpayer information obtained by the board is to remain confidential. Existing law provides exceptions to this general requirement.

This bill would, notwithstanding existing law, require the Franchise Tax Board to annually compile information relating to a taxpayer receiving credits of $1,000, allowed from corporate tax expenditures. The bill would require the board to include the information in the California Income Tax Expenditure Report and the state transparency Internet Web site.

It’s not entirely clear what is meant to be accomplished with this legislation. Given that the overriding concern of everyone in Sacramento right now is creating jobs, it must have something to do with encouraging businesses to hire more people, but I can’t quite figure it out yet. Let me know if you have any theories.