CC 06-01-2021 Item No. 17 Consideration of SB 612, SB 792 and SB 780_PresentationSlide 1WWW.TOWNSENDPA.COMSACRAMENTO • WASHINGTON, DC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA • NORTHERN CALIFORNIAAgenda Item 17:Consideration of SB 612 (Portantino), SB 792 (Glazer), and SB 780 (Cortese)June 1, 2021WWW.TOWNSENDPA.COMSACRAMENTO •WASHINGTON, DCSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA •CENTRAL CALIFORNIA •NORTHERN CALIFORNIACC 06-01-2021 Item No. 17
Slide 2Slide 2BackgroundLegislative PlatformThe City Council approved the 2021 Legislative Platform on February 2, 2021. Each year,the Council adopts a Legislative Platform that guides and informs official City positions onpending legislative issues during the year. The Legislative Review Committee (LRC) usesthe Council-approved Platform to authorize City positions and position letters on legislation.Federal and state bills consistent with the City’s legislative priorities would be supported bythe City. Those policies or proposals in conflict with the Platform would be opposed. Itemsnot clearly addressed in the City’s Platform would require Council approval prior to anyposition being taken.Legislative Review Committee (LRC)The Legislative Review Committee (LRC) uses the Council-approved Platform to authorizeCity positions and position letters on legislation. Federal and state bills consistent with theCity’s Platform would be supported by the City. Those policies or proposals in conflict withthe Platform would be opposed. Items not clearly addressed in the City’s Platform wouldrequire Council approval prior to any position being taken.SB 612, SB 792, and SB 780 were referred to the Council by the LRC on May 14, 2021.Next LRC Meeting: June 18, 2021 11 a.m.LRC positions, position letters, the Legislative Platform, and more can befoundatcupertino.org/lrc.Agenda Item 17
Slide 3Slide 3Senate Bill 612 (Portantino)SummaryRequires the California Public Utilities Commission to require electricinvestor-ownedutilities to offer to community choice aggregators, and electric serviceproviders, anallocation of product generated from legacy resources paid for through exit fees.StatusCurrently on the Senate Floor awaiting consideration.Previously approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee (5-2) and theSenate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee (11-1).Agenda Item 17
Slide 4Slide 4Senate Bill 612 (Portantino)SupportThis bill is necessary to ensure fair and equal access to the benefits of legacy resources for allcustomers and ensures resources held in IOU portfolios are managed to maximize value for allcustomers.Supporters include: Cities of Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Carlsbad, Carson, Daly City, Davis, Fremont,Half Moon Bay, Hayward, Oakland, Pleasanton, Rocklin, San Jose, San Mateo, Santa Barbara,and Thousand Oaks; Counties of Contra Costa, Butte, El Dorado, San Diego, San Mateo, SantaClara, and Yolo; League of California Cities; Marin Clean Energy; SiliconValley Clean Energy;Silicon Valley Leadership Group; and Sustainable Silicon Valley.OppositionConcerns that the bill interferes and undermines an ongoing CPUC proceeding, conflicts with, andleaves out, key provisions of an existing working group joint proposal from a CPUC proceedingand attempts to reopen issues that have already been decided by the CPUC.Opponents include: Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Southern California Edison; and The UtilityReform NetworkLRC ActionThe LRC did not reach consensus on a position and therefore referred the item to Council.Agenda Item 17
Slide 5Slide 5Senate Bill 792 (Glazer)SummaryRequires a retailer, whose annual sales of tangible personal property transacted onlineexceeded $1 million in the previous calendar year, to provide informationfor each localjurisdiction the gross receipts from the sale of goods shipped or deliveredtoapurchaser in that jurisdiction. Retailers would be required to submit this information,along with their tax filings, for reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2022.A qualified retailer who refuses to provide this information to the state will be subject toa $5,000 fine.StatusCurrently on the Senate Floor awaiting consideration.Previously approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee (5-2) and theSenate Governance and Finance Committee (4-1).Agenda Item 17
Slide 6Slide 6Senate Bill 792 (Glazer)SupportThis is a transparency bill that will shine light on a major and growing problem in California localfinance. Current tax law has created an environment that puts the power to allocate local sales taxinto the hands of online retailers. These retailers can choose to allocateany and all sales taxrevenues to a specific location withinthe state- be that a warehouse, distribution or sales center.This bill would provide transparency by requiring retailers report taxable sales by the city or ZIPcode of the purchaser so that city governments and their residents have a better understanding ofthis unfair process.Supporters include: League of California Cities, Cities of Fullerton, Placentia, Rancho Cucamonga,and Thousand Oaks.OppositionThis bill subjects retailers to a new layer of data collection and reporting mandates for thepurposes of targeting certain tax incentives between specific retailersand local governments. Themandate applies whether the retailer is party to one of these agreements ornot. For manyretailers this will come at a substantial cost, requiring a significant change in complianceprocesses since this is not how state sales taxes are currently calculatedor reported.Opponents include: California Retailers Assn, City of Fresno, and City ofPerrisLRC ActionThe LRC recommends that the City Council adopt an oppose positionAgenda Item 17
Slide 7Slide 7Senate Bill 780 (Cortese)SummaryThis bill makes several changes to current law governing Enhanced InfrastructureFinancing Districts and Community Revitalization Investment Authorities. These toolswere developed after the elimination of redevelopment as a means of generatingrevenue for the purposes of economic development and creating affordablehousing. Currently, these tools are not widely used, particularly when compared toredevelopment, in part because the process of establishing the authorities iscumbersome and bureaucratic.StatusApproved on the Senate Floor (34-0)Has been referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee and the AssemblyHousing and Community Development Committee.Agenda Item 17
Slide 8Slide 8Senate Bill 780 (Cortese)SupportAfter the elimination of redevelopment agencies, the state has tried to find effectivesolutions to spur economic development and build affordable housing in localcommunities. EIFDs and CRIAs have shown promise, yet have proven to be overlycumbersome to establish and operate. SB 780 will successfully revitalizethese tools,empowering local agencies to leverage their tax increment to spur the development ofaffordable housing and public infrastructure in their communities.Supporters include: California Assn for Local Economic Development, CaliforniaBusiness Properties Assn, League of California Cities, Monterey County,and the citiesof Lakewood, Lynwood, San Diego, and West Sacramento.OppositionThere is no official opposition to SB 780.LRC ActionThe LRC recommends that the City Council adopt a support positionAgenda Item 17
Slide 9Slide 9RecommendationsSB 612 (Portantino)Adopt a support positionSB 792 (Glazer)Adopt an oppose positionSB 780 (Cortese)Adopt a support positionAuthorize the Mayor to send position letters to the state legislature.Agenda Item 17
Slide 10Slide 10Questions?GPAC Legislative UpdateCasey ElliottState Capitol Director916-447-4086CElliott@TownsendPA.com