There was the drive to abolish redevelopment agencies, there was realignment and now there's the move to change enterprise zones. Once again, locals are at the top of the governor's radar.
From Capitol Weekly's Amy Wong: "The governor's efforts to reform California’s 29-year-old enterprise zone system, an ongoing tax-break program that encourages business investment and promotes new jobs in economically distressed areas of the state, is his latest attempt in a series of major moves targeting local businesses and governance."
"Critics claim that the governor’s reforms could further drive businesses out of California, but Brown and his allies believe the $700 million EZ program is deeply flawed, with little oversight and accountability. In effect, they are asking: Is the money the state loses by providing the tax breaks good policy?"
"The EZ hiring credit is “by far the most expensive for the state in terms of forgone revenues. In 2007, this accounted for $237 million of the corporation tax revenue reduction attributable to Enterprise Zones," reported the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Legislature's nonpartisan fiscal adviser."
A landmark court decision that enabled an Indian tribe to get an agreement for its casino may be just the tip of an iceberg. Other tribes may pursue similar remedies, and the state may not get the money it wants.
From the Press-Enterprise's Jim Miller: "San Diego County’s Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians this month became the first California tribe to get a casino agreement through the federal courts."
"The deal came after the tribe recently won a years-long legal fight against the state over demands for revenue sharing in exchange for permission to expand. Whether other tribes try to take the same legal path is the big unknown. Several hundred million dollars in tribal revenue-sharing payments to the state general fund are in play."
“Can they get the same kind of agreement that Rincon has been able to achieve? The answer is maybe,” said Rincon lawyer Scott Crowell.
The state's revenue surge in January was welcome news news, but probably a blip that won't be repeated.
From the LAT's Evan Halper: "The revenue bump was historic. But the question for budget experts was whether lawmakers could begin allocating the windfall toward government programs and tax breaks — or whether the money amounted to an accounting anomaly."
"Brown's budget office now advises in an official cash report that it is probably the latter. Lawmakers need not do much reading between the lines to understand that the governor does not see the revenue boost as an occasion to pack the budget with extra spending."
"The report says the extra money was "likely the result of major tax law changes at the federal and state level having a significant impact in the timing of revenue receipts."
Meanwhile, N. J. Gov. Chris Christie headed to La Jolla and if you lived in New Jersey, you would, too.
From the Union-Tribune's Mark Walker: "Christie was warmly received here with no rancor stemming from his recent coziness with the president, according to Ron Nehring, vice chair of the county GOP."
“The governor has a lot of strong supporters here,” Nehring said. “It’s fortunate that we are a (fundraising) destination area because it gives us the opportunity to meet with leaders from around the country.”
"So was Christie harvesting bucks for a 2016 presidential bid or his run for a second term as chief executive of The Garden State?"
A controversial fire-fighting fee imposed on hundreds of thousands of rural property owners is poised to go before the Legislature for more discussion. But the state's fire-fighting agency has a number of problems that could cloud the debate.
From the AP's Don Thompson: "An annual fire-prevention fee that is unpopular with some rural property owners is headed back before the state Legislature, as Gov. Jerry Brown proposes to expand its use and opponents try to kill it."
"The fee was imposed for the first time last year and helps fund the state's firefighting agency. It has run into two new hurdles in recent weeks that are feeding criticism and uncertainty about its future."
"First came a disclosure that the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection funneled money from wildfire damage settlements into a special account instead of the state treasury."