Vote Thresholds for Local Taxes and Bonds

SCA 4 (Liu) – Support If Amended

Senate Appropriations Committee

SCA 7 (Wolk) – Support

Senate Appropriations Committee

SCA 8 (Corbett) – Support

Senate Appropriations Committee

SCA 9 (Corbett) – Support

Senate Appropriations Committee

SCA 11 (Hancock) – Support

Senate Appropriations Committee

ACA 3 (Campos) – Pending

Assembly Local Government Committee

ACA 8 (Blumenfield) – Support

Senate Governance and Finance Committee

CSAC has generally supported various measures that reduce the threshold required to approve local special taxes and bonds from 2/3 to 55% for transportation purposes, public safety, and libraries, among others. Our support is based on the following principles:

Local Control. Counties should have the authority to put local taxes before their voters after determining local needs and priorities and crafting proposals that meet communities’ unique circumstances.

Accountability/Transparency. Counties support adequate accountability and transparency requirements that ensure appropriate use of local taxes. Public notice, audits, and other public information should be included in any local tax measure to promote accountability and transparency.

Countywideness. As counties provide services to all California residents, counties should have the ability to put measures before the voters that apply countywide or in the unincorporated area, as appropriate.

Common Sense Approach. CSAC advocates for a common sense approach that allows local agencies flexibility to identify local priorities and determine how, if at all, a local tax option may assist in meeting those priorities.  Counties oppose efforts to restrict our ability to address local needs and priorities by imposing limitations on the use of local taxing authority. Further, revenues approved by local voters are not an appropriate funding source for statewide programs.

These measures may be considered in 2014 as potential candidates for the November ballot; however, it is likely that the Legislature will focus its interest one, if not a few, purposes to use such authority.

Property Taxes

AB 701 (Quirk-Silva) 
Chapter No. 393, Statutes of 2013

AB 701 by Assembly Member Sharon Quirk-Silva implements an adjustment to Orange County’s Vehicle License Fee Adjustment Amount (VLFAA), and contains intent language that directs the parties involved in Department of Finance v. Grimes to reach a settlement agreement in that case. CSAC supports the resolution of this ongoing dispute between the County and the state.

In 2004, when California cities and counties swapped Vehicle License Fees (VLF) for property taxes, Orange County instead retained a portion its VLF as those revenues were tied to bonded indebtedness associated with the County’s bankruptcy debt. Orange County then was impacted by SB 89 (2011) when those VLF revenues were redirected to fund realigned public safety programs. AB 701 addresses this issue by adjusting the county’s VLFAA for 2013-14 and in the future, as well as setting the path for resolving the litigation in this matter by including intent language directing a settlement that includes a repayment plan over a period of six years.

AB 741 (Brown) - Oppose
Held in Committee

CSAC has taken an “oppose” position on AB 741, by Assembly Member Cheryl Brown, which proposes to shift property taxes from counties to cities via a new Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) formula that establishes minimum property tax shares for certain cities. Counties are extremely concerned about the consequences of AB 741 in light of our ongoing and significant service responsibilities to all Californians. Counties have taken on substantial new service responsibilities over the past few years and cannot consider the revenue transfer proposed by AB 741 for a number of reasons.

We have encouraged counties to oppose AB 741 and communicate their concerns to the author and their own legislative delegations. Thank you to those counties that have already done so. Assembly Member Brown’s staff has let CSAC know that they do not intend to pursue the bill this year, but remain concerned about the lack of property tax revenue received by certain cities and will be looking to alternatives to resolve their concerns. CSAC will continue to share its perspective on local government revenues and service responsibilities to the Legislature to help facilitate an understanding of the complex system of state and local revenues and responsibilities.

AB 777 (Muratsuchi) – Oppose Unless Amended
Held in Committee

AB 777, by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, would exempt personal property intended for use in space flight from property taxes, retroactive to 2007.

Counties have no quarrel with the Legislature exempting these purchases from sales tax calculations. However, AB 777 fails to reimburse local agencies for the resulting revenue loss. County revenues should not be used to effectuate state priorities.

The property tax is the only significant source of general purpose revenue for counties. Over the past thirty years, county general revenues have steadily been replaced or partially replaced with revenue restricted to one particular purpose or another.

If favoring ownership of this sort of property is an issue of statewide concern, as passing this bill would indicate, then the state should use statewide revenues to reimburse counties and other local agencies for their losses, as provided by statute.

AB 920 (Ting) – Concerns
Held in Committee

AB 920, by Assembly Member Phil Ting, would require that each county tax bill contain certain information regarding allocation and expenditure of local property tax revenues. While property tax transparency is a laudable goal, and one that CSAC supports, we are concerned about counties’ ability to meet its requirements from a fiscal and practical perspective.

Over the years, the state has shifted, flipped, swapped, and reallocated property tax revenues for a variety of reasons and county auditors have implemented those provisions as directed by state law. The significant complexity of the statute makes it difficult to accurately reflect property tax allocations in a manner that is meaningful for citizens. Additionally, while some agencies may be able to provide information regarding the percentage allocation at the tax rate area level, we suggest that implementing this provision on a statewide basis would be difficult to achieve by 2014-15; certainly, it would be difficult for counties to devote the human and financial resources to do so in the time required by AB 920.

AB 1172 (Bocanegra) – Support
Held in Committee

Assembly Bill 1172, by Assembly Member Raul Bocanegra, would require base year value transfers between counties for all counties upon voter approval of an unspecified constitutional amendment. CSAC opposes this measure, as it would result in a significant fiscal impact to local agencies that rely on property tax revenues to fund local services.

Currently, there are eight counties that have opted in to the existing provisions associated with Proposition 90 (1988). In these counties (Alameda, El Dorado, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Ventura), the boards of supervisors have approved an ordinance accepting base transfers from other counties with data to assist in analyzing the fiscal impact and input from the public, including other taxing entities. In fact, there are an additional seven county participants (Contra Costa, Inyo, Kern, Riverside, Modoc, Monterey and Marin) that subsequently repealed the ordinance due to fiscal concerns. We know of at least one county that has considered repeal as late as last summer. The appropriate evaluation of costs and benefits associated with Proposition 90 at the board level is a fiscally responsible approach that considers the broad array of competing local spending priorities and allows for an open and public dialogue among interested parties, including all affected local agencies.

AB 1172 makes no consideration of the fiscal impact of its provision to any of the local agencies that receive property taxes. In California counties, the property tax is the primary source of discretionary revenue, constituting 23% of county revenues statewide. Property tax revenues fund public safety, health and human services programs, elections, libraries, parks, and other important local programs and services. County service responsibilities have increased significantly over the past years – primarily in the public safety and human services areas – and proposals to continue that trend are currently being considered in the state budget. We must oppose any effort that undermines our ability to maintain funding for our existing responsibilities, not to mention any new responsibilities that may come our way.

AB 1322 (Patterson) – Support
Held in Committee

Assembly Bill 1322, by Assembly Member Jim Patterson, would restore the Senior Citizens’ Property Tax Postponement Program in a manner that would create a financially sustainable program. Regrettably, the state’s Senior Citizens’ Property Tax Postponement Program was eliminated in the February 2009 budget agreement.

The Legislature eventually approved a program that allowed counties to voluntarily provide the program locally; however, that program failed to authorize counties to establish a priority lien as security for repayment. As a result, to our knowledge, only one county has opted to provide the program locally. AB 1322 instead provides a fiscally sustainable mechanism to reestablish the program on a statewide basis.

SB 636 (Hill) – Support
Held in Committee

SB 636, by Assembly Member Jerry Hill, would modify a provision included in the last year’s redevelopment budget trailer bill (AB 1484) relating to the allocation of property tax revenues from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF).

Among many other complex issues surrounding the dissolution of redevelopment agencies is the redistribution of property taxes. As successor agencies pay off their obligations, billions of property tax dollars will return to counties, cities, special districts, and of course school districts. No one disputes that these property taxes should be returned exactly as they would have been absent a redevelopment agency’s diversion of the tax increment.

Unfortunately, one provision of the laws passed during the final approval of the 2012-13 state budget inadvertently reduced property tax allocations to local agencies in counties where ERAF payments exceed the amount needed to fulfill school districts’ minimum funding requirements. This situation is known as “excess ERAF,” and when it occurs, the ERAF payments are returned to taxing entities in the proportion they were paid.

Removing this language would have restore property tax allocations to their rightful levels, ensuring fairness and equity for the few counties affected and avoiding the legal and constitutional challenges raised by this issue.

Utility User Taxes

AB 792 (Mullin) - Oppose
Chapter No. 534, Statutes of 2013

 AB 792 by Assembly Member Kevin Mullin exempts distributed generation energy from utility user taxes (UUTs). Companies that own distributed generation equipment are not currently collecting UUTs from their customers, and they sponsored the bill to exempt their products from the tax.

 Distributed generation is the name given to small electricity generators installed where the energy will be used, like solar panels on roofs, for example. The currently popular business model is for the company that installs the equipment to maintain ownership of it and then sell the energy to the homeowner or business.

 The property owner benefits from the arrangement because the distributed generation company charges lower rates than the central electric company. The distributed generation company benefits in two ways, first by selling some electricity directly to the property owner, but also by selling the rest of the electricity back to the grid at retail rates.

 CSAC opposed AB 792 because the bill implements a state priority using local tax revenues. If the state believes it is a matter of statewide importance, then they should have used statewide revenue to grant yet another benefit to these few companies that already are the recipient of so many other incentives.

AB 300 (Perea) – Support 
Vetoed

AB 300, by Assembly Member Henry Perea, would have created a point-of-sale system for collecting state and local charges—including utility user taxes—on prepaid wireless services.

Local agencies that impose a utility user tax on wireless communication are seeing this revenue source slowly fall, despite the ever-increasing number of cell phone subscribers. One reason for this decline in revenue is the increasing popularity of prepaid, non-contract payment plans.

Once associated primarily with users who had bad credit, prepaid wireless plans are becoming a more widespread service model. Due to this business model change, and because counties do not currently collect applicable taxes from prepaid wireless consumers, counties support the development of a system that captures the taxes that are owed on this activity.

However, the bill faced vigorous opposition from the California Public Utilities Commission, who would have essentially lost jurisdiction over collection of the various state charges to the Board of Equalization.

The Governor’s veto message stated that “there is no question that the state needs an effective system for capturing local taxes related to the sale of prepaid phones.” However, he found the method contemplated by the bill “duplicative, complex,” and unnecessarily costly to the state. He encouraged the author to work together with local agencies and affected state agencies to design “a more cost effective solution.”

Broadband

SB 740 (Padilla) – Support
Chapter No. 522, Statutes of 2013

SB 740, by Senator Alex Padilla, will improve the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) by broadening eligibility for some funds and increasing the overall funding level.

Ideally, the improved program would not have singled out local governmental agencies for special restrictions, but the increased funding authorization for the program—an additional $90 million—to support last mile projects where they are most needed is critical for the rural counties and overrides concern about those restrictions.

The increased program authorization, which will continue to be funded by a fractional percent on the state’s telecommunication services, will help provide the infrastructure that will allow some of the state’s hardest to reach residents to enjoy the economic benefits of broadband services, which the rest of us have taken for granted for years.
 

Elections

SB 360 (Padilla) – Support
Chapter No. 602, Statutes of 2013

SB 360, by Senator Alex Padilla, makes various changes to the law to allow a county to devise and test a nonproprietary voting system.

 Among the specific changes the bill makes are those that would allow the Secretary of State to conditionally approve a voting system, allow a county to use public funds to develop such a system, and create a process to set the conditions for a pilot program to test the system.

 While none of these changes alone represent a revolution in the way elections are run, together they create the opportunity for Los Angeles County to pursue what is frankly a very exciting advance in the administration of elections. Once their system is developed, there is a strong possibility that other counties who are interested could work with LA to implement the system there as well. With these changes, the effort already underway can continue to move forward.

AB 331 (Garcia) – Support
Chapter No. 98, Statutes of 2013

AB 331, by Assembly Member Cristina Garcia, would clarify the procedures of consolidated elections.

Frequently, cities and other jurisdictions ask the county to consolidate its election statewide or special elections, for reasons including efficiency. AB 331 would ensure that such a consolidated election will be held under the same rules as the statewide or special election with which it is consolidated.

This change will increase voter confidence, since voters will be assured that all questions on a single ballot are handled and adjudicated under the same rules. It will also ensure that when a city or other district asks the county to run an election on its behalf, the county is able to run the election according to the state and federal laws and county procedures that it is accustomed to following without the danger of being second guessed.

SB 519 (Emmerson) – Support
Held in Committee

SB 519, by Senator Bill Emmerson, would change statute to say that the state shall pay the costs of special elections the Governor calls to fill state and federal vacancies, restricted to expenses counties incur in 2012 and 2013. The bill does not make an appropriation.

A statute to this effect was in effect for many years up through the end of 2008. Since the beginning of 2009, counties have tens of millions of dollars to fill well over a dozen vacancies. This bill only applies to expenses incurred in 2012 and 2013. Counties have already conducted four primary and general elections to fill vacancies since the beginning of 2012, and anticipate holding four more, with a total estimated cost of between $5 million and $10 million.

Every other level of government, except schools, pays their share of election costs, but counties are required to pick up the state’s share. The costs of state and federal vacancies come to counties unexpectedly, after their budgets have passed, and put additional load on already strained county general funds.

Sales and Use Taxes

SB 376 (Correa) – Oppose Unless Amended
Held in Committee

SB 376, by Senator Lou Correa, would exempt property used for manufacturing and similar activities from sales and use taxes.

CSAC appreciates that SB 376 excludes the Bradley-Burns and local transactions and use components of the tax from the exemption, but the bill still uses local agencies’ money to incentivize purchases of manufacturing equipment.

Counties receive as much as 3.3125 cents, or almost 45 percent, of the revenue the sales tax generates, depending on where the sale takes place. The Bradley-Burns is part of that, but counties also receive several other portions. Importantly, this includes 1.0625 cents for 2011 Realignment. It also includes a half-cent for 1991 Realignment, most of another half-cent for Proposition 172 public safety services, and a quarter-cent that funds county transportation activities.

If favoring these purchases is an issue of statewide concern, as passing this bill would indicate, then the state should use statewide revenues to reimburse counties and other local agencies for their losses, as provided by statute. Alternatively, the bill can exempt the local portions of the tax from the special treatment the bill would implement, as it already does for the Bradley-Burns and transactions and use components.

AB 220 (Ting) – Neutral
Held in Committee

AB 220, by Assembly Member Philip Ting, would exempt low-emission vehicles from the sale and use taxes until 2018. The bill originally excepted the Bradley-Burns portion of sales taxes from the exemption, but not any of the other pieces of sales tax that benefit counties, such as the portions that pay for 2011 Realignment, 1991 Realignment, and Proposition 172. After negotiations with the author’s office, CSAC was able to get those portions excepted from the exemption as well.

AB 479 (Donnelly) – Oppose Unless Amended
Held in Committee

AB 479, by Assembly Member Tim Donnelly, would exempt textbooks purchased by college students from sales and use taxes.

Counties receive as much as 3.3125 cents, or almost 45 percent, of the revenue the sales tax generates, depending on where the sale takes place. Importantly, this includes 1.0625 cents for 2011 Realignment. It also includes a half-cent for 1991 Realignment, most of another half-cent for Proposition 172 public safety services, a quarter-cent that funds county transportation activities, and of course the site-dependent penny for Bradley-Burns (part of which is currently redirected to the state but reimbursed through property taxes).

AB 486 (Mullin) – Oppose Unless Amended
Held in Committee

AB 486, by Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, would exempt manufacturing equipment from sales and use and transactions and use taxes.

AB 486 excludes from the exemption many of the portions of the sales tax that benefit counties and other local agencies, but it fails to either exclude or reimburse counties for losses related to the portion that funds 2011 Realignment.

AB 718 (Melendez) – Oppose Unless Amended
Held in Committee

AB 718, by Assembly Member Melissa Melendez, would make April 15 a sales tax holiday. It would not apply to the use tax. The bill except the Bradley-Burns portion of sales taxes from the exemption, but not any of the other pieces of sales tax that benefit counties, such as the portions that pay for 2011 Realignment, 1991 Realignment, and Proposition 172. If the state prioritizes purchases made on this day as opposed to other days, it should use state funds to do so or else reimburse counties for their losses.

AB 781 (Bocanegra) – Support
Chapter No. 532, Statutes of 2013

 AB 781, by Assembly Member Raul Bocanegra, makes it generally illegal to use, own, install, or sell an automated sales suppression device.

 The sorts of devices targeted by this bill automatically hide actual sales levels from auditors, cheating both consumers and the public while unjustly enriching tax scofflaws. When unscrupulous Californians skirt their tax responsibilities, the burden of funding public services falls more heavily on those who follow the law.

By prohibiting the sale and installation of sales suppression devices, not only their ownership and use, the bill makes it easier for the Board of Equalization to reduce their use.

AB 1077 (Muratsuchi) – Oppose Unless Amended
Held in Committee

AB 1077, by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, would have given a sales tax break and vehicle license fee discount to purchasers of new alternative fuel motor vehicles.

AB 1326 (Gorell) – Oppose Unless Amended
Held in Committee

AB 1326, by Assembly Member Jeff Gorell, would exempt equipment for manufacturing unmanned aerial vehicles from sales and use taxes. It fails to reimburse local agencies for the resulting revenue loss.

SB 19 (Knight) – Oppose Unless Amended
Held in Committee

 SB 19, by Senator Steve Knight, would exempt equipment and materials related to commercial space launch sites from sales and use taxes. SB 19 does not reimburse local agencies for the resulting revenue loss.

SB 732 (Berryhill) – Oppose Unless Amended
As Introduced on February 22, 2013

SB 732, by Senator Tom Berryhill, would subtract the value of a trade-in vehicle from the purchase price of a new vehicle, including a motorcycle, for the purposes of calculating the sales tax. The bill does not except any portion of the sales tax that benefit counties.

 Other Taxes

SB 56/SB 69 (Roth and Emmerson) – Support 
Held in Committee

 Earlier this year, CSAC had taken a support position on SB 56, a measure by Senators Richard Roth and Bill Emmerson that would provide a “Vehicle License Fee Adjustment Amount” for newly incorporated cities, including those that were impacted by SB 89 (2011). CSAC supported this measure, primarily because it would have provided immediate financial assistance to the four newly incorporated cities in Riverside County.

 Prior to the passage of SB 89 (2011), the four newly incorporated cities in Riverside County relied on current state law in evaluating their fiscal viability through the LAFCO process and relied on a Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenue special allocation to ensure their future fiscal health. When SB 89 passed and redirected those VLF revenues to 2011 realignment, these fledgling cities were impacted in a significant way. SB 56 provided a mechanism by which the newly incorporated cities resume receipt of revenues anticipated prior to their incorporations/annexations. By establishing a “Vehicle License Fee Adjustment Amount” and replacing the lost VLF revenues with property taxes from the schools’ share (as currently exists for all other cities and counties in the state), SB 56 restored funds to those impacted by SB 89 and ensures their continued viability.

 SB 56 remains in the Senate Appropriations Committee; however, on the last evening of the legislative session, the contents of SB 56 were amended into a new vehicle, SB 69. SB 69 is in the Assembly Rules Committee, awaiting committee assignment. CSAC has pledged to continue to work through the issues associated with the bill next year.

AB 185 (Hernandez) - Oppose
Held in Committee

Assembly Bill 185, by Assembly Member Roger Hernández, would require that counties that collect franchise fees from the holder of state franchises that provides public, educational, and governmental (PEG) channels to televise the open and public meetings of its legislative body and its planning commission. The bill further authorizes the use of franchise fees for this purpose, and directs, if franchise fees are available, that these fees be used to provide live streaming of these meetings on the Internet. Simply put, AB 185 creates an impractical mandate for counties and limits local discretion in an untenable manner.

In 2006, during legislative debates over the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA), counties and cities communicated our strong concerns about the ability to maintain and expand PEG programming to televise public meetings and other educational content. (Recall that prior to 2006, local agencies negotiated these aspects of franchise agreements to meet each agency’s unique local needs.) Under DIVCA and relevant federal law, franchisees instead pay a fixed amount for PEG programming and have a fixed responsibility to provide channels for PEG programming. The Legislature approved this change with the full knowledge that statewide PEG requirements would not meet the demands of some local communities. In requiring a new obligation for local agencies to televise open and public meetings, AB 185 fails to recognize the policy choice made by the Legislature in enacting DIVCA and now requires local agencies to finance a new policy direction. AB 185 essentially penalizes local agencies for being on the losing side of the argument during the DIVCA discussion. AB 185 would have imposed a costly requirement on local agencies that would likely have outweighed its benefits.

AB 483 (Ting) – Support
Chapter No. 552, Statutes of 2013

 AB 483, by Assembly Member Phil Ting, clarifies certain terms included in Proposition 26.

Specifically, the terms ‘specific benefit’ and ‘specific government service’ were used but not defined in the language that voters added to the California Constitution. Resolving the ambiguity about their meanings in a manner consistent with the clear intent of Proposition 26, as AB 483 does, ensures that local governments may continue to establish and renew tourism marketing districts and business improvement districts, bolstering economic development and job growth throughout the state.

AB 576 (V. Manuel Perez) – Support
Chapter No. 614, Statutes of 2013

 AB 576, by Assembly Member V. Manuel Pérez, creates a strike force to combat criminal tax evasion.

AB 576 targets those individuals and businesses that avoid registering and paying taxes. In becoming part of the underground economy, businesses avoid regulations that keep consumers and employees safe, and they avoid paying local, state, and federal taxes that pay for the infrastructure and safety nets that keep the economy running and the community healthy. In doing so, they gain an unfair advantage and at the same time shift a proportionately greater civil burden onto the businesses and individuals that follow the law. This type of criminal activity cuts across the silos of state government, and a collaborative enforcement team is the appropriate way to combat it.

Economic Development

SB 1 (Steinberg) – Support
Held in Committee

SB 1, by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, would create a structure for continuing economic development activities consistent with the state’s sustainable development goals.

The foundation of CSAC’s support is allowing counties a clear option whether or not to financially participate in tax increment financing for economic development purposes. An approach that encourages collaboration between counties and cities will best serve Californians. This approach allows counties control over their own general funds, and also necessitates discussions about what kinds of development benefits the community as a whole.

Local Governance

AB 1235 (Gordon) – Watch
Vetoed

 Assembly Member Rich Gordon’s AB 1235 would have required local agencies’ governing boards to receive financial management training. Such training would have been based on a standardized criteria developed by the State Controller’s Office and State Treasurer’s Office and would be required by officeholders once per term.

 In his veto message, Governor Brown cited the potential costs for the state in imposing a state-mandated program.

Miscellaneous

AB 436 (Jones-Sawyer)
Held in Committee

 AB 436, by Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer, would apply the principle of comparative fault to inverse condemnation cases where the defendant is a government agency. It would also apply normal tort standards relating to post-offer costs.

AB 619 (Garcia)
Chapter No. 452, Statutes of 2013

 AB 619, by Assembly Member Cristina Garcia, applies interest penalties uniformly for underpayments to various state funds. Currently, underpayments to the State Trial Court Construction Fund are penalized at a far higher rate than those for all other funds.

 AB 619 makes the state whole for local underpayments by requiring full repayment plus penalties equal to the annual LAIF returns. The LAIF rate is what the money would have earned absent underpayment. The current, higher penalty would continue to apply from thirty days after the underpayment is discovered. If the amount owed is extraordinary, the Controller will now have the authority to work out a payment schedule with the entity that underpaid.

 This change to statute not only ensures the state is made whole, but is also fair to counties. The State Controller only audits most counties every few years, and the current high penalty rate is applied annually, so an error made a few years before the discovering audit results in an exorbitant penalty.

SB 181, SB 182, and SB 183 (Committee on Governance and Finance) – Support Chapters No. 57, 207, and 209, Statutes of 2013

SB 181, SB 182, and SB 183, all by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, retroactively cure the minor errors and omissions that public officials make, giving investors confidence in public agencies’ securities and therefore leading to lower interest rates for state and local bonds. The bills do not correct fraud, corruption, or unconstitutional acts. These “validating acts” are traditionally noncontroversial and receive “aye” votes from all legislators, since with their passage everyone wins.

SB 594 (Hill) – Support
Chapter No. 773, Statutes of 2013

The Governor signed this bill, which restricts local government associations like CSAC from using revenues associated with conduit bond financing on ballot measure campaigns. CSAC negotiated significant changes with the proponents of the bill and were able to recommend the Governor sign the bill.