AB 106 (Salas) — Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy (April 27, 2021)
Summary
Analysis of AB 106 (Salas), Regions Rise Grant Program, for the April 27, 2021 hearing of the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy, Sabrina Cervantes, Chair. It says the bill establishes a competitive grant program, administered by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), to support regional collaboration among public and private sector stakeholders. It states that concerns were initially raised by some stakeholders that the bill appeared to designate official spokespeople for regions, and that amendments have been proposed to clarify the role of regional collectives. Registered support lists organizations such as the Bay Area Council, the City of El Centro and the Fresno Business Council; opposition is None on File.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“AB 106 (Salas) — Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy (April 27, 2021).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2021-04-27-ab-106-jede-analysis-56196cffa0/
, SHA-256 6e64a867033765afe41fe8cf7745ba32db10ad13e2fb5fbfdaabc3b6819075cd.Full text
AB 106
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2021
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ECONOMY
Sabrina Cervantes, Chair
AB 106 (Salas) – As Amended April 20, 2021
SUBJECT: Regions Rise Grant Program
POLICY FRAME: The individuals most impacted by the coronavirus emergency are also California’s
most economically vulnerable. As income disparities have grown, these individuals from historically
underinvested communities face even greater social-economic challenges. Research shows that the
inequality between the residents in low-income communities and those that reside in California’s most
affluent communities has dramatically increased in the past several decades. For example, the pretax
income among the highest 1% of California taxpayers increased from 9.82% in 1980 to 25.1% of total
income in 2013. During the last seven years, the pace of these disparities has only increased.
AB 106 establishes a competitive grant program to support regional collaboration among public and
private sector stakeholders to address and resolve significant community development issues which
currently impede inclusive economic growth and upward mobility for historically marginalized groups.
The analysis includes information on the growing income disparities among Californian regions and
population groups, regional approaches to increasing economic security, and related legislation. Concerns
were initially raised by some stakeholders that the bill appeared to designate official spokespeople for
regions by virtue of receiving a grant. As this was not the intention of the author or sponsor, amendments
have been proposed to clarify the role of regional collectives and better align their work with local
governments. The recommended amendments are outlined in Comment 6.
SUMMARY: AB 106 establishes the Regions Rise Grant Program, administered by the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR), for the purpose of supporting inclusive, cross jurisdictional, and
innovative processes that lead to inclusive strategies to address barriers and challenges confronting
communities in creating economic prosperity for all. Specifically, this bill:
1) Legislative Findings: Makes a series of legislative findings:
a) Growing inequality, which disproportionately affects communities of color, and the erosion of
upward mobility in California calls for state policy to be intensely focused on increasing economic
opportunity and security for all Californians.
b) The COVID-19 pandemic has hit certain populations harder than others and exposed more clearly
the vulnerabilities in our communities. State policy and investments should address not only the
economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the structural inequities plagued by gender,
race, ethnicity, income, and occupation.
c) The need to address regional inequities calls for a collaborative, community-engaged process that
reflects shared decision-making and power. There needs to be greater support for capacity building
of historically underserved communities and disenfranchised groups to meaningfully participate in
those cross-sectoral regional initiatives in every step of the process.
d) There is also a need to create a state program that provides competitive grants for
multijurisdictional collectives that involve local and regional governments, labor, community-
based organizations, and private and civic organizations covering locally defined economic
AB 106
Page 2
regions to adopt a comprehensive shared prosperity strategy with a focus on the priority challenges
of the respective region.
2) Creation of Program: Establishes the Regions Rise Grant Program, within OPR, for the purpose of
supporting inclusive, cross-jurisdictional, and innovative engagement processes that lead to inclusive
strategies to address barriers and challenges confronting communities in creating economic prosperity
for all.
3) Eligible Applicants: Limits eligible applicants to only those regional collectives that meets all of the
following requirements:
a) Consists of at least one government agency, one local business, one educational or workforce
entity, one economic development entity, and two nonprofit organizations working on behalf of
social and racial justice.
b) Brings together a diverse set of sectors and anchor institutions with the leadership of trusted
intermediaries to establish a coalition representing all regional interests that is ready to develop
and implement a set of strategies that are supported across the community.
c) The primary mission of the regional collective is the creation of a plan for equitable and
sustainable economic development.
d) The partners of the regional collective are representatives of the region’s diverse demographic
makeup, key industries, city and county governments, local economic development and planning
practitioners, councils of governments, private businesses, educational and workforce partners,
labor, and nonprofit and philanthropic organizations. The bill describes a diverse demographic
makeup including, but is not limited to, Black, Indigenous, Latino, Asian, women, and individuals
who identify as being a member of the LGBTQIA community.
4) Inclusive Community Mandates: As a condition of funding, a regional collective agrees to do both
of the following:
a) Establish a steering committee that is inclusive of historically underrepresented persons and
representative of the membership of the region.
b) Establish an inclusive public process for community residents, including underserved,
disadvantaged, and rural populations, to identify, prioritize, and vote on strategies and priorities.
5) Competitive Awards: Requires OPR to develop and implement a process for the awarding of
competitive grants to eligible applicants meeting the requirements pursuant to this article. At a
minimum the process shall meet all of the following conditions:
a) Eligible activities shall include funding to support regional collectives initiating, expanding, or
sustaining regional convenings and planning activities.
b) Funds awarded pursuant to this program shall be available to the successful applicant for a period
of three years.
c) Applications with overlapping geographic boundaries may be funded if, in the determination of
the director, the regional issues and challenges being addressed in the applications are sufficiently
distinct.
AB 106
Page 3
6) Content of the application: Requires the application to include, at a minimum, each of the
following:
a) Identification of how the funding is to be used to facilitate the resolution or mitigations of one or
more regional issues and challenges, including information on why and how an inclusive, cross-
jurisdictional, and innovative process is best suited to address these challenges and result in
greater economic prosperity for all.
b) Identification of the principal agency or intermediary organization that shall be the main point of
contact with the office.
c) Identification of the members of the steering committee, required by subdivision (b) of Section
66302, with documentation of how the steering committee members represent historically
underrepresented persons within the region and the region’s demographic makeup, key industries,
city and county governments, council of governments, private businesses, educational and
workforce partners, and nonprofit and philanthropic organizations. A commitment letter by each
member of the steering committee shall accompany the application.
d) A letter from each member of the regional collective documenting their participation in the
regional collective and participation in the activities proposed in the application. If the member is
also a member of the steering committee, these letters shall be combined.
e) To the extent possible, a commitment to find funds to match nonstate funds. If matching funds are
not available, the applicant shall include a statement documenting the reason for the lack of
matching funds.
f) Letters of support from local government agencies, councils of governments, nonprofit
organizations, private businesses, education partners, organizations representing communities of
color, and philanthropic organizations that indicate a significant threshold of community support
for the application.
g) A commitment to collect and share data, as required by the office, that can help inform as to the
effectiveness of the grant dollars in building strategies for regional prosperity and to hold partners
accountable for progress.
h) A plan for an inclusive, transparent community-driven process where residents who will be
affected may identify, prioritize, and vote on priorities. This includes demonstrated capacity of the
regional collective to directly engage and financially assist community members in meaningfully
contributing to the design of an inclusive economic development roadmap.
i) A list of key deliverables during the grant period.
7) Program Priorities: Requires GO-Biz to provide priority to applications that come from regions that
are able to demonstrate all of the following:
a) The need for cross-sectoral and cross-jurisdictional solutions to the demonstrated key regional
challenges.
b) The readiness and capacity to support rural, disadvantaged areas, or underserved population
groups.
c) The assessment of key deliverables and the potential of the initiative to make system changes that
can be operationalized based on success stories and best practices.
AB 106
Page 4
8) Funding Trigger: Requires OPR to implement the program upon appropriation of funds by the
Legislature for the purpose of implementing program, as specified.
9) Regional Collective Reporting: Requires each regional collective receiving funding to submit an
annual and a final report detailing the regional issues analyzed, priorities identified, strategies
developed to address regional issues, and plans to implement priority efforts. In addition, the bill:
a) Requires the report to document how the regional collective engaged with community residents on
a regular basis to review and guide the activities funded by this grant.
b) Requires, to the extent that plans produced “touch” on issues of transportation or land use, the
report must show how those portions of the report are aligned with long-term transportation and
land use plans of regional agencies, including strategy plans for sustainable communities.
c) Requires community residents to be engaged in the preparation of the report, as specified.
d) Requires a copy of the annual and final report be provided to each city and county within the
region, as specified.
10) Benchmarks, Metrics, and Outcomes: Requires the regional collective to adopt a transparency and
accountability tool to help track the progress of regional economic development strategies and track
equity activities and mobility outcomes.
11) Sharing Outcomes and Recommendations: Requires OPR to create a process for issues,
recommendations, and regional priorities identified through the collaborative work funded by the
program to be brought forward to the Governor, the Legislature, and any other relevant agency,
including the Department of Housing and Community Development. This information shall be
considered in the development and recommended actions of related state functional plans, strategies,
and investments.
12) Definitions: Defines a number of terms:
a) “Region” means a geographic area composed of one or more counties and cities that form a
functional economy. A region may be a metropolitan statistical area, as established by the United
States Office of Management and Budget, or by an area of an existing regional government,
including, but not limited to, a council of governments.
b) “Eligible applicant” means a regional collective composed of a diverse set of public and private
stakeholders who organize themselves around one or more community challenges or priorities
impacting a region and meet certain other program requirements. The bill also:
i) Specifies that a “diverse set of public and private stakeholders” may include cities, counties,
local agencies, including joint powers agencies, elected officials, private businesses, including
small business enterprises owned by people of color, educational entities, social enterprises,
nonprofit, labor, community-based organizations, census coalitions, and individuals.
ii) Requires the regional collective to have as one of its primary missions to work with and on the
behalf of disadvantaged and underserved communities.
EXISTING LAW
1) Establishes OPR for the purpose of assisting the Governor and the Administration in planning,
research, policy development, and legislative analysis. In addition:
AB 106
Page 5
a) OPR formulates long-range state goals and policies to address four key areas: land use and
planning, climate risk and resilience, sustainable economic development, and targeted long-range
research needs.
b) OPR also acts as the state's liaison to a variety of entities including local and regional government,
planning professionals, small business, and the US Department of Defense.
2) Establishes the California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to coordinate and work collaboratively
with public agencies, communities, and stakeholders to advance healthy, thriving, and resilient
communities for all. In addition, the SGC:
a) Integrates state, regional, and local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase the
availability of affordable housing located near jobs, services, and green space, conserve
agriculture lands, promote public health, and advance racial equity.
b) Administers the following grant programs: Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities,
Transformative Climate Communities, Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation, Climate
Change Research–all of which are part of the California Climate Investments Program, funded by
proceeds from the State’s cap-and-trade auction revenues.
c) Reviews the State’s 5-Year Infrastructure Plan and contributes to interagency efforts to promote
sustainability, equity, and resilience in State investments.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS & CONTEXT:
1) Growing Income Inequality: In the pre-coronavirus economy, California’s dominance in
innovation-based industries was unquestionable, however, even with 120 months of uninterrupted
economic growth, the divide between the middle and lower income households and the top income
earners was accelerating. The coronavirus has only deepened California’s income inequality, with the
state’s most vulnerable being at the greatest risk for poor health outcomes, having the least amount of
savings to survive the economic impacts of the Stay-at-Home Order, and being most likely to work in
low-paid and least protected essential businesses.
According to April 2020 research by the McKinsey Institute, 57 million jobs are at risk in the US due
to the necessary, but extreme, steps that are taking place to stop the spread of the coronavirus. In
California, McKinsey estimates that certain sectors will be more severely impacted than others. As
examples of sectors with the highest vulnerability, in the accommodation and food service sector, an
estimated 1.6 million jobs are at risk (95% of all jobs in the sector), and, in the arts and entertainment
sector, 287,000 jobs (87% of all jobs) are at risk. The economic impacts are, however, much more
widespread. The McKinsey Institute reports that 48% of jobs in the construction sector, 49% of jobs
in real estate, and 37% of jobs in manufacturing are at risk, to name only a few sectors identified as
having more than 30% of their jobs at risk.
In addition to losing their jobs, many of these impacted workers have little formal education beyond
high school and possibly a few additional years of higher education course work and/or occupational
training. In the last recession, individuals without four-year degrees faced the greatest challenges in
becoming reemployed and remained unemployed for significantly longer time periods.
AB 106
Page 6
2) The Challenge of Income Inequality during COVID-19: While California’s dominance in
innovation-based industries is unquestionable, the divide between the middle- and lower-income
households and the top income earners is accelerating. Even when California’s unemployment was at
historic lows pre-pandemic, unemployment within certain geographic regions and population groups
remained significantly higher, as did the number of people in the state who were not participating
within the core economy. In March 2020, California reported an unemployment rate (not seasonally
adjusted) of 5.1% as compared to the US rate of 4.5%. From the employment side, this represents 18.1
million people in California, with (according to 12-month moving average) 82.5% being employed in full
time work.
The State of California Economic Development Department, in March 2020 ( not seasonally adjusted),
reported three of California’s 58 counties had unemployment below 3.0%, with San Mateo County
reporting the lowest at 2.5%. The highest unemployment was reported in Colusa (21.4%). Year-over
(March 2019- March 2020), three counties experienced an unemployment rate decline, three counties
experienced no change in unemployment rate and 52 experienced unemployment rate increases from
the prior year.
Chart 1 – Selected Data on Unemployment shows unemployment-related information by selected
counties and population groups for a time period that includes COVID-19, March 2020 to March
2021.
Chart 1 - Selected Data on Unemployment (2020-2021)
Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment
Rate Rate Rate Rate
March March March March
2020 2021 2020 2021
(Not Seasonally (Not Seasonally (12-month (12-month
Adjusted) Adjusted) moving moving
average) average)
California 5.1% 8.2% California 4.1% 11.1%
Colusa County 21.4% 15.4% Blacks 5.2% 13.9%
Imperial County 20.4% 15.7% Hispanics 4.7% 12.5%
Los Angeles County 5.6% 10.9% Whites 4.0% 10.8%
16 to 19
Riverside County 4.7% 7.7% 15.1% 24.5%
years old
20 to 24
Sacramento County 4.3% 7.4% 7.6% 17.5%
years old
25 to 34
San Bernardino County 4.4% 7.8% 4.1% 11.7%
years old
San Luis Obispo County 3.5% 5.8% *The Employment Development Department
reports a March 2021 (12-month moving average)
San Mateo County 2.5% 5.0% Labor Participation Rate (LPR) of 60.2% with
12.4 million people in California representing
those who were not participating in the workforce
Tulare County 13.2% 11.6% (the remaining 38.8%). The
LPR for veterans is 42.4% vs nonveterans LPR of
63.3%.
Source: www.edd.ca.gov
AB 106
Page 7
In March 2021, California was reported to have an unemployment rate (not seasonally adjusted) of 8.2%
as compared to the US rate of 6.2%. From the employment side, this represents 17.3 million people,
with (according to 12-month moving average) 83.0% being employed in full time work.
During this same period of time, only three of California’s 58 counties had an unemployment rate (not
seasonally adjusted) below 5.5%, with Marin County reporting the lowest at 4.8%. The highest
unemployment was reported in Imperial (15.7%). Year-over (2020-2021), 46 counties experienced
unemployment rate rises, and 11 experienced unemployment rate decreases; moreover, one county
had its unemployment rate stay the same (Lassen County).
Looking more specifically at different population groups, the data ( 12-month moving average) also show
great disparities between the statewide rate of 11.2% and the rates of key subgroups, including
unemployment among Blacks and Hispanics being 13.9% and 12.5% respectively. For the youngest
members of the workforce, obtaining quality jobs remains a significant issue, with unemployment
among 16- to 19-year-olds and 20- to 24-year-olds being well above the state average, ranging from
24.5% to 17.5% respectively. According to the March 2021 figures, 12.4 million people in California
are not participating in the labor force, an increase of 596,000 individuals during a 12-month period.
The disparities shown in these charts are driven by and also influence a range of economic and
societal issues, including, but not limited to, minimal educational attainment, economic insecurity,
poor health outcomes, negative engagements with law enforcement, and lack of a safety net for the
elderly and individual with special needs. COVID-19 magnified these effects, further putting strains
on already struggling low-wage workers, particularly in the Black and Latinx communities.
The California Latino Economic Institute released a new policy brief in December 2020, which
provides new data on the disparate and growing negative impact of COVID-19 on Latinos in
California. Among other findings, the briefing noted the following:
Latinos are overrepresented among California’s COVID-19 cases and deaths—59% of cases and
49% of the state’s deaths.
Latino overrepresentation in California’s cases has increased since April 2020.
Nearly 12% of California Latinos are currently uninsured—double the rate of other groups.
Latino unemployment rates are double those from the same time last year.
Nearly two-thirds of California Latinos report experiencing a loss of employment income since
March 2020.
Over 40% of Latinos currently report that it is somewhat or very difficult to pay their usual
household expenses in the last 7 days.
Over three-quarters of California small business owners report that COVID-19 has had a moderate
to large effect on their businesses.
There are a number of reasons that contribute to the disparate health impacts of COVID-19, including
economic differences. Latinos and Blacks are a significant component of the essential workforce.
While a majority of White workers have jobs that allow them to work from home and decrease
potential COVID-19 contacts, Latinos and Blacks, due to economic circumstances, have jobs in high-
risk environments.
AB 106
Page 8
The data shows income disparities are increasing, which is impacting a range of economic and societal
issues. California is not unique in experiencing a rise in income inequality. National data show that
while the top 1% of income households were significantly impacted by the recession, by 2017, annual
revenues had risen to the highest levels ever. Between 1979 and 2017, the income for the top 1% of
income households cumulatively rose by 157%.
3) Helping Communities become Investment Ready: The geographic targeting of economic and
community development programs is based on the development principle that focusing significant
incentives and other resources to lower income communities allows these communities to more
effectively compete for new businesses, retain existing businesses, and stop or slow the spiraling
effects of poverty and unemployment. Geographically targeted approaches to economic and
community development are designed to result in increased tax revenues, higher rates of private
investment, less reliance on public health and social services, and lower public safety costs.
A central component of the state/region partnership model funded through the Regions Rise Grant
Program is its potential to assist at-risk communities in stopping the downward spiral of poverty and
(re)build communities with economic and social promise. In the last decade, there has been a renewed
interest by institutional investors in identifying communities which have turned the corner and now
represent unique economic opportunities. These communities are sometimes referred to by investors
as emerging domestic markets (EDMs).
EDMs are people, places, or business enterprises with growth potential that face capital constraints
due to systematic undervaluation as a result of imperfect market information. While not every low
income neighborhood in California is ready for private sector investment, many neighborhoods can
become investment ready through effective partnerships between the nonprofit, private, and public
sectors.
The demographics of EDMs include minority- and women-owned firms, urban and rural
communities, companies which serve low-to-moderate-income populations, and other small and
medium-sized businesses. The increase in investor interest is driven, in part, by the recognition of the
changing demographics in the US which are resulting in a significant increase in minority purchasing
power and business development by minority-owned firms.
Both the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State
Teachers Retirement System adopted EDM investment goals for their entire portfolios. Under its
California Initiative, which began in 2001 and focuses on historically underserved areas, CalPERS has
directed and invested over $1 billion in 569 companies primarily located in California. California has
no other similar program that could possibly outpace the volume of investments large institutional
investors can make. Experience is showing that adopting policies and programs that support
investment by institutional investors is sound economic policy.
4) Examples of Regional Approaches to Upward Mobility: In February 2019, the Assembly
Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy (JEDE) began a series of hearings
examining how public and private sector initiatives were being used or could be used to support
upward mobility, reduce racial disparities, and address climate change. Three primary themes
emerged from these hearings, being the need to:
Upskill individuals to meet market challenges;
AB 106
Page 9
Establish integrated and accountable governance structures to better support businesses, program
and service providers, and individuals; and
Remove barriers for start-ups, entrepreneurs, and expanding businesses, including manufacturers.
In order to advance the JEDE Committee’s understanding of how sustainable and inclusive economic
strategies can actually be implemented in the real world, a field hearing was conducted outside of the
confines of the State Capitol, which highlighted regional initiatives in the Inland Empire. The keynote
presentation by Dr. Karthick Ramakrishnan, Chair of the Center for Social Innovation at the
University of California, Riverside, highlighted a number of regional initiatives being conducted
within the Inland Empire. Among other initiatives presented, Dr. Ramakrishnan discussed Inland
California Rising, an initiative he co-launched in February 2019 and which hosted summits in both of
its partner regions, the Inland Empire and the San Joaquin Valley. The following is a selection of
other initiatives discussed in the course of the hearing:
GenerationGO/Vision2Succed: An initiative of San Bernardino County using its local workforce
board as the facilitator. The purpose of GenerationGO is to connect K-12 schools, community
colleges, and businesses to create and enhance career pathways and provide hands-on training.
After several successful years, both the scope and geographic footprint are being expanded.
Consortium for Excellence in Logistics: The mission of this initiative, facilitated by the Inland
Empire Economic Partnership, is to leverage the region’s large number of warehouses and
strategic location to position the Inland Empire as a supply chain and logistics hub. By fully
embracing the leadership role, the consortium believes the Inland Empire can drive innovation
within the sector resulting in economic growth and better paying jobs while still providing
environmental and societal benefits.
Inland Economic Growth & Opportunity (IEGO): This initiative, supported through the
Community Foundation, is a network of business, government, educational, and nonprofit
institutions, working to better align workforce and economic development efforts. Their objective
is to increase high-paying quality jobs, increase opportunities for advanced manufacturing, and
accelerate the growth of promising emerging industries (such as IT, cybersecurity, and battery
storage).
JEDE’s hearing aligned with Governor Newsom’s Region’s Rise Together, which was led by GO-Biz
and supported by California Forward, the sponsor of this bill.
5) Roadmap to Shared Prosperity: This bill is an outgrowth of the California Economic Summit, a
year-round collaboration of over 750 public and private stakeholders who annually meet to share their
work, be inspired, and make plans for the following year’s activities. This important work is
supported and facilitated by California Forward and the Roadmap to Shared Prosperity. The 2021
Roadmap to Shared Prosperity outlined the California Economic Summit’s plans for a comprehensive
agenda to address the state’s biggest challenges with a triple bottom line approach.
Supporting the training and upskilling of workers within a strategic plan tied with the Commission
on the Future of Work and efforts to increase worker engagement and empowerment.
Creating the California Dream Index, a new scorecard for tracking the state’s progress toward
improving economic mobility.
AB 106
Page 10
Issuing recommendations to guide Community Development Financial Institutions, governments,
financial institutions, and other capital providers to help strengthen businesses by transforming
pathways to capital and addressing social, racial, and institutional systemic issues.
Advancing the implementation of a regional, scalable, data-driven prototype for employer
engagement with community colleges meant to address systemic barriers students face in
accessing work-based learning and job placement opportunities, while strengthening relationships
between colleges, employers, industry associations and regional business intermediaries like local
economic development corporations.
A key issue in moving forward on this work was the limited capacity of regional collectives to sustain
their valuable work. While many policy makers call for emphasizing interconnectivity, collaboration,
and equity to help regions create economic recovery strategies in the wake of COVID-19, there are
few public programs that support these activities. AB 106 establishes a grant program that would both
help fund and elevate this work by
6) Proposed Amendments: Below is a list of amendments the committee members may wish to review
when considering the bill.
a) Clarify the organic nature of a regional collaborative, as compared to a regional council of
government, joint powers of authority, or any quasi-governmental entity. Definition: A quasi-
governmental organization is one that has some, but not all, of the defining characteristics of a
government.
b) Clarify that implementation of any aspect of the program is dependent upon funding being
appropriated for this purpose.
c) Requires funding to be awarded to selected regional collectives in phases. Following an initial
amount of money, to initiate the activities in the grant proposal, subsequent allocations are to be
based on the regional collaborative meeting pre-determined milestones.
d) Requires a collaborative to have at least one local business organization participating. Current
language is having one local business, while all the other members of the collaborative are
organizations.
e) Requires OPR to a post on its website:
i) Copies annual reports and final reports submitted by the regional collectives.
ii) Links to two or more free to access databases and platforms that regional collectives may use
to select metrics, set baselines and benchmarks, and track outcomes.
f) Requires the office to provide an annual report to the Legislature, beginning 12 months following
funding becoming available, as specified. The first report shall identify the regional collectives
selected, the purpose of their grants, including meters and milestones that will be used to track the
success of the engagement. In the following reports shall report on the progress of each regional
collective in meeting milestones.
7) Related Legislation: Below is a list of bills from the current and prior sessions.
a) AB 29 (John A. Pérez, Feuer, and V. Manuel Pérez) Office of Business and Economic
Development: This bill established GO-Biz to include the newly codified California Business
Services and the existing Office of the Small Business Advocate. Status: Signed by the
Governor, Chapter 475, Statutes of 2011.
AB 106
Page 11
b) AB 27 (Parra) California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley: This bill would have codified
the establishment and operation of an up to 64-member California Partnership for the San Joaquin
Valley for the purpose of improving the economic, social, and environmental conditions of the
San Joaquin Valley. Status: Held on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations, 2008.
c) AB 31 (Parra) California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley: This bill would have created
a 24-member California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) for the purpose of
coordinating and improving state and federal efforts in the SJV, in concert with locally led efforts
to improve the living standards and overall economic performance of the region. Status: Died on
the Senate Floor, August 2006.
d) AB 119 (Assembly Budget Committee) Elimination of State Economic Strategy: This bill
eliminated, commencing January 1, 2012, the responsibility of the Secretary of Labor and
Workforce Development Agency to lead the preparation of a biennial California Economic
Development Strategic Plan and to biennially convene an Economic Strategy Panel to provide
recommendations regarding the plan. Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 31, Statutes of
2011.
e) AB 358 (Greyson) Regional Economic Development Areas: This bill would have enacted the
Regional Economic Development Area Act for the purpose of certifying regional economic
development areas that include, but are not limited to, active and inactive military bases. Status:
Died without action in Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy,
2018.
f) AB 742 (Cervantes) Office of Place-Based Strategies: This bill would have established the
Office of Place-Based Economic Strategies within GO-Biz for the purpose of supporting local and
regional economic development entities to access programs and implement place-based and other
community- and neighborhood-level strategies. Status: Held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, 2019.
g) AB 844 (Grayson) Contra Costs County Green Empowerment Zone: This bill establishes the
Green Empowerment Zone for the Northern Waterfront area of the Counties of Contra Costa and
Solano. Status: Pending in the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the
Economy.
h) AB 906 (Cooley, Cervantes, Kiley) State Action Plan: This bill would have required the
Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development to take the lead in preparing a
California Economic Development Strategy based on regional priorities. Status: Held in the
Assembly Committee on Appropriations, 2019.
i) AB 1171 (Arambula) California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley: This bill establishes
the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley for the purpose of supporting regional
collaboration among individuals and public and private entities committed to improving the
quality of life in the San Joaquin Valley. Status: Pending in the Assembly Committee on Jobs,
Economic Development, and the Economy.
j) AB 1233 (V. Manuel Pérez) State Economic & Workforce Development Strategy: This bill
would have required GO-Biz to prepare a five-year Economic and Workforce Development
Strategy. The blueprint will help the state set a strategic path forward by prioritizing and
coordinating state activities, supporting local and regional economic development activities, and
AB 106
Page 12
better leveraging private and public sector resources. Status: Held in the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations, 2012.
k) AB 1274 (Arambula and Salas) California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley: This bill
establishes the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley for the purpose of supporting
regional collaboration among individuals and public and private entities committed to improving
the quality of life in the San Joaquin Valley. Status: Held in the Senate Committee on Business
Professions, and Economic Development, 2020.
l) AB 3205 (Salas) Regions Rise Grant Program: This bill establishes the Regions Rise Grant
Program, administered by the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, for the
purpose of supporting inclusive, cross jurisdictional, and innovative processes that lead to
inclusive strategies to address barriers and challenges confronting communities in creating
economic prosperity for all. Status: Held in the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 2020.
m) AB 2596 (Cooley, Kiley, Quirk-Silva) State Action Plan: This bill would have required the
Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development to take the lead in preparing a
California Economic Development Strategy based on regional priorities. Status: Vetoed by the
Governor. The veto message stated: “Since its inception, GO-Biz has expanded direct foreign
investment, created opportunities for small businesses, identified incentives for growth, and
helped resolve barriers for businesses navigating the government. These successes are due, in
part, to the ability of GO-Biz to nimbly respond to rapidly changing economic factors including
unpredictable federal decisions, natural disasters and more. I don’t believe an ongoing costly
study and report will provide any additional benefit to these efforts.”
n) SB 1230 (Umberg and Caballero) CDFI Grant and Tax Credit: This bill establishes the
Community Development Financial Institutions Grant Program, administered by GO-Biz, and
authorizes the California Department of Financial Institutions Tax Credit, as specified. Status:
Pending in the Senate Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
3core
Bay Area Council
Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce
California Economic Summit
California Edge Coalition
California Forward Action Fund
California Partnership for The San Joaquin Valley
California Travel Association (CALTIA)
City of El Centro
Csu Fresno, Office of Community and Economic Development
East Bay Leadership Council
Fresno Business Council
Fresno State Connect Initiative
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Imperial County Transportation Commission
Inland Empire Community Foundation
AB 106
Page 13
Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP)
Kern Community Foundation
Local Government Commission
Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
North Bay Leadership Council
Reach Central Coast
Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Joaquin Valley Regional Broadband Consortium
San Joaquin Valley Rural Development Center
San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA)
Sierra Business Council
Sonoma County Economic Development Board
Stanislaus Community Foundation
Tahoe Prosperity Center
Unite-la, INC.
Valley Economic Alliance
Valley Vision
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
Opposition
None on File
Analysis Prepared by: Toni Symonds / J., E.D., & E. / (916) 319-2090
File and source
- File
- 2021-04-27_ab-106-jede-analysis.pdf
- Size
- 377,350 bytes
- SHA-256
- 6e64a867033765afe41fe8cf7745ba32db10ad13e2fb5fbfdaabc3b6819075cd
- Original
- No public link identified.