A bill that would revive redevelopment as a tool for local governments passed the state Legislature in the final days of the summer session on party-line votes.

Now the question is whether a so-far noncommittal Gov. Gavin Newsom will accept the claims that Senate Bill 5 by Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, has enough safeguards to prevent redevelopment from going as astray as the version that Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature killed in 2011.

That version allowed local redevelopment agencies to divert a slice of property taxes to use on projects meant to spur the economies of “blighted” neighborhoods. If the projects boosted property tax revenue, the additional increment would go to the agencies for new projects. In 2010, some 400 redevelopment agencies diverted 12 percent of all California property taxes for their use.

‘Scams providing windfalls to cronies’

But by 2011, many investigations had found that redevelopment funds were routinely diverted to pay for City Hall salaries and that many of the projects that did get funding were those pitched by politically connected developers. Then-state Controller John Chiang said many redevelopment projects were “scams providing windfalls to political cronies.”

Many healthy businesses with prime locations had been declared “blighted” so cities could use eminent domain to seize them and hand them over to car dealerships or big-box stores which would generate the sales taxes that are a key source of revenue for city coffers.

And on top of these issues, the Legislative Analyst’s Office said there was “no reliable evidence” that redevelopment helped the economy. Instead, it attracted businesses that would have opened elsewhere without subsidies offered by local government – shuffling economic activity around, not spurring it.

New version would emphasize housing

In interviews and committee meetings, Beall has argued that a much-more focused version of redevelopment that gives at least half of diverted funds to subsidized low-income housing – up from the previous 20 percent – can help California with its housing shortage. The new program would also fund transit-oriented projects and play its old role of helping poor neighborhoods boost their economies. 

To prevent past problems with cronyism, a state oversight group would have to certify projects met basic standards before funding could be diverted.

The bill would initially allow $200 million in property taxes to be diverted annually with a phased-in upper limit of $2 billion a year. About $5 billion a year was being diverted when redevelopment was shelved by the state in 2011.

While running for governor in 2018, Newsom was supportive of reviving some form of redevelopment. But he included no funds for a new program in his initial state budget and has told reporters that his budget already includes record funding for affordable housing.

Meanwhile, while it didn’t get as many headlines as some other problems did, redevelopment’s record with creating affordable housing in California was also poor to mixed.

Old version often generated no new units

In 2010, the Los Angeles Times reported that, “At least 120 municipalities – nearly one in three with active redevelopment agencies – spent a combined $700 million in housing funds from 2000 to 2008 without constructing a single new unit … .  Nor did most of them add to the housing stock by rehabilitating existing units.”

Where did the money go? The Times cited many examples of redevelopment agencies buying property that was never subsequently developed.

It also found that “nearly three dozen cities, including Monterey Park and Pismo Beach, reported spending most of their affordable housing money over the decade on ‘planning and administration’ – but never built a single unit.”

Beall’s bill passed the Senate 29-9 and the Assembly 55-19.

The cost of the 119-mile segment was originally estimated at $6 billion. But the main consulting firm on the project, WSP (formerly Parsons Brinckerhoff), told the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s board at a recent meeting that it was now projected at $10.6 billion – a 77 percent increase.

The fact that the overrun was so high on the part of the statewide project with the least-challenging geography appeared to startle some rail authority board members and some Democratic state lawmakers.

On Tuesday, Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno – a longtime bullet train skeptic – was joined by Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, in a letter asking for a formal state audit of the $67 billion project. Beall is chairman of the Senate transportation committee.

The letter was sent to Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, the Torrance Democrat who chairs the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. It has the authority to direct state Auditor Elaine Howle to audit the bullet-train project without the blessing of the governor, who in 2016 vetoed a bill that would have increased oversight of the project and the rail authority. Previous calls for an audit have been blocked by Democratic lawmakers.

While the bullet train has been regularly scrutinized by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, its reports tend to note problems without offering harsh criticisms or sweeping judgments.

State audit could influence vote on June bullet-train ballot measure

By contrast, Howle takes no prisoners if she believes she has evidence of incompetent management, deceit or secrecy. In the past two years, her scathing criticism of the University of California over admissions policies that more than tripled out-of-state students at UC campuses and over UC President Janet Napolitano’s aides’ interference with her office’s attempts to gather information led to admission policy changes and to a state law barring such interference by state agencies.

If the state auditor was directed to review the bullet train project in coming weeks and completes her report faster than usual, it could affect a bullet train-related measure on the June primary ballot.

Last July, then-Assembly Republican leader Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley agreed to help Democrats round up enough GOP votes to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program until 2030 in return for the Legislature ordering the placement of a Mayes-drafted constitutional amendment before state voters in the primary.

If it won approval, the amendment would mandate that in 2024, the Legislature must have an up-or-down vote on whether to continue allowing the state government to use cap-and-trade revenue on the bullet train – with a two-thirds threshold for approval in both the Assembly and Senate.

Cap-and-trade auction funds are the only firm source of revenue the rail authority will have after spending the remaining $10 billion in funds left from a $3.3 billion grant from the Obama administration and the original $9.95 billion in state bond funds that voters approved for the project in 2008.

Cutting off the bullet train’s access to cap-and-trade dollars could kill the project without it ever having carried a passenger – leaving a massive white elephant in the Central Valley. Even before the overrun was reported, authority officials said in 2016 that they didn’t have enough money to build their planned segment linking San Jose with Bakersfield. Officials told a U.S. House subcommittee hearing that the project’s eastern terminus would be an almond orchard about 30 miles northwest of Bakersfield.

The first major votes on a raft of bills meant to address California’s housing crisis could come up for a vote Friday, with the Democrats who control the Legislature eager to demonstrate they know how much extreme housing costs are harming low- and middle-income families.

Gov. Jerry Brown has often been critical of plans to add new dollars to California’s traditional method of providing affordable housing – by building subsidized units that help a relatively small number of residents. He prefers to sharply streamline the housing approval process.

But after horse-trading this year with Democrats, Brown agreed to support two affordable housing initiatives, apparently in return for support for Senate Bill 35, a measure by state Sen. Scott Weiner, D-San Francisco. It would hasten approvals for new housing units in cities that aren’t creating the volume of units mandated under state law and make it significantly more difficult for local opponents to block construction.

Unlike Weiner’s measure, both the affordable housing initiatives require two-thirds support to win passage in the Legislature.

Real-estate fee struggles to win two-thirds support

One of the measures – SB3 by Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose – appears to have sufficient support. It would put $4 billion in general obligation bonds before state voters next year to fund construction of affordable rental units and to fund “smart growth” projects near transit centers and other housing projects. It would also provide $1 billion to the state’s veteran home loan program, which the San Francisco Chronicle reported would otherwise run out of money next summer.

The other affordable housing initiative – SB2 by Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego – appears to be in trouble. It would add fees of $75 on some real-estate transactions to provide ongoing permanent funding for affordable housing, estimated at $250 million a year. The Los Angeles Times reported that in a bid to boost support, Atkins had made changes this week to her bill to provide some of the funds it would generate to local governments. But it is unlikely to win any GOP votes in the Assembly, meaning all 54 Assembly Democrats would have to support it.

Many of the 54 have already voted this year to raise gasoline and diesel taxes and to approve a continuation of the state’s cap-and-trade emissions trading program, which also makes fuel more expensive. For those in swing districts, backing SB2 may seem risky.

“My concern is that it looks and smells like a tax,” Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, told the Times.

Prevailing wage mandate in Weiner bill questioned

Weiner’s proposal reflects the Republican view that regulatory relief is the only way to build enough housing to stabilize rents and home prices. With two-bedroom apartments renting for more than $2,000 a month in most big cities – and double that in parts of the Bay Area and Silicon Valley – there’s a growing fear among California business executives that housing costs will drive off talented workers and make it difficult to recruit new ones.

But in recent days, a new GOP talking point has emerged that takes dead aim at the idea that Weiner’s bill would accomplish much. It notes that by requiring projects that win quick approvals to use “prevailing wages” – union-level pay – those projects would be far costlier than those built with non-union crews.

Earlier this year – in a fight over another bill before the Legislature seeking to require “prevailing wages” on construction projects – the Building Industry Association estimated the mandate would add $90,000 to the cost of building a 2,000-square-foot home in California.

State housing officials say California has added about 800,000 housing units over the past decade – 1 million less than needed.

Sharing in a new emerging consensus in favor of substantial infrastructure spending, California Democrats have teed up the policy for early action in 2017, triggering renewed debate over the wisdom of funding the effort through significant new transportation-related fees and taxes.

Gov. Jerry Brown and other leading Democrats had signaled earlier in the month that infrastructure would be a priority in the new year. “It’s also expected to be one of [Donald] Trump’s first policy proposals,” Capital Public Radio noted — a rare area of overlap between Sacramento’s agenda and what soon will likely be Washington’s. While Trump has floated the outsized prospect of spending at the trillion-dollar level, some lobbyists pushing California Democrats for a robust package of their own are claiming “the state has tens of billions of dollars worth of backlogged projects, from congested bottlenecks to crumbling bridges,” according to the station. 

“Senate Bill 1 by state Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, calls for a phased-in 12-cent tax increase on gasoline, increased vehicle-registration fees as well as an annual $100 road maintenance fee for zero-emission cars,” Courthouse News reported. “The proposal would raise California’s gas tax for the first time since 1994, and reallocate $500 million in heavy-vehicle fees to road maintenance instead of paying down existing transportation bond debt.” 

“Democrats say raising the gas tax is the best way to make up tax revenues lost by Californians buying electric vehicles. The state’s fuel levy is currently 27 cents per gallon. With California facing an estimated $59 billion highway-maintenance shortfall over the next decade, Beall says the tax and vehicle registration fee hikes will fix the state’s roads and come with the added benefit of new jobs.”

From old to new

State Senate Democrats rolled out a total of five bills, some of which took advantage of the vogue for infrastructure spending to recast more traditional parts of their longstanding policy agenda. One bill, for instance, would offer “$1.2 billion to state programs that incentivize freight and trucking companies for reducing emissions,” Courthouse News added. 

Another bill with an environmental cast focused on water and recreation. The legislation “would fund state and local parks and water infrastructure through a $3 billion general obligation bond,” according to Reuters. “Despite recent rains, California is in the fifth year of drought. In 2014, state voters passed a $7.5 billion bond to fund water infrastructure projects throughout California.” Another bill would issue another $3 billion bond for increased housing. One affordable housing bill imposes a $75 real estate documentation fee. State Senate leader Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, cited “a high unmet demand for new water and natural resource investment,” the wire noted.

Bond battles

Advocates for private infrastructure financing have warned against tackling the state’s infrastructure challenges through recourse to big-ticket bond measures. “Governments and taxpayers could get far more value from private investors willing and able to finance total costs than they do from simple bonds with little accountability,” California Policy Center vice president of policy research Ed Ring observed in a recent Sacramento Bee op-ed. “The recent auction of the Indiana Toll Road to a consortium of pension funds (including CalPERS) for $5.7 billion demonstrates the value of high-quality infrastructure to institutional investors.”

“The American Society of Civil Engineers gives the state a dismal C- grade,” Ring noted. “The state’s water infrastructure has not been expanded since the 1970s and is designed for about half the current population. California’s transportation network is crumbling and congested, and its electrical grid is increasingly focused on renewable energy without a clear plan for storage and distribution.”

In the lead up to November’s elections, Gov. Brown pushed to defeat Prop. 53, an initiative designed to block bond measures that didn’t pass popular muster. “Proposition 53 would have required state revenue bonds, borrowing that’s generally paid back by users of a large public works project, of $2 billion or larger to be approved by voters statewide,” the Los Angeles Times recalled. “Revenue bonds could be an integral part of the future $17-billion effort to build twin underground water tunnels through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta region. They could also be required to complete the controversial high-speed rail project from San Francisco to Los Angeles.”

Jean Fuller kept on a Senate Republican leader

Good morning. Happy Hump Day. 

Senate Republicans in Sacramento unanimously re-elected Jean Fuller as leader on Tuesday. The Bakersfield Republican has led the caucus since August 2015. 

Last month, Chad Mayes, the Republican leader in the Assembly, was also re-elected. Both Fuller and Mayes will be tasked with steering their caucuses through a particularly difficult time for California Republicans. 

The November election relegated Republicans in the Legislature to mostly the role of bombthrowers and bystanders. By gaining a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the Legislature, Democrats can approve taxes and add constitutional amendments to the ballot without Republican support.

(Of course, that requires complete Democratic unity, which is often more elusive than it may seem at first glance.) 

CalWatchdog has more.

In other news: 

• “Close to 30 percent of the Bay Area’s residents aren’t able to make ends meet as they contend with high housing costs, suggesting poverty is more widespread in the region than official reports indicate, according to a study published Wednesday.” The San Jose Mercury News has more. 

• “After failing to pass new funding to tackle the state’s housing affordability crisis last session, two state senators are trying again. Sen. Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and Sen. Jim Beall (D-San Jose) have re-introduced legislation to add a $75 fee to real estate transactions, which is expected to generate hundreds of millions a year for low-income housing construction, and place a $3-billion bond to finance low-income housing before voters in 2018, respectively.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

• “California lawmakers will consider a proposal next year to block the state’s pension funds from investing in a controversial oil pipeline that is planned to cross North Dakota’s Standing Rock Sioux Reservation,” reports the Los Angeles Times. 

• “In brief remarks about the subject, Brown said Monday that it would be difficult for the U.S. to ‘go rogue’ on climate change. He went further Tuesday in a broadcast discussion with former Vice President Al Gore, predicting a ‘negative and very powerful’ backlash throughout the world should Trump continue to voice his denials and impede the environmental progress of the last eight years.” The Sacramento Bee has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone till December.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @gfolchi

Editor’s Note: This story was originally published on July 19.

Republicans in the state Legislature are thought to have a challenging election cycle this year. The outcome in November will determine whether the GOP has enough seats in the state Assembly and state Senate to maintain relevance in legislative matters.

Many factors are contributing to the angst, not the least of which is that Donald Trump as the GOP nominee is a wild card. No one knows yet how the reality T.V. star and real estate tycoon will affect down-ticket races — although Democrats are anticipating it will drag down GOP candidates. 

Regardless of the top of the ticket, this year looks to be tough for Republicans — who are largely hoping to just hold seats — as presidential election turnouts are generally more favorable to Democrats, when the electorate becomes more diverse. 

Republicans need to keep Democrats from achieving a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and Senate to have a meaningful impact on state lawmaking. Dipping below that line would mean losing their ability to weigh in on tax increases, gubernatorial veto overrides and legislatively-referred constitutional amendments — their last remaining points of legislative leverage.

To stay above a superminority, Republicans can afford to lose only one seat in the Assembly while Senate Republicans can’t afford to lose any.

Adding intrigue is the fact that it’s not just a war between the parties. The relatively new primary system where the top two candidates advance from the primary to the general election regardless of party has pitted some Democrats against each other, largely playing out proxy wars from outside interests. Of course in some races, a few candidates are termed-out of one chamber and aren’t ready to go home just yet.

Here are some of the top races to watch:

In the fight of their lives 

Catharine Baker, an East Bay Area Republican assemblywoman, led the primary 53.2 percent to 46.8 percent over Democrat Cheryl Cook-Kallio, a former Pleasanton City Council member. Baker is a the only Bay Area Republican in the legislature, so her seat is important both functionally and symbolically. 

Baker narrowly won the open seat in 2014 by about three points, and this time should be close too. Democrats in the district have a 10 percent registration advantage, with 24 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

In one of several rematches, Republican Assemblyman David Hadley faces Democrat Al Muratsuchi, whom Hadley booted from office in 2014 by only 706 votes — or about 0.5 percentage points — in this Los Angeles south bay district.

In the June primary, Hadley received only 44.6 percent of the vote, with Muratsuchi and another Democrat splitting the majority. Democrats in the district enjoy a nine percentage point registration advantage, with 22 percent of voters claiming no party preference. Winning this seat was a major coup for the GOP in 2014, and retaining it would be as well.

Key holds

In the Antelope Valley, Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackey faces a strong challenge from the man he unseated in 2014, Democrat Steve Fox (who used to be a Republican). In 2014, Lackey destroyed Fox by 20 percentage points. But in the June primary, Lackey advanced with only 48.2 percent of the vote; three Democrats split the rest. Democrats have a six percentage point registration advantage with 19 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

In the north Inland Empire, first-term Republican Assemblyman Marc Steinorth of Rancho Cucamonga finished second of two candidates in the primary behind Democrat Abigail Medina, a San Bernardino City Unified School District board member, trailing by three percentage points. Democrats have a one percentage point registration advantage with 22 percent of voters claiming no party preference.

And in the south Inland Empire, Republican Assemblyman Eric Linder — who is surprisingly supported by the SEIU, a formidable union — got only 45.6 percent of the vote in the primary with the rest split between two Democrats. In the general, Linder faces Democrat Sabrina Cervantes, the district director for Assemblyman Jose Medina. Democrats have a slight, two percentage point registration advantage with 21 percent of voters claiming no party preference.

Former Republican Senate Leader Bob Huff is termed out and Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang is hoping to fill Huff’s seat on the other side of the rotunda. Chang faces Democrat Josh Newman — a political neophyte who runs a non-profit aimed at helping veterans find employment — in this Orange County race.

Despite superior name recognition, Chang — the only Republican in the primary — drew 44 percent, while Newman and another Democrat nearly evenly split the majority. Republicans have a one percentage point registration advantage with 24 percent of voters declining to state a party preference.

Another rematch

Republican Assemblywoman Young Kim faces the woman she knocked off in 2014, Democrat Sharon Quirk-Silva, in this Orange County district.

Last cycle, Kim won by 10 percentage points. But in June, Quirk-Silva led the primary by 8.6 percentage points. And Democrats have a four percentage point registration advantage, with 23 percent of voters claiming no party preference.  

Competitive by chance

The race to replace the late Sen. Sharon Runner — the Republican incumbent from Lancaster — is wide open. Runner passed away in July, but had previously decided against running for re-election for health reasons (her second such decision). Runner won the seat in 2015 in a special election after Steve Knight won a Congressional seat. 

Republican Assemblyman Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita came in first in the primary with 46.7 percent of the vote over Johnathon Levar Ervin, an engineer and Air Force reservist, who drew 33.7 percent of the vote. Among four candidates, the results were almost evenly split with a slight edge to the Republicans, but voter registration in the district is closely split as well. Democrats have a two percentage point registration advantage with 21 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

Republicans best shot to pickup

What would have otherwise been considered a noncompetitive Senate election to replace termed-out Democrat Carol Liu became competitive when longtime Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich threw his hat in the ring.

Antonovich brings strong name recognition and a vast fundraising network from his more than 40 years in elected office, but he has a tough path forward having only won 39.5 percent of the vote in the primary. The rest of the vote was split among Democratic candidates, with former Assemblyman Anthony Portantino coming in second. Democrats have a 14 percentage point registration advantage with 24 percent of voters declining to state party preference. 

Dems v. Dems and the proxy wars

While this Silicon Valley election featuring two Democrats won’t affect whether or not there’s a supermajority, it may help fortify a group of business-friendly moderates. Incumbent Senator Jim Beall, of the liberal environmentalist ilk, is facing the more business-friendly Nora Campos, who is termed out of the Assembly.

This race is actually one of a few proxy wars between Big Environment vs. Big Oil, which have both spent considerable money in the race. Beall was a hair away from a majority of the vote in the primary.

So far Campos has stuck to the narrative that both Beall and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Beall supporter, have bullied her. Campos said de Leon tried to dissuade her from running (party leaders generally dislike having to spend money and energy protecting incumbents from members of their own party). And Campos said Beall attacked her husband through a third party — as they say, it’s complicated.

A moderate Democrat is under fire in the Inland Empire, as incumbent Cheryl Brown faces attorney Eloise Reyes in this competitive Assembly district. Environmentalists and unions dislike Brown and have already spent big money opposing her through the primary, while Big Oil and charter schools have spent more than a half million dollars in support of Brown.

But surprisingly, word leaked that Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon — a powerful environmentalist — would be endorsing Brown. It’s unclear if this will have any effect on the race. 

In the primary, Brown received 44.1 percent of the vote to Reyes’ 35.6 percent. The Republican challenger received 20 percent of the vote, and how that’s divvied up could decide the race.

Legislators asking for hike in gas tax to fund transpo plan

Good morning. Happy Monday. And welcome to the final stretch in Sacramento, where the legislative session ends on the 31st. 

One of the biggest items left unresolved is a transportation plan. The top transportation legislators in each chamber — Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley, and Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose — are pitching a 17-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase to fund a $7.4 billion transportation program. They also want to increase the tax on diesel fuels by 30 cents a gallon and to make it easier to get approvals for transportation infrastructure improvements. Their proposal exceeds what Gov. Jerry Brown pitched last year.

Brown’s proposal — which went nowhere in a special session — was built on a 6 cent per gallon tax increase and other provisions that would have funded a $3.6 billion transportation plan.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news: 

• Speaking of a transportation plan, it’s one of several big items that will likely go unresolved this session, causing finger pointing and frustration. The San Jose Mercury News has more. 
• “For years, state lawmakers have been trying to crack down on private meetings between utility companies and members of the California Public Utilities Commission after revelations that top officials and industry executives had frequent dinner dates, shared talking points and even sketched out details of the multibillion-dollar closure of a Southern California nuclear power plant during a secret rendezvous in a luxury hotel in Poland.” But some worry that a package of bills under consideration by the Legislature to overhaul the commission won’t go far enough. The Los Angeles Times has more. 
• One senator upset someone on the other side of the Capitol, so they removed her name from her bill in retaliation. The Sacramento Bee has more. 
• And in a few days, the Legislature will say goodbye to one of its most accomplished members. The Los Angeles Times has more. 

Assembly:

• In at 1 p.m.

Senate:

• In at 1 p.m.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @SophiaBollag

Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley, and Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, propose a 17 cent per gallon tax increase to fund a $7.4 billion transportation program, with likely additional annual hikes after adoption because the rate is indexed to inflation. They also want to increase the tax on diesel fuels by 30 cents a gallon, with the same indexing provision, and to make it easier to get approvals for transportation infrastructure improvements.

Brown’s proposal — which went nowhere in a special session — was built on a 6 cent per gallon tax increase and other provisions that would have funded a $3.6 billion transportation plan.

Bitterness over 2010 gas tax swap hangs over debate

The huge problem facing any proposal to raise taxes of this sort is the need for two-thirds approval, which means Republican votes in both the Assembly and Senate are necessary. And Democrats lobbying for GOP support don’t just have to overcome traditional Republican opposition to higher taxes. There continues to be deep bitterness over the gas tax swap that GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic lawmakers pulled off in 2010 to plug a $1.8 billion hole in the 2010-11 budget. Republicans aware of this history would struggle to believe that the tax hikes that Frazier and Beall seek for road repairs might not at some future date be used to pay for state salaries, pensions or other needs unrelated to potholes and aging bridges.

The background: Irate over previous diversions of gasoline sales taxes from road repairs to other uses, California voters twice this century passed ballot measures — Proposition 42 in 2002 and Proposition 1A in 2006 — that banned such use of gas sales tax revenue.

But gasoline excise taxes can be spent on general fund obligations. So in 2010, gas excise taxes were sharply raised and gas sales taxes sharply reduced. Because the move was revenue-neutral, Schwarzenegger and Democrats successfully argued that the maneuver only needed to pass on a simple majority vote — not the two-thirds vote needed for tax hikes.

As a result, each year, the state Board of Equalization announces whether it is raising or cutting state excise taxes on gasoline to honor the deal’s requirement that the 2010 gas tax swap be roughly revenue-neutral.

Recent coverage of the Frazier-Beall initiative has not detailed whether the 17 cent per gallon tax hike would be entirely in the gas sales tax or entirely in the gas excise tax or a combination of increases in each.  If it were in the gas sales tax, that would nominally mean the money could only be spent on road repairs and infrastructure improvement because of Propositions 42 and 1A. But another gas tax swap could enable the money to be diverted to the general fund by a simple majority of the Legislature in the future, at least if the governor was amenable.

Republican lawmakers are also likely to be wary of another part of the Democratic lawmakers’ proposal: a $165 yearly fee for owners of zero-emission vehicles to help pay for road improvements. While that’s higher than what most states with such fees charge, it’s only half of what the average U.S. car owner pays in gas taxes a year, according to data from 2013. 

The argument that zero-emission vehicles should pay more toward road maintenance is dismissed by greens who cite the environmental benefits of the vehicles. But as such vehicles become more common — and as states push gas taxes higher — owners of regular vehicles and free-market advocates are likely to cry foul.

August is sure to be a busy month in Sacramento, as legislators fight to get their priorities passed before the legislative session ends on August 31. 

While a large number of bills will be debated, there are four things to watch for: 

Environment 

With the political backing of new polling, Senate Bill 32 — which would extend and increase the state’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals — is sure to reappear. 

Not only is it a legacy project for the termed-out Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills — who authored the 2006 measure that this bill would extend — but it is backed by both Democratic leaders, Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon. 

“A clear majority of Californians strongly support our state’s climate policies and expect their elected leaders to build on our progress battling climate change and air pollution while making investments in clean energy across our state,” de Leon said in a statement on Wednesday. “This is why the Legislature should extend our climate targets in statute by passing Senate Bill 32.”

Republicans are opposed to the measure, which leaves the power to a handful of moderate, pro-business Democrats. The bill passed the Senate in 2015, but was defeated on the Assembly floor and then granted reconsideration.

An interesting data point: 15 Assembly members didn’t vote — which is a way of voting “no” without any accountability. 

Transportation

The Legislature has been in a special session on transportation since last summer to come up with a funding plan to fix the state’s crumbling roads — but with little headway. Gov. Jerry Brown estimates there are almost $6 billion worth of unfunded repairs throughout the state each year.

The dispute is largely between Democrats who have proposed additional revenues (taxes) and Republicans who believe new taxes aren’t necessary as the money already exists but has been redirected to stop budget shortfalls in other areas.

Rumor has it that Democrats will propose what could be a massive package including new revenue, like a gas tax hike, sometime next month — although, since there’s a special session, it could be introduced after the regular session ends.

Republicans are unlikely to budge, but it may not matter what they want. Republicans are in danger of ceding a supermajority to the Democrats in November. If that happens, Democrats would be able to approve new revenues without Republican support.

Of course, the required two-thirds majority wouldn’t leave much room for defections from moderate Democrats.

Overtime for farmworkers 

While farmworkers do get overtime, it has a much higher threshold than other professions. A revived bill would, over time, bring the threshold in line with other professions. You may remember that this bill was defeated in June, but it has been repackaged into another bill.

Proponents argue that farmworkers shouldn’t be exempt from the same overtime and break rules as everyone else. Opponents say farmers can’t afford it, and that an industry dependent on weather and external price setting can’t be regulated the same as other professions.

It’s unclear what would be different when the next vote comes that would make business-friendly Democrats, who sided with Republicans to defeat the measure, change their votes. Election year pressure may sway some vulnerable incumbents.

Of course, the measure was only three votes shy of passage, so proponents may target the seven Assembly members who simply didn’t vote, six of whom are Democrats.

Housing

It’s widely reported that the state faces an affordable housing crisis, particularly in urban centers.

Gov. Jerry Brown has been trying to increase affordable housing supply with a plan to reduce regulatory barriers for developers trying to build low-income housing. His ideas have not been embraced by the Legislature and he faces opposition largely from unions and environmentalists. 

Meanwhile, Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, still has hopes of putting a $3 billion, low-income housing bond on the November ballot. 

Women make up more than half of California’s population, but only about one-fourth of the Legislature. 

And in November, that’s unlikely to change too much, according to a CalWatchdog analysis.

While an October surprise, outside factor or just particularly good or bad campaigning could change the course of race that appears to be a sure thing, primary results, incumbency advantages, voting trends and partisan makeup of a district can be useful in making educated guesses.

Currently, out of 120 legislative seats, there are 30 held by women — an additional seat is vacant now, having been held by the late Republican Senator Sharon Runner, who died unexpectedly earlier this month.   

There could be as many as 49 women in the Legislature next year, but it is likely that they’ll hover around the same amount as this year.  

In the Senate, women could have as few as five seats and as many as 13 — realistically, the number will likely be around eight to 10 seats. In the Assembly, women will occupy at least six seats and as many as 36, but that number will likely be somewhere between 15 and 24 seats. 

What we know for sure

Republican Senators Jean Fuller, Janet Nguyen, Pat Bates and Democratic Senators Connie Leyva and Holly Mitchell are not up for re-election and will definitely be returning next year, as the Senate is on staggered four-year terms.

In the Assembly, every seat is up for re-election every two years, although five seats will definitely stay occupied by women — either because the incumbent is running unopposed (or facing a write-in challenge) or because the incumbents are facing another woman in the general election. Those five seats are held by: Democrats Cheryl Brown, Cristina Garcia and Autumn Burke and Republicans Catharine Baker and Young Kim. 

Because of either term limits or the seat being vacated by an incumbent running for another position, eight seats held by women will be replaced by men as no women advanced from the primary in these races. Those are the seats currently held by Republican Assemblywomen Beth Gaines, Kristin Olsen, Shannon Grove and Ling Ling Chang and one Democrat, Toni Atkins, as well as two Democratic senators, Carol Liu and Fran Pavley.

Runner’s Senate seat will also be filled by a man.

There is only one definite pickup: An Assembly seat held by termed-out Democrat Luis Alejo.  

Seats where we likely know the outcome

Again, nothing is guaranteed until the final votes are tallied, but these nine seats are safe bets.

While the Assembly seat of Speaker Emeritus Toni Atkins will be filled with a man as mentioned above, the San Diego Democrat is expected to offset that loss by filling a seat being vacated by a man in the Senate. 

Because of the advantages of incumbency, district voting trends and favorable lopsided primary results, these eight female legislators will likely keep their seats: In the Senate, it’s Democrats Hannah-Beth Jackson (the current chair of the Women’s Caucus) and Cathleen Galgiani, and in the Assembly, it’s Democrats Jacqui Irwin, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Shirley Weber and Lorena Gonzalez with Republicans Melissa Melendez and Marie Waldron.

One female incumbent in trouble 

The only incumbent woman who is on very shaky ground is Democrat Patty Lopez. Lopez finished second in the primary, down 17.2 percentage points to the man she surprisingly knocked out of office in 2014, fellow Democrat Raul Bocanegra.

Best pickup chances

In the race to replace Sen. Mark Leno, who is termed out, Jane Kim led the primary against fellow Democrat Scott Wiener 45.3 percent to 45.1 percent. It’s obviously a close race, but it is a good chance for a woman to pick up a seat.

In a less competitive race, Democrat Cecilia Aguiar-Curry finished first in the primary against Republican Charlie Schaupp in a heavily Democratic district to replace Assemblyman Bill Dodd, D-Napa, who is running for Senate.

Democrat S. Monique Limón finished the primary with a formidable lead against Edward Fuller, who claims no party preference, 65.9 percent t0 34.1 percent. If elected, Limón would replace Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams. 

In the race to replace termed-out, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez — who is currently under a three-year restraining order for alleged domestic violence — Blanca Rubio appears likely to win. Rubio, a Democrat, will face Republican Cory Ellenson in a heavily-Democratic district.

Two wildcards 

Two seats where women have decent chances to pickup seats, although the odds are slightly tipped against them, are the Senate races to replace termed-out Republican Bob Huff and incumbent Democrat Jim Beall.

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang saw an opening in the Huff race and decided to vacate her Assembly seat after only one term. However, she finished the primary with only 44 percent, with two Democrats splitting the 56 percent majority. 

Beall is being challenged by Assemblywoman Nora Campos, a fellow Democrat. Beall narrowly missed a majority in the primary, topping Campos by 22.5 percentage points. Campos is considered the business-friendly candidate, so she’ll have to use that to draw upon Republican support to top Beall.

Toss ups

There are approximately 11 races that look as though they could go either way, with four being vacated by termed-out women. Another four are against male incumbents: Republicans Marc Steinorth, Eric Linder and Travis Allen and Democrat Miguel Santiago.  

Looking for October surprises

And there are 11 other races where women are challenging male incumbents, although these races do not appear as though they’ll be too competitive.