BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1585 Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 22, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 1585 (John A. Pérez) - As Amended: March 21, 2012 Policy Committee: Housing and Community Development Vote: 5-0 Local Government 7-1 Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill changes the process for managing and using the assets of redevelopment agencies (RDAs), which were eliminated February 1, 2012. Specifically, this bill: 1)Retains the funds in a low and moderate income housing fund for use by the successor housing agency or, if there is no entity, requires the funds to be transferred to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The funds can only be spent on specified affordable housing functions. Successor agencies are entities that volunteer to take over some or all of the housing responsibilities of the dissolved RDAs. 2)Requires the successor housing entity to contract to expend 80% of the funds within two years and spend these funds within four years but gives the entity the option to petition HCD for more time to spend the funds. Otherwise, after four years, the funds and responsibilities are transferred to HCD for use on low-income housing programs within the same county, as specified. 3)Grants oversight boards, created to oversee the process of winding down the business of the RDAs, more flexibility to allow local governments to retain RDA assets that serve a governmental purpose, such as police stations and parks, and to approve the repayment, subject to an interest rate cap, of legitimate loans that cities or counties made to their RDAs. 4)Require inventories of RDA properties and adoption of a policy AB 1585 Page 2 and orderly process for disposal to preserve the value of the properties. 5)Clarify that bonds can be issued if necessary to finance required payments of enforceable obligations, which are the legitimate debts and commitments made by RDAs. 6)States specifically those employee obligations are enforceable obligations whether employees performing RDA functions were employed by the former RDA or by the city or county that created the RDA and that those obligations also apply with respect to employees transferred to the entity assuming the housing responsibilities of the former RDA. 7)Enacts a narrow conflict-of-interest exemption to enable the designated labor representative to participate on oversight boards. 8)Grants oversight boards flexibility to approve temporary increases in successor agency administrative cost caps if necessary, and clarify that the cap does not apply to work on individual projects. FISCAL EFFECT 1)In the absence of this bill, approximately $1.4 billion would be allocated to other units of local government according to existing law on the distribution of local property tax. To the extent this bill prevents these revenues from flowing to school districts, there would be a corresponding cost to the General Fund as the property tax would otherwise offset General Fund obligations to schools, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee. The actual impact to the General Fund is unknown because it will depend on the number of school districts that are basic aid and the amount of unreserved housing funds that would otherwise be allocated to K-14 schools, absent this bill. The $1.4 billion is based on information that RDAs reported to the Controller for the fiscal year 2009-2010 and that number counts assets which would have to be sold and are valued at the actual cost of acquisition, not market value. However, using the reported $1.4 billion and assuming approximately 50% of local property tax revenues are allocated to schools, this bill would result in a one-time loss to the General fund of as much as $700 million. AB 1585 Page 3 2)The Governor's 2012-2013 budget does not assume that these funds would flow to schools, so enactment of this legislation would not result in a widening of the estimated budget deficit. However, enactment would prevent the state from gaining additional budget savings from property tax payments to schools. 3)This bill changes the definitions of allowable costs for administrative purposes and of enforceable obligations, which are commitments that RDAs legitimately made prior to their elimination. Because of these amendments, there are likely to be greater local costs associated with the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies, costs that can be reimbursed or paid for out of assets or funds that would otherwise be redistributed to other local agencies, including schools. These costs are unknown and of significantly smaller magnitude than the retained L&M housing funds, but could reach millions of dollars. COMMENTS 1)Rationale. According to the author, AB 1585 retains existing RDA housing funds for affordable housing and includes provisions that make the process of redevelopment agency (RDA) dissolution and the winding up of their affairs more orderly, flexible and responsible, The author notes that the governor's original proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies would have allowed local jurisdictions to keep the L&M funds was not included in the two-bill redevelopment budget legislation, which contemplated that redevelopment agencies would continue, retain their housing funds and continue to set-aside additional L&M housing funds annually after 2011-12. The author states that this bill discourages communities from simply sitting on affordable housing funds as the bill requires that money not obligated after four years will be transferred to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to increase affordable housing within that community's county-with priority to housing for lower-income groups. However, to provide some flexibility HCD may grant 2-year extensions. AB 1585 Page 4 The author also points out the Legislature's expectations in enacting ABX1 26 last year was that few, if any, redevelopment agencies would be dissolved, instead, they would continue under the voluntary program created by ABX1 27. However, litigation led to a California Supreme Court decision, in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, upholding ABX1 26 but invalidating ABX1 27. The court ordered all redevelopment agencies to dissolve as of February 1, 2012. The author concludes, therefore that implementation of ABX1 26 is an urgent issue that affects hundreds of local governments. 2)Background. ABX1 26 would have dissolved RDAs as of October 1, 2011. Although the date was eventually delayed as a result of the Supreme Court decision, the other provisions of the legislation went into in effect. ABX1 26 established procedures for winding down the business of redevelopment. Successor agencies were established to wind down RDA affairs. Successor agencies are required to make payments on legally enforceable obligations using property tax revenues when no other funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation. Another important element of ABX1 26 is the requirement that unencumbered RDA funds be conveyed to the county auditor-controller for distribution to the taxing entities in the county, including cities, counties, school districts, and special districts. The legislation required RDAs to identify the enforceable obligations, make all scheduled payments to meet them, perform obligations established necessary for or established by the enforceable obligations, set aside required reserves, preserve assets, cooperate with successor agencies and take all measures to avoid triggering a default under an enforceable obligation 3)L&M . RDAs were required to set aside 20% of the tax increment collected in a project area to fund the creation, preservation or rehabilitation of affordable housing. RDAs were required to spend these funds to meet the housing needs as outlined in their housing element. RDAs approached their responsibilities with varying degrees of vigor. RDAs reported reserves in excess of $1.4 billion in their L&M funds, as reported in the Controller's Community Redevelopment Agencies Annual Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010. 4)Support. Supporters, including the CA Housing Consortium, argue that AB 1585 would ensure that the L&M Funds that have AB 1585 Page 5 been deposited by former RDAs continue to be used for their originally intended purpose, affordable housing. They also argue that to strengthen that purpose, the bill requires that 80% of the funds must be spent within two years, which would allow the 10,000-19,000 affordable apartments and single-family homes at various stages of development to be completed, thereby creating a significant number of jobs in those communities. The League of California Cities states that this bill will provide improved clarity and direction for the bonding community and local agencies grappling with the massive undertaking of unwinding decades of redevelopment activity. 5)Opposition. The County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors argues "this measure undermines the structure of redevelopment reforms contained in the enacted Fiscal Year Budget. And while it seeks to clarify existing law, it would likely result in greater confusion and delay in the implementation of the orderly wind-down of redevelopment agencies throughout California. While we support certain technical provisions of the bill intended to ensure that existing Affordable Housing Funds are transferred to appropriate housing agencies, we can only do so in a bill that does not fundamentally alter the intended winding-down of redevelopment agencies." 6)Related Legislation. SB 654 (Steinberg) would revise the definition of enforceable obligation to include amounts on deposit in the Low-and Moderate-Income Housing Fund of former redevelopment agencies. This bill is currently in the Assembly Rules Committee. 7)Previous legislation. a) ABX1 26 (Blumenfield), Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011, provides for the dissolution of RDAs. b) ABX1 27 (Blumenfield), Chapter 6, Statutes of 2011, established a voluntary alternative redevelopment program under which RDAs could continue to operate if their city or county opted to make voluntary annual payments benefiting schools. c) SB 8X (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), a 2011-12 budget trailer bill, would have shifted the L&M housing funds to the successor housing entity. The bill was vetoed by Governor Brown, noting that the Supreme Court had not yet ruled on California Redevelopment Association v. AB 1585 Page 6 Matosantos. d) SB 77 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) contained the Governor's original proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies. SB 77 is on the Assembly inactive file. Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081