BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1585 Page 1 ( Without Reference to File ) ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1585 (John A. Pérez, et al.) As Amended March 21, 2012 2/3 vote. Urgency HOUSING 5-0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 7-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Torres, Atkins , |Ayes:|Smyth, Alejo, Bradford, | | |Bradford, Cedillo, Hueso | |Campos, Davis, Gordon, | | | | |Hueso | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | |Nays:|Norby | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPROPRIATIONS 11-3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | | | |Bradford, Charles | | | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | | | |Gatto, Hill, Lara, | | | | |Mitchell, Solorio | | | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Donnelly, Nielsen, Norby | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Makes changes to the process of dissolving redevelopment agencies (RDAs), including requiring the funds on deposit in the Low-and Moderate-Income Housing Fund (L&M Fund) of the former RDA to remain with the entity that assumes the housing functions rather than being distributed as property tax revenue. Specifically, this bill : 1)Clarifies that the "administrative cost allowance" is 5% of the property tax, including property tax that was allocated to the former RDA and the successor agency for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. AB 1585 Page 2 2)Specifies that employee costs associated with work on specific project implementation activities, including, but not limited to, construction inspection, project management, or actual construction, are not subject to the administrative cost allowance cap. 3)Specifies that costs incurred to fulfill collective bargaining agreements for layoffs or terminations of city employees who performed work for the former RDA are enforceable obligations payable from property tax funds. 4)Provides that obligations to employees that are transferred from the former RDA or successor agency to the entity assuming the housing functions are enforceable obligations payable from property tax funds. 5)Requires the successor agency or designated local authority to enter into an agreement with the entity assuming the housing functions and to reimburse it for any costs of the employee obligations if an employee is transferred to the housing successor entity. 6)Adds the following categories of enforceable obligations and requires their approval by the oversight board: a) Loans made by the former city, county, or city and county that created the RDA to the RDA if the loan was made within two years of the date of the creation of a project area, if the loan was for the project area; and, b) Loans made from the city or county to the former RDA to make a payment to the state's Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF). 1)Clarifies that repayment of SERAF loans made from the L&M Fund to the former RDA must be deposited into the L&M Fund maintained by the entity that assumes the housing functions. 2)Requires the oversight board to do the following in order to deem other loan agreements from the city, county, or city and county to the former RDA an enforceable obligation: a) Make a finding that the loan was for legitimate redevelopment purposes; and, AB 1585 Page 3 b) Condition its approval on the loan being repaid to the city, county, or city and county based on a defined schedule over a reasonable term, at an interest rate not to exceed the interest rate earned by funds deposited into the Local Agency Investment Fund. 1)Provides that when listing the payment dates for enforceable obligations on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS), the successor agency may list payments on an annual basis. 2)Specifies that the successor agency is a public entity that is separate from the entity or entities that authorized the creation of the redevelopment agency, that acts by resolution, can sue and be sued, and can have additional powers that may be conferred upon it. 3)Clarifies that successor agencies are subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. 4)Allows a city, county, or city and county, or joint powers authority that authorized the creation of the former RDA and elected not to be the successor agency to subsequently reverse that decision and serve as the successor agency. 5)Provides the reversal of decision does not take effect until 60 days after the notice is given to the current successor agency and oversight board. 6)Provides that the city, county, or city and county or joint powers authority that reverses its decision and elects to become the successor agency cannot invalidate any actions of the current successor agency or oversight board prior to the transfer of responsibility. 7)Requires any amounts on deposit in the L&M Fund of a former RDA to be transferred to the city, county, or city and county that elected to retain the responsibility for performing the housing functions of the former agency. 8)Requires any amounts on deposit in the L&M Fund that are transferred to the L&M Fund of the succeeding housing entity must be maintained in a separate account and used for the AB 1585 Page 4 purposes defined in the Community Redevelopment Law relating to authorized uses of the L&M Fund. 9)Requires the entity that assumes the housing functions of the former RDA to enforce affordability covenants and other related activities as defined in Community Redevelopment Law. 10)Requires, where there is no local housing authority that elected to accept authority for performing the housing functions, that any amounts on deposit in the L&M Fund be deposited in the State Low-and Moderate Income Housing Trust Fund (State Trust Fund), created by this measure, administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), to be awarded on a competitive basis to projects within the counties in which it was collected. 11)Requires, when awarding funds out of the State Trust Fund, that priority must be given to eligible projects that serve extremely low-, very low-, and low-income families and individuals. 12)Defines "succeeding housing entity" as the entity that assumes responsibility for retaining the housing assets and functions previously performed by the RDA. 13)Requires the succeeding housing entity to contract to expend at least 80% of the monies in the L&M Fund within two years of the date of receipt of those monies. 14)Specifies that if within four years of the date of receipt of the L&M Fund monies the succeeding housing entity has not spent the monies, then the excess amount, minus the amount necessarily reserved for the ongoing monitoring and maintenance of affordable housing projects shall be transferred to the State Trust Fund for expenditure by HCD. 15)Prohibits excess funds from being transferred to HCD if the succeeding housing entity applies for, and receives, a time extension waiver from HCD. 16)Specifies if the waiver is granted the funds shall remain with the succeeding housing entity for an additional two years. AB 1585 Page 5 17)Requires HCD in approving a waiver to consider, among other factors, all of the following: a) Whether the succeeding housing entity has a site specific project plan with local approvals, including the issuance of building permits; b) Whether the project has secured financing; and, c) Evidence that some funds have been expended from the L&M Fund. 18)Authorizes a succeeding housing entity to reapply at the end of the two-year period for a renewal of the previously granted waiver. 19)Authorizes a succeeding housing entity to transfer all or a portion of the monies in the L&M Fund to another succeeding housing entity within the same county, to be spent on affordable housing if all of the following conditions are met: a) The funds will be spent on projects that primarily benefit low-income families or families that are below low income; b) Both succeeding housing entities involved in the transfer adopt a resolution detailing the need for the transfer of funds and the intended use of the funds by the receiving jurisdiction; and, c) The funds will be spent in compliance with the requirements outlined in 18) through 21) above. 1)Requires the succeeding housing entity, within 45 days of the date this measure is enacted, or 45 days from the receipt of moneys from the L&M Fund, whichever is later, to notify HCD of the amount of money on deposit in the L&M Fund and the entity's plan for spending it. 2)Requires, within two years from the date of notification to HCD, the succeeding housing entity to report to HCD the percentage of funds that it has entered into contract to spend. AB 1585 Page 6 3)Requires at the end of four years the succeeding housing entity to report to HCD if there are any remaining moneys in the L&M Fund and to notify HCD if it will be applying for a waiver or transferring the excess funds to HCD. 4)Requires that assets and properties of the former RDA, under the direction of the oversight board, be disposed of in an expeditious but orderly manner that preserves the value of the assets. 5)Provides that the first ROPS for the period of January 1, 2012, through June 20, 2012, may, if necessary, include the following: a) The total amount of payments required for enforceable obligations over the next two six-month periods; and, b) In the case of debt obligations, the amount of the annual debt service reserve set-asides and any other amounts required under indenture or similar documents. 1)Clarifies that the member of the oversight board representing special districts should represent the special district having the largest property tax share within the redevelopment project areas of the former RDA. 2)Provides that when appointing a member of the oversight board from the employees of the former RDA, if the majority of the employees were city or county employees, then the appointment should be made from the organization that represents those employees. 3)Provides that if there is no employee organization that represents the employees of the former RDA, city, or county, then the appointment should be made from among the employees of the successor agency. 4)Provides that an employee that is appointed to the oversight board is deemed not to have a conflict of interest, solely due to his or her employment, in voting to approve a contract as an enforceable obligation. 5)Requires all actions taken by an oversight board to be adopted by resolution. AB 1585 Page 7 6)Allows the successor agency, subject to approval of the oversight board, to enter into a financing agreement, including issuing bonds, to fund required payments under an enforceable obligation that exceed the property tax revenue available to the successor agency when the payment is due. 7)Provides that a successor agency is not permitted to create additional enforceable obligations except when necessary to pay the financing costs of existing enforceable obligations. 8)Allows the successor agency, subject to oversight board approval, to temporarily increase the administrative cost allowance to carry out the requirements of an enforceable obligation, to cover litigation costs, or to maintain and preserve the value of assets while in the possession of the successor agency. 9)Requires the oversight board to direct the successor agency to do the following: a) Compile a complete inventory of existing real property assets of the former RDA by project area; and, b) Include in the inventory the general categories of real property assets, the purpose for which the assets were originally acquired, the original purchase price of each asset, and the estimated current market value. 1)Requires the oversight board, prior to disposing of any assets, to receive and review the inventory of assets prepared by the successor agency and adopt a policy or strategy for disposal or transfer of such assets that ensures it is done in an expeditious but orderly manner that preserves the value of the asset. 2)Provides that in disposing of assets and properties, the oversight board may direct the successor agency to transfer ownership of assets that were constructed or used for a purpose integral to the operation of a governmental purpose, like parking facilities, to the appropriate public jurisdiction. 3)Requires the auditor-controller to deposit the unitary and AB 1585 Page 8 supplemental tax increment due to the former RDA into the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (Property Tax Trust Fund). 4)Requires the auditor-controller, in making the first annual distribution from the Property Tax Trust Fund, to reserve any funds necessary to cover payments made in the second half of the calendar year, as described in the ROPS, that are in excess of the amount that is anticipated to be deposited in the Property Tax Trust Fund from the May or June allocation. 5)Provides that in distributing property tax revenues associated with the payment of a retired recognized obligation, the auditor-controller should only distribute property tax to the extent that it is not currently required for the payments of other recognized obligations. 6)Requires the successor agency to cause to be completed an audit of its financial transactions and records, annually, by a certified accountant. 7)Clarifies that enforceable obligations of the successor agency do not become obligations of the succeeding housing entity. 8)Deletes the requirement that the California Law Revision Commission draft a Community Redevelopment Law clean-up bill by January 1, 2013. 9)Includes an urgency clause. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 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 AB 1585 Page 9 to K-14 schools, absent this bill. The $1.4 billion is based on information that RDAs reported to the State 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. 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 : In 2011, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed two measures, AB 26 X1 (Blumenfield), Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011-12 First Extraordinary Session and AB 27 X1 (Blumenfield), Chapter 6, Statutes of 2011-12 First Extraordinary Session, that would together dissolve redevelopment agencies as they existed at the time and create a voluntary redevelopment program on a smaller scale. In response, the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) and the League of California Cities, along with other parties filed suit challenging the two measures. The Supreme Court denied the petition for peremptory writ of mandate with respect to AB 26 X1. However, the Court did grant CRA's petition with respect to AB 27 X1. As a result, all redevelopment agencies were required to dissolve as of February 1, 2012. AB 1585 Page 10 When the Legislature voted on AB 26 X1 and AB 27 X1, it envisioned that a majority of redevelopment agencies would likely choose to opt-in to the voluntary program leaving the state to oversee the dissolution of only a handful of agencies. Because of the subsequent lawsuits and the Court's ruling, over 400 RDAs are now required to dissolve. The dissolution process has raised some questions and concerns regarding the implementation of AB 26 X1. AB 1585 (John A. Pérez, et al.) is a response to those concerns and attempts to facilitate a smooth wind-down of redevelopment agencies. This bill makes a variety of technical changes that are intended to ease the process of dissolution and provide greater direction to the successor agencies, oversight boards, and successor housing entities that are integral to the dissolution process. It also requires that the L&M funds that have been deposited by former RDAs continue to be used for affordable housing in the county in which they were collected. Low-and Moderate-Income Housing Funds: 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. In spending these funds, RDAs were required to meet the housing needs as outlined in their housing element. The extent to which RDAs spent the L&M funds varied across redevelopment agencies. Based on 2009-10 reports made to the State Controller's Office, RDAs reported having in excess of $1.4 billion in their L&M Funds. The Controller's Community Redevelopment Agencies Annual Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, shows a statewide aggregate "unreserved designated" balance of $967 million and an "unreserved undesignated" balance of $391 million in agencies L&M Funds. The State Controller's Office is in the process of auditing the redevelopment agencies for the 2010-11 fiscal year and is required to submit the audit to the Legislature at the end of April. AB 1585 makes several significant changes to the provisions in AB 26 X1 regarding L&M funds: 1)Keeps the money on deposit in an L&M Fund with the succeeding housing entity to be spent on activities allowed under the housing provisions in the Community Redevelopment Law or, if there is no succeeding housing entity, requires the funds to be transferred to HCD. AB 1585 Page 11 2)Requires the succeeding housing entity to expend or encumber 80% of the funds within four years but gives it the option to petition HCD for more time to spend the funds. 3)Designates the types of affordable housing projects that HCD can fund from monies that are transferred to the department from jurisdictions that decide not to keep the housing functions of the former RDA. 4)Authorizes the transfer of the L&M Funds between jurisdictions within the county if certain conditions are met. AB 26 X1 specifies that, except for loan agreements made within the first two years of the life of the agency, or loans that relate to issued securities, it does not recognize other inter agency loans to be enforceable obligations. Instead, it effectively treats them as contributions of funds. AB 1585 adds the following to what can be considered an enforceable obligation: 1) loan agreements between the former RDA and the city, county, or city and county that created it, made within two years of the date of the creation of a project area, if the loan was for the project area; 2) loans made from the city or county to the former RDA to make a payment to SERAF; and, 3) other loans subject to oversight board finding. AB 26 X1 provides that the liability of the successor agency only extends as far as the money available from tax increment and former assets of the agency will fund. AB 1585 further clarifies that the successor agency is a public entity that is separate from the entity or entities that authorized the creation of the redevelopment agency, that acts by resolution, can sue and be sued, and can have additional powers that may be conferred upon it. 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 RDAs. This bill is currently in the Assembly Rules Committee. Analysis Prepared by : Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 AB 1585 Page 12 FN: 0003173