BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: AB 243 HEARING: 6/12/13
AUTHOR: Dickinson FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 6/5/13 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Lui
INFRASTRUCTURE AND REVITALIZATION FINANCING DISTRICTS
Allows a local government to use infrastructure and
revitalization financing districts to finance specified
projects.
Background and Existing Law
Cities and counties can create infrastructure financing
districts (IFDs) and issue bonds to pay for community scale
public works: highways, transit, water systems, sewer
projects, flood control, child care facilities, libraries,
parks, and solid waste facilities. To repay the bonds,
IFDs divert property tax increment revenues from other
local governments for 30 years. However, IFDs can't divert
property tax increment revenues from schools (SB 308,
Seymour, 1990).
To form an IFD, the city or county must develop an
infrastructure plan, send copies to every landowner,
consult with other local governments, and hold a public
hearing. Every local agency that will contribute its
property tax increment revenue to the IFD must approve the
plan. Once the other local officials approve, the city or
county must still get the approval of voters in the
proposed district, specifically: 2/3-vote to create the
district, 2/3-vote to issue bonds, and a majority-vote to
set the district's appropriations limit. The deadline for
filing lawsuits to challenge an IFD's creation, financing
plan, allocation of property tax increment revenues, and
tax allocation bonds is 30 days after local officials
obtain voter approval.
Until 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law allowed local
officials to set up redevelopment agencies (RDAs), prepare
and adopt redevelopment plans, and finance redevelopment
activities. Citing a significant State General Fund
AB 243 -- 6/5/13 -- Page 2
deficit, Governor Brown's 2011-12 budget proposed
eliminating redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and returning
billions of dollars of property tax revenues to schools,
cities, and counties to fund core services. Among the
statutory changes that the Legislature adopted to implement
the 2011-12 budget, AB X1 26 (Blumenfield, 2011) dissolved
all RDAs.
Public officials continue to search for ways to raise the
capital they need to invest in public works projects, like
public transit facilities, infill development, or clean
water. One concept recognizes that expanded public
structures can boost the value of nearby property. Higher
property values produce higher property tax revenues.
Property tax increment financing captures those property
tax increment revenues. With the dissolution of RDAs,
local governments and lawmakers seek to adapt IFD's tax
increment financing mechanism.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 243 renames Infrastructure Financing
Districts as "Infrastructure and Revitalization Financing
Districts." AB 243 makes the following changes to the
statutes governing the districts:
I. Voter approval . Current law requires local officials
to prepare an infrastructure financing plan and get voter
approval to:
Form the IFD, which requires 2/3-voter approval.
Issue bonds, which requires 2/3-voter approval.
Set the appropriations limit, which requires
majority-voter approval.
AB 243 authorizes local officials to create an
infrastructure and revitalization financing district (IRFD)
and issue debt with 55% voter approval.
For an IRFD created to finance a project on a former
military base, the bill eliminates the vote-requirements
to:
Form the IRFD, provided that, at the time of the
approval of the IRFD's formation, all of the land in
the proposed IRFD is owned by one or more public
entities, military base reuse authorities, or entities
controlled by governmental agencies.
AB 243 -- 6/5/13 -- Page 3
Issue debt to finance facilities described in the
infrastructure financing plan, provided that, at the
time of the approval of the IRFD's formation, all of
the land within the proposed district, or designated
project area within the district on which the
facilities are to be financed, is owned by one or more
public entities, military base reuse authorities, or
entities controlled by governmental agencies.
AB 243 provides that bonds, which are authorized for an
IRFD to finance a project on a former military base, may be
issued in one or more series, upon an IRFD's adoption of a
resolution that contains specified information.
II. Types of projects . Current law allows IFDs to
finance:
The purchase, construction, expansion, improvement,
seismic retrofit rehabilitation of any real property,
The planning and design work directly related to
the purchase, construction, expansion, or
rehabilitation, and
Other authorized costs pertaining to replacement
dwelling units or action seeking to void the creation
of a district.
An IFD must finance only public capital facilities of
communitywide significance, like highways, transit, water
systems, sewer projects, flood control, child care
facilities, libraries, parks, and solid waste facilities.
An IFD is prohibited from financing routine maintenance,
repair work, or the costs of ongoing operations or
providing services.
AB 243 adds to the list of authorized improvements that an
IRFD may finance to include:
Watershed lands used for the collection and
treatment of water for urban uses.
Brownfields restoration and other environmental
mitigation.
Purchase of land and property for development
purposes and related site improvements.
Acquisition, construction, or repair of housing for
rental or purchase, including multipurpose facilities.
Acquisition, construction, or repair of commercial
or industrial structures for private use.
The repayment of the transfer of funds to a
military base reuse authority pursuant to state law.
AB 243 -- 6/5/13 -- Page 4
Existing law requires that any IFD that constructs dwelling
units must set aside at least 20% of those units to
increase and improve the community's supply of low- and
moderate-income housing at an affordable housing cost. AB
243 requires that any IRFD that constructs dwelling units
must set aside at least 20% of those units to increase and
improve the community's supply of low- and moderate-income
housing at an affordable housing cost, as defined in state
law, or at an affordable rent, as defined in state law.
AB 243 provides that an IRFD may only finance facilities or
services authorized in this bill. The additional
facilities or services may not supplant existing facilities
or services in the territory when the district was created,
except if those facilities or services are nonfunctional,
obsolete, hazardous, or in need of upgrading or
rehabilitation. AB 243 authorizes the additional
facilities or services to supplement those facilities and
services as needed to serve new developments.
Existing law allows an IFD to include areas that are not
contiguous. AB 243 authorizes an IRFD to be divided into
project areas, each of which may be subject to distinct
limitations established under IRFD law. The city council
or board of supervisors may, at any time, add territory to
a district or amend the infrastructure financing plan for
the district by conducting the same procedures for a
district's formation or bond approval.
III. Polanco Act . The Polanco Redevelopment Act
encourages cleanup and development of
brownfields-properties contaminated by hazardous waste.
The Act authorized former redevelopment agencies to conduct
a cleanup and to recover the costs of that cleanup from
responsible parties. AB 243 authorizes an IRFD to utilize
any powers under the Polanco Act and finance any action
necessary to implement the Act. AB 243 adds
"infrastructure and revitalization financing district" into
the Polanco's Act definition of a local agency.
IV. Sustainable Communities Strategy . The Sustainable
Communities and Climate Protect Act requires the Air
Resources Board to set regional targets for automobiles'
and light trucks' greenhouse gas emission reduction,
requires a regional transportation plan to include a
Sustainable Communities Strategy to meet targets for
greenhouse gas emission reduction, requires the California
AB 243 -- 6/5/13 -- Page 5
Transportation Commission to maintain guidelines for travel
demand models, requires cities and counties to revise their
housing elements every eight years in conjunction with the
regional transportation plan, and relaxes CEQA requirements
for housing developments that are consistent with a
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB 375, Steinberg, 2008).
AB 243 allows IRFDs to finance any project that implements
a sustainable communities strategy prepared pursuant to
state law.
V. Military bases . AB 243 authorizes cities and counties
to finance a project on a former military base, only if the
project is consistent with the authority reuse plan and is
approved by the military base reuse authority, if
applicable.
VI. Redevelopment . Existing law prohibits an IFD from
including any portion of a redevelopment project area. AB
243 repeals that statutory prohibition and authorizes an
IRFD to finance any project or portion of a project that is
located in, or overlaps with, any redevelopment project
area, former redevelopment project area, or former military
base. AB 243 requires that any debt or obligation of an
IRFD be subordinate to an enforceable obligation of a
former redevelopment agency, pursuant to state law.
VII. Housing . Current IFD law provides that if any
dwelling units are proposed to be removed or destroyed, the
legislative body must:
Within four years of the removal or destruction,
require the construction or rehabilitation, for rental
or sale to persons or families of low or moderate
income, of an equal number of replacement dwelling
units at affordable housing cost.
Within four years of the removal or destruction,
require the construction or rehabilitation, for rental
or sale to persons of low or moderate income, a number
of dwelling units which is at least one unit but not
less than 20 percent of the total dwelling units
removed at affordable housing cost.
Provide relocation assistance and make all the
payments required to displaced persons.
Ensure that removal or destruction of any dwelling
units occupied by persons or families of low or
moderate income not take place unless and until there
are suitable housing units, at comparable cost to the
units.
AB 243 -- 6/5/13 -- Page 6
AB 243 adds that an equal number of replacement dwelling
units may also be rented at affordable rent, as defined in
state law.
Current law states the Legislature's intent that an IFD's
territory should be substantially undeveloped. AB 243 is
silent on this intent and adds that an IRFD's establishment
should not ordinarily lead to the removal of existing
functional, habitable, and safe dwelling units.
AB 243 requires that if dwelling units located on a former
military base are destroyed or removed in connection with a
base reuse plan, replacement dwelling units, as required in
current law, may be located anywhere within the territory
of the former military base consistent with the base reuse
plan, local general plan, and infrastructure financing
plan, as applicable.
VIII. Net available revenue . Current law creates the
Redevelopment Property Tax Fund, which receives property
taxes that formerly would have been allocated to a
redevelopment agency. Money deposited in the fund is used
to help a successor agency wind down its affairs. Any
excess funds are allocated to local governments as property
taxes.
AB 243 defines "net available revenue" (NAR) as periodic
distributions to the city from the Redevelopment Property
Tax Trust Fund, pursuant to state law, available to the
city after all preexisting legal commitments and
obligations from that revenue are made, pursuant to state
law. It must only include revenue remaining after all
current distributions, including payment of enforceable
obligations, all distributions to other taxing entities,
and applicable administrative fees, have been made.
The bill authorizes the city's legislative body to dedicate
any NAR through the financing plan. AB 243 also requires
the plan to include a specification of the maximum portion
of the NAR proposed to be committed to the district for
each year the district will receive revenues, if
applicable. The NAR portion may vary over time.
IX. Resolution of intention . To begin the process for
establishing an IFD, current law requires the legislative
body of a city to adopt a resolution of intention, which
AB 243 -- 6/5/13 -- Page 7
must include: a) a statement that the IFD is proposed to be
established, with a description of the boundaries; b) a
statement of the type of public facilities proposed to be
financed; c) a statement that the tax increment revenue
from affected taxing entities may be used; and d) a time
and place for a public hearing on the proposal.
AB 243 adds, to the resolution of intention, a required
statement that the city's NAR may be used to finance
facilities and the maximum portion of NAR to be committed
to the district each year during which the district will
receive revenues.
X. Term life . Current law limits the terms of IFDs' bonds
to no more than 30 years. AB 243 sets the maximum term of
an IRFD's bond to 40 years from the date on which the
ordinance forming the district is adopted, or a later date,
if specified by the ordinance, on which the allocation of
tax increment will begin. AB 243 provides that the IRFD
may issue debt with a final maturity date of up to 30 years
from the date of issuance of each debt issue, subject to
the time limit on tax allocation to the district.
XI. Fire district approval . Before an IFD can divert
property tax increment from another taxing entity, current
law requires every local agency that will contribute its
property tax increment revenue to the IFD to approve the
infrastructure financing plan. Some special districts are
governed ex officio by county boards of supervisors or city
councils. In the case of a special district that provides
fire protection services and where the county board of
supervisors is the governing authority, AB 243 requires the
special district to act on an IRFD's plan by adopting a
separate resolution.
XII. Reporting . Current IFD law is silent on reporting
measures. AB 243 requires that no later than June 30 each
year after the adoption of an IRFD's financing plan, the
legislative body must post on its website an annual report,
which must contain all of the following:
A summary of the district's expenditures.
A description of the progress made toward the
district's adopted goals.
A status assessment regarding the completion of the
IRFD's projects.
XIII. Bond sale . Current law allows IFD bonds to be sold
AB 243 -- 6/5/13 -- Page 8
at discount not to exceed 5% of par at public sale. Bonds
may be sold at no less than par to the federal government
at private sale without any public advertisement. At least
five days prior to the sale, a notice must be published in
a general circulation newspaper and financial newspaper
published in the Cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.
AB 243 authorizes bonds to be sold at discount not to
exceed five percent of par at negotiated sale. AB 243
limits any negotiated bond sale for an IRFD's bond
issuances from exceeding $5 million.
XIV. Definitions . AB 243 defines the following terms:
"City" means a city, county, city and county, or
joint powers authority, where that entity acts as the
military base reuse authority established pursuant to
state law.
"District" means an IRFD. The bill provides than
an IRFD is a "district" within the meaning of the
California Constitution Article XIIA, Section 1.
"Infrastructure and revitalization financing
district" means a legally constituted governmental
entity established for the sole purpose of financing
facilities authorized by the bill.
"Project area" means a defined area in a district
in which the district's activities share a common
purpose or goal and an overall financing plan.
"Public works" means public facilities or
facilities authorized to be financed by an IRFD that
are to be financed in whole or in part by the
district.
XV. Findings and declarations . AB 243 makes finding to
support the bill's purpose.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . The elimination of redevelopment
agencies removed local governments' major financing tool
for remedying blight and spurring economic development. AB
243 facilitates the formation of and broadens the purposes
AB 243 -- 6/5/13 -- Page 9
of an infrastructure and revitalization financing district
(IRFD), making it a useful tool for economic development,
affordable housing, sustainable communities, military base
reuse, and brownfields cleanup and mitigation. Local
officials use tax increment financing to divert part of the
property tax revenue stream to a separate IFD. A local
government must consent and opt-in to the IFD's formation;
if an agency doesn't want to participate, its tax increment
revenue shares aren't touched. Although IFDs don't raise
taxes or generate new revenue, the Legislature required
voter approval of IFDs' plans, bonds, and appropriations
limits. A local government must consent and opt-in to the
IFD's formation; if an agency doesn't want to participate,
its tax increment revenue shares aren't touched. AB 243
reduces the vote requirement, from 2/3 to 55%, to create an
IRFD and to issue bonds, while retaining the required
consent of all taxing entities to participate. This
encourages local cooperation and includes appropriate
protections for state and local taxpayers. Legislators and
voters who have elected their local representatives should
let local officials do their job-setting local priorities
for spending local revenues.
2. Bond sales . "Competitive sale" and "negotiated sale"
are two principal methods by which a bond issuer selects an
underwriter to purchase its bonds and resell them to
investors. In a competitive sale, underwriters deliver
sealed bids to the bond issuer. The underwriter with the
lowest bid is awarded the sale of the bonds. The
appropriate method for selling bonds depends on specific
details of each individual debt issuance, but competitive
sales of GO bonds usually cost less than negotiated sales.
AB 243 allows negotiated sales, a significant change in how
districts may currently sell bonds. While negotiated bond
sales provide an opportunity to pre-market bonds that
potential investors may not be familiar with, competitive
sales provide the certainty of lower interest rates.
Because local governments need more certainty, the
Committee may wish to consider amending AB 243 to delete
the authorization for negotiated sales.
3. Net available revenues . The California Constitution
requires 2/3-voter approval before cities or counties can
issue long-term debt backed by local general purpose
revenues; school districts need 55%-voter approval. That's
why local general obligation bonds need 2/3-voter approval.
The courts have explained that cities need 2/3-voter
AB 243 -- 6/5/13 -- Page 10
approval before they dedicate portions of their general
funds to pay for bonds. That's why local limited
obligation bonds need 2/3-voter approval. These new bonds
are similar to limited obligation bonds because they rely
on a pledge of existing revenues, but they also involve
pledging other governments' revenues. AB 243 authorizes
cities and counties to use revenue in excess of general
property tax revenue, after bonds and pass-through
payments. IFDs take a long time to accumulate the
necessary capital to bond against large-scale projects.
Authorizing cities and counties to use excess general
property tax revenue, after all legal commitments are paid,
provides a necessary additional source of revenue for an
IRFD. However, it is unclear whether the use of net
available revenue is different from a limited obligation
bond, which requires 2/3-voter approval.
4. Timing . Albert Einstein once said, "The only reason
for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." In
2011, when Governor Brown proposed to eliminate
redevelopment, the world of IFDs and redevelopment
intertwined. In response, Legislators turned to IFDs as a
possible alternative financing mechanism last session. The
Governor vetoed most of the measures, noting that
"expanding the scope of infrastructure financing districts
is premature and [could] cause cities to focus their
efforts on using the new tools provided by the measure
instead of winding down redevelopment." Those timing
concerns may still remain, as successor agencies continue
to wind down redevelopment.
5. Technical . AB 243 adds cross-references to the
definition of an IRFD in the Polanco Act. The Committee
may wish to consider amending the bill to fix the
cross-reference:
On page 21, line 3, after "Section", strike out
"52299" and insert "53399"
6. Related bills . AB 243 is not the only bill seeking to
update the IFD financing mechanism or that addresses
military base reuse.
SB 33 (Wolk) waives the voter-approval requirements
to create an IFD, extends an IFD's life term, requires
annual, independent audits, and authorizes an IFD's
use for projects in disadvantaged communities,
hazardous cleanup, environmental mitigation, and flood
protection. It is set to be heard on June 12 in the
AB 243 -- 6/5/13 -- Page 11
Assembly Local Government Committee.
SB 339 (Cannella) authorizes a county, by a
4/5-vote of the board of supervisors, to sell, or
enter into a lease, concession, or managerial contract
involving county property acquired from the closure of
a military base. It is in the Assembly Local
Government Committee.
SB 628 (Beall) removes the 2/3-vote requirement to
form an IFD, the 2/3-vote requirement to issue bonds,
and the majority vote to set the appropriations limit,
if an IFD proposes to implement a transit priority
project (TPP), regional transportation plan, or any
other project consistent with a sustainable
communities strategy or alternative planning strategy.
It has been referred to the Assembly Local Government
and Assembly Housing and Community Development
Committees.
AB 121 (Dickinson) authorizes Sacramento County
Board of Supervisors, by 4/5-vote of the board, to
sell, or to enter into a lease, concession, or
managerial contract for property from the closure of
Mather and McClellan Air Force Bases. It is on the
Senate Floor.
AB 229 (J. Pérez) authorizes a military base reuse
authority to use Infrastructure and Revitalization
Financing Districts for specified projects. It was
heard on June 5 in the Senate Governance and Finance
Committee and passed on a 6-1 vote.
AB 662 (Atkins) allows infrastructure financing
districts to include portions of former redevelopment
project areas and modifies the statutes governing
redevelopment agencies' dissolution. It was heard on
June 5 in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee
and passed on a 7-0 vote.
AB 690 (Campos) establishes a Jobs and
Infrastructure Financing Districts (JIDs) in every
city and authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds to
finance specified projects. The bill eliminates
existing IFD law's replacement housing provisions. It
also requires a job creation plan that ensures that
for every $1 million invested, 10 prevailing wage jobs
are created. It is in the Assembly Local Government
Committee.
Assembly Actions
AB 243 -- 6/5/13 -- Page 12
Assembly Local Government:6-3
Assembly Appropriations: 12-5
Assembly Floor: 44-29
Support and Opposition (6/6/13)
Support : American Society of Civil Engineers; Cities of
Oakland, Pasadena, Sacramento, West Sacramento; Sacramento
Area Council of Governments.
Opposition : Board of Equalization Member, George Runner;
California Association of Realtors; California Taxpayers
Association; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.