BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 133
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
SB 133 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: August 6, 2013
SENATE VOTE : Not relevant
SUBJECT : Redevelopment.
SUMMARY : Requires, for a new agency or authority that is
required to comply with provisions of the Community
Redevelopment Law, various reforms to the activities of that
agency or authority to increase, preserve and improve low- and
moderate-income housing. Specifically, this bill :
1)States that the bill's provisions shall only apply to an
agency or authority created on or after January 1, 2014, that
is required to comply with, or is defined as an agency
pursuant to, the Community Redevelopment Law, and shall not
apply to an agency that has assumed the housing assets and
functions of a former redevelopment agency (RDA).
2)Requires the RDA to present its annual report to its
legislative body at a public hearing and make the report
available on its Internet Web site, or if the agency does not
have a web site, on the community's Internet Web site.
3)Places new requirements on an RDA to include in an annual
report, the following:
a) The percentage of funds from the Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund (L&M fund) used for planning and general
administration costs;
b) An itemized list of planning and general administration
expenditures from the L&M fund and an explicit description
of how the expenditures are necessary for the production,
improvement or preservation of low- and moderate-income
housing;
c) Information describing the employees that are paid from
the L&M fund including the title, salary, wages, benefits,
and the nature of the employee's activities eligible to be
paid out of the L&M fund;
SB 133
Page 2
d) A list of the overhead costs that are paid directly or
indirectly from the L&M fund;
e) A statement of the amount and percentage of funds
deposited into the L&M fund exclusive of debt proceeds
expended for planning and administration in each of the
preceding five fiscal years that begin after December 31,
2011;
f) A list of all the properties owned by an RDA purchased
with L&M funds, the date of acquisition for each property,
an RDA's intended purpose for the property, and the amount
if any of L&M funds used to acquire and maintain the
property;
g) For each fiscal year since the agency's last adopted
implementation plan, a list of the replacement housing
obligations of the RDA including the number of units that
must be replaced, location, and status of the replacement
and production units; and,
h) For each housing project for which an RDA designates
encumbered funds, or amends an existing designation or
encumbrance during the fiscal year and where the RDA's
financing constitutes more than 50% of the total cost of
the housing project, requires the project name, location,
number of affordable units, affordability level, amount of
agency financing and total cost of the low- and
moderate-income units.
1)Provides an agency that has deposited less than $100,000 in
the L&M fund is exempt from providing the information required
by a) through h) above.
2)Requires the legislative body to adopt a separate written
resolution finding that based on the annual report the actual
planning and general administrative expenses do not exceed the
limits allowed.
3)Requires the Controller, on or before April 1 of each year, to
post on its Web site a list of RDAs with major audit
violations.
4)Allows the Controller to consult with locally affected
SB 133
Page 3
community groups as part of determining if an agency has
corrected a major audit violation.
5)Allows an RDA that is subject to a court order as a result of
a major audit violation to continue to issue, sell, or deliver
bonds or incur debt to increase, improve, preserve, or assist
in the construction, or rehabilitation of housing units for
extremely low-, very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing.
6)In the 60 day window between a court's initial finding of a
major audit violation and a final ruling, allows an RDA to pay
the budgeted operation and administration of the agency, as
opposed to only 75% of the budgeted amount.
7)Prohibits an RDA that is subject to a court order as result of
a major audit violation to exercise the power of eminent
domain.
8)Removes the statutory caps on the amount of a monetary
sanction that a court can order an RDA to pay for a major
audit violation and permits the court to determine a sanction
that is commensurate with the violation.
9)Prohibits an RDA from paying a court sanction from the L&M
fund or any other special fund related to housing.
10)Provides that an action filed by a court to compel an RDA to
correct a major audit violation does not preclude an action by
any other interested party or a resident of the jurisdiction.
11)Makes failure to comply with the restrictions regarding
eligible expenditures for planning and general administration
from the L&M fund a "major audit violation."
12)Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) to conduct audits of RDAs to ensure compliance with the
housing provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL).
13)Requires HCD to review all of the following in audits of
RDAs:
a) Agency compliance with production and replacement of
housing obligations;
b) Recording and monitoring of affordability covenants;
SB 133
Page 4
c) Provision of relocation assistance;
d) Propriety of deposits to and expenditures from the L&M
fund;
e) Compliance with the debt limit of the agency;
f) Adoption of a legally sufficient implementation plan;
g) Major audit violations as defined in the Health and
Safety Code Section 33080.8; and,
h) Accounting practice or provision of the CRL in the
discretion of the department.
14)Requires RDAs to annually remit .05% of the L&M tax increment
to HCD to conduct redevelopment audits.
15)Requires HCD to determine, on or before April 1 of each year,
whether an audit or investigation from the previous year,
contains a major audit violation and post those on the HCD
Internet Web site.
16)Requires on or before June 1 of each year, HCD to determine
if a major audit violation has been corrected by consulting
with each affected agency and locally affected community
groups.
17)Requires HCD to direct RDAs to take action to correct audit
violations.
18)Provides that if HCD determines that an RDA has not taken
action within 180 days to correct an audit violation, it must
forward all relevant documents to the Attorney General (AG)
for action.
19)Requires HCD to forward a copy of any audit or investigation
of an RDA to the AG and the Controller.
20)Requires HCD to notify an RDA and its legislative body when
it sends an audit violation to the AG.
21)Prohibits HCD from initiating or settling any litigation or
to resolve any audit or investigation in a manner contrary to
SB 133
Page 5
law.
22)Allows the Controller to conduct quality control reviews of
RDA audits to the extent feasible within existing resources
and to communicate the results of the review to the RDA and
the independent auditor.
23)Requires that if the Controller finds that an audit was
conducted in an unprofessional manner, to refer the case to
the California Board of Accountancy (Board).
24)Provides that if the Board determines that the independent
auditor conducted the audit in an unprofessional manner then
the auditor is prohibited from performing any RDA audits for
three years and the Board may impose additional penalties.
25)Provides that whenever the Controller determines through two
consecutive quality control reviews that an audit was not
performed in substantial conformity with guidelines in state
law, the Controller will notify the auditor and the Board in
writing.
26)Gives the auditor 30 days after receiving the Controller's
notice to file an appeal or the Controller's determination is
final.
27)Provides that if the auditor files an appeal, the Board will
investigate and may find that the Controller's determination
will not be upheld and has no effect or schedule an appeal for
hearing.
28)Provides that if the Controller's determination becomes
final, the auditor is prohibited from conducting audits for
three years and is subject to any additional conditions
ordered by the Board.
29)Provides that no later than March 1, following the date at
which the Controller's determination becomes final, the
Controller will notify each RDA of the auditors that are
ineligible as a result of misconduct.
30)Allows the Board to take any disciplinary action against an
auditor that it deems appropriate under the law.
31)Requires an RDA that is found to have deposited less into the
SB 133
Page 6
L&M fund than required by law or to have spent money from the
L&M fund for purposes other than increasing, improving, and
preserving the community's supply of affordable housing, to
repay the funds with interest, plus an additional 50% of that
amount and interest.
32)Applies the 10-year statute of limitations for failure to
deposit or expend L&M funds correctly to merged redevelopment
project areas and to any other moneys that any agency must
deposit in the L&M fund in addition to tax increment.
33)Prohibits repayment of any L&M funds required to meet the
set-a-side requirements to come from any other funds
designated for affordable housing.
34)Establishes a double cap on the amount of L&M funds that an
RDA can spend on planning and general administrative costs.
35)Places a 10% cap on the amount of L&M funds that an RDA can
spend on general administrative costs including:
a) Employee compensation costs and related non-personnel
costs, such as travel and training, paid to or on behalf of
any agency, city, or county employee whose duties include
permissible L&M housing activities other than direct
program and project administration (i.e., line staff);
b) Employee compensation costs and related non-personnel
costs paid to or on behalf of any agency, city, or county
employee who supervises or manages line staff or who
provides general administrative services, such as finance,
legal, and human resources that indirectly support
permissible L&M housing activities;
c) Overhead costs, such as rent, equipment, and supplies;
and,
d) The total value of any contracts for agency planning or
administrative services that are related to permissible
housing activities and that are not associated with a
specific development project.
36)Places a 10% cap on the amount of L&M funds that an RDA can
spend on program and project staff costs, including employee
compensation costs and related non-personnel costs that are
SB 133
Page 7
directly and necessarily associated with development of a
specific housing development project including, negotiation
and project management of disposition and development
agreements, land leases, loan agreements and similar
affordable housing agreements, redevelopment agency work on
entitlements for eligible affordable housing developments,
loan processing, and servicing, inspection for new
rehabilitation units, construction monitory and monitoring
affordable housing units.
37)Allows an RDA to spend up to 2% of their L&M fund on code
enforcement provided that the RDA complies with relocation and
replacement rules if tenants are displaced or homes are
destroyed as a result of code enforcement activities.
38)Allows an RDA to spend any difference between the cap on
"general administrative and planning" (employee compensation
for executive management cost and overhead costs) and actual
administrative expenditures on "program and project staff
costs."
39)Requires employee compensation for executive and management
staff, to be justified by an independent cost allocation study
that is no more than six years old and not represent a greater
proportion of the employees total compensation than the
proportion of employees working directly and exclusively on
activities required for the L&M fund in comparison to the
total number of employees supervised, managed and directly
supported by the employee.
40)Provides that the limitations planning and administrative
costs do not apply to a specific project area during the first
five years.
41)Provides that the planning and administrative costs apply to
project areas where the project area is amended or if the tax
increment of a new or amended project area is deposited into
an L&M fund covering more than one project area.
42)Prohibits an RDA from spending L&M funds on any of the
following:
a) Code enforcement;
b) Land use planning or development of or revision of the
SB 133
Page 8
housing element except for the payment of normal
project-related planning fees that is applicable to similar
development projects, except that an RDA may spend L&M
funds on the cost of staff participation in the development
of the housing element provided that those costs are
counted toward the 10% cap on planning and administration
costs;
c) Lobbying; and,
d) Administration of non-redevelopment activities that are
not related to the activities required under the L&M fund.
43)Provides that the completion of the current 10-year
implementation plan for an RDA (provided the 10-year period
began before January 1, 2010), the proportionality
requirements dictated by regional housing needs assessment
(RHNA) no longer apply, and funds must be expended from the
L&M fund as follows:
a) Requires at least 75% of each RDA's expenditures from
the L&M fund shall directly assist the new construction,
acquisition, and substantial rehabilitation or preservation
of housing for persons of extremely low-, very low-, or
low-income;
b) Requires at least 50% of each RDA's expenditures from
the L&M fund shall directly assist the new construction,
acquisition, and substantial rehabilitation or preservation
of housing for persons of extremely low- or very
low-income; and,
c) Requires that at least 25% of each RDA's expenditures
from the L&M fund shall directly assist the new
construction, acquisition, and substantial rehabilitation
or preservation of housing for persons of extremely low
income.
44)Allows an RDA to count expenditures for extremely low-income
housing toward the percentages required for very low-income
and to count expenditures for extremely low- and very
low-income toward the percentages required for low-income.
45)Deletes the ability of an agency to adjust the
SB 133
Page 9
proportionality requirement for units constructed with
non-redevelopment funds.
46)Requires an RDA to demonstrate in each implementation plan at
the end of five years that the agency's aggregate expenditures
from the L&M fund exclusive of debt service payments from the
onset of the new proportionality requirements satisfy the
requirements.
47)Defines "preservation" as preserving affordability of an
assisted housing development that is eligible for prepayment
or termination or the rental restrictions may expire within
five years.
48)Defines "housing for persons of extremely low income" as
housing that is available at a rent or housing cost that is
affordable to households earning 30% of the area median income
or 30% of the statewide median income, whichever is greater.
49)Provides that if an RDA has deposited less than $2 million
in the L&M fund in the first five years after the onset of
the new proportionality requirements, the RDA has 10 years to
fulfill the requirements to spend the L&M funds in the
percentages described above for extremely low-, very low- and
low-income housing for the first time.
50)Allows, for purposes of the proportionality requirements, an
agency to count contractually obligated funds as expended
funds, provided that the contract is with an entity that is
independent of the agency or the community for the development
for a specific eligible housing development.
51)Provides that if a contract to expend funds from the L&M fund
for a specific eligible housing development is terminated, the
funds may no longer be counted towards meeting the
proportionality requirements.
52)Provides that if an RDA fails to meet the proportionality
requirements, they may not expend any money from the L&M fund
for households whose incomes exceed 50% of median income until
they have expended funds for extremely low-, very low- and
low-income housing that should have been spent in previous
implementation plan periods.
53)Provides that if an RDA fails to spend L&M funds in same
proportion as the number of persons in all age groups, they
SB 133
Page 10
may not expend any money from the L&M fund for senior
households until they have expended funds for all-age housing
that should have been spent in previous implementation plan
periods.
54)Deletes the authority of an agency to disburse excess surplus
funds to the local housing authority.
55)Requires for each interest in real property acquired using
money from the L&M fund, an RDA within five years of acquiring
the property, must do one of the following:
a) Enter into a disposition and development agreement or a
land lease with a third party for the development of
housing affordable to persons and families of low- and
moderate- income;
b) Obtain final land use entitlements and secure full
financing for agency development for housing that is
affordable to persons and families of low- and
moderate-income; and,
c) Submit a remedial action plan for the property to the
appropriate oversight agency including, but not limited to,
the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board or the Office of Human Health
Risk Assessment for the cleanup of contamination.
56)Provides that if an RDA has not completed one of the above
within five years, or if less than 10% of the dwelling units
or floor area of a project is developed within 10 years from
the date the agency originally acquired the property, the
agency must reimburse the L&M fund 150% of the amount expended
to acquire and maintain the property or 150% the current fair
market value of the property whichever is more.
57)Provides that if an RDA owns two or more adjacent properties
that make up a single redevelopment project the date of
acquisition will be the date of acquisition for the last
acquired property provided that the date is not later than
five years after the acquisition of the first property.
58)Provides that an RDA may adopt a resolution to petition HCD
for an extension of the five- year deadline and the department
may grant a single extension of up to five years if the
SB 133
Page 11
department makes a finding that the failure to complete the
required activities is beyond the agency's control and that
the agency has a feasible plan for development.
59)Requires HCD to solicit comments from known or expected
parties interested in an extension petition.
60)Requires HCD to establish a schedule of fees to cover the
cost of reviewing the petition and to charge the RDA from
funds other than those designated for affordable housing.
61)Provides that an RDA must deposit 150% of the fair market
value of the property at the time it is sold or transferred or
if the property is not sold or transferred for the fair market
value of the land at the time a building permit is issued for
the property if either of the following conditions exist:
a) A property acquired using moneys from the L&M fund is
sold or transferred for purpose other than housing that is
affordable to persons and families of low- and moderate-
income; or,
b) A property that is acquired using money from the L&M
fund is developed such that less than 50% of the floor area
or a percentage of the floor area equal to the amount of
L&M moneys that were used to acquire the property whichever
is less, is housing for persons and families of low- and
moderate-income.
62)Requires that for units destroyed within the project area on
or after January 1, 2012, an RDA is required to replace vacant
units such that the replacement units are available at
affordable housing costs and occupied by persons and families
in the same or lower income category in the same proportion as
the units occupied or last occupied by low and moderate income
households in the property.
63) Requires generally an RDA to replace destroyed units with
new construction.
64)Provides that up to 25% of the replacement obligation
incurred during a five-year implementation plan may be
fulfilled by either of the following:
a) With units that have been rehabilitated such that the
SB 133
Page 12
after-rehabilitation values increased by 50% or more of the
pre-rehabilitation value and the units being replaced were
either:
i) At risk of demolition or closure due to substandard
conditions and occupied by extremely low- or very
low-income households; and,
ii) Vacant due to substandard conditions.
b) With substantially rehabilitated multi-family units that
the agency has substantially rehabilitated within the
project area, two units for each unit the agency is
obligated to replace, or outside the project area three
units for each unit the agency is obligated to replace.
65)Requires an RDA to adopt a separate written resolution after
a public hearing that based on substantial evidence that the
rehabilitation of the replacement dwelling units complies with
the replacement unit requirements.
66)Provides that if a court finds that an RDA has failed to
comply with replacement housing requirements, the court shall
prohibit the agency from issuing any debt for any project
areas except debt from which all proceeds will be deposited in
the L&M fund until the court determines that the RDA has
complied with this section.
67)Adds the following to the information an RDA is required to
include in a replacement housing plan:
a) A description of the occupancy and affordability
restrictions to be imposed on replacement dwelling units;
b) Substantial evidence supporting a finding that the
replacement dwelling units will meet the needs of
households in the income categories of the households
displaced from the dwelling units that the replacement
units are intended to replace; and,
c) A declaration of whether the RDA intends to rehabilitate
existing dwelling units.
68)Provides that if an RDA ceases its activities prior to the
end of an affordability covenant, then it will designate a
SB 133
Page 13
successor agency that will monitor and enforce the covenants
for the remaining period of the covenant.
69)Provides that if no successor agency is designated at the
time an RDA ceases its activities then the community must
monitor and enforce the covenants for the remaining period of
the covenant.
70)Includes intent language regarding the need for greater
accountability and more auditing of RDAs.
71)Deletes the authority given to RDAs to offer money in the L&M
fund of a merged project area to the housing authority for the
purpose of constructing or rehabilitating affordable housing
if the funds have been deposited in the L&M fund for six years
but have not been spent.
72)Adds the following to the list of required information the
implementation plan for an RDA must include:
a) The proposed amount of expenditure for the L&M fund for
new construction, acquisition and substantial
rehabilitation or preservation for housing for persons of
extremely low-, very low- or low-income during each year of
the implementation plan;
b) The replacement units that satisfy each replacement
housing obligation;
c) In the case when replacement units have been destroyed
or removed, but units are not yet complete, the proposed
location of the replacement units that are not yet
complete; and,
d) A complete accounting for compliance with the RDA's
affordable housing obligation over the life of the plan
including the total number of units the RDA is obligated to
replace and the total number of units required to be
constructed before the end for the project area life.
73)Includes the following information for all affordable housing
units that are replaced, constructed, rehabilitated or have
covenants attached to them and are included in the database
required by existing law:
SB 133
Page 14
a) The street address and assessor's parcel number of the
property and for properties that are listed as a group, the
number of units;
b) The size of each unit based on the number of bedrooms;
c) The affordability level of each unit;
d) The year in which the construction or substantial
rehabilitation of the unit was complete;
e) The date of recordation and document number of the
affordability covenants or restrictions;
f) The date on which the covenants or restrictions expire;
g) For projects developed prior to January 1, 2002, a
statement of the effective period of the land use controls
established in the plan at the time the unit was developed;
h) For owner-occupied units that have changed ownership
during the previous implementation plan period the date and
document number of the new affordability covenants or other
document recorded to ensure that the affordability
restrictions run with the land; and,
i) Whether units count toward replacement units and the
units they are replacing;
74)Requires the following information as part of the
implementation plan for owner-occupied and rental units that
are required to replace units, are counted toward the RDA's
housing obligation and are not included in the database
required by existing law:
a) The street address and if available assessor's parcel
number of the property;
b) For properties where units are listed as a group, the
number of units;
c) The affordability level of each unit;
d) The date of recordation and document number or
restrictions; and,
SB 133
Page 15
e) Whether the units count toward the replacement
obligation and reference the destroyed units they are
replacing.
75)Permits the implementation plan to omit any property that is
used to confidentially house victims of domestic violence
76)Provides that failure to meet any of the following
obligations will be an ongoing violation until the RDA has
fulfilled the obligation:
a) The deposit and expenditure requirements for the L&M
fund;
b) The obligation to eliminate project deficits to the L&M
fund;
c) The obligation to expend or encumber excess surplus
funds;
d) The obligation to provide relocation assistance;
e) Replacement and production housing obligations;
f) The obligation to monitor and enforce affordability
covenants; and,
g) The obligation to continue the project past the
effectiveness date of the redevelopment plan in order to
meet unfulfilled housing requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS :
1)This bill enacts a number of reforms for specified agencies or
authorities to increase, preserve and improve low- and
moderate-income housing. The bill's provisions state that the
reforms only apply to an agency or authority created on or
after January 1, 2014, that is required to comply with, or is
defined as an agency pursuant to, the CRL. This bill
explicitly exempts from its provisions any agency that has
assumed the housing assets and functions of a former RDA.
2)The bill is substantially similar (with the exception of
SB 133
Page 16
applying the reform provisions to those agencies or
authorities created after January 1, 2014) to SB 450
(Lowenthal) of 2011, which was passed by the Assembly by a
vote of 74-0. The veto message is below:
This measure contains significant legal changes that will
affect Low and Moderate
Income Housing funds managed by redevelopment agencies, but
this bill is a little ahead of
its time. The California Supreme Court has indicated that it
will rule on California
Redevelopment Agency v. Matosantos by January 15, 2012, and I
believe it would be
premature to enact such substantive reforms before that
time.
3)As evidence for the need to reform the CRL, the author points
to a 2010 report by the Senate Office of Oversight and
Outcomes (SOOO) that looked at the housing expenditures from
twelve redevelopment agencies, seven of which had showed
consistently high planning and administration expenditures and
five chosen at random. As a result of its studies, SOOO made
seven findings, including the following:
a) No assurance . Current laws and oversight give the
Legislature and public no assurance that redevelopment
agencies are using at least 20% of revenues to efficiently
create affordable housing.
b) Lax records . Many redevelopment agencies use their low-
and moderate-income housing fund to cover costs in other
city departments - such as public works, finance, and
personnel - without documenting that the resources are
directly related to an affordable housing project. At the
Hercules Redevelopment Agency, for example, the finance
director said she did not know the terms or formula by
which the agency paid $16,666 a month from the low- and
moderate-income housing fund for city employee salaries.
c) Loose law . Each year redevelopment agencies must
"determine" the need to spend any housing set-aside money
on planning and administration. In an unpublished portion
of its opinion, an appellate court found that the law
limiting planning and administrative costs gives so much
discretion to redevelopment agencies that they are largely
SB 133
Page 17
shielded from lawsuits - even those agencies that make
assertions unsupported by facts. Furthermore, many
redevelopment agency officials do not know about the law,
ignore it, or comply by passing a pro forma resolution.
d) Questionable spending . Some redevelopment agencies use
their housing set-aside funds in what appear to be
impermissible ways, such as hiring a Sacramento lobbyist,
funding a public relations campaign, and paying a
non-profit housing rights center to offer residents legal
advice.
e) Unreliable audits . Each redevelopment agency must get
an annual independent financial audit, yet these audits are
of inconsistent quality. Many Certified Public Accountants
fail to test or make note of compliance with housing
set-aside fund laws.
f) Code enforcement . Some redevelopment agencies use their
housing set-aside funds to pay for code enforcement, which
is permitted only when the code enforcement work is
directly linked to efforts to develop, improve, or preserve
affordable housing.
The author also notes that "in October 2010, the Los Angeles
Times also reported a number of irregularities in the spending
of L&M funds. The article cited examples of agencies that
spent "most of their affordable housing money over the decade
on 'planning and administration' - but never built a single
unit." The article also cited examples of agencies that used
L&M funds to buy properties that were never used for
affordable housing."
According to the author, "Given the abuses of the past, it is
critical to put reforms into place before redevelopment is
reborn so that they do not recur."
4)Several bills heard by this Committee in the 2013 year would
be captured under the provisions of this bill, with respect to
the creation of a new authority or agency post-January 1,
2014. SB 1 (Steinberg) would create a new entity, the
Sustainable Communities Investment Authority, which could
capture tax increment and spend it on SB 375 [(Steinberg),
Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008], type developments. SB 1
would authorize the use of tax increment as well as other
SB 133
Page 18
funding sources to finance some of the projects-small walkable
communities, transit priority areas and clean energy
manufacturing-that would be part of the SCS. AB 1080 (Alejo)
would allow local governments to establish a Community
Revitalization and Investment Authority in a disadvantaged
community to fund specified activities and allows the
authority to collect tax increment. These new entities are
required to comply with most of the provisions of the CRL.
In addition to these two bills, some infrastructure financing
district (IFD) bills, such as SB 628 (Beall), reference
redevelopment law when describing IFD housing obligations.
This bill would implement reforms to the CRL and as a result,
any agency or authority created after January 1, 2014 that is
vested with the rights, powers, and duties of RDAs would be
required to comply with these reforms.
5)Support arguments : This bill would implement necessary
reforms and rectify past abuses for those new agencies created
in the future.
Opposition arguments : None on file.
6)This bill was heard in the Assembly Housing and Community
Development Committee on July 3, 2013 and passed on a 7-0
vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (June 10,
2013, version of bill)
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958