BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 204
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 8, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Brian Maienschein, Chair
AB 204
(O'Donnell) - As Introduced January 29, 2015
SUBJECT: Redevelopment: County of Los Angeles.
SUMMARY: Requires oversight boards in the County of Los Angeles
to continue to operate despite the July 1, 2016, date in
existing law that allows only one single countywide oversight
board in each county to wind down redevelopment activities.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires an oversight board within the County of Los Angeles
to continue to independently operate beyond the July 1, 2016,
date in existing law until its successor agency adopts a
resolution dissolving its oversight board, after which time
the successor agency shall be overseen by the single oversight
board established in current law.
2)Clarifies that any oversight board for a given successor
agency shall cease to exist, if a successor agency has
dissolved the oversight board pursuant to 1), above.
3)Declares the intent of the Legislature to continue all
oversight boards in the County of Los Angeles in existence
until the respective successor agency requests dissolution of
AB 204
Page 2
its oversight board and transfers fiduciary duties to the
countywide oversight board.
4)Finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a
general law cannot be made applicable because of the unique
circumstances of the County of Los Angeles.
5)Makes other findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Dissolves redevelopment agencies and institutes a process for
winding down their activities.
2)Defines "enforceable obligations."
3)Requires successor agencies make payments due to enforceable
obligations, as specified.
4)Requires successor agencies to prepare a Recognized Obligation
Payments Schedule (ROPS), before each six-month fiscal period,
in accordance with specified requirements.
5)Requires each successor agency to have an oversight board of
seven members to approve certain actions of the successor
agency, and requires the selection of members as follows:
a) One member appointed by the county board of supervisors;
b) One member appointed by the mayor for the city that
formed the redevelopment agency;
c) One member appointed by the largest special district, by
property tax share, with territory in the territorial
jurisdiction of the former redevelopment agency, which is
AB 204
Page 3
of the type of special district that is eligible to receive
property tax revenues, as specified;
d) One member appointed by the county superintendent of
education to represent schools,
if the superintendent is elected. If the county
superintendent of education is appointed, then the
appointment shall be made by the county board of education;
e) One member appointed by the Chancellor of the California
Community Colleges to represent community college districts
in the county;
f) One member of the public appointed by the county board
of supervisors; and,
g) One member representing the employees of the former
redevelopment agency appointed by the mayor or chair of the
board of supervisors, from the recognized employee
organization representing the largest number of former
redevelopment agency employees employed by the successor
agency at the time, as specified.
6)Requires the Department of Finance (DOF) to review the actions
of an oversight board.
7)Requires, commencing on or after July 1, 2016, in each county
where more than one oversight board was created, there to be
only one oversight board appointed as follows:
a) One member may be appointed by the county board of
supervisors;
b) One member may be appointed by the city selection
committee, as provided. In a city and county, the mayor
may appoint one member;
c) One member may be appointed by the independent special
district selection committee, as provided;
AB 204
Page 4
d) One member may be appointed by the county superintendent
of education to represent schools if the superintendent is
elected. If the county superintendent of education is
appointed, then the appointment shall be made by the county
board of education;
e) One member may be appointed by the Chancellor of the
California Community Colleges to represent community
college districts in the county;
f) One member of the public may be appointed by the county
board of supervisors; and,
g) One member may be appointed by the recognized employee
organization representing the largest number of successor
agency employees in the county.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
1)Redevelopment Dissolution. The Legislature approved the
dissolution of the state's 400-plus redevelopment agencies as
part of the 2011 Budget Act. Redevelopment agencies were
officially dissolved as of February 1, 2012, after a period of
litigation. To help facilitate the unwinding process,
successor agencies were established at the local level to
manage redevelopment projects that were underway, to make
payments on enforceable obligations and to dispose of
redevelopment assets and properties. Each successor agency
has an oversight board that supervises its work, comprised of
representatives of the local agencies that serve the project
area - the city, county, special districts and educational
agencies. Oversight board members have a fiduciary
responsibility to holders of enforceable obligations, as well
as the local agencies that would benefit from property tax
distributions from the former project area.
AB 204
Page 5
Current law says that in a county where only one oversight
board was created, there will be no change to the composition
of that oversight board, commencing on or after July 1, 2016.
Current law also provides that on or after July 1, 2016, in
each county where more than one oversight board was created,
there shall be only one oversight board that continues to
exist in that county, and specifies that the membership of
that single oversight board that will exist after July 1,
2016, may include the following: one member appointed by the
county board
of supervisors, one member appointed by the city selection
committee, one member appointed by the independent special
district selection committee, one member by the county
superintendent of education, as specified, one member by the
Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, one member of
the public appointed by the county board of supervisors, and
one member appointed by the recognized employee organization
representing the largest number of successor agency employees
in the county.
2)Bill Summary. This bill requires oversight boards within Los
Angeles County to continue to independently operate beyond the
July 1, 2016, date in existing law. There are currently 71
oversight boards in Los Angeles County. The bill specifies
that an oversight board in Los Angeles County that continues
to exist beyond the July 1, 2016, date would no longer exist
once the successor agency adopts a resolution dissolving that
oversight board, and when that happens, that successor agency
would then be overseen by the single county oversight board
that is established pursuant to existing law.
This bill is sponsored by the City of Long Beach.
3)Author's Statement. According to the author, "A single
AB 204
Page 6
oversight board would not expeditiously dispose of properties
given the number of property covered by a single Long Range
Property Management Plan. Additionally, a single county
oversight board will not have nearly the same level of
institutional knowledge of each Successor Agency's operations
as individual local boards. The oversight boards need their
individual institutional knowledge to ensure financial
transactions and tax distributions occur smoothly and without
delay."
The author also notes that "Because a large number of
enforceable obligations remain in Los Angeles County,
funneling the workload of 71 oversight boards into a single
entity will cause substantial gridlock in the redevelopment
dissolution process. Twenty-seven Successor Agencies in Los
Angeles County have not yet received DOF-approved Long Range
Property Management Plans. Of these 27, eight successor
agencies are still lacking a Finding of Completion."
4)Arguments in Support. Supporters of the bill argue that it
will shield the single county oversight board in Los Angeles
from having to immediately tackle a workload that would have
otherwise been spread across 71 oversight boards. Supporters
also note that the current one-size-fits-all approach in
existing law could unfairly burden cities which need
additional attention in their oversight processes.
5)Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
6)Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Housing
and Community Development Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 204
Page 7
Support
City of Long Beach [SPONSOR]
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
District Council 36
Cities of Bell Gardens, Cerritos, Downey, Lakewood, Montebello,
Paramount, Santa Monica, Signal Hill, Torrance, Whittier
County of Los Angeles
Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los Angeles
Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities
Opposition
None on file
AB 204
Page 8
Analysis Prepared by:Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958