BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 204
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
204 (O'Donnell)
As Amended April 9, 2015
Majority vote
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
|----------------+------+-----------------------+---------------------|
|Local |9-0 |Maienschein, Gonzalez, | |
|Government | |Alejo, Chiu, Cooley, | |
| | |Gordon, Holden, | |
| | |Linder, Waldron | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+-----------------------+---------------------|
|Housing |6-0 |Chau, Steinorth, | |
| | |Burke, Chiu, Beth | |
| | |Gaines, Lopez | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
AB 204
Page 2
continue to independently operate beyond the July 1, 2016, date
in existing law until its successor agency adopts a resolution
dissolving its oversight board and its oversight board approves
that resolution, 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 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.
AB 204
Page 3
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 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,
AB 204
Page 4
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;
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
AB 204
Page 5
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.
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
AB 204
Page 6
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 its oversight board approves that resolution, 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
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."
AB 204
Page 7
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.
Analysis Prepared by:
Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0000254
AB 204
Page 8