BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session SB 441 (Leno) - San Francisco redevelopment: housing ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: April 6, 2015 |Policy Vote: GOV. & F. 5 - 0 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: May 18, 2015 |Consultant: Mark McKenzie | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: SB 441would authorize the San Francisco redevelopment successor agency to issue bonds or incur other indebtedness to finance the construction of specified affordable housing and infrastructure enforceable obligations. Fiscal Impact: This bill is expected to result in additional net General Fund expenditures of approximately $273 million over 40 years by authorizing bond financing pledged by revenues in San Francisco's Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) for specified projects, rather than financing those projects on a pay-as-you-go (pay/go) basis. The bill would result in reduced General Fund expenditures over the next ten years, followed by SB 441 (Leno) Page 1 of ? thirty years of increased General Fund expenditures, as follows: Reduced General Fund allocations to San Francisco school entities of approximately $79 million over the five-year period from 2015-16 through 2019-20. Reduced General Fund allocations to San Francisco schools of approximately $6 million over the five-year period from 2021-22 through 2024-25. Increased General Fund allocations to San Francisco schools of approximately $131 million over the ten-year period from 2025-26 through 2034-35. Increased General Fund allocations to San Francisco schools of approximately $227 million over the remaining 20 year period of bond repayment, ending in 2054-55. These impacts are a result of the affect the bill would have on payments to schools from the RPTTF. In general, any reductions in amounts allocated to schools from the RPTTF must be backfilled from the state General Fund, while any increased allocations to schools from the RPTTF would reduce General Fund expenditures, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees. Staff notes that the school share of property tax revenues in the City and County of San Francisco is approximately 35 percent of total revenues. Staff notes that all figures noted here are based on comparative scenarios for financing the projects (pay/go vs. bonding) with data provided by San Francisco's successor agency. Using the pay/go scenario, total RPTTF expenditures to finance the projects would be approximately $598 million, most of which would occur over the next 8-10 years. If the successor agency issues bonds to finance the projects, total RPTTF expenditures for debt service would be approximately $1.38 billion over the next 40 years, with three phases of 30-year bonds issued over the next ten years. Background: Historically, the Community Redevelopment Law has allowed a local government to establish redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and capture all of the increase in property taxes that is generated within the project area beyond the base year value (referred to as "tax increment") over a period of decades. Prior to their dissolution pursuant to ABx1 26 (Blumenfield) Chap 5/2011, RDAs used tax increment financing (including the school share), SB 441 (Leno) Page 2 of ? oftentimes issuing long-term debt in the form of tax allocation bonds, to address issues of blight, construct affordable housing, rehabilitate existing buildings, and finance development and infrastructure projects. Existing law establishes procedures for winding down RDA activity, including a requirement that successor agencies dispose of former RDAs' assets under direction of an oversight board. Successor agencies are required to make any payments related to enforceable obligations, as specified in an adopted biannual recognized obligation payment schedule (ROPS), and remit unencumbered balances of RDA funds to the county auditor-controller for distribution to local taxing entities in the county. The Department of Finance (DOF) reviews each ROPS to determine if the listed payments meet the statutory criteria for repayment, and has the authority to disallow any payments that do not meet those criteria. A successor agency can request that DOF issue a binding, "final and conclusive" determination that an enforceable obligation is valid. The Department of Finance has determined that specified development projects approved by San Francisco's former RDA in the Transbay, Mission Bay, and Hunter's Point shipyard/Candlestick Point areas are finally and conclusively approved enforceable obligations. When completed, those projects will account for more than 3,300 units of affordable housing. Under current law, San Francisco's successor agency is not authorized to issue new debt backed by the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF), and instead must finance these projects on a pay-as-you-go basis with RPTTF funds. The pay/go model is expected to obligate nearly all RTTPF funds in the near future, leaving very little residual amounts for disbursement to schools and other taxing entities. Proposed Law: SB 441 would authorize the successor agency to the San Francisco RDA to issue bonds or incur other indebtedness to finance the infrastructure requirements of the Transbay Implementation Agreement and the affordable housing components of the following enforceable obligations: The Mission Bay North Owner Participation Agreement. The Mission Bay South Owner Participation Agreement. The Hunters Point Shipyard Phase 1 Disposition and SB 441 (Leno) Page 3 of ? Development Agreement. The Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase 2 Disposition and Development Agreement. The bill would authorize the successor agency to pledge any property tax revenues available in the RPTTF to the bonds or other indebtedness, and do the following: Authorize bonds to be sold at either a negotiated or competitive sale and issued on a parity basis with other outstanding bonds or indebtedness, as specified. Specify the manner in which the successor agency may make certain required RPTTF payments to taxing entities subordinate to the bonds or other debt, upon approval of that taxing entity. Specify how an action may be brought to determine the validity of bonds or other obligations authorized by the bill, the pledge of revenues those debt instruments, and the legality and validity of specified proceedings related to the bonds. Require all actions in the bill to be subject to approval of the oversight board. Require scheduled bond payments to be listed in the ROPS if DOF either reviews and approves or fails to request review within five days of an oversight board approval. The action is not subject to further review by DOF or the Controller, except as specified. Specify that any bonds or indebtedness authorized by this bill would be considered debt incurred by the dissolved RDA with the same legal effect as if it had been issued, incurred, or entered into prior to June 29, 2011, and included on the successor agency's ROPS, as specified. Require the successor agency to ensure that the lowest long-term financing is obtained, prohibit the financing from using variable rates or bullets or spikes, and require the successor agency to use an independent financial advisor. Staff Comments: SB 441 would allow the San Francisco successor agency to accelerate the construction of affordable housing and infrastructure. In total, these projects will result in the construction of 2,783 units. Providing bond financing will help complete construction of nearly 400 units in the period from SB 441 (Leno) Page 4 of ? 2018-20 that would otherwise have been constructed in the 2021-25 timeframe. This would also free up RPTTF funds for schools and the City and County of San Francisco in the near term. The San Francisco successor agency expects to have approximately $344 million in RPTTF revenues over the next five years. Under the pay/go scenario, the successor agency expects to dedicate $315 million of RPTTF funds for these projects in the period from 2015-16 through 2019-20, leaving only $28 million in residual revenues for distribution to taxing entities (only $10 million of which is for schools). Under SB 441, the successor agency would issue $427 million in bonds in the 2015-16 through 2019-20 period. After paying $89 in debt service over this period, there would be $255 million in RPTTF funds for distribution to taxing entities, $89 million of which would go to schools. For the period from 2020-21 through 2024-25, the successor agency expects to have approximately $554 million in RPTTF revenues. Under the pay/go scenarios, the agency would dedicate $217 million to project expenditures, leaving $337 million for distribution to taxing entities (about $118 million for schools). Under SB 441, the successor agency would issue $103 million in bonds. After paying $198 million in debt service, there would be $356 million available for distribution to taxing entities from 2020-21 through 2024-25, $124 million of which would go to schools. The successor agency would issue another $67 million in bonds in the years after 2025. In summary, using bond financing authorized by SB 441, San Francisco's schools would receive an additional $85 million in RPTTF funds over the next ten years than they would have under current law (decreasing General Fund obligations), followed by $358 million in decreased RPTTF allocations to schools (and increased General Fund obligations) over the 30 years thereafter. The net overall impact over the next 40 years would be increased General Fund expenditures of approximately $273 million. SB 441 (Leno) Page 5 of ? -- END --