BILL ANALYSIS
AB 338
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 338 (Ma) - As Introduced: February 18, 2009
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill expands the area of a transit development district and
allows a city or county to pay for public facilities and
amenities within the transit village development districts with
tax-increment bonds. Specifically, the bill:
1)Authorizes a city or county to issue tax-increment bonds to
make infrastructure improvements within transit development
districts without voter approval.
2)Expands the boundaries of a transit village development
district from mile to mile from the main entrance of a
transit station.
3)Permits bond financings to be secured by tax increment
revenues derived from property within the transit village
district, so long as local governments that would normally
receive the revenues approve the plan. Precludes school
districts from participating in the increment financing.
4)Requires that local governments using tax increment bonds for
transit district improvements use at least 20% of the property
tax increment for affordable housing within the district.
FISCAL EFFECT
No state fiscal effect, as the bill excludes school districts,
community college districts, and county offices of education
from participation in transit development district tax increment
financing.
AB 338
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Background . The Transit Development Planning Act of 1994
authorizes a city or county to prepare a transit village plan
to help deal with negative impacts of unrestricted growth and
sprawl. The purpose of the plan is to promote development of
centralized mixed-use communities around transit stations.
Existing law also allows cities and counties to create
Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs). These IFDs can then
issue bonds to pay for public works, which are financed
through property tax increment revenues diverted from other
local governments, excluding school districts. Local
government's forming IFD's must develop an infrastructure
plan, hold public hearings, receive approval from governments
agencies contributing to the increment revenues as well as
two-thirds of local voters.
2)Rationale . Supporters of the bill assert that there are
roadblocks to existing transit oriented development projects,
including a long planning process and spiraling construction
costs. The supporters also indicate that the Transit Village
Development Planning Act of 1994 provides no funding mechanism
to accomplish its goals. Thus, transit oriented projects must
compete with other local priorities and a scarcity of
transportation funding. This bill is intended to make
available a new funding tool to communities and transit
districts to help them fulfill transit-oriented development
goals.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081