BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 221
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 221 (Carter) - As Introduced: February 1, 2011
Policy Committee: Housing and
Community Development Vote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill allows Emergency Housing and Assistance Program (EHAP)
funds approved by the voters in the Housing and Emergency
Shelter Trust Fund Acts of 2002 and 2006 to be used for
supportive housing programs.
FISCAL EFFECT
The costs for Housing and Community Development (HCD) to include
supportive housing projects in future projects would be minor
and absorbable within existing resources.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . This legislation allows more flexibility for the
bond funding made available through Proposition 1C and
Proposition 46 by allowing EHAP - Capitol Development funding
(bricks and mortar funding for emergency housing shelters) to
also be used for permanent multi-family low-income supportive
housing projects. The author argues this flexibility is
necessary because efforts to combat homelessness have taken a
significant shift away from providing temporary emergency
housing toward an effort to find long-term housing that is
coupled with supportive services such as mental health
counseling, workforce training and alcohol and drug treatment.
2)Multifamily Housing Program - Supportive Housing Program . MHP
provides funding for construction, rehabilitation or
conversion multi-family housing projects for low- and moderate
income people. Within MHP there is a supportive housing
AB 221
Page 2
program which provides funding for projects that provide
supportive services coupled with housing. Target populations
include special needs populations, homeless and homeless
youth. Funding is provided as low-interest loans that
partially fund the cost of construction and require the
housing remain affordable for 55 years.
3)Bill raises possible legal issues. Article 16, Section 1 of
the California Constitution provides that general obligation
bond funds shall be applied only to the specific object
therein stated or to the payment of debt thereby created.
Propositions 46 and 1C do allow for amendment by the
Legislature but within restrictions. This bill raises a
question of whether granting flexibility for funding is
consistent with the constitutional restriction or a
permissible amendment of the enabling statutes for the
programs.
4)Related Legislation . This bill is a reintroduction of
AB 2536 (Carter) from last session. AB 2536 (Carter)
was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger noting that the
bill would change the use of housing bonds contrary to
the intent of the voters in approving Proposition 1C and
that it is not consistent with the intent of the voters
to redirect these funds to provide services to families
in permanent housing.
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081