BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                AB 654
                                                                Page  1


        ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
        AB 654 (Hueso)
        As Amended  April 25, 2011
        Majority vote 

         WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE     10-1LOCAL GOVERNMENT    7-2         
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Huffman, Blumenfield,     |Ayes:|Smyth, Alejo, Bradford,   |
        |     |Campos, Fong, Gatto,      |     |Campos, Davis, Gordon,    |
        |     |Roger Hern�ndez, Hueso,   |     |Hueso                     |
        |     |Lara, Olsen, Yamada       |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
        |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
        |Nays:|Halderman                 |Nays:|Knight, Norby             |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         APPROPRIATIONS                     12-5                         
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |     |                          |
        |     |Bradford, Charles         |     |                          |
        |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |     |                          |
        |     |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara,  |     |                          |
        |     |Mitchell, Solorio         |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
        |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
        |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly,         |     |                          |
        |     |Nielsen, Smyth, Wagner    |     |                          |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         
        SUMMARY  :  Requires historical properties subject to historic 
        preservation contracts to be inspected prior to entering into a new 
        contract and every five years, and for local agencies to take 
        actions to enforce these contracts.   Specifically,  this bill  
        requires:

        1)That contracts for preservation of historical properties include a 
          provision providing for an inspection of the interior and exterior 
          of the premises by a party appointed by the legislative body of 
          the local agency entering into the contract prior to a new 
          agreement and every five years thereafter to determine the owner's 
          compliance with the contract.









                                                                AB 654
                                                                Page  2


        2)The owner of the property to record the contract with the county 
          in which the property is located.

        3)The city or county entering into the contract to charge the owner 
          a fee sufficient to cover but not exceed the reasonable costs of 
          administering the program, including the cost of processing 
          designation requests, contracts, monitoring, inspections and 
          enforcement.

        4)The legislative body of the local agency, if they determine that 
          the owner has breached the contract or allowed the property to 
          deteriorate to the point that it no longer qualifies, to either 
          cancel the contract or bring an action in court to enforce the 
          contract.  

         EXISTING LAW  :  

        1)Authorizes cities and counties to enter into contracts with owners 
          of qualified historical properties that restrict the use of the 
          property in exchange for lowered property assessment values.  
          Requires that the contracts be for a minimum period of 10 years 
          and provides for periodic examinations of the premises, as 
          necessary.  

        2)Requires the owner of the historical property to provide written 
          notice of the contract to the Office of Historic Preservation.  

        3)Requires the city or county entering into the contract to charge 
          the owner a fee not to exceed the reasonable cost of administering 
          the program.

        4)Authorizes the legislative body of the local agency to cancel a 
          contract if the owner breaches the contract or allows the property 
          to deteriorate to the point that it no longer qualifies, or, as an 
          alternative to cancelling the contract, to bring an action in 
          court to enforce the contract, including by specific enforcement 
          or injunction. 

         FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, 
        negligible state costs, if any, fully reimbursed by the local 
        government to which the property owner pays the historic 
        preservation fee.

         COMMENTS  :  The author indicates this bill is needed to ensure that a 








                                                                AB 654
                                                                Page  3


        property tax break is not given to a historical property owner 
        without the property owner's compliance.  Under existing law known 
        as the Mills Act, owners of historical properties can enter into a 
        contract with a city or county under which the owner agrees to 
        restrict the use of the property in exchange for a lowered property 
        assessment value.  The law sets forth requirements for the contracts 
        and provides for periodic inspections of the property for compliance 
        as needed.  According to the author, the inspections are not 
        specifically required and do not always occur.  In addition, while 
        the current law requires the city or county to charge the property 
        owner an administrative fee, the fee is not necessarily sufficient 
        to recover all administrative costs of the program.

        To enhance program compliance, this bill requires the local 
        government entering into the contract to appoint a party to inspect 
        the property at the time of a new contract and every five years 
        thereafter.  This bill also requires that the fee charged to the 
        landowner be sufficient for the local government to recover all 
        costs associated with administering the program, including 
        processing, contracts, monitoring, inspections and enforcement.  
        This bill requires the local agency to take action if the agency 
        determines that the owner has breached a condition of the contract 
        or allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no 
        longer qualifies for the program, by either cancelling the contract 
        or bringing a court action to enforce the contract.  Current law 
        authorizes but does not require the local agency to take such 
        actions to enforce compliance.

        Currently there is considerable variation in the fees charged for 
        Mills Act contracts among cities and counties in the state, 
        depending on how a particular legislative body has chosen to 
        administer their historic preservation ordinances.  The Assembly 
        Local Government Committee looked at a cross-section of cities that 
        have implemented Mills Act contracts and found fees ranging from no 
        fee in the City of Eureka to a flat fee of $590, plus additional 
        fees for monitoring and enforcement, in the City of San Diego.  In 
        some communities where fees do not cover the costs of administering 
        the program, the program is subsidized by the city's general fund.  
        For further discussion on the implementation of the Mills Act and 
        how increases in administrative fees may affect these programs, 
        please see the Assembly Local Government Committee's policy 
        analysis.  










                                                                AB 654
                                                                Page  4


         Analysis Prepared by  :    Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916) 
        319-2096                                                    FN: 
        0000745