BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2259
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2259 (Ammiano)
          As Amended May 25, 2012
          Majority vote 

           LOCAL GOVERNMENT    9-0         APPROPRIATIONS      17-0        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Smyth, Alejo, Bradford,   |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey,          |
          |     |Campos, Davis, Gordon,    |     |Blumenfield, Bradford,    |
          |     |Hueso, Knight, Norby      |     |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
          |     |                          |     |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto,   |
          |     |                          |     |Ammiano, Hill, Lara,      |
          |     |                          |     |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
          |     |                          |     |Solorio, Wagner           |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

           SUMMARY  :  Modifies infrastructure financing district (IFD) 
          provisions for the City and County of San Francisco related to 
          the America's Cup.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Allows a waterfront district (district) to finance 
            improvements that may be publicly owned, to protect against 
            potential sea level rise.

          2)Deletes from current law the requirement that the board of 
            supervisors submit a fiscal analysis to the California 
            Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) for 
            review and approval.

          3)Modifies the requirements to be included in the district's 
            infrastructure financing plan, to specify that in the event 
            that San Francisco divides a district into project areas, the 
            project areas can share the limitation on the aggregate number 
            of tax dollars of levied taxes and the limit may be divided 
            among the project areas, or allows a separate limit to be 
            established for a project area.

          4)Modifies the requirements of the Pier 70 enhanced financing 
            plan with respect to the issuance of Educational Revenue 
            Augmentation Fund (ERAF)-secured debt, if specified conditions 
            are met.

          5)Specifies that annexation will take effect on the effective 








                                                                  AB 2259
                                                                  Page  2


            date of the ordinance of the board's annexation approval, for 
            any public or private owner of land not within an existing 
            district, but that has any boundary line contiguous to a 
            boundary of the district and who petitions the board for 
            inclusion of the land in the district.

          6)Specifies that the base year of land annexed into a district 
            will be the fiscal year in which the assessed value of the 
            annexed land was last equalized prior to the effective date of 
            the annexation, or a subsequent fiscal year specified in the 
            ordinance of the board approving the annexation.

          7)Defines the term "base year" to mean the fiscal year in which 
            taxable property in the district was last equalized prior to 
            the effective date of the ordinance adopted to create the 
            district, or a subsequent fiscal year specified in the 
            infrastructure financing plan for the district.

          8)Modifies the definition of "public facilities" with respect to 
            what can be financed by a district in order to specify that 
            those facilities financed may be publicly owned or privately 
            owned utility infrastructure if they are available to or serve 
            the general public, and includes within the definition of 
            "public facilities" any capital facility fees used to pay for 
            public facilities.

          9)Modifies provisions related to a special waterfront district 
            (Port America's Cup district), as follows:

             a)   Allows for acquisition of publicly owned waterfront 
               lands held by trustee agencies;

             b)   Allows improvements to publicly owned waterfront lands 
               financed by a special waterfront district, as specified, to 
               be outside the district;

             c)   Clarifies that improvements are subject to specified 
               set-aside requirements contained in existing law that 
               mandates that 20% of the special waterfront district ERAF 
               share allocated to a Port America's Cup district must be 
               set aside for federally- or state-owned waterfront lands;

             d)   Clarifies that all improvements in a Port America's Cup 
               district are deemed to be public capital facilities of 








                                                                  AB 2259
                                                                  Page  3


               communitywide significance;

             e)   Requires, if any portion of the 20% set-aside funds are 
               allocated to a federal or state trustee agency, all of the 
               following to apply:

               i)     The special waterfront district enhanced financing 
                 plan for the Port America's Cup district must specify the 
                 portion of the 20% set-aside funds that is allocated to 
                 any federal or state trustee agency;

               ii)    Specifies that the trustee agency's proposed use of 
                 the 20% does not need to be described in the enhanced 
                 financing plan;

               iii)   Requires San Francisco to direct the county auditor 
                 or officer responsible for the payment of taxes in the 
                 funds of the respective taxing entities to pay the 20% 
                 set-aside funds allocated to the federal or state trustee 
                 agency directly to such trustee agency;

               iv)    Provides that the special waterfront district is not 
                 required to report on a federal or state trustee agency's 
                 use of the set-aside funds in its annual statement of 
                 indebtedness or any other report required pursuant to 
                 existing law; 

               v)     Requires the special waterfront district to use 
                 commercially reasonable efforts to enter into a contract 
                 with the federal or state trustee agency under which the 
                 agency will agree to report to the I-Bank on an annual 
                 basis on its use of the 20% set-aside funds;

               vi)    Requires the report to be submitted no later than 
                 nine months after the end of each fiscal year in which 
                 the federal or state trustee agency receives or spends 
                 the 20% set-aside funds; and,

               vii)   Clarifies that the failure of San Francisco to enter 
                 into a contract with the federal or state trustee agency 
                 will not prevent the allocation of 20% set-aside funds to 
                 the trustee agency for specified purposes.

             f)   Deletes from current law the provision that allows a 








                                                                  AB 2259
                                                                  Page  4


               district to finance reimbursement payments made to the 
               I-Bank for the reasonable cost of the review and approval 
               of the fiscal analysis.

          10)Revises the definition of "Port America's Cup district" to 
            include one or more of Seawall Lot 330, Pier 19, Pier 23, and 
            Pier 29.

          11)Revises the $1 million cap of the county ERAF portion of 
            incremental tax revenues committed to a district, subject to 
            adjustment each fiscal year, after the 2011-12 fiscal year, by 
            the amount of 3%.

          12)Makes changes to the definitions of other terms related to 
            districts.

          13)Makes legislative findings and declarations as to the 
            necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San 
            Francisco.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Finds and declares that providing the ability to capture 
            property tax increment revenues to finance needed public 
            facilities in waterfront lands in San Francisco that are 
            subject to the public trust to the public agencies with the 
            responsibility to administer those areas will further the 
            objectives of the public trust and enjoyment of those trust 
            lands by the people of the state.

          2)Authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to create 
            infrastructure financing districts, including districts that 
            include specified waterfront property, adopt infrastructure 
            financing plans for those districts, and issue bonds financed 
            by projected increases in ad valorem property taxes to fund 
            certain public facilities, as specified.

          3)Authorizes the adoption of infrastructure financing plans for 
            special waterfront districts that include the waterfront area 
            in the City and County of San Francisco designated as the 
            America's Cup venues, and the use of specified tax revenues 
            produced in the districts for the construction of the Port of 
            San Francisco's maritime facilities at Pier 27, improvement of 
            publicly held waterfront lands used as viewing sites, and 








                                                                  AB 2259
                                                                  Page  5


            other matters, subject to specified allocation procedures.

          4)Requires the county board of supervisors to submit a fiscal 
            analysis to the I-Bank for review and approval before adopting 
            the resolution authorizing the issuance of debt pursuant to 
            these provisions.

          5)Requires, with respect to the special waterfront district, 
            that the ERAF share produced in a Port America's Cup district 
            with a special waterfront district enhanced financing, 20% of 
            that amount be set aside to finance costs of specified 
            improvements to federally or state-owned waterfront lands 
            approved by trustee agencies.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee, this bill will divert a small additional amount, 
          growing each year to account for inflation.  Over the entire 
          project life, the additional costs to the general funds will be 
          several million dollars.  The state would backfill the property 
          tax ERAF revenues, under the terms of Proposition 98 where local 
          property revenues allocated to school districts offset the 
          state's contribution to K-14 education funding on a dollar for 
          dollar basis. 

           COMMENTS  :  Under the Burton Act (Chapter 1333, Statutes of 
          1968), the state conveyed certain state tidelands along the San 
          Francisco waterfront, generally extending from Fisherman's Wharf 
          to Candlestick Point, to the City and County of San Francisco, 
          through its Port, in 1969 in trust for public trust and Burton 
          Act trust purposes, subject to the obligation on the part of the 
          City and County San Francisco to assume $55 million in state 
          debt obligations then existing relating to the waterfront 
          properties. 

          The San Francisco waterfront is a valuable public trust asset of 
          the state and provides special maritime, navigational, 
          recreational, cultural, and historical benefits to the people of 
          the region and the state.  The Port of San Francisco has 
          estimated 10-year capital plan liabilities of $1.9 billion to 
          bring its existing facilities, including facilities listed or 
          eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 
          Places, to a level of compliance with current codes.  Realizing 
          the goals of the Port's waterfront land use plan, the Bay 
          Conservation and Development Commission special area plan and 








                                                                  AB 2259
                                                                  Page  6


          the Port's capital plan and removal of the deteriorating 
          conditions along the San Francisco waterfront are matters of 
          statewide significance.

          For several years, local officials were reluctant to form IFDs 
          because they worried about the constitutionality of using tax 
          increment revenue from property that was not within the 
          redevelopment project area.  When a 1998 Attorney General's 
          opinion allayed those concerns, the City of Carlsbad formed an 
          IFD in 1999 to fund the public works for a new hotel located 
          adjacent to the Legoland theme park.

          In 2005, the Legislature adopted SB 1085 (Migden), Chapter 213, 
          Statutes of 2005, authorizing the Port of San Francisco to enact 
          infrastructure financing districts to finance specified 
          waterfront improvements. 

          In February 2010, the BMW ORACLE Racing Team, sailing for the 
          Golden Gate Yacht Club, won the 33rd America's Cup, off the 
          coast of Valencia, Spain.  On December 31, 2010, the team 
          designated the City and County of San Francisco to host the 34th 
          America's Cup sailing regatta.  The team anticipates holding the 
          34th America's Cup match in San Francisco Bay in 2013, with 
          preliminary races worldwide beginning in 2011 and in San 
          Francisco Bay in 2012.

          AB 1199 (Ammiano), Chapter 664, Statutes of  2010, revised the 
          special statute that controls how local officials can form, 
          finance, and operate an IFD along the San Francisco waterfront, 
          at Pier 70, on land that is under the jurisdiction of the Port 
          of San Francisco.  Due to the extraordinary unfunded capital 
          plan liabilities on the Port's property, the City and County of 
          San Francisco sponsored AB 664 (Ammiano), Chapter 314, Statutes 
          of 2011, to make various changes to San Francisco's IFD law to 
          authorize the use of IFD moneys for a more diverse group of 
          projects.

          According to the author, and sponsor - the San Francisco Port 
          Commission - this bill is a clean-up measure to AB 664 
          (Ammiano).  Since AB 664 was chaptered, the sponsors of the 
          America's Cup race have dialed back the plans for the race, and 
          the Port, through this bill, wants to revise IFD law related to 
          the America's Cup in order to reflect those plans.









                                                                  AB 2259
                                                                  Page  7


          This bill allows tax increment from the district to be used to 
          finance improvements that may be publicly owned to protect 
          against potential sea level rise, as well as facilities that may 
          be publicly owned or privately owned utility infrastructure if 
          the facilities are available to or serve the general public.

          Provisions in the bill remove the requirement that the I-Bank 
          review and sign off on the enhanced financing plan and delete 
          the provisions in existing law that require the City and County 
          of San Francisco to reimburse the I-Bank for the reasonable cost 
          of the review and approval of the fiscal analysis.

          Existing law requires, for the ERAF share produced in a Port 
          America's Cup district, 20% of that amount to be set aside to 
          finance the costs of specified improvements to federally or 
          state-owned waterfront lands approved by trustee agencies.  This 
          bill allows the ERAF share to be used to finance other costs, in 
          addition to the planning, design and construction of 
          improvements to publicly owned waterfront lands as is current 
          law, for the acquisition of those lands, under the jurisdiction 
          of the trustee agencies.  The bill provides that those lands are 
          not required to be in the district, and imposes new requirements 
          and grants certain exceptions in the event that any portion of 
          the set-aside funds is allocated to a federal or state trustee 
          agency.

          For consistency, the bill modifies the definitions of several 
          terms for waterfront districts.  Other provisions in the bill 
          allow the district to restructure or refinance debt as 
          necessary, and create a cost-of-living-adjustment-type (COLA) 
          increase on the amount of tax increment that can be shifted per 
          year from the state's share of the ERAF.  Specifically, the bill 
          revises the $1 million cap of the county ERAF portion of 
          incremental tax revenues committed to a district to include an 
          adjustment each fiscal year, after the 2011-12 fiscal year, by 
          the amount 3%.

          Support arguments:  With the scaling back of the plans for the 
          America's Cup, supporters believe that IFD law related to 
          waterfront districts must be amended for consistency purposes.

          Opposition arguments:  None on file.










                                                                  AB 2259
                                                                  Page  8


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 
          319-3958 


                                                                FN: 0003893