BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                            



           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                       AB 1450|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
                                           
                                    THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 1450
          Author:   Garcia (D)
          Amended:  8/27/14 in Senate
          Vote:     27 - Urgency

           
          PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

           SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE  :  5-2, 8/6/14
          AYES:  Wolk, Beall, DeSaulnier, Hernandez, Liu
          NOES:  Knight, Walters

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  6-0, 8/28/14
          AYES:  De Le�n, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Walters


           SUBJECT  :    Local government:  redevelopment:  revenues from  
          property tax 
                      override rates 

           SOURCE  :     Author


           DIGEST  :    This bill, for the 2014-15 fiscal year and following  
          years, prohibits a county auditor from allocating revenues from  
          an extraordinary property tax rate approved by voters to pay for  
          pension programs to a Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund  
          (RPTTF).  This bill requires a county auditor to pay those  
          revenues into the fund of the city or county whose voters  
          approved the tax.  

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law dissolved redevelopment agencies and  
                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 1450
                                                                     Page  
          2

          community development agencies as of February 1, 2012, and  
          provides for the designation of successor agencies to wind down  
          the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies.  Existing  
          law requires revenues equivalent to those that would have been  
          allocated to each redevelopment agency, had the agency not been  
          dissolved, to be allocated to the Redevelopment Property Tax  
          Trust Fund of each successor agency for making payments on the  
          principal of and interest on loans, and moneys advanced to or  
          indebtedness incurred by the dissolved redevelopment agencies.   
          Existing law requires, from February 1, 2012, to July 1, 2012,  
          inclusive, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the county  
          auditor-controller, after deducting administrative costs, to  
          allocate property tax revenues in each Redevelopment Property  
          Tax Trust Fund in a specified manner.

          This bill, for the 2014-15 fiscal year and following years,  
          prohibits a county auditor from allocating revenues from an  
          extraordinary property tax rate approved by voters to pay for  
          pension programs to RPTTF.  This bill requires a county auditor  
          to pay those revenues into the fund of the city or county whose  
          voters approved the tax.  

          As an exception to this requirement, this bill allows the city  
          or county whose voters approved the tax, in response to a  
          successor agency's written request, to allow the successor  
          agency to use the revenues from the city or county's fund to pay  
          any enforceable obligation on an approved Recognized Obligation  
          Payment Schedule, as specified in state law.  If a city or  
          county grants a successor agency's written request, the bill  
          requires a county auditor to allocate revenues from an  
          extraordinary property tax rate approved by voters to pay for  
          pension programs to the successor agency, but only after all  
          other moneys deposited in the successor agency's RPTTF have been  
          exhausted.

          This bill:

          1.For the 2014-15 fiscal year and each year thereafter,  
            prohibits a county auditor from allocating revenues from an  
            extraordinary property tax rate approved by voters to pay for  
            pension programs to an RPTTF, except as specified.  Instead,  
            the county auditor must pay those revenues into the fund of  
            the city or county whose voters approved the tax.  


                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 1450
                                                                     Page  
          3

          2.As an exception to this requirement, allows the city or county  
            whose voters approved the tax to request that an oversight  
            board prohibit revenues derived from a pension tax rate from  
            being deposited into an RPTTF.  Based on substantial evidence  
            that a former redevelopment agencies (RDA) made a pledge of  
            revenues that specifically included revenues derived from a  
            pension tax rate, an oversight board may deny such a request  
            in an amount not to exceed the amount of revenues pledged by  
            the former RDA.

          3.Requires that, notwithstanding any other law, allocations of  
            revenues from an extraordinary property tax rate approved by  
            voters to pay for pension programs made by county auditors  
            before July 1, 2014 must be deemed correct and not affected by  
            the bill's provisions.  This bill prohibits a city, county,  
            city or county, county auditor-controller, successor agency,  
            or affected taxing entity from being subject to any claim for  
            money, damages, or reallocated revenues based on any  
            allocation of such revenues before July 1, 2014.

          4.Directs that no inference shall be drawn from the bill's  
            enactment with respect to a county auditor's use,  
            distribution, or allocation, before July 1, 2014, of revenues  
            from an extraordinary property tax rate approved by voters to  
            pay for pension programs.

          5.Declares that the Legislature is aware of pending litigation  
            between the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County, and  
            expresses legislative intent that no party in that litigation  
            be in any way prejudiced by the passage of this act.   
            Therefore, the provisions of this bill shall not apply to the  
            City of San Jose Successor Agency, except that revenues  
            derived from a pension tax rate that were allocated to the  
            RPTTF shall be allocated to the city or county that levied  
            that tax rate.

          6.Makes additional technical and conforming changes to state  
            law.

           Comments
           
          This bill clarifies the disposition of revenues attributable to  
          extraordinary property tax rates for pensions under the statutes  
          governing RDA dissolution.  Under current law, incremental  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 1450
                                                                     Page  
          4

          extraordinary property tax rate revenues that had been available  
          for paying some communities' pension costs before RDAs were  
          dissolved are no longer available for that purpose.  The  
          dissolution laws also appear to allow some of those revenues to  
          flow to taxing entities that are not authorized to impose the  
          extraordinary property tax rate and which would otherwise not  
          have received those revenues.  Because voters anticipated at the  
          time that they approved these extraordinary property tax rates  
          that the revenues would be used to pay for the costs of local  
          government employees' pensions, this bill establishes this use  
          of the funds as a priority.  

           Related Legislation

           SB 663 (Lara, 2014) is nearly identical to this bill.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  Yes

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown  
          General Fund costs, likely exceeding $10 million annually  
          beginning in 2014-15, due to the diversion of revenues from  
          pension tax rates from the RPTTF to the city or county that  
          imposed the pension tax rate.   

          An estimated $40 million in pension property tax revenues was  
          deposited into RPTTFs in 2012-13 following the dissolution of  
          RDAs.  These revenues are currently distributed to local taxing  
          entities pursuant to dissolution statutes, after paying  
          enforceable obligations of the former RDA.  This bill instead  
          allocates revenues derived from pension tax rates to the cities  
          and counties that imposed the supplemental rate, except for  
          specific amounts pledged by the former RDA to pay obligations,  
          as determined by an oversight board.  This diversion is likely  
          to result in over $10 million in reductions of property tax  
          allocations to schools.  Any amounts diverted away from schools  
          would typically result in corresponding General Fund  
          expenditures to meet the minimum funding guarantees of  
          Proposition 98.

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/28/14)

          AFSCME, AFL-CIO
          AFSCME, District Council 36

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 1450
                                                                     Page  
          5

          City of Huntington Park
          City of Inglewood
          County of Los Angeles
          Independent Cities Association
          League of California Cities
          Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/28/14)

          City of San Jose


          AB:nl  8/29/14   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                   ****  END  ****




























                                                                CONTINUED