BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2292
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2292 (Bonta)
As Amended June 11, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 27, 2014) |SENATE: |36-0 |(August 4, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY : Allows an infrastructure financing district (IFD) to
finance public capital facilities or projects that include
broadband.
The Senate amendments :
1)Delete the provisions that would have authorized an IFD within
the Oakland Army Base, the Howard Terminal, or the Coliseum
City in the City of Oakland to finance public capital
facilities or projects that include freight rail, and the
provisions that would have required the governing board of the
City of Oakland to establish a commission, as specified, to
advise the city on the safety concerns regarding development
on the Howard Terminal.
2)Add new provisions to IFD law to allow any IFD to finance
public capital facilities or projects that include broadband.
3)Define, for purposes of the bill, the term "broadband" to mean
a "communications network facilities that enable high-speed
internet access."
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes cities and counties to create IFDs and issue bonds
to pay for community scale public works: highways, transit,
water systems, sewer projects, flood control, child care
facilities, libraries, parks, and solid waste facilities.
2)Allows an IFD to divert property tax increment revenues from
other local governments, excluding school districts, for up to
30 years, in order to pay back bonds issued by the IFD.
AB 2292
Page 2
3)Requires that in order to form an IFD a city or county must
develop an infrastructure plan, send copies to every
landowner, consult with other local governments, and hold a
public hearing.
4)Requires that when forming an IFD, local officials must find
that its public facilities are of communitywide significance
and provide significant benefits to an area larger than the
IFD.
5)Requires that every local agency who will contribute its
property tax increment revenue to the IFD to approve the plan.
6)Requires a two-thirds voter approval of the formation of the
IFD and the issuance of bonds.
7)Requires majority voter approval for setting the IFD's
appropriations limits.
8)Specifies that public agencies that own land in a proposed IFD
may not vote on issues regarding the district.
9)Authorizes IFDs to issue a variety of debt instruments,
including bonds, certificates of participation, leases, and
loans.
10)Requires any IFD that constructs dwelling units to set aside
not less than 20% of those units to increase and improve the
community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing
available at an affordable housing cost to persons and
families of low- and moderate-income.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Allowed any IFD within the Oakland Army Base, the Howard
Terminal, or the Coliseum City in the City of Oakland to
finance public capital facilities or projects that include
freight rail, in addition to the projects authorized in
existing IFD law.
2)Required the governing board of the City of Oakland to
establish a commission to advise the city on the safety
concerns regarding any development authorized by 1) above, on
the Howard Terminal, and requires the commission to consist of
one member from each of the stakeholders involved in the
AB 2292
Page 3
development of the Howard Terminal, including, but not limited
to, all of the following:
a) A representative for the City of Oakland appointed by
the governing board of the City of Oakland;
b) A representative for the Port of Oakland appointed by
the Board of Port Commissioners; and,
c) Every owner or lessor of property located within the
Howard Terminal or a representative appointed by the owner
or lessor.
3)Found and declared that a special law is necessary and that a
general law cannot be made applicable because of the unique
circumstances applicable to the City of Oakland and the need
for revitalization on the Oakland Army Base, the Howard
Terminal, and in the Coliseum City.
4)Provided that no reimbursement is required because the only
costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district are the result of a program for which legislative
authority was requested by that local agency or school
district, as specified.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this bill. This bill allows any IFD to finance
public capital facilities or projects that include broadband,
and defines "broadband" as communications network facilities
that enable high-speed Internet access.
This bill is sponsored by the City of San Leandro.
2)Author's statement. According to the author, "AB 2292
provides cities and counties with a tool to expand broadband
projects that would bring high-speed communications, jobs, and
new businesses to local communities. Access to high-speed
fiber optic networks, like the one in San Leandro, provides
businesses with a significant competitive advantage, helping
them to grow and become industry leaders. Businesses
connecting to San Leandro's high-speed fiber loop enjoy
Internet speeds of up to 10 gigabytes per second, which is
roughly 2,000 times the average speed of an Internet
connection in the U.S. By adding broadband-related projects
AB 2292
Page 4
to the list of facilities an IFD can finance, AB 2292 will
allow San Leandro and other local governments to create and
expand broadband networks that will help keep California at
the forefront of the innovation economy."
3)IFDs. Cities and counties can create IFDs and issue bonds to
pay for community scale public works, including highways,
transit, water systems, sewer projects, flood control, child
care facilities, libraries, parks and solid waste facilities.
To repay the bonds, IFDs divert property tax increment
revenues from other local governments for a period of 30
years. IFDs, however, are prohibited from diverting property
tax increment revenues from schools.
4)Public facilities of communitywide significance. State law
says that the types of public facilities of communitywide
significance that an IFD may finance are not limited to the
types of projects that are listed in statute. As a result, a
city-wide fiber optic network may already qualify for IFD
financing, despite not being specifically mentioned in the
state laws governing IFDs. This bill may only clarify what is
already allowable under current law.
5)Arguments in support. Supporters argue that changing state
law to add broadband-related projects to the list of approved
IFD uses will allow local governments throughout the state to
be able to create and expand broadband networks enabling
California to remain at the forefront of today's innovation
economy.
6)Arguments in opposition. None on file.
7)The subject matter of this bill has not been heard in any
Assembly policy committee this legislative session.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0004051
AB 2292
Page 5