BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2493
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  April 23, 2014

                       ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
                           K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
                    AB 2493 (Bloom) - As Amended:  April 10, 2014
           
          SUBJECT  :  Redevelopment dissolution:  housing projects: bond  
          proceeds.

           SUMMARY  :  Allows successor agencies greater flexibility for bond  
          obligation proceeds issued between January 1, 2011 and June 28,  
          2011, under specified conditions.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Extends, from January 1, 2011 to June 28, 2011, the date by  
            which an entity that has assumed the housing functions in the  
            winding down of redevelopment can designate the use of, and  
            commit, indebtedness obligation proceeds that were issued for  
            affordable housing purposes.

          2)Requires bond proceeds derived from bonds issued between  
            January 1, 2011, and June 28, 2011, to only be used for  
            projects which meet the criteria as determined by a resolution  
            issued by the oversight board:

             a)   The project shall be consistent with the sustainable  
               communities strategy adopted by the appropriate  
               metropolitan planning organization (MPO);

             b)   Two or more significant planning or implementation  
               actions shall have occurred on or before December 31, 2010.  
                The term significant planning or implementation actions  
               means any of the following:

               i)     An action approved by the governing body of the  
                 city, the board of the former redevelopment agency (RDA),  
                 or the planning commission directly related to the  
                 planning or implementation of the project; 

               ii)    The project is included within an approved city or  
                 RDA planning document, including, but not limited to, an  
                 RDA five-year implementation plan, capital improvement  
                 plan, master plan, or other planning document; or,

               iii)   The expenditure of more than $25,000 on planning  
                 related activities for the project within one fiscal  








                                                                  AB 2493
                                                                  Page  2

                 year, of $50,000 in total, over multiple years.

             c)   Documentation dated on or before December 31, 2010,  
               shall be provided indicating the intention to finance all  
               or a portion of the project with the future issuance of  
               long-term debt, or documentation showing that the issuance  
               of long-term RDA debt was being planned on or before  
               December 31, 2010;

             d)   Each construction contract over $100,000 shall include a  
               provision that prevailing wage will be paid by the  
               contractor and all of that contractor's subcontractors;

             e)   For each construction contract over $250,000, the  
               successor agency shall require prospective contractors to  
               submit a standardized questionnaire and financial  
               statements as part of their bid package, to establish the  
               contractor's financial ability and experience in performing  
               large construction projects.
          3)Allows, upon the issuance of a finding of completion by the  
            Department of Finance (DOF), that any city that funded an  
            eligible project, meeting the criteria listed in 2) a) through  
            2) c), above, inclusive, with funds other than RDA funds,  
            within the two years prior to the effective date of this act,  
            shall be eligible to be reimbursed utilizing 2011 bond  
            proceeds, if the project meets the purpose for which the bonds  
            were issued.

          4)Makes technical and conforming changes to terminology in the  
            bill.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Dissolves redevelopment agencies and institutes a process for  
            winding down their activities.

          2)Allows a city or county that authorized the creation of an RDA  
            to elect to retain the housing assets and functions previously  
            performed by the RDA.

          3)Required the entity assuming the housing functions of the  
            former RDA to submit to DOF by August 1, 2012, a list of all  
            housing assets, as specified.

          4)Allows the entity that assumed the housing functions to  








                                                                  AB 2493
                                                                  Page  3

            designate the use of and commit indebtedness obligation  
            proceeds that remain after the satisfaction of enforceable  
            obligations that have been approved in a Recognized Obligation  
            Payment Schedule and that are consistent with the indebtedness  
            obligation covenants.

          5)Requires the proceeds to be derived from indebtedness  
            obligations that were issued for the purposes of affordable  
            housing prior to January 1, 2011, and were backed by the Low-  
            and Moderate-Income Housing Fund.

          6)Requires DOF to issue a finding of completion to the successor  
            agency, within five business days, once the following  
            conditions have been met and verified:

             a)   The successor agency has paid the full amount as  
               determined during the due diligence reviews and the county  
               auditor-controller has reported those payments to DOF; and,

             b)   The successor agency has paid the full amount as  
               determined during the July True-up process; or,

             c)   The successor agency has paid the full amount upon a  
               final judicial determination of the amounts due and  
               confirmation that those amounts have been paid by the  
               county auditor-controller.

          7)Allows the successor agency, upon receiving the finding of  
            completion, to:

             a)   Retain dissolved redevelopment agency assets;

             b)   Place loan agreements between the former redevelopment  
               agency and sponsoring entity on the Recognized Obligation  
               Payments Schedule, as an enforceable obligation, provided  
               the oversight board makes a finding that the loan was for  
               legitimate redevelopment purposes; and,

             c)   Utilize proceeds derived from bonds issued prior to  
               January 1, 2011, in a manner consistent with the original  
               bond covenants.

          8)Requires, after DOF issues a finding of completion, the  
            successor agency to prepare a long-range property management  
            plan that addresses the disposition and use of the real  








                                                                  AB 2493
                                                                  Page  4

            properties of the former redevelopment agency, and requires  
            the report to be submitted to the oversight board and DOF for  
            approval no later than six months following the issuance to  
            the successor agency of the finding of completion.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  This bill is keyed fiscal.

           COMMENTS  :   

           1)Background on RDA dissolution  .  In 2011, facing a severe  
            budget shortfall, the Governor proposed eliminating  
            redevelopment agencies in order to deliver more property taxes  
            to other local agencies.  Redevelopment redirected 12% of  
            property taxes statewide away from schools and other local  
            taxing entities and into community development and affordable  
            housing.  Ultimately, the Legislature approved and the  
            Governor signed two measures, ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 that  
            together dissolved redevelopment agencies as they existed at  
            the time and created a voluntary redevelopment program on a  
            smaller scale.  In response, the California Redevelopment  
            Association and the League of California Cities, along with  
            other parties, filed suit challenging the two measures.  The  
            Supreme Court denied the petition for peremptory writ of  
            mandate with respect to ABX1 26.  However, the Court did grant  
            CRA's petition with respect to ABX1 27.  As a result, all  
            redevelopment agencies were required to dissolve as of  
            February 1, 2012.   

            As part of the winding down of redevelopment agencies, AB 1484  
            (Blumenfield), Chapter 26, Statutes of 2012, made various  
            statutory changes associated with the dissolution of  
            redevelopment agencies and addressed a number of substantive  
            issues related to administrative processes, affordable housing  
            activities, repayment of loans from communities, use of  
            existing bond proceeds and the disposition or retention of  
            former redevelopment agency assets.

            One of the provisions in AB 1484 allowed successor agencies  
            that have received a "finding of completion" from DOF to have  
            additional discretion regarding former agency real property  
            assets, loan repayments to the local government community that  
            formed the agency, and use of proceeds from bonds issued by  
            the former redevelopment agency.  In order to receive the  
            finding of completion, the successor agency must undergo  
            specified due diligence reviews and make the requirement  








                                                                  AB 2493
                                                                  Page  5

            payments to DOF.  

            Once the successor agency receives the finding of completion,  
            the agency gains access to three specific benefits listed in  
            statute - first, the ability to transfer former redevelopment  
            agency-owned properties to the city or county for  
            redevelopment upon completion of a 
            long-term management plan approved by DOF; second, the ability  
            to repay city loans made to the redevelopment agency; and,  
            third, the ability to use unspent bond proceeds issued by  
            redevelopment agencies prior to December 31, 2010.  However,  
            the repayment of city-agency loans and the expenditure of  
            unspent bond proceeds would become an "enforceable  
            obligation."  Once a finding of completion is issued, the  
            successor agency must prepare a long-range property management  
            plan that addresses the disposition and use of the real  
            properties of the former redevelopment agency.  The report is  
            required to be submitted to the oversight board and DOF or  
            approval no later than six months following the issuance to  
            the successor agency of the finding of completion.

           2)Purpose of this bill  .  This bill makes several changes to  
            dates established in AB 1484 and 
          AB 1X 26.  First, the bill extends, from January 1, 2011 to June  
            28, 2011, the date by which an entity that has assumed the  
            housing functions in the winding down of redevelopment can  
            designate the use of, and commit, indebtedness obligation  
            proceeds that were issued for affordable housing purposes.   
            Second, the bill expands the cutoff date for the use of  
            redevelopment bond proceeds from December 31, 2010 (as  
            established by AB 1X 26) to June 28, 2011, upon issuance of a  
            finding of completion by DOF.  June 28, 2011 is the date the  
            dissolution legislation (AB 1X 26) was signed.
             
             The bill also requires that certain criteria be met - that the  
            project must be consistent with the sustainable communities  
            strategy adopted by the appropriate MPO, that two or more  
            significant planning or implementation actions occurred on or  
            before December 31, 2010, to ensure that the project was being  
            contemplated by the local agency prior to the dissolution or  
            redevelopment, and that prevailing wage will be paid by the  
            contractor, as specified.

            This bill is author-sponsored.









                                                                  AB 2493
                                                                  Page  6

           3)Author's statement  .  According to the author, "During the  
            first half of 2011, prior to the dissolution of all  
            redevelopment agencies, approximately 50 agencies legally  
            issued bonds.  Of those cities, 37 have outstanding bond  
            proceeds that they are not allowed to use.  The State has  
            asserted that the vast majority of the 2011 redevelopment  
            bonds must be defeased and their proceeds not spent on  
            projects, however, over 90% of these bonds cannot be defeased  
            for 10 years.  During this ten-year period, nearly $1 billion  
            will be spent on the debt service payments for these bonds,  
            and the bond proceeds will continue to go unused.  If the  
            proceeds were used for their intended purposes, the  
            construction of these projects would generate over $1.2  
            billion in statewide economic activity, more than the debt  
            service payments during the ten-year period.

            "The vast majority of these bonds were issued for public works  
            projects such as infrastructure construction and repair, new  
            public facilities and affordable housing.  Bondholders who  
            purchased tax-exempt bonds (approximately 70% of the bonds in  
            question) for specific public works projects were promised  
            tax-free returns.  Per federal tax law, tax-exempt bond  
            proceeds must be used for their intended purpose, or the bonds  
            could be subject to losing their tax-exempt status."

            The author also notes that "various amendments have been added  
            to provide assurance that successor agencies would only be  
            able to use 2011 redevelopment bond proceeds for projects  
            which were actively being planned prior to January 1, 2011,  
            and that the bill would "assure that cities who rushed to  
            issue bonds, in order to "lock up" funds for future projects  
            that there were not currently working on would not be able to  
            use their 2011 bond."

           4)Related legislation  .  Last year, the author carried a similar  
            bill, AB 981 (Bloom, 2013).  The bill failed passage in the  
            Assembly Appropriations Committee.

           5)Arguments in support  :  Supporters argue that allowing these  
            funds to be expended will create many prevailing wage jobs,  
            shelter additional families in affordable housing, and rebuild  
            critical infrastructure in cities that can serve as a catalyst  
            for additional private-sector development.
                
            6)Arguments in opposition :  The County of Santa Clara argues  








                                                                  AB 2493
                                                                  Page  7

            that providing successor agencies the ability to use 2011 bond  
            proceeds improperly awards those very cities whose former RDAs  
            issued bonds on the eve of dissolution, and supports the funds  
            being used to retire RDA debt to free up funds for all taxing  
            entities.
                
            7)Double-referral  .  This bill is double-referred to the Housing  
            and Community Development Committee.

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          Cities of La Quinta, Lynwood, Riverbank, Santa Cruz, Santa  
          Monica, Ukiah, and West 
               Hollywood
          City of Glendale and Glendale Successor Agency
          National City Chamber of Commerce
          Southwest California Legislative Council
          West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce

           Opposition 
           
          County of Santa Clara
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)  
          319-3958