BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2493
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2493 (Bloom)
As Amended April 10, 2014
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 8-0 HOUSING 7-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Achadjian, Levine, Alejo, |Ayes:|Chau, Beth Gaines, |
| |Bradford, Wagner, Mullin, | |Gordon, Brown, |
| |Rendon, Waldron | |Maienschein, Quirk-Silva, |
| | | |Yamada |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, | | |
| |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, Eggman, | | |
| |Gomez, Holden, Jones, | | |
| |Linder, Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, | | |
| |Weber | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
AB 2493
Page 2
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
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;
and,
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,
AB 2493
Page 3
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1) Unknown General Fund losses, in the millions or tens of
millions, over several fiscal years.
Property tax revenues are allocated to units of local
government according to existing law regarding distribution of
local property tax. Without this bill, most of the bonds
would be paid off in 10 years or sooner, freeing up property
tax to be allocated to local governments, including schools.
Under this bill, there would be ongoing redevelopment project
area tax increment flowing to the redevelopment agency until
all of the bonds are paid off. To the extent this bill
reduces the revenues flowing to school districts, there would
be a corresponding cost to the General Fund as the property
tax would otherwise offset General Fund obligations to
schools, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding
guarantee.
2) Enactment of this legislation will likely lead to
settling or dismissing lawsuits brought over by the
dissolution of redevelopment agencies. Reduced litigation
will result in significant General Fund savings.
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, AB 26 X1 (Blumenfield), Chapter
5, Statutes of 2011-12 First Extraordinary Session, and AB 27
AB 2493
Page 4
X1 (Blumenfield), Chapter 6, Statutes of 2011-12 First
Extraordinary Session, 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 AB 26
X1. However, the Court did grant CRA's petition with respect
to AB 27 X1. 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
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
AB 2493
Page 5
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 for
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 26 X1. 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 26 X1) to June 28, 2011, upon issuance of a
finding of completion by DOF. June 28, 2011, is the date the
dissolution legislation (AB 26 X1) 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.
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.
AB 2493
Page 6
"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 they 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) of 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
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0003756
AB 2493
Page 7