BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                          AB 398
                                                          Page  1

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 398 (Migden)
As Amended May 28, 1999
Majority vote


  HOUSING             7-4         APPROPRIATIONS      14-7        
  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
|Ayes:|Lowenthal, Corbett,       |Ayes:|Migden, Cedillo, Davis,   |
|     |Dutra, Knox, Cedillo,     |     |Hertzberg, Kuehl, Papan,  |
|     |Torlakson, Wildman        |     |Romero, Shelley,          |
|     |                          |     |Steinberg, Thomson,       |
|     |                          |     |Wesson, Wiggins, Wright,  |
|     |                          |     |R., Aroner                |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|House, Battin, Olberg,    |Nays:|Brewer, Ashburn, Battin,  |
|     |Runner                    |     |Pescetti, Maldonado,      |
|     |                          |     |Runner, Zettel            |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

  SUMMARY  :  Enacts the Housing Bond Act of 2000, which proposes a  
$750 million general obligation bonds for state housing  
programs.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

  1)Renames the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund the Housing  
  Rehabilitation Loan Account.

2)Renames the Rental Housing Construction Fund the Rental  
  Housing Construction Account.

3)Allows federally recognized California Indian tribes to apply  
  for funding in the same manner as local governments.

4)Creates the Housing Finance Committee to govern the issuance  
  and sale of bonds.  The committee will be composed of the  
  Controller, Treasurer, Director of the Department of Finance,  
  Director of the Department of Housing and Community  
  Development, and the Executive Director of the California  
  Housing Finance Agency.

5)Creates the Home Building and Rehabilitation Fund into which  
  the bonds proceeds will be deposited and allocated as follows:

   a)   $550 million  -  Rental Housing Program Fund








                                                          AB 398
                                                          Page  2

   b)   $150 million  -  Home Purchase Assistance Fund
   c)   $  50 million  -  Farmworker Housing Grant Program

6)Creates a Rental Housing Program Fund that merges the Housing  
  Rehabilitation Loan Account and the Rental Housing  
  Construction Account.  The funds are to be continuously  
  appropriated to the Department of Housing and Community  
  Development (HCD) for the purposes of new construction,  
  rehabilitation, preservation, and code enforcement.

7)Provides that notwithstanding the provisions of this act, no  
  fund shall be created, bonds issued or sold, or appropriation  
  made, nor shall any portion of the act be submitted to voters.  
   (This language makes the bill a 41 vote bill.)

  FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriation  
Committee analysis this bill has a general fund debt services  
cost of about $1.25 billion over 25 years, or about $50 million  
per year, assuming the bonds are sold at an interest rate of  
5.0%.  (This is the cost prior to 5/28/98 amendment removing  
appropriation.)

  COMMENTS  :  In 1988 voters approved Propositions 77 and 84, and  
in 1990 voters approve Proposition 107.  These Propositions  
authorized the issuance of $600 million in general obligation  
bonds for state housing programs.  The bonds served as the  
primary funding source for the state's affordable housing  
programs, but all funds have been committed.

State bonds would be one of many fund sources to build new  
affordable rental housing, rehabilitate existing rental housing,  
and preserve through acquisition units most at risk of  
converting to market rate due to the expiration of federal  
Section 8 contracts, build Farmworker housing and assist  
first-time homebuyers.  The bond cannot fully address the huge  
need, but it can supplement the loss of substantial federal and  
local funding.

Supporters point out that the state needs to build 300,000  
housing units per year to keep pace with population growth in  
California, but only 100,000 units are constructed annually.   
Both homeowners and renters feel the growing impact of this  
disparity: 41% of California households could afford the  
median-priced home in 1998, compared to 56% nationwide, and the  
number of apartments built annually in California has dropped  








                                                          AB 398
                                                          Page  3

from 100,000 in the mid-1980s to 12,000 in the mid-1990s.  To  
meet the current needs of low-income families in California, we  
would have to build nearly five million apartments.

SB 510 (Alarcon) is set to be heard in the Senate Housing and  
Community Development Committee on April 19, 1999.  That  
legislation would enact the Housing Bond Acts of 2000, 2002,  
2004, and 2006 which, if adopted by the voters, would authorize,  
for purposes of financing existing housing programs, the  
issuance, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, of  
bonds in the aggregate amount of $980,000,000. 

  Analysis Prepared by  :    Tia Boatman / H. & C.D. / (916)  
319-2085 


                                                      FN: 0001452