California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: To Executive

SB 863 — Local government.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 722, Statutes of 2010.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law, the Williamson Act, authorizes a city or county to enter into 10-year contracts with owners of land devoted to agricultural use, whereby the owners agree to continue using the property for that purpose, and the city or county agrees to value the land accordingly for purposes of property taxation. Existing law sets forth procedures for reimbursing cities and counties for property tax revenues not received as a result of these contracts. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2011, and until January 1, 2015, authorize a county, in any fiscal year in which payments authorized for reimbursement to a county for lost revenue are less than 12 of the participating county's actual foregone general fund property tax revenue, to revise the term for newly renewed and new contracts and require the assessor to value the property, as specified, based on the revised contract term. The bill would provide that a landowner may choose to nonrenew and begin the cancellation process. The bill would also provide that any increased revenues generated by properties under a new contract shall be paid to the county. This bill would appropriate $10,000,000 from the General Fund to the Controller for the 2010–11 fiscal year to make subvention payments to counties, as specified. The bill would provide, in the event that this bill is enacted, that the provisions of Chapter 391 of the Statutes of 2010 not become effective. (2) The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the establishment of redevelopment agencies in communities to address the effects of blight in those communities. Existing law requires each agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and approve a redevelopment plan for each project area. Existing law requires that a redevelopment plan contain specified limitations, including, but not limited to, a limitation on the number of dollars of taxes that may be divided and allocated to a redevelopment agency. This bill would, notwithstanding specified provisions, eliminate the tax increment limit for the redevelopment plan for the Centre City Redevelopment Project, including, but not limited to, the original project area, the expanded project area, and the merged project area. (3) The Community Redevelopment Law also requires a redevelopment agency to use at least 20% of tax increments generated from a project area to increase and improve the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing, and those funds to be held in a separate Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund until used. That law authorizes a redevelopment agency, from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, inclusive, to suspend all or part of its required allocation to its Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, but requires the redevelopment agency to repay the revenue diverted during the suspension within a specified time period, ending as of June 30, 2015. That law requires redevelopment agencies in this state to make a specified remittance to county Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds for the 2009–10 fiscal year and another remittance to those funds for the 2010–11 fiscal year. That law subjects a redevelopment agency that does not make either or both of the required remittances to specified prohibitions and the requirement that it allocate an additional 5% of all tax increments it receives for low- and moderate-income housing for the remainder of the time it receives them. This bill would exempt a redevelopment agency that fails to allocate either or both of the required remittances, or to otherwise arrange for their full payment, as specified, from those prohibitions and the above-described requirement, if the county auditor certifies to the Department of Finance that (1) the redevelopment agency adopted a specified resolution, or specified resolutions, and failed to make the associated remittance by May 10, 2010, or May 10, 2011, as applicable, (2) the county reduced the tax increment revenue payable to the redevelopment agency by at least 20% in the 2009–10 fiscal year, and (3) the redevelopment agency has entered into a specified agreement with the Department of Finance with respect to paying the required remittances. (4) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Centre City Redevelopment Project of the City of San Diego. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 722, Statutes of 2010.

  2. Approved by Governor.

  3. Enrolled. To Governor at 11:45 a.m.

  4. Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 28. Noes 5. Page 5252.) To enrollment.

  5. Urgency clause adopted.

  6. In Senate.

  7. Passed. (Ayes 58. Noes 8. Page 7172.) To Senate.

  8. Urgency clause adopted.

  9. Read third time.

  10. Read third time. Amended. (Page 7154.) To third reading.

  11. Action rescinded whereby the bill was read a third time and amendments were adopted.

  12. Read third time. Amended. (Page 7147.) To third reading.

  13. Read second time. To third reading.

  14. Placed on second reading file.

  15. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  16. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 24. Noes 5. Page 3270.) To Assembly.

  17. Read second time. To third reading.

  18. Placed on second reading file.

  19. Withdrawn from committee.

  20. To Com. on RLS.

  21. From print. May be acted upon on or after February 11.

  22. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 2 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

W/O REF. TO FILE SB863 Committee on B. & F.R. (Ducheny) Urgency Clause

Passed 28 Yea · 5 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 26407
Republican 1000
Democratic 1100
Total 28507
% of votes cast 70%13%0%18%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Runner — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Negrete — Not Voting
Harman — Yea
Hollingsworth — Yea
Huff — Nay
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Not Voting
Ducheny — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Price — Nay
Romero — Nay
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Aanestad — Not Voting
Alquist — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Oropeza — Not Voting
Pavley — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wiggins — Not Voting
Wright — Not Voting
Cedillo — Not Voting
Corbett — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea
Florez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Nay
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

SB 863 B.& F. R. Third Reading Urgency By BLUMENFIELD Formerly item 26

Passed 68 Yea · 8 Nay · 14 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 648012
Democratic 2001
Republican 2001
Total 688014
% of votes cast 76%9%0%16%
How each member voted (90)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Not Voting
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Bill — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Garrick — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Silva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Audra — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Carter — Not Voting
Tom — Not Voting
Charles — Not Voting
Portantino — Not Voting
Saldana — Not Voting
Davis — Not Voting
Hagman — Not Voting
Knight — Nay
Lieu — Nay
Nava — Nay
Norby — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Not Voting
Tran — Yea
Adams — Yea
Ammiano — Not Voting
Bass — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Not Voting
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Logue — Yea
Ma — Yea
Miller — Nay
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Torres — Yea
Villines — Yea
Eng — Yea
Feuer — Nay
Evans — Yea
DeVore — Nay
Furutani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Senate 3rd Reading SB863 Committee on B. & F.R. (Ducheny)

Passed 25 Yea · 5 Nay · 10 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 234010
Democratic 2000
Republican 0100
Total 255010
% of votes cast 63%13%0%25%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Cogdill — Not Voting
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Runner — Not Voting
Ducheny — Yea
Harman — Not Voting
Hollingsworth — Not Voting
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Dutton — Nay
McLeod — Yea
Oropeza — Yea
Ashburn — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Wiggins — Not Voting
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Not Voting
Alquist — Yea
Huff — Not Voting
Kehoe — Yea
Maldonado — Not Voting
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
Cedillo — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Corbett — Yea
Correa — Yea
Cox — Not Voting
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Not Voting
Florez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety taxation housing
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 863 do?
(1) Existing law, the Williamson Act, authorizes a city or county to enter into 10-year contracts with owners of land devoted to agricultural use, whereby the owners agree to continue using the property for that purpose, and the city or county agrees to value the land accordingly for purposes of property taxation. Existing law sets forth procedures for reimbursing cities and counties for property tax revenues not received as a result of these contracts. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2011, and until January 1, 2015, authorize a county, in any fiscal year in which payments authorized for reimbursement to a county for lost revenue are less than 12 of the participating county's actual foregone general fund property tax revenue, to revise the term for newly renewed and new contracts and require the assessor to value the property, as specified, based on the revised contract term. The bill would provide that a landowner may choose to nonrenew and begin the cancellation process. The bill would also provide that any increased revenues generated by properties under a new contract shall be paid to the county. This bill would appropriate $10,000,000 from the General Fund to the Controller for the 2010–11 fiscal year to make subvention payments to counties, as specified. The bill would provide, in the event that this bill is enacted, that the provisions of Chapter 391 of the Statutes of 2010 not become effective. (2) The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the establishment of redevelopment agencies in communities to address the effects of blight in those communities. Existing law requires each agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and approve a redevelopment plan for each project area. Existing law requires that a redevelopment plan contain specified limitations, including, but not limited to, a limitation on the number of dollars of taxes that may be divided and allocated to a redevelopment agency. This bill would, notwithstanding specified provisions, eliminate the tax increment limit for the redevelopment plan for the Centre City Redevelopment Project, including, but not limited to, the original project area, the expanded project area, and the merged project area. (3) The Community Redevelopment Law also requires a redevelopment agency to use at least 20% of tax increments generated from a project area to increase and improve the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing, and those funds to be held in a separate Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund until used. That law authorizes a redevelopment agency, from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, inclusive, to suspend all or part of its required allocation to its Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, but requires the redevelopment agency to repay the revenue diverted during the suspension within a specified time period, ending as of June 30, 2015. That law requires redevelopment agencies in this state to make a specified remittance to county Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds for the 2009–10 fiscal year and another remittance to those funds for the 2010–11 fiscal year. That law subjects a redevelopment agency that does not make either or both of the required remittances to specified prohibitions and the requirement that it allocate an additional 5% of all tax increments it receives for low- and moderate-income housing for the remainder of the time it receives them. This bill would exempt a redevelopment agency that fails to allocate either or both of the required remittances, or to otherwise arrange for their full payment, as specified, from those prohibitions and the above-described requirement, if the county auditor certifies to the Department of Finance that (1) the redevelopment agency adopted a specified resolution, or specified resolutions, and failed to make the associated remittance by May 10, 2010, or May 10, 2011, as applicable, (2) the county reduced the tax increment revenue payable to the redevelopment agency by at least 20% in the 2009–10 fiscal year, and (3) the redevelopment agency has entered into a specified agreement with the Department of Finance with respect to paying the required remittances. (4) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Centre City Redevelopment Project of the City of San Diego. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Who sponsors SB 863?
SB 863 is sponsored by Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.
What is the current status of SB 863?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 863?
Track SB 863 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 863

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 863

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →