California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

SB 628 — Enhanced infrastructure financing districts.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 785, Statutes of 2014.

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 22, 2013. Enacted.

Odds of enactment

High chance

Based on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a high chance of becoming law.

Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.

A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 80% · moderate confidence

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 5 sponsors

    1 primary, 4 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 12 recorded votes so far.

Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.

Summary

Existing law authorizes a legislative body of a city, defined to mean a city or a city and county, to establish an infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, to finance specified public facilities upon approval by 23 of the voters. Existing law authorizes an infrastructure financing district to fund infrastructure projects through tax increment financing, pursuant to the infrastructure financing plan and the agreement of affected taxing entities, as defined. Existing law requires an infrastructure financing plan to include the date on which an infrastructure financing district will cease to exist, that may not be more than 30 years from the date on which the ordinance forming the district is adopted. This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of a city or a county, defined to include a city and county, to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, upon approval by 55% of the voters; to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance, including, but not limited to, brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation; the development of projects on a former military base; the repayment of the transfer of funds to a military base reuse authority; the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of low and moderate income for rent or purchase; the acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use; transit priority projects; and projects to implement a sustainable communities strategy. The bill would also authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to utilize any powers under the Polanco Redevelopment Act. This bill would require the legislative body to establish a public financing authority, defined as the governing board of the enhanced infrastructure financing authority, comprised of members of the legislative body of the participating entities and of the public, prior to the adoption of a resolution to form an enhanced infrastructure district and infrastructure financing plan. This bill would require proceedings for the establishment of a district to be instituted by the adoption of a resolution of intention that, among other things, states the boundaries of the district, the type of public facilities and development proposed to be financed or assisted by the district, and the need for the district and the goals the district proposes to achieve. If the resolution is adopted by the legislative body after a public hearing, the bill would prohibit the public financing authority from implementing the infrastructure financing plan until specified events occur. This bill would authorize the public financing authority to initiate proceedings to issue bonds, and would require the proposal to issue bonds to be submitted to qualified electors of the proposed district, as specified. By requiring electors to make specified declarations on ballots under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand circumstances under which a person may be convicted of a crime and thereby, would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to fund infrastructure projects through tax increment financing, pursuant to the infrastructure financing plan and the agreement of affected taxing entities, as defined. This bill would authorize the creation of an infrastructure financing district for up to 45 years from the date on which the issuance of bonds is approved, as specified. This bill would require an infrastructure financing district to contract for the performance of an independent financial and performance audit every 2 years, as specified. This bill would authorize a city, county, or special district that contains territory within the boundaries of an infrastructure financing district, upon approval of its governing body, to loan moneys to the infrastructure financing district to fund the activities described in the infrastructure financing plan, as specified. This bill would authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to finance a project or portion of a project that is located in, or overlaps with, a redevelopment project area or former redevelopment project area, as specified. This bill would prohibit a city or county that created a redevelopment agency from creating a district until specified conditions related to the wind down of the former redevelopment agency have been satisfied. This bill would provide that any debt or obligation of an enhanced infrastructure financing district is subordinate to an enforceable obligation of a former redevelopment agency. This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of the city forming an enhanced infrastructure financing district to choose to dedicate any portion of its net available revenue, as defined, to the enhanced infrastructure financing district through the infrastructure financing plan, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 785, Statutes of 2014.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 11 a.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 21. Noes 13. Page 5002.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. From committee: That the Assembly amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 4. Noes 2. Page 5015.)

  6. From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 4995.) Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  7. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.

  8. In Senate.

  9. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 44. Noes 31. Page 6720.) Ordered to the Senate.

  10. Ordered to third reading.

  11. Action rescinded whereby the bill was re-referred to the Com. on APPR. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  12. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  13. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  14. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 27).

  15. Joint Rule 62(a) file notice suspended. (Ayes 55. Noes 24. Page 6459.)

  16. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  17. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  18. Ordered to third reading.

  19. (Ayes 53. Noes 24. Page 6458.) .

  20. Action rescinded whereby the bill was re-referred to Com on RLS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 97.

  21. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 97.

  22. Ordered to third reading.

  23. Read third time and amended. (Ayes 50. Noes 24. Page 5910.)

  24. Ordered to third reading.

  25. Action rescinded whereby the bill was read a third time, passed, and ordered to the Senate.

  26. In Assembly. Held at Desk.

  27. Ordered to the Assembly.

  28. Action rescinded whereby Assembly amendments were concurred in.

  29. Ordered held at the Desk.

  30. Withdrawn from engrossing and enrolling.

  31. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 26. Noes 12. Page 1852.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  32. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  33. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 46. Noes 29. Page 2481.) Ordered to the Senate.

  34. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  35. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  36. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (July 3).

  37. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (June 26). Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

  38. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  39. Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and H. & C.D.

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

  41. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 24. Noes 11. Page 970.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  42. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  43. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 3. Page 853.) (May 7).

  44. Set for hearing May 7.

  45. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on T. & H. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 566.) (April 17). Re-referred to Com. on T. & H.

  46. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  47. Set for hearing April 17.

  48. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  49. Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  50. Set for hearing April 3.

  51. Referred to Coms. on GOV. & F. and T. & H.

  52. Read first time.

  53. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 25.

  54. Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Beall · Primary
  • Bonta · Cosponsor
  • Dickinson · Cosponsor
  • Wolk · Cosponsor
  • Sasha Renée Pérez · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 4 co-sponsors · 117 not signed on · 10 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Beall

Co-sponsors (4)

Not signed on (117)

117 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 117 →

"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

SB 628 Beall Senate Third Reading By DICKINSON

Passed 44 Yea · 31 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 412704
Democratic 3100
Republican 0300
Total 443104
% of votes cast 56%39%0%5%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Not Voting
Harkey — Nay
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Levine — Yea
Maienschein — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Pan — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Williams — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Fong — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Holden — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Medina — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Gatto — Nay
Allen — Nay
Gray — Nay
Hagman — Nay
Salas — Nay
Chau — Yea
Linder — Nay
Logue — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Chesbro — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Conway — Nay
Cooley — Nay
Dababneh — Nay
Daly — Not Voting
Donnelly — Nay
Perea — Nay
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Dickinson — Yea
Fox — Nay
Frazier — Yea
Yamada — Not Voting
Gomez — Yea
Gorell — Nay
Hall — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Jim Patterson — Not Voting
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Unfinished Supp 4 SB628 Beall Concurrence

Passed 21 Yea · 13 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 201304
Democratic 1002
Total 211306
% of votes cast 53%33%0%15%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Knight — Nay
Lieu — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Evans — Yea
Cannella — Nay
Galgiani — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Corbett — Nay
Hill — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Huff — Yea
Correa — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Nay
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Roth — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Torres — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Wright — Not Voting
Wyland — Nay
Walters — Nay
DeSaulnier — Not Voting
Fuller — Nay
Yee — Not Voting
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5202
Total 5202
% of votes cast 56%22%0%22%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Not Voting
Alejo — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Levine — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Gordon — Not Voting
Melendez — Nay

Official roll call →

SB 628 Beall Senate Third Reading By CHESBRO Amend By CHESBRO Set #1

Passed 50 Yea · 24 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 472104
Democratic 3001
Republican 0300
Total 502405
% of votes cast 63%30%0%6%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Holden — Yea
Linder — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Pan — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Williams — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Hall — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Fong — Yea
Daly — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gomez — Not Voting
Gorell — Nay
Bocanegra — Yea
Harkey — Nay
John A. Pérez — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Allen — Nay
Levine — Yea
Logue — Nay
Medina — Yea
Chau — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Salas — Not Voting
Bigelow — Nay
Chesbro — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Conway — Nay
Cooley — Not Voting
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Nestande — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Weber — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Fox — Not Voting
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Jim Patterson — Nay
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Unfinished Business SB628 Beall Concurrence

Passed 26 Yea · 12 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 231201
Democratic 3000
Total 261201
% of votes cast 67%31%0%3%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Hill — Yea
Knight — Nay
Lieu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wright — Yea
Cannella — Nay
Corbett — Yea
Yee — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuller — Nay
De León — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Torres — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Huff — Nay
Emmerson — Nay
Correa — Not Voting
DeSaulnier — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Galgiani — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

SB 628 Beall Senate Third Reading By ALEJO

Passed 46 Yea · 29 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 422203
Democratic 4300
Republican 0400
Total 462903
% of votes cast 59%37%0%4%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Linder — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Wilk — Nay
Conway — Nay
Campos — Yea
Stone — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Fox — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Gorell — Nay
Bocanegra — Yea
Hagman — Nay
John A. Pérez — Yea
Hall — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Gray — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Daly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Levine — Yea
Logue — Nay
Medina — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Pan — Yea
Perea — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Williams — Yea
Salas — Nay
Buchanan — Not Voting
Chávez — Not Voting
Cooley — Not Voting
Donnelly — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Wagner — Nay
Dickinson — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Nay
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 4 Yea · 2 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4200
Democratic 0001
Total 4201
% of votes cast 57%29%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Brown — Yea
Maienschein — Nay
Atkins — Yea
Chau — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Not Voting

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 24 Yea · 11 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 211104
Democratic 3000
Total 241104
% of votes cast 62%28%0%10%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Liu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Emmerson — Not Voting
Evans — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
De León — Yea
Leno — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Torres — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Monning — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Huff — Nay
Knight — Nay
Lara — Not Voting
Cannella — Nay
Correa — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Price — Not Voting
Roth — Not Voting
Walters — Nay
Wyland — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Yee — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 7 Yea · 3 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7301
Total 7301
% of votes cast 64%27%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Lara — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Galgiani — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Cannella — Nay
Liu — Not Voting
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing environment labor transportation
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 628 do?
Existing law authorizes a legislative body of a city, defined to mean a city or a city and county, to establish an infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, to finance specified public facilities upon approval by 23 of the voters. Existing law authorizes an infrastructure financing district to fund infrastructure projects through tax increment financing, pursuant to the infrastructure financing plan and the agreement of affected taxing entities, as defined. Existing law requires an infrastructure financing plan to include the date on which an infrastructure financing district will cease to exist, that may not be more than 30 years from the date on which the ordinance forming the district is adopted. This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of a city or a county, defined to include a city and county, to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, upon approval by 55% of the voters; to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance, including, but not limited to, brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation; the development of projects on a former military base; the repayment of the transfer of funds to a military base reuse authority; the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of low and moderate income for rent or purchase; the acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use; transit priority projects; and projects to implement a sustainable communities strategy. The bill would also authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to utilize any powers under the Polanco Redevelopment Act. This bill would require the legislative body to establish a public financing authority, defined as the governing board of the enhanced infrastructure financing authority, comprised of members of the legislative body of the participating entities and of the public, prior to the adoption of a resolution to form an enhanced infrastructure district and infrastructure financing plan. This bill would require proceedings for the establishment of a district to be instituted by the adoption of a resolution of intention that, among other things, states the boundaries of the district, the type of public facilities and development proposed to be financed or assisted by the district, and the need for the district and the goals the district proposes to achieve. If the resolution is adopted by the legislative body after a public hearing, the bill would prohibit the public financing authority from implementing the infrastructure financing plan until specified events occur. This bill would authorize the public financing authority to initiate proceedings to issue bonds, and would require the proposal to issue bonds to be submitted to qualified electors of the proposed district, as specified. By requiring electors to make specified declarations on ballots under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand circumstances under which a person may be convicted of a crime and thereby, would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to fund infrastructure projects through tax increment financing, pursuant to the infrastructure financing plan and the agreement of affected taxing entities, as defined. This bill would authorize the creation of an infrastructure financing district for up to 45 years from the date on which the issuance of bonds is approved, as specified. This bill would require an infrastructure financing district to contract for the performance of an independent financial and performance audit every 2 years, as specified. This bill would authorize a city, county, or special district that contains territory within the boundaries of an infrastructure financing district, upon approval of its governing body, to loan moneys to the infrastructure financing district to fund the activities described in the infrastructure financing plan, as specified. This bill would authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to finance a project or portion of a project that is located in, or overlaps with, a redevelopment project area or former redevelopment project area, as specified. This bill would prohibit a city or county that created a redevelopment agency from creating a district until specified conditions related to the wind down of the former redevelopment agency have been satisfied. This bill would provide that any debt or obligation of an enhanced infrastructure financing district is subordinate to an enforceable obligation of a former redevelopment agency. This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of the city forming an enhanced infrastructure financing district to choose to dedicate any portion of its net available revenue, as defined, to the enhanced infrastructure financing district through the infrastructure financing plan, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 628?
SB 628 is sponsored by Beall, Bonta, Dickinson, Wolk, and Pérez, Sasha Renée (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 628?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 22, 2013. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 628?
Track SB 628 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 628

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 628

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →