AB 662 — Local government: redevelopment: successor agencies to redevelopment agencies.

Summary

(1) Existing law authorizes the creation of infrastructure financing districts, as defined, for the sole purpose of financing public facilities, subject to adoption of a resolution by the legislative body and affected taxing entities proposed to be subject to the division of taxes and voter approval requirements. Existing law prohibits an infrastructure financing district from including any portion of a redevelopment project area. This bill would delete that prohibition and would authorize a 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. (2) Existing law dissolved redevelopment agencies and community development agencies as of February 1, 2012, and provides for the designation of successor agencies to wind down the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies and to, among other things, make payments due for enforceable obligations and to perform obligations required pursuant to any enforceable obligation. Existing law prohibits a successor agency from entering into contracts with, incur obligations, or make commitments to, any entity, as specified, or to amend or modify existing agreements, obligations, or commitments with any entity, for any purpose. This bill would authorize a successor agency, if the successor agency has received a finding of completion, to enter into, or amend existing, contracts and agreements, or otherwise administer projects in connection with enforceable obligations, if the contract, agreement, or project will not commit new property tax funds or otherwise adversely affect the flow of specified tax revenues or payments to the taxing agencies. (3) Existing law requires a successor agency to submit a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule to the Department of Finance, and requires the successor agency to make payments pursuant to that schedule. This bill would authorize the successor agency to schedule Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule payments beyond the existing Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule cycle upon a showing that a lender requires cash on hand beyond the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule cycle, or when a payment is shown to be due during the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule period. The bill would authorize the successor agency to utilize reasonable estimates and projections to support payment amounts where a payment is shown to be due during the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule period but an invoice or other billing document has not been received, if the successor agency submits appropriate supporting documentation for the basis of the estimate or projection to the department. The bill would provide that a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule may also include appropriation of moneys from bonds subject to passage during the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule cycle when an enforceable obligation requires the agency to issue the bonds and use the proceeds to pay for project expenditures. (4) Existing law requires that specified actions of a successor agency be first approved by its oversight board, including, among others, the establishment of a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule. This bill would require a successor agency to notify the board 10 days prior to entering into a contract or agreement for the use or disposition of specified properties. The bill would authorize the board to notify the successor agency during that 10-day period that the board intends to conduct a hearing to determine whether the contract or agreement is consistent with the successor agency's long-range property management plan and would require the board to hold the hearing and issue findings within 30 days after it so notified the successor agency. (5) Existing law requires the county auditor-controller to determine the amount of property taxes that would have been allocated to each redevelopment agency if it had not been dissolved and to deposit this amount in a Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund in the county. Existing law requires the conducting of a due diligence review to determine the unobligated balances available for transfer to affected taxing entities. Existing law requires the county auditor-controller for each fiscal year to allocate moneys in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund for passthrough payment obligations, enforceable obligations of the dissolved redevelopment agency, and administrative costs, as specified. Any remaining moneys in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund are required to be distributed as local property tax revenues to local agencies and school entities, as specified. This bill would require that, on January 2, 2014, and twice yearly thereafter until June 1, 2018, funds be allocated to cover the housing entity administrative cost allowance of a local housing authority that has assumed the housing duties of the former redevelopment agency, as specified, before remaining moneys are distributed to local agencies and school entities. The bill would define "housing entity administrative cost allowance" for these purposes. This bill would also exclude from the calculation of the amount distributed to taxing entities during the 2012–13 base year the amounts distributed to taxing entities pursuant to the due diligence review process. By imposing additional duties upon local public officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law requires a successor agency to prepare a long-range property management plan that addresses the disposition and use of the real properties of a former redevelopment agency and requires a transfer of the property to the city, county, or city and county if the plan directs the use or liquidation of the property for a project identified in an approved redevelopment plan, as specified. This bill would specify that the term "identified in an approved redevelopment plan" includes properties listed in a community plan or a 5-year implementation plan. (7) 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. (8) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 34191.4 and 34191.5 of the Health and Safety Code, proposed by AB 564, that would become operative only if this bill and AB 564 are chaptered and become effective January 1, 2014, and this bill is chaptered last.

Bill Text

• Enrolled 09/18/13 - Enrolled Current pdf September 18, 2013
• Amended 09/06/13 - Amended Senate pdf September 06, 2013
• Amended 09/03/13 - Amended Senate pdf September 03, 2013
• Amended 08/13/13 - Amended Senate pdf August 13, 2013
• Amended 06/11/13 - Amended Senate pdf June 11, 2013
• Amended 05/24/13 - Amended Senate pdf May 24, 2013
• Introduced 02/21/13 - Introduced pdf February 21, 2013
• AB662 View text html

Action History

1. March 06, 2014

   Last day to consider Governor's veto pursuant to Joint Rule 58.5.

2. January 06, 2014

   Consideration of Governor's veto pending.

3. October 13, 2013

   Vetoed by Governor.

4. September 26, 2013

   Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.

5. September 12, 2013

   Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 3308.).

6. September 11, 2013

   From committee: That the Senate amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (September 11).

7. September 11, 2013

   Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 3247.)

8. September 11, 2013

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

9. September 11, 2013

   In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 13 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

10. September 11, 2013

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 2335.).

11. September 09, 2013

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

12. September 06, 2013

    Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

13. September 03, 2013

    Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

14. August 30, 2013

    From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 30).

15. August 19, 2013

    In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

16. August 13, 2013

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

17. August 01, 2013

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

18. June 24, 2013

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

19. June 11, 2013

    Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

20. June 10, 2013

    From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 5).

21. May 24, 2013

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

22. May 09, 2013

    Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

23. April 25, 2013

    In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

24. April 25, 2013

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 1122.)

25. April 22, 2013

    Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

26. April 18, 2013

    From committee: Do pass. To consent calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 17).

27. March 04, 2013

    Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

28. February 22, 2013

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.

29. February 21, 2013

    Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

• Atkins · Primary
• Mitchell · Cosponsor
• Dickinson · Cosponsor
• Perea · Cosponsor
• Ting · Cosponsor
• Torres · Cosponsor
• Wolk · Cosponsor

Votes

Subjects