Redevelopment: enforceable obligations: City of Atascadero.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 438 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 438.
You're tracking SB 438
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 438 — Redevelopment: enforceable obligations: City of Atascadero.
Last action — August 26 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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
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, subject to review by oversight boards, and to, among other things, make payments due for enforceable obligations and to perform obligations required pursuant to any enforceable obligation. Existing law defines "enforceable obligation" for these purposes to include, among other things, loans of moneys borrowed by the redevelopment agency. Existing law also provides that agreements, contracts, or arrangements between the city, county, or city and county that created the redevelopment agency and the former redevelopment agency are invalid and not binding on the successor agency, and are not enforceable obligations, with certain exceptions, including for loan agreements entered into within 2 years of the formation of the redevelopment agency. Under existing law, a successor agency may enter or reenter into agreements with the city, county, or city and county that formed the redevelopment agency, subject to the approval of the oversight board, as provided. This bill, notwithstanding the above-described provisions, would deem a loan agreement entered into between a redevelopment agency and the City of Atascadero between January 1, 1999, and January 1, 2003, inclusive, to be enforceable obligations for these purposes and provide that such a loan agreement binds the successor agency. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Atascadero.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removed1 line(s) added, 1 removed.
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBillText Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
View plain text versions (2)
- Introduced 02/16/21 - Introduced Current pdf February 16, 2021
- SB438 View text html
Action History
-
August 26 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
-
August 19 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 9). Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.
-
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and H. & C.D.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 1234.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1191.) (May 20).
-
Set for hearing May 20.
-
April 19 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.
-
Set for hearing April 19.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 633.) (March 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Set for hearing March 25.
-
Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.
-
Joint Rule 55 suspended. (Ayes 32. Noes 4. Page 272.)
-
(Ayes 32. Noes 4.)
-
Art. IV. Sec. 8(a) of the Constitution dispensed with.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 19.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- John Laird · Primary
- Cunningham · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Laird, John Democratic
Co-sponsors (1)
- Cunningham
Not signed on (120)
120 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 120 →"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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 88% | 0% | 0% | 13% |
How each member voted (8)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Kiley | — | Yea |
| Chiu | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (8)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Voepel | — | Yea |
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Luz Rivas | — | Yea |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Boerner, Tasha | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Newman | — | Yea |
| Min | — | Yea |
| Borgeas | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Yea |
| Hertzberg | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Dodd | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Glazer | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Rubio | — | Yea |
| Allen, Benjamin | Democratic | Yea |
| Archuleta, Bob | Democratic | Yea |
| Becker, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Cortese, Dave | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| Hurtado, Melissa | Democratic | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Limón, Monique | Democratic | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Stern, Henry I. | Democratic | Yea |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hertzberg | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 438 do?
- 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, subject to review by oversight boards, and to, among other things, make payments due for enforceable obligations and to perform obligations required pursuant to any enforceable obligation. Existing law defines "enforceable obligation" for these purposes to include, among other things, loans of moneys borrowed by the redevelopment agency. Existing law also provides that agreements, contracts, or arrangements between the city, county, or city and county that created the redevelopment agency and the former redevelopment agency are invalid and not binding on the successor agency, and are not enforceable obligations, with certain exceptions, including for loan agreements entered into within 2 years of the formation of the redevelopment agency. Under existing law, a successor agency may enter or reenter into agreements with the city, county, or city and county that formed the redevelopment agency, subject to the approval of the oversight board, as provided. This bill, notwithstanding the above-described provisions, would deem a loan agreement entered into between a redevelopment agency and the City of Atascadero between January 1, 1999, and January 1, 2003, inclusive, to be enforceable obligations for these purposes and provide that such a loan agreement binds the successor agency. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Atascadero.
- Who sponsors SB 438?
- SB 438 is sponsored by Laird, John (Democratic) and Cunningham.
- What is the current status of SB 438?
- This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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 438?
- Track SB 438 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 438
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.
Stay ahead of SB 438
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →