California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 654 — Redevelopment: revenues from property tax override rates.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

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

This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 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. Existing law requires revenues equivalent to those that would have been allocated to each redevelopment agency, had the agency not been dissolved, to be allocated to the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund of each successor agency for, among other things, making payments on the principal of, and interest on, loans and moneys advanced to, or indebtedness incurred by, the dissolved redevelopment agencies. Existing law requires, from February 1, 2012, to July 1, 2012, inclusive, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the county auditor-controller, after deducting administrative costs, to allocate property tax revenues in each Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund in a specified manner. This bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district that levies a property tax rate, approved by the voters of a city, county, city and county, or special district to make payments in support of the State Water Project and levied in addition to the general property tax rate, to make a request to an oversight board to prohibit revenues derived from that property tax rate from being deposited into a Redevelopment Property Tax Fund. This bill would authorize an oversight board to deny this request based on substantial evidence that a former redevelopment agency made a pledge of revenues that specifically included revenues derived from the imposition of that property tax rate. This bill, for the 2015–16 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, except to the extent an oversight board denies a request, would prohibit any revenues derived from the imposition of that property tax rate from being allocated to a Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund and would, instead, require these revenues to be allocated to, and when collected to be paid into, the fund of the city, county, city and county, or special district whose voters approved the tax. The bill would require all allocations of revenues derived from the imposition of that property tax rate made by any county auditor-controller prior to July 1, ____, to be deemed correct, and would prohibit any city, county, county auditor-controller, successor agency, or affected taxing entity from being subject to any claim, as specified. This bill would require, to the extent that revenues derived from the imposition of a property tax rate, approved by the voters of a city or county or special district to make payments in support of the State Water Project and levied in addition to the general property tax rate, are deposited into a Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, the county auditor-controller to allocate moneys from each Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund to a city or county or special district that levies a property tax as so described after certain other allocations have been made. (2) By adding to the duties of local government officials with respect to the wind down of the dissolved redevelopment agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Article IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Held under submission.

  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  5. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  6. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  7. (pending re-refer to Com. on L. GOV.)

  8. Assembly Rule 56 suspended. (Page 1089.)

  9. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

  10. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.

  11. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  12. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

  13. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.

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

  15. From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.

  16. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Brown · Primary
  • Morrell · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Brown

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Morrell

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.

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

Subjects

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 AB 654 do?
(1) 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. Existing law requires revenues equivalent to those that would have been allocated to each redevelopment agency, had the agency not been dissolved, to be allocated to the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund of each successor agency for, among other things, making payments on the principal of, and interest on, loans and moneys advanced to, or indebtedness incurred by, the dissolved redevelopment agencies. Existing law requires, from February 1, 2012, to July 1, 2012, inclusive, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the county auditor-controller, after deducting administrative costs, to allocate property tax revenues in each Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund in a specified manner. This bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district that levies a property tax rate, approved by the voters of a city, county, city and county, or special district to make payments in support of the State Water Project and levied in addition to the general property tax rate, to make a request to an oversight board to prohibit revenues derived from that property tax rate from being deposited into a Redevelopment Property Tax Fund. This bill would authorize an oversight board to deny this request based on substantial evidence that a former redevelopment agency made a pledge of revenues that specifically included revenues derived from the imposition of that property tax rate. This bill, for the 2015–16 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, except to the extent an oversight board denies a request, would prohibit any revenues derived from the imposition of that property tax rate from being allocated to a Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund and would, instead, require these revenues to be allocated to, and when collected to be paid into, the fund of the city, county, city and county, or special district whose voters approved the tax. The bill would require all allocations of revenues derived from the imposition of that property tax rate made by any county auditor-controller prior to July 1, ____, to be deemed correct, and would prohibit any city, county, county auditor-controller, successor agency, or affected taxing entity from being subject to any claim, as specified. This bill would require, to the extent that revenues derived from the imposition of a property tax rate, approved by the voters of a city or county or special district to make payments in support of the State Water Project and levied in addition to the general property tax rate, are deposited into a Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, the county auditor-controller to allocate moneys from each Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund to a city or county or special district that levies a property tax as so described after certain other allocations have been made. (2) By adding to the duties of local government officials with respect to the wind down of the dissolved redevelopment agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Who sponsors AB 654?
AB 654 is sponsored by Brown and Morrell.
What is the current status of AB 654?
This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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 AB 654?
Track AB 654 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 654

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 AB 654

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →