Call them the spawn of Assembly Bill 1X 26. In the wake of the dissolution of redevelopment, lawmakers in Sacramento have been working on a host of bills intended to, at least partially, compensate for the loss of redevelopment and to make the dissolution process go more smoothly. As the legislative season heads into its home stretch, some bills have died while others are gamely moving towards Gov. Jerry Brown's desk.
I spoke recently with League of Cities Legislative Director Dan Carrigg, who put the bills into two categories: "Post-AB 1X 26" cleanup, and "next steps." So far, the bills in the latter category have fared better than those in the former.
The bills that are dead include AB 1585 (Perez), SB 1335 (Pavley), and SB 986 (Dutton), all of which never got out of the Senate. AB 1585, which had an urgency clause and bipartisan support, was meant to be a comprehensive reform bill, supported by the League and many cities and former redevelopment agencies. SB 1335 would have enabled successor agencies to use property tax monies to remediate brownfields, which may turn out to be one of the most vexing white elephants that successor agencies now have to deal with. Carrigg said that it was "starting to become a very good bill." SB 986 would have ensured that the funds from bonds sold for a specific purpose would be spent for that purpose and not simply defeased. According to Carrigg, "in a bizarre series of events, (SB 986) had amendments that were put into it that were so problematic that the senator ended up voting against his own bill."
Several of the forward-looking bills still have some life in them.
SB 1151 and SB 1156 -- both sponsored by Sen. Darrell Steinberg -- both "need a lot of work" according to Carrigg but are still alive. SB 1151 would bill would authorize moneys to be expended for specified purposes relating to economic development and affordable housing. SB 1156 would enabled cities and counties to establish "Sustainable Communities Investment Authorities," which would carry out redevelopment-style initiatives. Both are in the Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee.
Two bills relate to infrastucture financing districts (IFD). AB 214 (Wolk) would eliminate the requirement of voter approval for creation of the district and for bond issuance. AB 2144 (Perez) would allow the creation of IFD's by cities and counties with 55% voter approval; it would allow IFD's in former redevelopment project areas, which previously were off-limits. Because the bills overlap so much, Carrigg said that the two would have to be reconciled.
Somewhat related to redevelopment, AB 1220 (DeSaulnier) would have imposed a $75 fee on each recording of a real estate instrument to be filed or recorded; the funds would then go to affordable housing. It failed in the Senate, 25 ayes to 13 noes.
