• Established in 1972 · CBPA has over four decades of service to the commercial industrial retail real estate industry
  • BILLS TO ADDRESS REDEVELOPMENT ELIMINATION ISSUES

    Posted: February 27, 2012 | Posted by NLeonard | No Comments

    Three bills have been introduced containing technical fixes to AB1X 26, the bill that eliminated redevelopment agencies. This information comes from our friends at the California Redevelopment Agencies Association:

    Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles) introduced AB 1585 to help address some of the problems that have emerged with implementation of AB 1X 26. Its provisions include an urgency clause and the LMIHF related provisions in SB 654 (Steinberg). AB 1585 also expands the definition of “enforceable obligation” to include any loans between the agency and the host city or county within two years of the date of creation of the redevelopment agency or within two years of the date of the creation of a project area if the loan is specific to that project area. Other loans may be also be deemed enforceable obligations provided that the oversight board makes a finding that the loan was for legitimate redevelopment purposes. There are other provisions clarifying the functions of successor agencies and oversight boards.

    SB 654 (Steinberg; D-Sacramento) modifies provisions relating to the transfer of Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Funds (LMIHF) and responsibilities associated with dissolved redevelopment agencies. SB 654’s provisions modify the scope of the term “enforceable obligation” and require that any unencumbered amounts on deposit in the LMIHF of a dissolved redevelopment agency be transferred to specified entities. We Support SB 654.

    Senator Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) introduced SB 986 to ensure bond proceeds are expended on the projects for which they were issued. The bill is pending in the Senate and so far no action has occurred. SB 986 provides that all bond proceeds that were generated by a former redevelopment agency shall be deemed to be encumbered and prohibits a successor agency from sending these proceeds to the county auditor-controller. The bill requires that these bond proceeds must be used by the successor agency for the purposes for which the bonds were sold pursuant to an enforceable obligation that was entered into either by the former agency or its successor agency by December 14, 2014.

    AB 1585, SB 654, and SB 986 are steps in the right direction to address the many concerns raised by CRA members, host jurisdictions, and others.  Please keep your state legislators informed of these fixes and ask for their support.



    What Do You Think. Please Leave a Comment.


    There are no comments yet, please leave one.