Bankruptcy

AB 1692 (Wieckowski) – Oppose
As Amended on April 16, 2012

AB 1692, by Assembly Member Bob Wieckowski, would alter the “neutral evaluation” process that local agencies may elect to pursue prior to or instead of declaring bankruptcy.

AB 1692 is premature. The process authorized by legislation just last year is being used for the first time in California. Given that these first instances of use are still ongoing, and given the confidentiality of those proceedings, it is impossible to know what changes, if any, might be appropriate.

AB 1692 would create more uncertainty in the neutral evaluation process. It would be impossible for a local agency choosing to use this process to know when the process would end, therefore making them unable to evaluate whether the process would be viable given their financial circumstances.

The Assembly Local Government Committee will consider AB 1692 at its hearing next Wednesday, April 25.

Redevelopment

SB 1151 (Steinberg) – Support in Concept
As Amended on March 29, 2012

SB 1156 (Steinberg) – Support in Concept
As Amended on March 29, 2012

These two bills, SB 1151 and SB 1156, by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, would create a structure for continuing redevelopment activities in the form of county-city joint powers authorities.

The foundation of CSAC’s support is that counties would have an option whether to financially participate in a Community Development and Housing Joint Powers Authority. The approach outlined in the bill package encourages a collaborative partnership between local governments to jointly govern and utilize various financing tools formerly afforded redevelopment agencies to provide economic development that also focuses on the public good. As you well know, counties provide numerous programs on behalf of the state, especially after the recent realignment, and are the level of government responsible for the general health and welfare of all the state’s residents. 

While CSAC supports economic development consistent with the SB 375 goals, as allowed by the two bills as currently drafted, we would support both an expansion of the project area definition and the list of eligible uses currently outlined in the bills in order to support the myriad of public safety, and health and human services that counties provide on behalf of the state. We envision a new structure for community development and affordable housing that gives counties and cities working together the power to both spur economic development and at the same time provide the public infrastructure that can help ensure the community’s success. This infrastructure could include transitional housing for people entering or reentering the workforce after incarceration or a childhood spent in the foster system, as well as others who need transitional and supportive housing. It could include the child care facilities that allow parents to work, or the clinics that keep those housed locally healthy, working, and out of emergency rooms. Some rural and disadvantaged communities need upgraded infrastructure to simply meet health and safety standards.

The Senate Governance and Finance Committee passed SB 1151 and 1156 at its hearing on Wednesday, April 18. SB 1156 now moves to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, which will consider the measure next Tuesday, April 24.

AB 2144 (Pérez) – Pending
As Amended April 16, 2012

AB 2144, by Speaker John Pérez, would significantly change the laws surrounding infrastructure financing districts to more closely resemble redevelopment.

Infrastructure financing districts, under current law, are designed to finance infrastructure projects that benefit the larger community, and have powers such as the power to purchase and improve land to achieve that. They require the consent of any entity whose property taxes they intend to use, as well as two-thirds of voters within an IFD’s boundaries. Current law prohibits IFDs from being located within a redevelopment project area.

AB 2144 would rename the districts “infrastructure and revitalization financing districts.” It would broaden their powers to include using purchased land for development purposes; acquisition, construction, and repair of housing, commercial, and industrial purposes; brownfield remediation; and military base reuse. It also explicitly allows the use of districts to finance any project that implements a sustainable communities strategy pursuant to SB 375. AB 2144 reduces the vote threshold to 55%, except on publicly owned military bases, which would not require a vote.

CSAC is analyzing the recent amendments and the bill’s interaction with SB 1156, SB 1151, and other economic development bills.

The Assembly Local Government Committee will consider AB 2144 at its hearing next Wednesday, April 25.

Realignment

SB 1566 (Negrete McLeod) – Oppose
As Amended on April 10, 2012

SB 1566, by Senator Negrete McLeod, would give a share of vehicle license fees to newly incorporated cities and to cities that recently annexed inhabited land.

As part of last year’s realignment, the state transferred two revenue sources to counties: the portion of VLF that counties weren’t already receiving and a specific share of the state’s sales tax. The VLF revenue is specifically allocated to public safety programs.

The explicit understanding of 2011 Realignment is that counties take on the considerable risk that these funding sources will be sufficient to fund the realigned services, and in return the shift in funding sources will be permanent and uninterrupted. Unfortunately, SB 1566 would alter this agreement made last year. It does so in two ways.

First, under the bill’s provisions, there is no guarantee that the amount of money transferred to newly incorporated cities and cities with recent inhabited annexations will not interfere with the realignment appropriation to counties. The bill removes DMV’s appropriation of $25 million from the Motor Vehicle License Fee Account, but if the calculation grants new cities more than that amount in any future year, it would directly reduce realignment funding.

Second, SB 1566 would grant these cities permanent funding. Prior to realignment, all cities received a share of VLF revenues based on their population. New cities received a greater share of VLF that stepped down over five years to the amount that all other cities received. This bill would give new cities both the startup amount and the ongoing amount, guaranteeing that over time the amount appropriated would take away money guaranteed to public safety realignment.

CSAC is meeting with the author’s office and the sponsor of the bill to try to alleviate these concerns.

The Senate Governance and Finance Committee passed SB 1566 at its hearing on Wednesday, April 18. The bill now moves to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee for consideration.

Elections

SB 1331 (Kehoe) – Support
As Introduced on February 23, 2012

SB 1331, by Senator Christine Kehoe, would create a fully independent redistricting commission to draw the supervisorial districts in the County of San Diego.

Californians generally have shown their desire for political districts to be drawn by those who do not hold affected offices by passing the two ballot measures that created the state’s independent commission and giving it power over all the state’s legislative, congressional, and Board of Equalization districts.

The citizens of San Diego County and the San Diego Board of Supervisors want a similar process for their own county. The commission contemplated by SB 1331 would ensure transparency by subjecting the commission to the Brown Act and requiring public hearings throughout the county. It requires the county to provide financial support and would be made up of retired judges. It would only apply to San Diego County.

The Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee passed SB 1331 at its hearing on Thursday, April 19. The bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 1272 (Kehoe) – Support
As Introduced on February 23, 2012

SB 1272, by Senator Christine Kehoe, would extend the term of central committee members to four years from two. This change, though apparently minor, would be a major benefit for county election offices, for two main reasons.

First, under the new top two primary system, the only partisan races remaining on the ballot are for US President and for central committee members. Therefore, in years of gubernatorial elections, with no presidential contest, central committees would be the sole partisan contests, and would force major cost increases associated with preparing and printing partisan ballots.

Second, central committee candidates constitute a disproportionately large percentage of the candidates to whom election officials must provide service. In most counties, they constitute at least half of candidates, and in several counties they are about two-thirds of the total. Many central committee contests do not end up on the ballot because the number of candidates is fewer than the number of available spots. However, the central committees still have the option of forcing the question on the ballot, requiring the space for listing the candidates and a number of write-in spaces.

Furthermore, counties are required to pay all the costs of central committee elections with county general funds, even though central committees are private entities.

The Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee passed SB 1331 at its hearing on Thursday, April 19. The bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee.