SB 5: Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program.
- Session Year: 2019-2020
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2019-09-13
Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenue to local jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and procedures, subject to certain modifications. Existing law requires an annual reallocation of property tax revenue from local agencies in each county to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in that county for allocation to specified educational entities.
Existing law authorizes certain local agencies to form an enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, transit village development district, or community revitalization and investment authority for purposes of, among other things, infrastructure, affordable housing, and economic revitalization.
This bill would establish in state government the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program, which would be administered by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee. The bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, joint powers agency, enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization and investment authority, transit village development district, or a combination of those entities, to apply to the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee to participate in the program and would authorize the committee to approve or deny plans for projects meeting specific criteria. The bill would also authorize certain local agencies to establish an affordable housing and community development investment agency and authorize an agency to apply for funding under the program and issue bonds, as provided, to carry out a project under the program.
The bill would require the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee to adopt guidelines for plans. Subject to the Legislature enacting a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount for the committee to allocate pursuant to the program, the bill would require the committee to approve no more than $200,000,000 per year from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2026, and $250,000,000 per year from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2030, in transfers from a countys ERAF for applicants for plans approved pursuant to this program. This bill would provide that eligible projects include, among other things, the predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of workforce and affordable housing, certain transit-oriented development, and projects promoting strong neighborhoods.
The bill would require the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee, upon approval of a plan and subject to specified conditions, to issue an order directing the county auditor to transfer an amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is equal to the affordable housing and community development investment amount approved by the committee, except as provided, from the countys ERAF. The bill would require the county auditor to either deposit that amount into the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund, which this bill would create in the treasury of each county, or, if the applicant is a specified type of authority or special district to transfer to the city or county that created the authority or district an amount of property tax revenue equal to the amount approved by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee for that authority or district. The bill would require the city or county that created the district to, upon receipt, transfer those funds to the authority or district in an amount equal to the affordable housing and community development investment amount for that authority or district. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize applicants to use approved amounts to incur debt or issue bonds or other financing to support an approved project.
The bill also would require each applicant that has received funding to submit annual reports, as specified, and would require the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee to provide a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, if it approves funding under the program, that includes certain project information.
Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution sets forth a formula for computing the minimum amount of revenues that the state is required to appropriate for the support of school districts and community college districts for each fiscal year.
This bill would require the Director of Finance to adjust the percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts for these purposes in a manner that ensures that the transfers from a countys ERAF pursuant to the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program have no net fiscal impact upon the total amount of the General Fund revenue and local property tax revenue allocated to school districts and community college districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, as specified.
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 the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenue to local jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and procedures, subject to certain modifications. Existing law requires an annual reallocation of property tax revenue from local agencies in each county to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in that county for allocation to specified educational entities.
Existing law authorizes certain local agencies to form an enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, transit village development district, or community revitalization and investment authority for purposes of, among other things, infrastructure, affordable housing, and economic revitalization.
This bill would establish in state government the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program, which would be administered by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee. The bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, joint powers agency, enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization and investment authority, transit village development district, or a combination of those entities, to apply to the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee to participate in the program and would authorize the committee to approve or deny plans for projects meeting specific criteria. The bill would also authorize certain local agencies to establish an affordable housing and community development investment agency and authorize an agency to apply for funding under the program and issue bonds, as provided, to carry out a project under the program.
The bill would require the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee to adopt guidelines for plans. Subject to the Legislature enacting a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount for the committee to allocate pursuant to the program, the bill would require the committee to approve no more than $200,000,000 per year from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2026, and $250,000,000 per year from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2030, in transfers from a countys ERAF for applicants for plans approved pursuant to this program. This bill would provide that eligible projects include, among other things, the predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of workforce and affordable housing, certain transit-oriented development, and projects promoting strong neighborhoods.
The bill would require the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee, upon approval of a plan and subject to specified conditions, to issue an order directing the county auditor to transfer an amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is equal to the affordable housing and community development investment amount approved by the committee, except as provided, from the countys ERAF ERAF. The bill would require the county auditor to either deposit that amount into the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund, which is created by this bill in the treasury of each county, and allocate moneys in that fund as directed by the committee, as specified. The bill would require the auditor, or, if the applicant is an enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, affordable housing and community development investment agency, transit village development district, or community revitalization investment authority, a specified type of authority or special district to transfer to the city or county that created the authority or district an amount of property tax revenue equal to the amount approved by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee for that authority or district. The bill would require the city or county that created the district to, upon receipt, transfer those funds to the authority or district in an amount equal to the affordable housing and community development investment amount for that authority or district. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize applicants to use approved amounts to incur debt or issue bonds or other financing to support an approved project.
The bill also would require each applicant that has received funding to submit annual reports, as specified, and would require the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee to provide a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, if it approves funding under the program, that includes certain project information.
Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution sets forth a formula for computing the minimum amount of revenues that the state is required to appropriate for the support of school districts and community college districts for each fiscal year.
This bill would require the Director of Finance to adjust the percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts for these purposes in a manner that ensures that the transfers from a countys ERAF pursuant to the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program have no net fiscal impact upon the total amount of the General Fund revenue and local property tax revenue allocated to school districts and community college districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, as specified.
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 the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenue to local jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and procedures, subject to certain modifications. Existing law requires an annual reallocation of property tax revenue from local agencies in each county to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in that county for allocation to specified educational entities.
Existing law authorizes certain local agencies to form an enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, transit village development district, or community revitalization and investment authority for purposes of, among other things, infrastructure, affordable housing, and economic revitalization.
This bill would establish in state government the Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program, which would be administered by the Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee. The bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, joint powers agency, enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization and investment authority or transit village development district to apply to the Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee to participate in the program and would authorize the committee to approve or deny applications for projects meeting specific criteria.
The bill would require the Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee to adopt guidelines for applications and approve no more than $200,000,000 per year from July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2025, and $250,000,000 per year from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2029, in reductions in annual ERAF contributions for applicants for projects approved pursuant to this program. This bill would provide that eligible projects include, among other things, construction of workforce and affordable housing, certain transit oriented development, and projects promoting strong neighborhoods.
The bill would require the Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee, upon approval of a project application, to issue an order directing the county auditor to reduce the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue otherwise required to be contributed to the countys ERAF from the applicant by the annual reduction amount approved. The bill would require a county auditor, if the applicant is an enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, transit village development district, or community revitalization investment authority, to transfer to the district or authority an amount of property tax revenue equal to the reduction amount approved by the Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize applicants to use approved amounts to incur debt or issue bonds or other financing to support an approved project.
The bill also would require each applicant that has received funding to submit annual reports, as specified, and would require the Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee to provide a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee that includes certain project information.
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 the statutory provisions noted above.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)In recent years the Legislature has created several new opportunities to use tax increment financing, which include the formation of enhanced infrastructure financing districts, affordable housing authorities, and community revitalization investment authorities. While these new tools can be useful to local agencies, they are widely viewed as lacking sufficient financial capacity compared to what existed under the former tax increment financing tool utilized by community redevelopment agencies.
(1)Under redevelopment, all of the growth in property tax (tax increment) within a project area over a base year, net of mandatory pass-through payments, that would otherwise be allocated to cities, counties, special districts, and school districts, was dedicated to redevelopment purposes. Under the new tax increment tools, however, property tax increment from affected taxing agencies other than the initiating city or county can only be dedicated with the approval of the affected local agencies.
(2)While potential local partnerships between cities, counties, and special districts involving new economic development tools continue to be explored by the state and local governments, a reality is that the state and local governments often have other policy and budget priorities, and lack incentives to participate.
(3)The language in the new tax increment laws currently prohibits school districts from participating, largely reflecting state concerns over potential backfill requirements for school funding under the requirements of Proposition 98 of 1988.
(b)The state shares many policy priorities with local governments, including affordable housing and economic development, that can be advanced by creating a new infrastructure financing tool that would focus on the following:
(1)Increasing the production of affordable housing available to very low, low-, and moderate-income families.
(2)Expanding transit-oriented development at higher densities.
(3)Reducing jobs-housing imbalances in areas with high job growth.
(4)Increasing the availability of high-quality jobs through the rehabilitation, construction, and maintenance of housing and infrastructure.
(5)Improving the quality of life in neighborhoods and disadvantaged communities.
(6)Incentivizing growth in urban areas, thereby reducing sprawl and ensuring that open space is preserved throughout the state.
(7)Reducing poverty and caseloads of state and county safety net support programs by incentivizing the training and hiring of affected individuals to jobs where they can be self-supporting.
(8)Protecting communities dealing with the effects of sea level rise, which is one of the most significant threats of climate change.
(c)The Legislature has declared that the policy priorities listed in subdivision (b) are matters of statewide concern. It is therefore appropriate that the state and local governments contribute financially to the realization of these priorities.
(d)By allowing local agencies to reduce their contributions to their countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) to fund affordable housing projects and related infrastructure, the state can advance its policy priorities while also protecting funding for schools and limiting effects on the state budget. The states interests can be ensured and protected in the following manner:
(1)Requiring approval of the newly created Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee, to ensure that the investment of property taxes otherwise allocated to schools through a countys ERAF are used only for projects that maximize state policy benefits while ensuring that an economic analysis projects increased property tax revenues for schools in the affected territory upon project completion.
(2)Offering additional incentives to participating counties and special districts.
(3)Establishing an annual cap on the total affordable housing and community development investment amount that may be approved to be allocated by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee, as follows:
(A)Not to exceed two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2026.
(B)Not to exceed two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) annually between July 1, 2026, and June 30, 2030.
(4)Requiring annual reports to the Legislature on the status of all projects funded through this program.
(e)It is the intent of the Legislature that schools and community colleges receive no less total funding from General Fund and local property tax revenue as a result of the bill.
(f)It is the intent of the Legislature to have the state provide increased funding in an amount that equals reductions in local ERAF funds to the point necessary for schools to meet their minimum funding guarantee pursuant to existing law.
(g)It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies receive the same amount of excess ERAF as they would have if the program established by this bill were not in effect.
SEC. 2.Section 41202.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:41202.6.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that the program authorized by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program established by Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code does not affect the amount of funding required to be applied for the support of school districts and community college districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
(b)The Director of Finance shall adjust the percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts for the purpose of applying paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution in a manner that ensures that transfers from a countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund authorized by Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall have no net fiscal impact upon the total amount of General Fund revenue and local property tax revenue allocated to school districts and community college districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. The Director of Finance shall make this adjustment effective with the 202122 fiscal year, consistent with the start of the grant program pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 55906 of the Government Code. The Director of Finance shall update the adjustment for subsequent increases or decreases in the amount of transfers authorized by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program.
SEC. 3.Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) is added to Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, to read:4.Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program55900.This part is known and may be cited as the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program.
55901.The Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program is hereby established to create a local-state partnership to reduce poverty and advance other state priorities financed, in part, by property tax increment.
55902.As used in this part, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)Affordable housing and community development investment amount is the amount of property tax revenue allocated pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(b)Applicant means any entity identified in subdivision (a) of Section 55905 that has submitted a plan to the committee pursuant to that section.
(c)Committee means the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee established by Section 55904.
(d)Plan means an application for one or more projects that is submitted to the committee.
(e)Program means the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program established by this part.
(f)Project shall include:
(1)A project undertaken by a city, county, city or county, joint powers authority, enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization and investment authority, affordable housing and community development investment agency, or a transit village development district.
(2)A transit priority project that meets the requirements of subdivision (d) of Section 65470.
(g)Skilled and trained workforce has the same meaning as set forth in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code.
(h)Transit Priority Project Program has the same meaning as contained in Section 65470.
55903.(a)(1)Funding allocated to the program shall be used to support a plan that includes affordable housing. Subject to paragraph (2), eligible uses of this funding include:
(A)Predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing, as provided in subdivision (b). For purposes of this section, the term affordable housing means housing affordable to households earning under 120 percent of area median income.
(B)Transit-oriented development for the purpose of developing or facilitating the development of higher density uses within close proximity to transit stations that will increase public transit ridership and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Fiscal incentives shall be offered to offset local community impacts associated with greater densities.
(C)Infill development to assist in the new construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in locations designated as infill, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(i)Park creation, development, or rehabilitation to encourage infill development.
(ii)Water, sewer, or other public infrastructure costs associated with infill development.
(iii)Transportation improvements related to infill development projects.
(iv)Traffic mitigation.
(D)Promoting strong neighborhoods through support of local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods, including repairing infrastructure and parks, rehabilitating and building housing and public facilities, promoting public-private partnerships, and supporting small businesses and job growth for affected residents.
(E)Protecting communities dealing with the effects of climate change, including, but not limited to, sea level rise, wildfires, seismic safety, and flood protection. Eligible projects include the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure, including natural infrastructure, related to protecting communities from climate change.
(F)The acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of land or property pursuant to eligible uses of funding specified in subparagraphs (A) to (E), inclusive.
(2)Eligible uses allocated to an applicant under the program shall be limited to those uses described in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, of paragraph (1) if the applicant has taken any action, whether by the legislative body of the applicant or the electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, that has any of the following effects:
(A)Established or implemented any provision that:
(i)Limits the number of land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and construction of housing that will be issued or allocated within all or a portion of the applicant.
(ii)Acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed either annually or for some other time period.
(iii)Limits the population of the applicant.
(B)Imposes a moratorium or enforces an existing moratorium on housing development, including mixed-use development, within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the applicant, except pursuant to a zoning ordinance that complies with the requirements of Section 65858.
(C)Requires voter approval of any updates to the applicants housing element to comply with Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7, or any rezoning of sites or general plan amendment to comply with an updated housing element or Section 65863.
(D)Changes the zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reduces the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the applicant in effect on January 1, 2018. For purposes of this subparagraph, less intensive use includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, floor area ratio, or new or increased open space or lot size requirements, for property zoned for residential use in the applicants general plan or other planning document.
(b)At least 50 percent of the funding provided pursuant to the program and at least 50 percent of the funding of each plan shall be allocated according to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), to be used as follows:
(1)At least 80 percent of the funds subject to this subdivision shall be used to provide rental and owner-occupied housing for low-income households with an annual income equal to or less than 80 percent of the area median income, subject to the following:
(A)Funds used for rental housing shall have average property-level affordability at or below the maximum level established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee to be eligible for low-income housing tax credits at the percentage prescribed in accordance with Section 42(b)(1)(B)(ii) of Title 26 of the United States Code, relating to the method of prescribing percentages.
(B)Funds used for owner-occupied housing shall not exceed 20 percent of the funds used for purposes of this paragraph.
(2)No more than 20 percent of the funds subject to this subdivision may be used for the production of moderate-income housing for households with an annual income greater than 80 percent, but no more than 120 percent, of the area median income.
(3)The rent or sales price of any housing assisted with funds subject to this subdivision shall be in the following amounts:
(A)For housing for low-income households with an annual income equal to or less than 80 percent of the area median income, an amount that is at least 10 percent below the prevailing rent or sales price for the region.
(B)For housing for moderate-income households with greater than 80 percent, but no more than 120 percent, of the area median income, an amount that is at least 20 percent below the prevailing rent or sales price for the region.
(4)(A)Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B), housing assisted with funds subject to this subdivision shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for the following time periods:
(i)For rental housing, at least 55 years, except as otherwise provided.
(ii)For owner-occupied housing, at least 45 years.
(B)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), self-help housing assisted with funds subject to this subdivision shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 15 years.
(c)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), any plan approved pursuant to the program shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction that requires the project or projects to include a minimum of 30 percent of the total number of housing units to be available at an affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, households earning below 120 percent of the area median income for at least 55 years.
(2)If the local agency has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 30 percent of the units in a project be dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 120 percent of the area median income, that ordinance shall apply.
(d)The affordable housing and community development investment amount shall not be used to subsidize the construction of market rate units. It is the intent of the Legislature to preserve the incentives for affordable housing provided by existing density bonus law.
(e)(1)At least 12 percent of the overall funding for the program shall be set aside for counties with populations of less than 200,000. Of this amount, 2 percent shall be set aside to provide technical assistance for counties with populations of less than 200,000, which shall not be considered administrative costs for purposes of a plan.
(2)Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 55906, to the extent that all funds set aside in one year for counties with populations of less than 200,000 are not dedicated to plans approved by the committee, the amount of funds not dedicated shall be available to counties with populations of less than 200,000 residents in the following year pursuant to this program.
(f)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), a project approved pursuant to the program shall be considered a public work and subject to the requirements of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, regardless of whether an exemption under Section 1720 of the Labor Code applies to the project.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the approval pursuant to the program of the following privately owned residential projects shall not make the projects public works and subject to the requirements of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code if the project would not otherwise be considered a public work and subject to those requirements:
(A)Construction or rehabilitation of a self-help housing project of 10 or fewer units in which no fewer than 500 hours of construction work associated with the homes are to be performed by the home buyers.
(B)A rehabilitation project for which the only financial support provided by the program is financial assistance to the household.
55904.(a)The Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee is hereby established and shall be comprised of the following:
(1)The Chair of the Strategic Growth Council, or the chairs designee.
(2)The Chair of the California Housing Finance Agency, or the chairs designee.
(3)The Chair of California Workforce Investment Board, or the chairs designee.
(4)The Director of Housing and Community Development, or the directors designee.
(5)Two people appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly who have knowledge and experience in finance, housing finance, housing planning or development, or land use and planning.
(6)Two people appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules who have knowledge and experience in finance, housing finance, housing planning or development, or land use and planning.
(7)One public member appointed by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee who has expertise in education finance.
(b)The committee shall review and approve or deny plans received pursuant to Section 55905.
(c)The Department of Housing and Community Development shall provide the technical assistance and administrative support necessary for the committee to consider plans.
(d)Members of the committee shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in connection with the performance of their duties.
55905.(a)A plan for the affordable housing and community development investment amount may be submitted by any of the following:
(1)A city, county, or city and county.
(2)A joint powers authority formed pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 that is composed of entities that may submit a plan pursuant to this subdivision.
(3)An enhanced infrastructure financing district established pursuant to Chapter 2.99 (commencing with Section 53398.50) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.
(4)An affordable housing authority established pursuant to Division 5 (commencing with Section 62250) of Title 6.
(5)A community revitalization and investment authority established pursuant to Division 4 (commencing with Section 62000) of Title 6.
(6)An affordable housing and community development investment agency established pursuant to Division 6 (commencing with Section 62300) of Title 6.
(7)A transit village development district established pursuant to Article 8.5 (commencing with Section 65460) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7.
(b)A plan to participate in the program may be submitted to the committee and shall include all of the following information:
(1)A description of the proposed project or projects to be completed by the applicant pursuant to the plan and the funding amount necessary for each year the applicant requests funding pursuant to the program. The applicant may request funding for no more than 30 years for each project included in the plan.
(2)Information necessary to demonstrate that each project proposed by the plan complies with all of the statutory requirements of any statutory authorization pursuant to which the project is proposed.
(3)Certification that any low- and moderate-income housing or other projects or portions of other projects that receive funding from the program will comply with paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.
(4)A strategy for outreach to, and retention of, women, minority, disadvantaged youth, formerly incarcerated, and other underrepresented subgroups in coordination with the California Workforce Investment Board and local boards, to increase their representation and employment opportunities in the building and construction trades.
(5)For each project identified in the plan, a requirement that no eviction has been made on any project site within the last 10 years, and protections to avoid displacement of individuals affected by the project.
(6)A requirement that any project included in the plan would not require the demolition of any of the following types of housing:
(A)Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
(B)Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entitys valid exercise of its police power.
(C)Housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past 10 years.
(7)A requirement that the site was not previously used for housing that was occupied by tenants that was demolished within 10 years before the applicant submits a plan pursuant to this section.
(8)A requirement that the development of the project or projects included in the plan would not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register.
(9)A requirement that the project or projects included in the plan would not contain present or former tenant-occupied housing units that will be, or were, subsequently offered for sale to the general public by the subdivider or subsequent owner of the property.
(10)An economic and fiscal analysis, paid for by the applicant and prepared by the applicant or an individual or entity approved by the committee that includes the following information as it pertains to the plan:
(A)The estimated cost of providing services or facilities for each project included in the plan.
(B)The estimated revenue available to provide services or facilities for each project included in the plan.
(C)Identification of the taxing entities that are participating in the financing of each project included in the plan through the pledge of an amount equal to the entitys incremental share of the property tax or other means.
(D)Identification of the property tax, sales tax, and other public funding available to invest in each project included in the plan or the services or facilities needed by each project included in the plan, as proposed, including, but not limited to, information from the county auditor describing how the county or counties where the applicant is from has historically distributed its educational revenue augmentation fund revenue to schools and local agencies.
(E)Identification of the funding and financing methods that will be used by each project included in the plan, including whether the applicant intends to issue bonds that will be repaid from property tax increment.
(F)The affordable housing and community development investment amount requested by the applicant to complete each project included in the plan or the services or facilities needed by each project included in the plan, as proposed, and the proposed date on which the annual allocation of the affordable housing and community development investment amount will terminate.
(G)The amount of administrative costs associated with the plan. The plan may set aside not more than 5 percent of the total affordable housing and community development investment amount requested in the plan for administrative costs.
(c)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (3), the applicant shall certify that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete the project if the plan is approved.
(2)If the applicant has certified that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete the project or projects and the plan is approved, the following shall apply:
(A)The applicant shall require every contractor and subcontractor at every tier performing work on the project to provide the applicant with an enforceable commitment that the contractor or subcontractor will individually use a skilled and trained workforce to complete the project.
(B)Every contractor and subcontractor shall individually use a skilled and trained workforce to complete the project.
(C)The applicant shall be considered an awarding body for purposes of Section 2602 of the Public Contract Code.
(3)This subdivision shall not apply to a housing project that meets any of the following criteria:
(A)One hundred percent of the housing projects units, exclusive of any legally required managers unit or units, are affordable to households earning 80 percent or below of the area median income.
(B)The housing project consists of 25 units or less.
(C)The housing project is located in a county with a population of 100,000 or less.
(d)(1)Within 30 days of receipt of a plan pursuant to this section, the committee shall provide the applicant with a written statement identifying any questions about the plan.
(2)If the committee denies approval of the plan, the committee shall, not more than 30 days following the date the committee has issued a decision, provide the applicant with a written statement explaining the reasons why the plan was denied.
(3)Subject to subdivision (e), the committee shall develop a rubric to determine which plan to approve. The rubric shall give priority to plans based on, but not limited to, the following factors:
(A)The number of housing units created.
(B)The depth of affordability of the new housing units, including:
(i)The share of housing units to be constructed that are available to individuals with an area median income below 120 percent.
(ii)The share of housing units to be constructed that are available to individuals with an area median income below 80 percent.
(iii)The share of housing units to be constructed that are available to individuals with an area median income below 50 percent.
(iv)The share of housing units to be constructed that are available to individuals with an area median income below 30 percent.
(C)The level of local, state, and federal funds that will be dedicated toward the projects included in the plan, including, but not limited to, tax credits, in-kind transfers, personnel costs and services, and land.
(D)Whether the applicant adopts plans that streamline development, including the following:
(i)Plans adopted through a workforce housing opportunity zone (Article 10.10 (commencing with Section 65620) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7) or a housing sustainability district (Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 66200) of Division 1 of Title 7).
(ii)Plans to streamline development funded by the Building Homes and Jobs Act (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 50470) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code).
(iii)Other local measures adopted to reduce development costs, including, but not limited to, accelerating housing approvals, reducing the average time for issuing a conditional use or other development permit to less than one year, reducing fees imposed in connection with the approval of accessory dwelling units, and increasing density near transit.
(e)Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the committee may approve a plan submitted to it pursuant to this section only if it finds all of the following:
(1)The conditions specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 55906 have been satisfied for the applicable fiscal year.
(2)(A)Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B), the applicant will provide matching resources, including, but not limited to, financial, in-kind land dedication, or public-private funds, for the state investment in the program.
(B)This paragraph shall not apply in the case of an applicant located in a rural area of the state.
(3)(A)If applicable, the applicant has a housing element that the Department of Housing and Community Development has determined to be in substantial compliance with Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7, pursuant to Section 65585.
(B)An applicant subject to this paragraph shall annually submit its housing element to the Department of Housing and Community Development for review to ensure that its housing element remains in substantial compliance with state law. The Department of Housing and Community Development shall certify to the committee whether the housing element is in substantial compliance and whether any rezoning of sites required by law, including, but not limited to, Sections 65583, 65583.2, and 65863, have been completed.
(4)If applicable, the applicant has not been found to have violated the Housing Accountability Act (Section 65589.5) or the Density Bonus Law (Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7) within the following time periods:
(A)Until January 1, 2024, the applicant has not been found to have violated the provisions specified in this paragraph on or after January 1, 2019.
(B)On and after January 1, 2024, the applicant has not been found to have violated the provisions specified in this paragraph within the five years preceding the date of the submission of the applicants plan pursuant to this section.
55906.(a)The committee shall adopt annual priorities consistent with the objectives set forth in Section 55903 and shall adhere to the following funding schedule:
(1)(A)Commencing January 1, 2021, the committee may only approve a plan for funding pursuant to Section 55905 if the Legislature enacts a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount available for the committee to allocate pursuant to the program, subject to the limits of this section.
(B)Nothing in this paragraph shall affect or have any financial impact upon previously approved funding pursuant to the program.
(2)Subject to paragraph (1), for the five-year period commencing July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2026, the committee may approve no more than two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) in funding in any year for plans approved pursuant to the program.
(3)Subject to paragraph (1), for the four-year period commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2030, the committee may approve no more than two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) in funding in any year for plans approved pursuant to the program.
(4)The Legislature, by statute, may direct the committee to suspend consideration of plans submitted pursuant to Section 55903 in any fiscal year in which the Legislature passes a bill described in Section 22 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect or have any financial impact upon previously approved funding pursuant to this program.
(5)The Legislature, by statute, may direct the committee to suspend consideration of plans submitted pursuant to Section 55903 in any fiscal year in which the Legislature passes a bill described in Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect or have any financial impact upon previously approved funding pursuant to this program.
(b)The annual amounts dedicated to individual approved projects shall be allocated based on the schedule of funding included in the plan that includes the project, unless the committee decides to allocate a different level of funding or change the number of years that the project is to receive funding pursuant to the program in accordance with the plan approved pursuant to subdivision (d).
(c)The committee shall adopt guidelines to explain how geographic equity will be maintained in the approval of plans pursuant to this program.
(d)(1)The committee shall approve or deny a plan submitted pursuant to Section 55905 upon both of the following:
(A)Receipt of the information required to be submitted pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 55905.
(B)A determination that the affordable housing and community development investment amount requested is consistent with the guidelines adopted pursuant to subdivision (b).
(2)The approval shall state the amount of the affordable housing and community development investment amount approved and the date upon which the affordable housing and community development investment amount terminates.
(e)The committee may require the applicant to reimburse it for the reasonable cost incurred to review the plan to participate in the program.
(f)The committee shall review, and may approve or deny, any changes to a plan submitted by the applicant.
55907.(a)Upon approval of a plan pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 55906, and subject to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 55906, the committee shall issue an order directing the county auditor to transfer an amount of ad valorem property tax revenue pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code in an amount equal to the annual affordable housing and community development investment amount approved by the committee.
(b)The revenues allocated to an applicant pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code may be used for the purposes set forth in Section 55903.
(c)The applicant may use the additional revenue received pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code to incur debt or issue bonds or other financing to support the project or projects included in the plan.
55908.(a)On or before July 1, 2022, and annually thereafter, each applicant that has received financing pursuant to the program for any fiscal year shall provide a report to the committee that includes all of the following information for the previous fiscal year:
(1)The affordable housing and community development investment amount that the county auditor reallocated to the applicant pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(2)The purposes for which that reallocated money was used, including the number of housing units constructed and at which income level.
(3)The actions taken during the prior fiscal year to implement the project.
(4)The total amount of funds expended for planning and general administrative costs.
(b)Notwithstanding Section 10231.5, on or before March 1, 2021, and annually thereafter, if the committee has approved funding pursuant to the program, the committee shall provide a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee that includes all of the following information for the preceding fiscal year:
(1)The name, location, and general description, including the number of housing units constructed and at which income level, of each project that received an affordable housing and community development investment amount pursuant to this program.
(2)The total amount of money that county auditors reallocated from affordable housing and community development investment funds pursuant to the program in the previous fiscal year.
(3)An evaluation of the value of the states investment through the funding provided by this program as measured by a net revenue increase to the General Fund and progress towards achieving the purposes and intent of the program.
(c)The committee shall develop a corrective action plan for noncompliance with the requirement of this part.
55909.(a)If, based on annual reports submitted to the committee pursuant to Section 55908, the committee determines that any of the following has occurred, the committee shall direct the applicant to develop a corrective action plan based on recommendations made by the committee:
(1)The applicant is not on track to produce the number of housing units included in the plan.
(2)The applicant is not on track to spend at least 50 percent of plan funds on affordable housing, as required by subdivision (b) of Section 55903.
(3)The applicant is on track to exceed 5 percent of the administrative limit.
(4)The applicant is found to have used funding provided by the program for purposes not authorized by the act.
(5)The applicant is found to have used funds to subsidize market rate housing.
(6)The applicant has violated antidisplacement provisions pursuant to paragraph (6), (7), (8), or (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 55905.
(7)The applicant is not on track to complete all of the projects included in the plan according to the timeline included in the plan.
(b)The applicant shall have one year from the date that the committee directed the applicant to develop a corrective action plan.
(c)The committee shall issue a finding that the applicant is out of compliance with the program if the committee finds either of the following apply:
(1)The applicant has not provided an adequate corrective action plan to the committee within one year of the date the committee directed the applicant to develop a corrective action plan.
(2)The annual report provided to the committee pursuant to Section 55908 does not demonstrate that the applicant has taken adequate steps to implement the corrective action plan that was provided to the committee within one year of the date the committee directed the applicant to develop a corrective action plan.
(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), if the committee finds that the applicant is out of compliance with the program, the committee shall direct the auditor to stop transferring moneys from the countys ERAF pursuant to the program under Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and prohibit the applicant from applying for additional funds for this program for a period of five years.
(2)The auditor shall continue to transfer money from the countys ERAF pursuant to the program under Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code in an amount that allows for payment of the following obligations:
(A)Bonds, notes, interim certificates, debentures, or other obligations issued by the agency.
(B)Loans or moneys advanced to the agency, including, but not limited to, loans from federal, state, or local agencies, or a private entity.
(C)Contractual obligations that, if breached, could subject the applicant to damages or other liabilities or remedies.
(3)If the auditor continues to transfer money from the countys ERAF pursuant to paragraph (2), the applicant shall continue to provide matching resources pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 55905, but shall be prohibited from entering into any new debts, loans, or obligations related to the plan unless approved by the committee.
(4)The committee shall take all actions necessary to abide by the obligations described in paragraph (1).
(5)The committee may reduce the scope of the plan approved pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 55905 to align with available financial resources and the purposes of the Affordable Housing and Community Investment Program, which include the option of using the remaining resources to support the construction of affordable housing in the community of the applicant.
(e)If an applicant is found to be out of compliance with the program, the applicant shall be ineligible to apply for other state grant programs for a period of five years.
SEC. 4.Division 6 (commencing with Section 62300) is added to Title 6 of the Government Code, to read:6.Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Agencies62300.As used in this division:
(a)Agency means an affordable housing and community development investment agency created pursuant to this division.
(b)Affordable housing and community development investment amount means the amount approved by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 and allocated to an agency pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(c)Program means the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program established pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5.
(d)Project has the same meaning as defined in Section 55902.
(e)Plan area means the area that includes the territory described in any plan submitted by an agency pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 55905.
62302.(a)An affordable housing and community development investment agency created pursuant to this division shall be a public body, corporate and politic, with jurisdiction to carry out one or more projects within a project area. The agency shall have only those powers and duties specifically set forth in Section 62304.
(b)(1)Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an agency may be created in any one of the following ways:
(A)A city, county, or city and county may adopt a resolution creating an agency. The composition of the governing board shall be comprised as set forth in subdivision (c).
(B)Any of the following entities may create an agency by entering into a joint powers agreement pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1:
(i)A city.
(ii)A county.
(iii)A city and county.
(iv)A special district, as that term is defined in subdivision (m) of Section 95 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(v)Any combination of entities described in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive.
(2)(A)A school entity, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 95 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall not participate in an agency created pursuant to this division.
(B)A successor agency, as defined in subdivision (j) of Section 34171 of the Health and Safety Code, shall not participate in an agency created pursuant to this division, and an agency created pursuant to this division shall not receive any portion of the property tax revenues or other moneys distributed pursuant to Section 34188 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3)An agency created by a city or county that created a redevelopment agency that was dissolved pursuant to Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code shall not become effective until the successor agency or designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency has adopted findings of fact stating all of the following:
(A)The successor agency has received a finding of completion from the Department of Finance pursuant to Section 34179.7 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B)Former redevelopment agency assets that are the subject of litigation against the state, where the city or county or its successor agency or designated local authority are a named plaintiff, have not been or will not be used to benefit any efforts of an agency created under this division unless the litigation has been resolved by entry of a final judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction and any appeals have been exhausted.
(C)The successor agency has complied with all orders of the Controller pursuant to Section 34167.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(c)(1)The governing board of an agency created pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) shall be appointed by the legislative body of the city, county, or city and county that created the agency and shall include three members of the legislative body of the city, county, or city and county that created the agency and two public members. The appointment of the two public members shall be subject to Section 54974. The two public members shall live or work within the plan area.
(2)The governing body of an agency created pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) shall be comprised of a majority of members from the legislative bodies of the public agencies that created the agency and a minimum of two public members who live or work within the plan area. The majority of the board shall appoint the public members to the governing body. The appointment of the public members shall be subject to Section 54974.
62304.An agency may do all of the following in order to carry out a project:
(a)Apply for funding to carry out the project pursuant to the program.
(b)Accept an allocation of property tax revenues, in the form of an affordable housing and community development investment amount allocated under the program pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(c)Issue bonds in accordance with Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 53506) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 53510) of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.
(d)Borrow money, receive grants, or accept financial or other assistance or investment from the state or the federal government or any other public agency or private lending institution for any project within its area of operation. The agency may comply with any conditions of a loan or grant received pursuant to this subdivision.
(e)Receive funds allocated to it pursuant to a resolution adopted by a city, county, or special district to transfer these funds from a source described in subdivision (d), (e), or (f) of Section 53398.75, subject to any requirements upon, or imposed by, the city, county, or special district as to the use of these funds.
(f)Acquire and transfer real property.
SEC. 5.Section 97.68.1 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:97.68.1.Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for each fiscal year for which funding for a plan for the county is approved under Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, in allocating ad valorem property tax revenue, all of the following shall apply:
(a)The county auditor shall transfer an amount, equal to the countywide affordable housing and community development investment amount, from the countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, up to the amount available in the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund after complying with subdivision (d), and deposit that amount into the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund established pursuant to subdivision (b).
(b)(1)The county auditor shall, except as provided in paragraph (2), deposit the countywide affordable housing and community development investment amount into the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund, which shall be established in the treasury of each county. Moneys in the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund shall only be used for plans approved pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, and shall be allocated to the applicant as directed by the committee.
(2)In the case of an applicant that is an enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization investment authority, affordable housing and community development investment agency, or transit village development district, the auditor shall allocate an amount from the countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund equal to the enhanced infrastructure financing districts, affordable housing authoritys, community revitalization investment authoritys, affordable housing and community development investment agencys, or transit village development districts affordable housing and community development investment amount to the city or county that created the enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization investment authority, affordable housing and community development investment agency, or transit village development district. The city or county shall, upon receipt, transfer those funds to that enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization investment authority, affordable housing and community development investment agency, or transit village development district, in an amount equal to the affordable housing and community development investment amount for that enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization investment authority, affordable housing and community development investment agency, or transit village development district.
(3)The county auditor shall allocate one-half of an amount specified in paragraph (1) or (2) on or before January 31 of each fiscal year, and the other one-half on or before May 31 of each fiscal year.
(c)For purposes of this section, all of the following shall apply:
(1)Affordable housing and community development investment amount for a particular city, county, or city and county means the amount approved by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Committee pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
(2)Countywide affordable housing and community development investment amount means, for any fiscal year, the total sum of the amounts described in paragraph (1) for a county or a city and county, and each city and county.
(d)This section shall not be construed to do any of the following:
(1)Reduce any allocations of excess, additional, or remaining funds that would otherwise have been allocated to county superintendents of schools, cities, counties, special districts, and cities and counties pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Sections 97.2 and 97.3, Section 97.70, and Article 4 (commencing with Section 98) had this section not been enacted. The allocations required by this section shall be adjusted to comply with this paragraph.
(2)Require an increased ad valorem property tax revenue allocation or increased tax increment allocation to a community redevelopment agency.
(3)Alter the manner in which ad valorem property tax revenue growth from fiscal year to fiscal year is otherwise determined or allocated in a county.
(4)Reduce ad valorem property tax revenue allocations required under Article 4 (commencing with Section 98).
(e)If, for the fiscal year, after complying with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 97.70, there is not enough ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to a county Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the county auditor to complete the transfer required by subdivision (a), the county auditor shall reduce the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to all school districts and community college districts in the county for that fiscal year by an amount equal to the difference between the countywide affordable housing and community development investment amount and the amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to the county Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for that fiscal year. This reduction for each school district and community college district in the county shall be the percentage share of the total reduction that is equal to the proportion that the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to the school district or community college district bears to the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to all school districts and community college districts in a county. For purposes of this subdivision, school districts and community college districts do not include any districts that are excess tax school entities, as defined in Section 95.
(f)Any transfer of ad valorem property tax revenues deposited in the countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund as a result of subdivision (a) shall be applied exclusively to reduce the amounts that are allocated from that fund to school districts and county offices of education, and shall not be applied to reduce the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenues that are otherwise required to be allocated from that fund to community college districts.
(g)(1)A property tax revenue allocation or transfer made pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) shall not be considered for purposes of determining under Section 96.1 the amount of property tax revenue allocated to a jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year.
(2)The county auditor may deduct its administrative costs related to this section from the affordable housing and community development investment amount before depositing that amount into the countys Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund pursuant to subdivision (a).
SEC. 6.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 7.Each provision of this act is a material and integral part of the act, and the provisions of this act are not severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, the entire act shall be null and void.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)In recent years the Legislature has created several new opportunities to use tax increment financing, which include the formation of enhanced infrastructure financing districts, affordable housing authorities, and community revitalization investment authorities. While these new tools can be useful to local agencies, they are widely viewed as lacking sufficient financial capacity compared to what existed under the former tax increment financing tool utilized by community redevelopment agencies.
(1)Under redevelopment, all of the growth in property tax (tax increment) within a project area over a base year, net of mandatory pass-through payments, that would otherwise be allocated to cities, counties, special districts and school districts was dedicated to redevelopment purposes. Under the new tax increment tools, however, property tax increment from affected taxing agencies other than the initiating city or county can only be dedicated with the approval of the affected local agencies.
(2)While potential local partnerships between cities, counties, and special districts involving new economic development tools continue to be explored by the state and local governments, a reality is that the state and local governments often have other policy and budget priorities, and lack incentives to participate.
(3)The language in the new tax increment laws currently prohibit school districts from participating, largely reflecting state concerns over potential backfill requirements for school funding under the requirements of Proposition 98 of 1988.
(b)The state shares many policy priorities with local governments, including affordable housing and economic development, that can be advanced by creating a new infrastructure financing tool that would focus on the following:
(1)Increasing the production of affordable housing available to very low, low-, and moderate-income families.
(2)Expanding transit-oriented development at higher densities.
(3)Reducing jobs-housing imbalances in areas with high job growth.
(4)Increasing the availability of high-quality jobs through the rehabilitation, construction, and maintenance of housing and infrastructure.
(5)Improving the quality of life in neighborhoods and disadvantaged communities.
(6)Incentivizing growth in urban areas, thereby reducing sprawl and ensuring that open space is preserved throughout the state.
(7)Reducing poverty and caseloads of state and county safety net support programs by incentivizing the training and hiring of affected individuals to jobs where they can be self-supporting.
(8)Protecting communities dealing with the effects of sea level rise, which is one of the most significant threats of climate change.
(c)The Legislature has declared that the policy priorities listed in subdivision (b) are matters of statewide concern. It is therefore appropriate that the state and local governments contribute financially to the realization of these priorities.
(d)By allowing local agencies to reduce their contributions to their countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) to fund affordable housing projects and related infrastructure, the state can advance its policy priorities while also protecting funding for schools and limiting effects on the state budget. The states interests can be ensured and protected in the following manner:
(1)Requiring approval of the newly created Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee, to ensure that the investment of property taxes otherwise allocated to schools through a countys ERAF are used only for projects that maximize state policy benefits while ensuring that an economic analysis projects increased property tax revenues for schools in the affected territory upon project completion.
(2)Offering additional incentives to participating counties and special districts.
(3)Establishing an annual cap on the total affordable housing and community development investment amount that may be approved to be allocated by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee, as follows:
(A)Not to exceed two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2026.
(B)Not to exceed two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) annually between July 1, 2026, and June 30, 2030.
(4)Requiring annual reports to the Legislature on the status of all projects funded through this program.
(e)It is the intent of the Legislature that schools and community colleges receive no less total funding from General Fund and local property tax revenue as a result of the bill.
(f)It is the intent of the Legislature to have the state provide increased funding in an amount that equals reductions in local ERAF funds to the point necessary for schools to meet their minimum funding guarantee pursuant to existing law.
(g)It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies receive the same amount of excess ERAF as they would have if the program established by this bill were not in effect.
SEC. 2.Section 41202.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:41202.6.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that the program authorized by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program established by Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code does not affect the amount of funding required to be applied for the support of school districts and community college districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
(b)The Director of Finance shall adjust the percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts for the purpose of applying paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution in a manner that ensures that transfers from a countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund authorized by Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall have no net fiscal impact upon the total amount of General Fund revenue and local property tax revenue allocated to school districts and community college districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. The Director of Finance shall make this adjustment effective with the 202122 fiscal year, consistent with the start of the grant program pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 55906 of the Government Code. The Director of Finance shall update the adjustment for subsequent increases or decreases in the amount of transfers authorized by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program.
SEC. 3.Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) is added to Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, to read:4.Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program55900.This part is known and may be cited as the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program.
55901.The Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program is hereby established to create a local-state partnership to reduce poverty and advance other state priorities financed, in part, by property tax increment.
55902.As used in this part, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)Affordable housing and community development investment amount is the amount of property tax revenue allocated pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(b)Applicant means any entity identified in subdivision (a) of Section 55905 that has submitted a plan to the committee pursuant to that section.
(c)Committee means the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee established by Section 55904.
(d)Plan means an application for one or more projects that is submitted to the committee.
(e)Program means the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program established by this part.
(f)Project shall include:
(1)A project undertaken by a city, county, city or county, joint powers authority, enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization and investment authority, affordable housing and community development investment agency, or a transit village development district.
(2)A transit priority project that meets the requirements of subdivision (d) of Section 65470.
(g)Skilled and trained workforce has the same meaning as set forth in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code.
(h)Transit Priority Project Program has the same meaning as contained in Section 65470.
55903.(a)(1)Funding allocated to the program shall be used to support a plan that includes affordable housing. Subject to paragraph (2), eligible uses of this funding include:
(A)Predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing, as provided in subdivision (b). For purposes of this section, the term affordable housing means housing affordable to households earning under 120 percent of area median income.
(B)Transit-oriented development for the purpose of developing or facilitating the development of higher density uses within close proximity to transit stations that will increase public transit ridership and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Fiscal incentives shall be offered to offset local community impacts associated with greater densities.
(C)Infill development to assist in the new construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in locations designated as infill, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(i)Park creation, development, or rehabilitation to encourage infill development.
(ii)Water, sewer, or other public infrastructure costs associated with infill development.
(iii)Transportation improvements related to infill development projects.
(iv)Traffic mitigation.
(D)Promoting strong neighborhoods through support of local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods, including repairing infrastructure and parks, rehabilitating and building housing and public facilities, promoting public-private partnerships, and supporting small businesses and job growth for affected residents.
(E)Protecting communities dealing with the effects of climate change, including, but not limited to, sea level rise, wildfires, seismic safety, and flood protection. Eligible projects include the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure infrastructure, including natural infrastructure, related to protecting communities from climate change.
(F)The acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of land or property pursuant to eligible uses of funding specified in subparagraphs (A) to (E), inclusive.
(2)Eligible uses allocated to an applicant under the program shall be limited to those uses described in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, of paragraph (1) if the applicant has taken any action, whether by the legislative body of the applicant or the electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, that has any of the following effects:
(A)Established or implemented any provision that:
(i)Limits the number of land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and construction of housing that will be issued or allocated within all or a portion of the applicant.
(ii)Acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed either annually or for some other time period.
(iii)Limits the population of the applicant.
(B)Imposes a moratorium or enforces an existing moratorium on housing development, including mixed-use development, within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the applicant, except pursuant to a zoning ordinance that complies with the requirements of Section 65858.
(C)Requires voter approval of any updates to the applicants housing element to comply with Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7, or any rezoning of sites or general plan amendment to comply with an updated housing element or Section 65863.
(D)Changes the zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reduces the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the applicant in effect on January 1, 2018. For purposes of this subparagraph, less intensive use includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, floor area ratio, or new or increased open space or lot size requirements, for property zoned for residential use in the applicants general plan or other planning document.
(b)At least 50 percent of the funding provided pursuant to the program and at least 50 percent of the funding of each plan shall be allocated according to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), to be used as follows:
(1)At least 80 percent of the funds subject to this subdivision shall be used to provide rental and owner-occupied housing for low-income households with an annual income equal to or less than 80 percent of the area median income, subject to the following:
(A)Funds used for rental housing shall have average property-level affordability at or below the maximum level established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee to be eligible for low-income housing tax credits at the percentage prescribed in accordance with Section 42(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Title 26 of the United States Code, relating to method of prescribing percentages.
(B)Funds used for owner-occupied housing shall not exceed 20 percent of the funds used for purposes of this paragraph.
(2)No more than 20 percent of the funds subject to this subdivision may be used for the production of moderate-income housing for households with an annual income greater than 80 percent, but no more than 120 percent, of the area median income.
(3)The rent or sales price of any housing assisted with funds subject to this subdivision shall be in the following amounts:
(A)For housing for low-income households with an annual income equal to or less than 80 percent of the area median income, an amount that is at least 10 percent below the prevailing rent or sales price for the region.
(B)For housing for moderate-income households with greater than 80 percent, but no more than 120 percent, of the area median income, an amount that is at least 20 percent below the prevailing rent or sales price for the region.
(4)(A)Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B), housing assisted with funds subject to this subdivision shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for the following time periods:
(i)For rental housing, at least 55 years, except as otherwise provided.
(ii)For owner-occupied housing, at least 45 years.
(B)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), self-help housing assisted with funds subject to this subdivision shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 15 years.
(c)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), any plan approved pursuant to the program shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction that requires the project or projects to include a minimum of 30 percent of the total number of housing units to be available at an affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, households earning below 120 percent of the area median income for at least 55 years.
(2)If the local agency has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 30 percent of the units in a project be dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 120 percent of the area median income, that ordinance shall apply.
(d)The affordable housing and community development investment amount shall not be used to subsidize the construction of market rate units. It is the intent of the Legislature to preserve the incentives for affordable housing provided by existing density bonus law.
(e)(1)At least 12 percent of the overall funding for the program shall be set aside for counties with populations of less than 200,000. Of this amount, 2 percent shall be set aside to provide technical assistance for counties with populations of less than 200,000, which shall not be considered administrative costs for purposes of a plan.
(2)Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 55906, to the extent that all funds set aside in one year for counties with populations of less than 200,000 are not dedicated to plans approved by the committee, the amount of funds not dedicated shall be available to counties with populations of less than 200,000 residents in the following year pursuant to this program.
(f)All projects approved pursuant to the program shall be considered public work for purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, regardless of whether an exemption under Section 1720 of the Labor Code applies to the project.
55904.(a)The Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee is hereby established and shall be comprised of the following:
(1)The Chair of the Strategic Growth Council, or the chairs designee.
(2)The Chair of the California Housing Finance Agency, or the chairs designee.
(3)The Chair of California Workforce Investment Board, or the chairs designee.
(4)The Director of Housing and Community Development, or the directors designee.
(5)Two people appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly who have knowledge and experience in finance, housing finance, housing planning or development, or land use and planning.
(6)Two people appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules who have knowledge and experience in finance, housing finance, housing planning or development, or land use and planning.
(7)One public member appointed by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee who has expertise in education finance.
(b)The committee shall review and approve or deny plans received pursuant to Section 55905.
(c)The Department of Housing and Community Development shall provide the technical assistance and administrative support necessary for the committee to consider plans.
(d)Members of the committee shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in connection with the performance of their duties.
55905.(a)A plan for the affordable housing and community development investment amount may be submitted by any of the following:
(1)A city, county, or city and county.
(2)A joint powers authority formed pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 that is composed of entities that may submit a plan pursuant to this subdivision.
(3)An enhanced infrastructure financing district established pursuant to Chapter 2.99 (commencing with Section 53398.50) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.
(4)An affordable housing authority established pursuant to Division 5 (commencing with Section 62250) of Title 6.
(5)A community revitalization and investment authority established pursuant to Division 4 (commencing with Section 62000) of Title 6.
(6)An affordable housing and community development investment agency established pursuant to Division 6 (commencing with Section 62300) of Title 6.
(7)A transit village development district established pursuant to Article 8.5 (commencing with Section 65460) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7.
(b)A plan to participate in the program may be submitted to the committee and shall include all of the following information:
(1)A description of the proposed project or projects to be completed by the applicant pursuant to the plan and the funding amount necessary for each year the applicant requests funding pursuant to the program. The applicant may request funding for no more than 30 years for each project included in the plan.
(2)Information necessary to demonstrate that each project proposed by the plan complies with all of the statutory requirements of any statutory authorization pursuant to which the project is proposed.
(3)Certification that any low- and moderate-income housing or other projects or portions of other projects that receive funding from the program will comply with paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.
(4)A strategy for outreach to, and retention of, women, minority, disadvantaged youth, formerly incarcerated, and other underrepresented subgroups in coordination with the California Workforce Investment Board and local boards, to increase their representation and employment opportunities in the building and construction trades.
(5)For each project identified in the plan, a requirement that no eviction has been made on any project site within the last 10 years, and protections to avoid displacement of individuals affected by the project.
(6)A requirement that any project included in the plan would not require the demolition of any of the following types of housing:
(A)Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
(B)Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entitys valid exercise of its police power.
(C)Housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past 10 years.
(7)A requirement that the site was not previously used for housing that was occupied by tenants that was demolished within 10 years before the applicant submits a plan pursuant to this section.
(8)A requirement that the development of the project or projects included in the plan would not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register.
(9)A requirement that the project or projects included in the plan would not contain present or former tenant-occupied housing units that will be, or were, subsequently offered for sale to the general public by the subdivider or subsequent owner of the property.
(10)An economic and fiscal analysis, paid for by the applicant and prepared by the applicant or an individual or entity approved by the committee that includes the following information as it pertains to the plan:
(A)The estimated cost of providing services or facilities for each project included in the plan.
(B)The estimated revenue available to provide services or facilities for each project included in the plan.
(C)Identification of the taxing entities that are participating in the financing of each project included in the plan through the pledge of an amount equal to the entitys incremental share of the property tax or other means.
(D)Identification of the property tax, sales tax, and other public funding available to invest in each project included in the plan or the services or facilities needed by each project included in the plan, as proposed, including, but not limited to, information from the county auditor describing how the county or counties where the applicant is from has historically distributed its educational revenue augmentation fund revenue to schools and local agencies.
(E)Identification of the funding and financing methods that will be used by each project included in the plan, including whether the applicant intends to issue bonds that will be repaid from property tax increment.
(F)The affordable housing and community development investment amount requested by the applicant to complete each project included in the plan or the services or facilities needed by each project included in the plan, as proposed, and the proposed date on which the annual allocation of the affordable housing and community development investment amount will terminate.
(G)The amount of administrative costs associated with the plan. The plan may set aside not more than 5 percent of the total affordable housing and community development investment amount requested in the plan for administrative costs.
(c)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (3), the applicant shall certify that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete the project if the plan is approved.
(2)If the applicant has certified that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete the project or projects and the plan is approved, the following shall apply:
(A)The applicant shall require every contractor and subcontractor at every tier performing work on the project to provide the applicant with an enforceable commitment that the contractor or subcontractor will individually use a skilled and trained workforce to complete the project.
(B)Every contractor and subcontractor shall individually use a skilled and trained workforce to complete the project.
(C)The applicant shall be considered an awarding body for purposes of Section 2602 of the Public Contract Code.
(3)This subdivision shall not apply to a housing project that meets any of the following criteria:
(A)One hundred percent of the housing projects units, exclusive of any legally required managers unit or units, are affordable to households earning 80 percent or below of the area median income.
(B)The housing project consists of 25 units or less.
(C)The housing project is located in a county with a population of 100,000 or less.
(d)(1)Within 30 days of receipt of a plan pursuant to this section, the committee shall provide the applicant with a written statement identifying any questions about the plan.
(2)If the committee denies approval of the plan, the committee shall, not more than 30 days following the date the committee has issued a decision, provide the applicant with a written statement explaining the reasons why the plan was denied.
(3)Subject to subdivision (e), the committee shall develop a rubric to determine which plan to approve. The rubric shall give priority to plans based on, but not limited to, the following factors:
(A)The number of housing units created.
(B)The share of housing units to be constructed that are available to individuals with an area median income below 120 percent.
(C)The share of housing units to be constructed that are available to individuals with an area median income below 80 percent.
(D)The share of housing units to be constructed that are available to individuals with an area median income below 50 percent.
(E)The level of local, state, and federal funds that will be dedicated toward the projects included in the plan, including, but not limited to, tax credits, in-kind transfers, personnel costs and services, and land.
(F)Whether the applicant adopts plans that streamline development, including the following:
(i)Plans adopted through a workforce housing opportunity zone (Article 10.10 (commencing with Section 65620) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7) or a housing sustainability district (Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 66200) of Division 1 of Title 7).
(ii)Plans to streamline development funded by the Building Homes and Jobs Act (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 50470) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code).
(iii)Other local measures adopted to reduce development costs, including, but not limited to, accelerating housing approvals, reducing the average time for issuing a conditional use or other development permit to less than one year, reducing fees imposed in connection with the approval of accessory dwelling units, and increasing density near transit.
(e)Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the committee may approve a plan submitted to it pursuant to this section only if it finds all of the following:
(1)The conditions specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 55906 have been satisfied for the applicable fiscal year.
(2)(A)Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B), the applicant will provide matching resources, including, but not limited to, financial, in-kind land dedication, or public-private funds, for the state investment in the program.
(B)This paragraph shall not apply in the case of an applicant located in a rural area of the state.
(3)(A)If applicable, the applicant has a housing element that the Department of Housing and Community Development has determined to be in substantial compliance with Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7, pursuant to Section 65585.
(B)An applicant subject to this paragraph shall annually submit its housing element to the Department of Housing and Community Development for review to ensure that its housing element remains in substantial compliance with state law. The Department of Housing and Community Development shall certify to the committee whether the housing element is in substantial compliance and whether any rezoning of sites required by law, including, but not limited to, Sections 65583, 65583.2, and 65863, have been completed.
(4)If applicable, the applicant has not been found to have violated the Housing Accountability Act (Section 65589.5) or the Density Bonus Law (Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7) within the following time periods:
(A)Until January 1, 2024, the applicant has not been found to have violated the provisions specified in this paragraph on or after January 1, 2019.
(B)On and after January 1, 2024, the applicant has not been found to have violated the provisions specified in this paragraph within the five years preceding the date of the submission of the applicants plan pursuant to this section.
55906.(a)The committee shall adopt annual priorities consistent with the objectives set forth in Section 55903 and shall adhere to the following funding schedule:
(1)(A)Commencing January 1, 2021, the committee may only approve a plan for funding pursuant to Section 55905 if the Legislature enacts a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount available for the committee to allocate pursuant to the program, subject to the limits of this section.
(B)Nothing in this paragraph shall affect or have any financial impact upon previously approved funding pursuant to the program.
(2)Subject to paragraph (1), for the five-year period commencing July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2026, the committee may approve no more than two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) in funding in any year for plans approved pursuant to the program.
(3)Subject to paragraph (1), for the four-year period commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2030, the committee may approve no more than two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) in funding in any year for plans approved pursuant to the program.
(4)The Legislature, by statute, may direct the committee to suspend consideration of plans submitted pursuant to Section 55903 in any fiscal year in which the Legislature passes a bill described in Section 22 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect or have any financial impact upon previously approved funding pursuant to this program.
(5)The Legislature, by statute, may direct the committee to suspend consideration of plans submitted pursuant to Section 55903 in any fiscal year in which the Legislature passes a bill described in Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect or have any financial impact upon previously approved funding pursuant to this program.
(b)The annual amounts dedicated to individual approved projects shall be allocated based on the schedule of funding included in the plan that includes the project, unless the committee decides to allocate a different level of funding or change the number of years that the project is to receive funding pursuant to the program in accordance with the plan approved pursuant to subdivision (d).
(c)The committee shall adopt guidelines to explain how geographic equity will be maintained in the approval of plans pursuant to this program.
(d)(1)The committee shall approve or deny a plan submitted pursuant to Section 55905 upon both of the following:
(A)Receipt of the information required to be submitted pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 55905.
(B)A determination that the affordable housing and community development investment amount requested is consistent with the guidelines adopted pursuant to subdivision (b).
(2)The approval shall state the amount of the affordable housing and community development investment amount approved and the date upon which the affordable housing and community development investment amount terminates.
(e)The committee may require the applicant to reimburse it for the reasonable cost incurred to review the plan to participate in the program.
(f)The committee shall review, and may approve or deny, any changes to a plan submitted by the applicant.
55907.(a)Upon approval of a plan pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 55906, and subject to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 55906, the committee shall issue an order directing the county auditor to transfer an amount of ad valorem property tax revenue pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code in an amount equal to the annual affordable housing and community development investment amount approved by the committee.
(b)The revenues allocated to an applicant pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code may be used for the purposes set forth in Section 55903.
(c)The applicant may use the additional revenue received pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code to incur debt or issue bonds or other financing to support the project or projects included in the plan.
55908.(a)On or before July 1, 2022, and annually thereafter, each applicant that has received financing pursuant to the program for any fiscal year shall provide a report to the committee that includes all of the following information for the previous fiscal year:
(1)The affordable housing and community development investment amount that the county auditor reallocated to the applicant pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(2)The purposes for which that reallocated money was used, including the number of housing units constructed and at which income level.
(3)The actions taken during the prior fiscal year to implement the project.
(4)The total amount of funds expended for planning and general administrative costs.
(b)Notwithstanding Section 10231.5, on or before March 1, 2021, and annually thereafter, if the committee has approved funding pursuant to the program, the committee shall provide a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee that includes all of the following information for the preceding fiscal year:
(1)The name, location, and general description, including the number of housing units constructed and at which income level, of each project that received an affordable housing and community development investment amount pursuant to this program.
(2)The total amount of money that county auditors reallocated from affordable housing and community development investment funds pursuant to the program in the previous fiscal year.
(3)An evaluation of the value of the states investment through the funding provided by this program as measured by a net revenue increase to the General Fund and progress towards achieving the purposes and intent of the program.
(c)The committee shall develop a corrective action plan for noncompliance with the requirement of this part.
55909.(a)If, based on annual reports submitted to the committee pursuant to Section 55908, the committee determines that any of the following has occurred, the committee shall direct the applicant to develop a corrective action plan based on recommendations made by the committee:
(1)The applicant is not on track to produce the number of housing units included in the plan.
(2)The applicant is not on track to spend at least 50 percent of plan funds on affordable housing, as required by subdivision (b) of Section 55903.
(3)The applicant is on track to exceed 5 percent of the administrative limit.
(4)The applicant is found to have used funding provided by the program for purposes not authorized by the act.
(5)The applicant is found to have used funds to subsidize market rate housing.
(6)The applicant has violated antidisplacement provisions pursuant to paragraph (6), (7), (8), or (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 55905.
(7)The applicant is not on track to complete all of the projects included in the plan according to the timeline included in the plan.
(b)The applicant shall have one year from the date that the committee directed the applicant to develop a corrective action plan.
(c)The committee shall issue a finding that the applicant is out of compliance with the program if the committee finds either of the following apply:
(1)The applicant has not provided an adequate corrective action plan to the committee within one year of the date the committee directed the applicant to develop a corrective action plan.
(2)The annual report provided to the committee pursuant to Section 55908 does not demonstrate that the applicant has taken adequate steps to implement the corrective action plan that was provided to the committee within one year of the date the committee directed the applicant to develop a corrective action plan.
(d)If the committee finds that the applicant is out of compliance with the program, the committee shall direct the auditor to stop transferring moneys from the countys ERAF pursuant to the program under Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and prohibit the applicant from applying for additional funds for this program for a period of five years.
(e)If an applicant is found to be out of compliance with the program, the applicant shall be ineligible to apply for other state grant programs for a period of five years.
SEC. 4.Division 6 (commencing with Section 62300) is added to Title 6 of the Government Code, to read:6.Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Agencies62300.As used in this division:
(a)Agency means an affordable housing and community development investment agency created pursuant to this division.
(b)Affordable housing and community development investment amount means the amount approved by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 and allocated to an agency pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(c)Program means the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program established pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5.
(d)Project has the same meaning as defined in Section 55902.
(e)Plan area means the area that includes the territory described in any plan submitted by an agency pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 55905.
62302.(a)An affordable housing and community development investment agency created pursuant to this division shall be a public body, corporate and politic, with jurisdiction to carry out one or more projects within a project area. The agency shall have only those powers and duties specifically set forth in Section 62304.
(b)(1)Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an agency may be created in any one of the following ways:
(A)A city, county, or city and county may adopt a resolution creating an agency. The composition of the governing board shall be comprised as set forth in subdivision (c).
(B)Any of the following entities may create an authority agency by entering into a joint powers agreement pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1:
(i)A city.
(ii)A county.
(iii)A city and county.
(iv)A special district, as that term is defined in subdivision (m) of Section 95 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(v)Any combination of entities described in clauses (i) through to (iv), inclusive.
(2)(A)A school entity, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 95 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall not participate in an agency created pursuant to this division.
(B)A successor agency, as defined in subdivision (j) of Section 34171 of the Health and Safety Code, shall not participate in an agency created pursuant to this division, and an agency created pursuant to this division shall not receive any portion of the property tax revenues or other moneys distributed pursuant to Section 34188 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3)An agency created by a city or county that created a redevelopment agency that was dissolved pursuant to Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code shall not become effective until the successor agency or designated local authority for the former redevelopment agency has adopted findings of fact stating all of the following:
(A)The successor agency has received a finding of completion from the Department of Finance pursuant to Section 34179.7 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B)Former redevelopment agency assets that are the subject of litigation against the state, where the city or county or its successor agency or designated local authority are a named plaintiff, have not been or will not be used to benefit any efforts of an agency created under this division unless the litigation has been resolved by entry of a final judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction and any appeals have been exhausted.
(C)The successor agency has complied with all orders of the Controller pursuant to Section 34167.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(c)(1)The governing board of an agency created pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) shall be appointed by the legislative body of the city, county, or city and county that created the agency and shall include three members of the legislative body of the city, county, or city and county that created the agency and two public members. The appointment of the two public members shall be subject to Section 54974. The two public members shall live or work within the plan area.
(2)The governing body of an agency created pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) shall be comprised of a majority of members from the legislative bodies of the public agencies that created the agency and a minimum of two public members who live or work within the plan area. The majority of the board shall appoint the public members to the governing body. The appointment of the public members shall be subject to Section 54974.
62304.An agency may do all of the following in order to carry out a project:
(a)Apply for funding to carry out the project pursuant to the program.
(b)Accept an allocation of property tax revenues, in the form of an affordable housing and community development investment amount allocated under the program pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(c)Issue bonds in accordance with Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 53506) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 53510) of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.
(d)Borrow money, receive grants, or accept financial or other assistance or investment from the state or the federal government or any other public agency or private lending institution for any project within its area of operation. The agency may comply with any conditions of a loan or grant received pursuant to this subdivision.
(e)Receive funds allocated to it pursuant to a resolution adopted by a city, county, or special district to transfer these funds from a source described in subdivision (d), (e), or (f) of Section 53398.75, subject to any requirements upon, or imposed by, the city, county, or special district as to the use of these funds.
(f)Acquire and transfer real property.
(g)Any other act that is necessary to carry out a project in accordance with the requirements of the program and the agencys plan submitted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 55905.
SEC. 5.Section 97.68.1 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:97.68.1.Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for each fiscal year for which funding for a plan for the county is approved under Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, in allocating ad valorem property tax revenue, all of the following shall apply:
(a)The county auditor shall transfer an amount, equal to the countywide affordable housing and community development investment amount, from the countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund to the countys Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund Fund, up to the amount available in the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund after complying with subdivision (d), and deposit that amount into the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund established pursuant to subdivision (b).
(b)(1)The county auditor shall, except as provided in paragraph (2), deposit the countywide affordable housing and community development investment amount into the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund, which shall be established in the treasury of each county. Moneys in the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund shall only be used for plans approved pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, and shall be allocated to the applicant as directed by the committee.
(2)In the case of an applicant that is an enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization investment authority, affordable housing and community development investment agency, or transit village development district, the auditor shall allocate an amount from the countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund equal to the enhanced infrastructure financing districts, affordable housing authoritys, community revitalization investment authoritys, affordable housing and community development investment agencys, or transit village development districts affordable housing and community development investment amount to the city or county that created the enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization investment authority, affordable housing and community development investment agency, or transit village development district. The city or county shall, upon receipt, transfer those funds to that enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization investment authority, affordable housing and community development investment agency, or transit village development district, in an amount equal to the affordable housing and community development investment amount for that enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization investment authority, affordable housing and community development investment agency, or transit village development district.
(3)The county auditor shall allocate one-half of an amount specified in paragraph (1) or (2) on or before January 31 of each fiscal year, and the other one-half on or before May 31 of each fiscal year.
(c)For purposes of this section, all of the following shall apply:
(1)Affordable housing and community development investment amount for a particular city, county, or city and county means the amount approved by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Committee pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
(2)Countywide affordable housing and community development investment amount means, for any fiscal year, the total sum of the amounts described in paragraph (1) for a county or a city and county, and each city and county.
(d)This section shall not be construed to do any of the following:
(1)Reduce any allocations of excess, additional, or remaining funds that would otherwise have been allocated to county superintendents of schools, cities, counties, special districts, and cities and counties pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Sections 97.2 and 97.3, Section 97.70, and Article 4 (commencing with Section 98) had this section not been enacted. The allocations required by this section shall be adjusted to comply with this paragraph.
(2)Require an increased ad valorem property tax revenue allocation or increased tax increment allocation to a community redevelopment agency.
(3)Alter the manner in which ad valorem property tax revenue growth from fiscal year to fiscal year is otherwise determined or allocated in a county.
(4)Reduce ad valorem property tax revenue allocations required under Article 4 (commencing with Section 98).
(e)If, for the fiscal year, after complying with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 97.70, there is not enough ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to a county Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the county auditor to complete the transfer required by subdivision (a), the county auditor shall reduce the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to all school districts and community college districts in the county for that fiscal year by an amount equal to the difference between the countywide affordable housing and community development investment amount and the amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to the county Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for that fiscal year. This reduction for each school district and community college district in the county shall be the percentage share of the total reduction that is equal to the proportion that the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to the school district or community college district bears to the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to all school districts and community college districts in a county. For purposes of this subdivision, school districts and community college districts do not include any districts that are excess tax school entities, as defined in Section 95.
(f)Any transfer of ad valorem property tax revenues deposited in the countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund as a result of subdivision (a) shall be applied exclusively to reduce the amounts that are allocated from that fund to school districts and county offices of education, and shall not be applied to reduce the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenues that are otherwise required to be allocated from that fund to community college districts.
(g)(1)A property tax revenue allocation or transfer made pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) shall not be considered for purposes of determining under Section 96.1 the amount of property tax revenue allocated to a jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year.
(2)The county auditor may deduct its administrative costs related to this section from the affordable housing and community development investment amount before depositing that amount into the countys Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund pursuant to subdivision (a).
SEC. 6.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 7.Each provision of this act is a material and integral part of the act, and the provisions of this act are not severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, the entire act shall be null and void.
REVISIONS: HeadingLine 6.The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)In recent years the Legislature has created several new opportunities to use tax increment financing, which include the formation of enhanced infrastructure financing districts, affordable housing authorities, and community revitalization investment authorities. While these new tools can be useful to local agencies, they are widely viewed as lacking sufficient financial capacity compared to what existed under the former tax increment financing tool utilized by community redevelopment agencies.
(1)Under redevelopment, all of the growth in property tax (tax increment) within a project area over a base year, net of mandatory pass-through payments, that would otherwise be allocated to cities, counties, special districts and school districts was dedicated to redevelopment purposes. Under the new tax increment tools, however, property tax increment from affected taxing agencies other than the initiating city or county can only be dedicated with the approval of the affected local agencies.
(2)While potential local partnerships between cities, counties, and special districts involving new tax increment tools continue to be explored by cities, a reality is that counties and special districts often have other policy and budget priorities, and lack incentives to participate.
(3)The language in the new tax increment laws currently prohibit school districts from participating, largely reflecting state concerns over potential backfill requirements for school funding under the requirements of Proposition 98 of 1988.
(b)The state has many policy priorities that can be advanced by a restoration of a more robust form of tax increment financing than currently exists, which include:
(1)Increasing the production of affordable housing available to very low, low-, and moderate-income families.
(2)Expanding transit-oriented development at higher densities.
(3)Reducing jobs-housing imbalances in areas with high job growth.
(4)Increasing the availability of high-quality jobs through the rehabilitation, construction, and maintenance of housing and infrastructure.
(5)Improving the quality of life in neighborhoods and disadvantaged communities.
(6)Incentivizing growth in urban areas, thereby preserving, and enhancing the states most valuable natural resources
(7)Reducing poverty and caseloads of state and county safety net support programs by incentivizing the training and hiring of affected individuals to jobs where they can be self-supporting.
(c)The Legislature has declared that the policy priorities listed in subdivision (b) are matters of statewide concern. It is therefore appropriate that the state contribute financially to the realization of these priorities.
(d)By dedicating a portion of the school share of property taxes to support and incentivize partnerships using property tax increment, the state can advance its policy priorities while also protecting funding for schools and limiting effects on the state budget. The states interests can be ensured and protected in the following manner:
(1)Requiring approval of the newly-created State Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee, to ensure that the investment of property taxes otherwise allocated to schools through a countys educational revenue augmentation fund are used only for projects that maximize state policy benefits while ensuring that an economic analysis projects increased property tax revenues for schools in the affected territory upon project completion.
(3)Offering additional incentives to participating counties and special districts.
(4)Establishing an annual cap on the total local-state sustainable investment amount that may be approved to be allocated by the State Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee, as follows:
(A)Not to exceed an annual cap of $1 billion beginning July 1, 2025.
(B)Not to exceed an annual cap of $2 billion beginning July 1, 2029.
(5)Requiring annual reports to the Legislature on the status of all projects funded through this program.
SEC. 2.Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) is added to Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, to read:4.Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program55900.This part is known and may be cited as the Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program.
55901.The Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program is hereby established to create a local-state partnership to reduce poverty and advance other state priorities financed, in part, by property tax increment.
55902.As used in this part, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)Applicant means any entity identified in paragraph (a) of Section 55905 that has submitted an application to the committee pursuant to that section.
(b)Committee means the Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee established by Section 55904.
(c)Local-State sustainable investment amount is the amount of property tax revenue allocated pursuant to section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(d)Program means the Local-Sustainable Investment Incentive Program established by this part.
(e)Project shall include:
(1)A project undertaken by a city, county, city or county, joint powers authority, enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization and investment authority, or a transit village development district.
(2)A transit priority project that meets the requirements of subdivision (d) of section 65470.
(f)Transit Priority Project Program has the same meaning as contained in Section 65470.
55903.(a)Funding allocated to the program shall be used to support projects that include affordable housing. Eligible uses of this funding include:
(1)Construction of workforce and affordable housing. Priorities shall be provided for communities that adopt plans that streamline development including those adopted through a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone (Article 10.10 (commencing with Section 65620) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7), a Housing Sustainability District (Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 66200) of Division 1 of Title 7), or plans to streamline development funded by the Building Homes and Jobs Act (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 50470) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code).
(2)Transit-oriented development in priority locations that maximize density and transit use, and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Fiscal incentives shall be offered to offset local community impacts associated with greater densities.
(3)Infill development and equity by rehabilitating, maintaining, and improving existing infrastructure that supports infill development and appropriate reuse and redevelopment of previously developed, underutilized land that is presently served by transit, street, water, sewer, and other essential services, particularly in underserved areas, and to preserving cultural and historic resources.
(4)Promoting strong neighborhoods through supporting of local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods, including repairing infrastructure and parks, rehabilitating and building housing, promoting public-private partnerships, supporting small businesses and job growth for affected residents.
(5)Protecting communities dealing with the effects of sea-level rise, which is one of the most significant threats of climate change, including the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance infrastructure related to protecting communities from sea-level rise.
(b)At least 50 percent of the funding provided pursuant to the program shall be allocated according to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
(c)For any project approved pursuant to the program, at least 50 percent of the housing units constructed shall be affordable housing units.
(d)The local-state sustainable investment amount shall not be used to subsidize the construction of market rate units. It is the intent of the Legislature to preserve the incentives for affordable housing provided by existing density bonus law.
(e)At least 20 percent of the overall funding for the program shall be set aside for counties with populations of less than 200,000.
55904.(a)The Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee is hereby established and shall be comprised of the following:
(1)The Chair of the Strategic Growth Council, or his or her designee.
(2)The Chair of the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, or his or her designee.
(3)The Chair of California Workforce Investment Board, or his or her designee.
(4)Director of Housing and Community Development, or his or her designee.
(5)Two people appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(6)Two people appointed by the Senate Rules Committee.
(7)One public member appointed by the Governor that has a background in land use planning, local government, or community development or revitalization.
(b)The committee shall review and approve or deny applications received pursuant to Section 55905.
(c)The ____ shall provide the technical assistance and administrative support necessary for the committee to consider applications.
55905.(a)An application for the local-state sustainable investment amount may be submitted by any of the following:
(1)A city, county, or city and county.
(2)A joint powers authority formed pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1.
(2)An enhanced infrastructure financing district established pursuant to Chapter 2.99 (commencing with Section 53398.50) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.
(3)An affordable housing authority established pursuant to Division 5 (commencing with Section 62250) of Title 6.
(4)A community revitalization and investment authority established pursuant to Division 4 (commencing with Section 62000) of Title 6.
(5)A transit village development district established pursuant to Article 8.5 (commencing with Section 65460) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7.
(b)An application to participate in the program may be submitted to the committee and shall include all of the following information:
(1)A description of the proposed project to be completed by the applicant and the funding amount necessary for each year the project is to receive funding pursuant to the program.
(2)Information necessary to demonstrate that the project complies with all of the statutory requirements of any statutory authorization pursuant to which the project is proposed.
(3)Certification that any low- and moderate-income housing or other projects or portions of other projects that receive funding from the program will comply with paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 65193.4.
(4)A plan for outreach to, and retention of, women, minority, disadvantaged youth, formerly incarcerated, and other under represented subgroups in coordination with the California Workforce Investment Board and local boards, to increase their representation and employment opportunities in the building and construction trades.
(5)A requirement that no eviction has been made on project site within the last 10 years, and protections to avoid displacement of individuals affected by the project.
(6)An economic and fiscal analysis, paid for by the applicant and prepared by the applicant or an individual or entity approved by the committee that includes the following information as it pertains to the application:
(A)The estimated cost of providing services or facilities by the project.
(B)The estimated revenue available to provide services or facilities by the project.
(C)Identification of the taxing entities that are participating in the financing of the project through the pledge of an amount equal to the entitys incremental share of the property tax or other means.
(D)Identification of the property tax, sales tax, and other public funding available to invest in the project or the services or facilities needed by the project, as proposed.
(E)Identification of the funding and financing methods that will be used by the project including whether the applicant intends to issue bonds that will be repaid from property tax increment.
(F)The local-state sustainable investment amount requested by the applicant to complete the project or the services or facilities needed by the project, as proposed, and the proposed date on which the annual allocation of the local-state sustainable investment amount will terminate.
(c)Within 30 days of receipt of an application pursuant to this section, the committee shall provide the applicant with a written statement identifying any questions about the application.
(d)If the committee denies the application, the committee shall, not more than 30 days following the date the committee has issued a decision, provide the applicant with a written statement explaining the reasons why the application was denied.
55906.(a)The committee shall adopt annual priorities consistent with the objectives set forth in Section 55903 and shall adhere to the following funding schedule:
(1)For the five-year period commencing July 1, 2020, and ending June 30, 2025, the committee may approve two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) in funding annually for projects pursuant to the program, to reach an annual amount not to exceed one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) beginning July 1, 2025.
(2)For the four-year period commencing July 1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2029, the committee may authorize two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) in funding annualy for projects pursuant to this program to reach an annual amount not to exceed two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) beginning July 1, 2029.
(3)The Legislature may direct the committee to suspend consideration of applications submitted pursuant to Section 55903 in any fiscal year in which the Legislature passes a bill described in Section 22 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect or have any financial impact upon previously approved funding pursuant to this program.
(b)The annual amounts dedicated to individual approved projects shall be allocated based on the schedule of funding including in the projects application, unless the committee decides to allocate a different level of funding or change the number of years that the project is to receive funding pursuant to the program in accordance with the application approved pursuant to subdivision (d).
(c)The committee shall adopt guidelines to explain how geographic equity will be maintained in the approval of applications for projects pursuant to this program.
(d)(1)The committee shall approve or deny an application submitted pursuant to Section 55905 upon both of the following:
(A)Receipt of the information required to be submitted pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 55905.
(B)A determination that the local-state sustainable investment amount requested is consistent with the guidelines adopted pursuant to subdivision (b).
(2)The approval shall state the amount of the local-state sustainable investment amount approved and the date upon which the local-state sustainable investment amount terminates.
(e)The committee may require the applicant to reimburse it for the reasonable cost incurred to review the application to participate in the program.
55907.(a)Upon approval of an application pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 55906, the committee shall issue an order directing the county auditor to reduce the amount of ad valorem property tax revenue pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code by the annual local-state sustainable investment amount approved by the committee.
(b)The revenues allocated to an applicant pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code may be used for the purposes set forth in Section 55903.
(c)The applicant may use the additional revenue received pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code to incur debt or issue bonds or other financing to support the project.
55908.(a)On or before July 1, 2021, and annually thereafter, each applicant that has received financing pursuant to the program for any fiscal year shall provide a report to the committee that includes all of the following information for the previous fiscal year:
(1)The local-state sustainable investment amount that the county auditor reallocated to the applicant pursuant to Section 97.68.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(2)The purposes for which that reallocated money was used, including the number of housing units constructed and at which income level.
(3)The actions taken during the prior fiscal year to implement the project.
(b)Notwithstanding Section 10231.5, on or before March 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, the committee shall provide a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee that includes all of the following information for the preceding fiscal year:
(1)The name, location, and general description, including the number of housing units constructed and at which income level, of each project that received a local-state sustainable investment amount pursuant to this program.
(2)The total amount of money that county auditors reallocated from local-state sustainable investment funds pursuant to the program in the previous fiscal year.
(3)An evaluation of the value of the states investment through the funding provided by this program as measured by a net revenue increase to the General Fund and progress towards achieving the purposes and intent of the program.
(c)The committee shall develop a corrective action plan for noncompliance with the requirement of this part.
SEC. 3.Section 97.68.1 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:97.68.1.Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in allocating ad valorem property tax revenue all of the following shall apply:
(a)(1)The auditor shall reduce the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue otherwise required to be allocated to a countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund by the countywide local-state sustainable investment amount.
(2)In the case of an application that includes an enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, transit village development district, or community revitalization investment authority, the auditor shall reduce the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue otherwise required to be allocated to a countys Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund from the city or county that created the authority or district in an amount proportional to the local governments contribution to that district or authority by the countywide local-state sustainable investment amount.
(b)The auditor shall allocate the funds as directed by the committee pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
(c)For purposes of this section, all of the following shall apply:
(1)Local-state sustainable investment amount for a particular city, county, or city and county means the amount approved by the Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 55900) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
(2)Countywide local-state sustainable investment amount means, for any fiscal year, the total sum of the amounts described in paragraph (1) for a county or a city and county, and each city and county.
(d)This section shall not be construed to do any of the following:
(1)Reduce any allocations of excess, additional, or remaining funds that would otherwise have been allocated to county superintendents of schools, cities, counties, and cities and counties pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Sections 97.2 and 97.3 or Article 4 (commencing with Section 98) had this section not been enacted. The allocations required by this section shall be adjusted to comply with this paragraph.
(2)Require an increased ad valorem property tax revenue allocation or increased tax increment allocation to a community redevelopment agency.
(3)Alter the manner in which ad valorem property tax revenue growth from fiscal year to fiscal year is otherwise determined or allocated in a county.
(4)Reduce ad valorem property tax revenue allocations required under Article 4 (commencing with Section 98).
(e)If, for the fiscal year, after complying with Section 97.68, there is not enough ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to a county Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for the auditor to complete the allocation reduction required by subdivision (a), the auditor shall additionally reduce the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to all school districts and community college districts in the county for that fiscal year by an amount equal to the difference between the countywide local-state sustainable investment amount and the amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to the county Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for that fiscal year. This reduction for each school district and community college district in the county shall be the percentage share of the total reduction that is equal to the proportion that the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to the school district or community college district bears to the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is otherwise required to be allocated to all school districts and community college districts in a county. For purposes of this subdivision, school districts and community college districts do not include any districts that are excess tax school entities, as defined in Section 95.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2020 | Stricken from file. |
| Oct 13, 2019 | In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending. |
| Oct 13, 2019 | Vetoed by the Governor. |
| Sep 18, 2019 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Sep 11, 2019 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 29. Noes 8.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Sep 10, 2019 | In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. |
| Sep 10, 2019 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| Sep 5, 2019 | Read third time and amended. |
| Sep 3, 2019 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 30, 2019 | Coauthors revised. |
| Aug 21, 2019 | August 21 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file. |
| Aug 12, 2019 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jul 11, 2019 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (July 10). |
| Jul 3, 2019 | Coauthors revised. |
| Jun 27, 2019 | Assembly Rule 56 suspended. |
| Jun 17, 2019 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D. |
| Jun 10, 2019 | Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV. |
| May 29, 2019 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| May 29, 2019 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 31. Noes 4.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 28, 2019 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 24, 2019 | Read third time and amended. |
| May 21, 2019 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 20, 2019 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (May 16). |
| May 10, 2019 | Set for hearing May 16. |
| Apr 29, 2019 | April 29 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file. |
| Apr 23, 2019 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 18, 2019 | Set for hearing April 29. |
| Apr 17, 2019 | April 22 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Apr 11, 2019 | Set for hearing April 22. |
| Apr 8, 2019 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 4, 2019 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (April 2). |
| Mar 26, 2019 | Set for hearing April 2. |
| Mar 21, 2019 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING. |
| Mar 20, 2019 | March 20 set for first hearing. Reconsideration of favorable vote granted. |
| Mar 18, 2019 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F. |
| Mar 6, 2019 | Set for hearing March 20. |
| Jan 24, 2019 | Referred to Coms. on GOV. & F. and HOUSING. |
| Dec 4, 2018 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 3. |
| Dec 3, 2018 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2019 | Unfinished Business SB5 Beall et al. Concurrence | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 10, 2019 | SB 5 Beall Senate Third Reading By Mullin | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 30, 2019 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jul 10, 2019 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government |
Passed |
|
| Jul 3, 2019 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Local Government] | Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development |
Passed |
|
| May 29, 2019 | Senate 3rd Reading SB5 Beall et al. | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 16, 2019 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 29, 2019 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 2, 2019 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Housing |
Passed |
|
| Mar 20, 2019 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Housing] | Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance |
Passed |
|
| Mar 20, 2019 | [03-20-2019] set for [Second] hearing: Reconsideration of favorable vote granted | Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance |
Passed |
|
| Mar 20, 2019 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Housing] | Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 5 |
VETO
Bill No: SB 5
Author: Beall (D), McGuire (D), and Portantino (D), et al.
Amended: 9/5/19
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 3/20/19
AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hertzberg, Hurtado, Nielsen, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-1, 4/2/19
AYES: Wiener, Bates, Caballero, Durazo, McGuire, Roth, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski
NOES: Morrell
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 4-2, 5/16/19
AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Wieckowski
NOES: Bates, Jones
SENATE FLOOR: 31-4, 5/29/19
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk
NOES: Grove, Jones, Morrell, Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Chang, Moorlach
SENATE FLOOR: 29-9, 9/11/19
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Lena Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener
NOES: Bates, Chang, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Borgeas, Moorlach
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-19, 9/10/19 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program
DIGEST:
This bill allows local agencies to reduce contributions of local property tax revenue to schools to build affordable housing and related infrastructure.
Existing law:
- Dissolved California redevelopment agencies (RDAs) (ABX1 26, Blumenfield, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011-12, First Extraordinary Session), which used property tax increment financing to pay for economic development projects in blighted areas.
- Requires the state to provide a minimum level of funding for K-12 schools and community colleges.
- Redirects almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts.
- Requires county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).
- Requires that counties with more ERAF revenue than necessary to offset all state aid to nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts use these excess funds for countywide special education programs, and any remaining funds be returned to cities, counties, and special districts in proportion to the amount of property taxes they contributed to ERAF.
- Replaces revenue lost when the vehicle license fee (VLF) was reduced in the early 2000s with (a) ERAF and, if ERAF revenues are not sufficient, from (b) nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts, with all reductions in revenue to K-12 and community college districts offset by additional state aid.
This bill:
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program).
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee (Committee), comprised of nine specified state department representatives and legislative appointees and gives it responsibility for reviewing and approving or denying local agency plans for projects proposed to be funded under the Program.
- Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide technical assistance and administrative support necessary for the Committee to consider local plans.
- Allows various local agencies to apply for the Program, either individually or jointly, as specified, and issue debt.
- Authorizes a city, county, or special district to establish an Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Agency, as specified, to apply for program funding.
- Requires, for an applicant to receive funding, submission of the following information, as specified, not to exceed 30 years.
- Allows the Committee to approve, deny, or modify an application.
- Requires the Committee to ensure distribution of funds with geographic equity in mind, and create a rubric that prioritizes projects based on the number and type of housing units created.
- Outlines the following eligible uses of funding, subject to certain exclusions if the applicant has taken certain actions that hinder housing development:
- Construction of affordable housing, defined as units affordable to households making 120 percent of area median income.
- Transit-oriented development in priority locations that maximize density and transit use and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Infill development to assist in the construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in area designated as infill, as specified.
- Promoting strong neighborhoods through supporting local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods including housing infrastructure and public facilities, as specified.
- Protecting communities from the effects of climate change, including the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure, including natural infrastructure.
- Requires that at least 50% of the overall program funding and 50% of each plan’s funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. At least 80% of this set-aside must be used to provide rental and owner-occupied housing for low-income households with an annual income of up to 80% of the area median income, as specified. The remaining funds may be used for the production of moderate-income housing (households with an annual income between 80% and 120 % of the area median income), as specified.
- Subjects rental and sales prices for housing assisted with the 80% set aside to specified caps, and subjects all housing to the following recorded affordability restrictions: 55 years for rental housing; 45 years for owner-occupied housing; and at least 15 years for self-help housing.
- Prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units.
- Requires that plans dedicate at least 30 percent of housing units to affordable housing.
- Reserves at least 12 percent of overall program funding for counties with 200,000 residents or less, and two percent for technical assistance to such counties to make sure they have the technical capacity to apply for the program. If these counties do not spend all of these funds in any year, SB 5 reserves that funding for these counties in subsequent years.
- Provides that the applicant must provide matching resources for the state investment in the program, unless the applicant is located in a rural area.
- Requires projects that receive funding to use skilled-and-trained labor and prevent displacement, unless otherwise specified.
- Allows the Committee to approve plans for the Program provided that the Legislature enacts a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount available to the Committee.
- Caps the amount of funding the Committee can approve to no more than $200 million in any year from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2026, and no more than $250 million in any year from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2030.
- Allows the Legislature to direct the Committee to suspend the Program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee without impacting previously approved funding.
- Allows the Committee, upon approval of a plan, to direct the county auditor to transfer an amount of property tax revenue that is equal to the amount approved by the Committee, up to the amount of ERAF available, for that applicant from the ERAF to a specified county Fund established by this bill. The county auditor would then allocate specified funds to program applicants.
- Specifies that these transfers can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools to ensure that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools.
- Gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate, or “rebench,” the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this Program.
- Authorizes the county auditor to deduct its administrative costs from the amounts transferred from ERAF before allocating the balance to applicants with approved plans, as specified.
- Requires the recipient of diverted ERAF funds to submit an annual report in years the applicant receives funding as specified.
- Requires that the Committee, in years it allocates program funding, to compile these reports into an annual report, which it submits to the Legislature.
- Allows the Committee to direct the applicant to develop a corrective action plan if the applicant does not spend the funds as laid out in their plan, as specified.
- Gives the applicant one year to develop the corrective action plan and take steps to implement the plan.
- Requires, if the applicant does not comply with the corrective action plan, to direct the county audition to stop ERAF transfers beyond what is necessary to comply with specified obligations, and prohibits the applicant from applying for additional funding from this Program for five years or apply for other state grant programs.
Background
Redevelopment agencies. Citing a significant State General Fund deficit, Governor Brown’s 2011-12 Budget proposed eliminating RDAs and returning billions of dollars of property tax revenues to schools, cities, and counties to fund core services. Among the statutory changes that the Legislature adopted to implement the 2011-12 Budget, ABX1 26 dissolved all RDAs. At the time of dissolution, over 400 RDAs statewide were diverting 12% of property taxes, over $5.6 billion yearly. RDAs’ dissolution deprived many local agencies of the primary tool they used to eliminate physical and economic blight, finance new construction, improve public infrastructure, rehabilitate existing buildings, and increase the supply of affordable housing. Until their dissolution, state law required RDAs to set-aside 20% of funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. At the time RDAs were dissolved, the Controller estimated that statewide, RDAs were obligated to spend $1 billion on affordable housing.
Education funding. Proposition 13 gave the state authority to allocate the local property tax among local agencies, schools, and community college districts. Each year, the state estimates how much each district will receive in local property tax revenue (and student fee revenue in the case of community colleges). Then, the annual Budget Act appropriates state General Fund to “make up the difference” and fund the district’s revenue limit or apportionment at the intended level. For K-12 districts that require additional funding to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding, known as nonbasic aid school districts, all funding shortfalls are backfilled automatically with additional state aid. In contrast, basic aid districts do not require state aid to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding because local property tax is sufficient. Explicit state action is required to backfill community college funding shortfalls. In 1992-93 and 1993-94, in response to serious budgetary shortfalls, the state permanently redirected almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts. Under the changes in property tax allocation laws, county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s ERAF.
Comments
- Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Nearly 130,000 men, women, and children lived on California’s streets in 2018. A major driver for the increase in homelessness is high housing costs and underproduction of housing units, especially for those with the lowest income. Since the 1980s, California has failed to produce the estimated 180,000 necessary new housing units per year. According to HCD, California has a 1.5 million unit shortage of housing available to our lowest income households, who are most at risk of becoming homeless. The state must act with urgency to address the shortage of affordable housing units. SB 5 makes the state a long-term partner and provides much needed money to build affordable housing construction across the state. It provides a significant ongoing investment, ramping up to $2 billion annually over time, and offers an effective finance tool lost when the state dissolved redevelopment agencies. The intent of this bill is to respond to the needs of the cities and counties and get funds out the door to construct affordable housing units quickly. It creates desperately needed housing opportunities for hard-working Californians and will also help alleviate poverty, create jobs, and meet our statewide environmental goals without affecting school funding. According to economic analysis prepared by the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council and California Housing Partnership, this bill would create up to 86,000 new and rehabilitated housing units, 329,000 jobs and spur more than $60 billion in economic activity over a ten year period.”
- General fund and education funding impact. By reducing the amount of local property tax revenue going to schools, SB 5 indirectly requires the General Fund to backfill any reductions to nonbasic aid schools. While these backfills ensure that schools receive the same level of revenue as they would have in absence of the bill, like any General Fund expenditure, SB 5 results in less General Fund revenue available to support other programs and services. While the amount of General Fund dedicated on this program could put additional pressure on the state budget and schools, this bill includes provisions intended to hold schools harmless. Since the level of funding is subject to legislative action, the Legislature can control the annual magnitude of this adjustment.
- Funding flexibility. One of the critiques of redevelopment was that funding was used for projects that were not the highest priority. Given the breadth of funding uses, it is possible that this new program could face similar criticisms when implemented. On the other hand, broader categories allow the program to be flexible and account for the various challenges local agencies face.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- Generally, this bill establishes a mechanism that, when fully implemented, shifts up to $2 billion annually from local ERAFs to pay for projects approved under the Program for affordable housing, transit-oriented development, infill development, housing-related infrastructure, and other specified priorities. This indirectly requires the state to make annual GF adjustments to match any reductions in ERAF that would otherwise be used to support schools. While school funding is held harmless, this bill would reduce the amount of GF revenues available to support other state programs and services.
- Specifically, GF impacts of up to $2 billion annually for up to 30 years when fully implemented, to the extent the Legislature authorizes the allocation of funding at the maximum amounts specified in this bill each year. GF expenditures would be up to $200 million in 2021-22, increasing by up to $200 million annually through 2025-26, then increasing by up to $250 million annually through 2029-30, to reach an annual cost of $2 billion by 2029-30. The GF generally backfills any reductions in the school share of local property tax revenues, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees, including amounts transferred from ERAFs.
- HCD estimates first year costs of approximately $4.13 million (GF), to the extent the maximum amount is authorized, and ongoing administrative costs of approximately $3.78 million (GF) to support 23 personnel years of new staff time to establish the program, provide technical assistance and administrative support for the Committee to consider local plans, make awards, and conduct ongoing monitoring and administration of the program. This bill authorizes HCD to charge local agency applicants for its reasonable costs to review local plans, which would provide for partial cost-recovery of an unknown portion of HCD costs.
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable local mandate costs (GF) associated with new requirements imposed on county auditors related to ERAF shifts and property tax allocations. This bill authorizes county auditors to deduct administrative costs from a portion of the funds allocated to local entities with an approved plan of projects. Ultimately, the Commission on State Mandates would determine whether certain mandated duties require state reimbursement, after accounting for offsets to costs as a result of the fee authority, should local entities file a test claim.
California State Treasurer, Fiona Ma
ABODE Services
Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California Chapter
Association of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Council
Big City Mayors
Bill Wilson Center
Bridge Housing Corporation
California Apartment Association
California Association for Local Economic Development
California Association of Housing Authorities
California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
California Coalition for Rural Housing
California Contract Cities Association
California EDGE Coalition
California Forward Action Fund
California Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP
California Housing Partnership Coalition
California Labor Federation
California League of Conversation Voters
California Legislative Conference of Plumbing, Heating, & Piping Industry
California State Association of Counties
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Council of Laborers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Caltrain
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
City of Alameda
City of Albany
City of Arcata
City of Atascadero
City of Auburn
City of Baldwin Park
City of Bellflower
City of Beverly Hills
City of Brentwood
City of Burbank
City of Camarillo
City of Cerritos
City of Chowchilla
City of Cloverdale
City of Clovis
City of Concord
City of Corona
City of Cotati
City of Covina
City of Crescent City
City of Cupertino
City of Danville
City of Downey
City of Duarte
City of East Palo Alto
City of El Centro
City of Encinitas
City of Escondido
City of Eureka
City of Famersville
City of Fort Bragg
City of Fortuna
City of Fountain Valley
City of Fullerton
City of Garden Grove
City of Glendale
City of Goleta
City of Half Moon Bay
City of Hayward
City of Hemet
City of Hollister
City of Indio
City of La Mirada
City of Lafayette
City of Laguna Beach
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood
City of Lathrop
City of Lodi
City of Long Beach
City of Los Alamitos
City of Los Altos
City of Los Angeles
City of Manteca
City of Mill Valley
City of Modesto
City of Moorpark
City of Mountain View
City of Napa
City of Norwalk
City of Novato
City of Oakdale
City of Ojai
City of Orange Cove
City of Palmdale
City of Palo Alto
City of Paramount
City of Pasadena
City of Pinole
City of Pismo Beach
City of Placentia
City of Placerville
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rohnert Park
City of Rosemead
City of Roseville
City of Salinas
City of San Carlos
City of San Diego
City of San Jose
City of San Leandro
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Rafael
City of Sand City
City of Santa Ana
City of Santa Clarita
City of Santa Cruz
City of Santa Monica
City of Saratoga
City of South Lake Tahoe
City of South Pasadena
City of Stanton
City of Stockton
City of Sunnyvale
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Tracy
City of Vallejo
City of Ventura
City of Visalia
City of West Hollywood
City of Yreka
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
Construction Employers’ Association
Core Affordable Housing
EAH Housing
East Bay Housing Organizations
Eden Housing
Electrical Contractors of California Trust
Engineering & Utility Contractors Association
First Community Housing
Gateway Cities Council of Governments
Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley
Housing California
Housing Network of Santa Clara County
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Indivisible San Jose
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers
International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference
Kosmont Companies
Laborers’ International Union of North America
League of California Cities
League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division
League of California Cities, San Diego County Division
LifeMoves
Local Government Commission
Lodi District Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Business Federation
Los Angeles City Council Member, Mitch O’Farrell
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Manteca Chamber of Commerce
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Mayor of San Jose Sam Liccardo
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Modesto City Council Member Tony Madrigal
MuniServices
National Electrical Contractors Association, California Chapters
Newport Realty Advisors
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Northern California Allied Trades
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council
Northern California Sheet Metal Worker’s, Local 104
Orange County Business Council
Petaluma Pie Company
PICO California
Plumbers, Steamfitters, and HVAC/R Service Technicians UA Local Union 393
Rainbow Chamber of Commerce Silicon Valley
ROEM Development Corporation
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
San Diego Association of Governments
San Diego County Division
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Joaquin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter School
San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch of the NAACP
San Mateo County Transit District
Sand Hill Property Company
Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council
Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates
Silicon Valley At Home
Silicon Valley Chamber Coalition
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Silicon Valley Organization
Silicon Valley Young Democrats
SIREN
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
South Bay Labor Council
South Bay YIMBY
Southern California Association of Governments
Southwest California Legislative Council
Sprinkler Fitter and Apprentices Local 483
SPUR
Stanislaus Council of Governments
State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
Techequity Collaborative
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation
Town of Colma
Town of Corte Madera
Town of Fairfax
Town of Windsor
Tracy Chamber of Commerce
TransForm
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce
UA Local Union 393
United Contractors
Ventura Council of Governments
Wall and Ceiling Alliance
Western Riverside Council of Governments
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Western Wall and Ceiling Contractors Association
Working Partnerships USA
OPPOSITION: (Verified 10/29/19)
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of School Business Officials
California School Boards Association
California Teachers Association
Educate Our State
Fieldstead and Company, Inc.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education
School Employers Association of California
Small School Districts Association
One individual
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
I am returning Senate Bill 5 without my signature.
This bill would establish the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program through which local agencies may redirect property tax revenue for schools to fund affordable housing and related infrastructure.
California is in a housing crisis, and I have consistently maintained we need to use all the tools in our toolbox to address it. However, this bill would increase costs by $2 billion annually once fully implemented. Legislation with such a significant fiscal impact needs to be part of budget deliberations so that it can be considered in light of other priorities.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-19, 9/10/19
AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Choi, Cunningham, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Voepel, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Burke, Gonzalez, Irwin, McCarty, Smith
Prepared by: Jonathan Peterson / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
10/30/19 13:45:45
**** END ****
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 5 |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 5
Amended: 9/5/19
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 3/20/19
AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hertzberg, Hurtado, Nielsen, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-1, 4/2/19
AYES: Wiener, Bates, Caballero, Durazo, McGuire, Roth, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski
NOES: Morrell
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 4-2, 5/16/19
AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Wieckowski
NOES: Bates, Jones
SENATE FLOOR: 31-4, 5/29/19
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk
NOES: Grove, Jones, Morrell, Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Chang, Moorlach
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-19, 9/10/19 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program
DIGEST:
This bill allows local agencies to reduce contributions of local property tax revenue to schools to build affordable housing and related infrastructure.
Assembly Amendments define which projects receive exemptions from skilled-and-trained labor requirements, make sure that applicants who do not comply with corrective action plans can meet financing obligations, and make other clarifying changes.
Existing law:
- Dissolved California redevelopment agencies (RDAs) (ABX1 26, Blumenfield, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011-12, First Extraordinary Session), which used property tax increment financing to pay for economic development projects in blighted areas.
- Requires the state to provide a minimum level of funding for K-12 schools and community colleges.
- Redirects almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts.
- Requires county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).
- Requires that counties with more ERAF revenue than necessary to offset all state aid to nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts use these excess funds for countywide special education programs, and any remaining funds be returned to cities, counties, and special districts in proportion to the amount of property taxes they contributed to ERAF.
- Replaces revenue lost when the vehicle license fee (VLF) was reduced in the early 2000s with (a) ERAF and, if ERAF revenues are not sufficient, from (b) nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts, with all reductions in revenue to K-12 and community college districts offset by additional state aid.
This bill:
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program).
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee (Committee), comprised of nine specified state department representatives and legislative appointees and gives it responsibility for reviewing and approving or denying local agency plans for projects proposed to be funded under the Program.
- Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide technical assistance and administrative support necessary for the Committee to consider local plans.
- Allows various local agencies to apply for the Program, either individually or jointly, as specified, and issue debt.
- Authorizes a city, county, or special district to establish an Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Agency, as specified, to apply for program funding.
- Requires, for an applicant to receive funding, submission of the following information, as specified, not to exceed 30 years.
- Allows the Committee to approve, deny, or modify an application.
- Requires the Committee to ensure distribution of funds with geographic equity in mind, and create a rubric that prioritizes projects based on the number and type of housing units created.
- Outlines the following eligible uses of funding, subject to certain exclusions if the applicant has taken certain actions that hinder housing development:
- Construction of affordable housing, defined as units affordable to households making 120 percent of area median income.
- Transit-oriented development in priority locations that maximize density and transit use and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Infill development to assist in the construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in area designated as infill, as specified.
- Promoting strong neighborhoods through supporting local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods including housing infrastructure and public facilities, as specified.
- Protecting communities from the effects of climate change, including the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure, including natural infrastructure.
- Requires that at least 50% of the overall program funding and 50% of each plan’s funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. At least 80% of this set-aside must be used to provide rental and owner-occupied housing for low-income households with an annual income of up to 80% of the area median income, as specified. The remaining funds may be used for the production of moderate-income housing (households with an annual income between 80% and 120 % of the area median income), as specified.
- Subjects rental and sales prices for housing assisted with the 80% set aside to specified caps, and subjects all housing to the following recorded affordability restrictions: 55 years for rental housing; 45 years for owner-occupied housing; and at least 15 years for self-help housing.
- Prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units.
- Requires that plans dedicate at least 30 percent of housing units to affordable housing.
- Reserves at least 12 percent of overall program funding for counties with 200,000 residents or less, and two percent for technical assistance to such counties to make sure they have the technical capacity to apply for the program. If these counties do not spend all of these funds in any year, SB 5 reserves that funding for these counties in subsequent years.
- Provides that the applicant must provide matching resources for the state investment in the program, unless the applicant is located in a rural area.
- Requires projects that receive funding to use skilled-and-trained labor and prevent displacement, unless otherwise specified.
- Allows the Committee to approve plans for the Program provided that the Legislature enacts a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount available to the Committee.
- Caps the amount of funding the Committee can approve to no more than $200 million in any year from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2026, and no more than $250 million in any year from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2030.
- Allows the Legislature to direct the Committee to suspend the Program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee without impacting previously approved funding.
- Allows the Committee, upon approval of a plan, to direct the county auditor to transfer an amount of property tax revenue that is equal to the amount approved by the Committee, up to the amount of ERAF available, for that applicant from the ERAF to a specified county Fund established by this bill. The county auditor would then allocate specified funds to program applicants.
- Specifies that these transfers can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools to ensure that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools.
- Gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate, or “rebench,” the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this Program.
- Authorizes the county auditor to deduct its administrative costs from the amounts transferred from ERAF before allocating the balance to applicants with approved plans, as specified.
- Requires the recipient of diverted ERAF funds to submit an annual report in years the applicant receives funding as specified.
- Requires that the Committee, in years it allocates program funding, to compile these reports into an annual report, which it submits to the Legislature.
- Allows the Committee to direct the applicant to develop a corrective action plan if the applicant does not spend the funds as laid out in their plan, as specified.
- Gives the applicant one year to develop the corrective action plan and take steps to implement the plan.
- Requires, if the applicant does not comply with the corrective action plan, to direct the county audition to stop ERAF transfers beyond what is necessary to comply with specified obligations, and prohibits the applicant from applying for additional funding from this Program for five years or apply for other state grant programs.
Background
Redevelopment agencies. Citing a significant State General Fund deficit, Governor Brown’s 2011-12 Budget proposed eliminating RDAs and returning billions of dollars of property tax revenues to schools, cities, and counties to fund core services. Among the statutory changes that the Legislature adopted to implement the 2011-12 Budget, ABX1 26 dissolved all RDAs. At the time of dissolution, over 400 RDAs statewide were diverting 12% of property taxes, over $5.6 billion yearly. RDAs’ dissolution deprived many local agencies of the primary tool they used to eliminate physical and economic blight, finance new construction, improve public infrastructure, rehabilitate existing buildings, and increase the supply of affordable housing. Until their dissolution, state law required RDAs to set-aside 20% of funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. At the time RDAs were dissolved, the Controller estimated that statewide, RDAs were obligated to spend $1 billion on affordable housing.
Education funding. Proposition 13 gave the state authority to allocate the local property tax among local agencies, schools, and community college districts. Each year, the state estimates how much each district will receive in local property tax revenue (and student fee revenue in the case of community colleges). Then, the annual Budget Act appropriates state General Fund to “make up the difference” and fund the district’s revenue limit or apportionment at the intended level. For K-12 districts that require additional funding to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding, known as nonbasic aid school districts, all funding shortfalls are backfilled automatically with additional state aid. In contrast, basic aid districts do not require state aid to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding because local property tax is sufficient. Explicit state action is required to backfill community college funding shortfalls. In 1992-93 and 1993-94, in response to serious budgetary shortfalls, the state permanently redirected almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts. Under the changes in property tax allocation laws, county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s ERAF.
Comments
- Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Nearly 130,000 men, women, and children lived on California’s streets in 2018. A major driver for the increase in homelessness is high housing costs and underproduction of housing units, especially for those with the lowest income. Since the 1980s, California has failed to produce the estimated 180,000 necessary new housing units per year. According to HCD, California has a 1.5 million unit shortage of housing available to our lowest income households, who are most at risk of becoming homeless. The state must act with urgency to address the shortage of affordable housing units. SB 5 makes the state a long-term partner and provides much needed money to build affordable housing construction across the state. It provides a significant ongoing investment, ramping up to $2 billion annually over time, and offers an effective finance tool lost when the state dissolved redevelopment agencies. The intent of this bill is to respond to the needs of the cities and counties and get funds out the door to construct affordable housing units quickly. It creates desperately needed housing opportunities for hard-working Californians and will also help alleviate poverty, create jobs, and meet our statewide environmental goals without affecting school funding. According to economic analysis prepared by the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council and California Housing Partnership, this bill would create up to 86,000 new and rehabilitated housing units, 329,000 jobs and spur more than $60 billion in economic activity over a ten year period.”
- General fund and education funding impact. By reducing the amount of local property tax revenue going to schools, SB 5 indirectly requires the General Fund to backfill any reductions to nonbasic aid schools. While these backfills ensure that schools receive the same level of revenue as they would have in absence of the bill, like any General Fund expenditure, SB 5 results in less General Fund revenue available to support other programs and services. While the amount of General Fund dedicated on this program could put additional pressure on the state budget and schools, this bill includes provisions intended to hold schools harmless. Since the level of funding is subject to legislative action, the Legislature can control the annual magnitude of this adjustment.
- Funding flexibility. One of the critiques of redevelopment was that funding was used for projects that were not the highest priority. Given the breadth of funding uses, it is possible that this new program could face similar criticisms when implemented. On the other hand, broader categories allow the program to be flexible and account for the various challenges local agencies face.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- Generally, this bill establishes a mechanism that, when fully implemented, shifts up to $2 billion annually from local ERAFs to pay for projects approved under the Program for affordable housing, transit-oriented development, infill development, housing-related infrastructure, and other specified priorities. This indirectly requires the state to make annual GF adjustments to match any reductions in ERAF that would otherwise be used to support schools. While school funding is held harmless, the bill would reduce the amount of GF revenues available to support other state programs and services.
- Specifically, GF impacts of up to $2 billion annually for up to 30 years when fully implemented, to the extent the Legislature authorizes the allocation of funding at the maximum amounts specified in the bill each year. GF expenditures would be up to $200 million in 2021-22, increasing by up to $200 million annually through 2025-26, then increasing by up to $250 million annually through 2029-30, to reach an annual cost of $2 billion by 2029-30. The GF generally backfills any reductions in the school share of local property tax revenues, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees, including amounts transferred from ERAFs.
- HCD estimates first year costs of approximately $4.13 million (GF), to the extent the maximum amount is authorized, and ongoing administrative costs of approximately $3.78 million (GF) to support 23 personnel years of new staff time to establish the program, provide technical assistance and administrative support for the Committee to consider local plans, make awards, and conduct ongoing monitoring and administration of the program. This bill authorizes HCD to charge local agency applicants for its reasonable costs to review local plans, which would provide for partial cost-recovery of an unknown portion of HCD costs.
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable local mandate costs (GF) associated with new requirements imposed on county auditors related to ERAF shifts and property tax allocations. This bill authorizes county auditors to deduct administrative costs from a portion of the funds allocated to local entities with an approved plan of projects. Ultimately, the Commission on State Mandates would determine whether certain mandated duties require state reimbursement, after accounting for offsets to costs as a result of the fee authority, should local entities file a test claim.
California State Treasurer, Fiona Ma
ABODE Services
Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California Chapter
Association of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Council
Big City Mayors
Bill Wilson Center
Bridge Housing Corporation
California Apartment Association
California Association for Local Economic Development
California Association of Housing Authorities
California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
California Coalition for Rural Housing
California Contract Cities Association
California EDGE Coalition
California Forward Action Fund
California Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP
California Housing Partnership Coalition
California Labor Federation
California League of Conversation Voters
California Legislative Conference of Plumbing, Heating, & Piping Industry
California State Association of Counties
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Council of Laborers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Caltrain
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
City of Alameda
City of Albany
City of Arcata
City of Atascadero
City of Auburn
City of Baldwin Park
City of Bellflower
City of Beverly Hills
City of Brentwood
City of Burbank
City of Camarillo
City of Cerritos
City of Chowchilla
City of Cloverdale
City of Clovis
City of Concord
City of Corona
City of Cotati
City of Covina
City of Crescent City
City of Cupertino
City of Danville
City of Downey
City of Duarte
City of East Palo Alto
City of El Centro
City of Encinitas
City of Escondido
City of Eureka
City of Famersville
City of Fort Bragg
City of Fortuna
City of Fountain Valley
City of Fullerton
City of Garden Grove
City of Glendale
City of Goleta
City of Half Moon Bay
City of Hayward
City of Hemet
City of Hollister
City of Indio
City of La Mirada
City of Lafayette
City of Laguna Beach
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood
City of Lathrop
City of Lodi
City of Long Beach
City of Los Alamitos
City of Los Altos
City of Los Angeles
City of Manteca
City of Mill Valley
City of Modesto
City of Moorpark
City of Mountain View
City of Napa
City of Norwalk
City of Novato
City of Oakdale
City of Ojai
City of Orange Cove
City of Palmdale
City of Palo Alto
City of Paramount
City of Pasadena
City of Pinole
City of Pismo Beach
City of Placentia
City of Placerville
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rohnert Park
City of Rosemead
City of Roseville
City of Salinas
City of San Carlos
City of San Diego
City of San Jose
City of San Leandro
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Rafael
City of Sand City
City of Santa Ana
City of Santa Clarita
City of Santa Cruz
City of Santa Monica
City of Saratoga
City of South Lake Tahoe
City of South Pasadena
City of Stanton
City of Stockton
City of Sunnyvale
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Tracy
City of Vallejo
City of Ventura
City of Visalia
City of West Hollywood
City of Yreka
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
Construction Employers’ Association
Core Affordable Housing
EAH Housing
East Bay Housing Organizations
Eden Housing
Electrical Contractors of California Trust
Engineering & Utility Contractors Association
First Community Housing
Gateway Cities Council of Governments
Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley
Housing California
Housing Network of Santa Clara County
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Indivisible San Jose
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers
International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference
Kosmont Companies
Laborers’ International Union of North America
League of California Cities
League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division
League of California Cities, San Diego County Division
LifeMoves
Local Government Commission
Lodi District Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Business Federation
Los Angeles City Council Member, Mitch O’Farrell
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Manteca Chamber of Commerce
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Mayor of San Jose Sam Liccardo
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Modesto City Council Member Tony Madrigal
MuniServices
National Electrical Contractors Association, California Chapters
Newport Realty Advisors
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Northern California Allied Trades
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council
Northern California Sheet Metal Worker’s, Local 104
Orange County Business Council
Petaluma Pie Company
PICO California
Plumbers, Steamfitters, and HVAC/R Service Technicians UA Local Union 393
Rainbow Chamber of Commerce Silicon Valley
ROEM Development Corporation
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
San Diego Association of Governments
San Diego County Division
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Joaquin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter School
San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch of the NAACP
San Mateo County Transit District
Sand Hill Property Company
Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council
Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates
Silicon Valley At Home
Silicon Valley Chamber Coalition
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Silicon Valley Organization
Silicon Valley Young Democrats
SIREN
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
South Bay Labor Council
South Bay YIMBY
Southern California Association of Governments
Southwest California Legislative Council
Sprinkler Fitter and Apprentices Local 483
SPUR
Stanislaus Council of Governments
State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
Techequity Collaborative
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation
Town of Colma
Town of Corte Madera
Town of Fairfax
Town of Windsor
Tracy Chamber of Commerce
TransForm
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce
UA Local Union 393
United Contractors
Ventura Council of Governments
Wall and Ceiling Alliance
Western Riverside Council of Governments
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Western Wall and Ceiling Contractors Association
Working Partnerships USA
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/10/19)
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of School Business Officials
California School Boards Association
California Teachers Association
Educate Our State
Fieldstead and Company, Inc.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education
School Employers Association of California
Small School Districts Association
One individual
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-19, 9/10/19
AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Choi, Cunningham, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Voepel, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Burke, Gonzalez, Irwin, McCarty, Smith
Prepared by: Jonathan Peterson / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
9/10/19 22:02:59
**** END ****
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 5
Author:(Beall, et al.)
As Amended Ver:September 5, 2019
Majority vote
SUMMARY:
Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program).
Major Provisions
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee (Committee), comprised of nine specified state department representatives and legislative appointees and gives it responsibility for reviewing and approving or denying local agency plans for projects proposed to be funded under the Program.
- Authorizes a city, county, or special district to establish an Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Agency, as specified, to apply for program funding.
- Requires, for an applicant to receive funding, submission of the following information:
- A description of the proposed projects the applicant plans to complete and the funding amount necessary for each year every project is to receive funding;
- Information necessary to demonstrate that the plan complies with all of the statutory requirements of the Program;
- Certification that any low- and moderate-income housing or other projects or portions of other projects that receive funding from the program will use streamlined review processes;
- A plan for outreach to, and retention of, women, minority, disadvantaged youth, formerly incarcerated, and other underrepresented subgroups in coordination with the California Workforce Investment Board and local boards; and,
- An economic and fiscal analysis paid for and prepared by the applicant.
- Allows the Committee to approve, deny, or modify an application.
- Outlines the following eligible uses of funding, subject to certain exclusions if the applicant has taken certain actions that hinder housing development:
- Construction of affordable housing, defined as units affordable to households making 120 percent of area median income.
- Transit-oriented development in priority locations that maximize density and transit use and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Infill development to assist in the construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in area designated as infill, as specified.
- Promoting strong neighborhoods through supporting local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods including housing infrastructure and public facilities, as specified.
- Protecting communities from the effects of climate change, including the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure.
- Requires that at least 50% of the overall program funding and 50% of each plan's funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. At least 80% of this set-aside must be used to provide rental and owner-occupied housing for low-income households with an annual income of up to 80% of the area median income, as specified. The remaining funds may be used for the production of moderate-income housing (households with an annual income between 80% and 120 % of the area median income), as specified.
- Subjects rental and sales prices for housing assisted with the 80% set aside to specified caps, and subjects all housing to the following recorded affordability restrictions: 55 years for rental housing; 45 years for owner-occupied housing; and at least 15 years for self-help housing.
- Prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units.
- Requires that plans dedicate at least 30 percent of housing units to affordable housing and keep those units affordable for at least 55 years.
- Reserves at least 12 percent of overall program funding for counties with 200,000 residents or less, and two percent for technical assistance to such counties to make sure they have the technical capacity to apply for the program. If these counties do not spend all of these funds in any year, SB 5 reserves that funding for these counties in subsequent years.
- Caps the amount of funding the Committee can approve to no more than $200 million in any year from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2026, and no more than $250 million in any year from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2030.
- Allows the Legislature to direct the Committee to suspend the Program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee without impacting previously approved funding.
- Allows the Committee, upon approval of a plan, to direct the county auditor to transfer an amount of property tax revenue that is equal to the amount approved by the Committee for that applicant from the ERAF to a specified county Fund established by this bill. The county auditor would then allocate specified funds to program applicants.
- Specifies that these transfers can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools to ensure that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools.
- Requires the Committee to direct the county auditor to stop any transfers from ERAF, and the applicant would be prohibited from applying for additional funding from this Program for five years or apply for other state grant programs, if the applicant does not comply with the corrective action plan.
COMMENTS:
Background: Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the formation of RDAs to eliminate blight in an area by means of a self-financing schedule that pays for the redevelopment project with tax increment derived from any increase in the assessed value of property within the redevelopment project area (or tax increment). Prior to Proposition 13 very few RDAs existed; however after its passage RDAs became a source of funding for a variety of local infrastructure activities. Eventually, RDAs were required to set-aside 20% of funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low- and moderate- income housing in the project areas. At the time RDAs were dissolved, the Controller estimated that statewide, RDAs were obligated to spend $1 billion on affordable housing.
Replacement tools: In 2014, the Legislature authorized the creation of EIFDs (SB 628, Beall), quickly followed by Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs) in 2015 (AB 2, Alejo). Similar to EIFDs, CRIAs use tax increment financing to fund infrastructure projects, with two big differences: CRIAs may only be formed in economically depressed areas, but don't require voter approval. Two years ago, the Legislature authorized the formation of Affordable Housing Authorities (AHAs), which may use tax increment financing exclusively for rehabilitating and constructing affordable housing and also do not require voter approval to issue bonds (AB 1598, Mullin). Last year, SB 961 (Allen) removed the vote requirement for a subset of EIFDs to issue bonds and required these EIFDs to instead solicit public input. While these entities share fundamental similarities with RDAs in terms of using various forms of tax-increment financing, they differ in one important aspect: not having access to the school's share of property tax revenue.
Educational revenue augmentation funds: Proposition 13 gave the state authority to allocate the local property tax among local agencies, schools, and community college districts. Each year, the state estimates how much each district will receive in local property tax revenue (and student fee revenue in the case of community colleges). Then, the annual Budget Act appropriates state General Fund to "make up the difference" and fund the district's revenue limit or apportionment at the intended level. Frequently, however, the actual property tax revenues allocated to school districts may be less than the state and local agencies anticipate. The state's education finance system addresses these shortfalls differently for different types of educational entities. For K-12 districts that require additional funding to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding, known as nonbasic aid school districts, all funding shortfalls are backfilled automatically with additional state aid. In contrast, basic aid districts do not require state aid to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding because local property tax is sufficient. Explicit state action is required to backfill community college funding shortfalls.
In 1992-93 and 1993-94, in response to serious budgetary shortfalls, the state permanently redirected almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts. Under the changes in property tax allocation laws, county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). In 2017-18, cities, counties, and special districts deposited around $9.6 billion into county ERAFs. Because Proposition 98 obligates the state to ensure that school districts all receive a minimum guaranteed level of funding, contributions to ERAF reduce the state's funding obligations for K-14 education. Before counties distribute property tax revenue from ERAF to nonbasic aid schools and community colleges, the county diverts some ERAF back to local agencies to account for two other funding formulas, (1) excess ERAF and (2) the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) swap.
VLF Swap. Californians pay a fee to operate motor vehicles, also known as the VLF. Revenues serve various purposes including funding local agencies' core services. In the early 2000s, the state reduced the VLF and, as a result, local agencies lost revenue. The state backfilled this lost revenue from the General Fund. The VLF swap was a negotiated agreement between the state and cities and counties to replace a state-controlled reimbursement subject to annual appropriation with a locally administered revenue source resulting in a more reliable fund source for these local agencies. Specifically, the VLF swap replaced the General Fund VLF backfill with property taxes redirected at the county level from (1) ERAF and, if ERAF revenues are not sufficient, from (2) nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts, with all reductions in revenue to K-12 and community college districts offset by additional state aid. The VLF swap shifts billions of dollars annually from ERAF to non-school local agencies.
Funding mechanics. SB 5 creates the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program) administered by the state, program funds can be used to support affordable housing and infrastructure. Local entities submit a plan to a state committee with representation from nine different agencies and departments. The committee is authorized to approve $200 million in plans in the first year, increasing in $200 million increments each year for five years until reaching $1 billion after five years. The next four years, the annual increase in funding the committee can approve increases by $250 million each year until it reaches $2 billion after nine years. The bill allows the Legislature to suspend the program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee.
When the committee approves a plan, it directs the county auditor to reduce the amount of property tax revenue the applicant would otherwise have contributed to the county's ERAF. The applicant retains these funds they would have otherwise transferred to ERAF to use for the projects included in their plan. The bill specifies that these reductions can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools, which ensures that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools. To the extent that the bill inadvertently reduces the school funding, the bill gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate, or "rebench," the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this program.
Housing provisions: The bill requires that at least 50 percent of funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. SB 5 prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units. Each plan must dedicate at least 30 percent of housing units to affordable housing and keep those units affordable for at least 55 years. SB 5 also includes anti-displacement language which prohibits a program plan from demolishing affordable housing units that are have recorded covenants, rent controlled housing, or housing that tenants have lived in for the last 10 years.
Will it work? Redevelopment agencies and tax increment financing were created in Article XVI, Section 16 of California Constitution. Generally, the Constitution limits or restricts the power of the Legislature, however, in the case of Article XVI, Section 16 the Legislature is granted the power to create redevelopment agencies to eliminate blight through the capture of the growth in property tax (tax increment) in a designated project area. Article XVI, Section 16 states that all tax revenues derived from any increase in the assessed value of the property in a project area shall be collect and those revenues shall be paid into a special fund of the redevelopment agency to pay the indebtedness incurred by the redevelopment agency to finance a redevelopment project area. Thus all taxing entities contribute tax increment in a project area. This bill doesn't require all of the taxing entities in a project area to contribute tax increment, which is inconsistent with the authority created by Article XVI, Section 16. The school's portion of property tax would be contributed to a project that receives funding from the state through a shift of funding through ERAF. Like redevelopment agencies, the funding scheme proposed in this bill relies about the issuance of bonds to support the activities of local entities. Does this funding scheme provide enough certainty to the bond market that both the tax increment from the project area and the school's portion of property tax through ERAF will be a secure source to repay bonds?
According to the Author:
According to the author, "The housing shortage is a major problem affecting every city in California. Since the 1980s, the State has failed to produce the estimated 180,000 necessary new housing units per year. According to HCD, California has a 1.5 million unit shortage of housing available to our lowest income households, who are most at risk of becoming homeless.
SB 5 creates desperately needed housing opportunities for hard-working Californians and will also help alleviate poverty, create jobs, and meet our statewide environmental goals without affecting school funding. According to economic analysis prepared by the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council and California Housing Partnership, this bill would create up to 86,000 new and rehabilitated housing units, 329,000 jobs and spur more than $60 billion in economic activity over a ten year period.
California needs both short and long-term solutions to effectively address our housing and homelessness crisis. Although the recent housing bond and other one-time funding for affordable housing included in the budget are beneficial, all parties recognize California lacks a robust and sustainable financing tool capable of aggressively advancing California's housing and [greenhouse gas] GHG goals. The state must act with urgency to address the shortage of affordable housing units. SB 5 makes the state a long-term partner and provides much needed money to build affordable housing across the state. It provides a significant ongoing investment, ramping up to $2 billion annually over time, and offers an effective finance tool lost when the state dissolved redevelopment agencies.
SB 5, however, bears little resemblance--and is a much better tool--than former redevelopment. Redevelopment had no state supervision and cost controls; it was triggered by local officials identifying 'blighted' areas and using eminent domain to consolidate parcels and incentivize economic development, with only 20% of funding dedicated to affordable housing. SB 5 is a narrowly focused tool with strong state accountability. It establishes a state committee staffed by the HCD that can only approve access to capped amounts of a bondable income stream of property tax for projects that advance state policy priorities. At least 50% of funding must be used for affordable housing; other uses are restricted to advancing transit-oriented development, infill infrastructure, revitalizing neighborhoods and combating sea level rise."
Arguments in Support:
Supporters of the bill point to the loss of funding for affordable housing created by the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the need to provide new resources. The Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) writes, "Since the dissolution of Redevelopment in 2012, the housing affordability crisis in California has reached unprecedented levels with a shortfall of more than 1.4 million affordable homes. Since then, local governments throughout the State have struggled even more than before to produce their fair share of new affordable housing and are in desperate need of a new funding tool to help them meet their goals under the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Redevelopment previously provided a critical source of local subsidy, providing $220 million annually in the Bay Area alone that was used to both build new affordable homes and the critical local infrastructure necessary to support those homes."
Arguments in Opposition:
The California Teachers Association "Appreciates Senator Beall's willingness to attempt to hold school funding harmless in the March 18th amendments by re-benching Test 1 under Proposition 98. Unfortunately, these amendments do not address our overarching opposition to diverting property tax funds from schools. Should California face another recession, this measure would harm schools by leaving them for fiscally vulnerable to jeopardizing the most stable source of revenue they would receive should Proposition 98 be suspended. Additionally, while we appreciate the amendments that would put a pause on the components of SB 5 (Beall) should there be an economic downturn, this language requires Legislative action, which is not a guarantee that it will take place."
FISCAL COMMENTS:
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- Generally, this bill establishes a mechanism that, when fully implemented, shifts up to $2 billion annually from local ERAFs to pay for projects approved under the Program for affordable housing, transit-oriented development, infill development, housing-related infrastructure, and other specified priorities. This indirectly requires the state to make annual GF adjustments to match any reductions in ERAF that would otherwise be used to support schools. While school funding is held harmless, the bill would reduce the amount of GF revenues available to support other state programs and services.
Specifically, GF impacts of up to $2 billion annually for up to 30 years when fully implemented, to the extent the Legislature authorizes the allocation of funding at the maximum amounts specified in the bill each year. GF expenditures would be up to $200 million in 2021-22, increasing by up to $200 million annually through 2025-26, then increasing by up to $250 million annually through 2029-30, to reach an annual cost of $2 billion by 2029-30. The GF generally backfills any reductions in the school share of local property tax revenues, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees, including amounts transferred from ERAFs.
- The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates first year costs of approximately $4.13 million (GF), to the extent the maximum amount is authorized, and ongoing administrative costs of approximately $3.78 million (GF) to support 23 personnel years of new staff time to establish the program, provide technical assistance and administrative support for the Committee to consider local plans, make awards, and conduct ongoing monitoring and administration of the program. The bill authorizes HCD to charge local agency applicants for its reasonable costs to review local plans, which would provide for partial cost-recovery of an unknown portion of HCD costs.
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable local mandate costs (GF) associated with new requirements imposed on county auditors related to ERAF shifts and property tax allocations. The bill authorizes county auditors to deduct administrative costs from a portion of the funds allocated to local entities with an approved plan of projects. Ultimately, the Commission on State Mandates would determine whether certain mandated duties require state reimbursement, after accounting for offsets to costs as a result of the fee authority, should local entities file a test claim.
VOTES:
SENATE FLOOR: 31-4-3
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk
NO: Grove, Jones, Morrell, Stone
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bates, Chang, Moorlach
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-1-1
YES: Chiu, Gabriel, Gloria, Limón, Maienschein, Quirk-Silva
NO: Diep
ABS, ABST OR NV: Kiley
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 6-0-2
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Ramos, Gonzalez, Robert Rivas
ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey, Voepel
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-6-0
YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Robert Rivas
NO: Bigelow, Brough, Diep, Fong, Obernolte, Quirk
UPDATED:
VERSION: September 5, 2019
CONSULTANT: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0001856
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 5
Author:(Beall, et al.)
As Amended Ver:August 12, 2019
Majority vote
SUMMARY:
Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program).
Major Provisions
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee (Committee), comprised of nine specified state department representatives and legislative appointees and gives it responsibility for reviewing and approving or denying local agency plans for projects proposed to be funded under the Program.
- Authorizes a city, county, or special district to establish an Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Agency, as specified, to apply for program funding.
- Requires, for an applicant to receive funding, submission of the following information:
- A description of the proposed projects the applicant plans to complete and the funding amount necessary for each year every project is to receive funding;
- Information necessary to demonstrate that the plan complies with all of the statutory requirements of the Program;
- Certification that any low- and moderate-income housing or other projects or portions of other projects that receive funding from the program will use streamlined review processes;
- A plan for outreach to, and retention of, women, minority, disadvantaged youth, formerly incarcerated, and other underrepresented subgroups in coordination with the California Workforce Investment Board and local boards; and,
- An economic and fiscal analysis paid for and prepared by the applicant.
- Allows the Committee to approve, deny, or modify an application.
- Outlines the following eligible uses of funding, subject to certain exclusions if the applicant has taken certain actions that hinder housing development:
- Construction of affordable housing, defined as units affordable to households making 120% of area median income.
- Transit-oriented development in priority locations that maximize density and transit use and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Infill development to assist in the construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in area designated as infill, as specified.
- Promoting strong neighborhoods through supporting local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods including housing infrastructure and public facilities, as specified.
- Protecting communities from the effects of climate change, including the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure.
- Requires that at least 50% of the overall program funding and 50% of each plan's funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. At least 80% of this set-aside must be used to provide rental and owner-occupied housing for low-income households with an annual income of up to 80% of the area median income, as specified. The remaining funds may be used for the production of moderate-income housing (households with an annual income between 80% and 120% of the area median income), as specified.
- Subjects rental and sales prices for housing assisted with the 80% set aside to specified caps, and subjects all housing to the following recorded affordability restrictions: 55 years for rental housing; 45 years for owner-occupied housing; and at least 15 years for self-help housing.
- Prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units.
- Requires that plans dedicate at least 30% of housing units to affordable housing and keep those units affordable for at least 55 years.
- Reserves at least 12% of overall program funding for counties with 200,000 residents or less, and 2% for technical assistance to such counties to make sure they have the technical capacity to apply for the program. If these counties do not spend all of these funds in any year, SB 5 reserves that funding for these counties in subsequent years.
- Caps the amount of funding the Committee can approve to no more than $200 million in any year from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2026, and no more than $250 million in any year from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2030.
- Allows the Legislature to direct the Committee to suspend the Program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee without impacting previously approved funding.
- Allows the Committee, upon approval of a plan, to direct the county auditor to transfer an amount of property tax revenue that is equal to the amount approved by the Committee for that applicant from the ERAF to a specified county Fund established by this bill. The county auditor would then allocate specified funds to program applicants.
- Specifies that these transfers can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools to ensure that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools.
- Requires the Committee to direct the county auditor to stop any transfers from ERAF, and the applicant would be prohibited from applying for additional funding from this Program for five years or apply for other state grant programs, if the applicant does not comply with the corrective action plan.
COMMENTS:
Background: Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the formation of RDAs to eliminate blight in an area by means of a self-financing schedule that pays for the redevelopment project with tax increment derived from any increase in the assessed value of property within the redevelopment project area (or tax increment). Prior to Proposition 13 very few RDAs existed; however after its passage RDAs became a source of funding for a variety of local infrastructure activities. Eventually, RDAs were required to set-aside 20% of funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low- and moderate- income housing in the project areas. At the time RDAs were dissolved, the Controller estimated that statewide, RDAs were obligated to spend $1 billion on affordable housing.
Replacement tools: In 2014, the Legislature authorized the creation of EIFDs (SB 628 (Beall), Chapter 785), quickly followed by Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs) in 2015 (AB 2 (Alejo), Chapter 319). Similar to EIFDs, CRIAs use tax increment financing to fund infrastructure projects, with two big differences: CRIAs may only be formed in economically depressed areas, but don't require voter approval. Two years ago, the Legislature authorized the formation of Affordable Housing Authorities (AHAs), which may use tax increment financing exclusively for rehabilitating and constructing affordable housing and also do not require voter approval to issue bonds (AB 1598 (Mullin), Chapter 764, Statutes of 2017). Last year, SB 961 (Allen), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2018, removed the vote requirement for a subset of EIFDs to issue bonds and required these EIFDs to instead solicit public input. While these entities share fundamental similarities with RDAs in terms of using various forms of tax-increment financing, they differ in one important aspect: not having access to the school's share of property tax revenue.
Educational revenue augmentation funds: Proposition 13 gave the state authority to allocate the local property tax among local agencies, schools, and community college districts. Each year, the state estimates how much each district will receive in local property tax revenue (and student fee revenue in the case of community colleges). Then, the annual Budget Act appropriates state General Fund to "make up the difference" and fund the district's revenue limit or apportionment at the intended level. Frequently, however, the actual property tax revenues allocated to school districts may be less than the state and local agencies anticipate. The state's education finance system addresses these shortfalls differently for different types of educational entities. For K-12 districts that require additional funding to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding, known as nonbasic aid school districts, all funding shortfalls are backfilled automatically with additional state aid. In contrast, basic aid districts do not require state aid to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding because local property tax is sufficient. Explicit state action is required to backfill community college funding shortfalls.
In 1992-93 and 1993-94, in response to serious budgetary shortfalls, the state permanently redirected almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts. Under the changes in property tax allocation laws, county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). In 2017-18, cities, counties, and special districts deposited around $9.6 billion into county ERAFs. Because Proposition 98 obligates the state to ensure that school districts all receive a minimum guaranteed level of funding, contributions to ERAF reduce the state's funding obligations for K-14 education. Before counties distribute property tax revenue from ERAF to nonbasic aid schools and community colleges, the county diverts some ERAF back to local agencies to account for two other funding formulas, 1) excess ERAF and 2) the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) swap.
VLF Swap. Californians pay a fee to operate motor vehicles, also known as the VLF. Revenues serve various purposes including funding local agencies' core services. In the early 2000s, the state reduced the VLF and, as a result, local agencies lost revenue. The state backfilled this lost revenue from the General Fund. The VLF swap was a negotiated agreement between the state and cities and counties to replace a state-controlled reimbursement subject to annual appropriation with a locally administered revenue source resulting in a more reliable fund source for these local agencies. Specifically, the VLF swap replaced the General Fund VLF backfill with property taxes redirected at the county level from 1) ERAF and, if ERAF revenues are not sufficient, from 2) nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts, with all reductions in revenue to K-12 and community college districts offset by additional state aid. The VLF swap shifts billions of dollars annually from ERAF to non-school local agencies.
Funding mechanics. SB 5 creates the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program) administered by the state, program funds can be used to support affordable housing and infrastructure. Local entities submit a plan to a state committee with representation from nine different agencies and departments. The committee is authorized to approve $200 million in plans in the first year, increasing in $200 million increments each year for five years until reaching $1 billion after five years. The next four years, the annual increase in funding the committee can approve increases by $250 million each year until it reaches $2 billion after nine years. The bill allows the Legislature to suspend the program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee.
When the committee approves a plan, it directs the county auditor to reduce the amount of property tax revenue the applicant would otherwise have contributed to the county's ERAF. The applicant retains these funds they would have otherwise transferred to ERAF to use for the projects included in their plan. The bill specifies that these reductions can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools, which ensures that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools. To the extent that the bill inadvertently reduces the school funding, the bill gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate, or "rebench," the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this program.
Housing provisions: The bill requires that at least 50% of funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. SB 5 prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units. Each plan must dedicate at least 30% of housing units to affordable housing and keep those units affordable for at least 55 years. SB 5 also includes anti-displacement language which prohibits a program plan from demolishing affordable housing units that are have recorded covenants, rent controlled housing, or housing that tenants have lived in for the last 10 years.
Will it work? Redevelopment agencies and tax increment financing were created in Article XVI, Section 16 of California Constitution. Generally, the Constitution limits or restricts the power of the Legislature, however, in the case of Article XVI, Section 16 the Legislature is granted the power to create redevelopment agencies to eliminate blight through the capture of the growth in property tax (tax increment) in a designated project area. Article XVI, Section 16 states that all tax revenues derived from any increase in the assessed value of the property in a project area shall be collect and those revenues shall be paid into a special fund of the redevelopment agency to pay the indebtedness incurred by the redevelopment agency to finance a redevelopment project area. Thus all taxing entities contribute tax increment in a project area. This bill doesn't require all of the taxing entities in a project area to contribute tax increment, which is inconsistent with the authority created by Article XVI, Section 16. The school's portion of property tax would be contributed to a project that receives funding from the state through a shift of funding through ERAF. Like redevelopment agencies, the funding scheme proposed in this bill relies about the issuance of bonds to support the activities of local entities. Does this funding scheme provide enough certainty to the bond market that both the tax increment from the project area and the school's portion of property tax through ERAF will be a secure source to repay bonds?
According to the Author:
According to the author, "The housing shortage is a major problem affecting every city in California. Since the 1980s, the State has failed to produce the estimated 180,000 necessary new housing units per year. According to HCD, California has a 1.5 million unit shortage of housing available to our lowest income households, who are most at risk of becoming homeless.
SB 5 creates desperately needed housing opportunities for hard-working Californians and will also help alleviate poverty, create jobs, and meet our statewide environmental goals without affecting school funding. According to economic analysis prepared by the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council and California Housing Partnership, this bill would create up to 86,000 new and rehabilitated housing units, 329,000 jobs and spur more than $60 billion in economic activity over a ten year period.
California needs both short and long-term solutions to effectively address our housing and homelessness crisis. Although the recent housing bond and other one-time funding for affordable housing included in the budget are beneficial, all parties recognize California lacks a robust and sustainable financing tool capable of aggressively advancing California's housing and [greenhouse gas] GHG goals. The state must act with urgency to address the shortage of affordable housing units. SB 5 makes the state a long-term partner and provides much needed money to build affordable housing across the state. It provides a significant ongoing investment, ramping up to $2 billion annually over time, and offers an effective finance tool lost when the state dissolved redevelopment agencies.
SB 5, however, bears little resemblance--and is a much better tool--than former redevelopment. Redevelopment had no state supervision and cost controls; it was triggered by local officials identifying 'blighted' areas and using eminent domain to consolidate parcels and incentivize economic development, with only 20% of funding dedicated to affordable housing. SB 5 is a narrowly focused tool with strong state accountability. It establishes a state committee staffed by the HCD that can only approve access to capped amounts of a bondable income stream of property tax for projects that advance state policy priorities. At least 50% of funding must be used for affordable housing; other uses are restricted to advancing transit-oriented development, infill infrastructure, revitalizing neighborhoods and combating sea level rise."
Arguments in Support:
Supporters of the bill point to the loss of funding for affordable housing created by the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the need to provide new resources. The Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) writes, "Since the dissolution of Redevelopment in 2012, the housing affordability crisis in California has reached unprecedented levels with a shortfall of more than 1.4 million affordable homes. Since then, local governments throughout the State have struggled even more than before to produce their fair share of new affordable housing and are in desperate need of a new funding tool to help them meet their goals under the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Redevelopment previously provided a critical source of local subsidy, providing $220 million annually in the Bay Area alone that was used to both build new affordable homes and the critical local infrastructure necessary to support those homes."
Arguments in Opposition:
The California Teachers Association "Appreciates Senator Beall's willingness to attempt to hold school funding harmless in the March 18th amendments by re-benching Test 1 under Proposition 98. Unfortunately, these amendments do not address our overarching opposition to diverting property tax funds from schools. Should California face another recession, this measure would harm schools by leaving them for fiscally vulnerable to jeopardizing the most stable source of revenue they would receive should Proposition 98 be suspended. Additionally, while we appreciate the amendments that would put a pause on the components of SB 5 (Beall) should there be an economic downturn, this language requires Legislative action, which is not a guarantee that it will take place."
FISCAL COMMENTS:
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- Generally, this bill establishes a mechanism that, when fully implemented, shifts up to $2 billion annually from local ERAFs to pay for projects approved under the Program for affordable housing, transit-oriented development, infill development, housing-related infrastructure, and other specified priorities. This indirectly requires the state to make annual General Fund (GF) adjustments to match any reductions in ERAF that would otherwise be used to support schools. While school funding is held harmless, the bill would reduce the amount of GF revenues available to support other state programs and services.
Specifically, GF impacts of up to $2 billion annually for up to 30 years when fully implemented, to the extent the Legislature authorizes the allocation of funding at the maximum amounts specified in the bill each year. GF expenditures would be up to $200 million in 2021-22, increasing by up to $200 million annually through 2025-26, then increasing by up to $250 million annually through 2029-30, to reach an annual cost of $2 billion by 2029-30. The GF generally backfills any reductions in the school share of local property tax revenues, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees, including amounts transferred from ERAFs.
- The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates first year costs of approximately $4.13 million (GF), to the extent the maximum amount is authorized, and ongoing administrative costs of approximately $3.78 million (GF) to support 23 personnel years of new staff time to establish the program, provide technical assistance and administrative support for the Committee to consider local plans, make awards, and conduct ongoing monitoring and administration of the program. The bill authorizes HCD to charge local agency applicants for its reasonable costs to review local plans, which would provide for partial cost-recovery of an unknown portion of HCD costs.
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable local mandate costs (GF) associated with new requirements imposed on county auditors related to ERAF shifts and property tax allocations. The bill authorizes county auditors to deduct administrative costs from a portion of the funds allocated to local entities with an approved plan of projects. Ultimately, the Commission on State Mandates would determine whether certain mandated duties require state reimbursement, after accounting for offsets to costs as a result of the fee authority, should local entities file a test claim.
VOTES:
SENATE FLOOR: 31-4-3
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk
NO: Grove, Jones, Morrell, Stone
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bates, Chang, Moorlach
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-1-1
YES: Chiu, Gabriel, Gloria, Limón, Maienschein, Quirk-Silva
NO: Diep
ABS, ABST OR NV: Kiley
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 6-0-2
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Ramos, Gonzalez, Robert Rivas
ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey, Voepel
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-6-0
YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Robert Rivas
NO: Bigelow, Brough, Diep, Fong, Obernolte, Quirk
UPDATED:
VERSION: August 12, 2019
CONSULTANT: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0001671
Date of Hearing: August 21, 2019
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 5
Author:(Beall) – As Amended Ver:August 12, 2019
Policy Committee: | Housing and Community Development | Vote: | 6 - 1 |
Local Government | 6 - 0 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill creates the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program for local agencies to use local property taxes for affordable housing and housing related projects. Among the bill’s provisions:
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program to provide funding for local entities to pay for specified projects, including affordable housing, transit-oriented development, infill development, housing-related infrastructure, neighborhood revitalization and infrastructure to protect communities from climate change.
- Authorizes the allocation of Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) property tax revenues to local entities for those projects, and requires the state General Fund (GF) to backfill school entities for the associated loss of property tax revenues.
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee (Committee), comprised of nine specified state department representatives and legislative appointees and gives it responsibility for reviewing and approving or denying local agency plans for projects proposed to be funded under the program.
- Allows local agencies to form an affordable housing and community investment agency to apply for and expend the ERAF revenue on affordable housing and related projects.
- Requires local agencies receiving funding to ensure compliance with specified obligations, including annual reports that must be submitted to the Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT:
- Generally, this bill establishes a mechanism that, when fully implemented, shifts up to $2 billion annually from local ERAFs to pay for projects approved under the Program for affordable housing, transit-oriented development, infill development, housing-related infrastructure, and other specified priorities. This indirectly requires the state to make annual GF adjustments to match any reductions in ERAF that would otherwise be used to support schools. While school funding is held harmless, the bill would reduce the amount of GF revenues available to support other state programs and services.
Specifically, GF impacts of up to $2 billion annually for up to 30 years when fully implemented, to the extent the Legislature authorizes the allocation of funding at the maximum amounts specified in the bill each year. GF expenditures would be up to $200 million in 2021-22, increasing by up to $200 million annually through 2025-26, then increasing by up to $250 million annually through 2029-30, to reach an annual cost of $2 billion by 2029-30. The GF generally backfills any reductions in the school share of local property tax revenues, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees, including amounts transferred from ERAFs.
- The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates first year costs of approximately $4.13 million (GF), to the extent the maximum amount is authorized, and ongoing administrative costs of approximately $3.78 million (GF) to support 23 personnel years of new staff time to establish the program, provide technical assistance and administrative support for the Committee to consider local plans, make awards, and conduct ongoing monitoring and administration of the program. The bill authorizes HCD to charge local agency applicants for its reasonable costs to review local plans, which would provide for partial cost-recovery of an unknown portion of HCD costs.
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable local mandate costs (GF) associated with new requirements imposed on county auditors related to ERAF shifts and property tax allocations. The bill authorizes county auditors to deduct administrative costs from a portion of the funds allocated to local entities with an approved plan of projects. Ultimately, the Commission on State Mandates would determine whether certain mandated duties require state reimbursement, after accounting for offsets to costs as a result of the fee authority, should local entities file a test claim.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. This bill seeks to increase the supply of affordable housing by providing local governments a sustainable financing tool. According to the author:
The housing shortage is a major problem affecting every city in California. Since the 1980s, the State has failed to produce the estimated 180,000 necessary new housing units per year. According to HCD, California has a 1.5 million unit shortage of housing available to our lowest income households, who are most at risk of becoming homeless. [This bill] creates desperately needed housing opportunities for hard-working Californians and will also help alleviate poverty, create jobs, and meet our statewide environmental goals without affecting school funding.
- Background. Prior to 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law allowed a local governments to establish redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and capture all of the increase in property taxes that is generated within a project area beyond the base year value (referred to as “tax increment”) over a period of decades. Local communities used redevelopment as a tool to alleviate blight by diverting approximately $6 billion annually in property tax increment to pay for development projects, repair infrastructure, and build affordable housing. Since approximately half of property tax revenues statewide is a dedicated to K-14 schools, redevelopment diverted significant revenues away from schools. Generally, the loss in school funding related to the tax increment dedicated for redevelopment purposes has been backfilled by the General Fund pursuant to the minimum funding guarantees specified in Proposition 98.
Citing a significant State General Fund deficit, Governor Brown’s 2011-12 budget proposed eliminating RDAs and returning billions of dollars of property tax revenues to schools, cities and counties to fund core services. Among the statutory changes the Legislature adopted to implement the 2011-12 budget, AB X1 26 (Blumenfield), Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011, dissolved all RDAs and established procedures for winding down RDA activity.
The State Controller estimated when RDAs were dissolved in 2012, they were obligated to spend approximately $1 billion annually on affordable housing as a result of the requirement to set-aside 20% of tax increment funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. California is currently in the midst of a serious housing crisis, which has been exacerbated by the loss of RDA funds dedicated to affordable housing. This bill, when fully implemented, will dedicate approximately $1 billion to affordable housing purposes, similar to the amount that was made available under the 20% RDA set-aside.
The Legislature has enacted numerous measures to facilitate affordable housing production and address the housing shortage. The housing package of 2017 attempted to promote higher density housing, streamline housing approval processes, and increase zoning for housing while providing more state enforcement power. This package included SB 2 (Atkins), Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017, which requires recorders to collect a $75 fee on every real estate instrument, paper or notice. That bill is expected to generate $200 million to $300 million annually to fund various housing programs. The package also included SB 3 (Beall), Chapter 365, Statutes of 2017, which placed a $3 billion bond before voters on the November 2018 ballot, which voters approved, to fund affordable housing programs. In addition, the voters approved Proposition 2 in 2018, which provides $2 billion for housing construction for chronically homeless persons experiencing a mental illness.
Related Legislation:
- AB 11 (Chiu), of this legislative session, enacts the Community Redevelopment Law of 2019, and allows local agencies to create Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Agencies to fund affordable housing and other specified projects using property tax increment revenues. That bill is pending in this committee.
Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: July 10, 2019
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 5
Author:(Beall, et al.) – As Amended Ver:June 17, 2019
SENATE VOTE: 31-4
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program.
SUMMARY: Creates the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program for local agencies to use local property taxes for affordable housing and housing related projects. Specifically, this bill:
- Defines the following terms:
- “Program” as the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program;
- “Affordable housing and community development investment amount” as the amount
of property tax allocated under this program; - “Committee” as the Affordable Housing and Community Development Committee;
- “Applicant” as any entity that has submitted an application to the committee;
- “Plan” as an application for one or more projects that is submitted to the committee; and,
- “Project” to include:
- A project undertaken by a city, county, city or county, joint powers authority (JPA), enhanced infrastructure financing district (EIFD), affordable housing authority (AHA), community revitalization and investment authority (CRIA), or a transit village development district; or,
- Specified transit priority projects.
- Specifies that funding allocated to the program shall be used to support a plan that includes the following types of projects:
- Predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing that is affordable to households earning under 120% of an area median income;
- Transit-oriented development to facilitate the development of higher density uses within close proximity to transit stations;
- Infill development that assists in the new construction or rehabilitation of projects that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed income housing in locations designated as infill, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
- Parks;
- Water, sewer, or other public infrastructure costs;
- Transportation improvements; and,
- Traffic mitigation.
- Projects to revitalize and restore neighborhoods;
- Projects to protect communities from effects of climate change, including, but not limited to, sea level rise, wildfires, seismic safety, and flood protection; and,
- The acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of land or property for the above purposes.
- Provides limitations on the eligible uses for funding if an applicant, or its electorate, has taken any action that has any of the following effects:
- Established or implemented any provision that:
- Limits the number of land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and construction of housing that will be issued or allocated within all or a portion of the applicant;
- Acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed either annually or for some other time period; and,
- Limits the population of the applicant.
- Imposes a moratorium or enforces an existing moratorium on housing development within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the applicant;
- Requires voter approval for specified updates to the applicant’s housing element, or specified rezoning or general plan updates to comply with an updated housing element; or,
- Changes the zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reduces the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the applicant in effect on January 1, 2018.
- Established or implemented any provision that:
- Requires that at least 50% of the funding provided under the program and at least 50% of the funding for each project shall be used to construct affordable housing, as specified.
- Provides that funding shall not be used to subsidize the construction of market rate units.
- Specifies that at least 12% of the overall funding for the program shall be set aside for counties with populations of less than 200,000. Specifies that of this amount, 2% shall be set aside to provide technical assistance for counties with populations of less than 200,000.
- Establishes the committee to comprise the following members:
- Chair of the Strategic Growth Council or designee;
- Chair of the California Housing Finance Agency or designee;
- Chair of the California Workforce Investment Board or designee;
- Director of Housing and Community Development (HCD) or designee;
- Two people appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly who have knowledge and experience in finance, housing finance, housing planning or development, or land use planning;
- Two people by the Senate Rules Committee who have knowledge and experience in finance, housing finance, housing planning or development, or land use planning; and,
- One public member who has expertise in education finance.
- Requires the committee to review and approve or deny plans received by applicants.
- Specifies that HCD shall provide technical assistance and administrative support necessary for the committee to consider plans.
- Authorizes the following entities to submit an application to the committee for funding:
- A city, county, or city and county;
- A JPA comprised of entities that are authorized to submit a plan; or,
- An EIFD, CRIA, AHA, affordable housing and community investment agency (AHCIA), or a transit village development district.
- Specifies the information that shall be included in a plan that is submitted to the committee.
- Requires an applicant to certify that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete the project if the plan is approved, unless otherwise specified.
- Provides that, within 30 days of receipt of a plan, the committee shall provide the applicant with a written statement identifying any questions about the plan.
- Specifies that if the committee denies approval of the plan, the committee shall, not more than 30 days following the date the committee has issued a decision, provide the applicant with a written statement explaining the reasons why the plan was denied.
- Requires the committee to develop a rubric to determine which plan to approve and to give priority to plans based upon the rubric. Requires the rubric to contain specified factors.
- Specifies conditions under which the committee is prohibited from approving a plan.
- Provides that the applicant must provide matching resources, including, but not limited to, financial, in-kind land dedication, or public-private funds, for the state investment in the program, unless the applicant is located in a rural area of the state.
- Requires the committee to adopt annual priorities, as specified, and to adhere to the following funding schedule:
- Commencing January 1, 2021, the committee may only approve a plan for funding if the Legislature enacts a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount available for the committee to allocate pursuant to this program;
- For the five-year period commencing July 1, 2021, the committee may approve $200 million in plans in the first year, increasing in $200 million increments each year for five years until reaching $1 billion after five years;
- For the four-year period commencing July 1, 2026, the annual increase in funding the committee can approve increases by $250 million each year until it reaches $2 billion after nine years; and,
- The Legislature, by statute, may direct the committee to suspend consideration of plans in any fiscal year in which the Legislature passes a bill tapping into the Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 education funding guarantee.
- Specifies that upon approval of a plan, the committee shall issue an order directing the county auditor to transfer an amount of ad valorem property tax revenue in an amount equal to the annual amount approved by the committee.
- Authorizes the applicant to use the funding to incur debt or issue bonds or other financing to support the project or projects included in the plan.
- Requires, on or before July 1, 2022, and annually thereafter, each applicant that has received funding for any fiscal year to provide a report to the committee that includes specified information for the previous fiscal year.
- Specifies that if, based on annual reports submitted to the committee, the committee determines that any of the following has occurred, the committee shall direct the applicant to develop a corrective action plan based on recommendations made by the committee:
- The applicant is not on track to produce the number of housing units included in the plan;
- The applicant is not on track to spend at least 50% of plan funds on affordable housing;
- The applicant is on track to exceed 5% of the administrative limit;
- The applicant is found to have used funding for purposes not authorized under the program;
- The applicant is found to have used funds to subsidize market rate housing;
- The applicant violated the anti-displacement requirements; or,
- The applicant is not on track to complete all of the projects included in the plan according to the timeline included in the plan.
- Provides that the applicant shall have one year from the date that the committee directed the applicant to develop a corrective action plan, and the committee shall issue a finding that the applicant is out of compliance with the program, as specified.
- Requires, if the committee finds that the applicant is out of compliance with the program, the committee to direct the auditor to stop transferring moneys from the county’s educational revenue augmentation fund (ERAF), and prohibit the applicant from applying for additional funds for this program for a period of five years.
- Specifies that if an applicant is found to be out of compliance with the program, the applicant shall be ineligible to apply for other state grant programs for a period of five years.
- Authorizes an AHCIA to be created in any one of the following ways:
- A city, county, or city and county may adopt a resolution creating an agency; or,
- A city, county, city and county, special district, or any combination of these create an AHCIA by entering into a joint powers agreement.
- Prohibits a school entity or a successor agency of a former redevelopment agency (RDA) from participating in an AHCIA.
- Specifies that the governing body of an AHCIA shall be appointed by the legislative body of the city, county, or city and county that created the AHCIA and shall include three members of the legislative body and two public members who live or work within the plan area. Specifies that if created through a joint powers agreement, the governing body of an AHCIA shall be comprised of a majority of members from the legislative bodies and a minimum of two public members who live or work within the plan area.
- Provides that these reductions can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools, which ensures that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools. To the extent that this bill inadvertently reduces school funding, the bill gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this Program.
- Specifies the process in which the county auditor shall allocate funding.
- Contains legislative findings and declarations to support its purposes.
- Provides that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts shall be made.
- Specifies that if any provision of this bill is deemed invalid, the entire act shall be null and void.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill contains:
- General Fund impacts of up to $2 billion annually for up to 30 years when fully implemented, to the extent the Legislature authorizes the allocation of funding at the maximum amounts specified in the bill each year. General Fund expenditures would be up
to $200 million in 2021-22, increasing by up to $200 million annually through 2025-26, then increasing by up to $250 million annually through 2029-30, to reach a cumulative annual impact of $2 billion by 2029-30. The funding mechanism in this bill requires a specified committee to make awards, to the extent authorized, and direct county officials to allocate property tax revenues from county ERAF to specified local entities with an approved plan
of projects each year. Each ERAF shift may have a duration of up to 30 years, as specified
in the approved plans. The General Fund generally backfills any reductions in the school share of local property tax revenues, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees, including amounts transferred from ERAF. - Preliminary estimates indicate HCD would incur first year costs of approximately $4.13 million, to the extent the maximum amount is authorized, and ongoing administrative costs of approximately $3.78 million to support 23 PY of new staff time to establish the program, provide technical assistance and administrative support for the new committee to consider local plans, make awards, and conduct ongoing monitoring and administration of the program. (General Fund) Staff notes the bill authorizes HCD to charge local agency applicants for its reasonable costs to review local plans, which would provide for partial cost-recovery of an unknown portion of HCD costs.
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable local mandate costs associated with new requirements imposed on county auditors related to ERAF shifts and property tax allocations. Staff notes that the bill authorizes county auditors to deduct administrative costs from a portion of the funds allocated to local entities with an approved plan of projects, as specified. Ultimately, the Commission on State Mandates would determine whether certain duties mandated by the bill necessitate state reimbursement, after accounting for offsets to costs as a result of the fee authority, should local entities file a successful test claim.
COMMENTS:
- Bill Summary. This bill establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program to provide funding for local entities to pay for specified projects, including affordable housing, transit-oriented development, infill development, housing-related infrastructure, neighborhood revitalization, and infrastructure to protect communities from climate change. The bill authorizes the allocation of ERAF property tax revenues to local entities for those projects, and requires state General Fund backfills to school entities for the associated loss of property tax revenues. This bill establishes a statewide committee to review and approve or deny plans submitted by local agencies. This bill allows local agencies to form an AHCIA to apply for and expend the ERAF revenue on affordable housing and related projects. Lastly, this bill places requirements on agencies receiving funding to ensure compliance with specified obligations, including annual reports that must be submitted to the committee. This bill is sponsored by the author.
- Author’s Statement. According to the author, “The housing shortage is a major problem affecting every city in California. Since the 1980s, the State has failed to produce the estimated 180,000 necessary new housing units per year. According to HCD, California has a 1.5 million unit shortage of housing available to our lowest income households, who are most at risk of becoming homeless. SB 5 creates desperately needed housing opportunities for hard-working Californians and will also help alleviate poverty, create jobs, and meet our statewide environmental goals without affecting school funding. According to economic analysis prepared by the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council and California Housing Partnership, this bill would create up to 86,000 new and rehabilitated housing units, 329,000 jobs and spur more than $60 billion in economic activity over a ten year period.
“California needs both short and long-term solutions to effectively address our housing and homelessness crisis. Although the recent housing bond and other one-time funding for affordable housing included in the budget are beneficial, all parties recognize California lacks a robust and sustainable financing tool capable of aggressively advancing California’s housing and [greenhouse gas] GHG goals. The state must act with urgency to address the shortage of affordable housing units. SB 5 makes the state a long-term partner and provides much needed money to build affordable housing across the state. It provides a significant ongoing investment, ramping up to $2 billion annually over time, and offers an effective finance tool lost when the state dissolved redevelopment agencies.
“SB 5, however, bears little resemblance--and is a much better tool--than former redevelopment. Redevelopment had no state supervision and cost controls; it was triggered by local officials identifying ‘blighted’ areas and using eminent domain to consolidate parcels and incentivize economic development, with only 20% of funding dedicated to affordable housing. SB 5 is a narrowly focused tool with strong state accountability. It establishes a state committee staffed by the HCD that can only approve access to capped amounts of a bondable income stream of property tax for projects that advance state policy priorities. At least 50% of funding must be used for affordable housing; other uses are restricted to advancing transit-oriented development, infill infrastructure, revitalizing neighborhoods and combating sea level rise.”
- Redevelopment. Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the formation of RDAs to eliminate blight in an area by means of a self-financing schedule that pays for the redevelopment project with tax increment derived from any increase in the assessed value of property within the redevelopment project area (or tax increment). Prior to Proposition 13 very few RDAs existed; however, after its passage, RDAs became a source of funding for a variety of local infrastructure activities. Eventually, RDAs were required to set-aside 20% of funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low and moderate income housing in the project areas. At the time RDAs were dissolved, the Controller estimated that statewide, RDAs were obligated to spend $1 billion on affordable housing.
At the time of dissolution, over 400 RDAs statewide were diverting 12% of property taxes, over $5.6 billion yearly. In 2011, facing a severe budget shortfall, the Governor proposed eliminating RDAs in order to deliver more property taxes to other local agencies. Ultimately, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed two measures, ABX1 26 (Blumenfield), Chapter 5 and ABX1 27 (Blumenfield), Chapter 6 that together dissolved RDAs as they existed at the time and created a voluntary redevelopment program on a smaller scale. In response, the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) and the League of California Cities, along with other parties, filed suit challenging the two measures. The Supreme Court denied the petition for peremptory writ of mandate with respect to ABX1 26. However, the Court did grant CRA's petition with respect to ABX1 27. As a result, all RDAs were required to dissolve as of February 1, 2012.
- Previous Attempts to Replace RDAs. After the Supreme Court’s 2011 Matosantos decision dissolved all RDAs, legislators enacted several measures creating new tax increment financing tools to pay for local economic development. The Legislature authorized the creation of EIFDs [SB 628 (Beall), Chapter 785, Statutes of 2014] quickly followed by CRIAs [AB 2 (Alejo), Chapter 319, Statutes of 2015]. Similar to EIFDs, CRIAs use tax increment financing to fund infrastructure projects, with two big differences: CRIAs may only be formed in economically depressed areas, but do not require voter approval. Two years ago, the Legislature authorized the formation of AHAs, which may use tax increment financing exclusively for rehabilitating and constructing affordable housing and also do not require voter approval to issue bonds [AB 1598 (Mullin), Chapter 764, Statutes of 2017]. Last year, SB 961 (Allen), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2018, removed the vote requirement for a subset of EIFDs to issue bonds and required these EIFDs to instead solicit public input. While these entities share fundamental similarities with RDAs in terms of using various forms of tax-increment financing, they differ in one significant aspect, which is not having access to the school’s share of property tax revenue.
- Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds. Proposition 13 gave the state authority to allocate the local property tax among local agencies, schools, and community college districts. Each year, the state estimates how much each district will receive in local property tax revenue (and student fee revenue in the case of community colleges). Then, the annual Budget Act appropriates state General Fund to “make up the difference” and fund the district’s revenue limit or apportionment at the intended level. Frequently, however, the actual property tax revenues allocated to school districts may be less than the state and local agencies anticipate. The state’s education finance system addresses these shortfalls differently for different types of educational entities. For K-12 districts that require additional funding to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding, known as nonbasic aid school districts, all funding shortfalls are backfilled automatically with additional state aid. In contrast, basic aid districts do not require state aid to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding because local property tax is sufficient. Explicit state action is required to backfill community college funding shortfalls.
In 1992-93 and 1993-94, in response to serious budgetary shortfalls, the state permanently redirected almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts. Under the changes in property tax allocation laws, county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s ERAF. In 2017-18, cities, counties, and special districts deposited around $9.6 billion into county ERAFs. Because Proposition 98 obligates the state to ensure that school districts all receive a minimum guaranteed level
of funding, contributions to ERAF reduce the state’s funding obligations for K-14 education. Before counties distribute property tax revenue from ERAF to nonbasic aid schools and community colleges, the county diverts some ERAF back to local agencies to account for two other funding formulas: a) excess ERAF; and, b) the vehicle license fee (VLF) swap.
- Excess ERAF. In the late 1990s, some county auditors reported that their ERAF accounts had more revenue than necessary to offset all state aid to nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts. In response, the Legislature required that some of these surplus funds instead be used for countywide special education programs, and any remaining funds be returned to cities, counties, and special districts in proportion to the amount of property taxes they contributed to ERAF. The ERAF funds returned to noneducational local agencies are known as “excess ERAF.” In 2017-18, nearly $600 million was returned to local agencies in the form of excess ERAF.
- VLF-Property Tax Swap (2004-05 Budget). Prior to the 2004 budget agreement, the total VLF revenue, including the backfill from the state General Fund, was allocated in proportion to population. As part of the 2004-05 budget agreement, the Legislature enacted the "VLF-property tax swap," which replaced the backfill from the state General Fund with property tax revenues (dollar-for-dollar) that otherwise would have gone to schools through ERAF. This replacement funding is known as the "VLF adjustment amount.” The state General Fund then backfilled schools for the lost ERAF money. After the dollar-for-dollar swap in FY 2004-05, property tax in lieu of VLF payments (VLF adjustment amount) to cities and counties is allocated in proportion to each jurisdiction's annual change in gross assessed valuation (property tax revenues). The VLF swap shifts billions of dollars annually from ERAF to non-school local agencies.
- Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the following:
- Not RDA 2.0. Like RDAs, the funding scheme proposed in this bill allows for the issuance of bonds to support the activities of local entities. RDAs, however, used a very stable source of funding to finance their redevelopment activities, mainly property tax revenues generated by growth in the assessed value of properties in a project area – commonly known as tax increment revenues. This bill seeks to use ERAF funding and leverage the constitutional guarantee for education funding to provide funding that can
be used to issue bonds for affordable housing and related infrastructure. While this is a creative way to fund these programs, it is unclear how successful local agencies will be
at completing projects and issuing bonds based on this revenue source for three reasons: First, this revenue source is relatively untested compared to tax increment financing. Second, there is no guarantee that the Legislature will pass a budget bill approving funding for this program from year to year. Third, this funding can be pulled back from the agency if it is not following through on key factors in the plan that was approved by the committee, potentially removing funding that is needed to service the bond debt.
- Not RDA 2.0. Like RDAs, the funding scheme proposed in this bill allows for the issuance of bonds to support the activities of local entities. RDAs, however, used a very stable source of funding to finance their redevelopment activities, mainly property tax revenues generated by growth in the assessed value of properties in a project area – commonly known as tax increment revenues. This bill seeks to use ERAF funding and leverage the constitutional guarantee for education funding to provide funding that can
The Committee may wish to consider the impact of this bill if the bond market determines this revenue source does not provide enough certainty.
- Uses of Funding. While the bill requires at least 50% of the overall funding and at least 50% of each project’s plan is allocated to affordable housing, the remaining 50% is allocated towards the program’s other six eligible uses. Some of these categories are relatively broad, from dealing with sea level rise to encouraging local economic development. One of the critiques of redevelopment was that funding was used for projects that were not the highest priority. Given the range of funding uses, it is possible that this new program could face similar criticisms when implemented. On the other hand, broader categories allow the program to be flexible and account for the various challenges local agencies face constructing affordable housing and related infrastructure. The Committee may wish to consider if the uses for the ERAF funding should be more explicit.
- Technical and Clarifying Issues. In order to create consistency, the Committee may wish to consider fixing the following issues in the bill:
- The stated intent of the bill is to ensure that all local agencies, including special districts, continue to receive all of their excess ERAF allocations. To avoid any confusion during implementation of this bill, further clarification can be made.
- Uses of Funding. While the bill requires at least 50% of the overall funding and at least 50% of each project’s plan is allocated to affordable housing, the remaining 50% is allocated towards the program’s other six eligible uses. Some of these categories are relatively broad, from dealing with sea level rise to encouraging local economic development. One of the critiques of redevelopment was that funding was used for projects that were not the highest priority. Given the range of funding uses, it is possible that this new program could face similar criticisms when implemented. On the other hand, broader categories allow the program to be flexible and account for the various challenges local agencies face constructing affordable housing and related infrastructure. The Committee may wish to consider if the uses for the ERAF funding should be more explicit.
Revenue and Taxation Code Section 97.68.1(a). The county auditor shall transfer an amount, equal to the countywide affordable housing and community development investment amount, from the county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, up to the amount available in the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund after complying with subdivision (d), and deposit that amount into the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund to the county’s Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund established pursuant to subdivision (b).
Revenue and Taxation Code Section 97.68.1(d)(1). Reduce any allocations of excess, additional, or remaining funds that would otherwise have been allocated to county superintendents of schools, cities, counties, special districts, and cities and counties pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Sections 97.2 and 97.3, Section 97.70, and Article 4 (commencing with Section 98) had this section not been enacted. The allocations required by this section shall be adjusted to comply with this paragraph.
- The author has asked the Committee to clarify that infrastructure related to climate change includes “natural infrastructure” as to not, unintendedly, limit the types of potentially needed projects.
Government Code Section 55903(E). Protecting communities dealing with the effects of climate change, including, but not limited to, sea level rise, wildfires, seismic safety, and flood protection. Eligible projects include the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure, including natural infrastructure, related to protecting communities from climate change.
- Correct an incorrect reference to an agency.
Government Code Section 62302(b)(1)(B). Any of the following entities may create an authority agency by entering into a joint powers agreement pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1:
- Committee Amendments. The Committee may wish to amend the bill to fix the clarifying and technical issues referenced above.
- Arguments in Support. The League of California Cities argues, “SB 5 would create a local-State partnership to provide up to $2 billion annually to fund state approved affordable housing, infrastructure, and economic development projects that also support state policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, expand transit oriented development (TOD), address poverty, and revitalize neighborhoods. With a multi-billion dollar state budget surplus for the 2019/2020 fiscal year, the League believes the time is right for the state to restore more robust financing mechanisms that support local efforts to build more affordable housing, provide essential infrastructure, and create opportunities in underserved communities.”
- Arguments in Opposition. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) argues, “Taking the tax increment from schools in order to bond against it for decades recreates problems that existed with the original RDA program – debts the state is still paying off almost a decade later. Rather than have to backfill yet another revenue stream, creating grant programs and funding them with more stable sources of revenue (namely SB 2 and SB 3 revenues) targets these funds more appropriately to better address what is legitimately a housing crisis in California. HJTA would also like to see eminent domain protections in
SB 5, including that private property can’t be taken for a private use. While California does need more affordable housing projects, we also need to ensure existing homeowners are protected.” - Double-Referral. This bill was heard by the Housing and Community Development Committee on July 3, 2019, and passed with a 6-1 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Abode Services
Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors, Northern California Chapter
Association of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Council
Big City Mayors
Bill Wilson Center
Bridge Housing Corporation
California Apartment Association
California Association for Local Economic Development
California Association of Housing Authorities
California Contract Cities Association
California Forward Action Fund
California Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP
California Housing Partnership
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California League Conservation Voters
California Legislative Conference of Plumbing, Heating, and Piping Industry
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Council of Laborers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Cities of: Alameda, Albany, Arcata, Atascadero, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Burbank, Camarillo, Cerritos, Cloverdale, Clovis, Concord, Cotati, Covina, Crescent City, Cupertino, Downey, East Palo Alto, Encinitas, Escondido, Eureka, Farmersville, Fort Bragg, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Glendale, Goleta, Half Moon Bay, La Mirada, Lafayette, Laguna Beach,
Support (continued)
Laguna Niguel, Lakeport, Lakewood, Los Alamitos, Mill Valley, Modesto, Moorpark, Mountain View, Napa, Norwalk, Novato, Orange Cove, Palo Alto, Paramount, Pasadena, Pinole, Pismo Beach, Placentia, Rancho Cucamonga, Rohnert Park, Rosemead, Roseville, Salinas, San Carlos, San Diego, San Jose, San Rafael, Sand City, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, South Pasadena, Stanton, Stockton, Thousand Oaks, Vallejo, Ventura, West Hollywood
City Manager of the City of Hollister
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
Construction Employers’ Association
Core Affordable Housing
Councilmember Tony Madrigal, Modesto City Council, District 2
EAH Housing
East Bay Housing Organizations
Eden Housing
First Community Housing
Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley
Housing California
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Indivisible San Jose
International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference
Kosmont Companies
League of California Cities
League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division
League of California Cities, San Diego County Division
LifeMoves
Local Government Commission
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members
Mayor of San Jose Sam Liccardo
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MidPen Housing Corporation
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
MuniServices
National Electrical Contractors Association, California Chapters
Newport Realty Advisors
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Northern California Allied Trades
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council
Northern California Sheet Metal Workers' Local 104
Petaluma Pie Company
PICO California
Rainbow Chamber Of Commerce Silicon Valley
ROEM Development Corporation
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
San Diego Association of Governments
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Joaquin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter School
Sand Hill Property Company
Support (continued)
Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council
Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates
Silicon Valley at Home (Sv@Home)
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Silicon Valley Young Democrats
South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
South Bay YIMBY
Southern California Association of Governments
Southwest California Legislative Council
SPUR
Stanislaus Council of Governments
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
TechEquity Collaborative
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation
Town of Colma
Town of Corte Madera
Town of Danville
Town of Fairfax
Tracy Chamber of Commerce
Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce
UA Local Union 393
United Contractors
Ventura Council of Governments
Wall and Ceiling Alliance
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Western Wall and Ceiling Contractors Association
Working Partnerships USA
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators (unless amended)
California Association of School Business Officials (unless amended)
California School Boards Association (unless amended)
California Teachers Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education (unless amended)
School Employers Association of California (unless amended)
Small School Districts Association (unless amended)
One Individual
Analysis Prepared by: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Mike McGuire, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular
Bill No: | SB 5 | Hearing Date: | 3/20/19 |
Author: | Beall | Tax Levy: | No |
Version: | 3/18/19 As proposed to be amended | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Peterson | ||
Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program
Allows local agencies to reduce contributions of local property tax revenue to schools to build affordable housing and related infrastructure.
Background
Redevelopment agencies. From the early 1950s until they were dissolved in 2011, California redevelopment agencies (RDAs) used property tax increment financing to pay for economic development projects in blighted areas. Generally, property tax increment financing involves a city or county forming a tax increment-financing district to issue bonds and use the bond proceeds to pay project costs within the boundaries of a specified project area. To repay the bonds, the district captures increased property tax revenues that are generated when projects financed by the bonds increase assessed property values within the project area. To calculate the increased property tax revenues captured by the district, the amount of property tax revenues received by any local agency that receives a share of property tax revenues from property within a project area is “frozen” at the amount it received from that property prior to the project area’s formation. In future years, as the project area's assessed valuation grows above the frozen base, the resulting additional property tax revenues—the increment—flows to the tax increment financing district instead of other local agencies. After the bonds have been fully repaid, the district is dissolved, ending the diversion of tax increment revenues from participating local agencies. Property tax revenues then flow back to each local agency that receives a share of the property tax.
Citing a significant State General Fund deficit, Governor Brown’s 2011-12 budget proposed eliminating RDAs and returning billions of dollars of property tax revenues to schools, cities, and counties to fund core services. Among the statutory changes that the Legislature adopted to implement the 2011-12 budget, AB X1 26 (Blumenfield, 2011) dissolved all RDAs. The California Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos upheld AB X1 26, but invalidated AB X1 27 (Blumenfield, 2011), which would have allowed most RDAs to avoid dissolution. In response, the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) challenged the two measures. The Supreme Court denied the petition for peremptory writ of mandate with respect to ABX1 26, but granted it with respect to ABX1 27. As a result, all RDAs dissolved as of February 1, 2012. At the time of dissolution, over 400 RDAs statewide were diverting 12% of property taxes, over $5.6 billion yearly.
RDAs’ dissolution deprived many local agencies of the primary tool they used to eliminate physical and economic blight, finance new construction, improve public infrastructure, rehabilitate existing buildings, and increase the supply of affordable housing. Until their dissolution, state law required RDAs to set-aside 20% of funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. At the time RDAs were dissolved, the Controller estimated that statewide, RDAs were obligated to spend $1 billion on affordable housing.
Previous attempts to replace RDAs. After the Supreme Court’s 2011 Matosantos decision dissolved all RDAs, legislators enacted several measures creating new tax increment financing tools to pay for local economic development. In 2014, the Legislature authorized the creation of EIFDs (SB 628, Beall), quickly followed by Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs) in 2015 (AB 2, Alejo). Similar to EIFDs, CRIAs use tax increment financing to fund infrastructure projects, with two big differences: CRIAs may only be formed in economically depressed areas, but don’t require voter approval. Two years ago, the Legislature authorized the formation of Affordable Housing Authorities (AHAs), which may use tax increment financing exclusively for rehabilitating and constructing affordable housing and also do not require voter approval to issue bonds (AB 1598, Mullin). Last year, SB 961 (Allen) removed the vote requirement for a subset of EIFDs to issue bonds and required these EIFDs to instead solicit public input. While these entities share fundamental similarities with RDAs in terms of using various forms of tax-increment financing, they differ in one important aspect: not having access to the school’s share of property tax revenue.
Educational revenue augmentation funds. Proposition 13 gave the state authority to allocate the local property tax among local agencies, schools, and community college districts. Each year, the state estimates how much each district will receive in local property tax revenue (and student fee revenue in the case of community colleges). Then, the annual Budget Act appropriates state General Fund to “make up the difference” and fund the district’s revenue limit or apportionment at the intended level. Frequently, however, the actual property tax revenues allocated to school districts may be less than the state and local agencies anticipate. The state’s education finance system addresses these shortfalls differently for different types of educational entities. For K-12 districts that require additional funding to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding, known as nonbasic aid school districts, all funding shortfalls are backfilled automatically with additional state aid. In contrast, basic aid districts do not require state aid to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding because local property tax is sufficient. Explicit state action is required to backfill community college funding shortfalls.
In 1992-93 and 1993-94, in response to serious budgetary shortfalls, the state permanently redirected almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts. Under the changes in property tax allocation laws, county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). In 2017-18, cities, counties, and special districts deposited around $9.6 billion into county ERAFs. Because Proposition 98 obligates the state to ensure that school districts all receive a minimum guaranteed level of funding, contributions to ERAF reduce the state’s funding obligations for K-14 education. Before counties distribute property tax revenue from ERAF to nonbasic aid schools and community colleges, the county diverts some ERAF back to local agencies to account for two other funding formulas, (1) excess ERAF and (2) the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) swap.
Excess ERAF. In the late 1990s, some county auditors reported that their ERAF accounts had more revenue than necessary to offset all state aid to nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts. In response, the Legislature required that some of these surplus funds instead be used for countywide special education programs, and any remaining funds be returned to cities, counties, and special districts in proportion to the amount of property taxes they contributed to ERAF. The ERAF funds returned to noneducational local agencies are known as “excess ERAF.” In 2017-18, nearly $600 million was returned to local agencies in the form of excess ERAF.
VLF Swap. Californians pay a fee to operate motor vehicles, also known as the VLF. Revenues serve various purposes including funding local agencies’ core services. In the early 2000s, the state reduced the VLF and, as a result, local agencies lost revenue. The state backfilled this lost revenue from the General Fund. The VLF swap was a negotiated agreement between the state and cities and counties to replace a state-controlled reimbursement subject to annual appropriation with a locally administered revenue source resulting in a more reliable fund source for these local agencies. Specifically, the VLF swap replaced the General Fund VLF backfill with property taxes redirected at the county level from (1) ERAF and, if ERAF revenues are not sufficient, from (2) nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts, with all reductions in revenue to K-12 and community college districts offset by additional state aid. The VLF swap shifts billions of dollars annually from ERAF to non-school local agencies.
California’s housing crisis. California is in the midst of a serious housing crisis. California is home to 21 of the 30 most expensive rental housing markets in the country, which has had a disproportionate impact on the middle class and the working poor. Housing units affordable to low-income earners, if available, are often in serious states of disrepair. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates that approximately 2.7 million lower-income households are rent-burdened (meaning they spend at least 30 percent of their income on rent), 1.7 million of which are severely rent-burdened (spending at least 50 percent of their income on rent). According to a 2015 study by the California Housing Partnership Corporation, California has a shortfall of 1.5 million affordable homes and 13 of the 14 least affordable metropolitan areas in the country.
A major factor in this crisis is the state’s housing shortage. From 1954-1989, California constructed an average of more than 200,000 new homes annually, with multifamily housing accounting for the largest share of housing production. Since then, however, construction has dropped significantly. HCD estimates that approximately 1.8 million new housing units—180,000 new homes per year—are needed to meet the state’s projected population and housing growth by 2025. Even when housing production rose in the mid-2000’s, it never reached the 180,000 mark, and over the last 10 years construction averaged just 80,000 new homes per year.
The Legislature has enacted numerous measures to facilitate affordable housing production and address the housing shortage. The housing package of 2017 made an effort to promote higher density housing, streamline housing approval processes, and increase zoning for housing while providing more state enforcement power. This package included SB 2 (Atkins), which required recorders to collect a $75 fee on every real estate instrument, paper, or notice. Once collected, these fees will fund various housing programs. The package also included SB 3 (Beall), which placed a $3 billion bond before voters on the November 2018 ballot, which voters approved, to fund affordable housing programs. Legislation in 2018 sought to further increase housing production by reforming the Regional Housing Needs Assessment process.
The author wants to dedicate ongoing revenues, by allowing local agencies to pay less into ERAF, for the construction of affordable housing and related infrastructure to complement these recent efforts to increase housing production.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 5 creates the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program. SB 5 establishes an application process, eligible uses for the funds made available by the bill, a process for distributing funds, project requirements, and accountability measures.
Application process. SB 5 allows various local agencies to apply for the program, either individually or jointly. Eligible applicants include:
- A city, county, or city and county.
- A joint powers authority.
- An enhanced infrastructure financing district.
- An affordable housing authority.
- A community revitalization and investment authority.
- A transit village development district.
To apply, the applicant submits a plan to the Affordable Housing and Community Development Committee, created by the measure. This nine-member committee comprises:
- The Chair of the Strategic Growth Council, or designee.
- The Chair of the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, or designee.
- The Chair of California Workforce Investment Board, or designee.
- Director of HCD, or designee.
- Two people appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
- Two people appointed by the Senate Rules Committee.
- A member of the public with expertise in education finance appointed by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
The plan the applicant submits to the committee must include various types of information including:
- A description of the proposed projects the applicant plans to complete and the funding amount necessary for each year every project is to receive funding.
- Information necessary to demonstrate that the plan complies with all of the statutory requirements of the program.
- Certification that any low- and moderate-income housing or other projects or portions of other projects that receive funding from the program will use streamlined review processes.
- A plan for outreach to, and retention of, women, minority, disadvantaged youth, formerly incarcerated, and other underrepresented subgroups in coordination with the California Workforce Investment Board and local boards.
- An economic and fiscal analysis paid for and prepared by the applicant.
Once the committee receives and reviews this information, it can submit questions, approve, deny, or modify an application. SB 5 requires the committee to ensure that funds are distributed with geographic equity in mind. The bill directs the committee to create a scoring methodology that prioritizes projects based on: (1) the number of housing units created; (2) the share of those units dedicated to each low- and moderate- income category; (3) the level of local, state, and federal funds leveraged for the plan; and (4) whether the applicant adopts plans to streamline development. SB 5 directs HCD to provide technical and administrative assistance for the preparation and review of plans.
Funding purposes. Eligible uses of SB 5 funds are:
- Construction of affordable housing, defined as units affordable to households making 120 percent of area median income.
- Transit-oriented development in priority locations that maximize density and transit use and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Infill development, including (1) infrastructure needed to support infill development and (2) appropriate reuse and redevelopment of previously developed land that is presently served by municipal services.
- Promoting strong neighborhoods through supporting local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods, including repairing infrastructure and parks, rehabilitating and building housing, promoting public-private partnerships, supporting small businesses and job growth for affected residents.
- Protecting communities from the effects of sea-level rise, including the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure related to protecting communities from sea-level rise.
The bill requires that at least 50 percent of funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. SB 5 prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units. Each plan must dedicate at least 30 percent of housing units to affordable housing and keep those units affordable for at least 55 years.
SB 5 reserves at least 10 percent of the funds for counties with 200,000 residents or less, and two percent for technical assistance to such counties to make sure they have the technical capacity to apply for the program. If these counties do not spend all of these funds in any year, SB 5 reserves that funding for these counties in subsequent years.
Funding mechanics. SB 5 allows the committee to approve $200 million in plans in the first year, increasing in $200 million increments each year for five years until reaching $1 billion after five years. The next four years, the annual increase in funding the committee can approve increases by $250 million each year until it reaches $2 billion after nine years. The bill allows the Legislature to suspend the program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee.
When the committee approves a plan, it directs the county auditor to reduce the amount of property tax revenue the applicant would otherwise have contributed to the county’s ERAF. The applicant retains these funds they would have otherwise transferred to ERAF to use for the projects included in their plan. The bill specifies that these reductions can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools, which ensures that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools. To the extent that the bill inadvertently reduces the school funding, the bill gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate, or “rebench,” the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this program.
Requirements on projects. Projects approved in a plan must:
- Not request funding for more than 30 years.
- Include prevailing wage requirements and a skilled-and-trained workforce to complete projects. The bill also includes unspecified exceptions to what projects are required to use a skilled-and-trained workforce.
- Not include project sites where an eviction has taken place within the last ten years.
- Not demolish housing subject to affordable housing requirements, rent control, or which has been occupied by tenants within the last ten years.
- Not demolish historic structures that were placed on a national, state, or local historic register.
- Not contain tenant occupied housing units that are, will be, or were subsequently offered for sale to the general public.
Reporting requirements and accountability provisions. SB 5 requires the recipient of diverted ERAF funds to submit an annual report documenting the plan’s progress, how the applicant used the funding, and whether projects continue to meet the requirements described above. The committee must compile these reports into an annual report it submits to the Legislature.
If an applicant does not spend the funds as laid out in their plan, the committee can direct the applicant to develop a corrective action plan (CAP). In deciding whether to require an applicant to develop a CAP, the committee must consider whether the applicant:
- Remains on track to produce the number of housing units included in the plan.
- Remains on track to spend at least 50 percent of plan funds on affordable housing.
- Is on track to exceed the five percent administrative cost limit.
- Has used funding for ineligible purposes.
- Has used funds to subsidize market rate units.
- Violated the bill’s anti-displacement provisions.
- Is not on track to complete the projects according to the agreed upon timelines.
The bill gives the applicant one year to develop the corrective action plan and take steps to implement the plan. To the extent that an applicant does not comply with the plan, it cannot apply for additional funding from this program for five years or apply for other state grant programs.
The measure defines its terms and includes various findings, and declarations supporting its purposes.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Nearly 130,000 men, women, and children lived on California’s streets in 2018. A major driver for the increase in homelessness is high housing costs and underproduction of housing units, especially for those with the lowest income. Since the 1980s, California has failed to produce the estimated 180,000 necessary new housing units per year. According to HCD, California has a 1.5 million unit shortage of housing available to our lowest income households, who are most at risk of becoming homeless. The state must act with urgency to address the shortage of affordable housing units. SB 5 makes the state a long-term partner and provides much needed money to build affordable housing construction across the state. It provides a significant ongoing investment, ramping up to $2 billion annually over time, and offers an effective finance tool lost when the state dissolved redevelopment agencies. The intent of this bill is to respond to the needs of the cities and counties and get funds out the door to construct affordable housing units quickly. It creates desperately needed housing opportunities for hard-working Californians and will also help alleviate poverty, create jobs, and meet our statewide environmental goals without affecting school funding. According to economic analysis prepared by the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council and California Housing Partnership, this bill would create up to 86,000 new and rehabilitated housing units, 329,000 jobs and spur more than $60 billion in economic activity over a ten year period.”
2. General Fund impact. By reducing the amount of local property tax revenue going to schools, SB 5 indirectly requires the General Fund to backfill any reductions to nonbasic aid schools. While these backfills ensure that schools receive the same level of revenue as they would have in absence of the bill, like any General Fund expenditure, SB 5 results in less General Fund revenue available to support other programs and services. Although Proposition 2 (2014) increased the level of the state’s rainy day fund, the committee may wish to consider whether SB 5’s budget impact prevents the Legislature from adequately addressing other priorities.
3. Schools impact. SB 5 states its intent to hold schools harmless, but given the additional pressure on the General Fund explained above, the state would have fewer resources to address fiscal emergencies, and therefore be more likely to suspend the Proposition 98 guarantee. On the other hand, all General Fund expenditures require balancing current needs with future fiscal pressures. While the amount of General Fund dedicated on this program could put additional pressure on the state budget and schools, the bill includes provisions intended to hold schools harmless, including rebenching the Proposition 98 guarantee, and allowing the Legislature to suspend this program if the state taps into its rainy day fund or votes to suspend the Proposition 98 guarantee. The committee may wish to consider whether SB 5’s potential impacts on school finance are worth its benefits for affordable housing.
4. Something for nothing. Article XIII A of the California Constitution generally prohibits the state from requiring local agencies to spend local property tax revenue in a particular manner. SB 5 requires local agencies who apply for the program to spend the additional local property tax revenue they otherwise would not receive in accordance with the provisions of the bill, but a court could consider these conditional applications to be in violation of limits on the state’s ability to direct the use of property tax revenue. In that case, local agencies would receive additional funds—free from the requirements of the bill. To address this circumstance, SB 5 specifies that if any part of the act is ruled invalid, the whole act is invalid. While this could prevent the funds from future ERAF reductions from being distributed without any constraints on their use, it is unclear whether funds already made available to local agencies would have to be repaid.
5. Funding categories are broad. While the bill requires at least 50 percent of the overall funding and at least 50 percent of each project’s plan is allocated to affordable housing, the remaining 50 percent is allocated towards the program’s other five eligible uses. These categories are relatively broad, from dealing with sea level rise to encouraging local economic development. One of the critiques of redevelopment was that funding was used for projects that were not the highest priority. Given the breadth of funding uses, it is possible that this new program could face similar criticisms when implemented. On the other hand, broader categories allow the program to be flexible and account for the various challenges local agencies face constructing affordable housing and related infrastructure.
6 Insufficient ERAF. ERAF is a complicated funding source used to fund not only schools, but also fund excess ERAF contributions and the VLF swap. Local agencies rely on these shifts to fund core services. If ERAF is not sufficient to fund all of these obligations, a county can become an “insufficient ERAF” county. If this occurs, the state has to first redirect nonbasic aid schools’ property tax revenue, which is then backfilled by the General Fund. It is possible that SB 5 will result in the amount of money in a given county’s ERAF to be reduced to zero, making it impossible to award reductions in ERAF in some years. Specifically, if increases in property tax revenues outpace the growth in other state revenues, more schools could become basic aid districts, reducing the amount that local agencies contribute to ERAF in the first place. While estimates indicate that as much as $10 billion may be available in ERAF funds before insufficient ERAF is reached statewide, SB 5’s funding mechanism may fail in certain counties in some years. The committee may wish to consider amending SB 5 to require applicants to supply specific county auditor estimates based on historical ERAF data.
7. Will it work? This bill seeks to use ERAF funding and leverage the constitutional guarantee for education funding to provide funding that can be used to issue bonds affordable housing and related infrastructure. While this is a creative way to fund these programs, it is unclear how successful local agencies will be at issuing bonds based on this revenue source for two reasons. First, SB 5’s funding mechanism is relatively untested: a somewhat similar mechanism has only been used in San Francisco for a relatively small dollar amount. The committee may wish to consider amending SB 5 to ensure that local agencies can use the tool to issue bonds and finance longer-term infrastructure projects by:
- Aligning SB 5 fund distribution timing with the VLF swap.
- Determining potential ERAF contributions based on the previous fiscal year.
- Depositing ERAF contributions in a separate fund the applicant uses exclusively for SB 5.
8. Another way. While this program is innovative and potentially provides local agencies with an ongoing revenue source that would allow them issue debt to finance affordable housing and related infrastructure projects, the funding mechanism is complex. Every year, the Legislature funds affordable housing and infrastructure in many ways, often in the form of one-time funding in the annual budget. Affordable housing and related infrastructure projects could be financed through existing programs or a more direct grant program. However, given the volatility of state revenues, creating such a program may not be sufficiently stable to issue debt to finance longer-term projects.
9. Undefined labor provisions. Using a skilled-and-trained workforce to construct projects can provide important benefits, but it can also increase project costs. In particular, some affordable housing advocates argue that labor mandates can reduce the number of affordable housing units that can be built. SB 5 requires use of a skilled-and-trained workforce for some projects, but provides for an exemption to others that are currently undefined in the bill. Without knowing which projects will be exempt, the committee may have difficulty assessing how many projects can be constructed with the level of funding provided in the bill. In addition, many areas of the state, most notably rural areas, may face challenges meeting the requirement.
10. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because SB 5 requires local agencies to perform various activities related to operating this program, Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate. The measure states that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill imposes a reimbursable mandate, reimbursement must be made pursuant to existing statutory provisions.
11. Double-referred. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double-referral of SB 5—first to the Senate Governance & Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over bills relating to local government finance issues, and then to the Senate Housing Committee, which has jurisdiction over bills relating to housing policy.
12. Related legislation. Various attempts have been made over the years to bring back RDAs. This year, AB 11 (Chiu) would create Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Agencies and allow local agencies to freeze property tax revenue in an area and allocate any additional property tax revenue to the agency for various uses and set aside funds for affordable housing.
Support and Opposition
(3/15/2019)
Support: Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California Chapter; California Association of Housing Authorities; California Association for Local Economic Development; California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies; California State Association of Electrical Workers; California State Council of Laborers; California State Pipe Trades Council; City of Cotati; City of Lakewood; City of Modesto; City of Salinas; City of San Jose; City of San Rafael; International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference; Kosmont Companies; League of California Cities; Mayor of San Jose Sam Liccardo; Northern California Carpenters Regional Council; Northern California Sheet Metal Worker’s, Local 104; Plumbers, Steamfitters, and HVAC/R Service Technicians UA Local Union 393; San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch of the NAACP; Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council; Sprinkler Fitter and Apprentices Local 483; State Building and Construction Trades Council; ; Ventura Council of Governments; Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers; Working Partnerships USA.
Opposition: Unknown.
-- END --
Date of Hearing: July 3, 2019
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
David Chiu, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 5
Author:(Beall) – As Amended Ver:June 17, 2019
SENATE VOTE: 31-4
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program
SUMMARY: Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program). Specifically, this bill:
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee (Committee), comprised of nine specified state department representatives and legislative appointees and gives it responsibility for reviewing and approving or denying local agency plans for projects proposed to be funded under the Program.
- Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide technical assistance and administrative support necessary for the Committee to consider local plans.
- Allows various local agencies to apply for the Program, either individually or jointly, as specified.
- Authorizes a city, county, or special district to establish an Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Agency, as specified, to apply for program funding.
- Requires, for an applicant to receive funding, submission of the following information:
- A description of the proposed projects the applicant plans to complete and the funding amount necessary for each year every project is to receive funding;
- Information necessary to demonstrate that the plan complies with all of the statutory requirements of the Program;
- Certification that any low- and moderate-income housing or other projects or portions of other projects that receive funding from the program will use streamlined review processes;
- A plan for outreach to, and retention of, women, minority, disadvantaged youth, formerly incarcerated, and other underrepresented subgroups in coordination with the California Workforce Investment Board and local boards; and,
- An economic and fiscal analysis paid for and prepared by the applicant.
- Allows the Committee to approve, deny, or modify an application.
- Requires the Committee to ensure distribution of funds with geographic equity in mind, and create a scoring methodology that prioritizes projects based on the number and type of housing units created.
- Outlines the following eligible uses of funding, subject to certain exclusions if the applicant has taken certain actions that hinder housing development:
- Construction of affordable housing, defined as units affordable to households making 120 percent of area median income.
- Transit-oriented development in priority locations that maximize density and transit use and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Infill development to assist in the construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in area designated as infill, as specified.
- Promoting strong neighborhoods through supporting local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods including housing infrastructure and public facilities, as specified.
- Protecting communities from the effects of climate change, including the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure.
- Requires that at least 50% of the overall program funding and 50% of each plan’s funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. At least 80% of this set-aside must be used to provide rental and owner-occupied housing for low-income households with an annual income of up to 80% of the area median income, as specified. The remaining funds may be used for the production of moderate-income housing (households with an annual income between 80% and 120 % of the area median income), as specified.
- Subjects rental and sales prices for housing assisted with the 80% set aside to specified caps, and subjects all housing to the following recorded affordability restrictions: 55 years for rental housing; 45 years for owner-occupied housing; and at least 15 years for self-help housing.
- Prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units.
- Requires that plans dedicate at least 30 percent of housing units to affordable housing and keep those units affordable for at least 55 years.
- Reserves at least 12 percent of overall program funding for counties with 200,000 residents or less, and two percent for technical assistance to such counties to make sure they have the technical capacity to apply for the program. If these counties do not spend all of these funds in any year, SB 5 reserves that funding for these counties in subsequent years.
- Requires projects that receive funding to meet specified labor and anti-displacement requirements.
- Requires a housing project to certify that a skilled and trained workforce with be used, except for the following exemptions:
- One-hundred percent of the units in the housing development are affordable to households earning 80 percent or below of the area median income;
- The housing developments with 25 units or less; and,
- The housing project is located in a county with a population of 100,000 or less.
- Allows the Committee to approve plans for the Program provided that the Legislature enacts a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount available to the Committee.
- Caps the amount of funding the Committee can approve to no more than $200 million in any year from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2026, and no more than $250 million in any year from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2030.
- Allows the Legislature to direct the Committee to suspend the Program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee without impacting previously approved funding.
- Allows the Committee, upon approval of a plan, to direct the county auditor to transfer an amount of property tax revenue that is equal to the amount approved by the Committee for that applicant from the ERAF to a specified county Fund established by this bill. The county auditor would then allocate specified funds to program applicants.
- Specifies that these transfers can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools to ensure that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools.
- Gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate, or “rebench,” the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this Program.
- Authorizes the county auditor to deduct its administrative costs from the amounts transferred from ERAF before allocating the balance to applicants with approved plans, as specified.
- Requires the recipient of diverted ERAF funds to submit an annual report in years the applicant receives funding as specified.
- Requires that the Committee, in years it allocates program funding, to compile these reports into an annual report, which it submits to the Legislature.
- Allows the Committee to direct the applicant to develop a corrective action plan if the applicant does not spend the funds as laid out in their plan, as specified.
- Gives the applicant one year to develop the corrective action plan and take steps to implement the plan.
- Requires the Committee to direct the county auditor to stop any transfers from ERAF, and the applicant would be prohibited from applying for additional funding from this Program for five years or apply for other state grant programs, if the applicant does not comply with the corrective action plan.
EXISTING LAW:
- Dissolved California redevelopment agencies (RDAs) (ABX1 26, Blumenfield, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011-12, First Extraordinary Session), which used property tax increment financing to pay for economic development projects in blighted areas.
- Requires the state to provide a minimum level of funding for K-12 schools and community colleges.
- Redirects almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts.
- Requires county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).
- Requires that counties with more ERAF revenue than necessary to offset all state aid to nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts use these excess funds for countywide special education programs, and any remaining funds be returned to cities, counties, and special districts in proportion to the amount of property taxes they contributed to ERAF.
- Replaces revenue lost when the vehicle license fee (VLF) was reduced in the early 2000s with (a) ERAF and, if ERAF revenues are not sufficient, from (b) nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts, with all reductions in revenue to K-12 and community college districts offset by additional state aid.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
Background: Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the formation of RDAs to eliminate blight in an area by means of a self-financing schedule that pays for the redevelopment project with tax increment derived from any increase in the assessed value of property within the redevelopment project area (or tax increment). Prior to Proposition 13 very few RDAs existed; however after its passage RDAs became a source of funding for a variety of local infrastructure activities. Eventually, RDAs were required to set-aside 20% of funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low- and moderate- income housing in the project areas. At the time RDAs were dissolved, the Controller estimated that statewide, RDAs were obligated to spend $1 billion on affordable housing.
At the time of dissolution, over 400 RDAs statewide were diverting 12% of property taxes, over $5.6 billion yearly. In 2011, facing a severe budget shortfall, the Governor proposed eliminating RDAs in order to deliver more property taxes to other local agencies. Ultimately, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed two measures, ABX1 26 (Blumenfield), Chapter 5 and ABX1 27 (Blumenfield), Chapter 6 that together dissolved RDAs as they existed at the time and created a voluntary redevelopment program on a smaller scale. In response the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) and the League of California Cities, along with other parties, filed suit challenging the two measures. The Supreme Court denied the petition for peremptory writ of mandate with respect to ABX1 26. However, the Court did grant CRA's petition with respect to ABX1 27. As a result, all RDAs were required to dissolve as of February 1, 2012.
Replacement tools: In 2014, the Legislature authorized the creation of EIFDs (SB 628, Beall), quickly followed by Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs) in 2015 (AB 2, Alejo). Similar to EIFDs, CRIAs use tax increment financing to fund infrastructure projects, with two big differences: CRIAs may only be formed in economically depressed areas, but don’t require voter approval. Two years ago, the Legislature authorized the formation of Affordable Housing Authorities (AHAs), which may use tax increment financing exclusively for rehabilitating and constructing affordable housing and also do not require voter approval to issue bonds (AB 1598, Mullin). Last year, SB 961 (Allen) removed the vote requirement for a subset of EIFDs to issue bonds and required these EIFDs to instead solicit public input. While these entities share fundamental similarities with RDAs in terms of using various forms of tax-increment financing, they differ in one important aspect: not having access to the school’s share of property tax revenue.
Educational revenue augmentation funds: Proposition 13 gave the state authority to allocate the local property tax among local agencies, schools, and community college districts. Each year, the state estimates how much each district will receive in local property tax revenue (and student fee revenue in the case of community colleges). Then, the annual Budget Act appropriates state General Fund to “make up the difference” and fund the district’s revenue limit or apportionment at the intended level. Frequently, however, the actual property tax revenues allocated to school districts may be less than the state and local agencies anticipate. The state’s education finance system addresses these shortfalls differently for different types of educational entities. For K-12 districts that require additional funding to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding, known as nonbasic aid school districts, all funding shortfalls are backfilled automatically with additional state aid. In contrast, basic aid districts do not require state aid to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding because local property tax is sufficient. Explicit state action is required to backfill community college funding shortfalls.
In 1992-93 and 1993-94, in response to serious budgetary shortfalls, the state permanently redirected almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts. Under the changes in property tax allocation laws, county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). In 2017-18, cities, counties, and special districts deposited around $9.6 billion into county ERAFs. Because Proposition 98 obligates the state to ensure that school districts all receive a minimum guaranteed level of funding, contributions to ERAF reduce the state’s funding obligations for K-14 education. Before counties distribute property tax revenue from ERAF to nonbasic aid schools and community colleges, the county diverts some ERAF back to local agencies to account for two other funding formulas, (1) excess ERAF and (2) the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) swap.
VLF Swap. Californians pay a fee to operate motor vehicles, also known as the VLF. Revenues serve various purposes including funding local agencies’ core services. In the early 2000s, the state reduced the VLF and, as a result, local agencies lost revenue. The state backfilled this lost revenue from the General Fund. The VLF swap was a negotiated agreement between the state and cities and counties to replace a state-controlled reimbursement subject to annual appropriation with a locally administered revenue source resulting in a more reliable fund source for these local agencies. Specifically, the VLF swap replaced the General Fund VLF backfill with property taxes redirected at the county level from (1) ERAF and, if ERAF revenues are not sufficient, from (2) nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts, with all reductions in revenue to K-12 and community college districts offset by additional state aid. The VLF swap shifts billions of dollars annually from ERAF to non-school local agencies.
Funding mechanics. SB 5 creates the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program) administered by the state, program funds can be used to support affordable housing and infrastructure. Local entities submit a plan to a state committee with representation from nine different agencies and departments. The committee is authorized to approve $200 million in plans in the first year, increasing in $200 million increments each year for five years until reaching $1 billion after five years. The next four years, the annual increase in funding the committee can approve increases by $250 million each year until it reaches $2 billion after nine years. The bill allows the Legislature to suspend the program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee.
When the committee approves a plan, it directs the county auditor to reduce the amount of property tax revenue the applicant would otherwise have contributed to the county’s ERAF. The applicant retains these funds they would have otherwise transferred to ERAF to use for the projects included in their plan. The bill specifies that these reductions can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools, which ensures that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools. To the extent that the bill inadvertently reduces the school funding, the bill gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate, or “rebench,” the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this program.
Housing provisions: The bill requires that at least 50 percent of funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. SB 5 prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units. Each plan must dedicate at least 30 percent of housing units to affordable housing and keep those units affordable for at least 55 years. SB 5 also includes anti-displacement language which prohibits a program plan from demolishing affordable housing units that are have recorded covenants, rent controlled housing, or housing that tenants have lived in for the last 10 years.
Will it work? Redevelopment agencies and tax increment financing were created in Article XVI, Section 16 of California Constitution. Generally, the Constitution limits or restricts the power of the Legislature, however, in the case of Article XVI, Section 16 the Legislature is granted the power to create redevelopment agencies to eliminate blight through the capture of the growth in property tax (tax increment) in a designated project area. Article XVI, Section 16 states that all tax revenues derived from any increase in the assessed value of the property in a project area shall be collect and those revenues shall be paid into a special fund of the redevelopment agency to pay the indebtedness incurred by the redevelopment agency to finance a redevelopment project area. Thus all taxing entities contribute tax increment in a project area. This bill doesn’t require all of the taxing entities in a project area to contribute tax increment, which is inconsistent with the authority created by Article XVI, Section 16. The school’s portion of property tax would be contributed to a project that receives funding from the state through a shift of funding through ERAF. Like redevelopment agencies, the funding scheme proposed in this bill relies about the issuance of bonds to support the activities of local entities. Does this funding scheme provide enough certainty to the bond market that both the tax increment from the project area and the school’s portion of property tax through ERAF will be a secure source to repay bonds?
Arguments in support: Supporters of the bill point to the loss of funding for affordable housing created by the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the need to provide new resources. The Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) writes, “Since the dissolution of Redevelopment in 2012, the housing affordability crisis in California has reached unprecedented levels with a shortfall of more than 1.4 million affordable homes. Since then, local governments throughout the State have struggled even more than before to produce their fair share of new affordable housing and are in desperate need of a new funding tool to help them meet their goals under the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Redevelopment previously provided a critical source of local subsidy, providing $220 million annually in the Bay Area alone that was used to both build new affordable homes and the critical local infrastructure necessary to support those homes.”
Arguments in opposition: The California Teachers Association “Appreciates Senator Beall’s willingness to attempt to hold school funding harmless in the March 18th amendments by re-benching Test 1 under Proposition 98. Unfortunately, these amendments do not address our overarching opposition to diverting property tax funds from schools. Should California face another recession, this measure would harm schools by leaving them for fiscally vulnerable to jeopardizing the most stable source of revenue they would receive should Proposition 98 be suspended. Additionally, while we appreciate the amendments that would put a pause on the components of SB 5 (Beall) should there be an economic downturn, this language requires Legislative action, which is not a guarantee that it will take place.”
Related legislation:
AB 11 (Chiu) would create authorize a city or county to create affordable housing and infrastructure agency (AHIA) subject to approval by the Strategic Growth Council (SGC). All taxing entities are required to participate in the AHIA, however, AHIA would be required to pass through property tax sufficient to keep the other taxing entities whole, excluding the schools' portion. The state would backfill schools to meet Proposition 98 obligations.
Previous legislation:
AB 2 (Alejo) Chapter 319, Statutes of 2015, authorizes local governments to create Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (authorities) to use tax increment revenue to improve the infrastructure, assist businesses, and support affordable housing in disadvantaged communities. It requires that at least 25% of all tax increment revenues that are allocated to the authority from any participating entity must be deposited into a separate Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund and used by the authority for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost.
SB 628 (Beall) Chapter 785, Statutes of 2014, allows local agencies to create enhanced infrastructure financing districts (EIFD) to finance specified infrastructure projects and facilities.
Double-referred: This bill was also referred to the Assembly Committee on Local Government where it will be heard should it pass out of this committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Abode Services
Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California Chapter
Association of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Council
Big City Mayors
Bill Wilson Center
Bridge Housing Corporation
California Apartment Association
California Association for Local Economic Development
California Association of Housing Authorities
California Contract Cities Association
California Forward Action Fund
California Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP
California Housing Partnership
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California League Conservation Voters
California Legislative Conference of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Council of Laborers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
City of Alameda
City of Albany
City of Arcata
City of Atascadero
City of Beverly Hills
City of Brentwood
City of Burbank
City of Camarillo
City of Cerritos
City of Cloverdale
City of Clovis
City of Concord
City of Cotati
City of Covina
City of Crescent City
City of Downey
City of East Palo Alto
City of Encinitas
City of Escondido
City of Eureka
City of Farmersville
City of Fort Bragg
City of Fountain Valley
City of Garden Grove
City of Glendale
City of Goleta
City of La Mirada
City of Laguna Beach
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood Ca
City of Los Alamitos
City of Mill Valley
City of Modesto
City of Moorpark
City of Mountain View
City of Napa
City of Norwalk
City of Novato
City of Orange Cove
City of Palo Alto
City of Paramount
City of Pasadena
City of Pinole
City of Pismo Beach
City of Placentia
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rohnert Park
City of Rosemead
City of Roseville
City of Salinas
City of San Carlos
City of San Diego
City of San Jose
City of San Rafael
City of Sand City
City of Santa Cruz
City of Santa Monica
City of South Pasadena
City of Stanton
City of Stockton
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Vallejo
City of West Hollywood
City Manager of the City of Hollister
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
Construction Employers’ Association
Core Affordable Housing
Councilmember Tony Madrigal, Modesto City Council, District 2
EAH Housing
East Bay Housing Organizations
Eden Housing
First Community Housing
Habitat for Humanity East Bay / Silicon Valley
Housing California
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Indivisible San Jose
International Union of Operating Engineers
International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference
Kosmont Companies
League of California Cities
League of California Cities, San Diego County Division
Local Government Commission
Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members
Mayor of San Jose Sam Liccardo
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MidPen Housing Corporation
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
MuniServices
National Electrical Contractors Association, California Chapters
Newport Realty Advisors
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Northern California Allied Trades
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council
Northern California Sheet Metal Workers' Local 104
Petaluma Pie Company
PICO California
Rainbow Chamber Of Commerce Silicon Valley
ROEM Development Corporation
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
San Diego Association of Governments
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter School
Sand Hill Property Company
Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council
Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates
Silicon Valley at Home (Sv@Home)
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Silicon Valley Young Democrats
South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
South Bay YIMBY
Southern California Association of Governments
Southwest California Legislative Council
SPUR
Stanislaus Council of Governments
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
TechEquity Collaborative
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation
Town of Colma
Town of Corte Madera
Town of Danville
Town of Fairfax
Tracy Chamber of Commerce
Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce
UA Local Union 393
United Contractors
Ventura Council of Governments
Wall and Ceiling Alliance
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Western Wall and Ceiling Contractors Association o
Working Partnerships USA
Support If Amended
Mountain Housing Council of Tahoe Truckee
Opposition
California Teachers Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Individual (1)
Oppose Unless Amended
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of School Business Officials
California School Boards Association
Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education
School Employers Association of California
Small School Districts Association
Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 5 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 5
Author: Beall (D), McGuire (D), and Portantino (D), et al.
Amended: 5/24/19
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 3/20/19
AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hertzberg, Hurtado, Nielsen, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-1, 4/2/19
AYES: Wiener, Bates, Caballero, Durazo, McGuire, Roth, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski
NOES: Morrell
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 4-2, 5/16/19
AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Wieckowski
NOES: Bates, Jones
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program
DIGEST:
This bill allows local agencies to reduce contributions of local property tax revenue to schools to build affordable housing and related infrastructure.
Senate Floor Amendments of 5/24/19 clarify that the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee, which approves plans, can only approve a plan if the Legislature enacts a budget bill for the appropriate fiscal year, but does not also require the budget bill to direct county auditors to allocate funds on an annual basis.
Existing law:
- Dissolved California redevelopment agencies (RDAs) (ABX1 26, Blumenfield, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011-12, First Extraordinary Session), which used property tax increment financing to pay for economic development projects in blighted areas.
- Requires the state to provide a minimum level of funding for K-12 schools and community colleges.
- Redirects almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts.
- Requires county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).
- Requires that counties with more ERAF revenue than necessary to offset all state aid to nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts use these excess funds for countywide special education programs, and any remaining funds be returned to cities, counties, and special districts in proportion to the amount of property taxes they contributed to ERAF.
- Replaces revenue lost when the vehicle license fee (VLF) was reduced in the early 2000s with (a) ERAF and, if ERAF revenues are not sufficient, from (b) nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts, with all reductions in revenue to K-12 and community college districts offset by additional state aid.
This bill:
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program).
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee (Committee), comprised of nine specified state department representatives and legislative appointees and gives it responsibility for reviewing and approving or denying local agency plans for projects proposed to be funded under the Program.
- Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide technical assistance and administrative support necessary for the Committee to consider local plans.
- Allows various local agencies to apply for the Program, either individually or jointly, as specified.
- Authorizes a city, county, or special district to establish an Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Agency, as specified, to apply for program funding.
- Requires, for an applicant to receive funding, submission of the following information, as specified, not to exceed 30 years.
- Allows the Committee to approve, deny, or modify an application.
- Requires the Committee to ensure distribution of funds with geographic equity in mind, and create a scoring methodology that prioritizes projects based on the number and type of housing units created.
- Outlines the following eligible uses of funding, subject to certain exclusions if the applicant has taken certain actions that hinder housing development:
- Construction of affordable housing, defined as units affordable to households making 120 percent of area median income.
- Transit-oriented development in priority locations that maximize density and transit use and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Infill development to assist in the construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in area designated as infill, as specified.
- Promoting strong neighborhoods through supporting local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods including housing infrastructure and public facilities, as specified.
- Protecting communities from the effects of climate change, including the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure.
- Requires that at least 50% of the overall program funding and 50% of each plan’s funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. At least 80% of this set-aside must be used to provide rental and owner-occupied housing for low-income households with an annual income of up to 80% of the area median income, as specified. The remaining funds may be used for the production of moderate-income housing (households with an annual income between 80% and 120 % of the area median income), as specified.
- Subjects rental and sales prices for housing assisted with the 80% set aside to specified caps, and subjects all housing to the following recorded affordability restrictions: 55 years for rental housing; 45 years for owner-occupied housing; and at least 15 years for self-help housing.
- Prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units.
- Requires that plans dedicate at least 30 percent of housing units to affordable housing and keep those units affordable for at least 55 years.
- Reserves at least 12 percent of overall program funding for counties with 200,000 residents or less, and two percent for technical assistance to such counties to make sure they have the technical capacity to apply for the program. If these counties do not spend all of these funds in any year, SB 5 reserves that funding for these counties in subsequent years.
- Requires projects that receive funding to meet specified labor and anti-displacement requirements.
- Allows the Committee to approve plans for the Program provided that the Legislature enacts a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount available to the Committee.
- Caps the amount of funding the Committee can approve to no more than $200 million in any year from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2026, and no more than $250 million in any year from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2030.
- Allows the Legislature to direct the Committee to suspend the Program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee without impacting previously approved funding.
- Allows the Committee, upon approval of a plan, to direct the county auditor to transfer an amount of property tax revenue that is equal to the amount approved by the Committee for that applicant from the ERAF to a specified county Fund established by this bill. The county auditor would then allocate specified funds to program applicants.
- Specifies that these transfers can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools to ensure that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools.
- Gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate, or “rebench,” the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this Program.
- Authorizes the county auditor to deduct its administrative costs from the amounts transferred from ERAF before allocating the balance to applicants with approved plans, as specified.
- Requires the recipient of diverted ERAF funds to submit an annual report in years the applicant receives funding as specified.
- Requires that the Committee, in years it allocates program funding, to compile these reports into an annual report, which it submits to the Legislature.
- Allows the Committee to direct the applicant to develop a corrective action plan if the applicant does not spend the funds as laid out in their plan, as specified.
- Gives the applicant one year to develop the corrective action plan and take steps to implement the plan.
- Requires the Committee to direct the county auditor to stop any transfers from ERAF, and the applicant would be prohibited from applying for additional funding from this Program for five years or apply for other state grant programs, if the applicant does not comply with the corrective action plan.
Background
Redevelopment agencies. Citing a significant State General Fund deficit, Governor Brown’s 2011-12 Budget proposed eliminating RDAs and returning billions of dollars of property tax revenues to schools, cities, and counties to fund core services. Among the statutory changes that the Legislature adopted to implement the 2011-12 Budget, ABX1 26 dissolved all RDAs. At the time of dissolution, over 400 RDAs statewide were diverting 12% of property taxes, over $5.6 billion yearly. RDAs’ dissolution deprived many local agencies of the primary tool they used to eliminate physical and economic blight, finance new construction, improve public infrastructure, rehabilitate existing buildings, and increase the supply of affordable housing. Until their dissolution, state law required RDAs to set-aside 20% of funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. At the time RDAs were dissolved, the Controller estimated that statewide, RDAs were obligated to spend $1 billion on affordable housing.
Education funding. Proposition 13 gave the state authority to allocate the local property tax among local agencies, schools, and community college districts. Each year, the state estimates how much each district will receive in local property tax revenue (and student fee revenue in the case of community colleges). Then, the annual Budget Act appropriates state General Fund to “make up the difference” and fund the district’s revenue limit or apportionment at the intended level. For K-12 districts that require additional funding to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding, known as nonbasic aid school districts, all funding shortfalls are backfilled automatically with additional state aid. In contrast, basic aid districts do not require state aid to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding because local property tax is sufficient. Explicit state action is required to backfill community college funding shortfalls. In 1992-93 and 1993-94, in response to serious budgetary shortfalls, the state permanently redirected almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts. Under the changes in property tax allocation laws, county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s ERAF.
Comments
- Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Nearly 130,000 men, women, and children lived on California’s streets in 2018. A major driver for the increase in homelessness is high housing costs and underproduction of housing units, especially for those with the lowest income. Since the 1980s, California has failed to produce the estimated 180,000 necessary new housing units per year. According to HCD, California has a 1.5 million unit shortage of housing available to our lowest income households, who are most at risk of becoming homeless. The state must act with urgency to address the shortage of affordable housing units. SB 5 makes the state a long-term partner and provides much needed money to build affordable housing construction across the state. It provides a significant ongoing investment, ramping up to $2 billion annually over time, and offers an effective finance tool lost when the state dissolved redevelopment agencies. The intent of this bill is to respond to the needs of the cities and counties and get funds out the door to construct affordable housing units quickly. It creates desperately needed housing opportunities for hard-working Californians and will also help alleviate poverty, create jobs, and meet our statewide environmental goals without affecting school funding. According to economic analysis prepared by the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council and California Housing Partnership, this bill would create up to 86,000 new and rehabilitated housing units, 329,000 jobs and spur more than $60 billion in economic activity over a ten year period.”
- General fund and education funding impact. By reducing the amount of local property tax revenue going to schools, SB 5 indirectly requires the General Fund to backfill any reductions to nonbasic aid schools. While these backfills ensure that schools receive the same level of revenue as they would have in absence of the bill, like any General Fund expenditure, SB 5 results in less General Fund revenue available to support other programs and services. While the amount of General Fund dedicated on this program could put additional pressure on the state budget and schools, this bill includes provisions intended to hold schools harmless. Since the level of funding is subject to appropriation, the Legislature can control the annual magnitude of this adjustment. However, this could result in different funding amounts each year, creating difficulties for applicants planning to issue bonds.
- Work in progress. Despite significant details regarding how the Program operates, there are still components of the program that warrant further specification. For example, this bill requires use of a skilled-and-trained workforce for some projects, but provides for an exemption to others that are currently undefined in this bill. In addition, this bill’s funding categories are relatively broad. One of the critiques of redevelopment was that funding was used for projects that were not the highest priority. Given the breadth of funding uses, it is possible that this new program could face similar criticisms when implemented. On the other hand, broader categories allow the program to be flexible and account for the various challenges local agencies face.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- General Fund impacts of up to $2 billion annually for up to 30 years when fully implemented, to the extent the Legislature authorizes the allocation of funding at the maximum amounts specified in this bill each year. General Fund expenditures would be up to $200 million in 2021-22, increasing by up to $200 million annually through 2025-26, then increasing by up to $250 million annually through 2029-30, to reach a cumulative annual impact of $2 billion by 2029-30. The funding mechanism in this bill requires a specified committee to make awards, to the extent authorized, and direct county officials to allocate property tax revenues from county ERAFs to specified local entities with an approved plan of projects each year. Each ERAF shift may have a duration of up to 30 years, as specified in the approved plans. The General Fund generally backfills any reductions in the school share of local property tax revenues, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees, including amounts transferred from ERAFs.
- Preliminary estimates indicate HCD would incur first year costs of approximately $4.13 million, to the extent the maximum amount is authorized, and ongoing administrative costs of approximately $3.78 million to support 23 PY of new staff time to establish the program, provide technical assistance and administrative support for the new committee to consider local plans, make awards, and conduct ongoing monitoring and administration of the program. (General Fund) Staff notes this bill authorizes HCD to charge local agency applicants for its reasonable costs to review local plans, which would provide for partial cost-recovery of an unknown portion of HCD costs.
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable local mandate costs associated with new requirements imposed on county auditors related to ERAF shifts and property tax allocations. Staff notes that this bill authorizes county auditors to deduct administrative costs from a portion of the funds allocated to local entities with an approved plan of projects, as specified. Ultimately, the Commission on State Mandates would determine whether certain duties mandated by this bill necessitate state reimbursement, after accounting for offsets to costs as a result of the fee authority, should local entities file a successful test claim.
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California Chapter
Bay Area Council
Big City Mayors
California Apartment Association
California Association for Local Economic Development
California Association of Housing Authorities
California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
California Contract Cities Association
California Forward Action Fund
California Housing Partnership Coalition
California Labor Federation
California Legislative Conference of Plumbing, Heating, & Piping Industry
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Council of Laborers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
City of Alameda
City of Albany
City of Brentwood
City of Burbank
City of Clovis
City of Concord
City of Cotati
City of Covina
City of Crescent City
City of Danville
City of East Palo Alto
City of Eureka
City of Fort Bragg
City of Fountain Valley
City of Garden Grove
City of Glendale
City of Hollister
City of La Mirada
City of Laguna Beach
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood
City of Los Alamitos
City of Mill Valley
City of Modesto
City of Moorpark
City of Napa
City of Novato
City of Orange Cove
City of Paramount
City of Pasadena
City of Pinole
City of Placentia
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rohnert Park
City of Rosemead
City of Salinas
City of San Carlos
City of San Diego
City of San Jose
City of San Rafael
City of Sand City
City of Santa Cruz
City of South Pasadena
City of Stanton
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Vallejo
Electrical Contractors of California Trust
Engineering & Utility Contractors Association
First Community Housing
Housing California
Housing Network of Santa Clara County
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference
Kosmont Companies
League of California Cities
League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division
League of California Cities, San Diego County Division
Local Government Commission
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Mayor of San Jose Sam Liccardo
National Electrical Contractors Association, California Chapters
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Northern California Allied Trades
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council
Northern California Sheet Metal Worker’s, Local 104
Petaluma Pie Company
Plumbers, Steamfitters, and HVAC/R Service Technicians UA Local Union 393
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Joaquin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch of the NAACP
Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
South Bay Labor Council
South Bay YIMBY
Southern California Association of Governments
Southwest California Legislative Council
Sprinkler Fitter and Apprentices Local 483
State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
Techequity Collaborative
Town of Corte Madera
Town of Fairfax
United Contractors
Ventura Council of Governments
Wall and Ceiling Alliance
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Western Wall and Ceiling Contractors Association
Working Partnerships USA
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/28/19)
California Teachers Association
One individual
Prepared by: Jonathan Peterson / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
5/28/19 16:19:30
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular Session
SB 5 (Beall) - Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program
Version: April 23, 2019 | Policy Vote: GOV. & F. 6 - 0, HOUSING 9 - 1 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: May 16, 2019 | Consultant: Mark McKenzie |
Bill Summary:
SB 5 would establish the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program), as specified, to provide funding for local entities to pay for specified projects, including affordable housing, transit-oriented development, infill development, housing-related infrastructure, neighborhood revitalization, and infrastructure to protect communities from sea-level rise. The bill would allocate Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) property tax revenues to local entities for those projects, and require state General Fund backfills to school entities for the associated loss of property tax revenues, as specified.
*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********
The following information is revised to reflect amendments
adopted by the committee on May 16, 2019
Fiscal Impact:
- General Fund impacts of up to $2 billion annually for up to 30 years when fully implemented, to the extent the Legislature authorizes the allocation of funding at the maximum amounts specified in the bill each year. General Fund expenditures would be up to $200 million in 2021-22, increasing by up to $200 million annually through 2025-26, then increasing by up to $250 million annually through 2029-30, to reach a cumulative annual impact of $2 billion by 2029-30. The funding mechanism in this bill requires a specified committee to make awards, to the extent authorized, and direct county officials to allocate property tax revenues from county Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAFs) to specified local entities with an approved plan of projects each year. Each ERAF shift may have a duration of up to 30 years, as specified in the approved plans. The General Fund generally backfills any reductions in the school share of local property tax revenues, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees, including amounts transferred from ERAFs.
- Preliminary estimates indicate HCD would incur first year costs of approximately $4.13 million, to the extent the maximum amount is authorized, and ongoing administrative costs of approximately $3.78 million to support 23 PY of new staff time to establish the program, provide technical assistance and administrative support for the new committee to consider local plans, make awards, and conduct ongoing monitoring and administration of the program. (General Fund) Staff notes the bill authorizes HCD to charge local agency applicants for its reasonable costs to review local plans, which would provide for partial cost-recovery of an unknown portion of HCD costs.
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable local mandate costs associated with new requirements imposed on county auditors related to ERAF shifts and property tax allocations. Staff notes that the bill authorizes county auditors to deduct administrative costs from a portion of the funds allocated to local entities with an approved plan of projects, as specified. Ultimately, the Commission on State Mandates would determine whether certain duties mandated by the bill necessitate state reimbursement, after accounting for offsets to costs as a result of the fee authority, should local entities file a successful test claim.
Author Amendments:
- Strike out the eligible use of funds for protecting communities from sea level rise, and instead more broadly authorize expenditures for protecting communities dealing with climate change, including sea level rise, wildfires, seismic safety, and flood protection, as specified.
- Delete the inclusion of the Chair of the California Infrastructure and Economic Bank as a member of the committee, and instead require the Chair of the California Housing Finance Agency as a member.
- Specify that Assembly and Senate appointees to the commission must have knowledge and experience in finance, housing finance, housing planning or development, or land use and planning.
- Add joint- and co-authors, and make several clarifying changes.
Committee Amendments:
- Delay implementation for one year.
- Authorize expenditures that promote strong neighborhoods to include rehabilitating and building public facilities
- Condition the authority for the committee to approve a plan for funding on the Legislature enacting a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount available for the committee to allocate each year, as specified.
- Specify that program reporting requirements are only applicable if the committee has approved funding pursuant to the program.
-- END --
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 5 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 5
Author: Beall (D), McGuire (D), and Portantino (D), et al.
Amended: 5/21/19
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 3/20/19
AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hertzberg, Hurtado, Nielsen, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-1, 4/2/19
AYES: Wiener, Bates, Caballero, Durazo, McGuire, Roth, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski
NOES: Morrell
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 4-2, 5/16/19
AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Wieckowski
NOES: Bates, Jones
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program
DIGEST:
This bill allows local agencies to reduce contributions of local property tax revenue to schools to build affordable housing and related infrastructure.
Existing law:
- Dissolved California redevelopment agencies (RDAs) (ABX1 26, Blumenfield, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011-12, First Extraordinary Session), which used property tax increment financing to pay for economic development projects in blighted areas.
- Requires the state to provide a minimum level of funding for K-12 schools and community colleges.
- Redirects almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts.
- Requires county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).
- Requires that counties with more ERAF revenue than necessary to offset all state aid to nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts use these excess funds for countywide special education programs, and any remaining funds be returned to cities, counties, and special districts in proportion to the amount of property taxes they contributed to ERAF.
- Replaces revenue lost when the vehicle license fee (VLF) was reduced in the early 2000s with (a) ERAF and, if ERAF revenues are not sufficient, from (b) nonbasic aid K-12 and community college districts, with all reductions in revenue to K-12 and community college districts offset by additional state aid.
This bill:
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program).
- Establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee (Committee), comprised of nine specified state department representatives and legislative appointees and gives it responsibility for reviewing and approving or denying local agency plans for projects proposed to be funded under the Program.
- Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide technical assistance and administrative support necessary for the Committee to consider local plans.
- Allows various local agencies to apply for the Program, either individually or jointly, as specified.
- Authorizes a city, county, or special district to establish an Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Agency, as specified, to apply for program funding.
- Requires, for an applicant to receive funding, submission of the following information, as specified, not to exceed 30 years.
- Allows the Committee to approve, deny, or modify an application.
- Requires the Committee to ensure distribution of funds with geographic equity in mind, and create a scoring methodology that prioritizes projects based on the number and type of housing units created.
- Outlines the following eligible uses of funding, subject to certain exclusions if the applicant has taken certain actions that hinder housing development:
- Construction of affordable housing, defined as units affordable to households making 120 percent of area median income.
- Transit-oriented development in priority locations that maximize density and transit use and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Infill development to assist in the construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in area designated as infill, as specified.
- Promoting strong neighborhoods through supporting local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods including housing infrastructure and public facilities, as specified.
- Protecting communities from the effects of climate change, including the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure.
- Requires that at least 50% of the overall program funding and 50% of each plan’s funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. At least 80% of this set-aside must be used to provide rental and owner-occupied housing for low-income households with an annual income of up to 80% of the area median income, as specified. The remaining funds may be used for the production of moderate-income housing (households with an annual income between 80% and 120 % of the area median income), as specified.
- Subjects rental and sales prices for housing assisted with the 80% set aside to specified caps, and subjects all housing to the following recorded affordability restrictions: 55 years for rental housing; 45 years for owner-occupied housing; and at least 15 years for self-help housing.
- Prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units.
- Requires that plans dedicate at least 30 percent of housing units to affordable housing and keep those units affordable for at least 55 years.
- Reserves at least 12 percent of overall program funding for counties with 200,000 residents or less, and two percent for technical assistance to such counties to make sure they have the technical capacity to apply for the program. If these counties do not spend all of these funds in any year, SB 5 reserves that funding for these counties in subsequent years.
- Requires projects that receive funding to meet specified labor and anti-displacement requirements.
- Allows the Committee to approve plans and direct the county auditors to transfer property tax revenues for the Program provided that the Legislature enacts a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount available to the Committee.
- Caps the amount of funding the Committee can approve to no more than $200 million in any year from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2026, and no more than $250 million in any year from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2030.
- Allows the Legislature to direct the Committee to suspend the Program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee without impacting previously approved funding.
- Allows the Committee, upon approval of a plan, to direct the county auditor to transfer an amount of property tax revenue that is equal to the amount approved by the Committee for that applicant from the ERAF to a specified county Fund established by this bill. The county auditor would then allocate specified funds to program applicants.
- Specifies that these transfers can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools to ensure that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools.
- Gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate, or “rebench,” the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this Program.
- Authorizes the county auditor to deduct its administrative costs from the amounts transferred from ERAF before allocating the balance to applicants with approved plans, as specified.
- Requires the recipient of diverted ERAF funds to submit an annual report in years the applicant receives funding as specified.
- Requires that the Committee, in years it allocates program funding, to compile these reports into an annual report, which it submits to the Legislature.
- Allows the Committee to direct the applicant to develop a corrective action plan if the applicant does not spend the funds as laid out in their plan, as specified.
- Gives the applicant one year to develop the corrective action plan and take steps to implement the plan.
- Requires the Committee to direct the county auditor to stop any transfers from ERAF, and the applicant would be prohibited from applying for additional funding from this Program for five years or apply for other state grant programs, if the applicant does not comply with the corrective action plan.
Background
Redevelopment agencies. Citing a significant State General Fund deficit, Governor Brown’s 2011-12 Budget proposed eliminating RDAs and returning billions of dollars of property tax revenues to schools, cities, and counties to fund core services. Among the statutory changes that the Legislature adopted to implement the 2011-12 Budget, ABX1 26 dissolved all RDAs. At the time of dissolution, over 400 RDAs statewide were diverting 12% of property taxes, over $5.6 billion yearly. RDAs’ dissolution deprived many local agencies of the primary tool they used to eliminate physical and economic blight, finance new construction, improve public infrastructure, rehabilitate existing buildings, and increase the supply of affordable housing. Until their dissolution, state law required RDAs to set-aside 20% of funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. At the time RDAs were dissolved, the Controller estimated that statewide, RDAs were obligated to spend $1 billion on affordable housing.
Education funding. Proposition 13 gave the state authority to allocate the local property tax among local agencies, schools, and community college districts. Each year, the state estimates how much each district will receive in local property tax revenue (and student fee revenue in the case of community colleges). Then, the annual Budget Act appropriates state General Fund to “make up the difference” and fund the district’s revenue limit or apportionment at the intended level. For K-12 districts that require additional funding to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding, known as nonbasic aid school districts, all funding shortfalls are backfilled automatically with additional state aid. In contrast, basic aid districts do not require state aid to meet the minimum guaranteed level of funding because local property tax is sufficient. Explicit state action is required to backfill community college funding shortfalls. In 1992-93 and 1993-94, in response to serious budgetary shortfalls, the state permanently redirected almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts. Under the changes in property tax allocation laws, county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, also known as a county’s ERAF.
Comments
- Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Nearly 130,000 men, women, and children lived on California’s streets in 2018. A major driver for the increase in homelessness is high housing costs and underproduction of housing units, especially for those with the lowest income. Since the 1980s, California has failed to produce the estimated 180,000 necessary new housing units per year. According to HCD, California has a 1.5 million unit shortage of housing available to our lowest income households, who are most at risk of becoming homeless. The state must act with urgency to address the shortage of affordable housing units. SB 5 makes the state a long-term partner and provides much needed money to build affordable housing construction across the state. It provides a significant ongoing investment, ramping up to $2 billion annually over time, and offers an effective finance tool lost when the state dissolved redevelopment agencies. The intent of this bill is to respond to the needs of the cities and counties and get funds out the door to construct affordable housing units quickly. It creates desperately needed housing opportunities for hard-working Californians and will also help alleviate poverty, create jobs, and meet our statewide environmental goals without affecting school funding. According to economic analysis prepared by the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council and California Housing Partnership, this bill would create up to 86,000 new and rehabilitated housing units, 329,000 jobs and spur more than $60 billion in economic activity over a ten year period.”
- General fund and education funding impact. By reducing the amount of local property tax revenue going to schools, SB 5 indirectly requires the General Fund to backfill any reductions to nonbasic aid schools. While these backfills ensure that schools receive the same level of revenue as they would have in absence of the bill, like any General Fund expenditure, SB 5 results in less General Fund revenue available to support other programs and services. While the amount of General Fund dedicated on this program could put additional pressure on the state budget and schools, this bill includes provisions intended to hold schools harmless. Since the level of funding is subject to appropriation, the Legislature can control the annual magnitude of this adjustment. However, this could result in different funding amounts each year, creating difficulties for applicants planning to issue bonds.
- Work in progress. Despite significant details regarding how the Program operates, there are still components of the program that warrant further specification. For example, this bill requires use of a skilled-and-trained workforce for some projects, but provides for an exemption to others that are currently undefined in this bill. In addition, this bill’s funding categories are relatively broad. One of the critiques of redevelopment was that funding was used for projects that were not the highest priority. Given the breadth of funding uses, it is possible that this new program could face similar criticisms when implemented. On the other hand, broader categories allow the program to be flexible and account for the various challenges local agencies face.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- General Fund impacts of up to $2 billion annually for up to 30 years when fully implemented, to the extent the Legislature authorizes the allocation of funding at the maximum amounts specified in this bill each year. General Fund expenditures would be up to $200 million in 2021-22, increasing by up to $200 million annually through 2025-26, then increasing by up to $250 million annually through 2029-30, to reach a cumulative annual impact of $2 billion by 2029-30. The funding mechanism in this bill requires a specified committee to make awards, to the extent authorized, and direct county officials to allocate property tax revenues from county ERAFs to specified local entities with an approved plan of projects each year. Each ERAF shift may have a duration of up to 30 years, as specified in the approved plans. The General Fund generally backfills any reductions in the school share of local property tax revenues, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees, including amounts transferred from ERAFs.
- Preliminary estimates indicate HCD would incur first year costs of approximately $4.13 million, to the extent the maximum amount is authorized, and ongoing administrative costs of approximately $3.78 million to support 23 PY of new staff time to establish the program, provide technical assistance and administrative support for the new committee to consider local plans, make awards, and conduct ongoing monitoring and administration of the program. (General Fund) Staff notes this bill authorizes HCD to charge local agency applicants for its reasonable costs to review local plans, which would provide for partial cost-recovery of an unknown portion of HCD costs.
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable local mandate costs associated with new requirements imposed on county auditors related to ERAF shifts and property tax allocations. Staff notes that this bill authorizes county auditors to deduct administrative costs from a portion of the funds allocated to local entities with an approved plan of projects, as specified. Ultimately, the Commission on State Mandates would determine whether certain duties mandated by this bill necessitate state reimbursement, after accounting for offsets to costs as a result of the fee authority, should local entities file a successful test claim.
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California Chapter
Bay Area Council
Big City Mayors
California Apartment Association
California Association for Local Economic Development
California Association of Housing Authorities
California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
California Contract Cities Association
California Housing Partnership Coalition
California Labor Federation
California Legislative Conference of Plumbing, Heating, & Piping Industry
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Council of Laborers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
City of Alameda
City of Albany
City of Brentwood
City of Burbank
City of Concord
City of Cotati
City of Covina
City of Crescent City
City of Danville
City of East Palo Alto
City of Eureka
City of Fort Bragg
City of Fountain Valley
City of Garden Grove
City of Glendale
City of Hollister
City of La Mirada
City of Laguna Beach
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood
City of Los Alamitos
City of Mill Valley
City of Modesto
City of Moorpark
City of Napa
City of Novato
City of Orange Cove
City of Paramount
City of Pasadena
City of Pinole
City of Placentia
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rohnert Park
City of Rosemead
City of Salinas
City of San Diego
City of San Jose
City of San Rafael
City of Sand City
City of Santa Cruz
City of South Pasadena
City of Stanton
City of Vallejo
Electrical Contractors of California Trust
Engineering & Utility Contractors Association
First Community Housing
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference
Kosmont Companies
League of California Cities
League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division
League of California Cities, San Diego County Division
Local Government Commission
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Mayor of San Jose Sam Liccardo
National Electrical Contractors Association, California Chapters
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Northern California Allied Trades
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council
Northern California Sheet Metal Worker’s, Local 104
Petaluma Pie Company
Plumbers, Steamfitters, and HVAC/R Service Technicians UA Local Union 393
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch of the NAACP
Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
South Bay Labor Council
Southern California Association of Governments
Southwest California Legislative Council
Sprinkler Fitter and Apprentices Local 483
State Building and Construction Trades Council
Techequity Collaborative
Town of Corte Madera
Town of Fairfax
United Contractors
Ventura Council of Governments
Wall and Ceiling Alliance
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Western Wall and Ceiling Contractors Association
Working Partnerships USA
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/17/19)
California Teachers Association
Prepared by: Jonathan Peterson / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
5/22/19 9:54:26
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular Session
SB 5 (Beall) - Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program
Version: April 23, 2019 | Policy Vote: GOV.&F. 6 - 0, HOUSING 9 - 1 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: April 29, 2019 | Consultant: Mark McKenzie |
Bill Summary:
SB 5 would establish the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program), as specified, to provide funding for local entities to pay for specified projects, including affordable housing, transit-oriented development, infill development, housing-related infrastructure, neighborhood revitalization, and infrastructure to protect communities from sea-level rise. The bill would allocate Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) property tax revenues to local entities for those projects, and require state General Fund backfills to school entities for the associated loss of property tax revenues, as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
- General Fund impacts of up to $2 billion annually for up to 30 years when fully implemented. General Fund expenditures would be up to $200 million in 2020-21, increasing by up to $200 million annually through 2024-25, then increasing by up to $250 million annually through 2028-29, to reach a cumulative annual impact of $2 billion by 2028-29. The funding mechanism in this bill requires county officials to allocate property tax revenues from county Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAFs) to specified local entities with an approved plan of projects each year. Each ERAF shift may have a duration of up to 30 years, as specified in the approved plans. The General Fund generally backfills any reductions in the school share of local property tax revenues, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees, including amounts transferred from ERAFs.
- Preliminary estimates indicate HCD would incur first year costs of approximately $4.13 million and ongoing administrative costs of approximately $3.78 million to support 23 PY of new staff time to establish the program, provide technical assistance and administrative support for the new committee to consider local plans, make awards, and conduct ongoing monitoring and administration of the program. (General Fund) Staff notes the bill authorizes HCD to charge local agency applicants for its reasonable costs to review local plans, which would provide for partial cost-recovery of an unknown portion of HCD costs.
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable local mandate costs associated with new requirements imposed on county auditors related to ERAF shifts and property tax allocations. Staff notes that the bill authorizes county auditors to deduct administrative costs from a portion of the funds allocated to local entities with an approved plan of projects, as specified. Ultimately, the Commission on State Mandates would determine whether certain duties mandated by the bill necessitate state reimbursement, after accounting for offsets to costs as a result of the fee authority, should local entities file a successful test claim.
Background:
Prior to 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law allowed a local government to establish redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and capture all of the increase in property taxes that is generated within the project area beyond the base year value (referred to as “tax increment”) over a period of decades. Local communities used redevelopment as a tool to alleviate blight by diverting approximately $6 billion annually in property tax increment to pay for development projects, repairing infrastructure, and building affordable housing. Since approximately half of property tax revenues statewide are a dedicated source of funding for K-14 schools, redevelopment diverted significant revenues away from schools. Generally, the loss in school funding related to the tax increment dedicated for redevelopment purposes has been backfilled by the General Fund pursuant to the minimum funding guarantees specified in Proposition 98.
Citing a significant State General Fund deficit, Governor Brown’s 2011-12 budget proposed eliminating RDAs and returning billions of dollars of property tax revenues to schools, cities, and counties to fund core services. Among the statutory changes that the Legislature adopted to implement the 2011-12 budget, AB X1 26 (Blumenfield), Chap. 5/2011, dissolved all RDAs and established procedures for winding down RDA activity. Existing law requires successor agencies to dispose of former RDAs’ assets and properties, at an oversight board’s direction, in an expeditious manner aimed at maximizing value. Successor agencies are required to make any payments related to enforceable obligations, as specified in an adopted recognized obligation payment schedule and remit unencumbered balances of RDA funds and proceeds from asset sales to the county auditor-controller for distribution to local taxing entities in the county. Successor agencies cannot enter into new enforceable obligations.
Since the dissolution of RDAs in 2012, legislators have enacted several measures creating new tax increment financing tools to pay for local economic development. In 2014, the Legislature authorized the creation of EIFDs (SB 628, Beall), followed by Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs) in 2015 (AB 2, Alejo). Similar to EIFDs, CRIAs use tax increment financing to fund infrastructure projects, with two big differences: CRIAs may only be formed in economically depressed areas, but don’t require voter approval. Two years ago, the Legislature authorized the formation of Affordable Housing Authorities (AHAs), which may use tax increment financing exclusively for rehabilitating and constructing affordable housing and do not require voter approval to issue bonds (AB 1598, Mullin). Last year, SB 961 (Allen) removed the vote requirement for a subset of EIFDs to issue bonds and required these EIFDs to instead solicit public input. While these entities share fundamental similarities with RDAs in terms of using various forms of tax increment financing, none of these tools include the diversion of the school share of property tax revenues, thereby avoiding the significant state General Fund impacts of redevelopment.
Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment approved by the voters in 1988 and modified in 1990, establishes a minimum funding requirement for K-12 schools and community colleges, referred to as the minimum funding guarantee. The state meets the minimum guarantee through a combination of General Fund and local property tax revenues, as specified in the three main tests for calculating the guarantee.
Proposition 13 gave the state the authority to allocate the local property tax among local agencies, including school and community college districts. County auditors allocate property taxes to local agencies, based on specified formulas. In the early 1990s, in response to an economic recession and serious budget shortfalls, the state permanently redirected almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts as a mechanism to provide General Fund relief. Under the changes in property tax allocation laws, county auditors deposit the redirected property tax revenue into a countywide fund for schools, referred to as the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). In 2017-18, cities, counties, and special districts deposited around $9.6 billion into county ERAFs. Because Proposition 98 obligates the state to ensure that school districts all receive a minimum guaranteed level of funding, contributions to ERAF reduce the state’s funding obligations for K-14 education. Before counties distribute property tax revenue from ERAF to nonbasic aid schools and community colleges, the county diverts some ERAF back to local agencies to account for two other specified funding formulas, (1) excess ERAF and (2) the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) swap.
Proposed Law:
SB 5 would establish the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program), and specify an application process, eligible uses for the available funds, a process for distributing funds, project requirements, and accountability measures.
Application process.
SB 5 establishes the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee (Committee), comprised of nine specified state department representatives and legislative appointees. The Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving or denying local agency plans for projects proposed to be funded under the Program. The bill requires HCD to provide technical assistance and administrative support necessary for the Committee to consider local plans.
SB 5 allows various local agencies to apply for the Program, either individually or jointly. Eligible applicants including cities, counties, joint powers authorities, enhanced infrastructure financing districts, affordable housing authorities, community revitalization and investment authorities, and transit village development districts. The bill also authorizes the creation of a new public entity that would be eligible as a project applicant. Specifically, SB 5 authorizes a city, county, or special district to establish an Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Agency, as specified. An Agency would be authorized to do any of the following in order to carry out a project: apply for Program funding; accept an allocation of property taxes pursuant to the Program; issue bonds; borrow money, receive grants, or accept state, federal, or private assistance for any project; receive an allocation of fund, as specified; and acquire or transfer property.
To apply for funding, the applicant submits a plan to the Committee that includes the following information, among other requirements:
- A description of the proposed projects the applicant plans to complete and the funding amount necessary for each year every project is to receive funding. The bill authorizes applicants to request funding for no more than 30 years for each project.
- Information necessary to demonstrate that the plan complies with all of the statutory requirements of the Program.
- Certification that any low- and moderate-income housing or other projects or portions of other projects that receive funding from the program will use streamlined review processes.
- A plan for outreach to, and retention of, women, minority, disadvantaged youth, formerly incarcerated, and other underrepresented subgroups in coordination with the California Workforce Investment Board and local boards.
- An economic and fiscal analysis paid for and prepared by the applicant that includes specified elements, including an identification of dedicated funding sources, whether the applicant intends to issue bonds to be repaid with property tax increment, and the amount requested for each project in the plan.
Once the Committee receives and reviews this information, it can submit questions, approve, deny, or modify an application. SB 5 requires the committee to ensure that funds are distributed with geographic equity in mind. The bill directs the committee to create a scoring methodology that prioritizes projects based on: (1) the number of housing units created; (2) the share of those units dedicated to each low- and moderate- income category; (3) the level of local, state, and federal funds leveraged for the plan; and (4) whether the applicant adopts plans to streamline development. If the Committee approves the plan, the approval must state the amount of the “affordable housing and community development investment amount” approved and the date upon which the amount terminates. The Committee may require applicants to reimburse it for the reasonable cost of plan review and Program participation.
Funding purposes.
Eligible uses of funding provided by the bill include the following, subject to certain exclusions if the applicant has taken certain actions that hinder housing development:
- Construction of affordable housing, defined as units affordable to households making 120 percent of area median income.
- Transit-oriented development in priority locations that maximize density and transit use and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Infill development to assist in the construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in area designated as infill, as specified.
- Promoting strong neighborhoods through supporting local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods, including repairing infrastructure and parks, rehabilitating and building housing, promoting public-private partnerships, supporting small businesses and job growth for affected residents.
- Protecting communities from the effects of sea-level rise, including the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure related to protecting communities from sea-level rise.
The bill requires that at least 50% of the overall Program funding and 50% of each plan’s funding is used on the construction of affordable housing. At least 80% of this set-aside must be used to provide rental and owner-occupied housing for low-income households with an annual income of up to 80% of the area median income, as specified. The remaining funds may be used for the production of moderate-income housing (households with an annual income between 80% and 120 % of the area median income), as specified. Rental and sales prices for housing assisted with this set-aside would be subject to specified caps, and all housing assisted would be subject to the following recorded affordability restrictions: 55 years for rental housing; 45 years for owner-occupied housing; and at least 15 years for self-help housing. SB 5 prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units. Each plan must dedicate at least 30 percent of housing units to affordable housing and keep those units affordable for at least 55 years.
SB 5 reserves at least 12 percent of overall Program funding for counties with 200,000 residents or less, and two percent for technical assistance to such counties to make sure they have the technical capacity to apply for the program. If these counties do not spend all of these funds in any year, SB 5 reserves that funding for these counties in subsequent years.
Funding mechanics.
SB 5 allows the committee to approve $200 million in plans in the first year, increasing in $200 million increments each year for five years until reaching $1 billion after five years. Over the next four years, the annual increase in funding the committee can approve increases by $250 million each year until it reaches $2 billion after nine years. The bill allows the Legislature to direct the Committee to suspend the program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee. These suspensions would not have an impact on previously approved funding pursuant to the Program. The annual amounts dedicated to individual approved projects would be allocated based on the schedule of funding included in the plan that includes the project, unless the Committee decides to allocate a different level of funding or change the number of years that the project is to receive funding.
When the Committee approves a plan, it directs the county auditor to transfer an amount of property tax revenue that is equal to the amount approved by the Committee for that applicant from the ERAF to a specified county Fund established by the bill. The county auditor would then allocate the funds to the applicants (or to the city or county that created the entity for distribution to that entity). The bill specifies that these transfers can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools, which ensures that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools. To the extent that the bill inadvertently reduces the school funding, the bill gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate, or “rebench,” the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this program. The bill authorizes the county auditor to deduct its administrative costs from the amounts transferred from ERAF before allocating the balance to applicants with approved plans, as specified.
Reporting requirements and accountability provisions.
SB 5 requires the recipient of diverted ERAF funds to submit an annual report documenting the plan’s progress, the amount of funding received and how the applicant used the funding, and whether projects continue to meet the specified Program requirements. The Committee must compile these reports into an annual report it submits to the Legislature that includes an evaluation of the state’s investment through the funding of the Program as measured by a net revenue increase to the General Fund and progress towards achieving the Program’s purposes and intent.
If an applicant does not spend the funds as laid out in their plan, the committee can direct the applicant to develop a corrective action plan (CAP). In deciding whether to require an applicant to develop a CAP, the committee must consider whether the applicant:
- Remains on track to produce the number of housing units included in the plan.
- Remains on track to spend at least 50 percent of plan funds on affordable housing.
- Is on track to exceed the five percent administrative cost limit.
- Has used funding for ineligible purposes.
- Has used funds to subsidize market rate units.
- Violated the bill’s anti-displacement provisions.
- Is not on track to complete the projects according to the agreed upon timelines.
The bill gives the applicant one year to develop the corrective action plan and take steps to implement the plan. To the extent that an applicant does not comply with the plan, the Committee must direct the county auditor to stop any transfers from ERAF, and the applicant would be prohibited from applying for additional funding from this Program for five years or apply for other state grant programs.
Related Legislation:
AB 11 (Chiu), which is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would enact the Community Redevelopment Law of 2019, and allow local agencies to create Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Agencies to fund affordable housing and other specified projects using property tax increment revenues.
Staff Comments:
The State Controller estimated that when RDAs were dissolved in 2012, they were obligated to spend approximately $1 billion annually on affordable housing as a result of the requirement to set-aside 20% of tax increment funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. California is currently in the midst of a serious housing crisis, which has been exacerbated by the loss of RDA funds dedicated to affordable housing. Staff notes that SB 5, when fully implemented, will dedicate approximately $1 billion to affordable housing purposes, similar to the amount that was made available under the 20% RDA set-aside.
The Legislature has enacted numerous measures to facilitate affordable housing production and address the housing shortage. The housing package of 2017 made an effort to promote higher density housing, streamline housing approval processes, and increase zoning for housing while providing more state enforcement power. This package included SB 2 (Atkins), which required recorders to collect a $75 fee on every real estate instrument, paper, or notice. That bill is expected to generate $200-$300 million annually to fund various housing programs. The package also included SB 3 (Beall), which placed a $3 billion bond before voters on the November 2018 ballot, which voters approved, to fund affordable housing programs. In addition, the voters approved Proposition 2 in 2018, which provides $2 billion for housing construction for chronically homeless persons experiencing a mental illness.
SB 5 would establish a mechanism that, when fully implemented, shifts up to $2 billion annually from local ERAFs to pay for projects approved under the Program for affordable housing, transit-oriented development, infill development, housing-related infrastructure, and other specified priorities. This indirectly requires the state to make annual General Fund adjustments to match any reductions in ERAF that would otherwise be used to support schools. While school funding is held harmless, the bill would reduce the amount of General Fund revenues available to support other state programs and services.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING
Senator Scott Wiener, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular
Bill No: SB 5 Hearing Date: 4/2/2019
Author: | Beall | ||
Version: | 3/21/2019 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Alison Hughes | ||
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program
DIGEST: This bill creates the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program, which funds affordable housing and housing-related infrastructure.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Authorizes local agencies to create Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) to finance specified infrastructure projects and facilities.
- Authorizes a local government to create Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities to use tax increment revenue to improve infrastructure, assist businesses, and support affordable housing in disadvantaged communities.
- Authorizes a local government to establish an Affordable Housing Authority to fund affordable housing.
- Establishes the Neighborhood Infill and Transit Improvements Act, or NIFTI, in EIFD law and allows the infrastructure financing plan to contain a provision for the addition of any increase of the total receipts of local sales and use taxes (SUTs) and attribute those taxes to the NIFTI.
- Authorizes a local government to establish a transit village development district which addresses, among other things housing within ½ a mile from the main entrance of a transit station.
This bill creates the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program (Program). It establishes an application process, eligible uses for the funds made available by the bill, a process for distributing funds, project requirements, and accountability measures. Specifically, this bill:
- Allows various local agencies to apply for the Program, either individually or jointly. Eligible applicants include:
- A city, county, or city and county.
- A joint powers authority.
- An EIFD.
- An affordable housing authority.
- A community revitalization and investment authority.
- A transit village development district.
- Requires an applicant to submit a plan to the Affordable Housing and Community Development Committee (Committee). This nine-member committee is comprised of the following members:
- The Chair of the Strategic Growth Council, or designee.
- The Chair of the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, or designee.
- The Chair of the California Workforce Investment Board, or designee.
- Director of the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), or designee.
- Two people appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
- Two people appointed by the Senate Rules Committee.
- A member of the public with expertise in education finance appointed by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
- Requires the plan submitted by the applicant to the Committee to include various types of information including:
- A description of the proposed projects the applicant plans to complete and the funding amount necessary for each year every project is to receive funding.
- Information necessary to demonstrate that the plan complies with all of the statutory requirements of the Program.
- Certification that any low- and moderate-income housing or other projects or portions of other projects that receive funding from the program will use streamlined review processes.
- A plan for outreach to, and retention of, women, minority, disadvantaged youth, formerly incarcerated, and other underrepresented subgroups in coordination with the California Workforce Investment Board and local boards.
- An economic and fiscal analysis paid for and prepared by the applicant.
- Permits the Committee to submit questions, approve, deny, or modify an application.
- Requires the Committee to ensure that funds are distributed with geographic equity in mind and directs the Committee to create a scoring methodology that prioritizes projects based on: a) the number of housing units created; b) the share of those units dedicated to each low- and moderate- income category; c) the level of local, state, and federal funds leveraged for the plan; and d) whether the applicant adopts plans to streamline development. This bill directs HCD to provide technical and administrative assistance for the preparation and review of plans.
- Provides that eligible uses of funds from the Program are:
- Construction of affordable housing, defined as units affordable to households making 120% of area median income.
- Transit-oriented development in priority locations that maximize density and transit use and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Infill development, including: i) infrastructure needed to support infill development; and ii) appropriate reuse and redevelopment of previously developed land that is presently served by municipal services.
- Promoting strong neighborhoods through supporting local community planning and engagement efforts to revitalize and restore neighborhoods, including repairing infrastructure and parks, rehabilitating and building housing, promoting public-private partnerships, and supporting small businesses and job growth for affected residents.
- Protecting communities from the effects of sea-level rise, including the construction, repair, replacement, and maintenance of infrastructure that protects communities from sea-level rise.
- Requires at least 50% of funding to be used on the construction of affordable housing. This bill prohibits funds from subsidizing market rate units, but allows funding for infrastructure of developments that include market rate units. Each project in the plan must dedicate at least 50% of housing units to affordable housing and keep those units affordable for at least 55 years.
- Reserves at least 12% of the funds for counties with 200,000 residents or less, of which at least two percent shall be for technical assistance. If these counties do not spend all of these funds in any year, the funding shall be reserved for these counties in subsequent years.
- Allows the Committee to approve $200 million in plans in the first year, increasing in $200 million increments each year for five years until reaching $1 billion after five years. The next four years, the annual increase in funding the Committee can approve increases by $250 million each year until it reaches $2 billion after nine years. This bill allows the Legislature to suspend the program if the state taps into its Rainy Day account or suspends the Proposition 98 guarantee.
- Directs the county auditor to reduce the amount of property tax revenue the applicant would otherwise have contributed to the county’s Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF), when the Committee approves a plan. The applicant would retain the funds they would have otherwise transferred to ERAF to use for the projects included in their plan. The bill specifies that these reductions can only come from ERAF amounts that were going to be used for K-12 schools, which ensures that the General Fund backfills the lower property tax revenue to schools. To the extent that this bill inadvertently reduces school funding, the bill gives the Department of Finance the ability to recalculate the Proposition 98 guarantee so that schools receive the same amount of funding they would have absent this Program.
- Requires projects approved in a plan to do the following:
- Not request funding for more than 30 years.
- Include prevailing wage requirements and a skilled-and-trained workforce to complete projects. The bill also includes unspecified exceptions to what projects are required to use a skilled-and-trained workforce.
- Exclude project sites where an eviction has taken place within the last 10 years.
- Not demolish housing subject to affordable housing requirements, rent control, or which has been occupied by tenants within the last ten years.
- Not demolish historic structures that were placed on a national, state, or local historic register.
- Exclude tenant occupied housing units that are, will be, or were subsequently offered for sale to the general public.
- Requires the recipient of diverted ERAF funds to submit an annual report to the Committee documenting the plan’s progress, how the applicant used the funding, and whether projects continue to meet the requirements described above. The Committee must compile these reports into an annual report that it submits to the Legislature.
- Permits the Committee to direct the applicant to develop a corrective action plan (CAP), if an applicant does not spend the funds as laid out in their plan. In deciding whether to require an applicant to develop a CAP, the committee must consider whether the applicant:
- Remains on track to produce the number of housing units included in the plan.
- Remains on track to spend at least 50% of plan funds on affordable housing.
- Is on track to exceed the five percent administrative cost limit.
- Has used funding for ineligible purposes.
- Has used funds to subsidize market rate units.
- Violated the bill’s anti-displacement provisions.
- Is not on track to complete the projects according to the agreed upon timelines.
- Gives the applicant one year to develop the CAP and take steps to implement the plan. To the extent that an applicant does not comply with the plan, it cannot apply for additional funding from this program for five years or apply for other state grant programs.
COMMENTS
- Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Nearly 130,000 men, women, and children lived on California’s streets in 2018. A major driver for the increase in homelessness is high housing costs and underproduction of housing units, especially for those with the lowest income. Since the 1980s, California has failed to produce the estimated 180,000 necessary new housing units per year. According to HCD, California has a 1.5 million unit shortage of housing available to our lowest income households, who are most at risk of becoming homeless. The state must act with urgency to address the shortage of affordable housing units. [This bill] makes the state a long-term partner and provides much needed money to build affordable housing construction across the state. It provides a significant ongoing investment, ramping up to $2 billion annually over time, and offers an effective finance tool lost when the state dissolved redevelopment agencies. The intent of this bill is to respond to the needs of the cities and counties and get funds out the door to construct affordable housing units quickly. It creates desperately needed housing opportunities for hard-working Californians and will also help alleviate poverty, create jobs, and meet our statewide environmental goals without affecting school funding. According to economic analysis prepared by the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council and California Housing Partnership, this bill would create up to 86,000 new and rehabilitated housing units, 329,000 jobs and spur more than $60 billion in economic activity over a 10 year period.”
- Loss of Redevelopment Funds. Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the formation of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to eliminate blight in an area by means of a self-financing schedule that pays for the redevelopment project with tax increment derived from any increase in the assessed value of property within the redevelopment project area (or tax increment). Prior to Proposition 13, very few RDAs existed; however after its passage, RDAs became a source of funding for a variety of local infrastructure activities. Eventually, RDAs were required to set-aside 20% of funding generated in a project area to increase the supply of low and moderate-income housing in the project areas. At the time RDAs were dissolved, the Controller estimated that statewide, RDAs were obligated to spend $1 billion on affordable housing.
Since the dissolution of RDAs in 2012, legislators have enacted several measures creating new tax increment financing tools to pay for local economic development. In 2014, the Legislature authorized the creation of EIFDs (SB 628, Beall), followed by Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs) in 2015 (AB 2, Alejo). Similar to EIFDs, CRIAs use tax increment financing to fund infrastructure projects, with two big differences: CRIAs may only be formed in economically depressed areas, but don’t require voter approval. Two years ago, the Legislature authorized the formation of Affordable Housing Authorities (AHAs), which may use tax increment financing exclusively for rehabilitating and constructing affordable housing and do not require voter approval to issue bonds (AB 1598, Mullin). Last year, SB 961 (Allen) removed the vote requirement for a subset of EIFDs to issue bonds and required these EIFDs to instead solicit public input. While these entities share fundamental similarities with RDAs in terms of using various forms of tax increment financing, they differ in one important aspect: not having access to the school’s share of property tax revenue.
- Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) Background. Each year, the state estimates how much each K-12 school and community college district will receive in local property tax revenue (and student fee revenue in the case of community colleges); the annual budget act appropriates state General Fund to “make up the difference” and fund the district’s revenue limit or apportionment at the intended level. Frequently, however, the actual property tax revenues allocated to school districts may be less than anticipated. The state’s education finance system addresses these shortfalls differently for different types of educational entities. For K-12 districts, all funding shortfalls are backfilled automatically with additional state aid. In contrast, explicit state action is required to backfill community college funding shortfalls.
In 1992-93 and 1993-94, in response to serious budgetary shortfalls, the state permanently redirected almost one-fifth of total statewide property tax revenue from cities, counties, and special districts to K-12 and community college districts. Under the changes in property tax allocation laws, the redirected property tax revenue is deposited into a countywide fund for schools, ERAF. The property tax revenue from ERAF is distributed to non-basic aid schools and community colleges, reducing the state’s funding obligations for K-14 education. In 2017-18, cities, counties, and special districts deposited around $9.6 billion into county ERAFs. Funds deposited into county ERAFs are distributed back to back to schools and local agencies, as specified.
- Money for Locals to Build Housing. California is in the midst of a serious housing crisis, largely due to a shortage of housing stock, primarily for lower-income households. This bill creates an ongoing revenue source for locals to create affordable housing and housing-related infrastructure by indirectly requiring the General Fund to backfill any reductions to the ERAF. It also states that the backfills shall ensure that schools receive the same level of revenue as they would have in absence of the bill.
- Use of the funds. While the bill requires at least 50% of the overall funding to be allocated to affordable housing, the remaining 50% is allocated towards the program’s other five eligible uses. These categories are relatively broad, from dealing with sea level rise to encouraging local economic development. One of the critiques of redevelopment was that funding was used for projects that were not the highest priority. Given the breadth of funding uses, it is possible that this new program could face similar criticisms when implemented. The author has agreed to clarify these uses as the following: a) Predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing, defined as units affordable to households making 120% of area median income; b) Transit-oriented development for the purpose of developing or facilitating the development of higher density uses within close proximity to transit stations that will increase public transit ridership and contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions; and c) Infill development to assist in the new construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in locations designated as infill, including, but not limited to, any of the following: park creation, development, or rehabilitation to encourage infill development; water, sewer, or other public infrastructure costs associated with infill development; transportation improvements related to infill development projects; and traffic mitigation.
- Sharing the burden. The Legislature has enacted numerous measures to facilitate affordable housing production and address the housing shortage. The housing package of 2017 made an effort to promote higher density housing, streamline housing approval processes, and increase zoning for housing while providing more state enforcement power. This package included SB 2 (Atkins), which required recorders to collect a $75 fee on every real estate instrument, paper, or notice. Once collected, these fees will fund various housing programs. The package also included SB 3 (Beall), which placed a $3 billion bond before voters on the November 2018 ballot, which voters approved, to fund affordable housing programs. Additionally, in 2018, the voters approved Proposition 2, which provides $2 billion for housing construction for chronically homeless persons experiencing a mental illness.
In 2016 and 2018, several jurisdictions across the state took action and adopted local measures to fund affordable housing construction, either through general obligation bonds or the creation of a permanent funding stream. On the other hand, some jurisdictions have taken actions to stymie housing development either through local initiative processes or through actions by the local city council. Given the severity of the crisis, identifying funding solutions must be a shared responsibility and locals have control over how quickly they approve housing and can take steps to reduce housing costs. Further, with finite resources available, the state should not reward jurisdictions that have otherwise sought to stymie housing production. The author has agreed to the following amendments: a) require that, in order to receive funding, non-rural jurisdictions provide a match, including financial, in kind land dedication, and public-private funds; b) the Program will also prioritize projects in jurisdictions that have enacted local measures to reduce development costs, including but not limited to accelerating housing approvals, the average permitting time is less than a year, reduced fees for ADUs, and dense zoning near transit; and c) jurisdictions that have passed measures that cap population or place limits on growth, enacted housing moratoria, required housing-related zoning decisions be approved by the electorate, engaged in downzoning, failed to comply with housing element law, or violated state housing programs may only use the funds from the Program for housing and infrastructure that supports housing. The committee may also wish to consider requiring jurisdictions that have violated state housing laws in the last five years to be ineligible for funding.
- Double-referral. This bill is double-referred to the Governance and Finance. This bill passed out of that committee on 3/20/2019 with a 6-0 vote.
Related Legislation:
AB 1568 (Bloom, Chapter 562, Statutes of 2017) — allowed an EIFD to allocate sales taxes for affordable housing on infill sites.
AB 2 (Alejo, Chapter 319, Statutes of 2015) — authorized local governments to create Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIA) to use tax increment revenue to improve the infrastructure, assist businesses, and support affordable housing in disadvantaged communities. It requires that at least 25% of all tax increment revenues that are allocated to the CRIA from any participating entity must be deposited into a separate Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund and used by the CRIA for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost.
SB 628 (Beall, Chapter 785, Statutes of 2014) — allowed local agencies to create enhanced infrastructure financing districts (EIFDs) to finance specified infrastructure projects and facilities.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
March 27, 2019.)
SUPPORT:
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Bay Area Council
Brentwood; City Of
Burbank; City Of
California Association For Local Economic Development
Concord; City Of
Cotati; City of
Covina; City Of
Crescent City; City Of
Fort Bragg; City Of
Fountain Valley; City Of
International Union Of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference
Kosmont Companies
Laguna Beach; City Of
Laguna Niguel; City Of
Lakeport; City Of
Lakewood; City Of
League Of California Cities
Mayor of San Jose Sam Liccardo
Moorpark; City Of
Napa; City Of
Novato; City Of
Pasadena; City Of
Pinole; City Of
Placentia; City Of
Rohnert Park; City Of
Rosemead; City Of
Salinas; City Of
San Rafael; City Of
Sand City; City Of
South Pasadena; City Of
Town Of Danville
Vallejo; City Of
Working Partnerships USA
OPPOSITION:
None received.
-- END --
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):