California State Association of County Auditors Property Tax Managers’ Sub-committee Thursday, February 5, 2015 Ontario, CA PRESENTED BY Elizabeth W. Hull Partner Redevelopment Legislation Infrastructure Financing Districts ©2014 Best Best & Krieger LLP

Background January 2011 – Governor announced plan to dissolve redevelopment agencies. Assembly Bill 1X 26 and Assembly Bill 1X 27 become law on June 20, 2011

AB 1X 26 – froze redevelopment activities, eliminated redevelopment agencies, created successor agencies and oversight boards to facilitate wind down of redevelopment agencies AB 1X 27 – allowed redevelopment agencies to continue provided a remittance payment was made

CRA challenged AB 1X 26 and AB 1X 27 Supreme Court upheld AB 1X 26 and invalidated AB 1X 27 in December 2011 RDAs dissolved effective February 1, 2012 AB 1484 became law June 2012 and attempted to clarify dissolution process

Where are we today? City economic development authority based in police power Minimal economic development accomplished by cities during the wind down process Successor agencies LRPMP are being approved and land is becoming available for development Little ability to fund economic development

2014 Legislation AB 628 (Beall) – Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts AB 229 (Perez) – Infrastructure and Revitalization Financing Districts AB 2292 (Bonta) – Infrastructure Financing Districts - Broadband

AB 628 EIFDs Streamlined process and fund broader array of projects Before creating an EIFD, the City must have received a finding of completion City takes lead in forming EIFD City can partner with any affected taxing entity (except school related agencies) Partner agencies may allocate tax increment to infrastructure financing plan

EIFDs v. IFDs Voter approval  IFD: 2/3rds approval for formation and bond issuance  EIFD: formed without voter approval; issue bonds with 55% voter approval Financing Period  IFD: 30 years from date of formation  EIFD: 45 years from date of bonds are authorized Significantly increase tax revenue available

EIFDs v. IFDs Reimbursement Agreements  Both EIFD and IFD can enter into reimbursement agreements with developers as alternative to conventional or bond financing Types of Projects  IFD: limited infrastructure projects  EIFD: broader list of eligible projects Projects of communitywide significance (EIFD and surrounding area), brownfield restoration, housing, industrial structures for private use

EIFDs v. IFDs Polanco Act  IFDs lacked Polanco authority  EIFDs may utilize Polanco authority Previously reserved to RDAs Cross Boundary Cooperation  Cities may form multiple EIFDs and partner with other cities to form EIFDs across city and county lines

AB 229 Traditional IFD Finance projects on former military bases Dedicate any portion of its funds from the Redevelopment Agency Property Tax Trust Fund to the district Finance projects in former RDA areas.

AB 2292 Expands the definition of public capital facilities to specifically include broadband and any communications network facilities that enable high-speed Internet access Effectively authorizes cities to create IFDs that can issue bonds to pay for public capital facilities or projects for broadband Before AB 2292, city-wide fiber optic networks could qualify for IFD financing in some cases, even though it was not specifically included in the definition of eligible projects for communitywide infrastructure.

AB 2280 Vetoed by Governor Authorized formation of Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities Utilized tax increment revenue to:  Relieve unemployment  Reduce high crime rates  Repair deteriorated/inadequate infrastructure  Promote affordable housing  Improve conditions leading to increased employment opportunities

AB 2280 Authority cannot be formed until:  Finding of completion received  No former RDA assets can be used until outstanding litigation with DOF resolved  SCO orders re return of properties has been complied with Vetoed by Governor  “unnecessarily vests this new program in redevelopment law”

2015 Legislation Governor’s budget proposal AB 204 – Oversight Boards in LA County

AB 204 Existing Law:  July 1, 2016 all OB’s in each county consolidated into one OB. Concerns:  Currently 71 OB’s operating in LA County  One OB in LA County will be overburdened  One OB in LA County will slow dissolution process  One OB in LA County will be impediment to disposition of property

AB 204 All OB’s in LA County continue after July 1, 2016 All OB’s in LA County continue to operate independently until its successor agency adopts a resolution dissolving the OB

Thank you for attending. Elizabeth W. Hull Partner Best Best & Krieger LLP Phone: