Home > News > News Articles > 2013 > April > League-Supported Economic Development Tools Legislation
News Feed

League-Supported Economic Development Tools Legislation

April 5, 2013
Last November, the League’s leadership identified the expansion of community and economic development tools and funding options for city services as a League priority for 2013.
It’s imperative that cities have tools to invest in projects that will create jobs, boost the economy and generate state and local revenues. Legislators have introduced a variety of bills this session to address California’s economic development needs, which the League is actively monitoring. The League has taken a support position on the following bills and will continue to review additional legislation for policy positions. This list reflects positions taken as of April 3, 2013. 
Bills Supported by the League:
SB 33 (Wolk) Infrastructure Financing Districts. League Position: Support. This bill would make updates to current Infrastructure Financing District Law, including removing major obstacles that have prohibited this tool from being used in the past. 
AB 1080 (Alejo) Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities. League Position: Support. This bill would authorize redevelopment authority for disadvantaged communities and closed military bases by creating a new entity called a Community Revitalization Investment Authority.
AB 294 (Holden) Infrastructure Financing Districts: Use of Incremental Property Tax Revenue. League Position: Support Letter Pending. This bill would authorize the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to augment local investments in infrastructure by approving the use of the ERAF share of property tax for specific infrastructure investments.  The League has been working with the author’s office on a revised set of amendments to clarify the bill.
AB 305 (V. Manuel Perez) New Market Tax Credits. League Position: Support. The bill creates a California New Markets Tax Credit program that would attract private capital as well as federal matching funds to spur investment and create jobs in low-income communities throughout California.  It would be funded by a diversion of $200 million in unused capacity from the State Hiring Tax Credit.
AB 981 (Bloom) Authorization for Expenditure of Post-2011 Issued Redevelopment Bonds. League Position: Support. This legislation provides that bonds issued by former redevelopment agencies between Jan. 1, 2011 and June 28, 2011 shall be recognized as enforceable obligations.
AB 564 (Mullin) Community Redevelopment: Successor Agencies. League Position: Support. This bill would ensure successor agencies that receive a finding of completion from the Department of Finance will be able to rely over the long term on the loan repayment, expenditure of the bond proceeds and property retention benefits provided in AB 1484.
AB 440 (Gatto) Hazardous Substances: Local Agency Cleanup. League Position: Support. This bill would authorize local agencies to take any action similar to those under the Polanco Redevelopment Act for clean-up of brownfields within the boundaries of the local agency. 
SB 391 (DeSaulnier) California Homes and Jobs Act of 2013. League Position: Support. This bill would place a $75 recordation fee on real estate transactions with the exception of home sales to generate an estimated $500 million for a permanent source of affordable housing funds. This is a reintroduction of last year’s SB 1220 (DeSaulnier). The League has negotiated some amendments and looks forward to supporting this legislation once language relating to geographic distribution is inserted into the bill.
SB 470 (Wright) Community Development: Economic Opportunity. League Position: Support. This bill, sponsored by the city of Long Beach, and is intended to provide cities and counties with enhanced flexibility when disposing of publically-owned property for economic development purposes and would provide former redevelopment Polanco Act brownfield remediation tools to cities and counties. The bill is being amended to clarify various aspects, and the League has committed to work with the author and sponsor on potential additional clarifying language as the bill moves forward.

© League of California Cities