AgdaPkt 2006-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

SA Page 21 BOND PROPOSALS from page 1 . . . . . .. EMINENT DOMAIN from page 4. . . . . . The Senate Natural Resources Committee hearing explored the various aspects of the administration's flood control infrastructure bond (SB 1166 and AB 1839). Of interest to the commit- tee were questions about the relationship between flooding, land use, development and liability. The Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee examined the water infrastructure portion of the bills and spent considerable time discussing the proposed water surcharge included in the bill, among other topics. The Assembly Transportation Committee hearings focused on the various proposals for funding transportation infrastructure offered by the administration (AB 1838 Oropeza and 581165 Dutton), the Assembly Speaker (A8 1783 Nunez) and the Senate President Pro Tem (58 1024 Perata). Constitutional protection for Proposition 42 transportation funds, project funding priorities, the state's debt capacity, design-build, design- sequencing and public-private partnerships were highlighted during the hearings. At this time, it remains unclear when the com- mittees will prepare their committee reports, which may include minority reports. The conference committee will then take up the various proposals. While the goal is to craft a bond package for the June ballot, it is not clear if an agreement can be reached in time to meet the mid-March deadline to place the package on the ballot. The League of Califomia Cities' Infrastructure Task Force is meeting to review the different proposals and recommend league principles and policy to the League board of directors in February. For more information on this and other League issues, visit www .cacities.org. ownership of irregular form and shape and inad- equate size for proper usefulness and develop- ment. sa 1206 (Kehoe). This measure proposes extensive changes to the Community Redevelop- ment Law, none of which deal directly with eminent domain. Some key provisions include the following: . New definition of blight. The proposed legislation would delete many of the factors con- tained in existing law and relied upon by redevelop- ment agencies to show the existence of blight, such as "defective design or physical construction," "lack of parking," "impaired investments," "high tum-over rates, abandoned buildings and excessive vacant lots." Remaining blight factors would have to meet specific numerical or percentage tests. The adoption of new redevelopment plans and amend- ment of existing redevelopment plans to add tenitory would be made much more difficult. . Limitation on use of funds in merged redevelopment projec1B. In a merged redevelop- ment project area, the bill would prohibit funds from one constituent project from being used in another constituent project unless all indebtedness from the first project has been repaid. If applied to existing merged redevelopment projects, this would result in defaults under bonds and other financial obligations of redevelopment agencies as well as abandon- ment of on-going projects and programs. If applied prospectively, this would eliminate the incentive for new mergers. . Limits establishment of indebtedness. After 1 0 years from the adoption of the redevelop- ment plan, S8 1206 would require a finding that significant blight remains in the project area before the agency incurs indebtedness. This would aeate a new cause of action for project opponents permit- ting them to further delay financing of projects by filing litigation challenging the required finding. This also represents a policy reversal from existing law (SB 211), which permits agencies to eliminate time limits on establishing indebtedness. Continued on Page 7 Visit the League's OffICial Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 6 - PRIORITY FOCUS February 3, 2006 - Issue IS ,d' ,-_.. ..'" ~---~,--",,~-_,,~_'_d_"'----'--' ,.., .".-.--. .-dd.. "..,....__...~_. ""--" "----..----"-.....---..'