AgdaPkt 2009-08-24 clsd and reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 9 2. The budget agreement also contained a trigger mechanism that would have had the HUTA grab and the Prop.1A borrowing only occur if a complex redevelopment securitization scheme in ABX4 27, sponsored by the City of Industry, failed to produce sufficient revenues for the state General Fund. This measure, however, also failed to move off the Assembly Floor; and 3. Because many parties involved in the budget agreement believed that the City of Industry proposal would fail for a number of reasons, it was viewed as prudent to defer local receipt of HUT A revenues, was so the state could easily grab the money for the FY 2009.10 budget once the Industry plan failed. 4. Since neither the HUTA grab, nor the Industry proposal with its trigger, were included in the final package, the current language In AB X4 16, Section 16, can be viewed as obsolete. What's Next The League and CSAC have had numerous conversations with OOF staff about the remnant HUTA deferral language in AB X416, Section 16. The League would prefer that this language is removed entirely, because it relates to legislation that was not enacted. Another option is to clean up the language so that It clarifies that repayment will occur in January. The League is still waiting for a firm answer from OOF on if the Administration would allow the removal of this language. Since the enactment of the recent state budget agreement, OOF, the State Controller and the State Treasurer have been focused on developing a cash flow strategy for the state. This strategy should be complete in the next several days. If the state's cash flow needs can be met without this deferral, then removal of this provision may be possible. Another possible scenario is that the state may seek to shift the deferral window to the second half of the fiscal year, because March Is when the state traditionally is short on cash. In that event, a deferral of HUT A revenues could be proposed similar to that enacted in AS X3 7 of 2008. Any change to this statute will also require an urgency clause with a required two-thirds vote. Redevelooment Raids: The proposed $2.05 billion grab of local redevelopment agency funds, contained in AB X4 26, will be devastating for many local projects and for local jobs. The Callfomia Redevelopment Association (CRA) is preparing to litigate this matter on a variety of constitutional grounds. While the CRA and other plaintiffs were successful In their recent litigation against a proposed $350 million take, the Legislature has inserted language that attempts to insulate this grab against some of the expected arguments. CRA's core arguments, however, is that the grab remains unconstitutional. Should litigation not be successful, ROA's must make payments by May 10, 2010. Agencies that lack funds will Incur various penalties, and borrowing from ROA housing funds triggers an increased allocation set aside to 25 percent. Cities have the ability to loan the agency funds to make the payment at terms to be agreed upon by the parties. What's Next It Is unclear to what extent any major changes to this redevelopment statute may be attempted. eRA is currently focused on pursuing litigation. Follow Up The League will continue to report on all of these issues as more information becomes available. 'AB1120' Continued from Page 1... RV is an election method which voters rank the candidates for office in order of preference. and the ballots are counted in rounds. In the case of a single-winner election (e.g.. City Attorney), a series of runoff elections are simulated via the ballots being counted in rounds until only two candidates remain. with the candidate haVing the highest number of votes being declared the 3