AgdaPkt 2009-11-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 4 This legislation contains various state cash flow deferral provisions. Of specific interest and importance to cities and counties are the revisions to the existing HUT A deferral provisions adopted as part of the July budget package in S8 X4 16 (Ducheny), which deferred the receipt of local HUTA revenues for a six-month window period from July-December 2009. The language in S8 X4 16 was vague on the repayment schedule, stating that repayment would be made "after Jan.1, 2010." 8ecause the Legislature did not pass S8 65 until mid-October, the timelines in the bill are now dated. However, what is most important is that local agencies now have a schedule to receive the deferred payments. The SB 65 revisions: 1. Clarify that amounts deferred in July and August of 2009 will be repaid to local governments in September. 2. Authorize locals to receive September and October revenues as scheduled. 3. Establish a new five-month HUT A deferral window period for the months of November and December of 2009, and January, February and March of 2010. Repayment of these deferred revenues is scheduled within two business days of April 28, 2010. 4. Contain language that allows local governments to temporarily use Prop. 18 Local Street and Road allocations for HUTA purposes. (Similar language was included in the previous HUT A deferral legislation that the state adopted for cash flow purposes in 2008, A8 X3 7, of 2008). 5. Contain language requested by the League that also allow local governments to temporarily use any available cash in local special funds. CRA Files Lawsuit Challenging the Constitutionality of State's Seizure of Funds The California Redevelopment Association (CRA) on Tuesday, Oct. 20 filed a lawsuit in the Sacramento Superior Court to challenge the constitutionality of the state's seizure of redevelopment funds for the state budget. The funds were raided through A8X4-26, the state budget trailer bill which authorized the use of redevelopment agency funds, $1.7 billion from the current budget year and $2.05 billion in FY 2010-11. The same court in April 2008 ruled the state's seizure of $350 in redevelopment funds for the FY 2008-09 budget unconstitutional. When the state dropped its appeal on Sept. 30, the Sacramento Superior Court's April 2009 decision became final and binding. Two redevelopment agencies are joining CRA as plaintiffs in the new lawsuit the Union City Redevelopment Agency In Alameda County and the Fountain Valley Redevelopment Agency in Orange County. The Superior Court will be asked to certify all redevelopment agencies as a class of plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The lawsuit filed on Oct. 20 challenges the constitutionality of ABX4-26 and seeks to prevent the state from taking redevelopment funds for non-development purposes. CRA has posted Information about the lawsuit, including F AQs and the A8X4-26 language on its Web site at www.calredevelo.ora. Please contact John Shirey or Lillian Henegar of CRA at (916) 448-8760 with any additional questions. CEC Offers Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program Workshops The California Energy Commission (CEC) will hold a series of application development clinics to assist eligible small cities/counties and lead collaborative applicants with their applications under the Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant solicitation. Eligible applicants may receive up to an hour of CEC staff assistance to answer questions and/or assist In preparing applications for funding. 4