Laserfiche WebLink
State Budget Defidt -ERAF <br />In connection with its approval of the budget for the 1992 -93, 1993 -94 and 1994 -95 <br />fiscal years, the State Legislature enacte2 legislation which, among other things, reallocated <br />funds &Lm redevelopment agencies to schc.ol districts -by shifting a portion of each agency's tax <br />increment, net of amounts due to other taxhig agencies, to school districts for such fiscal years <br />for deposit in the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund ("ERAF). The amount required to be <br />paid by a redevelopment agency under such legislation was apportioned among all of its <br />redevelopment project areas on a collective basis, and was not allocated separately to <br />individual project areas. Faced with a projected $23.6 billion budget gap for fiscal year 2002- <br />03, the State Legislature adopted and sent to the Governor of the State as urgency legislation, <br />AB 1768 requiring redevelopment agencies to pay into ERAF in fiscal year 2002 -03 an aggregate <br />amount of $75 million. The Agency paid into ERAF in fiscal year 2002 -03 the amount of <br />$197,371 as its share of such $75 million See "STATUTORY MWATIONS ON TAX <br />REVENUES." <br />The State of California is currently experiencing severe financial and budgetary stress, <br />the result of which is an approximate $38.2 billion State General Fund deficit for fiscal year <br />2003 -04 at the time the State budget was being prepared. To help dose the deficit the <br />Governor proposed that the school district share of property tax revenue resulting from growth <br />in assessed value in redevelopment project areas, which is currently retained by redevelopment <br />agencies, be shifted to schools beginning at the level of $250 million of tax increment in fiscal <br />year 2003 -04, and increasing to the full amount of diverted property taxes over time (the <br />School District Shift "). Within the Project Area approximately 55% of the Agency's tax <br />increment is derived from portions of the roll attributable to school district taxes levied within <br />the Project Area. <br />On August 2, 2003, Governor Davis signed the 2003 -04 Budget into law. Both the State <br />Senate and the State Assembly passed separate bills requiring redevelopment agencies to make <br />ERAF payments, with the Senate bill requiring redevelopment agencies to shift $250 million of <br />redevelopment agency funds to the ERAF in 2003 -04, and the Assembly bill requiring an ERAF <br />shift in 2003 -04 equal to $135 million of tax increment. Both bills are silent with respect to <br />ERAF shifts in future years. The State Senate and the State Assembly have reached agreement <br />on the amount of the ERAF payment at the $135 million level and the governor is expected to <br />sign ERAF legislation with this amount for 2003 -04 into law. <br />A budget deficit is expected to arise in one or more future years and the potential <br />impact of future legislation could be material to the Agency and its ability to conduct its <br />redevelopment activities. The Agency cannot predict whether the State Legislature will enact <br />legislation requiring shifts of tax increment revenues to the State and /or to schools, whether <br />through an arrangement similar to ERAF or by any other arrangement in future years and if so, <br />whether the shift will apply only to tax increment revenues which are not required to be <br />deposited in a redevelopment agency's low and moderate income housing fund or will apply <br />also to amounts required to be deposited in a redevelopment agency's low and moderate income <br />housing fund, or whether any future shifts in revenue would be limited or affected (such as by <br />an offset of amounts required to be shifted) by pre - existing agreements between redevelopment <br />agencies and school districts, community college districts and county superintendents of <br />schools. Accordingly, the Agency is not able to predict the effect, if arty, such a shift, if <br />enacted, would have on future Tax Revenues. <br />Seismic Considerations <br />The City and the Project Area, like many other California communities, may be subject <br />to unpredictable seismic activity. There is no evidence that a ground surface rupture will occur <br />15- <br />