The wait continues.
Reports indicated that the leadership in both houses would push for a vote on the elimination of redevelopment in today's 9 a.m. floor sessions. The vote on the mirror bills SB 77 and AB 101 has been anticipated for two weeks as Gov. Jerry Brown has attempted to shore up support for his budget package, including some $12 billion in taxes.
Those sessions have come and gone.
Against the backdrop of unanimous Democratic support, five Republican legislators have indicated their possible willingness to side with the governor and authorize a popular vote on the extension of taxes such as the current vehicle license fee. The vote would give Brown the two-thirds majority he needs in both chambers. A package of $11 billion in cuts has already been approved and signed.
While it's unclear whether redevelopment has played into the GOP 5's deliberations, the California Redevelopment Association and the League of Calfornia Cities have been aggressively lobbying for a pair of alternative proposals. CRA officials see the delay as a chance to lobby for their alternative and have vowed to reach out to as many legislators as possible.
CRA's Option 1 would allow redevelopment agencies to voluntarily suspend their housing set-aside for FY 2011-12. An equivalent amount of funds from any source must then be contributed to local school districts in project areas. In exchange for this voluntary contribution, the agency's project area would be extended for two additional years. Agencies are free to continue contributing to their housing funds during the first year of the proposal.
In addition, or alternatively, Option 2 allows redevelopment agencies to voluntarily contribute up to 10 percent of their non-housing tax increment revenue stream each year to local school districts for 10 years, beginning in FY 2011-12. In exchange for this contribution, redevelopment agencies would be able to extend the life of their project areas for one year per percentage contributed.
Both of these options are designed to ease the state's budget burden without violating Prop. 22. Passed by voters in November, Prop. 22 prevents the state from seizing certain local funds (including RDA money). Supporters of redevelopment claim that Prop. 22 precludes the state from eliminating redevelopment agencies, such as Brown as proposed.
CP&DR will provide updates as they become available.