California 2021-2022 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB438

Introduced
2/16/21  
Refer
2/25/21  
Refer
2/25/21  
Report Pass
3/25/21  
Report Pass
3/25/21  
Refer
3/25/21  
Report Pass
5/20/21  
Engrossed
5/24/21  
Engrossed
5/24/21  
Refer
5/28/21  
Report Pass
6/10/21  
Report Pass
6/10/21  
Refer
6/10/21  
Refer
6/10/21  
Report Pass
6/23/21  

Caption

Redevelopment: enforceable obligations: City of Atascadero.

Impact

This legislation directly impacts the financial and operational protocols of successor agencies, specifically in how they interact with former redevelopment agencies' obligations. By affirming that certain loan agreements remain binding, SB 438 seeks to provide essential financial assurances to stakeholders in Atascadero that their agreements will be upheld. Moreover, the bill illustrates legislative intention to accommodate unique fiscal circumstances that might require tailored regulations, as asserted through its justification for being a special statute rather than a general one. This distinction underlines the importance of local contexts in legislative decision-making.

Summary

Senate Bill 438, introduced by Senator Laird and coauthored by Assembly Member Cunningham, aims to provide clarity regarding specific loan agreements made between the City of Atascadero and its former redevelopment agency prior to the dissolution of such agencies. Notably, the bill adds a new section, 34177.9, to the Health and Safety Code, which designates certain loan agreements for the specified period from January 1, 1999, to January 1, 2003, as enforceable obligations that bind successor agencies. This addresses potential ambiguities concerning the enforceability of certain financial obligations following the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in California as of February 1, 2012.

Contention

While the bill appears to benefit the City of Atascadero, discussions around its provisions indicate potential contention regarding the implications for broader state policy on redevelopment agencies. Critics may argue that such special statutes could lead to inconsistent regulations across California, which might further complicate the resolution of obligations for other municipalities experiencing similar fiscal challenges. This highlights an ongoing tension between maintaining localized control over financial matters and adhering to standardized state regulations, raising questions about whether exceptions will proliferate, potentially undermining regulated uniformity.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1270

Redevelopment: successor agency: City of Lake Forest.

CA AB2780

Dissolution of redevelopment agencies: enhanced infrastructure financing districts: City of Selma.

CA SB734

Redevelopment agencies: passthrough agreements: modification.

CA SB532

Redevelopment: City of Glendale: bond proceeds: affordable housing.

CA AB411

Redevelopment: City of Santa Cruz: bond proceeds: affordable housing.

CA SB593

Redevelopment: successor agency debt: City and County of San Francisco.