By Marc Empey
According to the California Planning & Development Report (CP&DR) staff, there are possible changes to California’s Infrastructure Financing District law that may have implications for individuals and corporations looking to take part in redevelopment in the state. Some of the changes proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown, however, may be confusing and are best explained by your Coachella Valley real estate attorney.
According to the CP&DR, Brown’s proposal calls for the expanded use of IFDs for areas in California that have settled payments to other agencies as well as redevelopment lawsuits against the state. Although the California legislature approved IFDs in the early 1990s to permit use of tax increment financing to fund infrastructure without proving the existence of blight, this tool has rarely been used because of a requirement stating two-thirds of local voters must approve the creation of such districts.
According to CP&DR, Brown’s support for expanded IFDs to spur economic development is most likely a step to revive tax-increment financing, which was eliminated in California in February 2012. Redevelopment of military bases, urban infill, transit projects, affordable housing and associated consumer services are proposed IFD uses. Redevelopment projects would have to show tangible benefits for local residents. The governor also suggested IFDs could be used in former redevelopment areas and suggested that the voter approval margin be reduced to 55 percent for local governments who want to use IFDs for such purposes. Transit projects under the proposal are assumed to mean redevelopment inside transit priority areas, created by local governments under the California Environmental Quality Act streamlining bill.
Strict limitations on expanded use of IFDs may be required under the proposal. We, as real estate and land law attorneys in Coachella Valley, keep up to date on this information to help clients with possible implications. These limitations may include requiring a “Finding of Completion” from the state, agreement with RDA audit findings and no outstanding lawsuits against the state. You can read the full article here.