HomeMy WebLinkAboutAB 225 and AB 564 CITY OF PALM DESERT
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER ` �
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: APPROVE THE PALM DESERT LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE LETTERS OF SUPPORT TO AB 225
(NESTANDE) AND AB 564 (MULLIN).
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
DATE: May 9, 2013
CONTENTS: Proposed Legislation Texts
Recommendation
By Minute Motion, approve sending letters of support for AB 225 (Nestande) and AB 564 (Mullin).
Committee Recommendation
On March 22" and April 26, 2013, the Palm Desert Legislative Review Committee recommended
that the City Council approve a letter of support for AB 225 (Nestande) and AB 564 (Mullin).
Backaround
The Palm Desert Legislative Review Committee recommended that the City of Palm Desert send
correspondence indicating its support of the following proposed legislation:
AB 225 (Nestande): SUPPORT
Existing law defines "low-speed vehicle" as a motor vehicle, other than a motor truck, with four
wheels that is capable of a minimum speed of 20 miles per hour and a maximum speed of 25
miles per hour on a paved level surface and that has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than
3,000 pounds. Existing law imposes certain restrictions on the use of low-speed vehicles on
public streets and highways, and generally requires an operator of a low-speed vehicle to have a
driver's license. A violation of these provisions is a crime.
This bill would authorize the operation of a medium-speed electric vehicle, as defined, at speeds
of no more than 45 miles per hour on a roadway with a speed limit that does not exceed 45 miles
per hour. The bill would require a medium-speed electric vehicle to meet certain safety
requirements, including specified Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The bill would make,
subject to exceptions, a medium-speed electric vehicle subject to all the laws applicable to a
motor vehicle, and the driver of a medium-speed electric vehicle subject to all the laws applicable
to the driver of a motor vehicle or other vehicle, as specified.
AB 564 (Mullin): SUPPORT
Existing law dissolved redeveiopment agencies and community development agencies, as of
February 1, 2012, and provides for the designation of successor agencies, as defined. Successor
agencies are required to wind down the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies and to,
among other things, make payments due for enforceable obligations, as defined, perForm
obligations required pursuant to any enforceabte obligation, dispose of all assets of the former
redevelopment agency, and to remit unencumbered balances of redevelopment agency funds,
including housing funds, to the county auditor-controller for distribution to taxing entities.
Staff Report: AB 225 &AB 564
May 9, 2013
Page 2 of 2
An oversight board approves certain actions of the successor agency, including the approval of
an enforceable obligation. The Department of Finance in turn reviews the actions of an oversight
board.
Certain loan agreements entered into between a redevetopment agency and the city, county, or
city and county that created the redevelopment agency are deemed enforceable obligations.
Bond proceeds derived from bonds issued by a redevelopment agency on or before December
31, 2012, are to be used for the purposes for which the bonds are sold. Enforceable obligations
may be satisfied by the creation of reserves for projects that are the subject of the enforceable
obligation. Existing law provides that an expenditure made pursuant to these provisions
constitutes the creation of excess bond proceeds obligations.
This bill would prohibit the Department of Finance from taking any future action to modify the
enforceable obligations described above following the effective date of the approval of those
enforceable obligations after review by the oversight board and the Department.
Existing law establishes a Community Redevelopment Property Trust Fund, administered by the
successor agency, to serve as the repository of the former redevelopment agency's real
properties. A successor agency is required to prepare a long-range property management plan
that addresses the disposition and use of the real properties of the former redevelopment agency,
Existing law provides for the transfer of property, and the liquidation of property and the use of
proceeds, in a specified manner.
This bill would prohibit the Department of Finance from taking any future action to modify a
transfer of property, or the liquidation of property and the use of proceeds, as described above, if
the transfer, liquidation, or use of proceeds is consistent with the approved plan of the successor
agency.
Fiscal Analvsis
There is no direct fiscal impact related to the City's opposition or support of these bills.
Submitted By:
,
CTTY COUNCILACTION
Stephe Y. ryan ' ger APPROVF.D _�� nFNIED
RECEIVED OTHER
Approval:
� MEFTING DATE 5"" 9- a�l 3
, �
_, .�, ���.w. AYFS•�ll�nt �� c2.�n�r ( ,� e�� n.rn �
. ---_ NOES:�n�nP
. , ,
� �� p (Y�N P
" �,�;. ��' '''' ABSF.NT: t�-
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager ARSTAIN: ��+��-- --
v r K���,i r��� �3v:-I`�.�
t)ri�inal on Filc with Cit�� ���-_��_:': n��ficc
AB 225
Page 1
Date of Hearing: Apr� 15,2013
ASSEMBLY COMA�IITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Boimie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 225 (Nesta�de) —As Arnended: Apr� 18,2013
SUBJECT: Med'nzrrrspeed electric vehicles
SLTMMARY: Authorizes the operation medium speed electric vehicles (MS�, as defined, on
roadways. Specifically, this b�l:
1) Defines a '4nedium-speed electric vehicle" as a vehicle that is:
a) Required to attain a speed between 40 to 45 rn�es per hour within one mile and on a
paved level surfice;
b) Possesses a fully-enclosed passenger comparlrnent with rigid doors and safety windows;
c) Has a gross vehicle weight of no more than 3,000 pounds;
d) Is propelled solely by an electric motor; and,
e) Contains a vehicle identification number that meets intemational standards.
2) Requires MSVs to meet or exceed federal safety standards, as specified, inchuling:
a) A fully enclosed passenger compartment with rigicl doors and safety windows;
b) A horn that is capable of emitting sound at specified levels;
c) Roof cn�sh resistance;
d) Electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection; and,
e) A wmdshield that conforn�s to the American National Standards Instilute's safety code.
3) Clarifies that MSVs are subject to laws generally applicable to motor vehicles.
4) Prohibits MSVs from operating at speeds greater than 45 rrnles per hour.
5) Prolubits MSVs from bemg operated on a roadway with a speed lunit in excess of 45 miles
per hour.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Defines LSVs (also known as 'Y�eighborhood electric vehicles") as:
a) Havmg four wheels;
AB 225
Page 2
b) Capable of speeds of more than 20 m�es per hour, but� more than 25 m�1es per hour;
c) Having a gross vehicle weight ratuig of less than 3,000 pounds; and,
d) Meeting federal safety requ�ements as specified for LSVs.
2) Requu�es that LSVs are subject to all laws applicable to a motor vehicle an,d all drivers of
LSVs are subject to all laws applicable to the driver of a motor vehicle as specified.
3) Requires dealers of LSVs to provide a disclosure statement to the buyer regard'mg the
operation of the LSV that is in compliance with existing provisions of state regulations.
4) Prolubits LSVs from being operated on a roadway with a speed limit in excess of 35 m�es
per hour.
5) At the federal level, requires LSVs to possess:
a) Headlarryps;
b) Stop lights;
c) Turn signal lights;
d) Taillights;
e) Reflex reflectors;
fl Parking bralces;
g) Reatview mirrors;
h) Windshields;
i) Seatbelks; and,
j) Vehicle Identification Numbers.
6) Proh�bits airy person from marnzfacturing for sale, selling, o�ering for sale, �rtroducing, or
delivering for introdu�tion in interstate commerce any new motor velucle unless the vehicle
complies with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards and is certified
accordingly.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMF,NTS: Existing state and federal 1aw provides for the use of LSVs on public highways.
LSVs are generally limited to fairly conh-olled environn�nts—that is, roads low ma.ximum
speeds allowed. Because of the bw allowable speeds, LSVs have fewer safety features than
typical passenger velucles.
AB 225
Page 3
Manufacturers have begun to produce LSVs that are capable of going greater than 25 nvles per
hour. However, these vehicles carniot lawfully be operated on California streets because they are
not made to comply with federal x�tor vehicle safety star�clards for regular passenger vehicles.
Current federal regulat�ns do not classify or provide any safety requirements for MSVs. Indeed,
federa.l regulations spec�cally state that any sma]i passenger vehicle whose maxunum speed is
higher than 25 m�es per hour must comply with the full range of motor vehicle safety standards
and does not qualify as an LSV.
Proponents assert that MSVs wouki have a number of posikive environmental impacts including
a reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. As
drivers are given the option to travel on local roads in a more cost egective and environmentally
conscious rnaimer, the mcrease in the number of electric vehicles on roadways would over tune
reduce the number of greenhouse gas emitting passenger vehicles.
The author's office reports t�at eleven other states have MSV statutes providing for speeds of 35
miles per hour or faster on public roadways. Apparently, mariufacturers of MSVs l�ave gotten
around federal motor vehicle safety standards in these states by selling vehicles that are
technically LSVs but that can have the speed controller adjusted after purchase to operate 1�1ce a
MSV.
The National Highway Traffic Safery Adrna�istration (NHTSA), which is respons�ble for seti�g
federal motor vehicle safety standards, has resisted developing unique specifications for MSVs,
stating, "...we are denying [the petrtion urging NHT'SA to create a MSV class of vehicles]
because the introduction of such a class of motor vehicles without the full complemerrt of safety
features required for other light vehicles such as passenger cars would result in significantly
greater risk of deaths and serious injuries. While NHSTSA agrees with the importance of
environmental issues, the agency believes that � is neither necessary nar appmpriate to
significantly increase the risk of deaths and serious injuries to save fueL"
REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:
Suaport
City of Riverside
Light Electric Veh�le Association
Coachella Valley Economic Partnership
Rainon Alvarez —Cfizen
Opnosition
None on file
Analvsis Prepared by: Maxmy Leon/TRANS. /(916) 319-2093
AB 564
Page 1
Date of Hearing: Apr� 24, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMIVIITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. 'xatcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 564 (Mullin) —As Ame�ied: March 12, 2013
SUBJECT: Connrnmity redevelopment: successor agencies.
SLTMMARY: Proh�bits the Department of Fina.nce, once a finding of completion is issued, from
future mod�"�cation or reversal of an action of approval by an oversight board for specified
enfi�roeable obligations of a successor agency. Specifically, this b�71:
1) Prohibits the Depariment of Finance from modifying or reversing an oversight board's action
of approval of an enforceable obligation of a successor agency, in the following instances:
a) Once a finding of completion has been issued by the Department of Finance, the
successor agency may:
i) Transfer fornier redevelopment agency-owned property to the city or county far
redevelopment upon completion of a long-tertn property management plan approved
by the Deparl�nent of Finance;
ii) Repay city loans made to the redevelopment agency; and,
iu) Use unspent bond proceeds issued by a redevelopment agency before December 31,
2010.
2) Prolubits the Department of Finance from taking any future action to modify a transfer or
properly, or the liquiclation of properiy and the use of proceeds, as long as the transfer or
liquidation is consistent wikh the approved long-range property management p]an of the
successor agency.
3) Declares, in the instances descr�bed 'm 1) and 2)that the specified actions shall be final at�ci
may be refied upon by all public and private errtrties.
4) Makes other techmcal changes.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Dissolves redevelopment agencies and provides for the designation of successor agencies.
2) Requires successor agencies to wind down the aff'airs of the dissolved redevelopment
agencies.
3) Defines "enforceable obligations."
4) Requires successar agencies make payrr�errts due to enforceable obligations, as specified.
AB 564
Page 2
5) Requires each successor agency to have an oversight board of seven members to approve
certain actions of the successor age�y.
6) Requu-es the Department of Finance to review the actions of an oversight board.
7) Requires the Department of F�e to issue a finding of completion to the successor agency,
wiklun five business days, once the following conditions have been met and verified:
a) The successor agency has paid the full amount as determined during the due d�igence
reviews and the cowity auditor-controller has reported those payrrLents to the Department
of Finance; and,
b) The successor agency has paid the full amount as determmed during the July True-up
process; or,
c) The successor agency has pa�i the full amount upon a final judicial determination of the
amounts due and confirmation that those amounts have been paid by the county auditor-
cornroller.
8) Allows the successor agency, upon receiving the fniding of completion, to:
a) Retain dissolved redevebpment agency assets;
b) Place loan agreements between the fornier redeveloprr�ent agency and sponsoring entity
on the Recogrvzed Obligation Payments Schedule (ROPS), as an enforoeable obfigation,
provided the oversight board ma.kes a fmding tUat the loan was for legitimate
redevelopment purposes; and,
c) Utilize proceeds derived from bonds issued prior to January 1,2011 in a matmer
consistent with the original bond covenants.
9) Requires, after the Department of F�e issues a fir�ding of completion, the successor
agency to prepare a long-range properiy ma.nagement plan that addresses the disposition and
use of the real properties of the former redevebpr�nt agency, and requffes the report to be
submitted to the oversight board and the Departrrient of Finance far approval no later than six
months following the issuance to the successor agency of the fir�ding of completion.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1) As part of the wind'mg down of redevebpment agencies, AB 1484 (Bh�rr�enfield), Chapter
26, Statutes of 2012,made various statutory changes associated with the dissohrtion of
redevelopment agencies arxl addressed a rnm�ber of substantive issues related to
administrative processes, affordable housing activities, repayment of loans from
co�nrninities, use of existing bond proceeds arnl the disposition or reterrtion of former
redevelopment agency assets.
AB 564
Page 3
One of the provisions m AB 1484 allowed successor agencies that have received a"fir�ding
of completion" from the Department of Finance to have additional discretion regarding
fornier agency real property assets, ban repayments to the local government comrrnunity tl�at
formed the agency, and use of proceeds from bonds issued by the former redeveloprr�ent
agency. In order to receive the finding of comp�tion, the successor agency x�ust ut�dergo
specified due diligeuce reviews and make the requa�ement pay�nents to the Departrn�ent of
Finance.
Once the successor agency receives the finding of completion, the agency gains access to
tl�ree specific benefits listed 'm statute —first, the ab�7ity to transfer former redevelopment
agency-owned properties to the cily or county fnr redevelopment upon cornpletion of a
long-term management plan approved by the Departrnent of Finance; second, the ab�7ity to
repay city loans made to the redevelopment agency; and third, the ab�ity to use unspent bond
proceeds issued by redevelopment agencies prior to December 31, 2010. However, the
repayment of city-agency loans and the e�pendihare of unspent bond proceeds would become
an"enforceable obligation." Once a finding of completion is issued, the successor agency
xnust prepare a long-range property management plan that addresses the disposfion and use
of the real properties of the fornier redevelopment agency. The report is required to be
submilted to the oversight board and the Department of Finance for approval no later than
six months following the issuance to the successor agency of the fmding of completion.
2) This bill proh�bits the Departmerrt of F�ance, once a firxiing of cornpletion is issued, from
future modification or reversal of an action of approval by an oversight board for specified
enforceable obligations of a successor agency —specifically f�r those benefrts referenced 'm
Cornmerrt #1. The b�l also prolubits the Deparhnerrt of Finance from taking any future
action to modify a transfer of property, or the liquidation of property, as long as the transfer
or liquidation is consistent with the approved long-range properiy managemetrt plan of the
successor agency.
Currently there are only a few agencies that have received a finding of completion, according
to the Deparirnent of F�as�e's websrte.
This bill is sponsored by the League of California Cities.
3) According to the author, 'The dissolution of former redevelopment agencies requ�es
successor agencies to negotiate a series of complex reviews and audits overseen by the
Departznetrtrt of Finance. From a successor agency perspective, the DOF process has been
fraught with uncertainty due to changing and inconsistent mterpretations of statutory
requirements.°
The author notes that this b�l "clarifies the statute to reflect the legis]ative intent that
successor agencies can rely on access to these benefits [from a finding of completion] over
the long term. The b�71 requires that after the initial approval of oversight board action by the
Departnient of Fina.t�ce, the successor agency arxi all other public and private entities may
rely with certainry upon tl�at decision."
This b�l will clarify, as more successor agencies are granted a finding of completion, that the
successor agency can count on these benefits witliout future di�ruption or reversal by the
Department of Finance.
AB 564
Page 4
4) Support arguments: According to the League of California Cities, ttris bill "clarifies the
statute to reflect legislative intent so s�cessor agencies can rely on access to these benefits
over the bng term...this important clarification will avoid unnecessary firture disputes,
confusion and l�igation, and assist the affected comnninities m moving on from
redevebp�nt so they can focus on their fi�ture."
Opnosition ar�nnents: It coutd be argued that the changes proposed by this bill do not need
to be made e�licit in statute.
5) This b�l is double-referred to the Assembly Housing and Corrnn�uiity Development
Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:
Support
League of California Cities [SPONSOR]
Ci�ies of Culver City, Grover Beach, Lynwood, Morgan Hi71, Pasadena
T'he Non Profit Housmg Association of Northern California
Onposition
None on file
Ar�lvsis Pret�ared bv: Debbie Michel /L. GOV. /(916) 319-3958