“The CalFed-Home Water Agency Act #21336” (File No. SA2001RF0008).
CHAIR VICE CHAIR STEVE PEACE TONY CARDENAS
SENATE ASSEMBLY DICK ACKERMAN ROY ASHBURN
DEDE ALPERT PATRICIA C. BATES JIM BATTIN JACKIE GOLDBERG
K. MAURICE JOHANNESSEN FRED KEELEY JACK O’CONNELL CAROLE MIGDEN
RICHARD G. POLANCO GEORGE RUNNER JOHN VASCONCELLOS RODERICK WRIGHT
April 6, 2001
Hon. Bill Lockyer Attorney General 1300 I Street, 17th Floor Sacramento, California 95814
Attention: Ms. Tricia Knight Initiative Coordinator
Dear Attorney General Lockyer:
Pursuant to Section 9005 of the Elections Code, we have reviewed the proposed initiative
entitled “The CalFed-Home Water Agency Act #21336” (File No. SA2001RF0008).
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) currently has a
number of responsibilities related to housing in California, including implementing and
enforcing building standards, administering housing finance programs, and providing
statewide housing policy guidance.
This measure gives the department additional responsibilities related to the development of “affordable housing communities” adjacent to planned lakes and reservoir systems.
Specifically, HCD would be authorized to consult with a variety of entities (state
agencies, private developers, and other organizations) to develop affordable housing
communities larger than 2,000 subdivided units but no more than 36,000 units, on a
minimum of 2,000 acres.
The measure gives the department the authority to approve these communities’ development under specified conditions.
It is unclear whether this authority would supercede a local government’s existing land use approval authority.
The department would be required to develop an Internet-based database to track affordable housing communities and monitor a variety of information regarding them.
Hon. Bill Lockyer 2 April 6, 2001 Fiscal Effect
The measure requires the development of an extensive Internet database to track
and provide marketing data on affordable housing developments. This system would
likely require several millions of dollars in one-time start-up costs, with lesser ongoing
maintenance expenses for the system.
This measure authorizes, but does not require, the department to develop the affordable
housing communities. If the department pursued the development of these communities, the state would experience administrative costs related to the establishment of guidelines and standards for their development. Additional fiscal costs would largely depend on the number of projects that the department opted to undertake. The development of each community would likely impose a number of administrative costs on state government, including planning and review procedures and working with any project participants.
To the extent that this measure changed the value of land use development from
what would have occurred otherwise, local governments would experience a change in
annual property tax revenues.
Any change in property tax revenues allocated to school districts would generally result in a change in state General Fund obligations for spending on schools. The magnitude of any change in property taxes is unknown and would depend on a number of factors (such as, the number of projects developed and how the
measure affected the types and intensity of land development in the state).
The measure would result in the following major fiscal impacts:
• Increased state costs—primarily for an Internet database—likely totaling several
millions of dollars on a one-time basis with lesser ongoing costs, depending on
the number of affordable housing developments.
• Unknown impact on future local government property tax revenues.
Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst
and B. Timothy Gage Director of Finance