Here’s something I found in the minutes from the August 18, 2016 Chico Area Recreation District board meeting. They don’t post minutes up to date so this has only recently become available.
I wonder how many people would have voted for Lando, Worley or Hughes if they’d known about this.
Senate Bill 628- Enhance Financing Districts Jerry Hughes addressed the Board and encouraged the Board to lead the discussion regarding including Special Districts in the Enhanced Financing Districts legislation. He suggested that CARD contact agencies such as the California Special Districts Association (CSDA), California Parks & Recreation Society (CPRS) and California Association of Recreation and Park Districts (CARPD) and request that the topic be added to these agencies Board meetings for consideration and support. He stated that it is important that a good plan be developed to present to other agencies. Director Lando stated that he feels we need to get more information from legal Counsel.
M/S/C/ (Directors Lando/Worley) that the Board of Directors directs staff to prepare a letter requesting that Special Districts be allowed to create Enhanced Financing Districts and work with other agencies to gain support.
The vote was as follows: Ayes carried Ayes: Malowney, Ellis, Sneed, Lando, Worley Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None
Senate Bill 628, passed without a whimper in 2014, allowed CARD to tax us with 55 percent of the vote.
SB 628, Beall. Enhanced infrastructure financing districts.
Existing law authorizes a legislative body of a city, defined to mean a city or a city and county, to establish an infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, to finance specified public facilities upon approval by 2/3 of the voters.
Existing law authorizes an infrastructure financing district to fund infrastructure projects through tax increment financing, pursuant to the infrastructure financing plan and the agreement of affected taxing entities, as defined.
Existing law requires an infrastructure financing plan to include the date on which an infrastructure financing district will cease to exist, that may not be more than 30 years from the date on which the ordinance forming the district is adopted.
This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of a city or a county, defined to include a city and county, to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, upon approval by 55% of the voters; to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance, including, but not limited to, brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation; the development of projects on a former military base; the repayment of the transfer of funds to a military base reuse authority; the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of low and moderate income for rent or purchase; the acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use; transit priority projects; and projects to implement a sustainable communities strategy.
The bill would also authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to utilize any powers under the Polanco Redevelopment Act.
This bill would require the legislative body to establish a public financing authority, defined as the governing board of the enhanced infrastructure financing authority, comprised of members of the legislative body of the participating entities and of the public, prior to the adoption of a resolution to form an enhanced infrastructure district and infrastructure financing plan.
This bill would require proceedings for the establishment of a district to be instituted by the adoption of a resolution of intention that, among other things, states the boundaries of the district, the type of public facilities and development proposed to be financed or assisted by the district, and the need for the district and the goals the district proposes to achieve.
If the resolution is adopted by the legislative body after a public hearing, the bill would prohibit the public financing authority from implementing the infrastructure financing plan until specified events occur.
This bill would authorize the public financing authority to initiate proceedings to issue bonds, and would require the proposal to issue bonds to be submitted to qualified electors of the proposed district, as specified. By requiring electors to make specified declarations on ballots under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand circumstances under which a person may be convicted of a crime and thereby, would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to fund infrastructure projects through tax increment financing, pursuant to the infrastructure financing plan and the agreement of affected taxing entities, as defined. This bill would authorize the creation of an infrastructure financing district for up to 45 years from the date on which the issuance of bonds is approved, as specified. This bill would require an infrastructure financing district to contract for the performance of an independent financial and performance audit every 2 years, as specified.
This bill would authorize a city, county, or special district that contains territory within the boundaries of an infrastructure financing district, upon approval of its governing body, to loan moneys to the infrastructure financing district to fund the activities described in the infrastructure financing plan, as specified.
This bill would authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to finance a project or portion of a project that is located in, or overlaps with, a redevelopment project area or former redevelopment project area, as specified.
This bill would prohibit a city or county that created a redevelopment agency from creating a district until specified conditions related to the wind down of the former redevelopment agency have been satisfied. This bill would provide that any debt or obligation of an enhanced infrastructure financing district is subordinate to an enforceable obligation of a former redevelopment agency. This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of the city forming an enhanced infrastructure financing district to choose to dedicate any portion of its net available revenue, as defined, to the enhanced infrastructure financing district through the infrastructure financing plan, as specified.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Chico Taxpayers Association 
Didn’t read a word about this in Daugherty’s rag, “Snooze and Review” or Little’s “Enterprise Wretched.”
But you can bet when CARD wants to tax our homes even more Daugherty and Little will be all over us with reasons why we must vote yes.
I hope more people will stand up and oppose these grabs. We can’t depend on the media anymore, our local news editors are not objective as they should be. In 2017 I’m going to encourage people to attend public meetings, starting with CARD and the school district.