| [1] |
BARI is describe in Appendix A. |
| [2] |
Homebase is working with the California delegation and the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development on possible long-term funding for BARI
using non-federal funding. Currently HomeBase has been directed to HUD’s
Economic Development Initiative (EDI) as a possible funding source. An
$11.5 million one-time EDI grant application is pending. |
| [3] |
BARI, Reducing Homelessness Preliminary Development Plan (San Francisco:
BARI, October 24, 1996). |
| [4] |
The funding secured as of the end of June consisted of $50,000 from
the city of San Jose, $250,000 over two years from the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation, $25,000 from the Fannie Mae Foundation, and $25,000
from the San Francisco Foundation. Pending sources of support are an additional
$75,000 from the Fannie Mae Foundation, $50,000 from the Marin Community
Foundation, and $50,000 each from San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Source:
Walker Associates, Turning Bay Area Homelessness Around, Regional Innovative
Homelessness Initiative Development Update (June, 1999). |
| [5] |
In addition to consultation with ABAG and BARI staff, the consultant
met with the RSC on May 10, and September 17, 1999; the RTF on June 24,
and September 15, 1999, and consulted with individual RSC and RTF members
frequently during the course of the study. |
| [6] |
The information in this section is based upon California Legislative
Analyst’s Office, The Tobacco Settlement: What Will it Mean to California
(Sacramento, January 14, 1999) and an e-mail update on July 2, 1999 by
LAO staff member Craig Cornett who supervised the preparation of the report. |
| [7] |
The 90%/10% split is specified in an August 5, 1998 Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the California Attorney General and local governments which
were independently suing the tobacco companies. |
| [8] |
This assessment is based on an 7/2/99 e-mail from Craig Cornett of
the California legislative analyst’s office to the author. |
| [9] |
Amy Beinart, an assistant to this study, conducted phone interviews
with people in Bay Area counties involved in the tobacco settlement. Because
she was not able to contact the decisions makers in each county and because
county-level decisions about the disposition of tobacco settlement funds
are in flux readers should confirm the status of decisions in their respective
jurisdictions before undertaking work to obtain tobacco settlement funds. |
| [10] |
Op. cit. The Tobacco Settlement: What Will it Mean to California. |
| [11] |
The settlement agreement establishes an escrow account and sets forth
a payment and distribution schedule for disbursing funds to the States.
None of the money will be distributed until a sufficient number of states
achieve "state specific finality" of their cases or June 30, 2000, whichever
comes first. Final approval will not occur until 80% of the States representing
80% of the allocated distribution obtain approval of their consent decrees
and all challenges and appeals are heard by their state courts. According
to an e-mail to the author from Craig Cornell who is monitoring the tobacco
settlement for the office of the California legislative analyst, California’s
cases are very close to final and the Attorney General expects finality
prior to the end of 1999. Finalization in New York state is moving more
slowly. If and when California and New York achieve "finality" funds will
begin to flow. California’s budget assumes that this will occur before
June 30, 1999 within the 1999-2000 fiscal year. |
| [12] |
For example, the amount could be reduced if Congress enacts legislation
that requires other payments by the tobacco industry. The federal government
might seek reimbursement for its Medicare-related costs from the States.
If any of the defendants goes bankrupt the settlement amount will be reduced. |
| [13] |
California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 11901 - 11934. |
| [14] |
In other States RETTs are sometimes referred to as Title Transfer taxes
or Conveyance fees. Table 8 below indicates that twelve states and three
counties in other States use RETT revenue to fund housing trust funds.
A closely related device is a Document Tax where the tax or fee is charged
based on the deed or other documents relating to the transfer of realty. |
| [15] |
San Francisco - which is a city and county - received $33,572,563.
Other Bay Area cities which received more than $1,000,000 in RETT revenue
in 1996-1997 are: San Jose ($19,761,858), Oakland ($17,645,153), Berkeley
($5,094,374), San Mateo ($3,294,201), Hayward ($2,295,809), Alameda ($2,293,
717), Mountain View ($2,200,878), Palo Alto ($1,993, 697), Richmond ($1,952,776),
San Leandro ($1,693,995), and Santa Rosa ($1,595,809). Source: California
Controller, Financial Transactions of California Cities FY 1996-97 (Sacramento:
Office of the Controller, 1998). |
| [16] |
Section 11931 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code states: "All
money which relates to transfers of real property located in a city which
imposes a tax on transfers of real property not in conformity with this
part shall not be credited against the county tax and the entire amount
collected by the county shall be allocated entirely to the county." |
| [17] |
RETT tax rates per $1,000 for Alameda county cities are: Alameda ($5.40),
Albany ($8.50), Berkeley ($15.00), Emeryville ($0.55), El Cerrito ($7.00),
Hayward ($4.50), Oakland ($15.00), Piedmont ($13.00), Richmond ($7.00)
San Leandro ($6.00). This information was supplied to Richard LeGates by
Robert Spencer of Muni Financial in Oakland. |
| [18] |
Real Estate Research Council of Northern California, Northern California
Real Estate Report, First Quarter, 1999 (San Luis Obispo, 199), p.16. |
| [19] |
Article XIIIA, section 4 of the California Constitution contains the
following language: "Cities, counties and special districts, by a two-thirds
vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes
on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction
tax or sales tax on the sale or real property within such City, County,
or special district." |
| [20] |
The rate of appreciation (or depreciation) of Bay Area real property
has varied considerably over time. Property values have risen by over 20%
a year in some jurisdictions during prosperous times. During recessionary
times they have been stagnant for several years in a row. In a few markets
such as high end San Mateo communities in the early 1990s they have declined
for several years in a row. |
| [21] |
California Redevelopment Association, California Affordable Housing
Handbook (Sacramento: CRA, 1998) and David F. Beatty, Joseph E. Coomes,
Jr., T. Brent Hawkins, Edward J. Quinn, Jr., and Iris P. Yang, Redevelopment
in California 2nd ed. (Puenta Arena, CA: 1995) provide overviews of the
tax increment set aside. |
| [22] |
California Redevelopment Law s. 33334.2 et seq. Added by AB 3674 (Montoya,
1996). |
| [23] |
California State Controller Financial Transactions Concerning Community
Redevelopment Agencies (Sacramento, annual). |
| [24] |
California State Department of Housing and Community Development, Redevelopment
Housing Activities, Fiscal Year 1996-1997 (Sacramento: HCD, April, 199).
Currently Gary DePrato is the HCD staff member who compiles the annual
Redevelopment Housing Activities Report. |
| [25] |
Senate Committee on Housing and Land Use, End or Means: Redevelopment
Agencies Housing Programs (Sacramento: November 13, 1996). |
| [26] |
California Constitution, Article 16, Section 18. |
| [27] |
California Attorney General’s Opinion 98-406 (August 27, 1998), Conclusion
2. |
| [28] |
California Redevelopment Law, s. 33334.2(g). |
| [29] |
Ibid. s. 33334.17. Transfers can take place only if the legislative
bodies of the donor community and the receiving community enter into a
mutually acceptable, binding contract and each of 24 conditions are met.
For example, the receiving community must spend the money within three
years, the transfer must result in the development of a greater number
of dwelling units than would otherwise occur, and the donor agency must
have met 50% or more of its share of regional housing needs. Moreover,
there are limits as to where the transfers can take place. If the redevelopment
agency is a county agency, the transfers must occur within the same county.
If it is a city, the transfer must occur within the same county in a contiguous
community or a community within five miles of the donor community. |
| [30] |
Senate Committee on Housing and Land Use, End or Means: Redevelopment
Agencies Housing Programs (Sacramento: November 13, 1996), p 14 reported
that no redevelopment agency had ever used this authority as of that time. |
| [31] |
SB 1719 (Presley, 1988). |
| [32] |
Senate Interim Committee on Housing and Land Use, End or Means: Redevelopment
Agencies Housing Programs (Sacamento: November 13, 1996), p14. AB 3208
(Epple, 1992) Health and Safety Code s. 33334.18 allowed Cerritos to loan
$15 million in low and moderate income housing funds to pay for direct
costs of developing senior housing in Artesia. The loan was never made.
AB 3325 (Tucker, 1992) Health and Safety Code s. 65584.3 authorized communities
near the Los Angeles Air Force Base to transfer up to 50% of their low
and moderate income funds to a new joint power agency which would develop
affordable housing that they felt might convince the Pentagon not to transfer
the Airbase to New Mexico. The joint powers agency was never formed and
the airbase did not move. SB 1718 (Hill, 1992) Government Code s. 65584.3
permitted the City of Industry, California to transfer its annual set-aside
money to the Los Angeles Housing Authority. There was controversy about
the amount that should have been transferred, litigation, and further delay
in use of the funds. |
| [33] |
Op cit. End or Means. |
| [34] |
Ibid., p. 2. |
| [35] |
AB 639 (1998). |
| [36] |
See the testimony of Catherine A. Rodman of the San Diego Friends of
Legal Aid to the Senate Committee on Housing and Land Use. Op cit. End
or Means. |
| [37] |
Lancaster, California was enjoined from using TISA funds for two railroad
overpasses. Poway was held to have improperly used its low and moderate
housing funds to pay for a sound wall. |
| [38] |
California Health and Safety Code s. 33334.12 [1]. |
| [39] |
Polanco-Feguson Housing Assistance Act (AB 4566, Polanco, 1988). |
| [40] |
This provision was enacted by AB 1290 (Isenberg, 1993) as part of The
Community Development Reform Act of 1993. The "use it or die" sanctions
prohibit authorities which have not spent their TISA funds in a timely
way from incurring new debt, issuing bonds, or expanding redevelopment
project areas. They only permit agencies to spend 75% of the prior years
funds used for administrative costs. The sanctions apply until the agency
has expended or encumbered the excess surplus plus an additional amount
equal to 50% of the excess surplus amount. |
| [41] |
California Research Bureau, Redevelopment Agency Housing Data: Reporting,
Collecting, Compiling, and Publishing Issues (Sacramento: CRB, February,
1997). |
| [42] |
Ibid. p. 7. |
| [43] |
California State Auditor, Community Redevelopment Agencies: Surplus
Balances in Lower-Income Housing Funds Are Overstated, Suggesting a Need
for More Statewide Oversight and Direction (Sacramento: CSA March, 1998
Report Number 97101). |
| [44] |
Ibid. Results in brief http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/summaries/97101sum.html. |
| [45] |
California Research Bureau, Redevelopment Agencies’ Housing Programs
"What the Numbers Say", testimony by Jennifer Swenson to the Senate Committee
on Housing and Land Use, November 13, 1996 reprinted in Op cit. Senate
Committee on Housing and Land Use, End or Means: Redevelopment Agencies
Housing Programs (Sacramento: November 13, 1996) contains detailed figures
on TISA and TISA funding statewide. |
| [46] |
Santa Cruz County ($11,716,398), Foster City ($9,689,951), Napa County
($7,336,027), and Morgan Hill ($7,470,705). These four redevelopment authorities
held $36,213,081 of the $77,491,076 total 1996-97 TISA unencumbered balance
funds. Op. cit. Redevelopment Housing Programs. |
| [47] |
California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) s. 1500 et. seq. |
| [48] |
California Administrative Code, Title 2, Subdivision 8. |
| [49] |
Op cit. CCP, s. 1501.5(a). |
| [50] |
The most important sections of the law regarding estates where there
are no known heirs or where heirs cannot be located are California Probate
Code Sections 6404, 6800 - 6806, and 11900 - 11904 and California Code
of Civil Procedure ss 1440 - 1449. These and other relevant law are summarized
in Bancroft Whitney’s, California Civil Practice: Probate and Trust Proceedings
( San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney, September, 1996) and Bruce S. Ross and
Justice Henry T. Moore, Jr, California Practice Guide, Probate Chs 3 -
16 (Encino, CA: The Rutler Group Ltd., 1998). |
| [51] |
California Probate Code, s. 6800. |
| [52] |
Ibid s. 6801 (real property), s. 6802 (personal property), and s. 6804
(intangible property). |
| [53] |
Ibid s. 11900(b). |
| [54] |
Op cit CCP, s. 1444. |
| [55] |
Ibid s. 1444.5 provides that when the money on deposit with the county
treasurer received from a public administrator in trust for a deceased
person or the creditor of a deceased person in any one estate left over
after the final accounting is fifty dollars ($50) or less and not covered
by a decree of distribution, it shall be deposited in the State School
Land Trust. |
| [56] |
CCP s 1446 and California Penal Code s. 5061 (state penal institutions),
CCP s 1447 and California Welfare and Institutions Code s. 166 (state mental
institutions), and CCP s 1448 and California Welfare and Institutions Code
s. 1015 (state youth institutions). |
| [57] |
California State Controller, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1998. (California State Controller,
Sacramento, 1998). |
| [58] |
California Business Improvement District law of 1994. |
| [59] |
An IDA website-- http://www.ida-downtown.org/publicat/index.html
--describes
their publications. These include, Business Improvement Districts: Tool
for Economic Development, and Responses to Panhandling and Homelessness. |
| [60] |
The "partnerships in Transition from Homelessness" program is described
at an IDA website-- http://www.ida-downtown.org/Initiatives/index.html.
IDA President Betsy Jackson is the contact person for this initiative.
She may be contacted at (202) 293-4505 or bjackson@ida-downtown.org. |
| [61] |
Hormann Associates’ website is http://www.Hormann.net/bid_body.htm |
| [62] |
Samaritan Village, Project Rebound, and St. Lukes Respite Center. |
| [63] |
Hausrath Economics Group, Creating a Housing Trust Fund for Santa Clara
County (Oakland: Hausrath Economics Group, April, 1997). Table II.7 of
this study on p. II-12 of the report contains a final ranking of 12 potential
revenue sources they identified based on revenue potential, adoption requirements,
revenue stability, and implementation costs into 8 levels. The authors
recommended that the county pursue all the sources identified in bold:
1 Sales Tax, 2 Property Tax, 3 existing general fund revenues, document
recording fee, 4 existing housing bond program fees, 5 public land sales,
redevelopment tax increment, 6 commercial development linkage fee, inclusionary
zoning in-lieu fee, real estate transfer tax, 7 transient occupancy tax,
8 utility tax. |
| [64] |
The Denver metropolitan region has less than 1/3 the population of
the BARI region and only 5 counties and 7 participating cities compared
to the 11 counties and 117 cities in the BARI region There are 9 counties
and 101 cities in the ABAG region. Monterey and Santa Cruz counties participate
in BARI. There are an additional 12 cities in Monterey County and 4 in
Santa Cruz county. |
| [65] |
http://housing.hcd.ca.gov/ca/loanGrantDir.pdf. |
| [66] |
Walker and Associates, Northern California Grantmakers Task Force on
Homelessness What We’ve Learned 1989 - 1995 (Oakland, CA: Walker Associates,
March, 1996). |
| [67] |
Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission 483 U.S. 825 (1987). |
| [68] |
Hausrath Economics Group, Creating a Housing Trust Fund for Santa Clara
County (Oakland: HRG, April, 1997), p. II-12. |
| [69] |
Ibid, p. II-6. |
| [70] |
See Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) and HUD Regional Initiative,
Health, Housing and Integrated Services (HHISM) Policy Strategy for Services
Linked to Housing: Analysis and Recommendations (Oakland: CSH, 1999). |
| [71] |
The LAHSA JPA document is an 11 page legal document adopted by the
governing bodies of the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County. |
| [72] |
e-mail from Mary Brooks, Director, Center for Community Change Housing
Trust Fund Project to Richard LeGates 8/4/99. |
| [73] |
The Center for Community Change Housing Trust Fund Project publications
include: Guide to Developing a Housing Trust Fund 2nd ed (1999), Status
Report on Housing Trust Funds in the United States (1997), Summary of Revenue
Sources Committed to Existing Housing Trust Funds (1991), Their web site
is: http://www.Communitychange.org/htf.html.
Their quarterly report is titled News from the Housing Trust Fund Project. |
| [74] |
The Housing Trust Fund project website now lists the total number of
housing trust funds at 130; twenty-four more than in 1996. |
| [75] |
Op. cit. CCC, Summary of Revenue Sources Committed to Existing Housing
Trust Funds (1991). |
| [76] |
Center for Community Change, A Status Report on Housing Trust Funds
in the United States (Washington, D.C., 1997), p. 75. |
| [77] |
For example Knoxville, Tennessee and Bloomington, Indiana established
housing trust funds before they had any revenue source. Center for Community
Change, A Status Report on Housing Trust Funds in the United States (Washington,
D.C., 1997). |
| [78] |
See Mellior Scott, The San Francisco Bay Region 2nd ed (Berkeley: U.C.
Press, 1985). |
| [79] |
See Peter Leyden, San Francisco’s Bay Vision 2020 Commission: A Civic
Initiative for Change (U.C. Berkeley Institute for Urban and Regional Development,
1993). |
| [80] |
The ABAG comprehensive sub-regional planning program is further described
on the ABAG website: http://www.ABAG.ca.gov. |
| [81] |
Miami-Dade county receives about $6.2 million a year from the food
and beverage tax and received a $15 million two-year HUD grant. See Appendix
C.; |
| [82] |
LAHSA spends $5 million a year in county and city funds and received
a $20 million two year HUD grant. See Appendix C. |
| [83] |
The Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative (MDHI) received a two year
$5 million HUD innovative initiatives grant. The population of the MDHI
metropolitan region is 1.8 million people. |
| [84] |
The San Francisco Bay Area as used in this report is defined as the
area within the 9 counties included in the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) region: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Marin, Napa, Sonoma,
Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties. There are 101 incorporated
cites within this 7,000 square mile region. Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties
are also BARI members. |
| [85] |
In 1995 the Bay Area received a one-time $7,000,000 HUD "Innovative
Initiatives" grant to address homeless issues on a regional basis. As of
June 24, 1999 the initiative had received an additional $350,000 in local
government and foundation funding. The initial grant was for the period
October, 1996 - December, 1998. A one-year no cost extension extended the
grant period to September 31, 1999. The March 31, 1999 BARI Progress Report
to HUD reported that at that time $5,520,068 -- 79% -- of the original
HUD grant had been expended. |
| [86] |
The RTF was originally called the BARI allocations committee. The members
consist of one representative of each of the nine Bay Area counties selected
by county supervisors, and of 5 large cities (S.F., Oakland, San Jose,
Berkeley, and Richmond) selected by the city councils, the secretaries’
representatives of 4 agencies most involved in homelessness (HUD, HHS,
ED, and Veterans Affairs), two business and one labor representative selected
by the Bay Area Council, three representatives of Foundations selected
by the Northern California Grantmakers Task Force on Homelessness, and
three homeless or formerly homeless people selected from among people nominated
by homeless organizations. |
| [87] |
This description of the BARI institutional partners is taken from HomeBase,
Turning Homelessness Around (San Francisco: HomeBase, July, 1999). |
| [88] |
BARI, Collaborative Plan & Appendix (San Francisco: BARI, 1995). |
| [89] |
HomeBase, Turning Homelessness Around (San Francisco: Homebase July,
1999). |
| [90] |
California Government Code Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title
1. |
| [91] |
Joint Powers Agreement Between County of Los Angeles and City of Los
Angeles Creating an Agency To Be Known As The Los Angeles Services Authority
December 17, 1993. |
| [92] |
Initially both parties’ Cold/Wet Weather Emergency Shelter Programs
and some McKinney homeless assistance funds were included in the JPA plus
other city and county programs including city neighborhood facilities funds
and county Emancipated Youth Housing, Emergency Shelter Grant, Consolidated
Skid Row Services, Sundown, and Homeless Coordination programs. |
| [93] |
HUD’s Supportive Housing Program (SHP) currently represents the largest
dollar amount of funding to the region for homeless services. Other sources
of LAHSA funds include Emergency Shelter Grant Programs (ESGP), Emergency
Food and Shelter Grants (EFSG), and CDBG allocations. |
| [94] |
The standing committes are: Executive, Budget and Finance, Human Resources,
Community Relations, Strategic Planning, Legislation, Grants, SuperNOFA,
and Winter Shelter. The program-based committees are: Census 2000 and Facilities. |
| [95] |
The stated strategic objectives are: (1) Expand the Continuum-of -care
Plan to guide funding and resource allocation decisions, (2) Strengthen
linkages to government partners, the Commission, the Advisory Board, and
the community at large, (3) Explore opportunities to shape policies that
affect homeless persons or the providers who serve them, (4) promote a
better understanding of present-day homelessness for the general public,
providers, and government. |
| [96] |
LAHSA Semi-Annual Report (Los Angeles: LAHSA, 3-31-98). |
| [97] |
Michael Pottinger, Peter Carter, Berry Young et al. v. City of Miami
(Case No. 88-2046-CIV-Atkins (November 16, 1992). The case was brought
by homeless individuals who alleged that they were harassed. Judge Atkins
ordered certain areas within Miami declared "safe zones" in response to
the lack of emergency housing for the homeless in Dade County. |
| [98] |
Florida Statutes s. 212.0306 (HB 2509, 1st Engrossed, 1994). |
| [99] |
Dade County Municipal Ordinance O # 94-66, Ordinance Creating the Dade
County Homeless Trust. Enacted May 3, 1994. |
| [100] |
Sales in veterans and fraternal or other chartered or incorporated
clubs, hotels and motels, are exempt. The tax does not apply to alcoholic
beverages sold by the package for off sale consumption. |