EZ Policy Blog

Someone turned on the memo spigot at HCD.  Today HCD issued Memorandum 8-07 dealing with some ambiguity in determining the correct effective dates of the LAMBRAs. As the memo describes the problem:

AB 2875 changed the effective date of each LAMBRA’s eight-year period. Because AB 2875 stated that a LAMBRA would begin its eight-year period after it fulfilled the later of two conditions, the legislation in effect changed the designation period stated or implied in the MOUs executed by the State Agency and signed by the LAMBRAs. This change occurred because most, if not all, of the LAMBRAs in 2002 had not met the later of the two conditions. Therefore, according to AB 2875, their eight-year period had not begun.

The conditions set forth in AB 2875 indicated that the State had to modify the terms of the original MOUs. However, based on our research, it appears that the State did not fully or accurately implement these modifications. For example, we found only two instances in which the State executed new memoranda of understanding. In both instances, the State concluded that the LAMBRAs had met the later of the two conditions specified in AB 2875 and, therefore, had begun their eight-year designation period. Upon further review, we found that at least one of these LAMBRAs had not transferred its economic development parcels as required by one of the conditions and, therefore, should not have started its designation period.

HCD has just issued a much anticipated memorandum addressing some of the most interesting dynamics of TEAs.  As stated in the memo it addresses:

• New enterprise zones must apply for a Targeted Employment Area.
• A TEA may include a census tract that overlaps with the boundaries of a jurisdiction that is not participating in the enterprise zone.
• Enterprise zones that previously attempted to include a census tract that overlapped the boundaries of a non-participating jurisdiction may re-apply to include this census tract.
• New enterprise zones may use their former TEAs during their conditional stage.
• The use of a former TEA is not impacted by the absence of former enterprise zone partners unless the TEA expired prior to 2006.
• Once approved, a new TEA will become effective on the enterprise zone’s designation date.
• Because of the Department’s policy of allowing former zones to use their former TEAs during their conditional stages, these zones will have their former and new TEAs coincide for the conditional period.

And finally, CAEZ received an update from Frank Luera of HCD.

• The Department is in the process of auditing the zones.  Frank was very careful to emphasize that the goal of these audits is to strengthen the zones and provide constructive guidence; they are not out there looking for ways to dedesignate zones.
• He told us to expect two policy memos very shortly: 1. regarding how LAMBRAs should calculate their designation periods, and 2. how to treat the TEA in cases where a new TEA is replacing an old TEA.
• There are four zones expiring in 2009 (Los Angeles Harbor, Madera, Sacramento Army Depot, and Sacramento Florin Perkins).  HCD intends to begin the application process for those four slots in early August with applications due in late January.  The application process is expected to be even more streamlined than the last round.  For those four slots, HCD has already received 16 informal indications of interest.

The next CAEZ board meeting will be in Sacramento on July 24th.  Here is the agenda.

That meeting will be followed by a workshop by HCD for those zones that are still in a conditionally approved state on how to complete the MOU phase and obtain final designation.  The workshop is only open to jurisdictions that have not yet completed MOUs for new zones.  Hopefully this will result in a more rapid completion of those designations.

It’s hard to believe, but is has been over 19 months since 23 new Enterprise Zones received conditional designations back in November 2006. All but four of the new zones were able to enjoy immediate implementation because of AB 1550. Santa Clarita, Fresno County, and Compton were all brand new to the EZ program and have all since received their final designations and are now fully functioning zones. Arvin, however remains in a state of limbo.

Some have been wondering if Arvin will ever complete their conditions for becoming an Enterprise Zone. In the mean time, they occupy one of California’s 42 EZ slots preventing any other jurisdiction from attaining that designation until some other zone expires.

But just last week Arvin Mayor Tim Tarver published an Op-Ed in The Bakersfield Californian supporting the Enterprise Zone program in general, and the Arvin EZ in particular, against any attempt to limit the program in the current budget cycle:

Faced with a budget crisis that is set to impact every Californian, tough choices will have to be made to bring order and stability for the years ahead.

The governor and our state Legislature are looking for programs they can cut without too much political backlash. But these choices must not be made in haste. We need to consider the unintended consequences of cutting statewide programs that truly make a difference in cities like Arvin, far away from the Sacramento budget epicenter.

As mayor of the City of Arvin, I know that one of these programs the Enterprise Zone program will help create needed employment opportunities for our city. Yet today this program is under serious threat of being phased out.

The EZ program will bring jobs to Arvin. And it will keep them here. One of the biggest challenges facing our area is being able to recruit local business investment and keep a healthy amount of employees working in our area.

The EZ program, with its attractive mix of incentives and credits, will aid our city in building a stronger base of local businesses and employees. This means a more financially secure and bright future for Arvin.

I spoke with a representative of the City working on the Enterprise Zone and I was told that Arvin has just completed their EIR process which will be presented to the City Council for ratification on June 24th and their intention is to send that last piece to HCD the following day. They have a letter from HCD giving them until July 18th to complete their EIR, so their hope is to be ahead of schedule. After that the ball falls into HCD’s court to compose the Memorandum of Understanding required to assign the final designation date.

As far as Arvin is concerned, they are moving their zone full steam ahead.

The Assembly and Senate Budget subcommittees this week approved the proposed reduction of $59,000 from the Enterprise Zone program within HCD’s budget. According to the Assembly fiscal analysis, “it is staff’s understanding that this cut will primarily be achieved through reduced outreach/advertising efforts.”

Hat tip - Chris Micheli.

HCD released a memo today which reads, in part:

Effective immediately, employers applying for a hiring tax credit certificate or voucher may temporarily use an Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, Form W-4 (“W-4”), to verify that an employee resided in a Targeted Employment Area (TEA) immediately preceding the commencement of employment for purposes of eligibility for the TEA category. This change indicates the Department of Housing and Community’s (Department) intention to permanently add the W-4, subject to regulatory approval, as an acceptable document for TEA eligibility. It also signals the Department’s plan to delete the Form I-9, U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, from the list of acceptable documents. The following sections describe these changes.

A new press release posted on the HCD website explains:

The State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) was presented with the “Above and Beyond Excellence Award” at the California Association for Local Economic Development’s (CALED) Annual Conference in Anaheim last week. Staff from HCD’s Division of Financial Assistance received the honor, recognizing their hard work in providing excellent service to California communities, specifically regarding the Community Development Block Grant – Economic Development program (CDBG-ED). The program provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique economic development issues.

“It’s an honor to be recognized by CALED for the work that the Department of Housing and Community Development does every day to expand safe and affordable housing opportunities and promote strong communities, “ said Lynn L. Jacobs, Director of HCD. “I’m proud that employees of the State of California are being recognized as leaders in service for communities throughout the state.”

The City of Fresno issued a press release today stating that HCD will announce the final designation of the new Fresno City Enterprise Zone at an event in Fresno today.

Long Beach received their final designation on April 9th bringing the total number of conditionally designated zones to receive final designation to 7 out of 23.  They are:

Compton, Fresno City, Fresno County, Long Beach, Oroville, Pasadena, and Santa Clarita.

Today’s Los Angeles Daily News features a front page article by Brandon Lowrey discussing the Enterprise Zone program. The article is one of the more in depth I have read and contains many interesting quotations from policymakers and experts. The subtitle to the article, “Although tax-credit areas cost $400 million, no one can prove they work” and the lead sentence display some bias, but the article covers a lot of ground.

During the past two decades, state officials have thrown billions of dollars in tax credits and other incentives at a program designed to revitalize poor areas such as Pacoima with little way of measuring its effectiveness.

No evidence is provided for the assertion of “billions” of dollars. Even the highly critical California Budget Project report, “California’s Enterprise Zones Miss the Mark,” only claims that the program has cost a cumulative $1.5 billion since 1986. Also the idea that these funds have been “thrown at” the EZ program is a little more editorializing than I care for in news stories.

Earlier this year, budget- strapped California extended the nearly $400 million-a-year program through 2021 - and the governor even expanded it by adding eight enterprise zones designed to create jobs and boost the economy.

Here too, we find the same common misconception that there was an extension made to existing zones or to the program in general. The notion that there were eight additional zones added to the program is also a byproduct of this misunderstanding.

The zones provide tax credits for businesses that hire eligible employees - including the disabled, veterans, American Indians, those laid off in a poor economy and those with criminal records. The money also can be used to buy machinery and machine parts.

But while business leaders and politicians defend the 42 enterprise zones as economic boosters, experts concede there is no definitive way to calculate how many jobs they actually have created or how effective they have been.

“We’re stuck with a program that can’t prove it works,” said Jean Ross, executive director for the California Budget Project, a nonprofit, nonpartisan economic watchdog group.

“We’re cutting back on payments to health-care providers. We’re talking about cutting state parks and beaches. We’re talking about cutting $4.8 billion out of schools.

“We can’t afford a program that can’t prove without a doubt it’s cost-effective.”

While the state awaits new data on the programs amid a budget crunch, the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office is urging lawmakers to eliminate most of the zones in the program.

“(Enterprise Zones are) certainly politically popular at some level, but there isn’t compelling evidence they do everything they’d like them to do,” said Allen Prohofsky, senior economist for the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

“We know there’s a person that’s been hired, (but) how do we know if that person wouldn’t have been hired if the credit didn’t exist?”

If all the enterprise zones renewed in 2006 were canceled as the LAO has suggested, it could save the state about $220 million over the next two years as benefits gradually run out.

In making its recommendation, the LAO said that since the zones were created in 1986, some have seen successes while others have faltered. And too many other factors are at play to tell where credit or blame lies.

Still, enterprise zones have enjoyed bipartisan political support and in many areas local leaders defend them vehemently.

When Pacoima’s enterprise status was threatened in 2006, Valley leaders lobbied the governor to save the zone, and business owners threatened to lay off employees or move their companies.

A spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger deferred questions about the expansion of the program last week to Chris Westlake, a financial director at the state department of Housing and Community Development that oversees the zones.

In 2006, the housing department completed a study defending enterprise zones.

“There was more economic prosperity in the areas that have enterprise zones, which just further emphasizes the importance of the enterprise zones throughout the state as a vital economic tool for businesses,” Westlake said, noting critics should wait until new data are in before demanding any drastic action.

“It’s also important for the state, as well, for an economic stimulus.”

Schwarzenegger hasn’t taken a position on the proposal to cancel the renewed zones, but he said he is open to discussion.

That’s an interesting way to put it.

Still, the possibility has many concerned, even as they acknowledge more needs to be done to track job creation, sales tax receipts and other measures in the zones.

“There are points of view in Sacramento that correctly argue we need to better assess the performance of the enterprise zones,” said Los Angeles Councilman Richard Alarcon, who spent eight years as a state senator and whose district includes Pacoima.

Long a staunch defender of Pacoima’s enterprise zone, Alarcon said he bases his support on anecdotal evidence during his time in the state and city governments.

“But I am telling you that the Pacoima and the Northeast Valley enterprise zone is not only a productive trigger to a more positive economy, it is a positive figure of generating revenue for the state of California.”

Economists acknowledge the zones likely provide some benefits for businesses and workers, but they are less sure that job creation is one of them.

“(The zones) can be a stabilizing force,” said Raphael Bostic, a professor at the University of Southern California’s School of Planning, Policy and Development.

“These incentives can make it easier for existing businesses, if they know about the credits, to survive and produce. So I wouldn’t say that just because they’re not inducing a whole lot of new jobs, that it’s necessarily a failure.”

Now here is a new perspective and I think the Daily News should get credit for seeking it out.

Bostic said it’s likely the benefits are reaching their intended targets - businesses and workers in poor areas - but perhaps not efficiently.

“Many of the jobs are being taken advantage of by McDonald’s and other fast-food places,” Bostic said. “I don’t know if those are exactly the kind of jobs that are envisioned. But at some level, employment is employment.”

The Public Policy Institute of California expects to release a study of the zones using new statistics from a business credit firm. But officials there said it is too early to tell what the research would show.

Economists who have studied California’s enterprise zones agree it would take a massive amount of research to show whether the zones are effective - far beyond the statistical sketches released in the 2006 housing department study.

That report used U.S. Census data from 1980, 1990 and 2000 to estimate and compare wages and the unemployment, poverty and vacancy rates within enterprise zones to other areas within the state.

Many of the areas demonstrated a higher rate of improvement in the categories than the rest of the state, although all of the areas still lagged behind the state average.

The report says “a definitive cost-benefit analysis cannot be done” for enterprise zones because of limited data and several complicating factors.

The housing department took over the enterprise zone program in 2003 from the now-defunct California Technology and Commerce Agency.

The agency soon noticed few records had been kept on the zones. And legislation in 2006 championed by state Assemblyman Juan Arambula, D-Fresno, gave the department more auditing power.

But the first official reports on the zones after that legislation still have not been completed. And while the program’s success remains murky, Arambula said he hopes future data reveal more about how the zones are working.

“They do help distressed communities to improve themselves economically,” Arambula said. “I think the reforms will be able to track which areas are doing a good job and which ones aren’t, and over time the bad ones will be weeded out and, hopefully, the good ones will prosper.”

But state Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman said it isn’t a matter of making the zones more efficient.

“I would favor making the entire state of California an enterprise zone,” the Irvine Republican said.

And Ackerman said he would battle any attempt to cut existing zones.

“It would be a tax increase for all of the businesses in that particular zone,” he said. “The more you regulate or the more you tax business in California, the more they will leave.”

Bruce Ackerman, president of the Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley and no relation to the senator, said losing the enterprise zones would remove one of the few tools left in the area’s arsenal to lure and retain business.

Though the program’s impact is unclear, Ackerman said pulling the benefits from existing businesses could be dangerous.

“That’s like saying, `I don’t know if this brand of poison is going to kill me, so I’ll just take it and see if it happens,”‘ Ackerman said. “Do you want to run that risk?”

Pacoima was among one of the first areas to gain enterprise zone status in 1986, with the zones set to expire in 2001. That year, the program received a five-year extension.

As the 2006 sunset date approached, the governor approved tacking another 15 years onto all the enterprise-zone areas except for Pacoima.

That’s not exactly right. Why is it so complicated to understand the process of zone expiration and subsequent application for new designations? Where did the Santa Clarita, Compton, Fresno County and Arvin zones come from if the Governor simply extended all zones. It’s a bit mystifying to me why this process is so befuddling.

The reason: Pacoima had too high a percentage of nonindustrial areas to qualify.

But outcry from local businesses and leaders convinced the governor to attach Pacoima to a downtown Los Angeles enterprise zone via a sliver of land that crosses from Hollywood over the Santa Monica Mountains, through Studio City.

The close call drew ire and anxiety from many Pacoima business owners.

MOC Products co-owner Nadelin Waco said she thought about firing some of her 250 workers and moving her auto-parts manufacturing business to Mexico.

“These legislators and these politicians are just driving these jobs out of our country,” Waco said. “To dare to take Pacoima out as an enterprise zone - it is just horrific. … We need businesses here to bring income, to bring jobs.”

On the other hand, I can’t see any justification for this sense of entitlement when it comes to Enterprise Zones. Since the designations are competitive, this kind of a reaction is unwarranted.

Still, even some business owners say the zones are only a small consolation amid the high costs of doing business in the state.

“It helps a little bit,” said Freddy Vidal, CEO of QMP Inc., which manufactures home and commercial drinking water systems in Pacoima.

“Either way, in California, it’s kind of difficult.”

As if HCD didn’t have enough on its plate in its attempt to catch up on Enterprise Zone tasks, the Sacramento Bee reports:

About 350 employees of the California Department of Housing and Community Development were told to stay home Thursday as a precaution because mold has been found in the downtown building where they work.

And according to the HCD website, offices are closed Friday as well.

In its March 2008 “Tax News,” FTB is extolling the virtues of Enterprise Zones in an article called “Possible boost to California’s economy“:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently announced the conditional designation for eight Enterprise Zones statewide. The zones are East Los Angeles, Kings County, Oakland, Salinas Valley, San Joaquin County, Santa Ana, Siskiyou County, and West Sacramento.

The new designations will take the place of the eight zones set out in statute that are expiring over the next several months. Each zone designation is in effect for 15 years.

In his announcement, the Governor noted, “Enterprise Zones play a key role in revitalizing economically challenged parts of our state. By helping businesses create well-paying jobs, we empower communities to climb the economic ladder and build the state’s overall economy.”
…
In 2006, a report commissioned by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) evaluated the success of Enterprise Zones in spurring economic recovery. The report showed that, on average, within Enterprise Zones between 1990-2000:

* Poverty rates declined 7.35 percent more than the rest of the state.
* Unemployment rates declined 1.2 percent more than the rest of the state.
* Household incomes increased 7.1 percent more than the rest of the state.
* Wage and salary income increased 3.5 percent more than the rest of the state.

In the next step in the designation process, the HCD will issue a conditional designation letter to each of the new zones, outlining conditions that must be met before final designation can be granted. Examples of conditions include a signed memorandum of understanding with HCD, which includes performance measures and benchmarks.

The text of the article quotes the governor as stating rather clearly that Enterprise Zones “play a key role” in boosting the economy, yet the FTB’s title uses the word “possible” in describing the economic benefit.  Interesting.

Pasadena has become the fifth of the 23 Enterprise Zones conditionally designated in 2007 to receive its final designation.  They have also received approval for their new TEA, both the zone and the TEA have an effective date of 4/10/2007.

There is a $50,000 budget reduction for the Enterprise Zone program in ABX3_3, part of the emergency budget reduction package signed  by the Govenor on Saturday.  According to the Los Angeles Times:

The Legislature passed a package of emergency budget measures Friday, which lawmakers touted as swift, responsible bipartisan action that averts a cash crisis and erases nearly half the state’s $14.5-billion deficit.

But their move would not actually reduce spending on that scale; rather, it would push most of the red ink forward with accounting maneuvers and borrowing.

The quarterly CAEZ board meeting was yesterday in Sacramento. There wasn’t too much activity except for a substantive report from HCD.

So far, only four of the 23 zones conditionally designated at the beginning of 2007 have received their final designation. With the exception of Arvin, all of the others continue to function under the “gap language” in AB 1550. What became clear at yesterday’s meeting was that at least some of this delay seems to be stemming from the zones themselves and is not necessarily a function of HCD’s legendary backlog. The question now becomes how long will such delays be tolerated before some of these conditional designation are taken away. The problem is, however, that there doesn’t seem to be any formal rules on how long this process can be allowed to go on. We should expect to see a final designation for Pasadena within the next few weeks and others will drag on throughout the year.

On the other hand, as a result of SB 341, the final designation process for the most recent eight zones could be done before the final designations of the last zones.

The next round of new zone applications will kick off in late April or early May.  There are four zones expiring in 2009 and the applications will be due some time next January.

HCD is undertaking a concerted effort to update and correct the zone street ranges published to their website.  Since FTB uses those as their primary source and will generally ignore or dismiss other sources of information, this is an important endeavor.  My concern is that street range listings are inherently problematic and notoriously difficult to maintain accurately.  HCD needs to make it clear to FTB that the street ranges are only guidelines and are likely not to be perfect; they should not be considered an exclusive and conclusive description of a zone.

HCD is still working on approving the W4 as a TEA supporting document.  The plan is to allow it as soon as the HCD legal department give a thumbs up, then move into a regulatory amendment process that will ultimately result in removing the I9 and adding the W4.  They are also working on guidelines for the acceptance of electronic I9s and W4s.

We should also expect to see about five more voucher appeals resolved and posted to the website within the next few weeks.  So far only one has been posted and that was on 8/28/07.

The first article I could find expressing the reaction of one of the five losing EZ applications comes from the Desert Sun:

The western Coachella Valley on Thursday lost a statewide competition for tax breaks to boost economic development in Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral City and unincorporated areas.

The region was not among the eight new enterprise zones announced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as part of the state’s plan to aid economically distressed areas.

“It’s a huge disappointment for all of us,” said Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley, whose district includes the proposed zone.

“We saw that as a centerpiece for business attraction and retention,” added Rick Daniels, the city manager of Desert Hot Springs.

…

Thirteen applications were submitted for the eight zones open this year and seven of the new designations went to communities that had previously expired zones.

“I don’t think you have a leg up if you are a existing zone or not,” said Chris Westlake, deputy director for the division overseeing enterprise zones in the state Department of Housing and Community Development.

“You are starting from scratch with us,” he added.

Westlake said each application, which can cost in the range of $100,000 to prepare, is judged on a point system in eight categories, from unemployment and job development plans to marketing and property availability.

“They didn’t score very well,” he said of the valley application compared to the others.

Westlake said the scores of all the applicants will be posted on the Internet soon, and his staff will be glad to discuss the choices with applicants, which is just what valley leaders want.

“We want to find out about our scoring,” said John Soulliere, president and CEO of the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, “to see if there are any issues with our application that would make it impossible for us” to apply again.

If not, then Ashley and Daniels said they plan to give it another shot.

“If we can, within a year or so, we’ll gear up and try to win next time,” Ashley said.

Westlake said there will be four open zones for new designations in 2009. Zones are good for 15 years.

The valley leaders said such a designation is really a key tool for business development, especially in trying to attract firms from out of state.

“My problem as an economic development professional is (that) without an enterprise zone or other benefits zone, a (prospective) business, unless they are flat out in love with California or willing to throw money away, it is hard to attract here,” Soulliere said.

From the Governor’s office:

Gov. Schwarzenegger Announces Eight New Enterprise Zones to Boost California’s Economy

Helping to grow jobs and improve California’s business climate, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the conditional designation for eight Enterprise Zones statewide. The zones are Siskiyou County, San Joaquin County, East Los Angeles, Salinas Valley, Kings County, Oakland, West Sacramento and Santa Ana.

“Enterprise Zones play a key role in revitalizing economically challenged parts of our state. By helping businesses create well-paying jobs, we empower communities to climb the economic ladder and build the state’s overall economy,” said Governor Schwarzenegger.

The California Enterprise Zone Program targets economically distressed areas using special state and local incentives to promote business investment and job creation. By encouraging entrepreneurship and employer growth, the program strives to create and sustain economic expansion in California communities.

The new designations will take the place of the eight zones set out in statute which are expiring over the next several months. Each zone designation is in effect for 15 years.

Businesses within Enterprise Zones are eligible for substantial tax credits and benefits, for example:

* Firms can earn $37,440 or more in state tax credits for each qualified employee hired.
* Corporations can earn sales tax credits on purchases of $20 million per year of qualified machinery and machinery parts.
* Up-front expensing of certain depreciable property.
* Lenders to Zone businesses may receive a net interest deduction.
* Unused tax credits can be applied to future tax years, stretching out the benefit of the initial investment.
* Enterprise Zone companies can earn preference points on state contracts.
* Up to 100% Net Operating Loss (NOL) carry-forward. NOL may be carried forward 15 years.

In 2006, Gov. Schwarzenegger released a report commissioned by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that evaluated the success of Enterprise Zones in spurring economic recovery. The report shows that, on average, within Enterprise Zones between 1990 -2000:

* Poverty rates declined 7.35 percent more than the rest of the state.
* Unemployment rates declined 1.2 percent more than the rest of the state.
*Household incomes increased 7.1 percent more than the rest of the state.
* Wage and salary income increased 3.5 percent more than the rest of the state.

The next step in the designation process will be the HCD issuance of a conditional designation letter to each of the new zones. The letters will outline conditions which must be met to be granted final designation. Examples of conditions include a signed memorandum of understanding with HCD, which includes performance measures and benchmarks.

The eight expiring zones were: Kings County, Los Angeles East Side, Oakland, Pittsburg, Santa Ana, Siskiyou County, and Stockton. Seven of these eight areas have just been awarded new zones along with a brand new zone for Salinas in Monterey County. That leaves Pittsburg as the only expiring zone not to receive a new designation.

We were originally promised the results of the new Enterprise Zone selections on Jan. 2.  Then we were told it would be the week of Jan. 14th.  Well, as one government source put it, “this is the government.”  Another government source told me, “We are close.”

As reported in the Sacramento Bee, Governor Schwarzenegger declared a “fiscal emergency” today and proposed across the board budget cuts throughout the entire State government.

According to Chris Micheli of Aprea & Michel, a source in the Governor’s Office confirmed that the proposed budget includes a $59,000 reduction to the Enterprise Zone program’s budget.  However, there is no proposal to suspend or eliminate the program, nor is there any indication of delaying the announcement of eight new zones expected next week.

The original HCD deadline (Jan. 2 according to page 44 of the Application Guidebook) for releasing the results of the eight winning Enterprise Zone applications has come and gone.  I reported earlier that the Department had announced this date would be delayed in order to give the Governor’s Office time to review the results.

In the mean time, since the decisions have theoretically already be made, it might be interesting to speculate on who the 13 applicants were.  I have found a wide consensus agreeing that all eight expiring areas submitted applications for new zones.  That leaves five more to account for.  Here are some “clues” I have found:

1. The City of Gardena: This article in the Daily Breeze reports that one of the achievements of their City Manager has been the application for an Enterprise Zone.
2. The City of Salinas and Monterey County: There have been a number of article, including this one from The Salinas Californian, touting Salinas Mayor Dennis Donohue’s accomplishments, including the application for an Enterprise Zone including a number of jurisdictions in south Monterey County.
3. Riverside County/West Coachella Valley: The Desert Sun reported on the application for an Enterprise Zone including the cities of Desert Hot Springs and Cathedral City.
4. The City of El Monte: I managed to find these minutes of a meeting of the El Monte Community Redevelopment Agency held 8/21/07 in which a motion was passed to submit an application for an Enterprise Zone designation.
5. ???: I’m not sure who number 13 is, but I did come across these minutes of a City Countil meeting for the City of Carson on 12/19/06 in which a study was authorized to explore a possible EZ application.

Good luck and if all goes well, you will hear the results here first.