The top bills to brush up on while lawmakers are on break: Part II
Here are the remaining environmental, infrastructure, labor, and governance bills cities need to know about before summer recess ends. This is the second installment of a two-part story.
It's the calm before the storm. Summer recess ends on Aug. 14. When lawmakers return, they will have one month to get their bills through a barrage of legislative deadlines. Here are some of the top bills that should be front and center for city officials once the session resumes.
Three infrastructure bills to oppose
Although it’s been a mostly positive year for cities when it comes to infrastructure bills, there are three notable infrastructure measures that cities should consider opposing. AB 825 (Bryan) would prohibit cities from fining cyclists for biking on a sidewalk. Biking on the sidewalk is inherently unsafe for pedestrians. Cyclists can go too fast, lose control, and collide with pedestrians. This situation can be particularly dangerous for vulnerable populations, including the disabled, elderly, and younger children.
Another measure, AB 1082 (Kalra), would curb the ability of cities to enforce repeated parking violations. Parking enforcement helps keep streets and water systems clean, allows cities to deliver vital services, and provides access to local businesses. The bill would remove one of the few parking enforcement tools cities have left and reward people who fail to pay their parking tickets — regardless of their income — therefore making it challenging to provide those services.
AB 1637 (Irwin) would require all local agencies to transition their web services to a .gov domain. This would come at a significant and unnecessary cost to local governments. The bill has received some pushback during the legislative process.
“There aren’t any known examples of fraudsters impersonating local government websites in California,” noted the Senate Governance and Finance Committee in its analysis of the bill. “The Committee may wish to consider whether there is sufficient evidence that such fraud exists to justify additional costs and work for local governments, and whether the bill would effectively address such fraud.”
Other priority bills include:
- AB 316 (Aguiar-Curry) Transportation: Autonomous Vehicles
Cal Cities Position: Support - AB 744 (Carrillo) Transportation Planning
Cal Cities Position: Support - AB 7 (Friedman) Transportation Planning: Project Selection
Cal Cities Position: Pending - SB 30 (Umberg) Transportation: Zero-Emission Vehicle Signage
Cal Cities Position: Pending Support - AB 41 (Holden) Telecommunications: DEVCA
Cal Cities Position: Concerns - AB 400 (Rubio) Public Contracts: Design Build
Cal Cities Position: Sponsor - SB 706 (Caballero) Public Contracts: Progressive Design Build
Cal Cities Position: Sponsor - AB 334 (Rubio) Public Contracts: Conflict of Interests
Cal Cities Position: Support
Changes to SB 1383, water service rates, and rising sea level planning could be on the way
Lawmakers could make a key change to California’s organic waste law, SB 1383 (Lara). The 2016 law requires cities to reduce organic waste — a major driver of climate change — in part by procuring or purchasing organic waste products. However, many cities have struggled to meet their procurement targets due to the state’s limited organic waste infrastructure.
AB 573 (Garcia) would make it easier for cities to meet their procurement targets by allowing cities near the border to purchase California-derived compost at existing out-of-state facilities under certain conditions. The League of California Cities supports the measure.
Cal Cities and a broad group of local government stakeholders currently oppose AB 755 (Papan). This measure would require water utilities to introduce hypothetical usage scenarios when conducting a cost-of-service analysis. Service rates are based on this analysis. The hypothetical analysis could lead to inaccurate water rates and new litigation risks. The author’s office is working with Cal Cities to address these concerns.
Cal Cities is also closely tracking SB 272 (Laird). The bill would require cities within the coastal zone and the San Francisco Bay to include sea level rise planning in their local coastal programs or shoreline resiliency plans. Although Cal Cities has a neutral position on the bill, it is working with Sen. Laird to discuss ways to implement this policy without penalizing the cities with existing sea level rise plans.
Other priority bills include:
- AB 1572 (Friedman) Non-functional Turf
Cal Cities Position: Support - SB 751 (Padilla) Franchise Agreements: Labor Impasse
Cal Cities Position: Support - AB 50 (Wood) Energy Utility Communication
Cal Cities Position: Support - AB 1567 (E. Garcia) and SB 867 (Allen) Drought, Flood, and Water Resilience, Wildfire and Forest Resilience, Coastal Resilience, Extreme Heat Mitigation, Biodiversity and Nature-Based Climate Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, Park Creation and Outdoor Access, and Clean Energy Bond Act of 2024
Cal Cities Position: Support if Amended
Lawmakers weigh major changes to labor laws
Legislators are considering a suite of overly broad and potentially confusing changes to the state’s labor laws: AB 504 (Reyes), AB 1484 (Zbur), and SB 399 (Wahab). Cal Cities opposes all three measures.
AB 504 would make sympathy striking and honoring the picket line a human right. This change would upend the current bargaining process and undermine the ability of cities to provide critical services during a strike. Many unions have no-strike provisions in their contracts due to the vital nature of their jobs, which this bill would void. It is also unclear how this bill would impact employees that work in multiple jurisdictions, such as members of a public safety task force.
Another union-specific measure, AB 1484, would automatically include temporary employees in the same bargaining unit as permanent employees. The bill’s overly broad language means it would impact nurses, election workers, interns, lifeguards, and even summer camp counselors. AB 1484 would undermine the existing bargaining process and conflict with existing law.
SB 399 would prohibit an employer from requiring employees to attend an employer-sponsored meeting about religious or political matters. Many of the issues that go before city councils would fall under the bill’s definition of political matters, making it incompatible with everyday government functions. Moreover, existing law already restricts local government communications with employees. If passed, SB 399 would create significant new legal risks for cities.
Other priority bills include:
- SCA 7 (Umberg) Employment: Workers’ Rights
Cal Cities Position: Concerns - AB 764 (Bryan) Elections: City and County Redistricting
Cal Cities Position: Oppose Unless Amended - AB 557 (Hart) Open Meetings: Local Agencies: Teleconferences
Cal Cities Position: Sponsor/Support - AB 270 (Lee) and SB 24 (Umberg) Political Reform Act of 1974: Public Campaign Financing
Cal Cities Position: Support - AB 37 (Bonta) Political Reform Act of 1974: Campaign Funds: Security Expenses
Cal Cities Position: Support - SB 329 (Dodd) Cities: City Council Members: Compensation
Cal Cities Position: Sponsor/Support - SB 252 (Gonzalez) Public Retirement Systems: Fossil Fuels: Divestment
Cal Cities Position: Oppose
What’s next?
After lawmakers return from summer recess, they will have until Sept. 1 to get their bills through appropriations committees. They then have until Sept. 14 to get their bills passed and onto Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk. The Governor has until Oct. 14 to take action on any bills.
Each of these moments is an opportunity for city leaders to make their voices heard. To learn more about which measures to consider advocating for or against, subscribe to Cal Cities Advocate or contact your regional public affairs manager. Action alerts can happen quickly and often, so make sure to stay informed.