Bill Talk: A fiscal fork in the road approaches
A weekly update from Cal Cities, sorting through the state bill buzz
By Cal Cities Staff
This week was somewhat quiet for cities on the legislative front. A move spearheaded by Gov. Gavin Newsom to redraw the state's electoral maps sucked all the air — or at least, the media attention — out of the room. But that will quickly change, as lawmakers must also get all high-priced bills through one more policy committee hurdle before the end of August.
Twice a year, both appropriations committees meet to determine the fate of bills with significant fiscal costs to the state. Holding a bill in either committee is a death sentence, at least for the year. And with the state facing an arguably unresolved budget deficit and federal budget cuts, lawmakers could be looking to trim more than usual. Some bills have received suspiciously high price tags, suggesting a less-than-optimal outcome is on the horizon.
On the plus side: Bills that make it to the floor for a full vote usually pass. This means the next two weeks are the last best chance to weigh in on key bills. Over the summer, we've wrapped up the biggest legislative debates and bills for city officials, from the still unresolved climate funding debate to some under-the-radar wins and major changes to a hotly contested housing bill.
-Brian Hendershot, Cal Cities Advocate managing editor
Recovery housing bills could stall out in appropriations
Cal Cities’ sponsored recovery housing bills are about to face their biggest hurdle yet. Lawmakers placed three of the measures on the dreaded suspense file — reserved for bills that have a significant fiscal impact and require more in-depth review. The measures — SB 329 (Blakespear), SB 35 (Umberg), AB 424 (Davies) — would implement recommendations from a recent state audit that found the state health agency has failed to investigate complaints against these facilities consistently and thoroughly, jeopardizing patient and community safety.
The Department of Health Care Services has provided inflated cost estimates to implement the bills, which will make it difficult for lawmakers to move these measures forward. For example, SB 329 simply requires the department to meet its own internal timelines for investigating complaints against licensed treatment facilities. Just to meet their own timelines, the department says it will need dozens of new employees, with ongoing costs in the millions.
The fourth measure, AB 492 (Valencia), is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. It has not received any no votes so far this year.
- Caroline Grinder, legislative advocate (community services)
Disaster-related sponsored measures advance amid fiscal concerns
Two sponsored bills that would help cities better prepare for disasters and become more climate resilient have progressed to Senate Appropriations with strong support. AB 846 (Connolly) would provide a streamlined path to obtain environmental permits in high fire-risk areas for wildfire preparedness programs. AB 996 (Pellerin) would provide support to coastal and bay cities for now-required sea level rise plans. Both bills are on the suspense file due to state cost concerns. Cities should submit letters of support for both bills.
- Melissa Sparks-Kranz, legislative advocate (environmental quality)
Critical water infrastructure bill receives costly critique
A Cal Cities-sponsored bill that would create a mitigation fund to help cities and water agencies remove forever chemicals from water could face critique in Assembly Appropriations due to high cost projections. SB 454 (McNerney) sailed through the Legislature with bipartisan support but is opposed by at least one state department because of its cost.
With new federal drinking water standards set to take effect in the coming years, cities and water agencies will need to invest heavily in this infrastructure soon. Cal Cities is urging lawmakers to use money earmarked for local PFAS remediation projects in 2024 climate bond as the fund’s initial infusion of cash.
Now is the time for city officials to elevate their voices by submitting letters in support to help push this critical legislation to the Governor’s desk.
- Melissa Sparks-Kranz, legislative advocate (environmental quality)
Mural bill could (or could not) land on suspense
SB 456 (Ashby) is headed to Assembly Appropriations, but it is unclear if legislators will place it on the suspense file or pass it on the consent calendar. The measure, co-sponsored by Cal Cities and the California Arts Advocates, would make it easier for cities to commission murals in their communities. The consent calendar is reserved for non-controversial, low-cost bills that are likely to pass with minimal discussion. While the bill has not received any no votes, its fate ultimately rests with the committee chair.
- Caroline Grinder, legislative advocate (community services)
Outdoor billboard measure threatens cities permitting authority
Cal Cities has an oppose unless amended position on SB 364 (Strickland). The measure would exempt some major reconstruction of outdoor billboards from local permitting review and inspection. The bill puts public safety at risk by eliminating engineering review, building safety standards, and assessment of structural integrity when billboards are modified near public spaces, roadways, or buildings.
SB 364 is in Assembly Appropriations. Cal Cities is working with the author to remove the harmful language and making the case that the bill in its current form will result in significant costs, usurp local control, and ignore existing case law.
- Damon Conklin, legislative advocate (transportation)
A quick reminder
Bill Talk is a weekly breakdown of the biggest bills, policy committee hearings, and legislative deadlines that city leaders need to know about. To get this list on Monday morning, contact your regional public affairs manager. To access old Bill Talks, visit the archive page. Cal Cities also maintains a live list of all sponsored/hot measures. Lists of all tracked bills are available on individual policy pages.