Proposed Brown Act changes could be costly for cities

By Johnnie Piña, legislative advocate (governance)

The Legislature is considering SB 707 (Durazo), a sweeping bill that would overhaul local government meeting requirements under the Ralph M. Brown Act. Cal Cities is opposed to SB 707 unless it is amended to address cost and flexibility concerns.

Sen. María Elena Durazo has taken a collaborative approach to crafting the bill, which has resulted in many positive provisions. However, as drafted, the bill imposes costly, prescriptive mandates on cities without providing the resources or flexibility needed to implement them.

Among its requirements, SB 707 would force many city councils to:

• Provide two-way telephonic or audiovisual access for all meetings and halt business during service disruptions.
• Translate agendas into all “applicable languages” spoken by 20% or more of residents with limited English proficiency.
• Provide a space for community-submitted translations, even if they are inaccurate or misleading.
• Create and maintain multi-language webpages with agendas, instructions, and meeting procedures.
• Expand outreach and electronic systems for agenda access.

These mandates would create significant new costs — from expensive audiovisual equipment and translation services to staff training, website redesigns, and facility modifications. Cities are already facing fiscal strain due to state budget pressures, flat revenues, and new unfunded mandates. Unlike other mandates, Brown Act obligations are not eligible for state reimbursement, meaning cities must absorb the full cost of compliance.

The bill applies many of its mandates unevenly due to its overlapping definitions of legislative bodies. For example, roughly 100 smaller cities would be exempt from the new rules. However, 100 cities of the same size would need to comply simply because they are in larger counties.

Adding to the imbalance, the state itself is exempt from the very rules it seeks to impose. The Legislature, state boards, and commissions are not bound by the same translation, hybrid access, or posting requirements that cities would face.

SB 707 would take effect on Jan. 1, giving cities just a few months to redesign meeting systems, buy equipment, and train staff — all without dedicated funding. Cal Cities is urging lawmakers to delay implementation until early 2027 to give cities sufficient time to prepare and change some of the bill’s more onerous requirements.

SB 707 will be heard this Friday on the Assembly suspense file, where it will either move to the Assembly Floor or be held for the year. Cities can submit a letter opposing the bill using Cal Cities’ sample letter.

As negotiations continue, the bill is likely to see more amendments.