MEETING DATE:
APRIL 23, 2024
SUBJECT:
Title
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-9281 - LEGISLATIVE REPORT
Body
Recommendation
Recommendation
ADOPT resolution taking a position on pending legislation in the California State Legislature.
Body
Board or Commission Action
Not applicable
Relevant Council Strategic Theme
Planning for the Future
Good Governance
Introduction
The City Council adopted the 2024 Legislative Platform to guide the consideration of state and federal bills that affect City operations. In keeping with that direction, this report provides updates on State legislative activities and proposed legislation with several recommended positions on current iteration of bills in print. Staff will continue to monitor and collaborate with Cal Cities and our lobbyist teams and will bring forward for future City Council consideration such additional positions on proposed legislation as are consistent with its Legislative Platform.
Discussion
Lawmakers introduced over 2,000 bills this legislative cycle. As the April 26th fiscal bill deadline approaches, legislative committees are intensifying efforts to meet this constitutional deadline. Members are primarily focused on advancing their fiscal bills out of committee; failure to do so by the deadline will result in the bills not progressing further in the legislative process.
Many of the bills with the biggest impact to San Marcos are attached for reference to this report (Attachment A). Legislature is busy with budget subcommittee hearings and working on the more than 2000 new bills-including spot bills or placeholder measures without any specific language for budgetary use during the legislative cycle. Policy committees are slowly starting to set hearings to review and amend proposed bills.
We are beginning to see the bills take shape with either amendments and gaining or losing support as they move through the different committees. The larger associations such as Cal Cities and trade groups are beginning to position themselves on major bills.
Staff is recommending sending a letters in support or opposition for the following bills.
|
SB 1164 |
Newman |
Creates a property tax assessment exemption on newly constructed ADUs, and will deprive local governments of the revenues needed to provide and expand services that are of communitywide benefit. |
OPPOSE |
|
SB 1037 |
Wiener |
Attorney General, on behalf of HCD, can enforce the adoption of housing element revisions or to enforce any state law that requires a city to ministerially approve any land use decision or permitting application for a housing development project, as specified, would subject the city to specified remedies, including a civil penalty of, at minimum, $10,000 per month, and not exceeding $50,000 per month, for each violation, as specified. |
OPPOSE |
|
SB 937 |
Wiener |
Would prohibit local agencies from collecting the payment of fees for the construction of public improvements or facilities until the development receives its certificate of occupancy. |
OPPOSE |
|
SB 1116 |
Portantino |
Would allow striking workers to draw unemployment benefits after two weeks. |
OPPOSE |
|
AB 2561 |
McKinnor |
Would require each public agency with bargaining unit vacancy rates exceeding 10% for more than 90 days within the past 180 days to meet and confer with a representative of the recognized employee organization to produce, publish, and implement a plan consisting of specified components to fill all vacant positions within the subsequent 180 days. |
OPPOSE |
|
AB 1820 |
Schiavo |
Would require all local agencies to provide within 20 days of a request by a developer, an itemized list and the total sum of all fees and exactions for a proposed development project during the preliminary application process. |
OPPOSE |
|
AB 2631 |
Fong |
Contingent upon an appropriation for these purposes, require the Fair Political Practices Commission, in consultation with the Attorney General, to create, maintain, and make available to local agency officials an ethics training course. |
SUPPORT |
|
AB 1168 |
Bennett |
Would require a city or fire district to retain its authorities and the administration of prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) if it provided, as of June 1980, prehospital EMS through a joint powers agreement with a county and ceased to contract for, provide, or administer prehospital EMS as a result of a judicial finding, or if it is, as of January 2024, providing prehospital EMS and enters a joint powers agreement with a county for joint exercise of powers regarding prehospital EMS. |
SUPPORT |
The Governor recently signed AB 106 (Budget) Budget Acts of 2022 and 2023. The measure reflects the early action budget agreement that was announced by the Governor and legislative leaders earlier this month to reduce the budget deficit by $17.3 billion. The measure contains a mix of reductions ($3.6 billion), new revenue and borrowing ($5.2 billion), delays and deferrals ($5.2 billion) and shifts of costs from the general fund to other state funds ($3.4 billion). None of the actions affect core local government services.
The Governor announced that he will be expanding HCD’s housing enforcement unit to also include homelessness as well as add homelessness as a category in the 7th cycle of RHNA. This step comes amid criticism of the state’s administration of homelessness programs from a recent State Auditor’s report. While no discreet details are available at this time, it is anticipated that the move means more assistance for local governments with the threat of consequences like civil penalties or lost money if cities and counties fail to meet obligations like approving shelters and funding outreach.
The California Supreme Court announced that they will hear oral arguments on whether to remove the California Business Roundtable’s “Taxpayer Protection Act” from the ballot. Arguments will be heard on May 8th in San Francisco.
Environmental Review
There is no environmental impact to this recommendation.
Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adopting the proposed resolution. Unknown fiscal impacts are associated with the bills in Attachment A. A more thorough analysis of each bill’s implementation requirements is needed to demonstrate total fiscal impact.
Attachments
Attachment A: Status and analysis of legislation with a proposed City position
Attachment B: Resolution
Attachment C: Draft letters
Prepared by: Phil Scollick, City Clerk
Approved by: Michelle Bender, City Manager