Senate Local Government Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Local Government Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
Okay. So what's that first? Oh. You must be here. Are doing over there?
Okay. Motion for consent calendar. Mhmm.
Speaker 2
The motion is to adopt the consent calendar, which consists of file item number two, s b 10 o five, file item three, s b ten eighty, file item six, s b nine thirty five, and file item seven, s j r 11. Senators Dirazzo? Aye. Dirazzo, aye. Choi?
Speaker 2
Choi, aye. Aye. Aye. Ashby? Cervantes?
Laird? Laird, Cerrato? I. Cerrato, I. Four zero.
Okay.
Speaker 1
They will consent will remain on call. Okay. Great. So we'll move on now to item number four. Both bills will be presented.
By Senator Laird, starting with item four SB nine twenty two. Senator Laird, you may begin.
Speaker 5
Senator Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. Senate Bill nine twenty two upholds a local government's longstanding ability to recover the cost of street maintenance and repair caused by public service operations such as waste hauling. Local governments are responsible for maintaining most local streets and roads. Heavy duty service vehicles, including those providing essential solid waste and recycling services, regularly use local streets and contribute significantly to pavement deterioration. For decades, and I repeat, for decades, it has been a standard practice to integrate the cost of repairing this damage into rates, fees, or franchise agreements associated with providing those utility services.
A recent court decision in Rogers versus the City of Redlands disrupted the longstanding practice of recovering some road maintenance costs through agreements with utility service providers. This bill, SB nine twenty two, clarifies the relevant code section to state that recovering road maintenance costs associated with providing public works and services does not fall within existing prohibitions on imposing weight based fees for the privilege of using local streets and highways. Cities, labor groups, service providers like waste haulers, are in joint support of this effort. Service providers benefit from the certainty that their fee contracts will be upheld, and local governments will be able to maintain usable roads to prevent damage for expensive service equipment. There is opposition to the bill, and the concern is that local jurisdictions will impose additional construction or development fees.
This bill will not do that. It simply upholds the longstanding practice of integrating road maintenance costs into utility service provider agreements. So just to be clear, this is not a vehicle miles tax, nor does it open the door to VMPT anywhere in the bill. This is not a backdoor way for cities or counties to impose new fees or taxes. There was one letter where it said this is an unchecked expansion of local authority.
That is just nonsense. This was done for thirty five years, and a court decision last year questioned it. This bill just fixes the court decision and goes back to where we were for thirty five years. And I think it's really instructive that waste haulers, the primary payers of this, are in support of the bill. They want certainty along with cities and counties.
And if you look at the analysis, it talks about the fact that there's a difference between a fully loaded car at 4,000 pounds and a fully loaded utility truck at 60,000 pounds. And that does do damage to streets. And this allows the local governments to recover some money against that damage. It is directly related to that. With that, I would request an I vote, and here to provide testimony is Ben Trifo representing the League of Cities and Luffy Carrouf, a legal expert on this issue.
Speaker 6
Morning, manager. Good morning, committee. Ben Treville, the League of California Cities, proud to cosponsor SB nine twenty two along with CSAC and RCRC. As the senator mentioned, at its core, SB nine twenty two is about clarifying a long standing and common sense practice used by local governments across California. Local governments are responsible for the cost of maintaining most of the streets and roads in our communities.
Everyday essential public services like solid waste collection use heavy service vehicles while on local streets. These service activities leaves a significant deterioration of pavement conditions resulting in ongoing repair. For decades, cities and counties have worked collaboratively with service providers such as waste haulers to account for the street maintenance impacts of those vehicles through existing rates, fees, or franchise agreements. These agreements are familiar, predictable, and transparent for local governments and service providers. However, a recent court decision recently created uncertainty around these long standing practices.
As a result, dozens of cities and counties are facing litigation that challenges existing franchise agreements and service related fees putting millions in street maintenance funding at risk. The problem will only get worse as fleets electrify, SB-one funds go away, and vehicles are getting heavier. SB-nine 22 simply clarifies two things. First, restrictions on local road charges apply only to weight based charges imposed for the privilege of using streets and roads. And second, the fees associated with providing public services and public works can recover the street maintenance costs tied to delivering those services.
By by reaffirming reaffirming this authority, SB nine twenty two for source clarity reduces unnecessary litigation, provides certainty for both local governments and service providers, and allows cities to provide the safe streets the public requires. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Thank you very much. Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Lutfi Karouf. I am the head of the taxes, fees, and assessments practice at Best Best in Krieger, and in that capacity, I advise public agencies all across the states all across the state on setting constitutional rates for public services. I'm also defending a number of cities that are involved in litigation that turns specifically on the question of whether they're authorized to recover the proportional share of the cost of local road impacts. The idea that the cost for providing these services can include the cost for road repairs is nothing new, and in fact, there's established case law precedent that supports that.
In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association versus the City of Roseville, which was a Proposition two eighteen case, the Court of Appeal explicitly said that Roseville may charge its water, sewer, and refuse utilities for the street, alley, and right of way costs attributed to the utilities, and Roseville may transfer these revenues to its general fund to pay for such costs. So again, Proposition two eighteen, Proposition 26, the constitutional guardrails on setting fees for public services have already been recognized to allow for recovery of local road repairs. And this is an important issue because 54 out of 58 counties in California suffer from road conditions that are classified as at risk or poor due in no small part to declining revenues. So as Senator Laird has mentioned, local agencies have for a long time recovered these costs as a part of their cost for public services. This is nothing new and the Redlands decision cast doubt and uncertainty on the ability to recover the full cost of service for providing services.
So, what SB 92 is meant to do is to ensure that local funding is protected within constitutional limits. What it's not meant to do, as Senator Laird mentioned, is to expand any fee authority. It's not intended to touch development impact fees, VMT, or so forth. And there's nothing in the statute that is intended to sidestep requirements under Prop 26 or Prop two eighteen. In fact, there is no statute that would be able to do that.
The Supreme Court has recognized the impossibility of that. So, you know, what SB nine twenty two does is simply restores clarity that local agencies may continue to proportionally recover the cost of public services. Without those clarity, without that clarity, those costs do not disappear but road conditions will continue to degrade with less revenue to address them. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Sure. Patrick Foye representing the city of Oxnard, one of the many cities defending themselves in this issue, and the city of Redondo Beach in support. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Good morning. Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Good morning. Keira Ross on behalf of the cities of Glendale, Rancho Cucamonga, Thousand Oaks, and the town of Truckee all in support. Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning. Karen Lang on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Good morning. Cassandra Moore on behalf of the town of Apple Valley in support.
Speaker 7
Morning. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the county of Madera in support. Thank you. Good
Speaker 11
morning, madam chair. Luis Sanchez on behalf of the city of San Bernardino in support. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good morning, madam chair. Casey Elliott on behalf of the cities of Paso Robles, Fullerton, Upland, Lafayette, Orinda, the Tri Valley cities in support.
Speaker 9
Good morning, madam Jared Giacchiones, behalf of Workology in support. Good morning. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Good morning. Chris Scroggin with Capital FC on behalf of Republic Services in support.
Speaker 2
Good morning. I'm a Jungworth on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, proud cosponsor of the bill in support. Thank
Speaker 11
Good morning. John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California as a proud cosponsor and also Mean Tewing on behalf of Californians Against Waste. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Special shout out to my town, Madera. Okay. Now we have witnesses oppose.
Speaker 13
Chairwoman D'Arrazzo, members, good morning. Kirk Kimmelshoe here on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, actually in an opposing less amended position. As Senator Laird mentioned, we very much appreciate his intent with the proposal and his leadership on housing issues, but we are concerned with the provisions and the amendments to current law under SB nine twenty two and how they would potentially impact local construction impact fees as the Senator mentioned. The guardrails that exist in current law from our perspective have long protected our members from local and local construction projects from new or expanded fees being imposed. And so from our perspective, the changes to the vehicle code under the proposal could inadvertently open the door for local jurisdictions to impose additional fees, which we are concerned about.
And I think we've had a lot of conversations with everyone on the dais and the Senator included about our efforts to increase housing production in the state. So that's really where we're coming from. We've shared a number of rounds of amendments with the Senator, his team and the sponsors. We really appreciate those conversations. And frankly, I think we're getting quite close to resolving our concerns and hope that we'll be able to do that prior to the bill leaving the Senate.
But for those reasons, until we are able to hopefully land on some language, we must request fully request a respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Madam Chair and members, Andrew Antwee here today on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, begging the committee's indulgence. I know I'm out of, cycle here, but in support.
Speaker 1
You're forgiven. Okay. Anyone want to speak in opposition not as a principal witness? Seeing none. Okay.
Come to the dais and questions or comments? Senator Sayardo? A couple of questions. Sure.
Speaker 4
So yeah, I get that they used to put these for like the waste haulers in their franchise agreements And now this law says they can't, but your law is saying yes, they can continue to do that. Because that does give the consumer the certainty part of it. My concern is that because I can think of waste haulers, maybe Edison, as far as large vehicles. Who else is would be subject to this? Subjected to being able because I because I if there's a weight limit, an upper weight limit, is there a gross vehicle weight when this kicks in?
Because I don't want the Uber Eats people to be subjected to this.
Speaker 5
Well, if the Uber Eats people were driving a dump truck with 60,000 pounds in it, might be
Speaker 5
And I think the important thing to reiterate is that this just operated for thirty five years I understand. Exactly as you are saying Yes. With that distinction. And we are just trying to put it back.
Speaker 5
once I am sorry that Senator Strickland's not on this committee because I heard Redondo Beach supported. I look forward to telling him about that on the floor.
Speaker 4
Yeah. Yes. No. I just want to make sure that it's Which is in support. That it is applied to the people that would normally be applied to in the past.
Speaker 5
Yes. I keep Not the picking on new users. To get to your question, I think it's a concern that is not related to what exactly is here and I could face that dilemma that we all face in taking an amendment that the amendment says that this bill doesn't do what we know it doesn't do. And I don't particularly want to clutter up the code by taking an amendment that says this doesn't do specifically what we all know it doesn't do and it didn't do in those thirty five years. But we are committed to continuing to work and try to get somewhere.
Speaker 4
Yeah. As long as it's aimed at the people that used to have to make these. Remember couple of cement truck driving There's a new
Speaker 5
Just I appreciate the exchange and the debate. I appreciate all the people that came to support. I think this just rectifies something that was in place for thirty five years, and I respectfully ask for an item.
Speaker 1
Okay. The vote. The bill is out. All done. Before we go on to your next bill, I just want to welcome everybody back who was here before, and I want to greet and welcome Majority Leader Ashby and Senator Cervantes who are joining the committee for the first time this year.
Thank you. Thank you and welcome. Okay. Let's go on to SB ten seventy eight. Senator Laird.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. Senate Bill ten seventy eight would allow the Santa Cruz County voters to decide if the combined local tax limit should be raised above 2% to fund essential services in their community. This is something that the legislature has done on multiple occasions. I have authored similar bills for the self help transit tax in San Luis Obispo for the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District. It has just happened up and down.
Given the federal cuts, the county wishes to go to the voters to decide to backfill some of the cuts, primarily medical. This was done a few months ago in Santa Clara County, and it passed. And this would just give Santa Cruz County the opportunity to do that. This itself is not a tax. This just enables a vote of the people, and the people can decide whether or not they wish to levy it.
With me today in support is the Santa Cruz County Executive Officer, Nicole Colborne. And at the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for an item.
Speaker 10
So thank you, madam chair and members. I'm Nicole Coburn, the county executive officer of the County Of Santa Cruz. I am here today to ask for your I vote on senate bill ten seventy eight, senator Laird's measure that would allow our board of supervisors to approve placing a measure before the voters this November to increase our sales tax and use rate by a half a percent. We, like other communities across The Strait, are struggling to maintain access to critical health care, hospital and food assistance services in light of the significant reductions by the federal government and HR1. And we have heard loud and clear that the state will not be able to completely backfill these losses for counties, leaving our hospitals, clinics, and other supportive services at risk of severe cuts.
The County Of Santa Cruz is a safety net for those communities that are traditionally the most disproportionately impacted by budget reductions. I want to note that 83,000 people in Santa Cruz County are enrolled in Medi Cal. That's 30% of our population. Over 40% of births are with people who are on Medi Cal. We have an additional 31,000 who receive CalFresh monthly, and that's over 20,000 households.
SB ten seventy eight offers the opportunity to continue to protect these communities who need the most assistance. As a result, we would like the opportunity to ask our voters to consider options to help maintain access to important safety net programs in our community. We currently have $25,000,000 in HR1 impacts that we do not have budget solutions for, and that's just our county, not our hospitals, our clinics, or any other community partners. We greatly appreciate Senator Laird's leadership on this important measure and respectfully request your I vote on SB ten seventy eight on behalf of the County Of Santa Cruz. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Anyone else in support? Good morning. Molly Malva on behalf of the Central California Alliance for Health in support. Thank you. Thank you.
Anyone else in support? Seeing none, anyone in opposition? Seeing none, come back to the dais. Yes, Senator Aragine.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Senator Lehrer, this bill. So, when would Santa Cruz County want to go to the voters for this tax increase?
Speaker 10
So we're contemplating this November. We are the deadline already passed for the June election, so depending on what happens over the summer, we may place a measure on the ballot in for November.
Speaker 9
Just a suggestion. I mean, I support your bill. I'm happy to move the bill at the appropriate time. There are several proposals in the works. I represent Contra Costa County.
They're asking for this authority. Los Angeles County is asking for this authority. Other jurisdictions in California are asking for this authority, particularly to do in November. So I just want to call attention. There is a conversation in the assembly right now on doing one large bill.
And so we need to move this forward now to make sure that this gets to your house so this can be part of those conversations. But if you haven't been in touch with the speaker and those engaged in that discussion, I just want to call attention to that and make sure that this if this moves forward, it can be part of that larger effort so that it takes effect immediately. You have the authority to do this because we definitely want to make sure that you have the ability to bring this for the voters. Once again, we're not imposing the tax. We're just giving the voters the authorization to consider this and to impose a tax if it gets the votes necessary to pass.
And just given the devastating cuts by this administration on health and human services, this is essential. So just a suggestion.
Speaker 5
If I can just comment. I know that there are discussions going on and they are not limited to the assembly. Yes. And I think that would be the best way to proceed. But as you said, we need to move every bill ahead until such point as there's an agreement on that.
Speaker 1
Support this as we move forward and there may be specific different specific circumstances so let's keep focused on Santa Cruz. Senator Choi? Did you?
Speaker 3
Thank you, chair. I'm a little bit, troubled by the fact that, author is, saying this is not a tax increase, but this clearly, imposes district tax, their ability to raise, half a percent by ordinance. When that allowance is given, most likely, as you heard, since they need that capacity or authority to charge more than 05% to the cap above and beyond the 2%, which is at the state tax level cap. And you are insisting that's not a tax. It is not a tax, but you are authorizing the ability to tax that amount, 05% above the cap.
And if, this trend continues case by case by the county, if second or third, one tenth, one fifty eighth counties come forward, do we have ability to say no when we approve this one? This is a fairness issue and in fact we are removing the cap from two percent to 2.5%.
Speaker 5
Are in agreement. We're just in disagreement in the interpretation about it because this is not a tax. But this enables the people to choose to do it. And that's what we're trying to do here is give the people the right to do this.
Speaker 3
Yeah. As I said, this is a word game. In fact, this is not directly increasing the tax. But however, this bill is authorizing to tax more, and they are here because of the need to raise the tax and then, obviously, it's likely to pass and above the cap level that we have. So I am very troubled by that as a conservative fiscal management is all the responsibility of the local government.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
You. Any other comments or questions? I I support this very much. I think the voters at the local level deserve the opportunity to hear the case that's going to be made to them. And I think you, you know, you've made some very compelling, presented some very compelling reasons as to why you would take that case to the public, to the voters.
The cuts in Medi Cal, people being taken off of medical, the HR one cuts, you made a whole you started to make the case for it. I think it's up to the local voters to decide. Is this worthy of us with all the economy as it is? They're gonna balance it out. They're gonna make the decision as to whether or not they wanna move forward.
Is it urgent enough? Is it, enough of a serious case? So, Senator Lehr, I fully support your your bill. Okay. You may close.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much. I really appreciate the discussion, and I would just add one thing, which is the account executive articulately laid out the food and medical care with regard to Medi Cal. But in addition, and I know particularly Senator Terrazzo is tired of me mentioning it, but the Watsonville Hospital that we saved four years ago, now due to the federal cuts, is back to where it was four years ago. And we run the risk actually of them going under before we can even go to the voters for this. And they have indicated that hospital support is also a thing that could come from this, and we need it dramatically in the county.
So I really appreciate the debate. I respectfully ask for an iPhone.
Speaker 2
The motion is due pass to the committee on revenue and taxation centers Dorotho. I. Dorotho. I. Choi.
No. Choi. No. Abigail. Abigail.
Abigail. Abigail. Abigail. Abigail.
Speaker 2
The contact calendar consists of file item number two SB 10. Oh, five file item three SB ten eighty file item six SB nine thirty five file item seven SJR 11 centers.
Speaker 1
70. Okay. The bill is out, 70. Okay. Is that it?
Consent. We're done. Okay. Everybody else, they want to celebrate Senator Woodward. Okay.
Okay. Thank you everyone who participated in the public testimony today. Your comments and suggestions are very important to us. Thank you. We've now concluded the agenda for the Senate Committee on Local Government.
Meeting adjourned. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.