BACKGROUND
By way of background, bills are placed on the priority list because of the potential impacts they present to the City and/or the community. The priority list also contained bills that related directly to the principles contained within the City Council’s adopted Legislative Platform. The principles include the belief in local control and the ability of the City Council to make decisions that address the needs of residents and businesses within the local jurisdiction they directly serve. The City opposes legislation that requires the City to provide a service or benefit without appropriate and full funding; and, the City is opposed to legislation that would negatively impact City finances including the General Fund, enterprise funds, sales tax revenues, and/or property tax revenues.
At the end of the session the Legislature sent 1,217 bills to Governor Brown for his consideration. The governor vetoed 201 bills or 16.5%, which is one of the highest percentages of bills he has vetoed since returning to office. Last year the governor vetoed 118 bills or 9%, which is one of the lowest percentage of bills he has vetoed. In 2010 he vetoed 14.13% of the bills sent to him and 14.37% of the bills he considered in 2011 the first year of his third term.
Each year the legislative advocacy effort includes a strong coordinated effort between City staff, the City’s lobbyist and coalition partners to effectively advocate positions, specifically related to local control and fiscal impacts. The following summary highlights bills discussed with the L&R Committee during their regularly scheduled meetings, as well as with others of particular importance to the City.
Priority List – Bills signed by governor that City supported
*AB 2112 (Santiago) – Federal 21st Century Cures Act: Crisis Response Plan (Support) – This bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services within the California Health and Human Services Agency to develop and submit an application to solicit a grant under federal law to develop a community-based crisis response plan and requires the grant application to include, at a minimum, and consistent with federal grant application requirements a plan for local crisis response services and measures for individuals receiving crisis planning and early intervention support. The bill would also require the department to submit a copy of this report to the Legislature. The bill would only become operative if Congress appropriates funds for purposes of the competitive grants. Furthermore, the bill requires the department to confer with specified stakeholders in developing its grant proposal and application. The City supported this bill for the potential it presents to provide support to local response services and services for individuals receiving crisis planning and early intervention support. This type of support can provide additional resources/assistance to those who may be homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.
• AB 2030 (Limon) – CalWORKs: Accommodations (Support) – This bill requires any single state automated welfare system implemented, as provided, to include a notification to inform the caseworker of a public assistance program applicant or recipient that such has disclosed the need for an accommodation consistent with ADA, or a disability or domestic violence experience that may affect eligibility. Requires the State Department of Social Services to collaborate with county welfare departments in developing such notification. The City supported this bill for the help it will provide to individuals applying for assistance that have special needs and who are often homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. This change would be an additional resource that could provide assistance to those in our community who are being challenged by lack of housing.
• AB 2420 (Sharon Quirk-Silva) – Workforce Development: Soft Skills Training (Support) – This bill provides that for the purpose of providing employment training, that job-related, basic- and literacy-skills training includes soft skills. Defines soft skills as behaviors and competencies to allow people to navigate professional environments, work well with colleagues, and perform up to standards for professional success. The City supported this bill for the additional training it will provide to ensure those entering or returning to the workforce have the greatest chance of success in their occupations.
Priority List – Bills signed by governor that City opposed
• AB 2162 (Chiu) - Planning and Zoning: Supportive Housing (Opposed) – This bill requires that supportive housing be a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones, if the proposed housing development meets specified criteria. Requires a local government to approve a supportive housing development that complies with these requirements. Prohibits the local government from imposing any minimum parking requirement for units occupied by supportive housing residents under certain circumstances. The City opposed this bill for the changes the new law will have on local governments’ review process for supportive housing projects and further restrictions, such as eliminating minimum parking requirements that this type of project could be required to provide.
• AB 2485 (Chau) – Code Enforcement: Financially Interested Parties (Opposed) – This bill would prohibit a local official who inspects a commercial property or business for compliance with a state statute or regulation or local ordinance from being accompanied during the inspection by a person with a potential financial interest in the outcome of the inspection, such as a person who is the owner of the property or business, is the agent or representative of the owner, is a person who has, or operates under existing contract with the local government. The City opposed this bill for the impacts it will create with the building inspection process. Often times when a person with a financial interest participates in a building inspection it helps facilitate understanding and agreements on how to address issues with the project. The changes in this bill will add time and costs to the inspection process and the project.
• AB 2913 (Wood) – Building Standards: Building Permits: Expiration (Opposed) – Provides that a building permit would remain valid for purposes of the State Building Standards Law if the work on the site authorized by that permit is commenced within a specified amount of time after its issuance, unless the permittee has abandoned the work. Authorizes a permittee to request and the building official to grant extensions of time for periods of not more than a certain number of days per extension. Requires the request and the granting of extensions to be in writing and show good cause. The City was opposed this bill as it makes unnessessary changes to the building permit process currently in place. The current process works very effectively and ensures that projects are completed in a timely manner. The changes in this bill will increase the workload of the building department and create conditions where projects could go uncompleted for extended amounts of time.
UTILITIES
Roseville Electric Bills
Bills signed by governor that Roseville Electric supported or watched
• SB 1110 (Bradford) - Energy: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: local publicly owned electric utilities (Support) - If the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program requires more than 50% of retail sales of electricity to come from eligible renewable energy resources, this bill would authorize a local publicly owned electric utility, which has a gas fired power plant on which public debt is owed and that is operating at less than 20% of capacity, with Energy Commission approval, to adjust its renewable energy procurement targets by a specified amount if additional conditions are met. This bill was signed into law by the Governor.
• SB 901 (Dodd) - Wildfire Mitigation Plans (Watch) - The legislature’s wildfire preparedness and response conference committee developed a comprehensive wildfire prevention and safety package. This bill will require electric utilities to implement comprehensive fire prevention plans. This bill will also increase the state’s forest management activities and update requirements for the maintenance and operation of electric utility infrastructure. SB 901 will support the state’s long term effort to prevent and recover from catastrophic wildfires.
Bills signed by governor or failed that Roseville Electric opposed
• SB 100 (De Leon) - California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: 100% Carbon-free (Oppose) This bill would revise renewable portfolio standards to achieve that 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. The bill would require that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end use customers achieve 44% of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030. This bill would state that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. This bill was signed into law by the Governor.
• SB 1440 (Hueso) - Biomethane procurement (Oppose) - This bill directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to consider procurement of biomethane by gas corporations in order to replace natural gas. Many electric utilities own and operate natural gas power plants that purchase natural gas directly from in-state gas corporations or pay to use the pipelines of in-state gas corporations to transport natural gas to their power plants. As gas corporation customers, many electric utilities, including Roseville electric, could be exposed to significant cost increases. This bill was signed into law by the Governor.
• AB 813 (Holden) - Multistate regional transmission system organization (Oppose) - This bill would have prohibited a state electrical transmission facility owner, a retail seller of electricity, or a local publicly owned electric utility from joining a multistate regional transmission system organization unless they were to meet certain requirements. This bill failed to obtain enough votes in the Legislature.
Environmental Utilities Bills
Bills signed by governor that Environmental Utilities supported or watched
• SB 212 (Jackson) – Medication and Sharps Disposal (Support) - This bill requires manufacturers to establish a producer funded disposal programs for consumers to safely dispose of unwanted medication and used needles/lancets. The City of Roseville supported this bill because it provides a safe way to dispose of medications that are illegally diverted and also if disposed in the toilet create water quality issues. For sharps, improper disposal often results in solid waste workers on disposal routes and materials recovery facilities being accidentally injured. This bill was signed into law by the Governor.
• SB 1422 (Portantino) – Drinking Water Testing for Microplastics (Watch) - This bill requires testing for microplastics in drinking water and reporting the results to the public, despite the lack of information on health effects of microplastics in drinking water. This bill was signed into law by the Governor.
• AB 2370 (Holden) - Testing for Lead in Drinking Water at Day Care Centers (Watch) - This bill would help protect infants and young children from exposure to lead at day care centers. The author recognized that day care centers are typically businesses, and the testing program should be different from the program for testing for lead in drinking water at schools. This bill was signed into law by the Governor.
Bills signed by governor or failed that Environmental Utilities opposed
• SB 845 (Monning) – State Water Tax (Oppose) - This bill proposed a monthly voluntary water tax that local water utility customers would have to opt out of by contacting their local water utility billing services section. Revenue collected would have been sent to the State of California to fund water quality improvements in certain parts of state that have longstanding issues with impaired water aquifers that people rely on for drinking water. This bill failed to obtain enough votes in the State Legislature.
• SB 998 (Dodd) - Discontinuance of residential water service (Oppose) - Imposes various state mandates on local water service discontinuation policies and practice focused on customers that are unable to pay and/or have specific needs. The City of Roseville opposed this bill because of concerns over improper subsidization that could become a violation of Proposition 218. This bill was signed into law by the Governor.
Federal Legislation
America's Water Infrastructure Act (S. 3021)
The U.S. Senate voted 99-1 and passed the 2018 iteration of the Water Resources Development Act now referred to as America's Water Infrastructure Act (S. 3021). The lone dissenting vote was Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). Passage of the bill sends it to the president for signing into enactment. This is all but certain.
As passed in the Senate and House, S. 3021 is notable for its continued commitment to support development of flood protection, navigation and ecosystem projects throughout the nation under the purview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Within these authorities, S. 3021 directs USACE to continue efforts to advance the use of innovative forecasting technologies to allow for enhanced water supply storage at USACE reservoirs where flood protection is a priority activity.
The legislation is also notable for provisions addressing water quality and supply. Among these provisions are authorizations in support of:
• Grants in support of sewer overflow management needs, including stormwater
• Grants in support of resiliency initiatives
• Extending the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) for two years with $100 million
• Providing State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs with WIFIA like assistance to address funding needs
• Promoting agreements between U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and US Environmental Protection Agency to allow for USBR funded projects through WIFIA (on the condition that USBR funding is provided)
• Assisting communities remove lead in drinking water fountains at schools
• Requiring drinking water agencies to develop asset management plans, certifying that a resiliency plan addressing malevolent acts is conducted, and maintaining an emergency response action plan
• 3 year drinking water SRF authorization of $4.9 billion
As noted, the president is expected to sign S. 3021 into law.
Conclusion
City staff from all departments worked closely and effectively to advocate on a multitude of bills during the final year of the state legislative session. The advocacy effort also extended to include many of the City’s coalition partners as well. Staff is preparing for the upcoming 2019 legislative and congressional sessions to ensure the legislative advocacy effort continues to provide timely and effective representation of the City’s adopted legislative platform.