Legislative Update: Outcomes of the Appropriations Suspense Hearings
Back to News
As we reported earlier this month, Friday, August 14 was the deadline for the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Assembly Appropriations Committee (collectively referred to as “the fiscal committees”) to hear and report bills with fiscal impacts to the floor of that house (Senate or Assembly) for a vote of the full house. To meet this deadline, both committees convened fast-paced vote-only “suspense hearings” to determine the fate of the hundreds of bills.
The fiscal committees set aside a portion of the high volume of bills that impose significant costs to the state in the suspense files to be considered during a single hearing. During suspense hearings, committee members vote to either release these bills to the floor for a full vote of that house or hold them in the committee, halting their progress. The committee may also significantly amend fiscal bills to reduce cost impacts without the consent of the bill’s author.
While the suspense file hearing process is designed to comprehensively consider the costs of all bills that meet a certain threshold of fiscal impact to the state, it’s also widely viewed as a tool for the Legislature to prioritize its proposals and winnow the long list of bills each house must consider on the floor prior to the end of the legislative session on August 31.
Last week’s suspense hearings were particularly impactful, as they marked the last chance for bills to make it out of the fiscal committees this legislative session. That means the bills which didn’t advance are effectively dead.
The fiscal committees considered 854 bills referred to the suspense file and held about a quarter of them. A summary of the results of each suspense hearing is posted on the respective Committee’s website: Senate Appropriations Committee and Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Prior to these hearings, CSAC engaged with committee staff and members and submitted letters urging the committees to consider every bill through the lens of its unique impacts on California’s local governments.
CSAC’s website includes a Member Legislative Resources page with links to bill tracking lists by policy area. Members may be prompted to log into the CSAC Member Portal to view the page. In addition to the information included below about the status of key legislation following the Appropriations Committees’ suspense hearings, members can contact the CSAC legislative affairs team with questions about specific policy areas or legislation.
The Legislature has until Monday, August 31 at midnight to act on all legislation.
Several measures of importance were both held in their respective Appropriations Committees as well as passed, with or without amendments. Below is a summary of critical updates:
Administration of Justice
AB 690 (Schultz) Criminal procedure: indigent defense compensation
CSAC Position: OPPOSE
Status: Do pass as amended
Despite amendments that have significantly narrowed the bill, CSAC remains opposed to this measure alongside the Urban Counties of California (UCC) and Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC). The amendments most notably limit the prohibition on the use of flat fee payment models for cases that carry a life without the possibility of parole or death penalty sentence, and changes compliance with indigent defense workload standards to consideration of the workload standards, amongst other changes, which will result in administrative and fiscal impacts to counties statewide.
Questions? Contact:
Ryan Morimune, Senior Legislative Advocate, at rmorimune@counties.org
Michaela Stone, Legislative Analyst, at mstone@counties.org
Agriculture, Environment, and Natural Resources
AB 1754 (Pacheco) State general obligation bonds: requirements.
CSAC Position: Oppose Unless Amended
Status: Held.
This bill would have created an extensive set of new performance metrics, data collection rules, and reporting requirements for state agencies administering bond funding. These new requirements would lead to prolonged dispersal of project funds, substantial new duties for staff within every agency that administers bond funding and put an additional strain on agency budgets.
AB 1881 (Ramos) California Indian Freedom Act of 2026.
CSAC Position: Oppose Unless Amended
Status: Passed to the Senate Floor.
This bill establishes a private right of action, allowing tribes and individual tribal members to challenge state decisions involving state lands and waterways, thereby increasing potential litigation risk. The measure further prioritizes tribal governmental interests through a strict scrutiny standard and overlaps with, or conflicts with, existing state and federal frameworks that already govern tribal consultation and protections.
AB 2051 (Wicks) Public resources: Coastal Resilience Permitting Working Group.
CSAC Position: SUPPORT
Status: Passed to the Senate Floor.
This bill directs the California Natural Resources Agency to convene an interagency Coastal Resilience Permitting Working Group to identify administrative improvements and develop a clear roadmap for streamlining permitting for coastal resilience projects. This measure would help accelerate critical climate adaptation projects while upholding California’s environmental protections, protecting coastal communities and ecosystems.
AB 2218 (Kalra) Water policy: California Native American tribes.
CSAC Position: OPPOSE
Status: Passed to the Senate Floor.
This bill seeks to address longstanding inequities faced by California Native American Tribes due to the loss of access to and control over water resources. However, the bill’s policy statement and directive introduces substantial uncertainty into existing water management processes by establishing a broad policy framework without providing clear direction, safeguards, or limitations to ensure the continued reliability of water supplies. This measure would also have unclear, but potentially far-reaching impacts on surface water rights.
SB 872 (McNerney) Delta Levees and Canal Subsidence Fund.
CSAC Position: SUPPORT
Status: Passed with amendments.
This bill seeks to protect the millions of water users in the state, communities reliant on safe, clean drinking water, and the environment by making long overdue investments in the State Water Project and the network of levees protecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It was passed with amendments requiring consistency with delta levee strategy.
SB 1305 (Richardson) Wildlife: bears.|
CSAC Position: OPPOSE
Status: Held in committee.
This bill would have directed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop a roadmap to evaluate the feasibility and advisability of reintroducing the grizzly bear. The potential reintroduction of grizzly bears after over a century of being absent from California forests presents a future risk to residents and an immediate risk to existing state regulatory efforts.
SB 1326 (Wahab) California Environmental Quality Act: tribal cultural resources: mitigation measures.
CSAC Position: OPPOSE
Status: Held in committee.
This bill would have broadened California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements related to tribal cultural resources and mitigation measures, potentially increasing litigation risk and creating additional delays for critical projects, including housing, transportation, and infrastructure projects.
Questions? Contact:
Charles Delgado, Legislative Advocate, at cdelgado@counties.org
Jordan Wells, Legislative Advocate, at jwells@counties.org
Caitlin Loventhal, Legislative Analyst, at cloventhal@counties.org
Government Finance and Administration
AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public employees’ retirement benefits.
CSAC Position: OPPOSE
Status: Passed to Senate floor.
This bill would reduce the retirement age for public safety employees (police and firefighters), establish new benefit tiers that can be bargained, and increase the creditable compensation limit. The bill is estimated to raise pension costs by several billion dollars over the next twenty years.
AB 1564 (Ahrens) Employer-employee relations: confidential communications.
CSAC Position: OPPOSE
Status: Held in committee.
This bill would have prohibited a public employer from questioning or compelling a public employee to disclose communications made in confidence to their union representative, mirroring a privilege. This would have restricted an employer’s ability to conduct internal investigations to the detriment of employees’ and the public’s safety and well-being, adding new costs and liability for public employers.
AB 1883 (Bryan) Workplace surveillance tools.
CSAC POSITION: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
Status: Passed to Senate Floor.
This bill would prohibit an employer from using workplace surveillance tools that use artificial intelligence capable of recognizing or predicting an individual’s emotional state or collecting neural data. CSAC is concerned the bill could restrict existing security systems and lead to high implementation and liability costs.
AB 2545 (Schiavo) Report: labor force impact: artificial intelligence.
CSAC Position: SUPPORT
Status: Held in committee.
This bill would have established the California Artificial Intelligence Worker Impact Data Assessment Project Advisory Panel composed of representatives from academia, AI program developers, various non-profits, and public and private labor organizations to perform an assessment of comprehensive data to understand the impacts of artificial intelligence on the labor force through an evidence-based approach.
AB 2640 (Hadwick) Commission on State Mandates: state mandates
CSAC Position: SUPPORT
Status: Passed to Senate floor.
This bill would authorize local government agencies, upon receiving a written notification of claim adjustments from the State Controller, to elect to offset any reduced reimbursement from other unpaid reimbursement claims occurring on or after January 1, 2027, or adjust the payment of claims for underpayments or overpayments that occurred in previous years. This change ensures local governments can retain critical funding and obtain needed financial relief.
AB 2656 (Petrie-Norris) Public employees: notice: artificial intelligence performing service within scope of work.
CSAC Position: OPPOSE
Status: Passed to the Senate Floor.
This bill would require public agencies to notify employees within 45 days of developing, purchasing, or requiring the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to perform a service within an employee’s scope of work.
SB 947 (McNerney) Employment: automated decision systems.
CSAC Position: OPPOSE
Status: Passed to the Assembly Floor This bill would complicate the routine work of local governments by regulating the use of automated decision systems (ADS), which include artificial intelligence and other routine tools used for every day work, when making employment related decisions. Specifically, it would restrict when ADS may be used, require post use notices to affected workers when ADS are used in discipline, termination, or deactivation decisions; and establish enforcement mechanisms and penalties for violations. These new requirements would increase compliance obligations and place additional burdens and costs on counties.
SB 951 (Reyes) Employment: technological displacement: notice.
CSAC Position: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
Status: Passed to the Assembly Floor This bill would require public agencies to provide a report to the Employment Development Department (EDD) whenever a position or occupation is replaced in part by adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology. The bill would also penalize employers up to $500 daily for failing to provide the required notice.
Questions? Contact:
Eric Lawyer, Senior Legislative Advocate, at elawyer@counties.org
Emma Jungwirth, Senior Legislative Advocate, at ejungwirth@counties.org
Julissa Ceja Cardenas, Legislative Analyst, at jcejacardenas@counties.org
Health and Human Services
SB 28 (Umberg) Treatment court program standards
CSAC Position: OPPOSE
Status: Held in Committee
This bill would make numerous changes to the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act. The bill would expand eligibility for referral to the CARE Act, expand the scope of evidence a court may consider as part of a CARE petition, require the Department of Health Care Services to develop a model exit plan for individuals who need a higher level of care than is available through the CARE process, and establish a CARE Court ombudsperson to oversee complaints regarding the program, among many other changes.
SB 1016 (Blakespear) Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court Program and court-ordered evaluations
CSAC Position: OPPOSE
Status: Held in Committee
This bill would add new requirements related to dismissal of a Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act petition. The bill would require a county behavioral agency’s report to the court about a respondent include whether the respondent needs a higher level of care than is available under the CARE Act and would authorize a court, if it intends to dismiss a petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, to order the county to conduct a pre-petition screening for involuntary care under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act.
SB 1054 (Cabaldon) Unemployment insurance: reporting requirements
CSAC Position: SUPPORT
Status: Held in Committee
This bill would have directed the Employment Development Department (EDD) to collect additional information from employers about wages, including number of hours worked, to support streamlined eligibility determinations for health and nutrition programs. Importantly, this measure would have helped mitigate some of the new workload impacts on counties resulting from H.R. 1 by improving the employment information available to support Medi-Cal and CalFresh work requirement verifications.
Questions? Contact:
Justin Garrett, Senior Legislative Advocate, at jgarrett@counties.org
Brendan McCarthy, Senior Legislative Advocate, at bmccarthy@counties.org
Danielle Bradley, Senior Legislative Analyst, at dbradley@counties.org.
Housing, Land Use, and Transportation
AB 1198 (Haney) Public works: prevailing wages.
CSAC Position: OPPOSE
Status: Passed to Senate Floor.
This bill would require applied any changes prevailing wage decisions made by the Department of Industrial Relations applicable to public works projects that were in active construction. Under current law prevailing wage increases are not applicable to public works projects that are in the construction phase as a means to reduce the potential for unanticipated cost increases. This bill would have created additional cost pressures that could impact the ability of a county to move forward with a variety of public works projects.
Questions? Contact:
Mark Neuburger, Legislative Advocate, at mneuburger@counties.org