SB 2 (2017)

SB 2 (2017)
Title	SB 2 (2017)
Enacted by	California State Legislature
Introduced	2017
Status	enacted
Citation	California statute

SB 2 (2017)

SB 2 (2017) is a California statute enacted by the California State Legislature during the tenure of Governor Jerry Brown (born 1938). The bill originated in the California State Senate and passed both houses before being signed into law by Brown; it affected local government revenue mechanisms and administrative procedures across municipalities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego. The measure interacted with earlier measures like Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 218 (1996), and subsequent laws debated in the California State Assembly and California State Senate.

Background and Legislative History

SB 2 (2017) was introduced amid debates in the California State Senate and California State Assembly over municipal funding and public infrastructure financing that followed electoral outcomes including Proposition 13 (1978) and the policy responses shaped by figures such as Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, and Antonio Villaraigosa. Legislative hearings occurred in committees chaired by members affiliated with caucuses like the California Legislative Black Caucus and the California Latino Legislative Caucus, with testimonies from stakeholders including representatives from the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and unions such as the California Teachers Association and SEIU Local 1000. Floor debates referenced earlier cases from the California Supreme Court and decisions influenced by rulings in San Diego County and Los Angeles County litigation.

Provisions and Text of the Bill

The statutory text of SB 2 (2017) amended sections of the California Government Code and specified procedures for local jurisdictions—counties like Alameda County, Orange County, and Santa Clara County—to implement fee schedules and administrative processes. The bill delineated roles for municipal entities including city councils in Sacramento, boards of supervisors in Contra Costa County, and special districts such as water districts and transit agencies like Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Bay Area Rapid Transit. The statutory language referenced standards for notice and public hearing procedures similar to provisions in Proposition 218 (1996) and cited cross-references to statutes overseen by the California Department of Finance and the State Controller of California.

Fiscal Impact and Budgetary Effects

Fiscal analyses of SB 2 (2017) were prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Department of Finance, estimating effects on budgets of municipalities including Fresno, Long Beach, and Oakland. The bill's provisions influenced revenue streams for local authorities and affected funding allocations for programs managed by agencies such as the California Department of Housing and Community Development and local public works departments administering projects under the aegis of entities like Caltrans and regional planning bodies like the Southern California Association of Governments. Evaluations compared impacts against benchmarks established after Proposition 13 (1978) and fiscal consequences considered in reports by think tanks such as the Public Policy Institute of California.

Support, Opposition, and Advocacy

Supporters of SB 2 (2017) included municipal coalitions like the League of California Cities, advocacy groups including the California Association of Realtors, and labor organizations such as the California Labor Federation; endorsements also came from elected officials like Eric Garcetti and London Breed. Opponents mobilized through organizations like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and critics drew from conservative offices including members aligned with the California Republican Party, with commentary in publications like the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Sacramento Bee. Interest groups spanning legal advocacy organizations such as the ACLU of Northern California and fiscal watchdogs submitted letters and participated in hearings held by committees chaired by members from the California State Senate and the California State Assembly.

Legal Challenges and Litigation

Following enactment, SB 2 (2017) faced challenges in state courts including filings in the Superior Court of California in counties such as Los Angeles County and appeals reaching the California Court of Appeal. Litigants included municipal parties, taxpayer associations, and private entities represented by law firms with prior appearances before the California Supreme Court. Judicial reviews examined statutory construction in light of precedents like California v. Superior Court and assessed compliance with constitutional provisions found in the California Constitution and interpretations by justices on the California Supreme Court.

Implementation and Outcomes

Implementation of SB 2 (2017) required administrative action by local agencies such as city councils in Irvine and Santa Monica, county boards in San Bernardino County and Riverside County, and regional authorities including the Association of Bay Area Governments. Outcomes varied: some jurisdictions adopted new fee structures and procedures while others sought injunctions and stayed implementation pending litigation. Impacts were documented in audits by the State Auditor of California and in compliance reports submitted to the Department of Finance and local controllers like the Los Angeles City Controller.

Related Legislation and Amendments

SB 2 (2017) was considered alongside other legislative measures including bills introduced in subsequent sessions of the California State Legislature and amendments that referenced statutes in the Government Code and revenue provisions affected by Proposition 218 (1996) and later bills sponsored by legislators such as Scott Wiener and Bill de Blasio-adjacent policy discussions at municipal levels. Later amendments and companion bills were tracked in committee reports from the Assembly Appropriations Committee and the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

Category:California statutes