Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Air Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances bill letting single‑county air districts offer per diem pay for board members
Summary
The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality voted 6‑0 to pass AB 471 as amended to the Committee on Local Government. The bill would authorize single‑county small and medium air districts to consider nominal per diem compensation for board members, include transparency and cap provisions, and was modeled on last year’s AB 25 22.
The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality voted 6‑0 to pass Assembly Bill 471 as amended to the Committee on Local Government, allowing single‑county small and medium air districts to consider limited per diem compensation for board members.
Assemblymember Hart introduced AB 471, saying the bill addresses an “inequity” in state law that leaves some local air district board members unpaid. Hart told the committee the bill would add explicit authority for single‑county districts to provide per diem pay, include transparency measures, prohibit automatic increases and impose a strict annual cap.
AB 471’s sponsor witnesses told the committee the change is aimed at increasing participation and ensuring board members can balance their public‑service duties with other work. Erin Arlingenay, executive director and air pollution control officer for the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District and a board member of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), said the role requires familiarity with federal, state and local rules, permitting of industrial facilities, air quality attainment strategies and long‑range fiscal planning. “It would give these boards the ability to consider per diem compensation for the work they do to improve air quality and safeguard public health in their communities,” Arlingenay said.
Brenda Tuig, representing CAPCOA, said the bill’s provisions track closely with AB 25 22, enacted last year, and that AB 471 uses the lowest annual cap from that measure. “We thought it was reasonable to move forward with that,” Tuig told the committee.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about scope. The vice chair asked whether the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District would be added; Assemblymember Hart committed to add that district in the next committee hearing, noting Antelope Valley APCD is “virtually identical” to the districts covered by the bill except that it includes a public member.
No opposition witnesses appeared. Eric White of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District spoke in support.
The committee’s motion — “due pass as amended to Local Government” — carried unanimously on the roll call. The recorded yes votes on the committee roll were Senators Blake Spear; Valadares; Dally; Hurtado; Minjvar; and Padilla Perez. Committee staff announced the tally as 6 to 0. The committee also kept the consent calendar on call before recessing.
AB 471 would not create a state fiscal cost, according to sponsors; the measure simply authorizes covered single‑county districts to consider limited per diem payments under a capped, transparent framework. Proponents said the nominal per diem could broaden the pool of elected officials willing and able to serve on air district boards.
The bill had bipartisan support at the hearing and no registered opposition was present when the item was taken. The measure now moves to the Committee on Local Government with the author’s commitment to add the Antelope Valley APCD before the next hearing.
Less central procedural items at the start of the session: committee staff announced two bills were pulled from the agenda (file item number 1, AB 60, and file item number 7, AB 1139); those items were not heard.
