Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Digital Government Trust topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Assembly committee moves AB 810 to require special districts to migrate public websites to .gov or .ca.gov; districts warn of costs and naming limits

3095227 · April 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

AB 810 would require special districts and certain joint powers authorities to move public‑facing websites and emails to .gov or .ca.gov by 2031; supporters said the change will reduce spoofing and fraud, while special‑district groups warned of technical, naming and cost challenges.

Assemblymember Erwin presented AB 810, which would require special districts and joint powers authorities to migrate public‑facing websites and agency email addresses to .gov or .ca.gov domains by 2031. The author said the change would reduce fraud and spoofed sites that confuse residents, especially during emergencies, and noted a prior law that required cities and counties to adopt .gov domains.

The California Special Districts Association and multiple water, parks and other district groups opposed the bill, saying it imposes significant back‑end costs (single sign‑on reconfiguration, application redeployments and security updates) and that .gov naming rules may prevent memorable district names such as mosquitoes.gov. The Association of California Water Agencies and several local agencies urged exemptions or flexibility to preserve public outreach and unique identities.

The author said the bill provides a long phase‑in (to 2031) and was open to working on technical assistance and exclusions, and noted that many agencies have already moved or reserved .gov domains under prior requirements for cities and counties.

The committee voted to pass the bill to Appropriations and left the roll open to gather additional votes; members asked staff to clarify whether county offices of education and certain JPAs were covered and to refine exclusion language for K‑12 agencies.