Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County committee hears state budget trailer bills tied to CEQA and homelessness funding; staff urged caution on SB 16
Summary
Full Moon Strategies’ Amy Costa told supervisors that the 2025–26 California budget deal depends on a housing trailer (ABRSB 131) with CEQA changes to speed housing and infrastructure, and that SB 16 (Ending Street Homelessness Act) contains provisions the county views as unfunded mandates; the committee concurred with staff to support AB 470 and oppose SB 16 unless amended.
Amy Costa of Full Moon Strategies briefed the Alameda County Personnel Administration and Legislation Committee on the California budget negotiations and related trailer bills on June 30.
"California legislative leaders and the governor have reached a 3 party agreement on the 2526 state budget," Costa told the committee, explaining the deal depends on a late housing trailer bill (ABRSB 131) that would change the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to speed housing and certain infrastructure projects.
Why it matters: Costa said the trailer bill also links a round‑7 homelessness appropriation to future legislative changes requiring compliant housing elements and local encampment policies, and that the funding would begin in July 2026. She warned this approach could create a gap and leave local jurisdictions with one‑time rather than ongoing funds. The consultant added that earlier language imposing a minimum wage requirement on some residential projects was removed after opposition from construction trades and that new compromise language was substituted.
Costa outlined other budget items relevant to county operations: the enacted budget preserves local IHSS collective bargaining for at least five years while establishing a statewide advisory committee and includes $3.3 million for CalHR to study statewide bargaining costs, contingent on AB 283 or similar measures. She also noted AB 470 (telecom carriers of last resort) was amended in a way favorable to Alameda County and that the county‑sponsored SB 617 was scheduled for a July 9 hearing.
Supervisors pressed staff about the relationship between state homelessness proposals and local funding. The Chair said Alameda County already committed substantial local funding, citing a $200 million allocation in the county budget and earlier Measure W resources, and asked whether amendments to SB 16 had changed the county's position. Costa said the Urban Counties Caucus maintained an "oppose unless amended" stance because of potential unfunded mandates and concerns about prioritizing interim housing over permanent solutions.
The committee signaled concurrence with staff recommendations to remove opposition to AB 470 and to oppose SB 16 as currently drafted; staff said the concurrence would be forwarded to the full board. There were no public speakers on the state legislation item.
