CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: September 1, 2026
Subject:
Acceptance of Legislative Review Committee (LRC) recommendation supporting Senate Bill 922 (Laird) Vehicles: Local Agency Charges: Use of Streets or Highways; Authorization for Mayor to send letters to the State Legislature.
Recommended Action
Adopt support position on Senate Bill 922 (Laird) Vehicles: Local Agency Charges: Use of Streets or Highways and authorize the Mayor to send letters to the State Legislature Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
On August 17, the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) adopted three positions on bills that were outlined in the 2026 Legislative Platform, which can be viewed on the City’s webpage at cupertino.gov/legislation.
The LRC also discussed SB 922 by Senator Laird, however, they were unable to adopt a position as this bill falls under a “monitor” position within the platform. Adopting a position of support or opposition would require consideration by the full Council. The LRC voted to move this bill forward and recommends that the full Council adopt a support position on this bill. A draft letter of support is included as Attachment A.
SB 922, as amended on July 2, 2026, clarifies the authority of local governments to recover the costs of street maintenance and repair through utility rates, franchise fees, and other public service charges.
The bill amends Vehicle Code Section 9400.8 to specify that the existing prohibition on local charges for the use of streets and highways applies only to charges based on vehicle weight. It further clarifies that fees, charges, or surcharges imposed by or for a local agency to recover the costs of street maintenance, street repair, and other roadway impacts associated with providing public services are not a tax or permit fee that is prohibited for the privilege of using public streets. The bill expressly authorizes local agencies to impose and collect these charges and includes legislative findings rejecting the interpretation adopted in Rogers v. City of Redlands.
For cities, counties, and special districts, SB 922 confirms that roadway maintenance costs attributable to public service providers may continue to be recovered through utility rates, franchise agreements, and similar cost-recovery mechanisms without violating state law.
Opponents, such as the California Taxpayers Association, argue that this bill reduces transparency and weakens taxpayer protections by allowing road repair costs to be charged through service fees without voter approval. Supporters, including the League of California Cities and the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), sponsors of this bill, argue that SB 922 restores legal clarity and preserves long-standing local practices that allow service fees to recover roadway maintenance costs associated with providing essential public services.
Support
Cities: Belmont, Beverly Hills, Camarillo, Campbell, Capitola, Chino Hills, Concord, El Cerrito, Fairfield, Foster City, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Glendale, Goleta, Gonzales, Grover Beach, Hollister, Hueneme, Lafayette, Lakewood, Marina, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norwalk, Oceanside, Orinda, Oxnard, Pacific Grove, Paramount, Paso Robles, Pico Rivera, Rancho Cucamonga, Redondo Beach, Redwood City, Rocklin, Salinas, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Paula, Scotts Valley, Soledad, Stanton, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Tulare, Union City, Upland, Vacaville, Ventura, Vernon, Walnut Creek, and Westminster.
Additional support: League of California Cities [SPONSOR], Rural County Representatives of California [SPONSOR], California State Association of Counties [SPONSOR], American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9, California Chapters of the American Public Works Association, California Contract Cities Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Special Districts Association, Californians Against Waste, City and County of San Francisco, CR&R, Inc., Contra Costa County, Lamorinda Legislative Coalition, Madera County, Marin County, Monterey County, Recology, RecycleSmart, Republic Services, Santa Cruz County, Service Employees Union International, California, Shasta County, Sonoma County Mayor’s and Councilmembers’ Association, StopWaste, Town of Apple Valley, Town of Truckee, West Valley Solid Wate Management Authority
Opposition
California Taxpayers Association, Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association,
Status
SB 922 passed out of the Assembly Floor 30-1 on August 10, 2026. On August 18, this bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.
Next steps
If approved, the City will finalize the letter with the Mayor and submit it to the Governor. If not approved, the City will remain neutral on this bill.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
No sustainability impact.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None
Council Goal
Public Engagement and Transparency
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Astrid Robles, Assistant to the City Manager Reviewed by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Manager
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Letter of Support