Imperial County and business groups warn SB 675 lacks funding, timelines too tight

Michelle Balcava, representing the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, testified in opposition to SB 675 unless amended. She said the county supports the bill’s goals to diversify and increase transparency, but "the bill currently as drafted presents some significant concerns for the county," including no funding mechanism to support an expanded board, technology and facility needs, and timelines referenced in the bill (2027 and 2029) that she described as underestimating the complexities involved.

John Kendrick of the California Chamber of Commerce also urged a no vote. He warned the committee that transplanting a model used in a large urban district to a small rural county without a funding source would create burdens: "That funding is gonna come from 1 of 2 sources. It's going to come from additional fees placed on air permit holders." Kendrick noted Imperial County has "less than 1,000 total air permit holders," arguing the permit base is too small to absorb the costs and that local governments could face increased obligations.

Both witnesses asked the committee to consider amendments addressing funding, realistic timelines and administrative impact. Senator Padilla disputed that funding is a major issue, saying the bill does not change APCD regulatory responsibilities and calling any financial impacts "probably somewhat de minimis." The committee nevertheless moved to a vote after discussion.