The City of Paso Robles & Senate Bill 922 (SB922)

This topic first hit my view during the April 7, 2026 city council meeting and the Legislative Updates presentation from Casey Elliot at Townsend Public Affairs. It’s my understanding that Townsend Public Affairs is contracted by the City of Paso Robles to inform the city of actions in the state legislature and to also represent the city’s interests in state affairs where possible.

The April 7th presentation addressed SB922 from California Senator John Laird as “Clarifies that local agencies may charge fees to recover street maintenance and public service costs, limiting the existing prohibition to weight-based charges.”

This presentation is Item 6, Legislative Updates, in the Presentations section (L) of the meeting—and falls approximately at time 1:33:44 in the YouTube video of the meeting. It can be found here.

From statements during the presentation, it appears that Mr. Elliot has been working with the City of Paso Robles city manager and staff for some time now on this item, and that the city has raised awareness of this item to the League of California Cities (Cal Cities). During the presentation both Mayor Hamon and Councilmember Bausch raised questions about SB922—asking about any opposition to the effort and whether 922 would ‘reduce the threat of litigation plaguing cities’.

So—what is this all about? How does this affect the City of Paso Robles? What is the reference to ‘plaguing litigation’? And I wondered too, when and how has the city expressed their support for this bill, SB922? — During their discussion, the city council sadly did not provide the public with this relevant information.

First, I wanted to know how the city has expressed their desire and support for SB922, or any current state legislation, with the consulting firm, Townsend Public Affairs. So, I filed a public record request with the city asking for, “Communications, letters, docs of City/Council's stance on CA legislation expressed to Townsend consultant or anyone else. E.g., SB922 where work reportedly going on for >1yr.”

The city’s response to my public records request included a number of letters from Mayor Hamon to State Senator Laird in support of state legislation. A letter of support from Mayor Hamon regarding SB922, dated February 27, 2026 can be found here:

RE: SB922 (Laird) Vehicles: Local Agency Charges: Use of Streets or Highways

What is SB922?

Introduced January 26, 2026, the text and other details about SB922 can be found here:

SB 922: Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways.

As of this date (6/18/2026), it has passed the State Senate and is currently being reviewed by the State Assembly. As of 6/17/2026, there have been some interesting edits made in the Assembly—that can be seen here.

By what Authority?

Does Mayor Hamon have the authority to send a letter of support on pending state legislation ‘on behalf of the City of Paso Robles’ without the express approval of the city council and approval in an open forum that includes public notice and public comment (Brown Act). I can find no record of such a public meeting or a council approval.

Questionable Statements

In addition, I believe there are some statements in the letter that I question for accuracy. Mayor Hamon references the decision Rogers v. City of Redlands and claims it “interpreted California Vehicle Code in a manner that extends far beyond the original purpose of that statute.” This sounds like the stance of the losing side of the court case. But as I read it, the court decided that the California Vehicle Code did in fact prohibit charging for the use of the roads—and that a franchise fee on waste collection companies was established as a charge for the use of the roads by the waste management company.

You can find information about the Rogers v. City of Redlands appeal decision here. Interesting to note that the Defendant and Appellant City of Redlands includes representation from Best Best & Krieger (BBK), the same firm that today represents the City of Paso Robles. Also, the Plaintiff and Appellant Steve Rogers in the case is represented by the same attorneys from Benink & Slavens, LLP that are currently involved in a related civil case against the City of Paso Robles. More about that local case later.

Also - in paragraph 3 of the letter, speaking about the ability of cities to collect cost-recovery fees (franchise fees) from waste management companies - Mayor Hamon states, “Cities have long relied on this authority to ensure that the costs generated by vehicle-intensive services are borne by those services rather than shifted to residents or the General Fund.” The problem here is that, though franchise fees are collected from the waste management company (service provider) and paid to the City of Paso Robles, those charges are, as I understand it, ultimately incorporated into the waste collection rates paid by residential and commercial customers to the waste management company. Those costs ultimately flow in some way to anyone paying to live in a residence, doing business in the city, or making purchases from city businesses. Therefore, as I see it, the costs are in fact ‘shifted to residents’ via waste collection rates.

I can’t believe that Mayor Hamon is not aware of this and how waste collections rates are calculated and what is paid by resident ratepayers. However, I suppose State Senator Laird might not be aware how this works. It’s been amazing to me how many people holding local political office I’ve run across that do not.

The city collects about $1M per year in franchise fees from Paso Waste & Recycling. In response to a public record request, here are yearly totals sent to me by the City of Paso Robles on 1/16/2025 for the previous 5 years of collections.

• FY 2019-20: $936,710.22

• FY 2020-21: $1,067,675.42

• FY 2021-22: $1,153,530.52

• FY 2022-23: $852,912.12

• FY 2023-24: 975,656.72

• FY 2024-25 (year to date, 1/2025): $484,710.08

Why now?

SB922 is no doubt a reaction to the recent court decisions in Rogers v. City of Redlands. The City of Paso Robles must be especially interested because they are fighting their own battle to keep the status quo with respect to collecting franchise fees from Paso Robles Waste & Recycling. Since 2023, the city has been engaged with a lawsuit in SLO County Superior Court labeled, John Borst v. City of El Paso de Robles.

I’ve been following this case and it has had some interesting turns. I recommend others get an account at SLO County Online Case Lookup and look up the case for review. I’ve pieced together a timeline of related events below. At one time, it seemed the City of Paso Robles wanted to delay the case with the expectation that Best Best & Krieger (BBK) would win their appeal of Rogers v. City of Redlands. But things didn’t go entirely their way in June 2025, so it’s possible there might be a settlement in the near future. But then I assume the passage and enactment of SB922 would then allow the City of Paso Robles to continue from that date on with the collection of franchise fees from Paso Robles Waste and Recycling as they do now. At this point - nothing is certain.

Event Timeline:

• September 9, 2021 - Rogers v. City of Redlands case filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court

• May 8, 2023 - John Borst v. City of El Paso de Robles petition filed in SLO County Superior Court

• June 4, 2025 - Rogers v. City of Redlands appeals court opinion is filed

• August 20, 2025 - The California Supreme Court declined to review the Rogers v. City of Redlands appeals court decision

• January 26, 2026 - SB922 introduced to the California State Senate by State Senator John Laird

• February 27, 2026 - Letter of support from Mayor Hamon to State Senator John Laird

In my view, the use of the franchise fee by the City of Paso Robles has always been in jeopardy because of it being set up and operating more like a tax than a fee. I’ve asked the city a number of times how the 11.5% franchise fee was calculated with respect to the claim of recouping street maintenance costs from the use of the waste management trucks. Most cities in SLO County charge 10%. I’ve never seen any detailed estimates or calculations to justify the 11.5% (or a 10% fee). It’s always seemed arbitrary. And then it doesn’t appear the City of Paso Robles tracks the money once it comes into the General Fund. That is, I can’t track the money from the collection of franchise fees to any road repair or maintenance spending. The last I heard was that it just gets dumped into a fund within the General Fund called ‘other taxes’.

So—though I’m not entirely against the concept of recouping road maintenance costs, I’m not in favor of the system used now to collect funds. Residents already pay taxes for road repair and maintenance. The franchise fee seems a hidden tax that has been kept obscure and without regular review or scrutiny.

This is an ongoing story—and I’ll update it as events evolve or I learn more.