Sacramento is once again moving to dictate how cities operate. This time through Assembly Bill 339, a measure that would impose rigid, one-size-fits-all rules on how local governments contract for services.
On paper, AB 339 claims to be about transparency and worker engagement. In reality, it forces cities to delay contracting decisions for at least 60 days, even in urgent situations, and requires formal negotiations with employee unions before nearly any service contract can be issued, renewed, or extended. While it exempts some construction projects, the bill sweeps in virtually every other service — including public safety, infrastructure repair, and social programs, without providing any state funding.
That is why many California cities are sounding the alarm. Their service model depends on speed and flexibility, not bureaucratic delay.
When a wildfire strikes, a sewer line bursts, or a trash hauler goes bankrupt, every hour matters. Yet AB 339’s so-called “emergency” exception is so vaguely defined that local officials may still be forced into bargaining while the crisis unfolds. As the city of Laguna Niguel warned, the carve-out is “nearly meaningless” when lives and property hang in the balance.
The consequences become clearer with recent events. In January, wildfires tore through Los Angeles County, and recovery required immediate debris removal, temporary housing, and repairs. Under AB 339, those contracts could have been delayed for months — driving up costs, worsening community suffering, and prolonging displacement. The city of Paramount put it plainly: in disasters, “delays…could jeopardize lives and public safety.”
And it’s not just disasters. AB 339 could stall urgent but routine work: repairing a collapsed bridge, restoring power, or securing extra law enforcement coverage. Even vital partnerships with nonprofits — such as winter shelter expansions — would be slowed by procedural requirements. In local government, opportunities to act often come with narrow funding windows, and AB 339 risks closing them before cities can act.
The fiscal impact is steep. Inflation in labor and materials doesn’t pause for a 60-day notice period, and deferred maintenance leads to more expensive repairs later. AB 339 offers no state reimbursement for compliance. It is an unfunded mandate, diverting staff time to draft notices, hold bargaining sessions, and manage disputes instead of delivering services.
Legal uncertainty adds to the cost. Without a clear definition of “emergency,” cities that act quickly could face unfair labor practice charges or injunctions. Local agencies already comply with the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, which requires “reasonable notice” and good-faith bargaining. That framework works; AB 339 would override it with a blanket rule that ignores local realities.
Supporters say the bill allows public employees to propose better in-house solutions. But transparency already exists through competitive bidding and open meeting laws, and many cities negotiate notice provisions in their labor agreements. Those agreements are tailored to local needs — AB 339 is not.
So the question becomes: do we value local responsiveness or Sacramento’s bureaucracy? Fiscal responsibility or unfunded mandates? Do we trust our elected city councils — accountable to residents — to make urgent service decisions, or do we hand that authority to a process that can be weaponized to delay action?
On that test, AB 339 fails. It risks slower emergency response, degraded service quality, higher costs, and more litigation — without a clear benefit to residents. The California Contract Cities Association, the League of California Cities, and dozens of local governments have joined nonprofits and business groups in opposing it. Their message is clear: the bill “will not improve services, reduce costs, or protect employees,” but it will “render contracting for services unworkable.”
And when time is the most precious resource — whether in a crisis or daily service — AB 339 takes it from those closest to the problem and hands it to a procedural clock in Sacramento. That is a loss our communities cannot afford.
Marcel Rodarte is executive director of California Contract Cities Association, an organization representing over 80 cities throughout Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire.
