An act to add Section 5852.3 16724.2 to the Government Code, relating to public finance.
AB 905, the Bond Outcomes and Transparency Reporting Act, would require new transparency and accountability disclosures for California general obligation bonds approved by voters on or after January 1, 2026. For those future bond measures, the bond act would have to include specific goals, purposes, objectives, performance indicators, and data collection requirements so the public can evaluate whether bond-funded spending is meeting its intended outcomes. The bill also requires annual baseline and performance data to be collected while the bond is being spent.
The bill further requires the lead state agency administering a bond to post a public website notice describing the programs and projects funded, the status of bond use by major category, the accountability criteria, and project-level information. In addition, each subject agency or public body must submit a written report to the Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst, and the budget committees of both houses addressing whether bond-funded projects are timely, efficient, compliant with law, and achieving their intended purpose; for local public bodies, the report must also list the funded projects and amounts expended.
AB 905 would amend the Government Code by adding new disclosure and reporting requirements for future state general obligation bonds and, separately, for public bodies issuing general obligation bonds. It would not change how bonds are authorized or sold, but it would require bond measures approved after January 1, 2026, to be structured around measurable outcomes and public reporting. The bill also declares that these requirements further public access rights under the California Constitution and states that no state reimbursement is required, while still characterizing the measure as imposing a state-mandated local program.
The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, with a 22-0 vote to do pass and re-refer to Appropriations with a recommendation for the consent calendar. The bill’s findings and structure indicate a policy emphasis on transparency, accountability, and public trust in how bond proceeds are spent. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the record here shows broad procedural support but no detailed recorded debate.
The main policy issue embedded in the bill is the added administrative burden on state agencies and local public bodies that issue or administer general obligation bonds, since they would need to develop performance metrics, collect data, publish website notices, and prepare recurring reports. The bill anticipates that concern by labeling the measure a state-mandated local program but also asserting that no reimbursement is required because the duties fall within constitutional public-access exceptions. Any disagreement would likely center on whether these reporting requirements are sufficiently useful and whether they create unnecessary compliance costs for bond issuers.