An act to amend Section 11340 of add Section 9147.8 to the Government Code, relating to state government.
SB 460 would expand the duties of California’s Joint Sunset Review Committee for agencies scheduled to be repealed. It requires those eligible agencies to submit a more detailed comprehensive report by December 1, 2026, covering mission, regulatory actions, costs to consumers and businesses, efficiency, enforcement outcomes, and public input. The bill also directs the committee to perform a comprehensive analysis of each eligible agency, hold public hearings every five years, evaluate whether there is a continuing public need for the agency, and consider whether functions should be revised, consolidated, or eliminated.
The bill further requires the committee to publish its recommendations on its website, including whether an agency should continue unchanged, continue with modifications, or be consolidated with another agency. It also makes nonsubstantive changes to the Legislature’s findings and declarations about administrative regulations, preserving the existing policy concerns about regulatory growth, complexity, and burdens on small businesses.
SB 460 would amend the Government Code by adding Section 9147.8 and making a nonsubstantive amendment to Section 11340. Its practical effect is to impose additional reporting and review requirements on eligible state agencies facing repeal under the sunset review process, while also formalizing a recurring public-review and publication framework for the Joint Sunset Review Committee. The bill does not create a state appropriation or local program, but it could increase administrative workload for affected agencies and the committee, and it may influence future decisions about whether agencies are continued, modified, consolidated, or eliminated.
The bill appears to be framed as a government-efficiency and oversight measure, with its findings emphasizing regulatory complexity, unnecessary burdens, and the need for stronger legislative review. The available record shows no committee transcript or vote breakdown, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broad support or opposition. Based on the text, the overall tone is reform-oriented and skeptical of regulatory expansion, while still preserving agency functions where a public need is shown.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s increased scrutiny of eligible agencies and the possibility that agencies could be consolidated or eliminated after review. Supporters would likely view the measure as improving transparency, accountability, and cost-effectiveness in state regulation, especially for consumers, businesses, and small businesses affected by regulatory actions. Opponents or affected agencies may object to the added reporting burden, the broader criteria for evaluating agency necessity, and the bill’s emphasis on regulatory costs and consolidation as a basis for structural change. Because no hearing transcript or vote record is provided, these concerns are inferred from the bill’s structure rather than from stated testimony.