BOARD AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Government Code § 84308 Applies: Yes ☐ No ☒
(If “YES” Complete Attachment A - Gov. Code § 84308)
SUBJECT: Title
Adopt Recommended Positions on Federal Legislation: S. 1481 (Wicker) - Lifting Our Communities through Advance Liquidity for Infrastructure (LOCAL Infrastructure) Act; H.R. 1255 (Kustoff) - Investing in Our Communities Act; S. 1246 (Tillis) - FEMA Independence Act of 2025; And Other Legislation That May Require Consideration by the Board.
End
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation
A. Adopt a Position of “Support” on S. 1481 (Wicker) - Lifting Our Communities through Advance Liquidity for Infrastructure (LOCAL Infrastructure) Act;
B. Adopt a Position of “Support” on H.R. 1255 (Kustoff) - Investing in Our Communities Act; and
C. Adopt a Position of “Support” on S. 1246 (Tillis) - FEMA Independence Act of 2025.
Body
SUMMARY:
A. S. 1481 (Wicker) - Lifting Our Communities through Advance Liquidity for Infrastructure (LOCAL Infrastructure) Act
Recommended Position: Support
Priority Recommendation: 2
This bipartisan bill would reinstate advance refunding of bonds for debt service savings. Advance refunding allows state and local governments the one-time option to refinance outstanding municipal bonds to more favorable borrowing rates or terms. This provides state and local governments greater flexibility to generate savings. This practice was largely prohibited under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a cost-cutting measure.
Status:
The bill was introduced in the Senate on April 10, 2025, and it was referred to the Committee on Finance.
Importance to Valley Water:
Advance refunding of bonds is a valuable tool that can save local agencies like Valley Water significant funding over the life of a government bond (typically 30 years). As interest rates almost certainly fluctuate over the life of a bond, the ability to refund at lower interest rates can save an agency significant funding - costs that are ultimately borne by local taxpayers. For example, a 100-basis-point (1.00%) drop in interest rates could save approximately $22.5 million in total debt service over 30 years on $100 million of bonds with level debt service. As Valley Water uses debt service to finance its capital projects, which can cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the ability to refinance at lower rates would save Valley Water and Santa Clara County residents substantial funding.
Pros:
• The bill would allow a local government agency to issue new tax-exempt bonds to replace certain existing bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates or restructure debt service payments.
• The bill could save agencies like Valley Water significant debt service funding.
• Advance refunding saves states, local government agencies, and taxpayers substantial funding and does not require additional federal dollars.
• The bill is supported by several national coalitions, including the National Association of Counties, the National Special Districts Coalition, and more.
Cons:
• None identified at this time.
B. H.R. 1255 (Kustoff) - Investing in Our Communities Act
Recommended Position: Support
Priority Recommendation: 2
Similar to the LOCAL Infrastructure Act, this bipartisan bill would also reinstate advance refunding of bonds for debt service savings. This bill is different enough from the LOCAL Infrastructure Act that only one will pass, but both have the same overall objective of restoring advance refunding of bonds.
Status:
The bill was introduced in the House on February 12, 2025, and it was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. Representative Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19) is an original cosponsor.
Importance to Valley Water:
Same as stated for the LOCAL Infrastructure Act.
Pros:
• The bill would allow a local government agency to issue new tax-exempt bonds to replace certain existing bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates or restructure debt service payments.
• The bill could save agencies like Valley Water significant debt service funding, thereby saving local taxpayers significant funds.
• Advance refunding saves states, local government agencies, and taxpayers substantial funding and does not require additional federal dollars.
• The bill is supported by several national coalitions, including the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Association of Counties, the National Special Districts Coalition, the American Public Power Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Government Finance Officers Association, among others.
Cons:
• None identified at this time.
C. S. 1246 (Tillis) - FEMA Independence Act of 2025
Recommended Position: Support
Priority Recommendation: 3
This bipartisan bill would restore the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to an independent cabinet-level agency reporting directly to the president. FEMA was created in 1979 with this status but was moved under the Department of Homeland Security after that agency’s creation in 2002. This bill would require that the FEMA director have knowledge of and experience in emergency management, as well as at least five years of executive management experience in each of the public and private sectors.
Status:
The bill was introduced in the Senate on April 2, 2025, and it was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) is an original cosponsor.
Importance to Valley Water:
The federal government plays an important role in emergency management, both before and after a natural disaster hits. FEMA provides financial support for projects that increase communities’ disaster preparedness, helping to mitigate the impact of a disaster when it hits. Valley Water has pursued FEMA grant funding for several hazard mitigation projects across our county, including the Sunnyvale East/West Project (funding secured) and the Coyote Creek Flood Protection Project (funding pending). After a disaster strikes in Santa Clara County, FEMA can also play an important role in facilitating response and recovery. While local and state officials lead these efforts, FEMA plays a critical supporting role, providing information, expertise, and resources. A well-funded, well-functioning FEMA that supports both mitigation and response/recovery efforts is critical for our community’s ability to withstand natural disasters.
Pros:
• The bill would elevate the mission and functions of FEMA by making it an independent cabinet-level agency. This could increase support for the agency in the administration and in Congress.
• By removing FEMA from under the Department of Homeland Security, the bill could eliminate bureaucratic red tape from the agency’s critical disaster mitigation, response, and recovery programs.
Cons:
• None identified at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACT:
There are no direct Environmental Justice impacts associated with this item, as the Board’s position does not enact the legislation discussed above. However, if these bills were to be enacted, it would further environmental justice goals nationwide and could benefit overburdened and disadvantaged communities in Santa Clara County.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with this item.
CEQA:
The recommended action does not constitute a project under CEQA because it does not have a potential for resulting in direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
UNCLASSIFIED MANAGER: Manager
Marta Lugo, 408-630-2237