SB 922 Confirms Local Authority to Recover Road Repair Costs Incurred in Providing Public Services
New law clarifies meaning of Vehicle Code section 9400.8, expressly rejecting prior judicial precedent and confirming public agencies can recover costs of local road repairs.
Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 922 (Laird) on August 27, 2026, confirming that public agencies may continue their decades-old practice of recovering the proportional share of local road-maintenance and repair costs through fees charged for public services, where provision of such services damages local roads. SB 922 expressly rejects the court’s interpretation of Vehicle Code section 9400.8 in Rogers v. City of Redlands (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 667, which held that the road-repair component of Redlands’ solid waste rates was an impermissible charge for the privilege of using city streets.
A. Vehicle Code Section 9400.8 and the Rogers Decision
Vehicle Code section 9400.8 was enacted in connection with a 1990 statewide measure that increased commercial-vehicle weight fees. The statute generally bars a local agency from imposing a tax, permit fee or other charge for the “privilege” of using local streets or highways.
In Rogers, the City of Redlands’ solid waste rates included a component to recover a share of street repair costs attributable to heavy solid waste vehicles. The City supported that component with an engineering analysis estimating the damage caused by those vehicles and allocated a proportional share of street repair and maintenance costs to solid waste rates accordingly. The Court of Appeal held that the street repair component was a prohibited charge for the privilege of using city streets under Vehicle Code section 9400.8. (Rogers v. City of Redlands (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 667, 670-675.)
The court reached that conclusion despite prior decisions recognizing that solid waste, water and sewer utilities may bear properly supported costs attributable to their use of streets and rights-of-way. By treating Vehicle Code section 9400.8 as an independent bar to recovering those costs, Rogers created substantial uncertainty for public agencies, which threatened to leave a significant gap in funding local road repairs, particularly for services requiring the frequent operation of heavy vehicles.
B. SB 922 Expressly Rejects Rogers
As clarified by SB 922, Vehicle Code section 9400.8 now makes clear that fees and charges like those at issue in Rogers — and long used by public agencies throughout California — are not prohibited under that section as charges for the privilege of using public roads, and nothing in the Vehicle Code prohibits a local agency from imposing or collecting them.
SB 922 also declares a declaration of legislative intent to “respect the existing authority” of local governments to recover street-repair and other road-use costs, and expressly rejects the interpretation adopted in Rogers.
C. What SB 922 Means for Public Agencies
SB 922 provides local agencies the following assurances:
- Road-related costs may be included in public-service charges. SB 922 confirms that section 9400.8 does not bar recovery of road repair costs through fees for public services.
- Any cost calculation and allocation must be supported. SB 922 addresses authority under the Vehicle Code; it does not eliminate other legal requirements, in particular the need to establish a nexus between fees and road use. Agencies should maintain evidence demonstrating the nature and amount of the road-related costs, the relationship of those costs to the service, and a defensible allocation method.
- Propositions 26 and 218 are still relevant. Depending on the charge and service at issue, the proportionality, cost-of-service and voter approval requirements of Propositions 26 and 218 may apply. SB 922 does not independently validate a charge that exceeds or improperly allocates the agency’s reasonable costs.
- Existing rate studies and franchise-fee analyses should be reviewed. Agencies that removed, reduced, deferred or segregated road-impact costs after Rogers may wish to reassess their supporting analyses. Agencies continuing to recover such costs should confirm that their administrative records clearly identify and substantiate the costs.
For questions about SB 922 or how it may affect your agency’s rates, fees, or pending litigation, please contact Lutfi Kharuf, Dean Atyia, Evelyn Blanco or Chloe Graham. To watch testimony on the importance of SB 922 before the California Senate Standing Committee on Local Government, including from BBK attorney Lutfi Kharuf, click here.
