Los Angeles voters will head to the polls Tuesday to vote on a slew of ballot measures, including a half-cent sales tax that would beef up the city’s Fire Department — but which also would cost Angelenos more to fill up their gas tanks, buy clothes and dine out. Another measure would allow the City Council to meet just once a week, instead of three times as required by the City Charter.
In all, there are eight ballot measures before L.A. voters that could have a significant impact on how the city government functions, and which take just a simple majority to pass. Here’s a roundup: Measure FD: Sales tax hike for the Fire Department Voters will consider a half-cent increase to the city’s retail sales tax, bumping it from 10.25 cents per dollar spent to 10.75 cents per dollar spent.
The tax hike is expected to raise an estimated $345 million annually and would be funneled into a separate fund specifically for the Fire Department. The sales tax increase was spearheaded by the union representing rank-and-file firefighters, who have long complained the department is underfunded. The city still would be required to fund the department at the same average percentage out of the general fund, ensuring extra revenue generated by the tax would add to its regular budget.
Opponents say this would be the third sales
Opponents say this would be the third sales tax hike since 2024, costing an average of $86 per person and $345 for a family of four in additional sales taxes each year. The firefighters union said the tax fund is essential to increase the number of firefighters and lower response times across the city. Charter Amendment EE: Fewer City Council meetings Amendment EE would allow the Council to meet once a week instead of three times, as required under the City Charter.
The Council voted 12-0 to put the measure on the ballot, with three council members absent. Council members in support of the measure said the three meetings are costly and ineffective, and noted their time is better spent working in their district. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez opposed the measure, saying it would reduce the time available for L.A. residents to engage with their representatives in a public forum and could lead to council members rushing through deliberations on important matters.
The amendment also would approve changes to how the city governs. If passed, independent inspectors for the L.A. Police and Fire Departments would have more power to conduct audits, and it would increase the penalties for campaign finance violations. The changes also include raising the number of signatures needed for a ballot referendum and would bar ethics commissioners from running for City Council or the Los Angeles Board of Education for five years after they leave office.
Proposition TE: An exception to the ‘mansion tax’
Proposition TE: An exception to the ‘mansion tax’ Proposition TE would grant a one-time exemption to Palisades fire victims from paying the so-called “mansion tax” if they sell their home within five years of the disaster. The “mansion tax,” or Measure ULA, took effect in 2023 and imposed an additional 4% transfer tax on all L.A. property sales above $5.4 million and a 5.5% tax on sales above $10.9 million.
Despite its nickname, the tax also falls on more modest multifamily residences like apartment buildings that exceed the sales price benchmarks. The proposition would exempt Pacific Palisades homeowners from paying the tax, regardless of whether they lived at the property or not. It also would refund any resident who already sold their property and paid the tax. The proposition was spearheaded by Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the region.
Supporters say fire victims have been through enough and should have more flexibility as they navigate expensive rebuilding costs. Opponents argue the proposition is too broad and should have included only victims whose primary residence was destroyed. Charter Amendment LA: Restructuring how the city administers public works Amendment LA is intended to more efficiently deliver basic city services for infrastructure in need of repair, including streets in need of repaving, dangerous sidewalks and broken streetlights.
It also would leverage existing ree sway
It also would leverage existing ree sway of the Board of Public Works or pave the way to eliminate it, while also increasing the power of the director of public works. Critics oppose the elimination of the board, saying it would weaken accountability and increase public scrutiny. Charter Amendment PL: Streamlining the Planning Department L.A
residents have for years complained that navigating the Planning Department to build or open businesses is complicated and confusing. Amendment PL includes five proposals that would increase efficiency and streamline certain parts of the Planning Department, which controls land use and approves construction and renovation projects. The changes would consolidate seven Area Planning Commissions into one, partly to lower costs and ensure that all appeals and applications are governed by the same logic.
It also would give the City Council more flexibility in approving taller buildings and set deadlines to speed up rulings from the City Planning Commission. Charter Amendment PRK: Doubling the money for recreation and parks Amendment PRK would double the minimum amount of money set aside for the Department of Recreation and Parks by reworking the parameters of the city budget. The department is in charge of maintaining green spaces, playing fields and senior centers in the city.
The City Charter mandates the department receive .0325%
The City Charter mandates the department receive .0325% of the total assessed value of taxable properties, which is about $303 million for the park system this year and would be around $493 million in 10 years. If the measure passes, that would double, meaning the park system would get a minimum of $986 million by 2036. Supporters say the existing city allocation isn’t enough and has led to deteriorating recreation centers, swimming pools and restrooms.
Critics warn it would force city officials to cut other services to make room for this additional funding. Charter Amendment PRT: Changes to airports, harbor and water and power departments Charter Amendment PRT is part of a package of proposed changes to the City Charter to increase transparency, build public trust and streamline operations. It would change how airports, harbors and the Department of Water and Power are managed.
The amendment would require that two of the seven members of the Los Angeles World Airport’s board of commissioners, who oversee Van Nuys and Los Angeles International airports, live in Van Nuys and three live around LAX. It also would require the L.A. Board of Harbor Commissioners allocate a portion of its operating income from the Port of Los Angeles to investments in waterfront public access projects.
The harbor is one of the busiest
The harbor is one of the busiest in the country and generates revenue from the operators at its terminals. PRT also would broaden public insight into how lease agreements with the port affect the local workforce. Supporters say people overseeing Van Nuys and LAX should have a firsthand understanding of living near the airports. No ballot argument against PRT was submitted, although the L.A.
Area Chamber of Commerce said it opposes the measure, citing concern over the additional requirements it would impose on businesses and the potential impact on port operations. Charter Amendment SC: Altering LAUSD’s campaign finance rules Amendment SC wouldn’t make major changes, but would clarify rules on campaign finance for candidates running for a seat on the Board of Education, which oversees LAUSD.
Language would be simplified to clarify that the same rules apply for mayoral candidates and Board of Education candidates, except in certain instances. Some of those rules include governing campaign contribution limits, filing deadlines, public disclosures and fundraising windows. Supporters say it won’t make any substantive changes, but instead make the rules easier to understand by deleting duplicated language.
No argument was provided against the amendment.
